Crash the White House/Medicare czar closed-door meeting
Let’s briefly review the Obama administration’s unprecedented transparency record:
*Loophole-ridden, special interest-pandering DISCLOSE Act
*Disclosure-ducking coffeehouse meetings
*Sunlight-shirking holiday and midnight floor votes
*Behind-the-scenes recess appointments
That’s for starters. And now, the White House is set to hold a new round of backdoor meetings with recess appointee Donald Berwick, the Medicare/Medicaid czar, on the besieged Obamacare mandate.
The Hill reports:
The White House has invited stakeholders to discuss the healthcare law with the administration’s controversial appointee to head Medicare.
According to a memo obtained by The Hill, the event on Friday with Medicare Administrator Donald Berwick at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House will be the first of several meetings on healthcare’s implementation to be hosted by administration officials.
The invitation from administration health policy adviser Zeke Emanuel, former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, marks a renewed outreach to industry stakeholders from a White House that had initially promised to keep lobbyists at arm’s length. The invitations for Friday’s kick-off meeting were sent to specialty medical societies, which have a lobbying component, according to several sources.
“We are kicking off a series of White House meetings between senior administration officials and healthcare providers to exchange ideas on areas in need of attention,” Emanuel wrote in the invitation. “We invite you (or a representative) and your organization to join us.”
I hope Tea Party activists and Health Care Town Hall protesters in the D.C. area can get to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on Friday and crash this meeting.
Let the sun shine in.
Demand answers from cut-and-run Don Berwick.
And bring your “Dude, Where’s My Waiver” signs!
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Who’s funding Brett Kimberlin?
May 25, 2012 01:52 PM by Michelle Malkin
20 CommentsObama’s Land of the LOST
May 25, 2012 01:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
31 CommentsObama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
193 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsPig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day; Donation fund for targets
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
110 Comments
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 Comments
Categories: czars,Health care,Politics
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?Redstate
» Civility Fails For A Reason
It’s called a false choice. I feel no compulsion to answer…
Actually, your whole post is full of false choices, false dilemmas and other logical fallacies…
In Watada’s case, it might reasonably be concluded that the military chose not to debate the legality of the war. That debate could have easily dragged on for years and probably never concluded in absolute terms. (And Watada was allowed to call 3 witnesses who testified at his Article 32 hearing about the legality of the war. For the record, the Army wanted to try him again after the mistrial in the court martial but the Obama administration asked the court to drop the case…)
In Lakin’s case, the military simply refused to allow the defendant the right to prove his claims. And the claims would be easy to prove with a very simple discovery process of a single document.
The military command structure yieled to political pressure in both instances and did a disservice to the nation in both instances.
Watada’s and Lakin’s choices and actions do not alter or diminish the stature of the men and women who have served honorably in these conflicts…
WE82:
Let’s just say I concede that you are right for everything you just said, up to the end.
There’s still one problem:
Actually, that depends on your point of view, and if you are supporting Lakin, then you are basically saying everyone else in number 3 is either wrong or a coward. How is that not the case? That’s exactly what Watada defenders have to say (at least they are consistent). How can one serve honorably by obeying illegal orders from an illegitimate CinC? How is that a false choice?
There is no way you can reach that conclusion logically…
WE82:
Nonsense. I’ll repeat the main point for you.
How can one serve honorably by obeying illegal orders from an illegitimate CinC?
Your conclusion is flawed. Think it through and you can probably figure it out…
WE82:
Why don’t you spell it out for me. You are endorsing two contradictory things. Either Lakin is right or everyone else who deployed is, which is it?
You keep assuming I have said something I have never said. And you seem to claim something as a given that is not. And you keep offering a false choice. But at least you are down to a single instance in your last statement.
And you should be able to figure it out…
WE82:
A complete non-answer. How is it a false choice? Are both Lakin AND everyone else right? How is that possible? How can orders be both illegal and legal at the same time?
False choice. You swore the oath. You are familiar with the USCMJ. You should know something about legal and illegal orders. Think it through…
We82:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_choice
Where’s the additional options in this false choice? Can orders be kind of illegal?
No. Spell it out. It’s obvious you are trying to dodge this.
No, I am not trying to dodge anything. Think it through and you will figure out where you have made a mistake…
WE82:
Another non-answer. A laughable one at that. We all know at this point that you (of all people) would jump at the chance to point out where I am wrong, spell it out in as much detail as you are capable of, and then mock me. You aren’t doing that, you are refusing to do so, why? Because you can’t.
F5 F5 F5…
The late-night MM.com dance. Going to bed soon…
Fine. Either you can’t or won’t dump some preconceived notion. Your mind is made up and you can’t recognize a logical error.
There is none so blind as he who will not see…
Non-answer. Where’s the additional options in the false choice?
Think about it and see if the morning brings a fresh perspective. The truth is out there…
WE82:
I can keep typing non-answer until I get bored or tired. You claim a false dichotomy, but won’t back it up with reasons why. Might as well just claim dinosaurs and people coexisted and refuse to produce a dino-saddle, then tell me to sleep on it.
..let me get some cheerios.
You can keep typing anything you wish but it won’t change the fact that you won’t back up and look at the issue of legal vs. illegal orders. You might as well type “nanny-nanny-boo-boo, I can’t hear you…”
Enjoy your cheerios. The whole grain are better for you than others.
I’m off to bed. I have to get up early tomorrow and polish my dino-saddle and that takes a lot of polish…
WE82:
I think you mean I won’t accept the laughable premise that orders can be both legal and illegal depending on who you ask and both people can be right. Sounds like that would do wonders for the CoC.
Cheerios are done, goodnight and take care.
You’re both wrong.
Lakin and those who have chosen to follow the orders instead of resisting have a different judgment as to the probability the orders are bogus.
Are they both heroes? Are the people who go heroes?
Hell, no. The term hero has been badly degraded. We do not know what was in the hearts of any of them, but none of their actions (Lakin, Watada, and the men who have gone, limiting the hero question to just the fact of following the orders and going, not including possible acts of heroism while there) appear to rise to the level of heroism.
However, Lakin’s would certainly appear to come closest, since his act would appear to stake more probability of substantial personal loss.
Roland:
Yes, and they BOTH can’t be right. Now, granted, it’s a subjective judgement call, but any one person CAN’T choose both. You can’t be on Lakin’s side and everyone else’s at the same time.
Then don’t use the term hero. Who is correct in your subjective judgment? I believe you answered already. You are siding with Lakin. That said, while you might admire folks for their bravery and ideals that choose to obey orders you deem illegal, you still consider their judgement incorrect.
4 years in jail vs. possibly getting killed? I think that depends on your POV and a host of other factors.
…and Lakin is about as much as a hero as someone who chains themself (risking jail) to the entry door of NASA HQ demanding to know the truth about the faked moon landing.
…and dinosaurs, with saddles.
zeroangel,
I note your discourse with WE82 which apparently started with the below exchange:
The hypocrisy is all yours though. First, (from wikipwdia) Ehren K. Watada (born 1978) was a First Lieutenant of the United States Army. He was the first commissioned officer in the US armed forces to refuse to deploy to Iraq, in June, 2006.[1] Watada refused to deploy for his unit’s assigned rotation to Operation Iraqi Freedom,[2][3] saying he believed the war to be illegal and that, under the doctrine of command responsibility, it would make him party to war crimes. At the time, he was assigned to duty with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, part of the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, as a Fire Support Officer.
In what universe does LTC Lakin’s refusal to deploy because he believes that the CiC has no constitutional authority relate to LT Wataba’s refusal because he thought it was an ilegal war under a President whose authority (and in this case, citizenship and constitutional authority) were not in question.
Therein lies your basic logical fallacy, and from then all your follow on “arguements” swirl in the WC basin.
Rethink your position and come back with something that at least a high school debater would come up with. And stay on point, or you can be ignored.
CW4
Chief:
If you are going to say that it’s heroic to question orders you deem illegal, then both Watada and Lakin are heroes. Now, you could say that Lakin is a hero, but Watada isn’t because Lakin was right and Watada wasn’t. HOWEVER, as I am now argueing with WE82, if you say that, then you are saying everyone else who deployed under this administration is wrong. Is that not correct?
In my personal opinion, both are fools. What do YOU think?
Pee-Wee Herman time again? I’m rubber and you’re glue…
Feel free to skip any comments of mine if you have nothing to add.
…seriously, anyone else who feels a need to respond to this extended arguement at least have the courtesy to state your position up front. Is Lakin right or wrong in your opinion? It’s really that simple.
Chief:
…and before you go hunting:
I DID say that, however the underlying assumption implicit there was that everyone here supports those that do deploy. I should have stated that clearly, but I shouldn’t have thought it was nessecary here.
…not to mention my earlier points about neither getting a full accouting of their defense.
…sorry guys for multiple posts, multi-tasking big time.
Huh? I didn’t side with anyone. If I was in Lakin’s position, I would have gone. Since my chain of command was accepting Obama’s authority, Obama was the CinC until I had hard evidence to the contrary. Mere suspicion doesn’t hack it.
A high probability of time in jail, a dishonorable discharge, the loss of pension and anything else lost in the destruction of an honorable career versus the slim chance of getting wounded or killed on deployment?
To me the risk/reward does not seem even close. However, we don’t know what was really in Lakin’s mind, so I used the word “appears.”
Roland:
OK, so then you and I are in agreement. Lakin was wrong to not obey orders and miss movement.
Yes, to you, and in hindsight now that you know the outcome of the court. Like you said, we don’t know what Lakin was thinking. Maybe he just had enough of deployments and figured he’d get off like Watada.
Now, since you don’t agree with Lakin’s choice and since it’s likely he didn’t think he get slammed and just get off like Watada and Major Stephen Cook, how is he, “certainly(ing) appear to come closest” to being a hero?
ugh… “certainly appear(ing) to come closest”
He was wrong in the sense of error in judgment, in my opinion. With regard to the morality of it, however, that is far more complicated.
That was my opinion when I first heard about the case. He was walking into fire.
We do not know what was in his mind. We can only make judgments about how it appears, given our limited knowledge of him and his choices.
I think he knew he was taking a big risk.
Roland:
OK, so he err’ed in judgement but the morality is more complicated.
So, are you saying that he was wrong to take his choice merely because it was a big risk of jail, but he took the morally correct choice for standing up against an illegitamte CinC?
You do realize that you are basically saying that everyone that deployed lacked moral courage.
Roland:
…in fact, you are admitting that you yourself lack moral courage. That is, if you think Lakin was morally correct.
No. I said it was more complicated. Whether or not it was morally correct depends upon what he thought he knew and his motivations for acting.
Roland:
OK, so what’s YOUR opinion based on what YOU “know?” Is the morally correct choice to do what Lakin did if you were in his position?
BTW, obviously the morally correct choice can still be the wrong choice.
The rightness or wrongness of any act, morally, is completely dependent on what you know. You may courageously think you are putting your life on the line to save a fellow soldier only to discover to your horror your fellow soldier is a spy for the other side and the guy you just killed to save him from was one of our own spies.
You would have courageously done the morally correct thing but with hideously wrong consequences.
I do not know what he knew or what motivated him, other than what he has said.
Given what I know, but put in his position and having to make that choice, the morally correct thing for me to do would be to deploy as ordered.
Personal judgment and what we think we know can affect the morality of a decision.
Roland:
OK, then you and I are in agreement.
It’s easy, when the legality question has never been answered. Or did I miss that part where it has been determined that the orders have been deemed illegal and the CinC illegitimate?
Absolutely, not everyone shares the same standard of morality, as made evident daily by our illustrious leaders.
RC:
Since we are talking about personal opinions here, it’s completely applicable. That is, if someone SUPPORTS Lakin, then obviously that person is of the opinion that the orders are illegal, and by extension, everyone who deems the orders legal is wrong, in that person’s opinion, or worse, they are knowingly following what they deem to be illegal orders (they lack moral courage).
In your case, since we’ve established that you support both Lakin and Watada, damn near everyone else in the military in your opinion is misinformed (wrong) or lacks moral courage. But we’ve been through this already, and you’ve admitted as much.
Why don’t you tell us what you would have done in both Lakin’s and Watada’s positions given what you’ve told us about the legality of the Iraq war and Obama’s legitimacy.
Wrong again. I support Lakin’s right to question ( a right supported and provided by the Military) and have his Chain Of Command clarify his question. Lakin is playing by the rules afforded him. I have no truck against those that play by the rules. I support the process afforded him up until the point the Judge failed to follow her oath and broke the rules on evidentiary discovery.
RC:
Oh ok, so you are saying that Watada was right (the Iraq War is illegal), but Lakin (Obama is legitamate) is wrong? Keep in my mind, we are talking about your opinions.
Of course, you admire both of their commitments to what they think is right.
Not having been in the military and not having that training and culture imbedded in my psyche, I cannot really say. I would hope I would do my duty and do the right thing. History is still being written on what is the right thing with regards to the Iraq war and Obama’s legitmacy, which is why I continue to struggle with either condemnation or praise for Watalda and Lakin’s positions. Whichever way it turns out, neither the Military Justice system and the Chain Of Command have covered themselves in glory.
RC:
Oh come on, don’t cop out on us. It’s not as though they put secret chips in our brains that alter our humanity.
It’s a simple question, do you feel strongly enough currently that Obama is illegitimate that you would risk jail to do so? If the answer is no, then either you don’t think the claim has that much credibility OR you lack the moral courage to face jail for your ideals.
You can ask the same question of yourself for Watada’s case.
…and of course, if the answer is yes for either question you’ve just condemned damn near the whole military as either lacking moral courage or just being plain wrong (misinformed). Tricky… I know. Fortunately for me, I think both Watada and Lakin are space cadets.
As I’ve implied before, I can admire any man’s commitment to a truth he believes in, barring any unknown ulterior motive.
What I don’t admire are people in positions of power who hold sway over men like Lakin and Watalda, who don’t follow their sworn oaths and sacrifice such men for political expediancy. I believe the term is “cannon fodder” for such men sacrificed in the field or in Military Tribunals.
RC:
Well, we will part ranks here. In fact, I think it’s political expediency that saved Watada jail time. As for Lakin, like I said, he might as well be asking for the REAL, unedited, tapes of the faked moon landing at this point (in my opinion).
…I’d still like an answer to the “what would you do” scenario in #149.
If you’ve followed my many posts, my more serious ones reflect that I am not convinced Obama has passed the eligibility question per the Constitution, but, I have also not seen enough evidence to the contrary. The question remains unanswered, the same question Lakin has asked. If it becomes true that Obama is illegitimate through more proof than has been profferred thus far, then yes, I would risk jail if such a position called upon me to embrace the Obama. What’s next, shall I embrace Satan, or would you prefer I renounce Christ? (That I will never do!)
So their service up until their self inflicted implosion holds nothing for you?
These men may well be space cadets, I don’t know them well enough. All I know is that when a man has a “Wait a f@#$ing minute!” moment and is digging in his heels much to his own personal peril, I might want to stop and listen to hear what he is saying and ponder on it.
I was not speaking of the morality in terms of what ‘standards’ the people have. That is the way of thinking of moral relativists (which is what makes our ‘leaders’ morally insane), of which I am not one.
I was speaking of the morality of the decision being different for different people based on the different information the people have or think they have. The moral rightness or wrongness of a person’s decision can be entirely different than the the moral rightness or wrongness of the consequences of the decision, as I pointed out in my example of the mistaken spies.
That is a ludicrous comparison. The elements involved in faking the moon landing would make the possibility of it being a hoax literally millions of times more improbable than the possibility there is something questionable about the bc Obama and his acolytes have fought so hard to keep concealed.
Tru dat, not all truths are self evident at first glance.
RC:
Sorry this sounds vague to me, please clarify. Do you mean to say that you are not convinced Obama is eligible but you have not seen enough evidence to show he is eligible? That sounds redundant.
Or do you mean you haven’t seen enough evidence to say that he is ineligible? It does sound like you mean latter, in which case it seems like you are saying you want men like Lakin to lead the charge because you yourself don’t have the moral courage or outrage to take on the conspiracy as it stands now by yourself.
That’s in another thread.
Not true, it’s admirable by itself that Watada made it through college, OCS, and became an officer. Lakin’s career is far more impressive with his many decorations. However, that doesn’t change the fact that both DID implode, and both are currently commanding a Klingon Battlecruiser somewhere.
Sure, I stopped and listened and pondered too. Then I laughed and said “you’ve gotta be effin’ kidding me.”
Roland:
Yah, it’s a bit over the top. OK, let’s say it’s somewhere on the order of JFK assassination stuff. How’s that?
Yes, thereabouts, I’d guess.
I hope I didn’t start a JFK conspiracy thread just now.
Thanks a bunch, LTC Terry “Check the grassy knoll AGAIN” Lakin.
Not vague at all. Sometimes I feel your being obtuse just to keep the back and forth going. My opinion is Obama was not properly vetted per the Constitution for his eligibility. He has not provided legitimate documentation to clarify his status as John McCain has done when his eligibility was an issue. In fact Obama has spent money preventing said documentation from coming to light.
I say he’s ineligible until proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on Obama to prove eligibility, not the other way around.
Yeah, intentionally obtuse. That’s the ticket. Wouldn’t recognize a false choice if you beat him over the head with it…
WE82:
HAH! Sure, pretend RC said exactly what you couldn’t come up with the words for the night before, that’s the ticket.
RC:
I assure this isn’t the case. There was one two many negatives there for me, sorry.
OK, well here’s the thing, as a member of the military you either follow orders of the officers appointed over you (who represent the interests of the President) or you don’t. That is, you either accept the legality of the orders and by extension, the CinC’s legitimacy, or you don’t. There’s no middle ground.
So, given your position, you are saying that damn near everyone in the military lacks the moral courage Lakin has (or they are flat out wrong).
I don’t know if they lack moral courage or curiosity or just believe the CinC is legit based on what their leaders and the MSM tell them. All I know is Lakin had a concern that there was a conflict that he wanted his Chain Of Command to clarify, and he was denied that right.
Still hasn’t been determined yet. like myself, many others are waiting for a definitive answer. Just because Nancy Pelosi says so, doesn’t make it so.
Once again, ZA demonstrates he will not actually read and respond to what I said. It appears it is still pointless to attempt to communicate with him.
But at least he admits that his obtuseness is not intentional. No surprise really…
RC:
It’s one of those from your point of view in the case of every military member. As I’ve said several times, you think they are either wrong (whether from misinformation or disinterest), or lack moral courage.
You’ll never accept this: but it’s basically because he kept demanding something absurd, “check the grassy knoll again!” Apparently the military had had enough of it’s officers trying to make political statements (what with him, Cook, and Watada) and decided it’s time to make an example of someone.
If you are in the military, you are forced to make a choice one way or the other even if it’s just by inaction and passive acceptance. Lakin basically pissed all over the CoC, personally, I think he belongs in jail (along with Watada). Maybe you are right about never serving, maybe this is something you simply can’t grasp not having military experience.
Don’t hold your breath. Maybe they will declassify the super-secret conspiracy plan documents in 30 years! Look for specials on the Discovery channel along with UFO “documentaries.”
WE82:
Respond to what? You still haven’t said anything other than claim a false dichotomy and refuse to give alternatives to “legal” or “illegal.”
More of that genuine obtuseness.
Classic…