Apparently I have to post this because the President and Crowley have forgotten that it has happened. It has already gone down the Memory Hole.
Original Post:Yahoo
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — President Barack Obama is condemning an anti-Muslim film and the violence in the Middle East that has followed its release, saying there is "no speech that justifies mindless violence."
Obama says in a speech Tuesday before the U.N. General Assembly that "there are no words that excuse the killing of innocent" and "no video that justifies an attack on an embassy."
Obama says the video "is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well."
The president was speaking in the aftermath of violent protests in the Middle East and North Africa connected to the release of an anti-Muslim video produced in the United States.
Four Americans were killed in Libya, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, along with more than 50 others in the violence.
During the Presidential debate tonight, Obama claims that he was standing in the Rose Garden on 9/11/12 and blamed the Libyan attack on terrorists. Mitt Romney called him on his lie and Obama turned to back him up. SHE AGREED WITH OBAMA!
She went along with the story that Obama called it a terrorist attack from day 1 and did not, in fact blame it on the video. That was less than a month ago. We have stories, we have video. It happened. I felt so bad for Mitt Romney standing there incredulously. It was a fact that the President said what he said and everyone knows it. Everyone, except apparently, Barack Obama and Candy Crowley. The thing is, I don't even think Obama thinks he was lying. I'll bet he's convinced himself that it's the truth. "It's not a lie if you believe it."
Information cannot stay buried. Candy goes on CNN later and recants her idiotic position and lets the world know that Romney was right, Obama lied and she's a fool. Maybe she should have stuck to the moderators traditional position of moderator and not Obama flunky.
Showing posts with label straight out lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label straight out lies. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012
US officials: We didn't link Libya attack to video
Original Post: Yahoo
By BRADLEY KLAPPER and LARRY MARGASAK
WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.
But asked about the administration's initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, "That was not our conclusion." He called it a question for "others" to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.
The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, featuring prominently in Republican candidate Mitt Romney's latest foreign policy address on Monday. He called it an example of President Barack Obama's weakness in foreign policy matters, noting: "As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists."
The administration counters that it has provided its best intelligence on the attack, and that it refined its explanation as more information came to light. But five days after the attack, Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, gave a series of interviews saying the administration believed the violence was unplanned and that extremists with heavier weapons "hijacked" the protest and turned it into an outright attack.
She has since denied trying to mislead Congress, and a concurrent CIA memo that was obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi "were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" and "evolved into a direct assault" on the diplomatic posts by "extremists." Alongside defining the nature of the Benghazi attack, Congress is looking into whether adequate security was in place.
According to an email obtained Tuesday by the AP, the top State Department security official in Libya told a congressional investigator that he had argued unsuccessfully for more security in the weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs were killed. But department officials instead wanted to "normalize operations and reduce security resources," he wrote. Eric Nordstrom, who was the regional security officer in Libya, also referenced a State Department document detailing 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012 that demonstrated the danger there to Americans.
Nordstrom is among the witnesses set to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. According to the panel's chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and the head of a subcommittee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the State Department refused repeated requests to provide more security for U.S. diplomats in Libya.
"You will note that there were a number of incidents that targeted diplomatic missions and underscored the GoL's (government of Libya) inability to secure and protect diplomatic missions," Nordstrom's email stated.
"This was a significant part of (the diplomatic) post's and my argument for maintaining continued DS (diplomatic security) and DOD (Department of Defense) security assets into Sept/Oct. 2012; the GoL was overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection.
"Sadly, that point was reaffirmed on Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi," he added. Nordstrom said the incidents demonstrated that security in Libya was fragile and could degrade quickly. He added that Libya was "certainly not an environment where (the diplomatic) post would be directed to 'normalize' operations and reduce security resources in accordance with an artificial time table."
Nordstrom also said diplomats in Libya were told not to request an extension of a 16-member special operations military team that left in August, according to an official of the Oversight panel. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and thus spoke only on the condition of anonymity.
The State Department has said it never received a request to extend the military team beyond August, and added that its members were replaced with a security team that had the same skills.
Democrats on the Oversight committee were sharply critical of Issa, the chairman, calling his investigation "extremely partisan."
"The chairman and his staff failed to consult with Democratic members prior to issuing public letters with unverified allegations, concealed witnesses and refused to make one hearing witness available to Democratic staff, withheld documents obtained by the committee during the investigation, and effectively excluded Democratic committee members from joining a poorly-planned congressional delegation to Libya," a Democratic memo said.
It said in the previous two years, House Republicans voted to cut the Obama administration's requests for embassy security by some $459 million.
The Democratic memo said Nordstrom told committee investigators that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses. He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low and that Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.
Issa had a phone conversation Monday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton about the committee's investigation.
The FBI is still investigating the attack. Clinton also has named a State Department review panel to look into the security arrangements in Libya.
By BRADLEY KLAPPER and LARRY MARGASAK
WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.
But asked about the administration's initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, "That was not our conclusion." He called it a question for "others" to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.
The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, featuring prominently in Republican candidate Mitt Romney's latest foreign policy address on Monday. He called it an example of President Barack Obama's weakness in foreign policy matters, noting: "As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists."
The administration counters that it has provided its best intelligence on the attack, and that it refined its explanation as more information came to light. But five days after the attack, Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, gave a series of interviews saying the administration believed the violence was unplanned and that extremists with heavier weapons "hijacked" the protest and turned it into an outright attack.
She has since denied trying to mislead Congress, and a concurrent CIA memo that was obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi "were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" and "evolved into a direct assault" on the diplomatic posts by "extremists." Alongside defining the nature of the Benghazi attack, Congress is looking into whether adequate security was in place.
According to an email obtained Tuesday by the AP, the top State Department security official in Libya told a congressional investigator that he had argued unsuccessfully for more security in the weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs were killed. But department officials instead wanted to "normalize operations and reduce security resources," he wrote. Eric Nordstrom, who was the regional security officer in Libya, also referenced a State Department document detailing 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012 that demonstrated the danger there to Americans.
Nordstrom is among the witnesses set to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. According to the panel's chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and the head of a subcommittee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the State Department refused repeated requests to provide more security for U.S. diplomats in Libya.
"You will note that there were a number of incidents that targeted diplomatic missions and underscored the GoL's (government of Libya) inability to secure and protect diplomatic missions," Nordstrom's email stated.
"This was a significant part of (the diplomatic) post's and my argument for maintaining continued DS (diplomatic security) and DOD (Department of Defense) security assets into Sept/Oct. 2012; the GoL was overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection.
"Sadly, that point was reaffirmed on Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi," he added. Nordstrom said the incidents demonstrated that security in Libya was fragile and could degrade quickly. He added that Libya was "certainly not an environment where (the diplomatic) post would be directed to 'normalize' operations and reduce security resources in accordance with an artificial time table."
Nordstrom also said diplomats in Libya were told not to request an extension of a 16-member special operations military team that left in August, according to an official of the Oversight panel. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and thus spoke only on the condition of anonymity.
The State Department has said it never received a request to extend the military team beyond August, and added that its members were replaced with a security team that had the same skills.
Democrats on the Oversight committee were sharply critical of Issa, the chairman, calling his investigation "extremely partisan."
"The chairman and his staff failed to consult with Democratic members prior to issuing public letters with unverified allegations, concealed witnesses and refused to make one hearing witness available to Democratic staff, withheld documents obtained by the committee during the investigation, and effectively excluded Democratic committee members from joining a poorly-planned congressional delegation to Libya," a Democratic memo said.
It said in the previous two years, House Republicans voted to cut the Obama administration's requests for embassy security by some $459 million.
The Democratic memo said Nordstrom told committee investigators that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses. He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low and that Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.
Issa had a phone conversation Monday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton about the committee's investigation.
The FBI is still investigating the attack. Clinton also has named a State Department review panel to look into the security arrangements in Libya.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Reedsburg Catechism teacher rants about Scott Walker factually inaccurate and unintentionally racist
Keep in mind this is a Catechism class. I took Catechism class and we didn't talk about anything like this. My class was, you know, mostly about the Bible and Christian teachings.
This teacher asserts that 40% of blacks between the ages of 18 and 24 don't have drivers licenses and are therefore disenfranchised. Really? Really? I won't go over the list of things that an 18 year old can't do with out a picture id in modern day life (in Milwaukee that includes being outside after 10) but this is really a condescending statistic. It would only disenfranchise people if they were unable to get an ID. The voter id law provides for a FREE id for those who want it. So this teacher is saying that black people will be (and I want to make it perfectly clear that this is his thinking and not mine because I believe they are smart enough to get an id) disenfranchised from voting because they are too stupid to get an id and too lazy to vote absentee.
He also says that Mitt Romney paid less in taxes than the student's parents. Again, really? Let's say the average middle class worker in Wisconsin pays 30% (which is way high but for purposes of this problem we'll let it slide), we also know that the average Wisconsin worker makes about $35k a year. Mitt Romney paid about 14% which amounted to about $3.2 million. Ok some simple math and....30% of 35,000 is....$10,500. This teacher is asserting that 3,200,000 < 10,500. Now I think why MPS is an intellectual void in which only about 8% graduate and can read at an eight grade level.
Something, something wine and wafers.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
White House tries to intimidate reporter
Original Post: Weekly Standard
By MARK HEMINGWAY Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts
The Fast and Furious scandal, in which the Justice Department knowingly gave Mexican criminal gangs thousands of guns, just keeps escalating. The latest development centers around whether or not Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about having knowledge of the controversial gun trafficking operation. Recently released documents say Holder was briefed about the operation long before he told the Judiciary Committee he was first aware of what was going on. (Holder now claims he misunderstood the question was being asked.) Then I would like him to tell us what question he was being asked, and why his answer is then acceptable
What's more, CBS News investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson -- who's been covering the scandal from the beginning -- says in an interview on the Laura Ingraham Show today that the White House and Justice Department have taken to screaming at her for reporting on the story. You can listen to the full interview below, but here are the key excerpts from Attkisson:
In between the yelling that I received from Justice Department yesterday, the spokeswoman--who would not put anything in writing, I was asking for her explanation so there would be clarity and no confusion later over what had been said, she wouldn't put anything in writing--so we talked on the phone and she said things such as the question Holder answered was different than the one he asked. But he phrased it, he said very explicitly, 'I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.'
Ingraham: So they were literally screaming at you? Attkisson: Yes. Well the DOJ woman was just yelling at me. The guy from the White House on Friday night literally screamed at me and cussed at me. [Laura: Who was the person? Who was the person at Justice screaming?] Eric Schultz. Oh, the person screaming was [DOJ spokeswoman] Tracy Schmaler, she was yelling not screaming. And the person who screamed at me was Eric Schultz at the White House."
Finally, Attkisson notes that the White House is claiming that a thorough investigation of the scandal is unwarranted:
[The White House and Justice Department] will tell you that I'm the only reporter--as they told me--that is not reasonable. They say the Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, the New York Times is reasonable, I'm the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I'm unfair and biased by pursuing it.
Here's the audio from the interview:
CBS News Reporter Says White House Screamed, Swore at Her Over Fast and Furious
By MARK HEMINGWAY Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts
The Fast and Furious scandal, in which the Justice Department knowingly gave Mexican criminal gangs thousands of guns, just keeps escalating. The latest development centers around whether or not Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about having knowledge of the controversial gun trafficking operation. Recently released documents say Holder was briefed about the operation long before he told the Judiciary Committee he was first aware of what was going on. (Holder now claims he misunderstood the question was being asked.) Then I would like him to tell us what question he was being asked, and why his answer is then acceptable
What's more, CBS News investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson -- who's been covering the scandal from the beginning -- says in an interview on the Laura Ingraham Show today that the White House and Justice Department have taken to screaming at her for reporting on the story. You can listen to the full interview below, but here are the key excerpts from Attkisson:
In between the yelling that I received from Justice Department yesterday, the spokeswoman--who would not put anything in writing, I was asking for her explanation so there would be clarity and no confusion later over what had been said, she wouldn't put anything in writing--so we talked on the phone and she said things such as the question Holder answered was different than the one he asked. But he phrased it, he said very explicitly, 'I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.'
Ingraham: So they were literally screaming at you? Attkisson: Yes. Well the DOJ woman was just yelling at me. The guy from the White House on Friday night literally screamed at me and cussed at me. [Laura: Who was the person? Who was the person at Justice screaming?] Eric Schultz. Oh, the person screaming was [DOJ spokeswoman] Tracy Schmaler, she was yelling not screaming. And the person who screamed at me was Eric Schultz at the White House."
Finally, Attkisson notes that the White House is claiming that a thorough investigation of the scandal is unwarranted:
[The White House and Justice Department] will tell you that I'm the only reporter--as they told me--that is not reasonable. They say the Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, the New York Times is reasonable, I'm the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I'm unfair and biased by pursuing it.
Here's the audio from the interview:
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
A detailed report on Prosser supposedly choaking Bradly
Original Post: National Review
By Christian Schneider
With the Wisconsin Supreme Court devolving into a storyline only Vince McMahon could love, rumors are still swirling about what actually happened when two justices engaged in a physical confrontation behind closed doors on June 13. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley claims Justice David Prosser “choked” her. Prosser denies he choked Bradley, and claims she initiated physical contact. In the past two days, multiple sources with first-hand knowledge of the incident have been able to provide more details as to what exactly happened behind closed chamber doors.
The week before the legislature was set to re-pass the collective-bargaining provision, three of the four conservative justices were ready to issue a ruling reinstating the union law as originally passed. Prosser, on the other hand, wanted to wait longer, to avoid the appearance that the court was rushing their decision through. Prosser thought he had an agreement with liberal Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson to delay release of the opinion until Tuesday of the following week.
As Monday arrived, there was no word from Abrahamson on whether the decision would be issued the next day. At 5:30 p.m., Prosser and the other conservative justices marched around the chambers, looking for Abrahamson, who was found in Justice Bradley’s office. Prosser stood outside Bradley’s door, talking to the justices in Bradley’s office. The discussion got heated, with Prosser expressing his lack of faith in Abrahamson’s ability to lead the Court.
According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” Prosser then put his hands up to push her away. As one source pointed out, if a man wants to push a woman who is facing him, he wouldn’t push her in the chest (unless he wants to face an entirely different criminal charge). Consequently, Prosser put his hands on Bradley’s shoulders to push her away, and in doing so, made contact with her neck.
At that moment, another justice approached Bradley from behind and pulled her away from Prosser, saying, “Stop it, Ann, this isn’t like you.” Bradley then shouted, “I was choked!” Another justice present replied, “You were not choked.” In a statement following the incident, Bradley maintained Prosser “put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”
On Monday night, Bradley called Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs to talk to him about the incident. On the morning of Wednesday, June 15, Tubbs joined the justices in a closed-door meeting, where he discussed “issues relating to workplace violence.”
During the meeting, Chief Justice Abrahamson actually reenacted the incident on Chief Tubbs — no doubt an amusing sight, as the diminutive Abrahamson mimicked choking the tall, portly police chief. During her demonstration, Abrahamson emphasized that Prosser had exerted “pressure” on Bradley’s throat.
“There was no pressure,” interrupted the justice who had initially broken up the incident between Bradley and Prosser. “That’s only because you broke us apart,” shot back Bradley. This exchange led several meeting attendees to believe Bradley was making up the charge, as they took her rejoinder as an admission that there was no pressure applied to her neck.
During the Wednesday meeting, Bradley urged the justices present to take a vote on whether Prosser should be forced into anger-management counseling. The threat was implicit — if they didn’t vote her way, she would be forced to “take the next step” against Prosser, which they took to mean filing a restraining order against him. The other justices balked, wondering whether they even had the authority to order Prosser into any type of counseling. Some thought it would be “demeaning” to Prosser to have to go to counseling when he had done nothing wrong. In the end, Bradley realized she didn’t have enough justices on her side and no vote was taken.
To date, Bradley has not filed any kind of charges against Prosser. Instead, the story was leaked to the George Soros–funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, who used three anonymous sources to back up Bradley’s story. There were six justices present at the time of the incident, four of whom would be more likely to back Prosser’s version of the story. That leaves Abrahamson and Bradley as the only two remaining justices present. One source present speculated the third source may have been Bradley’s law clerk, who likely didn’t actually see the confrontation but may have head Bradley shout “I was choked.”
Speculation is abundant as to why Bradley decided to forgo a criminal complaint against Prosser, deciding instead to go to the press ten days after the event. Some say Bradley’s complaint wouldn’t have stood up if given the scrutiny of a criminal investigation. Furthermore, others speculate that if any formal criminal proceedings had moved forward (a restraining-order filing, for instance), Prosser would be afforded evidentiary hearings, testimony, and discovery.
Furthermore, sources unanimously believed that it was Shirley Abrahamson who has been the impetus behind the story, managing the press operation from behind the scenes. Justices had been working together regularly since the incident without any signs of rancor until Abrahamson decided to make this an issue, sources believe.
While Bradley has not filed any charges against Prosser, an investigation was initiated by the Capitol Police, who then quickly turned the case over to the Dane County Sheriff, David Mahoney — who once actually appeared in a campaign ad supporting the reelection of Chief Justice Abrahamson. The ad also included not-yet-famous circuit-court judge Maryann Sumi, whose ruling the Supreme Court had to vacate in order to allow Scott Walker’s collective-bargaining bill to stand.
— Christian Schneider is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.
More Details Emerge in Wisconsin’s ‘Chokegate’
By Christian Schneider
With the Wisconsin Supreme Court devolving into a storyline only Vince McMahon could love, rumors are still swirling about what actually happened when two justices engaged in a physical confrontation behind closed doors on June 13. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley claims Justice David Prosser “choked” her. Prosser denies he choked Bradley, and claims she initiated physical contact. In the past two days, multiple sources with first-hand knowledge of the incident have been able to provide more details as to what exactly happened behind closed chamber doors.
The week before the legislature was set to re-pass the collective-bargaining provision, three of the four conservative justices were ready to issue a ruling reinstating the union law as originally passed. Prosser, on the other hand, wanted to wait longer, to avoid the appearance that the court was rushing their decision through. Prosser thought he had an agreement with liberal Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson to delay release of the opinion until Tuesday of the following week.
As Monday arrived, there was no word from Abrahamson on whether the decision would be issued the next day. At 5:30 p.m., Prosser and the other conservative justices marched around the chambers, looking for Abrahamson, who was found in Justice Bradley’s office. Prosser stood outside Bradley’s door, talking to the justices in Bradley’s office. The discussion got heated, with Prosser expressing his lack of faith in Abrahamson’s ability to lead the Court.
According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” Prosser then put his hands up to push her away. As one source pointed out, if a man wants to push a woman who is facing him, he wouldn’t push her in the chest (unless he wants to face an entirely different criminal charge). Consequently, Prosser put his hands on Bradley’s shoulders to push her away, and in doing so, made contact with her neck.
At that moment, another justice approached Bradley from behind and pulled her away from Prosser, saying, “Stop it, Ann, this isn’t like you.” Bradley then shouted, “I was choked!” Another justice present replied, “You were not choked.” In a statement following the incident, Bradley maintained Prosser “put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.”
On Monday night, Bradley called Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs to talk to him about the incident. On the morning of Wednesday, June 15, Tubbs joined the justices in a closed-door meeting, where he discussed “issues relating to workplace violence.”
During the meeting, Chief Justice Abrahamson actually reenacted the incident on Chief Tubbs — no doubt an amusing sight, as the diminutive Abrahamson mimicked choking the tall, portly police chief. During her demonstration, Abrahamson emphasized that Prosser had exerted “pressure” on Bradley’s throat.
“There was no pressure,” interrupted the justice who had initially broken up the incident between Bradley and Prosser. “That’s only because you broke us apart,” shot back Bradley. This exchange led several meeting attendees to believe Bradley was making up the charge, as they took her rejoinder as an admission that there was no pressure applied to her neck.
During the Wednesday meeting, Bradley urged the justices present to take a vote on whether Prosser should be forced into anger-management counseling. The threat was implicit — if they didn’t vote her way, she would be forced to “take the next step” against Prosser, which they took to mean filing a restraining order against him. The other justices balked, wondering whether they even had the authority to order Prosser into any type of counseling. Some thought it would be “demeaning” to Prosser to have to go to counseling when he had done nothing wrong. In the end, Bradley realized she didn’t have enough justices on her side and no vote was taken.
To date, Bradley has not filed any kind of charges against Prosser. Instead, the story was leaked to the George Soros–funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, who used three anonymous sources to back up Bradley’s story. There were six justices present at the time of the incident, four of whom would be more likely to back Prosser’s version of the story. That leaves Abrahamson and Bradley as the only two remaining justices present. One source present speculated the third source may have been Bradley’s law clerk, who likely didn’t actually see the confrontation but may have head Bradley shout “I was choked.”
Speculation is abundant as to why Bradley decided to forgo a criminal complaint against Prosser, deciding instead to go to the press ten days after the event. Some say Bradley’s complaint wouldn’t have stood up if given the scrutiny of a criminal investigation. Furthermore, others speculate that if any formal criminal proceedings had moved forward (a restraining-order filing, for instance), Prosser would be afforded evidentiary hearings, testimony, and discovery.
Furthermore, sources unanimously believed that it was Shirley Abrahamson who has been the impetus behind the story, managing the press operation from behind the scenes. Justices had been working together regularly since the incident without any signs of rancor until Abrahamson decided to make this an issue, sources believe.
While Bradley has not filed any charges against Prosser, an investigation was initiated by the Capitol Police, who then quickly turned the case over to the Dane County Sheriff, David Mahoney — who once actually appeared in a campaign ad supporting the reelection of Chief Justice Abrahamson. The ad also included not-yet-famous circuit-court judge Maryann Sumi, whose ruling the Supreme Court had to vacate in order to allow Scott Walker’s collective-bargaining bill to stand.
— Christian Schneider is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
E-mails Raise Questions About Truthfulness of Pasch Denial
Original Post: Media Trackers
By: Brian Sikma
UPDATE: This article was updated at 10:09 AM on August 3, 2011 to include more emails between Rep. Sandy Pasch and Citizen Action of Wisconsin.
As the barbecue for votes scandal involving Wisconsin Jobs Now! draws significant media attention, Rep. Sandy Pasch has spent the early days of this week attempting to distance herself from the organization. Pasch serves on the board of directors of Citizen Action of Wisconsin, a liberal umbrella group that is the parent organization of Wisconsin Jobs Now! Interestingly, WJN is only operating within the 8th Senate District, where Pasch is attempting to unseat Sen. Alberta Darling in a recall election next Tuesday.
After Media Trackers brought to light Pasch’s connection with Citizen Action and WJN, questions were raised about whether or not Pasch and her campaign have coordinated with the liberal non-profit groups. Such coordination would be a violation of state election law. Speaking to the Milwaukee Press Club on Monday, Pasch denied having any involvement with the political activities of Citizen Action of Wisconsin, even though she serves on the group’s board.
The Journal-Sentinel reported that that Pasch “said she has had no contact with anyone at Citizen Action regarding any political activities.” A local reporter for the Foxpoint Patch news website quoted Pasch as saying:
“I have not had no [sic] contact with them about any political activities or any political plans that they’ve been making. I cut off contact with them.”
This theme was reiterated by Citizen Action of Wisconsin and Democratic Party of Wisconsin officials.
The truthfulness of Rep. Pasch’s statements are brought into question as a result of e-mails obtained by Media Trackers through an open records request on Rep. Pasch’s office. A number of the more than 1,500 e-mails obtained were from Robert Kraig, the executive director of Citizen Action, to his board members. Kraig used Pasch’s official e-mail address quite frequently when updating her on what Citizen Action of Wisconsin was doing, and what actions the board of directors needed to take.
One particularly fascinating exchange took place from June 1 through June 5 between a Citizen Action staffer, Jennifer Epps, and Pasch’s aide, Fred Ludwig. Citizen Action was looking to film promotional statements by liberal lawmakers opposed to Gov. Walker’s proposed reform to the Wisconsin Shares program. The exchange includes both sides working to nail down a time for Pasch to record the video statement, and also finds the Citizen Action staffer offering some helpful insight into a way Pasch could get on a radio show at WMCS to promote the issue.
Sandy Pasch announced her campaign to unseat Alberta Darling on May 6. The exchange about a promotional video and potential radio show appearance between Pasch’s office and Citizen Action of Wisconsin came nearly a month into the election. Clearly some measure of coordination was taking place, and it must be assumed that Citizen Action of Wisconsin was aware of the political value that Pasch could have put on having a video filmed by Citizen Action of Wisconsin shown to supporters.
Other e-mails discovered include talking points sent to Pasch’s office by Citizen Action of Wisconsin on February 12 outlining what Citizen Action believed to be effective ways of opposing the Budget Repair Bill. That e-mail also included a note that Citizen Action would be helping to lead the way on the massive protests that engulfed Madison in the following weeks.
Several e-mails were quick reminders about upcoming Citizen Action board meetings, including one hosted by WEAC. It also appears that the SEIU will be hosting a Citizen Action board meeting on December 9 at 260 E. Highland Avenue in Milwaukee.
One final e-mail of note was sent on March 18 to Rep. Pasch’s official e-mail address asking her to reply with her completed ballot regarding candidates that Citizen Action of Wisconsin should endorse in the Spring election. Robert Kraig reminded the board that, “You as the Board of Directors make the final decision on all endorsements.” Members were asked to include Matt Brusky, the treasurer of the dubious Wisconsin Jobs Now! group and political director for Citizen Action, on their reply.
Clearly the truth is not exactly as Rep. Sandy Pasch would have the public believe. Her statements to the press about her involvement with Citizen Action of Wisconsin would appear to be at best misspoken, at worst misleading. The e-mails obtained show a history of coordination between her official office and Citizen Action of Wisconsin, and they show the extent of the political duties involved in serving as a board member for Citizen Action.
The e-mails obtained by Media Trackers are only the tip of the iceberg. They only reveal a tremendous amount of communication between Rep. Pasch’s office and Citizen Action of Wisconsin. There is no way to judge, outside of a legal subpoena, how many e-mails are exchanged between Pasch, her treasurer Jackie Boynton, Matt Brusky, and Robert Kraig via personal or campaign e-mail addresses. Judging from the publicly available e-mails, it would appear to be incredible to believe that all of these parties have failed to communicate and coordinate on political activities.
PaschCitizenActionBoardPoliticalActions
E-mailPaschCitizenActionVideoCoordination
Citizen Action Board Meeting On May 13
Citizen Action Talking Points On Budget Repair Bill
By: Brian Sikma
UPDATE: This article was updated at 10:09 AM on August 3, 2011 to include more emails between Rep. Sandy Pasch and Citizen Action of Wisconsin.
As the barbecue for votes scandal involving Wisconsin Jobs Now! draws significant media attention, Rep. Sandy Pasch has spent the early days of this week attempting to distance herself from the organization. Pasch serves on the board of directors of Citizen Action of Wisconsin, a liberal umbrella group that is the parent organization of Wisconsin Jobs Now! Interestingly, WJN is only operating within the 8th Senate District, where Pasch is attempting to unseat Sen. Alberta Darling in a recall election next Tuesday.
After Media Trackers brought to light Pasch’s connection with Citizen Action and WJN, questions were raised about whether or not Pasch and her campaign have coordinated with the liberal non-profit groups. Such coordination would be a violation of state election law. Speaking to the Milwaukee Press Club on Monday, Pasch denied having any involvement with the political activities of Citizen Action of Wisconsin, even though she serves on the group’s board.
The Journal-Sentinel reported that that Pasch “said she has had no contact with anyone at Citizen Action regarding any political activities.” A local reporter for the Foxpoint Patch news website quoted Pasch as saying:
“I have not had no [sic] contact with them about any political activities or any political plans that they’ve been making. I cut off contact with them.”
This theme was reiterated by Citizen Action of Wisconsin and Democratic Party of Wisconsin officials.
The truthfulness of Rep. Pasch’s statements are brought into question as a result of e-mails obtained by Media Trackers through an open records request on Rep. Pasch’s office. A number of the more than 1,500 e-mails obtained were from Robert Kraig, the executive director of Citizen Action, to his board members. Kraig used Pasch’s official e-mail address quite frequently when updating her on what Citizen Action of Wisconsin was doing, and what actions the board of directors needed to take.
One particularly fascinating exchange took place from June 1 through June 5 between a Citizen Action staffer, Jennifer Epps, and Pasch’s aide, Fred Ludwig. Citizen Action was looking to film promotional statements by liberal lawmakers opposed to Gov. Walker’s proposed reform to the Wisconsin Shares program. The exchange includes both sides working to nail down a time for Pasch to record the video statement, and also finds the Citizen Action staffer offering some helpful insight into a way Pasch could get on a radio show at WMCS to promote the issue.
Sandy Pasch announced her campaign to unseat Alberta Darling on May 6. The exchange about a promotional video and potential radio show appearance between Pasch’s office and Citizen Action of Wisconsin came nearly a month into the election. Clearly some measure of coordination was taking place, and it must be assumed that Citizen Action of Wisconsin was aware of the political value that Pasch could have put on having a video filmed by Citizen Action of Wisconsin shown to supporters.
Other e-mails discovered include talking points sent to Pasch’s office by Citizen Action of Wisconsin on February 12 outlining what Citizen Action believed to be effective ways of opposing the Budget Repair Bill. That e-mail also included a note that Citizen Action would be helping to lead the way on the massive protests that engulfed Madison in the following weeks.
Several e-mails were quick reminders about upcoming Citizen Action board meetings, including one hosted by WEAC. It also appears that the SEIU will be hosting a Citizen Action board meeting on December 9 at 260 E. Highland Avenue in Milwaukee.
One final e-mail of note was sent on March 18 to Rep. Pasch’s official e-mail address asking her to reply with her completed ballot regarding candidates that Citizen Action of Wisconsin should endorse in the Spring election. Robert Kraig reminded the board that, “You as the Board of Directors make the final decision on all endorsements.” Members were asked to include Matt Brusky, the treasurer of the dubious Wisconsin Jobs Now! group and political director for Citizen Action, on their reply.
Clearly the truth is not exactly as Rep. Sandy Pasch would have the public believe. Her statements to the press about her involvement with Citizen Action of Wisconsin would appear to be at best misspoken, at worst misleading. The e-mails obtained show a history of coordination between her official office and Citizen Action of Wisconsin, and they show the extent of the political duties involved in serving as a board member for Citizen Action.
The e-mails obtained by Media Trackers are only the tip of the iceberg. They only reveal a tremendous amount of communication between Rep. Pasch’s office and Citizen Action of Wisconsin. There is no way to judge, outside of a legal subpoena, how many e-mails are exchanged between Pasch, her treasurer Jackie Boynton, Matt Brusky, and Robert Kraig via personal or campaign e-mail addresses. Judging from the publicly available e-mails, it would appear to be incredible to believe that all of these parties have failed to communicate and coordinate on political activities.
PaschCitizenActionBoardPoliticalActions
E-mailPaschCitizenActionVideoCoordination
Citizen Action Board Meeting On May 13
Citizen Action Talking Points On Budget Repair Bill
Monday, July 18, 2011
Obama lies about his mother's death to forward health care agenda
Fresh doubt cast on Obama's health care story
Original Post: Washington Examiner
By: Byron York
Then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) addresses a rally in the gymnasium of Concord High School January 4, 2008 in Concord before the 2008 New Hampshire primary, where the Democratic presidential hopeful made this remark examined by Examiner columnist Byron York: "She was in her hospital room looking at insurance forms because the insurance company said that maybe she had a pre-existing condition and maybe they wouldn't have to reimburse her for her medical bills."
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama often discussed his mother's struggle with cancer. Ann Dunham spent the months before her death in 1995, Obama said, fighting with insurance companies that sought to deny her the coverage she needed to pay for treatment.
"I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn't thinking about how to get well, she wasn't thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence," Obama said in September 2007.
"She was in her hospital room looking at insurance forms because the insurance company said that maybe she had a pre-existing condition and maybe they wouldn't have to reimburse her for her medical bills," Obama added in January 2008.
"The insurance companies were saying, 'Maybe there's a pre-existing condition and we don't have to pay your medical bills,' " Obama said in a debate with Republican opponent Sen. John McCain in October 2008.
It was a simple and powerful story, one Obama would tell many more times as president during the national health care debate. But now we're learning the real story of Ann Dunham's health coverage is not quite what her son made it out to be.
The news is in "A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mother," a generally admiring new biography written by former New York Times reporter Janny Scott. According to the book, Ann Dunham, an anthropologist who spent most of her working life in Indonesia, moved from Jakarta to New York in 1992 to work for a nonprofit called Women's World Banking, which encouraged micro-lending in Third World countries. Unhappy in New York, in 1994 Dunham took a job with an American company called Development Alternatives, which had a contract with the Indonesian State Ministry for the Role of Women. Dunham returned to Jakarta to work, and Scott reports the job provided Dunham with health insurance, a housing allowance, and a car.
At the time she took the job, Dunham was increasingly worried about her health; she was suffering from intense abdominal pains. In November 1994, Dunham went to an Indonesian doctor who diagnosed appendicitis. As Dunham debated whether to leave the country for surgery, she called her boss at Development Alternatives. "You've got health insurance, that's taken care of," the boss told her. "We can cover the airfare."
Dunham decided to stay in Jakarta, where she underwent an appendectomy. But the pain did not go away, and Dunham feared, correctly, that she was terribly ill. In January 1995 she left Indonesia to go home to Honolulu, where she was diagnosed with advanced uterine and ovarian cancer. She began a regime of surgery and chemotherapy.
That is the time during which Obama says his mother battled insurance companies to cover her illness. But Scott, who had access to Dunham's correspondence from the time, reveals that Dunham unquestionably had health coverage. "Ann's compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment," Scott writes. "Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month."
Scott writes that Dunham, who wanted to be compensated for those costs as well as for her living expenses, "filed a separate claim under her employer's disability insurance policy." It was that claim, with the insurance company CIGNA, that was denied in August 1995 because, CIGNA investigators said, Dunham's condition was known before she was covered by the policy.
Dunham protested the decision and, Scott writes, "informed CIGNA that she was turning over the case to 'my son and attorney, Barack Obama.' " CIGNA did not budge.Since he was acting as her attorney, you'd think he had an idea of what was going on in the case and it's details. If he's such a poor laywer that he fucked up his own mother's case, maybe he's not such a good choice for president. Just saying.
In September 1995, Dunham traveled to New York for an evaluation at the renowned Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Returning to Hawaii, she began a new course of treatment. She died in November.
A dozen years later, her son turned her ordeal into a campaign pitch for national health care. But the story Obama told, Scott writes, was "abbreviated" -- the abbreviation was to leave out the fact that Ann Dunham had health insurance that paid for her treatment. "Though he often suggested that she was denied health coverage because of a pre-existing condition," Scott writes, "it appears from her correspondence that she was only denied disability coverage."
That's a different story altogether. One the president never told.
Original Post: Washington Examiner
By: Byron York
Then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) addresses a rally in the gymnasium of Concord High School January 4, 2008 in Concord before the 2008 New Hampshire primary, where the Democratic presidential hopeful made this remark examined by Examiner columnist Byron York: "She was in her hospital room looking at insurance forms because the insurance company said that maybe she had a pre-existing condition and maybe they wouldn't have to reimburse her for her medical bills."
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama often discussed his mother's struggle with cancer. Ann Dunham spent the months before her death in 1995, Obama said, fighting with insurance companies that sought to deny her the coverage she needed to pay for treatment.
"I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn't thinking about how to get well, she wasn't thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence," Obama said in September 2007.
"She was in her hospital room looking at insurance forms because the insurance company said that maybe she had a pre-existing condition and maybe they wouldn't have to reimburse her for her medical bills," Obama added in January 2008.
"The insurance companies were saying, 'Maybe there's a pre-existing condition and we don't have to pay your medical bills,' " Obama said in a debate with Republican opponent Sen. John McCain in October 2008.
It was a simple and powerful story, one Obama would tell many more times as president during the national health care debate. But now we're learning the real story of Ann Dunham's health coverage is not quite what her son made it out to be.
The news is in "A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mother," a generally admiring new biography written by former New York Times reporter Janny Scott. According to the book, Ann Dunham, an anthropologist who spent most of her working life in Indonesia, moved from Jakarta to New York in 1992 to work for a nonprofit called Women's World Banking, which encouraged micro-lending in Third World countries. Unhappy in New York, in 1994 Dunham took a job with an American company called Development Alternatives, which had a contract with the Indonesian State Ministry for the Role of Women. Dunham returned to Jakarta to work, and Scott reports the job provided Dunham with health insurance, a housing allowance, and a car.
At the time she took the job, Dunham was increasingly worried about her health; she was suffering from intense abdominal pains. In November 1994, Dunham went to an Indonesian doctor who diagnosed appendicitis. As Dunham debated whether to leave the country for surgery, she called her boss at Development Alternatives. "You've got health insurance, that's taken care of," the boss told her. "We can cover the airfare."
Dunham decided to stay in Jakarta, where she underwent an appendectomy. But the pain did not go away, and Dunham feared, correctly, that she was terribly ill. In January 1995 she left Indonesia to go home to Honolulu, where she was diagnosed with advanced uterine and ovarian cancer. She began a regime of surgery and chemotherapy.
That is the time during which Obama says his mother battled insurance companies to cover her illness. But Scott, who had access to Dunham's correspondence from the time, reveals that Dunham unquestionably had health coverage. "Ann's compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment," Scott writes. "Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month."
Scott writes that Dunham, who wanted to be compensated for those costs as well as for her living expenses, "filed a separate claim under her employer's disability insurance policy." It was that claim, with the insurance company CIGNA, that was denied in August 1995 because, CIGNA investigators said, Dunham's condition was known before she was covered by the policy.
Dunham protested the decision and, Scott writes, "informed CIGNA that she was turning over the case to 'my son and attorney, Barack Obama.' " CIGNA did not budge.Since he was acting as her attorney, you'd think he had an idea of what was going on in the case and it's details. If he's such a poor laywer that he fucked up his own mother's case, maybe he's not such a good choice for president. Just saying.
In September 1995, Dunham traveled to New York for an evaluation at the renowned Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Returning to Hawaii, she began a new course of treatment. She died in November.
A dozen years later, her son turned her ordeal into a campaign pitch for national health care. But the story Obama told, Scott writes, was "abbreviated" -- the abbreviation was to leave out the fact that Ann Dunham had health insurance that paid for her treatment. "Though he often suggested that she was denied health coverage because of a pre-existing condition," Scott writes, "it appears from her correspondence that she was only denied disability coverage."
That's a different story altogether. One the president never told.
Friday, April 15, 2011
There are death panels in Obamacare? I can't *****ing belive it!
Barack Obama Fully Embraces Death Panels
Orignial Post: Red State
Posted by Erick Erickson
While everyone else was focused on Barack Obama bashing Paul Ryan, I noticed that he took full ownership of death panels yesterday. Naturally, Obama did not call them death panels. He called them “an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers.” But his description hits dead on with what his death panels will do.
According to Barack Obama yesterday, the death panels “will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.”
We already know what they’ll recommend as “the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending”. Barack Obama’s own advisers have told us. They will prioritize giving health care to healthier people and let sicker people die. At end of life, they will deny people life sustaining treatment because, after all, they’re going to die anyway. Note his phrasing: “protecting access to the services seniors need.” Dying people, according to Obama’s advisers, need hospice not hope. They certainly do not need expensive treatments that may buy them time to see the birth of a new grandchild or other reasons.
“We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. . . . If we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare,” Obama said. At a time Democrats are saying Republicans want to starve old people to death, Democrats are intent on embracing a cost savings model for Medicare that incentivizes doctors to encourage people to die and, when all else fails, gives a death panel “the authority to make additional savings by” ensuring the dying elderly die quickly.
“Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself,” Obama said. Really? The only way that will happen is by rationing. You may not like the use of the phrase “death panel,” but make no mistake about it — at the end of your life, in Barack Obama’s America, his death panel will throw you under the bus in a way much closer to reality than metaphor.
Orignial Post: Red State
Posted by Erick Erickson
While everyone else was focused on Barack Obama bashing Paul Ryan, I noticed that he took full ownership of death panels yesterday. Naturally, Obama did not call them death panels. He called them “an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers.” But his description hits dead on with what his death panels will do.
According to Barack Obama yesterday, the death panels “will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.”
We already know what they’ll recommend as “the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending”. Barack Obama’s own advisers have told us. They will prioritize giving health care to healthier people and let sicker people die. At end of life, they will deny people life sustaining treatment because, after all, they’re going to die anyway. Note his phrasing: “protecting access to the services seniors need.” Dying people, according to Obama’s advisers, need hospice not hope. They certainly do not need expensive treatments that may buy them time to see the birth of a new grandchild or other reasons.
“We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. . . . If we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare,” Obama said. At a time Democrats are saying Republicans want to starve old people to death, Democrats are intent on embracing a cost savings model for Medicare that incentivizes doctors to encourage people to die and, when all else fails, gives a death panel “the authority to make additional savings by” ensuring the dying elderly die quickly.
“Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself,” Obama said. Really? The only way that will happen is by rationing. You may not like the use of the phrase “death panel,” but make no mistake about it — at the end of your life, in Barack Obama’s America, his death panel will throw you under the bus in a way much closer to reality than metaphor.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Alan Colmes thinks there's no such thing as radical Islam
I really, really want to be a liberal now. It must be so easy going through life and any time something bad happens, you just deny it's existence. That would be so unburdening! Islamic extremists don't exist! Wisconsin deficit, didn't happen! War in Afghanistan, wut war (wut intentionally misspelled for artistic reasons)?
The problem with this outlook is that you still need people grounded in reality because even if you deny these problems they do in fact exist. But still, it must be so nice.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
UW Health investigates doctors who wrote sick notes for protesters
Original Post: WSJ
DAVID WAHLBERG | dwahlberg@madison.com
UW Health is investigating reports of doctors writing sick notes last weekend to excuse Capitol protesters from work, and the Wisconsin Medical Society has criticized the doctors' actions.
"These charges are very serious," a statement by UW Health said. "These UW Health physicians were acting on their own and without the knowledge or approval of UW Health."
The Wisconsin Medical Society, the state's largest doctors association, said it "does not condone these actions under any circumstances."
The Wisconsin Medical Examining Board has received information about the events, the medical society said. Representatives from the state Department of Regulation and Licensing, which includes the medical board, could not be reached for comment.
State regulations ban doctors from "knowingly making any false statement, written or oral, in practicing under any license, with fraudulent intent."
Dr. Lou Sanner, a family medicine physician at UW Health, told the Associated Press he was one of the doctors involved. He said he wrote hundreds of sick notes for protesters because they were suffering from stress.
"Some people think it's a nod-and-a-wink thing but it's not," he said.
Several doctors reportedly joined Sanner, filling out formatted notes excusing protesters from work. The notes said each doctor "evaluated" each "patient."
Dr. Tim Bartholow, a senior vice president of the medical society, said the doctors may have meant well but could end up harming physicians' reputation.
"I'm sure they were acting out of conscience," he said. "But our actions as professionals have got to earn the public trust."
Doctors sometimes issue sick notes after brief phone calls, but that's for established patients whose medical history is known, he said.
Video posted online of Sanner and others providing the notes "looked really bad," said Dr. Arthur Derse, director of the Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities at the Medical College of Wisconsin.
"If the person is currently ill, you need a physical examination and history," Derse said. "If someone is ill enough not to go to work, to have them standing outside in the cold in front of you is kind of an oxymoron."
UW Health said its investigation "will identify which UW Health physicians were involved and whether their behavior constituted violations of medical ethics or University of Wisconsin and UW Health policies and work rules."
Bartholow said the underlying events at the Capitol underscore why doctors must be concerned today about their public image. State and federal budget pressures are forcing tough decisions about health care expenses, and many are looking to doctors for input, he said.
"We need that public trust," he said.
DAVID WAHLBERG | dwahlberg@madison.com
UW Health is investigating reports of doctors writing sick notes last weekend to excuse Capitol protesters from work, and the Wisconsin Medical Society has criticized the doctors' actions.
"These charges are very serious," a statement by UW Health said. "These UW Health physicians were acting on their own and without the knowledge or approval of UW Health."
The Wisconsin Medical Society, the state's largest doctors association, said it "does not condone these actions under any circumstances."
The Wisconsin Medical Examining Board has received information about the events, the medical society said. Representatives from the state Department of Regulation and Licensing, which includes the medical board, could not be reached for comment.
State regulations ban doctors from "knowingly making any false statement, written or oral, in practicing under any license, with fraudulent intent."
Dr. Lou Sanner, a family medicine physician at UW Health, told the Associated Press he was one of the doctors involved. He said he wrote hundreds of sick notes for protesters because they were suffering from stress.
"Some people think it's a nod-and-a-wink thing but it's not," he said.
Several doctors reportedly joined Sanner, filling out formatted notes excusing protesters from work. The notes said each doctor "evaluated" each "patient."
Dr. Tim Bartholow, a senior vice president of the medical society, said the doctors may have meant well but could end up harming physicians' reputation.
"I'm sure they were acting out of conscience," he said. "But our actions as professionals have got to earn the public trust."
Doctors sometimes issue sick notes after brief phone calls, but that's for established patients whose medical history is known, he said.
Video posted online of Sanner and others providing the notes "looked really bad," said Dr. Arthur Derse, director of the Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities at the Medical College of Wisconsin.
"If the person is currently ill, you need a physical examination and history," Derse said. "If someone is ill enough not to go to work, to have them standing outside in the cold in front of you is kind of an oxymoron."
UW Health said its investigation "will identify which UW Health physicians were involved and whether their behavior constituted violations of medical ethics or University of Wisconsin and UW Health policies and work rules."
Bartholow said the underlying events at the Capitol underscore why doctors must be concerned today about their public image. State and federal budget pressures are forcing tough decisions about health care expenses, and many are looking to doctors for input, he said.
"We need that public trust," he said.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
University of Wisconsin Medical School Investigating Doctors' Notes at Protest
Original Post: Fox News
The University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health is investigating whether some of its doctors wrote fake sick notes to people protesting the governor's plan to strip public union employees of the right to collectively bargain.Over the weekend, FOX News reported that doctors from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine were manning a doctor station to write medical notes excusing those protesting at the Wisconsin State Capitol from work. Physicians were seen standing on a street corner wearing lab coats and giving out medical notes."This involves a few individuals out of the nearly 1,300 physicians at UW Health," Lisa Brunette, Director of Media Relations for the school said in an email."These UW Health physicians were acting on their own and without the knowledge or approval of UW Health, she continued. "These charges are very serious and in response the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health and the University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation, two of the entities that comprise UW Health, will immediately launch an investigation of the reported behavior. The investigation will identify which UW Health physicians were involved and whether their behavior constituted violations of medical ethics or University of Wisconsin and UW Health policies and work rules."
Many protesters could be in violation of their work contracts if they call out sick without a medical excuse. But a fraudulent doctor's notes could protect them from punishment by their employers even though they weren't sick and were out protesting.
FOX News Chicago Bureau Chief Todd Ciganek contributed to this story.
The University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health is investigating whether some of its doctors wrote fake sick notes to people protesting the governor's plan to strip public union employees of the right to collectively bargain.Over the weekend, FOX News reported that doctors from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine were manning a doctor station to write medical notes excusing those protesting at the Wisconsin State Capitol from work. Physicians were seen standing on a street corner wearing lab coats and giving out medical notes."This involves a few individuals out of the nearly 1,300 physicians at UW Health," Lisa Brunette, Director of Media Relations for the school said in an email."These UW Health physicians were acting on their own and without the knowledge or approval of UW Health, she continued. "These charges are very serious and in response the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health and the University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation, two of the entities that comprise UW Health, will immediately launch an investigation of the reported behavior. The investigation will identify which UW Health physicians were involved and whether their behavior constituted violations of medical ethics or University of Wisconsin and UW Health policies and work rules."
Many protesters could be in violation of their work contracts if they call out sick without a medical excuse. But a fraudulent doctor's notes could protect them from punishment by their employers even though they weren't sick and were out protesting.
FOX News Chicago Bureau Chief Todd Ciganek contributed to this story.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Names of the Doctors's who've choosen to give out fake sick notes for political purposes
NAMES OF DOCS SIGNING FAKE SICK NOTES: Dr. James H. Shropshire, Dr. Hannah M. Keevil, Dr. Bernard F. Micke, Dr. Lou Sanner. They work at UW Health
These are the doctors who are giving out sick notes to teachers who are illegally striking in Madison, Wisconsin over having to pay some toward their pension. They've been filmed diagnosing people with, "being sick with Scott Walker" and "anxiety over their pension" which would be a violation of patient confidentiality as well. Gratz doctors you deserve whatever you get.
These are the doctors who are giving out sick notes to teachers who are illegally striking in Madison, Wisconsin over having to pay some toward their pension. They've been filmed diagnosing people with, "being sick with Scott Walker" and "anxiety over their pension" which would be a violation of patient confidentiality as well. Gratz doctors you deserve whatever you get.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Obama pays doctor's to tell patients to kill themselves
Original Post: NY Times
Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: December 25, 2010
WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1. Because if Obama can't use the legislative process, he can just use his dictatorial powers to add to the law after it has already been written.
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment. ie. the government will pay doctors to try to get patients to kill themselves.
Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill. I thought we needed this bill to stop insurance companies from cutting off care for the sick? I guess it's just ok with the government does it.
The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.
Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.
While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress. Or, Obama doesn't need congress and we no longer have separation of powers. Obama can just write regulation and make his well done. Between that and the power usurping Czars, we might as well not even have Congress anymore.
In this case, the administration said research had shown the value of end-of-life planning.
“Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives,” the administration said in the preamble to the Medicare regulation, quoting research published this year in the British Medical Journal.
The administration also cited research by Dr. Stacy M. Fischer, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, who found that “end-of-life discussions between doctor and patient help ensure that one gets the care one wants.” In this sense, Dr. Fischer said, such consultations “protect patient autonomy.”
Opponents said the Obama administration was bringing back a procedure that could be used to justify the premature withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from people with severe illnesses and disabilities.
Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009 — but not included in the final legislation — allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.
Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, which describes itself as “a pro-life Christian educational ministry,” said she was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.
“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”
Several Democratic members of Congress, led by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, had urged the administration to cover end-of-life planning as a service offered under the Medicare wellness benefit. A national organization of hospice care providers made the same recommendation.
Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”
“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.” So, this was necessary because patients and doctors couldn't discuss end of life treatment before? I don't think that was the case, in fact I'm pretty sure such conversations were prevalent. They were even prevalent with out the financial incentive for doctor's to advise patients to end themselves.
After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.
“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.” It's not a myth if it's happening.
Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: December 25, 2010
WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1. Because if Obama can't use the legislative process, he can just use his dictatorial powers to add to the law after it has already been written.
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment. ie. the government will pay doctors to try to get patients to kill themselves.
Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill. I thought we needed this bill to stop insurance companies from cutting off care for the sick? I guess it's just ok with the government does it.
The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.
Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.
While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress. Or, Obama doesn't need congress and we no longer have separation of powers. Obama can just write regulation and make his well done. Between that and the power usurping Czars, we might as well not even have Congress anymore.
In this case, the administration said research had shown the value of end-of-life planning.
“Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives,” the administration said in the preamble to the Medicare regulation, quoting research published this year in the British Medical Journal.
The administration also cited research by Dr. Stacy M. Fischer, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, who found that “end-of-life discussions between doctor and patient help ensure that one gets the care one wants.” In this sense, Dr. Fischer said, such consultations “protect patient autonomy.”
Opponents said the Obama administration was bringing back a procedure that could be used to justify the premature withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from people with severe illnesses and disabilities.
Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009 — but not included in the final legislation — allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.
Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, which describes itself as “a pro-life Christian educational ministry,” said she was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.
“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”
Several Democratic members of Congress, led by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, had urged the administration to cover end-of-life planning as a service offered under the Medicare wellness benefit. A national organization of hospice care providers made the same recommendation.
Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”
“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.” So, this was necessary because patients and doctors couldn't discuss end of life treatment before? I don't think that was the case, in fact I'm pretty sure such conversations were prevalent. They were even prevalent with out the financial incentive for doctor's to advise patients to end themselves.
After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.
“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.” It's not a myth if it's happening.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)