SBW

The Roots of Obama's Madness with Veteran's Scandal
John Ransom | May 20, 2014

From the Townhall Finance Web site.

Finally we get to witness the president mad about something.

To understand exactly what he's mad about, let's cut to the before and after pictures of the Veterans Administration scandal.

So like two weeks ago, dude, when this story first broke of veterans dying because of substandard care, Obama didn't seem so mad then.

After all, the guy running the Veterans Administration is still running the show.

Two weeks, to me, seems like a long, long time ago for Obama to suddenly be mad.

“There are now clear signs that veterans' health centers across the U.S. are juggling appointments and sometimes manipulating wait lists to disguise long delays for primary and follow-up appointments,” reports the LA Times, “according to federal reports, congressional investigators and interviews with VA employees and patients.”

And this mismanagement has led to veteran deaths.

This was the BEFORE picture.

The LA Times is key here.

They are part of the AFTER picture.

Because were it not for the mainstream media, as represented by the LA Times, finally reporting—for the first time ever-- truthfully on a scandal arising from the Obama administration, Obama would likely not be madder than hell.

After all, this is a president who doesn't know the difference between a corpsman and a corpseman.

Up to this point, Obama probably figured that with all those corpsemen hanging around, the veterans were supposed to die.

But with documented cases of veterans dying because of substandard care, I suppose we see that even liberals in the media have their limits.

And later on I'll tell you exactly what these limits are.

So this weekend the White House Chief of Staff-- pun intended-- made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows telling everyone that Obama was mad as hell about the situation at the Veterans Administration.

“The president is madder than hell, and I've got the scars to prove it,” says Denis McDonough, the president’s newest Chief Tool. “We're going to get to the bottom of those things, fix them and ensure that they don't happen again.”

Generally speaking, “getting to the bottom of things” is White House-speak for burying something at the top or bottom of all the scandals, mismanagement and poor political decisions that come out of this White House daily.

The best friend of this administration has been the continuing stream of scandals-- in both big and little things-- that knock the previous scandals off the front page so that they can remain things that happened a long, long time ago.

But I believe this time it's a little different.

The mainstream media is positioning the liberal message to be, “We've got great ideas we just have the wrong guy implementing them. There's only one woman who can save us: Hillary 2016.”

This is why Obama is so angry.

This is what makes this scandal so different.

We can all agree, at least publicly, that the benefits that veterans derive from the government are earned; they are not entitlements.

Veterans gave up significant portion of their liberty so as to preserve the liberty of the rest of us.

Most veterans do not see combat, but still the sacrifices are real.

There is boredom, there's time away from home, there is danger from operating on a flight deck, or in a truck carrying supplies, or just doing paperwork at the Washington Navy Yard. There is the double jeopardy of being subject to both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (USMJ) and also being subject to regular civilian laws. There are workplace hazards such as nuclear exposure, chemical exposure-- like Agent Orange-- and the risk that unproven vaccines will one day affect veterans health.

Even liberals would have a hard time not defending veterans in this scandal.

But if we look at the Veterans Administration as a microcosmic model of the cradle-to-grave care that Obama is proposing for the rest of us, one can see that there is more at stake than just midterm elections, or one administration.

With an eye on 2016, the media must convince the rest of us that there's nothing wrong with the model of cradle-to-grave care, but there's something wrong with the poor execution by the Obama administration.

Hillary can fix that, the media will say.

And that, my friends, is the root of Obama's madness.

My comment: Yes that is the root of his madness and "sudden" attention to something besides golf and fundraising. But there is one other thing about this that concerns him and makes him mad if not petrified. Even Obama realizes that for those paying attention that this VA healthcare crisis is putting on full display what our healthcare will look like in the future because of obamacare.

GrayPlayer Loc: Granby, Ct.

Obama's administration lacks focus, experience and an the ability to identify and fix a problem. His habit of shuffling department heads until the square peg first in the round hole causes undue stress on the "underlings!"

A commercial currently making the rounds shows a mother and son operated as puppets. Reminds me of Obama being "handled" by his handlers. Pushed in front of the media, told what to say and when.

If Mr. Obama were really mad, Gitmo would be closed, Afghanistan would be a distant memory, China would be "sucking" wind, social security would be fixed, IRS and tax code would be fixed, Veterans Administration officials would be on the unemployment line and less time would be spent on the court.

SBW

:thumbup: :thumbup:

dljen Loc: Central PA

To do the things you suggest, a president has to have the co-operation of both parties. Such is not the case in D.C.

wireman8 Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Been going on for years and now it's Obama's fault?

SBW

ole sarg Loc: south florida

You seem to forget that our presidents are not dictators (something you all seem to want) but have to deal with the Congress - a congress who said they will not deal with him!

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Obama has been in office for years, at some point, at some threshold, he should be blamed. He was supposed to fix everything... he has fixed it alright.

Have a look at how government run health care works and blow smoke up our rears about how it will not be exactly the same.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Once again, you have it entirely backwards. The president will not WORK ( which implies negotiation and reached agreements) with congress- he has said it over and over again. He will NOT negotiate or sway in the least. They are they only reason our president is not a dictator, as that is what his actions have demonstrated. Precisely their role as designed by our forefathers. Bypassing Congress with executive orders on important issues ( as opposed to the small things that streamline certain issues as is the normal use of executive order) is a dictatorial technique.

Your statement is an example of Orwellian double-think. As are most of your views.

After the next elections, he may be the lamest duck in all duck history, as he reaps what he has sown. I'll enjoy your rants even more then.

toma1940 Loc: Silicon Valley, CA

The number of Executive Orders since Eisenhower: Here is a list of US presidents and the number of executive orders each has signed. The president with the most executive orders was FDR with 3,522.


Barack Obama - 144 (so far)
George W. Bush - 291
Clinton - 364
George Bush - 166
Reagan - 381
Carter - 320
Ford - 169
Nixon - 346
Johnson - 325
Kennedy - 214
Eisenhower - 484. Every president has used the power of EO's to make change whether big or small.

bvm Loc: Glendale, Arizona

That's very true.

Why don't you look at how many times the following was done.

Oblame-O said :
1.) If it makes it past the senate and the house I will veto it.
2.) If one change is made to the bill I will veto it.
( but BO has changed the passed ACA either close to 40
times or over that #. NOT HIS JOB! )
3.) basically, if it's someone else's idea, it's going nowhere.


Harry R. said:
1.) it will never come up for a vote
2.) don't bother, the matter is dead
3.) it will never reach the floor

And let's not forget the house pass a bill, Harry gutted it and made it ACA and the senate passed it.
It's before the Supreme court now, and I don't think the court will ok bait and switch.

Alashisan Loc: Arizona

I third that! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:



:thumbup:

Alashisan Loc: Arizona

That's true. He found himself in the "old boy's club", where change is easier said than done.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

You are referencing old numbers, as of January of 2014- Obama is up to 168 and he has 3 years to go.

So comparing the executive order of creating "ground Hog Day" compares to the selective enforcement of Congressionally passed laws?
The President does not have the right under any circumstance to fundamentally change laws enacted by the Congress as was done with provisions of the Obamacare nor the hap-hazzard way of delaying implementation of certain parts of it, and immigration law. The President is in clear violation of the Constitution and has broken the oath of office to "faithfully execute" the laws enacted by Congress.

So in short, one oath breaking violation of Congressional law = how many ground hog day level executive orders.... unless for your graph they are equal.

They are not for me.

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

If 9/11, which happened about 8 months into "W"'s first term was somehow entirely his fault (which the democrooks did claim), then certainly anything that comes to light halfway through Bathhouse Barry's second term can be laid at his door.