Full Steam Ahead…but Maybe Trouble too…

Well it looks like the Obama-care plan is full steam ahead for a “vote” sometime soon. From reports out Wednesday it looks like the planned Saturday “vote” is out as the Congressional Budget Office is not expected to score the legislation until sometime on Thursday. But while Democrats in Congress are planning to play the end around on the legislative process and force this form of reform on the American people in the face of mounting, growing, and fierce opposition to it.

The current plan is to utilize an arcane and rarely used parliamentary provision to “pass” the healthcare legislation. This is called the “deem and pass” rule.

House lawmakers would be going on record for health care reform. But they wouldn’t be casting a vote for the Senate bill alone.

Instead, under a process called a “self-executing rule,” the House could simultaneously approve the Senate bill while voting on a package of changes to it. This would “deem” the Senate bill to be passed, without compelling members to vote for it directly. Basically, under the procedure, the Senate-passed health bill would be “deemed” to have passed if House members vote in favor of a rule governing another bill.

Democratic leaders are considering the option because many House Democrats don’t want to cast a vote in favor of the unaltered Senate bill, which they oppose for numerous reasons. But the House must pass the Senate bill in order to move on to the package of changes intended to correct all the things about it that they don’t like.

But should they do this they face stiff challenges ahead. Forget about the fact that the government will begin collecting taxes in 2011 and not begin providing services until at least 2013 or 2014! But the federal government will face challenges in the legal arena from the states. Just today, Idaho Governor C.L. Otter (R) signed a measure that instructs his state attorney general to sue the federal government if the current form of healthcare reform is passed by Congress. The measure requires the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance. Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.

Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states. But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. And that is not all that reflects that growing frustration. For the first time, the most recent Gallup poll shows that more Americans disapprove of the job President Obama is doing than approve. In the poll, 47 percent of Americans disapprove of Obama’s job performance compared to 46 percent who approve. Obama’s job approval rating fell to 46 percent last week, an all-time low for the president.

The plunging rating threatens to weaken the president’s influence beyond the health care debate to pass a largely ambitious agenda that includes immigration overhaul, climate change legislation and education reform. It could also put distance between Obama and Democratic lawmakers up for re-election in November who see no benefit in having an increasingly unpopular president stump for them. Obama’s campaigning efforts have already failed to help notch victories in gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey and the Senate contest in Massachusetts in replace Ted Kennedy.

Another State Attorney General, Republican Kenneth Cuccinelli, who last month went to court to oppose the federal plan to regulate greenhouse gases, said in the letter that using the so-called “deem and pass” rule would expose President Barack Obama’s signature domestic initiative to a constitutional challenge.

Cuccinelli joins other Republicans who have opposed the possible maneuver. “Based upon media interviews and statements which I have seen, you are considering this approach because it might somehow shield members of Congress from taking a recorded vote on an overwhelmingly unpopular Senate bill,” Cuccinelli wrote in the letter to the Democratic speaker. “This is an improper purpose under the bicameralism requirements of Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, one of the purposes of which is to make our representatives fully accountable for their votes.”

And so, it appears that while there might be a temporary victory for Congressional Democrats and the President, there would still be an uphill battle to face if this form of reform takes effect. And that uphill battle, rolls directly towards the November elections of 2010. And I therefore leave the Democrats and my fellow Republicans with this tonight. It’s a piece of advice if you will. Americans send people to Washington, D.C., to be their representatives — to cast votes that represent the will of the people…and right now, the people a’int willing to take this.

One Year Later … My State of the Union

It has been a year since I started this blog. Yes there have been times where I have not been able to post as much as I would like or at all. But today I reflect back on the day that I started this blog. It was January 20, 2009 and the Inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. A lot has changed since that day, and a lot still has not. The things that have not interest me for a President that was elected on a wave of “CHANGE WE CAN HOPE IN (or something…)”. If you asked me what I think the State of our Union is here is what I would say:

My fellow Americans…the State of our Union is troubled. The true core of our Union is strong, because the core of our Union is the people. The American people continue to have an entrepreneurial spirit, a charitable spirit, and a strong sense of character. However, the current state of affairs out of Washington have left the American economy and the American public in a troubled state of affairs. Currently, 10% of our citizens is out of work, and struggling to pay their bills and take care of their children. However, this Administration and this Congress have done nothing but provide smoke and mirrors as solutions to this problem. The stimulus package that was passed last year did not stimulate the economy and did little to boost consumer confidence. It seems that the liberal Democrats have forgotten the basic premise in economic that consumer spending accounts for 70+% of our economy. The stimulus they passed only increased government spending and did little to help the consumer. Rather than empower the American people or American businesses to invest in this economy and truly bring it back from the brink. Our government and our country can no longer afford to spend the way we are spending. Our national debt is skyrocketing, and is devaluing the true value of our currency and our economy. There needs to be some serious change in Washington, pork spending and other government expenditures need to be trimmed and fast. I would advocate the development of an independent panel that would recommend to the President which agencies and programs could “sunset” and reduce the overall cost and budget of the federal government. The size of our government must be reduced and government spending must be brought under control. The government can not be the sole creator of jobs in this country, small business owners are the true job creating engine of this country.

We need true bipartisan health care reform, without a government funded, government executed, government facilitated health insurance program. We need this government to focus on the economy and our troops in the war zone. We do not need government to increase taxes because this will in the end reduce economic growth. We need to give the money back to the people who earn it and truly and realistically reduce spending in Washington. The freeze being proposed by the President tonight does little to alleviate the true spending concern, it simply halts the spending level at its already elevated level. This can not continue for much longer. There needs to be change.

These are just a few quick thoughts I had time to jot down before the State of the Union Address tonight. I will post my reaction to the address tonight and as we continue I will to detail what I think the State of our Union is right now and how it can be addressed.

“You Lie!” … The Outburst heard Around the World

Ok so “around the world” may be a bit of an overstatement, but certainly by now everyone has heard of the outburst from Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) during Barack Obama’s address to the joint session this week. Now, some of my friends (a lot) were excited about it, proud, glad it happened, etc. Everyone (my GOP folks at least) seemed to be somewhat gleeful about this occurance…except me. Call me crazy but I still believe in something called decorum. Heres a clip if you haven’t seen it:

Now, the message behind Sen. Wilson’s comment was spot on. The President was being misleading when he said whatever reforms would not cover illegals. Well just because the bills didn’t specifically say they would cover illegals doesn’t mean it wouldn’t. It is what we like to call a loophole. There were no measures in that bill that pertained to verification of residency (i.e. illegals could sign up and there is no way we could make sure they weren’t here unlawfully). This isn’t Republicans being inhumane or anti-people, this is about spending money responsibly (and its good to see Republicans actually do that for a change). With what this bill will cost the taxpayers, none of it should go to provide coverage or insurance to illegal immigrants. All attempts by Republicans to put in place verification provisions were shot down by the Democrats. So yes, Rep. Wilson was spot on with the message he was trying to get across. And “You Lie!” is definately shorter than “You’re Being Misleading!” (HAHA)

But here is why I wasn’t too pleased with Rep. Wilson, its all about approach. And it is also about decorum. Now for my conservative friends…go with me on this because I have already been called a moron for what I am about to say. This is probably the first time a President has been called a liar in the chamber of the House of Representatives (we should differentiate that from television…seriously). While a President’s remarks may be met with groans and boos at times, a Congressman has never called them a liar in the chamber. There is a reason for it. DECORUM! Now rather than talking about the message behind what Rep. Wilson was trying to say, they are just talking about his heckle. His message is being lost along the way. Although not too much, because now there is word that the Senate has closed the loophole that could have been used to cover illegal immigrants. Yes, the bill itself does not specifically cover illegals, but it had no verification in it…illegals could have been covered which is what Rep. Wilson was talking about. It is important for all of us to conduct ourselves with a bit more of statesmanship.

Some of my conservative friends have said that Democrats and Liberals never hesitated to call President Bush a liar or smear him. Well here is what I say to that…if we were frustrated by that or upset by it … why would we put ourselves on that level. Let us elevate the way we respond so that nobody can take issue and must debate it solely on issues rather than inflamatory statements.

HEALTHCARE: New Plan to be Introduced by Sen. Baucus

Ahead of President Obama’s speech to a joint-session of Congress tomorrow night, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) is set to introduce a new plan for healthcare reform. This plan has some hope of being bipartisan, as Sen. Baucus is working in what has become known as the “Gang of Six” within the Finance Committe. This new plan has some improvment for those who have been opposed to other recent legislation (HR 3200 for one) that included a “public option” or government facilitated health insurance. However, there is one portion that might not go over so well for some of the American people, a hefty fine for not purchasing  health insurance. Here is an article from FOXNews.com:

Families who fail to get health insurance could be fined up to $3,800 under a health care reform plan proposed by a top Senate negotiator.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is leading talks among the “Gang of Six” senators to hammer out a bipartisan compromise, offered what he described on Tuesday as a “framework” and not a “final product.”

But the detailed proposal comes just days ahead of a self-imposed Sept. 15 deadline for such a deal. Baucus is pushing his committee members hard to hammer out a bill, and those details come as strong suggestions.

The framework, a copy of which was obtained by FOX News, includes what amounts to a no-choice option. It would make health insurance mandatory, like auto insurance.

The plan would provide tax credits to help cover the cost for people making up to three times the federal poverty level. That’s about $66,000 for a family of four, and $32,000 for an individual.

Those who still don’t sign up would face hefty fines, starting at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families — for those making up to three times the poverty level.

For those who make more than that, the penalty on individuals would jump to $950 and the penalty on families would jump to $3,800.

There would be a few exemptions, including for Native Americans and for those making incomes below the federal poverty level.

The plan does not include a government-run health insurance plan to soften the blow of the coverage mandate.

Instead, Baucus opts for a system of non-profit cooperatives, as part of a broader health insurance exchange.

As a way to pay for the package, Baucus is proposing a 35 percent excise tax on insurance companies for high-cost plans — defined as those above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for family plans.

The Senate Finance Committee is meeting Tuesday, as President Obama prepares to deliver a high-stakes speech to both chambers of Congress Wednesday night in a bid to invigorate the push for reform.

Four committees have already passed their bills; Baucus’ panel is the only one yet to act. His committee’s bill is also the only one that could be considered bipartisan.

Baucus hits major elements in his plan that other top Democrats say are important. His plan would require health insurance plans to guarantee coverage and would prohibit them from excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

Premiums would be allowed to vary based only on tobacco use, age and size of family.

While this is a step forward, and it is good that it no longer contains the “public option” these hefty fines for non-compliance are still worrysome. Depending on how well these non-profit insurance agencies work to making coverage more affordable this still might hurt those who are not poor, and yet still can not afford coverage. This would add insult to injury, not only do you not have coverage or can’t afford it, but then you would need to pay a federal fine for not being able to afford it…and would you be able to afford that fine? Make no mistake, this is a step in the right direction, however there needs to be an inclusion of a provision that allows insurers to compete over state lines, and to lower the number of frivolous lawsuits against doctors. While some suits are legitimate and have merit, not all of them do and are done as a “get rich quick” opportunity. However, we have heard from Howard Dean that Democrats are unwilling to take on tort reform, because they are unwilling or afraid to also take on trial lawyers (major Democratic supporters) as well as conservatives, and the American people. It is time for statesmen and leadership, and not a time to be afraid to take on certain interest groups. Our leaders need to work together to take on whoever needs to be taken on to work out a legitmate and functional reform of healthcare. We have a long way to go until something is workable, but we can’t have Democrats threatening a nuclear option, or go-it alone strategy. While they would have the “success” of healthcare reform, they would have the sour taste of forcing it down the people’s throats. That would not bode well for them as we head into the 2010 elections. If they can become statesmen, and step above the partisan fray, they might have a chance at redeeming themselves in the eyes of the American voters.

Why We Don’t Need Socialized Medicine

This video is a response to another video titled, “Why We Need Government-Run Universal Socialized Health Insurance” (click here to see that video). This video doesn’t edit the original…just adds to it with explanations to the contrary. This is posted just for informative purposes. Enjoy…its pretty good.

One key thing I want to point out from this video is the notion that insurance companies take out some of the money you pay in just as pure profit. The responding video points out correctly that revenue – expenditures = profits. Profits are therefore taken out at the end, if they are left over at all. For example, a company that one of my relatives works for (I won’t say who or what company because I don’t want to give away anything that might have been privaliged information and shared with me in confidence) … that company and employees paid $1.5 Million in premiums to their insurance company. Their insurance company paid out $4 Million in claims. So the insurance company took a loss of nearly $2.5 Million! So it saw no profit from the premiums paid out … yet it still paid out the claims from these employees. Just an example as to the fact that insurance companies don’t take out anything as pure profits as the original video claimed.

Healthcare: What Would Reagan Say?

Again, I feel compelled to post some audio of Ronald Reagan speaking out against socialized medicine. Now you can call me an extremest or naive, and say that the Democrats and President Obama are not advocating socialized medicine akin to Canadian or British systems. But listen to this clip that was put together and aird on the Glenn Beck Radio Program. Please know that this is only being used to give some perspective, not because its from Glenn Beck. I have been accused in the past of idolizing Glenn Beck, like Democrats idolize Obama. While I listen to his program, he and I are not always in agreement so take this audio for what its truly worth.

I want to point out some key quotes from this audio piece (which has been awesomely remixed with some music). Reagan talks about the proposals (much like today’s) under the Truman Administration that would advocate for a “public option” health insurance, but would make it much more compulsory then than perhaps current legislation suggests. So we will begin after the jump:

Who “Acted Stupidly?”

>UPDATE: Read the Police Report from Cambridge Police Dept. (.pdf) – HERE

By now we have all heard of the foot in mouth moment for President Obama at his Wednesday Press Conference. While responding to a question at the end of the conference relating to the arrest of well known Harvard black scholar Henry Gates Jr. President Obama said that Cambrige Police “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates, accused the men of essentially being racist, and impugned police officers everywhere. All this, as with much of what Obama has done in his 6 months in office, without all of the facts.

Gates was arrested July 16th by Sgt. James Crowley, who was the first officer to respond to the home which the renowned scholar rents from Harvard University, after a woman reported seeing two black men trying to force open the front door. Gates said he had to shove the door open because it was jammed.

He was charged with disorderly conduct after police said he (Gates) yelled at the white officer, accused him of racial bias, made insulting remarks about the officer’s mother, and refused to calm down after Crowley demanded Gates show him identification to prove he lived in the home. Gates responded firstly to these requests with “Why because I am a black man in America?” It was Gates who became beligerent and began throwing around charges of racism, when it appears racial profiling had nothing to do with this situation. There was a report of two black men breaking into the house. JUST FYI, Professor Gates is BLACK! He wasn’t profiled, he fit a citizen’s description of someone who was thought to be breaking into a home! The charge was dropped Tuesday, but Gates has demanded an apology, calling his arrest a case of racial profiling. But it was Gates who is responsible for reverse racial profiling. He assumed that a white police officer was only asking him these questions because he was black.

Obama was asked about Gates’ arrest at the end of a nationally televised news conference on health care Wednesday night and began his response by saying Gates was a friend and he didn’t have all the facts.

This is Obama’s response from the press conference on Wednesday (and I will respond individually to certain aspects in bold), “But I think it’s fair to say (a), No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry. No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly (b) in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home (c). And No. 3 — what I think we know separate and apart from this incident — is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that’s just a fact.” (d)

• A – “It’s fair to say that any of us would be angry.” Obama thinks that anyone of us would be angry if a police officer was investigating a break-in and asked us for identification to show we lived at the house. All Prof. Gates had to say was, ‘this is my home, here’s my ID that shows that.’ If it were me I would perhaps feel it to be awkward but would give the Officer a chance to explain and not accuse him of racial profiling.
• B – Is it stupid to arrest a man who essentially verbally acosts a police officer? Is it stupid to ask someone if they live at a home when it is reported that people are breaking into it? Lest we forget that someone reported to police that two BLACK men were breaking into Gates’ home. When the officer responded he saw Gates, who is a BLACK man. So one of two thoughts, this is either the homeowner and there two people in the home that he doesn’t know about, or this is one of the men who is reported to have broken into the home! How is that stupid, Mr. President?
• C – There was no proof the Professor Gates was in his home. Why? Because he initially REFUSED to provide identifcation to the officer. He could have been arrested for failure to identify himself to the officer. When he later identified himself, he began a tirade against the officer following the officer out on to the porch and lodging accusations of racism, making disparaging comments about the officer’s mother, and using foul and abrasive language. Remember, Prof. Gates was not arrested for trespassing but rather for disorderly conduct. He was warned that his behavior was disorderly and he could be arrested, yet he continued his tirade toward the officer. Race had nothing to do with it… in fact there are photos (which I will post links to here when I find them as I saw them on television) that shows black officers present as Prof. Gates was being arrested!
• D – Yes there is a history of people being pulled over for DWB or DWM (driving while black or mexican), but to assume based on what you’ve heard that the police are automatically at fault is just as wrong. Again I point out that the report was that two black men broke into this home and Prof. Gates is black. The officer wasn’t trolling the neighborhood looking for a black man going into a home … if he was I would say he was wrong. Gates was arrested for verbally acostive behavior not for trespassing. He was arrested for his actions after the officer realized he was the occupant of the home not based on race. The President is wrong, not because he’s black, but because he is simply wrong.

This afternoon, the President stopped short of apologizing. He said that through his words, “I gave an impression” that the Sgt. or the Cambrige police were wrong. Well, refer yourself to his statement from Wednesday. The Presient plainly said, “the Cambridge police acted stupidly.” You didn’t give an impression, you SAID THAT! All this based on what you heard, not what you knew. You could have read the police report Mr. President, but you didn’t.

The President also said that race is still a troubling aspect of our society. I myself am a minority, and I have never felt maligned or profiled against. However, what appears to be a continued antagonism by high profile black activists (i.e. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) have led to a culture where some blacks automatically assume any questioning of them by police is “racial profiling.” Does it happen? Yes, that can not be denied. However, at times some are too quick to rush to that judgement. This can even be seen in the statement from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D), who said that what happened to Prof. Gates was, “every black man’s nightmare.” I would say to Gov. Patrick that any policeman’s nightmare is likely being publicly accused of “stupidly” acting racist wether it be by the public, or by your President and Governor.  

Another interesting take is found here from a Professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. It is a good read!

NEW: $18 Million of Stimulus being Spent to Redesign Recovery.org

This from the ABC News blog the Note:

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: For those concerned about stimulus spending, the General Services Administration sends word tonight that $18 million in additional funds are being spent to redesign the Recovery.gov Web site.The new Web site promises to give taxpayers more information about where their money is going than the current version of the site.

“Recovery.gov 2.0 will use innovative and interactive technologies to help taxpayers see where their dollars are being spent,” James A. Williams, commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, says in a press release announcing the contract awarded to Maryland-based Smartronix Inc. “Armed with easy access to this information, taxpayers can make government more accountable for its decisions.”  

The contract calls for spending $9.5 million through January, and as much as $18 million through 2014, according to the GSA press release.

“We are pleased that another major milestone has been achieved,” Earl E. Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, says in the press release. “We thank the GSA for its assistance and look forward to working with Smartronix.”

UPDATE:  The RNC has released a new web ad mocking the Obama administration’s decision to allocate additional funds to the redesign of the Recovery.gov Web site.

Here is a hint for the Obama Administration, we don’t need a fancy website to find out how our money is being spent. We just need something simple. Perhaps and excell spreadsheet broken down by state with the various projects listed and amount of money spent. Perhaps a column about how many jobs were created by that expenditure. Hmm…sounds pretty good to me…maybe Obama should pay me $18 Million for that. With all the talk of a second stimulus package being needed it begs the question. Was stimulus one (as I will call it now) a waste of a ton of money? Maybe…maybe not. The thing is that not even a quarter of the money has even been spent. So was ask for another one, if the money hasn’t even been spent at all. WTF Obama … WTF?!?!?

Judging the Judge: Sonia Sotomayor Nominated to High Court

President Barack Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomyor, of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, to be the first Latina (if confirmed) to serve on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). She may have led a life that relates to the image of what is the American dream of coming from nearly nothing to being one step from one of (if not the) most prominent position in the country. However, her qualities as a Second Circuit judge might be a hinderance to her qualifications. While she most likely will and probably should be confirmed to the court, there are issues that I feel that the Judge should respond to and explain. Let me point out what I feel should be answered:

1. IDENTITY POLITICS – “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

Judge Sotomayor by this type of thinking is linking herself with the wing of the Democratic party that subscribes to the ideas of identity politics. This is typical of the type of reverse racism that may have led to her decision in the Ricci v. Destefano case. Rather than looking into the constitutional issues that were raised in Ricci, Sotomayor may have used her personal beliefs to in essence reversely descriminiate against white firefighters. I think the Judge has to answer to questions over how her racial identity or beliefs will play into her decision making. This is not because she is hispanic (I myself am hispanic) … it is because she has said statements like this. I would question a white male nominee who said he might make a better decision than that of a latina, or a black person. Statements like these should be questioned no matter who says them. It shows at least some level of racial bias, and that does not belong on the high court.

2. IMPARTIALITY – Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere “aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” And she suggested that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” may help explain why “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

Watching the White House staff and pundits talk about Sotomayor, we see that those who wish to see her swifty and easily confirmed constantly want to move away from criticism and talk about Sotomayor’s background of growing up in the Bronx and her education at Princeton and Yale Law. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to uphold the law, interpret the Constitution and its overall and general original intent. What is her position on the interpretation of the Constitution.

3. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM – In a video, Sotomayor says, “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience because it is…court of appeals is where policy is made…and I know, and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law I know [audience laughter] … um, I, okay, I know, I know….I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I’m, [audience laughter] you know [Sotomayor laughter] okay.”

Does she really believe that the Court of Appeals is where policy should be made? What then is the purpose of the Congress or government all together. She knew that her comment was wrong (I will post the video later) because she turns to others and says that she shouldn’t say it and finds it funny. She needs to account for that, because again, the Supreme Court is not supposed to legislate or make policy, it is supposed to interpret the Constitution. There is no place for judicial activism, perhaps this is why 90% of Sotomayor’s cases that have come before the Supreme Court have been overturned. Perhaps it is because she doesn’t have a good grasp of what legal interpretation should be. Perhaps its because she has been too much of an activist, and attempting to make policy. She needs to answer questions on this.

Soon, I will post and comment on some of her more notable cases and reversals. Sotomayor may have the credentials on paper, but other statements and actions might actually disqualify her. Stay tuned.

This is was $328,835 Buys You

If you wondered what you could buy for $328,835 … this is what the federal government thought was a good purchase. After initially saying they would not release the photo (and after a Freedom of Information Request), the Obama White House finally released this photo of the Presidential plane flying above the Statue of Liberty at an altitude of about 1,000 feet. Not only did the plane fly over the Statue, it flew over Lower Manhattan (site of 9/11) and parts of New Jersey’s financial center.

I already posted about the situation and the panic it caused in the city and then the anger that something this idiotic could happen. This from WPXI:

The captivating photograph was released Friday, hours after a White House official announced that an administration aide lost his job for his role in the photo-op flyover debacle.

A White House official said Obama accepted the resignation of military office director Louis Caldera.

Caldera, a former Army secretary, took responsibility for the Air Force flyover that sparked several evacuations of buildings in New York City and New Jersey, nearly 2 weeks ago.

A review of the flight near the Statue of Liberty was conducted by the White House shortly after the incident. It’s slated to be released Friday afternoon.

The person who should face some sort of backlash or punishment is the Deputy Chief of Staff (who might have actually been informed about this stunt) but said … that he didn’t see it because he was on pain medication. Another excuse … the Military Office Director might have sent an email to a seperate email account that the Deputy doesn’t check. HOW STUPID DO YOU THINK WE ARE? Honestly, quit trying to cover your own ass and own up to your mistake. Don’t one of your subordinates take the fall for your incompitance.