Posts Tagged ‘John Kerry’

WHO HIRED THIS IDIOT -John Kerry: The Bible Commands America To Protect Muslims From Global Warming

Kerry begins this speech by stating that someone named ‘Shriek’ had drafted a strategy for American and Muslim relations. Who this Shriek is exactly is unknown, but apparently his words ‘religion matters’ is ‘a mantra in the State Dept’.

Kerry continues stating that ‘our faiths’ referring to Christianity and Islam are ‘inextricably linked’.

Kerry’s words are bizarre, to say the least. It’s basically a half-baked attempt to forge an affinity for Islam, and is a statement that the U.S. is now acquiescing to the Muslim Brotherhood, who has successfully infiltrated the United States to a great degree.
Stating that we have an obligation to protect Muslims from global warming seems like something out of the Twilight Zone series, only he’s not writing for T.V.

WHAT? -Secretary of State John Kerry: It’s a Mistake To Link Islam with Islam

john-kerry-deep-thoughts-apRewarding Islamic violence and savagery with submission is not a strategy for victory. It is surrender. And that is exactly what the Obama administration is doing.

If Obama really believes that al Qaeda, the Islamic State, Boko Haram, et al, have nothing to do with Islam, why did he give Osama Bin Laden a proper Islamic burial? Our soldiers prepared Bin Laden’s body according to Islamic law — washed him, prayed over him, etc.
Kerry tells Western leaders it would be an ‘error’ to refer to violent extremists as Islamists: ‘We may very well fuel the very fires that we want to put out’ U.S. Secretary of State was speaking to an audience of opinion leaders at the World Economic Forum
‘The biggest error we could make would be to blame Muslims for crimes…that their faith utterly rejects,’ he said
Obama administration has come under criticism for its unwillingness to refer to acts of violence committed by violent radicals as Islamic extremism
Last week Obama said the global community needs to ‘lift up those voices that represent the vast majority of the Muslim world’
The world needs to push a counter narrative as ‘aggressively and as nimbly as the messages coming’ from the radicals, he said
By Francesca Chambers For and Associated Press, January 23, 2015
Violent extremists killing children and others in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and other parts of the world may cite Islam as a justification, but the West should be careful about calling them Islamic radicals, Secretary of State John Kerry told an audience of opinion leaders Friday at the World Economic Forum.
In a speech calling for a global effort against violent extremism, Kerry said it would be a mistake to link Islam to criminal conduct rooted in alienation, poverty, thrill-seeking and other factors.
‘We have to keep our heads,’ Kerry said, according to the Associate Press.
‘The biggest error we could make would be to blame Muslims for crimes…that their faith utterly rejects,’ he added.
‘We will certainly not defeat our foes by vilifying potential partners,’ the top U.S. diplomat said. ‘We may very well fuel the very fires that we want to put out.’
Kerry’s comments highlighted a division between the U.S. and its closest allies, including French President Francois Hollande, whom Kerry memorably pressured into an awkward hug last week as a show of solidarity with the people of Paris after terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo’s headquarters.
Hollande told the same audience earlier Friday that Islamic extremism is a problem that must be opposed.
On Thursday, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond stood next to Kerry and urged the defeat of what he called ‘the scourge of violent Islamist extremism.’
The Obama administration has come under criticism for its unwillingness to differentiate between Islamic extremism and other forms of extremist violence.
Earlier this week, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii and Iraq war veteran, said it was a ‘bipartisan concern’ that Obama and his top aides don’t use the term ‘Islamic extremism.’
President Barack Obama pointedly refused to call ISIS terrorists Muslims last Friday at a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron.
Standing just a few feet away, Cameron warned of a global ‘Islamist extremist terrorist threat,’ condemning the perversion of Islam in the strongest possible terms three times and using the word ‘poisonous’ to describe the radicalized ideology five times.

Obama would not refer to the religion of ISIS militants during the White House news conference but at one point called them ‘fanatics.’
The U.S. president said the world must ‘lift up those voices that represent the vast majority of the Muslim world’ and push a counter narrative as ‘aggressively and as nimbly as the messages coming’ from the radicals.
Obama also suggested that the U.S. had an ‘advantage’ over countries like Britain when it comes to fighting terrorism because ‘our Muslim populations, they feel themselves to be Americans.’
‘There is this incredible process of immigration and assimilation that is part of our tradition. That is probably our greatest strength,’ he said.
Earlier in the week Obama’s spokesman said that the world should just call the radicals fighting with ISIS what they are: terrorists.
‘These terrorists are individuals who would like to cloak themselves in the veil of a particular religion,’ White House press Secretary Josh Earnest said. ‘But based on the fact that the religious leaders of that religion have roundly condemned their actions, those religious leaders have indicated that their actions are entirely inconsistent with Islam.’
Earnest said the fact that the ‘majority of victims of terror attacks’ are Muslim ‘is a pretty clear indication that this is not a matter of the world being at war with Islam.’
‘The world and the United States…is at war with these individuals, these violent extremists who carry out these acts of terror and try to justify it by invoking this religion.’ he stated.
He later said ISIS members were trying to ‘invoke their own distorted deviant view of Islam to try to justify’ their actions.
‘And I think that is completely illegitimate. And what we should do is we should call it what it is. And it’s an act of terror, and it’s one that we roundly condemn.’


Kerry Twists Scripture: Bible Commands America to Protect Muslims from Global Warming

Can you say hypocrite? I can, and it comes in the person of John Kerry. The Secretary of State recently twisted the Scriptures at a ceremony to appoint Texas attorney Shaarik Zafar to be special representative to Muslim communities.

In September of this year, Kerry said that a majority of Muslim countries are “vulnerable” to climate change. He then went on to talk about “faiths” as though Islam and Christianity are equal and as though Kerry actually believes Christianity.
“Our faiths are inextricably linked on any number of things that we must confront and deal with in policy concepts today,” Kerry said. “Our faiths are inextricably linked on the environment. For many of us, respect for God’s creation also translates into a duty to protect and sustain His first Creation, Earth, the planet. Before God created man He created Heaven and Earth.”

“Confronting climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges that we face, and you can see this duty or responsibility laid out in Scriptures, clearly, beginning in Genesis,” he added. “And Muslim-majority countries are among the most vulnerable. Our response to this challenge ought to be rooted in a sense of stewardship of Earth. And for me and for many of us here today, that responsibility comes from God.”
This would be comical, if it weren’t such a dangerous thing being stated.
Climate change is not a real threat, nor is it the greatest challenge we face. In fact, it’s not even in the ball park of challenges we face. The current tyrannical regime ranks at the top of the list currently, and that includes John “Winter Soldier” Kerry.
One thing that Kerry did not expound on is that at the end of the same chapter Kerry cites, God gave specific commands to man. Here’s what God said:
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. –Genesis 1:28
The very first command to man was to “be fruitful and multiply.” However, Kerry opposes the clear command of Scripture when he supports the murder of the unborn. In fact, it has been highly documented that Mr. Kerry supports the slaughter of the unborn by their mothers in clear violation to the positive command in Genesis 1:28 and the negative command in Exodus 20, which states, “You shall not murder.” By the way, in 2006, Kerry also voted “No” on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
He has advocated for contraception, as well as other means of murdering the innocent in the womb.
According to John F. Kerry: The Boston Globe Biography, Kerry seems to claim that he shouldn’t be talking about the Bible in government. In the section of the book, where Kerry is referenced as “staunchly resist(ing) restrictions on abortions, including a ban on the procedure abortion opponents have labeled ‘partial birth abortion,'” we find this little nugget:

“In a 2003 interview, Kerry said he and his second wife regularly attended Mass. But, he said, ‘I believe in the separation [of church and state]. I believe in not wearing it on my sleeve… I have my obvious, clear differences with respect to some of the liturgy.’ He added, “there are other parts that are quite stirring and meaningful.”
So Kerry thinks there should be a separation between church and state, except when it suits his agenda.
Kerry has received the highest marks (100) from NARAL, a pro-death political movement and also the lowest possible marks (0) from the National Right to Life Committee.
Kerry also opposes the “replenishing of the Earth.” The term in the Hebrew means “to fill.” In other words, God wanted man to fill the earth with other men. But what does Kerry involve himself in? That’s right, Kerry not only supports the murder of the unborn, which goes against this command as well, but also supports population control.
In 2009, he voted “No” on restricting United Nations funding for population control policies and continues to this day to advance the notion that the world is becoming over-populated.
Moving on then, we also see that Kerry has a problem with the final command and that is to “subdue” the earth and take dominion over it and the creatures across the planet. The little word subdue, means to bring it into subjection. In other words, we are to use the Earth as our subject for the glory of the true God. We are to demonstrate his communicable attributes in how we take dominion over the Earth. Yet, John Kerry doesn’t believe any of this and from what we know of him, he has no desire to glorify the God of the Bible.
If Kerry isn’t right on those first commands to man in the same chapter, how can he possibly sit there with a straight “Lurch” face and tell people the Bible commands something it never commands? Simple. He’s deceived, and he’s a deceiver.
So what is with pushing a mythical climate agenda to allegedly “protect” anti-Christ Muslims? It isn’t about any of that. It is about bringing the United States to its knees through totalitarian, communist methods, period.
When it comes to the Bible, I would suggest that Kerry refrain from speaking and leave that to those of us who actually believe it.


‘Helluva Pinpoint Operation:’ Kerry Caught On Open Mic Sarcastically Slamming Israeli Gaza Op

Does John Kerry have this mixed up?


No, Mr. Kerry: Poverty Doesn’t Produce Terrorism — Islam Does

by Pete ParkerU.S. Secretary of State John Kerry listens to a question during a joint news conference with Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in central London
Secretary of State John Kerry is not only a scathing liberal and traitor to his fellow soldiers–but he is also a blithering buffoon.

During a meeting last week with Vatican officials in Rome, Kerry spouted the following absurdity: “poverty, which in many cases is the root cause of terrorism or even the root cause of disenfranchisement on this planet.”


Kerry’s statement defies the following reality: 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden was worth an estimated $300 million.

Yeah, that’s right–$300 million!

Bin Laden–whose father was a construction magnate in Saudi Arabia–never knew the meaning of the word poverty. The terror kingpin was raised in the lap of luxury as a child, and never went wanting.

In fact–his fellow 9/11 hijackers/jihadists were all reared in upper-middleclass households. These Islamo-thugs were all well fed, clothed and educated by their parents. Not a one was ever a homeless beggar forced to scavenge through garbage cans for food.
Yet whenever the issue of poverty is discussed–despite the above mentioned facts–Kerry (and his ilk) never fail to mention that it is the leading producer of global terrorism.


So, if poverty isn’t to blame for terrorism–what is? ISLAM!

Osama bin Laden stated on numerous occasions that he was simply following the way of the Prophet Mohammed. Bin Laden often praised Mohammed for leading 72 military campaigns to violently liquidate the “pigs” and “infidels.”

In fact, bin Laden’s favorite Koranic passage was Sura 9:73 which reads: “O prophet! strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them. Their abode is hell, and an evil destination it is.

Bin Laden would often be heard reciting this passage just prior to, or just after, a terrorist attack in which innocent life was savagely eradicated at his behest.

Remember: not one major school of Islamic jurisprudence has ever (at anytime) condemned bin Laden’s use of this passage to justify his reign of terror and mayhem (including 9/11).

And why not? Because if they condemned bin Laden–they would have to condemn the very person Sura 9:73 was written for–Mohammed.

After all–Mohammed shed more innocent blood than even bin Laden.

In the final analysis–despite what the blithering buffoon says: poverty doesn’t produce terrorism–Islam does


U.S. and Russia Reach Deal to Destroy Syria’s Chemical Arms

Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov of Russia, right, shook hands on Saturday after making statements following meetings regarding Syria in Geneva.


GENEVA — The United States and Russia reached a sweeping agreement on Saturday that called for Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons to be removed or destroyed by the middle of 2014 and indefinitely stalled the prospect of American airstrikes.
Secretary of State John Kerry said a failure to comply by Syria
The joint announcement, on the third day of intensive talks in Geneva, also set the stage for one of the most challenging undertakings in the history of arms control.

“This situation has no precedent,” said Amy E. Smithson, an expert on chemical weapons at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “They are cramming what would probably be five or six years’ worth of work into a period of several months, and they are undertaking this in an extremely difficult security environment due to the ongoing civil war.”

Although the agreement explicitly includes the United Nations Security Council for the first time in determining possible international action in Syria, Russia has maintained its opposition to any military action.

But George Little, the Pentagon press secretary, emphasized that the possibility of unilateral American military force was still on the table. “We haven’t made any changes to our force posture to this point,” Mr. Little said. “The credible threat of military force has been key to driving diplomatic progress, and it’s important that the Assad regime lives up to its obligations under the framework agreement.”

In Syria, the state news agency, SANA, voiced cautious approval of the Russian and American deal, calling it “a starting point,” though the government issued no immediate statement about its willingness to implement the agreement.

In any case, the deal represented at least a temporary reprieve for President Bashar al-Assad and his Syrian government, and it formally placed international decision-making about Syria into the purview of Russia, one of Mr. Assad’s staunchest supporters and military suppliers.

That reality was bitterly seized on by the fractured Syrian rebel forces, most of which have pleaded for American airstrikes. Gen. Salim Idris, the head of the Western-backed rebels’ nominal military command, the Supreme Military Council, denounced the initiative.

“All of this initiative does not interest us. Russia is a partner with the regime in killing the Syrian people,” he told reporters in Istanbul. “A crime against humanity has been committed, and there is not any mention of accountability.”

An immediate test of the viability of the accord will come within a week, when the Syrian government is to provide a “comprehensive listing” of its chemical arsenal. That list is to include the types and quantities of Syria’s poison gas, the chemical munitions it possesses, and the location of its storage, production and research sites.

“The real final responsibility here is Syrian,” a senior Obama administration official said of the deal.

Speaking at a joint news conference with his Russian counterpart, Secretary of State John Kerry said that “if fully implemented, this framework can provide greater protection and security to the world.”

If Mr. Assad fails to comply with the agreement, the issue would be referred to the United Nations Security Council, where the violations would be taken up under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which authorizes punitive action, Mr. Kerry said.

Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia made clear that his country, which wields a veto in the Security Council, had not withdrawn its objections to the use of force.

If the Russians objected to punishing Syrian noncompliance with military action, however, the United States would still have the option of acting without the Security Council’s approval. “If diplomacy fails, the united States remains prepared to act,” President Obama said in a statement.

The issue of removing Syria’s chemical arms broke into the open on Monday when Mr. Kerry, at a news conference in London, posed the question of whether Mr. Assad could rapidly be disarmed, only to state that he did not see how it could be done.

Less than a week later, what once seemed impossible has become a plan — one that will depend on Mr. Assad’s cooperation and that will need to be put in place in the middle of a fierce conflict.

To hammer out the agreement, arms control officials on both sides worked into the night, a process that recalled treaty negotiations during the cold war.

Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lavrov held a marathon series of meetings on Friday, including a session that ended at midnight. On Saturday morning, the two sides reconvened with their arms control experts on the hotel pool deck as they pored over the text of the agreement.Obama administration officials say that Russia’s role is critical since it has been a major backer of the Assad government, and the American assumption is that much, if not all, of the accord has Mr. Assad’s assent.At the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general, pledged to support the agreement, and he announced that Syria had also formally acceded to the international Chemical Weapons Convention, effective Oct. 14.

In his statement, Mr. Obama called the use of chemical weapons “an affront to human dignity and a threat to the security of people everywhere.”

“We have a duty to preserve a world free from the fear of chemical weapons for our children,” he said. “Today marks an important step towards achieving this goal.”

Foreign Secretary William Hague of Britain issued a statement after a call with Mr. Kerry in which he welcomed the agreement on Syrian chemical weapons as a “a significant step forward.”

It was a British Parliamentary vote against military action that dampened momentum by the United States, France and Britain to conduct airstrikes in the wake of the August chemical strike in Syria.

“The priority must now be full and prompt implementation of the agreement, to ensure the transfer of Syria’s chemical weapons to international control,” Mr. Hague said. Under the agreement, titled “Framework For Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons,” an inspection of the chemical weapons sites identified by the Syrian government must be completed by November. Equipment for producing chemical weapons and filling munitions with poison gas must be destroyed by November.

The document also says that there is to be “complete elimination of all chemical weapons material and equipment in the first half of 2014.”

A priority under the agreement reached Saturday is to take steps to preclude or diminish the Assad government’s ability to employ chemical weapons before they are destroyed.

An American official said that such steps could include burning the least volatile component of binary weapons, a type of chemical agent that becomes potent only when separate elements are mixed. Another way to disable at least part of Syria’s stockpile, the official said, would be to destroy the equipment for mixing the binary component or destroying the munitions or bombs that would be filled with chemical agents.

An American official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under State Department protocol, said that the United States and Russia had agreed that Syria has 1,000 tons of chemical weapons, including sarin and mustard gas.

The United States believes there are at least 45 sites in Syria associated with its chemical weapons program. Nearly half of these have “exploitable quantities” of chemical weapons, though the American official said that some of the agents may have been moved by the Assad government.

The American official said there was no indication that any of Syria’s chemical stocks had been moved to Iraq or Lebanon, as the Syrian opposition had charged. “We believe they are under regime control,” the official said.

Russia has not accepted the American data on the number of chemical weapons sites. The difference may reflect the larger disagreement as to who was responsible for an Aug. 21 attack that the United States says killed at least 1,400 civilians, many of them women and children.

If the Russians were to agree both on the number of chemical weapons sites and that the sites are all in government-controlled areas, that would suggest that the Assad government was culpable for the attack, and not the rebel forces as the Russians have asserted.

The four-page framework agreement, including its technical annexes, are to be incorporated in a Security Council resolution that is to be adopted in New York.

One concern in carrying out the deal, however, involves how to protect international inspectors who go to Syria. There will be no cease-fire so the inspectors can carry out their work.

Asked whether rebels would aid the inspectors, General Idris, the Western-backed rebel military commander, called the issue “complicated,” saying, “If investigators come, we will facilitate the mission.”

He said there were no chemical weapons in rebel-controlled areas, adding: “I don’t know if this will just mean that investigators will pass through the regions that are under rebel control. We are ready.”

The sense of betrayal among nominally pro-Western factions in the opposition has grown intensely in recent days.

In the northern Syrian province of Idlib, a rebel stronghold, one commander said that the agreement on Saturday proved that the United States no longer cared about helping Syrians and was leaving them at the mercy of a government backed by powerful allies in Russia and Iran.

Maysara, a commander of a battalion in Saraqeb, said in an interview that he had paid little attention to the diplomacy on Saturday.

“I don’t care about deals anymore,” he said in an interview. “The Americans found a way out of the strike.”

He added: “The Russians did what they want. The Americans lied, and believed their own lie — the U.S. doesn’t want democracy in Syria. Now I have doubts about the U.S. capacities, their military and intelligence capacities. The Iranian capacity is much stronger, I guess.”



Leave John Kerry Alone--He Hadn't Had a Vacation in FOUR WHOLE MONTHS!

Kerry's yacht

There are mean people who are complaining that John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State, spent Wednesday sailing on his yacht to Nantucket Island. I think we should lighten up a bit.

First of all the guy was out of the country for 12-days trying to craft a peace between Israel and the “moderate” terrorists in Fatah. That’s gotta take a lot out of someone. Kerry loves that yacht that’s why he kept it in Rhode Island to avoid taxes until he was exposed–he doesn’t have the money..I am sure of it, because he promised he would pay the taxes anyway in 2010, but according to the Boston Herald who checked two years later he still hadn’t paid those taxes (which by that time had grown to $1,000,000). You see how much love the guy has to share? All that public embarrassment—but he had to be on that boat.

Kerry loved that boat so much that he first had the state department lie about his trip to Nantucket (that was until two many people saw him).

Now why would John Kerry have to postpone the visit with the love of his life just because one of the most important countries for American interests in the middle east was about have a revolution and overthrow the government. Besides, its not like he had advanced warning. OK the military gave Morsi 48 hours so Kerry would have known something was about to happen. But maybe he had reservations to stay at a Motel 6 or something and they wouldn’t give him his money back because it was a holiday weekend.

Some people suggested that the secretary of state interrupt his vacation and at least send a very clear signal — even by flying back to Washington for a day or two that what was happening in Egypt was important. I say hog wash. Don’t those people realize that Kerry has been Secretary of State since February 1st. That’s four whole months without a vacation. He must be bushed tired.

Come on let’s be reasonable. How many of us started a new job and then almost immediately took a vacation during a crisis? Almost all of us right? Some of us? At least 2-3 of us? World crisis be dammed, this guy earned some time off.


A backroom deal he cut for Massachusetts hospitals has caused a bipartisan uproar in Congress.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSELU.S. Secretary of State John Kerry listens to a question during a joint news conference with Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in central London

A bipartisan backlash is growing against another section of President Obama’s health-care law. The president can blame this latest embarrassment on none other than Secretary of State John Kerry.

Everyone remember the origins of the so-called Affordable Care Act? The Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, Gator-Aid, and other buyoffs for the votes of key Senate Democrats?

Three years on, yet another sweetheart deal has declared itself, this one inserted by the then-senator for Massachusetts. In Congress, it’s becoming known as the Bay State Boondoggle.

At issue are the dollars that Medicare pays to hospitals for the wages of doctors and staff. Before the new health law, states were each allocated a pot of money to divvy among their hospitals. The states are required to follow rules in handing out the funds, in particular a requirement that state urban hospitals must be reimbursed for wages at least at the levels of state rural hospitals.

Enter Mr. Kerry, who slipped an opaque provision into the Obama health law to require that Medicare wage reimbursements now come from a national pool of money, rather than state allocations. The Kerry kickback didn’t get much notice, since it was cloaked in technicality and never specifically mentioned Massachusetts. But the senator knew exactly what he was doing.

You see, “rural” hospitals in Massachusetts are a class all their own. The Bay State has only one, a tiny facility on the tony playground of the superrich—Nantucket. Nantucket College Hospital’s relatively high wages set the floor for what all 81 of the state’s urban hospitals must also be paid. And since these dramatically inflated Massachusetts wages are now getting sucked out of a national pool, there’s little left for the rest of America. Clever Mr. Kerry.

The change has allowed Massachusetts to raise its Medicare payout by $257 million, forcing cuts to hospitals in 40 other states. The National Rural Health Association and 20 state hospital associations in January sent a panicked letter to President Obama, noting that the Massachusetts manipulation of the program would hand that state $3.5 billion over the next 10 years at the expense of Medicare beneficiaries everywhere. They quoted Mr. Obama’s former head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Donald Berwick, admitting that “What Massachusetts gets comes from everybody else.”

Mr. Kerry’s Yankee ingenuity isn’t going down well with . . . most of Congress. Even representatives from the handful of states (nine) that have benefited along with Massachusetts from the new formula realize that mergers in the hospital arena, and changing “rural” designations, mean they could be hit in the future.

Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, an ardent supporter of Mr. Obama’s health law, teamed up earlier this year with Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn to introduce legislation to kill the Bay State fleecing. Sixty-eight senators voted for the amendment as part of the (nonbinding) Senate budget resolution in March. That number included 23 Democrats, among them powerhouses of the liberal caucus: New York’s Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, and Minnesota’s Al Franken.

Ms. McCaskill (whose state will lose $15 million in hospital payments this year) is now demanding a binding vote, and on Monday she sent out another letter ginning up names to add to the 23 bipartisan co-sponsors she and Mr. Coburn have for stand-alone legislation. Texas Republican Kevin Brady recently introduced a similar repeal bill in the House, where it already has 36 co-sponsors.

House Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam, a Republican co-sponsor, notes that his (and President Obama’s) home state of Illinois has already lost $60 million. “It’s a zero sum game that reinforces all of our worst fears about how the health-care law was drafted. Backroom negotiations, secret deals, and now this long con on Medicare reimbursement rates that is already doing real damage to Illinois hospitals,” he tells me.

The episode is also heaping embarrassment on the American Hospital Association, a cheerleader for the health law that is now robbing most of its members blind. Rather than endorse current boondoggle-repeal efforts—which would require it to publicly admit its mistake—the AHA is hiding behind calls for more “comprehensive reform” of the wage-payment system.

That dodge isn’t likely to satisfy its cash-strapped members for long. Indeed, the fury from state hospitals is growing daily, heaping enormous pressure on members to join this latest cleanup of the president’s rushed law.

If anything, this revolt is illuminating a notable trend. Whether it’s the 2011 repeal of the health law’s tax-reporting requirement, or the bipartisan push to repeal its medical-device tax, or this Bay State fix, the political template has looked the same. Vulnerable Democrats, under pressure from home-state constituencies, want to look willing to “fix” or “improve” parts of a wildly unpopular health law that they supported. This has provided Republicans with the opportunity to recruit them for bipartisan votes to repeal parts of the act.

That template is worth remembering as the law flails ahead into a no man’s land of soaring premiums, rickety health exchanges and expensive mandates and taxes. A lot of home-state constituencies are going to be screaming. And a lot of members are going to be looking for cover.

Write to

A version of this article appeared June 21, 2013, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: John Kerry’s ObamaCare Boondoggle.

SEO Powered By SEOPressor