Twenty two points. It’s not a typo.

According to a poll released by Fox News this week, 56 percent of voters say they would rather get rid of Obamacare and go back to the health care system that was in place in 2009, compared to only 34 percent who look forward to sticking with the law.

The left will shout that it’s a Fox News poll, must be biased. But two firms – one Republican, one Democratic, conducted the survey jointly. And the same Fox News in February found only a six point margin – with 48 percent wanting a return to 2009 versus 42 percent wanting to stick with Obamacare.

What’s more 53 percent said their health care situation will be worse under the new law, while only 26 percent said they think it’s going to be better.

Strange how rational Americans can be, saying “no” to Death Panels. Yes, Death Panels, what else to call the rationing that is inevitable when you try to provide more health care with the same resources?

I have two relatives over 75 who recently underwent successful hip replacements. You think under Obamacare they would have expensive hip surgery? No, they’d be told to take cheap generic pain killers for the rest of their days and live with any remaining pain the drugs can’t help.

Okay, so in this case not Death Panels. Pain Panels. Or maybe, Wish I Was Dead Panels.

And Americans are saying “no” to higher premiums, crummier care, job losses, higher deficits, and all the rest of what we’re finding out about now that we know what’s in the bill.

And yet, it’s hard to feel sorry for people. Obamacare was the president’s signature initiative, and he was reelected. Lots of Republicans stayed home. Not that the author of Romneycare could be trusted to do much about Obamacare, but as a political animal, Mitt Romney would have at least had some incentive since he’d surely have sought a second term.

Republicans have a huge opportunity here for political advantage heading into 2014 and then 2016. They plan to use it. But Republicans, as we know, have trouble executing plans.

Now this is fascinating.

President Obama Thursday deceptively took Osama Bin Laden’s words out of context to help make a point about how al Qaeda is on its knees and we can curtail our use of drones – and start winding down the rest of the War on Terror. Or what’s apparently now “The War on a Couple of Remaining Terrorists.”

Next time get your facts straight, infidel.

The deception was uncovered by terrorism analyst Thomas Joscelyn, who wrote today in The Weekly Standard. Joscelyn notes that the drone program has indeed been effective at killing bad guys. But he also makes the important point that drones are a tactic, not a strategy – and a tactic to which al Qaeda has adjusted.

In Thursday’s grand strategy speech before the National Defense University, Obama said this:

To begin with, our actions are effective. Don’t take my word for it. In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden’s compound, we found that he wrote, “We could lose the reserves to enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives.”

Sounds like Bin Laden is saying, OMG, we’re even about to lose the reserves! We’re helpless with our primitive explosives before these high-tech air strikes!

But Joscelyn takes a look at the entire document of Bin Laden’s writings, as released by the White House, and notices that, well, that’s not what Bin Laden was saying at all. Here’s the full quote:

The Ummah will use the reserve in the future, but during the appropriate time. In the meanwhile, we do not want to send the reserves to the front line, especially in areas where the enemy only uses air strikes to attack our forces. So, the reserves will not, for the most part, be effective in such conflicts. Basically, we could lose the reserves to enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives!

What Bin Laden is actually saying is – We got reserves, let’s not waste them! And, Bin Laden goes on the suggest, he has lots of reserves:

It is known that they teach in military and war science that if a war breaks out between two countries, the two countries do not send all of their forces to the front line. Instead, they hold back some forces, especially forces with special training . . .

We still have a powerful force which we can organize and prepare for deployment.

Now, whether or not Bin Laden has a “powerful force” lying in wait – I got no idea. What’s important here is that Obama has selectively quoted Bin Laden to suggest Bin Laden himself knows the jig is up. And that just ain’t so.

Uhhhh boy. And he was on his way to give the commencement address at Annapolis.

President Obama Friday morning forgot to salute the Marine who ceremonially stands guard as the president boards his helicopter. Instead, merrily chomping his Nicorette, Obama sauntered past the man and hopped up the steps to the chopper.

I’ve never seen this happen in 15 years covering the White House.

Someone clearly noticed, or Obama remembered, and he came back out and shook the Marine’s  hand. Which I’ve also never seen.

Anyway, here you go.

Attorney General Eric Holder may have lied under oath last week when he told a House committee that he has never been involved in the “potential prosecution” of reporters for disclosing classified material.

Michael Isikoff of NBC News reported Thursday that in fact Holder himself signed off on the search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a possible “co-conspirator” in a crime that involved reporting he did that resulted in the release of classified information.

Sounds like a “potential prosecution” to me. But here”s what Holder said in answer to questions from Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) of the House Judiciary Committee:

With regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy. In fact, my view is quite the opposite.

Here’s a video of the exchange. Holder’s possible perjury comes just before the five minute mark.

Last night Karl Rove began the drumbeat, charging Holder’s statement was “potentially a lie to Congress.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Wednesday when to great pains to assert that Obama doesn’t think reporters should be prosecuted:

The President’s view is that if you were to ask him should a reporter ever be prosecuted for doing his or her job, the answer in his view is no.

So how does it make sense that they get labeled potential “co-conspirators?”

In a featured column in the Wall Street Journal today, attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. writes that the Justice Department has “has completely lost sight of the First Amendment” in its pursuit of reporters.

He notes that the Supreme Court, even as recently as 2001, has been clear that reporters must be permitted to do their jobs:

The Supreme Court, however, has repeatedly made clear that the First Amendment forbids the government from making it a crime for a reporter who lawfully obtains information of public concern to publish it—even if he knows his source may have committed a crime by leaking the information.

As the court explained in Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001)—a case in which a radio station broadcast the tape of a cellphone conversation it knew had been illegally recorded and disclosed in violation of federal wiretapping laws—”a stranger’s illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern.” To conclude otherwise, the court added, would encourage “timidity and self-censorship” . . .

In the words of the Supreme Court in Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States (1953), the press is tasked with “vigilantly scrutinizing” the government “as a potent check on arbitrary action or abuse.”Apparently none of this matters to the prosecutors (in the Rosen case).

H/T to Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit

The  State Department spokeswoman who played a pivotal role in deleting portions of the Benghazi talking points has been tapped by President Obama for a plum new post, bagging a nomination to become assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

Nuland is a career foreign service officer who had held many high-level positions, including under George W. Bush. But her nomination to handle the European portfolio will likely be seen by Republicans as an example of the president flipping the bird their way.

Senate confirmation in the current environment would seem unlikely, at best.

During the process of whittling the original CIA talking points down, a reference to participation in the Benghazi attack by al Qaeda-linked elements was deleted. Nuland had expressed “serious concerns” about mentioning the terrorists. And she also asserted that including references to previous attacks against foreigners in Benghazi “could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

Nuland was particularly aggressive, pursuing the matter until the concerns of her superiors were satisfied.

Thank you for reading White House Dossier! Today I’m reminding everyone that you may also subscribe. Just enter your email address here. You’ll receive the free OBAMAGRAM newsletter and updates on breaking White House news. No spam, and we won’t share your email address.

Lois Lerner refuses to resign . . . Washington Post
Lawmakers focus on White House-IRS meetings . . . Examiner
Republicans wary of special prosecutor . . . The Hill
Holder signed off on Rosen warrant . . . NBC News
Obama orders Justice Department review . . . Fox News
Obama: War on Terror must end . . . Wall Street Journal
Obama seeking to distance himself from Bush . . . National Journal
GOP blasts Obama over call to repeal 9/11 law . . . Fox News
Boehner: House won’t pass immigration bill . . . Washington Times
Young JFK admired Hitler . . . The Daily Mail

“If I had a haaammer . . . I’d hammer in the morrrrning. But in the evening, I’d audit the Family Research Council.”

- Lois Lerner

A note from our attorneys: This is not a real quote

9:20 am || Departs White House
9:40 am || Arrives Annapolis
10:00 am || Delivers the commencement address; U.S. Naval Academy
12:50 pm || Departs Annapolis
1:10 pm || Arrives White House
2:15 pm || Signs a bill designating the Congressional Gold Medal commemorating the lives of the four young girls killed in the 16th Street Baptist Church Bombing of 1963.

All times Eastern
Live stream of Obama speech at 10:00 am

As a public service . . . White House Dossier has identified a first-rate location for President Obama to put his terrorists once he closes Guantanamo Bay.

It’s completely surrounded by shark-infested freezing water, so there’s no escape. The natives have a thick accent that is hard for those with English as a second language to understand, so communication will be difficult.

My understanding is that the White House is aware of this place and, given the importance he attaches to closing Gitmo, the president may head their in August to inspect it himself.

You can find this new prison for terrorists here.

I hope you’ll agree this is an appropriate place to put them.

President Obama today got the heck heckled out of him by Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin as he was discussing his plan to close Guantanamo. Her complaint was that she wants him to . . . close Guantanamo. Okay, it doesn’t make sense. But being crazy is not really about making sense.

Have a look. I’ve never seen such a successful and thorough heckling.

What I love about this is that Obama tries to reason with her, and even at one point commends her for giving voice to a serious and difficult issue – when instead he should have been asking security to wrap her up in gauze and take her to a mental hospital.

Here is Benjamin being removed after someone finally figured out she was not up to rational discourse today.

And the video of her procession toward the exit:

It occurs to me, there’s another crazy person Obama thinks it’s possible to reason with.

Because, you know, if you can just get people to understand, just talk to them, they won’t do bad things. Because deep down, we’re really all the same.

Peace out.

Photo of Benjamin by Ryan J. Reilly. H/T to Mediaite for the heckling video and to one of our readers, DeniseVB, for finding the video of Benjamin.

The speech has concluded.

Well, this will really make the next secret meeting on the budget they have rather chummy.

Looks like he ain’t saying much.

As you may be aware, Rosen has had his phones and emails culled by DOJ as part of a investigation into a State Department source who allegedly leaked him classified information. Rosen himself may be targeted, since he was named as a potential “co-conspirator.”

Rosen is clearly very worried that these people – as in, the ones at the “Justice” Department – are wrecking his career. I mean, would you talk to James Rosen on background at this point?

I pity James. I’ve known him for many years – he covered the White House for a long time. He’s smart, totally unpretentious for a TV guy, and a real reporter who digs for stuff.

It’s ironic that he would be caught up in this, because he has a personal interest in the Nixon Watergate saga. He published a book in 2008, “The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate.”

I wish him well and hope sincerely that he is able to continue the great reporting he’s always done.

H/T to Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit.

The next time President Obama holds a press conference – if he ever does such a thing again, given how annoying it will be for  him – it will be fair to wonder, as you listen in, WHETHER HE HAS ANY IDEA WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT.

I'll check with one of the interns and get back to you. Photo by Keith Koffler

Think about it. The IRS was probing conservatives. A report was coming out, and it seems like everyone in the White House knew about it – the Counsel, the chief of staff, a deputy chief of staff and other aides the White House won’t tell us about. Except the president didn’t know.

So perhaps a reporter will try asking him if the administration is sending heavy arms Syrian rebels. Maybe someone is doing it but doesn’t want him to know so he can credibly deny it to other world leaders. Or let’s say someone asks about any of the scandals. It’s reasonable at this point to assume that he’s not the right person to query since someone may be PROTECTING him.

The White House claim that the witholding from the president of information on the report was done by a bunch of White House boy scouts to avoid any kind of perception of meddling in an inspector general investigation doesn’t make much sense. The White House already knew. If there was going to be meddling, it would far more likely have been done by staff than the president. This was purely an operation to protect the president’s political backside.

Obama’s getting slammed for not knowing what’s going on in his administration. But it seems he doesn’t even know what’s going on in his own chief of staff’s office.

Maybe Valerie Jarrett should do the next press conferences instead. Or if Obama does it, the staff should at least make sure he reads the papers first so he knows what’s going on.

H/T to Mike Joyce from North Carolina, a smart dude who gave me the idea for this piece. He tweets as MJUSA.

“Maybe people will pay attention to my jobs proposal if I say I just found out about it last month.”

- Barack Obama

A note from our attorneys: This is not a real quote

WH admits four Americans killed by drones . . . Fox News
Obama to limit targets of drone strikes . . . New York Times
Will restart effort to shut down Gitmo . . . Fox News
On IRS, WH Counsel shielded Obama . . . Washington Post
Insurers pressured by White House-linked group . . . The Hill
Pritzker’s family stashed millions offshore . . . Washington Times
Obama to visit Oklahoma Sunday . . . Washington Times
Kerry seeks to restart Mideast peace effort . . . Associated Press
Obama’s history of targeting the media . . . Daily Caller

Guess what? The lady may have protested too much!

IRS official Lois Lerner may have waived her right to Fifth-Amendment sanctioned silence before the House Oversight Committee because she decided to issue an in-your-face statement during today’s hearing about how she never did anything wrong.

Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) told Politico he plans to haul her . . . posterior . . . right back into the witness seat whence it arose.

“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”

Lerner’s possible mistake was noticed immediately by the sharp-minded Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a former prosecutor, who wanted to keep her before the committee.

He said lawmakers should at least be able to ask her questions about assertions she made in her statement.

“Think back to a trial,” he said. “You want to tell the jury you didn’t commit the crime but you don’t want the prosecutor to ask you any questions after you do it?”

He added: “That never would be allowed to happen.”

I mean, I’m just a caveman. I don’t understand the law. Your modern ways frighten and confuse me. But if you are invoking the Fifth Amendment right not to have to testify against yourself on the grounds that you might incriminate yourself, how does it make sense to be allowed to say you did nothing wrong? How can you, as Gowdy notes, just say, “I’m innocent,” and then be allowed to shut up and not be asked about it?

See you soon, Ms. Lerner!
 

10:15 am || Receives the Presidential Daily Briefing
11:00 am || Meets with senior advisors
12:30 pm || Lunch with Biden
2:00 pm || Delivers speech on the Administration’s counterterrorism policy; National Defense University, Washington

All times Eastern
Live stream of Obama speech at 2:00 pm