It is Always Good to Read It Before You Campaign on It

Bart Stupak: Did it Really Have to End This Way?

Bart Stupak becomes the first casualty of the health care bill being pushed through against the will of the American people. He announced yesterday that he does not plan to run again this year. The Washington Times says:

After selling out, Rep. Bart Stupak is walking out. The Michigan Democrat who tried to pass himself off as pro-life announced Friday that he no longer seeks re-election. It's understandable that Mr. Stupak is unwilling to face voters in his working-class Upper Peninsula district after casting a decisive vote in favor of a nationalized health care plan that would allow, with the stroke of the president's pen, millions of abortions at public expense.

Kathryn Jean Lopez has some interesting comments at National Review Online:

It has seemed obvious to me since last year that Stupak would retire. The tragic thing is that he could have been an inspiring leader, a man who stood up on principle to the most prominent politicians of the day, of his own party. Instead, we know what he did — he surrendered all the power he had for a meaningless executive order, bowing at the altar of a party that long ago sold its soul to the culture of death he claimed to be standing athwart, to boot.

The upside of Bart Stupak proving to be such a cheap date is that his decision to stand down made the facts starkly clear for all the country to see. With his speech on the House floor providing extra cover to Democrats who had been lying all along about what was in the bill — why exactly does one need an executive order if the legislation never had anything to do with abortion? — Bart Stupak wrote the obituary for the very concept of the pro-life Democrat (my condolences to Dan Lipinski, who seems to truly want to be one in a party that doesn't respect that).

Bart Stupak could have made the Democratic party better. He could have made them realize pro-lifers in their party were a real force to be reckoned with. Instead he drove a nail in the coffin that holds the late Governor Casey's words from a speech at Notre Dame in 1995. “It was sold to America, this idea [of legal abortion], as a kind of social cure, a resolution,” Casey said. “Instead, it has left us wounded and divided. We were promised it would broaden the circle of freedom. Instead, it has narrowed the circle of humanity. We were told the whole matter was settled and would soon pass from our minds. Twenty years later, it tears at our souls. And so, it is for me the bitterest of ironies that abortion on demand found refuge, found a home — and it pains me to say this — found a home in the national Democratic party. My party, the party of the weak, the party of the powerless.”

The Democratic party is the party that embraces the culture of death — now more "comprehensively" than ever.

Jill Stanek comments on the corner into which Stupak painted himself:

When it comes down to it, Bart Stupak retired today because his pro-abort House leaders and president wouldn't let him and his pro-life band vote their consciences....

To be sure, the 20 Dem pro-life turncoats are to blame for their own votes, but clearly their leaders badgered, pressured, and hounded them until they broke.

There was no way for the Stu-PAC to win, politically. Had the bloc caused the healthcare bill to fail, there would have been hell to pay from the power brokers. Now there is hell to pay from us.

For a brief moment there everybody thought that Stupak meant exactly what he said and that he would block the health care bill unless his amendment preventing public funds from being used for abortion. When it came to the crunch he could have stood his ground and blocked it until the President and Nancy Pelosi caved. He could have done it, but he chose to cave in and let them have their way. What an ignominious end to a career.

Liberal Fascist Propaganda Slanders Opponents: So What is New?

Frank Rich at the New York Times is delusional.

He calls those who protest Obamacare "right-wing extremists." Since a Rasmussen poll now says that 54% of Americans want it repealed, that means that now only 46% of Americans are not "right-wing extremists." How frightening it must be in that leftist bunker under New York City as the poor, embattled leftists cower with no weapons left - except control of both houses of congress, the presidency, a supreme court majority and a massive fund-raising apparatus that they hardly use anymore now that they have access to the Federal treasury to fund bribes like the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase.

He also compares health care protests to Kristallnacht. Oh yeah, it is just exactly the same . . . except that the Jewish member of Congress who had his office shot at and got death threats happens to be a Republican who opposes the health care bill. Other than that everything is exactly the same. Kristallnacht - does he think that all the lefties are about to be rounded up and shipped to death camps? But he doesn't even think there are going to be death panels, let alone death camps. That is one strange universe happening inside that head.

John McCormack, at the Weekly Standard, takes apart Rich's colleague, Paul Krugmann, in a post entitled: "It's cool to hang Lieberman in effigy, but don't you dare 'target' Democratic seats."

"The Democratic National Committee emails reporters a lot of stories everyday in an attempt to spin a narrative. The narrative of the week, of course, is the supposedly hateful and violent rhetoric espoused by Obamacare opponents. Paul Krugman's column today, like most days, can be stitched together from about a dozen DNC emails.

But the most amusing part of Krugman's column today is his deep concern with the "eliminationist rhetoric" of the GOP:

What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party’s leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was “Armageddon.” The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee’s chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on “the firing line.” And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight.

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush — but you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials.

This is the same Paul Krugman who wrote in December:

"A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy."

But heaven forbid Sarah Palin say she wants to "target" certain Democratic seats."

As for what "progressives" had to say about President George W. Bush, see the photos here. Here is a sample of pacifist, moderate, leftist "civil dialogue."

Endorsements That You Probably Could Live Without

Barack Obama must be relieved to know that one world leader with extensive experience in socialized medicine fully endorses his health care takeover victory.

"As President Barack Obama embarks on a high profile campaign to bolster public opinion of his health care plan, there is one man who is already convinced that Obamacare is the right move for America – Fidel Castro, the Cuban revolutionary leader and first secretary of the Cuban Communist Party.

According to an Associated Press report, Castro hailed Obamacare as “a miracle” and “an important battle and a success of (Obama’s) government.”

Castro went on to favorably compare President Obama’s health care plan to the one Cuba enacted a half century ago. Ironically, it was reported last year that Cuban President Raul Castro said his country’s spending on health care was “simply unsustainable.”

In the Land of the Free, Americans remain unconvinced that Obama’s health care reforms are right for the United States. A CBS News poll released Wednesday shows that 62% of Americans want Republicans to continue challenging the health care bill that President Obama signed into law this week."

I'm sure Castro speaks for many aging, Third world dictators who cling to power as the infrastructure of their countries crumble around them. His support must make Obama feel better in the face of all those nasty poll numbers. Too bad Castro doesn't have a vote in November.

Still with the health care debate, the group of liberal Catholic nuns who supported Obama's healthcare bill received their reward here and now (since they won't be receiving any heavenly reward for this perfidy) and they received it from Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood writing, fittingly, in the liberal Huffington Post.

"Panned Parenthood president Cecile Richards has praised the Catholic religious sisters who endorsed the Senate health care bill, claiming they deserve gratitude for making “a critical demonstration of support” for a bill that significantly increased coverage of “reproductive health care.”

Writing for the Huffington Post Wednesday in her capacity as president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Richards claimed that it was Catholic nuns who “most importantly broke with the bishops and the Vatican to announce their support for health care reform.”"

On the other hand, horrified by the sight of nuns supporting abortion, a different group representing the younger, orthodox, women religious orders in America, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR), announced their support for the Bishops' condemnation of Obamacare.

The aging, dying women religious orders, who are under investigation by the Vatican for heresy and disobedience to Church teachings in general, have apparently decided to go out with a bang. But make no mistake, they are heading for the exits, via the nursing homes, very soon. Obamacare or no Obamacare, the Church, on the other hand, will go on.

Stupak Sells Out for a Fig Leaf: Pray for His Soul

"Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul
for the whole world . . . but for Wales?"
- A Man for All Seasons

__________

So the health care reform passes by 4 votes and crucial to its passage was the vote of Bart Stupak and most of his fellow (so-called) pro-life Democrats. It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world . . . but for a lousy Executive Order?

If this Executive Order really did anything significant we would not be reading the following words in the press release from Planned Parenthood this morning:

“As a result of this historic expansion of health care coverage to more than 30 million Americans, the doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals who work for Planned Parenthood health centers will be providing care to many more women, men, and families who will be seeking primary and preventive care.

“Planned Parenthood is also extremely pleased that members of the House listened to the millions of women and men who expressed their strong opposition to the Stupak abortion ban. Stopping the Stupak ban was a high priority for women across the country who rejected the notion that they would not be able to even use their own money to obtain private insurance coverage for abortion. It was a tough fight, but we salute Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D- CA), Congressman Rosa DeLauro (D–CT) , members of the House Pro-Choice Caucus, and all others who stood up for women’s health and women’s rights.

“Nonetheless, we regret that a pro-choice president of a pro-choice nation was forced to sign an Executive Order that further codifies the proposed anti-choice language in the health care reform bill, originally proposed by Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. What the president’s executive order did not do is include the complete and total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion that Congressman Bart Stupak (D–MI) had insisted upon. So while we regret that this proposed Executive Order has given the imprimatur of the president to Senator Nelson’s language, it is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban."

Within hours of yesterday's announcement of support for the bill by Stupak, the Susan B. Anthony List responded by stripping Stupak of the "Defender of Life Award" he was to have received at a gala planned for Wednesday of the coming week.

John McCormack, at The Weekly Standard, has a round-up of reactions from pro-life and pro-abortion groups to the Stupak vote. The National Right to Life Association and the USCCB both say it is useless and NOW and Planned Parenthood agree. McCormack's wry comment is that only Stupak has managed to forge bipartisan agreement on something in this whole mess.

Is this the end of Democrats winning key votes for election in conservative districts by taking a pro-life position? Donald McClary at American Catholic thinks so.

"What all of this means is that for now the pro-life effort in the Democrat party has failed. Congressmen and women who are Democrats and called themselves pro-life have been mostly revealed to be completely unreliable when their votes mattered. I say this not to attack rank and file pro-lifers who have been involved in an uphill effort to keep the pro-life cause alive in the Democrat party, but merely to admit the obvious. I have written quite a bit on this blog in praise of Bart Stupak and I now regret every word. Whatever is in his heart, when it truly mattered he was a profile in political expediency. The same can be said for most of the other Democrats in Congress who call themselves pro-life. They proved themselves very weak reeds indeed. For pro-lifers the Republican party is the only game in town for meaningful pro-life legislation. This will be distasteful for pro-lifers who hate the Republican party only a little less than they love the unborn, but that is the simple truth. For people who wish to continue the effort to spread the pro-life message in the Democrat party, may you have success. I expect that you will fail, and in future I will assume that all elected pro-life Democrats are being mendacious until they prove otherwise by hard votes. Learning is sometimes a tough experience, but it is usually also a beneficial one, and that is what I learned from last night."

All the posturing and play-acting that went on in the past week was probably just an attempt to try and hide the truth McClary is stating. Likely Stupak told Obama and Pelosi that we would cave in before they set the date for the vote and starting proclaiming that they knew they had the votes. Everybody thought they were blowing smoke because everybody thought Stupak meant what he said. While Stupak was burnishing his re-election chances, Pelosi knew she had his vote in the bag.

It is telling that once enough votes were cast to pass the measure, certain representatives in pro-life districts apparently received permission to vote against the bill in order to heighten their chances of re-election. The pro-life voters who voted for them should ponder the implications of the word "permission" in the previous sentence. The Democrats did something highly unpopular and they knew it was unpopular. They still think they will get away with it. We shall see.

In closing, I just want to highlight one pro-life Democrat who did not cave in. Nurse and pro-life blogger, Jill Stanek, notes:

"The only pro-life Democrat to change his vote from a yes to a no due to the failure to include the Stupak-Pitts amendment was Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) . . . (Lipinski is the congressman for the district in which Christ Hospital, my former employer, is located. His father, Congressman Bill Lipinski, was a co-sponsor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.)

The only logical thing for Dan Lipinski to do now is to switch parties.

Some Days I'm Embarassed to be an Evangelical

Like today, for instance, when several prominent Evangelicals such as Ron Sider and David Gushee, along with faux (former) Evangelicals like Brian McLaren and Jim Wallis jump into the health care debate along with liberal Catholics at a crucial moment in order to provide cover for the pro-abortion politicians and the pro-life ones who are being pressured to vote for the biggest expansion of abortion funding since Roe v. Wade. From the Weekly Standard:

"Rehashing their lobby for a proposed abortion compromise in the U.S. Senate version of Obamacare in December, liberal Catholics and Evangelicals are now urging the U.S. House of Representatives to pass the Senate version of the bill.

The self-professed evangelical and Catholic “pro-life leaders” insist that the Senate’s version of Obamacare sufficiently safeguards against abortion funding. They also try to rebut its pro-life critics and imply they are guilty of misinformation. But, instead, they illustrate that some “social justice” Catholics and evangelicals prioritize a government take-over of health care over firm protections for the unborn.

“As Christians committed to a consistent ethic of life, and deeply concerned with the health and well-being of all people, we want to see health care reform enacted,” wrote the religious activists in their open letter to Congress. “Our nation has a rare and historic opportunity to expand coverage to tens of millions of people, make coverage more affordable for all families, and crack down on many of the most harmful practices of the health insurance industry.”

Signers this time around, as in December, include liberal evangelicals such as Jim Wallis of Sojourners, Emerging Church guru Brian McLaren, Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, David Gushee of New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, Glenn Stassen of Fuller Seminary, and Florida megachurch pastor Joel Hunter, who is a prominent board member of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). Notably absent this time were other NAE leaders such as Christianity Today editor David Neff and immigration activist Samuel Rodriguez."

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, all real pro-life groups, Evangelical groups like the Family Research Council and Conservative Evangelicals of all kinds are implacably opposed to the bill currently before Congress for a variety of reasons. But all oppose it because it promotes abortion, which is exactly why NARAL, Emily's List, NOW and other radical, leftist, pro-abortion groups are so highly supportive of it. The only time in this process that these groups growled was when the Stupak-Pitts Amendment was passed to the House bill. Why? Because it took abortion funding out of the bill. After these groups protested and besieged the White House, the Senate bill put abortion funding back in and the protests subsided.

It is ironic that these left wing Evangelicals portray themselves as pro-life when they don't stand against the murder of the innocents. And it is disgusting that they use the slogan "social justice" to describe a position that condones legalized private killing for convenience. When words are twisted so as to lose their meaning so completely, language is becoming useless. Orwell's vision is coming true before our eyes: "pro-life means killing" and "justice means murdering the innocent." When Evangelicals are party to this kind of "fascism with a smiling face" then I am deeply ashamed to be an Evangelical. It is time to pray, fast and do penance for Evangelicalism.

The Democratic Pary Approaches the Point of No Return

Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman, says that the 2700 page health care bill will come up for a vote by next weekend. Democratic congressmen are getting ready to fall on their swords in return for a long laundry list of favors, preferments and other forms of treats. Here is a cartoon that mocks them:




And here is one of the great movie lines ever from Bob Hope.



The health care bill enshrines federal payments for abortion, adds over a hundred new government bureaucratic agencies and panels and makes the federal government responsible for approximately 20% of the US economy at one fell swoop. It is the biggest step toward making the US into a European style welfare state in the history of the Republic. Obama will have a legacy that is bigger than FDR, bigger than LBJ and his place in history will be assured. (Whether he will enjoy being in that place is another question.)

The economic implications of health care are enormous. If passed, it will drive up the federal deficit to a level relative to GDP more usually associated with third world basket cases than with superpowers. If this bill passes the US will either have to dial back sharply on military spending or ramp up taxes drastically or both. The implications for world security of the US going into an isolationist stance are unpredictable and the implications for the world economy of the US continuing to borrow at current rates are unknown. However, I'd prefer not to find out the implications of either one of those things.

Finally, the passing of health care could spell the end of the Democratic Party as a major party. What would happen to it is difficult to say but the coalition between the far left faction currently in power and the moderate faction that is electable in most of the US is in serious jeopardy. The left wing faction is unelectable on its own. So if the Party's center does not hold, the result may be Republican rule for a a generation.

Most people outside the US have very little understanding of the true implications of this health care bill and tend to regard it as the US joining the 20th century a bit late. It is often seen as just another piece of legislation. I think it is far more significant and its implications rather more far-reaching than that and I think it is for that reason extremely interesting to watch.

Will Obama Allow Health Care Reform to Die Because of Abortion?

Before he was elected I called Barack Obama the most liberal candidate to come that close to becoming president in US history and after his election I opined that he was the most virulently pro-abortion president by far in US history. It is very interesting that in his campaign he said that the first thing he would do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act - which would make government funds available for abortion - but as president he has not even mentioned that piece of legislation. For those who think that is because he is choosing to govern from the center on this issue (as he promised repeatedly to do), this is not the true explanation. It is curious that he has received not one word of complaint from the abortion industry on his lack of focus on the FOCA. Why would that be?

Well, obviously his strategy has been to sneak abortion funding into the health care bill, even though abortion is not health care. The only time NARAL and NOW got upset and vocal was when the House of Representatives passed the Stupak amendment, which upset their schemes. Obama intervened and soon the Senate bill was even more pro-abortion funding. Then, last week, when Obama introduced his own version of the bill in order to try to break the impasse, it had even more funding for abortion in it than the Senate bill.

So now, with health care reform - his signature legislation, his legacy - hanging by a slim thread, will he compromise on abortion and make the health care legislation abortion-funding neutral?

No, he will not. He has shown no sign whatsoever of being willing to compromise in any way shape or form on abortion. It is pure ideology for him. He is a fanatic. And he may lose his chance to pass health care reform legislation because of his intransigence.

No matter how much he blames Republican partisanship for the problem, the truth is that Obama has not been able to get his own party to vote for his abortion funding bill. The Republicans lacked the ability to stop the health care legislation up until the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts last month. Obama didn't get it through because he could not convince enough Democrats to vote for it.

The delay in November - December that led Nancy Pelosi finally to capitulate to the anti-abortion funding Democrats House members may have sunk health care reform already. The delay prevented the bill from passing before the Massachusetts election.

Obama's extremist abortion ideology - which represents the far left of the Democratic Party and no more than 20% or so of the American population - may well be the cause of the demise of health care reform - Obama's signature legacy legislation. If that happens it may also contribute to Obama being a one term president and have a legacy of ineffectiveness that places him alongside Jimmy Carter (no relation, thank the Lord!) for failure as president in the 20th century.

How ironic it is that the most pro-abortion president in history turns out to blow the chance to get health care reform, which for most Democrats represents the Holy Grail of politics, because of his stubborn insistence on dying on the hill of abortion. It is more than ironic: it is poetic justice.

Catholics "Need Not Apply"

The Democrats in Massachusetts are panicking and going negative on Scott Brown as the most liberal state in the union is on the verge of electing a Republican senator campaigning on his opposition to the health care and other spending bills that Obama has tried to ram through in the midst of a recession. A string of polls now show him neck and neck with the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley.

The US may celebrate one year of Obama by electing the 41st vote against the Obama agenda in the US Senate. Americans should thank God for their very conservative system of checks and balances that prevents even an extremely left wing president and congress from destroying the country with ease.

Martha Coakley, the party hack nominated by the Democrats to occupy the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy, has seen her lead evaporate and independents turn away from her as the race to replace Ted Kennedy goes down to the wire on Tuesday. Now, she is panicking and saying all sorts of stupid things (like calling Curt Shilling a Yankees fan - yes, that Curt Schilling - he of the bloody sock).

Now, a flyer is being circulated that claims that Scott Brown wants to turn all rape victims away from hospitals just because he thinks that hospital personal should not be forced to participate in abortions or handing out the morning after pill (a form of early abortion) against their consciences. Martha Coakley thinks that neither Catholics not anyone else, for that matter, should have conscience rights in a democracy. They should be forced to participate in what their consciences say in grave evil or lose their jobs. Here is how she explained it in an interview:

“Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a separation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (…stammering) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

If you are against abortion, you can't work in emergency rooms! So she wants to interpret separation of church and state to mean separation of church and hospital and probably church and school and church and court and so on. In other words, the doctrine that says that one church should not be established but that all churches should be equally free in American society is being twisted by liberals to imply that serious Christians have no right to live by their consciences if they don't agree with the politically correct, liberal view of the majority.

Catholics in Massachusetts remember that it was not so long ago that "Help Wanted" signs in Boston has penciled in below "Irish Need Not Apply." Now it is "Catholics Need Not Apply" and soon it will be "Christians Need Not Apply." What a vile, hate-filled position to take. Anti-Catholicism is disgusting - the dirty little vice of liberal Democrats. Why any Catholic would ever vote for this crew is a matter for sociologists, if not psychologists, to explain.

Scott Brown has announced that he is filing a criminal complaint about this flyer. Good for him. It doesn't get much nastier than this. However, the Coakley campaign may soon be defending itself against another legal action as well; I hope they don't spend all their campaign funds on TV attack ads. UPS is not amused by another Democratic flyer in which the Coakley campaign infringes its trademark in order to slam Scott Brown. According to the Boston Herald, the Atlanta-based company has demanded that the distribution of the mailing be stopped.

What a sweet irony it would be if the vote to kill the heath care take over came from Ted Kennedy's old seat. And how scared will Democrats be if "liberal" Massachusetts elects a Republican senator for the first time since the mid-1970s just to stop the Obama agenda? It is like a Democrat running on a platform of gun control and gay marriage getting elected in Texas.

This health care bill, besides running up the debt without insuring everyone, would be the biggest expansion of abortion funding in American history. This is Obama's way of keeping his promise to NARAL that he would see to it that federal funding for abortion is made available to everyone. And if you are pro-life you are expected to believe that providing more funding for abortion is the best way to reduce the number of abortions. And, if you believe that you probably think they can cut 500 million out of Medicare without affecting coverage for senior one iota.

Obama ran as a centrist but for a year now has been governing from the far left. He doesn't seem to care that unemployment is 10% or that the national debt is ballooning. All he cares about is stimulus (pork barrel) bills, cap and trade, health care and other spending. His answer to every problem is spend more and increase government bureaucracy and regulation of every detail of life. The American people are not ready for European-style social democracy and they are not ready for out of control growth of big government. And they are ready to kick this new set of bums out of office in record time.

Will the Democrats Ram Through a Health Care Bill That Uses Federal Funds to Fund Abortion?

Some of us have suspected very strongly for months that has been the intent all along. That the Freedom of Choice Act dropped off the legislative radar with nary a peep of protest from the pro-abortion lobby groups like Emily's List, Planned Parenthood, and NOW is a suspicious fact that makes one think that there must be plan to achieve the same goals by other means. The fact that over a dozen pro-life ammendments designed to make H.R. 3200 abortion neutral have been voted down in various committees leads one to think that Obama is being disingenuous to insist that "his" health care plan (whatever that is - he has never put forward a bill or endorsed a specific bill) won't allow public funds to pay for abortion.

The Roman Catholic Bishops are getting restless: Here is a recent story in which they warn that they will vigorously oppose any bill that fails to meet their three top criteria:

"The U.S. Catholic bishops sent an open letter to Congress today, stating
that they will “vigorously oppose” the health care bills unless they prevent
taxpayer funds from paying for abortion, make care affordable for everyone and
ensure that immigrants have access to the health system.

Cardinal Justin Rigali, Bishop William Murphy and Bishop John Wester
penned the letter on behalf of all the U.S. bishops to "express our
disappointment that progress has not been made on the three priority criteria
for health care reform that we have conveyed previously to Congress.""

The really fascinating thing about this statement is that they are saying that currently proposed legislation does not address any of their three top priorities! The current legislation would still leave tens of millions without health insurance. So even if the abortion issue were cleared up (which it is not), they still would have to oppose it. It is a mystery to me and a wonder that, after all this hassle and fighting, the bill being proposed still does not cover everyone.

The White House continues to repeat the now-refuted old chestnut that the Hyde Ammendment somehow applies to H.R. 3200 when it does not.

"White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is erroneously claiming that the
Hyde Amendment which restricts federal funding for abortions will apply to
federal health care reform legislation, the National Right to Life Committee has
charged.

At a Wednesday press briefing at the White House, Cybercast News
Service reporter Fred Lucas asked Gibbs whether a letter from the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was right to say that health care reform
proposals have not met the president’s promise to bar the use of federal funds
for abortion.

“Well, I don't want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention
there's a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn't
going to be changed in these health care bills,” Gibbs responded."

Memo to Gibbs: You are in trouble at church; the only question is whether you are going to get out of trouble or not.

On his blog "God and Country" Dan Gilgoff interviews Rep. Bart Stupak, the democratic congressman leading the fight to get abortion funding out of health care legislation and Stupak clears up the fog. Stupak is talking about a recent phone conversation he had with President Obama.

Q. "How does the president feel about your stance that no government subsidized health insurance plan should include abortion coverage?

A. I brought up the fact that when he spoke to the nation on September 9 he said, "Let me verify one more rumor, that there will be no public funding for abortion." And so I asked him to clarify that because it's sort of the opposite of H.R. 3200 [the House healthcare bill]. And he indicated to me that yes, he understands that and when he talked about that line [in his speech] he said "my plan." But the president has not put forth a plan, so it wasn't really clear.

And so my question was, was he just reading H.R. 3200 and was he not briefed on the Capps Amendment [on abortion coverage], and he said, "No, no, I know the Capps Amendment."

Q. Does the president believe that the Capps Amendment prohibits federally-funded abortions, as pro-choice advocates claim, or that that prohibition is a disingenuous accounting trick, as antiabortion advocates claim?

A. The president did not get into the argument whether the Capps Amendment covers abortions or not. He never went there. He just said, "We have enough other arguments going on with the bill, let's work this one out."

Q. So what do you see as the path to resolving the abortion debate—to "working this out"— in the Democratic Caucus?

A. Unfortunately, I don't see a clear resolution right now. Maybe some language can be drafted that I haven't seen yet that will accommodate everybody. But I'm going to go back to what the president said: no public funding for abortions. And that's the Hyde Amendment [the longstanding ban on federally funded abortions]. So let's have the Hyde Amendment. I'm prepared to go to the Rules Committee and offer the Hyde Amendment. I'm not too sure I'll get very far because no right-to-life amendments have been made to order all year."

The following series of questions and answers from the same interview makes Robert Gibbs' evasive answers look like deliberate deception.

Q. "The pro-choice community argues that the Capps Amendment applies the
spirit of the Hyde Amendment to the House healthcare bill by barring federally
funded abortions in almost all instances.

A. The Capps Amendment says at least one plan [participating in a federal
health insurance exchange] must provide abortion coverage and must have
one that doesn't have it. For the first time ever, federal policy is saying that
abortion is a covered service. That's completely opposite of Hyde. Second, if
I'm in the public plan, I have to give one dollar per month [to abortion
coverage]. I'm a man, and I can't get an abortion, but I have to pay for it.
Those are two major differences from Hyde.

Q. What about the Capps Amendment language stipulating that federal funds
must be segregated from individual premiums in funding abortion coverage?

A. All that is just a mirage. On the D.C. appropriations bill, we used to
have the Dornan language, which said you cannot use federal dollars to pay for
[abortions] in D.C. We gave them operating funds, and what we said in Dornan is you had to segregate it.

[The Democratic leadership] will not give us that language anymore. They denied
us that. So if they were really committed to this firewall, as the pro-choice
people say, then why not put in the Dornan language we've had for the last 15 or
16 years? They have denied us every right-to-life amendment. There's just a
lack of trust there. We don't believe it. How does the saying go? Fool me once,
shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I won't get fooled twice.

Q. The pro-choice community says that, as many women move from
employer-based plans to those participating in the health insurance exchange,
which you'd bar from offering abortion coverage, they'll lose a benefit that
most currently have.

A. They don't lose the right, they've just lost the right to use my tax
dollars to pay for abortion. They still have that right, and there are millions
of women who are on Medicaid, Medicare, the federal employees' health benefit
package—which does not provide abortion services—who go and get an abortion.
They have to use their own money, that's all. That's current law."

All this intricate "what does the technical language mean" type of debate is difficult for the general public to follow. And one suspects that there is design at work is this.

But what is difficult to square here is Obama's clear promise of no federal funding for abortion and a strong conscience clause for health care professionals and the refusal of Congress to insert the necessary ammendments for that promise to be kept. Are we supposed to believe that Obama will veto this bill when it lands on his desk? Will he twist arms at the last moment to get the necessary language inserted? Or will the Democrats play good cop -bad cop until the opposition is worn down and the bill slips through by the slimmest of magins? Or is Obama just so incredibly weak that he prevent his own party from embarassing him by making a liar out of him?

If the Democrats ram through federally-funded abortion under the guise of "health care reform" they will reveal themselves to be cynical, deceptive proponents of the culture of death, rather than "common-good" minded reformers.

Let the Pandas Go Extinct!

"The television presenter said that the species was not strong enough to
survive on its own and that the millions spent preserving them could be better
spent elsewhere.

Mr Packham, who hosts BBC2’s Springwatch, also argued that breeding the
animals in captivity for later release was pointless because there is not enough
habitat left to sustain them.

He said: “Here’s a species that of its own accord has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It’s not a strong species.

“Unfortunately, it’s big and cute and it’s a symbol of the World Wildlife Fund – and we pour millions of pounds into panda conservation. “I reckon we should pull the plug. Let them go with a degree of dignity.”"

Thus began a story in The Daily Telegraph today. What an unlikely place for an outbreak of common sense: the BBC! Telegraph bloggers have been jumping all over this story in an unusual display of agreement.

James Kirkup entitled his post: "Pandas: let's just eat the idiot-bears" and wrote:

"Thank you Chris Packham, thank you. Thank you for saying something I’ve
been trying to persuade people of for years. Pandas are pointless, wasteful and silly. They should die.

Let’s look at the facts here. A lot of conservationists argue that pandas
are the victims of man’s actions, that urbanisation and industrialisation is
killing the precious bamboo they need to live.

Eh? Bamboo? They are bears, but they eat leaves. Hello, excuse me? Panda
bear. Bear. You know, large, aggressive carnivore. Big teeth, claws. Grrrr.
You’re supposed to eat meat. What on earth is with the bamboo thing? A panda’s
digestive system is still set up to digest meat. The reason they can only eat
only one of the hundreds of different types of bamboo the world has to offer is
that their guts aren’t supposed to break down bamboo. It’s elevating fussiness
to the level of suicide. It’s like me eating only car tyres and gravel and then
asking for sympathy when I starve to death. Idiots."

You know, he has a bit of a point there, as the Brits like to say. But not only are they fussy eaters, they are fussy about sex too. Kirkup again:

"Then there’s sex. Pandas don’t like sex. All that weird, zoo-keeper stuff
about putting two of them in a cage and seeing if they’ll mate. Honestly, an
animal either wants to perpetuate its genes or it doesn’t. And the idiot-bears
clearly have some species-wide death-wish. Who are we to stand in their way? I
thought the whole conservationism thing was about allowing nature to follow its
own course without human interference? Pandas don’t work. Let them go."

Another good point. As a conservative Christian I get tired of the atheists shoving evolution in my face all the time. Evolution makes men promiscuous; you can't do a thing about it. Evolution is the explanation for this, that and the other thing and always traditional values are apparently evolutionary dead-ends. OK, so let's talk evolution and pandas.

Why should we knock outselves out trying to perpetuate a species that is such an evolutionary dead end? Why can't we just admit that black bears, brown bears, grizzly bears and the panda's close relatives, polar bears, are all successful instances of evolutionary adaptation, but the panda is the evolutionary equivalent of "a nice try?"

After all, black bears happily adapt to eating campers' garbage at the campground we frequent every July in Algonquin Park; they don't require choice, moist bamboo leaves and go on hunger strikes when they don't get them. And they don't seem to mind sharing their habitat with humans at all. In fact, if we don't lock every single food item in the trunk every single night they will even come to visit! Now those bears are entrepreneurial and are obviously bent on survival. And, if you know anything about their mating habits, you know that they are not exactly monogamous like loons; they seem to have no objections whatsoever to sex any time with any bear in town.

Personally, I think Evolution dictates the solution to the panda problem.

Now, health care rationing has been in the news lately and it strikes me as relevant to this whole panda thing too. Obama thinks that, rather than curing disease in the very elderly, (which, I think, is defined as anyone older than you), we should just pop Granny a few cheap, pain pills and let nature take its course. Very rational man, that Obama; a real disciple of Jeremy Bentham. Knows how to put that old utilitarian calculus into action; he is certainly not one of those bleeding heart Republicans! Anyway, it turns out that it costs 1.5 million pounds per year to keep each and every one of those 150 pandas that we have in captivity around the world. Now, I'm willing to bet that by the time Obama squeezes savings of 500 million out of Medicare, he is going to be looking for easier ways to get that last hundred million. You know, 1.5 million pounds here and 1.5 million there soon adds up to serious cost savings. After all, if Granny has to go, what justification is there for keeping a 300 pound carnivore who only eats bamboo leaves, and is too fussy to have sex other than once a decade, around? I'd keep Granny for an extra year and eat the pandas.

James Delingpole has an excellent suggestion. That man is just full of practical business sense. What a waste as a journalist. Anyway, his idea is as follows:

"This could be a major conservation opportunity. There are approximately 1000
Pandas left in the wild. If hunting licences were granted at, say, $200 million
a pop to sicko billionaires, this would raise enough money (probably) to stop
global warming, rescue Tuvalu, and bio-engineer a brand new bamboo-rich planet
on which the graceful panda could live in peace and harmony for all
eternity."

Come on Al Gore, you would trade 1000 wild pandas (and 150 more in zoos) if you actually could save the planet? As opposed to just making documentaries about it? Wouldn't you? Sure you would. (And who knows, there could be enough left over to keep Granny for say, maybe, 18 months longer.)

Yes, yes, I know what you are thinking: "But what about the World Wildlife Federation? Wouldn't they need a new logo?" Delingpole lists this as a concern, but I just don't get it. What on earth would be wrong with the WWF having an extinct animal in its logo? Isn't it just perfect? I mean, a non-existent animal as the symbol for a non-existent problem. I think this is exquisite. It was simply meant to be.

So there you have it. It is either pandas or the whole planet and I think it's a no-brainer. (And if we get to keep Granny for an extra year to year and a half, it's a win for everybody.) The pandas would probably be agitating for assisted suicide laws to help them go gently into that good night themselves right now - if they had any bloody initiative whatsoever.

Ten Reasons Why Obama's Speech on Healthcare Was a Dud!

To be fair, there probably was nothing Obama could have done last night to save his healthcare plan - whatever that is. The problem is that support plummeted for the bill that is currently on paper during June and the August Town Hall anger was indicative of that loss of support. But in a tight spot, Obama failed to help his cause in any significant way. What went wrong?

1. He still has not got a plan. Should one assume that the 1000 page monstrosity (HR 3200) is his plan? It would seem not, since it includes a public option and Obama indicated last night that the public option might or might not be in the final bill - but everyone should support it rather than getting all worked up over a detail like that. Confusion. Why didn't he release a streamlined plan of his own to replace HR 3200 yesterday?

2. Sarah Palin sure has the ability to get under his skin and he showed it again last night. He showed no class by referring to her "death panels" comment explicitly and accusing her of lying without actually mentioning her name. (He didn't need to!) First question: why did he single her out? She is just a woman in Alaska with a Facebook account, isn't she? So why is she such a threat? Second question: why not explain why the death panel comment is wrong? He had the bully pulpit and a terrific audience. Rather than just stamping his foot and saying she is wrong, she is lying etc., why didn't he use reason and argument to unpack the issue and discuss how she might have been honestly mistaken? Clearly, she can get him off his game pretty easily.

3. He did not address the abortion issue - except to call anyone who disagrees with him a liar. Well, somebody is a liar here, but many people are beginning to see suspect that the reason he has not been able to satisfy the Catholic bishops, the Evangelicals and the pro-life groups is that he is trying to slip FOCA through under the radar. It isn't working.

4. He gave absolutely no plausible explanation of how the whole thing would be paid for. Nobody - and I mean nobody who is not on the payroll of a Democratic Party organization or a special interest group with a financial stake in the outcome - believes that 1) there is that much waste to be cut out of the system or that 2) the federal government would be capable of doing it even if there were. This fails the giggle test. If they giggle at you when you say it, you are losing the debate.

5. He did nothing to alleviate fears that one man's "waste" is another man's "critical care." He just said "You can trust the government to appoint experts," which is pretty much the worst possible way to win people over. Obama completely failed to grasp the point that trust is the primary issue here. This raises another question: "Does Obama understand America?" Or does he think that Chicago Daley machine politics brings you into contact with the essence of America? Mistakes like this make you wonder.

6. Speaking of winning people over, he did absolutely nothing effective to accomplish that. (Hint: to win people over, a politician should not accuse them of lying, imply that they are stupid and then tell them to just shut up and pass the bill. Why? It doesn't work and it only makes you feel good for a short while.)

7. He made two attempts to accept a non-partisan suggestion, one of which was muddled and one of which came across as slippery. On the issue of a pool for hard to insure people, he accepted a proposal made by McCain in the campaign. It is difficult to understand, however, why such a proposal needs to be hitched to 1000 page bill that nobody can understand. I really believe that if Obama proposed a few clear initiatives on health care such as this one, that he could rally non-partisan support and get it through. What everybody is wondering now is why he didn't do that in the first place. He intended that the HR 3200 be passed before the congressional recess, when there had hardly been any public debate on it. He gives every indication that he is trying to slip one by the American people and his speech last night did nothing to dispel that feeling.

8. By appealing to "St. Edward of Boston" he certainly played to the base. The problem is that the base is not who he needs to convince. And a lot of people would vote against anything they thought Ted Kennedy would have wanted. So much for building support across the aisle. Now he will blame the Republicans for playing politics with this bill. No, wait, he did that too in the speech!

9. The issue of tort reform was mentioned, which is interesting. Sarah Palin has made two main interventions in this debate this summer. The first was her "death panels" remark, which drew attention to the rationing of end-of-life care issue and the euthanasia counselling mandated in the bill. This resulted in ammendments to the bill and has caused a lot of embarassment for those trying to ram healthcare reform through. The second was her call for tort reform, which is almost a no-brainer if you want to bring costs down. Howard Dean is on a You Tube clip admitting at a Town Hall meeting that the reason the original bill didn't tackle tort reform is the Democratic Party's decision to pander to a powerful special interest group - trial lawyers. Obama made some rather weak and vague comments that looked like a last minute addition in which he suggested that a trial might be made in a few states to see how this would work. But it has already been implemented in Texas with spectacularly sucessful results. It isn't the whole answer, but it is part of the answer. Why did Obama not just sieze that issue and demand that his party run with it? It looks like he wants to appear to be in favor of tort reform, without actually doing anything about it.

10. Finally, what was the purpose of the speech? This is not a good question for people to be asking the next day. If the purpose of the speech was to rally the base it failed to do that by placing a big question mark beside the public option. If the purpose was to clear up misunderstanding, he said nothing new that he hasn't said a dozen times before and most of it was sheer assertion. If the purpose was to reach out to Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats, it failed to address their real concerns. If the purpose was to get back at Sarah Palin by showing that he gets to speak in Congress and she only gets to post on Facebook, so there, than it was a great "success." Unfortunately, this speech was supposed to be about health care.

Is Abortion Covered In Obama's Health Care Bill?

Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council has a killer argument for why we must assume it would be covered by the so-called "public option." It revolves around the Sherlock Holmes case of the famous racehorse that was stolen and the significance of the dog who didn't bark.

"Many of us remember the Sherlock Holmes story we read in high school. A famous racehorse is stolen from a barn at night. The barn was guarded by a dog.

Scotland Yard, England's famous police headquarters, sends Inspector Gregory to investigate, but Sherlock Holmes was on the case.

Inspector Gregory: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time." Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

The dog didn't bark. That is what led Sherlock Holmes to conclude that the dog knew the perpetrator."

Obama promised Planned Parenthood that he would pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which was the abortion industry's highest legislative priority. He has not done it. Planned Parenthood has been silent. If abortion is not enshrined in health care reform legislation (the famous 1000 page document few have ever read), then why have they been silent?

There is no good answer to this question except that they know that Obama is delivering the substance of FOCA through the health care reform. Blackwell writes:

"The Obama administration is going to great pains to deny that abortion is in their health care plan. The President himself says he prefers not to be "distracted" by this question."

Note that he does not say that abortion is not covered by public funds. He says he would rather not be "distracted" by this question. No doubt he wishes the question would go away. But it isn't going anywhere. Blackwell comments further:

"Family Research Council President Tony Perkins weeks ago challenged Planned Parenthood's boss -- Cecile Richards -- to debate. My friend Tony does not ask Richards to debate the entirety of ObamaCare, just the one point: Is abortion funding in there or not? So far, Richards has limited herself to howling for passage of the bill. She won't come out and debate.

Question: Why would Richards and Planned Parenthood support any health care takeover if it did not include abortion-on-demand? Don't they really believe that, as Hillary told a congressional committee earlier this year, that reproductive health care includes "abortion services?"

We can look to the actions so far of congressional committees. Eleven times, pro-life amendments were offered in committee, amendments that would have specifically ruled out abortion funding. Eleven times these amendments were voted down. Pro-life Democrats joined Republicans in voting for these protective amendments. But they could not prevail."

Can there be any doubt that Obama and his supoorters are trying to pull a fast one on the American people? There is a reason why the dog is silent; it knows the one who is trying to pull this fast one and it knows him very well.

Read it all here.

More on Abortion and Health Care

OK, so now it isn't just the Roman Catholic bishops, the Evangelicals and Factcheck.org saying that Obama is misleading the public on the issue of whether or not the House Bill 3200 as written (including the Capps ammendment) will result in public for abortion, now even Democratic Congressmen are saying it too:

"Rep. Bart Stupak, Michigan Democrat, says dozens of House Democrats may join him in opposing a final health care compromise unless the House bill's abortion language is changed.

Mr. Stupak tells Time magazine that President Obama either does not understand the House bill or is intentionally misleading people when he asserts that there would be no government funding of abortion under the so-called public option.

"We are going to do everything we can to stop the rule, or the bill, from coming to the floor," Mr. Stupak said, adding that as many as 39 Democratic members of Congress may join him in the effort.

The reason: The House bill would require everyone who signs up for government-run health insurance to contribute to abortion coverage. "You are spreading the cost of the procedure over a public plan," Mr. Stupak said.

Mr. Stupak told the magazine that Mr. Obama's statements during recent public events signal one of two things: Either he does not fully understand how abortion is treated in the House bill, or "if he is aware of it, and he is making these statements, then he is misleading people."

Obama has let this process spiral out of control over the last four weeks. If he ends up losing health care reform because of his abortion extremism, then no one in the world will be able to deny that he is the most ideologically-driven, proponent of abortion-on-demand ever to reach high office in the US. He will be revealed as a fanatic who would rather throw away his chances of re-election than fail to deliver the goods for Planned Parenthood. He will also look incredibly stupid and will lose the ability to drive his agenda forward even with both houses of Congress in Democratic hands.

He needs to realize that Democrats cannot get re-elected in many parts of the country if they support a bill that requires public funding of abortion, especially when that bill is unpopular to begin with for other reasons. If he thinks the Blue Dogs will commit political suicide for him, he is playing a high stakes poker game with a bad hand.

Very interesting times! They say a week is a long time in politics; what a difference seven months makes.

Why a "Public Option?"

The centerpiece of Obamacare is the so-called "public option." This is the heart of what the Left wants and it is no surprise that it is stirring up a tremendous amount of controversy. After all, the US is still a center-right country despite being governed, for the moment, by a very left-wing administration. But why is Obama so wedded to the "public option?"

He says that the government has to provide choice and competition by starting a government-run health insurance company to compete against the privately-owned companies out there now. This is clever, justifying the partial socialization of the health insurance industry by an appeal to "competition" and "choice," which, of course, are what the free market provides.

Is it the role of government to compete with private enterprise? Can private enterprise ever hope to compete with an entity that does not pay taxes, has unlimited resources behind it and can simply ask its owner to change legislation to favor it when the going gets tough? Oh, that is not what we plan to do, says Obama. It will be run just like any other private company. Really? Then why bother? No wonder so many see this as the camel's nose in the tent, the start of the fast evolution to a single-payer system.

If the goal is to get those without health insurance covered, why not mandate that all health insurance companies offer some sort of basic personal insurance coverage that everyone can buy and pay for on a sliding scale depending on income with government subsidizing the individual, who is legalized required to be insured, but who gets to choose his or her insurer? Why not do that? Because that would not give the government the kind of control it seeks.

What kind of control does government seek, then? Obama has told us repeatedly. He wants to make health care less expensive by leveling it down and rationing. No more shall the majority have "Lexus" care while a minority has "Toyota" care. Instead, everyone gets Toyota care. But how can government mandate that? It can't - unless it is both the insurer and the regulator of levels of care. That is where all the talk of "independent panels" which decide what is "fair" comes from. And that is why a "public option" is so necessary.

In a free market system the government has a role to play and that role is to be the regulator of the marketplace so that social goals like universal coverage and minimum basic level of care can be ensured. To fulfill this role, the government has to be the "honest broker" not one of the competitors in the marketplace. But that requires the government to stay out of the details and leave it to the market to decide how much care for whom at what cost. The Left is not satisfied with that role for government. It wants to be able to decide as we go along what individuals deserve in terms of care and at what cost. This is supposedly more "efficient" and more "rational."

F. A. Hayek, in his marvellously lucid book, The Road to Serfdom, clarifies the difference between the liberal and the collectivist way of making decisions. In the liberal vision it is the individual making rational choices that determines the level of coverage, the kind of care etc. and the government sets the ground rules in advance - blindly in a sense. The rules are "blind" in the sense that they are not made with any particular individual in mind. They are general and the same for all. In the collectivist vision, however, it is the central planning authority that makes the rules and they have to be made, not in advance, but on the fly because conditions and circumstances are constantly changing. The rules are tailored to individual cases because they aim not at treating everyone "fairly" according to some abstract principle, but at equality of outcomes for all regardless of individual circumstances. Thus, the rules must not be either blind or fixed in advance. In the collectivist vision, the Rule of Law has to be replaced by central planning.

Two competing views of justice are engaged here in a titantic struggle. The collectivist vision, born in the thought of the 18th century French philosophes and put into practice in the French and Russian Revolutions, has already engulfed most of the Western world and the US is practically the lone holdout - the last bastion of the kind of liberalism that arose out of the English constitutional tradition from the English Revolution to Edmund Burke and the conservative wing of the American Founding Fathers such as John Adams.

The choice is (confusingly) between a socialism that calls itself liberal and a liberalism that is now espoused only by conservatives. The former has a view of justice that aims at equality of outcome, that is, everyone gets the same health care. The latter has an abstract and principled view of justice that aims at equality of opportunity, which means that not everyone gets the same care, but everyone gets the same basic care and what he or she gets beyond that depends on the rational choices of the individual.

Climbing Out of the Tank?

I read somewhere the other day a caustic comment about Jim Wallis by someone (I forget who) to the effect that it is one thing to be in the tank for Obama but it is another to swim down to the bottom of the tank and chain oneself to the grate until one drowns. Well, there are signs that The New York Times may be struggling to climb out of the Obama tank - or at least keep its head above water.

The gripping saga of the "How the Newspaper of Record's Faith in the Messiah Began to Waver Ever So Slightly" begins with a story by Jim Rutenberg on Aug. 13 headlined "False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots." Written in the breathless style of an intrepid reporter uncovering the news that Hilary Clinton's "Vast Right-wing Conspiracy" has raised its ugly head again, it began:

"The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored “death panels” to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks.

Advanced even this week by Republican stalwarts including the party’s last vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, and Charles E. Grassley, the veteran Iowa senator, the nature of the assertion nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a Muslim and questioning his nationality."

Now, the fact that this story was written by Jim Rutenberg is significant because, as Richard Baehr points out:

"There is perhaps no other Times "news writer" who has proven himself so willing and able to prostrate himself in service to the political agenda of the New York Times. Rutenberg was the lead author for another front page New York Times whopper in 2008 -- a fake story that slimed John McCain, insinuating that he had an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iselin, and was no more than your basic Congressional influence peddler."

The Aug. 13 Rutenberg story then accused the Washington Times of being anti-Obama in its reporting:

"The specter of government-sponsored, forced euthanasia was raised as early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama, The Washington Times."

That questioning of their journalistic integrity did not sit too well with the editors of the Washington Times and they "complained" to the New York Times. Lo and behold, on Aug. 15, The Washington Times published this statement:

"A senior editor of the New York Times apologized to The Washington Times for publishing a front-page story Friday that accused The Washington Times of being "decidedly opposed" to President Barack Obama.

Dean Baquet, Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, telephoned Washington Times editors, offered an apology to the staff and said he would run a correction. "I would never say your paper has been anything but absolutely fair and objective to Obama," Mr. Baquet told The Washington Times' Managing Editor-Print David Jones.

"We agree and accept the Times' apology," Washington Times Executive Editor John Solomon wrote to his staff. The New York Times story examines the genesis of the accusation by Obama critics that the pending health-care reform proposal in Congress includes "death panels."

The story asserted: "The specter of government-sponsored, forced euthanasia was raised as early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama, The Washington Times."

Mr. Solomon called that shorthand, "wrong, inaccurate, irresponsible and insulting." Mr. Baquet telephoned Washington Times editors after Mr. Solomon complained.

Then, on Aug. 20, we find a story on The New York Times headlined: "A Basis Is Seen for Some Health Plan Fears Among the Elderly." The story begins:

"White House officials and Democrats in Congress say the fears of older Americans about possible rationing of health care are based on myths and falsehoods. But Medicare beneficiaries and insurance counselors say the concerns are not entirely irrational.

Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient.

President Obama has sold health care legislation to Congress and the country as a way to slow the growth of federal health spending, no less than as a way to regulate the insurance market and cover the uninsured.

Mr. Obama has also said Medicare and private insurers could improve care and save money by following advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on “what treatments work best.”

The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life."

Read the rest here.

So in the space of a week, the Palin "Death Panel" accusation went from being a "stubborn yet false rumour" to "not entirely irrational." Quite an amazing turn around, that. In other words, "kindly disregard what we said the other day. Sarah Palin just might be right after all, though it is too painful for us to come right out and say so."

When even the New York Times begins to waver in its fervent worship of "The Messiah" you know the wheels are coming off the Obama bandwagon.

Are You Scared Yet?

Obamacare increasingly is being perceived as the biggest threat to American freedom and security since the Cold War. It makes the undermining of the constitution in the name of the War on Terror by the Bush administration look like child's play. (And Obama has done nothing to roll back those attacks on civil liberties - nothing.) But why would I say this about Obamacare? What is so scary about it?

Well, let Nat Hentoff, the self-described "member of the Proud and Ancient Order of Stiff-necked Jewish Atheists" tell us. He is "a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the libertarian Cato Institute, where he is a senior fellow." His column on Real Clear Politics, entitled "I Am Finally Scared of a White House Administration" begins this way:

"I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) - as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill - decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.

The members of that ultimate federal board will themselves not have examined or seen the patient in question. For another example of the growing, tumultuous resistance to "Dr. Obama," particularly among seniors, there is a July 29 Washington Times editorial citing a line from a report written by a key adviser to Obama on cost-efficient health care, prominent bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel).

Emanuel writes about rationing health care for older Americans that "allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination." (The Lancet, January 2009) He calls this form of rationing - which is fundamental to Obamacare goals - "the complete lives system." You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.

No matter what Congress does when it returns from its recess, rationing is a basic part of Obama's eventual master health care plan. Here is what Obama said in an April 28 New York Times interview (quoted in Washington Times July 9 editorial) in which he describes a government end-of-life services guide for the citizenry as we get to a certain age, or are in a certain grave condition. Our government will undertake, he says, a "very difficult democratic conversation" about how "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care" costs."

Hentoff understands that health care rationing is the heart of Obama's health care reform. "Death panels" sounds sensational, but rationing is the real issue.

As Frank S. Rosenblum recently put it: "We do not need health care reform. We have the best health care system in the world. We need health insurance reform." Surely this is the point. Ask 10 people what is wrong with the health care system in the US and 10 of them will say that the problem is that not everyone is covered. They might also mention the widespread problem of companies not covering pre-existing conditions and the difficulties involved in moving from one job to another. If one is a Democrat, he or she might say that the system is too costly as well. But the broad-based public support for health-care reform is really support for health-insurance reform. The world acknowledges that US health care is the best in the world. Americans know this: Rasmussen polls show that 68% of Americans rate their current health insurance as good or excellent.

Why then is Obama fixated on reforming health care itself and not zeroing in on the insurance-related problems? Or, to put it another way, why is Obama determined to use insurance-related problems as a pretext to change health care itself in dramatic ways?

The issue of getting a handle on out-of-control costs is often raised, but Americans who examine the programs already being run by the rederal government - Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - are literally laughing in the faces of politicians who tell them that reform is necessary so the government can run health care more efficiently. Maybe if just one of those programs were being run efficiently, the people would take this strategy seriously.

People are not as stupid as the leftists running the Democratic Party apparently believe them to be. Even while clinging to their guns and religion, they can see that the only way to save serious money is by rationing and that means less care for some, namely the elderly.

They understand that the point of the so-called "public option" is for government to get its foot in the door and eventually force its will on private insurance companies by setting the bar for which services for whom will be covered and how much payments for certain procedures for whom will be. Democrats want the government wants to be the one deciding how much care those nearing the end of life shall receive so that costs can be controlled "rationally."

It is that word "rationally" that should scare the you-know-what out of you. "Rationally" was the Nazi watchword. A rational world wouldn't have any old sick people draining money out of the system; nor would it have any disabled people left alive or any terminally ill people of any age left to die naturally. None of that is "rational" from the perspective of the worldview of the Left.

Collectivism always tries to put government in the position of deciding who gets what and its view of equality involves centralized control to ensure that equality of outcome takes place. Collectivism is inherently totalitarian and only works when the control is centralized and concentrated in as few hands as possible. Hence, the "Death Panel" scenario is actually an accurate metaphor to use in describing such a system, regardless of picky debates over the wording of this or that clause and exactly what a given department of the bureaucracy will or won't do.

Obamacare is all about taking power that is currently dispersed among many health insurance companies and many employers and individuals and centralizing that power in the hands of the federal government, which will make it possible for collectivism to achieve its goals. In this sense, it is an example of socialism in practice.

Obamacare is fundamentally unjust and immoral. Not because it wants to ensure that all Americans are covered by health insurance; that would be a great goal to go after and it would win broad support. But because it is not primarily about health insurance reform, but rather it is about a collectivist, bureaucratic, rational approach to health care itself.

New Definition of Paranoia

Further to the post on a Burkean response to the Town Hall anger, here is a quote from Jonah Goldberg that is a good example of what I meant by Burke's concept of "prejudice."

"Under the plan discussed at President Obama’s infomercial-esqe town halls, America would cut costs and expand coverage while avoiding rationing. Apparently, it’s paranoid to think that’s too good to be true."

- Jonah Goldberg

Yeah, what else could it be?

Does Obama Really Want Health Care Reform?

I am reluctant to wade into the US debate on health care for several reasons. First, as a Canadian it does not affect me directly, (although only a fool would believe that what happens south of the 49th parallel is irrelevant to Canadians). Second, the issue is horrendously complex. Third, Christians can be found on both sides of the current debate depending on the exact issue being discussed. While a modern society should have affordable basic health care for all people, the exact mechanism and details are surely debatable.

But I just want to point out that, if my highest priority was getting the 48 million uninsured Americans covered, I wouldn’t go about it that way Obama is going about it. And that constitutes a genuine mystery: why is he doing what he is doing?

But let’s back up; I just assumed that coverage for the uninsured is the primary motivation driving Obama’s plan. Is that true? I’m actually not sure. There are so many tangled threads weaved together here and so many different agendas at work that it is hard to know who wants what anymore. The issue of the uninsured is certainly the main concern of the Catholic bishops and it would be my highest priority as well. But there are many other concerns that various people have:

1. The rising costs of existing health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

2. Ensuring abortion access to more women by having a plan that covers abortion available to every American

3. Preserving the profit motive that drives innovation in drug research and development and new treatment techniques

4. Reducing the costly expenditures at the end of life by some form of rationing

5. Perceived government incompetence to run large programs: will toilets cost $1,000 like they do in the Defense budget?

6. Lack of trust in an administration top heavy with pro-euthanasia, pro-abortion and pro-eugenics officials

7. Resistance to big government taking over more and more of life and the soft tyranny that that implies

8. The Democrats don’t seem to want to talk about the details; they prefer to attack the credibility of their opponents who have gone, in recent days, from merely being unfeeling and stupid to being racist Nazi thugs

Depending on which of these issues you care about, the debate is skewed in a certain direction. The problem seems to be that Americans are having about six different debates simultaneously with individuals floating back and forth between various issues without really ever engaging one another.

Where has Obama gone wrong?

1. He has given the impression, rightly or wrongly, that he just wants people to shut up and let the “experts” figure this out. His argument is that reform is so urgent that we should all just agree to what is on the table now and then let congress work out the details. Americans have spoken pretty clearly on that idea and the consensus is “No way.” Obama is painting his opponents as being unwilling to engage with the issue but people get the impression he really means that they are unwilling to capitulate and sign a blank check. Hence the anger.

2. He has said that he has a plan to ensure 48 million uninsured Americans right away and it is revenue neutral. It won’t cost a dime. If that were possible why was it not done in the Clinton administration? Can you believe that an administration that tosses trillions around like candy is really going to be fiscally responsible? Is there any wonder that people actually laugh out loud when politicians say it will be revenue neutral?

3. Obama says he can save the money by making Medicare more efficient. His opponents don’t actually doubt that he can; they are just worried about how he will do it. To suggest that there is that much fat to be trimmed is ludicrous and to suggest that the Democrats, who are not exactly famous for reducing public sector job levels, would do it is even more ludicrous. So what does that leave? This is the opening though which all the “death panel” and “euthanasia” scare tactics come in. This gives them credibility. Ordinary people just can’t see how you can save that much money and still give the elderly and disabled the same level of care as before. And guess what? That is a good question. If Obama admitted that insuring an extra 48 million people would cost x million dollars per year, but we need to do it because it is the right thing to do, he would at least eliminate the fear of tossing Grandma out of the lifeboat.

4. Obama has needlessly made abortion an issue in this debate. All he needed to do was to sit down with the Conference of Catholic Bishops and say: “OK, you tell me what I need to do in order to make this thing abortion-neutral in your eyes. What amendments would satisfy your concerns?” And then he should have done it. His pro-abortion supporters would have been furious but he could have said to them: “Look, we can fight the battle to make all health care insurance include abortion another day. Right now, we have a crisis and getting insurance for 48 million uninsured people is a higher priority than public funding for abortion.” He would have had to take a lot of criticism. But what would NARAL and Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood done about it in the end: vote Republican? If Obama had done what I’ve suggested, he would have brought the Catholic bishops onside and I believe ensured the passage of the legislation. They actually want to support him on this one. But his unwillingness to do so suggests that he is such a fanatic on abortion that he is willing to let health care reform (and probably his second term) fade into the mist to preserve his ideological purity.

5. The decision to paint all opponents to the current legislation (i.e. the famous 1,000 page largely unread document) as stooges of the Insurance companies, racist Nazi thugs and anti-democratic may well go down as the most disastrous political decision of Obama’s career. The American people don’t believe him and the tactic is just not working. If heath care reform is sunk, it will be in large part because of the decision of the White House to condescend to ordinary Americans and tell them to shut up and be respectful of their Washington masters. This is a public relations train wreck.

Obama can blame conservatives, drug companies, insurance companies, or whomever he wants, but the truth is that most of his wounds are self-inflicted. You don’t pass health care reform by stacking your administration with pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia appointees, asking people to give you a blank check, telling them it won’t cost anything, refusing to take abortion off the table, and then painting all those who object as stupid, racist, un-American Nazis. Obama is giving the nation a tutorial on how not to get health care reform passed.