On healthcare, how stupid . . .

. . . do they think we are?

Linda Douglass, of the Obama Administration, has responded via youtube (sure to go viral!!! Not.) to evidence (see here) that the Obama Administration and Democrats may be using their health insurance proposal as a trojan horse for socialized medicine. (here's the WH video response) The problem is that the response is premised on naked assertions ("nothing could be further from the truth") and on video clips from June and July of THIS year . . . kind of like looking at the fine exterior of the benign-looking trojan horse to determine if there are soldiers inside of it waiting to pounce on you once you put your polearm in the corner for the night.

This is insulting.

Healthcare debate bombshell

With one exception (see below) this compilation of video clips is bound to hugely impact the debate about Obama's (and the Democrats') proposed healthcare reforms.



What is the exception? I think that one can fairly conclude that Obama wants to do away with "[the system of] employer-provided health insurance" (at 34sec and 54sec, which I think is a good idea, if you're talking about removing the favorable tax treatment for buying healthcare insurance that self-employed people do not enjoy) . . . even as these words roll off my fingertips, though, I realize that he is probably using "employer-provided" as shorthand for "private." And I should probably stop giving him the benefit of the doubt on anything.

So it is reasonable to conclude from these clips that Obama and Democrats are pushing trojan horse legislation. And the interesting thing about trojan horses is that once the subject has come up, every "gift" offered is suspect.

Yelling at cops and stuff

I hate to keep revisiting the Gates arrest story, because it will lead some people to assert or conclude that I'm piling on or that I'm a racist, but I think--like Gates purports to believe, that this is a teachable moment on this issue of race in America.

Here's the best op/ed I've read on the subject; it's by Barry Saunders. It has a bit of a surreal feel to it because it's hard to believe that Saunders--who claims to have been stopped "a hundred or so times" by police, is able to have such an easygoing attitude about the subject. However, I think Saunders strikes the perfect balance between objectivity and empathy on the subject. For the record, I am very concerned that officers not prejudicially make traffic stops, but that isn't what's at issue here, in my opinion. Apparently, this black Boston police officer agrees with me.

And one other comment-worthy thing that I've heard of late (from a handful of Conservative talk-show people, as best I can recall) is, "it's not illegal to yell at a police officer." That's not true. Police are involved in very dangerous work. I'd say at least once per week it crosses my mind that I would not want to walk up to a vehicle in a traffic stop on a dark, deserted highway (or during broad daylight). And they are often in the minority under very tense circumstances that can readily escalate or spin out of control; thus, officers have a legitimate basis for expecting citizens to not be disorderly in such a situation. Those conditions may or may not have been present in the Gates arrest, but it is not correct to flatly say, "it's not against the law to yell at a cop."

Not so fast, Professor Gates

In the wake of reports (here) that Cambridge police were contemplating the release of audio surrounding his arrest for disorderly conduct, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. says he's "ready to move on . . ." From the AP:

In an e-mail to the Boston Globe late Friday, [Gates] said: "It is time for all of us to move on, and to assess what we can learn from this experience."

In a statement to The Associated Press, Gates promised to do all he could so others could learn from his arrest.

"This could and should be a profound teaching moment in the history of race relations in America," Gates said. "I sincerely hope that the Cambridge police department will choose to work with me toward that goal."

Based on reading these statements, Gates appears eager to move on as well as intent on maintaining his victim status. I suspect Gates is not eager for the facts behind this incident to come out, but this will not truly advance the debate about "racial profiling" if it incorrectly continues as race-merchant fodder.

The Left's mortal sin: hypocrisy

AC Kleinheider has linked to a Memphis TV story about past allegations about Paul Stanley.

As I stated in response to the comments (mostly from Left-of-Center internet personalities across TN) beneath ACK's post:

I love Dems and Libs telling me/Evangelicals that I/we need to get all judgmental and moralistic and unforgiving.

I and others have said that Stanley is unqualified–by our standards, to serve in the state senate. Any ambivalence on the issue reflects the very real tension between idealism and pragmatism in the political realm. A candidate/official’s character is difficult to assess, and the ultimate objective in choosing elected officials is the implementation of wise public policy, not selecting role models.

For me, these events engender feelings of betrayal and disdain toward Stanley and his ilk within my Party, and though this post by ACK is attractive like an auto accident, and though this information seems to affirm all my worst sentiments/conclusions about Stanley, I’m not sure that the article/post is altogether relevant. Unless our purpose is to provide more opportunities for Liberal tongue-clucking and discordant moralizing about hypocrisy.

If their lips are moving . . .

Today I heard a political commentator (okay, it was a local talk radio guy) repeatedly using the word "lie" in relation to Obama's presser this week on health insurance. It kind of got on my nerves, because I hesitate to use that word, and always bristled at the cavalier accusations from Lefties that Bushitler had lied or was lying about this or that ("or everything!!").

That being said, it got me to thinking about how I would characterize Obama's words and actions on healthcare and other issues. Jonah Goldberg has an insightful essay today about what he terms Obama's "bait and switch" on healthcare. From the article:

Now, Obama has come nowhere near meeting the burden of proof that the still inchoate and murky proposals in a still half-baked health-care bill will do anything of the sort. Indeed, so far the more persuasive argument — backed up by the Congressional Budget Office and others — is that Obamacare will cost a lot of money. And the only way it can actually “save” money is by rationing care. But Obama understands that he cannot sell his health-care reform in the language of the Left.

So, it’s a bait and switch. If anything, the overriding idea behind Obama’s approach seems to be to rush his “public plan” into law and expand its generosity over time. This is the tribute a center-left president must pay to a center-right country.

He’s in such a hurry because he senses Americans understand a bait and switch when they see one. On Monday he even proclaimed, “The time for talking is through.”

In ascribing the I think what motivates most Libs is an Elitism which leads them to believe they or gov't "experts" know what's best for average people; thus, it is proper for the gov't to impose that "best" policy, whether or not the average folks agree. And, charmingly, in order to get citizens of our republic to go along with what Liberals know to be in their best interest, it is not wrong to mislead citizens a little bit . . . sometimes.

A witness in a court room must swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." That's probably an impossible standard for most political discussions, but problems with "truth" are utterly predictable if moral relativism is presupposed.

Tough vote on Sotomayor

As announcements trickle out regarding GOP senators' intended votes on the Sotomayor nomination, I can't help but feel (a teeny bit of) sympathy for them. Why? Because the Sotomayor who testified on Capitol Hill last week is different than the Sotomayor who has judged and seminared and opined over the past 17 years (and who is also the Sotomayor likely to reappear once seated on the Supreme Court). As Jay Nordlinger writes at NationalReview.com:

Well, that was an amazing performance by Sonia Sotomayor before the Senate committee. The Sonia Sotomayor of the past was completely gone. Gone was the woman who talked about the role of “physiology” in judging, who insisted that impartiality, objectivity, neutrality — all of that — was a fantasy, and a bad one. In her place was a champion of impartiality, disinterestedness, and the rule of law: the rule of law, and nothing but. Doesn’t make a difference whether you’re a Latina or a whitey or whatever. “Empathy”? Never heard of it. Certainly has no role in the courtroom.

A funny thought occurred to me: Maybe President Obama should withdraw Sotomayor’s nomination? I mean, she seemed to repudiate everything he stands for in judging.

I must say I was especially grateful to those liberals who said, publicly, they were disappointed in Sotomayor’s choices: who said that her testimony before the committee was dishonest and disingenuous. They scored her for perpetuating the childish belief that judging can be impartial. They wanted the old, candid, racialist Sonia back. I would like to add that I think the old, candid, racialist Sonia would have been just fine. What I mean is, the Senate would have confirmed her anyway — there is that mountain of Democratic votes. She could have let it all hang out. She did not have to dissemble to stymie people like me.

The Sonia Sotomayor who testified before the committee, people like me could endorse and vote for. Somebody’s lying: either the Sonia Sotomayor of the past or the Sonia Sotomayor of the present. Or she has undergone a conversion. I doubt that such conversion has taken place. You?

So which vote should they cast? The one that will be characterized as partisan (and perhaps bigoted) or the one that will not avert her confirmation and is fairly rooted in a concern for Rule of Law and sound judicial philosophy?

Thank you Cathy McBroom

This story about the sexual and ethical misconduct (I don't separate the two, actually) of Federal Judge Samuel B. Kent is very troubling--on a variety of levels, but apparently the story will have a somewhat satisfying ending because of the courage of Cathy McBroom in risking her job to come forward with charges against the judge.

One section of the report is particularly inspiring:

In the most emotional moment [of her testimony before a House impeachment body], Wilkerson described trying to tell her teenage daughter to never endure any sexual misconduct, even if it meant harsh consequences such as losing her job.


"How could I look her in the face and tell her these things when I couldn't do it myself," she said, her voice cracking. "So I had to come forward. I had to do the right thing."

Here's the latest on the case.

Slow down, Big O

Rich Lowry's got it right ("Like the Stimulus, ObamaCare is Reckless"):

When Barack Obama pilfered Martin Luther King Jr.'s line about the 'fierce urgency of now,' he wasn't kidding. The line has come to define his presidency. His legislative strategy moves in two gears - heedlessly fast and recklessly faster.

As with the stimulus package, Obama's health-care plan depends on speed. More important than any given provision, more important than any principle, more important than sound legislating is the urgent imperative to Do It Now.

Do it now, before anyone can grasp what exactly it is that Congress is passing. Do it now, before the overpromising and the dishonest justifications can be exposed. Do it now, before Obama's poll numbers return to Earth and make it impossible to slam through ramshackle government programs concocted on the run. Do it now, because simply growing government is more important than the practicalities of any new program.

Record lows in Mr. Hot Air's hometown

Via the Drudge Report, Coolest July 21 recorded in Nashville as cool wave continues in Tenn. - WHNT.

Which is a good reason to link to An Inconvenient Truth's beat down, The Great Global Warming Swindle, watch the first episode here.

Go viral young man--"Just Tax" video

Below is the "Just Tax" parody of the Lady Gaga hit "Just Dance." The video was shown to House Republicans in a GOP conference meeting Tuesday morning. I suspect Peter Cowman may be busy in the coming year.

No license to rant

I am committed to racial reconciliation, and I'm always hesitant to touch the true third rail of politics--race, but a couple of stories of late have motivated me to point out that the color of your skin does not give you a license to rant (more than anyone else, at least).

You have no doubt heard about the man (Harry Alford) who confronted Sen. Barbara Boxer because she was lumping him in with other racially-designated organizations during a recent hearing. While I have to admit it was somewhat gratifying to see someone treating Mrs. Boxer ((grin) rudely, I have to admit that I never quite sympathized with Mr. Alford's indignation. After all, he is the head of an organization (the National Black Chamber of Commerce) that exists--ostensibly, to represent a group of people based on race (we have a purely "business" Chamber of Commerce). As a person is opposed to just about every policy preference of Barbara Boxer, it is difficult to care about what Mrs. Boxer is/was feeling, but I did sympathize with her predicament . . . Mr. Alford shouldn't lead with race and expect not to be categorized on that basis. That being said, maybe Mr. Alford and Boxer are now appreciating the sharp-edged nature of racial politics.

And on that note, the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., a Harvard professor, should not be a news story (or not as it is being spun by the MSM (""Black scholar's arrest raises profiling questions"). I would bet that Gates (or at least Race Merchants) would have been up in arms if he had ended up dead or otherwise victimized because the police had ignored a report that two men with backpacks had seen forcing entry into an apartment. The facts as reported, even slanted in favor of Gates and even characterized as an example of possible racial profiling, do not justify Gates' actions.

Update: Charges Dropped Against Gates

Virginia harbinger

Reeling from the relative Obama landslide in '08, the GOP could make a splash in governor's races across the U.S. in the next two non-presidential election cycles--and 38 states will hold elections for governor this year or next year.

And here's a bomb shell from Virginia which is electing its gubernatorial race on November 3 (along with NJ):

Sheila Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television and the former chairwoman of Democratic Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's inaugural committee, crossed party lines Monday to endorse Republican Bob McDonnell as Kaine's successor, arguing McDonnell would do a better job of spurring economic development in Virginia.

Kathleen Parker's identity politics sinkhole

Kathleen Parker has an off-target essay up today about the Sotomayor hearings. In particular, Parker misinterprets legitimate questions about Sotomayor's wise-latina-makes-better-judge views as sexist/chauvinistic/racist. From the article:Kathleen Parker - The GOP's Sotomayor Sinkhole - washingtonpost.com:

But those who picked the wrong battles during her confirmation, reminding Americans that they are blind to their own biases and attitudes, may find themselves increasingly lonely in that great big tent.

By questioning Sotomayor about her race- and sex-based ideology and judicial philosophy, the Senators (who are jurisprudentially Conservative, but only happen to be male and white) are appropriately establishing a standard for Rule of Law and the proper role of a judge in our Constitutional republic.

I believe that a sparsely populated GOP big tent is a predictable result of cluelessly (or worse, insidiously) demagoguing legitimate questions of public policy. Way to go, female, people-pleasing Kathleen Parker.

Healthcare reform on the bottom shelf . . .

The Democrats' Legislative Anschluss continues with a rushed vote on socializing health insurance. And fast action requires fast talk.

VP Joe Biden was speakin' to the "folks" over at AARP yesterday; speakin' down to them, might be more accurate (here):

Biden told the group that the Obama health plan will not eliminate people’s ability to choose their health care insurance and that people who cannot afford insurance will be covered by the plan.

“They’ll be a deal in there so there’s competition, so what you’ll have in there is you’ll have the ability to go in there and say, ‘Now look, this is the policy I want. This is the one,” Biden said.

“And those people who can’t afford to get in there, up to a certain income, we’re going to subsidize them, you get in there and we’ll help you pay for it,” Biden said.

Isn't he reassuring?

Easy on Labor . . .

I'd like to hear some from the Left (Obama supports it!) explain why "card check" (or "majority sign-up," as Labor is calling it) is good or even "moral." From the NYTimes (here):

A half-dozen senators friendly to labor have decided to drop a central provision of a bill that would have made it easier to organize workers.
The so-called card-check provision — which senators decided to scrap to help secure a filibuster-proof 60 votes — would have required employers to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers signed cards saying they wanted a union. Currently, employers can insist on a secret-ballot election, a higher hurdle for unions.

Coburn pickin' a fight?

I agree with Sonia Sotomayor's handling (at least in the context of this video) of this poorly framed question from Sen. Coburn on "personal self defense."

I think he's driving at the 2nd Amendment, but that is a distinct question from "personal self defense." I also sympathize with her unwillingness to tell her personal opinion (apart from legal considerations) about any such right. It is appropriate to ask her whether she believes that the Constitution provides for such a right or whether a particular statute provides that "right," and a good judge (one acting within his/her proper role) need not go beyond such consideration.

Who the grown-ups are (on foreign policy)

Andy McCarthy has a great op/ed about Congressional Dems' immature politics (Another Phony Scandal).

From the essay:

That is, while Democrats politicize “torture,” “domestic spying,” the Patriot Act, and now the CIA’s efforts to defeat al-Qaeda, Republicans are generally supporting Obama’s Pakistan policy for the greater good of protecting our national security.

Eventually, people do figure out who the grown-ups are.

French healthcare scandal

Interesting "scandal" regarding France's socialized healthcare system.

Note: story translated from here with www.translate.google.com .

About Cheney's "secret" program . . .

One story about the recently-revealed "secret program" (that "Cheney lied about" and Panetta (heroically!) reported and terminated) ominously states that the program was related to "assassinations." Well:

According to the Wall Street Journal, the program which Democrats were so angry about turns out to be an effort “to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives.” Excuse me, but this is the Democrats’ idea of a scandal? Most Americans would not only expect, but demand, that the CIA do everything in its power to kill al-Qaeda operatives before they strike our country. Indeed, the Obama administration itself has reportedly escalated targeted killings of al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan using Predator and Reaper drones. These targeted killings are not assassinations — they are legitimate strikes against an enemy that has declared war on us and attacked us where we live.