. . . if that's still allowed in the Age of Obama.
From the subtle Pat Hickey:
1) Obama was never cool.
2) On civil discourse (not - don't miss the punchline at the end).
Comments welcome.
Most recent posts here.
First we'll talk about rationing. But government-run health care will open the door for more than bureaucratic control over who gets the pace-makers and the Alzheimer's drugs.
Rationing will be necessary
Obama's vision of a reformed health care system necessarily includes rationing. He has half-acknowledged the need for a decision-making board --
Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.He dodged the question during the ABC ObamaDay marathon. But, as in the UK, there will of necessity be a group that will make the judgments on whose lives and well-being are worth investing in.
An very nice early version:
And a later cockier version here.
Comments welcome.
Most recent posts here.
I love this quote from Joe Biden:
Another good one:"We're doing things that we know are going to save you, your children and your grand children billions of dollars over the next years. But we're not able to prove it." (AARP Meeting - Virginia)
We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation. Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’ The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”Biden's proclamations are strangely habit-forming. I can't resist re-posting these doozies from this morning:
"Now folks, if your milk went up 57 percent and no end in sight, guess what? There would be a lot of dead cows. No one buying milk. You can't afford it."Life is different in Joe's America.
"I say, 'Don't let your opposition to the Recovery Act blind you to its results,'" Biden plans to say in the Richmond speech. "'Come see what I see everywhere I go: workers rehired, factories reopened, cops on the street, teachers in the classroom, progress toward getting our economy back on the move.'"
Parents should know better, but so many of them don't.
Barbara Walters on Bruno:
Thanks, Barbara, for caring enough about children to say this. It may make you some Hollyweird enemies. But adult (oh the irony) movies are bad for kids. And pornography is bad for everyone.On "The View" Wednesday morning, Walters called the movie "almost as pornographic as any pornographic thing that I've seen," adding that unlike porno flicks, you can catch this flick around the corner in your neighborhood movie theater.
Walters also strongly disagreed that the movie, about a gay Austrian fashion reporter on a quest for worldwide fame, would make people more accepting of homosexuality.
"I think this will make people, if you're not homophobic, it could make you," she said.
"If you are a parent, do not bring your child to this movie," Walters said.
Michelle Obama has -- count 'em -- twenty-two "attendants." Barbara at Mommy Life comments:
Barbara refers to American Thinker, who provide the data on Laura Bush's staff. No, she doesn't come close.And btw, whenever I run any critique of Michelle, I hear from her fans that the Bushes never had this kind of scrutiny and were guilty of the same thing.
Are you kidding me? Can you even imagine Bush gallivanting all over several continents, taking a flotilla of jets to accommodate Laura and her attendants? Refusing to disclose the cost of European vacations at taxpayer expense?
Excerpt:
Mr. Gerson goes on to explain why lifetime appointments are so harmful:Given this context, can it be argued that Ginsburg -- referring to "populations that we don't want to have too many of" -- was merely summarizing the views of others and describing the attitudes of the country when Roe v. Wade was decided? It can be argued -- but it is not bloody likely. Who, in Ginsburg's statement, is the "we"? And who, in 1973, was arguing for the eugenic purposes of abortion?
It is more likely that Ginsburg is describing the attitude of some of her own social class -- that abortion is economically important to a "woman of means" and useful in reducing the number of social undesirables. Neither judge nor journalist apparently found this attitude exceptional; there was no follow-up question.
The entire Ginsburg interview is a reminder of the risks of lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. Immune from criticism, surrounded by plump cushions of deference, the temperament of a justice can become exaggerated over time. For Ginsburg, complex arguments are now "so obvious" and "can never be otherwise" -- and opposition is fated to failure. Such statements, made during Ginsburg's own nomination hearing, would have been disqualifying. Now she doesn't give a damn.Please read the rest.
RS McCain has written a must-read on the origins of John Holdren's anti-people philosophy. Though Obama's science czar wrote Ecoscience in 1977, and though his proposals to spike the water supply with sterilizing drugs and force abortions on the 'unfit' strike us as outlandish, his ideas are strictly relevant to the culture of death we live in today and to the threatened government takeover of our health care.
Tragically for humanity, population control advocates such as Holdren have been hugely successful. Evidence of that success can be found in the millions of legal abortions since Roe v Wade, in the 90% abortion rate of Down syndrome babies, in the growth of the assisted suicide movement, and so on.
McCain points out the veritable brainwashing two generations have undergone since the 1960's on the issue of "overpopulation." Read the whole thing.
Excerpts:
Mr. McCain quotes the vile Ted Turner at length, and explains:The population control movement, which generated the anti-baby hysteria that Ehrlich and Holdren promoted in their books, was largely the brainchild of John D. Rockefeller III. Rockefeller funded much of the movement himself and through a number of family trusts and foundations, and he encouraged other foundations (Ford, Scaife, Carnegie) to do the same.
Rockefeller promoted the population control movement through many means, but just to give you an example, between 1959 and 1964 one organization alone, the Population Council, got more than $5 million from the Rockefellers, $8.4 million from the Ford Foundation and $2.1 million from Scaife. So that’s $15 million in five years, back when a million dollars was a lot of money.
People like Turner think they're "the smart ones," and love to recite environmental nonsense, global warming idiocies and pro-choice talking points as if these were indisputable facts. The neo-Malthusian agenda (which I discussed in "Forbidding To Marry" in April) is advanced by people who don't even realize they're advancing an agenda at all.The mention of Ted Turner is enough to ruin one's breakfast. Time for a palate-cleanser:
"It's science!" these people declare, dismissing skeptics as "ignorant," when in fact the real ignorance is on their part -- environmentalists and pro-choicers often don't know the real history of their own movement.
The president continues to lie to Americans about keeping their health plans:
Speaking of lying, Biden hits the road to fight for ObamaCare:“Let me be exactly clear about what health care reform means to you,” the president told residents of the Garden State. “First of all, if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.”
But last month, as the president acknowledged during a press conference, he doesn’t literally mean that you are guaranteed to be able to keep your health care plan, and your doctor, if and when health care reform passes.
"Can we possibly afford to do nothing when health care costs have gone up 57 -- if I'm not mistaken -- percent just since 2002?" Biden asked rhetorically. "Now folks, if your milk went up 57 percent and no end in sight, guess what? There would be a lot of dead cows. No one buying milk. You can't afford it."Joe goes on to spout more nonsense on the economy and health care but never explains why the cows would die.
"Not only is it immoral not to provide everybody with decent health care, which is my view, the president's view, and the administration's view," he said. "It is also fiscally irresponsible."Awkward but true:His comments had an added irony coming on Thursday, because earlier in the day, the director of the Congressional Budget Office testified that the Democratic health care proposals only make the health care cost issue much worse.
Instead of saving the federal government from fiscal catastrophe, the health reform measures being drafted by congressional Democrats would increase rather than reduce public spending on health care, potentially worsening an already bleak budget outlook, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this morning.Poor Joe seems to be cracking under the weight of the failing economy and has begun to hallucinate:
"To those who say that our economic decisions 'have not produced jobs, have not produced prosperity, and simply have not worked' I say, take a look around," Biden will say, according to prepared remarks obtained by The Washington Post.Cue laugh track. I hadn't realized that we had no police before Obama came to save us. Or that schools are brimming with teachers and students in July."I say, 'Don't let your opposition to the Recovery Act blind you to its results,'" Biden plans to say in the Richmond speech. "'Come see what I see everywhere I go: workers rehired, factories reopened, cops on the street, teachers in the classroom, progress toward getting our economy back on the move.'"
Biden’s airy dismissal of everything humans have learned about economics since Eve opened a discount fruit stand is funny until you realize this actually reflects the administration’s fiscal policies.No one human can keep up with Joe's mouth. Go to Memeorandum for more.
From IBD via Gateway Pundit:
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.Read the bill here.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
WOW. Click on this. Hat tip to Carol.
Comments welcome.
Most recent posts here.
From one who knows:
This is absolutely one of the dumbest things anyone has come up with yet as a means to “improve” our military.
He's referring to the recommendation to ban smoking in a war-zone. From Fox News:
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell says troops already are under enough stress and making enough sacrifices in fighting the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he says Defense Secretary Robert Gates doesn't want to do add to that stress by taking away one of the few outlets they have to relieve it.
But Morrell says Gates will look at the study to see what other things can be done to move toward a goal of a tobacco-free force.
An advocacy group, however, is strongly condemning the push by Pentagon health experts to ban the use of tobacco by troops and end sales of tobacco products on military property. Brian Wise, executive director of Military Families United, decried even the discussion of such a ban.
"With all the issues facing our military today and the risks our troops take to protect our freedom, banning smoking should not even be on the radar screen," Wise said in a written statement Wednesday.
Perhaps no one told the bureaucrats that fighting a war is . . . uh . . . hazardous to your health.
More from our correspondent:
Sure, tell a Marine he can’t light up a Marlboro right after a blazing firefight with 20-30 Iraqi insurgents. He’s likely to shoot you. And who will be over there trying to enforce that rule…little goon squads sent out by the Surgeon Generals office? GOOD luck enforcing it. It is outright impossible and there is no leader, officer or enlisted that will even try to enforce it. The platoon sergeant has a choice of checking his Marines for injuries, making sure they have water and ammo OR…he can police the ranks for Marines smoking and ignoring preparing for the next fight. One of the principles of leadership is don’t make a rule you can’t enforce and this is absolutely one of those rules. You’d gut the military and maybe that is where they think they’re going with this. It simply can not be done and it is wholly unnecessary, not to mention a gross distraction to the military now. If they really want to improve the military effectiveness they would be FAR better off spending their resources in preventing all the sex, adultery, pornography and outright prostitution going on over there. It’s a much bigger issue than anyone not in uniform will ever know Jill. It’s crazy!
From Newsbusters: the rationale is that servicemen shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions on this.
If Dr. Nancy wants to preach the dangers of smoking to soldiers, be my guest. But prohibiting a guy who is putting his life on the line for his country from lighting up? Two words for the good doctor: butt out!From Gateway Pundit: Lib kooks lose.
From Orrin Hatch via The Hill's Twitter Room: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) continued to voice his displeasure with Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, accusing her of reciting White House talking points. He tweeted: As for her performance in the hearing, DeMint said that at the Republican lunch Tuesday there was a “growing concern” that she is not being forthcoming. He called her reversals a series of “hearing conversions” and confided that “increasingly more of our reasonable members” are raising the credibility issue. He dubbed her statement that she never read and was unaware of the PRLDEF legal arguments a “jaw-dropper.” [PRLDEF is the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.] Former Attorney General Meese voiced a similar view: “What she is saying now is totally contradicted by the facts.” He also pointed to Sotomayor’s characterization of her agreement with Justice O’Connor. He explained that this “should concern people on both sides of the aisle” who should want an honest and credible judge on the bench. Meese went onto explain that it is now critical for senators to insist that the PRLDEF documents, which have yet to be produced in their entirety for the Senate, be obtained to verify or disprove Sotomayor’s startling claim that she was ignorant of the legal positions being taken by a group for which she served both as a board member and on the litigation committee. He added that until the documents are produced the hearings should be continued. That, he said, is what must be done when “critical issues” arise “concerning the veracity of the candidate.”
Let's take it one or two steps further. Some say that Sotomayor, who is under oath, has given some answers that are not 100% truthful. There's a legal term for that, I think:
Frustrating…the Judge’s answers have been quite generic on occasion. Sure sign of WH coaching.I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. -- Law professor Louis Seidman
From Jennifer Rubin:And it is not just conservatives who are disturbed. The Washington Post’s Eva Rodriguez, who had touted Sotomayor’s nomination, wrote: “I’m surprised and disturbed by how many times today Sonia Sotomayor has backed off of or provided less-than-convincing explanations for some of her more controversial speeches about the role of gender and ethnicity in judicial decision-making.” Indeed, that this the question of the moment: is Sotomayor being honest with the Senate?
Read the rest. It's impossible not to conclude that Sotomayor, when asked about red-flag items on her record, just lies and denies. Rubin gives multiple examples. Here's just one:She also misstated her own views on use of international law, declaring that she had ruled out international law as a basis for decision-making when in fact she had previously declared that foreign laws “help us understand what the concepts meant to other countries and … whether our understanding of our own constitutional rights fell into the mainstream of human thinking.”
Is anyone going to care? Maybe:
Read the whole thing.
Back to that "p" word. I'm no lawyer, but isn't there a legal term, too, for coaching a witness to provide less than truthful answers?
Comments welcome.
Most recent posts here.
. . . the phone lines, that is.
What's coming is very ugly and needs to be stopped. If you're not yet convinced that you need to speak up against health care reform, read this from Don Surber in its entirety. The US will have its own version of NICE, the UK's life-or-death decision-making committee. Treatments will indeed be rationed and the decision to treat will necessarily be based on two factors: cost, and whether or not your life, in the eyes of the committee, is worth saving or improving.
The plan will mean a heavy tax increase for "the rich" (a very elastic concept) and even the uninsured:
Judging from existing examples of government-run health systems, quality of care will go down and wait times will go up, even if you're diagnosed with cancer. The existing government-run systems in the US shouldn't inspire confidence:To summarize, under the House bill:
- Bob is a single 50-year old non-smoking small business employee who makes $50K per year before taxes and does not have health insurance.
- Bob cannot afford a $1,600 bare bones health insurance policy, much less a $3K — $5K policy.
- Bob would get no subsidies under this bill, and his employer would face no penalty for not providing him with health insurance.
- Bob would end up without health insurance and would have to pay $1,150 more in taxes.
On some reservations, the oft-quoted refrain is "don't get sick after June," when the federal dollars run out. It's a sick joke, and a sad one, because it's sometimes true, especially on the poorest reservations where residents cannot afford health insurance. Officials say they have about half of what they need to operate, and patients know they must be dying or about to lose a limb to get serious care.
And here's some icing for the cake:
This health care plan of President Obama will exempt government workers and union workers.
Think about that for a minute. Why should anyone want to be exempted? And why, of all people, should the creators, implementers, and enforcers of this glorious system be excused from participating in it?
Now is the time to make some phone calls.
The Blue Dog Democrats are on the fence and haven't yet been bought off. They need to be made to feel the heat on health care reform. Our calls can make a real difference.
Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121:
Reps. John Barrow (D-Ga.)
Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.)
Baron Hill (D-Ind.)
Jim Matheson (D-Utah)
Charlie Melancon (D-La.)
Mike Ross (D-Ark.)
Zack Space (D-Ohio)
Burn it down. More from Michelle Malkin.
Comments welcome.
From the Corner:
How much will it cost you? Plenty:
The House of Representatives' health-care bill includes an income surtax that would range from 1% to 5.4% on incomes over $350,000. The Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl and Curtis Duey did the math for us:From Thomas Szasz:
As calculated by the Tax Foundation, when factoring in the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, average state and local income taxes, Medicare taxes, and the new surtax, the average top marginal income tax rate in the U.S. would be 52 percent!
If we persevere in our quixotic quest for a fetishized medical equality we will sacrifice personal freedom as its price. We will become the voluntary slaves of a "compassionate" government that will provide the same low quality health care to everyone.Pat Austin is all over this:
Keith provides two scenarios, both entirely plausible, to demonstrate how the CBO determined that eight million people — around 20% of the current uninsured — would likely end up with no insurance and higher taxes. The mandate in the bill would force people to choose between paying the taxes or paying as much as three times as much for health insurance, assuming a family plan.Follow-up: Reasons to call your representative now to stop this monster.
From Ed Whalen:
President Obama says he’s a longtime fan of the Chicago White Sox, but he calls Comiskey Park “Cominskey.” And Judge Sotomayor, in her testimony yesterday, asserted that “Few judges could claim they love baseball more than I do” and that she “grew up … watching baseball.” But a March 28, 1995, story in USA Today, titled “U.S. District judge not a baseball fan,” stated that Sotomayor “grew up a few miles from Yankee Stadium but says she knows little about the sport.” And yesterday she said that “many residents of Washington, D.C. have asked me to look at the Senators” as her new team. But as even a casual baseball fan would know, the D.C. team is the Nationals, not the Senators.GAK!
There's no N in there, but this guy was brought up by communists, so all these inskys have made an indelible impression on his mind like Saul Alinsky . . . .Comments welcome.
A follow-up on Lt. Brian Bradshaw: A Soldier Comes Home
We taxied back on the runway, and, as we began rolling for takeoff, I looked to my right. Brian's platoon had not moved from where they were standing in the darkness. As we rolled past, his men saluted him one more time; their way to honor him one last time as best they could. We will never forget this.Please read the rest.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. See below.
I was slow to mention the statement from Justice Ginsburg on abortion as a eugenics tool. I found it ambiguous and could hardly believe she would espouse such beliefs, privately or openly. But after reading Jonah Goldberg on this subject it's clear that Justice Ginsburg absolutely must explain what she meant in this NYT interview:
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.Is she one of the "we" she speaks of?
Left unclear is whether Ginsburg endorses the eugenic motivation she ascribed to the passage of Roe vs. Wade or whether she was merely objectively describing it. One senses that if Antonin Scalia had offered such a comment, a Times interviewer would have sought more clarity, particularly on the racial characteristics of these supposedly unwanted populations.You may argue that this is all from an earlier, less progressive era. But what follows is of more recent vintage and strictly relevant to contemporary culture:
Regardless, Ginsburg's certainly right that abortion has very deep roots in the historic effort to "weed out" undesired groups. For instance, Margaret Sanger, the revered feminist and founder of Planned Parenthood, was a racist eugenicist of the first order. Even more perplexing: She's become a champion of "reproductive freedom" even though she proposed a "Code to Stop Overproduction of Children," under which "no woman shall have a legal right to bear a child without a permit." (Poor blacks would have had a particularly hard time getting such licenses from Sanger.)
If Ginsburg does see eugenic culling as a compelling state interest, she'd be in fine company on the court. Oliver Wendell Holmes was a passionate believer in such things. In 1915, Holmes wrote in the Illinois Law Review that the "starting point for an ideal for the law" should be the "coordinated human effort ... to build a race."
In 1927, he wrote a letter to his friend, Harold Laski, telling him, "I ... delivered an opinion upholding the constitutionality of a state law for sterilizing imbeciles the other day -- and felt that I was getting near the first principle of real reform." That was the year he wrote the majority opinion in Buck vs. Bell (joined by Louis Brandeis) holding that forcibly sterilizing lower-class women was constitutional. In recent years, openly discussing the notion of eugenic aspects of abortion has become taboo. But as Ginsburg's comments suggest, the taboo hasn't eliminated the idea; it's merely sent it underground.
In 1992, Ron Weddington, co-counsel in the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case, wrote a letter to President-elect Clinton, imploring him to rush RU-486 -- a.k.a. "the abortion pill" -- to market as quickly as possible.Read the whole column.
"[Y]ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country," Weddington insisted. All the president had to do was make abortion cheap and easy for the populations we don't want. "It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it. ... Think of all the poverty, crime and misery ... and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don't have a lot of time left."
We'd need the book to provide the context. It's possible that they weren't endorsing these horrors but were using them to frighten students into adopting the pernicious and false ZPG agenda. Fear is a favorite and extremely effective tool of those who wish to control the masses. *See update below.“We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described -- but not recommended -- in the book's 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator.”
Describing “Ecoscience” as a “textbook,” they said its descriptions can be “misrepresented as endorsement.”
In Tuesday e-mails to CNA, Rick Weiss, the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s Director of Strategic Communications, said the material at issue was from “a three-decade-old, three-author textbook used in colleges to teach energy policy.”He could “easily dismiss” fears that Dr. Holdren favors government control over population growth.
“He made that quite clear in his confirmation hearing,” Weiss said.
He then quoted a section of the confirmation transcript in which Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) asked Holdren whether he thinks “determining optimal population is a proper role of government.”
“No, Senator, I do not,” was Holdren’s reply, according to Weiss and a transcript of the proceedings.
Phew. But he still seems to promote the old and far from harmless over-population scam:
In other remarks at the confirmation hearing, not cited by Weiss, Holdren told Sen. Vitter he no longer thinks it is “productive” to focus on the “optimum population” for the United States. “I don't think any of us know what the right answer is.”
That's not hugely comforting.
According to Weiss, Holdren “made clear that he did not believe in coercive means of population control” and is not an advocate for measures expressed in the book “and they are certainly not endorsed by this administration in any way.”
Fast forward thirty years and it's clear that population control is being achieved without force. The growth of the acceptance of self-sterilization and destruction of one's own children as a good in itself as well as "good for the planet" has eliminated the need for coercive measures. There's no point in killing off cultures that are willing to commit suicide.
*Update: The plot thickens. I've been too easy on Holdren. Michelle Malkin writes this morning that Holdren's self-avowed greatest influence was himself a avowed eugenicist. I hate to ruin your breakfast, but this quote is for real:
Harrison Brown’s book — the book that inspired Obama science czar John Holdren — also infamously likened the world’s growing population to “a pulsating mass of maggots.”Sickening. But we need to know the enemy. Read Michelle's whole column. She's all over this.
Tuesday night:
That was a pretty unusual camera angle on Obama's All Star Game pitch. We usually get the view that includes the pitcher and the catcher. Pujols was barely in the shot, making it difficult to tell whether the ball made it all the way, or where Pujols was positioned. But judging from Obama's self-congratulatory gesture I guess he made it. Or maybe that was just spin?
Wednesday morning:
Confirmation from the Washington Times:
From ESPN:Obama's ceremonial first pitch at the All-Star game barely reached the plate Tuesday night. St. Louis Cardinals star Albert Pujols helped the president, moving up on the plate and reaching out to scoop the low toss.
Television viewers, however, were initially left to wonder whether the presidential pitch skipped. The TV angle cut off Pujols' catch, and many people at Busch Stadium weren't completely sure.And why was that, pray tell? Very, very unusual camera work there.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.):
“Our own committee members demonstrate the value that comes from members who have different backgrounds and perspectives.Fascinating. Please tell us more.
“For instance, at the same time my accomplished colleague Sen. Whitehouse, son of a renowned diplomat, was growing up in Saigon during the Vietnam War, I was working as a carhop at the A&W root beer stand in suburban Minnesota. And while Sen. Hatch is a famed gospel music songwriter, Sen. Leahy is such a devoted fan of the Grateful Dead that he once had trouble taking a call from the president of the United States because the chairman was on stage with the Grateful Dead.”
The "umpire" analogy is belied by Chief Justice Roberts, though he cast himself as an "umpire" during his confirmation hearings. Jeffrey Toobin, a well-respected legal commentator, has recently reported that "[i]n every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff." Some umpire. And is it a coincidence that this pattern, to continue Toobin's quote, "has served the interests, and reflected the values of the contemporary Republican party"? Some coincidence.
So "justice" is served when the party with the best victim-cred wins. Good grief. Unbelievable. The Senate is an embarrassment. Except for John Kyl:
“Some people will suggest that we shouldn’t read too much into Judge Sotomayor’s speeches and articles, that the focus should instead be on her judicial decisions. I agree that her judicial record is an important component of our evaluation, and I look forward to hearing why, for instance, the Supreme Court has reversed or vacated 80% of her opinions that have reached that body, by a total vote count of 52 to 19.”Then there's Lindsey Graham, who likes to start things off by conceding defeat. But at least, on Fox News, he brings up Sotomayor's appalling statement about abortions for poor women, as well as Senator Obama's example when it came to evaluating judges:
But of course "empathy" and the "personal story," though they have no place in the law, have been critically important in the nomination process and in Sotomayor's judicial philosophy.VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I mean, I've actually got it in front of me. He said about Justice Roberts, who he voted no on, he said, "There's absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land," but then he said that what he was worried about is whether the judge -- the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.
GRAHAM: I would tell every member of the Senate to ignore Senator Obama. He set a standard that no one could follow. If I'm going to ask her about her heart -- she supported a brief when she was at Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund that said that if you do not allow a low-income woman a federally-funded abortion, you're making a slave out of her. That to me is a radical statement. And am I going to talk about her heart when it comes to the unborn?
What Senator Obama did was he wanted to vote no against Alito and Roberts because he was running for president. And he made a standard up that's never been used before that I -- quite frankly, I think is dangerous. And if I followed his rationale, there's no way I'd vote for her or anybody else he picked.
The Troglopundit is looking for creative solutions to some of today's most vexing problems, but I'm afraid this one could backfire. And though I'm no fan of Meghan, she deserves better than a complete and utter loser like Levi. I'll stick with this idea.
Linked at memeorandum.
Comments welcome.
Most recent posts here.
The visceral sense among Americans is that Obama's agenda is the wrong one:
Fifty-seven percent say the country is on the "wrong track," up from 50 percent last month.So a full three-quarters of respondents see the stimulus as either useless or worse than useless. That's a lot of people believing that massive quantities of their taxpayer dollars have been dumped into a rat hole.
Despite White House efforts to stress the implementation of the stimulus package, just 21 percent say it has had a positive impact on the economy. The majority of those surveyed - 60 percent - say it has had no impact, while 15 percent say the stimulus has made the economy worse.
I would encourage the Democrats to keep talking about the need for a second stimulus. Americans are becoming more and more turned off by it.The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 28% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –8 (see trends).
Overall, 53% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Forty-six percent (46%) disapprove.
Progress is reportedly being made in the South Korean hackers investigation and it appears that data was extracted from some targeted computers.
Security experts have reportedly uncovered the command server for the botnet believed to be responsible for recent attacks on US and South Korea government web sites. [. . .]I'm not sure why this isn't a bigger story.The company said that it now believes that the command server controlling the attacks is hosted in the UK. [. . .]
While the news does not necessarily mean that the individuals behind the attacks are physically located in the UK, researchers say that finding the attack server will make it easier to uncover the criminals behind the attacks. The company also claims to have gained control of two of the servers.
"Having located the attacking source in the UK, we believe that it is completely possible to find the hacker," the company said in a report. "This, of course, depends on the US and South Korean governments." [. . .]
Perhaps of more concern, however, is the apparent ease with which the attacks were launched.
Hackers extracted lists of files from computers that they contaminated with the virus that triggered cyberattacks last week in the United States and South Korea, police in Seoul said Tuesday.In addition to the White House and the Pentagon, targets included:
"It's like hackers taking a look inside the computers," An said. "We're trying to figure out why they did this."
Extracted file lists were sent to 416 computers in 59 countries, 15 of them in South Korea. Police have found some file lists in 12 receiver computers and are trying to determine whether hackers broke into those systems and stole the lists, An said.
the New York Stock Exchange, the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, the Nasdaq stock market , The Washington Post, the Treasury Department, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Secret Service.Pretty impressive list.
From Michael Goldfarb:
I recall this president making national news with his decision to go out for a cheeseburger at lunch. Then there was the time that the White House press corps covered Obama's trip to the ice cream parlor in excruciating detail ("Obama had vanilla frozen custard in a cup with hot fudge and toasted almonds."). But Obama goes to Moscow and starts shoveling down gourmet endangered species and contraband fish eggs and you'd have to read the Russian wires to get the story.If the media won't talk about Justice Ginsburg's ambiguous reference to eugenics or Obama's science czar's monstrous ideas on how to control population, they're not likely to feel compelled to comment on this tidbit. A person might argue that Obama couldn't have politely refused the caviar, but he doesn't have qualms when it comes to turning down dining invitations from heads of state when they don't suit his fancy.
I heart Patrick Buchanan:
Pat Buchanan Advises Todd Palin to Hold Levi Johnston Underwater Until ‘Thrashing Stops’
Oh yes, please.
Pat also has some good things to say about Sarah Palin.
Comments welcome.
Most recent posts here.
Will Robin Givhan tear apart Sonia Sotomayor's wardrobe the way she did Martha-Ann Alito's at her husband's hearings?
His wife's ensembles varied among casual tan slacks with a sweater, bright red anything, and a brown tweed suit and blouse that seemed to be coordinated with a rigor more commonly found in Garanimals. She liked to accessorize with pearls, gold chains, earrings, bracelets and rings. Sometimes she'd wear this treasure trove of jewelry all at once. She was particularly fond of a brooch that resembled nothing more closely than a half-peeled banana. (It could have been a fleur-de-lis, but only as it might be drawn by a 5-year-old.)
[. . .]
There was something charmingly awkward about her blue cardigan. A cable-knit cardigan! At a Senate hearing! The sweater has all those connotations of Dan Rather informality, softness, ease and grandmotherly coziness. It is the antithesis of power and strength. The sweater was also baby blue. That isn't clothing as armor, but clothing as security blanket. Remember Linus?
Perhaps she'll just ignore Sotomayor completely to free up more time for covering Michelle O's clothing (including cardigans!) This breaking news from yesterday: Michelle Obama isn't a fashion diva, because it can now be said that she has worn the same dress twice.
Running the country into the ground is not without cost to the demolition team:
In a city where work can border on obsession, the Obama staffers stand out. They are not quite the walking dead, but their eyes are frequently ringed with the bags that accompany exhaustion.
The grueling schedule has forced most of the presidential aides to abandon physical exercise, and the few who persist -- often because of incessant goading from their fitness-fixated commander in chief -- have planned their workouts at times that stretch their schedules even further.Maybe this is the answer to the enduring question, "What's the matter with these people?"
[. . .]
Behind the scenes, it was even worse. The night before Obama announced the administration's housing plan on Feb. 18 in Arizona, Sperling e-mailed the final documents at 3 a.m. and asked for comments. Five people responded immediately.
One study conducted for the British Parliament found that "mental fatigue affects cognitive performance, leading to errors of judgement, microsleeps (lasting for seconds or minutes), mood swings and poor motivation." The effect, it found, is equal to a blood alcohol level of .10 percent -- above the legal limit to drive in the United States.This is no way to treat the best and the brightest. But they're still willing to sacrifice themselves upon the altar of Obama, as is the liberal media. Get this from the Virginian. Doyle McManus's blood koolaid level is way over the limit. And while you're there, watch this video of an Obama media drone getting a small dose of reality.
I guess it’s hard work trying to change our political system into something it wasn’t designed to be - a support group for morons.Comments welcome.
That's the implication from the experts on the American way.
Frank Ricci, the firefighter who sued the New Haven fire department for discrimination and will be testifying at the Sotomayor hearings, is being personally attacked by People for the American Way.
From Power Line:
But what of Ricci’s “troubled” history of litigating employment claims. It consists of a suit claiming disability discrimination when one fire department decided not to hire him (Ricci is dyslexic); an administrative complaint claiming that his discharge by that same fire department was in retaliation for accusing the department of safety violations; and the reverse discrimination suit against the New Haven fire department that Sotomayor mishandled.
Isn’t it odd that an outfit calling itself People for the American Way would this history “troubling”? One might have thought that such an organization would applaud challenges to disability discrimination, race discrimination, retaliation, and safety violations. [emphasis added]
Exactly. The same goes for liberal bloggers who choose to go after Ricci. This has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with personally smearing the little people who get in the way of noble liberal causes.
If only Mr. Ricci had known, back when he filed suit, that it might eventually be wrongly decided by a judge more interested in promoting certain groups of people than in justice, and who later might be nominated for the Supreme Court by a president with a similar agenda. Even then, he might not have foreseen that the patriots from PAW would go after him personally for seeking justice. Now his 'troubled history' is out there for all the world to see. I hope he's ashamed of himself.
Damian Thompson asks: What the hell did Ruth Bader Ginsburg mean when she linked abortion and eugenics?
No one in the msm seems to need an answer to that question. But if her words had been uttered by anyone not on the left, regardless of the ambiguity of intent, he or she would by now be an unrecognizable pile of despised debris.
The meaning of Ginsburg's statement, though certainly referring to eugenics-through-abortion, is unclear. Here it is:
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.How about a follow-up question on that? Like, "Who is we?" Nah.
I'd like to add some links about abortion among the poor and the non-white, but I've got four white shirts to iron this Sunday morning. So look around yourself and decide whether abortion actually does serve to suppress growth in certain 'undesirable' populations.Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments about using abortion as population control raised a lot of eyebrows in the blogosphere. Over 9,236 to be precise, according to Google blog search.
Huge sites too like Hot Air featured the story prominently. Even Drudge ran with the story yesterday.
But as of this morning the mainstream media have completely ignored the story about one of the most powerful people in the country essentially endorsing eugenics on populations “we don’t want to have too many of”.
What the heck is going on here? What are we to make of the media’s complete silence on this issue? They don’t see a little eugenics between friends as a big deal? They thought it was taken out of context?
As the large metropolitan newspapers die, they’re wondering why. This is why.
Oh brother:
Read the rest if you can stand it. Commentary from Don Surber, including Eric Cantor's response, here. Related post on previous "restatements" of the goal of the stimulus here.The Recovery Act wasn’t designed to restore the economy to full health on its own, but to provide the boost necessary to stop the free fall. It was designed to spur demand and get people spending again and cushion those who had borne the brunt of the crisis. And it was designed to save jobs and create new ones.
In a little over one hundred days, this Recovery Act has worked as intended.
And the hypocrisy of the tyrants.
The Ecopalypse, 96 Months Away?
“Capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse, the Prince of Wales has warned… And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the ‘age of convenience’ was over.”Read the whole thing.
He then got in his limo and was driven to his other palace.
It takes a prince, heir to the thrones of Britain and Canada and Australia, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea and a bunch of other places, to tell it like it is: You pampered consumerists are ruining the joint. In the old days, we didn’t have these kinds of problems.
But then Mr and Mrs Peasant start remodeling the hovel, adding a rec room and indoor plumbing, replacing the emaciated old nag with a Honda Civic and driving to the mall in it, and next thing you know instead of just having an extra yard of mead every Boxing Day at the local tavern and adding a couple more pustules to the escutcheon with the local trollop they begin taking vacations in Florida.
When it was just medieval dukes swanking about like that, the planet worked fine: That was “sustainable” consumerism. But now the masses want in. And, once you do that, there goes the global neighborhood.
There are some 290 million or so Americans for whom the health care insurance system would have to change to accommodate the other 10-20 million according to proposed plans. Wouldn’t it be easier just to design a plan for the 10-20 million? The President is proposing changes for everyone. Why is that?VDH: Growing Worries about our Pied Piper
So many Americans are vaguely beginning to sense that Obama is simply ignorant of Valley Forge, the Oregon Trail, and Iwo Jima. What happened at these places seems absent from his knowledge of the past, and so fails to inform his present narrative of and future plans for the nation.Krauthammer: Plumage, But at a Price
Drift? The decline in relations came from Putin’s desire to undo what he considers “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century — the collapse of the Soviet empire. Hence his squeezing Ukraine’s energy supplies; his overt threats against Poland and the Czech Republic for daring to make sovereign agreements with the United States; and finally, less than a year ago, his invading a small neighbor, detaching, and then effectively annexing two of Georgia’s provinces to Mother Russia
Taking a stand on the important issues of the day:
Michelle O dressed appropriately for an audience with the pope. All women wear veils or mantillas to the Vatican. Before 1965, all Catholic women wore mantillas, or hats, to Mass, and some still do. (Scroll down for several photos of Jackie O with mantilla, and Hillary in black at the Vatican.) If Michelle had gone without a head-covering, or with her fabulous shoulders exposed, that might have been news. Kind of.
I already commented on the peace t-shirt. Whatev.
The president's gift to the pope was beautifully appropriate. (But must we use 'gift' as a verb?)
Obama wasn't staring at the young lady's derriere. Sarkozy, maybe. (see link below)
I don't think Obama's going bald. But James Delingpole is hilarious.
The false story Obama told about meeting Michelle in college may not be so trivial. A man forgetting (or "misspeaking about") what grade his kids are in or exactly how old they are (it keeps changing - who can keep track?) is normal. Missing a birthday or anniversary happens, I'm told. But 'forgetting' the circumstances of where you met and fell in love with your future wife isn't just a normal guy thing, imo. And it isn't that he was fuzzy on how they met; he substituted an entirely different story for the actual one. He seems to habitually adapt the facts to fit the personal narrative of the moment. Truth isn't his default choice.
Comments welcome.
Most recent posts here.
Insanity: Our 'science czar' John Holdren had some monstrous ideas in 1977. From a non-fiction book he co-authored with Paul Ehrlich, the following:
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;And lots more. See Zombietime for full story.• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
Both of these bills would empower panels of federal officials to mandate coverage of abortion on demand in virtually all health plans. Both of these bills would also result in massive federal subsidies for abortion on demand. Both of the bills would empower federal officials to order expansions of abortion providers in many areas of the country (referred to by pro-life analysts as the "abortion clinic mandate"), and to override at least some state abortion regulations. And they do all this without ever mentioning the word "abortion."Lovely: Advice for men (from a woman) on how to convince their girlfriends to abort.
"You just need to take care with the presentation," Snow advises. "When you're ready to share your opinion, you'll want to use a calm, steady tone. You'll also want to take care with your word choice; pregnant women tend to feel like they're carrying someone, as opposed to something, even if she is just a month or so pregnant."*Updated to add:
Authorities said three former gravediggers and a former cemetery manager made about $300,000 in the scheme that stretched back at least four years. The four sold existing deeds and plots to unsuspecting customers, authorities said. They then allegedly dug up hundreds of corpses and either dumped them in a weeded, vacant area of the cemetery — which authorities labeled the original crime scene — or double-stacked them in graves.Comments welcome.
Thousands have flooded Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, the burial place of civil rights-era lynching victim Emmett Till and blues singer Dinah Washington, since four former workers were accused earlier this week of dumping hundreds of unearthed corpses in a scheme to resell plots. Each was charged with one count of dismembering a body.
While Till's grave site was not disturbed, police said investigators found his original iconic glass-topped casket rusting in a shack at the cemetery. The inside of the casket was shredded by wild animals living in it, police said.
Mark Knoller on twitter:
WH spokesman: Obama "is eager to find common ground on these issues and work aggressively to do that." re abortion, stem cells
The pope may have used some socialist-like lingo in his encyclical, but don't get carried away, Barack. Where, pray tell, is the common ground between "human life is sacred from the moment of conception to the moment of death" and support for partial birth abortion, leaving 'temporarily alive' infants to die, and viewing babies as punishment?
Looks like President Obama finally found someone at the right pay grade to answer those pesky abortion and stem-cell questions.By the way, some good analysis of Caritas in Veritate from Reps. Boehner and McCotter:
The Holy Father’s central point in Caritas in Veritate is that at times of economic challenge, the inherent dignity of the individual must be preserved and sustained through genuine charity and compassion. This message is clearly distinct from efforts to 'remake' government into a soul-crushing centralized welfare state in which independent citizens are remade into dependent servants. In the encyclical, the Pope stresses that the human being must remain as the center of our free-market system. He warns that individuals, families, churches, communities, and businesses must never become subservient to the state. He emphasizes that the sanctity of all human life must always be protected. And he advocates conservation, not radical environmentalism.Read the rest. More here from Father Sirico with commentary added by Father Zuhlsdorf.
From Derek Thompson:
What's a mancession, you ask? . . . It's a recession that hurts men much more than women, and we are allegedly in the worst mancession in recent history. Eighty percent of job losses in the last two years were among men, said AEI scholar Christina Hoff Summers, and it could get worse.Read on for the grisly details. It's bad. And women's groups are partly to blame. From the above-mentioned Summers (via Glenn Reynolds):
Last November, President-elect Obama addressed the devastation in the construction and manufacturing industries by proposing an ambitious New Deal-like program to rebuild the nation's infrastructure. He called for a two-year "shovel ready" stimulus program to modernize roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, public transportation, and dams and made reinvigorating the hardest-hit sectors of the economy the goal of the legislation that would become the recovery act.
Women's groups were appalled. Grids? Dams? Opinion pieces immediately appeared in major newspapers with titles like "Where are the New Jobs for Women?" and "The Macho Stimulus Plan." A group of "notable feminist economists" circulated a petition that quickly garnered more than 600 signatures, calling on the president-elect to add projects in health, child care, education, and social services and to "institute apprenticeships" to train women for "at least one third" of the infrastructure jobs. At the same time, more than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging Obama not to favor a "heavily male-dominated field" like construction: "We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges."
[groan]
Summers continues:
Rescuing hundreds of thousands of unemployed crane operators, welders, production line managers, and machine setters was never going to be easy. But the concerted opposition of several powerful women’s groups has made it all but impossible. . . . Our incoming president did what many sensible men do when confronted by a chorus of female complaint: He changed his plan.
More about the "macho stimulus plan" and how the feminists fought it:
At the suggestion of a staffer to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, NOW president Kim Gandy canvassed for a female equivalent of the "testosterone-laden 'shovel-ready' " terminology. ("Apron-ready" was broached but rejected.) Christina Romer, the highly regarded economist President Obama chose to chair his Council of Economic Advisers, would later say of her entrance on the political stage, "The very first email I got . . . was from a women's group saying 'We don't want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.' "
[groan] Much more so read the rest.
Do you ever get the idea that women are ruining the world?
Paired with the news of the coming redundancy of men, it may be that Mark Steyn is right (more or less); we're entering the Age of the Woman.
But remember: even in the era of manufactured sperm, mad scientists say that at least one man will still be necessary.
Guess what -- the WH press corps is mostly in the tank for Obama. Not exactly earth-shattering news, but this story gives some insight into how Obama's WH works.
From Newsbusters:
Much of the White House press corps spent the Fourth schmoozing with White House staffers, catching performances by the Foo Fighters and Jimmy Fallon, and watching the fireworks from the most exclusive vantage point in the D.C. metro area, all off the record—not to mention off-the-Facebook and off-the-Twitter.In accepting the ticket they agreed not to tell:
"You are being invited to attend this event as a guest. Blogging, Twittering or otherwise reporting on this event is not permitted. If you feel that you cannot agree to abide by these ground rules, please don't claim a ticket."One pool reporter was allowed limited access. The reporters who were partying down used his report when they 'covered' the event later on, without mentioning that they were there.
Even if you weren't a fan of Obama (or a fan of picnics, or the Foo Fighters), an ambitious reporter might take the tickets just to get some off-the-record schmoozing in with people they'd like to line up as sources. It would be nice to know which ones who daily pledge to uphold the "people's right to know" attended and accepted the pledges of secrecy.Read about the whole thing at Gawker.
Three things:
Another reason to oppose health care reform:
WASHINGTON (Updated July 8, 2009) – The Obama White House and Democratic congressional leaders are pushing for votes in late July on massive "health care reform" bills that contain sweeping mandates to expand access to abortion on demand, override state abortion laws, and establish federal funding of abortion.Read the rest to get all the details and pass it on: http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/alert/?alertid=13157881&type=CO
These bills pose one of the greatest threats to pro-life policies since the Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1973.
Two Senate committees and three House committees are nearing the end of the process of crafting "health care reform bills" that would, among other things, result in mandatory insurance coverage of abortion on demand, federal subsidies for abortion, and mandated local abortion facilities. These bills will also allow the nullification of many state limitations on abortion.
[. . .]
"The pro-abortion movement sees federal 'health care reform' legislation as a golden opportunity to force-feed abortion into every nook and cranny of the health-care delivery system," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "Their goal, as they sometimes put it, is to 'mainstream' abortion. If Obama and his allies succeed, the result will be a very large increase in the number of abortions performed in America."
Cardinal Bernadine constructed his precious "seamless garment" in order to diminish the importance of abortion by making it equivalent to social-justice issues. It did its job: now it can be invoked without any reference, explicit or implicit, to abortion.
The following is a reply from Denis McDonough, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications, to a question from Jake Tapper about how Obama has been influenced by Catholic teachings:
I've also heard the president speak very movingly about what Cardinal Bernadine called the seamless garment of Catholic teaching. That garment speaks to not only taking care of the poor and the needy but also investing in the kind of healthcare infrastructure that would ensure that people like those on the South side of Chicago, who the president is very familiar with, are often times finding their health care not in publicly funded hospitals but in Catholic hospitals, for example. So, the president, I think, has been very impacted not just as he's talked publicly about his time on the South side when he was funded partly as a community organizer by the Catholic Church Campaign for Human Development funding, but also as a younger person when his mother was doing so many things consistent with that tradition as somebody focused on economic development and issues similar to that in poor communities overseas.Just shoot me now. What a bunch of blather. How perfect that the notorious Campaign for Human Development funded Obama's "community organizing."
***
Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
***
American Grit by Tony Blankley
***
Guilty by Ann Coulter
***
Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell
***
Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad by Andrew McCarthy
***
Stealth Jihad by Robert Spencer
***
The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature by Elizabeth Kantor
***
Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series
***
More titles here
|
I am a |
