Slapping Friends

Slapping Friends
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 02, 2010

WASHINGTON -- What is it like to be a foreign ally of Barack Obama's America?

If you're a Brit, your head is spinning. It's not just the personal slights to Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- the ridiculous 25-DVD gift, the five refusals before Brown was granted a one-on-one with The One.

Nor is it just the symbolism of Obama returning the Churchill bust that was in the Oval Office. Query: If it absolutely had to be out of Obama's sight, could it not have been housed somewhere else on U.S. soil rather than ostentatiously repatriated?

Perhaps it was the State Department official who last year denied there even was a special relationship between the U.S. and Britain, a relationship cultivated by every U.S. president since Franklin Roosevelt.

And then there was Hillary Clinton's astonishing, nearly unreported (in the U.S.) performance in Argentina last month. She called for Britain to negotiate with Argentina over the Falklands.

For those who know no history -- or who believe that it began on Jan. 20, 2009 -- and therefore don't know why this was an out-of-the-blue slap at Britain, here's the back story:

In 1982, Argentina's military junta invaded the (British) Falkland Islands. The generals thought the British, having long lost their taste for foreign lands, would let it pass. Besides, the Falklands have uncountably more sheep than people. They underestimated Margaret Thatcher (the Argentines, that is, not the sheep). She was not about to permit the conquest of a people whose political allegiance and ethnic ties are to Britain. She dispatched the navy. Britannia took it back.

Afterward, neither Thatcher nor her successors have countenanced negotiations. Britain doesn't covet foreign dominion and has no shortage of sheep. But it does believe in self-determination, and will negotiate nothing until and unless the Falkland Islanders indicate their desire to be ruled by a chronically unstable, endemically corrupt polity with a rich history of dictatorship, economic mismanagement and the occasional political lunacy (see: the Evita cult).

Not surprisingly, the Falkland Islanders have given no such indication. Yet inexplicably, Clinton sought to reopen a question that had been settled for almost 30 years, not just pointlessly stirring the embers but even taking the Argentine side (re: negotiations) against Britain -- a nation that has fought and bled with us for the last decade, and that today has about 10,000 troops, far more than any other ally, fighting alongside America in Afghanistan.

Of course, given how the administration has treated other allies, perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised.

-- Obama visits China and soon Indonesia, skipping India, our natural and rising ally in the region -- common language, common heritage, common democracy, common jihadist enemy. Indeed, in his enthusiasm for China, Obama suggests a Chinese interest in peace and stability in South Asia, a gratuitous denigration of Indian power and legitimacy in favor of a regional rival with hegemonic ambitions.

-- Poland and the Czech Republic have their legs cut out from under them when Obama unilaterally revokes a missile defense agreement, acquiescing to pressure from Russia with its dreams of regional hegemony over Eastern Europe.

-- The Hondurans still can't figure out why the United States supported a Hugo Chavez ally seeking illegal extension of his presidency against the pillars of civil society -- its Congress, Supreme Court, church and army -- that had deposed him consistent with Article 239 of their own constitution.

But the Brits, our most venerable, most reliable ally, are the most disoriented. "We British not only speak the same language. We tend to think in the same way. We are more likely than anyone else to provide tea, sympathy and troops," writes Bruce Anderson in London's Independent, summarizing with admirable concision the fundamental basis of the U.S.-British special relationship.

Well, said David Manning, a former British ambassador to the U.S., to a House of Commons committee reporting on that very relationship: "He (Obama) is an American who grew up in Hawaii, whose foreign experience was of Indonesia and who had a Kenyan father. The sentimental reflexes, if you like, are not there."

I'm not personally inclined to neuropsychiatric diagnoses, but Manning's guess is as good as anyone's. How can you explain a policy toward Britain that makes no strategic or moral sense? And even if you can, how do you explain the gratuitous slaps to the Czechs, Poles, Indians and others? Perhaps when an Obama Doctrine is finally worked out, we shall learn whether it was pique, principle or mere carelessness.

The Same Old Drill

The Same Old Drill
Jonah Goldberg
Friday, April 02, 2010

Too little, too late, too clever and for the wrong reasons. That's a good way to describe President Obama's decision to allow a little offshore drilling.

Of course, most of the environmentalist base of the Democratic Party sees it the other way around: too much, too soon (since "never" is their preferred timeline), too dumb but for the right reasons.

Obama justified his decision to allow drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the southern Atlantic and some coastal regions of northern Alaska on the grounds that it would create jobs and serve as a "bridge" to the carbon-free Brigadoon we've long been promised. The reality is that his decision was entirely political. Aiming to win vital Republican support in the Senate for some kind of bipartisan cap-and-trade legislation, he lifted the ban where the polling was in favor of doing so. Sound science, energy policy and economics were the last things on his mind. On that, there's widespread consensus.

Back when oil cost $140 per barrel, President George W. Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore oil drilling. Once elected, Obama quietly reinstated it. Since then, Obama's Interior Department has been doing just about everything it can to slow, hamper and prevent oil and gas exploration in the U.S. and offshore. There's no reason to believe the administration won't keep doing that. Besides, Obama's announcement actually bans more promising oil and gas reserves from exploration than it opens up: nothing in the Pacific, nothing in the western Gulf of Mexico, nothing in southern Alaska.

But there's an unintended irony to Obama's decision, one that he probably has not considered since the passage of health-care reform has only reinforced his ideological hubris. The welfare state that Obama is trying to create needs money, desperately. The federal debt is currently around $12 trillion, and the Congressional Budget Office expects it to hit $20 trillion by 2020. Throw in the unfunded liabilities -- i.e. promises to citizens -- in our existing entitlements system and the debt creeps over $100 trillion.

The American Enterprise Institute's Steven Hayward thinks this is something of a ticking time bomb for the left's overlapping coalition of environmentalists and welfare-state liberals. For years, environmentalists have been selling snake oil about energy policy, claiming that we can give up on nasty but affordable carbon-based energy such as coal, oil and gas, and embrace wind, solar and geothermal (but not nuclear!) for little to no cost. In fact, if you listen to people such as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, switching to solar panels and wind farms will make us richer and more competitive, if not cause unicorns to poop "green jobs" and rainbows for as far as the eye can see.

Obama's arguments for health-care reform were similarly otherworldly. We can give 32 million more people coverage, without preconditions, and save money. It's already clear that this have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too pitch was bogus, as big corporations are announcing that ObamaCare will either cost them millions (if not billions) or force them to drop coverage.

It turns out that there's no free lunch, not on health care and not on energy policy.

And that's the irony. Obama and his Democratic successors will keep trying to squeeze the rich to pay for their schemes. But that won't raise anything close to the revenue they need. They'll try for a value-added tax, which will raise lots of money but also stifle growth. Eventually, if they want to avoid bankruptcy and keep the welfare state afloat, never mind pay for all of these environmental white elephants, they'll need more revenue, and that's where oil comes in.

Environmentalists who estimate that we only have six months' worth of oil in the Arctic or offshore don't know what they're talking about, because nobody knows how much untapped oil we have.

Many of the estimates are 30 years old, and they were made before radical leaps in seismic exploration and drilling technology. We could have tens of trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas under our soil or off our coasts. (One American Petroleum Institute study suggests that government revenues alone from untapped resources could be $1.7 trillion over 20 years.) Oil-industry jobs already pay twice the national average and are pretty much impossible to send overseas.

Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere for decades. Even if we don't drill, other countries certainly will. No country in the world with significant oil or gas resources is abstaining from exploiting them -- except for America. Environmentalists say that makes us a leader; the rest of the world says that makes us a sucker.

Sick Thinking From 'Mainstream' Leftists

Sick Thinking From 'Mainstream' Leftists
David Limbaugh
Friday, April 02, 2010

The Obama left, realizing it has really stepped in it with the American people by cramming Obamacare down our throats, has decided to blunt the backlash against it by tarring, yet again, mainstream conservatives as racists, bigots, homophobes and violent. Its tactics are objectively despicable.

You know the drill. We conservatives, who happen to understand ourselves better than liberals do, know that we are largely a civil, respectable, peaceable bunch. Attendees to the Rush Limbaugh-inspired Dan's Bake Sale years ago can attest to the mature, wholesome behavior of Rush fans. Ditto Sean Hannity's Freedom Concert attendees and tea party protest attendees.

The leftists who actually believe the fraudulent bile they are spewing about conservatives as being violent are merely projecting. They know their own side often disrupts and shuts down debate and engages in hate speech and even anarchy. Witness the unruly leftist disruptions of Ann Coulter appearances or the sabotaging of Karl Rove's appearance by Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans, one of Obama's radical buddies. Look at the tea party violence from the SEIU left.

But the majority of leftists making these bogus claims about conservatives are either deeply warped or outright lying. There are some isolated acts of fringe violence from the right, but they are just that -- isolated and rare. With the many tea parties that have occurred, how much conservative-spawned violence have you heard about -- even with a liberal media champing at the bit to slander the entire movement? Hardly any -- beyond the fabrications.

The left wants to shut us up. Liberals say they want universal voter registration so all voices can be heard. What? They don't even want dissenting voices among already existing voters heard. After the way they cheated and gamed the system to impose socialized medicine on an unwilling public, they've forfeited their credibility about promoting the people's will -- which we always knew was a ruse anyway.

The Obama left has tried to muzzle us through intimidation -- as in its declaration of a false consensus on global warming, its issuing summonses to corporate executives to justify announcements that Obamacare is going to cost them dearly, Obama's telling those of us who "created this mess" that he doesn't want us to "do a lot of talking," his declaring a communications war on Fox News, and on and on. Failing that, the left intends to paint us all as racists who are just a hair trigger away from committing violent acts.

With the groundwork rationale established -- that conservative "hate speech" incites violence -- liberals will be a step closer to using laws and regulations to emasculate or silence conservative talk radio. But their claim is a vicious, destructive, divisive lie -- just like their depiction of conservatives, by virtue of their conservatism, as racists.

A caller to Rush Limbaugh's guest host Mark Davis said conservatives might not consciously be racists, but the results of their policies harm African-Americans, so it's fair to infer they are racists. Well, under that standard, Obama is racist because he recently reversed welfare reform, which everyone agrees reduced black poverty and the black illegitimacy rate. The same thing holds for his liberal education policies that result in trapping minorities in inferior inner-city schools. The list goes on.

Yet I don't believe leftists are racists because the effect of their policies often works to the detriment of blacks; I just think they are misguided and, after all these years of failed policies, have no moral authority to claim otherwise. Good intentions cannot trump decades of bad results.

But the more Obama forces through his unpopular agenda to dismantle America's founding principles the more outraged the public will become and the more protests and blowback we'll see (sans violence). These protests, in turn, will result in Obama leftists' ratcheting up their wild accusations aimed at demonizing their conservative opponents -- ordinary Americans, who at this point can be considered victims.

So we should expect more disgraceful columns from liberals, such as Frank Rich, who wrote that conservatives' "over-the-top rage" over Obama's policy agenda is caused by "the conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House -- topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman" -- not his agenda. Or Chris Matthews, who asked, "What are the tea partiers really angry about, health care reform or the fact that it was an African-American president and a woman speaker of the House who pushed through major change?"

This is just sick stuff, folks, but not uncommon for leftist thinkers. We conservatives simply don't think this way. It doesn't compute. Yet there are scores of examples of other leftist commentators making the same claims.

Note to fellow conservatives: Please understand whom we're up against here; otherwise we don't have a prayer of defeating them.

The Ascent of Boehner

The Ascent of Boehner
Kathryn Lopez
Friday, April 02, 2010

When he finally voted for President Obama's health-care bill, "pro-life" Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., disappointed a lot of people, folks who believed that he really did want to ensure that the federal government wouldn't compel taxpayer funding of abortion. A number of pro-life groups' plans to honor Stupak for his initial efforts against the bill were canceled. One of these groups ought to, before long, turn around and give a defender-of-life award to the man who could be the next speaker of the House of Representatives, House minority leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

I spend a fair amount of time among conservatives and pro-life activists. In their company, Boehner's name rarely comes up. For some it's a distrust of those in power that keeps them from embracing him. For some it's his style, his look and feel. But the fact of the matter is that Boehner managed to hold his caucus together on the health-care vote, and on other matters, he's kept the pro-choice crowd and its cronies on the ruling left in check -- as much as a minority leader can. He's also got a solid record of doing all kinds of things that are popular right now; for example, he's never taken an earmark in his life.

In a speech to a conservative audience this winter, Boehner insisted that Republicans in the House wouldn't "bend on ... the issue of the sanctity of life." He explained: "In November, Republican lawmakers joined with some Democrat lawmakers to stop them from using any federal taxpayer funds ... to provide for abortions in America. ... We got some flak for working with the other side." But this is what you call principled leadership. Even though he hated the bill, if it were going to pass, he wanted taxpayer funding of abortion to be no part of it. After Stupak's abortion-protection language was included in the House bill before its passage last year, Boehner went to the House floor three times and asked Democratic committee chairmen Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman, and George Miller to pledge to support it when the time came for conference negotiations with the Senate. Because abortion was a priority of theirs, they would not. (Too bad that Stupak, wanting the bill to pass, didn't feel as strongly about the sanctity of the unborn when his leadership moment arrived.) Recalling what went down late last year, Boehner said: "When it comes to protecting the unborn, we'll take the votes wherever we can get them ... We did the right thing for the right reasons. And we're showing ... the American people that there's a clear difference between the two parties."

The difference became abundantly clear one night in March when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, seemingly unsure if she had the votes for the president's health-care bill, called Stupak in and asked him what he needed to support the bill. He reportedly still wanted measures in the bill that would prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion and protect the consciences of medical personnel opposed to abortion. The "pro-choice" caucus in the House -- led by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., a radical feminist leader in the party of death -- would have none of it.

Boehner, on the other hand, not only did his job and kept to his word, but also confronted the president of the United States and other leaders of the Democratic Party who consistently lied about the abortion content in the legislation they've now passed. At the White House summit on health care, Boehner said: "For 30 years, we've had a federal law that says that we're not going to have taxpayer funding of abortions. We've had this debate in the House ... And the House upheld the language we have had in law for 30 years, that there will be no taxpayer funding of abortions. This bill that we have before us ... for the first time in 30 years allows for the taxpayer funding of abortions."

He went on to continue to make the case that he and his Republican colleagues had consistently made: Let's start again. Let's work together, for real. Let's make sure there's no abortion in this bill.

Well, that didn't happen. But Boehner put up a fight. And if the Democrats lose seats, as expected, in November, he may actually be able to provide a much more powerful opposition to the White House. He's been a consistent leader for life, when it has truly counted. There's every indication he will continue his fight. Instead of complaining that Republicans don't talk more about the issue, those who believe that the sanctity of unborn human life is a central human-rights issue of our day should thank John Boehner -- who has a zero rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, an arm of the abortion industry, and a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee. In the face of all the powerful figures and influences arrayed against Boehner and a culture of life, it's the right thing to do.

Obama Administration’s 2010 Calling Card Is “Payback”

Obama Administration’s 2010 Calling Card Is “Payback”
Katie Packer
Friday, April 02, 2010

In a year when the anger of the American people toward Washington politicians and their backroom deal-making has hit a fever pitch, President Obama surprised many with an overtly political and gratuitous reward to union bosses by not only heeding their demands to recess appoint both of their nominees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), but also leaving another out altogether.

Obama’s actions smack of “payback” to labor bosses who invested half a billion dollars getting him elected in the first place. Furthermore, the appointments of Craig Becker and Mark Pearce can certainly be read as a slight to the former institution Obama served in, the U.S. Senate.

Craig Becker is considered a labor radical by Republicans and Democrats alike, and members of both parties voted down his nomination. In appointing Becker during the Congressional recess, Obama has chosen in one act to bypass the Congress, ignore the will of the American people, put forward a job-killing agenda and, lastly, reward his friends in Big Labor.

Becker’s nomination has been controversial from the start. Groups representing small businesses and the hardworking employees that keep them running, such as the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI), have warned Congress about “The Becker Doctrine” of forced unionization, which would result in increased unemployment and decreased freedoms.

All 41 Republican members of the Senate urged Obama not to appoint Becker during the Easter recess, saying in a letter that, “We oppose Mr. Becker’s recess appointment because of his extensive, highly controversial writings, and his entire legal and scholarly career, all of which indicate that he could not be viewed as impartial, unbiased or objective in deciding cases before this quasi-judicial agency. Instead, his writings clearly indicate that he would use his position on the NLRB to institute far-reaching changes in labor law far exceeding the Board’s authority and bypassing the role of Congress. His rejection of traditional notions of democracy in union elections and of an employer’s status as a party to labor representation proceedings has garnered bi-partisan opposition to his nomination.”

Given his past writings and employment by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Becker could potentially implement pieces of the job-killing Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act (EFCA) through “administrative action.”

In fact, union bosses expect nothing less. Recently an AFL-CIO member wrote, “If [sic] we aren’t able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action...”

EFCA would force workers into unions by removing their right to vote via secret ballot during union-organizing elections, opening them up to intimidation and coercion by labor bosses and organizers. EFCA would also force workers and businesses into two-year binding contracts with set wages and benefits determined by a federal government bureaucrat. Worse yet, workers would have zero say in their own contracts. And, the pension programs they would be forced to join are currently, in many cases, financially bankrupt.

EFCA is the number one goal for labor bosses since it will drive up union membership, and more importantly, increase dues. After all, bankrupt union pension plans can only be replenished with more dues -paying members – Big Labor’s dirty little secret.

Becker’s appointment could usher in a whole host of new paybacks to union bosses, which they have been hoping for since supporting Obama’s campaign. But forced unionization rules that take away workers’ rights, or even the rights of small businesses to stay afloat, are not consistent with the concerns of the American people and directly contradict the priorities the administration committed to address, namely jobs.

President Obama’s actions this past weekend of not only appointing an enemy of small business and job creation, but following it by appointing the other nominee supported by Big Labor while ignoring Brian Hayes’ nomination, sends a message to the nation’s job creators that they do not have an ally in the White House, but rather an antagonist committed to following his political patrons down a road that results in lost jobs and a weakened America.

Test Case: Marjah

Test Case: Marjah
Oliver North
Friday, April 02, 2010

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- Springtime. Back home, Congress is in recess, the kids are out of school and the redbuds, dogwoods and cherry trees are about to bloom. Here, south of the Hindu Kush, opium poppies are in full blossom, the harvest is about to come in and it's the start of what the locals call "fighting season." Though people in both countries have come to accept those conditions as "patterns of life," some here intend to change the archetype for the people of Afghanistan. If their plan succeeds, it could prove to be the undoing of the Taliban -- and mark the beginning of the end of this long war. And most of the so-called mainstream media will have missed the moment.

Last week, three high-profile visitors came to Afghanistan, and all talked about the future of the fight. Our commander in chief came for six hours of meetings at Bagram Airbase and in Kabul. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was here for two days of briefings and meetings with U.S., coalition and Afghan commanders and troops. In both cases, major media reports focused on U.S. and civilian casualties, the upcoming "final offensive" here in Kandahar and the alleged corruption of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's brother Ahmed, the head of Kandahar's provincial council. But the visitor who may have made the most important contribution to bringing an end to the Taliban was the acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Michele Leonhart.

Leonhart, it should be noted, is a DEA special agent and the first administrator of the agency to make an official visit to an active war zone. More than 90 of her special agents and support personnel are deployed here, and in the past six months, three of them have been killed in action, and another was wounded. During her three-day inspection tour of Afghanistan, she conferred with U.S., coalition and Afghan officials to review and approve next steps in taking down what she calls the "Taliban narco-insurgency."

In Afghanistan, farmers, insurgents and corrupt officials all rely on income derived from the spring poppy harvest. The goal of the plan -- developed by Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson's Marine expeditionary brigade based at Camp Leatherneck, DEA specialists on the ground and "in-country" U.S. agricultural and development experts -- is to undermine the networks that finance the Taliban and abet the corruption of Afghan government officials, without disrupting the livelihood of poor farmers who may have been coerced into growing opium by insurgent networks.

Breaking these connections without alienating the civilian population in what has been a Taliban stronghold is no small task. More than seven U.S. Marine and Afghan national security force battalions have been committed to the mission. So have significant resources of the DEA and the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, which will provide micro-grants to farmers who do not harvest the poppies they planted last fall. Cash will be given to stimulate small businesses and encourage repairs to economic infrastructure damage incurred during combat operations.

Our Fox News team accompanied Leonhart; Ambassador Anthony Wayne, coordinator of U.S. development and economic assistance in Afghanistan; and Thomas Harrigan, DEA's chief of operations, to Marjah. There they met with those who will be the final arbiters of whether the plan succeeds -- local officials and civilians.

"We all have a lot to do in this effort, but I'm optimistic. These are very entrepreneurial, hardworking people," Wayne told me as we walked down a street where gunfights raged just a few weeks ago. The provincial governor, Gulab Mangal, widely regarded as one of the most competent in Afghanistan, has signed on, said one of the Marine officers involved in developing the plan. "That's what we need," the officer added.

There is more that is needed, as well, e.g., a hospital or at least a clinic, schools, roads, bridges, electricity, improved irrigation -- the basic services government is supposed to provide or assure. And there is another element that is crucial for success -- showing the people that their government is serious about cleaning up corruption. That's a key part of what the DEA brings to the fight.

"The most effective judicial system in Afghanistan is the special narcotics court," a Marine officer noted. "Marines prosecute enemy targets with bombs and bullets. The DEA, Afghan National Interdiction Unit and special investigative units collect evidence to prosecute targets differently but just as effectively."

Leonhart agrees. Standing beside me on the dusty streets of Marjah, she said, "The DEA is completely committed to winning this battle. Our blood has been spilled here. Locking up corrupt officials involved with narcotics is not only good for the people of Afghanistan; it's good for these Marines and the American people, too." She's right.

Federally funded abortions are in our future

Federally funded abortions are in our future
By Kathleen Parker
Sunday, March 28, 2010; A11

Health care is the next-to-last thing I want to write about. The last thing is abortion, so this column is a banquet of tortures.

Usually, I would not return so soon to a topic that I tend to associate with the pleasures of head-banging, but broad misunderstanding about what's in the health-care-reform law justifies another lap.

Still cloudy is whether the new law of the land allows funding for abortions and whether President Obama's executive order is of any real (judicially enforceable) value. The answer to the latter is in little dispute. It is no. An executive order cannot override a statute.

As to the funding issue, well, it's intentionally complicated. And suffice to say, it shouldn't be.

Defenders argue that: (1) nowhere does the bill say funds will go toward abortion; ) the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortion, applies.

Both assertions are true -- up to a point. The issue isn't what the bill says; it's what it doesn't say.

No one should apologize for being confused, by the way. If not for the patient tutoring of brilliant lawyers, Capitol Hill staffers, medical experts and others, I would be hugging my knees alternately muttering "Who's Jacob?" and "Ibid, Subsection C (1)(a)."

To the first argument: Of course the bill doesn't explicitly state that it appropriates abortion funding. In fact, it takes pains to use terminology that seems to explicitly forbid it. But other areas are swampier. And, indeed, funds could be used to pay for abortion under circumstances that predictably will evolve.

History and precedent tell us this much.

For one thing, the Hyde Amendment is a rider that must be lobbied and attached each year to the annual Labor/Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Under its terms, the amendment applies only to those funds.

Rather than following the usual course of funding community health centers (CHCs) through the Labor/HHS budget, the health-care-reform measure does an end run around Hyde by directly appropriating billions of dollars into a new CHC fund.

Because the Obama administration's "fix-it" bill did not include the abortion-ban language proposed by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), those billions appropriated to CHCs simply are not covered by Hyde.

Now, the president's executive order purports to address this gap by extending the Hyde Amendment to these dollars as well. The problem is that, regardless of Obama's stated intentions, he can't actually do this without an act of Congress.

As Dorinda Bordlee, an attorney with the Bioethics Defense Fund, wrote: "If a president could do that, there would be no need to have a majority of Congress pass the Hyde Amendment each and every year to prevent abortion funding using Medicaid dollars for low-income government health care. Instead, we could have simply prevailed on each president to issue an executive order saying agencies can't use Medicaid money for abortion. Congress controls the purse strings, not the president. That's Civics 101."

It is telling that the nation's largest abortion provider -- Planned Parenthood -- is claiming "victory" because "we were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out of the final legislation and President Obama did not include the Stupak language in his executive order."

Several supporters of the bill have argued that this debate is otherwise irrelevant because abortions aren't performed at CHCs. While currently true, this doesn't mean that CHCs wouldn't like to offer abortion among their reproductive services.

Under the new law, they can. There's nothing to stop them.

Here's why. By statute, CHCs are required to provide all "required primary health care services," defined to include "health services related to . . . obstetrics or gynecology that are furnished by physicians."

Federal courts long have held that when a statute requires provision of health services under such broad categories, then the statute must be construed to include abortion unless it explicitly excludes it. Voilà.

One may believe that poor women should have affordable access to abortion. This is a reasonable position and it is likely to be the result of this bill. But it is not what Americans have been led to believe is true, nor is it what most want. A January Quinnipiac University poll found that 67 percent of Americans oppose public funding for abortion, down from 72 percent in December.

Prediction: Abortions will be performed at community health centers. You can bet your foreclosed mortgage on that. There was always a will by this administration, and now there's a way.

Prescriptions for Disaster Now Covered Under Obamacare

Prescriptions for Disaster Now Covered Under Obamacare
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, March 31, 2010

On the "Today" show this Tuesday, President Obama claimed the massive government takeover of health care the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote was a "middle of the road" bill that incorporated many Republican ideas.

One Republican idea allegedly incorporated into the Democrats' health care monstrosity is "medical malpractice reform." Needless to say, the Democrats' idea of malpractice reform is less than nothing. Until trial lawyers are screaming bloody murder, there has been no medical malpractice reform.

The Democrats' "malpractice" section merely encourages the states to set up commissions to "study" tort reform, in the sense that frustrated mothers "encourage" their kids not to slouch. By "study," the Democrats mean "ignore."

So we get more taxpayer-funded government workers under the Democrats' "medical malpractice reform," but not one tittle of actual reform.

Democrats manifestly do not care about helping Americans get quality health care. If they did, they could not continue to support trial lawyers like John Edwards making $50 million by bringing junk lawsuits against doctors who are saving people's lives. (At least Edwards has not done anything else to publicly disgrace himself since then.)

At a minimum, any health care bill that purports to improve Americans' health, rather than trial lawyers' bank accounts, must include a loser-pays rule and a restriction on damages to actual losses -- as opposed to punitive damages, which mostly serve to enrich the John Edwardses of the world, and their mistresses.

The Democrats also lyingly claim their health care reform includes the Republican ideas of competition across state lines.

I know they're lying because -- well, first because I read the bill -- but also because Democrats are genetically incapable of understanding the free market. You might say it's a pre-existing condition with them.

True, you can buy insurance across state lines under the new health insurance law -- but only after the Democrats have created a national commission telling all insurance companies what they are required to cover.

That's not as bad as the current patchwork of state mandates -- it's worse!

At least before the passage of ObamaCare you could move to states such as Idaho or Kentucky, where all insurance plans aren't required to cover fertility treatment, restless leg syndrome and social anxiety disorder.

Under federal mandates, there will be no escape.

That's right, a single, one-size-fits-all, jammed-down-your-throat national plan is what the Democrats mean when they say their plan includes "competition across state lines."

How much do you want to bet that the national commission in Washington will mandate coverage for every form of shopping addiction treatment, body image therapy and sex-change operations with mandatory mental health counseling, but not injuries from hunting accidents or smoking-related illnesses?

The Democrats compare their new health care bill to entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. But those are welfare, not health care. They may go to deserving welfare recipients, but they are a government-enforced gift from the young to the old (Medicare), and from the middle class to the poor (Medicaid).

There's no reason why most Americans shouldn't be able to buy our own medical insurance the same way we buy our own cell phones, hair care and cars.

And just incidentally, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to go bankrupt slightly before the United States of America is projected to go bankrupt. So turning all of health care into a larger Medicare program may need a little more thinking through.

These programs will have to be reconfigured at some point, but how society takes care of the old and the poor should be put in a separate box from how the non-elderly and non-poor should obtain health care.

Democrats want to turn the entire citizenry into welfare recipients.

A few weeks ago, The New York Times ran an editorial noting the amazing fact that, by the middle of this year, there will be an estimated 6.8 billion people on Earth -- and 5 billion will have cell phones! (Even more astounding, at least one of them is seated directly behind me every time I go to the movies.)

How did that happen without a Democrat president and Congress using bribes, parliamentary tricks and arcane non-voting maneuvers to pass a massive, hugely expensive National Cell Phone Reform Act?

How did that happen without Barney Frank and Henry Waxman personally designing the 3-foot-long, 26-pound, ugly green $4,000 cell phone we all have to use?

How did that happen without Obama signing the National Cell Phone Reform bill, as a poor 10-year-old black kid who couldn't afford to text-message his friends looked on?

The reason nearly everyone in the universe has a cell phone is that President Reagan did to telephones the exact opposite of what the Democrats have just done with health care.

Before Reagan came into office, we had one phone company, ridiculously expensive rates and one phone model. Reagan split up AT&T, deregulated phone service and gave America a competitive market in phones. The rest is history.

If you can grasp how inexpensive cell phones in a rainbow of colors and wonders like the iPhone could never have been created under a National Cell Phone Reform Act, you can understand what a disaster ObamaCare is going to be for health care in America.
_________________________________________________

To read another article by Ann Coulter, click here.

Remember the Pacific War

Remember the Pacific War
Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, April 01, 2010

Sixty-five years ago, on April 1, 1945, the United States Marines, Army and Navy invaded Okinawa. The ensuing three months of combat resulted in the complete defeat and near destruction of imperial Japanese forces on the island just 340 miles from the mainland.

The victory proved the most costly American campaign in the Pacific. Some 50,000 Americans were killed, missing or wounded. The incredible carnage would help persuade the American government to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in hopes of avoiding an even more horrific invasion of the mainland.

Okinawa and the war in the Pacific are back in the news these days with the airing of a 10-part HBO series, "The Pacific" -- a companion story to the 2001 series "Band of Brothers" about the American advance from Normandy across the Rhine into Germany.

But recently in hyping "The Pacific's" upcoming airing, the actor Tom Hanks, co-producer of the fine new HBO series, made some unfortunate -- and ahistorical -- remarks.

"Back in World War II," Hanks said, "we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different."

Yet the Pacific war was about far more than being "different."

Indeed, before and after the war, race was not a determining factor in American and Japanese relations. The two nations in World War I were partners against the Germans and Austrians. And during World War II itself, we joined Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos and other Asians to stop Japanese aggression -- often fueled by its own particular notion of Japanese racial superiority. In the aftermath of World War II, the Americans helped rebuild Japan, and once more were allied with it against the communist Soviet Union.

And despite the deplorable internment of Japanese nationals and American citizens of Japanese descent during the war, racial difference still does not in itself account for the horror in the Pacific -- or why we were there in the first place.

We entered the war, of course, because of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor -- which angered Americans even more than Hitler's aggression in Europe. Nazi barbarity for over two years had still not provoked the United States to enter the war -- given that none of our own territory had been attacked, much less in surprise fashion at a time of peace.

Conditions on the battlefield in the Pacific most certainly account for the horror of the war there.

For starters, Japanese militarists had updated the old samurai code of Bushido and grafted it to a modern industrial military dictatorship -- brainwashing millions into thinking individual surrender on the battlefield was tantamount to national disgrace. Italian and even fanatical German forces might give up when surrounded. In contrast, campaigns in the Pacific ended only when the vast majority of Japanese soldiers were killed or severely wounded.

Logistics for the American force were also strained, given the vast distances across the Pacific. Tropical diseases were like nothing encountered in Europe. While most Americans had heard of Sicily, Italy and France, most did not know what -- much less where -- a distant Guadalcanal, Peleliu or Iwo Jima was.

The invasion fleet off Normandy Beach did not have to worry about airborne Nazi suicide bombers -- in the manner that Kamikaze attacks off Okinawa killed thousands of American seamen.

American tactical bombing, massive artillery barrages and armor thrusts were often less successful in the Pacific than in Europe, given the dense jungle, rough terrain and nature of island fighting.

The result was often that combat was reduced to hand-to-hand and small-arms fighting between U.S. Marines and crack Japanese imperial troops, hardened from brutal service of a prior decade in China.

Given all these obstacles, it now seems incredible that an America that was half-armed in 1941 defeated Japan and utterly destroyed the idea of Japanese militarism in less than four years -- a feat attributable in large part to the amazing courage and expertise of American soldiers.

The war in the Pacific was not about racism or because Japanese "were different," much less because two nations had equally justifiable grievances against each other.

Instead, the brutal Pacific war was about ending an expansionary Japanese fascism that sought to destroy all democratic obstacles in its path. And we are indebted today to the relatively few Americans who once stopped it in horrific places like Okinawa -- some 65 years ago this week.
_____________________________________________________

To view a historical video and continue on the historical thread, click here.

I Voted Democrat Because...

I Voted Democrat Because...

I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.

I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I voted Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I voted Democrat because When we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they are doing because they now think we are good people.

I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to use my money for their free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite The Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
____________________________________________
And as an additional bonus...

Comments made in the year 1955!
That's only 55 years ago!

"I'll tell you one thing, if things keep going the way they are, it's going to be impossible to buy a week's groceries for $10.00."

"Have you seen the new cars coming out next year? It won't be long before $1,000.00 will only buy a used one."

"If cigarettes keep going up in price, I'm going to quit. 20 cents a pack is ridiculous."

"Did you hear the post office is thinking about charging 7 cents just to mail a letter?"

"If they raise the minimum wage to $1.00, nobody will be able to hire outside help at the store."

"When I first started driving, who would have thought gas would someday cost 25 cents a gallon. Guess we'd be better off leaving the car in the garage."

"I'm afraid to send my kids to the movies any more ever since they let Clark Gable get by with saying DAMN in GONE WITH THE WIND, it seems every new movie has either HELL or DAMN in it."

"I read the other day where some scientist thinks it's possible to put a man on the moon by the end of the century. They even have some fellows they call astronauts preparing for it down in Texas ."

"Did you see where some baseball player just signed a contract for $50,000 a year just to play ball? It wouldn't surprise me if someday they'll be making more than the President."

"I never thought I'd see the day all our kitchen appliances would be electric... They are even making electric typewriters now."

"It's too bad things are so tough nowadays. I see where a few married women are having to work to make ends meet."

"It won't be long before young couples are going to have to hire someone to watch their kids so they can both work."

"I'm afraid the Volkswagen car is going to open the door to a whole lot of foreign business."

"Thank goodness I won't live to see the day when the Government takes half our income in taxes. I sometimes wonder if we are electing the best people to government."

"The drive-in restaurant is convenient in nice weather, but I seriously doubt they will ever catch on."

"There is no sense going on short trips anymore for a weekend, it costs nearly $2.00 a night to stay in a hotel."

"No one can afford to be sick anymore, at $15.00 a day in the hospital, it's too rich for my blood."

"If they think I'll pay 30 cents for a haircut, forget it."

Introducing the Progressives' Transformation of the 10 Commandments

Introducing the Progressives' Transformation of the 10 Commandments
Nathan Tabor
Thursday, April 01, 2010

President Barack Obama promised during his campaign and inaugural speeches that we would witness a fundamental transformation of America. To be sure, his idea of a transformation is more akin to Karl Marx or Hugo Chavez than to Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.

Perhaps we should be grateful that, so far, President Obama and his progressive cabal are fixated on health care, cap & trade, climate change and other big government projects. With so much on his plate, Obama hasn't had time to fundamentally charge the very basis of our legal system -- the 10 Commandments, as given to the prophet Moses by Yahweh on Mount Sinai.

But rest assured, there will be many -- gay activists, atheists, hard-core leftists, etc. -- who will eventually get around to fundamentally transforming God's 10 Commandments.

I. I am your leader, Obama. When I and my minions are around, who needs God?

II. Obama, Pelosi and Reid must be exalted with carved images throughout the nation.

III. Prayer will be banned in public, but praise, song and poetry honoring Obama will be constant.

IV. Remember the Sabbath Day. Don't observe it, simply remember it.

V. Honor thy mother and thy father if they love Obama; otherwise, call child protection services and claim they’ve abused you.

VI. Thou shall not kill or abuse terrorists or criminals, but unborn babies may be killed right up to the moment of their birth.

VII. Thou shall marry anyone or any creature you wish with the full protection of Obama.

VIII. Thou shall steal from those who work and save and give such bounty to those who are slothful, irresponsible and non-productive.

IX. Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor, unless they refuse to accept Obama as their god and their leader.

X. You shall covet your neighbor's house. When Obama is done transforming America you will have it.
__________________________________________________
and now for another history lesson...

Kansas-Nebraska Act 1854, Redux
Tony Blankley
Friday, March 26, 2010

We are now beginning to enter the Kansas-Nebraska Act stage of the socialist crisis of the Republic. At our constitutional founding, the evil of slavery had been crudely evaded. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise was enacted that prohibited the abomination north of 36/30 degrees latitude (about the middle of Missouri).

But with the western push of the frontier, a new compromise was needed. So the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 decreed that the "popular sovereignty" of each territory should decide whether they would be slave or free states. But then, adherents of both the abomination and freedom migrated to Kansas to struggle -- with their bodily presence -- for their respective causes. First there was politics. Then the political rhetoric turned violent. Then real violence ensued. Kansas became known as Bleeding Kansas. John Brown, most famously, applied unjustified, murderous violence for his righteous cause of ending slavery and was hanged, but the Civil War ensued because, as Lincoln sagely explained:

"A House divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure; permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South."

Now we enter our History's second stage in the struggle against the abomination of socialism. Just as slavery had been contained in the South, so entitlement socialism has, until this week, been more or less contained in service to only the poor and the elderly -- and even in those programs (for the elderly) on the principle of beneficiaries paying monthly premiums for the benefits they will later get (Medicare/ Social Security). Only the poor under Medicaid received benefit without premium payment.

But now, just as the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 broke through the slave state limitation to the South, the Democratic Party's 2010 health care law has broken socialism's boundary of being so limited. Now, the chains of socialism are to be clamped on to the able-bodied middle class -- not merely the already presumed helpless poor and old who have paid their insurance premiums.

Even the New York Times -- after the vote -- admits what the bigger goal has been all along. In Wednesday's edition ("In Health Care Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality" by David Leonhardt), they point out: " Beyond the health reform's effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan. ... Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would 'mark a new season in America.'.... Above all, the central question that both the Reagan and Obama administrations have tried to answer -- what is the proper balance between the market and the government? -- remains unresolved. But the bill signed on Tuesday certainly shifts our place on that spectrum."

I thank The New York Times for that honest statement of historic fact.

For example, the new law takes away from insurance companies the right to charge for insurance based on actuarial risk -- which is the essence of insurance. Now they will charge what the politicians tell them to charge -- and pay such benefits as the politicians order them to pay. They may, for a while, make money, but that will be at the sufferance of the politicians. One may call this mere regulation, but it is regulation to such a degree that it constitutes effective ownership of the insurance company. The former equity holders in such companies are now merely nominal owners. Also, the new law provides for taxes on investment income to pay for socialized health care, sucking out the lifeblood of our economy to the deathbeds of the destitute.

When these intrusions are combined with 1) the nationalization of GM and Chrysler, 2) the partial nationalization of the banks, 3) the establishment of trillion-dollar taxpayer-funded slush funds (stimulus package and TARP) and 4) the planned 10-year, $10 trillion of further government debt (which steals from our children and grandchildren dollars yet unmade by them to pay foreign debt holders), the center of gravity of our economy moves from the private sector to the public sector.

And just as the free states could not tolerate the spread of slavery into their midst, so, too, free middle-class America -- if it still has its historic character -- will not tolerate the yoke of socialism put upon our necks.

First, the unambiguous will of the majority has been defied by the vote of Congress last Sunday.

Come November, we shall see whether the system can still turn the popular will into the constitutionally permissible legislative will of the majority. If it can, all will be well and the crisis will end. Rallying the vote between now and November is roughly equivalent to the early stage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act period -- people started migrating to Kansas to support their convictions.

But come November, if the majority still opposes the socializing of health care delivery and the other central government intrusions, and yet the corrupt bargains and constitutional distortions of Washington deny that will its just expression -- then, for the second time in our history, we enter that dangerous period where the House resolves its temporary division. Let us devoutly pray --and commit to ourselves -- that this time freedom shall be reacquired … peaceably.

The Spy Who Loved Peace

The Spy Who Loved Peace
Cliff May
Thursday, April 01, 2010

President Obama thinks Israel's policies are the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Hamas disagrees.

The problem for Hamas, writes Mosab Hassan Yousef, has never been "Israel's policies." The problem for Hamas is "Israel's very existence." Hamas, Yousef adds, is "animated by religious fervor and the theology of jihad," and it is "dedicated to the extinction of Israel."

He should know. He is the son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, one of Hamas's seven founders and perhaps its most popular leader. Not that long ago, it seemed inevitable that the son would follow in his father's footsteps. As he recounts in "Son of Hamas," a stunning and instructive memoir, at the age of 17 he "could think of nothing except joining the military wing of Hamas." But he came to see terrorism as immoral and repugnant. In reaction, he embarked on a remarkable journey.

That journey began in a West Bank village where his father, a religious and political leader before he helped create Hamas, believed that "Allah had given us the responsibility of eradicating the Jews ... though he personally had nothing against them."

The Israelis repeatedly imprisoned the father and, when the son procured weapons, they quickly threw him in jail as well. Both were dealt with harshly. But, in prison, Yousef was shocked to learn that Hamas leaders were even more brutal toward their own members. Those suspected of cooperating with Israelis were tortured - sometimes with needles inserted under their fingernails, sometimes with plastic food trays melted on their bare skin.

In 1996, Yousef was approached by the Shin Bet, Israel's domestic intelligence agency. He considered becoming a double agent - figuring he could mislead his handlers and perhaps get the chance to kill a few. Little by little, however, his views of Israelis changed: "They were human beings, and they treated me like a human being. Nearly every time we met, another stone in the foundation of my worldview crumbled."

Then came Camp David: In 2000, President Bill Clinton put pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack who offered Yasser Arafat, President of the Palestinian Authority and leader of Fatah, "about 90 percent of the West Bank, the entire Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem as the capital of a new Palestinian state. In addition," Mosab writes, "a new international fund would be established to compensate Palestinians for property that had been taken from them. This ‘land for peace' offer represented a historic opportunity for the long-suffering Palestinian people, something few Palestinians would have dared imagine possible. But even so, it was not enough for Arafat," who rejected the offer, refused to negotiate further, and launched a bloody intifada against Israel.

Why? Yousef explains: "Yasser Arafat had grown extraordinarily wealthy as the international symbol of victimhood. He wasn't about to surrender that status and take on the responsibility of actually building a functioning society. ... ...For Arafat, there always seemed to be more to gain if Palestinians were bleeding. Another intifada would surely get the blood flowing and the Western news cameras rolling once again."

Yousef decided that something "had to be done to stop this rolling madness. I knew the time had come for me to begin working with Shin Bet. And I went at it with all my heart."

He was good at it, too. For example, he discovered that the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades were actually composed of Arafat's personal guards, members of Force 17, largely funded by American taxpayers. They carried out terrorist attacks while Arafat denounced terrorism, blamed most of it on Hamas, and insisted he was doing all he could to restrain the violent extremists.

Yousef knew that by working for the Israelis he would be seen as "a traitor in the eyes of my people." But it was the only way he could prevent suicide bombings, the only way he could save both Palestinian and Israeli lives, the only way he could contribute to "the ongoing war on terrorism in which Israel plays a leading role."

In 2007, Yousef retired from the spy business and left the Middle East. He now lives in California. He also has left Islam which, he came to believe, has a "beautiful side," but also a "cruel side that requires its followers to conquer and enslave the earth." He is now a devout Christian.

He wrote "Son of Hamas" because, "When Middle Eastern nations - Jews and Arabs alike - start to understand some of what I understand, only then will there be peace."

And it would help if President Obama were to read his book and realize that Israel's policies - least of all its plans to build housing for growing families in a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem -- are the least of the obstacles standing in the way of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
_________________________________________________

To continue reading the historical thread, here's one from Burt, click here.

Feldblum Appointment Underscores Threat of Homosexual Agenda to Liberty

Feldblum Appointment Underscores Threat of Homosexual Agenda to Liberty
Alan Sears
Tuesday, March 30, 2010

You hear it, in one form or another, every day. For all the fervent debates and spirited arguments and plain old yelling matches we are wont to get into on everything from politics to sports to religion, something deep in the soul of most Americans still holds to our quintessential conviction that “everyone’s entitled to his opinion.”

In our democratic republic, that’s about as democratic as it gets.
Which is why it’s so surprising, sometimes, to learn that not everyone believes this…and why it’s so dangerous when someone who doesn’t moves into a position of powerful government authority.

Consider, for instance, the case of Chai Feldblum, one of a number of President Obama’s recess appointments over the weekend. The President nominated her in September 2009 for a post on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which governs workplace issues across the country. Ms. Feldblum is on record as stating that “private beliefs” that do not affirm homosexual behavior should not be tolerated in American society.

Not public speech, mind you. Not overt, out-front demonstrations or protests or letters to the editor or call-ins to local radio shows. But “private beliefs” should not be tolerated.

In other words, people who don’t have “private beliefs” like Ms. Feldblum does about homosexual behavior should, under the right circumstances, be prosecuted to the limits of the law.

That would be a fairly breathtaking point of view, even if Ms. Feldblum were herself just an ordinary citizen. As an ordinary citizen, her fellow Americans, in their generosity, might arch a collective eyebrow, but we’d still say, however grudgingly, “She’s entitled to her opinion.”

But, as noted, the opinion of Ms. Feldblum isn’t being put forward as that of an ordinary citizen. Bypassing Senate confirmation, President Obama has installed her as one of the nation’s most influential government administrators—vested with deciding what’s fair and right and legal in offices and on worksites all over America. And to her mind, everyone in America has to not just acknowledge, or even tacitly embrace, homosexual behavior…but embrace that behavior wholeheartedly. Literally, wholeheartedly.

That’s a sobering prospect for the many millions of Americans who take the Hebrew Scriptures and the Bible seriously, or whose religious convictions and moral heritage declare homosexual behavior to be not only immoral, but destructive to a culture and to those who practice such behavior themselves.

Ms. Feldblum has some news for these people of faith: they’re no longer free to believe, much less express, such religious convictions. When religious liberty and what she likes to call “sexual identity liberty” collide in the public square, she says, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

No surprise then that she was the lead drafter of the so-called “Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” which seeks to place people engaged in homosexual behavior in a legal class with special privileges and no protections for the consciences of religious employers who may object to assisting or funding such behavior. As she wrote in 2005, “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people.”

In other words, she thinks the government is fully justified in walking over any religious beliefs standing in the way of homosexual behavior.

To say the least, such views would come as something of a surprise to the Pilgrims, the Founding Fathers, and those who wrote the Constitution. They might even give pause to the current members of the Supreme Court. But Ms. Feldblum’s views are apparently no obstruction, in the eyes of this administration, to her ability to govern the American workplace.

And those views are all the more interesting when one considers her long, strong ties to the American Civil Liberties Union, the self-proclaimed “foremost defender” of each citizen’s rights protected by the First Amendment, and a group she served once as chief legislative counsel. Or when one takes into account her co-signing of a document entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” which demands the expansion of the marital state to include polygamy, polyamory, and virtually any other imaginable combination of “consenting ” participants.

Out of the million plus lawyers in America, Ms. Feldblum is the one the ACLU chose to represent their own agenda in Congress. Now that she has been appointed to the EEOC, will the “foremost defender” of civil liberties now publicly agree or disagree with their former legislative counsel’s view that society should not tolerate certain private beliefs?

Regardless of what they say (or don’t say), the fact this has been an objective of the ACLU for a long time is not in question. As Cathryn Hazouri of the ACLU of Colorado stated, “One may practice one’s religion in private; however, once a religious person comes into the public arena, there are limitations in how that expression of their religion affects others.” So much for the plain words of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

In the end, the nomination and recess appointment of Ms. Feldblum is but the latest element of the growing evidence that the demands of the homosexual legal and political agenda extends far beyond simple, gentle pleas for “tolerance.” The pretense of that demand is fading fast on all fronts.

Of course, the people of Troy warned us long ago to “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” And when the nation’s most well-known civil liberties group chooses as its congressional liaison one who renounces the most basic of human and civil rights…

… and an administration gives vast authority over the nation’s workforce to one who would force workers to deny their deepest beliefs…

… it’s Greek to me.
_____________________________________________________

For another article about the gayness of some people - click here

Henry Waxman: The Witch Hunter of Capitol Hill

Henry Waxman: The Witch Hunter of Capitol Hill
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Has there ever been a time when 18-term liberal Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman's nostrils weren't flaring indignantly at corporate executives and entrepreneurs? The man wields his gavel over the free market like a Damoclean sword. He throws the weight of his congressional chairmanship around like a sumo wrestler walking across hot stones. For more than 35 years, Waxman has made it his taxpayer-funded business to use the power of government to undermine private business.

No one should be surprised by his latest thuggish efforts to silence companies speaking out about the cost implications and financial burdens of Demcare -- least of all, those companies.

This is the Eliot Ness-wannabe who serves proudly as the left's chief inquisitor. This is the Capitol Hill haranguer who herded tobacco company CEOs in front of the cameras, made them raise their right hands and cackled as he forced them to testify under oath about the evils of their products. Waxman's demagoguery then was so over the top that it prompted Washington Post columnist William Raspberry to write that the "Capitol Hill inquisition masquerading as legislative hearings reminds me of nothing so much as a witch-hunting Joe McCarthy."

Last month, Waxman stacked the deck at the Toyota inquisition hearing with auto industry-bashing Naderites. In 2007, he held court over the Valerie Plame show trial. And in February 2008, he wasted four hours on a nationally televised interrogation of baseball legend Roger Clemens and his trainer. Republicans called Waxman out on his Captain Queeg-ish vendetta against Clemens. The debacle was dubbed a "Roman Circus." After squandering public resources on congressional showboating over steroid use, Waxman himself confessed that he "didn't think it was a hearing that needed to be held."

When he isn't abusing the deliberative process to add to his press-clipping collection and serve up red meat (er, blue meat) for the TV airwaves, he's short-circuiting hearings to ram through political power grabs masquerading as "reform." Waxman pushed massively expensive, complicated cap-and-tax legislation through the House last year by leapfrogging over subcommittee debate. He also staved off Republican efforts to slow down and scrutinize the behemoth bill by hiring a "speed reader" to plow through the 900-page bill during mark-up.

Waxman himself couldn't be bothered to familiarize himself with the trillion-dollar regulatory tyranny stuffed into his own bill. When a GOP colleague on his committee asked him whether he knew a specific provision had been embedded in the proposal with his name on it, Waxman snorted: "You're asking me?"

The indignant interrogator then went on to question the patriotism of anyone who dared ask questions about the climate change tax scheme -- and accused conservatives of "rooting against the country."

Now, Waxman is targeting the heads of Deere, Caterpillar, Verizon and AT&T with "invitations" they can't refuse to testify at an April 21 hearing on their public statements regarding Demcare-caused writedowns. Waxman's fishing expedition letters sent out last week "asked" the company heads to produce copious documentation.

Business execs are damned if they do disclose how the costs of the new federal health care taxes will hit their bottom line and damned if they don't. If they stay silent, they'll be violating Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure requirements passed by Congress after the Enron scandal. If they talk, they'll be paraded in front of the camera like those poor tobacco heads Waxman waxed more than 15 years ago.

Who's next? On Monday, Prudential said it would take a $100 million charge in the first quarter thanks to Demcare. In Colorado, the Steamboat Ski and Resort Corp. said the health care law will cost $2 million a year starting in 2014. AK Steel Corp., 3M and Valero Energy have all announced similar writedowns. At this rate, if Waxman insists on hauling up every last truth-teller in the marketplace, he'll be holding an inquisition-a-thon a day.

And that would suit the Witch Hunter of Capitol Hill just fine. If he isn't meddling, he isn't working. And if he isn't using his powers to bully, bulldoze or bankrupt his enemies, he is failing the gods of progressivism.
___________________________________________________

To read another article by Michelle Malkin, click here.

___________________________________________________
No Speech for You
David Harsanyi
Friday, April 02, 2010

So Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is demanding that citizens justify their political speech under oath. Nervous Nellies doubtlessly will characterize this as an "overreach." Crybabies will grouse about the "chilling" effect or the "muzzling" of dissent.

Yet in these heady days of change, it's all about context. In this case, you'll be relieved to know, we're talking about CEOs. These people take home considerably more pay than I do. Accordingly, they deserve to sit through hours of absurd inquires from sanctimonious politicians as a matter of karmic justice.

What they don't deserve is free speech. The president ably expounded on the matter in the State of the Union address: Corporations should not be entitled to the same constitutional protections as the rest of us.

With this in mind, it should surprise no one that Waxman has requested the "personal testimony" of a few CEOs, who have reported billions of dollars in negative impact to their businesses -- per Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure requirements -- because of the passage of health care reform.

In the letter, Waxman asserts, "The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern." And everyone knows that it is impossible for legislation to have unintended consequences.

Whom are you going to believe, numbers or Joe Biden?

This cabal of profiteering is headed up by AT&T ($1 billion first-quarter charge), Boeing ($150 million), John Deere ($150 million), Caterpillar ($100 million), 3M, AK Steel, Verizon, Prudential, the lodging industry ... and so forth and so on, until we hit on every single company affected by the elimination of a tax break on retiree drug benefits. It likely will cost employees and thus consumers an estimated $14 billion -- not counting the new Medicare costs.

Boy, if only these corporations had something akin to a Congressional Budget Office. Bean counters could conceal costly programs on separate balance sheets and add bogus cost-saving measures to the ones they present to shareholders.

Then again, what works for Congress amounts to a prison term out in the corporate world. So for now, businesses rely on Arabic numerals (lest we need another reason to question their patriotism) and arithmetic (in this case, lots of subtraction).

Some may wonder whether Waxman has any lawful grounds to bully anyone into accepting his view of Obamacare. Even if corporations, typically snuggling up to Washington for crony capitalistic favors, had joined in a twisted political conspiracy to make Barack Obama's legislative masterpiece look as terrible as it is ... so what? Since when is making a law look bad a criminal act?

The ironic part of Waxman's abuse of power is that he also demands that CEOs show up with "any documents, including e-mail messages, sent to or prepared or reviewed by senior company officials related to the projected impact of health care reform."

Would it not be helpful for Congress to first provide taxpayers with any and all documents -- including e-mail messages sent to or prepared or reviewed by elected officials -- regarding this historic health care reform bill?

Maybe if Congress applied a fraction of the transparency it demands from corporate America to its own dealings, it wouldn't have to rely on pompous bullies like Waxman to stifle free speech.

What We Know That Isn't So

What We Know That Isn't So
John Stossel
Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Much government interference with our peaceful pursuits is based on junk science and junk economics. Politicians know a lot of stuff that isn't so. So do reporters.

Let me count some of the ways. (I'll elaborate on tomorrow's Fox Business Network show.)

Congress now spends your money on a host of intrusive new programs designed to make America "energy independent." President Obama recently announced $8 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.

I smiled when I heard. Finally, even Democrats woke up to the benefits of nuclear power. But Cato Institute energy analyst Jerry Taylor set me straight:

"If nuclear power made economic sense, we wouldn't need to subsidize it."

Affordable nuclear power, says Taylor, is a Republican fantasy. Promoting it makes no more sense than Nancy Pelosi's promotion of wind and solar power. "Take a Republican speech about nuclear power, cross out the phrase 'nuclear,' and put in 'solar' -- you've got a Democratic speech about energy."

All these "alternative" fuels are economically impractical. Natural gas is practical. And plentiful.

I thought the only reason that nuclear didn't pay for itself is the burden of excessive regulations and objections from silly environmentalists. Apply for permission to build a plant, and their cumbersome lawsuits impose ruinously expensive delays.

Again, Taylor set me straight. He says the nuclear industry itself is comfortable with today's level of regulation. The big problem today is not environmental rules, but simply the huge cost. The same high costs, he says, are found in countries that have long been friendly to nuclear power.

He also notes that when the Department of Energy proposed offering to guarantee 80 percent of the cost of new nuclear plants, the big investment banks told the department that even 80 percent loan guarantees wouldn't be enough. They needed 100 percent guarantees, or they wouldn't make the loans.

"To me that's a market verdict that you're supposed to respect. ... We need to leave these (matters) to markets. And in the marketplace, investors will not spend a single red dime on nuclear power because it's too expensive. ... It's not Jane Fonda or Greenpeace that killed nuclear power. It's Wall Street investment banks who've looked at the bottom line."

He's convinced me. Then he moved on to more Republican candy: the claim that drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska would dramatically lower oil prices and move us toward energy "independence."

Taylor says such drilling would do neither. Yes, it would create wealth. New offshore fields might produce a million barrels of oil per day. While that would be good, the benefits are oversold. "We consume 15 million barrels of oil a day. We produce 5. We'd go to 6." Nice, but no game-changer.

Of course, subsidizing wind and solar makes even less sense. Taylor calls them 12th-century technologies. They require lots of land to produce forms of energy that are hard to store and hard to move, and are too variable throughout the year. Even if we covered most of America with wind farms, there's no guarantee that they'd produce energy when we need it.

Other junk science abounds: banning plastic shopping bags, as 10 cities have done, is pointless. Plastic bags take up a tiny fraction of landfills. When supermarkets are stopped from handing plastic out, people looking to dispose garbage buy more big, black plastic bags.

Banning incandescent bulbs, as Congress has done starting in 2012, is also pointless. The ban will have only the tiniest effect on America's energy use. In addition, fluorescent bulbs often use as much power as incandescent bulbs because people leave them on longer.

People are ignorant enough about science that it's easy for politicians to scare them into supporting absurd regulations. For my show, I went to Times Square and asked if people would sign a petition demanding a ban on "dihydrogen monoxide," a colorless, odorless chemical that kills thousands. Most everyone signed.

They were embarrassed when they realized that dihydrogen monoxide is ... H2O. They eagerly endorsed a ban on water.

Obama's Goal: Regime Change (in Israel)

Obama's Goal: Regime Change (in Israel)
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Why is President Obama so obviously humiliating Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu? Why is Secretary of State Clinton negating everything she said when she represented New York state and piling on the Jewish state?

They want Benjamin Netanyahu out. Specifically, they want him to feel such pressure that he dumps his right-wing coalition partners and forms a new government with the center-left party Kadima headed by former Prime Minister Tzipi Livni. Livni, who thinks nothing of trading land for peace, no matter how flawed the peace might be, will then hold Netanyahu's government hostage and force it to bend to the will of Washington and sign a deal with the Palestinians that cedes them land in return for a handful of vague vapors and promises none of which will be kept.

On March 3, Livni said in a Knesset debate that since Netanyahu took control, "Israel has become a pariah country in the world." She is trying to use Obama's and Clinton's rejection of Netanyahu's course to force her way into the government. And Obama and Clinton are intent on helping her do so by publicly humiliating Netanyahu.

But Netanyahu insists that he'd be happy to negotiate a peace accord. But, as he told me last year, "I just don't have a peace partner with whom to negotiate."

The Palestinians are expert at playing "good cop/bad cop" with Israel. The good cop -- the Palestinian Authority -- wants to negotiate a peace deal and insists on signs of Israeli good faith in order to do so. Meanwhile, the bad cop -- Hamas -- fires missiles at Israel from Gaza, land Israel ceded to the Palestinians in order to promote the peace process earlier in the decade.

Any peace deal with the Palestinian Authority will not be binding on Hamas, and the pattern of Gaza will likely play out again: First, Israel ceded land to the Palestinian Authority. Second, Hamas seizes the newly ceded land through elections or military action. Third, Hamas refuses to recognize the peace deal and uses the newly acquired territory as a base from which to launch further attacks against Israel.

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome each time.

When Hillary Clinton and Obama explode in indignation against Israel for building apartments in East Jerusalem, they deliberately miss the point: There is no reason for Israel to catalyze peace negotiations when there is no single entity that is both committed to peace and speaks for the entire Palestinian people. Without a peace partner, negotiations are either a trip to nowhere or a slippery slope to more Gaza-like concessions that do nothing but strengthen the enemies of Israel without providing any advancement to the cause of peace.

The merits of building in East Jerusalem or the need for a moratorium on all settlement construction are quite irrelevant as long as a substantial body of Palestinian opinion wants a war with Israel and the prevailing political authority in Gaza insists on the Jewish state's eradication.

Clinton's and Obama's studied humiliation of Netanyahu during his recent visit to Washington suggest a more sinister agenda at work. They are trying to show the Arab world that the United States is quite willing to throw Israel into the sea. When Clinton characterized the American commitment to Israel as "rock solid" while, at the same time, warning that Israel faced destruction unless it concluded a peace deal with the Arabs, it illustrates how conditional U.S. support really is.

Unless Israel toes the U.S. line -- to the satisfaction of the Arab world -- American support won't really be there. The rocks to which the secretary refers will be tied to Israel's foot as she is thrown overboard by the Obama administration.

By raising the profile of the housing issue and by lending legitimacy to the idea that it is Israeli construction that is frustrating the peace process, Obama and Clinton both redirect pressure that should be aimed at Hamas' refusal to honor or participate in any peace talks or accord.

So why are Obama and Clinton so intent on raising the profile of the construction issue and publicizing it? One suspects that an effort is afoot to link Israeli resistance to the peace process to the ongoing loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not to the global terrorism of al-Qaida.

Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples (in the region). ... Enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility." In other words, blame Israel.

And ultimately, the administration agenda may be to explain its withdrawal of support for Israel by blaming its stubborn insistence on housing construction. One can well see the Obama administration learning to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon while blaming Israel for fomenting Iranian hostility by building housing.

All the while, through American aid to Gaza, the Obama administration is helping Hamas to solidify its position in Gaza and lengthen its lease on political power -- the very power it is using to torpedo the peace process.
__________________________________________________
Obama Slights Our Friends, Kowtows to Our Enemies
Michael Barone
Monday, March 29, 2010

Barack Obama's decision to postpone his trip to Indonesia and Australia -- to a democracy with the world's largest Muslim population and to the only nation that has fought alongside us in all the wars of the last century -- is of a piece with his foreign policy generally: attack America's friends and kowtow to our enemies.

Examples run from Britain to Israel. Early in his administration, Obama returned a bust of Churchill that the British government had loaned the White House after 9/11. Then Obama gave Prime Minister Gordon Brown a set of DVDs that don't work on British machines and that Brown, who has impaired vision, would have trouble watching anyway.

More recently, Obama summoned Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House, permitted no photographs, laid down non-negotiable demands and went off to dinner.

Some may attribute these slights to biases inherited from the men who supplied the titles of Obama's two books. Perhaps like Barack Obama Sr., he regards the British as evil colonialists. Or perhaps like his preacher for 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he regards Israel as an evil oppressor.

But the list of American friends Obama has slighted is long. It includes Poland and the Czech Republic (anti-missile program cancelled), Honduras (backing the constitutionally ousted president), Georgia (no support against Russia), and Colombia and South Korea (no action on pending free trade agreements).

In the meantime, Obama sends yearly greetings to (as he puts it) the Islamic Republic of Iran, exchanges friendly greetings with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, caves to Russian demands on arms control and sends a new ambassador to Syria.

What we're seeing, I think, is a president who shares a view, long held by some on the American left, that the real danger to America often comes from America's allies.

This attitude goes back to Gen. Joseph Stilwell's feud against China's Chiang Kai-shek in World War II. As Barbara Tuchman writes in her definitive biography, Stilwell thought Chiang was undercutting the U.S. by not fighting hard enough against the Japanese. He may have shared the view common among some "old China hands" -- diplomats and journalists like Edgar Snow -- that the Chinese communists were preferable.

After China fell to the communists, the old China hands got a fair share of the blame, and liberals who opposed military support of Chiang were vilified. This lesson was not forgotten.

In his first book on Vietnam, David Halberstam argued that the Diem brothers were not fighting hard enough against the communists. I remember him telling a group at the Harvard Crimson at the time how the U.S. needed to replace the Diems in order for liberals to avoid a political backlash like that against the old China hands.

The idea that allies can cause you trouble is not totally without merit. The Cold War caused us to embrace some unsavory folks. Democratic administrations supported military takeovers in Brazil in 1964 and Greece in 1967, just as a Republican administration supported one in Chile in 1973.

But liberals tend to forget the first two examples and remain fixated on the third. They see history as moving inevitably and beneficially to the left and bemoan American alliances with what they see as retrograde right-wing regimes.

They want us to look more favorably on those like Chavez and Fidel Castro, who claim they are helping the poor. Somehow it is seen as progressive to cuddle up to those who attack America and to scorn those who have shown their friendship and common values over many years.

And so Obama, the object of so much adulation in Western Europe, seems to have had only the coolest of relations with its leaders. The candidate who spoke in Berlin is now the president with no sympathy for the leaders of peoples freed when the wall fell. They are seen as impediments to his goal of propitiating Vladimir Putin's Russia, where Joseph Stalin is now an honored hero.

Obama's concessions to Russia have not prevented Russia from watering down sanctions against Iran. And Obama's display of scorning Netanyahu has not gotten the Palestinians to sit down face-to-face with the Israelis, as Netanyahu has promised to do.

Obama proclaims that through persistence he can make the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and the Palestinians see things our way. The evidence so far is that they are making him do things their way -- and that our friends are wondering whether it pays to be on America's side.