Ted Kennedy 1932-2009

For as much as I may have disagreed with the senior senator from Massachusetts, on this day, it's good for the world to see how we treat our leaders with dignity and respect and are willing to set differences aside and comfort those who mourn the loss of a father, brother, and uncle.

America is a wonderful country.

Rest in peace, Ted!

Samuel Gonzalez

Exploiting Ted Kennedy’s Death for Democrat Political Gain

WHY TED'D WANT HIS DEATH EXPLOITED

IF you read the papers or watch the news, you'll en counter a long list of accom plishments by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. You're less likely to hear, however, that in his death Kennedy proved Rush Limbaugh right.

In March, the talk-show host and bete noir of progressives everywhere said that the health-care bill wending its way through Congress would eventually be dubbed "the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill." At the time, the official position of the Democratic Party was outrage and disgust. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee initiated a petition drive demanding that the Republican Party formally denounce Limbaugh for his "reprehensible" and "truly outrageous" comments.

Fast-forward to a few hours after the announcement of Kennedy's death. Suddenly, naming the bill after Kennedy would be a moving tribute.

ABC News reports that "the idea of naming the legislation for Kennedy has been quietly circulating for months" but was kicked into overdrive by Sen. Robert Byrd, the Democratic Party's eldest statesman.

Intriguingly, this suggests that either Democrats already had the idea when Limbaugh floated it, which would mean their protests were just so much opportunistic and cynical posturing -- or they actually got the idea from Limbaugh himself, which would be too ironic for a Tom Wolfe novel.

But that Kennedy's death should be marked by cynicism, opportunism and irony is not shocking, given that these qualities are now the hallmarks of the party he largely defined.

The Democratic Party's determination to exploit his death for political gain puts the commentator who doesn't wish to speak ill of the dead in something of a bind. So let us be clear that there's no evidence whatsoever that Kennedy himself -- or any Kennedy -- would object to such a ploy.

Whether one calls it exploitation or heroic perseverance, the Kennedy dynasty's longevity is best understood as a response to fatal tragedies. Shortly after her husband's murder, Jacqueline Kennedy lamented Lee Harvey Oswald's inconvenient political views: "It had to be some silly little Communist."

Fortunately, her husband's handlers had things well in hand, orchestrating with a compliant media the grand fiction that Kennedy had somehow been a martyr to civil rights, taken out by right-wing "hate."

The real JFK, who cut capital-gains taxes and only reluctantly supported Martin Luther King Jr.'s March on Washington, had never been nearly as liberal as the posthumous legend created to give new life to liberalism -- and the Kennedy name.

According to the mythmakers, JFK would have pulled us out of Vietnam. Meanwhile, the real JFK boasted (mere hours before his murder) that he'd massively boosted defense spending and ordered a 600 percent increase on counterinsurgency special forces in Vietnam. The prior March, he'd asked Congress to spend 50 cents out of every dollar on defense.

Hence one of the great ironies of Ted Kennedy's career: He was the chief beneficiary of an inheritance from a brother whose views he didn't share.

Such contradictions never bothered Ted Kennedy, nor his fellow Democrats, when he was alive -- so why should there be compunction now?

After all, the Kennedys and the Democrats have mythologized and exploited the deaths of three brothers (and minimized the deaths of Mary Jo Kopechne and Martha Moxley) in order to protect the Kennedy brand. Naming a massive expansion of the federal government after Ted Kennedy, particularly when it was indeed his life's cause, seems entirely fitting and fair.

My only objection is the notion that somehow anyone but partisan Democrats should be expected to cave in to the "Do it for Teddy" bullying.

Conservatives should surrender to something that violates their fundamental principles out of deference to the very man liberals celebrate for never abandoning his fundamental principles? No one expected Ted Kennedy to become a champion of free markets out of deference to Ronald Reagan's memory.

Now, if liberals want to rally their own troops by putting Kennedy's name on the bill, that's their right, even if it will likely result in an even more unpopular bill than the ones now under consideration.

I suspect that they'll be disappointed to discover that the currency of the Kennedy name purchases far less than it once did -- thanks in large part to what Ted Kennedy did with it.


Jonah Gldberg, NY Post, 8/29/09

Kennedy's Funeral Further Damages the Church's Credibility

There is much truth to the adage that many of our wounds are self inflicted. This has been especially true for the Catholic Church in the United States and the Archdiocese of Boston in particular. Recall that the clergy sex abuse scandal first came to light there because of their egregious nature and the laxity of the then Archbishop Bernard Cardinal Law in handling them. According to statistics the Church is still reeling from the aftershocks.

On Wednesday the Church further diminished her credibility when it was announced that a Mass of Christian Burial would be celebrated for Senator Edward M. Kennedy at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Basilica. It was also announced that President Barack Obama would be the eulogist.

Senator Kennedy, along with President Obama have been the most pro-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research politicians in the nation. As a matter of fact, Senator Kennedy refused to vote for Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork and Samuel Alito for fear their appointment might lead to overturning Roe v. Wade. These positions are inimical to Catholic Church teaching and throughout the years, the American hierarchy has railed against Catholic politicians such as Kennedy who hold such views. Some bishops have even advised them not to receive Holy Communion -- an action just short of excommunication.


In recent days the spin-doctors have done their best to portray Senator Kennedy as a devout Catholic. Stories of his visits to church in order to pray for his ailing daughter Kara, a cancer survivor, and reports of his personal religiosity have been widely circulated. The media has also noted numerous visits by priests to the Kennedys’ home during his illness for the administration of the sacraments, presumably including confession and even the celebration of a private Mass in Kennedys’ living room. There is no report, however, of repudiation of his voting record or sorrow for his obstinate refusal to adhere to Catholic morality on two of the most important life issues. An important part of the Sacrament of Penance, along with sorrow for sin, is to try to repair the damages that our sins have caused. Certainly, enough time had elapsed between the diagnosis of the Senator’s terminal illness and his death for him to make amends and to alleviate some of the scandal. Yet, there is no indication that this has happened.

A Mass of Christian Burial is a privilege -- not a right. It is for those who have lived a Christian life. Senator Kennedy’s scandalous disregard of his Church’s teaching and the destruction of human life that may be attributed to his voting record make his funeral celebration quite dubious. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to evil… and that it takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it”(n. 2284-85). For such a person the Code of Canon Law says, “Church funeral rites are to be denied to the following (unless they gave some sign of repentance before death): manifest sinners to whom a Church funeral could not be granted without public scandal to the faithful” (c. 1184.3). How many Catholics have been led astray by Senator Kennedy and other prominent pro-choice Catholics? And, finally, how many other Catholic politicians will be emboldened to emulate his behavior because the honor the Church is extending to him?

Some will argue that the Church, by its very nature, always gives the benefit of the doubt to the sinner. Yet, even such an act of charity calls for a pastoral solution so as not to mislead others and cause greater harm. In this case, a subdued funeral service should be offered for the repose of Senator Kennedy’s soul. It should be made clear that, as it is the purpose of every Catholic funeral, the Mass is being celebrated to beg God’s mercy for the deceased. But, then even this solution would be meaningless when the nation’s most pro-choice president ever is permitted to eulogize his ideological soul mate in the Church’s sanctuary. Imagine the accolades that will be lavished on the Senator Kennedy’s character and career!

The Church’s credibility has once again been undermined by the hierarchy of the Church in Boston. This scandal is even bigger than the one enabled by Cardinal Law because of its bad message and long ranging implications.

Rev. Michael P. Orsi a Research Fellow in Law and Religion at Ave Maria School of Law. Human Events, 8/28/2009

The Hero of Chappaquiddick: a profile of liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy

In light of the death of Sem Ted Kennedy, I like to re-post a 5 year old article that touches on “the other Ted Kennedy” that will not get much attention. The Liberal media so loves to whitewash their heroes.

Ted Kennedy was able to live 77 years.

Mary Joe Kopechne wasn’t so lucky.



The Hero of Chappaquiddick: a profile of liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy

B y Jack Ward 7/30/05

On the anniversary of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, Edward M. (Teddy) Kennedy wanted to make sure everyone was reminded of the incident. Since Sen. Kennedy wants to remind us of history, I feel obligated to mention the anniversary of Kennedy's troubled past.

Teddy is the last son of Joe and Rose Kennedy. The older, famous sons John (JFK) and Robert (RFK) are icons in Democrat politics. But as Cleo O'Donnell, a wife of a former Kennedy campaign aide said, "Teddy Kennedy was the weak kitten in the litter, never able to measure up to his brothers." At prep school his performance was so mediocre his brother JFK once referred to Teddy as "the gay illiterate."

Teddy was admitted to Harvard as a legacy student rather than for academic achievement. Teddy was fortunate that JFK, RFK and his father had graduated with distinction. Teddy's claim to fame at Harvard was getting expelled for cheating in his sophomore year. After getting expelled, he sat around feeling sorry for himself until he signed up for a four-year hitch in the Army.

His father Joe (who was the U.S. Ambassador to England) was very upset. He reportedly said, "Don't you ever look at what you're signing?" He then pushed political buttons and revised the enlistment to two years. It is nice to have a daddy fix your screw-ups. In two years he never go above the rank of private.

After demonstrating his military prowess, Teddy returned to Harvard and joined the rugby team. Rugby has been described as a "character-building sport." In one match, Teddy got into three fist-fights and was finally thrown out of the game. According to referee Frederick Costick, "Teddy was the only player he had ever expelled from a game in 30 years of officiating." Rugby did little to improve Teddy's character.

After graduating from Harvard, he entered the University of Virginia Law School. At Virginia, he was called "Cadillac Eddie." He got four tickets in two years for running red lights and driving at night with lights off at 90 miles per hour through neighborhoods. But even with convictions, fines and strict driving regulations, he never lost his license.

When JFK was elected president in 1960, his Massachusetts Senate seat became vacant. Papa Joe said, "Look, I paid for it, it belongs in the family." But Teddy wasn't 30, so he couldn't run. So Joe got an interim slug to occupy the office until Teddy could be anointed. In 1962, Ol' Joe succeeded and Teddy became a U.S. Senator.

On July 18, 1969, Teddy's sordid past caught up with him at Chappaquiddick, Marths's Vineyard, Massachusetts. Teddy was one of a party of six married men and six single women. Investigators confirmed that a package liquor store sold three half-gallons of vodka, four fifths of scotch, two bottles of rum and two cases of beer for the party. Attendee Joe Gargan said, "Frankly, everybody was a little bombed."

About 12:45 a.m., Teddy and campaign aide Mary Jo Kopechne decided to leave the party. Rather than have Teddy's personal chauffeur (Jack Crimmins) drive, Teddy demanded to drive Mary Jo "to the ferry" - but the ferry had stopped running at midnight.

Deputy Sheriff Christopher "Huck" Look saw a black Oldsmobile driving erratically and the driver appeared to be in a "confused state." Even with the partial license plate, it was verified to be Kennedy's car. After being spotted by Deputy Look, Kennedy sped off. In his haste, he missed the bridge and the car went into the water. Teddy escaped but Mary Jo Kopechne didn't. Kennedy didn't report the accident for more than 10 hours.

Neither Kennedy's timeline nor account of events matched the facts nor the statements from the deputy sheriffs or nearby residents. While the 10-hour delay ensured that he couldn't be charged with driving while intoxicated, his driver's license had expired and he had fled the scene of an accident. Friends recreated his driver's lcense, but Chapter 90, Section 24 of the Massachusetts vehicle code requires "imprisonment for not less than 20 days or more than two years" when a driver leaves the scene of an accident where injuries occur - for all people except a Kennedy.

State police detective-lieutenant George Killen said, "Senator Kennedy killed that girl the same as if he put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger."

In 1973, Sen. Ted Kennedy said, "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?"

Teddy should know.

Obama Wagging the Dog: Launches Witch Hunt of Bush Interrogators

Obama's War on our Spies

The criminal indictments may as well be captioned, “The United States vs. The Central Intelligence Agency,” because that’s the correct way to identify the adversaries. The Democrats’ war on our intelligence agencies has now become a two-front war with the Obama administration attacking where Congressional Democrats couldn’t.

Attorney General Eric Holder has announced he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the CIA interrogators who used tough interrogation techniques to see which of them will be prosecuted. Holder has drawn a line in the sand.

On one side stands the US Department of Justice, its army of second-guessers and scalp-hunters at the ready, with unlimited time and an unlimited budget to pursue whatever theory of the law it chooses. On the other sits the interrogators and CIA bureaucrats who have been trying -- sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing -- to get terrorist detainees to give up intelligence information that will save American lives.

Unlike the Justice Department, they don’t have unlimited funds to fight in court for years. There won’t be gaggles of high-priced lawyers donating their services to defend these people. Many of their lives will be ruined, and fortunes lost.

Grinning on the sidelines will be the terrorists and the nations that sponsor them, wondering how America can be so incredibly stupid as to hobble its principal spy agency in the middle of a war that cannot be won without that agency’s success in everything it does.

But the enemy is more understanding of our history than we are. They remember that Gen. George S. Patton was sidelined for many critical months during World War 2 for the minor infraction of slapping a soldier across the face. They know that though espionage is probably the world’s second-oldest profession, our politicians and academics treat its professionals worse than they treat the practitioners of the oldest profession. And they know how soft-brained we have become.

Holder’s about to appoint career federal prosecutor James Durham -- who is already investigating the CIA’s destruction of videotapes of many of the interrogations -- to investigate whether crimes were committed in the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” including waterboarding by CIA interrogators.

Holder’s announcement came a day after what ABC News reported as a “profanity-laced screaming match” at the White House involving CIA Director Leon Panetta who may have threatened to quit over the release of a CIA Inspector General’s report on the interrogations and -- almost certainly -- the Obama-Holder decision to go forward with the appointment of Durham.

That screaming match might also have been about the White House’s sudden move to take direct charge of the interrogation of terrorist detainees. No, Barry and Rahm won’t be going into the closed cells to face off with the world’s worst people. But they will be approving what can and can’t be done by those who do.

Congressional Democrats -- led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- have been at war against our intelligence agencies ever since it became clear that Pelosi had been briefed on CIA waterboarding of terrorist detainees in 2002. Pelosi has repeatedly accused the CIA of lying and driven Panetta -- himself a partisan Democrat -- to write a scathing defense of his agency in an August 2 Washington Post op-ed.

In that article, Panetta condemned the Congressional jihad against the CIA saying it was characterized by “…an atmosphere of declining trust, growing frustration and more frequent leaks of properly classified information.” For short-term political advantage, and to cover up for Pelosi’s lies, the Congress of the United States is making war on the CIA. Now the White House and the Justice Department have lined up with Pelosi.

Sen. Chrisopher Bond (R-Mo), ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, summed it all up yesterday. Bond said, “First the White House usurps control over terrorist interrogations, signaling to the world they have lost confidence in Leon Panetta and our intelligence community, and now the Obama Justice Department launches a witch-hunt targeting the terror-fighters who have kept us safe since 9-11. With a criminal investigation hanging over the Agency’s head, every CIA terror fighter will be in CYA mode. With things heating up in Afghanistan and Iraq, this looking back and unwarranted "redo" of prior Justice Department decisions couldn’t come at a worse time for the safety of our troops in harm’s way and our nation.”

Bond’s statement came on the day when the Obama administration released a heavily-redacted version of the CIA Inspector General’s report dated May 7, 2004 on the alleged abuses of detainees in CIA custody. The report was selectively redacted to remove apparent references to the information gleaned during the interrogations with two very important exceptions.

As soon as he was inaugurated, President Obama prohibited the use of the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist detainees, condemning them as “torture”, though that is not what American law said in 2002 and 2003 when they were employed.

One al-Quaida detainee, Al-Nashiri, was subjected to some of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” – the ten methods described with specificity on page 15 of the report – on the first day he arrived at the prison. As the report says, “Al-Nashiri provided lead information on other terrorists during his first day of interrogation.”

Abu Zubaydeh – who was subjected to waterboarding as Pelosi was told on September 4, 2002 – gave information that “helped lead to the identification of Jose Padilla and Binyam Muhammed – operatives who had plans to detonate a uranium-topped dirty bomb in either Washington, DC or New York City,” as the report says on page 87.

And Khalid Shayk Muhammad, who was one of three detainees who were waterboarded? He was “probably the most prolific.”

KSM “provided information that helped lead to the arrests of terrorists including Sayfullah Paracha and his son Uzair Paracha, businessmen whom Khalid Shayk Muhammad planned to use to smuggle explosives into the United States; Saleh Almari, a sleeper operative in New York; and Majid Khan, an operative who could enter the United States easily and was tasked to research attacks (part redacted). Khalid Shauk Muhammad’s information also led to the investigation and prosecution of Iyman Faris, a truck driver arrested in early 2003 in Ohio.” (Page 87 of the report).

The IG report alleges a number of abuses of detainees including “mock executions” and threats to relatives of the prisoners. But this CIA IG report was given to the Justice Department when it was written five years ago.

According to an August 19, 2009 letter signed by Sen. Bond and eight other Republicans, “Three former Attorneys General and numerous career prosecutors have examined the findings of that report and other evidence and determined that the facts do not support criminal prosecution.”

But Holder’s appointment of Durham willfully disregards that fact and implicitly says that all those former Attorneys General and career prosecutors didn’t know what the law is – actually, what it was when the acts occurred. Holder and Obama know better.

Conspicuously absent from the documents released yesterday are the ones that former Vice President Cheney asked for: two memoranda that show the information that was gleaned by the rough interrogation methods.

Most importantly to the Democrats all of the congressional investigations into the treatment of detainees -- and Nancy Pelosi’s knowledge of it -- will be foreclosed as long as the criminal investigation goes on. At least as long as it takes to get through the 2010 congressional elections.

But, in the end, it’s not the fate of Nancy Pelosi that matters. It’s just as Cong. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mi) said yesterday.

“At the same time the situation in Afghanistan is getting decidedly worse and the Taliban is advancing, the Obama Justice Department is launching an investigation that risks disrupting CIA counter terrorism initiatives. This is the last thing that should happen when the president is sending more troops into harm’s way, and the nation’s top military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, said over the weekend that al-Qaeda still remains a threat to America and our interests abroad.”

But all of that is of no importance to Obama and Holder. All that counts is treating our spies as our enemies, and our enemies as our friends. Take heart, Messrs. Ahmadinejad, bin Laden and Assad. These men are more dangerous to us than to you. And, it must be said, that can no longer be thought an accident. Not after yesterday.

Jed Babbin, Human Events, 08/25/2009

Oregon Denied Cancer Treatment to Dying Woman Offered Death Instead

Here’s a real life example of what President Obama wants to do nation-wide!

State denies cancer treatment, offers suicide instead
'To say, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel'

State officials have offered a lung cancer patient the option of having the Oregon Health Plan, set up in 1994 to ration health care, pay for an assisted suicide but not for the chemotherapy prescribed by her physician.

The story appears to be a happy ending for Barbara Wagner, who has been notified by a drug manufacturer that it will provide the expensive medication, estimated to cost $4,000 a month, for the first year and then allow her to apply for further treatment, according to a report in the Eugene Register-Guard.

But the word from the state was coverage for palliative care, which would include the state's assisted suicide program, would be allowed but not coverage for the cancer treatment drugs.

"To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel," Wagner told the newspaper. "I get angry. Who do they think they are?"

She said she was devastated when the state health program refused coverage for Tarceva, the drug her doctor ordered for treatment of her lung cancer.

The refusal came in an unsigned letter from LIPA, the company that runs the state program in that part of Oregon.
"We had no intent to upset her, but we do need to point out the options available to her under the Oregon Health Plan," Dr. John Sattenspiel, senior medical director for LIPA, told the newspaper.

"I understand the way it was interpreted. I'm not sure how we can lift that. The reality is, at some level (doctor-assisted suicide) could be considered as a palliative or comfort care measure."

The 64-year-old Wagner lives in a low-income apartment in Springfield with her dog, the newspaper said.

State officials say the Oregon Health Plan prioritizes treatments, with diagnoses and ailments deemed the most important, such as pregnancy, childbirth and preventive care for children at the top of the list. Other treatments rank below, officials said.

"We can't cover everything for everyone," Dr. Walter Shaffer, a spokesman for the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, told the paper. "Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with policies that provide the most good for the most people."

He said many cancer treatments are a high priority, but others reflect the "desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile."

Wagner, however, is ending up with the treatment needed when her lung cancer, in remission for two years, returned.

She reported a representative for the pharmaceutical company called and notified her the drug would be provided for at least the first year.

"We have been warning for years that this was a possibility in Oregon," said the "Bioethics Pundit" on the Bioethics blog. "Medicaid is rationed, meaning that some treatments are not covered. But assisted suicide is always covered."
"This isn't the first time this has happened either," the blogger wrote. "A few years ago a patient who needed a double organ transplant was denied the treatment but would have been eligible for state-financed assisted suicide. But not to worry. Just keep repeating the mantra: There are no abuses with Oregon's assisted suicide law. There are no abuses.

WorldNet Daily, 6/19/08

Bam Aide, Axelrod, Pocketing Millions of "Special Intersts" Ads

CORPORATE SHILLS FOR 'CHANGE'

MONEY from pharmaceutical firms and health-care companies is evil and corrupting -- except when key members of Team Obama are pocketing it.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs derides grassroots opponents of socialized health care as industry-funded lackeys with questionable motives and conflicts of interest. But what about the corporate shills at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.?

Two weeks ago, the White House embraced $150 million in drug-industry ads supporting ObamaCare. This week, Bloomberg News reported that White House senior adviser and chief campaign strategist David Axelrod's former public-relations firm, AKPD Message and Media, has raked in some $24 million in ad contracts supporting ObamaCare -- along with another PR firm, GMMB, run by other Obama strategists.

The ads are funded by Big Pharma, the AARP, AMA and the Service Employees International Union. In trademark Axelrod style, the special-interest coalition adopted faux-grassroots names -- first under the banner of "Healthy Economy Now" and more recently as "Americans for Stable Quality Care."

Because, well, "Corporate Shills for Hope and Change" doesn't have quite the same ring of authenticity.

Axelrod was president and sole shareholder of AKPD from 1985 until last December, when he resigned to take his White House position. His son, Michael, works there. So does former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

Axelrod is prominently featured on AKPD's Web site. AKPD still consults with Axelrod on "strategy and research" for the Democratic National Committee. The firm owes him $2 million.

That Axelrod and his old firm benefit mutually from their roles selling ObamaCare should be gobsmackingly obvious. Axelrod pushes the White House plan on TV news shows. AKPD derives mega-income from ad contracts selling the White House-endorsed plan. The windfall allows AKPD to settle its debts with Axelrod, whose name, face and high-powered ties are critical to future wheel-greasing for AKPD -- and future salary-earning for Axelrod's son and close associates.

White House flack Gibbs called any suggestion that Axelrod benefits from the relationship "ridiculous." Retorted Gibbs: "David has left his firm to join public service." So when Republicans trade power and access, Team Obama calls that being "in cahoots" with business. But when noble servants like Axelrod do it, it's called "public service."

What else is Axelrod keeping from full public view? AKPD is just one of his influence-peddling operations. Housed in the same office as AKPD is Axelrod's secretive former PR shop, ASK Public Strategies. That firm also owes Axelrod money from a buy-out deal -- five annual installments of $200,000 each.

Axelrod has remained notoriously tight-lipped about ASK's corporate business. One client that came to light: utility company Commonwealth Edison in Chicago.

Axelrod ran a fear-mongering campaign in Illinois for ComEd in support of a huge utility-rate hike -- and failed to disclose that his bogus grassroots ads (under the guise of public-interest group "Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity") were funded by the utility. ComEd employees also donated nearly $182,000 to the Obama presidential campaign -- more than any other company in the state, according to Business Week.

What other corporate clients have hired ASK and may be benefiting from their ties to Axelrod right now?

It's time for Obama's corporate-funded hypocrites to pay more than lip service to transparency. But as the sanctimonious Axelrod lectures on AKPD's Web site: "Change is never easy."

Michelle Malkin, NY Post, 8/21/09

Obama’s True God: Sal Alinsky

Obama once said that if you want to know what he thinks about an issue, he would point you to the men and women that surround him. He called them his “associations.” Well, Obama has a particularly strong affinity for the original community organizer, Saul Alinsky.

Saul Alinsky believed in any avenue that would achieve ultimate and unflinching power for the individual. The only enduring rule for the individual seeking power is to put their immediate needs before all else: people, principles, groups, promises, political parties, etc. The Radical must maximize his power (and agenda) at every turn, no matter the dismay of other people or entities. In any given circumstance the Radical should spare no means to assume the most powerful position in that moment. Because, in short, power allows the Radical to achieve whatever whim he wants.
Though Obama never met the great Saul Alinsky, he follows Alinsky’s principles like that of a living mentor. He studied Alinsky in Chicago. He taught Alinsky at the junior college. He lived Alinsky’s principles in Chicago as a community organizer. That allegiance carried him to the Illinois Senate, where he began campaigning for the U.S. Senate. It carried him to Washington, where he began campaigning for President. Alinsky brought Obama to the White House. You may be asking, what’s the big deal? Well, show me a man’s friends, and I’ll show you the man. Below is Mr. Alinsky’s great doctrine, “Rules for Radicals.” This is Obama’s playbook, and after studying it, you can begin to clearly understand why Obama makes the decisions he does. At every turn, he does what he thinks will aggrandize his power position. He isn’t serving you or me or anyone but himself, his big-money “connections,” and his agenda.
Sal Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different than any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

K.A. Phinney, Break Down of America, 8/20/09

Prez Confidant David Axelrod Reaping Big Bucks on Health Care Debate

Barack Obama's chief White House adviser is collecting millions of dollars from his former public relations firms as they sign lucrative contracts with coalitions recently created to push the president's agenda.

After arriving at the White House as top political guru, David Axelrod filed a required financial disclosure form that shows he will receive $3 million in installments over the next five years in a buyout with AKP&D Message and Media, and Ask Public Strategies.

The bottom line: Axelrod is essentially on his old firms' payrolls as he sits in the Oval Office as the closest confidant to the president. Advocacy groups know that when they are hiring AKP or Ask Public they are helping those companies stay profitable and make good on the $3 million.

AKP, which shares Chicago office space with Ask, is now getting contracts from major groups assembled to push Obama's massive health care agenda. They include Healthy Economy Now and Americans for Stable Quality Care. Their million-dollar media blitz is financed in part by the giant pharmaceutical industry which has a big stake in how the White House -- and Axelrod -- craft a final health care bill.

Press reports say pro-Obama groups will spend $150 million on media ads. AKP's website does not list those groups on its client's list, which includes trial lawyers, the largest single contributor to the Democratic Party.

The White House press office did not respond to several emails from HUMAN EVENTS. The mainstream liberal press generally has ignored the Axelrod buyout.

But Republicans have taken notice. The Republican House Conference, led by Rep. Mike Pence, put out a release headlined, "Big Pharma and David Axelrod: $2 Million of Change You Can Believe In?" The $2 million refers to his buyout deal with AKP, where his son still works.

The release notes that the White House negotiated an agreement with the drug lobby (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) to get its political support.

"Has David Axelrod recused himself from the [drug lobby deals] or will he work to defend an agreement with an industry that is directly funding his son's work, and indirectly funding his own $2 million severance package?" the statement said.

It added, "As the pharmaceutical industry spends hundreds of millions supporting a government takeover of health care -- one which the drug companies obviously believe will increase their profits, even as it raises Medicare premiums for seniors -- some may wonder whether White House senior advisors earning millions of dollars paid for in part by the pharmaceutical industry represent the kind of change Americans can believe in."

Axelrod founded AKP and turned it into a successful public relations and political management firm for liberal candidates and causes. His Ask Public Strategies became a master at setting up what appeared to be grass-roots pressure groups -- the practice is called "astroturfing" -- to pressure governments or industry to do their bidding.

AKP has helped to keep the Democratic Party machine in power in Chicago by running its campaigns.

Ask's website is bare-bone. It does not list clients, nor its address.

By channeling money to Axelrod's old firms, the pro-Obama groups are helping to insure that he will ultimately received all his buyout money since it virtually guarantees the companies will stay in business without their founder.

Axelrod may have physically left the Chicago-based firms. But his name lives on. His son works at AKP&D as an executive. And the words of the founder are still prominently displayed on its website.

At the top of one page is this: "Change is something you have to fight for. Change is never easy. We are going to have to work for every vote. The change we need is worth the struggle; it's worth the fight. David Axelrod, Founder."

The site also features a picture of Axelrod with Obama and David Plouffe, an AKP adviser who served as the president's 2008 campaign manager. And it profiles Axelrod as the campaign's chief strategist.

Bloomberg news reported that Axelrod still talks to one of his former partners, Larry Grisolano, about AKP's work for another client, the Democratic National Committee.

Axelrod's buy-out deal calls for five annual installments of $200,000 from Ask. AKP will pay installments of $350,000, $650,000, $400,000 and $600,000.

The White House was asked about the buyout at Tuesday's press briefing. Spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed the issue:

Q: Have you seen this charge from Republicans on the Hill that they're asking is he profiting from a payment he's getting from his firm, his firm involved in the PhRMA advertising deal?

Gibbs: That's ridiculous. David has left his firm to join public service.

Q: They say he's about to get -- million-dollar payout.

Gibbs: An agreement I think that was made because David started and owned the firm. He left the firm and, if I'm not mistaken, is being paid for the fact that he created it and sold it, which I think is somewhat based on the free market.

Regardless, Axelrod is, in essence, on his old firm's payroll for the next five years. As such, he benefits from any business they receive as do other people on the payroll.

Rowan Scarborough, Human Events, 8/20/09

Socialist Party Cozying Up With Obama White House

Was a far-left think tank partnered with the community activist group ACORN and founded with input from President Obama instrumental in securing the appointment of controversial White House "environmental czar" Van Jones?
A key member of the think tank reportedly was also a founder of a socialist party that, evidence indicates, included Obama among its members.

In March, Jones was named the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

His appointment drew criticism after a WND report exposing that Jones was as an admitted radical communist and black nationalist leader. The Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck hammered away at Jones' communist ties.

Months before Obama took office, however, Jones was recommended for the environmental pick in a report by business scholar Chuck Collins, an associate of philanthropist George Soros and a longtime leftist activist linked to some socialist causes.

Collins is director of the Tax Program for Shared Prosperity at Demos, a far-left think tank that has partnered with ACORN and its ally, Project Vote, on several projects. Demos personalities were among ACORN's top defenders when the organization was accused of rampant voter fraud in 2008.
According to Demos' own website, while Obama was a state senator in 1999, he served on the working group that founded Demos.

Collins penned a piece that listed his top picks for the Obama administration, including Jones, at the radical Institute for Policy Studies.

Through a socialist party, Obama may be more closely linked to Collins, who recommended Jones.

Researcher Trevor Loudon of the New Zeal blog dug up official newspapers of the socialist-oriented New Party that list Collins as among the party's founding builders in its fall 1994 edition. Collins is listed with approximately 100 other activists in an article entitled, "Who's Building the New Party?"

Obama belonged to socialist party

In a controversy never fully addressed by Obama, WND previously reported evidence showing Obama was a member of the New Party, which sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.

While running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the New Party, according to confirmed reports during last year's presidential campaign.

The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists of America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.
Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.

Obama's campaign last year denied the then-presidential candidate was ever an actual member of the New Party.
But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, listing him as a New Party member and printing quotes from him as a member.

The party's spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying "these victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work."

The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.
New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists of America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."

Becoming a New Party member requires some effort by the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.

The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.
Following the initial reports of Obama's purported membership in the New Party, Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist Carl Davidson posted a statement on several blogs claiming his former party was not socialist, but he admitted it worked with ACORN.

"[The New Party] was a pragmatic party of 'small d democracy' mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only operational in New York in the U.S. The main trend within it was ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist," wrote Davidson.

But the socialist goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.

Among the New Party's stated objectives were "full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity."

The New Party stated it also sought "the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions."

Many of the New Party's founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.
According to DSA documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, has been a point of controversy for Obama over the presidential candidate's ties to the group.

In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.

"Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics – until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party."

Aaron Klein, WorldNet Daily, 8/20/09

OBAMACARE'S BAIT & SWITCH

PRESIDENT Obama has stopped talking about "health-care reform." The new poll-tested phrase of the day is "health-insurance reform."

Specifically the president says he wants to protect people with "pre-existing conditions." He would require insurance companies to accept anyone who applies for coverage, regardless of their current health (a rule known as "guaranteed issue") and prohibit them from charging higher premiums to people who are sick (called "community rating").

But if that's what the president wants, he could already have a bill through Congress, with significant Republican support. In fact, even the insurance companies have agreed to it.

But the 1,017-page bill making its way through the House devotes all of six pages to insurance reform -- 30 pages, if you count all the definitions and supporting provisions, still less than 3 percent of the bill.

So why the bait and switch?

Well, one reason might be that Obama realizes that these insurance reforms aren't all they are cracked up to be.

After all, prohibiting insurers from charging more to older and sicker customers amounts to a tax on the young and healthy who must pay higher premiums to subsidize their less-healthy counterparts. And letting people buy insurance after they get sick means healthy people have little incentive to buy insurance.

Put the two together and, as the Congressional Budget Office has warned, the young and healthy are much more likely to simply do without insurance.

As the healthy leave the insurance pool, the proportion of sick in the pool grows ever greater, leading to higher premiums -- which in turn causes the healthiest remaining individuals to leave in what amounts to an insurance death spiral.

That's exactly what happened when New York adopted community rating and guaranteed issue in 1993. In the first year under the new law, an average healthy 55-year-old man in New York saw his health-insurance premiums fall by $415 -- while an average healthy 25-year-old was hit with a premium hike of more than $500.

As a result, more than 500,000 mostly young and healthy people dropped their health insurance in the first year. As the pool grew sicker and the death spiral escalated, premiums began to rise even for those older New Yorkers who initially had their premiums cut. In the end, ev eryone ended up paying more.

Today, only six states have guaranteed issue: New York, New Jersey, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont. New Hampshire and Kentucky tried it, then repealed their statutes. Just nine states, including New York and New Jersey, have strict forms of community rating.

These two "reforms" are two big reasons why health insurance costs much more in New York and New Jersey than in states without those requirements. Perhaps that clear record of failure is why insurance reform is such a tiny part of the health-care-reform bill.

Or maybe lawmakers realize there are better ways to deal with the problem of pre-existing conditions, such as direct subsidies, high-risk pools or a new product called health-status insurance.

Or maybe -- just maybe -- it's not really about insurance reform after all.

Michael D. Tanner is a Cato Institute, NY Post, 8/20/09

Democrat Blame Game, What Else is New?

BAM'S BLAME GAME
IT'S A LOSING 'REFORM' STRATEGY

TO listen to the White House and its supporters in and out of the media, you'd think that opposition to "ObamaCare" is the hobgoblin of a few small minds on the right. Racists, fascists, Neanderthals, the whole "Star Wars" cantina of bogeymen and cranks stand opposed to much-needed reform.

Left out of this fairly naked effort to demonize many with the actions of a few is the simple fact that ObamaCare -- however defined -- has been tanking in the polls for weeks. President Obama's handling of health care is unpopular with a majority of Americans and a majority of self-proclaimed independents.

Focusing on the town halls has its merits, but if you actually wanted ObamaCare to pass, casting a majority of Americans as the stooges of racist goons may not be the best way to go.

Imagine if George W. Bush, in his effort to partially privatize Social Security, had insisted that the "time for talking is over." Picture, if you will, the Bush White House asking Americans to turn in their e-mails in the pursuit of "fishy" dissent.

Conjure a scenario under which then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott derided critics as "evil-mongers" the way Harry Reid recently described town-hall protesters. Or if then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert and then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay had called critics "un-American" the way Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer did last week, or if White House strategist Karl Rove had been Sir Spam-a-lot instead of David Axelrod.

Now, I'm not asking you, dear reader, to do this so that you might be able to see through the glare of Obama's halo or the outlines of the media's staggering double standard when it comes to covering this White House. Rather, it is to grasp that the Obama administration has been astoundingly incompetent.

Lashing out at the town-hall protesters, playing the race card, whining about angry white men and whispering ominously about right-wing militias is almost always a sign of liberalism's weakness -- a failure of imagination.

The left has been attacking conservative talk radio and all it allegedly represents for the better part of 20 years now. When Bill Clinton needed a convenient villain, he attacked Rush Limbaugh. When Bush emerged victorious from the Florida recount, liberals concluded that what they really needed was their own version of Limbaugh. In March, at the first sign of resistance from Republicans, Obama complained that the GOP was Limbaugh's lap dog, and the White House and much of the press corps went into anti-Limbaugh campaign mode.

Funny how these supposed champions of the Enlightenment can't grasp that people can disagree with them for honest reasons. Instead, we simply must be Rush's automatons, which is to say racist, fascist thugs.

In addition to the slander, such complaints are monumentally, incandescently lame coming from a party that controls Washington. Liberals themselves say these evil-mongers are a tiny minority, a bunch of "AstroTurf" frauds -- so why not ignore them and get on with the work you were elected to do?

Well, because they can't -- or won't.

One reason the term "ObamaCare" has become a journalistic convention is that there is no bill. You can't talk about Obama's actual health-care plan because there isn't one. There are a bunch of competing bills, proposals, ideas swirling around Congress.

As even Robert Reich, Clinton's Labor secretary, conceded, the failure to put forward a concrete proposal lets opponents pick from a menu of scary ideas and possibilities, all of which can be labeled ObamaCare.

Obama's determination to steamroll to victory only reinforces suspicion of bad motives. Indeed, Dem dudgeon that the town-hall protesters don't want civil debate is hysterical, given that Obama wanted this over before the August recess.

No wonder the president who thought the time for talk was over long ago now doesn't like the talk he's getting.

Some might say the real story is to be found in the eroding support from independents and Blue Dog Democratic congressmen. Or in the panic among seniors that Obama will raid Medicare. Or in his inability to get progressive Dems to agree to a bipartisan approach. Or maybe the real story is Obama's manifest inability to sell a program he's invested his presidency in.

But no. Obama wants the debate to be about angry white men. And, as lame as that is, that's what's happening. It won't make ObamaCare a reality, but it will shift the blame from where it rightly belongs.

Jonah Goldberg, NY Post, 8.19.2009

Beware of Obama’s Pay Czar

THE INFINITE ARM OF O'S 'PAY CZAR'

'PAY Czar' Kenneth Feinberg's official government title is "special master for compensation." You'll be happy to know that he's really getting into the confiscatory spirit of his role. Asked by Reuters if his powers include reaching back and revoking bonuses awarded to financial-industry executives before his office was created this year, Feinberg asserted broad and binding authorities -- including the ability to "claw back" money already paid out.

Regulations governing his office explicitly limit his jurisdiction over contracts signed before Feb. 11, 2009. But the fine print is no obstacle to President Obama's czars. "The statute provides these guideposts, but the statute ultimately says I have discretion to decide what it is that these people should make and that my determination will be final," Feinberg claims. "Anything is possible under the law."

Yes, he said "anything." It's not just senior execs who fall under Feinberg's purview. "These people" also includes "the next 100 most highly paid employees" of all bank-bailout recipients, who must file compensation proposals with their pay overlord by Friday.

But why stop there? The Troubled Asset Relief Program has morphed from a toxic-asset buy-up to a capital-injection plan and back to a toxic-asset buy-up. The money has been doled out to auto-supply companies and life-insurance firms. Congress wants to siphon off more of it to bail out bankrupt California and create a "national housing trust fund" to bail out low-income renters. Grabby-handed politicians have used TARP as a crowbar to pry open new areas for command-and-control meddling under the guise of saving the economy.

How much longer until the pay czar is determining all corporate pay he wishes to deem "inappropriate, unsound or excessive"? House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank has yapped all year long about extending pay curbs to all financial institutions and perhaps to all US companies.

Let's remember that the Beltway hysteria over bonuses served as a convenient distraction from the responsibility of subprime meltdown-enabling lawmakers like Frank -- and of Obama's crony economic team.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner landed his previous job as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York thanks to heavy lobbying by his Wall Street mentors Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, both of whom sat on the New York Fed's selection committee. Their cronyism had multibillion-dollar consequences for taxpayers.

Rubin was also an executive at Citigroup, which Geithner was supposed to regulate. Instead, he helped foster Citi's spending binge and engineered the teetering company's $52 billion federal bailout. This makes the Obama administration's recent protestations about one Citi employee's $100 million compensation package look like the very kind of manufactured outrage of which it incessantly accuses its political opponents.

Geithner also had a hand in the $30 billion Bear Stearns bailout and the multilevel AIG bailouts. Massive sums of that taxpayer money went to major financial institutions that had employed Obama's moneymen and their closest confidants. Goldman Sachs, for example, raked in nearly $13 billion in December from AIG in federal TARP funds -- and reported record profits this quarter with a bonus pool of more than $11 billion.

The "solution" isn't to empower a czar to curb bonus payouts ex post facto. The solution is to stop dumping billions into failing firms in the first place.

As for private businesses, this is a teachable moment, to borrow one of Obama's favorite phrases. If a basket-case company is willing to take bailout money, it will pay an interminable price.

The long arm of regulators can and will reach back and open sealed deals and signed contracts on a whim. The Obama campaign chant is the czars' chant, too: "Yes, we can!"

Michelle Malkin's new book is "Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies."

Michelle Malkin, NY Post, 8/19/09

Yes America, It’s Really a Death Panel After All

IT'S ALL A DEATH PANEL
THE TRUTH ABOUT OBAMACARE

WASHINGTON is all atwit ter about "death panels": President Obama derides the idea that his health-care reform calls for them; the Senate is stripping "end of life" counseling language from its bill -- and last Friday the voice of the liberal establishment, The New York Times, ran a Page One story "rebutting" the rumor that ObamaCare would create such boards to decide when to pull the plug on elderly patients.

But all those protests miss the fundamental truth of the "death panel" charge.

Even without a federal board voting on whom to kill, ObamaCare will ration care extensively, leading to the same result. This follows inevitably from central features of the president's plan.

Specifically, his decisions to (1) pay for reform with vast cuts in the Medicare budget and (2) grant insurance coverage to 50 million new people, vastly boosting demand without increasing the supply of doctors, nurses or other care providers.

Whether or not he admits it even to himself, Obama's talk of cutting "inefficiencies" and reducing costs translates to less care, of lower quality, for the elderly. Every existing national health system finds ways to deny state-of-the-art medications and necessary surgical procedures to countless patients, and ObamaCare has the nascent mechanisms to do the same. With the limited options that Obama's vision would leave them, many will find that "end of life counseling" necessary and even welcome.

"Reform" would cut care to the elderly in several ways:

* Slash hundreds of billions from Medicare spending, largely by lowering reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals for patient care.

If a hospital gets less money for each MRI, it will do fewer of them. If a surgeon gets paid less for a heart bypass on a Medicare patient, he'll perform them more rarely. These facts of the marketplace are not only inevitable consequences of Obama's cuts but are also its intended consequence. Without them, his savings will prove illusory.

* Expanding the patient load by extending full coverage to 50 million Americans (including such "Americans" as illegal immigrants) without boosting the supply of care will force rationing decisions on harried and overworked doctors and hospitals.

People with insurance use a lot more health-care resources -- so today's facilities and personnel will have to cope with the increased workload. Busy surgeons will have to decide who would benefit most from their treatment -- de facto rationing. The elderly will, inevitably, be the losers.

* The Federal Health Board, established by this legislation, will be charged with collecting data on various forms of treatment for different conditions to assess which are the most effective and efficient. While the bills don't force providers to obey the board's "guidance," its recommendations will still wind up setting the standards and protocols for care systemwide.

We've already seen Medicare and Medicaid lead a similar race to the bottom with their formularies and other regulations. With Washington dictating what every policy must cover and regulating all rates, insurers and providers will all have to follow the FHB's advice on limiting care to the elderly -- a de facto rationing system.

* In assessing whether to allow certain treatments to a given patient, medical professionals will be encouraged to apply the Quality-Adjusted Remaining Years system. Under QARY, decision-makers seek to "amortize" the cost of treatment over the remaining "quality years of life" likely for that patient.

Imagine a hip replacement costing $100,000 and the 75-year-old who needs it, a diabetic with a heart condition deemed to have just three "quality" years left. That works out to $33,333 a year -- too steep! Surgery disallowed! (Unless of course, the patient has political connections . . . )

Younger, healthier patients would still get the surgery, of course. The QARY system simply aims to deny health care to the oldest and most infirm, "scientifically" condemning them to infirmity, pain and earlier death than would otherwise be their fate.

In short, ObamaCare doesn't need to set up "death panels" to make retail decisions about ending the lives of individual patients. The whole "reform" scheme is one giant death panel in its own right.

Dick Morris & Eileen Mcgann, NY Post, 8/17/09

Democrat Trick # 2: Pull Out the Nazi Card

Nazis for Me, but Not for Thee
Why shouldn’t socialized medicine prompt comparisons to National Socialism?

It’s this week’s fashion on the left, and among such fashionably contemplative moderates as Mort Kondracke, to blast Rush Limbaugh for comparing Democrats to the Nazis. It’s no surprise that the Obama hardcores are misrepresenting the sequence and substance of events, but I would have hoped that Kondracke would at least have noted that Rush’s comparison — even if Kondracke thought it unwise — was neither gratuitous nor demagogic.

To recap, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, started this episode by comparing American citizens who oppose Obamacare to the Nazis and asserting that her political opponents were donning “swastikas.” (Sen. Barbara Boxer simultaneously ripped Obamacare dissenters for their Brooks Brothers suits — it’s not altogether clear where on the twill the swastika goes.) Pelosi’s tactic was the shopworn smear we on the right have dealt with for six decades. There is no conceivable substantive connection between opposition to Obamacare and German National Socialism — they are antithetical. By invoking the Nazis, Pelosi was patently slandering dissenters as racist thugs.


Rush responded, and the response did not smear Democrats. He repeatedly and explicitly qualified that no one was saying Obama was Hitler, that Pelosi was Goebbels, or that the Democrats were engaged in the genocidal barbarity of the Third Reich. The comparison he drew was a substantive one: between the Democrats’ proposal for socialized medicine and the German installation of socialized medicine beginning with Bismarck and reaching its shocking apotheosis with Hitler’s National Socialism. (A transcript of what he actually contended is here, and his website has other relevant transcripts, since the argument was reiterated other times during the week.) The point was to show that if Pelosi wanted to engage in Nazi comparisons, the health-care policies of Nazi Germany had far more in common with the health-care policies of the Democrats than with those of the conservative opposition, which wants health care kept private and reforms to be market-based.

Whether you agree with that or not (I happen to think it’s undeniable), Rush was also making a larger point that is not only fair argument but essential argument. There is a trajectory of socialism, regardless of the good intentions of many socialists. As he framed it, you take things such as health care, things that are traditionally understood as within the ambit of individual liberty and free choice; you move such things into the ambit of state responsibility as the welfare state emerges and grows, on the theory that it is government’s responsibility to provide for everyone’s needs (by redistributing resources); as more things are moved from private to public control, the state by definition becomes totalitarian; and, inexorably, the totalitarian state gets bad leaders and the society comes to reflect the policy choices of those leaders.

Now, we can argue until the end of time about whether that trajectory really exists and whether it is inevitable. But however you come out, it is an argument very much worth having. It goes to what kind of society we are going to be, to what the proper relationship between the citizen and the state is.

Nazi Germany is a useful historical example of socialism run amok. The genocide and terrorism ultimately practiced by the Nazis were horrible — that goes without saying. But National Socialism went on for a dozen years, it was the last stage in a progressive nationalization of German society, and there was a lot more to it than genocide and terrorism. It cannot be that because there was genocide and terrorism, the socialist aspects of National Socialism are outside the lines of acceptable political discourse. Given the immense popularity of Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, one of the most important political books of the last quarter-century, it doesn’t look like Americans are as convinced as Mort Kondracke seems to be that these comparisons are verboten.


Let’s put aside the Left’s propensity to slander conservatives with comparisons to Adolf Hitler, who was patently a man of the Left. Earlier this year, one New York Times writer seemed to find comparisons to National Socialism quite worthy when — at least in the telling — those comparisons worked in the Left’s favor. While Americans were hotly debating the merits of the Obama “stimulus” in April, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto called attention to a very interesting economic analysis offered by David Leonhardt. Leonhardt wrote:
In the summer of 1933, just as they will do on Thursday, heads of government and their finance ministers met in London to talk about a global economic crisis. They accomplished little and went home to battle the crisis in their own ways.

More than any other country, Germany — Nazi Germany — then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin.

The economic benefits of this vast works program never flowed to most workers, because fascism doesn’t look kindly on collective bargaining. But Germany did escape the Great Depression faster than other countries. Corporate profits boomed, and unemployment sank (and not because of slave labor, which didn’t become widespread until later). Harold James, an economic historian, says that the young liberal economists studying under John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s began to debate whether Hitler had solved unemployment.
After all due qualifiers about how terribly uncomfortable he felt about invoking lessons from the Nazis, Leonhardt somehow summoned the inner fortitude to make the obvious explicit:
Here in the United States, many people are understandably wondering whether the $800 billion stimulus program will make much of a difference. They want to know: Does stimulus work? Fortunately, this is one economic question that’s been answered pretty clearly in the last century. Yes, stimulus works.

As Taranto correctly observed, whatever you may think of the merits of Leonhardt’s argument, it was appropriate for him to make it: The wisdom vel non of policies adopted during over a decade of Nazi socialism cannot be off the table simply because, in the end, the Nazis were monsters. We may find the seeds of their monstrousness in those policies, or we may not. But the thought that we should not talk about them is absurd. Notably, Leonhardt’s piece ran without any teeth-gnashing from Mort Kondracke and our other Beltway chaperones.

National Socialism is banned from the Right’s case against socialism, but is somehow acceptable when leftists use it as a smear or when the Left’s nuanced geniuses, after their very thoughtful consideration, decide its invocation is suitable for mature audiences? I don’t think so.


Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review Online, 8/14/09

Obama’s Afghan War: Why Are We Fighting Again?

THE WRONG WAR
STOP FIGHTING FOR LOSER AFGHAN GOV'T

OUR troops are performing superbly in Afghanistan. They can seize any objec tive or defeat any enemy on the battlefield. And it doesn't matter.

Using Afghan bases to strike al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan is the right fight. But defending the disastrously corrupt and despised Kabul government is the wrong war.

We've thrown our blood and treasure behind the latter.

Next week, Afghanistan will stage another national election. Given the machinations of President Hamid Karzai, his henchmen and warlord clients, the vote is on track to make Iran's recent balloting look like a model of probity. Even if a dark-horse candidate miraculously unseats Karzai, the result will be further internal polarization, not a sudden blossoming of national unity.

We are witnessing the postmodern take on our Cold War-era policy of supporting strongmen because they were "ours." But the shah of Iran or Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines at least delivered for decades. In Afghanistan, our troops are fighting magnificently to extend the reach of the criminal enterprise known as the Kabul government -- which works against our interests.

One example: A well-placed US official states bluntly that "Karzai's brother in Kandahar is directly benefiting from opium production."

Karzai's sibling is the regional opium czar. And "our man in Kabul" has no interest in interfering. Because the alternative would be for a political opponent to seize control of the opium trade. Eliminate poppies? You'll see bikinis in Afghan villages first.

Is it genuinely to our advantage to send our incomparable soldiers and Marines to give blood for a government of thieves that's despised by the population it loots and neglects?

In recent discussions with military officers, I've found some more optimistic than others. A few see value in our current policies. Others shake their heads. Some defend specific Afghan government departments -- such as the Ministry of Defense -- in which they detect progress. But I haven't found a single defender of Karzai or his government overall. Not one.

Meanwhile, our Marines are engaged in operation Eastern Resolve 2 in Helmand Province, moving with great skill to extend pacification efforts before next week's election.

No one doubts the Marines' combat capabilities: The "devil dogs" know how to bite. The worries I encountered are focused on higher levels -- where this struggle will be won or lost.

Despite some brilliant work by our Special Forces, there's a sense that we're losing the information war -- that the Taliban is whipping a media superpower. Deep generational tensions have arisen between play-it-safe senior commanders and subordinate officers with field experience in information ops. As one source put it, "the real pros are the younger officers who've learned this over time . . . but seniors won't get out of the way and accept any risks."

Brave, capable field officers vs. risk-averse seniors? Must sound familiar to Vietnam vets. Our dirty-boots officers want to win, while too many senior commanders just hope to avoid losing on their watch.

Information warfare requires speed. The Taliban are fast and unscrupulous -- a powerful combination. We agonize over the opinions of staff lawyers before issuing dreary press releases that the Karzai government promptly undercuts. And Washington pols object to US "propaganda," preferring dead soldiers to offended enemies.

In waging the vital information battle, you've got to "git there fustest with the mostest." Far too often, we don't get there at all.

Our troops and officials have other worries as well. We've had a string of targeting successes, culminating in the death of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud last week, but insiders fear that al Qaeda's remnants will move to take control of the reeling Taliban.

As a tough-minded veteran commented, "Our government needs to level with the people and portray radical Islam for what it really is . . . Compartmentalizing this fight into boxes like Afghanistan and Iraq simply cuts off our arms."

Instead, our nervous leaders insist that "Islam is a religion of peace," pretend that Afghanistan has a responsible government, invest $40 billion in aid to line the pockets of thieving Afghan officials -- and fight tactically against enemies with a powerful strategic vision.

Should we squander blood and billions in a mad attempt to make Afghanistan a model state? Or should we concentrate on destroying our enemies, wherever we find them?

Here's what one warrior thinks: "Our business is finding, capturing and killing radicals who, left alone, would conspire and attack our interests and homeland . . . The problem is global."

Our enemies think beyond borders. We've locked ourselves down in the Ozarks of the Orient. Once again, we have heroes on the ground and hustlers in Washington.

Last week, I unfairly compared Vietnam with the muddle in Afghanistan. Our Vietnam War made more sense.

Ralph Peters, NY Post, 8/14/09

Obamacare Kills Health Competition

PRESIDENT Obama has repeatedly said that one of his "reform" goals is to increase "competition and choice" in the US health-care system -- but the policies he's pursuing would actually reduce competition and give consumers fewer choices. Meanwhile, he's ignoring reforms that would bring more choices and competition.

The nation now has some 1,300 insurance companies, but most consumers actually have far fewer choices. An American Medical Association survey found that in 299 of 313 largest metro areas, one insurer controls at least 30 percent of the market.

In New York, just two insurers, GHI and Empire Blue Cross, represent 47 percent of the market. In New Jersey, a single insurer, Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield, controls 43 percent of the market. And in Connecticut, Wellpoint holds an astounding 55 percent.

There's nothing inherently wrong with one company earning a large market share, but the lack of significant competition helps contribute to higher insurance costs and poorer service. Moreover, this market concentration hasn't necessarily flowed from consumer preference in a free market, but results in good part from barriers to entry erected by state insurance regulation.

Obama's answer to this problem is to set up a new government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. But such a plan will ultimately result in less competition, not more.

A government-run plan would have an inherent advantage in the marketplace, because it ultimately would be subsidized by taxpayers. The government plan could keep its premiums artificially low or offer extra benefits, because it could turn to taxpayers to cover any shortfalls.

Plus, the government plan also could use its market power to impose much lower reimbursement rates on doctors and hospitals -- Medicare and Medicaid do that now, to the point where they often pay less than cost. Providers would be forced to recoup the income lost thanks to the "public option" by raising what they charge to private insurance -- driving up premiums and making private insurance even less competitive.

In the end, the private-insurance market would be eviscerated, leaving millions of Americans with no choice but the government-run program. No choice. No competition.

To truly create more choice and competition, Obama should tear down the regulatory barriers to choice by letting people buy insurance from states other than the one in which they live.

Though few realize it, it's illegal to purchase health insurance across state lines. This effectively creates insurance cartels in each state.

Tear down this barrier to interstate commerce, and you'd instantly increase competition. If someone in New York or New Jersey is unhappy with the insurance choices available in that state, he or she could buy a policy in Vermont, Pennsylvania or Delaware. For that matter, he or she could go online and purchase a policy anywhere in the country.

There'd be another benefit as well. Different states have different regulations and mandates that can dramatically affect insurance costs. New Jersey, for example, requires insurers to cover a wide range of procedures and care, including in-vitro fertilization, contraceptives, chiropodists and children until they reach age 25.

Those mandated benefits aren't cheap. To buy a standard health-insurance policy, a healthy 25-year-old man must pay five times as much in New Jersey as in Kentucky, which has far fewer mandates. Why shouldn't Jersey residents be free to decide whether those state mandates are worth the added cost, and buy a cheaper policy in Kentucky or elsewhere?

Ironically, one group has this ability today: big businesses. The federal ERISA law (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act) lets larger companies ignore state mandates and avoid uncompetitive state markets: They can create their own plans, and their employees can take that insurance anywhere in the country.

Thus, when Jerry Hairston Jr. is traded to the Yankees, he doesn't have to buy a new health policy in New York. But the Yankee fan who works for a small business, or buys insurance on his own, is stuck with high New York prices.

More competition in insurance markets would be a good thing. It would, as the president likes to say, "keep insurers honest." As it has with other goods and services, it would lead to lower prices and improved quality.

But true competition comes from expanding free markets, not from the heavy hand of government. If President Obama truly wants to give consumers more choices, that's a lesson he should heed.

Michael Tanner is a Cato Institute senior fellow and the author of "Healthy Competi tion: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It." NY Post, 8/13/09

'GREEN' CAR? TRY BLACKOUT CITY

SORRY, the new Chevrolet Volt does not promise a "green" revolution -- indeed, the car could trigger a whole new wave of blackouts.

Chevrolet notes that the key to high-mileage performance to the tune of 230 miles per gallon "is for a Volt driver to plug into the electric grid at least once each day" to get "40 miles of electric-only, petroleum-free driving."

But that won't be "petroleum-free" in much of the country -- because so many utilities use heavy fuel oil to generate that electricity.

At current electricity-production levels, these plants emit as much as hundreds of thousands of cars on the road each day. If a few thousand well-meaning dupes plug a few thousand new Chevy Volts into electrical outlets (especially in urban centers), you could actually add millions of pounds of dangerous, dirty, unregulated pollution and carbon into the air we breathe -- possibly more pollution than would be offset by putting the Volts on the road.

That's if the electricity grid can handle the added load. In fact, all across the nation, the grid is fragile, antiquated and maxed out.

Generation is tight in many areas, too. For decades now, federal and state governments have pandered to the "Not In My Backyard" lobby and tabled proposals to build desperately needed power plants.

By currying favor with a few constituents in the short term, these politicians have put the safety and security of our electrical supply at great risk. Meanwhile, new technologies vastly increase our demand for energy. Adding Volts to the list of devices that need to be plugged in will put a major strain on an already flimsy electrical supply and distribution infrastructure.

Here in New York -- a vertical city -- we have to be even more vigilant. Our local politicians love hare-brained green schemes; should they start pushing the Volt as a transportation "solution," they could very well push us over the electrical edge.

Think about it: New York City's elevators, water supply, air conditioners, computers and backup servers, subways and traffic lights all depend on a reliable electricity supply. Yet, even after terrorist attacks and blackouts, local politicians have put the whims of local NIMBY groups ahead of plans to even clean, green, state-of-the-art power-generating facilities.

Don't buy the hype. If you decide to put a Chevy Volt in your driveway, be prepared for the shock of your life when there's little or no juice to charge and drive it.

Adam Victor is president of TransGas En ergy (transgasenergy.com), which has been fighting the city and state for permission to build a new type of power plant in Greenpoint., NY Post, 8/13/09

Obama's Nazi Straw man: An Old Alinsky Trick

When I saw this video

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/12/white_house_people_are_showing_up_to_events_with_swastikas.html

interview of Bill Burton, White House Deputy Press Secretary, I could not help but be reminded of one of old Saul Alinsky's favorite fake-em-out tricks of the revolutionary trade. Burton is reinforcing Pelosi's earlier claim that people were carrying Swastikas at town halls, but goes even further and claims that folks are actually "dressing up like Hitler."

You got to give ole Saul a little credit. He was one wily deceiver, right after his hero, Deceiver in Spades, Lucifer.

Saul Alinsky, crusader for the downtrodden, darling of the Auxiliary Archbishop of Chicago, was just an underachieving nobody with neither guts nor moral code, who flummoxed a whole lot of willing-to-be-deceived power seekers. Saul Alinsky didn't invent a single new thing. His whole methodology, so widely-hailed by whole generations of leftists, could have been devised by any 12 year-old gang-style bully with half a brain and an ounce of charisma.

It's quite disheartening, now, to see the top echelons of the Democratic Party using Alinsky tactics in an attempt to freeze political dialogue, most especially when that dialogue is about the most intimate service we Americans procure for ourselves and our families: our medical care.

Nevertheless, they've decided to go at this whole hog, even if it means stripping off their dignity and parading their political bloomers right out in the public square.

When Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and now the president's own deputy press secretary conjure up images of Nazis at healthcare town halls, they are engaging in one of the oldest tricks in anyone's book, but an especial favorite of their mentor, Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously. Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this same diabolical tactic to deceive the people. From Horwitt's Let Them Call Me Rebel:

"...in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University...students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations - a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration's Vietnam War policies. The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush's address. That's the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative - and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.' And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results."

Planting major falsehoods has been a favorite Alinsky strategy from the start. His acolyte, Barack Obama, learned his Industrial Areas Foundation lessons on deceiving for power while on a side trip during his Harvard years, then taught the Alinsky power tactics at the University of Chicago.

Hardly qualifies as ‘Constitutional Law' if you ask me.

Covering for oneself by accusing the other fellow has been the left's most successful deception for decades now. It took on its best traction lately, as leftists within Moveon.org and others have used this Nazi smear tactic for the past eight years against George W. Bush. They've seen how well it's worked and just can't stop themselves now.

Here's a little hint from me on the Nazi card. If a few folks actually do start showing up at town halls, opposing the MediCoup*, even dressed like Hitler and carrying a Swastika poster, I'll lay good hard cash on a bet that they've been sent by this Alinskyite President or his minions to deceive, just as Saul did with getting students to dress like the KKK at that rally back in the 70s.

And any newsman worth an ounce of table salt ought to be able to pin the tail right on that Alinsky donkey.

*MediCoup is a term coined by writer, James Lewis, right here on American Thinker.

Kyle-Anne Shiver, American Thinker, 8/13/09