Last spring, husband and wife veteran filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Anne McElhinney were publicizing their feature documentary Fracknation as the murder trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell was occurring in Philadelphia. McAleer was amazed at the lack of coverage of a prolific serial killer that murdered two women in botched late term abortions in unsanitary conditions, used a brutal snipping technique to kill a thousand children beyond the legal limit for abortion and also dealt prescription drugs.
Yet the national mainstream media ignored the Gosnell case, dismissing it like a local murder case while lavishing attention on the concurrent Jodi Arias murder trial. McAleer did man on the street interviews in California to learn about what the public knew about sensational murder trials.
As Katherine Graham, the former publisher of the Washington Post, proclaimed: "What we cover and what we don't matter a lot...The power is to set the agenda." Fox News commentator Greg Gutfeld recently speculated about the reasons why most of the mainstream media (including Fox) did not cover the Gosnell trial closely:
"The reason why they don't do this one is not because the evil is so grotesque. It's that it's too close to a moral choice they've made. That's what it's about. It's not that like, ah it's so hard to do something on this man who butchered babies. It's because it's too close to the pro-choice mindset."
However, McAleer and McElhinney were so haunted by the Gosnell trial that they backed away from other crowd-source funded projects so as to make a movie about Gosnell. Yet Anne & Phelim Media encountered more velvet gloved censorship by Kickstarter, which claims to not curate projects but would not allow them to describe their dramatized movie idea as being about a mass murderer who killed a thousand children as it allegedly violated community standards which Kickstart "encourages and (selectively) enforces". McAleer believes that it is within Kickstarter's right to not facilitate funding but that it should be forthright that it is due to the project matter not a transparent lie about community standards which it does not enforce for sundry other offensive projects.
So they moved their crowd-source funding efforts to Indiegogo, where they have raised $1.2 million of a fixed target $2.1 million. If they do not make their designated funding mark by May 12th, the money reverts back to the prospective investors.
There is already an excellent documentary film 3801 Lancaster, which interviews victims of Gosnell's House of Horrors. So McAleer and McElhinney want to make dramatized version of the Gosnell story which would run on the Lifetime Movie Network rather than a feature documentary to reach a wider audience.
It is easy for seaboard elitists to dismiss a film about Gosnell as just being by religious zealots with pro-life propaganda, which is a touch charge to apply to McAleer and McElhinney. In addition, this dismissive instinct ignores how Dr. Gosnell was a racist as he gave his white patients much better and cleaner abortion services than his clients of color.
A film about Gosnell must also include a political angle. Former Governor Tom Ridge (R-PA) was elected as chief executive of the Keystone State as a moderate Republican. The governor's office made it clear that the Commonwealth should do nothing to impede abortion services, so Gosnell's clinic was not properly inspected for 17 years, despite gruesome reports and several deaths.
Gosnell's clinic was raided because Gosnell was writing prescriptions like a pell mell pill mill for Oxycotin and the ilk. That raid permitted police to stumble upon an unsanitary abortion butchery, where Gosnell kept severed limbs as trophies.
Hearing the filmmakers promote their project, it is clear that they yearn to tell a compelling true story about a prolific American serial killer and pull back the curtain on details which a progressive public would rather ignore.
If one wishes to help actuate the Gosnell movie project, one can contribute at www.gosnellmovie.com. Those who contribute $25 will get a DVD of the film. But the filmmakers also implore people to contribute anything to show that people care.
Three weeks after the launch of Obamacare open enrollment, President Barack Obama held an event in the Rose Garden regarding the so called Affordable Care Act.
With all of the reports of problems with the Obamacare launch, there was some expectation in the Lamestream Media that no drama President Obama would get mad about what Time called "His Broken Obamacare Website". Maybe the President would act like a leader and fire those in charge of the bureucratic bungle, such as HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
Unfortunately, the press availability in the Rose Garden seemed like an extended 25 minute Shamwow commercial. The only element missing was the pitch line "But wait, there's more."
The big news per Jake Tapper at CNN is that the website malfunctions were not called glitches but were upgraded to kinks. So after funneling $500 million to Quebec's CGI to set up the fatally flawed web portal Healthcare.gov, President Obama suggested using the call center, or letting health navigators assist them in signing up for the mandatory coverage lest they be taxed.
Despite the $54 million which HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has earmaked for health care navigators , they had no background checks and the staffing contracts were awarded to Seedco in Georgia, Maryland, Tennessee and New York. Seedco is the same company which settled a civil fraud lawsuit in 2012 for faking at least 1,400 of 6,500 job placements under a $22 million federal contract.
Signing up for Obamacare involves revealing all sorts of personal information that is rife for identity theft. There are already reports by Watchdog.org in Tennessee that scam artists are posing as navigators who coax medicare recipients for their information. But there also shady characters who are designated as ACA Navigators. Rosilyn Wells, the only Obamacare navigator in Lawrence, Kansas had an outstanding warrant for check kiting and has a $1700 state tax deficit. This makes USIS's flawed background checks on Wikileaker Edward Snowden and Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis look thorough.
But such factual side shows take the focus away from the center stage in the Rose Garden rally. One of the stalwart arguments against Tea Party Conservatives efforts to attach defunding Obamacare to the Continuing Resolution was the mantra that "It's the law". Listening to the Celebrity-in-Chief's sales pitch, he soft peddled the kinks but felt compelled to sell stories to the American people of why it was a good deal for you. If Obamacare were a good deal, the White House stenographers pool known as the elite liberal media (a.k.a. the Lamestream Media) would have plenty of positive stories to buttress the ACA. Instead, Mr. Obama had to try to channel the spirit of Billy Mays or imitate Vince Shlomi, the Shamwow Guy, to sell his already passed public policy.
If that was not enough, it just so happened that a person prop in back of President Obama fainted and the President caught her.
This was a phenomenon quite prevalent when candidate Obama was running for President in 2008. It seemed to have mostly disappeared during the first term, but made some reappearances while on the hustings for his Re-Election campaign in 2012.
Considering the content of the Presidential high pressure pitch for "the law" despite its evident early shortcomings, fainting seemed apropos for the Rose Garden feint.
Although former Vermont Governor and 2004 Presidential Candidate Howard Dean (D-VT) has been out of the practice of medicine for a number of years in lieu of politics, the Doctors delayed diagnosis of IPABs is right on the money. Recently, Howard Dean wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal in which he prognosticated: "The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them." For those who did not thoroughly study the 2,700 pages of legislation that comprised the ironically titled "Affordable Care Act", otherwise know as Obamacare, IPABs are the 15 member Independent Payment Advisory Board which the HHS Secretary Sebilus appoints that decides the amount that the government will reimburse physicians for medical procedures. This was supposedly intended as a cost control mechanism for Medicare, but in reality will act as a rationing board. The IPAB name implies that these opinions are advisory, but those opinions become the reality. A medical advisory board made the modest proposal in 2011 that yearly mammograms are unnecessary for women between 40 and 49, and HHS suggesting that self-examinations of breasts. It did not seem that there were medical breakthroughs which prompted these changes in practice but it certaily would save costs for a single payer system. At the start of his first term, Dr. Betsy Mc Caughey observed that President Obama's former Health Advisor Dr Ezekiel Emanuel (the brother of then Chief of Staff now Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel .D-Chicago) believed that doctors serve two masters: the patient and society and that medical students should be trained to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." While public pressure forced the Obama Administration in January 2011 to drop "Complete Lives System" inspired end-of-life counseling during the elderly's annual check ups, the philosophy of cost cutting during the last 18 months of a person's life remains with IPABS. Instead of cajoling vulnerable senior citizens to just "take a pill", the patient is cut out of the process by "Advisory Boards" which make certain treatments financially unviable, depending upon one's status. When Sarah Palin labled IPABs as "death panels", she was roundly criticized as a scare monger who was stupid, don't cha know?
A couple of years later, Dr. Dean diagnosed IPABs as rationing boards, it makes more sense, right? Howard Dean suggested that: "Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on." Obviously, the former DNC chair has not gotten with the program to think that Obamacare is about improving healthcare in America. It seems that it more about control. Unless Tea Party House Republicans are successful in defunding Obamacare from the FY2014 budget, all Americans will be mandated to participate in the program or pay a tax. Nevertheless, the IRS will be in charge of collections and monitoring all of the health information. Recent reports have indicated that health records will be vulnerable to hackers and scammers. In addition, the IRS has shown political partisanship in vetting Tea Party tax exempt applications and for surrepticiously sharing this information. Why couldn't the Obamacare cost cutting extend to denying treatment to political opponents? Allow me to dispense a rhetorical palliative to Obamacare opponents– as P.J. O’Rourke put it: “If you thought that health care is too expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.” Alas, the Affordable Care Act is doubling many peoples’ rates and may cost some their hides.
The horrific testimony about Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who is being tried for
the murder of seven newborns and a Bhutanese female refuge after a botched abortion has shown that ideology isolates opinion on mass murder. While America is outraged over the cruel killing and maiming that the Boston Marathon Bombers inflicted, the media had to be shamed into briefly covering a doctor who's groundbreaking technique was to snip the spinal cords of infants after being born to "ensure fetal demise" and storing dozens on jars of dismembered body parts on shelves.
Kermit Gosnell's attorney Jack McMahon
Through his lawyer Jack McMahon, Gosnell claims that: "Everybody's made him the butcher, this, that and the other thing
without any trial, without anything being exposed to the public and
everybody's found him guilty, that's not right".. Furthermore, the Gosnell's legal mouthpiece asserted that: "This is a
targeted, elitist and racist prosecution of a doctor who's done nothing
but give (back) to the poor and the people of West Philadelphia." If that were the case, why did Gosnell's defense not bring it up in trial--after all, the two year gag order was moot in court. Instead, the Gosnell defense rested without calling a single witness.
The lack of curiosity in the Lamestream Media over the testimony for the House of Horrors at 3801 Lancaster is understandable as political partisans who do not want the sacrament of abortion on demand to be endangered.
But even for those who fervently support the right of a mother to an unborn baby, they should be concerned at the basically unregulated health and sanitary conditions and disparate treatment of their desperate customers.
Public health officials found unsterile medical instruments, with rusty and outdated equipment covered with dust. Gosnell admitted that perhaps 20% of his procedures were on women after their 24th week, which is in violation of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania law. In fact, during trial a worker at the clinic testified that Gosnell joked that one baby that he aborted was big enough to walk him home.
The clinic had a string of violations which were never corrected. Then Pennsylvania Health officials stopped inspecting for ten years for what observers might conclude were willful political ignorance about protected procedures.
There was testimony that rang of medical malpractice of women being injured by careless surgical technique on the cervix. And then the clinic had non-licensed individuals, including a 15 year old high school student aiding in surgeries.
When Gosnell applied to become a member of the National Abortion Federation, the Evaluator reported that the records were a mess, that patients were not properly informed of medical risks, that anesthesia was misused and that equipment was not available. While the invigilator from NAF rejected Gosnell's establishment terming it the worst abortion clinic that she ever inspected, this cornucopia of snafus was not reported to authorities. So much for caring about womens' health or civic duty.
It is rich to hear Gosnell's defense talk about racism and targeted treatment when Gosnell himself gave disparate treatment to white women as it was the "way of the world" because they might report him, unlike his Black and Asian clientele.
If the Lamestream Media would do its job, there would be little need to have a slew of summer Horror flicks as all one would need to do is review Gosnell trial coverage. However the elite liberal media reports on what it cares about, ignores the rest while disparaging journalists who do not follow the party line. For those who can stomach the gory details, it is worth watching the documentary 3801 Lancaster (2013) by director David Altrogge.
The HHS final rule on qualified health plans imposes a Contraception Mandate that poses a poison pill for faithful Catholic and other institutions that believe that life begins at conception. Mark Rienzi, the Becket Fund For Religious Liberty attorney who represents Ave Maria University, Belmont Abbey College, Colorado Christian University and ETWN , is confident that the outcome in federal courts will come out the right way and protect religious liberty in America. However, if Rienzi’s optimism is misplaced, he believes that Catholics could end up engaging in civil disobedience against an unjust law.
The civil disobedience with religious liberty protestors will not be like the sit-ins of the civil rights movement. Instead, Rienzi anticipates institutions not paying for the contraception, sterilizations and abortifacients. This would lead to crippling fines which eventually would put the charitable and educational missions out of existence.
In a perverse way, such a shuttering of Catholic identity might be the aim of the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration budgetary proposal for FY2013 sought to limit the deductability of charitable contributions for those making over $250,000 a year, exactly the demographic which makes substantial gifts to non-profit causes. As for Catholic hospitals, they make up 15% of all bed-space in America and they are often the only provider in rural regions. If conscientious Christians cede the field due to the Contraception Mandate (or being fined out of existence), the federal government will dominate the health-care playing field and be a major step towards a single-payer system. It is not fine to force charitable institutions from living their faith by penalizing them for not acquiescing. It may be time to recall the Man of All Seasons, St. Thomas More who was a martyr for not submitting to an unjust law proffered from English King Henry VIII, the secular power that be.
As the Obamacare cases are now being deliberated by the Supreme Court of the United States, it is worth considering judicial ethics and proper public policy.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan refused to recuse herself from hearing the Obamacare cases, even though she was President Obama's first Solicitor General and her office formulated Obama Administration’s legal defense of the legislation. During her confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee, then Solicitor General Kagan swore that she abide by federal recusal standards (28 USC 455(b)(3)) which requires recusal when a person has “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.”
Testimony during confirmation hearings suggested that Kagan was protected by an intellectual firewall which protected her from the case, as the DOJ anticipated Kagan's elevation to the High Court. However, an e-mail exchange from Kagan and Lawrence Tribe on the day the House passed Obamacare states “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,”. Participants claim that this was not relevant hangs on the thin reed of the ambiguous title of the email “Re: fingers and toes crossed today!”
In February, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) observed: “Justice Kagan’s involvement in the preparation of the government’s defense of the health-care law began at least as early as January 2010, four months before her nomination and two months before the bill became law. That she would not follow the same course in the health-care case is dubious. These facts require recusal.” Even liberal leaning George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley urged Kagan to recuse herself from hearing the case, but he extended the call for recusal to also include Associate Justice Clarence Thomas because of Justice Thomas's wife, who involvement with Tea Party inspired activism. But Chief Justice Roberts opined that the Supreme Court is not bound by the same ethical standards as lower courts.
It is curious as to what cases Justice Kagan recuses herself. During her first term on the Highest Court in the land, Justice Kagan recused herself from 21 of 39 cases. This term, Kagan readily absolved herself from hearing the Arizona SB 1070 Immigration Case, yet she obviously observed no compunctions against hearing the Obamacare cases. It would be enlightening to understand what are Kagan’s personal parameters for recusal. Are they knowledge of details of the controversy, taking a side on a matter or how politically important is her vote? Considering her juridical leanings as well as history serving as the Solicitor General for the Obama Administration, it would not be surprising if she is just a SCOTUS Proxy for Presidential progressivism.
During the oral arguments on Obamacare, Kagan’s questions could be construed as more like cheerleading for Obamacare than an elevated appellate examination of the law.
But conduct during Supreme Court oral arguments is not always indicative of the Justice’s final vote. Justice Thomas usually says nothing, but from his 1991 confirmation hearings and twenty years of opinions reveal an adherence to natural law.
In Liberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin notes that many who served on the nation’s High Court would not be considered legal luminaries. And as 1987 Borking of Robert Bork showed, there is more to confirmation than being an outstanding legal intellect.
Since the Supreme Court refused to consider the merits of Kagan recusing herself from the Obamacare, the only Constitutional remedy is impeachment. But impeachment by the U.S. Senate is about as rare as rocking horse’s manure. There might have been a campaign in the late 1950s and the 1960s to impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Senate has never conducted a trial of a Supreme Court Justice. So it is inconceivable that trying to impeach Kagan for bad conduct would be successful.
What is warranted is taking Constitutional duties seriously. First, there is the Advice and Consent of the Senate. Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court was approved by Congress in the summer of 2010 by a 63-37 margin. Granted, Democrats held 60 seats at the time, but this was going into a Teanami election cycle which was devastating to Democrats. Republicans should have held then Socitor General Kagan’s feet to the fire, rather than demur questions that basically deferred to the party in power. Moreover, Kagan’s nomination as well as other court nominations should have been a major campaign issue. Secondly, the Executive Branch must exert its authority before enacting constitutionally questionable laws. There is a famous instance that President George W. Bush signed the McCain-Feingold Act but he also issued a signing statement noting that he had serious constitutional concerns about limiting political advertising but that he would let the courts decide. Thirdly, if the Supreme Court loses its authority as being an impartial admistrator of justice and more like a Judicial Super Legislature, we must learn to narrowly construe their rulings to corollary cases rather than as an expansive social vangard.
The Supreme Court will soon be devoting six hours of oral argument to consider constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare, Pub.L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119). During the three days of High Court hearings, the Supreme Court will judicially scrutinize four aspects of Obamacare.
The Individual Mandate which compels citizens to engage in commerce to buy health care has generated the most interest in the political arena. But the High Court will also consider if Obamacare used legislative language which would effectively overturn the entire statute if one part is found unconstitutional (lack of severability). The Supreme Court will also examine if Congress can dictate to states how to spend Medicare money in expanding eligibility. The matter whether or not Obamacare is a tax is an arcane but key issue, as invoking the Anti-Injunction Act from 1867 would delay recognizing standing for judicially challenging Obamacare until 2015.
While the Supreme Court is expected to deliver an opinion by the end of the current turn in June, some members of Congress are not waiting for the decision from on high by what Mark Levin called “The Men in Black”. Representative Todd Rokita (R-IN 4th) introduced the State Health Flexibility Act that would block grant Medicare and S-CHIP aid to the states. ObamaCare will force states to spend up to $118 billion more and offer Medicaid to an additional 17 to 25 million people. HR 4160 would give states an incentive for saving taxpayers money by giving states flexibility to determine eligibility, benefits and reimbursement rates. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the State Health Flexiblity Act would save $1.8 trillion compared to Obamacare.
The State Health Flexibility Act is legislation that should please Tea Party types. HR 4160 currently has 20 co-sponsors, including Representative Paul Broun, M.D. (R-GA 10th), but it has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Considering that it is an election year and there is gridlock with the Senate, it would not be unlikely to become law in the 112th Congress, but it does lay a foundation for good governance in the future.
Representative Dr. Broun crafted the OPTION (Offering Patients True Individualized Options Now) Act (HR 4224) to remedy America’s health care challenges by repealing Obamacare and overhauling the system to deliver a patient centered health care system. This 50 page bill would move Medicare into a flexible premium assistance program, facilitate buying health insurance over state lines. The OPTION act would make health care expenses 100% deductible for everybody while allowing Health Savings Account (HSA) contributions to be increased to $10,000 per year. It would also allow for Medicare HSAs so that seniors could choose plans which work for their needs and their estates keep unused contributions. HR 4224 would make it easier for groups to create Associated Health Plans, thereby helping small businesses and others to leverage their collective power in getting better deals. Finally, doctors would be given tax breaks for offering pro bono services to the indigent.
Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) created quite a stir with a Facebook posting in 2009 in which she alleged that Obamacare had “Death Panels”. Progressives scoffed at the seeming “stupidity” of claiming death panels. Yet it seems that Obamacare has a “feature” known as Independent Payment Advisory Boards which is intended to keep Medicare costs from spinning out of control. IPAB is effectively a rationing board which determines what procedures will be authorized and for whom. It is easy to see IPABs as Death Panels with a benign bureaucratic moniker.
The House passed HR 5, the Protecting Access to Healthcare (PATH) Act, by a 223-181 margin. Seven Democrats crossed party lines to vote for HR 5, which contained an amendment to repeal IPABs. It was speculated that more Democrats wanted to vote for HR 5 but they hesitated due to “poison pills” which established nationwide caps on tort claims to $250,000 for punitive damages in medical lawsuits. In an election year when Congressional Democrats will have a tough time due to redistricting, retirements and not sharing in fundraising with Obama 2012 Re-Election Campaign, they chaffed at alienating their generous tort lawyer supporters. Some Republicans were nervous about language in the non binding findings to HR5 which suggested that the healthcare industry is part of interstate commerce, but this was stripped out at the last minute. This repeal of IPAB is unlikely to even be considered by the Senate but will be a good issue for Republicans to run on to show seniors that the GOP cares about their constituents health care in their golden years.
Cynics may say that these legislative efforts are full of sound and fury yet signify nothing. If the Supreme Court only rules on the Anti-Injunction Act, the unprecedented three days of oral arguments may not matter much as standing would not occur until 2015. But given time for the American people to come to grips with their mortality, these legislative prescriptions may be just what the doctor ordered.
It is amazing that in just over 37 months of the Obama Administration, unemployment rates have been officially above 8% during that entire time period (and significantly higher if one includes discouraged workers that dropped out of the workforce). Congress passed a $837 Billion Stimulus (a.k.a. "Porkulous") package to abate the rising unemployment rate to no avail, while raising the National Debt by over $4 Trillion in just three years. Moreover, since President Obama was elected, gasoline prices have more than doubled nationally. But the Obama energy policy has generally prohibited drilling on federal lands or off-shore and rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline from Canadian petroleum sources . Instead, the Obama Administration continues to bolster green energy initiatives, which results in wasteful subsidies for mature but inefficient alternative energy producers, or making bets on new technologies that supplement crony capitalism, a la Solyndra.
Despite these damning facts, Obama continues to poll support in the low 40s%, which roughly corresponds to the number of registered Democrats. Some cynical political observers liken Obama's undying support to being akin to an Obama Cult of Personality. There was the meme in 2008 of treating Barack Obama as the Chosen One or a political messiah.
Right wing partisans have long recognized Barack Obama's 2008 campaign of Hope and Change as cult of personality propaganda. Viral videos capitalized on the funky hard rock fusion sounds of Living Color to score their point.
Glenn Beck went further, by composing an Obama Anthem to the tune of the Soviet National Anthem (Song of Stalin).
But the American people spoke in November 2008 and sent the candidate whose claims to fame were being a community organizer and a United States Senator for two years to the Oval Office.
Even after three years of Obama in power, Obama seeks to blame shift to his predecessor while banking on a perpetual campaign of class warfare to gain re-election. These themes can be seen in director David Guggenheim's adoring campaign video "The Road We've Traveled" (narrated by Tom Hanks).
While promoting his upcoming campaign agiprop film, Guggenheim was asked by CNN's Pierce Morgan on whether his film reveled any negatives about Obama. Guggenheim's response was that there were too many positives to put into a 17 minute film. This laughable response was followed by Guggenheim's admission that the director was in awe of Obama.
This star eyed response seems proto-typical of the block of Obama's invincibly ignorant who love the ideas espoused in the candidate of Hope and Change, but never consider the facts. People may choose to believe in what they want, but that blind faith is aided by the Lamestream Media, which never seriously vetted Barack Obama and which serve as the White House stenographers instead of being a Press Corps.
There are several things which voters need to do to survive the onslaught of Obama-Zombies. Firstly, do not give up hope, as it is not Zombieland-USA. The Lamestream Media is wont to report polling in ways that are favorable to their interests. Many of the polls cited probably have skewed questions or over-sample Democrats (or under-sample Independents)
Secondly, do not allow the opposition to succeed in Saul Alinsky tactics of framing the argument by smearing your opponent. For instance, the HHS Contraception mandate is now being spun by Obama sycophants as being a war on womens' health with Georgetown Law School student/political agitator Sandra Fluke as its martyr. The argument against the Obamacare HHS Qualified Health Plan Mandate should continue to be presented as an unprecedented and unconstitutional attack on the First Amendment's right of religious liberty.
Thirdly, Republicans must not allow themselves to be sidetracked by ad hominen, wedge issue attacks like outlawing contraception. This is really a false flag attack by the media which deserves some response, but by lingering on the issue drives candidates off point and colors the candidate. For instance, former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is being tarred by the Contraception questions which give casual spectators of political theater the impression that he is just a social issues candidate, when he really has a strong blue collar Conservative economic platform that gets shunted to the side. Not everyone can be as convincingly combative as Newt Gingrich during debates, but Gingrich's slap-down of Meet the Press host's David Gregory's extraneous lead question can generate earned media and inspire others to straighten up and fly right.
Lastly, keep hammering home the shortcomings of the Obama Administration. The curtailment of basic liberties to accommodate Obamacare, the real pocket-book effects of encroaching environmental policies, the diplomatic fecklessness of Obama's State Department may not convince the invincibly ignorant to your camp, but they may not be motivated to go to the polls on election day. But by contrasting the Obama Administration's dubious record with a concise, concrete and positive platform, Independents can be inspired to walk over broken glass to exercise their franchise. While Republicans are engaged in an intense Presidential Primary fight, there can be a sense of disunity. But disgruntled conservative partisans ought to remember Benjamin Franklin's entreaty: "We must all hang together or else we will all hang separately" in November as we contemplate FOUR MORE YEARS OF THIS?
Karl Marx argued that “History repeats itself, first as a tragedy then as a farce.” This axiom came to mind when examining the recent Congressional testimony of Georgetown University Law Student and “reproductive rights activist” Sandra Fluke. It is remarkable how strikingly similar Fluke’s mien is to then Lieutenant John F. Kerry (he served in the Vietnam War, you know) when he testified before the Senate in April 1971.
L. Lt. John Kerry @ "Winter Soldier" hearings in 1971 R. Sandra Fluke @ Contraception hearing 2012
Aside from the aesthetics, both Kerry and Fluke allowed themselves to be used to advance their ideological causes. Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts and earned both a Silver Star and a Bronze Star in a month of combat service. But when Kerry returned states-side, he became an anti-war activist. Lt. Kerry was a star witness at former Senator J. William Fullbright (D-AR) Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings against the Vietnam War, in which Kerry presented the conclusions of the Winter Soldier “Investigation”. To underline his anti-war position, the next day Kerry joined other veterans in throwing medals and ribbons over a fence at the Capitol, although there is some question if Kerry actually threw all of his own awards.
Winter Soldier was actually more of a media event than an investigation. Kerry’s Senate testimony was more dramatic as this medaled war veteran made some outrageous allegations that augmented a growing anti-war sentiment in the Democrat party which later undercut American efforts in southeastern Asia When Senator John Kerry (D-MA) was running as the Democrat nominee for President in 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth called into question the veracity of Kerry’s Winter Solider testimony with the explosive war crimes charges.
Kerry’s anti-war Congressional testimony demonstrates how testimony on Capitol Hill can just be a kabuki show instead of real fact finding which uses evocative useful idiots to further larger political aims.
Obama HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius created a political firestorm when she ruled that almost all qualifying health plans under Obamacare must include free contraception coverage, sterilization services and abortifacient drugs. Religiously affiliated institutions object to being forced to offer services that offend their consciences. The Obama Administration supposedly offered such affected employers with a so-called compromise that shifted the costs of the free contraception to insurers. But the truth of the matter is that the final rule that was released that day did not reflect any changes from this “compromise”. Moreover, Economics 101 teaches that nothing is free so the costs shifted to insurers would be then assessed to the objecting employers in higher premiums.
To highlight the quandary which religiously affiliated employers and contraception conscientious objectors have with this HHS ruling, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA 49th) held a hearing entitled: "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" Two Democrat women Committee members, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY 14th) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) dramatically walked out of the hearing because the first panel did not have any women on it. Had Maloney and Norton stayed for the second panel, they would have witnessed two women testifying. But then again, those women witnesses would not have counted as they did not support the HHS contraception mandate.
Democrats pressed to have the House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA 6th) choice, reproductive justice lobbyist Sandra Fluke, testify. To score that propaganda coup, the Democrats, who are the minority party in the House of Representatives, needed to resort to having Fluke be the lone witness at the House Democrat Steering Committee.
Fluke made headlines not only for her notoriety for not having a reproductive justice advocate testify on hearings over religious liberty but for her sensational accusations.
Fluke claims that 40% of her female classmates were “struggling financially” because Georgetown Law would not pay for contraception per its roots as a Catholic Jesuit institution. Poor law students going broke for so called reproductive freedom. Really? Tuition for full time students is $23,434.00 a year. Accepting Fluke’s contraception contention pro arguendo, it costs female students $1,000 a year to pharmaceutically protect against pregnancy. Law students attending an elite institution probably spend $3 a day on coffee. The Weekly Standard points out that oral contraceptives were available for $9 a month, so there is not an economic crunch for "reproductive justice". However, if one again uses Fluke’s figures, if co-eds used the most economical possible contraception, they must be having unprotected sex three times a day while in law school to incur that expense. Perhaps being lawyer from an elite law school takes lots of practice.
The point of Fluke’s testimony is that any employer ought to offer health coverage for “reproductive rights”. Of course that requires one to believe that pregnancy is a disease that requires coverage. Then there is the inconvenient truth that the federal government already pays Planned Parenthood $317 million for reproductive health services (supposedly not including abortion). It seems that the poor, financially strapped Georgetown Law students would not resort to using Planned Parenthood to prevent pregnancy.
An interesting argument that Fluke posed were instances that contraception was a medically necessary treatment. She cited the case of a friend who suffers from polycystic ovarian syndrome, which commonly uses contraception as a treatment to prevent cysts from forming. Unfortunately, several facts undercut this argument. Firstly, Georgetown allowed for contraception coverage for this medical exception. Secondly, this might not have been the only treatment for this condition. Thirdly, Fluke’s friend is a lesbian so there is little chance that she will become pregnant.
Fluke’s testimony concluded her testimony by sharing her resentment suggestions to find alternatives which represented her values in reproductive justice. University administrators offered the common sense suggestion that if contraceptive coverage for students is such an important criteria for Fluke that she should have enrolled in another institution, even if it was not as prestigious as Georgetown Law. Fluke fumed:
We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health and we resent that, in the 21st Century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make that choice simply because we are women.
It seems that Ms. Fluke believes that she should not have to sacrifice anything for her values in reproductive justice, but that in the war on the freedom of the free exercise of religion that institutions that conscientiously object should be casualties to her cause.
At least the Fullbright hearings involved important allegations. As much Sturm und Dram which Democrats drummed up for Fluke’s testimony, her case as a student would not even be covered by the Affordable Care Act a.k.a. Obamacare. If she was under 26 then she could be on her parents’ insurance and if not then she could join the public pool. All that sound and fury yet signifying nothing. Congressional kabuki shows with Kerry first alleging a tragedy then returning with Fluke as a partisan farce.
As we celebrate George Washington’s birthday, it is worth considering a myth about the father of our country. It is said that after serving as the Supreme General of the Continental Army, George Washington turned down being king of America after winning the War of Independence. Historians scoff at the Nicola Affair, which were correspondences between Col. Lewis Nicola, a five year veteran of the Revolutionary Army and George Washington in 1782. Nicola was distraught at the relative chaos of Continental governing under the fledgling Articles of Confederation. Nicola favored monarchism and suggested that Washington stage a coup d’etat and make himself king, which Washington quickly rebuffed.
While Col. Nicola may not have had the power to give Washington the throne, it should not be dismissed as merely a myth. Myths are legendary stories without a determinable basis of fact which convey essential truths. Only 40% of colonial Americans supported the Revolutionary War and 20% of populace were Loyalists who supported the crown. Democratic Republics were not the norm among Europeans and the messiness of the Articles of Confederation may have fostered many to yearn for stability through autocracy under the guise of a monarchy. In this fluid environment, Washington could have seized the reigns and crowned himself king.
Not only did Washington rebuff this pretorian proposal, Washington taught by example. After winning the War of Independence, he returned home to Mount Vernon, Virginia to live as a Gentleman Citizen. When his nation needed him, he reluctantly came out of public retirement to preside over what became the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Washington was the natural choice to be the first U.S. President. But Washington severed two four year terms and then left office. Washington established a tradition of term limits for the Chief Executive which lasted 144 years until F.D.R. in 1940 and was later enshrined in the Constitution by the 22nd Amendment in 1951.
This aversion to autocracy which Washington fostered is exemplified by the public reception to a statute that Congress commissioned for the Centennial of Washington’s birth. Sculptor Horatio Greenough created a 30 ton marble which symbolically depicted Washington as an exemplar of liberty. Greenough’s sculpture of “Enthroned Washington” (1840) was fraught with symbolism. Washington was depicted as a demi-god (perhaps modeled after the great statue of Zeus) in the motif of classical Greece, which was birthplace of democracy. The figure of Washington points upwards towards the heaven. More importantly, Washington is depicted cradling a sheathed sword in his outstretched hands, showing how he relinquished power after the American War of Independence.
Greenough’s “Enthroned Washington” statue has an inglorious history. The commissioned statue was intended to be the centerpiece of the Capitol Rotunda. But many Americans found the bare chested Washington as offensive and even comical. Enthroned Washington was soon moved to the East Lawn of the Capitol in 1843. Continued derision moved the statue to the nearby Patent Office until 1908 until it was moved inside of the Smithsonian Castle. In 1964, Enthroned Washington was finally moved to the Smithsonian American History Museum, where docents suggest that the public viscerally could not respect an “Enthroned” father of the country.
Based upon the news of the day, it is dubious if Americans still have an inherent aversion to autocracy. President Obama’s style of governing seems imperial as he seizes upon opportunities to be above the rule of law or the Constitution. Such arrogance of power is reminiscent of monarchical excesses in the History of the World Part 1.
For example, the Obama Administration has decided not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which it believes is unconstitutional for the Federal government to force same sex “marriages” among states through the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Obama officials may not like the law, but is it the role of the Executive Branch to determine what is constitutional?
Much of the Obama Administration has been marked by complaints about the prior administration. So it was no surprised that President Obama sought to circumvent inconvenient aspects of President George W. Bush’s education achievement, the No Child Left Behind Act. In September, 2011 the Obama Department of Education indicated that it would start granting waivers to exempt states which do not meet the minimum standards. Congress had been trying for a year to craft legislation to correct some of the flaws of the NCLBA. But the Obama Administration would not wait for the legislative process to work.
The Obama Education Department decreed that it would exempt states from the law so long as it met the Obama Administrations preferred policies. Two problems with this educational ukase. First, the enacted NCLBA legislative language does not contain provisions for exemptions. Moreover, what the Obama Administration issued were conditions based relief that further tethers states to the whims of the powers that be in Washington.
President Obama had been frustrated by the lack of confirmation by the Senate of his choices the new U.S. Consumer Protection Bureau which was authorized by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Obama’s first designee in July, 2010 was Elizabeth Warren but she could not overcome Senatorial opposition to confirmation, so Warren acted as a Special Assistant to the President implementing the bureau. President Obama shifted his choice to Richard Cordray in July 2011, but he could overcome a successful filibuster for his confirmation. The Senate was meeting in pro-forma sessions to avoid a recess appointment but President Obama chose to sidestep Congress and the Constitution.
While in speaking in Shaker Heights, Ohio in January 2012 at what seemed more like a taxpayer funded campaign rally rather than a policy speech, President Obama said that he refused to “take no for an answer” while noting that he felt that he had an obligation to act when Congress does not. Obama assessed that the Senate was not in session hence he could make a recess appointment of Cordray to the USCPB. This Executive decision abrogates a century of precedent and ignores the Senate’s exclusive constitutional power of advice and consent to Executive Office appointments.
The use of such unilateral power strikes at the very heart of our system of government and dangerously tips the balance of power. President Obama clearly wanted to make a point about his effort to protect consumers. But for the Constitution, that political point comes at too high a price. Replacing an intransigent Congress with an imperial president is no bargain for those who value our constitutional system.
Then there is the HHS contraception mandate in Obamacare. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued her findings that qualified health plans which included all employers but houses of worship must cover contraception, sterilizations and abortifacients. After two weeks of political turmoil where religiously affiliated employers, such as Catholic hospitals and schools, objecting to paying for services to which their free exercise of religion objects, President Obama announced a contraception “compromise”. Such family health services would not be paid directly by objecting employers but would be given free to requesting patients, with the costs being absorbed by their insurers. Of course, this sleight of hand means that the religious institutions would have to pay for them indirectly through increases in rates. And certainly this institutions would still have to violate their consciences by informing their employees where to get the free family planning stash from Obamacare.
Yet there are two ironies that stem from Obama’s contraceptive “compromise”. On the same day Obama held his press conference, the Federal government published the very regulation that drew the religious objections. Quoting the Federal Register “Accordingly, the amendment to the interim final rule with comment period amending 45 CFR 147.130(a)(1)(iv) which was published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 46621-46626 on August 3, 2011, is adopted as a final rule without change.” Apologies for the bureaucratic legalize but the language is important for the other irony in the contraception “compromise”. The implementing language adopts “the final rule without change”. Yet the Obama Administration is trying to foil court challenges to this HHS decree by arguing that it is not yet a final rule. As Mel Brooks would say “It’s good to be the king.”
Although there are autocratic impulses demonstrated by President Obama, America is not necessarily fated to imperious tendencies. Progressives like Presidents Woodrow Wilson and F.D.R. have imperiously attempted to overplay their hands while in the Oval Office. And during the Watergate era, President Richard Nixon opined: “When the President does it, it means that it is not illegal”, yet he was convinced to resign from office before he was impeached.
For any hope of change, citizens who love liberty must be educated and have the audacity to tell the truth to power.
And they must not worry about toiling in the muck, being impressed by a “superior” who gives the illusion of being unsullied or a farcical aquatic ceremony where some moistened bint lobs a scimitar at a political savior.
"The reason why they don't do this one is not because the evil is so grotesque. It's that it's too close to a moral choice they've made. That's what it's about. It's not that like, ah it's so hard to do something on this man who butchered babies. It's because it's too close to the pro-choice mindset."
Posts
