Euthanasia, Government-Style

June 25, 2009

So it turns out that the ABC Barack Obama special was an infomercial after all. In it, he admitted that costs can be controlled by just letting old, sick people die. From the LA Times:

President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don’t stand to gain from the extra care.

Translation: If Dad is critically ill and elderly, but you want him to be around for a few more months, maybe long enough to see his first grandchild born, or perhaps long enough to watch you get married, a crack panel of government experts will look at an actuarial chart, determine that the surgery or medicine that could extend his life may not be worth it, and withhold care.

Quoth Obama:

“Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

Obama said he has personal familiarity with such a dilemma. His grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given less than nine months to live, he said.

She fell and broke her hip, “and the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?”

That may have been the question, but he didn’t tell the audience the answer.

Glad to see that the President is willing to let people die, or maybe just suffer in pain as resistance is built up to painkillers, just because they may be old and sick even though life-extending or life-enhancing procedures are available.

There’s no word from the Administration yet on whether the starving masses of people in the world will be fed with Soylent Green.


Crying For “Me Me Me” In Argentina

June 24, 2009

Well first they said he was “hiking the Appalachian trail.”

Then he arrived in the airport fresh from a trip to Argentina.

Mark Sanford, the South Carolina Governor and a Republican frequently hailed as a Presidential hopeful for 2012, vanished last week and nobody admitted to knowing where he was, including his wife and children.

Well, turns out that Sanford spent Father’s Day in the arms of his Argentinian lover.

He’s resigned his position as the chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association. This comes on the heels of John Ensign, a longtime proponent of “family values,” revealing his affair with a married staffer.

There’s no other word for it than “disgraceful.”

Michelle Malkin has a few choice words.


Nixon’s Racist Ambivalence

June 24, 2009

From the ancient history files, newly released tapes of Richard Nixon reveal his stance on abortion. When the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, Nixon was silent. Privately, however, he expressed concern that abortion would create permissiveness.

He also had this little gem:

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding, “Or a rape.”

Now, I’ve never liked Nixon. I was too young to really remember his Presidency, but from reading about it I can say that I sure wouldn’t have voted for the guy (not that I would have gone for Humphrey or McGovern, mind you). The Left will take this as an example of the evil Richard Nixon being racist and I completely agree that his comment on the propriety of aborting children born of mixed relationships is revolting on several levels, racism being only one of them.

But riddle me this: how many of those on the Left who will seize this opportunity to brand Nixon as a hateful racist will acknowledge that his views are considerably more moderate than the views of Hillary Clinton’s hero, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger? How many will admit that the flagship organization of the pro-choice movement was built on the philosophies of a Klan-loving eugenicist that was admired by Hitler?

What Nixon said was loathsome, but he’s in good company on the Left.


Rallies For Socialized Medicine? Don’t You Believe It

June 24, 2009

Michelle Malkin’s syndicated column today rips apart the notion that tomorrow’s planned march for socialized medicine is any kind of populist protest. Unlike, say, the Tea Parties that the media ripped. Michelle asks:

Will the ABC “All Barack Channel” News health care infomercial tell viewers about the cabal at 1825 K Street (a far Left office complex/headquarters that is the Washington DC analogue of the 1024 Elysian Fields ACORN headquarters in New Orleans, which I first reported on in August 2008)?

Will they tell viewers about the First Lady’s patient-dumping scheme?

Of course not.

Read the whole thing.


Perez Hilton Gets Not As Well As He Gives

June 22, 2009

Generally speaking, I don’t believe that punching your way out of a dispute is a good idea. That said, I’m finding it really hard to muster up any sympathy for this loud-mouth after the verbal beating he put on a young girl who had the temerity to disagree with him.

I guess not everyone finds his “insulting diva wannabe” act to be very funny.


Oh Barry, Where Did You Learn To Love?

June 22, 2009

For Father’s Day, CBS News did an interview with Barack Obama. I’ll readily concede that it’s a Father’s Day interview so I wouldn’t expect profound musings on Iran or health care, but this was really kind of nauseating. Obama’s answers were all well and good, and from all outward appearances he appears to be a great father to his adorable kids, but do we really want to hear the President of the United States asked questions like, “Where did you learn to love?” Harry Smith seems as smitten as an 11-year-old girl interviewing the Jonas Brothers.

The Oprah Winfreyization of America continues.


The Unasked Question

June 22, 2009

Like most of us, I’ve been following the events (or as Press Secretary Robert Gibbs calls it, the “vigorous debate”) in Iran. I’m under no illusions that Mousavi is any kind of real democrat. There may be a Thomas Jefferson somewhere in Iran, but he’s not one of the candidates for high office. In prior elections, the presidential candidates in Iran were chosen by the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khameini. There was a choice between this West-hating hand puppet or that West-hating hand puppet. This year, for the first time, the Ayatollah allowed unapproved candidates. And why not? By allowing Mousavi to run it was designed to look like the election was going to be free, but Khameini had the results in the bag the entire time.

What the mullahs did not expect was that the Iranian people would also believe that the elections were free and fair. When the results were called into question, the Iranians felt betrayed by their leaders. With good reason, I might add.

Much to the shock and dismay of the mullahs and Ahmadinejad, protestors took to the streets, demanding their rights to the free election that the Supreme Leader had promised them. Worse for the mullahs and Ahmadinejad, the protestors haven’t stopped despite a government crackdown. Protestors are being killed in the street, internet cafes are being raided for information about people who are trying to get the word out, the internet is being blocked as much as possible, foreign journalists are being “asked” to leave. Yet the protests go on. Summer’s here and the time is right for fighting in the streets, boy.

It needs to be stressed that the violence is largely one-sided. The protests were peaceful, and remain mostly peaceful, despite the skulls being cracked by the Iranian police and military. These were not riots that needed to be quelled. This was assembly that was deemed embarrassing by the reigning thugocracy. This is turning into a revolution. Whether or not it succeeds depends entirely on whether the Iranian people can stand up to the mullahs, and whether the police and military begin to side with the people against the government. Already there have been reports of police refusing to “do their job” by beating people’s heads in. There has been nothing like this in the Mideast since 1979, when the Islamists seized power when the Shah was overthrown.

The Iranians are clearly tired of living under Islamist rule. Despite being one of the more “progressive” countries in the Middle East (which it always was), Iran is still a theocracy where women are oppressed and everyone is subject to the rule of Islam as interpreted by fundamentalist crazies.

Much has been made over the youthful demographic of Iran. Iran has a huge number of people under the age of thirty, and media reports attribute the protests to this supposedly young, hip, generation. I’m inclined to think that is our media projecting their cozy view of anti-Vietnam protests onto a foreign country. The fact that so much of Iran is under 30 may play a role here, but I don’t think it is some kind of skeleton key to unlock the mystery of the protests. Those under 30 have never lived under any type of government other than the Islamist theocracy they are now protesting. So where do they get the idea for free and fair elections?

It seems to me that there is a legitimate question here that has, to my knowledge, not been asked by anyone. That question is simply this: What role, if any, have the free and fair elections in Iraq and Afghanistan played in this protest?

Part of the reason for America invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein was this: Iran was a country straining at the leash. Having a free Iraq on one side and a free Afghanistan on the other side, might just inspire the Iranian people chained by that leash to pull a little harder and seek a genuine political process in the governance of their nation.

Clearly the Iraq War was a mess in many ways. The wrong commanders were on the job, Donald Rumsfeld hung on for far too long, and George W. Bush put too much faith in his men on the ground. A lot of lives were needlessly lost because of poor planning. The “surge” changed that.

Advocating the use of more troops in Iraq when everyone was screaming for a full-scale retreat was an act of political courage. That act got John McCain the GOP nomination to be President, and it won a war (albeit belatedly) for George W. Bush.

As things were bad and getting worse in Iraq, largely supplied and funded by Iran, there was no whisper of dissent in Iran. But now, with Iraq largely stabilized and peaceful, with Iraq’s economy booming, with Iraq enjoying a free press, the protestors are out in the streets demanding…well, demanding the kind of elections that the Iraqis have.

If Iran should fall and some sort of democracy take root there, I have no doubt that Barack Obama will take the full credit when he runs again in 2012, despite the fact that until last Saturday the message he was sending could only be interpreted as supporting the current leadership in Iran. But if, and I admit it’s a huge if, some sort of democracy does emerge in Iran, will some small part of the credit rest with the Mideast policies of George W. Bush and the change those policies brought to Iran’s next door neighbors?


%d bloggers like this: