The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth. Challenges are invited.
The day’s top political news:
House backers of public insurance option may yield
Two House Democrats who favor a government insurance plan, a central element of health care legislation passed in their chamber, acknowledged Sunday it might have to be sacrificed as negotiators work out a final agreement with the Senate.
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., underscored the divisions Democrats will need to bridge when negotiators from the House and Senate meet next month to reconcile the two bills. He said there will need to be more give on the House side than the Senate, which took weeks to find the 60 votes needed for passage.
The Senate's Christmas Eve “achievement” brought the nation closer than it's been for generations to a new order in health insurance, one that would eventually require nearly all Americans to get coverage, help many pay for it and restrict onerous insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing sickness.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091227/D9CRSDM81.html
Senate Democrats to White House: “Drop cap-and-trade”
Bruised by the health care debate and worried about what 2010 will bring, moderate Senate Democrats are urging the White House to give up now on any effort to pass a cap-and-trade bill next year.
The creation of an economy-wide market for greenhouse gas emissions is as the heart of the climate bill that cleared the House earlier this year. But with the health care fight still raging and the economy still hurting, moderate Democrats have little appetite for another sweeping initiative — especially another one likely to pass with little or no Republican support.
Moderate House Democrats who voted in favor of the cap-and-trade bill just before the July 4th recess came under fire back home, and Republicans have vowed to make the issue a key line of attack during next year’s elections. Some Democrats would prefer to deny them that target.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30984.html
No Churchgoing Christmas for the First Family
But there's was one common Christmas practice not on the First Family's schedule: a visit to Christmas Eve church services.
Church, in fact, has been a surprisingly tough issue for the Obamas. They resigned their membership with Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago in 2008 after Obama renounced the church's controversial former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. And while the First Family intended to find a local church to attend when they moved to Washington, concerns about crowds and displacing regular worshippers has prevented them from finding a new religious home during their first year here.
However, the Obama White House DID host a celebration of the Muslim holiday, Ramadan.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1949879,00.html
Opinion:
Victory next November, begins right now – in GOP primaries
Fair warning to all who are honestly concerned about our nation’s future. A new election year is dawning. Victory is not just desired, it’s crucial.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/november_2010_too_little_too_l.html
If conservatives wait until November 2010 we will be: Too little, too late
John Hunt
This is why: The nominations and primary races are shaping up right now. We must nominate conservatives for the November 2010 vote, right now. Deadlines approach soon. GOP county and state organizations are working right now to get their ducks in a row for the 2010 election - and beyond.
When conservatives sit back and "wait" - we're saddled with candidates like Dede Scozzafava of the recent RINO insider fiasco in New York, not to mention certain lack-luster candidates for the presidency.
Let's look at GOP county committees first - simply because the GOP is a more likely home for the conservative movement, and local or county is practical for many of us. I'll address the Democratic Party later.
One example of many possibilities is to become a precinct chair in your county GOP organization. Precinct Chair positions often go unfilled. Precinct chairs get to vote on candidate selection and other leadership. Populous counties will have a website with a page that explains what you need to do. Less well funded GOP organizations will have contact information in the phone book, or, as part of a list on a state GOP website.
You may be under a deadline of early January 2010 - if you have any inkling to do such a work, jump on it, and move forward. Similar deadlines apply to candidate filings - if they haven't passed already.
As a conservative, you'll face prejudice. Stay calm, stay cool. You'll have to be sharper and better than anyone else. To prevent your efforts from hijacking by cunning RINO operatives, check your local Tea Party website. They can provide guidance on how you may conduct yourself as a calm, effective voice for conservatism. Get a copy of Robert's Rules of Order. Know your local organization procedures. Read American Thinker. Read biographies of George Washington, John Adams, and other great patriots.
Carry a copy of The United States Constitution in your hip pocket. Read it, know it. That is the best civic guidance.
Attention Democrats: let's take this a step further - why should collectivists control the Democratic Party? Aren't the words "Democratic" and "collectivist" mutually exclusive? (No Clintonian double-speak allowed.) Why not liberate your party? Conservative Democrats deserve leadership in your own party. You fought communism overseas in decades past - why not fight collectivism on our own shores now?
(NOTE: Any remaining conservatives among Democrats are badly outnumbered. What’s more, a major element of Democrat Party primary voters will be on the far left, and have more voting power than what would be necessary to deny a conservative the nomination. Bottom line, Democrats will be unable to nominate a conservative for the foreseeable future.)
Many more details go with this general idea. You can figure out those details. Time is wasting away. This is too important to let it go until November. Now is the time for all conservatives to come to the aid of their country.
Be strong, act swiftly. America needs you.
John Hunt is his children's dad. His public service is to help find and produce crude oil and natural gas from privately owned lands in the USA.
The primary season, as it is shaping up, has an encouraging air to it. No better indication can be cited than the race for the GOP nomination for the Senate in Florida. Just a few months back, incumbent GOP governor Charles Crist seemed unbeatable. A conservative challenger – former House Speaker Marco Rubio -- was not being taken seriously by many pundits. But the sentiment reflected in the tea party protests made itself known, and at last report – two weeks ago – Crist is deadlocked with Rubio in campaign polling. If those figures are accurate, Crist probably has crested and will decline, while Rubio will probably gain strength.
Using the Florida Senate primary to date, pruning the GOP tree of “RINO”s – will result from normal attrition. That’s not only good news for Republicans, but for all America as well.
Buddy
The day’s top blogs:
1.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjE0ZjI1NGRmMGVlODdjY2Q1YmU5Yzg2ZWZjYjcyMjA=
This Guy's Been on Every Channel, Every Day for a Year. Now He's Shy?
Over at The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder explains...
In his Farenheit 9/11, filmmaker Michael Moore juxtaposes images and words of a terrorist attack in Israel with President Bush's first words about the incident, spoken to a press pool on a golf course, with him leaning casually against a tree. Today, as the nation's law enforcement agencies respond to an attempted terrorist attack on U.S. soil, as the cable news channels and news websites pull in reinforcements to cover the incident from all angles, President Obama has been silent.
In fact, he's been golfing. He received a counterterrorism briefing early this morning, Hawaii time, and moments later, left for the gym. The president's vacation activities might have become the subject of a fierce partisan fight — but really, the only carping is coming from the usual suspects on the right.
There is a reason why Obama hasn't given a public statement. It's strategy.
So we're now all in agreement, correct? Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was a cavalcade of cheap shots, and Bush's speaking from a golf course in no way indicated a casualness or lack of appropriate focus on the threat of terrorism, correct? Because it might have been nice to hear non-conservatives saying this, oh, five years ago or so.
The fact that President Obama hasn't spoken to the citizenry in the 48 hours or so since the incident is... unexpected. Strange. If the bombing attempt had not occurred on Christmas Day, his silence would be unthinkable, correct? Somebody tries to blow up a plane, and while this guy's effort fell thankfully well short, it sounds like this could have turned out terribly and tragically differently with a little less luck and a bit more chemical reaction.
The president's silence is not necessary a serious problem or crisis, and yes, we are getting lots of statements from administration officials about what TSA, FAA, and the rest are doing.
Maybe this guy was a lone wolf, and no follow-on attacks are in the works, and we'll forget about this in a couple of months, and life will go on without further incident. Or maybe it won't. In retrospect, it's rather amazing that President Clinton never visited the Twin Towers after the 1993 bombing or visited the CIA for almost a year after a January 25, 1993 shooting attack at its entrance; it looks like the new president's mind was elsewhere and on other matters.
At some point, a strategy insisting that unsuccessful attacks are not worth presidential comment starts looking like whistling past the graveyard, or pretending that the incidents aren't a big deal when they are.
2.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KL24Ag01.html
Life and premature death of Pax Obamicana
By Spengler
History speaks of a Pax Romana, a Pax Britannica, and a Pax Americana - but no other namable eras of sustained peace, for the simple reason cited by Henry Kissinger: nothing maintains peace except hegemony and the balance of power. The balancing act always fails, though, as it did in Europe in 1914, and as it will in Central and South Asia precisely a century later. The result will be suppurating instability in the region during the next two years and a slow but deadly drift toward great-power animosity. Those who wanted an end to US hegemony will get what they wished for. But they won't like it.
"No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation," US President Barack Obama told the United Nations on September 23. "No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold." Having renounced hegemony as well as the balance of power, Obama by year-end chose to prop up the power balance in the region with additional American and allied soldiers in Afghanistan. Obama chose the least popular as well as the least effective alternative. The US president's apparent fecklessness reflects the gravity of the strategic problems in the region.
There is one great parallel, but also one great difference, between the Balkans on the eve of World War I and the witch's cauldron comprising Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and contiguous territory. The failure of the region's most populous state - in that case the Ottoman Empire, in this case Pakistan - makes shambles out of the power balance, leaving the initiative in the hands of irredentist radicals who threaten to tug their sponsors among the great powers along behind them. But in 1914, both France and Germany thought it more advantageous to fight sooner rather than later. No matter how great the provocation, both India and China want to postpone any major conflict. The problem is that they may promote minor ones.
Western analysts are unanimous that Pakistan must not be allowed to become a failed state, for example, through a seizure of power on the part of Islamist elements in the military allied to the Taliban. Enlisting Pakistan in counter-insurgency against Pashtun rebels in Afghanistan, though, ensures this outcome. US policy, wrote Syed Saleem Shahzad on this site on October 23 (Where Pakistan’s militants go to ground ), "draws Pakistan, already mired in political and economic crises, into an ever-deepening quagmire. The country has become a playing field for operators of all shades.
These include Iranian Balochi insurgents, over a dozen Pakistani militant groups linked with the Taliban or al-Qaeda, the US Central Intelligence Agency's network, security contractors associated with the American establishment, and last but not least, agents provocateurs. Pakistan, one of the booming economies of Asia just two years ago, seriously risks becoming a failed state."
The US-sponsored frontier war amounts to Punjabis - traditionally the core of the country's military - killing Pashtuns. The default view of area defense analysts has been that army operations against the Taliban may turn into a Punjabi-Pashtun ethnic conflict. But the cracks in the Pakistani state run in several directions. Punjabi Islamists allied to the Taliban, meanwhile, are in open revolt; Punjabi terrorists took part in the October siege of Pakistan's army headquarters in Rawalpindi.
Pakistan is being ground between two millstones: the Afghan war and the global economic crisis. Half the country is illiterate, and half of Pakistanis live on less than US$1 a day. The country's respectable economic growth rate of 5% per annum during the late 2000s was fed by foreign credit, which allowed it to run a current-account deficit of 8.3% as of 2008. The country's finances collapsed in late 2008, forcing Islamabad to adopt an austerity program under the auspices of the International Monetary Fund. "Pakistan is not yet a failed economy," wrote Santosh Kumar in The Hindu on November 24. "But it can happen. This is not a prospect the world, especially India, can view with equanimity, since the spillover will impact us badly."
The credibility of secular government - with its promise of economic improvement - is threadbare. The alternative is an Islamist regime committed to confronting India over Kashmir and suppressing the Shi'ite minority that comprises 30% of Pakistan's population. The Islamist alternative has such appeal that Punjabi terrorists, as noted, are conducting suicide attacks against the Punjabi-dominated army.
India might be compelled to respond to the victory of Islamist radicals in its nuclear-armed neighbor.
Iran, for that matter, cannot maintain its credibility with its Shi'ite allies around the region if it sits on its hands while Pakistan crushes its co-confessionalists. Iran's interest in obtaining nuclear weapons has several motivations. One is to establish a screen of deterrence behind which it can grab its neighbors' oil, as it proposed to do by sending a division of the Iranian army to surround an Iraqi oilfield last week. Another is to prepare for prospective conflict with Pakistan; if Pakistan fails, Iran will have a strong interest in interfering in Pakistan on behalf of the Shi'ite minority.
The Obama administration's response to the threat of Islamist takeover has been "to pick a new fight with India on Kashmir", as Indian analyst C Raja Mohan complained in the online edition of Forbes magazine on November 8:
Obama has also sensed, rightly, that the US cannot stabilize Afghanistan unless it fixes Pakistan's profound insecurities and gets its army to level with the US and stop supporting America's enemies in Afghanistan. Few Indians disagree with Obama's reasoning that the threats to Pakistan's security are internal and do not come from India. But many are beginning to get anxious about the third step in Obama's logic: to get Pakistan to cooperate with the US in Afghanistan, Washington must actively seek to resolve Islamabad's problem with New Delhi over Kashmir. Put simply, the Indian fear is that they are being asked to pick up the political tab for America's failed policy in Afghanistan, and for the Pakistan Army's deliberate betrayal of US interests there.
The Obama administration has antagonized India in the hope of mollifying Pakistani irredentism, just as it has antagonized Israel with the dubious argument that if Israel makes concessions to the divided, ineffectual Palestine Authority, it will be able to mollify Iran. Nothing will assuage the Palestinians, who are failed before coming a state, nor the Pakistanis, whose failure is ineluctable.
As I argued in Asia Times Online on October 20 (When the cat's away, the mice kill each other), the net effect of America's fecklessness is to give the Russian Empire an opportunity to stretch a hand out of the geopolitical grave and grasp a last, great opportunity. Russia faces a slow demographic death, but it remains a great power in terms of military technology: its surface-to-air missile systems are as good as anything American can field, and its newest system, the as yet undeployed S-500, may be better, according to a senior American aviation executive.
Compared with the airframe and avionics technology now in development phase in the Unites States, Russia remains a second-best producer of warplanes. But Obama's budget cuts have hit military aviation hard, leaving its closest allies - including Israel and Australia - without a clear alternative to the aging F-16 force. Russia and India, meanwhile, are developing a "fifth generation" fighter, with some inputs from France and Israel. There is widespread speculation that Russia's decision to cancel deliveries of its S-300 anti-missile system to Iran carried a price tag for the Israelis: order the latest Russian systems for their own use, and make available the entire package of Israeli avionics.
In short, Washington appears to have driven its two closest allies in Asia - Israel and India - into a technology alliance with Russia that may have enormous long-term consequences. It is not only that the US has renounced its intention to act as a hegemon; a few years from now, it no longer may have the technological ability to act as a hegemon. This threatens to close off what may become the best chance to maintain peace in the region.
Rather than chanting in unison "Pakistan must not be allowed to fail!", Western strategists should plan for the consequences of a failed state in Pakistan. One alternative - with its own attendant difficulties - was raised by M K Bhadrakumar on this site on October 10 (Pakistan warns India to 'back off'):
India, of course, can do a lot to help the US and NATO in such a scenario by training the militia operating under the ‘warlords’ and also providing them with weapons. In sum, without military deployment in Afghanistan, Delhi has the capacity to play a decisive role in crushing the Taliban insurgency, which is what makes the Pakistani military establishment extremely anxious in the developing political scenario on the Afghan chessboard.
In this scenario, India would encircle and contain a Pakistani failed state, cutting off the Afghanistan operations of the Islamist wing of Pakistan's military. Pakistan would be aghast, but the vise-grip around its borders would be so tight as to discourage future misbehavior.
There is one problem with this scenario, and that is China. As Francesco Sisci wrote on this site on December 15 (A radical empire looms), "Afghanistan and Pakistan are not unstable domino tiles that can be moved at will in a careful balance of weights and counterweights, as in old political power games. Pakistan and Afghanistan are part of a more complex balancing act that is both domestic and international and in which we also find China and India."
China cannot sit by and allow India to encircle and eventually crush its ally Pakistan - not because China has fundamental strategic interests in Pakistan, but because it cannot tolerate such a blemish to its credibility. The problem does not lie in Pakistan, but in the mutual capacity of India and China to destabilize each other. Maoist rebels are active in about a third of Indian territory, and the Indian government claims that they receive their weapons from China - without yet accusing the Chinese government of direct involvement. India has a probe stuck prominently into China's most sensitive spot, namely Tibet. On November 10, the Chinese government denounced India for permitting the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, to visit Tawang on the Tibetan border. China still claims as part of Tibet the whole border state of Arunachal Pradesh, including Tawang.
Unlike World War I, in which the warring parties in the Balkans drew Russia and Austria into war and the rest of Europe with them, India and China will not go to war over trifling border issues. But in the absence of a solution to Pakistan's state failure, they will continue to support low-intensity operations and add to the region's instability. China in this respect most resembles Austria in 1914. It is the power that wants stability at all costs, and has the most to lose - through the provincial rebellion of ethnic minorities - from instability. But it cannot impose stability through any means within its own reach. More than any other power in the world, it regards the prospective failure of the Pakistani state with horror. Beijing does not seem to have thought through the configuration of a post-Pakistani world.
The balance of power fails along with Pakistan. The alternative to the balance of power, as Kissinger said, is hegemony, and no one but the United States can exercise it. A hegemonic US would do the following:
• Invite New Delhi to increase its role in Afghanistan - which the Russians emphatically support - and make clear to Islamabad that the consequences of a shift toward radical Islam will be to leave Pakistan at the mercy of India.
• Dictate to India a conciliatory policy toward China, including an empty dance card for the Dalai Lama and consideration for Chinese interests in Nepal and Myanmar.
• Persuade China to throw its Pakistani ally under the bus, in return for assurances of Indian good behavior, as well as other incentives (access to US technology, for example).
• Assure China that the United States will not take advantage of its troubles with the Uighurs in Xinjiang or any other Chinese ethnic minority - and that it will police such allies as Turkey with respect to such problems.
• Crush Iran's imperial ambitions in the region, both to protect US allies such as Saudi Arabia and to eliminate a potential existential threat to Pakistan and remove a claim to legitimacy for radical Sunni Islamists.
• Give Russia assurances that matters pertaining to its "near abroad" from Ukraine to Kyrgyzstan will be considered with a view toward Russian interests.
The implications of such an exercise in great-power politics are in some respects ugly. They include a perpetual civil war in Afghanistan and the continuation of at least low-level civil war in Pakistan. The object would not be to prevent Pakistan from turning into a failed state, but to prevent a failed state in Pakistan from poisoning the rest of the region. It also implies a self-interested recognition that the United States has nothing but sentimental interests in Ukraine, Georgia and Tibet - and that sentiment is cheap. It is not the best alternative, to be sure, but as General George Patton said, the best is the enemy of the good.
At the close of 2009, Washington still has the capacity to act as a hegemon. The most dangerous undertaking of the Obama administration is not the petty failures of policy, such as the hapless effort to appease the Palestinians over West Bank settlements, or Pakistan over Kashmir. If America's technological leadership in fighter aircraft, surface-to-air missiles, and related technologies continues to erode, the United States - like Britain in 1914 - no longer will have the power and credibility to enforce an agreement among prospectively hostile players.
America's self-sabotage in this regard is a unique act of abnegation in the history of world strategy. It lost Vietnam because to win would have required more boots on the ground and more body bags on homebound aircraft. But the problems of South and Central Asia do not require a substantial US troop commitment. On the contrary, the escalation of US force in Afghanistan makes matters worse. India can put sufficient boots on Afghan soil to prevent a Taliban victory. No one else wants or needs US troops. But America's capacity to sail an aircraft carrier to any coast in the world and be master of the situation is essential.
Russia and India may field a fifth-generation fighter, perhaps a very good one if it contains the full Israeli avionics package. But a sixth-generation fighter is already in the research-and-development phase in the United States. If Washington puts resources behind cutting-edge defense technology, no other country or combination of countries can mount a challenge for a generation or more.
America's failure to sustain its own power will be as tragic as it is unnecessary.
Spengler is channeled by David P Goldman, senior editor at First Things (www.firstthings.com).
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.
3.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/seniors_are_americas_new_jews.html
Seniors are America's new Jews
Stuart Schwartz
http://www.americanthinker.com/stuart_schwartz/
They are objects of derision. Influential government officials refer to them as unproductive, of less value than others in society. The political party running the government aggressively denies them access to health services while putting in place bureaucracies devoted, in effect, to ending their lives.
The Jews in Nazi Germany? In the Soviet Union of Stalin? In a socialist paradise set up by the rabidly anti-Semitic United Nations? No, seniors in a United States governed by the party of President Barack Obama and his allies on the Democratic left.
The Democratic Party senate healthcare bill makes it official: Seniors are America's new Jews.
An exaggeration? Yes and no. In no way do I wish to trivialize the horrific slaughter of Europe's Jewish population by the Nazis, nor the systematic oppression of Jews in history. However, Obama and the Democratic Party have embraced a worldview <http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/21/antisemitism-jews-un-oped-cx_cr_0122rosett.html> that allows them to go after seniors in much the same manner that tyrants (and the United Nations) have used Jew-bashing as a tool to accumulate power and steal wealth.
Seniors are the new go-to group for this radical president and Democratic congress as they pursue power, wealth, and the cultural transformation of the United States. Every version of the Democrat healthcare bill-with all senate Republicans opposing <http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/19/health.care/index.html> this war against seniors-relies on drastically reduced access to the services <http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/kristol_ten_words_to_remember.asp> for which seniors have paid through taxes over a lifetime, or upon which they may choose to spend personal resources.
The party and government of Barack Obama is astonishingly brutal about the value of that lifetime. A ‘senior moment' should be just that, they say: a brief period rarely extending beyond the 60s. For us, of course, not them.
This is government by those who consider themselves intellectually elite, thinkers who insist that a free-market economy that has enabled the elderly to live longer violates <http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n3/age.html> the rights of the younger by disproportionate consumption of healthcare resources.
The president's healthcare czar views <http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/hello_obamacare_goodbye_grandm_1.html> the optimal age for societal worth as somewhere south of 60 years. The Democrat approach is philosophically founded upon the work <http://www.thehastingscenter.org/About/Staff/Detail.aspx?id=1282> of Ivy League academic Dr. Daniel Callahan, who mentored Obama health policymaker Ezekiel Emanuel and who advocates medical resource rationing as a simple and powerful solution to the "dilemma"-lack of community usefulness-posed by market-enabled longer lives.
Simply put: The utility of a citizen's life to an Obama government is defined by the amount of one's work that can be taxed vs. the resources consumed, and the government-defined value of the group to which the individual belongs. Seniors are just not useful, says <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs> Tom Daschle, the prominent Obama Democrat who continues to play a key role in shaping Obamacare, and it is time for them to accept the "pain" of less access to healthcare.
Too many Jews...uh, seniors? Okay-let'em die.
What Sarah Palin termed <http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/sarah_palin_vs_dr_death.html> "dealth panels" are only a small part of a new bureaucracy <http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=662c76aa-d8a8-4b07-a4d0-ad4197f08856&headline=Charles+M.+Arlinghaus%3A+The+new+health+care+bureaucracy> that will stand between seniors and life. Small wonder The Wall Street Journal characterized <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574303903498159292.html> Obamacare as an "assault" on seniors, while a British newspaper, surveying events across the pond, starkly <http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stephaniegutmann/100004794/obamacare-the-elderly-might-as-well-have-a-bulls-eye-painted-on-their-backs/> stated "the elderly might as well have a bull's eye painted on their backs." It continued, "Creepy, right? It's totalitarian, it's ugly, and it's not the American way."
But it is the American way in a nation governed by Obama, who has a vision that requires some to have less so that others may be given more. And the vast middle class of seniors, almost 40-million strong, a lifetime of working and paying taxes behind them, are the ideal scapegoats to fund a radical Democrat vision.
James Lewis describes <http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/obama_alinsky_and_scapegoats.html> the Obama team approach with devastating clarity: they have perfected scapegoating, an "emotional high explosive that you can direct at will." And not just Will-we're talking Bernice, Fred, and Gladys, the fifteen percent of the population who have the audacity-an Obama word-to age.
Seniors now find themselves as the official go-to group for a president intent on taking both life and property and giving to those who are younger, more diverse, to illegal immigrants, and Democratic Party allies. Consequently, the Obama-led Democrats, with the help of intellectual and media elites, have declared open season on grandma and grandpa, with Newsweek Evan going so far as to feature a cover <http://www.newsweek.com/id/215291> detailing "The Case for Killing Granny."
In Obama's America, wrinkles are about as trendy as white belts and polyester slacks, and gray is the new Jew.
Democrat healthcare is one of many "audacious visions," a Georgetown University professor wrote <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/claudia-ricci/obama-has-a-chance-to-tra_b_130015.html> , to replace a Judeo-Christian culture with a statist worldview. The founders were wrong, Obama says, when they unashamedly founded a nation based, as Thomas Jefferson put <http://www.ibiblio.org/cr/2009/11/restoring-thomas-jefferson/>; it, upon the belief in the dignity of each individual-regardless of age-who possesses "personal liberty" given "by the Author of nature."
The president Newsweek editor Evan Thomas called <http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/06/05/newsweek-s-evan-thomas-obama-sort-god> "sort of God" takes issue with the view of seniors dictated by the "Author of nature," that rock of Judeo-Christian culture who demands in his Word, in Deuteronomy, that humanity "Honor your father and your mother as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days may be long..."
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob views long life and respect for seniors as a blessing. But the Democratic Party healthcare bill is no Deuteronomy, long life is viewed as a market-driven curse, and for Barack Obama-the god of Harry, Nancy, and Evan-seniors are expendable.
It is not hard to imagine President Obama standing at a window of the White House, watching the Tea Parties and streams of protestors. He observes the multitude of seniors in the crowds, smiles a smug smile and quietly whispers in their direction:
"If the Jew fits, wear it."
Comments