The House of Hypocrisy rebukes Joe Wilson

The House of Hypocrisy rebukes Joe Wilson

By Michelle Malkin  •  September 15, 2009 07:24 PM

So, the House officially “rebuked” GOP Rep. Joe Wilson for calling out President Obama’s health care lie and another Kabuki moment of manufactured outrage is over:

On a largely party-line vote, the House voted 240 to 179 to ratify a “resolution of disapproval” against Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) for interrupting Obama’s speech last week before a joint session of Congress. Just 12 Democrats opposed the resolution against Wilson, while seven Republicans supported the disapproval motion. Five Democrats voted “present,” rather than cast a yes or no vote.

During the hour-long debate, Wilson refused to apologize, saying his private phone call to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was sufficient because Obama himself said the matter was closed the day after his speech.

“It is clear to the American people that there are far more important issues than what we are dealing with now. . . . [Obama] graciously accepted my apology, and this issue is over,” Wilson said in brief remarks.

I like GOP Rep. John Carter’s characterization last night of the Democrats’ chamber — he called it the House of Hypocrisy.

Nary a peep about corruptocrat Charlie Rangel or CIA-smearing Nancy Pelosi or unhinged Pete Stark Raving Mad, etc., etc. etc.

But now we have revised rules of decorum dictating which insults are acceptable and which are forbidden.

The House Democrats refuse to police unethical behavior, but they are all for policing Republicans’ sharp tongues.

The Etiquette Czar approves.


Here’s the roll call vote.

The seven Republicans who voted for rebuke:

Jones (NC)

The twelve Democrats who opposed the rebuke:


The Democrats voting present:

Frank (MA)

The members not voting:


Barrett (SC)

House guidelines for Presidential put-downs

House guidelines for Presidential put-downs

House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has released a helpful, updated primer for members regarding their conduct on the floor and in committees.

Especially useful: The section on how to properly insult the executive branch in the in the chamber.

“Disgrace” and “nitwits” — okay.

“Liar” or “sexual misconduct” — ixnay.

Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:

• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”

No we can’t? UK think tank says US power is fading

No we can’t? UK think tank says US power is fading

By RAPHAEL G. SATTER, Associated Press Writer Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press Writer 2 hrs 13 mins ago

LONDON – A weakened United States could start retreating from the world stage without help from its allies abroad, an international strategic affairs think tank said Tuesday.

The respected London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said President Barack Obama will increasingly have to turn to others for help dealing with the world’s problems — in part because he has no alternative.

“Domestically Obama may have campaigned on the theme ‘yes we can’; internationally he may increasingly have to argue ‘no we can’t’,” the institute said in its annual review of world affairs.

The report said the U.S. struggles against insurgent groups in Iraq and Afghanistan had exposed the limits of the country’s military muscle, while the near-collapse of the world financial markets sapped the economic base on which that muscle relied.

The report also claimed that the U.S. had lost traction in its efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear program and bring peace to the Middle East.

“Clearly the U.S. share of ‘global power,’ however measured, is in decline,” the report said.

The head of another respected London think tank, Robin Niblett of Chatham House, said the rise in the relative power of China, India, Russia and the European Union has made it harder for the U.S to exercise its influence.

“America should apply changes in leadership style, but I wouldn’t overplay the decline because decline is relative,” Niblett said. “One should not doubt that the U.S. remains the most powerful nation in the world, but it’s difficult to use the power and to use it to influence others.”

In addition to a rise in regional powers, Niblett said the U.S. has long been viewed as being part of the problem rather than the solution on many issues _including climate change, the financial crisis, and the failure of the Middle East peace process.

“It’s also carrying the baggage of failed policies and of a failed financial approach,” Niblett said, referring to the Bush administration. “There’s a lot of catching up to be done.”

The IISS report praised Obama, saying that he recognized there was only so much America could do “to impose its views on others.”

After years of often thorny relationships between the U.S. and its allies during Bush’s administration, Obama has talked of the need to work with other nations on such issues as the financial meltdown, climate change and nuclear proliferation.

“These are challenges that no single nation, no matter how powerful, can confront alone,” Obama said in April after attending the G-20 summit in London.

“The United States must lead the way,” he said. “But our best chance to solve these unprecedented problems comes from acting in concert with other nations.”

Niblett said many countries “have developed new antibodies to American global leadership. They have built resistance to being told what to do.”

The think tank’s report said Obama could help restore the United States’ standing by working with other nations to contain emerging threats to its position as the world’s pre-eminent power. Controlling the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea would require help from regional allies, the report said. The same was true of Afghanistan, where the U.S. has had difficulty persuading its NATO partners to follow its lead in boosting the number of troops sent to fight a resurgent Taliban.

“In the next year or two, the greatest demand on U.S. talents and power will be to persuade more to become like minded and adopt greater burdens,” the report said.

Still, Niblett said Obama was moving in the right direction.

“This administration is far more frank about the U.S. interdependence with rest of the world, and that’s a good thing,” Niblett said.


On the Net:

Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War

Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War

President Obama can’t outsource matters of war and peace to another state.




Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along?

At July’s G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No.

Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the “ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations” and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, “respect for the rights of nations,” and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran’s nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion.

What’s an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn’t a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1.

All this only helps persuade Israel’s skittish leadership that when President Obama calls a nuclear-armed Iran “unacceptable,” he means it approximately in the same way a parent does when fecklessly reprimanding his misbehaving teenager. That impression is strengthened by Mr. Obama’s decision to drop Iran from the agenda when he chairs a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 24; by Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly opposing military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities; and by Russia’s announcement that it will not support any further sanctions on Iran.

In sum, the conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won’t lift a finger to stop Iran, much less will the “international community.” So Israel has pursued a different strategy, in effect seeking to goad the U.S. into stopping, or at least delaying, an Israeli attack by imposing stiff sanctions and perhaps even launching military strikes of its own.

View Full Image


Associated Press

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad



Thus, unlike Israel’s air strike against Iraq’s reactor in 1981 or Syria’s in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done.

The problem, however, is that the administration isn’t taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn’t really paying attention.

But Israel is paying attention. And the longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will “be able to produce a weapon’s worth of highly enriched uranium . . . in less than two months.” No less critical in determining Israel’s timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away.

Such a strike may well be in Israel’s best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America’s supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn’t need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.

Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran’s disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower’s responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver’s seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Write to

$3.4 billion for new Homeland Security complex: Imagine how much health care that could have paid for

Michelle Malkin 

$3.4 billion for new Homeland Security complex: Imagine how much health care that could have paid for

By Doug Powers  •  September 9, 2009 11:01 PM

It wasn’t long ago that the Department of Homeland Security was just a fascist glimmer in George W. Bush’s eye that subsequently went on to become a symbol of one rogue and illegitimate administration’s gross abuse of civil liberties.

But now a new sheriff is in town, and a new enemy is in the cross-hairs that needs to be aggressively confronted, so it’s worth an even heavier investment of taxpayer dollars.

That and they needed the meeting space:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Washington notables broke ground on the future home of the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday, symbolically starting construction on the biggest federal building project in the Washington area since the Pentagon 68 years ago.

The project will bring together more than 15,000 employees now scattered in 35 offices in the region, placing them on a 176-acre campus strewn with historic buildings in a long-neglected corner of Washington, five miles from the Capitol building.

Department leaders hope the $3.4 billion consolidation will help the department fulfill its core mission — protecting the homeland — in ways big and small.

“It will help us hold meetings,” Secretary Janet Napolitano said. “It will help us build that culture of ‘One DHS.’”

Assuming Napolitano holds a meeting every single weekday over the next 10 years, this new complex is only costing $1.3 million per meeting. Not bad by government standards — but we’ll round that up to $2 million per meeting on the assumption that they’ll buy bagels.

At least this way the DHS will have a central location from which to direct the Girl Scouts response during a national emergency.

Update: Commenters are saying that would have been a much cheaper alternative, but that’s assuming that the government wouldn’t have decided that’s office was too small to handle their requests and in need of a several billion dollar renovation. It’d be even more expensive if the administration declared meetings a basic human right and nationalized the entire meeting industry.

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Senate votes on Johanns amendment to cut off ACORN housing funds;

Michelle Malkin 

Lead Story

Senate votes on Johanns amendment to cut off ACORN housing funds; Update: Amendment passes, 83-7

By Michelle Malkin  •  September 14, 2009 05:22 PM

Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti

Just watched GOP Sen. Mike Johanns introduce his amendment on the Senate floor banning federal funds in the current transportation and housing appropriations bill from going to ACORN. Currently, ACORN is eligible to receive millions more in taxpayer funds through mortgage counseling, Community Development Block Grants, and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program — in addition to the tens of millions ACORN Housing Corp. has already received.

The vote is underway right now.

The Johanns Amendment is #2355 to H.R. 3288.

Johanns cited the sting videos as evidence that ACORN cannot be trusted with government money:

“Until a full investigation is launched into ACORN, no taxpayer money should be used to fund its activities. A vote in favor of my amendment is a vote in favor of the taxpayer and a vote against the status quo.”

He forgot to add the five most important words:

ACORN is a criminal enterprise.

5:42pm Eastern. Roll call vote still underway. Several Democrats have voted AYE, including Cardin, Carper, Inouye, Johnson (SD), Murray, Tester, Warner, Bingaman, Begich, Nelson (NE), Webb, Landrieu, Bayh, Conrad, Rockefeller, Dodd, Pryor, Hagan, Kohl, Feingold, Boxer, Nelson (FL), Brown, Harkin, Lincoln, Wyden, Baucus, Klobuchar, Kaufman, Shaheen, Lautenberg (switched from no to yes), Menendez, Stabenow, Leiberman, Levin, McCaskill, Reid, Feinstein, Udall, Bennet (CO) Merkley, Cantwell, Dorgan, Schumer…

Durbin was a no. I’ll have the rest soon.

The final roll call vote – amendment passes 83-7. I’ll post the full roll when it’s up on the Senate site.

This is the beginning, not the end.

The Dems are finally, finally on the defensive on ACORN.

Republicans, keep digging and pushing and connecting the dots.


Update: Here are the ignominious ACORN sex ring enablers….

Burris (D-IL)
Casey (D-PA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Leahy (D-VT)
Sanders (I-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

Full roll call vote here. 9 not voting…

Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Coburn (R-OK)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hutchison (R-TX)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Vitter (R-LA)


Here’s a reminder of why McCain is such a flakeout on ACORN: REMEMBER?

Update: Several readers note that McCain and Graham were at a town hall event in S.C. at the Citadel earlier today. Still doesn’t excuse McCain’s alliance with ACORN on open borders. Also, the town hall was at 9am. Not clear whether they were already back in D.C. or not by the time the amendment hit the Senate floor after 5pm Eastern earlier this evening.

Understanding ‘Angry Mobs’

Understanding ‘Angry Mobs’

By Mike Grady

Liberals are having difficulty understanding the grass roots opposition to President Obama’s plans for the government takeover of the health care industry, as well as the President’s loss of support since his election.  Equally disconcerting to liberals was the massive turnout on September 12th to protest a Federal government that is too big, too intrusive, and far too corrupt.  As one who attended the September 12th rally at the Capitol, let me offer liberals the following explanation for what is happening.     

Legendary football coach Vince Lombardi said, “Fatigue makes cowards out of all of us.”  And what are the American people these days if not fatigued?  Bombarded with bad news from the 24-hour news cycle, is it any wonder that the American people are exhausted? Consider a few examples.

An estimated fifty trillion dollars or more in investor wealth is lost in a matter of weeks in the stock market collapse.  Meanwhile a few speculators, Wall Street executives, and maybe even some of America’s own politicians make out like bandits.  The result is that the American people rightly wonder why they should bother to work hard, put money in a 529 college fund, a 401(k) retirement plan, or save for a new car if it can all be wiped away in the blink of an eye. And Americans are fatigued.

Americans are told the H1N1 swine flu virus is coming and there is little they can do to protect themselves.  And Americans are scared.

A young girl is kidnapped and held captive for 18 years, repeatedly raped, made to live in a tent, and forced to be a mother to two children when she was still a child herself.   Americans wonder how they can possibly protect their children from such evil.  And Americans are afraid.

The Associated Press publishes a photograph of a heroic young Marine taken while he lay dying on a battlefield far from home, ignoring pleas from the young Marine’s parents, the United States Marine Corps, and requests from the Secretary of Defense not to publish the photo.  Concurrently, op-ed pieces in any number of news publications detail how the war in Afghanistan is lost, or that no matter the outcome, confronting America’s enemies can’t possibly be worth the sacrifice anyway.  As a consequence, the American people question their commitment to confront Islamic terrorism and their solemn duty to pursue America’s enemies far from her shores.  And Americans are drained.

Medicare and Medicaid, to say nothing of Social Security, are bankrupt and the American people are told the only hope to sustain them is to accept yet another government-run healthcare program that promises even greater encroachment on their most personal freedoms.  And if the American people dare to object, their own elected officials and broadcasters on the evening news label them Nazis, Brown Shirts, racists, and right-wing domestic terrorists. And the American people are shattered.

The list of attacks on the American conscience is endless.  There is no doubt that the American people are fatigued and as Vince Lombardi well knew, fatigue makes cowards of us all.  More importantly however, it is cowardice that the Left relies on to impose its will.

The American people have endured a decades-long effort to discredit their values and belief system and relentless attempts to make them believe their history is worthy of ridicule.  The mugging began years ago with attacks on Judeo-Christian values and accusations of intolerance.  It continues today with the President giving speeches overseas decrying American excess, ignorance, and arrogance, and culminates at home with political infighting over outrageous borrowing and spending by the members of Congress.  Now with majorities in both the House and the Senate and control of the White House, liberals believe the ultimate goal to fundamentally change the Nation (or destroy it in the process) is finally within reach.

In the nick of time however, the American people have shaken off their shared fatigue.  Try as they might, the majority of the American people simply cannot reconcile their own view of America with the views of liberals who want to radically change the Nation.  In spite of the Left’s efforts to convince them otherwise, the American people know without question that the United States has been the greatest force for good the world has ever known. Americans know that a strong, albeit imperfect, America isn’t just good for Americans, but for the rest of the world as well.

More Americans are wiser now too and many now recognize the tactics the Left will employ to advance their agenda.  More Americans finally understand that Leftists will refuse to argue the facts and will never accept responsibility for their own policies.  For example, they will never acknowledge that crime, abortion, out of wedlock births, welfare claims, drug use, and a countless list of other social ills occur most often in areas where Democrats have had a lock on the political landscape for decades.  When challenged, liberals will do their best to change the subject.  Anyone who disagrees with liberal objectives will be shouted out of the room or otherwise intimidated.  Ultimately, anyone who opposes the liberal agenda will be labeled a racist, a Nazi, or worse. 


It is a formidable defense that Americans have been reluctant to engage, but they have had enough.  From the financial meltdown to bailouts, from stimulus packages, to TARP, TARP II, and TARP III, from Cap and Trade to health care reform, the American people have had it with corrupt government.  And they know too that the endless stream of “news” that inundates their daily lives is a deliberate attempt to beat them down.

After decades of abuse at the hands of the Left, the American people can clearly see the great and gathering political storm on the horizon.  Two opposing forces will collide and the outcome will be critical to the future of America.  On one side there is a corrupt, elitist political machine, the embodiment of politics in America.  On the other side are the troubled, but still free people of the United States of America.  The growing opposition to all things government is America’s recognition that it requires courage, not cowardice, to preserve freedom.  That liberals either cannot, or do not want to see it coming speaks to their willingness to believe that if Americans are fatigued enough, they will lack the courage to fight back against a Leftist agenda.

The electorate is weary from the unceasing attacks on the American sense of right and wrong.  But make no mistake; the American people will rest to clear their collective head.  While resting, perhaps Americans will further befuddle their liberal tormentors and take comfort in the words from the book of Psalms, Chapter 3, a suggestion that prior to the liberal ambush of American values would have been considered mainstream. 

Lord, so many are against me.  So many seek to harm me. I have  so many enemies.  So many say that God will never help me.  But Lord, you are my shield, my glory, and my only hope.  You alone can lift my head, now bowed in shame.

Then I lay down and slept in peace and woke up safely, for the Lord was watching over me.  And now, although ten thousand enemies surround me on every side, I am not afraid. 

The Psalms isn’t meant to be a gratuitous biblical reference, but rather is meant to serve notice that Americans no longer care what politicians and a complicit media think of them.   Americans are among the most benevolent people on earth, but they are tired of being mocked and lampooned for deeply held opinions and beliefs.  Instinctively, Americans have always embraced their solemn duty to fight for freedom.  Not easily provoked and slow to anger, the American people have always fought for what is right once called into action.  It should therefore come as no surprise to anyone, least of all liberals that Americans are protesting in waves.

What politicians in general and liberals in particular don’t understand is that no matter how fatigued Americans might be, Coach Lombardi’s paradigm simply does not apply.  Fatigued?  Yes of course, many times and perhaps even still.  But never have the American people been cowards.  Elitist politicians don’t understand what is happening because they don’t want to understand it.  Whether they figure it out in time to save their own political hides, or not, is immaterial. The political storm is gathering.  When it hits, my money will be on the American people. 

Page Printed from: at September 15, 2009 – 09:47:23 AM EDT

Fearing Obama

Fearing Obama

By J.R. Dunn

“Never take counsel of your fears.”
  — George S. Patton,  War as I Knew It
One of the more puzzling aspects of the public reaction to the ascension of Barack Obama is the abject fear, bordering on sheer terror that he arouses in certain conservative circles.


The internment camps, we’re told, are already in operation, ready for dissenters and rebels, in particular AT readers. Swine flu is a bogus crisis, worked up in order to provide an excuse to put the country under martial law. We have ACORN, which is about to be issued with brown shirts, coal-scuttle helmets, and rubber truncheons before being sent to clear the streets (that is, if they can be dragged out of the whorehouses). Organizing for America, effectively Obama’s personal fan club, is to be transformed into the equivalent of Cuba’s block organizations at best, and the Red Guard or Khmer Rouge at worst.


Then we get to Obama himself. He has been described as an American Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, the Antichrist, and a cyborg sent back in time by Skywatch to keep an eye on Gov. Arnold (Okay, I admit it – I made that one up). He’s out to undermine the Constitution, transform the country into a third-world state, overturn the republican system of government, and ignite a civil war. What’s more, he has the power to do this in a matter of months. It won’t require even a full term of office — if he’s allowed to remain president for even another year, it’ll be too late. The country will be gone, one with Babylon and Tyre, a glowing legend dropping over the horizon of time.


Pretty impressive coming from a community organizer.


We know a lot about dictators. We know a lot about them because they have been thick on the ground for the last century or so. The 20th century was the epoch of the tyrants, the “booted commandos”, as the historian Jakob Burckhardt called them. They very nearly ran the world off the rails, coming within two battles (Midway and El Alamein) of boxing up the Western democracies. They killed hundreds of millions and turned venerable nations across the globe into wastelands. Considering the damage they caused, we ought to know them a lot better than we do


They all came out of the same box, mentally adroit, emotionally unbalanced, physically tough. They grew up in disrupted and often dysfunctional families. They were usually outcasts or misfits, living as bums (Hitler), professional agitators (Lenin, Trotsky, and Mussolini), or criminals (Stalin). They often served as soldiers (Hitler and Mussolini), an experience which burned the last remnants of humanity out of them. This provides one explanation — though not a complete one — for the universal uniform fetish. They were emotionally isolated, viewing humanity as an enemy camp, with only a small group of acolytes worthy of trust. They were paranoid to the point of insanity, unremittingly brutal, often enjoying the torture of their opponents. (Hitler watched films of the July 20 conspirators being executed, while Stalin played endless mind games with his prey.) Commonly autodidacts with no formal education and contempt for actual expertise, they commenced projects beyond the capabilities of their eras and began wars somebody else had to finish — usually over the dictator’s own dead bodies. They appear to have been uniformly obsessed with apocalyptic fantasies. They tended to deteriorate mentally and physically with shocking swiftness — witness Lenin’s strokes, Mussolini’s hypochondria, Hitler’s medical obsessions and drug addiction, and Stalin’s bottle-a-day vodka habit.


Now let’s submit Obama to the checklist. Egomaniacal, check. Disrupted family life, check. No formal education… misfit… soldier… physically tough… apocalyptic obsessions… Whoa… where’d we go wrong here? Nothing fits… When we compare Obama to the historical type of the dictator, it simply doesn’t come together. Can anyone picture Obama in military fatigues? As we say in Internetland, ROTFLMAO. 


With actual tyrants we get decisiveness, aggressiveness, complete control of government, and a strict ruling hierarchy. With Obama, we get lollygagging, lack of attention, key projects such as the stimulus, cap & trade, and health care farmed out to the likes of Van Jones, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and Zeke Emmanuel, none of whom appear to be reporting to anybody, and a general air of offhandedness. Obama appears to have an undergraduate’s conception of how serious work is accomplished: he has all the great ideas; somebody else does the heavy lifting.


Obama has been repeatedly embarrassed over the period of the summer — cap and trade held hostage, town hall meetings in which his party was slowly roasted over the coals, the defenestration of Van Jones, and being called a liar in front of the Congress, on national television to boot. Yet to my knowledge, not a single one of Obama’s enemies — not even Joe Wilson — has yet been tossed behind barbed wire. The thug dictators would not have been so laggard. Mussolini would have had them beaten within an inch of their lives, Hitler would have dumped them in a camp, and Stalin would have sent them to the Arctic, along with everybody they ever met just to make sure. Obama lacks this level — and perhaps any level — of brutality, cruelty, and viciousness, or even the ruthlessness of the more benign run of authoritarian leader such as Kemal or Mannerheim. If he answered my want ad for “Murderous Tyrant”, I’d take one look and tell him, “We’ll be in touch.”


(Breaking news concerns the million-plus 9/12 marchers searching Washington for politicians to tar and feather. And the Grand Seigneur was where last Saturday? In Minnesota, on a speaking trip that I’m sure had been planned for quite some time. In contrast, when a large-scale anti-Vietnam march descended on Washington in 1971, Richard M. Nixon, nobody’s hero figure, left the White House to go among the marchers, discussing matters with them until late at night.) 


It’s true that he does like to play the Dear Leader role. The national speech to schoolchildren was right out of the Mussolini and Peron handbook, while the “lesson plans” and quotations of the One’s wisdom recommended for classroom use come direct from Stalin and Mao. But it’s all theater, of a piece with his epoch-making speeches that never seem to contain a quotable line and revolutionary programs that can’t quite get rolling.


In truth, with his community organizer’s view of the world, the figure that Obama most resembles is Harry Hopkins, right-hand man to FDR and New Deal figurehead. Hopkins was a career social worker who after a lifetime spent in that thankless grind developed a patronizing attitude toward the poor and a burning hatred for the well-to-do. Under the New Deal, he attempted to turn this cheerful vision into reality, to transform the United States into a vast charity waiting room, with every citizen a welfare client. But he lacked both the power and ability to bring it off, even considering his admiration and familiarity with the tyrants of the era. Hopkins became very close to Stalin, for whom he simply could not do enough. (The KGB’s Lubianka headquarters featured a large portrait honoring Hopkins until the end of the Cold War.)


All this is a strong indication that conservatives have not yet taken the measure of their opponent. It’s telling that the most serious blow to Obama’s plans, this summer’s town hall uprising, was a pure grassroots effort, arising from voters disgusted with the administration’s plans and less than overwhelmed by melodramatic visions of barbed wire and interrogation chambers. The ensuing march on Washington somehow came off without being met by flamethrowers, nerve gas, or helicopter gunships.


The popular impulse of the 9/12 marchers will fade if not given direction and purpose. But it’s awful hard to provide those when you’re hiding under the bed. We need to sit down, take a deep breath, and look closely at Obama and his collection of goofs without fears or illusions. What we will see is no political Godzilla but a hack pol elected to a position well above his abilities and trying to trigger a national social revolution using cheap Chicago ward-style political tactics. This man is vulnerable. He is not a nail-hard military tyrant or a glowing-eyed cyborg. He can be tripped up with ease. But you can’t trip anybody if you’re running from your own shadow. 


If I wanted to discredit the conservative movement, I’d publish a selection of the more hysteria-sodden comments concerning the Devil’s own community organizer, many of them originating from influential and widely-read opinion leaders. (And perhaps some clever left-wing media figure is doing that right now.) The truth is this: the impulse that governs Obama is the same one that causes weedy, bespectacled college sophomores to play at being fierce revos. How scary is that?


What really should worry us is how Big O and his sideshow ménage will handle the disasters that will pop up tomorrow, next week, or after new years, but will inevitably pop up. Can you imagine Obama trying to handle 9/11 or Katrina? That’s nightmare country. And also another story.

Page Printed from: at September 15, 2009 – 09:45:06 AM EDT

The Immigration Cure –our healthcare problem is greatly exacerbated by mass immigration

The Immigration Cure
By: Virgil Goode
Tuesday, September 15, 2009


To fix health care, first fix the broken immigration system.

Like virtually every issue that faces the nation, our healthcare problem is greatly exacerbated by mass immigration—both legal and illegal.


A total of 43 percent of non-citizens lack health insurance, compared to just 12.7 percent of native-born Americans. These uninsured immigrants impose huge strains on our healthcare system that helped create the crisis we currently face. 

Plenty of analysts and commentators have exposed how illegal aliens will receive healthcare under ObamaCare. They point out that while the House version of the plan, H.R. 3200, claims to prohibit illegal aliens from receiving benefits, the Democrats repeatedly blocked amendments that would screen for the illegals. Steve Camorata of the Center for Immigration Studies recently estimated that 6.6 million illegal aliens will be eligible for public healthcare if the bill passes.

This is an outrage for hardworking Americans, but I’d like to focus on two other important but largely ignored aspects of our immigration crisis that will cost taxpayers billions of dollars if Obama’s healthcare boondoggle is passed.  

The first is birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The Amendment was passed for the sole purpose of granting freed slaves and their children citizenship. Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan who introduced the Amendment stated that it “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.”

But the obvious intent, as well as the “subject to jurisdiction thereof” clause, is ignored by federal policy that gives children of illegal aliens born in the United States automatic citizenship.

What does this have to do with the healthcare debate? Under H.R. 3200, only one family member needs to be eligible for government healthcare. After that, the whole family can get free healthcare. The Congressional Research Service acknowledged,

There could be instances where some family members would meet the definition of an eligible individual for purposes of the credit, while other family members would not… H.R. 3200 does not expressly address how such a situation would be treated. Therefore, it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families.


This means that if a family of illegal aliens has one child after they arrive, their “anchor baby,” a U.S. citizen, could make the entire family eligible for tax-funded healthcare. This would likely incite public opposition, but it’s easy to imagine where Obama’s handpicked “health czar” would come down on the issue.

Another problem that makes the healthcare bill problematic is our policy of legal immigration. America annually accepts approximately one million legal immigrants in addition to the flood of illegal aliens. Most of these immigrants come through the process of chain migration, whereby legal immigrants and U.S. citizens sponsor family members. The process has spirals out of control until everyone’s cousin is eligible, regardless of professional skills or what they can contribute to this country.

Steve Camarota has analyzed the effect of all immigrants, both legal and illegal, as well as their US-born children on health insurance. Camarota found that this group comprises up to one third of all the uninsured in America. Compared to the native born population, they are twice as likely to be uninsured, and twice as likely to be on Medicaid.

In an attempt to partially alleviate the burden chain migration places on social services, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act made some requirements that the sponsors of immigrants be financially responsible for the immigrants. Indeed most welfare programs have some limitations on non-citizens. But under H.R. 3200, new immigrants who are supposed to be supported by a sponsor can get tax-funded healthcare. They can even sponsor more immigrants!

Writing at the immigration restrictionist website, former Hudson Institute economist Ed Rubenstein estimates that legal immigrants and their children will be responsible for 78 percent of all increased healthcare costs by 2050, totaling 1.2 trillion dollars.

Unlike illegal aliens, anchor babies and legal immigrants did not break any laws. We should not demonize them, but we should not ignore the huge fiscal burden they impose on our already stretched economy.

Fixing our broken healthcare system is not easy, but making some basic changes to our immigration policy is. Securing our borders, enforcing our laws, ending birthright citizenship and chain migration, and reducing our levels of legal immigration; would do much more to lower healthcare costs than any government program.

Before America embarks on healthcare reform, we should either fix these problems in our immigration system, or at least put adequate safeguards to prevent immigrants from receiving even more free benefits at the expense of the US taxpayer.

Virgil Goode represented Virginia’s 5th Congressional District from 1997 until 2005