Sunstein: Governments must fund abortion–CZAR WARS


Sunstein: Governments must fund abortion

complete article

Declares ‘no problem’ forcing taxpayers with religious, moral conflict


By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Cass Sunstein

TEL AVIV – The government should be required to fund abortion in cases such as rape or incest, argues President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

“I have argued that the Constitution … forbids government from refusing to pay the expenses of abortion in cases of rape or incest, at least if government pays for childbirth in such cases,” Sunstein wrote in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution.”

In the book, obtained and reviewed by WND, Sunstein sets forth a radical new interpretation of the Constitution. The book contains a chapter entitled “It’s the government’s money” in which Sunstein strongly argues the government should be compelled to fund abortions for women victimized by rape or incest.

The Obama czar posits that funding only childbirth but not abortion “has the precise consequence of turning women into involuntary incubators

In Bad Times for Capitalism, Socialists in Europe Suffer

In Bad Times for Capitalism, Socialists in Europe Suffer


PARIS — A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of Socialism’s slow collapse.

Even in the midst of one of the greatest challenges to capitalism in 75 years, involving a breakdown of the financial system due to “irrational exuberance,” greed and the weakness of regulatory systems, European Socialist parties and their left-wing cousins have not found a compelling response, let alone taken advantage of the right’s failures.

German voters clobbered the Social Democratic Party on Sunday, giving it only 23 percent of the vote, its worst performance since World War II.

Voters also punished left-leaning candidates in the summer’s European Parliament elections and trounced French Socialists in 2007. Where the left holds power, as in Spain and Britain, it is under attack. Where it is out, as in France, Italy and now Germany, it is divided and listless.

Some American conservatives demonize President Obama’s fiscal stimulus and health care overhaul as a dangerous turn toward European-style Socialism — but it is Europe’s right, not left, that is setting its political agenda.

Europe’s center-right parties have embraced many ideas of the left: generous welfare benefits, nationalized health care, sharp restrictions on carbon emissions, the ceding of some sovereignty to the European Union. But they have won votes by promising to deliver more efficiently than the left, while working to lower taxes, improve financial regulation, and grapple with aging populations.

Europe’s conservatives, says Michel Winock, a historian at the Paris Institut d’Études Politiques, “have adapted themselves to modernity.” When Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Germany’s Angela Merkel condemn the excesses of the “Anglo-Saxon model” of capitalism while praising the protective power of the state, they are using Socialist ideas that have become mainstream, he said.

It is not that the left is irrelevant — it often represents the only viable opposition to established governments, and so benefits, as in the United States, from the normal cycle of electoral politics.

In Portugal, the governing Socialists won re-election on Sunday, but lost an absolute parliamentary majority. In Spain, the Socialists still get credit for opposing both Franco and the Iraq war. In Germany, the broad left, including the Greens, has a structural majority in Parliament, but the Social Democrats, in postelection crisis, must contemplate allying with the hard left, Die Linke, which has roots in the old East German Communist Party.

Part of the problem is the “wall in the head” between East and West Germans. While the Christian Democrats moved smoothly eastward, the Social Democrats of the West never joined with the Communists. “The two Germanys, one Socialist, one Communist — two souls — never really merged,” said Giovanni Sartori, a professor emeritus at Columbia University. “It explains why the S.P.D., which was always the major Socialist party in Europe, cannot really coalesce.”

The situation in France is even worse for the left. Asked this summer if the party was dying, Bernard-Henri Lévy, an emblematic Socialist, answered: “No — it is already dead. No one, or nearly no one, dares to say it. But everyone, or nearly everyone, knows it.” While he was accused of exaggerating, given that the party is the largest in opposition and remains popular in local government, his words struck home.

The Socialist Party, with a long revolutionary tradition and weakening ties to a diminishing working class, is riven by personal rivalries. The party last won the presidency in 1988, and in 2007, Ségolène Royal lost the presidency to Mr. Sarkozy by 6.1 percent, a large margin.

With a reputation for flakiness, Ms. Royal narrowly lost the party leadership election last year to a more doctrinaire Socialist, Martine Aubry, by 102 votes out of 135,000. The ensuing allegations of fraud further chilled their relations.

While Ms. Royal would like to move the Socialists to the center and explore a more formal coalition with the Greens and the Democratic Movement of François Bayrou, Ms. Aubry fears diluting the party. She is both famous and infamous for achieving the 35-hour workweek in the last Socialist government.

The French Socialist Party “is trapped in a hopeless contradiction,” said Tony Judt, director of the Remarque Institute at New York University. It espouses a radical platform it cannot deliver; the result leaves space for parties to its left that can take as much as 15 percent of the vote.

The party, at its summer retreat last month at La Rochelle, a coastal resort, still talked of “comrades” and “party militants.” Its seminars included “Internationalism at Globalized Capitalism’s Hour of Crisis.”

But its infighting has drawn ridicule. Mr. Sarkozy told his party this month that he sent “a big thank-you” to Ms. Royal, “who is helping me a lot,” and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a prominent European Green politician, said “everyone has cheated” in the Socialist Party and accused Ms. Royal of acting like “an outraged young girl.”

The internecine squabbling in France and elsewhere has done little to position Socialist parties to answer the question of the moment: how to preserve the welfare state amid slower growth and rising deficits. The Socialists have, in this contest, become conservatives, fighting to preserve systems that voters think need to be improved, though not abandoned.

“The Socialists can’t adapt to the loss of their basic electorate, and with globalism, the welfare state can no longer exist in the same way,” Professor Sartori said.

Enrico Letta, 43, is one of the hopes of Italy’s left, currently in disarray in the face of Silvio Berlusconi’s nationalist populism. “We have to understand that Socialism is an answer of the last century,” Mr. Letta said. “We need to build a center-left that is pragmatic, that provides an attractive alternative, and not just an opposition.”

Mr. Letta argues that Socialist policies will have to be transmuted into a more fluid form to allow an alliance with center, liberal and green parties that won’t be called “Socialist.”

Mr. Winock, the historian, said, “I think the left and Socialism in Europe still have work to do; they have a raison d’être, and they will have to rely more on environment issues.” Combined with continuing efforts to reduce income disparity, he said, “going green” may give the left more life.

Mr. Judt argues that European Socialists need a new message — how to reform capitalism, “recognizing the centrality of economic interest while displacing it from its throne as the only way of talking about politics.”

European Socialists need “to think a lot harder about what the state can and can’t do in the 21st century,” he said.

Not an easy syllabus. But without that kind of reform, Mr. Judt said, “I don’t think Socialism in Europe has a future; and given that it is a core constitutive part of the European democratic consensus, that’s bad news.”

ACORN’s Man in the White House

ACORN’s Man in the White House

Rick Moran
Another day, another revelation about ACORN’s influence in the Democratic party and the Obama administration.

This time, as Matthew Vadum informs us via the American Spectator , it’s a high level White House aide with ties to ACORN that go back more than a decade:

This power behind the throne is longtime ACORN operative Patrick Gaspard. He holds the title of White House political affairs director, the same title Karl Rove held in President Bush’s White House.

Evidence shows that years before he joined the Obama administration, Gaspard was ACORN boss Bertha Lewis’s political director in New York.

Lewis, the current “chief organizer” or CEO of ACORN, was head of New York ACORN from at least 1994 through 2008, when she took over as national leader of ACORN. With Gaspard at work in the White House, Lewis might as well be speaking to President Obama through an earpiece as he goes about his daily business ruining the country.

Erick Erickson of the website RedState recently did an excellent job explaining the relationship of Gaspard to Lewis and President Obama so I won’t take up space here recalling all his valuable insights. Suffice it to say Erickson reported that Gaspard figures prominently in Lewis’s rolodex, which Erickson has in his possession.

Skeptics among you may ask, How do we actually know the low-profile Gaspard, who prefers to work outside the public spotlight and who can hardly be found in Nexis searches at all, was Lewis’s right hand man?

Because Gaspard’s employment with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is acknowledged by no less an authority than ACORN founder Wade Rathke himself.

A guy with direct access to the president who spent years working shoulder to shoulder with the head of ACORN? Incredible.

Read the rest of Matthew’s story.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky

Page Printed from: at September 29, 2009 – 09:37:15 AM EDT

Are We Witnessing the Collapse of Liberalism?

Are We Witnessing the Collapse of Liberalism?

By J. Robert Smith

Less than a year into his presidency, Barack Obama’s world grows bleaker.  Liberalism’s world is bleaker.  At home and abroad, liberalism, as advanced by the President, is failing.  Are we witnessing the beginnings of another historic event, loosely comparable to the fall of communism twenty years ago?  Now the fall of liberalism?


Remember, at the beginning of the 1980s, no one would have predicted that by the decade’s close the Berlin Wall would fall, communism would be discredited and the Soviet Union would be less than a couple of years away from dissolution. 


Though no conservative worth his salt is surprised by liberalism’s shortcomings, the rapidity of its failure is surprising.  More importantly, it’s alarming, for though the effects of liberalism’s failure are damaging to us at home, they may prove terrible to us abroad. 


Step back to consider.  What’s working for Mr. Obama and the Democrats?


Despite the Democrats’ interventions, an anemic economy promises nothing more than a tepid recovery, if that.  Democrats are indebting the nation to the tune of trillions of dollars.  The greenback has been debased.  Serious inflation is coming, and that inflation will trigger another economic downturn, one that might be sharper and deeper than we’re now experiencing.


What commonsense American believes that mountains of debt and looming inflation are good for a struggling economy?  More to the point, if a party has a sober worldview and a solid grasp of recent history, how can it possibly legislate policies and spending that must have disastrous consequences?


Well, it can’t.  But Democrats can.  They long ago raised liberalism to dogma.  Reality is off-limits to the faithful.


The economic policies of Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter were disasters, culminating in bitter years of stagflation. Rather than learning from those calamitous years, and from the subsequent Reagan years, when the damage was undone and the economy righted, liberals stubbornly insist on another go, as if their earlier failures were simply a matter of flawed execution.       


Today, President Obama flirts with protectionism.  He recently slapped sanctions on Chinese tires to appease union bosses.  Free trade agreements with Colombia and other nations shamefully languish in Congress. Protectionism not only hurts consumers and producers, but could spark conflict abroad.


Evidently, currying favor with a key constituency — unions — is of greater importance to Mr. Obama than the economic and national security ramifications of protectionism.  The Smoot-Hawley Act, which built the economic equivalent of the Berlin Wall around the American economy, is increasingly understood as the trigger for the Great Depression.


History points to the advantages of open trade, not a closed economy.  Oddly, on this score, liberals are embracing Herbert Hoover.


The President’s advocacy of government-controlled healthcare is another testament to belief over reality.  In Canada and Great Britain, socialized medicine has proven to be expensive, inefficient, deficient (rationing) and, at best, mediocre.  Proposals for it here are proving to be broadly and intensely unpopular. Yet, the President forges ahead. 


In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid threatens to invoke an arcane budget resolution rule to pass healthcare reform if he can’t round up sixty votes to end debate to move the matter to a final vote.  Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who authored the budget resolution rule, has flatly stated that using it to pass healthcare reform would be a gross misapplication and a disturbing precedent.


But this is what liberals are down to: ignoring the will of the majority and bending rules to impose a takeover of healthcare on Americans.


A political party with principles and ideas that resonate with voters doesn’t need to ignore the people, nor does it need to resort to parliamentary chicanery to win a result.  It speaks tellingly of the weakness, not the strength, of modern liberals that they’re willing to end-run the popular will.


But it’s overseas where liberalism, as expressed through Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, poses great dangers to the Republic.  In truth, the question now isn’t will the United States pay a terrible price for the President’s policies, but when


Mr. Obama took to the world stage in January sporting sackcloth and ashes.  His public confessions for alleged American misdeeds and arrogance were designed to win the absolution of offended allies and enemies alike. 


The United States will no longer lead, Mr. Obama all but declared.  Instead, it will step down to join the crowd.  Good will and fellowship, dialogue and negotiation, accommodation and consensus, shall bring civility and peace to a fractious world. 


But reality, that cruel lover, has other ideas.  The President’s bended knee and olive branches are being met with sneers and cold contempt by rogues.  His measure has been taken, and he’s deemed weak.  And, by extension, so is liberalism, which governs his actions. 


The President unilaterally withdrew elements of missile defense from the Poles and Czechs.  His gesture was met immediately by the Russians with cool disdain.  The Russians, historically a brutal people with a taste for domination, see the President’s action as craven; it will embolden them to push for more concessions, perhaps concerning Georgia or even the Ukraine.  The Chinese are no less likely to test the President’s mettle.  Taiwan could be in China’s crosshairs.        


Mr. Obama’s pledge to shut down Gitmo — someday — met with plenty of applause from leftists here and overseas.  Yet the nation’s enemies were unmoved.  To their eyes, Gitmo was already Club Med.  Their enemies don’t get kid-glove treatment.  Yet another sure sign to them of presidential timidity. 


And this past week, President Obama managed a two-fer.  He waffled on his commitment to fight the “necessary war” in Afghanistan and, after his gauzy U.N. speech, was greeted with brazen defiance by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose nation, we’ve learned, has a secret second uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom.  Still more evidence that the Iranians plan on building unholy nuclear bombs. 


In response, all the President could do was retreat into legalism.  He said this:


“The Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.”


What any fair-minded observer sees is that the Iranians are demonstrating through deeds their intention to create nuclear weapons.  Their missile test over the weekend has nothing to do with “Atoms for Peace.”  Given their persistence, they don’t seem greatly deterred by the threat of slaps on the wrist in international courts or U.N. censure.  The mullahs are playing a tough game of chicken, one Mr. Obama and liberals are ill-equipped to play and win.


In less than nine months time, the time of Mr. Obama’s tenure, a bad economy remains bad, with the prospect of getting worse.  Overseas, the nation’s enemies, who only a short time ago feared us, now scheme to overtly or surreptitiously challenge us.  Our allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, some of whom resent our power, must confront an ugly question: What happens in a world absent sufficient projections of American power?


But make no mistake.  This is not only the faults and failings of a man, Barack Obama, but of the worldview and philosophy he embodies.  Liberalism in action is again proving to be a dismal and dangerous failure.  This time, though, its margin for error is greatly diminished.  Hence, the nation faces greater risks.    


The only way for liberalism to work is if it stops being liberalism.  What are the odds of that happening?

Page Printed from: at September 29, 2009 – 09:34:59 AM EDT

Obamas using schoolkids as junior lobbyists for Olympics

Michelle Malkin 

Obamas using schoolkids as junior lobbyists for Olympics

By Michelle Malkin  •  September 28, 2009 01:39 PM

The Obamas, Richard Daley, and little Olympics lobbyists. Photos via

Yes, they can. And yes, they did. The Obamas have wasted public schoolkids’ time as junior lobbyists for their Chicago cronies’ Olympics bid. More on that in a moment.

As a reminder: I noted last week that Obama had created a new “White House Olympics Office” earlier this summer. The White House has refused to disclose the budget and staffing of the office — but we do know that it is under the roof of the White House Office of Public Engagement, which is managed by chief Chicago Olympics bid cheerleader Valerie Jarrett.

On September 16, the White House Olympics Office and the Obamas hosted a special event and visit to two schools in the D.C. area to shill for the Chicago Olympics bid…under the guise of “service,” of course. Jarrett and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley joined the Obamas for the festivities:

WEDNESDAY: President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama
Host White House Event on Olympics, Paralympics and Youth Sport

White House event will promote Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Olympics, Highlight Administration Commitment to Service, Healthy Living and Youth Sport

WASHINGTON – On Wednesday, September 16, 2009, President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will host an event on the South Lawn of the White House with the White House Office on Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport, Chicago2016 and United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to promote Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics and highlight the Obama administration’s commitment to service, healthy living and youth sport.

The President and First Lady will be joined by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, representatives from Chicago2016, the USOC, United States Olympians and Paralympians, along with schoolchildren from local DC area schools to discuss the ideals of the Olympic movement and the Obama administration’s commitment to service and expanding access to healthy, constructive activities like sports for our nation’s children.

Two groups of Olympic athletes will visit DC area schools in the morning and travel back to the White House to join the President and First Lady, who will make remarks in the afternoon. These school visits are part of Athlete Ambassador, a service program set up by Chicago 2016 and World Sport Chicago where Olympians’ and Paralympians from across the country promote the values of the Olympic Movement by engaging youth in sport activities.

After the President and First Lady’s remarks at the White House, Chicago2016 representatives and the Olympic and Paralympic athletes will conduct sports demonstrations at the White House.

Last week, the Obama administration announced that the First Lady will lead the delegation to support Chicago’s bid at the host city election in Copenhagen on October 2, 2009. She will travel with Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to President Obama and Chair of the White House Office of Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport. In her role as First Lady, Mrs. Obama, who was born and raised on the South Side of Chicago, has been committed to bridging the gap between the White House and underserved communities around DC and across the country, and her trip to Copenhagen is an opportunity for the First Lady to carry this commitment to the international stage.

The President and First Lady’s event at the White House on Wednesday is open to the press. If you are a reporter but are not part of the White House Press Corps, you are more than welcome to cover; however, you must RSVP by 11:00 am ET Tuesday morning to be granted access to cover the event.

Details on the school visits and South Lawn event are below.


WHO: United States Olympic and Paralympic Athletes

WHAT: Visit to DC area schools to discuss the importance of service, healthy living and youth sport

WHERE: Sousa Middle School in Washington, DC and Lake Ridge Middle School in Woodbridge, VA

WHEN: Wednesday, September 16, 2009
9:00 AM ET

More reasons summer vacation will need to be cut short.