Columnist.
Jimmy Carter strikes again! The former President is not content having left office with high inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment. Nor is he content with having signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act -- strengthened by President Bill Clinton -- which played a major roll in the eventual housing market meltdown. Nor is he content with having cut the legs from under the Shah of Iran, which led to the establishment of the Islamic theocracy in Iran -- a state that pursues a nuclear weapon, funds the terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah, and continues to undermine the fledgling democracy of Iraq. Nor is he content -- as ex-President -- with writing a book in which he likened the state of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians to South Africa under apartheid. Now the former President claims the opposition to President Obama in general -- and his attempt at "health care reform" in particular -- stems from ... "racism"!
The scenario usually plays out this way. A white person says something about a nonwhite person -- a statement perceived as racially insensitive, purportedly reinforcing a stereotype, or otherwise considered racist. "Black leaders" or members of the "civil rights community" pitch a fit and make demands. Off with his head! The offender apologizes, denies that the comment reflects how he "truly feels," agrees to take racial sensitivity courses, grovels and then often ends up losing his job anyway. Recognizing and accepting that sometimes people say silly, stupid, illogical or disagreeable things won't do. Writing someone off as wrongheaded isn't enough. He or she must pay.
"Now I'm truly scared." A friend wrote this after she watched Fox News' Glenn Beck's series on the "alarming number of far-left radicals the President is surrounded by" -- referring to some of the President's special advisers and "czars." President Barack Obama, my friend tells me, is "a true left-winger." So, now she knows. She didn't know after the President signed the $800 billion so-called "stimulus program." She didn't know after government takeovers/bailouts of banks, insurance companies and auto companies.
Assisting the needy in health care is a "moral imperative" -- not a constitutional right. The two are as different as a squirt gun and an Uzi. If something is not permitted under our Constitution, the federal government simply cannot do it. Period. The Founding Fathers vigorously debated the role of the federal government and defined it in Article I, Section 8 -- spelling out the specific duties and obligations of the federal government. Most notably, this included providing a military for national security, coining money, establishing rules for immigration and citizenship, establishing rules for bankruptcy, setting up a postal system, establishing trademark and copyright rules, and setting up a legal system to resolves disputes, in addition to a handful of other matters.
"We spend more on health care than most other countries." "We need to bring costs down." To address these complaints, enter ObamaCare -- which may or may not include a "public option" or a taxpayer-assisted "co-op" to keep insurance companies "honest." But do countries with government-run health care succeed in retaining high quality while "bringing costs down"? What about England?
"For the first time in a long time," said one "Hispanic" man in the street interviewed on cable television, "I feel really proud." Others in the "Hispanic community" rejoiced as Sonia Sotomayor became the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in her statement at the beginning of Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, said: "Your nomination I view with a great sense of personal pride. You are indeed a very special woman. You have overcome adversity and disadvantages (emphasis added)." Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said, "Judge Sotomayor, you have overcome many obstacles (emphasis added) in your life that have given you an understanding of the daily realities and struggles faced by everyday people."
