Edwards Would Force You to Go To The Doctor

Democrats always claim that President Bush and the Republicans are taking away their freedoms. You know, they’re doing crazy stuff like monitoring questionable financial transactions from people they’ve been monitoring for a while. And then there’s those damn wiretapping suspected-terrorist phone calls. Yet, they go out and support a man who would force you to go to the doctor. Not recommend. Force. That’s freedom?

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

“It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,” he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. “If you are going to be in the system, you can’t choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.”

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat “the first trace of problem.”

Hear that ladies? You want to get an abortion? That’s up to you. You want to decide not to go to the doctor? He’ll force ya to. Oh the freedom! How much is this craptastic, freedom-sucking, socialist medical plan going to cost Americans each year? According to Edwards, who lives in his own world, over $120 billion a year. How will he pay for this? Why, by ending Bush’s tax cuts, of course!

Craptastic! So craptastic, that even the Associated Press stops just short of calling Edwards a hypocrite, reminding people of his idiocy on SUVs. (Edwards, who wants you to give yours up, owns 2).

NYT: “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” in Constitution

Note: Commentators John Plunket, BarrySanders20, and The Den Mother point out that the 14th Amendment gives “life, liberty, and property”. Something comical to think over: BarrySanders20 points out:

Can you imagine the mischief that could be created through judicial interpretation of a “happiness” clause in the 14th Amendment?

I shudder to think.

Note: This wasn’t just an opinion piece. It comes straight from the Editors:

It is an eminently good thing that the anti-suicide measure would require medical specialists to keep track of veterans found to be high risks for suicide. But that’s to care for them as human beings, under that other constitutional rightto life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Respect for the grave sacrifices by veterans requires the Senate to strike down the Coburn ploy and hurry this vital measure to President Bush.

Oy vey. Attention Editors: “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is in the Declaration of Independence, among the inalienable rights of man – not the Constitution. Being a “constitutional right” would imply that it is in, you guessed it, the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment gives the right to the pursuit of happiness, and consequently to privacy. However, all three are not a constitutional right together.

Remember, though, we need to leave the real reporting up to the real media outlets, like the New York Times. We simply don’t have their fact-checking capabilities.

H/t Glenn Reynolds.

Update: Welcome to my fellow InstaPundit readers! Pull up a bar stool and grab a beer.

Judge Who Blocked Wisconsin Union Law Has Union Activist Son

The judge who blocked an anti-union law passed by Wisconsin’s state legislature has a union activist son.

Jake Sinderbrand, son of Judge Maryann Sumi and her apparent husband Carl Sinderbrand, has worked for the AFL-CIO and SEIU.

He has developed his professional political experience serving as a lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and as data manager for the SEIU State Council through the 2008 election cycle.

That’s from his profile at the appropriately-named Left Field Strategies.

Sinderbrand also has a Facebook page. His profile picture there is a parody image of Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) with the words “DOPE” as a caption. His wall consists mostly of pro-union shilling and anti-Republican attacks. He calls Walker stupid, slams the Tea Party, refers to Republicans as “fuckers”, and counts down the days until Walker is “recalled”.

Perhaps this provides a bit of context for his mother’s decision to block the law. Wisconsin Republicans insist they followed procedure when following the law, and in fact consulted parliamentarians and lawyers before voting. Sumi went and blocked the law, insisting they pass it again — now that the fleebaggers have returned — before she considers letting it stand.

Sumi has a clear conflict of interest. The national media should be inquiring as to whether she’s really in a position to be blocking laws her closest family members clearly despise and want thrown out for political and economic interests.

Pentagon: New York Times Working With Wikileaks

Two questions:

1) Why isn’t Julian Assange room temperature?

2) Why isn’t the New York Times taking flack for helping to release confidential national security documents that place American lives at risk?

The Pentagon has also told the US Senate and House armed services committees that the New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel “are each currently working with WikiLeaks to co-ordinate the release of the documents”.

Do note that all three outlets are leftist publications. Isn’t it odd how you can always count on left-wingers to be there when information damaging to the entire United States is being leaked? Funny that.

Obama: I Chose My Friends Carefully… Marxist Professors and Structural Feminists

In his memoir Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama admits that he chose his friends carefully. He even says that those friends included Marxist professors. I’ve included the transcript immediately below and the video below that:

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.

The video (audio, actually) runs 17 seconds in length. I’m sure his supporters will insist that because it’s not an hour and a half long, it’s out of context. They’ll always claim that of something potentially damaging to The One.

So he takes issue with reporters connecting a stance of his to Marxists, yet admitted that he actively sought out Marxists as his friends and associates?

CNN Tells Journalists to Be Kind to Castro

Yes, that Castro. The Natural Truth had earlier reported on it, and now Babalu Blog has the full email.

From: Flexner, Allison
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:46 AM
To: *CNN Superdesk (TBS)
Cc: Neill, Morgan; Darlington, Shasta
Subject: Castro guidance

Some points on Castro – for adding to our anchor reads/reporting:

* Please say in our reporting that Castro stepped down in a letter he wrote to Granma (the communist party daily), as opposed to in a letter attributed to Fidel Castro. We have no reason to doubt he wrote his resignation letter, he has penned numerous articles over the past year and a half.

* Please note Fidel did bring social reforms to Cuba – namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration. in addition to being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech.

* Also the Cuban government blames a lot of Cuba’s economic problems on the US embargo, and while that has caused some difficulties, (far less so than the collapse of the Soviet Union) the bulk of Cuba’s economic problems are due to Cuba’s failed economic polices. Some analysts would say the US embargo was a benefit to Castro politically – something to blame problems on, by what the Cubans call “the imperialist,” meddling in their affairs.

* While despised by some, he is seen as a revolutionary hero, especially with leftist in Latin America, for standing up to the United States.

Any questions, please call the international desk.

Allison

Allison Flexner is, as confirmed by a Google search, a producer for CNN. She’s covered Cuban events before, and has been seen elsewhere at CNN. Here’s a profile at Spoke, which confirms Flexner’s employment at CNN in Atlanta.

Wouldn’t want to portray a dictator in a negative ligh, now would we?

Iranian Despot to Speak at Columbia University

Why, of course. The kids there probably consider him a reasonable voice against the “Jewish lobby”, Bush’s “fascist state”, and the “wars we’re fighting for the Zionists”.

Also today, the president of Columbia University, Lee C. Bollinger, announced that Mr. Ahmadinejad would speak at the university on Monday.

Last year he withdrew an invitation for the Iranian despot to speak:

In September 2006, the dean of Columbia University’s school of international and public affairs invited Mr. Ahmadinejad to speak at the school’s World Leaders Forum, but the university’s president, Mr. Bollinger, withdrew the invitation, saying he was not certain that an appearance by Mr. Ahmadinejad would “reflect the academic values” of the event.

Apparently having a man that denies the Holocaust, calls for the extermination of Jews, sends weapons to Iraq to kill our troops, funds terrorist groups and is considered a state sponsor of terror, fits this year’s event.

However, if fellow American citizens call for our immigration laws to actually be enforced, they’re driven off of the stage.

Pentagon Shooter Was 9/11 Truther, Anti-Bush

I say was because he’s dead. Just goes to show you opening fire near the main entrance to the center of the world’s most powerful military isn’t a good idea. But then again, this guy was a nutjob.

His name was John Patrick Bedell, 36, and he was a 9/11 Truther and anti-Bush nut. Here’s a posting from him back in 2006:

This criminal organization would use its powers to convert military, intelligence, and law enforcement bureaucracies into instruments for political control, and the domination and subjection of society, while discrediting, destroying, and murdering honest individuals within those services, that work to root out corruption, and faithfully serve their fellow citizens. This organization, like so many murderous governments throughout history, would see the sacrifice of thousands of its citizens in an event such as the September 11 attacks, as a small cost in order to perpetuate its barbaric control. This collection of gangsters would find it in their interest to foment conflict and initiate wars throughout the world, in order to divert attention from their misconduct and criminality. The true nature of such a regime would find its clearest expression in the satanic violence currently ongoing in Iraq.

To point out the dreadfully obvious, this posting was under the Bush Administration. So he’s blasting President Bush and the war in Iraq. He’s also blaming the former for perpetrating the 9/11 attacks.

Furthermore, Patterico found his Amazon wish list. Amongst the books Bedell desired?

The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family

and

Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America

In case you couldn’t tell, both pieces of “literature” are vehemently anti-Bush. This guy was no Tea Partier, though the media will undoubtedly attempt to paint him as one.

There’s good news to report out of this whole mess. The only individual who’ll spend a night in the morgue is the shooter, Bedell, himself. The two officers were taken to GWU with non-life-threatening injuries and are expected to recovery.

David Gregory Rushes to Defend Obama, Fails Utterly

The new Meet The Press host rushes to defend Barack Obama from charges of stabbing Israel in the back. He says Obama’s position reflects “prominent views” in Israel of what the country ought to accept (1967 borders). So Joe Scarborough asks Gregory to name a single public figure in Israel who has backed up the president’s position.

Response: Stuttering.

Gregory can’t name a single public figure in Israel who takes the same position as Barack Obama. He instead reverts to unspecified “commentary” in the unspecified “press” within the country. Examples offered? None. Not one.

Here’s the transcript:

DAVID GREGORY, “MEET THE PRESS” HOST: I just want to make a point here. Joe, I disagree with you. This is not just the view of the White House in terms of what they think Israel ought to accept. This also reflects prominent views within Israel that this speech was actually good news for the Israeli government for some of the points that have already been laid out here…

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Obviously, we talked about earlier, on the minds of a lot of people inside the White House and the state department is the U.N. vote coming up this fall, David, and this is seen as leverage obviously for that. We’ve talked about that. But you said this is also seen as good news for some in Israel. What major Israeli public figures have come out supporting the President’s speech?

GREGORY: Well, I (stammers), I don’t think there have been major public figures that have, but some of the commentary that’s coming out of (stammers) the commentary in the press there and others who are looking at the situation are, are recognizing that some of these factors diplomatically are actually positive for Netanyahu.

“Some of the commentary” that’s coming from unnamed “press”. Why, that’s exactly like “prominent views”. Except, you know, not.

Gregory is in such a rush to cover for his boyfriend’s failings that he steps in a pile he can’t pull himself from. In fact, Gregory even admits that he doesn’t think there have been major public figures backing Obama’s plan, and in fact it’s just some people in the unspecified “press”. He ends up looking like a fool.

Meanwhile in reality, longtime Democrat Ed Koch says he’s done with his party, thanks in no small part to Obama’s abandoning of Israel. But don’t worry, because David Gregory says “prominent” individuals in Israel support Obama’s plan. Spoiler alert: Those “prominent” people exist only in David Gregory’s head.

NYT: Obama Ignored Own Lawyers on Libya

Barack Obama overruled his own top lawyers when it came to his power to wage war in Libya — something he has done in violation of the War Powers Resolution and United States Constitution by not receiving approval from Congress.

That’s from a New York York Times “News Alert”. More information as it becomes available.

Update: Here we go. Basically, he sided with his personal and partisan lawyers close to his administration over the top legal teams at the Pentagon and Justice Department.

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Koh and Bauer are both known for their left-wing, partisan political positions. And it seems as if the Obama Administration knew where it was going from the get-go:

The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

Instead, in this case, the Office of Legal Counsel was asked to submit its thoughts in a “less formal way” — I guess leaving less of a traceable trail should the request come to light.

Obama then made his decision, which was to side with his personal and partisan lawyers at the White House and State Department– who told him what he wanted to hear — over those at the Pentagon and Justice Department.

Update X2: Something big I missed: Attorney General Eric Holder agreed with the Office of Legal Counsel’s finding. Let me stress this: Obama ignored the legal opinion of his top lawyer at the Pentagon, the top lawyer at the Office of Legal Counsel, and his own Attorney General. Instead he decided to search for the legal opinion he wanted and went with that. He opinion-shopped.