His "Highness" or His "Highhandedness"?

Via Townhall.com

By David Limbaugh

The more we read about Obama’s health care scheme and his handling of it the more obvious his arrogance and contempt for the people become.

This is stunning behavior, really, for any administration (and his party), but especially one that holds itself out as a servant of the people and a model of transparency.

Just consider headlines from the past few days: “Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency: As a Candidate, President Obama Promised to Put Health Care Reform Negotiations on C-SPAN,” “White House REFUSES To Discuss Broken C-Span Promise,” “Dems Will Bypass Conference Committee To Get Health Care Passed,” “Sources: Obama, Dems to sidestep GOP on health care,” “Hatch: Healthcare bill ‘rich’ for challenges on constitutionality,” “AP sources: Obama OKs taxing high-end health plans,” “Obama Pushes for Quick Health Care Deal,” “Conference Committee Bypassed,” “House Will Vote on Pro-Abortion Senate Bill” and — get this one — “Pelosi: ‘There Has Never Been a More Open Process.’”

Seriously, who do these people think they are? No wonder they always assumed the worst of former President George W. Bush and then accused him of sinister motives he never had and actions he never committed. As I’ve noted before, they were projecting. They knew how they would behave if in power. Now, once again, they’re proving it.

Think about it. Obama promised at least eight times — memorialized in video recordings — that he would air health care debates and negotiations on C-SPAN for all to see. If you watch the videos, you’ll notice that he was even wearing that smug, self-righteous look as he made his deceitful pledge, as if to say: “When I take over, we are finally going to return power to the people. We’ll be open and transparent. We won’t behave as Washington politicians are used to behaving. We’re better than that. We’re morally superior.”

But now, his highness is not only not going to air the negotiations on television; he and his party are making sure to negotiate behind closed doors, period. Even the Republicans — you know, that other political party — will not be invited or permitted to participate in the discussions.

It gets worse. When pressed to respond to the open-and-shut claim that he deceived the people in promising a transparent process, he simply says — through his disgraceful surrogates — that he isn’t going to be bothered to discuss it. He doesn’t have to explain himself. He’s the messiah. Who are we to doubt — much less question — him?

Keep in mind, folks, that this is a bill the public has clearly indicated it does not want passed. Americans are not ready for socialized medicine. But Obama and his party don’t care. They are forcing it down our throats as quickly as they can, unilaterally — to borrow their favorite term to criticize President Bush’s foreign policy.

The White House is also being completely dismissive — another term Obama is fond of using, to describe the United States before he ascended to the throne — concerning legitimate questions about the constitutionality of Obamacare.

Consider this: No fewer than 13 state attorneys general signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, expressing their “grave concern” over the constitutionality of one provision of the bill. This provision would cause the federal government to grant special favors to Nebraska (subsidizing its Medicaid costs) pursuant to the Democrats’ bribe to secure Sen. Ben Nelson’s support. (I might note that the attorneys general could have asserted quite a few other constitutional challenges, such as the bill’s unlawful mandate that people be forced to buy health insurance and the utter lack of constitutional authority for the federal government to legislate in this area at all.)

How did the White House respond when asked about this letter?

Well, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, after admitting he hadn’t even read the letter, said, “I do not believe that anybody has legitimate constitutional concerns about the legislation.”

That settles it then. Chief Justice Gibbs has spoken. Also, when asked whether Obama supported the provision giving special treatment to Nebraska, he glibly said, “He’s a supporter of the Senate bill, so I don’t know what that will lead you to conclude.” How’s that for a little sarcasm chaser to top off your shot of corruption?

Even Nancy Pelosi, a piece of work in her own right, is no longer vouching for the integrity of her Fearless Leader. When asked about Obama’s broken campaign pledge to air health care negotiations on C-SPAN, she quipped, “Really? There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.”

A question for you lingering Obama supporters: How is his “man of the people” facade looking to you now? 

What Lies Beneath.

Via Townhall.com

By Cal Thomas

The debate -- OK, the shouting match -- we are having over "health-care reform" is about many things, including cost, who gets help and who does not and who, or what, gets to make that determination. Underlying it all is a larger question: Is human life something special? Is it to be valued more highly than, say, plants and pets? When someone is in a "persistent vegetative state" do we mean to say that person is equal in value to a carrot?

Are we now assigning worth to human life, or does it arrive with its own pre-determined value, irrespective of race, class, IQ, or disability?

The bottom line is not the bottom line. It is something far more profound. Our decisions regarding who will get help and who won't are about more than bean-counting bureaucrats deciding if your drugs or operation will cost more than you are contributing to the U.S. Treasury.

The secular left claims we are evolutionary accidents who managed to crawl out of the slime and by "natural selection" stand erect and over millions of years outsmart our ancestors, the apes. If that is your belief, then you probably think health care should be rationed. Why spend lots of money to improve -- or save -- the life of someone who evolved from slime and has no special significance other than the "accident" of becoming human? Policies flow from such a philosophy, though the average secularist probably wouldn't put it in such stark terms. Stark, or not, isn't this the inevitable progression of seeing humanity as maybe complex, but nothing special?

The opposing view sees human beings as unique creations. Even Thomas Jefferson, identified by historians as a Deist who doubted the existence of a personal God, understood that if certain rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) do not come from a source beyond the reach of the state, then the state could take those rights away. Those who believe that God made us and also makes the rules about our existence and our behavior will have a completely different understanding of life's value and our approach to affirming it until natural death.

It is between these two distinctly different worldview goalposts that the battle is taking place. Few from the "endowed rights" side are saying that a 100-year-old with an inoperable brain tumor should be given extraordinary and expensive care to keep the heart pumping, even after brain waves have gone flat. But there is a big difference between "letting go" and "snuffing out." The unnatural progression for many on the secular left is to see such a person as a "burden." In an age when we think we should be free of burdens -- a notion that contributes to our superficiality and makes us morally obtuse -- getting rid of granny might seem perfectly rational, even defensible. But by doing so, we assume an even greater burden: the role of God in deciding who gets to live and who must die. Anyone who has seen the film "Bruce Almighty" senses how difficult it is to play God.

We are now witnessing some of the consequences of attempting to ban people with a God perspective from the public square. If there are no rules and no one to whom one might appeal when those rules are violated, we are on our own to set whatever rules we wish and to change them in a moment in response to opinion polls. Any appeals to a higher authority stop at the Supreme Court.

The explosive town hall meetings are indications that Americans are trusting government less and less. So where should we go? The answer is in your wallet or purse. It's on the money. Right now it is little more than a slogan, but what if it became true: in God We Trust.