The American Spectator : Honey, Jim Wallis Shrunk the Church

Text Size

Political Hay

Honey, Jim Wallis Shrunk the Church

By Jeffrey Lord on 8.25.09 @ 6:09AM

Savages Palin after calling for civility -- will he take the Public Option Pledge?

(Page 2 of 3)

This point, it should be said, has since been made most effectively yet again by one of the few doctors in Congress, Dr. Tom Coburn, the Senator from Oklahoma. In an interview with Oklahoma television station KOTV, Dr. Coburn quite specifically backed up Palin and challenged the President -- who is a friend of his. He made it clear that he had given Senate Democrats three different opportunities to back away from the "death panel" concept -- specifically called the comparative effectiveness board:

I offered three different times in the mark-up in the committee an absolute prohibition of rationing coming from the comparative effectiveness board. They denied it all three times. They voted this down all three times. So if you don't want an absolute prohibition what could be your motivation to not want it to be prohibited?(It) is that you intend to use rationing to control costs. Now, they voted this down 13-10, 13-10, 13-10. My only understanding is why would you not want an absolute prohibition is because you ultimately intend to ration care. And their plan -- they're not going to speak it cause they know if they speak it it'll never pass, their plan is to control costs by limiting options. That's how England controls costs, that's how Canada controls costs…and unfortunately tons of people die every year. 114 million people will lose their coverage under the bills in the House and Senate.

Yet government rationing is precisely the objective of the fanatical left, those folks whose ideological roots spring from the same ground that nourished Smiling Jim in his unsmiling days with the SDS. Sarah Palin, in zeroing in with considerable acuity on the central fact at hand, had suddenly stirred an uprising without ever leaving Alaska. In fact, she had put a sitting President of the United States on the defensive with his top legislative priority. So Smiling Jim -- that would actually be the Reverend Smiling Jim -- who back in 2008 was complaining religiously about the "utter political incivility" of the day, said this of Sarah Palin:

Sarah, you're the one who is acting in an "evil" way. After listening to your policy pronouncements during the campaign, many Americans decided, generously, that you weren't ready yet for high political office. Others thought you just weren't very smart. But this statement last week really does clear up the question for me. You are speaking like a demagogue in the worst tradition of those who knowingly distort and deceive, for their own political purposes. You want to stoke people's worst fears and then, hopefully, they will look to someone like you to be their leader. You're not stupid after all. You know that neither President Obama, nor anyone else in this health-care debate, would deny health care for your parents or child, and that none of the ideas being debated would suggest that. But people are confused and concerned, so you see your chance to prey upon their misunderstandings. Politics for people like you is really all about you, your fame and power, and your taste of it during the last election has revealed what kind of politician you truly are.

Please don't invoke your "Christian faith" anymore and embarrass the people of God even further. May your efforts to scare Americans during this important debate fail. May your political future also fail, and may your star fall as fast as it rose just a few months ago -- because we now know who you really are.

Well.

Was the Reverend Smiling Jim still smiling? Definitely not. Was the Reverend Smiling Jim rude, condescending, and uncivil? Utterly. Was he un-Christian? Surely. An embarrassment to the people of God. Ouch. You might even say that he displayed a witch-hunting zeal, not exactly the first thing you think of when the term "man of God" comes to mind. Unless we're talking about old Cotton Mather breathing fire over those witches in Salem.

Or the old SDS.

WHAT REALLY CATCHES one's attention is the realization that this quite public meltdown of the Reverend Smiling Jim's was one of those telltale moments when someone of the far left gets so infuriated that the public mask slips. It helps, perhaps, to be a Baby Boomer, to have lived through the Time of the SDS -- to translate the subtext here for those who look at this kind of thing agog and wonder how a man-of-the-cloth with such a benignly wonderful reputation today as the Sojourning Reverend Smiling Jim could quite deliberately spew this kind of Mather-esque rage.

The answer is, at least in part, that the SDS and the far left of the 1960s -- in spite of its fancy rhetoric -- had serious problems with two things: gender and race. They could talk a good game, but in the end the SDS was filled with a lot of white boys -- literally -- like Smiling Jim who in their heart of hearts were sexist -- and like Cotton Mather just couldn't abide smart women in authority roles. Witches being something of a bygone target by the 1960s, the word generally used replaced the "w" with a "b."

Think for a moment of another recent image seemingly unconnected to all of this -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's contretemps over in the Congo. Out of the blue, a mistranslation was at play leading her to believe the questioner was asking about her husband's views when the questioner really meant Obama's views as the sitting president. Clinton exploded. In an on-camera feminist rant she snapped that she would not be "channeling" the man who is her husband because "I'm the Secretary of State." One doesn't instantly respond the way Clinton did for no reason. Quite obviously, as a liberal, Clinton has spent vast quantities of time from her college days forward dealing with "liberal" men like Wallis. Men who, like her husband, nominally share her political views. All too frequently these men are politically left on the surface but underneath nothing more or less than your garden variety white boy sexist. Clinton has been there and done that a zillion times, and this mistranslation plus perhaps some jet lag brought a lifetime of rage about this kind of thing to an instant boiling overflow.

That same sexist attitude Hillary Clinton thought she heard from her questioner is precisely what surfaced when the Reverend Smiling Jim went after Sarah Palin. Read his embarrassing statement again. It is filled with the kind of snarky condescension only someone who considers himself to be a smart left-wing white boy can display. Let's time travel a bit, and say that the death-panel statement Sarah Palin made came from one of her white male predecessors as an unsuccessful Republican vice-presidential nominee. Can you imagine Smiling Jim ever addressing, say, Barry Goldwater's defeated running mate William Miller this way? Or Jerry Ford's Bob Dole? Or Bob Dole's Jack Kemp? Of course not. White boys don't talk to white boys like this. He tellingly didn't find it important enough to say about white guy Doc Coburn, the Senator who actually knows something about the subject of practicing medicine and who says Palin is correct on the subject of death panels.

In fact, the very obvious point is that the Reverend Smiling Jim's mask dropped precisely because unlike the three losing GOP-veep nominees mentioned here, Palin is a considerably potent political threat in the way the others were not in their post-national ticket runs. She is not just a threat to Obama and health care, but as a smart, articulate politically popular conservative woman nurturing a disabled child and having aging parents she is a mortal threat to the Reverend Smiling Jim's entire leftward vision.

A vision of a world safely controlled by the likes of himself, his left-wing white friends or his black, Latino, and female left-wing friends who are the political equivalent of what Malcolm X loved to shiv as the House Negro. They have not the courage to disagree with the folks in the mansion of the left-wing intellectual plantation because, as with the treatment of Sarah Palin and, say, Clarence Thomas, they know the knives will come out.

That world to which the Reverend Smiling Jim hopes to sojourn us all involves a more polished yet still authentically authoritarian vision of control than was expressed back in the glory days of the SDS. But it is most definitely the exact opposite of a health care system based on principles of liberty, individual freedom, and choice. A world where, in spite of the myth that the "death panels" are a myth, abolishing them for good is voted down in the United States Senate 13-10 three times over. A world where, as just revealed in the Wall Street Journal, the Obama Veterans Administration has OK'd the use of what is referred to internally as the "Death Book" -- a volume that effectively and typically of the leftwing mindset gives disabled vets a push towards the abyss.

Page: < 12 3 >

topics:
Health Care, Sarah Palin, Death Panels

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (106) | Leave a comment

Steve| 8.25.09 @ 6:39AM

Ouch!!! Spectacular job of nailing the "Reverend" Mr. Wallis. He has been a burr under my saddle for years. Christianity is a dense cloth, woven from many threads. I find it personally detestable when people like Mr. Wallis, or assorted lefty Roman Catholic bishops, take a single thread to tug on and announce that thread to be the crux of the entire faith. It is a cheap trick, a theological sleight of hand, used in an attempt to marshall the Trinity as an ally and thus bolster questionable assertions. While a favorite tactic of the "social justice" crowd, it is used often enough throughout Christianity in defense of this or that to be an obvious trick. And Mr. Wallis is very much a one-trick pony.

Thanks again for savaging a hypocrite who very much deserved it. I could go on and on, but I'll leave it at that.

BILL COWAN| 11.23.10 @ 8:09AM

Steve ... 8-29-09 ... LKittle late "responding" I know, BUTTTT .... THANKS for writing what so many of us "OLD" people think !!! I'm a 67 yr old dis-abled Vietnam vet and would love to have jim"DIRTBOMB" wallis sitting on MY death panel !!! He'd be LIMPING to his next "panel" !!!

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 6:44AM

Jeffrey -- highly humorous column. Here's what you said:

"Trailing along somewhere in this exploration of God, however, was the unmistakable whiff of the real old time religion that lay at the core of the SDS -- and is today at the core of the religious left:

The lust for control -- power -- over the lives of others. "

This is also the core of the religious right. Consider the following:

Ted Haggard
Jim Bakker
Bernard Law
Jimmy Swaggart
Robert Tilton

We have rationing now by the insurance companies and any RATIONAL analysis would tell you that we cannot cut health care costs without rationing. Your support of Palin is irrational and a tremendous stretch of logic.

As I've said several times before, I do not like this health care reform because it cannot work and will not decrease the cost of health care in this country. There are several arguments that would support this analysis. But this is a rational argument of a fiscal conservative rather than the irrational rantings of the extreme right meant to engender readership.

Keith Kennedy| 8.25.09 @ 7:29AM

Excellent bit of writing--hit the effective notes of irony and humor (Smiling Jim is choice) just right. I love your writing Mr. Lord!

Big J| 8.25.09 @ 7:31AM

Excellent article, Mr. Lord.

"The real God for the American left -- "religious" or not -- is Control. The central Commandment is Power, and the Disciples and Followers are all at varying degrees faithful to their God. -- whether it be control of health care today, education tomorrow, or tax policy the day after that, or General Motors on Day One. First, last, and always, the Alpha and the Omega is Control of your life."

You hit the nail square on the head with these statements. Quite contrary to Bob's weird parallel universe where black is sometimes blue (when it suits him), you describe liberalism to a tee.

Liberals will spend their dying breath attempting to remove (gasp!) God from every aspect of public life and view, until it suits their purpose to invoke Him.

Liberals claim to be the purveyors of compassion and caring while taking a "not in my backyard" approach to homelessness and poverty.

Liberals claim to be the essence of equality and color blindness, but in actuality (proven over and over again), they are the most bigoted and racially motivated group that ever existed. For proof, one need not look further than the posts here. If racial division isn't possible, they resort to class warfare.

The hypocrisy that the left displays is becoming more and more clear by the day. Half a million people are losing their jobs every month, but no matter. Our dear leader needs a vacation, and an expensive one at that. How about a quick jaunt to Paris while on an overseas trip? How about flying your favorite chef from Chicago to the white house?

Hypocrites. Every one of them.

(And to anyone that would say "the republicans do it too", I would agree in advance.)

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 7:40AM

So, BigJ, your definition of "racism" is the party with the least number of minorities? Talk about a parallel universe where the data disproves the statement.

So let's talk about the "leader's" vacation. It is still less vacation time than either Reagan or Bush. When Republicans start using rational arguments and data, they will begin to rise again.

martin j smith| 8.25.09 @ 7:42AM

This country IS center right and opposition to the Democratic lefts concept is proof. The Democrats use name calling but do nothing to reassure the voters of their intent. If Palin is wrong then show us the bill and give lawmakers time to read and debate
then the voters will decide. And by the way all Lawmakers must sign on too.

Big J| 8.25.09 @ 7:43AM

As I said. It's always about race.

Then it's "Your guy did it too".

So predictable.

Thanks for once again proving my point, Boob!

Oops! Typo. I mean Bob. :)

martin j smith| 8.25.09 @ 7:43AM

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 7:49AM

BigJ -- yes, the point of all of this is that ALL professional politicians are corrupt -- this is not a Democrat or Republican issue. When an argument can be made against both sides, it is a condemnation of the whole group. We need CITIZEN politicians and there should be term limits. Furthermore, governmental solutions should be based upon the data, not irrational beliefs that are not consistent with that data.

And you've regressed to the usual name calling that we've all come to expect from extremist right wing blogs. So thanks again for your supporting data to prove MY point.

Big J| 8.25.09 @ 7:54AM

Oh, come now, let's not get our panties all in a wad.

You know I love you, Bob!

It was truly a typographical error.

I don't have all that fancy-smancy edumacation you got.

Galen| 8.25.09 @ 7:58AM

If I recall Stokely Carmichael said that women's position in the movement should be prone.
At the Colombia sit in as women were trying to redefine themselves, an SDS honcho came in and said "we need a chick to type a manefesto."

jeremias| 8.25.09 @ 8:02AM

Leftists hate God and want to run your life. Wallis is an outright fake, using religion as a cover to impose National Socialism. He is and always has been and SDS terrorist, loving every bomb and a BIG FAN of Charles Manson. Wallis is just angling for a position on the DEATH PANELS, so he can get paid for killing real Americans and make room for illegal immigrants and shocktroops of ACORN Nazis. No real Christian believes in "pacifism." The Crusaders proved this, especially when they cleaned up the Jews on their route of march.

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 8:18AM

So, jeremias, no real Christian believes in "pacifism". You'd better tell that to the Quakers. As for socialism, you can't get much more socialistic than Catholics. You really do have a limited view of religion, don't you... I guess that explains the rest of your comments as well.

Ryan| 8.25.09 @ 8:26AM

Considering many Crusaders "real Christians" is a bit of a stretch, particularly the leadership. Even though I'm no pacifist, I think I would rather side with the Quakers there.

Catholicism isn't close to socialism at all. It's a bit more voluntary - which socialism isn't.

Ray| 8.25.09 @ 8:36AM

I can't believe that the "religious left" would fall for Obama's false claim that Medicare/Midicade won't be facing cuts when he, himself, as proposed a 500 BILLION d(that's a half trillion dollars!) ollar cut to those very programs. How, in the name that all that is Liberal, can a cut not be a cut? When it's a LIBERAL who's doing that cutting, I guess.

BTW. bob, I work for an insurance company, a rather BIG insurance company, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota is required by LAW to pay for the procedures and treatments the doctors prescribe. They must cover ALL of the costs, not just those they wish to cover. There is NO rationing like you claim. Can the same be said of Medicare/Medicade today? No, of course not. So, it's the federal government who is already rationing care, not the insurance companies.

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 8:41AM

Ryan, socialism is an ECONOMIC system, not a political system. Many people here conflate socialism with totalitarianism. There are no pure economic systems in the real world. We have Medicare and Social Security which are socialistic in nature. I don't hear any Republican elected politicians calling for the elimination of both programs (although people who are not running like Delay and Armey call for it). If you tell seniors you're going to get rid of both programs, you'll lose their vote.

The Chinese consider themselves as socialists but there is much capitalism in their economy.

If you then look at the nature of "spreading the wealth" of socialism, you must conclude that Catholicism is much more attuned to socialism than capitalism.

handsoffmyhealth| 11.22.10 @ 8:24PM

I AM a senior. I WANT to opt out of Medicare. Care is too rationed and limited to "care" that is dangerous for most and especially for me. I can't and won't take any FDA approved drugs, nor will I voluntarily submit to allopathic medical "care", which literally killed my mother through Medicare and the VA killed my father (both were drugged and misdiagnosed to death).
I want the money that was coerced and extorted from me through the PR tax for SS and medicare back. I will then be happy to remove myself from the socialist nanny state programs. Let those who want to, get their money back and let us take care of ourselves, without the dubious at best "care". This, by the way, if only 1% were to remove themselves, would save Medicare alone a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Even repealing the Prescription drug act would save Medicare $650 Billion over the next 5 yrs (by removing the requirement that seniors on Medicare pay maximum retail for brand name prescription drugs and are prevented from generic drugs which are 90% cheaper).

Sheila| 11.23.10 @ 10:45AM

Ah, the anti-Catholic rhetoric continues. Catholicism is not in any way socialism, Catholics in every country around the globe simply help in crisis with the least amount of overhead costs anywhere because most take a vow of poverty and have been the pillar of defending life from conception to natural death. Bob must have had some bad experience with certain members who claim their Catholic faith but are divorced from her teachings or pick and choose which teachings they will adhere to and which they will ignore or attack. A few descenting members does not define the church as some attempt to do.

Sheila| 11.23.10 @ 10:48AM

Yes, Bob has had way too much coffee, or is it koolaide.

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 8:48AM

Ray, I also worked for a group insurance company. An insurance policy is a contract with many limitations. Let's say the doctor recommends a rhinoplasty because you have self-image problems. Do you really think an insurance company would just let the doctor do the operation?

And if the insurance company must pay for all procedures proscribed, why would there be a need for pre-approval? Things like experimental drugs and procedures are often not covered.

My wife currently works for a hospital where there is a large group of people who spends all day getting procedures approved/disapproved by insurance companies. To say there is no rationing is just idiotic.

louis tully| 8.25.09 @ 9:16AM

my, the resident troll is busy this morning!

BOB | 8.25.09 @ 9:31AM

TOOOOOT! I AM “BOB THE EDUCATED, KNOWER OF ALL!” TOOOOOT! DO NOT STARE AT THE FUNNEL ATOP MY HEAD THAT BLOWS STEAM AND TOOTS! ALL BOW AT MY PRESENCE! YOU ARE ALL ILLOGICAL! TOOOOOOOT! ONLY WHEN REPUBLICANS STOP USING EMOTIONALLY CHARGED WORDS AND USE LOGIC AND FACTUAL DATA – MY FACTUAL DATA – WILL THEY WIN ELECTIONS AGAIN! TOOT TOOT! AS WE ALL KNOW, AND I’M SURE YOU WILL AGREE, POLITICS IS ABOUT COOL, CALM LOGIC AND AN ANALYSIS OF RIGOROUSLY RESEARCHED DATA! TOOT, TWEETY, TOOT! THOSE AWFUL PALIN DESCRIPTORS USED TO STIR EMOTIONAL PICTURES IN THE MIND WILL NEVER WIN AN ARGUMENT! TWEEDLE TOOT! OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE MUCH TOO SMART! THEY NEVER USE EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS OR OUTRIGHT LIES TO STIR EMOTIONS IN THE VOTERS! TOOT, TOOTY, TOOT! THAT DIM WITTED PALIN CAN NEVER WIN AN ARGUMENT WHEN IT IS LAID OUT BY HIS HOLINESS, OBAMA! TOOOOOOOOOOT! YOU POOR STATE UNIVERSITY EDUCATED SHLUBS! TOOWEEETOOOT! YOU POOR UNEDUCATED DOCTORS AND PILOTS WHO CAN NEVER GRASP THE BRILLIANCE OF ME OR HIS HOLY RIGHTEOUSNESS OBAMA SHOULD ALL KEEP STILL! SILENCE! TOOT! NOW GO ABOUT YOUR DRAB DAY KNOWING THAT WE MUCH MORE EDUCATED SPIRITS WILL LOOK OVER YOU AND GUIDE YOUR LIVES AND RESTRAIN YOUR FOOLISH DREAMS! TOOOOOWEEEETOOOOOOOT!

robins111| 8.25.09 @ 9:32AM

It is rather ironic that a person who “claims” to be a a man of God would not be familiar with the Gospel of Matthew.

Matthew 7, 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

The fruit I see being created by Jim Wallis and his ilk is a bitter harvest, with the rancor of racism, sexism and a virulent hatred for Sarah Palin.

Jeffery Lord’s article fails to mention one possible reason for Wallis’s peripheral involvement in the SDA. He was a type of coward, who wrote the playbook but got someone else to do the acting. This would lead him to hide behind an untouchable status, as a pastor which allows him to be the activist without the physical danger.

This pathetic hiding is not unique to Wallis, there are several others in the US and Canada who use their status to further agenda’s such as reverse racism, socialist government, or as apologists for distasteful religious practices.

In a very real sense, Sarah Palin has won every battle to date with the left wing agenda, the remarkable thing is she uses the most potent weapon in the political arsenal ‘the truth’.

Jim Wallis, whose very ministry is supposed to be about truth, should return to his Bible, look for the answers and values he obviously is overlooking. Otherwise he’s doomed to be considered as inconsequential and misleading as ‘Baghdad Bob’.

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 9:39AM

Palin is winning?????

http://politicalwire.com/archi.....laska.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....n-dipping/

If that is "winning", I'd hate to see the definition of losing. The only redeeming quality is that her misstatements come from ignorance and not strategy. The more she speaks, the more her ratings decline. If she wants her ratings to improve, perhaps she should refrain from moving her lips.

robins111| 8.25.09 @ 9:50AM

Bob, we have a saying in Canada "you can't teach a pig to sing" by extension you can't teach a lefty troll to think.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.25.09 @ 9:55AM

Bob....

Well. Glad to see we've had our coffee this morning!

"We have rationing now by the insurance companies.. "

Nowhere do I claim perfection for the current system. The answer, based on listening to doctors, patients and insurance company types involves several things but more competition and less state regulation is clearly one. Everything in life is "rationed" Bob. You mentioned your wife. I'm taking a wild guess you have but one. There are a few billion available women on the planet - are you rationed? No. You had a choice and you chose. The government did not say "Bob - its time for you to marry Marcia Brady."

Ditto everything (most everything) in our lives. You drink wine, the guy next door drinks BudLite. Wine and beer are thus "rationed" - by choice. Your choice. The government does not (yet!) have a rule that says "if you're going to drink, Bob, it must be wine and only on Tuesdays." That is what they are trying to do to health care - and it is one huge difference than you deciding your own insurance choices. And again - there's a lot of things to be fixed. But poll after poll after poll shows the vast majority are happy with their insurance and wish to be left alone - while fixing the system for those things that don't work so well for some. Hey, I thought you were the libertarian here. One guy even told Specter, literally, "We just want you to leave us alone."

BOB| 8.25.09 @ 10:02AM

TOOT! HUSH, YOU BUMBLING BAGS OF BILIOUS BILGE! TOOT! SARAH PALIN IS A FOOLISH WOMAN! WHAT MAKES HER THINK SHE CAN EVEN COME CLOSE TO HIS HOLINESS, OBAMA! SHE COULD NEVER BE AS INTELLIGENT AS HE! TOOT-TOOT! WOULD SHE EVEN ATTEMPT TO MAKE A MESS OUT OF THE HEALTHCARE DEBATE, PUSH FOR A RIDICULOUS CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM – WHICH IS REALLY JUST A BIG DERIVATIVES INDUSTRY THAT MANUFACTURES NOTHING BUT COSTS – LEAVE BUSINESS TO WONDER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL PUT ON THEM IN THE FUTURE AND THEN GO ON VACATION DURING AN ECONOMIC MELTDOWN! TOOTLE TOOT! OF COURSE NOT! SHE ONLY HAS COMMON SENSE, NOT A HARVARD DEGREE! HOW PEDESTRIAN! TOOT-TOOT TWEET! OH YOU POOR FOOLS! YOU STILL RESIST OUR SUPERIOR BRAINS! YOU UNEDUCATED DOCTORS, PILOTS AND THOSE BUFFOONS WHO HAVE STATE UNIVERSITY MBAS! DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PROVE US WRONG! THAT PALIN CHICK AND HER “DEATH PANELS” REMARK IS BUT A PITIFUL ATTEMPT TO SWAY PUBLIC OPINION! TOOOWEEETOOOT! SHE IS BUT A MERE EX-GOVERNOR! NO MATCH FOR THE ALL KNOWING COMMUNITY AGGITATOR, B. HUSAIN OBAMA! YOU ORDINARY SLOBS SHOULD BOW TO PEOPLE LIKE US! TOOT! WE CLUCK OUR TONGUES AT YOUR WARBLINGS! TOOOOOOOOOT!

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 10:17AM

Jeffrey, the reason insurance is so highly regulated is that insurance companies over the years have abused their capitalistic privilege. I'm with you on competition, but things like health insurance must be available to all of us. If it were up to insurance company actuaries, no one with a potential or genetic health problem could get coverage. If there was a substandard policy for them, they couldn't afford it. Besides, regulation covers things like reserves and claims adjudication. So you want to get rid of those limitations?

By the way, I would rather see state regulations go away and have national regulation similar to the national banks. But be careful what you ask for since national regulation will raise the rates in southern states and lower the rates in the Northeast. Besides, there will only be 3-4 companies that have any reasonable market share. More competition? Not much -- but it still should be done to lower the administrative costs.

As I've said before, as a more libertarian leaning individual, I prefer self rationing. But that means if you cannot afford to pay for the service, you don't get it. So if you have cancer and can't afford the new drug because the specific insurance policy, which was cheap, does not cover it, you die by your own choice.

What I find disingenuous here is that people like you call for more self regulation but are unwilling to live by the personal responsibility left by that decision -- especially when it comes to life and death decisions.

Again, for these libertarian reasons, I don't like the legislation. But that was not my point as you know. My continuing problem with the sort of demonizing we find in the extreme right is that it makes conservatism look dumb. If you are doing this because your social conservative audience is dumb, I understand your BUSINESS reasons for doing this. However, there are principled conservative/libertarian arguments with supporting data that can attract the educated moderate voters that this party has lost. Stretching logic associated with "death panels" or "paying for abortions" rants demeans conservatism with nonsensical arguments.

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 10:34AM

Jeffrey -- a couple of other comments. First, the problem with health insurance is not that people, in general, like it. It is that it costs 16% of GDP and, as a country, we cannot afford to pay that much and still be competitive. If we don't have a strong manufacturing infrastructure, we won't have jobs and our country will see a significant decline. If we leave things alone, at the current rate of growth, the cost of insurance will double over the next 7 years. At that cost, more companies will stop offering coverage as a perk -- especially if it is deregulated as you wish. The average insurance cost for a family is now $12K per year. Imagine what it will do for families when it costs $24K (in today's dollars) by 2017 and they have to take it out of their pay when the company only gives them a $5K credit.

This issue must be looked at from an economics point of view and not just as a service.

Secondly, I don't drink coffee.

BOB| 8.25.09 @ 10:41AM

TWEEET! NOW YOU HAVE DONE IT! YOU HAVE ANGERED ME SUCH THAT THE FUNNEL ATOP MY HEAD GOES TWEET, INSTEAD OF TOOT! TWEEEET! HOW MANY TIMES MUST I REITERATE – THAT MEANS RE-STATE FOR YOU UNEDUCATED DOCTOR TYPES – THAT YOU SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES ARE DUMB AND ARE LOSING VOTERS SUCH AS MYSELF, A HIGHLY EDUCATED SUPER-BRAIN! HOW DARE YOU “RANT”ABOUT PAYING FOR ABORTIONS! YOU RUBES! TWEET! I UNDERSTAND HOW ALL THINGS WORK AS ANY SUPER BRAIN CAN TELL YOU, THERE IS NO REASON TO NOT LIKE OBAMA’S TAKING CONTROL OF THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY! TWEEETY-TWEEET! PALIN’S “DEATH PANELS” WERE NOT IN THE BILL! THEY WERE JUST A PANEL OF “EXPERTS” WHO WOULD DECIDE WHETHER YOU GOT TREATMENT BASED ON VARIOUS FACTORS SUCH AS AGE AND EXPENSE COMPARED TO, SAY, A YOUNG ILLEGAL ALIEN WHO CAN CUT MY GRASS ON THE CHEAP – THAT’S ALL! IF PEDRO NEEDS MEDICAL CARE FOR HIS 9TH ANCHOR BABY WHO CAN START CUTTING MY GRASS IN 3 YEARS COMPARED TO YOUR GRANNY WHO WAS A ROSIE THE RIVETER IN THE 40s BUT OTHERWISE USELESS TO ME, GRANNY LOSES! TWEET! GET THAT! TWEET! YOU ARE ALL FOOLS! TWEEEEEEEET!

Jeffrey Lord| 8.25.09 @ 10:42AM

Bob...

I am not suggesting for a minute that insurance companies be "unregulated.' What I am hearing is that insurance companies act, in part, in the fashion they do because of either state or federal regulations. I don't pretend to be an insurance expert. But if the overwhelming complaint is that insurance companies are bad because they do X, yet it is the law that forces them to do X, it isn't rocket science that the law, not the insurance company, is the problem.

"My continuing problem with the sort of demonizing we find in the extreme right ..."

Like...Bush is Hitler? Bush Lied? Bush is a murderer?"....I have to say I don't honestly know to what you refer other than stereotypes. Are there some on the right who are over the top? Sure - some human beings go over the top on everything and anything. But the "death panel" argument is a shorthand way of conveying exactly what was in House Bill 3200 - Section 1233, plus the concept that the President himself was conveying that government panels filled with this or that type of professional etc etc would be giving all sorts of advice to doctors on the best cost saving ways to treat A,B or C when dealing with patient E,F, or G. As if there is such a thing as philosopher-kings in our country who whave both the right and the wisdom to do this. Sorry - there isn't anyone this smart and no one has that right. This is not the government's business. Some guy, I believe an Iraq War vet, challenged a Democratic Congressman from Washington (Brian Baird) the other day after Baird said Americans could "keep" their doctor, current coverage etc. The vet said, to considerable applause, that it wasn't the Congressman's business to let him "keep" his health care - that this was the entire premise of this health care reform and it was off base to start. Again, Bob, if you believe it is up to the government to make your health care choices for you - this is not conservative. They are not here to let us "keep" anything. If they need a refresher course in this they should sit down and re-read the Constitution.

Joe| 8.25.09 @ 10:54AM

Bob, once again your religious ignorance and bigottry comes out. Those people were nothing like Mr. Wallis. You make a comment without anything to back it up. Wrong again!!!!

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 11:14AM

Jeffrey, where do I start with your misconceptions? Let me take a couple of your statements and address them:

"What I am hearing is that insurance companies act, in part, in the fashion they do because of either state or federal regulations."

This is nonsense. Insurance companies are businesses that are trying to make a profit. They are forced, by regulation, to cover people they wouldn't otherwise cover. For example, they can't discriminate on the basis of race (redlining) and can't use genetic testing to determine the issuance of a policy. If insurance companies operated without regulation, then there would be far more than 50 million in the U.S. without health insurance. Since I was an insurance executive, if you can get to specific regulations, it might be helpful. Otherwise, I'd suggest not commenting on the issue.

"I have to say I don't honestly know to what you refer other than stereotypes. Are there some on the right who are over the top?"

I have a problem with those on the right and left who demonize. However, since I am a Republican, I expect more from my party.

"But the "death panel" argument is a shorthand way of conveying exactly what was in House Bill 3200 - Section 1233"

The problem with this "shorthand" is that it is a significant overstatement -- and in that respect, it is just dumb. This counseling is NOT mandatory and does not "decide" on specific cases. It is clear demonization.

"plus the concept that the President himself was conveying that government panels filled with this or that type of professional etc etc would be giving all sorts of advice to doctors on the best cost saving ways to treat A,B or C when dealing with patient E,F, or G."

Health insurance is a business. Insurance companies do this all of the time. Information is good. People have the personal responsibility to take the information given and decide for themselves. You don't have much faith, then, in personal responsibility. If you did, you'd welcome cost effective information -- especially when people are going to have to pay for more of this out of their own pocket in the future.

"Bob, if you believe it is up to the government to make your health care choices for you - this is not conservative."

As I've said, I believe in precisely the opposite. But I believe in having the data necessary to make a good, and cost effective, decision. Why do you want people to make decisions without this information? Is it because you don't trust people?

Joe...

"Those people were nothing like Mr. Wallis."

Thanks for the laugh....

Jeffrey Lord| 8.25.09 @ 11:18AM

Bob...

Ted Haggard
Jim Bakker
Bernard Law
Jimmy Swaggart
Robert Tilton

I am totally unaware of any of these people trying to run the government and control our lives. Do they have political views? Sure. Are they upset about abortion/gay marriage etc? Sure. The conservative POV on this is to let the people decide for themselves through legislatures, Constitutional amendments etc. It is NOT to have judicial fiat...Again, a huge difference. I don't follow every word the people above say, but I certainly know that, for example, the left-leaning United Church of Christ (at the top - not the rank and file) has had positions on over 200 political issues, the usual answer being to have the government control X,Y or Z. I know this because...yes...I belong to the church, now the home of the Congregationalists...the Pilgrim's church. And you know how the Pilgrims and their descendants felt about the King!

gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com| 8.25.09 @ 11:21AM

Good morning, Bob! I see the old-make-up-the-facts librarian has an extended coffee break today. Excellent, I would hate any comments posted here to escape your imprimatur.

As far as Sarah Palin is concerned, she lost, she retired, and yet she remains a favorite target of the alinskyites. Gee, I wonder why? To give ya’ll nightmares, consider a 2012 ticket of Palin and Corporal David Hedrich, you know, the disabled veteran who nailed con-gressmon brian baird the other day, though in the case of the heroic American Warrior, he might not yet be old enough for either the office of CEA (chief executive of America) or Vice CEA. Haven’t seen his birth certificate, but then I haven’t seen the golden calf’s either.

Here’s a paradox for you to unravel since I lacking your genetically endowed intellectual superiority as proven that I have to rely on actual research to discover facts and can’t manufacture them out of thin air as you can, and so I am stumped. obumassiah maintained that great wads of cash were squandered paying doctors for unneeded surgeries such as tonsillectomies. Maybe his statement is true, but like I said, I lack the grasp of the facts you have. Now his Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC ) is considering promoting circumcision to prevent Aids. Bob, I really need your help with this one. My best guess is that if all males are forced to have circumcisions, we will be more acceptable to our potential Islamic overlords. Please pass the bacon before it's too late!

Now that obumacare has been elevated to a religion, I am wondering how long it will take the ACLU to file a suit opposing it. Of course, they are pretty busy protecting us from teachers guilty of saying grace before their noontime meal. As I recall from my school days at the prison, it was always a good idea to pray for God’s protection before lunch.

Those who have read my previous rants are aware that I offered to have a contest for the biggest lie ever told by the liar-in-chief. The deadline for emailing me an entry is September 1, 2009. To date I have a grand total of zero entries. Not even one entry. I guess shelly’s boy toy never lies, either that or ya’ll distrust emailing me any personal information. I totally sympathize. After all, I have openly confessed that Gill O’Teen is a ‘nom de blog’, so for all anyone knows I sit at my computer in the lush offices of flag@whitehouse.gov harvesting email addresses for davey-boy axel-rude. I know of no way to convince anyone, especially if you are as paranoid of this government as I am, that your information is as safe in my address book as is anything Google can scan. Still, it would be nice to have more than nothing to show for my offer of a small Gadsden flag and an NRA bumpersticker.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Don’t Tread on Me!!

Jeffrey Lord| 8.25.09 @ 11:23AM

Bob...

"Why do you want people to make decisions without this information?"

I want them to have the freedom to get it...or not. It isn't the government's business to force feed them this with an incentive to lead them in direction X- death.

"If insurance companies operated without regulation"...I am not advocating that. I am saying solve the problem...don't put the government into this.

Paul from SA| 8.25.09 @ 11:29AM

Abortion is not covered in the bill: Women's reproductive rights is covered.

Illegal immigrants are not covered in the bill: The bill covers all uninsured people.

The plan is going to save us money: The bill provides free health insurance for all (45.7 million) uninsured people.

You can keep your current health plan: If your employer cancels your plan you must move into the gov't plan.

The plan is going to fix the economy and the deficit: The plan will cost somewhere between 1 to 3 trillion the first 10 yrs.

There’s a crisis. The plan needs to be passed before August: The plan doesn't begin until 2013.

There will be no cuts in Medicare: Reimbursements for Medicare will be cut by $500 million over the first 10 yrs.

The public option will not compete with private insurers: The gov't option will provide a competitive option.

There will no rationing for the elderly: Obama said himself we may have to give old people a pain pill instead of an expensive operation.

Republicans are lying and misleading the public. Obama is the biggest liar of all.

Sarah is brilliant! Go Sarah Go!

Sheila| 11.23.10 @ 10:55AM

Women's reproductive rights is the language that forced Kenya to force abortion, just as planned by the Obama administration. If it wasn't accepted, the general OB/GYN care would have been withheld. Who says that evil doesn't exist?

Jeffrey Lord| 8.25.09 @ 11:30AM

Bob...

Honestly. Why is it that you think so many regular people are upset about the idea of taking away their private insurance?

Andrew B| 8.25.09 @ 11:31AM

Mr. Lord,

I enjoyed your article very much. Well, all except for one sentence (although I know you were mostly using it as hyperbole).

Your crack about Cotton Mather was unwarranted. Mather and his father were two of the loudest voices counseling restraint during the Salem witch trials. He wrote to the Massachusetts Assembly recommending that the court not accept any "spectral evidence" from the people claiming possession. His was an unpopular stand at the time, and it should have made him one of the heroes of that sorry event. Alas, pundits with an ax to grind held sway in 1691, and so his name was blackened.

OK, I'm a terrible pedant, I know. Still, we conservatives owe it to the past to present it as clearly as possible.

Dai Alanye| 8.25.09 @ 11:33AM

Boob is simply not very smart at anything but fooling himself. He made the incredibly foolish mistake of backing Obama, and now begins to have buyer's remorse but can't bring himself to admit the mistake.

Luckily, scapegoats are at hand: Right-wingers, Christians, and especially Sarah Palin. Given his predilections, I'm surprised he hasn't gone tooth and nail after Michelle Bachman, who also happens to be an attractive woman.

Fortunately, as Boob never tires of mentioning, he is smarter than the rest of us, and thereby able to detect nuances that we dunces cannot make out. He can, therefore, condemn insurance companies for rationing care, while simultaneously promoting policies that will inevitably lead to more rationing.

So, limit competition by making insurance the province of three or four national companies—that'll help. Better yet, put the federal government in charge, so we have no choices at all. Excellent choices for a man with libertarian leanings.

Boob's definition of multi-tasking: Advance two (or more) contrary policies at once while disparaging anyone with the temerity to disagree.

Interested Conservative| 8.25.09 @ 11:36AM

Bob - are you sure you want to claim that socialism is not a political system? And that insurance companies "ration" health care?

As for the latter, on those grounds everything is "rationed", and as I often point out to my kids when I reach for my wallet, just let me get some of these ration coupons with pictures of Lincoln and Washington on them.

It pretty much drains the language of meaning to equate private property with rationing. Certainly, property rights are subject to vast disparities and definitions throughout history, but the essence of rationing is political control of resources, of whatever nature, as exercised by those with enforcement power. Almost the exact opposite of a "free" "market" with multiple individual participants.

Finally, I'm also an insurance executive of several decades, and perhaps the very first thing I learned when applying for my first license was that the nature of insurance is to protect against known risks. Sometimes this is simpler than other times (the data built into actuarial tables and claims histories). However, in new markets or rapidly changing ones, it's exceedingly difficult to account for unknown risks - i.e. what drugs or treatments will be available in twenty years, how much will they cost, who will the benefit and to what extent, and so on. The impulse to "control costs" is, in many senses, reactionary - and ironic in the extreme for a "progressive" political class. It's trying to freeze or control the unknown future based on the very poorly known present. Not that it's been tried before, but we have several centuries of experience showing how futile it is - you'd think we'd progressed past that notion.

George| 8.25.09 @ 11:40AM

So Senator Coburn wanted to submit an amendment to an unconstitutional Congressional power grab of a bill that would... limit the Congress' power under that bill?

Tautological insanity.

thinkingabovemypaygrade| 8.25.09 @ 11:53AM

I was a kid when the SDS came into public view...Imagine my disgust to find their evil tactics and extreme ideas---reprocessed into Today's Extremism Lite. And the anti establishment rebels have cut their hair and dressed in suits...and are now the ESTABLISHMENT with their UNORGANIZED but semi religious dogmatically held beliefs in the world view they wish to impose on us...!

The SDS types (and their more eager students) went from badly constructed bombs to bad ideas...which ultimately are MORE dangerous...the PAIN and FEAR one hears in the voices of many many many many many town hall participants reflects this anger and fear at the poisonous super left's plans for patients!!!

No, we (the SDS and fellow travelers) won't bomb---we will devastate a lot more people thru ANTI HUMAN philosophies---sprinkled here & there with a few actually good ideas...the sugar coating that hides the taste of slow poison inside that slow poison dish.

THE SUPER LEFT IS ALSO SEXIST!!!
And yes - young women OF 60'S 70'S were ostensibly freer than their moms---they did get some job improvements...but after the 1990S Anita Hill hearings...it has been all downhill.

And I remember noting in th late 60's onward that young girls, women were "supposed" to put out sexuallybecause we had the "pill" and later we had "abortion". How dare young women (or men) NOT participate in the sexual revolution--SO THE TONE OF THE DISCUSSION WENT? (STDs were around but I never remember a discussion in the 60's 70's. The full hurror of them came maybe in the 1980's...)

And now---the poison cake is being quickly shoved down our throats. Sign on to THE SYSTEM!

Our current rulers of our ONE PARTY fed government do NOT like human beings all that much...And yes---they might or might not claim alliegance to an organized religion (here I think of Nancy Pelosi PATRONIZING her religious leader the Pope)...but they are STRICT DEVOTEES to the idea of the BRAVE NEW WORLD they wish to make.

Dave| 8.25.09 @ 1:03PM

Jeff:
May I echo the earlier comment about Cotton and Increase Mather (Cotton's father who was president of Harvard and away in England at the time of the trials, re-negotiating the colony's expired charter). Cotton was at the original investigation and participated at first then turned against the witchhunt. Paul Johnson has a terrific essay on this in his book, "A History of the American People".

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 1:21PM

Jeffrey, when an evangelical pastor uses the Bible to justify political views, he is trying to control the behavior of his congregation -- and since we are in a representative democracy, the government. So I don't buy your argument that the evangelical pastors are any different.

"I want them to have the freedom to get it...or not."

So, Jeffrey, who is going to collect this information and why would it lead to death? Doctors and insurance companies don't want you to have that information since it will question their decisions (and give you data for your legal remedies). Just as having an electronic medical record format will enhance your ability to go from doctor to doctor, cost information will help you decide on a course of action. This only leads to "death" decisions is special circumstances.

You still have not answered my question of whether you believe that health care is a right or a privilege. As you know, I believe it is a privilege. As an example, if an individual's health policy has a limit of $1 million and you have a premature baby that is going to cost $3 million to keep alive, what do you do if the individual can't pay? If you think society (which means the doctors, hospital, drug companies, and individuals) should be forced to chip in, then, de facto, you believe health care is a right. If it is a right, then you should have no problem with the government providing it. You have sidestepped this question every time because you don't want to answer it -- it is obviously a trap.

""If insurance companies operated without regulation"...I am not advocating that. I am saying solve the problem...don't put the government into this."

Again, Jeffrey, this is humorous. It is GOVERNMENT that puts forth regulation. Thus, the government is right in the middle of this. This is a very weak argument, old man....

Interested... socialism IS an economic system, not a political one. People on this board really don't know the difference and probably don't care as long as they can call someone a "socialist" or, like Vadum, put up a Nazi picture. And before you say it, I am just as opposed to this when a left extremist does this as they did with Bush.

Regarding insurance and known risks, you always add risk premiums for those things that are only partially know. As long as you have large groups of insureds and you apply solid insurance principles, this is not a big deal. It is only a problem when there is a catastrophe and you haven't properly spread your risk. (This is what happened with AIG by the way.)

I believe the best way to control costs is to make individuals responsible for their own expenses. Then they can make the trade-off between dying and doing an expensive procedure. That will mean that babies will die if parents can't afford the care and that older people will die if they don't want their spouses to file for bankruptcy -- but it is their decision. This is also true if you have a cheap policy versus an expensive one. The cheap policy will have limits and you must live with those limits. Again, if you believe otherwise, then you believe that people have a right to that care and you shouldn't mind a government system.

Dai -- my opinions have not changed. However, I always present the logical conclusions of arguments. It might be nice if you used your mind for a change to understand these arguments. However, your name calling simply proves that you are just as derelict and empty as your friends on the extreme left.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.25.09 @ 2:29PM

Bob...

"As you know, I believe it is a privilege. "

I am terrified when I agree with you.

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 2:56PM

Jeffrey...

"I am terrified when I agree with you."

As well you should....

And since we agree that it is a privilege, then it is acceptable for babies to die when the parents cannot afford care? And it is acceptable for old people to choose death rather than leave their loved ones in bankruptcy? You've managed to skirt the issue again like a good pol.

GENE HAUBER| 8.25.09 @ 3:13PM

Knowing who these people are , bill ayers and bernadette dohrn, I find it incomprehensible that we haven't killed them yet.
These two are not just vermin amongst us, they are INFECTED with the most virulent deseases known to mankind. They want everyone dead, but themselves.
THEY NEED TO BE EXTERMINATED....AND LONG AGO.

GENE HAUBER

ben| 8.25.09 @ 3:17PM

Health Care is a Right!
We have a right to life. It is illegal to turn away someone in need of medical care.
Health insurance however is a priveledge and not a right. If you want to buy health insurance or not that is your right to decide for yourself.
You also have the right to refuse treatment for a medical condition. But doctors have an obligation to provide medical care to ALL who seek it. If it ends up costing you your house, car, or a percentage of every penny you make for the rest of your life, that is up to you. That is why most of us buy insurance, to guard against the possibility of catastrophic injury and the resulting financial catastrophe. We do this because we are responsible, but it is not anyone else's responsibility to insure me or force me to be responsible. Everyone can be as irresponsible as they wish, but they are not immune from the consequences of their decisions and actions.

FALLGOLD| 8.25.09 @ 3:30PM

The evil in this country that has destroyed 49 million innocent children, children who never got to enjoy one day of God's sunshine, is now preparing to attack the next most vulnerable group, the elderly.
Also, why do the Democrates pretend to worry about health costs? They could care less what the
rest of goverment is costing. The only cost they
really want to restrain is what is spent on military
defense.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.25.09 @ 3:48PM

Bob...

"And since we agree that it is a privilege, then it is acceptable for babies to die when the parents cannot afford care? And it is acceptable for old people to choose death rather than leave their loved ones in bankruptcy? You've managed to skirt the issue again like a good pol. "

Noooooooooo.......we make sure people have the opportunity to get the care they need. Providing the opportunity in a free market system is not the same as providing care....You have the right of free speech, not to own CBS.....but you do have the opportunity if you choose to take it.

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 4:00PM

Jeffrey, you've skirted the issue again...

"we make sure people have the opportunity to get the care they need"

What does that mean? If a person cannot afford to pay for their infant's care, and their insurance has limits, do we let that baby die? They have the opportunity, but cannot afford it.

So what you're saying is that the baby should die. Right? If not, who will pay for the baby's care? Is anyone "OBLIGATED" to pay? This is the crux of the decision of whether you really believe that health care is a privilege or a right. If what you are saying is that the baby will get care whether the parents can afford it or not, then you really consider health care as a right.

So do you have another way to skirt the issue?

Jeffrey Lord| 8.25.09 @ 4:13PM

It's against the law to refuse treatment...Saving someone having a heart attack is a world away from running scores of tets, recommending a quadruple bypass because a doctor says it would be helpful, then operating. We do have a "social safety net" that sees that people do not go hungry. It doesn't give them steak & scotch every night. (Come to think of it, if we did that our health concerns would be over because we'd all be dead.)

Show me the section of the constitution that says health care is a right...then again, you believe abortion is a constitutional right and that's not there either...

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 4:40PM

So, Jeffrey, what you're saying is that having a "social safety net" is a right, but the rest of health care is a privilege. That is where you draw the line. So perhaps it would be all right for the government to run trauma centers that would treat those in the "social safety net". Perhaps it would be fine to have universal health care for life and death emergencies? So who would pay for your "social safety net"? Is is fair to require doctors and hospitals to perform this service without payment? That shouldn't be the attitude of a capitalist.....

Again, I don't think that either health care or abortion are "rights". I'm pro-choice. In either case, it is up to the individual -- not you, not me, not the government, not your churches, or anyone else. As with any elective procedure, I'm against government reimbursement.

Why do you continue to believe that being pro-choice means that the government should pay for abortions? How many times do I have to tell you what a fiscal conservative and social libertarian is? I'm unbelievably consistent in my beliefs, unlike most of you here which don't want the government involved in your finances but want government intervention in abortion and gay marriage. I don't want government intervention in any of those things. With individual liberty comes individual choice.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.25.09 @ 4:57PM

Bob...

You most definitely support Roe v. Wade I believe, which made abortion a "right".....The government...specifically a handful of judges...made this a right. Again, you agree repeatedly with the government declaring this a right...not I.

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 5:07PM

Actually, Jeffrey, I don't agree with how Roe was decided. This needs to be decided on a state by state basis. I don't see a privacy right in the Constitution (as Sarah Palin did in the debate with Biden) and I also don't see an individual right to bear arms unless you are in a militia. Being pro-choice does not mean I agree with how Roe was decided although I morally agree, from a personal perspective, with the outcome. Furthermore, I agree that individuals should have the right to bear arms from a personal basis. You can agree with the outcome even if you don't agree with the process. You are sophisticated enough to see this, right? (please laugh)

But again, you've skirted the issue. Is having a "social safety net" a right? If not, how can you force it on doctors and hospitals and force them to do work without pay?

ben| 8.25.09 @ 5:10PM

We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sometimes the preservation of life requires medical care. The pursuit of happiness can also require medical care. We hold life first and foremost among all rights, as all other rights are dependent on life. We all agree with abortion when the life of the mother is in jeopardy because without the mother the baby dies. We preserve life first. Abortion is not a right as it is the destroying of life, thus denying the right to life of the unborn.

If health care is a priveledge who are the priveledged who get care? Would the guy who comes into the ER unconcious from a car accident be considered priveledged, or are we all priveledged? If we are all priveledged isn't it then a right? Would only those who choose to pay for health insurance be considered to want health care and all others considered to not want it? I suppose if you want to differentiate health care and medical care we could then conclude health care as a priveledge and medical care as a right.

Society has a responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. This does not mean we have to take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves. None of us would deny a paraplegic their basic needs simply because they cannot pay for them. Also, none of us feels we should have to pay the chemo costs of a smoker or the dialasis costs of an alcoholic.

Human beings are compassionate beings. We choose to care for those who NEED it, but refuse to do for those who simply want it. Medical Care is a right, as life many times depends on it. The pursuit of happiness also many times depends on medical care. There are those in society who cannot care for themselves - their right to life depends on the care they receive. They should not have that care denied as being simply a priveledge.

The Fed is the problem. Return the power to the states to oversee themselves. The citizens of these states can choose whatever plan they want for themselves. If CA chooses socialized care so be it - those who don't want it have the freedom to move, but when the Fed does it that freedom to move is removed.

L. Ross| 8.25.09 @ 5:26PM

BOB: LOVED YOUR COMMENTS. THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO DIE LAUGHING.

Jeffrey Lord: You're wasting your time trying to convince Bob of anything. Just give it up. Trust me.

Bob:
"When Republicans start using rational arguments and data, they will begin to rise again. "

Hate to break this to you, but rational arguements and data are not the hallmarks of successful political campaigns. Big, easily grasped concepts like Hope and Change, War on Terror, and Contract with America are the hallmarks of successful politcal campaigns.

ben| 8.25.09 @ 5:41PM

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 5:07PM
Being pro-choice does not mean I agree with how Roe was decided although I morally agree, from a personal perspective, with the outcome.
You can agree with the outcome even if you don't agree with the process.
---------------------------
Wrong. You may be pro-choice but Roe v Wade did not give women that choice, it just took away our right to vote on it.
Are you then saying that your principals are flexible dependent on the outcome? That you are willing to subject others to your "personal perspective" if you agree with the outcome.
I for one don't believe that I or anyone else has the right to force our "personal perspectives" on others no matter how I view the morality of the decision.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.25.09 @ 5:54PM

Bob...

"Is having a "social safety net" a right?"

No....not! Good policy maybe...making sure we catch people who fall through the bottom...but none of that is a "right"...and I would argue this is a primary task for churches, charities etc etc....

Am I getting close to answering?

Richard Baker| 8.25.09 @ 5:55PM

Just remember. Jesus is makin' a list and checking it twice.

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 5:59PM

L. Ross -- you are certainly right, but it is difficult to align yourself with extremists of any sort. Political campaigns appeal to the lowest intelligence of the human animal. The question I have for you is that if you are in the process of dying while laughing, do you have a right to medical care?

So, Ben, would you vote to take away the voting privilege of women? Would you vote to enact slavery? If you can vote to decide everything, why even have a Supreme Court?

I don't think you should be able to take away a woman's liberty to make the abortion decision by a vote. It is between her, her doctor, and her religious beliefs. Stay out of other people's lives. You want to force your "personal perspective" on abortion and probably, gay marriage, on me. Think about it.

The government, both federal and state, should be limited and stay out of these personal decisions. That's how limited government works.

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 6:04PM

Yes, Jeffrey, you are getting closer -- and I agree with your conclusion. However, I do have a problem forcing doctors and hospitals to have a social safety net without reimbursement. If we think it is important to have this service, we should pay for it through our taxes. If we are not willing to pay for it, then, perhaps, it is not a good policy.

We are in essential agreement on rights and the policy, but I do object to the current payment mechanism. It is not a primary task for churches/charities, but is added to our respective hospital bills which means that it is paid for by the people who can afford it the least. Think about it.

Bill30097| 8.25.09 @ 6:23PM

Jim Wallis is false prophet who has unfortunately led people such as the youth pastor of my church, Jonathan Merritt, astray. He is a corrupting influence. Until he repents he should be shunned as the follower of evil that he is.

ben| 8.25.09 @ 6:36PM

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 5:59PM
So, Ben, would you vote to take away the voting privilege of women? Would you vote to enact slavery? If you can vote to decide everything, why even have a Supreme Court?
---------------------------
Of coarse I wouldn't vote to take away a woman's voting priveledges - that's idiotic and not at all what I was saying. Roe v Wade took away our right to vote on the issue of abortion. I would vote "NO" on abortion as would many others. I believe we should all have the right to have our voices heard. If the people of my state voted for abortion I would have to either live with it or move to a state that voted "NO". I have no problem if people vote for abortion, I believe as our founders did that a country is made great not by the gov't but by its people. Roe v Wade took the power away from the people.
Would I vote to enact slavery?
Of coarse not. Where in my posts did you ever get that idea? You're just trying to ascribe beliefs to me to make me out to be the bad guy - it's obvious and you claim to be smarter than that. Our Declaration of Independence says that "All men are created equal", and that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights - life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Slavery and Liberty are the antithesis of each other.
Why have a supreme court?
To uphold the rule of law. That law being the Constitution of the United States of America. We are not a democracy. We are not governed by the whims of the majority, we are governed by the US Constitution that lays out all powers and responsibilities as well as boundaries for our gov'ts.
The 10th amendment reserves all powers for the states and individuals not delegated to the federal gov't by the Constitution. That means if the Constitution does not give the fed the power we have the right to vote onit at the state level.

Bob| 8.25.09 @ 5:59PM
I don't think you should be able to take away a woman's liberty to make the abortion decision by a vote. It is between her, her doctor, and her religious beliefs. Stay out of other people's lives. You want to force your "personal perspective" on abortion and probably, gay marriage, on me.
-----------------------------------
You mentioned the woman, her doctor and her god but you forgot to mention the baby. We have the right to do as we please as long as we don't infringe on the rights of others. What about the baby's right to life? Shouldn't the baby get a say in the decision since it is their life that is in jeopardy?
Gay marriage - what's the purpose? What benefit does gay marriage serve for society, culture or humanity? The answer is none, as any gay culture, gay society or gay lifeform is destined for extinction.
With gay marriage the people have spoken. We have voted on it and we don't want it.
Instead of looking to the courts to force your "personal perspectives" on the rest of us, why don't you instead debate us and try to convince us that you're right. If enough people agree with you, you'll get gay marriage.
I support gays being together if they want but do not support gay marriage being held up as the same or equal to hetero marriage as it is neither the same nor equal. To hold them up as the same or equal sends the message that neither behavior is better or worse than the other, and that is simply not true. That's the indiscriminateness or nuetral thinking that has brainwashed this country and you are obviously a subscriber. The fact is there are better and worse behaviors, some lead to success, some lead to failure, to remain nuetral and say nothing is better and nothing is worse is a fallacy.
Evan Sayet gave 2 great talks on this at the Heritage Foundation. The first was titled, "Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals Think." The second was titled, Hating What's Right: How Modern Liberals End up on the Wrong Side of Every Issue."
You should look these up, I'm sure you'll find them enlightening.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.25.09 @ 6:39PM

Bob...

"I do have a problem forcing doctors and hospitals to have a social safety net without reimbursement"

Me too.

Richard Baker| 8.25.09 @ 7:51PM

ben:
Remember, the Constitution did not create an unelected legislature called the Supreme Court. John Marshall created that concept out of thin air as a result of Marbury v. Madison. Do you approve of a fiat body of government? "Let it be written, let it be done". Curious.

ben| 8.25.09 @ 8:08PM

The Supreme Court of the United States was authorized by Articles II and III of the U.S. Constitution. It was given a general mandate, but details of its organization were left to Congress. The first legislation that came before the U.S. Senate in 1789 was the Judiciary Act, which established a court of one chief justice and five associate justices. The newly established court met for the first time in 1790.

ben| 8.25.09 @ 8:10PM

The other characteristic is the court's supreme position with regard to constitutionality of legislation. The court's authority was declared in Madison v. Marbury in 1804. Although it was challenged by the Jeffersonians, the Supreme Court was able to maintain its position and its paramount role in this area is no longer disputed.

ben| 8.25.09 @ 8:11PM

In 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville gave the following description of the Supreme Court of the United States and its role in American society: "The peace, the prosperity, and the very existence of the Union are vested in the hands of the justices of the Supreme Court. Without them, the Constitution would be a dead letter: the executive appeals to them for assistance against the encroachments of the legislative power; the legislature demands their protection against the assaults of the executive; they defend the Union from the disobedience of the states, the states from the exaggerated claims of the Union; the public interest against private interests, and the conservative spirit of stability against the fickleness of the democracy."

ben| 8.25.09 @ 8:15PM

Richard Baker| 8.25.09 @ 7:51PM

Remember, the Constitution did not create an unelected legislature called the Supreme Court.
--------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court is not a legislature. Legislatures pass and repeals laws. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to create laws only the authority to judge the constitutionality of current laws.

Allen Hanson| 8.25.09 @ 8:59PM

Mr. Lord,

I appreciate your well-thought-out, well-written columns every time I read them. However, I want to point out an inaccuracy in your column.

Cotton Mather wasn't "breathing fire" at the Salem Witch Trials. In fact, they were conducted, for the most part, in Mather's absense. He showed up at the end and stopped the trials, because he realized the whole thing had run amok and was killing innocent people.

According to my research, Mather was an extremely talented, blessed man whose greatest virtues were his humility, good judgment, and kindness. He wasn't the witch-burner he has been portrayed as being for the last 100 years or so.

In fact, his memory is a classic example of MSM anti-Christian bias. Look into this! What you learn may become the basis for another excellent Jeffrey Lord column!

Jeffrey Lord| 8.25.09 @ 9:24PM

Allen...

Thanks! I'll check again. I should say that I was born and raised in Massachusetts where Cotton Mather and the Salem witch trials were, as it were, local lore. That memory stirred! I'll go back and blog the results! Maybe I was MSM'd before I understood the term!

Thanks again.

Richard Baker| 8.25.09 @ 10:35PM

ben:
Have you been following the uses of "penumbras and emanations" lately? That, sir, is legislating from the bench which is not what the Supreme Court is Constitutionally charged to do. John Marshall created a fiat legislature out of thin air. The tragedy is that the Court is now engaged, particularly since Earl Warren, in creating their own version of the Constitution, the Founders notwithstanding. As an example, if the Court decided that Bills of Attainder were, in their considered opinion, Constitutional, you'd have no problem with that?

Nobama| 8.25.09 @ 11:03PM

I never liked the pink little pig, Wallis, but I had no idea he was part of the SDS. It explains a lot.

Great article, Jeff! Right up there with your dead on expose' of the NY Times! LOL

Osamas Pajamas| 8.26.09 @ 12:41AM

"What if the disabled are unable to pay for health care?" Nathaniel Branden's answer was that if you wish to help them, in a free society no one can stop you. I am an atheist. I have observed, however, that the charity practiced by churches and synagogues with voluntary contributions is vastly more effective than the charity practiced by government with hijacked "donations" [taxes]. About 75% of the Judeo-Christian charity dollar reaches the end-user while about 20% of the government- hijacked charity dollaw reaches the end-user. But that is a "practical" argument and not a moral argument. Hijacking my wallet to help the poor should get your hand chopped off. That's a "moral" argument.

ben| 8.26.09 @ 2:13AM

Richard Baker| 8.25.09 @ 10:35PM
As an example, if the Court decided that Bills of Attainder were, in their considered opinion, Constitutional, you'd have no problem with that?
----------------------------------------
A "Bill of Attainder" is a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3 provides that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law will be passed."
The 6th Amendment states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

"Bills of Attainder" are clearly and explicitely prohibited by the Constitution.

ben| 8.26.09 @ 2:24AM

Penumbras and Emanations are fringe areas or "implied" rights and powers, which justices use to usurp power from the people and legislature. I agree with you that the court is now engaged in writing their own constitution and that is definitely a tragedy. I would support a Constitutional Amendment to add the word "expressly" into the 10th Amendment in regard to the powers delegated by the Constitution, as was included in the Articles of Confederation. This would eliminate Penumbras and Emanations and restrict the powers of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court, thus returning the power to the peole of this country as our founders intended.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. "

Angel| 8.26.09 @ 4:28AM

Regarding the Manson murders of Sharon Tate and her unborn child, Bernardine Dohrn stated: "Dig it, first they killed those pigs, then they put a fork in pig Tate's belly."

Bernardine Dohrn is a monster--only a satanic, psychopathic whackjob could make those vicious remarks about the gruesome murders of Sharon Tate and her unborn baby.

In 1969 Sharon Tate was a beautiful young actress from Dallas, Texas married to Hollywood Director Roman Polanski. Both she and her husband were ecstatic about the baby she was due to have soon.

She was 8 1/2 months pregnant the night that she and her unborn baby were slaughtered by the Manson Family.

One of the Los Angeles Detectives who first investigated the horrific murder scene said that it looked like a slaughter house inside.

What did Sharon Tate ever do to deserve that brutality? What about her baby, the sweet child whose impending birth was only two weeks away?

There are no answers, I guess. But when I think of that ugly witch, that harridan Bernardine Dohrn, who spat out such vile words about the murders of a joyous young woman in the full bloom of pregnancy and her precious baby I feel sick.

Today, Dohrn is a prominent democrat and a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. She's an "Educator" like her husband, Bill Ayers (terrorist pal of President Obama): In the 60's both were violent thugs in the murderous Weather Underground.

Dohrn and Ayers are the kind of people President Obama has named his "Czars." They are his mentors, advisers, peers and soul-mates; the people who surround him. And we wonder why we're in so much trouble.

God help us.

LAWYERS FOR POOR AMERICANS| 9.3.09 @ 1:20PM

~ WHEN THE LAUGH OF $ATAN WA$ HEARD IN THE PEOPLE$ HALLS OF U$ CONGRE$$ ~

THIS OLD WORLD ORDER OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF OUR POORER AMERICANS NEEDS ENLIGHTENED POLITICAL MINDS AND HEARTS TO VIEW GOD DIFFERENTLY THEN $$$…. NO MATTER WHAT THEIR POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION ???

WHEN WILL OUR WEALTHY ELITE AMERICANS ABATE THEIR ASSAULT ON POORER AMERICANS WITH THEIR MONETARY CONTROL OF OUR IVORY TOWER U.S. CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER ???

THERE ARE NOT MANY MORE DISTRACTIONS LEFT WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FOR OUR WEALTHY ELITE AMERICANS TO HIDE BEHIND IN NOT TAKING PROPER CARE OF ALL OUR AMERICANS IN A HUMANE FASHION !!!

RALPH NADER ATTEMPTED TO EDUCATE AMERICAN VOTERS ABOUT U.S. CORPORATE POWER IN AMERICA AND HOW THEY CONTROL OUR CONGRESSIONAL PEOPLE THROUGH THEIR POCKET BOOK (POLITICAL DONATIONS). * WITHOUT THE DOUGH $$$ THESE U.S. CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS OF THE FREE WORLD DO NOT GET RE~ELECTED TO CONGRESS.*TO STAY IN POLITICAL OFFICE IN AMERICA,ONE HAS TO BARTER YOUR VOTES IN CONGRESS AND REPRESENT POWER INTERESTS IN RETURN FOR THE BUCK$.

POORER AMERICANS HAVE NEVER HAD THE $$$ LOBBY TO INFLUENCE THIS CORRUPT POLITICAL CONCEPT (of horse trading political votes for political contributions) TO ACHIEVE PROPER HEALTH ~CARE OR LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR ALL OUR MIDDLE ~ CLASS AND WORKING POOR AMERICANS.

AMERICAN IVORY TOWER U.S.CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS OF THE FREE WORLD HAVE PASSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION IN WASHINGTON DC TO SPEND 50 BILLION AMERICAN TAX $$$ ON THE INTERNATIONAL FIGHT AGAINST AIDS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WHILE THEIR OWN AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE BEING TOLD BY THIS SAME U.S.CONGRESS THAT NATIONAL HEALTH CARE AND PROPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING POOR CITIZENS IS UNAFFORDABLE.

*** WEALTHY ELITE AMERICANS (WHO ARE ONLY 1% OF OUR USA POPULATION) SADLY ALSO CONTROL HOW OUR U.S.CONGRESS SPENDS THEIR BUDGET TRILLION$ AND HAVE OBVIOUSLY FOUND MORE WORTHY INTERNATIONAL CITIZENS THEN OUR OWN DESPERATE AND NEEDY POOR TO ASSIST !!!

~Poorer Americans Nationwide only get 400 million $$$ per year for legal representation allocated them by CONGRESS~

Middle Class and Working Poor Americans are unable to afford proper legal representation in their Civil, Criminal and Family Courts of law all across America causing tremendous hardships nationwide,but these great minds and callous hearts in our American Congress have found others Worldwide more needy then their own citizens who are being falsely incarcerated,wrongfuly executed,losing their homes or apartments,losing child custody or visitation with their children etc�

Not being afforded proper legal representation by our U.S. Congress has created a total breakdown of the American judicial system for our poorer Americans because the our U.S. Courts punish all of us little people if we are not assisted with proprer legal counsel.*It is a known fact that our average Middle Class and Working Poor Americans without proper legal representation in all of our American Courts of law lose their legal cases to the better financed who are able to afford lawyers.

Lawyers For Poor Americans is now actively in the hunt for International Countries and Leaders Worldwide to help raise 5 Billion Dollar$ for our slighted poorer Americans who have had their own American Congress turn their backs on their desperate needs in not affording them proper legal representation.

Troy Davis and Mumia Abu ~ Jamal are 2 perfect examples of American citizens who never had proper legal representation or defense investigations afforded them by our U.S. Congressional Leaders Of The Free World in their initial criminal trials in (Georgia and Pennsylvania) who might very well have to pay the ultimate price of possibly being completely innocent and falsely executed in the near future.

These two poorer Americans are among tens of thousands of legal cases nationwide that never were afforded proper legal representation or proper defense investigations at their initial trials……**We the public really have no idea if these men are innocent or guilty until they both are given fair legal representation at their new future trials.

Improper murder trials take place in Third World Countries all the time. *** Why should average Middle~Class and Working Poor Americans in the Wealthiest Country Of The World be treated as if they are living a Third World Life Style ??

This is the first of many www International pleas by Lawyers For Poor Americans for other leaders and countries to help raise the needed monie$ to correct these blatant injustices that have been inflicted on poorer Americans for the last few decades.

Lawyers For Poor Americans has many other written articles that can be viewed with any www search engine by our name or our telephone number.

Lawyers For Poor Americans is a www lobby group of volunteers that sing out about the decades old neglect,abuse and injustices being inflicted on our poorer Americans that have become Crimes Against Humanity issues for the International World Court to investigate.

lawyersforpooreramericans@yahoo.com
(424-247-2013)

Trackback| 12.3.09 @ 11:58PM

massachusettes credit repair, on massachusettes credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

I did not realize that this page got so much traffic.

Trackback| 12.15.09 @ 4:46AM

ma credit repair, on ma credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

I will be coming back tomorrow!

JRobert| 3.15.10 @ 9:38PM

Excellent. Thank you. Mr. Wallis has now made inroads into Willow Creek Church in the Chicago area. Will be helpful to pass this on to others. My only question is whether the man is a deluded Christian, and a phony. Sad, and I don't mean this meanly (like his words), but it is a real question.

Bob II| 11.22.10 @ 8:39PM

Some of us who were part of SDS in the 60's and early 70's were young idealists attempting to address social problems that were grieving our souls. Yes, we were deceived by veteran leftists who used our idealism to advance their agenda. Yes, we were mistaken in our proposed solutions to very real human problems. Yes, we caused serious harm to our own country, both internally and internationally. Thankfully, our efforts to degrade the United States were only partially successful. Yes, we were successful in forcing the US to abandon Vietnam, which caused the death of millions in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Yes, we can take credit for that to our everlasting shame. Maturity and clear sightedness forces those who seek the truth to both admit their mistakes and to change their minds. The left in all its forms exists inside an evil illusion we can generally call Humanism in which man has replaced God with himself.

Ruth Atnip| 11.23.10 @ 1:41PM

An excellent summation of what is wrong with, not only America, but the world!

Ruth Atnip| 11.23.10 @ 1:43PM

The' summation' had to do with this statement:

[The left in all its forms exists inside an evil illusion we can generally call Humanism in which man has replaced God with himself.]

CJM| 11.24.10 @ 5:27PM

Quoting Obama: "This notion that somehow we are setting up death panels that would decide on whether elderly people get to live or die…that is just an extraordinary lie." This is NO extraordinary lie--it really IS in that death bill he and Pelosi pushed onto the American public. It doesnt' stop with the elderly, but includes any person who will not be a viable human being who can contribute to the work force. So, if your autistic infant needs open heart surgery to save its life, you won't be approved because autistic people are non-viable and are considered a drain on the public coffers. Obama is a boldfaced liar.

CJM| 11.24.10 @ 5:35PM

"Smiling Jim. Today's Man of God, yesterday's Man of the State. Today the head of the religious group called Sojourners who was a leading participant in a recent health care phone call between 140,000 "people of faith" and President Obama. Yesterday a leader in the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a group that also fancied itself as a people of faith. " And the faith they believe in belongs to none other that that of satan--these are wolves in sheeps clothing who have gotten away with murder. Well, Ayers and Wallis, just remember: there is no statute of limitations on murder; we just may have someone who has taken office recently who has the spine to correct the wrongs even if this did happen 40 or so years ago. It would give many of us great pleasure to see you rot in our prison system.