If Lee Terry could run against himself. . . .

A crazed gunman walked into an Omaha hospital today, hours after leading police on a high-speed chase when lawmen foiled his mad scheme to gun down his in-laws.

And death roamed the corridors.

In the dark Nebraska predawn, the gunman assaulted his terrified wife at a hunt club they owned near a small northeastern Nebraska town. Who did she want to die first? Cold blue steel was pressed to her head.

Who did she want to die first, her mother or her sister?

It's midday in Omaha. The scene: a busy medical center near downtown. Two police officers find the man -- gun in hand -- standing at a pay phone near the hospital cafeteria.

THEY CONFRONT him. He answered with a fusillade of hot lead. The officers are hit, but fate has spared them grievous wounds.

They return fire, mortally wounding Jeffrey Layten.

Jeffrey Layten: Hospital shooter. Wife beater. Foiled murder plotter.

He could have been al Qaida in a pickup, if not for the bravery displayed by American police officers in the line of fire. And Lee Terry -- CONGRESSMAN Lee Terry -- thinks he was a great guy:

"I have known Jeff for years and hunted on his property many times. Jeff has always been an easy-going person," Terry whined to the Omaha press corps, "and today’s episode is very out of character for him."

WHAT IS the "character" of a crazed would-be killer, Congressman? And what is the character of a gun-happy Republican politician who "hunts" with domestic terrorists?

Call Lee Terry's office at (202) 225-4155 and tell the congressman you're sick of his tolerance for domestic terrorism. Tell Lee Terry he's too extreme for law-abiding Nebraskans, and that his criminal-coddling ways will come to an abrupt end this November.

Stop Lee Terry before more of his "easy-going" friends put their blue-steel barrels of terror to your head.

* * *

This message is paid for by the One Good Turn Foundation, and Lee Terry should approve of our methods. We're just taking a page out of his playbook, after all.

Lies, damn lies and Lee Terry's mailers

So this is what Rep. Lee Terry was cooking up in our nation's capital when the pretty lady lobbyist got him "so drunk."

Latch on to that excuse, Congressman. The New York Post -- no friend to your political opposition -- will vouch for you.

The other explanation for this one is that Terry is a contemptible liar -- even by Republican-politician standards -- and has no honor at all. When one speaks of "no honor at all," it's usually referencing something like blatantly slandering the opposition in November's U.S. House race in Nebraska's 2nd District.

IN A FLIER aimed at pro-life Democrats, Terry alleges that state Sen. Tom White "supports taxpayer abortion on demand." In the strange, strange world of Lee Terry, this is what constitutes supporting using "your tax dollars to pay for abortions on demand":

White on Monday described the health care reform package approved by the House as "far from perfect, but better than continuing with the status quo."

That, he said, matches the assessment of Omaha investment icon Warren Buffett as well as his own experiences as a cancer survivor and small business owner.

"Now it's time for Congress to turn to fixing the economy, getting our fiscal house in order, and restoring the economic and job growth the country so desperately needs," White said.

(Lincoln Journal-Star)

I SUPPOSE there's room for Terry to go even lower in this election battle, but I don't know whether he could stay out of jail in the process.

The "abortion on demand" slur about health-care reform goes back to the epic battle over the legislation passed in March. And, frankly, the only people who buy it are GOP pols (for obvious, and cynical, reasons), their wholly-owned subsidiaries within the politicized "pro-life" movement and the nation's Catholic bishops.

To get there, the bishops and the "pro-life" groups had to make some pretty paranoid and wild assumptions about what the legislation would do. That ground has been well covered, including on this blog.

In brief, academics who specialize in health-care law have said the Republican pols, the professional pro-lifers and the bishops are nuts if they think what Terry and his ilk slur as "ObamaCare" provides taxpayer subsidies for "abortion on demand."

To be even briefer, what we have in this electoral silly season are lies, damned lies, and whatever Lee Terry is mailing out to pro-life Democrats. Actually, we knew it was coming. It was on the Politics Daily website just the other day:

With a state unemployment rate in August of 4.6 percent (the third lowest in the nation, thanks to a booming agricultural economy) and Omaha itself at just 4.9 percent, the 2nd District has been spared much of the I'll-never-work-again despair that shapes politics in most of America.

As Lee Terry knows all too well, he represents the most hotly contested individual congressional district in the 2008 presidential election. Because Nebraska awards an electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, the Obama campaign mounted a successful crusade to pluck off a surprise pickup in a state that has been stoutly Republican in presidential politics since 1964. Terry, whose victory margin was held to 52 percent amid the Obama upset, acknowledged with blunt honesty that the Democrats "had one heck of a ground game that got people registered and practically eliminated the Republican advantage in the district."

Comparatively inexpensive ad rates (about $75,000 a week for 1,000 gross rating points) allow White (who had $532,000 cash on hand at the June) to be competitive with the incumbent (who had $787,000 in the bank) on Omaha television. Both candidates, who went on the air late last month, have each committed to buying at least $400,000 in additional TV time before November. Terry plans to press his financial advantage through radio advertising and sending out about 300,000 mailings. For example, even though both candidates are anti-abortion in this roughly 40-percent Catholic district, the Terry campaign is readying a special direct-mail piece aimed at pro-life Democrats.

Two elements make the TV narrative here in the Omaha area slightly different than the cookie-cutter national norms. Because of the comparatively low local unemployment rate, the economic crisis that both candidates decry is the national debt rather than lost jobs. A Terry spot slammed his opponent for supporting the economic stimulus and the overall goals of the Obama health-care bill and claimed, as a result, that the difference between the two candidates was "2 trillion dollars" and that White intended to pay for it "with higher taxes and more debt." White's first ad began with the candidate starring directly into the camera and declaring, "When you look at the debt that both parties in Washington keep piling on our kids, it's just wrong."

White never identifies himself as a Democrat. Instead, in his ads he is vaguely identified as "a different kind of leader for Nebraska" and "Nebraska independence for Congress." Asked about a lack of a party label in his ads, White said candidly, "This is not a year where that's effective. Nor is it ever. You have to understand in my whole career, I have never run as a Democrat. The legislature is entirely non-partisan."

A national Republican strategist calls the 2008 bank bailout vote "the one symbol of anti-incumbency that has a chance of working against incumbent Republicans." Small wonder that Tom White has gone after his rival for his vote in favor of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in an ad that claims "Washington politicians like Lee Terry . . . voted for wasteful spending like the Wall Street bailout." Asked about the TARP vote, Terry said, "I really thought it would cost me the [2008] election."

AND I GUESS we all knew Terry would go as low as he did in slurring White as a radical pro-abort. All we had to do was remember what the Republicans threw at Jim Esch in the fall of '08.

White certainly figured Terry's GOP slime machine was warming up. Just after the Terry mailer hit this pro-life Catholic Democrat's mailbox this afternoon, this robocall from White hit my answering machine:


I SECOND that emotion.

And I grieve for the truth, murdered yet again by a "pro-life" politician who will do -- and say -- any damnable thing to keep sucking at the taxpayer teat on Capitol Hill.

Because it's cooler to make fun of the 'fundies'

And the question, says Carnac, is "Why are the Democrats going to lose it all?"

Seconds before tearing open an envelope bearing the question, the magnificent one had received an answer from the universal consciousness: "Because pointing out why the tea-party pol might be a crook is boring, and it won't make Democrats look cool to the bohos in SoHo."

Cue the jokes about the witch who refuses to conjure up self-love potions.

AS REPORTED in The Washington Times -- the Moonie-owned, right-wing Washington Times! -- here's the real toil and trouble allegedly bubbling in the tea-party darling's cauldron. It's a real witches' brew, and it's at risk of dematerializing amid the progressive snarkfest over the religious-right "freak":

In one of the strongest condemnations yet against the "tea party"-backed Ms. O'Donnell, the nonpartisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) Monday filed complaints with the U.S. attorney's office in Delaware and the Federal Election Commission accusing her of using campaign funds to pay for personal expenses and then lying about her expenditures on forms she filed with the FEC.

CREW has asked the U.S. attorney's office to start an immediate criminal inquiry and asked the FEC to conduct a full audit of all of Ms. O'Donnell's campaign expenses.

"Christine O'Donnell is clearly a criminal, and like any crook, she should be prosecuted," Melanie Sloan, CREW executive director, said in a written statement. "Ms. O'Donnell has spent years embezzling money from her campaign to cover her personal expenses. Republicans and Democrats don't agree on much these days, but both sides should agree on one point: Thieves belong in jail, not the United States Senate."

The O'Donnell campaign didn't respond to several telephone and e-mail requests for comment regarding CREW's accusations, but her campaign manager, Matt Moran, told CNN that he was "very confident that [the CREW accusations] will be dismissed as frivolous."

"And for the charges that need to be articulated fully, we have some lawyers that will be looking at that and addressing those concerns," he said.

PROVING THAT it's much better to be lucky than smart, the angry right is learning fast that with enemies like "progressives," who needs friends?

Masturbatory politics: Losing never felt so good

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Scratch many "progressives," and what you'll find is . . . Glenn Beck tripping on Viagra.

Replace the "Ground Zero imam," Feisal Abdul Rauf with Christine O'Donnell, the Republicans' nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware, and you basically have folks like Media Matters and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow doing Glenn Beck's schtick -- just not quite so craziliciously well as Beck does it.

O'Donnell is a tea-party candidate. She has Sarah Palin as a patron. She has a financially checkered past, with allegations of lying, hypocrisy and cheating former campaign workers thrown in for good measure.

That's a lot for a liberal to work with, politically.

SO WHAT do "progressives" think O'Donnell's Achilles' heel is? She's against masturbation.

Well, so is the pope. It's called Catholic moral theology. In fact, lots of Christians are foursquare against pleasuring oneself, and fornication of all sorts. So are Muslims.

But you don't see Maddow, or Media Matters -- or, in fact, any other "progressive" voice -- crying out against Muslims' horrible intolerance of whacking off. What you instead hear is a cacophony of "progressive" voices condemning the likes of Beck, Newt Gingrich and all manner of tea-party nutjobs for their bigotry toward American Muslims.

You hear them condemning the intolerant right for holding Muslims, and their faith, in the same sort of contempt "progressives" reserve for the long-established, orthodox Christian approach to sexual ethics.

Americans, it seems to me, might take the left's pleas for tolerance a lot more seriously if "progressives" weren't such contemptible hypocrites.

The 'Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-to-Politically-Die Rag'

NOTE: Contains one F-bomb.

And it's one, two, three, what are we enlisting in the Marine Reserves to avoid fighting for?

Don't ask Richard Blumenthal, he don't give a damn, the Connecticut attorney general is too busy lying about serving in Vietnam.

SO SAYS The New York Times:

At a ceremony honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut rose and spoke of an earlier time in his life.

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.

The deferments allowed Mr. Blumenthal to complete his studies at Harvard; pursue a graduate fellowship in England; serve as a special assistant to The Washington Post’s publisher, Katharine Graham; and ultimately take a job in the Nixon White House.

In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he landed a coveted spot in the Marine Reserve, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam. He joined a unit in Washington that conducted drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive.

Many politicians have faced questions over their decisions during the Vietnam War, and Mr. Blumenthal, who is seeking the seat being vacated by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, is not alone in staying out of the war.

But what is striking about Mr. Blumenthal’s record is the contrast between the many steps he took that allowed him to avoid Vietnam, and the misleading way he often speaks about that period of his life now, especially when he is speaking at veterans’ ceremonies or other patriotic events.

Sometimes his remarks have been plainly untrue, as in his speech to the group in Norwalk. At other times, he has used more ambiguous language, but the impression left on audiences can be similar.

In an interview on Monday, the attorney general said that he had misspoken about his service during the Norwalk event and might have misspoken on other occasions. “My intention has always been to be completely clear and accurate and straightforward, out of respect to the veterans who served in Vietnam,” he said.

But an examination of his remarks at the ceremonies shows that he does not volunteer that his service never took him overseas. And he describes the hostile reaction directed at veterans coming back from Vietnam, intimating that he was among them.

In 2003, he addressed a rally in Bridgeport, where about 100 military families gathered to express support for American troops overseas. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “Let us do better by this generation of men and women.”

At a 2008 ceremony in front of the Veterans War Memorial Building in Shelton, he praised the audience for paying tribute to troops fighting abroad, noting that America had not always done so.

“I served during the Vietnam era,” he said. “I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse.”

(snip)

In an interview, Jean Risley, the chairwoman of the Connecticut Vietnam Veterans Memorial Inc., recalled listening to an emotional Mr. Blumenthal offering remarks at the dedication of the memorial. She remembered him describing the indignities that he and other veterans faced when they returned from Vietnam.

“It was a sad moment,” she recalled. “He said, ‘When we came back, we were spat on; we couldn’t wear our uniforms.’ It looked like he was sad to me when he said it.”

Ms. Risley later telephoned the reporter to say she had checked into Mr. Blumenthal’s military background and learned that he had not, in fact, served in Vietnam.

THE TIMES has broken the story. Politico and The Washington Post will spew thousands of words about what this means for the Democrats' prospects in the Senate come November, and not so many about the cultural, social and moral dimensions of the story . . . not to mention how this very public man has gotten away with such a sick charade for decades.

As for me, I just want to know whether running for political office has become a prime indicator of narcissistic personality disorder and various other mental illnesses.

Are you $#!++!@& me?

Andrew Breitbart and the gang at Breitbart.tv are upset that Senate Democrats now threaten to do what the Dems were upset about the Republicans trying to do in 2005.

Like, shouldn't he be saying "Hey! They finally came around to our way of thinking"?

No, he'd only be happy if the Democrats were upset that the Republicans had regained power and were threatening to do what they were upset about the Dems threatening to do what they were upset about the GOP threatening to do in 2005.

I think. My brain hurts now.

Nevertheless, I think it's eminently safe to say that hypocrisy is what makes our nation's capital go 'round. And that everybody comes out looking like what Tony Kornheiser might have thought Hannah Storm resembled the other day.

And, for the record, I think Hannah can wear whatever in the world she wants. Just sayin'.

The world's second-oldest profession

The next time you hear a Republican say his party is looking out for ordinary folk just like you, remind yourself that he's a damned liar.

Also remind yourself that you don't matter, that the whole political system is set up to screw you and screw you good, and that there will be no meaningful reform of, well . . . anything if there's big money on the side of the status quo.

HONEST TO GOD, Republicans are so shameless they don't even go off the record when they talk to The Wall Street Journal about workin' hard to stay the bankers' bitch:

In discussions with Wall Street executives, Republicans are striving to make the case that they are banks' best hope of preventing President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats from cracking down on Wall Street.

GOP strategists hope to benefit from the reaction to the White House's populist rhetoric and proposals, which range from sharp critiques of bonuses to a tax on big Wall Street banks, caps on executive pay and curbs on business practices deemed too risky.

Democrats have dominated Wall Street's fund-raising circles in recent elections. Mr. Obama himself raised millions of dollars from employees of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and other Wall Street firms.

Now, at least some Wall Street executives have reduced their political contributions to the Democratic Party and its candidates, according to fund-raising reports and interviews with executives at financial-services firms.

Last week, House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio made a pitch to Democratic contributor James Dimon, the chairman and chief executive of J.P. Morgan, over drinks at a Capitol Hill restaurant, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Boehner told Mr. Dimon congressional Republicans had stood up to Mr. Obama's efforts to curb pay and impose new regulations. The Republican leader also said he was disappointed many on Wall Street continue to donate their money to Democrats, according to the people familiar with the matter.

A spokeswoman for J.P. Morgan declined to comment.

"I sense a lot of dissatisfaction and a lot of buyer's remorse on Wall Street," said Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.), the second-ranking House Republican and a top Wall Street fund-raiser for his party.

THE DEMOCRATS, of course, wasted no time in going all Huey P. Long on the GOP -- that is, if the Kingfish had used words like "symbiotic":

The White House referred calls seeking comment on Wall Street donors to the Democratic National Committee. A DNC spokesman said: "It's not surprising that Republicans are seeking money from the same banking industry they are the champions of. The relationship between Wall Street and Republicans is symbiotic."

THIS WOULD be funny if it weren't so Orwellian. Think 1984, Ministry of Truth.

The Democrats, you see, took home most of the Wall Street money during the 2008 campaign. And if the DNC spokesman's name happened to be Winston Smith, I'm reaching for the Early Times right now.

Loving abortion to death

How can we Democrats of the non-whack persuasion make this any clearer?

OK, how about this? You can kill the Stupak Amendment, or you can have health-care reform. You can't do both.

Or, perhaps this: You can double-cross pro-life Democratic congressmen and reintroduce what amounts to federal subsidies for killing babies, or you can pass a health-care bill. But both won't happen, because you don't have the votes.

WHAT ARE Americans to make of people for whom the "right" to abortion now means the "right" to government subsidies for abortion? How quickly a "private" matter that must be safe from governmental meddling -- one that's "between a woman, her doctor and her God" -- turns into a non-negotiable demand that the public subsidize something at least half of it finds reprehensible.

And the Culture of Death's caterwauling storm troopers are marching for their "right" to have you fund their "right" to kill their offspring. One company comes from the AAUW, formerly known as Women So Open Minded Their Brains Fell Out the American Association of University Women:

AAUW is working nationwide to galvanize voters to protest the middle class abortion ban passed by the House as part of its health care reform bill. It's critical that the Senate not accept this intrusive provision.

ACCORDING to the outraged left, forcing me to violate my conscience by force of the tax code and the Justice Department would be a blow against the "intrusiveness" of women having to buy an abortion rider to their insurance policy:

AAUW has long advocated for choice in the determination of one's reproductive life and increased access to health care and family planning services. There's no doubt that health care reform is desperately needed, but it should not come on the backs of women. A fundamental principle of health care has always been to "do no harm." Make no mistake; the Stupak amendment does just that--leaving millions of women worse off than they were before. This is the biggest attempt to ban abortion services in years, and a similar amendment is already in the works in the Senate.

AH . . . I get it now, AAUW. You have the choice to kill your unborn -- or even your half-born -- child, and I have the choice to pay for it. Or else.

Gotcha. I'm so glad we could have this talk and clear some things up, AAUW.

What you're saying is you want me to help pay for your abortions so you can f*** with impunity, because it's your constitutional right. But my First Amendment rights do not include declining on moral and religious grounds to help pay for your abortions (thus killing your children so you can continue to f*** with impunity and not live in a trailer with seven kids by six fathers), because that would deny you your "privacy right" to kill your kids so you can f*** with impunity.

Is that what you're saying?

Please tell me where I'm wrong, because I'd hate to think educated women so upset about the "middle-class abortion ban" would be so bigoted as to only worry about a lack of "reproductive choice" when it's your "middle-class" abortion that's threatened. Or have I missed your going to the wall year after year for the past three decades in a bid to dispatch the Hyde Amendment -- which denies federal funds for things like Medicaid abortions -- to the dustbin of history?

OR MAYBE you think it's OK for poor women to pay for their constitutional coitus with a lifestyle approximating the Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe, while the taxpayer subsidizes your "safe sex" -- contraception and abortion.

After all, there still would be Medicaid . . . and the Hyde Amendment still stands.

But the bottom line is this: Double-cross pro-life Democrats, and health-care reform is dead . . . and so, probably, is the Obama presidency. The president only has, oh . . . everything riding on this.

And if health-care reform dies, pro-life Dems will say this:

"We voted on principle. We cannot subsidize evil so that good might come from it. We will not pay to kill some so that others might have insurance. This is a tragedy, but we take seriously the principle of 'Do no harm.'"

MEANWHILE, if pro-choicers kill health-care reform because it insufficiently subsidizes abortion (and no, you can't "segregate" private and public monies when it all goes into the same pot), they'll have to say this:

"We voted down health-care reform on principle. We firmly believe that the government should make it as cost-free as possible for women to procure elective abortions of their babies. We knew going to the wall for this would doom the bill, but we think the right to federally mandated abortion coverage is a lot more important than your piddly-ass chemotherapy."

THEY DON'T call it the Culture of Death for nothing.

A special kind of nuts

What kind of insanity would cause supporters of health-care reform to declare war on the only thing keeping health-care reform from legislative oblivion?

THIS KIND of insanity, is what. The Hill fills us in:

A House Democratic leader said Monday she's “confident” controversial language on abortion will be stripped from a final healthcare bill.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-abortion rights lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from subsidizing abortions.

“I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won't be there,” Wasserman Schultz said during an appearance on MSNBC. “And I think we're all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that's the case.”

The amendment, offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), won the support of Republicans and dozens of centrist Democrats in the House, but revealed a deep divide in the Democratic caucus over abortion.

Sixty-four Democrats voted for Stupak’s amendment, without which the House healthcare bill would not have won final passage in a 220-215 vote.

THE STUPAK AMENDMENT provided the thin margin by which health-care reform passed the House. Without it, you can bet it won't pass the Senate.

And if it's stripped in conference -- assuming Senate passage of a bill, which well might be a long shot -- the legislation will fail in the House. Really, what kind of insanity causes alleged supporters of health-care reform to intentionally doom what they say they're for?

I suppose the same kind of insanity that causes a society to execute its future in the womb and call it women's rights . . . even though at least half of the condemned are women.

And if you're OK with flat-out elimination of society's least powerful and least privileged members, what's the big whoop with telling those vastly more able to fend for themselves to "root, hog, or die," right?

Tea-bag right wants to 'stir fry' Cao

For New Orleans' congressman, Anh "Joseph" Cao, the easy vote was "yes" on the House health-care reform bill.

But the easier vote for the Vietnamese-American Republican might have been against "socialized medicine" and for the fat cats demanding Stalinist uniformity within GOP ranks. That's because Cao likely will find himself booted out of office by his mostly black, overwhelmingly Democrat constituency, no matter what.

If that's the case, there's no percentage in hacking off your party masters, who could find you a nice patronage setup befitting a former member of Congress.

NEVERTHELESS, the diminutive Republican decided -- with the abortion issue removed as a matter for conscientious objection on pro-life grounds -- to vote the interests of his health coverage-deprived constituents . . . the ones unlikely to return him to Congress next year.

And boy are the Republicans mad. Some hardly can wait to make good on GOP chair Michael Steele's threat to "come after" representatives not hewing the party line.

Of course, some members of Louisiana's predictably barbarian GOP base are resorting to ethnic slurs to make the "Obama-lover" pay. The Dead Pelican is reporting on the early stages of just that:

Republican voters were irate Saturday about Congresman Joseph Cao casting the lone Republican vote for what has come to be known as "Obamacare." The backlash became quickly apparent after Cao cast the fateful vote.

Mere moments after casting the vote, DEAD PELICAN received the above photo from DEAD PELICAN reader Adrian Guillory.

He calls the photo "Joseph Cao: American Sellout."

When asked what his message to Cao was, Guillory simply said "BYE, BYE, CAO!!! You're gong to be deep-fried and stir-fried in 2010!"

The photo is highlighted in an ominous shade of red, and the "O" in "Cao" is highlighted with the insignia from President Obama's campaign literature. The photo conveys Republican outrage, suggesting that Cao is "in the tank" for Obama.

HOW DID the guy not manage to use the phrase "chop chop"? Or suggest that Cao might be closet Viet Cong?

Oh, damn. There I go again, giving ideas to people who rarely have them naturally.

And then there's this, from some tea-party hothead in Orange County, Calif.:

This traitor needs to go. The GOP needs to quit funding the campaigns of RINOS such as him. I find it interesting that one twitterer who responded to a tweet that I posted advocating that he needs to be voted out responded with "Unfortunately he is as conservative as we are getting in that district." ARE YOU KIDDING ME?" ABSOLUTELY NOT! The time for compromise is over. We need to raise up true red blooded conservatives all across the nation that will run to unseat RINOS who run on the coattails of our party and then support their own radical liberal agendas. Can you say Dede?

Are you mad as "HELL" yet? If not get off your apathetic arses and join in with the millions of conservative voices that will fight with every last breath to win back our party and save the Country that we love from descending into the abbys of SOCIALISM.

We keep hearing politicians throw around terms such as this corporation or that institution is too big too fail. Americans let get this straight......AMERICA IS TOO BIG TO FAIL! We need to keep fighting. I for one will never give. Lets's send a message to Cao and his ilk....Votes have consequences so start packing!

"LETS'S" be careful about descending into the "abbys of SOCIALISM." If you mess with the wrong Abby -- if you start making wild accusations about her politics -- Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs just might have to cast you into some fresh criminal-justice abyss.

The House's prescription

For once, you have to give the U.S. House of Representatives credit. It pulled off the previously unthinkable.

And a good kind of unthinkable, at that.

After decades and decades, it finally passed something that's as close to universal health coverage as is likely to survive an American legislative chamber. Now if only the Senate would get on board. . . .

THE HEROES of the fight for health-care reform -- at least thus far -- are Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and his band of pro-life Democrats. They won a ban on federal subsidies for abortion in the House bill and, in the process, assured its final passage.

MSNBC has the story:

"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.

In the runup to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups. They prevailed on a roll call of 240-194.

The vote added to the Democratic bill an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and others, that prohibits individuals who receive insurance subsidies from purchasing any plan that pays for elective abortions.

House Democratic leaders agreed Friday night to allow a floor vote on the Stupak amendment to the bill in order to win the support of about three dozen Democrats who feared that the original bill would have subsidized abortions.

Ironically, the abortion vote only solidified support for the legislation, clearing the way for the conservative Democrats to vote for it.

A cheer went up from the Democratic side of the House when the bill gained 218 votes, a majority. Moments later, Democrats counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and and let loose an even louder roar when Pelosi grabbed the gavel and declared, "the bill is passed.'

From the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying, "We realize the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energized that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system."

(snip)

The compromise brokered Friday night on the volatile issue of abortion finally secured the votes needed to pass the legislation.

As drafted, the measure denied the use of federal subsidies to purchase abortion coverage in policies sold by private insurers in the new insurance exchange, except in cases of incest, rape or when the life of the mother was in danger.

But abortion foes won far stronger restrictions that would rule out abortion coverage except in those three categories in any government-sold plan. It would also ban abortion coverage in any private plan purchased by consumers receiving federal subsidies.

Disappointed Democratic abortion rights supporters grumbled about the turn of events, but appeared to pull back quickly from any thought of opposing the health care bill in protest.

GOING TO THE WALL for abortion coverage, to state the painfully obvious, would not have been pragmatic. If you want to build a workable coalition around an already-controversial bill, you don't go around actively chasing off allies.

Like the Catholic Church, for one. Or pro-life Democrats, like Stupak and his confederates, for about 40 others.

It can't be emphasized too much that only by doing the "right thing" did Democrats save health-care reform from sudden legislative death.

It also can't be emphasized too much that the House has neutralized the biggest weapon in the anti-reformist arsenal. If one opposed health-care legislation on pro-life grounds, that's non-negotiable. That's something over which you "go to the wall."

Now, not so much.

Now, if pro-lifers are going to oppose health-care reform, they're going to have to explain how opposing coverage for millions and millions of the uninsured might be considered a "pro-life" move. They're going to have to explain how the perpetuation, by default, of a fundamentally unjust system responsible for the needless deaths of an estimated 44,789 Americans a year isn't a profound betrayal of the pro-life cause.

And you know what? They can't.

NO, IF "PRO-LIFERS" want to persist in railing about "socialized medicine" instead of getting behind an imperfect but as-good-as-we'll-get House-passed bill, they're going to have to admit that the pro-life movement -- or at least the K Street manifestation thereof -- really is nothing more than an anti-abortion movement.

I can think of no greater travesty . . . no greater affront to a God who, it has been rumored over 6,000 or so years of Judeo-Christian history, continues to care deeply about human beings once they emerge from the womb.

In today's deeply toxic and deeply stupid political culture, I am sure what I've just written will get me branded a "radical socialist" by more than a few. Well, if this be socialism, I will wear the "socialist" label with pride.

And a doofus plumber shall lead them

The problem with the pro-life movement is the same as the problem with the evangelicals . . . and the "orthodox" Catholics . . . and even the pro-Obama Catholics United crowd.

And it's an old problem at that, as old as the gospel.

The problem with pro-lifers is tribalism and zealotry. We're right, the Almighty is on our side, let's go out there and smite the Other for the glory of God.

I wonder how glorified God is feeling nowadays, with all the calls for revolution, demonization of the president, nasty signs about Ted Kennedy and all manner of anger, shouting, paranoia and bad behavior undertaken in His name.

BACK IN JESUS' TIME, one of the things the Pharisees, et al, couldn't get their heads around was that this man who claimed to be the Messiah didn't at all act like everybody knew the Messiah should act. The Messiah should be raising an army and kicking the Romans' butts all the way back to Rome.

Obviously, this "teacher" who preached blasphemy and upbraided the religious authority of the day was a scandal and a nut, and the sooner he was crucified, the better it would be. And when Pilate tried to finesse matters by proposing to release Jesus as part of the Passover amnesty, the first-century tea party would have none of it.

"Give us Barabbas!" They wanted the murderer and insurrectionist released instead. A man of action. A fighter of Romans.

In refusing to render unto Caesar, they likewise were hell-bent in their refusal to render unto God. By 66 A.D., the Zealots had launched a revolt against Roman rule.

By 70 A.D., the Roman legions sacked Jerusalem, cut out the heart of the revolt and destroyed the temple, thus fulfilling Christ's prophecy that "there will not be left here a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down." By 73 A.D., the last Jewish stronghold at Masada had fallen, leaving not a single survivor -- the defenders all killed themselves rather than be taken by the legions.

TODAY, WE HAVE parts of the Catholic and evangelical subcultures seemingly spoiling for a fight against a new Caesar. We have a prominent "Catholic" pro-life organization deriding its own church and bishops for being insufficiently zealous in denying a dead, pro-choice senator a public funeral Mass.

We likewise have pro-life organizations acting as if the answer to America's culture of death lay in the Barabbas model, as opposed to the Jesus of Nazareth model. The American Life League, "the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States," distributed signs to Washington "tea partiers" last weekend urging "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy."

And LifeSiteNews.com saw fit to run this cartoon with its story about ALL founder Judie Brown and other pro-life leaders trying to stop Kennedy's Catholic public rites:


YEAH, IT'S what you think it is. It's not only objectively disgusting, it's also just as uncharitable toward a man who, in his last days, well may have repented of his legislative advocacy of abortion rights.

It seems to me that we in the pro-life movement -- not to mention the "birthers," the Obamacareophobics and the "tea partiers" -- have to come to terms with the rise of the modern-day Zealots. This coincides with the Obama Administration having to deal with its own Zealot uprising -- the Zealots Against Zealotry, as it were.

On the left, the Zealots like to cuss a lot, call names and revel in their tastelessness. Occasionally, they'll threaten a "mass action" or a demonstration of some such.

On the right, more than a few Zealots threaten armed revolt as they march down the road to Masada. And, as noted previously, this is the company groups such as ALL choose to keep.

WEDNESDAY, I discovered there was such a thing as National Pro-Life Radio. And on it, amid the typical "pro-lifey" programs and Christian music, you have programs like Faith 2 Action with Janet Porter.

Let's just say Porter and her callers like "tea parties," hate "socialism" and love them some Rep. Joe Wilson, of "You lie!" fame. Wednesday's guests were Joe Wurzelbacher (a.k.a., "Joe the Plumber"), Phyllis Schalfly and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).

And what can the pro-life movement learn from Joe the Plumber? Mainly that Joe the Plumber is a blithering idiot. Don't take my word for it -- here's a partial transcript of Wednesday's show:

Caller: I need to ask you a question, OK? Straight out, I just want to know if you think Mr. Obama is a liar.

Joe the Plumber: Yes, I do. I respect Joe Wilson for saying it -- maybe not in the spot he needed to do. If anything, he needed to apologize to Congress, not the president, because he has been lying -- y'know, it's been proven time and time again, he pulls numbers out of the air . . . $50,000 for a foot amputee when doctors are sayin', "No, it doesn't."

The guy's been lying left and right, and we're gettin' a taste of what he really wants to do. So, yeah, I believe the man's a liar.

Caller: Well, so do I. Just like you, I been tryin' to get a business going myself. It's tough. And I just don't need to be payin' all this kind of money for these . . . for what? Other people that, that suckin' m-my royalties?

Joe the Plumber: Well, no, it is tough, especially for a small business. I mean, the state's into your business, and then you also have the federal government into your business, and they seem to want a part of it they really don't deserve.

It seems like we're penalized more and more for trying to fulfill the American dream. It's almost like they don't want us to be a country of producing individuals; they want us just to consume and depend on the nanny state, and we can't do that.

Janet Porter: Couple thoughts I just want to interject, Ray, that if you get four friends, you get a group rate, which is gonna save you money if you can still come and you can check the website . . . we're gonna get some stuff streamed and some tapes for you to hear.

But one of the things, too, regarding Joe Wilson -- he is actually the first congressman in history to be formally rebuked for his behavior toward the president. It's interesting. He apologized right away -- something I have yet to hear from Nancy Pelosi regarding the CIA -- but immediately everybody's saying 'You must be racist.' In fact, they interjected things he didn't say -- the word 'boy,' for example -- didn't happen.

I saw the same thing happen to you (speaking to Joe the Plumber). Were you called racist during this campaign?

Joe the Plumber: Oh, absolutely -- just because I shave my head and got blue eyes, I must belong with the Aryan Brotherhood. So, I was called a racist right off the bat, but you got to understand politicians -- Republicans and Democrats both -- that's just a political tool. That's just to rile people up to take their eye off the real issue and press advantages home they believe they have, which is just disgusting.

You want to see real racism? Go to Israel and in the Middle East, where they teach that Jewish are literally pigs. Not figuratively, but literally, and they call for the whole destruction of the race. I mean, the racism here in America -- don't get me wrong, there is there, I grew up around it, but it's not nowhere near as strong or as grievous as it is over in the Middle East and other parts of the world.

It's just a political tool for our politicians to use and to keep us divided -- and remember, they do not want Americans to be united. Otherwise, again, we'll hold them accountable and make them do their job.

Janet Porter: By the way, the House rules now are banning the words 'liar,' 'hypocrite' and 'intellectually dishonest' -- boy, they're, instead of calling people and making them accountable for what they say, and say 'Hey, listen, this has not been accurate. What you're saying has been so far off from the bill itself -- the truth -- uh, but no, instead what they're doing is they're, they're they're banning speech. I find that to be troubling. Do you?

Joe the Plumber: Well, absolutely. It goes along the lines of the political correctness. I don't know how many people realize that, but that actually started over in Germany. They wanted to, ah . . . 'How, how do we get communism to spread?' And they're like 'Well, you need to take down Western civilization.'

So they had a think tank, and they came up with this critical thinking, ah, critical, ah . . . ah, ah, critical thinking t . . . think tank, to where they . . . 'Well, you know, political correctness, that's the way of doing it -- I mean, it came to be known that. But it's pretty much criticizing anything and everything.

And that's where we find ourselves at now.

AND THAT'S WHERE the pro-life movement and "Christian America" find themselves at now.

Perhaps now would be a good time to quit digging, leave the Republicans to their own crazy-pants meltdown, and shut the hell up if all you know how to do is shout.

And in the silence, perhaps it also would be a good time for the pro-life movement and "Christian America" to pray -- pray specifically for faith, hope, love, charity . . . and brains.

To those who play with fire . . .

. . . you just might get burned.

And it ain't gonna be no tea party.

No sign of life

Pro-life, my ass.

This (above) is the kind of thing we can come to expect today from some of America's thoroughly politicized national "pro-life" organizations.

For the low, low price of $5, those seeking to uphold the sanctity of human life "from creation to natural death" can join the American Life League in making sport of the natural death of a politician they've officially designated as "the Other." Funny this should come from an organization that says we must fight Planned Parenthood because it sells sex "as bait to steal souls — your children’s souls."

With tacky revenue-generators like

"Bury Obamacare With Kennedy" and Pharisaical demands about whom the Roman Catholic prelate of Boston may or may not grant a Roman Catholic funeral, one must wonder what happened to ALL's "soul." Apparently, at some point the souls of ALL and other significant portions of the pro-life movement must have been pilfered by the Republican Party.

It had to be soul theft, because Lord knows the pro-life movement didn't get enough in return for it to be considered a transaction.

IF GROUPS such as the American Life League aren't mere tools of the GOP and the health-insurance industry, why is ALL condemning some Catholic organizations for signing on to the mere concept of health-care reform? From a recent ALL press release:

Catholic Charities USA, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the Catholic Health Association are urging their members to support "healthcare reform now," (i.e., current legislation that includes tax-subsidized abortion and rationed care for the sick and elderly).

ALL was alerted to the scandal when supporters passed along an action alert issued jointly by Catholic Charities and the de Paul Society, in which they tell members and supporters, " [W]e must maintain momentum for health care reform efforts with calls and emails supporting health care reform immediately. The groups that do not support health reform have been blanketing House members in opposition to any reform. Your members of Congress need to hear from you that you support health care reform, and that the system needs to be reformed now."

The Catholic Health Association produced a video which begins with a clip of President Obama, the most pro-abortion president in history, rallying Congress to support his health care plan. The de Paul Society inserted the video in its web site.

After American Life League issued a statement condemning this move, Catholic Charities USA described "online media reports" as "inaccurate," "disingenuous" and "politically motivated."

"We reported, verbatim, the statements these organizations sent their members," Brown responded. "These groups are apparently attempting to work out a backroom deal with the Obama administration. Their primary concern is universal health care, while the preborn and the elderly are left behind as collateral damage. As institutions rooted in Catholic social teaching, these groups should be at the forefront of the fight against the injustice of rationed care for the poorest of the poor, of tax-subsidized abortion and contraception, and of disregard for the health of the sick and elderly.

THE TROUBLE IS, today's health-care system is all about rationed care, as well as subsidized abortion and contraception -- all at the hands of private, profit-driven insurance companies. Every denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, every denial of payment for treatment received, every lifetime limit on claims and every denial of coverage for life-saving treatment is all about rationing care so that insurance companies' profits might be maximized.

Likewise, some 86 percent of private insurance policies now cover elective abortions. Who needs government, right?

One supposes that babies must somehow be less dead when dispatched with revenues from policyholders than when the deed is done by "government." If this supposition is false, then where are the all the ALL press releases hyperventilating against the evil, baby-killing private insurers?

If ALL and other "pro-life" groups are so committed to the sanctity of life "from creation to natural death," why do they rail against health-care reform period instead of merely decrying the objectionable proposals within the present health-care reform bills? This is especially relevant given that federal "death panels" exist only in the fevered imagination of Sarah Palin, and taxpayer-funded abortions under "Obamacare" are far from a done deal.

And what about ALL making sure reams of its tasteless, mean-spirited little "Obamacare" protest sign found their way all around the weekend "tea party" in Washington? What better way for a group to associate itself with stuff like this:

IN CASE you can't read everything, the yelling woman's sign calls President Obama a "fascist," and her shirt reads "The Cure for Obama Communism Is a New Era of McCarthyism." Fascist communists???

And ALL, in its infinite wisdom, also successfully managed to associate pro-lifers with this, too:


ONE THING can be said of ALL, just as it can be said for the "teabaggers" in general -- their zeal, and anger, is all-consuming.

In the name of the people, they do the bidding of corporate America.

In the name of freedom, they call -- or remain silent amid calls -- for a "new era of McCarthyism" . . . and the ideological witch hunts that accompanied the original era of McCarthyism.

And in the name of God and "a Christian nation," they tolerate threats of armed revolt, demonize those who disagree with them, make light of a senator's death, sow hatred and fear . . . and ultimately give aid and comfort to the Prince of Darkness and his evil designs.

The ironically named American Life League -- that which accuses others of stealing souls -- acts as if its primary directive is to steal the soul of the pro-life movement and set it against itself. And, once again, Americans are not without their reasons for equating "pro-life" with "pro-nut."

AS AN ORDINARY Catholic layman who believes what his church proclaims -- as someone who really does embrace the right to life from conception to natural death -- I find that there is indeed a last straw, and that it has disappeared.

And I now wish to disassociate myself from what is commonly understood to be "the pro-life movement."

This utterly and unfortunately politicized "movement" may be pro-something, but that something isn't necessarily life. Or the Author thereof.



IN CASE YOU'RE INTERESTED, here are some of the folks with whom the American Life League decided to get in bed.

Granted, these folks probably don't represent a majority of those at the Washington "tea party." But if they represent even 20 percent, be afraid. Be very afraid.

Profile in political courage

When you see a politician acting on principle -- particularly when he knows it probably will be the end of him -- it's important to take note of it.

Mainly because it almost never happens. Not today. Not in Washington, a town of small ideas and smaller men (and women).

New Orleans' "accidental congressman" might stand just over 5 feet tall, but if you ask me, he's the biggest man in D.C. From a Saturday story in The Times-Picayune:

Earlier in the day, Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao, R-New Orleans, the only member of the Louisiana House delegation who had not weighed in on where he stands on the health reform bill, said that he cannot support any bill that permits public money to be spent on abortion.

"At the end of the day if the health care reform bill does not have strong language prohibiting the use of federal funding for abortion, then the bill is really a no-go for me," said Cao, who studied to be a Jesuit priest.

"Being a Jesuit, I very much adhere to the notion of social justice," Cao said. "I do fully understand the need of providing everyone with access to health care, but to me personally, I cannot be privy to a law that will allow the potential of destroying thousands of innocent lives.

"I know that voting against the health care bill will probably be the death of my political career," Cao said, "but I have to live with myself, and I always reflect on the phrase of the New Testament, 'How does it profit a man's life to gain the world but to lose his soul.'"

Cao said he is still undecided about the merits of including a public option in any health reform redesign. On Friday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced that Cao will be one of seven Republican members of Congress targeted with radio ads that will play on radio stations with largely African-American audiences, urging him to support Obama's health reform efforts.

LISTEN, LET'S BE BLUNT. Asian intellectuals usually don't go far in majority-black, majority-poorer-than-hell political districts. They really don't go far in New Orleans, a place where everything is about race . . . and grievance.

Anh Cao is congressman because then-U.S. Rep. "Dollar" Bill Jefferson was under indictment and African-Americans largely stayed home during the Dec. 7 general election. If Cao wants to stay in Congress, major obsequiousness is required.

Bucking President Obama and dissing the Dems is not the way to future electoral success for this Republican in a strange land.

Democrats will run their ads, and they'll convince the people -- well, at least most of the black people -- of Louisiana's 2nd Congressional District that the Vietnamese lawyer wants to let the black man (and woman) die for lack of health care.

WHAT THE ADS won't say, of course, is that a strong majority of congressional Democrats want taxpayers to pay for killing highly disproportionate numbers of African-Americans in the womb. The Dems won't cop to this because that might raise serious questions.

Questions like "Who's the racist here?"