The Latest From HillBuzz

The scales are falling away:

This is a hard thing for us to write, especially since it’s not a done deal for us yet, but we think the MSM and liberals’ apology efforts for Muslim mass-murderer Hasan at Ft. Hood might just be the last straw for the Democrat Party with us.

Liberals are doing everything they can to fabricate a delusion that this was not a terrorist attack made in the name of Islam — which we clearly believe it was.

...

This was a terrorist attack, no matter how much the lunatic Left would like to convince you otherwise…or go to great efforts to hug, coddle, and sympathize with the “misunderstood” Muslim terrorist.

This has just gotten ridiculous.

...

Since May of last year, Democrats have engaged in one crazy, destructive scheme after another, from the reckless Trillion Dollar “Stimulus” spending that was rammed through without even being read by voting members of Congress to the insane economy-killing Cap & Tax nonsense and the deranged takeover of 1/6 of our economy in the Utopiacare debacle.

In regards to all of the above, we’ve consistently felt that after Democrats’ defeat in the 2010 midterms and Dr. Utopia’s defeat in 2012, that moderate Democrats would take back the party and move everything back to the center, where we think the party belongs.

But, honestly, we are so disgusted by the Muslim apologists on the Left that we don’t know if we can continue being Democrats anymore — that we need to accept the fact that we are indeed Independents now.

...

We will happily vote Republican when a good, non-religious zealot is up against a corrupt, machine-candidate, Obot.

We have absolutely no respect for the Democrat Party after the way it’s behaved the last three years.

All of the above would have been UNTHINKABLE to us in 2007. Never in our lives did we think we would vote Republican or call ourselves Indepedents, but that’s where things have certainly moved.

As we process this further, we’ll write more on the topic, but the concerted effort from the White House and DNC to paint Muslim terrorist Hasan as some sort of misunderstood angel on a murder spree is just too much.

For YEARS we’ve heard Republicans talk about what an insane cancer liberalism is, and how much liberals want to destroy America as we know it.

We never believed them…but the last few days have given a new clearness to everything for us.

Liberals are truly running to the defense of a Muslim terrorist…and not running to help his victims…not running to protect Americans from further attacks like this…they are running to defend a murderer.

It’s appalling.

And we think it might just be our very last straw with these loons.

This is not astroturf. Recall that HillBuzz was fanatically in favor of Hillary last year (and apparently are still Clinton partisans for some reason).

This is also good.

William Lane Craig vs Francisco Ayala

Musings on a recent debate, including a fascinating account of the debate by Craig.

Cartoon

Here:

Thanks For The Present. Hey, Where Did My Wallet Go?

"Pelosi: ObamaCare is our Christmas present to America"

Allahpundit:

[T]his is like “borrowing” a friend’s credit card, buying a car with it, then presenting them with the car on Christmas morning as their “gift.” Nor is it the first time that a prominent Democrat’s imagined your tax dollars as her personal Christmas club account...

Paglia

She often suffers from a strange cognitive dissonance (sometimes even within a single column), but when she's on, she's on:

As for the actual content of the House healthcare bill, horrors! Where to begin? That there are serious deficiencies and injustices in the U.S. healthcare system has been obvious for decades. To bring the poor and vulnerable into the fold has been a high ideal and an urgent goal for most Democrats. But this rigid, intrusive and grotesquely expensive bill is a nightmare. Holy Hygeia, why can't my fellow Democrats see that the creation of another huge, inefficient federal bureaucracy would slow and disrupt the delivery of basic healthcare and subject us all to a labyrinthine mass of incompetent, unaccountable petty dictators? Massively expanding the number of healthcare consumers without making due provision for the production of more healthcare providers means that we're hurtling toward a staggering logjam of de facto rationing. Steel yourself for the deafening screams from the careerist professional class of limousine liberals when they get stranded for hours in the jammed, jostling anterooms of doctors' offices. They'll probably try to hire Caribbean nannies as ringers to do the waiting for them.

A second issue souring me on this bill is its failure to include the most common-sense clause to increase competition and drive down prices: portability of health insurance across state lines. What covert business interests is the Democratic leadership protecting by stopping consumers from shopping for policies nationwide? Finally, no healthcare bill is worth the paper it's printed on when the authors ostentatiously exempt themselves from its rules. The solipsistic members of Congress want us peons to be ground up in the communal machine, while they themselves gambol on in the flowering meadow of their own lavish federal health plan. Hypocrites!

And why are we even considering so gargantuan a social experiment when the nation is struggling to emerge from a severe recession? It's as if liberals are starry-eyed dreamers lacking the elementary ability to project or predict the chaotic and destabilizing practical consequences of their utopian fantasies. Republicans, on the other hand, have basically sat on their asses about healthcare reform for the past 20 years and have shown little interest in crafting legislative solutions to social inequities. The usual GOP floater about private medical savings accounts is a crock -- something that, given the astronomical costs of major medical crises, would be utterly unworkable for families of even average household income.

International models of socialized medicine have been developed for nations and populations that are usually vastly smaller than our own. There are positives and negatives in their system as in ours. So what's the point of this trade? The plight of the uninsured (whose number is far less than claimed) should be directly addressed without co-opting and destroying the entire U.S. medical infrastructure. Limited, targeted reforms can ban gouging and unfair practices and can streamline communications now wastefully encumbered by red tape. But insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry are not the sole cause of mounting healthcare costs, and constantly demonizing them is a demagogic evasion.

How dare anyone claim humane aims for this bill anyhow when its funding is based on a slashing of Medicare by over $400 billion? The brutal abandonment of the elderly here is unconscionable. One would have expected a Democratic proposal to include an expansion of Medicare, certainly not its gutting. The passive acquiescence of liberal commentators to this vandalism simply demonstrates how partisan ideology ultimately desensitizes the mind.

Last week's startling gubernatorial victories by Republicans in Virginia and New Jersey were routinely dismissed as local aberrations by the liberal media or inflated as referendums on President Obama by the conservative media. But voters were clearly revolting against the deranged excess spending of government at both state and federal levels. So it was as much a protest against Congress as against the White House.

...

On other matters, I was recently flicking my car radio dial and heard an affected British voice tinkling out on NPR. I assumed it was some fussy, gossipy opera expert fresh from London. To my astonishment, it was Richard Dawkins, the thrice-married emperor of contemporary atheists. I had never heard him speak, so it was a revelation. On science, Dawkins was spot on -- lively and nimble. But on religion, his voice went "Psycho" weird (yes, Alfred Hitchcock) -- as if he was channeling some old woman with whom he was in love-hate combat. I have no idea what ancient private dramas bubble beneath the surface there. As an atheist who respects and studies religion, I believe it is fair to ask what drives obsessive denigrators of religion. Neither extreme rationalism nor elite cynicism are adequate substitutes for faith, which fulfills a basic human need -- which is why religion will continue to thrive in our war-torn world.

Good Headline

Ace of Spades:

Everyone's First Thought After Hearing About "Possible Muslim Backlash" in the Media? "My God, How Many Have They Killed This Time?"

He Phones It In, Giving A Shout Out To Himself

Inspirational:

Obama in video at the Berlin Wall

Obama went to Berlin before his election, on a triumphant campaign tour. He had time to go to Copenhagen to plead for a Chicago Olympics. And he will make time for an extra-special Oslo jaunt in order to receive his very own Nobel Peace Prize.

But he only found time to appear at the 20-year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall through the magic of video. Otherwise, poor Hillary will have to do.

As part of his taped address, Obama intoned:

“Few would have foreseen … that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent.”

I have a bit of a quarrel with the word “led” to refer to what Obama is doing to this country. But of course, it’s never about him—except when it is. The man seems compelled to continually bring his personal history into each and every occasion, even when he can’t be bothered to be personally present.

An Amazing TV Offer

Some don't-miss Andrew Klavan. This is really good. But hurry. Supplies are limited.

Union Thieves Never Quit

Watch it and weep.

Cartoons

Here:




Here:




Here:

Socialist "Pro-Choicers" Shocked Over The Politicization Of Healthcare Decisions

Live by the government takeover, die by the government takeover:

Ironically, the need for the controversial measure is a direct consequence of liberal efforts to have the government take over the health care system. The amendment, proposed by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joe Pitts (R-PA), would merely extend protections under current law that prevent taxpayer funding for abortion through government health care programs such as Medicaid. The only reason the Stupak-Pitts amendment would apply restrictions to the private market is that the government would be drastically expanding its role in the private market as a result of the health care legislation.

Currently, women are able to purchase private health care plans that cover abortion because it remains a legal procedure and we still have a private market for the sale of health insurance. But if the House Democratic health care bill becomes law, individuals will only be allowed to purchase health insurance through a government-run exchange. And because millions of Americans will be using government subsidies to purchase insurance through the exchange, suddenly lawmakers get to have a say on what kind of private insurance policies individuals can purchase. In addition, the federal government would be directly operating one of the plans, known as the “public option.”

The Stupak-Pitts amendment, which passed Saturday night with the support of 64 Democrats, would prevent women from using federal subsidies in the new government exchange to purchase health insurance that covers abortion. It also makes sure the new government-run plan does not offer abortion coverage.

But in blasting the amendment during the House floor debate, pro-choice Democrats had no sense of irony in the arguments they were making against government command and control.

“This amendment…attempts to dictate to women how to spend their own money,” declared Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). “It’s simply outrageous.”

Yet the House bill Lee voted for within hours of making her remarks dictates that any individual must spend his or her own money to purchase a health insurance policy that is deemed acceptable by the government -- even if the cost far exceeds his or her annual health care expenditures -- or pay a tax under the threat of imprisonment.

“This amendment adds a new discriminatory measure against women,” Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) insisted. “Under this proposal, if a woman is of low or moderate income and receives tax credits to help her afford the premiums for a health insurance plan she purchases on the exchange, she can't choose a plan that covers abortion services. And even if she chooses the public option, she cannot receive abortion coverage at all, even if she receives no money of any kind and pays for the plan entirely herself.”

And Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) fumed that “It attempts an unprecedented overreach into women’s basic rights and freedoms in this country.”

Yet both Nadler and DeLaura also voted for the main health care bill. In it, not only would individuals be prevented from purchasing insurance outside of a government-run exchange (under a section titled “Limitations on individual health insurance coverage”), but all of the plans offered on the exchange would be designed by a presidentially-appointed “Health Choices Commissioner.” The Commissioner, according to the bill, “shall specify the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefits plans during each plan year, consistent with subtitle C of title II and this section.” Each insurer would be required to offer a “basic” plan as defined by the Commissioner, and then could offer an “enhanced” plan, a “premium plan” and a “premium plus” plan.

And though Democrats insist that the government-run plan, or “public option,” would only be financed by the premiums it collects from beneficiaries, the House bill designates $2 billion in taxpayer money to finance start-up costs. In addition, the plan would be overseen by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is a federal government employee whose salary is paid by taxpayers.

DeLauro asserted that “we should not be injecting this divisive and polarizing issue into our debate.” Yet the politicizing of medical issues is a natural consequence of putting government bureaucrats and lawmakers in control of the health care system.

If pro-choice Democrats are sincerely concerned about avoiding government restrictions on abortion coverage in private insurance policies, there’s a very simple solution: don’t support a government takeover of the health care system.

Of course, if they were the type of people that had the foresight to worry about such ramifications, they wouldn't be Democrats in the first place.

We Have No Idea Why He Did This. What Could It Possibly Be?

Mark Shea on the hapless tools of the media:

All weekend, while I hung out in the hotel at Denver. I endured watching TV pundits scratching the $200 haircuts on their 88 cent heads and pondering the question of whether their might be some remote connection between Islamic belief and a guy who praises Muslim suicide bombers as heros and martyrs, uses his authority as a psychiatrist to proselytize vulnerable patiences with Islam, and dresses in traditional Muslim garb in preparation for bursting into a room full of defenseless people and shouting "Allahu ackbar!" as he guns them down.

It was a spectacular display of deliberate willed stupidity by a culture that does not want to acknowledge that Islam tends to breed such acts of terror with startling frequency.

Of course, that same media culture has absolutely no trouble painting Christians as dangerous fanatics (no doubt due to the roving gangs of gun-toting Methodists who shouts "Jesus is Lord" as they blast away at defenseless people.

Meanwhile, Roland Emmerich does a stand up job making clear what motivates so much of the willed stupidity from our Chattering Classes who refuse to ever notice the bleedin' obvious. It's all about the cowardice:

For "2012," Emmerich set his sites on destroying the some biggest landmarks around the world, from Rome to Rio. But there's one place that Emmerich wanted to demolish but didn't: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped structure located in the center of Mecca. It's the focus of prayers and the site of the Hajj, the biggest, most important pilgrimage in Islam.

"Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit," the filmmaker told scifiwire.com. "But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, 'I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.' And he was right."

Emmerich went on: "We have to all, in the western world, think about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it's just something which I kind of didn't [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out."

Note the passive voice. Emmerich doesn't acknowledge that he is a coward afraid of offending Bronze Age Bullies with thin skin. Instead, he blabbers something about "that state the world is in."

Meanwhile, the Religion That Can't Grow Up behold the carnage wrought by another Son of the Prophet and naturally blames... somebody else while feeling sorry for itself. Boo hoo. Somebody made fun of the shooter. Poor him. Boy, I'm sure lucky that nobody in our culture ever mocks us mackerel snappers. If they did, I guess we'd be perfectly justified in opening fire on innocent civilians.

If You Get In Bed With Tyrants, Don't Be Surprised By Who Ends Up On Top

Selling the rope to hang themselves:

The bill is instead a breathtaking display of illiberal ambition, intended to make the middle class more dependent on government through the umbilical cord of "universal health care." It creates a vast new entitlement, financed by European levels of taxation on business and individuals. The 20% corner of Medicare open to private competition is slashed, while fiscally strapped states are saddled with new Medicaid burdens. The insurance industry will have to vet every policy with Washington, which will regulate who it must cover, what it can offer, and how much it can charge.

We have little sympathy for the insurers, or for that matter most of the other medical providers who signed on to this process only to claim now to be appalled by the result. The insurance lobby—led by Aetna CEO Ron Williams—made the Faustian bet that it could trade new regulations for more new subsidized customers who would face a tax penalty if they didn't buy their insurance. The Pelosi bill includes the regulation but guts the tax penalty because it's unpopular. Insurers will thus have to cover more sick people with fewer dollars, as healthy folk opt out of coverage until they are sick.

This writing was on the wall months ago, but the insurers chose to play an inside game rather than shape public opinion. Judging by their weekend statement—criticizing the House bill but vowing to seek "bipartisan" reform—they will now throw themselves at the mercy of the Senate. Good luck with that.

Oops

A living symbol.

Yup.

A comment to this post:

I think I’ve figured out the Obamacrats’ anti-terror policy: If they destroy America themselves, there’s no reason for Iran or Al Qaeda to bother.

Par For The Course

A report on the November 5 debate between William Lane Craig and Francisco Ayala:

I figured that Craig would come across as the better debater, simply because Craig is masterful at that sort of thing, as has been discussed here. Advice for how to debate Craig is available here and here, but unfortunately it appears that Ayala did not read up on this. Ayala didn’t really engage with Craig, but instead presented his own information, ignoring the arguments that Craig was giving. This topic is a new topic for Craig — when we talked backstage, he confirmed that he hasn’t published or debated on the topic of biology-based intelligent design arguments, and had Craig gone up against a competent anti-ID philosopher of biology like Kitcher or Sober, Craig might have lost.

Here is an interesting assessment of the debate by the blogger Ranger:

It was a terrible performance by Ayala, who is considered by many to be the best public proponent of evolution in America. As I think I’ve stated here before, I generally side with the theistic evolutionists, and had my hopes up. In the end, I’m frustrated and getting so sick and tired of all of the hand-waving and lack of solid argumentation on the side of evolution.

1. In his conclusion, after literally offering no argumentation in response to Craig’s points, he says something to the effect of “Let me tell you something, there is lots of evidence for the mechanisms of evolution in thousands of articles and books by people who know the scientific method.” Great! Then it should be really easy to present a good argument against Craig based on those thousands of articles, right?

2. Craig brought up Behe, and Ayala responded in two ways…one he simply asserted that Behe has been refuted. I’m assuming he means by Ken Miller, as the those arguing in favor of evolution have almost made a cliche out of saying “Miller obliterated Behe at Dover and in “Only a Theory.” I’ve got OAT, read it, enjoyed it, but also know that Behe has responded and I agree with Behe that Miller didn’t satisfactorily give an answer…so the cliche (usually offered by those who have actually read neither Behe or Miller) gets old. If it’s been so clearly refuted and if you are one of America’s best spokesmen for evolution, then simply explain why Behe’s arguments fail. If you feel that you need to educate America in this regard, then do it! Don’t fall back on the “priesthood” of science with assertions about the thousands of articles written by people who understand the scientific method.

3. Nobody was talking about Paley, so why did Ayala keep arguing in reference to Paley and the eye? Craig brings up Behe’s arguments, and Ayala responds to Behe’s arguments by arguing against an argument from 250 years ago that neither Craig nor Behe makes? That was odd to say the least…and didn’t do his side any favors.

Let me be very honest and say that I’m actually coming around to a position of thinking ID might be viable (in a Christian universe, which I believe to be our universe) partially because I’m sick and tired of the hand-waving and lack of good response from scientists who claim to be experts.

See also this.

The House Of Representatives Has Just Seceded From The Union

I think the rest of us are going to need to follow their lead.

You Know It's True

Instapundit:

FOR CERTAIN VALUES OF THE WORD “WE,” ANYWAY: Chris Matthews: We may never know if religion was a factor at Fort Hood.

Plus this: “You’ll know it’s okay to start speculating about Hasan’s motives when cops find a Glenn Beck book on his bookshelf. In fact, if the same ‘PTSD by proxy’ elements had been present in Hasan’s bio but it turned out he’d attended a tea party or two, we’d already be well into hour 30 of a full-on media speculation orgy.”

"Divisive Unanimity"

Spectator piece highlights that an issue that has had 31 wins at the ballot box and zero losses is not an example of "divisive".

The piece ends:

But can a measure that has passed in every state in which it has been put before the voters be called divisive? Not with a straight face. Thirty-one for thirty-one isn't division. It's unanimity.

With This Post I'd Like To Give A Shout Out To Dr. Joe Medicine Crow

Link. Who, BTW, did not receive the Congressional Medal of Honor, but why should the C-in-C worry himself about unimportant military-related details?

Make It Stop!!

Amusing Anchoress rant.

When You Claim You're Not Going To Come After Churches, This Is Why We Don't Believe You

GayPatriot:

Why do Gay Leaders Have this Compulsion to Out their Adversaries?

It seems gay leaders exist to make my point about their incompetence to appeal to those whose minds they most need to change. Now, we learn that the leader of the No on 1 campaign in Maine, instead of learning from the campaign’s mistakes, intends to target those voters in the Pine Tree State:

No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.””

Yeah, that kind of rhetoric will really help you change minds. How about saying something like this

We came up short this time, but who’d have thought that five years ago, we could have got 47% of Maine citizens to vote for gay marriage. We need to look closely at our campaign, figure out where we went wrong and make a stronger case next time, telling voters why marriage is good and why it’s good for gay people.

Let me give Mr. Connolly a piece of advice, angry rhetoric is not going to change minds. You need to make the case for gay marriage not against those who voted against it. ’Cause if you want to win next time, you’re going to need some of their votes.

They aren't seeking to change minds. They are seeking to impose their will. Period. End of story. How they handle these elections is just a foretaste of what they intend should they ever win.