Best Video of the Day

Here

What Is the Legal Argument at Ground Zero?

I'm going to steal this from Hugh Hewitt. It's an excellent explanation of the opposition to the Ground Zero mosque and the legal side of the argument.

The trouble is that opposition to one mosque in one place does not a bigot make, though certainly there are anti-Muslim bigots in America. The various straw men put forward and beaten down by Bloomberg et al serve only to deepen the anger of those opposed to one mosque in one place because of their concern over the politicization of Ground Zero, and the other line --taken by Pelosi in the comments above-- that the mosque at Ground Zero is a "local land use decision"-- is instantly understood as not only quite obviously absurd but also political cowardice, especially after the president entered the debate.

As a lawyer who has long represented churches and religious schools in land use disputes, the basic law is this: The government may not constitutionally treat one proposed religious land use differently from similarly situated other religious land uses, and the government may not single out religious land uses for discriminatory treatment in ways that uniquely burden those uses.

By contrast, the government can and does zone land to serve the general good,and in the course of doing that, it may treat religious land uses as one category of land use that will be treated in specific ways, provided those ways are not intended to burden or discriminate against that class of land uses or a particular denomination.

Thus New York City or the state or even the federal government could chose to protect the entire area around and including Ground Zero from all uses that are intended to exploit proximity of the hallowed ground to send messages of any sort. None of these governments could single out the Muslim faith for special burdens or prefer a different faith seeking a shrine nearby.

Neutral principles fairly applied are the heart of Free Exercise Clause's protection of religious land uses.

This approach is, for the benefit of the president's speech writers, a fairly recent development. "The writ of the Founders" did not, for example, stop the attempted extermination of the LDS church in the 19th century.

With Nancy Pelosi calling for investigations of anyone opposed to the mosque, we need to stop pretending that Democrats are simply misguided or have different views from Republicans and conservatives. If the demonization of the Tea Party and talk radio wasn't enough evidence, surely wanting to use the power of the federal government against people speaking their minds should. Nazi and communist references are worn, but, honestly, is there any other way to characterize calling for investigating people for speaking their minds about a national issue? This is, frankly, revolting, and Pelosi should be condemned for it.

Great Ad

Via Ace of Spades.

Hypocrisy from the Left: Who Would Jesus Abort?

Coffee spewer of the day: Nancy Pelosi claims she has to craft public policy that conforms to her Catholic faith, or something, which is a weird argument to make if you are a leftwinger. I mean, I thought liberals hate letting values affect one's vote. Not that any person with 2 brain cells believes Pelosi lets her WWJD bracelet change her mind about issues like, say, partial-birth abortion.

From Hot Air:

When conservatives talk about religious values informing public policy goals, the Left shrieks about the separation of church and state and usually refers to the Right as an American Taliban. Pelosi will get a pass, however, because she uses the religious language to argue for their pet causes. It’s a good idea to capture this moment anyway, for the next time someone argues that “Christianists” are attempting a theocratic takeover of America.

We have a word for this: Democrisy.

Congress Shirks Their Budgetary Duties

I could probably use that headline in half the posts I write, but it's particularly appropriate when Congress won't pass a budget this year for the first time since 1974.

The news came from Rep. Hoyer himself, who said “It’s difficult to pass budgets in election years because they reflect what the [fiscal] status is.” In other words, with November looming on the horizon, the left doesn’t want their constituents to realize just how much Congress is spending and how high taxes will go.

The budget is a framework the federal government uses to set spending, but since Democrats don't care about spending, why pass a budget?

I'm thinking about sending Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama copies of Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover, but I'm not even sure they can read at this point.

Nancy Pelosi: Of Course Obama Lied to Get Elected

The video where Nancy Pelosi admits that Obama "was for a lot of things on the campaign trail" but essentially lied to get elected is priceless.

Jail Time for Not Buying Insurance Isn't Just a Republican Rumor

It's true.

Pelosi: Jail time “very fair” for failing to buy your patriotic ObamaCare coverage

Democrats are fearful of having to admit that people actually choose not to get insurance, so, she thinks throwing people in jail for it is "fair."

Of course, the other option is to make people responsible for paying their own bills. Nothing requires us to pick up the tab for people in clinics or emergency rooms, especially those who can afford to pay their way. This is the point that Pelosi and her statist colleagues seem to forget. People who choose not to buy coverage even though they could afford it assume the risk of paying out of pocket — and that may be a very rational choice, as it is most unlikely that those people would use $3,000 a month in medical services, which is what their insurance would cost now.

The argument that the E.R. bills are passed on to taxpayers now is ridiculous. When you go to the E.R., the billing people will ask how you are paying for the services. People with insurance typically have the charges filled with their insurance first. If you don't have insurance, there is typically a financial department at the hospital that you can meet with to make arrangements. Or you can pay the bill when it comes to your house. In any event, it's not billed to the taxpayer.

Still, in the world of the Democrats, jailing people for choosing to assume their own risk is fair. And they wonder why we call them Stalinists.

Health Care News Round-Up

Bunches of interesting stuffs here.

--Nancy Pelosi pushes for vote on Pelosicare Thursday. I call it "Pelosicare," since it doesn't really seem to be what we will end up with, other than taxpayer-funded abortions, huge tax increases, and cuts in the care you can get. This is even taking into account the CBO estimates that the bill would cut the deficit (by not providing any benefits for the first three years, then steamrolling in the costs for the last seven), a dubious claim, at best.

--William Kristol argues that Pelosi may fail.

First of all, the new Rasmussen survey finds 42 percent favoring the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats -- down a bit from a week ago. 54 percent of the public is opposed. 23 percent of all voters strongly support the plan, with 44 percent strongly opposed.

Second, there are elections tomorrow. In Virginia and New Jersey, the Democratic candidates for governor will run 15 to 20 points behind Obama’s showing a year ago (in 2008 Obama won Virginia by six, New Jersey by 16). This is a pretty stunning one-year swing in two not-insignificant states. And many of the voters who are swinging are similar to voters who live in the competitive congressional districts Democrats picked up in 2006 and 2008.

So Virginia and New Jersey alone could give a fair number of Democratic congressmen reason to pause before they walk the plank in the House for Nancy Pelosi's health care plan.

Elections tomorrow play a big role in how moderate Democrats will approach Pelosi's plan. If Republicans (and I'm including Hoffman in that) win all three races, I can't imagine moderate Dems jumping into Pelosi's meat grinder. The writing on the wall will be plain to them.

--Ezra Klein points out that the difference in health care costs between the U.S. and other countries is because we pay more per unit. But Klein doesn't go into an important component of why our care costs so much more: consumers rarely know what the cost of each treatment, drug or procedure is. Why? Because the doctor or hospital talks to the insurer (be it private or government) and then patients get the bill for what the insurer doesn't pay. So the patient never sees the actual cost.

Here's a real world example. My husband attended a company meeting today where the CEO discussed a variety of things, including the fact that health care reform is necessary. At this company, which is pretty large, the costs of insurance have risen 10% for several years. And why are the prices going up? Because, as the CEO put it, we demand more and never check the prices. He said he'd had some numbness in his hand and went to the doctor, who did an electrical pulse procedure on it. When he went to pay for the visit, the person at the desk said, "That will be $25."

"How much does that procedure really cost?" he asked.

"$25."

"No, really. Not my co-pay. What is the cost of that procedure?"

"$2,300."

The man was astounded. He said if he'd known it would cost $2,300 for the procedure, he would have lived with the numbness. But how many procedures do we all have done without knowing the costs or, really, having much choice in what we pay?

--Orrin Hatch says Obamacare will destroy the two-party system.

Hatch asserted that the health bills, which he believes represent a "step-by-step approach to socialized medicine," will lead to Americans' dependence on Democrats for their health and other issues.

"And if they get there, of course, you're going to have a very rough time having a two-party system in this country, because almost everybody's going to say, 'All we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party,' " Hatch said during an interview with the conservative CNSNews.com.

"That's their goal," Hatch added. "That's what keeps Democrats in power."

Hatch is correct that handing out the goodies is what keeps Democrats in power. That's why they like pointing to popular programs like school lunches, Social Security and Medicare. What they don't want to point to is that dependence on the government is no more freedom than any other tyranny. It's a soft boot on your face as opposed to a spiked one.

--More food for thought about closing the deficit. Top earners would pay 95.2%. Even the bottom sixth would pay more than a quarter of their earnings in wages. I don't see anyone proposing this any time soon.

--Even if Obamacare fails--and the closer we get to 2010 without a law, the better that prospect looks-- Democrats can cheer each other for enacting important legislation that makes killing a person for being a woman less of a hate crime than killing the same woman for being a lesbian.

Today's Health Care News Round Up

Lots of news today related to the great Obamacare debate.

In a press conference today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot down a "public option trigger," which moderate Democrats deem necessary for their support.

“I don't even want to talk about a trigger,” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. She said the “attitude” of her fellow Democrats is that “a trigger is an excuse for not doing anything.”

Pelosi can get re-elected from uber-liberal San Francisco with the public option, but she could lose control of the House pushing this agenda. Apparently, she doesn't care, taking the philosophy that she's in charge now and we better all like it.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick names a Kennedy sycophant to fill the official Kennedy seat. This is because it's more important to cram through Obamacare than follow their own state laws, the one put in place by the dead Kennedy.

Bickering continues on Max Baucus's committee as Republicans try to prevent Democrats from cutting Medicare benefits.

Nancy Pelosi's Politics of Fear

Remember how Al Gore screamed that George W. Bush played on our fears, lying to us in order to start a War in Iraq? That was really hot news in 2004, and I don't know how many blog posts I have read by liberal bloggers over the years about how conservatives play on our fears in order to get elected and re-elected.

But, frankly the "conservatives are fear mongers" meme has picked up steam since Barack Obama's inauguration (see here, here and here). And now, we have Nancy Pelosi choking up at the thought of conservative violence because someone somewhere spoke his/her mind.

Pelosi is referring to the murders of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk by Dan White, who was, in the words of Ed Morrissey a lunatic.

At his trial, White tried to evade responsibility for his acts in part through arguing that he had a diminished capacity caused in part by his diet, which led to it being ridiculed as “the Twinkie defense.” White only got sentenced to a short term in prison, which was a grave injustice. He should have gotten two life terms for the murders, which was a good argument for a better approach in California to law and order.

White was also a registered Democrat and a moderate.

He assassinated Moscone after the mayor refused to reappoint him as supervisor, a post White had resigned but then regretted leaving. He shot Milk five times on the way out of City Hall after personal animosity between the two had erupted earlier over a zoning dispute.

This is simply an attempt to silence critics of President Obama's disasterous policies because Pelosi has lost every argument of the last nine months. Trying to insinuate that somehow, Dan White was motivated by a Rush Limbaugh-style talker is a new low even for Pelosi.