Opposition to #Obamacare is racist, and why Democrats love the race card

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Liberal tolerance racist

Oh, brother. If we needed any more convincing that it was well-past time for Senator Jay Rockfeller (D-WV) to retire and never be heard from again, this clip of him not just playing the race card, but slamming it on the table and dancing around it should do the trick:

(h/t David Freddoso)

Apparently the senator’s “analysis” was aimed at Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), who was at the hearing. Naturally, Johnson took offense:

“My opposition to health care has nothing to do with the race of President Obama,” Johnson said. “I objected to this because it’s an assault on our freedom. … I found it very offensive that you would basically imply that I’m a racist because I oppose this health care law.”

“You’re evidently satisfied with a lot of people not having health insurance,” Rockefeller responded.

“I am not. Quit making those assumptions. Quit saying I’m satisfied with that. I’m not. There’s another way of doing this,” Johnson said. “Please, don’t assume, don’t make implications of what I’m thinking and what I would really support. You have no idea.”

“I actually do,” Rockefeller said. “God help you.”

“No senator, God help you for implying I’m a racist,” Johnson replied.

Thankfully, Senator Rockefeller (D-RaceBaiter) will retire in January, hopefully to be replaced by Republican Shelley Moore Capito.

But the senator from West Virginia didn’t just slam his colleague from Wisconsin; he cavalierly insulted all of us who oppose the Affordable Care Act. While I can’t speak for others, let me recapitulate the reasons I oppose it:

Political Philosophy: By placing the State in charge of people’s healthcare, you fundamentally alter the relationship between citizen and State, turning free people into dependent wards of a Leviathan-like government and taking away their control over a crucial part of their own lives. To a conservative/classical liberal like me, this is a bad thing.

Constitutionalism: Congress has no authority —none!— to force a citizen to buy a private product under penalty of law. This is an abominable legislative usurpation and a trammeling of individual liberty. It tortures the Commerce Clause until it begs for mercy. It goes against the spirit and intent of our founding documents, and the Supreme Court, in the worst decision since Korematsu, was wrong to uphold the law.

Bad Law: I’ll be more charitable than Senator Rockefeller and stipulate that most voting for this law thought they were doing good and helping people. But that doesn’t justify defending a law that just isn’t working. It’s not even meeting its basic goals: healthcare premiums are still skyrocketing; millions have lost the insurance they liked; millions have lost access to the doctors they liked; and, even when you have insurance, you may not be able to find a physician who will take you. (Really. Watch that one.) When a law performs as poorly as this, is it any wonder people hate it? Are they all racists, Jay?

Somehow, looking over those reasons, I think it’s safe to say the President’s ancestry doesn’t matter to me and my opposition to his miserable law. In fact, I can quite honestly say I couldn’t give a rat’s rear end about President Obama’s race.

But I don’t expect you to get that, Senator.

PS: On a lighter note, I’m happy to say Andrew Klavan is back at last making satirical political videos. Longtime readers will recall my love for his “Klavan on the Culture” series. Now he’s returned, producing them for Truth Revolt. (He also still works with PJMedia and PJTV) In this video, he explains what we’ve all wondered: Just why do Democrats call us racist? Enjoy.

Welcome back, Andrew! smiley dance

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Correcting preconceived notions about guns in the aftermath of the #UCSB murders

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Facts

Facts matter.

In the aftermath of the horrific stabbings and shootings at the hands of deranged University of California at Santa Barbara student Eliot Rodger that left 6 dead (not including the murderer) and 13 injured, National Review writer Charles C.W. Cooke provides some much needed clarity on the talking points being thrown around by predictable knee-jerk reactionaries:


From USA Today:

Rodger stabbed to death three roommates at his apartment before starting his shooting spree, said Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown at a news conference.

“It was a pretty horrific crime scene,” Brown said of the murder scene at the apartment.

After slaying his roommates, Rodger went to a sorority house and knocked loudly on the door, Brown said. No one answered. He then shot three women outside the house, killing two and injuring the third, the sheriff said.

Twice deputies engaged him in gunfire, the first time wounding him in the hip as he drove, Brown said. The rampage ended after the young man exchanged fire with deputies and hit a bicyclist before crashing into parked cars.Rodger then fired on random people at multiple other locations nearby over a 10-minute period, police said.

“It would appear he took his own life at this point,” Brown said.

Thirteen people were injured — eight from gunshot wounds, four from being hit by his car and one who suffered a minor injury whose exact cause was not clear yet, Brown said.

Brown added that Rodger had three semi automatic handguns–a Glock 34 and two Sig Sauer P226s– as well as more than 400 rounds of ammo when he died.

The suspected shooter purchased all his firearms legally. They were registered to him.


Ezra Klein, not exactly a rock-ribbed conservative, unwittingly assisted Cooke on the inevitable cries of “we need more gun control!” coming from the left and their allies in the mainstream media:


Not exactly what gun control zealots wanted to hear. Cooke continued:


As I wrote on Twitter this morning, it’s easy to pile on and knee-jerk react in the era of “insta=reax” to what happens in the world. I’m just as guilty of it as the next person. Few people seem to take the time to carefully read and analyze the existing available information on any given developing situation before spouting off, which leads to a lot of irresponsible garbage being written – like the Daily Kos’ lengthy, ridiculous (not to mention shamelessly politically opportunistic) diatribe about how Elliot Rodger’s deadly rampage was the fault of all alpha males aka conservative men. As Cooke demonstrated, the opposition (us) needs to be better than that and come at the various (and typical) arguments tossed out for consumption armed with the facts rather than emotionalism. Sympathy for the victims and their respective families is understandable, necessary as part of the healing process – but regurgitating old, tired emotional arguments that have little to no merit for the sake of scoring cheap political points in an attempt to influence policy in the wrong direction is most definitely not.