NBC News

What Can You Say?

Mitt Romney offered the following praise for the late American astronaut and hero Neil Armstrong during his nomination acceptance speech last night at the Republican National Convention:

The soles of Neil Armstrong's boots on the moon made permanent impressions on our souls. ... God bless Neil Armstrong! Tonight that American flag is still there on the moon and I don't doubt for a second that Neil Armstrong's spirit is still with us, that unique blend of optimism, humility — and the utter confidence that when the world needs someone to do the really big stuff you need an American.

Pretty stirring. Very patriotic. Absolutely bipartisan.

Not exactly. Not according to the permanently paranoid class of angry, offended, leftist, speech code hacks who have staged a complete coup at NBC News. After his speech concluded, one of the "pundits" on its advocacy network, msnbc, offered this summation of that one paragraph: That Mitt Romney was sending a "dog whistle" — speaking "birther code" — to racists everywhere, implying that Barack Obama is not an American. Presidency = Big Job. Only an American can be president. Therefore, Romney is saying Obama is not an American. Get it? It can only make sense to a leftist.

Every time I think the Left can't sink any lower, any time I think it can't be any more void of ability to critically think, it gets lower, more vacuous and more shrill. It remains to be seen if these types of accusations are born of a true case of lost marbles, incapable intellect or a desperately contrived offense in order to stimulate its shrinking base into action.

So, what can you say that a leftist won't take offense at? The list of available phrases is shrinking so fast that soon even innocuous greetings will be speech code violations. Last night's forensic language diatribe is not the first instance of leftist heartburn over the English language. Not even remotely so. Michelle Malkin today, coincidentally, documents the use of 12 words and phrases that recently have given  left-wing commentators episodes of hysterics for the plain use of plain language. Among the offensive words and phrases:

» Constitution.

» Professor.

» Angry.

» Golf.

» Privileged.

» Kitchen Cabinet.

I'd name the rest, but I want you to read the others and the circumstances in which they were used and why the Left think they are racist terms. At once they are hysterically humorous and just simply hysterical. Now, apparently, add to the list, "American" and "big job." What can you say?

Obamacare, Liberty In The Balance At SCOTUS And Introducing A New Dr. Death (Or Death Panel Queen)

It's been two years and the Obama administration, its apologists on the professional left, Congressional statists and assorted liberals and left-wingers still haven't answered this question: If the federal government can require Americans to buy health insurance, what limits are there to its power? Even if it could answer that, it would have to answer the logical follow-ups:

What will it require us to buy next? How is commerce then defined if doing nothing now is commerce? Who then decides what goods and services are proper and essential to buy? 

But not to get ahead of ourselves. The Obama Justice Department has steadfastly and cautiously avoided the predicate question in the several lower court arguments in which it has engaged. After today's warm-up act arguments on the late 1800s Anti-Injunction Act (whether the case even has standing until a tax or penalty is levied), it won't have a choice in avoiding the question as it defends Obamacare in full tomorrow and Wednesday in near-historically-unique three-day hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. It pretty much comes down to that question, because it isn't a case about health care. It's a case about liberty, one that gets straight to the constitutional text itself. Mike Brownfield of The Heritage Foundation provides an excellent overview of what to look for, the consequences of a decision either way, and the conclusions to expect at its The Foundry Blog's Morning Bell. In part, he writes:

If the Court upholds the mandate, America will be in the same position it finds itself today — facing a law that vests untold power and resources in the hands of the federal government, that transfers health care decision making from individuals to unelected bureaucrats, and that increases costs while decreasing access. In short, America’s health care crisis will get worse, not better, and future generations will be left paying the tab. What's more, if the Court allows the individual mandate to stand, it will unhook Congress from its Constitutional leash, empowering it to regulate commerce and individual behavior in new ways never before imaginable.

More than, that, though, is at stake. It's an issue not widely discussed concerning Medicaid and a complete submission of the states to the Leviathan's will at the expense of a forced financial destitution:

There is another issue, too, tied to Obamacare, and that has to do with Congress’s decision to impose new requirements on states forcing them to expand the Medicaid program and abide by the federal government’s conditions, leaving them to shoulder much of the costs while operating Medicaid according to Washington’s whims. If the states don't comply, they could lose all Medicaid funding, putting them in an untenable position in which both their autonomy and their sovereignty collapse under Obamacare’s weight. It is up to the Court to decide whether Congress overstepped its bounds.

Coincidentally, another of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's hot button issues flared up earlier this month and came into full focus over the weekend — death panels. A House committee voted overwhelmingly to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (aka, Death Panels) with bipartisan support (see Paul Kaminsky at The American Spectator).

While that vote didn't receive much press from the Mainstream Media (surprise!), death panels were all the talk after news broke that former Vice President Dick Cheney, at age 71, underwent a heart transplant. After all, the left complained, someone younger should've got the heart. He didn't "deserve" it. He "didn't wait long enough" (he waited 20 months, a little longer than average).

When critics of Obamacare raised concerns over bureaucrats making life and death decisions, the left vilified them as paranoid and scare mongers, and that the only people advocating them were odd balls with no credibility. That, we suppose, did not include the left's favorite economist, Paul Krugman, who gladly embraced death panels on ABC News in late 2010 (see video). It must not include Dr.  Nancy Snyderman, NBC News' medical expert, either. She lays out the "moral" case for denying Mr. Cheney his life saving transplant, as Kyle Drennen at NewsBusters.org reports. Here's the new Dr. Death (or Death Panel Queen) in her own words:

Death panels? Not on their life. But the left does want to pick who else lives and who dies.

Post's McCartney Calls Out Deeds, Says He Stumbled In Debate

You know things aren't going well for a liberal candidate when his Mainstream Media allies call him out. How let down must Democrat gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds have felt when he saw this headline from Washington Post lib Robert McCartney?

Plain and Simple, Deeds Stumbles In N.Va. Debate

Ouch!

But true. See for yourself. We can't add much more to what Mr. McCartney wrote. So, we let him speak for himself, with emphasis added to certain points and occasional parenthetical comments of mine because . . . because . . . I still don't know the difference between tax increases and "raise new money"!

. . .  as governor Deeds would be more likely to actually fix the roads than his Republican opponent, former attorney general Robert F. McDonnell. That's because Deeds is willing to raise taxes for transportation, while McDonnell isn't, and some kind of tax increase is the only way to do the job. (Oh, really? The mind of a liberal, and they say conservatives see things only in black and white.)

But Deeds certainly didn't explain that clearly Thursday. When asked directly by moderator David Gregory of NBC News whether he would raise taxes if necessary in the current economic climate, Deeds said: "No, I'm not going to raise taxes. But I am the only person on this dais who will sign a transportation plan that raises new money." (Say, what!?!?!?)

Huh? When I and other reporters pressed him afterward to clarify, he said he meant only that he wouldn't raise taxes for the state's general fund, which pays for a broad range of services, including education and law enforcement. That clearly left open the possibility that he'd raise taxes for the transportation fund, which is separate.

Even then, though, Deeds tried to have it both ways. In one breath he told reporters, "I have no plans to raise taxes." In another he said, "I intend to sign" a bill that "raises new money for transportation." That sounds like a plan to me.

Deeds also got a bit testy with a reporter who pressed him about whether he'd be ready to increase the gasoline tax. He's supported that before — to his great credit, in my view — but he wouldn't say so Thursday.

"I think I made myself clear, young lady. I don't know," Deeds said. ("I don't know" is clear?) The McDonnell campaign immediately began showing the clip to the press corps. Their message: You don't like what our guy wrote in 1989 about working women? (But see what Deeds has said, done and voted for in his 40s and 50s.)