Obama: ‘Love means never having to say you’re sorry’

mercer_ilanaby Ilana Mercer

[followbutton username=’IlanaMercer’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Ilana Mercer’s Facebook page

So where do we stand in the health care chain reaction, cooked-up in the Barack Obama command-and-control centers? Let’s see. Having destroyed the market for health insurance, the president turned to another parlor game, hailed by the daytrippers at CNN and the New York Times as a “health fix” and a “fix for canceled plans.”

Yes, the fix is in. Parsed, the president’s advice to the millions who’ve lost coverage is, essentially, “I’ll let you keep your already canceled policies through 2014. Feel free to take it up with your insurance company.”

In the preceding weeks, and against the backdrop of polls in which 50 percent of voters said, “President Obama knowingly lied when he repeatedly told Americans they could keep their plans under his signature health care law,” the paper of record took a “different” view. Obama, the apple of their eye, “wrongly assured Americans that they could retain their health care plans.”

An “incorrect promise” was another euphemism used by NYT story tellers.

Quite the opposite, opined Patrick J. Buchanan:

WHO’S THE BIGGEST LIAR OF THEM ALL? In the grand scheme of history, Obama’s rank lie “now enters presidential history alongside George H.W. Bush’s ‘Read my lips! No new taxes,’ Bill Clinton’s ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,’ and George W. Bush’s tales of yellow cake in Niger and hidden arsenals of WMDs.”

As wrecking balls go, Obama and “W” are tied in ignominy. Christopher Conover of Duke University estimates that “129 million, or 68 percent of Americans, may not be able to keep their current health-care plans once Obamacare is fully implemented. [Conover’s] study also suggests that 18 to 50 million people will lose their plans altogether.”

The butcher’s bill of human suffering—Bush’s—has been tallied. Obama’s is still to come.

LAWYERING OR LYING? Obama stool pigeon Jake Tapper of CNN went in search of character witnesses for the disgraced 44th U.S. president. Who better to galvanize than the mountain of opportunistic flesh, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie? Fresh from his triumph in the New Jersey gubernatorial race, the popular Republican governor was eager to offer advice to the president whose political epitaph will be: “If you like your health care plan, you will keep it, period.”

Actually, the line Obama had repeated at every turn, from 2009 to 2012, morphed in November of 2013 to, “What I really meant was that Americans could keep their healthcare plan if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.”

“Don’t lawyer it,” cringed Christie. “People don’t like lawyers. I’m a lawyer. They don’t like ‘em. You know? Don’t lawyer it. When I saw that [namely, the Lie’s new iteration]… this morning for the first time, I thought, he’s lawyering it. That’s Barack Obama the lawyer.”

Correction, Gov. Christie: That’s Barack Obama the liar talking.

Still, some strides were made.

Into the Cannibal's Pot

THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD. A term reserved to denote Mao Zedong’s catastrophic transformation of China into a communist, collectivized society—a great leap forward of sorts was made by dummy Dana Bash. Four years on, this CNN reporter belatedly admitted that the Republicans had forewarned of the fiasco that is Obamacare:

… When the President made that statement [“If you like your health care plan, you will keep it”] during the heat of the health care legislative battle, Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, dismissed the commander in chief’s promise in a weekly Republican address.
“If you read the bill, that just isn’t so,” Price said. “For starters, within five years, every health care plan will have to meet a new federal definition for coverage, one that your current plan might not match, even if you like it.”
Fast forward three years, and that’s exactly what’s happening.

Indeed, 2:43 minuets into his August 22, 2009 address, Rep. Price explained the simple stuff with which the great hulking mass of America is only just grappling, thanks in no small part to a press whose members all sang from the same press releases.

LOVE MEANS NEVER HAVING TO SAY YOU’RE SORRY. Remember that line from the tender 1970 film, “Love Story”? Given the unconditional love Barack Obama has received from America, the president believed he would never have to say he was sorry.

Still, like jilted lovers, The People began to demand an apology from their beloved.

What is more obscene: the idea that one can apologize for the hubris and deceit that is Obama and his health care, or the actual need some have for an apology from an entity so evil that he would toy with the lives of millions as though they were insects and he God? This is hard to tell.

For what it’s worth, here’s Hussein’s “apology” for the pox he has unleashed on the land:

“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me. Obviously we didn’t do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law … And, you know, that’s something I regret. That’s something we’re gonna do everything we can to get fixed … We’re looking at a range of options.”

And what, pray tell, is the matter with Christians that they hunger to forgive evil, without any evidence of expiation? Some sins are simply unforgivable.

[followbutton username=’IlanaMercer’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Ilana Mercer’s Facebook page

National Review eunuchs

by Ilana Mercer

In an interview with Brian Sack on GBTV, columnist and author John Derbyshire inadvertently anticipated his future in commenting about the dismissal from mainstream of another iconoclast, Patrick J. Buchanan:

“MSNBC is a private company. They can hire and fire who they like. But Buchanan is a serious guy who talks in a serious way about serious issues. Yet he is out of the national conversation. That’s bad.”

Not long after, Derbyshire was dismissed from National Review, where he freelanced. The “girlie boys” of NR had taken offense to “The Talk: Nonblack Version,” a column Derbyshire published at Taki’s Magazine.

My book “Into the Cannibal’s Pot,” for which John provided praise, deals with the broad generalizations for which Derb was sent packing:

“Provided they are substantiated by hard evidence, not hunches, generalizations are not incorrect. Science relies on the ability to generalize to the larger population observations drawn from a representative sample. People make prudent decisions in their daily lives based on probabilities and generalities. That one chooses not to live in a particular crime-riddled county or country in no way implies that one considers all individual residents there to be criminals, only that a sensible determination has been made, based on statistically significant data, as to where scarce and precious resources – one’s life and property – are best invested.” (pp. 41-42)

John was also found culpable of cautioning kids about life’s dangers.

Similarly, in a WND 2011 column, “Sacrificing kids to PC pietism,” I rebuked the errant adults in the lives of “mild, meek and vulnerable boys like Carter Strange.” For these formative figures “enfeeble their children with PC pieties,” instead of forewarning them of perils they may well face.

The wilding attack that came close to extinguishing the life of this gangly, ungainly, 18-year-old Caucasian boy (Carter) was carried out by eight blacks, in Columbia, S.C.

National Review used to be conservatism’s flagship publication. These days its ideology reflects “Modern Republicanism’s” “dime store New Deal”‘ proclivities (Barry Goldwater’s characterization). Launching oxymoronic attacks on Obamacare for “endangering Medicare”: that’s the extent of NR’s fight to free minds and markets.

Tons of pixels have since been spilt in response to Derbyshire’s article and subsequent dismissal. The dimwitted discourse reflects a polemical landscape from which the Derbs of this world have been uprooted. None of John’s critics can write or reason as he does. None has his “range of historical and literary allusion,” as Mark Steyn observed. John Derbyshire’s is pellucid prose at its best.

A staff writer at The Atlantic epitomizes this fluffy, unfocused, Meghan McCain-like waffle (punctuated with a lot of, “I feel”) that lands you a job at a top publication. “As someone who places a high value on both robust public discourse and the fact that racism is now taboo,” he whimpered, “I won’t even try to mediate between these two except to say that … Derbyshire’s piece was wrongheaded.”

That’s it? A feeble, frightened assertion is a substitute for an argument?

Such cyber-ejaculate gushed from similar androgynous androids, possessors of the Y chromosome. The volume of bad writers safely ensconced in high places, and their voluminous, vapid output strengthened this conviction:

More so than enforcing conformity – ousting John was about safeguarding the future of mediocrity.

As professor Clyde Wilson of Chronicles Magazine has written,“Tocqueville in the 19th century, and Solzhenitsyn in the 20th, noted that conformity of thought is powerfully prevalent among Americans.” Indeed, Americans cannot abide enormous talent, unless it presents itself in a mindless or uncontroversial field: sports or the hard sciences.

Cognitive consonance is what writing in the Age of the Idiot is all about.

The key to success in the scribbling profession is to strike the right balance of mediocrity in writing and thinking, which invariably entails echoing one of two party lines, poorly.

Conservatism once had the genius of James Burnham, Russell Kirk, Frank Chodorov and Felix Morley; now the brand boasts S. E. Cupp, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Rich Lowry, and their editorial enablers. (Perhaps NR will recruit Jedediah [sic] Bila in place of Derb?)

Mark Steyn made sure to append a disclaimer to his defense of Derb: “Didn’t like the piece.”

For my part, I cop to Western man’s individualist disdain – could it be his weakness? – for race as an organizing principle. For me, the road to freedom lies in beating back the state, so that individuals may regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire and, generally, associate at will.

I want to see a lot of well-written, wickedly witty, controversial writing in print – in pixels or paper and always at the pleasure of the print’s owner. Why must the consensus-craving mob conflate this last wish with absolute endorsement?

Those who hoist their pitchforks to purge ideological disagreement, in Soviet-style, they are the enemies of civilization, not John Derbyshire.

Ilana Mercer is the author of “Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Culture and Into The Cannibal’s Pot – : Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.” She is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, an independent, nonprofit, economic policy think tank. She also contributes to VDARE.COM, founded by Peter Brimelow and devoted to the analysis of immigration policy. To learn more about her work, visit IlanaMercer.com. If you would like to comment on this column, go to Ilana’s blog.