Attorney General Eric Holder told a group of liberal lawyers last week that he thinks it is time for Congress to enact new, broader “Hate Crimes” legislation to “stop violence masquerading as political activism”.

As justification for a grand expansion of his powers, Holder pointed to the killing of notorious abortionist George Tiller.

According to the Kansas Star-Telegram, Holder said that to stop such violence, Congress should pass updated “hate-crimes” legislation to more effectively prosecute those accused of committing violent attacks based on gender, disability or sexual orientation.

It is certainly not obvious how the killing of Tiller qualifies as a “hate crime” motivated by “gender or disability or sexual orientation.” We can assume that the perpetrator did, in fact, hold hatred in his heart for George Tiller; it is reasonable to further assume that most killers hold intense animosity toward their victims.

But back to Holder’s call for legislation: The murderer of Tiller apparently did so because Tiller made millions slaying innocent children in the womb, (or partially out of their mother’s womb) – not because he was a male. While Tiller suffered from a profound moral disability, we have never heard anyone proposing special protections for people of blackened conscience. And, we can safely assume that Tiller was not a practicing homosexual or transvestite – since he was married and had children.

So how could Holder’s power grab possibly remedy the rare act of violence against an abortion provider?

One anticipates that Holder will propose to Congress that criminal violence against an abortion provider is, by definition, an act of gender discrimination because the abortionist practices his death art on women. So, even white, heterosexual males of reasonable intelligence and ability will garner special protections under Holder’s plan because of the gender of their clients.

This takes the concept of “hate crimes” to a new level of absurdity. The notion itself is, at its core, disturbing because it punishes people not for what they did, but for what they think. That puts judges in the position of playing God – a sorry swipe at justice. But this new initiative by the nation’s highest law enforcement officer is scary stuff. Holder reveals himself as a poorly trained lawyer with a brazen ideological and personal agenda.

It does not take much imagination or paranoia to see Holder expanding his tortured definitions of "hate" and "discrimination" at some point to include even peaceful actions aimed at ending abortion.

Let us see what Pelosi’s Congress does with this diabolical proposal.

The Idaho Press Tribune carried a fascinating background report prepared by the AP in yesterday’s edition. Entitled, “Promises, Promises: Indian health care”, it looks at how well the federal government has managed to meet its obligations and promises to American Indians dependent upon it for basic health care.

It is a chilling picture, and one every American should read as we enter the hot summer debate over whether the rest of us should turn our lives and families to the care of Obama’s grand health care vision.

The Indian Health Service system serves almost 2 million Native Americans in 35 states, or is supposed to.

The AP reports one symptomatic story: a little 5 year old girl complained of a stomach ache. The government health clinic workers told her mother that the girl was depressed. The girl’s condition worsened; her family went back 10 times seeking help. After several months, her lung collapsed and she was airlifted to a Denver hospital. There she was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Her family wonders with tears what could have been done if she had been diagnosed properly at an earlier stage.

Because of financial constraints, tribal leaders describe the federal system as one of “rationed health care”.

An official at the Indian Health Service is quoted as saying, “Doctors every day in our organization are making decisions about which cataracts are removed, which gall bladders [get]fixed.”

Under the care of the federal government, Native Americans suffer an infant mortality rate 40% higher than that of white Americans. After Haiti, men on the Rosebud reservation of South Dakota have the lowest life expectancy rate in the Western Hemisphere.Congressional politics and spending priorities are at the core of this travesty, and we all must really question whether these are the people we want in charge of health care for all Americans.

It is understandable that many Americans have wanted to believe in the promises of President Obama, especially in the absence of any credible reform plan from Republicans to solve real and painful problems in our current system. Yet the painful reality is that history shows us the utter inability of the federal government to deliver on such grandiose promises.

Labels: federal record on health care

It should probably not need saying, but there is just no chance that Judge Sonia Sotomayor will turn out to be a pro-Lifer once enthroned at the Supreme Court. For one thing, it is impossible to believe that President Obama would make the kind of “mistake” that Republican presidents make too regularly: i.e., appointing a person to the court who does not share their purported values and political principles.

And if there is one thing we know for sure it is that President Obama is zealously committed to advancing abortion rights.

The only reason this topic is even being seriously discussed stems from the hopeful musings of the legendary Rush Limbaugh. During at least one broadcast, Mr. Limbaugh suggested the possibility that Sotomayor’s Catholic heritage might be enough to induce her to consider the moral and spiritual consequences of destroying innocent life at the rate of 3500 a day.

Judge Sotomayor herself stomped all over such silly speculation this week during a meeting with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). According to LifeNews.Com, DeMint questioned her on whether “unborn children have any rights whatsoever”. Her answer?

“I was surprised that [Sotomayor] said she had never thought about it,” reports Sen. DeMint.

We join the wise editorial voices at the Washington Times in encouraging pro-Lifers to engage in actively opposing Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation to the nation’s highest court.

Wrote the paper this week, “Pro-life groups should not follow the famed radio host in assuming the Supreme Court nominee will have empathy for their legal or moral positions.”