Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Kagan Fraud

Under questioning from Sen. Orrin Hatch – the first Republican to ask her about the American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists partial-birth abortion memo – Elena Kagan admitted her authorship of the memo." Human Events blog, 6/30/10

This type of behavior is why I stopped practicing law. Here we have an attorney who persuaded a group to present a false statement to a court of law. This is behavior which is subject to attorney discipline, and, considering the import of the case(s) in which this false statement was presented, potentially disbarment.

What did Kagen do? Simple. She was presented with a report which had the following language:

"[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure [intact D&X abortion], as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. (Good review here, with links to the full documents in PDF format.)

At the time, Kagan was a political hack in the employ of the Clinton Administration. She knew the above language was "disastrous" to any attempt to overturn the federal ban on partial birth abortions -- a Clinton goal.

But, she also knew that the report by the supposedly non-partisan ACOG would be presented to a federal judge who would review it as evidence and give it at least some weight.

So, what did she do? She asked ACOG to change its conclusion. Not change its language. She asked ACOG to delete the disastrous language and substitute the following:

An intact D+X, [partial-birth abortion] however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and a doctor should be allowed to make this determination." id.

This isn't a change of "wording," it is a change, in the opposite direction, of meaning. It isn't what ACOG said in its original report; it is essentially the opposite. ACOG could not believe both statements to be true.

Nonetheless, ACOG complied with the request and the altered report was presented to several federal judges and was accepted by them as evidence which was relied upon at least to some degree in making their judgments. (ACOG's role in this fraud is despicable and far reaching, including, apparently, making the assertion that they had not had contact with anyone concerning their report when, in fact, they had met with the Clinton administration (including Kagan) earlier and had (at least) the conversations with Kagan as related herein. But, ACOG ain't up for SCOTUS...)

Her actions (and the actions of the other lawyers complicit in this fraud) violate the Professional Rules of Responsibility on many levels:

"Rule 3.4: Fairness to opposing party and counsel

A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party' s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law; ... "

"Rule 8.4: Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession; Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) ...

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;


This is reprehensible behavior for any lawyer. It is even worse when that lawyer is a "public servant" on the public payroll advising the President of the United States, and especially reprehensible when the intent is to affect public policy through the employment of fraudulent documents.

It is unfortunate, but such behavior is common amongst attorneys. That doesn't mean, however, that when it is rooted out, it should be ignored -- especially when it is perpetrated by a potential Supreme Court Justice!

Someone should immediately file a disciplinary complaint against her. She should be chastised, disciplined and, potentially, disbarred.

Unfortunately, it is more likely that this political hack who is willing to perpetrate fraud on the Judicial System will soon be writing opinions from the highest bench.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Incompetence in the Gulf? Depends on what "is" is...

The lame stream media is finally beginning to hammer Obama. Even the most left-wing of sycophants have taken to questioning Obama's competence.

Susan Estrich
Thomas Friedman


Amazing on several levels. Wrong, however, I think, on all.

The right blogosphere is all atwitter with cries of "Gotcha!" Right wing pundits engage in volleys of "Told ya so!" directed towards the left and the traitorous right (Noonan and fellow travelers). They were warned that Obama's lack of executive experience was inviting disaster -- and that lack of experience has now (again) resulted in unmitigated disaster in the Gulf.

Could be. Could be.

But, what if it's not? What if his mis-steps in Israel, his bowing to foreign leaders, his betrayal of allies, his disrespect of the U.K., his insane over-printing of currency, his attitude towards events in Iran (now and the "uprising"), his abandonment of Israel, his failure to address North Korea, etc. etc. etc. aren't acts of incompetence but, instead, purposeful?

How stupid do we believe him to be?

Assuredly, he can read a poll. Or several polls. Or every poll. He can see what effect his actions are having on the chances his party will retain power in 2010. No matter how "teleprompter dependent" he might be, no sane person can think that he doesn't see what's happening. And has been happening since before the "health-care" debate became so inflamed against him and the Democratic party.

Certainly, he could see what his inaction in the Gulf (and his actions which were contrary to actually cleaning up the mess) was doing to his, and his party's, chances in 2010.

Again, just how stupid do we believe him to be?

Me? I think that most of the pundits simply read Obama wrong. They think he's a politician, a run-of-the-mill (albeit a Chicago) politician.

If viewed as such, then, of course, many of his actions, destructive not only of the potential continued supremacy of his Party but of his own re-election in 2012, are either the result of insanity or of incompetence.

But, if viewed, instead, through the eyes of a true believer who cares only about his agenda -- and nothing and no one else -- then, events take on a whole other meaning, don't they?

He wanted Health Care. He got Health Care. He may have lost the House and perhaps the Senate in the process, but he got Health Care. The camel's hump is under the tent.

He got Cap & Trade through the House. It stalled in the Senate. The oil spill presents new opportunity to push it through. But, not if it is stoppered quickly and cleaned up with little damage. So, it isn't stoppered quickly and the clean up is stymied at every turn. And, he pushes his Green agenda -- including Cap & Trade.

So, are his actions here (and elsewhere/when) "incompetent?" Or, is he simply uncaring about everyone/everything else other than his AGENDA?

Personally, I don't think he's stupid. Nor, do I think he's utterly incompetent. I simply believe that he doesn't care whether the Democrats retain the House or that he be re-elected. These would be nice, but the agenda is all.

Health Care has been passed. It is highly unlikely that it will be fully repealed. And, if it isn't fully repealed, it, like every other government program, will grow. The same with Cap & Trade, if it gets passed -- in any form.

When it is your goal to "transform America," you must be willing to make sacrifices. Of anyone and of anything -- except your agenda.

Almost a year...

It's been almost a year since my last post. I suppose I could blame life intruding as the fault. Been busy, don't you know...

But, in reality, I've been lazy. It's work to create posts which are (or are intended to be) entertaining and informative while not just parroting what others elsewhere do better.

So, instead of putting my head down and plowing through, I just ... put my head down.

Here's another go...

Friday, August 7, 2009

Democrats Begin "Pushback" -- Time to Buckle In

The Democrats have begun their "pushback."

Following the instructions of their Great Leader (here) the Democrats are doing everything they can to shut up anyone opposed to Obamacare.

Obama clearly tells his opponents to "Shut up!":

They are lying, instructing their minions to send out false letters to their Representatives. (here)

Using their willing accomplices in the MSM, they are promoting false stories of "astroturfed" town hall protests. (here)

Obama is drumming up support -- the ultimate "top-down" astroturfing. (here)

The Democrat Party is mobilizing its union thugs to silence the voices at town halls which even question Obamacare. HCAN (Health Care for America Now) sent detailed instructions to its union members to help them silence the opposition. HCAN's membership includes: ACORN, AFL-CIO, SEIU, NEA, and La Raza. (here)

Representatives who don't want to face those they represent and answer their questions are packing their "town halls" with these hired thugs, bussed in from out of state. (here)

Unions, those respecters of individual rights and freedoms, do what unions do -- they begin using violence to snuff out dissent.

Buckle in -- it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

What Cash for Clunkers Teaches Us About Health Care

When something is "free," people will snap it up.

It's really that simple. When someone gets something for nothing, they tend to snatch up as much of that something as they can. In this case, they got $4,500.00 off the purchase price of their new car, not including any further discount offered by the dealers. (I've seen ads where the dealers offer up to an additional $4,500.00. $9,000.00 off the price of a new car is a pretty big discount.)

So, predictably, people have been rushing out to avail themselves of this hand-out.

Translate that into health care.

Have you been putting off going to the doctor for nagging problems because you have a high deductible on your insurance policy? Perhaps your co-pay is high? Maybe your coverage only pays 80% and you have to pay the other 20%? Maybe you don't have insurance at all and you have to wait in the emergency room for whatever care you receive?

What if it was all free?

Dick Morris opines that the question to ask your legislators is "How can you cover 50 million more people without increasing the number of doctors?"

He misses the point.

No one in America (including illegal aliens) is denied access to medical care in America. Everyone has access. Those with high deductibles, large co-pays, or no insurance at all may not be availing themselves of it, but that isn't because it isn't there. It's just too expensive or too inconvenient to access for every minor inconvenience.

That wouldn't be true if universal health care were passed. Everyone would be able to make an appointment to be seen in a doctor's office (as opposed to being forced to wait in the emergency room for your child's cold) -- regardless of how minor the ailment (or perceived ailment) actually is.

So, what would happen?

Well, they'd make those appointments, wouldn't they?

Now, where are we going to get all the doctors to see all these patients who, if they had to pay for the service out of their pocket (or inconvenience themselves by a long wait in the emergency room) would not be seeking that service?

The medical providers would be deluged with demands on their services that would overwhelm them -- and overwhelm the treasury.

Just like Cash for Clunkers.

It's predictable. It's inevitable.

It's human nature.

Friday, July 31, 2009

A "Teaching Moment"

Small acts and omissions. These define us.

What we say about others when we think they cannot hear.

("Clinging to guns and religion...")

How we treat our social inferiors.

("Hold up sweetie...")

What we say to one person about another so to ingratiate ourselves with the first.

("....and, did I mention he's black?")

Now, back to the opening snap-shot. One of the people on the steps has class. One does not.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Abortion -- The Right Answer

Contrary to those who live in the fuzzy logic of the gray, there are some life questions which demand a "right" and "wrong" answer. Whether to support or to oppose abortion is one of these questions.

And, contrary to Justice Blackmun's refusal to "resolve the difficult question of when life begins" each of us must, individually, resolve that very question. Indeed, it is the only question which needs resolution as every other question involved in the abortion controversy logically flows from its resolution.

We know that human beings give birth to human beings (and "persons" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment). A belief in any other reality is insanity.

It, therefore, follows that a pregnant human female has in her womb either that which is a human being or that which will become a human being. There are no other available choices.

Thus, when confronted with the choice whether to support or to oppose abortion, a moral person must first answer for himself whether that which would be killed is or is not a human being.

The failure to directly confront this question is the act of a moral coward.

There are three choices: 1) The unborn child is a human being; 2) The unborn child is not a human being; and 3) We don't know whether it is or it is not.

The first two choices require proof. Unfortunately, there is no definitive proof as to when a human being becomes a human being -- except at the moment of birth.

So, we don't know. It's "above our pay grade."

Therefore, if you support abortion, you support killing what might be human beings. (This is akin to a hunter shooting at a rustle in the bushes -- uncaring whether what he shoots at is a person or a deer. He doesn't know, and he doesn't care.) If you oppose abortion, then you oppose killing what might be human beings.

Of these two positions, only one has any moral authority and is the right answer.