Complicity in Genocide

(Another version of this article appeared in Crisis magazine.)

Abortion is an intrinsic moral evil. It involves carrying out or arranging to carry out the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. An intrinsic evil is an action that is always gravely harmful to a human or humans regardless of the circumstances. There are no exceptions, no grey areas.

The U.S. federal government is guilty of and complicit in intrinsic evil because it permits abortion. With some 62 million people killed by abortion since it was legalized, not only is the government complicit in an intrinsic evil, it is complicit in genocide – which the American Heritage dictionary defines as “the systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity.” In this case the particularity is the preborn.

To be sure, that does not mean federal employees and U.S. taxpayers are complicit, unless they support it and enable it.

Then who is complicit? They include the original seven Supreme Court justices who voted to legalize abortion in 1973. Presidents who appointed Supreme Court justices they knew to be in favor of keeping abortion legal were complicit in intrinsic evil, as were those newly appointed justices. Senators who voted to approve them also were complicit.

Members of the populace who vote for pro-abortion politicians are complicit in the intrinsic evil of legalized abortion. This is particularly the case when they vote for politicians who want to enshrine abortion into federal law through an act of Congress, as well as who vow to enact taxpayer-funding of abortion. Direct funding of abortion would make the U.S. government not just the enabler of genocide as it is now, but also a principal executioner. It essentially would subcontract out the killing.

While voting for abortion is not on the same level of procuring an abortion, it is including oneself in a large group of voters who enable this national evil. Responsibility for the ongoing genocide ultimately rests with those U.S. voters who put the pro-aborts in power.

One may object that, though a vote for pro-abort is a vote for the intrinsic evil of abortion, it is legitimate because it is a vote against other types of intrinsic evils.

What would constitute those other intrinsic evils? The death penalty? Allowance of the death penalty does not involve the deliberate killing of innocent human beings. The government assumes that the person being put to death is guilty of a heinous crime. He is a threat to society because of the possibility he could escape from prison or be released from prison by an unscrupulous judge. The death penalty also is a deterrent to would-be criminals. It is plausible that very occasionally, someone thought to be guilty but who is actually innocent mistakenly could be put to death. But this is not an intrinsic evil because unlike abortion, the executioners are not intending to kill an innocent person. Moreover, abortion involves the killing of some 850,000 innocent children per year. Under the death penalty, only about a two-dozen people are executed per year in the U.S.

What about when the U.S. wages war? This does not fall into the category of abortion because innocents are not deliberately targeted. Though many innocent people died as a result of U.S. actions during its many wars, the vast majority of them were not deliberately targeted – with the exception of the bombing of German and Japanese cities during World War II. The policymakers who approved the wars considered themselves to be engaging in self-defense – or the defense of other populations of people – against an aggressor. They may have sometimes blundered, for example through failure to think through certain consequences of their actions, but they did not transgress on the scale of legalized abortion, which entails the deliberate killing of innocents on a genocidal scale.

If a presidential candidate vowed to wage an unjust war for the purposes of raw power, territorial expansion and genocide, as the National Socialists and Communists did, then it could be justifiable to vote for an opposing pro-abortion candidate. But this is not nor has it ever been the situation in the United States. (Moreover, it would be the National Socialists or Communists who would be pro-abortion.)

Many who are opposed to abortion subscribe to the “seamless garment” theory, promoted by some Catholic bishops, which considers abortion to be just one of a number of issues such as poverty, unemployment, substandard health care, immigration problems, environmental degradation, and climate change. But none of these separate issues are intrinsic moral evils – they do not involve the deliberate killing of innocent human beings. At no time is there a public policy concern that even comes close to being as morally grave as the genocide of babies.

Voting for a pro-abortion candidate is a transgression against humankind, against God, and against millions of babies who are denied a life.

Karl Marx Was An Intellectual Godfather of Adolph Hitler

(Public domain photographs.) {{PD-US}}

It’s often argued that National Socialism’s roots partly lie in Friedrich Nietzsche’s notions of “God is dead”, master and slave morality, and the Übermensch. But when it comes to the Nazi’s anti-Semitism, Karl Marx provided a lot of intellectual firepower.

Disturblingly, one rarely hears about Karl Marx’s anti-Semitism. Modern-day champions of Marxism never bring it up. Professors sympathetic to Marxism don’t assign reading material on the subject. The media never talk about it.

But it’s there. And perhaps no greater evidence of this lies in Marx’s essay, “On The Jewish Question”. Following, in all their repugnance, are excerpts therefrom.

“What is the profane basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money.”

“In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”

“What was, in itself, the basis of the Jewish religion? Practical need. Egoism”

“The god of practical need and self interest is money….The god of the Jews has been secularized and has become the god of this world.”

“The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew.…As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its conditions – the Jew becomes impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object.”

“The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.”

There’s a reason for the word “socialism” in National Socialism. That becomes clearer when the full name of the party is written out: The National Socialist German Workers Party.

To quote Adolph Hitler, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

Planks in the Nazi party platform fell right in line with those of conventional socialism/communism. The Nazis demanded:

• the abolition of all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work;

• the nationalization of businesses involved in cartels;

• the communalization of department stores, to distribute to small business;

• land reform, confiscation from owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose, the abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of land speculation.

So Nazism was much like conventional socialism, with its anti-business and anti-financial attitudes, and demonization the affluent. Nazism particularly demonized a subset of affluent people (many of whom weren’t even affluent), the Jews. Envious Germans prior to and during the Nazi period hurled accusations exactly in line with Karl Marx’s slanders, smearing them as swindlers and worshiping money. Never mind that their hard work, high levels of education, willingness to take risks, and willingness to be merchants early on (upon which other members of society looked down) tended to have a positive effect on income. Success breeds contempt.

Socialism/communism blames the world’s ills on economically better off people. But in some societies those people tend to be members of a certain religion or ethnic minority group – be they Jews in Nazi Germany, Armenians in early-twentieth-century Turkey, Chinese in Indonesia, or Tutsis in Rwanda. That makes them easy to identify and pick out. The minority group becomes synonymous with the wealthy class. By scapegoating the rich, they’re scapegoating the minority group.

So Marx in the nineteenth century helped sow the seeds for both Nazism and Communism in the twentieth.

Some say Marx was the most influential thinker who ever lived. If you measure that by totaling the number of deaths resulting from Nazism and Communism – over a hundred million – then yes, he was the most influential.

Patrick Chisholm is editor of PolicyDynamics.

The Cosmos is Neither All That Is, Nor Ever Was, Nor Ever Will Be

Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of the new Cosmos series, is great. But the Carl Sagan quote at the open of the program was a curious choice: “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be”. The show contradicts that quote early on by pointing out that the universe wasn’t always here – that it started with the Big Bang some 13.8 billion years ago.

To say that the cosmos “is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be” is so old-school. From Isaac Newton in the 18th century to Albert Einstein in the 20th, scientists subscribed to the “steady state” theory in which they thought the universe always existed and was infinite. But now, cosmologists almost universally agree that the universe started with the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago. Evidence for that includes Edwin Hubble’s discovery 90 years ago that the universe is expanding, and Penzias and Wilson’s discovery 50 years ago of the cosmic microwave background radiation or CMBR, which scientists think only could have come from the Big Bang. With the confirmation of the Big Bang, evidence was overwhelming that the universe did in fact have a beginning. And there’s a widespread belief among cosmologists that, thanks (or no thanks) to dark energy, the universe will continue to expand to the point that no galaxies will be visible to other galaxies because they’ll be too far away. And that all stars eventually will burn out. And some cosmologists subscribe to the “Big Rip” theory, where everything will be blown apart by dark energy.

So it is not the case that the cosmos is all that ever was or ever will be. Moreover, to say that the cosmos is all that is, is extraordinarily atheistic.

Why the Bible Doesn’t Explain Evolution or the Big Bang


iStock/Getty images

I only got to see snippets of the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate on evolution versus biblical creationism, but upon first glance it appeared that winning over the audience wasn’t going to be as easy for Bill Nye as I would have expected.

Evolutionist Bill Nye had a disadvantage right out of the starting gate: Ken Ham is Australian. He speaks with a polished Australian accent. Most viewers I’m sure thought he was British, because most Americans can’t distinguish between British and Australian accents, even though there is a difference. Whether it’s a polished British or a polished Australian accent, people think such accents sound “smarter” or more intelligent to most Americans. That’s why when a TV or radio advertisement contains a British accent, the advertiser often wants to convey the impression that it’s coming from someone who is wiser or more schooled.

There’s tremendous evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago. Physicists, cosmologists and astronomers almost universally agree that the universe started with the Big Bang. Key evidence includes the observation that most galaxies are moving faster and faster apart from one another (except those close enough to be held together by gravity, such as the Milky Way and Andromeda), and the cosmic microwave background radiation or CMBR, which is a low-level radiation that’s uniform throughout the universe and that scientists think only could have come from the Big Bang.

Contrary to biblical creationists’ contention that the earth is 6,000 years old, the earth actually started to form about 4.5 billion years ago – shortly after the birth of the sun – through rocks and planetesimals colliding with and sticking to one another.

So why would the Bible indicate that God created the earth in seven days, and that it’s only about 6,000 years old?

Physicist and Catholic priest Robert Spitzer has a good explanation for that. He notes that the Bible isn’t meant to reveal scientific truths. In 500 BC let alone 1500 AD, readers of the Bible wouldn’t have understood anything about the Big Bang.

Says Spitzer, “Quite frankly in 500 BC not a single person would have understood the scientific account. They didn’t have the mathematics. They didn’t have the scientific methodology. They didn’t even have the conceptual basis to conceive of the scientific account of creation.” He explains that the biblical author wrote in language that the people of the time could understand.

The whole point of scripture is to reveal truths that are necessary for salvation. Back then for example, many people believed in multiple gods – gods that treat humans like mere playthings and cannon fodder for the gods.  Contrary to educating the people back then about science, scripture aimed to educate them that there’s just one God, that the whole of reality is a creature of God, that humans are created in his image and likeness, and that humans have a divine dignity that stems therefrom.

“That’s the reason why we can say in one breath that the biblical account is correct for the truths of salvation, and that the scientific account is correct – the 13.7 billion-year-old universe with all the various stages of development,” he observes.

Is it OK for Christians to believe in evolution? Of course. Spitzer indicates that Pope Pius XII developed a doctrine stating that any Catholic can believe in evolution so long as science supports it in a probative way – i.e. in a way that has enough proof to be valid or at least persuasive. So Christians can indeed believe that humans descended from non-human species such as ape-like creatures. (Remember that we didn’t descend from modern apes, but modern apes did descend from the same ancient species from which humans descended.)

As long as you don’t reduce human beings to physical material organic beings alone, evolution is fine. In other words Christians cannot deny that there’s a trans-physical or trans-material soul that survives bodily death.

In this particular talk, Spitzer didn’t address Adam and Eve, but we can draw similar conclusions to which Spitzer refers. People back then didn’t have the scientific framework to understand evolution. Moreover the Bible wasn’t meant to be a scientific treatise. It was meant to help people achieve salvation. So it was written in language to which people could relate, like the story of Adam and Eve. Few if any people back then would have understood let alone believed in the concept of evolution. It merely would have been a distraction from the Bible’s main task at hand.

Obamacare is Creating a Part-Time America

Busy Waitress


We’re living through a period of profound change in America, for the worse. Today it hit home for this observer, while talking to a woman who is a waitress at Bob Evans restaurant.

She said that a few months ago, most of the full-time employees at her restaurant, and presumably at all Bob Evans restaurants, were converted to part-time employees, able to work only a maximum of 29 hours a week. That’s in order to avoid the $2,000 per-employee Obamacare fine if one’s hours go above that.

Imagine that – the massive shift of millions of Americans from full time to part time (Bob Evans is just one of thousands of businesses doing the same), caused by a specific government policy. One reads in history books and elsewhere about stark government policies having profound immediate effects on society, usually involving heavy-handed socialist states. But to witness similar upheavals going on in modern-day United States of America! Folks, it’s not your mom-and-dad’s America anymore.

Through this heavy-handed government policy, millions of people are getting pushed into poverty (as the U.S. government defines poverty) by being downgraded from full-time to part-time employees. And they don’t even necessarily get 29 hours. The waitress said the employees are routinely scheduled for just 26 hours a week, in case occasionally they have to work a few extra hours during busy times.

The waitress said she was fortunate in that her income is her household’s secondary source of income. But not so for some of her coworkers. Their income is their primary income. So having gone from 40 to 29 hours of work per week, their income declined substantially.

With lower incomes, they now may be eligible for welfare benefits such as food stamps. Multiply that millions of times over, as so many businesses throughout America convert their workers to part-timers. That’s probably one of the big factors driving the large increase in participation in food stamps and other welfare programs.

So Obamacare is dramatically expanding the welfare state in more ways than one.

In addition to expanding the ranks of those who are classified as poor and thus eligible for welfare benefits, middle-class Americans who never previously received government handouts in their lives will now receive the Obamacare subsidy, once they sign up for the program.

That’s certainly a coup for Democrats. They may be fretting now over the disruptions caused by Obamacare, but in the the long run a lot more middle-class Americans will be dependent on government handouts, and be more likely to vote for Democrats in order to maintain those handouts.

Of course, while it’s a coup for Dems, the country as whole suffers. Prompting more and more people to live off the work and toil of other people is a sure way secure a future of national economic mediocrity – and boost the ranks of the impoverished.


One Intern’s Bizarre Notion of “Subsidy”

minimumwageThere’s a recent Guardian article headlined, “Tax breaks for CEOs pay for million-dollar salaries: CEOs’ salaries are ballooning thanks to tax breaks that turn bonuses into government subsidies for corporate America”.

It makes two laughable assertions: that stock options are a government subsidy to businesses, and particularly bizarre, that the minimum wage is a subsidy to businesses. The latter is positively Orwellian, straight out of the Ministry of Truth: the state is imposing a regulation on you making it harder to run your business, and that’s a favor to you so you should appreciate the good efforts of the state.

Jana Kasperkevic, described as “the fall US Business intern for the Guardian US”, writes that “Many argue that there are two subsidies at work: tax breaks to keep CEO pay high, and a low minimum wage to keep worker costs low.”

Payment in stock options is incredibly complex for accounting and tax purposes, and complex topics can be easy to demagogue, which Kasperkevic faithfully does. To  get a feel for some of the complexity, read this. Here, however, I want to focus on the other main allegation: that the current national minimum wage is a subsidy to employers.

First of all when an employer is coerced by the government into paying a minimum wage above the market-clearing wage, that’s the opposite of a subsidy. It’s a cost – imposed by the government.

What Ms. Kasperkevic probably means to say is that welfare benefits such as food stamps are not only a government subsidy to a particular person, but also to that person’s employer, and faults the employer for accepting that government subsidy.

Kasperkevic doesn’t realize it but she’s actually making an indictment against the government. Her argument assumes that the employer is getting away with paying lower wages than would be the case without the welfare payment, which in turn assumes that if the welfare payment were removed, then the employer would be forced to raise wages by the amount of the welfare payment in order retain that worker. So under this situation the government is creating artificially low wages. Remove the welfare, and wages will rise, she implies.

Whether wages actually would rise is an open question with many factors involved. If not, then Kasperkevic is wrong – the employers are not getting a subsidy; only the direct welfare recipient is.

Meantime, Kasperkevic essentially says that coercing employers to raise wages by boosting the minimum wage would reduce government spending on welfare benefits such as food stamps.

While some people could become ineligible for welfare under this scenario, many other people would become newly eligible for welfare due to being laid off. If the minimum wage were raised from $7.25 to $10 per hour, a worker only would be retained if he or she produces more than $10 per hour of output. While many people have the skills to produce just above $7.25 per hour of output, they don’t have the skills to produce $10 per hour of output. In that case the employer would be losing money on that worker, and the latter would be laid off (unless the employer for some reason is fine with losing money).

So a higher minimum wage would result in more unemployed people, creating new demand for welfare benefits. Spending on welfare benefits, therefore, likely would not go down, but up. The reality of a minimum wage hike would be the opposite of what Ms. Kasperkevic implies.

A higher minimum wage can only avoid unemployment if all of the working population is skilled enough to produce output above the minimum wage. For example if the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour and all of the working population is skilled enough to produce, say, at least $11 per hour of output, then raising the minimum wage to $10 likely won’t produce unemployment.

But alas, large segments of the U.S. working-age population aren’t skilled enough to produce $11 per hour of output let alone $7.25 per hour of output, especially minority youth and those who can’t speak English. And it shows: unemployment among black teens is a mind-boggling 42 percent. Raising the minimum wage would boost that unemployment rate even higher (all other things being equal). And it would boost demand for welfare even more.

So in addition to a minimum wage boost being a cost, not a subsidy, to employers, it would be the kiss of employment death for low-skilled workers.

Give Thanks for Albion

mapThis Thanksgiving, appreciate the efforts of the British – namely the ancestors of today’s British. It’s largely because of them that freedom started to flourish.

We’re living in unique times. For most of world history, despotism and slavery were the norm the world over. It only has been within the last few hundred years, and only in certain countries, that those to scourges of mankind finally waned. For that, we owe much to the British.

Centuries ago it had been a given that monarchs wielded absolute power, even over their nobles. People were at the mercy of arbitrary edicts from kings.

The Magna Carta in 1215 started to change that. As Thomas Sowell explains in his book Conquests and Cultures, the Magna Carta was truly unprecedented. The document established rights for nobles that the king had to respect. It was the beginning of the concept of separation of powers. During the ensuing centuries in England, those rights were enshrined in Parliament, which limited the powers of the monarchy. Laws emerged curtailing the powers of not only kings but also of government officials.

In 1695 William and Mary, in an effort to gain support from Parliament and the populace, instituted a bill of rights. Monarchs could no longer remove judges except in cases of misconduct. An independent judiciary became firmly established. “All these things which are now so much taken for granted can be taken for granted only because the British pioneered in the development,” writes Sowell. The concept that people had rights that the monarchy could not override was revolutionary at the time.

Key among those rights were freedom of speech, separation of powers, and the right to a jury trial. These ideas spread to England’s offshoot societies such as the United States and Australia, and became a model for a great many other countries including non-Western ones.

Britain went on to become the world leader in abolishing slavery.

Understand that slavery had been the norm practically everywhere – in Europe (up until the Middle Ages), in Asia, in the Middle East. Until the rise of Great Britain, it was widely accepted. There had been no concerted effort to stamp it out by any government.

“It would be hard to find anywhere in history a record of any other country going to such efforts for so long in a cause from which it could gain so little and lose so much,” writes Sowell.

Of course, Britain had been prominent in promoting the slave trade, like governments everywhere at the time. What was different was that, backed by a moral revulsion against slavery among the British populace, Britain was the first government to work to end it.

Christian denominations, particularly Quakers and Anglicans, were a big factor in that moral revolt. It was in 1808 that Parliament, heeding widespread opposition to slavery throughout the country, voted overwhelmingly to ban the international slave trade. Thereafter Britain goaded other nations, through military (particularly naval) action and moral suasion, to stop slavery. Writes Sowell, “Eventually the antislavery crusade took root in the moral consciousness of European civilization as a whole, even in despotic countries such as czarist Russia.”

So this Thanksgiving, raise a glass to Great Britain. Without it, we may be living like people lived for most of human history – in oppression and slavery.

Health Warning on the Healthy Marriage Initiative

We all know that those who lean right are skeptical that government programs can solve socioeconomic problems. Such programs are usually well intentioned, but flops. But what if righties themselves design and implement such programs? Will their roads that are paved with good intentions now lead heaven?

Even then, no.

Case in point: the Healthy Marriage Initiative, launched in 2003 by the Bush administration. Based on studies that show marriage helps reduce poverty and boost outcomes, the $300 million program was designed to reverse the long-term decline in marriage rates among low-income Americans.

It mainly consisted of trying to educate the public on the benefits of marriage, through holding seminars in the inner city, establishing mentoring programs, teaching about marriage in high schools, public service annoucements by professional athletes, and putting up pro-marriage advertisements around town.

unmarriedIt largely fell on deaf ears. In driving up out-of-wedlock birthrates, powerful socioeconomic forces are at play. Setting up marriage education programs here and there are no match for such forces.

Since the program’s inception, out of wedlock birth rates in the U.S. have continued their relentless upward trend (see chart 10): to 72.3 percent among African Americans, 53.2 percent among Hispanics, and 28.6 percent among non-Hispanic whites (for 2011, the latest year for which figures are available).

The results are reflected in the above statistics. Plus, a couple of studies, cited here and here, found that the Healthy Marriage Initiative largely was a flop.

To be sure, government programs and other factors can have a negative effect on marriage by imposing monetary penalties thereon. It’s well established that the prospect of losing welfare benefits or health insurance through marriage, or the prospect of paying higher taxes, prompts many to not tie the knot. In fact, welfare reform in the 1990s may even have temporarily reversed the uptrend in out of wedlock birthrates – see chart 10. It would be worth researching whether welfare reform is what actually caused that reversal.

Meantime, regarding the Healthy Marriage Initiative, that old adage about government programs – that the road to h— is paved with good intentions – holds true whether they’re Democratic or Republican intentions.


A Columnist’s Calumny

The left is outraged at Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen for writing that “People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?)”

Then, in attempting to defend himself, he slanders a whole segment of the population by writing, “What I was doing was expressing not my own views but those of extreme right-wing Republican tea party people.”

The affront is multi-fold. interracialHe calls tea party people “extreme.” That’s corruption of the English language. Since when is it “extreme” to want to reduce our burgeoning national debt and slow the rate of government spending, which is mainly what the tea party is all about? The true meaning of the word extreme, in a political sense, is to describe people who carry out violence for political ends.

The other smear is that tea partiers are against interracial marriage. He provides zero evidence to back that up.

Yes, distressingly, there are still folks out there who are opposed to interracial marriage. And you know what? For whites, they’re split about evenly among Democrats and Republicans – 12.5 percent of the former and 11.4 percent of the latter for the years 2000-2010, according to one survey. (The numbers for all races are 9.3 and 11.6 percent respectively. Among blacks, curiously, the numbers are 2 percent for black Democrats versus 13 percent for black Republicans, but one wonders whether there was an error. Why would black Republicans be against blacks marrying whites? You’d think if anyone, that would characterize black nationalists, who certainly aren’t card-carrying Republicans.)

About a year ago MSNBC host Chris Hayes got himself into trouble when he declared that racist Americans “almost entirely” are Republicans. Then a few days later, to his credit, he apologized and pointed out that those opposing interracial marriage are split about evenly among Democrats and Republicans.

Richard Cohen, are you as honest a journalist as Chris Hayes? If so, it’s time for you to apologize as well.

Hurricane Obamacare is Arriving

hurricaneHey Repubs and other opponents of Obamacare. You’re too late in taking the President to task for his “if-you-like-your-insurance-you-can-keep-it” ruse.

Back in late 2009 and early 2010, before Obamacare was passed, the President was repeating that mantra again and again, but the silence on the other side was deafening. Opponents of Obamacare were standing there like deer in headlights amid Obama’s antics. When he said it during the 2008 presidential debate, McCain let him get away with it. It was amazing how many others in Congress, the media and elsewhere during the run-up to the passage of Obamacare let him get away with it as well.

The key concepts of the Obamacare bill back then made it plain to see that millions of people were not going to be able to keep their health insurance after it got passed. THAT was the time to go out and inform the public about the dangers of Obamacare – not now, after it’s been passed!

But remarkably, little was said about that. While I’m sure someone, somewhere must have pointed it out, back in early 2009 I tried in vain to find literature debunking the “if-you-like-your-insurance-you-can-keep-it” deception.

So yours truly back then wrote an article pointing out the folly of believing Obama’s pledge. But I’d be lucky if a few hundred people even read it. Obamacare opponents needed to get the message out to millions. But they didn’t.

I mentioned back then that the President repeatedly assures us that if we like our current health insurance plan, we can keep it. That’s like telling New Orleans residents on the eve of Katrina that if you like your house, you can keep it.

Katrina is here.