Boy, Nancy Pelosi must be glad America has the Drudge Report. After all, as she said herself, “we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Today, as if answering her call for such information, Matt links to two new pieces of news about the SoHCA2010:

Health reform threatens to cram already overwhelmed emergency rooms:

The new healthcare law will pack 32 million newly insured people into emergency rooms already crammed beyond capacity, according to experts on healthcare facilities.

And,

Texas doctors opting out of Medicare at alarming rate:

Texas doctors are opting out of Medicare at alarming rates, frustrated by reimbursement cuts they say make participation in government-funded care of seniors unaffordable.

Two years after a survey found nearly half of Texas doctors weren’t taking some new Medicare patients, new data shows 100 to 200 a year are now ending all involvement with the program. Before 2007, the number of doctors opting out averaged less than a handful a year.

Do you suppose Speaker Pelosi will thank Drudge for helping her out in educating us about ObamaCare, now that it’s passed, just as she promised?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

UPDATE: What can I say, but, God bless our commentors (I’m sure the Speaker likewise sends along her thanks)… From ILC: Forget about keeping your doctor and your plan under ObamaCare

On my way this morning to meet Dan for brunch, I was listening to one of our local talk-radio stations. The host was reading from Michael Barone’s piece from this weekend about the Administration’s inability to call our enemy “Islamist extremists”. I hadn’t read this article when I wrote my post this weekend regarding the Left’s incessant use of the term “hate” to deride not the content of their opponents’ arguments, but rather their motivations, thus avoiding having to defend their own positions against a thoughtful rebuttal. But Barone gives me even more to think about, when he concludes, after lining out several instances of American leaders’ trepidation to call our enemy by name (emphasis added by me):

My theory is that these well-intentioned folk see the American people as a howling mob. They think that if Americans find out that Islamists are attacking us, they will go out and slaughter innocent Muslims. They think that Americans are incapable of understanding the simple truth that while most terrorists are Islamists, the large majority of Muslims are not terrorists.

Doesn’t this sound similar to the argument about the gay Leftists who insist on labeling their rhetorical opponents simply “hateful”, rather than allowing that they might be temperate and sober thoughtful people who simply have come to different conclusions than they have?

This Howling Mob theory dovetails well with the use of “hate” as a dismissive for the gay Left. They are of a piece. If an entire class of Americans believe we (i.e., the rest of the Nation) are all simply unwashed masses without the cranial wherewithal to even understand cognitive subtleties, wouldn’t it make sense to try to pit us against each other by preying on our basest instincts and emotions?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

I’m not sure I’ll be blogging tonight, but don’t let that stop you from using this space to comment about the hot Senate races in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Arkansas.

Goodbye, Arlen Specter.

And of course, I’ll be paying close attention to the PA Congressional District #12 Special Election (RIP Murtha) where I am praying that Tim Burns pulls an upset.  If this race is of interest, I’d suggest monitoring results AT THIS LINK.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Boosh.

On Fox News this morning, State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley became the third Obama administration official in short succession to admit that he hadn’t actually bothered to read Arizona’s 10-page long “secure the border” bill before condemning it and criticizing Americans who support Arizona’s necessary efforts to do the job the Obama Administration should be doing. Crowley’s statement follows similar admissions from Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

At first blush this revelation seemed unbelievable, but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. This now seems “the Washington way” of doing things. If the party in power tells us they have to pass bills in order to find out what’s actually in them, they can also criticize bills (and divide the country with ensuing rhetoric) without actually reading them.

Still I can’t help but feel outraged on behalf of Arizona’s citizens for the incompetence shown by these Administration officials. Arizonans have the courage to do what the Obama administration has failed to do in its first year and a half in office – namely secure our border and enforce our federal laws. And as a result, Arizonans have been subjected to a campaign of baseless accusations by the same people who freely admit they haven’t a clue about what they’re actually campaigning against.

The absolute low point of this campaign came last Friday, when a U.S. State Department delegation met with Chinese negotiators to discuss human rights. Apparently, our State Department felt it necessary to make their Chinese guests feel less bad about their own record of human rights abuses by repeatedly atoning for American “sins” – including, it seems, the Arizona immigration/pro-border security law. Asked if Arizona came up at all during the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner answered:

“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”

Note that he said “We brought it up” – not the Chinese, but the U.S. State Department’s own delegation. Instead of grilling the Chinese about their appalling record on human rights, the State Department continued the unbelievable apology tour by raising “early and often” Arizona’s decision to secure our border.

Arizona’s law, which just mirrors the federal law, simply allows the police to ask those whom they have already stopped for some form of identification like a driver’s license. By what absurd stretch of the imagination is that the moral equivalent of China’s lack of freedoms, population controls (including forced abortions), censorship, and arbitrary detentions?

Surely our U.S. Ambassador to China, John Huntsman, must disagree with the Obama Administration’s continued apology tour? We have nothing to apologize for. If Administration officials want to apologize to anyone, apologize to the American people for the fact that after a year and a half in office, they still haven’t done anything to secure our borders, and they join our President in making false suggestions about Arizona’s effort.

- Sarah Palin (via Facebook)

GP Ed Note – I added the BOLD to Palin’s words.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Need a new hat, mug or T-shirt?  Well, we have the online place for you.  The GOProud Shop.

Yeah, it is Shameless Plug Tuesday.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Just a last reminder about Chicago dinner  tomorrow, Wednesday, May 19.  Please let me know if you’d like to join us.

Looks like our New York on Sunday the 23rd will be in Manhattan.

So, will today finally be the day when a Democrat beats Arlen Specter in a contest for a U.S. Senate seat for Pennsylvania?  And if the Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat loses, will he continue to caucus with the Democrats?  Will he remain a loyal foot soldier for Obama?

Whatever the case, it does seem Specter himself may be second guessing his decision to switch parties as it’s not turning out exactly as he had hoped.  Had the 5-term incumbent not supported the “so-called stimulus” (while still a Republican), he might have been able to coast to reelection.  Never a man to back something out of principle, Specter (as a Republican) would have swung right, opposing Obamacare and cap ‘n trade to boost his Republican bona fides.  Instead, as a Democrat, he’s been a lock-step supporter of President Obama and Harry Reid.

He’ll vote whichever way is best to save his seat.  And that kind of behavior is becoming less becoming in a politician with people becoming increasingly disgusted with those old Washington ways, you know, the kind that some politician railed against so successfully in 2008.

As to the special election to fill the House seat of the late John Murtha.  I actually think the Democrat Mark Critz has the edge, though I wouldn’t be surprised if Republican Tim Burns manages to pull off a victory–if his Get-Out-the-Vote (GOTV) operation is solid.  Here’s why I think Critiz has the edge.  There are a lot of blue-collar Democrats in the district where Murtha remained popular. Critz was a top Murtha aide who learned the district well when working for the long-serving Democrat.  He is against Obamacare.  He has hit Burns on the tax issue.  And Democratic turnout will be up because of interest in the Sestak-Specter race.  There is no similar race on the GOP side.

That said, other bloggers give Burns has the edge.  I hope they’re right.

Not long ago, some reader sent me something from “Equality California” where its prejudiced leader Geoff Kors was breathlessly reporting that people who opposed gay marriage were motivated by “hate.”  I replied that anything that anything that highly partisan Democrat said should be taken with a grain of salt because he was so keen to find hatred among his ideological adversaries.

Mr. Kors acts as if every person who doesn’t support his agenda on gay issues does so because of some kind of animus against gay people.  Only he doesn’t use such eloquent language, preparing to use various forms of the word, “hate,” either as verb (“to hate”), noun (“hate”,”hatred”), adjective (“hateful”) to describe social conservatives harboring un-PC opinions of homosexuality.

And yet, as per Nick’s post yesterday, Mr. Kors’ prejudice against those who do not share his worldview is, in many ways, the prevailing attitude among the politically educated gay class.  They have determined, as Nick put it, “an uncanny knack for painting opponents of their agenda as being full of ‘hate’.”  

Like Obama Democrats seeking to discredit their opponents by questioning their motives to create an excuse for dismissing their arguments without debating them, gay leftists wish to smear their adversaries so as to press ahead with their agenda without making their case.  

Perhaps that’s it, perhaps there’s something more to it than that.  And were I not traveling and spending time with my family, I might give it more thought.  Perhaps tomorrow when I return to the open road.  

Nick made a great point which bears repetition and re-articulation–and serious consideration.  Why is it that gay leftists wish to paint anyone who disagrees with their agenda as “haters”?  Note how many of their number insist on calling us “self-hating.”

ADDENDUM:  And this relates closely to the point I have made repeatedly wondering why gay marriage advocates prefer to smear their adversaries than make the case for gay marriage.

Sonicfrog’s got the scoop:

The NYT caught a Democrat lying about his service in Vietnam. No, it not another article about John Kerry. Unlike the subject of this article, John Kerry did indeed served in Vietnam. This one is about Democrat Richard Bluumenthal, soon to be ex-Senate candidate running for Chris Dodd’s seat, and, I imagine, also soon ex-Attorney General of Connecticut. 

He reminds asks us to “compare the tone” of the Times article “ to the way the press really went after Bush and Cheney because they never set foot in the war zone”:

The whole article treats the [Democrat] with kid gloves. Question: will the press follow the lead of the Time and go easy on him, or will they lay in to him? After all, he not only got deferments, a-la Cheney, but he has lied about going to war. Bush never did that, yet he was savaged for years for less.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE:  Note the word not mentioned in this article on the subject.  Hint:  people on the left used it a lot to describe the immediate past president (with no evidence whatsoever of its accuracy).

Over at Stop the ACLU, a smart young blogger clears away the fog surrounding Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s record and singles out one of her successes.  Although she has tied her tongue in knots trying to explain dress up her department’s blunders on recent terrorist attacks (and attempted attacks) by radical Islamicists, they have prevented some radicals from staging violent attacks on innocent civilians:

This young man, wise beyond his years says 

. . . conservatives are missing one very important point. Under Napolitano, there have been no right-wing terrorist attacks. When Napolitano came into power, she made it clear how big of a threat conservatives are for terrorism, and she has thus far prevented any conservatives from attacking, evidenced by the number of conservative terrorist attacks.

He’s right.  We should credit Napolitano and her team from preventing those right-wing extremists from staging any terrorist attacks.