In today’s American Spectator, I discuss Jonathan Gruber’s use of the term “positive selection” in one of his papers about abortion. This term, as he uses it, is right out of Eugenics 101:

The scariest words uttered during Jonathan Gruber’s recent appearance before the House Oversight Committee were “positive selection.” They were read aloud by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, from a 1997 paper the professor co-authored concerning abortion.

The opus in question made the Congressman uneasy because of the following passage:’By 1993 all cohorts under the age 19 were born under legalized abortion and we estimate steady state savings of $1.6 billion per year from positive selection.’

Rep. Massie asked the professor what was meant by “positive selection.” This question was evidently not anticipated in Gruber’s pre-testimony coaching, so he became evasive.

Considering what it means, this is no surprise. “Positive selection” is no ordinary example of academic jargon. The term is frequently used by evolutionary biologists, who tell us it is responsible for the development of “traits that define our species … And Gruber refers to mass abortions of unborn babies, whom he describes as “marginal children,” as an example of positive selection.

This is seriously creepy stuff. To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator I discuss the hypocrisy of The New Republic’s high-profile writers regarding change:

For years, the Washington press corps has been telling us that our medical delivery system was antiquated and unable to meet the needs of its 21st century customers … Over the past several days, we have had the opportunity to observe some of these people react to a similar upheaval in their own industry, and the response has been instructive.

Oddly enough, they have exhibited a surprising affinity for the status quo. This ironic attitude was revealed when the management of TNR announced some unexpected personnel, location, and format changes:

These unpleasant surprises were delivered at the behest of 30-year-old Facebook billionaire Chris Hughes, who bought the hoary liberal publication two years ago and eventually concluded that its shrinking readership is due to dull content produced by editors and writers he “came to think of as ‘spoiled brats.’”

His assessment was vindicated on Friday morning when a significant percentage of the magazine’s staff threw a collective tantrum and resigned en masse.

To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator I discuss the ironic fact that President Obama has done more damage to the Democrats than the Republicans could possibly have managed without him:

When President Obama took office in 2009, his party was in better shape than it had been since the era following Watergate. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by very comfortable margins. They had just regained the White House in a historic election. They believed they would control Washington for decades, if not generations, to come. Yet fewer than six years later, their congressional majorities have been annihilated and their prospects for retaining the presidency in 2016 are far less promising than they were just a month ago.

Virtually all this devastation has been caused by Obama himself.

Even worse, having destroyed the seemingly invulnerable Democratic citadel, he now seems determined to sow the ground upon which it stood with salt. Most objective observers acknowledge that the resounding defeat the Democrats just received in the midterm elections can be attributed to voter anger concerning Obama’s increasing inclination to behave like an emperor rather than an elected official answerable to the people. Yet after this rebuke he doubled down, defiantly issuing his most egregious edict thus far—an executive order effectively granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

Who can stop Obama from behaving like a Manchurian candidate programmed by Mitch McConnell and John Boehner? Only the Democrats themselves. To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator I discuss Jonathan Gruber’s remarks about the “stupidity of the American voter” and what they tell us concerning the deceptions that were used to foist Obamacare on an unwilling electorate:

The “father of Obamacare,” as he was known in his salad days, inadvertently acquitted nearly half of us with his reference to “the stupidity of the American voter.” The professor’s condescending comments can only apply to those people who actually believed the empty promises our President made on behalf of his health care “reform” law.

Inevitably, some of these voters have finally opened up their eyes, and they are not at all happy with what they see.

Among them is Burke Beu, a lifelong Democrat who recently described his rude awakening in the Wall Street Journal: ‘I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, then lost my job in the Great Recession … I voted for President Obama again in 2012, then received a cancellation notice for my health insurance … This was due to Obamacare, the so-called Affordable Care Act.’

This unquestionably played a role in the drubbing the Democrats just received and it also caused the Gruber videos to surface.

Most of the six now in circulation, including the original “stupid voters” clip, were found by investment advisor Rich Weinstein. Like Beu, Weinstein believed Obama’s “you can keep your insurance” lie. Thus, when his coverage was canceled and he was “forced to buy compliant insurance at double the price,” he “got pissed” and began the research that eventually uncovered the incriminating videos.

To read the rest of the column, click here.


If you had any doubt that the Democrats and Obama administration deliberately deceived the public on Obamacare, this should clear them up. This jerk was arguably the most important architect of the law, and this video shows him openly advocating dishonesty:

Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass…

There you have it folks, from the horse’s … er … mouth. Obamacare is and always was a fraud. Any questions?


In the following video, Ezra Klein attempts to explain the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision to “grant cert” in King v. Burwell. As usual, he fails to grasp the basic question at issue:

Klein believes that the Court should rule against the plaintiffs because we’re only talking about “9 little words.” Even on this basic point he’s wrong. The issue is a crucial phrase that appears 9 times in the law.

Even worse, Klein thinks that the Court should rule on what the authors of Obamacare now claim they meant to accomplish rather than what they actually wrote in the statute. This assertion is … well … dumb.

Laws are written down so people and courts can easily divine what Congress “meant to accomplish” with a given piece of legislation. The written word is a handy thing. Klein should read more and talk less.


In my latest American Spectator column I discuss the Supreme Court’s decision to “grant cert” in King v. Burwell:

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear a lawsuit challenging an arbitrary IRS decision to issue tax credits and penalties through federally-created Obamacare exchanges. Two federal courts have already declared the regulation unconstitutional, but a third court ruled that the IRS has acted within its authority. It was this ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that prompted the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell to file an appeal with the high court.

If the Supreme Court rules against the Obama administration in this case, it could well be the undoing of the health care law.

The survival of Obamacare depends on the ability of government bureaucrats to dole out tax credits and subsidies, but the law stipulates that all such assistance must be dispensed via exchanges established by the state … And, much to the surprise and chagrin of the Obama administration, 34 states declined to do so. This forced the federal government to set up exchanges in those states and also spawned the legally dubious IRS edict.

The IRS rule, as Michael Cannon and Jonathan Adler point out, creates entitlements and taxes. Only Congress can do that.

To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator I discuss the need to give six Democrat Senators the bum’s rush tomorrow. They ignored the will of the voters on Obamacare, so the voters should ignore their desire to be reelected:

What would happen if you ignored multiple requests from your employer to stop wasting time on your pet project and instead concentrate on a higher priority task? You would be fired, of course. There are six U.S. Senators up for reelection tomorrow who richly deserve to lose their jobs for that very offense.

These Democrats thought it was safe to disregard the voters because they would not have to face them until the far off date of November, 2014.

During the interim, they believed, their benighted constituents would learn to love the absurdly titled Affordable Care Act.

But the Beltway bubble makes for a poor crystal ball. The day of reckoning finally arrives tomorrow and Senators Pryor, Begich, Landrieu, Udall, Hagan, and Shaheen will have to answer to a lot of angry voters who revile Obamacare more than ever.

To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator I point out that Obama administration bungling on Ebola is part of a five-year pattern that points to a single, unavoidable diagnosis—incompetence.

The folks at Media Matters for America are angry at the press. In a sublimely ironic post, Eric Boehlert fumes, “As Republicans seek to gain a partisan advantage by ginning up fear about the Ebola virus … they’re getting a major assist from the news media.” Boehlert believes that media coverage of Ebola has abetted the GOP’s low designs by creating the “unfair” impression that the Obama administration is somehow incompetent.

Presumably, this indictment includes notorious right wing rags like the New York Times, which recently published an op-ed by Joe Nocera that points out the obvious:

“When you think about it, many of the Obama administration’s ‘scandals’ have been failures of competence.” Unlike Boehlert, Nocera recalls the bungled rollout of Obamacare, the neglect of patients by the Veterans Medical Healthcare System, and sees their connection to the mismanagement of the Ebola mess by the Centers for Disease Control: “The Ebola outbreak is not exactly enhancing the CDC’s reputation for competence.”

Nocera has a gift for understatement. To read the rest of the column, click here:


In today’s American Spectator I discuss the potentially disastrous effect of a defeated Tea Partier’s refusal to endorse the winner of the Kansas Senate primary and thus focus Sunflower State conservatives on their main task—defeating Democrat-in-disguise Greg Orman:

It has occasionally been claimed that the Civil War began not at Fort Sumter in South Carolina but on the banks of a small creek in Kansas, where John Brown and his sons murdered five men in what later became known as the “Pottawatomie massacre.” Today, a less grisly civil war is being fought throughout that state between disgruntled supporters of Tea Party candidate Milton Wolf and “establishment” Republicans working to reelect Senator Pat Roberts, who defeated Wolf in a hard fought GOP primary.

This internecine conflict may well prevent the Republicans from regaining a majority in the U.S. Senate.

Although Roberts has a 96 percent rating from the American Conservative Union, many of Wolf’s supporters inexplicably claim he’s a RINO and threaten to sit out the election. This wouldn’t be particularly important if Roberts enjoyed a substantial lead over his main rival. However, due to some clever courthouse skullduggery whereby the Democrats forced their original Senate nominee to drop out of the race and threw their support behind ostensible “Independent” Greg Orman, Roberts is in the fight of his political life.

Thus, he needs the support of Tea Partiers as well as party regulars. Wolf, however, refuses to endorse Roberts or encourage his supporters to vote for him. To read the rest of the column, click here.