When I was growing up, liberals were people like Hubert Humphrey and Ed Muskie and George McGovern.
You might have disagreed with their politics; but you never doubted their sincerity, their patriotism, or their humanity.
Based on her act this past week, I’m not sure I can even call Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius a liberal in the classical meaning of the word. How the group that says it is all worried about human beings, life, and the quality thereof can claim her as one of their own is a mystery to me.
Last week, the news media brought a story to our attention. Ten year old Sarah Murnaghan from Newtown Square, Pennsylvania needs a new lung. She has Cystic Fibrosis and a very short time left to live absent a lung transplant.
If she was 12 years old, she would be on the list for an adult lung. Her doctors say she could handle that adult lung.
But the rules enforced by Sebelius say that a 10 year old only gets a pediatric lung. And those aren’t available often. Frankly, kids don’t die with lungs intact as often as adults do.
So, Sarah’s parents made a simple request. Waive the rule, and put her on the adult list.
Nope, says Ms. Sebelius. Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent. Kids die all the time.
Frankly, she sounded like a bad Dana Carvey imitation.
This is a nation that both went to the moon and had its first heart transplant within a one-year period. This is a nation in which we are constantly reminded by the so-called heirs to the Humphrey-Muskie-McGovern legacy that we owe it to the least of us to take care of them.
What is this bitch thinking?
She was straightened out almost immediately by a Philadelphia Federal Judge who ordered her to put Sarah on the adult list.
Perhaps it’s all that supporting of abortion that makes life so meaningless to clowns like Sebelius. Or, perhaps, she’s just the kind of person who genuinely doesn’t care.
In Sebelius’ case, the pro-abortion crowd got her elected as Governor in Kansas, and she had a close relationship with the infamous George Tiller (a.k.a. “Tiller the baby killer”) before he was shot to death in 2009. (John Kennedy was assassinated. This gangster was shot, to paraphrase Chris Rock.)
So it should be clear to most right thinking people that Sebelius clearly has the ability to look at a child and shrug off the possibility that she might die unless Sebelius took a particular action that she didn’t, for inexplicable reasons, want to take. We would note, after all, that as Governor of Kansas, she repeatedly defended Tiller’s illegal late term abortions, thus condemning many children to death.
Still, we need to ask exactly what this nation is becoming when a cabinet secretary is perfectly willing to stand by and watch a 10 year old girl die because she’s not 12. Just think about the death panels this woman will be in charge of at HHS when Obamacare goes into effect.
Forgetting about her defense of George Tiller’s late term abortions, if Sebelius can watch a 10 year old girl die because she’s not 12, what might she say about your chemotherapy when you are 70?
Put her together with the IRS, and you get what the so-called liberals have made our government into.
Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Kathleen Sebelius appear to be representative of what liberalism has become.
And that faint sound you hear is Hubert Humphrey turning over in his grave.








Why Do They Spy On Us And Not The Terrorists?
In less than a week since it became public, the Obama administration’s NSA spying scandal has progressed far beyond the accumulation of Verizon’s phone records.
We now know that the NSA and its friends at Eric Holder’s Department of Justice are also utilizing Google (GOOG), Facebook (FB), Yahoo! (YHOO), and almost every other large tech firm to spy on us.
Of all the recent scandals, the NSA spying scandal is particularly frightening. Between our phone records, emails, text messages, and our whereabouts – which are provided courtesy of our cellphones – the government has admitted to knowing all our secrets.
Now, the justification for granting the regime this unconstitutional spying power is based on the idea that the snooping makes us safer. But does it really make us more secure? Ben Franklin said that “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Broadly speaking, Americans agree that politicos are slippery folk. So why would we trust them with such untold power? The record shows that, up to now, Obama and his team aren’t worthy of unlimited access to our most personal and intimate information.
Our Fears Are Justified
Based on their statements and actions, America’s leaders believe that we‘re all potential threats to the Federal government. And now Obama is learning that trust (or a lack of trust) is a two-way street.
You see, everything comes down to trust. And the American people have lost theirs in this administration. Following the string of recent scandals, it’s impossible to ignore that there’s a distinct pattern of abuse of power in Obama’s administration. Let’s face it…
So here’s the bottom line… why would we trust the Obama administration to not abuse the NSA’s spying powers, too?
The Sad Truth
All this spying on innocent Americans didn’t collar the Tsarnaev brothers ahead of the Boston Marathon bombing. And it’s clear they made abundant use of smartphones and the internet. Heck, we even had a warning from Russian security officials that the older Tsarnaev brother was a threat, and we couldn’t catch them.
The spying on innocent Americans didn’t collar Major Nidal Hasan before he massacred soldiers at Fort Hood, and he regularly surfed to jihadi websites.
Instead of focusing on the real problem characters, the Obama administration wants to know who you and I talk to. As Senator Dianne Feinstein, who was supposed to be providing congressional oversight, stated this last week, the authorities need this information in case someone might become a terrorist in the future.
But only the most compliant of citizen sheep would believe that Obama and his team won’t abuse this spying power.
Let’s hope that Congress will have the fortitude to put this frightening episode of domestic spying in the history books and make clear that the government only has the power to collect data on suspects of a crime.
This article originally appeared at CapitolHillDaily and is reprinted here with permission.
Photo credit: waif69 (Creative Commons)