The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Obama Hasn’t ‘Evolved’ That Far … Yet

Posted on | March 31, 2013 | 12 Comments

Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services requested public comment on a proposal to provide taxpayer-funded sex-change surgery, but scrubbed the proposal off their Web site as soon as it was reported by news agencies. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air understands the Obama-logic:

Congress has been arguing over how to limit the current Medicare/Medicaid systems to keep them from going broke and taking the American economic system with them.  Some genius at HHS thinks this is the most propitious moment to talk about sticking taxpayers with sex-change surgery bills?
Smooth move.  But don’t think for a moment this won’t come back later, either.

Of course not: Under the radical dispensation, that which is not forbidden is mandatory, and to say that someone has a “right” to do something will be interpreted to mean that taxpayers are obligated to pay them to do it. This is what the entire fight about “marriage equality” is about: Granting same-sex couples access to whatever government benefits married couples get.

Our national motto has been changed from “E Pluribus Unum” to “What’s In It For Me?”

There is no real opposition to people cohabiting, having wedding ceremonies and calling their unions “marriages” — live and let live, whatever floats your boat — but there is understandable resistance to government action that requires us to treat such pairings as perfect analogs of man and wife. In addition to any traditional moral objections, there is the suspicion that this sort of radical “equality” will end up costing taxpayers money and restricting individual freedom. And one individual freedom that is already being eroded is the right to express traditional moral objections, so that the Family Research Council can be stigmatized as a “hate group” and targeted for terrorism by the sans-culottes of the new Jacobinism.

Remember: Sandra Fluke argued that it is “discrimination” for insurers not to cover sex-change surgery and, last year, a federal judge invoked the Eighth Amendment in ruling that Robert Kosilek, imprisoned for murdering his wife in 1990, has a constitutional right to a  taxpayer-funded sex-change. My reaction at the time:

The Eight Amendment? If a convicted murderer doesn’t have a vagina, that’s “cruel and unusual punishment”? As strange as this sounds, it is entirely logical if you accept the premise of sexual “rights” as understood by liberals.

Please read (or re-read) “The Problem With Sexual Rights.” We are traveling a road paved with weird intentions.




  • Evi L. Bloggerlady
  • Becca Lower

    Nice subject matter for the day of our Lord’s Resurrection…

  • Mike G.

    Civil unions will give them the “marital” rights they want without destroying the traditional meaning of marriage. But it’s not about that, though, is it?

  • Taxpayer1234

    Medicare denies my dad’s cancer treatment but wants to give Sally a schlong? UGH!

  • Becca Lower

    Nope, it’s not.

  • DaveO

    It’s almost like the Progressives took a list of the proscribing laws and rules in the Bible and put it on their “To Do” list, and took the list of prescriptive laws and rules and said “Shut this sh*t down quick!”

    I remember American society scorning Evangelicals in the 80s and 90s who talked about spiritual warfare and the quickmarch into depravity with apathy.

  • daleyrocks

    If a male convicted murderer gets a vagina while incarcerated, is he transferred to a wimmyns prison?

  • richard mcenroe

    Maybe we could ask those three dead men in the basement of Wright’s church how far Obama has evolved.

  • RichFader

    Okay, can Stacy belt “The Time Warp” like Richard O’Brien?

  • DaveO

    Yes. He is considered a she as soon as ‘she’ decides she is a she. At least, that’s how it works in the workplace and restrooms. Like the rapist who decided he was a she and was given access to the girls’ restroom.

  • DavidD

    The next time they propose it they’ll get 60% of the outcry they got this time; then 30%; then 10% and it’s done.

    I think the Nazis had a name for this strategy….