Obama's birth certificate, confirmed accurate by Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican.

Now an Army doctor faces court martial because he refuses to deploy until President Obama proves his citizenship. This was cleared up long ago, and Hawaii’s Republican governor recently announced Obama’s “exact” place of birth in her state. Why do “birthers” continue to deny these facts?

This outrage can be traced directly to February 27, 1951.

That’s the day the 22nd Amendment was ratified, limiting Presidential terms — and thus throwing off kilter the “balance of powers” dictated by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution. Why? Because the 22nd Amendment did nothing to limit term limits for members of the Senate, House of Representatives or Supreme Court.

Our nation’s founders never foresaw the “career politicians” who roam the halls of Congress today. Rather, they envisioned political office as a dedicated period of public service in the course of one’s life, not an end-all primary vocation. A bit Utopian, perhaps, but a desireable ideal for our American democracy.

And (I can’t believe I’m saying this) that’s why I’m cheering for South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint. Quietly last November, he introduced a “Term Limits for All” Constitutional Amendment that would limit every House member to three terms (6 years max), and every Senator to two terms (12 years max).

Says DeMint:

Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians. As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power.

Is it possible to ratify such an Amendment? I doubt it. But the 22nd Amendment is proof that term limits can be achieved, though its ratification in 1951 was primarily a measure to prevent the Presidency from becoming a monarchy after FDR was elected to four consecutive terms.

Perhaps if a splinter group of Tea Partiers (under a different name, please) embraced term limits as their sole mission, it could truly be called a movement.

And more moderates like me might just join in support.

Health care reform in its current state in Congress is as dead as my once white-hot passion for a Barack Obama presidency. (More on that another time.) Depending on one’s political perspective, the bills that made it out of the House and Senate either cost too much, don’t go far enough, or are just plain socialist.

In response, I’d like to propose a three-pillar bill that I defy anyone to find fault with:

1. Make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
2. Make it illegal for insurance companies to drop coverage on any patient just because he or she gets sick.
3. Allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines.

There. What’s so difficult about that? Such a bill may not provide universal coverage, but it would be a major advance from where things stand today. Insured patients no longer would have to worry about losing their home because of an illness. That long-ago visit to the doctor for a headache won’t lead to denial of coverage when you have a brain tumor removed. And most importantly, we’d open up health insurance to the free, capitalist system, which would certainly drive down costs.

Do you see this three-pillar bill adding to the federal deficit? I don’t either.

Methinks the health care debate is pushing me toward liberterianism.

Now, excuse me while I head back to the living room to watch the Gators continue their thrashing of Georgia’s “basketball team.”

THE TRUTH: A WIDESPREAD CHAIN EMAIL THAT CLAIMS TO OFFER PAGE-BY-PAGE ANALYSIS OF THE HOUSE HEALTH CARE BILL IS BLATANTLY FALSE.

Many people have received variations of an anti-health-reform chain email that claims to provide a page-by-page analysis of a House healthcare bill. Jennifer Tolbert, an independent health care analyst at a nonpartisan foundation that studies health care reform, called the email “awful.” [1]

“It’s flat-out, blatant lies,” she said. “It’s unbelievable to me how they can claim to reference the legislation and then make claims that are blatantly false.”

Independent fact-check site PolitiFact called the email “a clearinghouse of bad information circulating around the Web about proposed health care changes.” [2]

[1] “Finally, we consulted with Jennifer Tolbert, an independent health care analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan foundation that studies health care reform. Tolbert has read and analyzed all the major health proposals, including those of the Republicans…. we sent Tolbert a copy of the latest from our in-box, and she was none too pleased. ‘It’s awful,’ she said. ‘It’s flat-out, blatant lies. It’s unbelievable to me how they can claim to reference the legislation and then make claims that are blatantly false.’” [Politifact, 7/30/09]

[2] “It may be the longest chain e-mail we’ve ever received… Most of what the e-mail says is wrong. In fact, it’s a clearinghouse of bad information circulating around the Web about proposed health care changes…” [Politifact, 7/30/09]

Separating fact from fiction in health care debate

“This chain e-mail is very persuasive in many ways because it has specific language, page numbers from the bill, but when you look at what it uses to back up a claim like that, it’s just not true.” – Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact and the Washington bureau chief for the St. Petersburg Times [NPR, 8/7/09]

THE TRUTH: THERE IS NO “DEATH PANEL” MENTIONED IN ANY OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM BILLS UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND THERE NEVER WAS.

Former Governor Sarah Palin recently posted a note on her official Facebook page that falsely claimed that, under health insurance reform, a “death panel” of bureaucrats would “decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.” The truth is that no such panel exists, or has ever been proposed in any version of the health care bills in Congress, that would judge a person’s “level of productivity in society” or determine whether they are “worthy” of health care. [1]

The author of a similar provision, Republican Johnny Isakson, said it was “nuts” to claim the bill encourages euthanasia. [2] Even Palin’s home-state Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, after hearing Palin’s comments, said, “It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there’s these end-of-life provisions, these death panels… Quite honestly, I’m so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn’t (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill.” [3]

[1] “We have read all 1,000-plus pages of the Democratic bill and examined versions in various committees. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person’s ‘level of productivity in society’ to determine whether they are ‘worthy’ of health care. Palin’s claim sounds a little like another statement making the rounds, which says that health care reform would mandate counseling for seniors on how to end their lives sooner. We rated this claim Pants on Fire! The truth is that the health bill allows Medicare, for the first time, to pay for doctors’ appointments for patients to discuss living wills and other end-of-life issues with their physicians. These types of appointments are completely optional, and AARP supports the measure. … But that’s not what Palin said. She said that the Democratic plan will ration care and “my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.” Palin’s statement sounds more like a science fiction movie (Soylent Green, anyone?) than part of an actual bill before Congress. We rate her statement Pants on Fire!” [Politifact, 8/10/09]

[2] “However, other Republicans, including Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Johnny Isakson of Georgia – who sponsored similar legislation – have said Palin’s claim was hurting the party’s attempts to influence the bill…. Isakson said it was “nuts” to claim the bill encourages euthanasia.” [The Boston Globe, 8/14/09]

[3] “‘It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there’s these end-of-life provisions, these death panels,’ Murkowski, a Republican, said. ‘Quite honestly, I’m so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn’t (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill.’” [Anchorage Daily News, 8/12/09]

Billboard in Central Florida in summer 2008. (Thanks, WFTV.com)

Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk have taken fear-mongering to an entirely new level in recent weeks. I’ve been remiss in posting of late, but the GOP has inspired me to continue on a theme I started a few months ago and compile a list of “things chicken-shit Republicans are scared of,” based on their recent rhetoric.

(Please add to this list as you see fit via the comments box at the end of the post.)

• Homosexuals
• Health care for all citizens
• Guantanamo detainees in U.S. prisons (but not the 1993 WTC bombers, serial killers, assassins, et. al. already here)
• People who aren’t white
• Life without guns
• Alternate points of view
• Competition
• Freedom of choice
• Their neighbors
• Terrorists
• The thought of terrorists
• People who look like terrorists
• College Democrats
• Civil liberties
• Sharing
• Original thinking
• Barbara Bush Sr.
• The French
• Walking down the street
• Rap music
• Happiness
• Success
• The future
• BARACK OBAMA

A verbal drive-by, if you will, in a nod to my pal Miss Andrea.

Let’s start with the Florida Gators. Right now, I’m watching them get their asses beat in Gainesville by the hated Tennessee Volunteers. Just as I feared, the Gators’ weak early-season slate (their strength of schedule ranks 101st in Division I) has left them totally unprepared for the intensity of the stretch run. And it’s looking more likely that a second straight NIT bid awaits.

As the Gators struggle, President Barack Obama is backing his campaign rhetoric with action in the form of ambitious plans and proposals that at once inspire and scare the shit out of me.

I firmly support his three-pronged strategy to reform our health care system, foster energy independence and a green economy, and ensure that Americans are the most educated population in the world. But I just can’t see how he’ll pay for it without raising taxes across the board.

So a theory hit me today (one that relies upon the Dems holding onto power for 12-16 years): Obama and the Democrats are gambling on this “new new deal” being a runaway success, delivering myriad benefits of undeniable value to society. Affordable health care. Better roads and bridges. Cleaner, cheaper energy. Reformed entitlements. World-class education.

If that becomes our reality, the majority will come to happily rely upon the feds for essential services. Then when they stick us with the bill by raising taxes, we might not mind as much.

Dems may deny it, but we are headed down a more socialist road. And perhaps that is necessary as our nation’s population grows too large to be supported by a purely capitalist system.

That provides a nice segue to some thoughts on population control. Genesis 1:28 (yes, I’m quoting the good book) commands us to “be fruitful and multiply,” but when those words were written I doubt anyone imagined a world of 6.8 billion souls. There are simply too many people inhabiting the planet, and they’ve stretched the world’s resources to the breaking point.

We must make population control a priority. Nothing would go further toward solving the world’s crises.

Having a large family in this day and age is one of the most selfish acts I can imagine. That’s why it infuriates me to hear news of the birth of quadruplets, quints, and now even octuplets. What are these people thinking? If you need in virto fertilization to have a child, perhaps nature — or your God, if you believe in such — is making its own attempt at population control.

In an op-ed piece last year in the Roanoke Times, Robert F. Boyd wrote:

“What kind of world will we have if we are crowded together like a colony of rats? Are we no better than the planet’s ‘lower’ animals? If not, we too may suffer the fate of overpopulation, famine and possibly extinction.”

The answer is not a Chinese-style limit on offspring. I do not believe couples should be denied their right to have a family, if that’s what they desire and they are able.

But they must have a plan. And that requires sex education (sorry GOP) and an altruistic world view. (You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.)

Consider your motivation to have a child and your ability to care for one. Think about the impact on the lives of others. No matter what you decide, practice birth control.

And please — put down the damn tubes and Petri dishes. If you can’t conceive naturally and still must have a child, there are plenty of unwanted children waiting to be adopted.

“WhiteHouse.gov and the rest of the Administration’s online programs will put citizens first.”

The new site’s priorities: Communication, Transparency, and Participation.

The executive branch has gone Web 2.0. Finally.

I plan to spend more time tonight exploring the new site, but a few things jump out at me right away:

1. The Agenda

This section lists in great detail Obama’s agenda for 24 major issues. And if you participated on the Change.gov site during the transition, you know that his agenda was shaped in part by ideas submitted by ordinary Americans — and extraordinary ones like my friends and me ; )

2. White House 101

Subtitled “Facts and Fun For All Ages,” this section includes a bunch of great stuff about presidential pets.

3. Office of Public Liaison

This “front door to the White House” is in its infancy, but promises great opportunity to interact with the Obama administration. Overseen by Obama’s longtime Chicago pal Valerie Jarrett.

I expect to have more to say later once I have a chance to review Obama’s inaugural address and digest its meaning.