Sen. Orrin Hatch on Dumb Assess Who Support Obamacare

Senator Ed Markey on Reversing the Nuclear Option

Senator Markey's promise to overturn the nuclear option is a marked departure from the partisan gamesmanship strategy that Democrat Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has been using against the Trump Administration. 

It should be noted, however, that Senator Markey's (D-MA) anti- Nuclear Option promise is a chimera.  The vow of overturning the nuclear option precedent anticipates the same conditions that former Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) when the Reid Rule blew up Senate precedent by changing the rules mid session and making the upper chamber a majority rules body. 

Considering the leftward swing of the Democrat Party and number of vulnerable Democrat Senators in the 2018 election cycle, Markey's promise rings as true as the Obamacare: "If you like your doctor than you can keep him'. 

House Speaker Paul Ryan on Repeal and Replace Obamacare

Louie Gohmert on Obamacare

Hillary Clinton on Obamacare

On Exploding Cell Phones and Exploding Obamacare Premiums

As President Obama went out on the hustings for Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY), he offered some puckich perspectives about innovation and Obamacare.



This quip about smart phones catching fire seems particularly apt in assessing the challenges for Obamacare, as notices for premiums for the Affordable Care Act have gone out and the rate for the benchmark premium has increased by 145% in Phoenix. 

Speaker Paul Ryan echoed Obama's analogy but lamented that families can't just return their junky product to the source and choose another device. 

Outrage Over EpiPen Exploitation

As the school year is beginning and students with allergies are adjusting to new environs and routines, it has come to light that the cost of EpiPens, a life saving medical device to treat anaphylaxis from food allergies and bee stings, has skyrocketed.

The price of an EpiPen has gone from $57 to over $400 a unit.  This dramatic price increase prompted one exasperated mother to concede that she is no longer putting away money for her kid's college fund but in order to save for EpiPens.

While Mylan, the manufacturer of EpiPens, has declined to indicate the reasons for the price spike, pharmaceutical manufacturers typically impose significant price in the waning years of a monopoly before generic alternatives are allowed on the market.  However, in this case, the FDA has unexpectedly rejected a generic anaphalaxis alternative from Teva, requiring "more data".  And dosing problems prompted Sanofi pharmaceuticals to pull Auvi-Q (a non-generic treatment) from the market.  So EpiPens has a virtual monopoly on anaphylactic remedies as Mylan was seeking to suck every last cent of profit from EpiPens.

It may raise eyebrows that as Mylan acquired its virtual monopoly for EpiPens, Mylan's CEO Heather Bresch saw a 671% increase in  salary and compensation, going from $2.4 Million to a reported $18.9 Million. And it is an inconvenient truth that Ms. Bresch is the daughter of Senator Joe Manchin III (D-WV) who has donated $60,750 from 2011 to 2015. Between the generous financial support and filial ties,  it raises the specter of crony capitalism and possible nepotism. 

While Senator Manchin does not directly sit on heath committees and has voiced public concern over the incredible cost increases for EpiPens, his daughter might not be grilled harshly by his colleagues.  And it is unclear how the FDA decided that they needed more data for the generic.  With accusations of State Department concierge service associated with the Clinton Foundation and the politicization of Executive Branch Agencies (EPA, Energy, Agriculture etc..) and supposedly Independent Agencies (e.g. FCC on net neutrality), family ties may expedite an advantageous environment.  Or perhaps it's just another isolated incident of corporate serendipity .

The public was outraged by the EpiPen exploitation.  Sarah Jessica Parker, whose son suffers from anaphylactic shock, agreed to be the celebrity spokeman for EpiPens.  When this controversy arose, Sarah Jessica Parker went on social media to end her association with Mylan, thus walking away from a lucrative endorsement contract.

Mylan sought to mitigate the public relations mess about EpiPens by announcing that a family of four making $97,000 would pay nothing out of pocket for the prescription. That sounds nice but the inflated costs are just passed along to insurers and employers. With Obamacare on the precipice of a financial death spiral in 2017 and insurers pulling out of health exchange markets, this solution is a mere chimera. 

Allen West on Common Core

Considering When Doles Are Lemons And Not Pineapples

Ex Senator Bob Dole (R-KS)  offered some sharp comments about the surging conservative candidacy of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

The 92 year old Dole served four terms in U.S. House (R-KS 6th & 1st) and who had a moderate voting record that bridged the gaps of the Kansas Republican party.  President Gerald Ford named Dole as his choice for his Vice Presidential running mate in 1976. Dole was also was a five term Senator from Kansas who resigned from the body in 1995 for his furtive campaign for President against President Bill Clinton.  Now Dole is a elder statesman surrogate for 2016 Republican Presidential hopeful former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL). Who can argue with experience like that?

The strategy for the Jeb! Bush campaign is to rely upon endorsements and advertising to achieve victory.  Wheeling out Bob Dole to write fundraising letters and make television appearances seems to epitomize the strategy.   What are they thinking?

Bob Dole has been out of office for twenty years! This may not seem significant to Jeb! as he has been out of elective office for nearly nine years himself, but Dole was the head of the ticket four presidential cycles ago.    When Dole ran for President in 1996 he was 72 years old.  Due to his World War II battle injuries, Dole did not give a vibrant persona on the campaign trail and was savaged by a Saturday Night Live satire of Dole being kicked out of the Real World house.  The years of Viagra commercials and Howard Stern appearances will not make Bob Dole seem fresh. 

Then it is imperative to consider the source of a conservative critique.  Bob Dole was renowned for his moderate voting record.  During the 1976 Presidential campaign, he took the second slot during the Kansas City GOP Presidential Convention to contrast the conservative insurgent, then Governor Ronald Reagan.  Dole was not know as a strong voice for conservatism during his ten year tenure as Senate Majority Leader.  Yet at this late date, Robert Dole is going to be the arbiter for real Republican conservatism.

Dole's charges against Cruz are that he tried to shut down the government.  The legislative branch creates governmental budgets and the Executive Branch.  Cruz gave a flying flip in to use Congressional Power to roll back Obamacare, an issue which gave Republicans a majority in the House after the 2010 elections and ultimately the Senate after the 2014 election.  But it is so much easier in the District of Calamity Cocktail Party to go along and get along and occasionally offer some red meat when back home around election time. 

Per Bob Dole, the second scarlet mark on Senator Cruz was calling Senate Majority Leader(?) Mitch McConnell a liar on the Senate floor.  Oh, the humanity.  A breach in protocol in the world's leading debate society.  The problem is, to put it in Texas twang, it's ain't necessarily so. Kind of like McConnell's word. Cruz recounted the truth about broken promises but avoided the label of liar,

Dole's damning of Cruz's conservatism underscores how out of touch elites are about the sentiments of the grassroot Republicans.  With Trump, Cruz, Carson and Rubio attracting the support of over 50% of the base GOP voters, it is an odd tactic to claim that their outside the beltway dissatisfaction with the status quo are not real conservative Republican sentiments. 

The medium is also the message.  Dole delivered his diatribe against Cruz and Trump on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell show.  It is dubious if ANY conservatives watch that program much less are swayed by the rhetoric. 

Dole's attacks against Cruz may extend from political animus to a concerted strategy.  It has been postulated that Jeb! proponents  will scatter shots against most of the rest of the GOP field save "the brash billionaire  to make it a damoclean choice between Jeb! and "the Donald".

After Dole's Andrea Mitchell hit, one should wonder about when Doles are lemons and not pineapples.  At this stage in the process, Dole would be wise to can it.

On The Cruz Effect and the Capitol Hill Cocktail Party

Former Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) was recently interviewed on Sirius-XM radio by Pete Dominick in which he disparaged "The Cruz Effect".  Coburn chaffed at lawmakers being put in a position to make desperate stands about legislative items which he believes have no chance of overcoming a veto. This was not the first time in which Coburn raised this reluctance to futilely fight. Coburn said similar things to Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe in 2013.

Senator Coburn was a 20 year veteran of the Senate and had developed a reputation for being "Dr. No" for his conservative intransigence.  Yet before retiring to tend to his Colon Cancer after the 2014 election cycle, Senator Coburn exhibited an animus against Tea Party types, with Huffington Post headlines bragging of a Coburn Smack Down of the Tea Party. Coburn was quick to condem Senator Cruz's shut down tactic on Obamacare. Some Tea Party constituents wondered if he was a Charlatan, Traitor or Patriot for his go along to get along Senatorial approach  gun control.

Although he is no longer in the Senate, Senator Coburn is pushing a Cocktail Party approach to things. In Oklahoma, it is not hard to sound conservative and promise to repeal Obamacare, protect the second amendment or now even to defund Planned Parenthood.  But where the rubber meets the road in legislating in the District of Calamity, intentions and ardor matter.

When speaking to Scarborough about Obamacare in 2013, Senator Coburn rightly points out that Republicans did not have 67 votes to overcome an expected Presidential veto from Barack Obama. Right. So when has either party had vetoproof supermajorities in the Senate? Not in nearly half a century.  In the 89th Congress (1965-67), Democrats held 68 seats in the Senate and 295 House seats. During the New Deal, Democrats had veto proof majorities in the 74th and 75th Congresses (1935-39).  During Reconstruction after the Civil War, there were veto proof majorities for Republicans in the 39th, 40th, 41st and 43rd Congresses.

So having an assured veto proof majority is a rarity in American polity. Nowadays, the benchmark seems to be reaching Cloture (now set at 60 votes in the Senate).  After the election of Barack Obama and the eventual seating of Senator Al Franken (D-MN), Democrats had Cloture proof majority until Senator Scott Brown, the elected replacement for Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was seated (replacing interim Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA)).

So it is fanciful for a Republican to think that their measures will have veto-proof (or Cloture proof) majorities by party votes alone through regular legislative procedures. But does that mean not doing anything because you are unsure if it will be enacted?

The reason why the comments of a former Republican Senator matter is that it epitomizes the conflict on Capitol Hill for the next Speaker and is a reason why outsider Republican Presidential candidates like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) are leading in the polls.

What has been called the Surrender Caucus is only happy to fight for bills which they are certain will be enacted.  Sure, you can campaign conservatively for the "rubes" back home, but politicians who are comfortably ensconced in the District of Calamity Cocktail Party won't spend any political capital for causes in which victory is uncertain.  Hence they surrender without a real fight.

For example, with the recent effort to defund Planned Parenthood, there were attempts to attach a rider onto a Continuing Resolution to divert funding for womens' health from the embattled abortionists to community health centers. The Byrd Rule for budget bills only required 51 votes for passage (avoiding a Cloture Vote). But President Obama promised to veto the CR and Republican Leadership feared that it might be blamed for a government shut down.  So they surrendered without a fight and Senate Majority "Leader" Mitch McConnell jammed down a clean CR through December 11th. This was not a one-off but was indicative of a pattern, which Tea Party renegades like Cruz have exposed for the shame that it is.

It might have been messy, but having must pass legislation like the Highway Bill, a Continuing Resolution or a real Congressional Budget with liberally unappealing riders might have forced the hand of President Obama to shut the government down.  If the Republicans had a better communication strategy, they might not automatically be blamed for shutting the government down when it was an Executive Branch veto which did the dirty deed.  As the branches sought to craft a resolution, concessions might be extracted.  So in the case of Obamacare (a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act), a nigglesome provision like the employer mandate could be up for grabs, which eventually would kill the clunky and unpopular system.  But that involves some guts to take a political risk and then be ready to fight hard in the media and on Capitol Hill.But it's so much easier to, echoing Mr. Coburn: "Dingity, we tried but we just didn't have the votes to do it. Too bad (but we'll still rail against it for the next election).

The House Republican Caucus is set to nominate another candidate for Speaker.  Despite the entreaties of Speaker John Boehner that he is retiring after the crowing achievement of his Congressional career of having Pope Francis speak before a Joint Session of Congress, the reality is that he was set to resign because he would lose a Vacate the Chair vote.  Boehner could not win the necessary votes in the GOP Caucus because the Freedom Caucus both wants a leader who will fight but will also vote on their legislation rather than dictate what will be voted on (and will will or will pointedly lose and be a campaign issue).

After the talking heads shows this weekend, there is speculation that House Ways and Means Chairman Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI 1st) is reconsidering running for Speaker but he does not want  any strings attached to achieve the big chair.  Ryan's record on immigration issues does not jibe with conservatives and not allowing stands for legislation not certain to pass goes against the grain of the Freedom Caucus.

In the larger Presidential Primary picture, many insiders wonder why political novices like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina lead in the polls.  Perhaps they are not seem corrupted by the system and are talking a good game about fighting the power.

Senator Coburn's cautionary comments about legislating are true enough, but they reveal that establishment Republicans don't really want to fight. Some Tea Party elected officials have not sold out to the Establishment. This explains why Leaders are anxious to primary rebellious Tea Party types and bad mouth others.  Since Republicans have not had a Veto Proof majority since 1875, is it their role to be Democrat lite, only proposing what can get passed and signed by a Democrat President?  What about the years when there were Republican Majorities in both Chambers of Congress and Republican President?  It does not seem like things were much different then.

Pundits have noted that Congress has a similar favorability rating to the Hermit Kingdom of North Korea with communist dictator Kim-Il-ung. This might explain why disaffected voters might welcome a congressional Cruz missile in the form of fighting for principles and causes.  This will be put to the test during the Republican primaries.  But political junkies might get early indications how this "fight to fight" will succeed  in the Speaker's Race.

Rep. Refuses to Attend Pope Francis Speech Because of Papal Politics

This week, the hot ticket in the District of Calamity was getting tickets to see the Pope.  Only 25,000 people were allowed entrance for the Mass at the Basilica in Catholic University.  The White House allowed 15,000 people to see the Pope on the South Lawn of the White House (along with a couple of uncomfortable invitees for the Vatican). On Capitol Hill, 50,000 tickets were issued to see the Pope's address to the Joint Session of Congress, albeit many watching on the lawn.

But Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ 1st) rejected his two allotted tickets because of his belief that Pope Francis is too political. The Papal Encyclical Laudato Si was trumpeted by the secular press as being a bull about climate change (instead of being properly read as a all encompassing missive about the ecology of humanity).  So Congressman Gosar made his protest and is presumably sitting at home for the speech.

While it is true that Pope Francis did speak in glowing terms about enacting climate change legislation, the pontiff did not let the power that be in the White House off easy.  Pope Francis' remarks at the White House started with a subtle slam for President Barack Obama about respecting the fine American tradition religious liberty.  Later in the day, Pope Francis made an unscheduled stop to visit the Little Sisters of the Poor, the religious order being forced to cover contraception against their consciences under Obamacare.

As a Jesuit, Pope Francis is all about dialog and encounter.  It's a pity that Gosar as a practicing Catholic chose not to participate in that by politely hearing out a visiting Head of State and Holy Father to 1.2 billion Catholics. As a faith leader, Pope Francis is not bound to American ideological boxes of conservative or liberal and ought to instruct his faithful in ways that may make people feel uncomfortable.  If Rep. Gosar has proper catechesis, he ought to know that not everything the Pope utters is infallible.  In fact, Paragraph 189 of Laudato Si urges robust but honest and transparent debate over the matter.  It is a pity that politics nowadays is sometimes degenerated to trolling for attention instead of seeking solutions through honest debate and deliberations. 

Judging the Judge

In reaction to King v. Burwell (SCOTUScare previously known as Obamacare) and Obergefell v. Hodges (which imposed Same Sex Marriage through out the US) by the US Supreme Court, Senator Ted Cruz offered a modest proposal to remedy judicial activism without recourse--judicial retention elections.

.

Richard Kopf, a US District Court Judge for the District of Nebraska and publisher of the blog Hercules and the Umpire: The Role of the Federal Trial Judge, wrote a piece which scathed Senator Cruz and his "modest proposal".

Kopf's piece was provocative and engaging for a policy wonk.  However, an article which Judge Kopft titled:"Senator Ted Cruz is not fit to be President" seems to go beyond responding to a policy proposal and directly into the political field.

One does not have to slog through sometime like Judge Kopf's 474 page opinion in Carhart  et ali. v. Ashcroft (2004) which struck down Partial Birth Abortion bans to read Canon 5(A)(2) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges which states: "A judge should not . . . make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."  Even the hoi polloi without law degrees can understand that a article like "Senator Ted Cruz is not fit to be President" falls under Canon 5(A)(2).

This illustrates Senator Cruz's point about checks on the judiciary.  In a Congress which can not muster 60 votes to block an Attorney General like Loretta Lynch who vowed not to follow certain lawbreaking by the Obama Administration (such as on immigration), impeachment is unlikely.  So there are black robed politicians who can participate in the political process and even legislate from the bench without recourse by "We the People". 

It could be argued that  some slack can be cut for  Kopf as the 68 year old Judge  assumed Senior Status in December, 2011.  However, Kopf's public opposition of a candidate for public office seems to be a clear violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.  As a senior status judge, Kopf receives full salary with a reduced case load.  Hence, a senior status is not an honorific emeritus title. So a compromised jurist is still sitting on the bench, unless Judge Kopf does the honorable thing and resigns.

As people become more frustrated with judicial tyranny, reformers may find ways to remedy usurpations of the Constitution.  While it is dubious if judicial retention elections would work on a federal level, Judge Kopf's case epitomizes that the system is broken and the rule of law is unreliable as things stand.

UPDATE 07/09/2015

 Judge Kopf offered a half hearted apology for his "Ted Cruz is unfit to be President" piece.  In a letter to Professor Orin Kerr (also published on Judge Kopf's blog)  Judge Kopf acknowledged the analysis by The  Volokh Conspiracy on the Code of Judicial Ethics Canon (5)(A)(2). However, Kopf insisted that a Second Circuit ruling in Calabresi was not strictly speaking  precedent in in the District of Nebraska. Still Kopf anticipated that the same standard might be applied in his Eighth Circuit.  So, Kopf wrote:  " Consequently, apologize to you, Senator Cruz and everyone else for my error."

Yet rather than have to good grace to admit an error and be gone, Judge Kopf pressed his point about judicial elections of Supreme Court Justices, insisting that such commentary fell under Code of Judicial Ethics (4)(A)(1).   Some apology. I was wrong for going too far but I'll still stand by my political pontifications.

Violators of civil infractions do not get to just say "My bad" and be done.  While an apology is appreciated, it is insufficient. Judge Kopf demonstrated that he does not (or no longer) exercises judicial temperament to have violated such a basic tenant of the profession.  If there were any justice, Judge Kopf would resign his senior status and no longer preside from the bench.  He seems to enjoy publishing.  May he continue to opine on Hercules and the Umpire and enjoy his retirement since he has trouble operating under judicial ethics.

Ted Cruz on SCOTUS

Antonin Scalia on SCOTUScare

Judge Roger Vinson on Government

Stop Being Such a Groober!

Dr. Jonathan Gruber, PhD, the wunderkind Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) economist who was the co-author consultant of Obamacare finally had a chance to explain his "stupid" comments on Capitol Hill.  Government Reform member Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC 4th) had said that: "[W]hen you have an insomniac with Tourette's Syndrome, you let him keep talking..." in reference to the glib Mr. Gruber coming to Washington.  The arrogant elitist from M.I.T. did not disappoint.

Dr. Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D testifying before House Government Reform Committee 12/09/2014

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH 4th) asked Mr. Gruber how much he earned from his consulting for the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare).  The ordinarily adroit academic amazingly could not remember how much Gruber garnered from his Obamacare contracts.  The reality is that Dr. Gruber earned $400,000 from HHS,  $2.1 million from the National Institute of Health (NIH), $1.7 million from the Department of Justice (DOJ), $100,000 from the State Department and there were other state contracts in conjunction to Obamacare.  It figures that such a smart economist did not want to go on the record for how much he bilked American taxpayers and then called them "stupid".

When Congressman Gowdy got around to questioning Dr. Gruber, Gruber was impeached by his prior statements. Gruber's smugly tried to squirm from his statements by claiming that he was trying to make himself sound smarter than he actually was.  That is about as believable as President Obama's promise: "If you like your health care plan than you can keep it."

As Gowdy promised when Gruber's "stupid" comments finally caught the national attention in mid-November, the former federal prosecutor asked Gruber if he was sorry because he said it or because he meant it.  The economist's answer was as credible as the rest of his testimony.

While the Feinstein Intelligence  Report condemning decade old interrogation tactics by the CIA might have provided sufficient public cover for the day, the American people are not fooled by throwing one academic under the bus..  As more insured individuals are thrown into Obamacare and the Cadallac health care tax comes into being,  smarmy  delay tactics from the District of Calamity (sic)  will not salve the ire of the American body politic.  

However, Republicans should not rest on their laurels.  The GOP won an impressive victory in the midterm elections under the banner of rolling back Obamacare.  If those words were mere wind, the wintery winds of discontent from the middle class can easily make those political gains from the GOP- Cocktail Party may well also be gone with the wind, presuming that voters resist being groobered by bread and circuses. 

h/t: Jeff Darcy

Steve Forbes on Freedom

Rep. Trey Gowdy on Obamacare

Obamacare for the Internet?

President Barack Obama strongly weighed in on the net neutrality issue, petitioning the F.C.C. to consider the internet like a public utility for Americans.




While net neutrality is understood as internet companies adjusting internet speeds for certain users.  Mr. Obama's statement declares:

"I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online."

However, the ramifications of the Obama Administration's modest proposal goes beyond "internet fast lanes".  By applying the net neutrality to cellular companies, who offered tiers of service based on payments and who will govern a small number of bandwidth hogs.  Enforcing net neutrality could either raise rates for everyone or cause congestion reducing access for many mobile data users.

Of course, treating the internet like a public utility means lots of government bureaucrats and functionaries to apply and monitor these rules.  The problem is that instead of applying the principle of subsidiarity, where governing happens on a local or state level, inevitably this would be centralized in the District of Calamity (sic).

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) offered some quick and incisive reaction on Twitter to Mr. Obama's play on net neutrality.

Do we really want to cede control of the internet to the government, which spent $2 Billion on Healthcare.gov  and could not build an efficient and secure webpage?

Mr. Obama rightly notes that the F.C.C. is an independent agency so which unelected bureaucrats will govern us with little chance of redress?

Let us not forget about mission creep.  Currently, the F.C.C. is taking comments on the alleged offensiveness of the term "Redskins" to force owner Dan Snyder to change the name of the sports franchise from "The Washington Redskins".  This is being pursued by trying to pull the licenses of a couple of Red Zebra am sports radio stations that the Redskins owner controls.  This would set a precedent of government censoring content based on shifting political correctness, not well established community standards like George Carlin's "The Seven Words" that you can't say when broadcasting.

Furthermore, how much will the government stifle innovation on the internet as government bureaucrats figure things out and assess what is fair and neutral.

There has been wrangling for years over net neutrality. But it would be prudent to give a death panel to the notion of making the Internet into Obamacare via public utility regulation by the federal government.

Richard Dawkins and Sarah Palin Clashing In Social Media Concerning Down's Syndrome

Richard Dawkins, the acclaimed atheist ethologist from Oxford University stirred up a cyclone of controversy on social media with a Twitter posting on the morality of aborting a Down's Syndrome child in-utero.  When someone commented that she would not know what she would do if she were pregnant with a child having an extra chromosome, Dawkins doubled down on his "progressive position".  Dawkins answering like "Dear Abby (the atheist edition)" wrote: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”  So abortion was not only an option for "The God Delusion" author, Dawkins demands that it is immoral for women to deliver a child afflicted with Down's Syndrome.

Reading Dawkins declarations closely, it is quite revealing of his weltanschauung.  As an atheist, Dawkins does not draw  from any moral compass. So it is not surprising that he liberally latches unto "an individual woman's right to choose. Later referring to a fetus as "it", Dawkins detaches personhood from an unborn child. Dawkins pontificating that the only moral choice is to kill a defective child ought to please both Social Darwinists (survival of the fittest) and the ironically named humanists (the banner which binds British atheists activists).

Two things should trouble the intelligentsia from Dawkins Down's Syndrome declarations. Firstly, Dawkins prefaced the right of women for early abortions, not abortion on demand until childbirth. So it seems at some point personhood is bestowed on an unborn fetus.  Or is abortion just less mentally messy when the victim does not look like an unborn child.  The other aspect which can be inferred from "Abort it and try again" aspires for a utopian perfection in offspring.  Such a callous attitude can easily devolve into getting rid of undesirable elements in society, be it physically deformed, mentally challenged or part of an undesirable group.

Sadly, Dawkins Social Darwinism for Down's Syndrome children seems prevalent in the United Kingdom.  Currently, 92% of pregnant women diagnosed with Down's Syndrome children aborted their unborn children. Moreover, half of all such cases go unreported. There are concerns that if the National Health System (NHS) expands the super accurate Ariosa Harmony testing, this figure will become nearly total, especially if NHS threatens to withhold special care for Down's Syndrome children.

It did not take long for former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) to respond to Dawkin's dialectic. Palin famously campaigned for Vice President in 2008 with her young son Trig, who has Down's Syndrome. Palin took her seven years of experience being a mother of a Down's Syndrome Child when she reached out to Richard Dawkins via Facebook. 

. Palin's folksy riposte to Dawkins displays a positive sense of humanity that the learned professor lacks.  In addition, Ms. Palin's Facebook posting alludes to her Down's Syndrome child as having a unique kind of absolute beauty.  This echos Governor Palin's peroration when speaking before a Right to Life Conference.

Many will dismiss the message as it came from Sarah Palin, who our "intellectual betters" from academia and the media deemed as dumb "Caribou Barbie". Yet Palin's testimony rings true and advocates valuing the individual  whereas Dawkin's tweets sound abstract and collectivist.

Even though Dawkins may have coined the concept of memes, however Sarah Palin has perfected the social media tactic. Palin dubbed Obamacare IPABs as Death Panels to deftly defending Down's Syndrome children.

So as these cultural catalysts clash on social media, perhaps it can bring us to understand how we approach ourselves and society.  Our we driven by the selfish gene as Dawkins theorized in genetics or can we inculcate altruism? Palin preaches that mothers should be open to Downs Syndrome children, but is that openness a moral imperative?