Well you knew it was coming, Sarah Palin resurrects her famous Obamacare death panels.

Courtesy of Nurse Wretched's Facebook page:

DEATH PANELS STILL NOT DEAD 

(Okay who predicted this? I did that's who!)

Politicians just don't get it. Their "Death Panels" still won't die. Last night Obamacare masterminds decided they'll pay healthcare providers for vulnerable patients' "end-of-life” plans. Remember that's the strange, intrusive, unaffordable, and unnecessary scheme that was actually stripped from Obamacare five years ago, once we "found out what's in it." (Actually she means "lied about what's in it.") So now that part of this socialistic healthcare takeover is back, but yesterday's decision isn't the entire point here. 

Be clear, media. Think. Do your homework. Remember when coining “death panel” I focused on the dangers of rationing healthcare services – as it's the inevitable result of any government takeover of healthcare. I was right about this then, and I’m still right about it today. Do your dang homework – you've even admitted I was right, so don't claim I'm "universally discredited" on it. (No they did their "dang" homework and you were universally discredited.") Got it? In fact, even democrats now agree about “death panel" dangers they've found in Obamacare – specifically in the role that unelected, faceless bureaucrats on the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) will play in determining who will get government's limited supply of care, whose care will be covered, and they'll dangerously decide who will be denied. (Okay so here Palin is conflating two separate issues. Yes there is a point past where medical insurance will not pay for procedures deemed hopeless, and in the old days some insurance carriers would make that decision when the survivability of the patient was still quite viable, but the end-of-life plans are to pay physicians for their time helping a person accept that they have come to the end of their lives, IF they ask for that service, and providing support for them and their families in coping with that fact. It is not about cutting off funds, it is about providing funds.)  

Media coverage of my position on this is skewed; as usual they got it wrong.  (Nope, They are, if you'll pardon the pun, dead right.) I'm calling you out, L.A. Times. You underestimate the wisdom of the people with your claim that I'm "discredited." 

(Okay now hear Palin is referring to this article by the LA Times pointing out how she was wrong about the "death panels."  And bizarrely Palin then conducts an interview WITH HERSELF on behalf of the LA Times to answer questions she claims to have received from them.)

Here's my response to one of your colleague's questions last night about the death panels: 

Ms. Reporter - thanks for asking. On the record ("On the record?" How can it be on the record if there is no reporter to put it on the record?): 

There's no denying that the ultimate fix for Obamacare's unsustainable, unaffordable promises is rationed care. Rationed care decided upon by a panel of faceless bureaucrats who, rational people like me will argue, will measure a person's worth using disagreeable criteria as they justify doling out limited government-controlled care. That, my friend, is a death panel. 

1. Does this still concern you as possibly leading to death panels or encouraging doctors to deny care to save costs? 

It doesn’t just lead to “death panels” it confirms even further that this “Affordable Care Act” is nothing of the sort, and more importantly it just affords government permission to deny care. (Nope, that is false. And if there were an actual reporter here they would call Palin on this lie.) This decision does not take into consideration the importance of every individual, nor the sanctity of life, as many of us have said for years. Certainly, all patients and families should be advised of options, but we engage in that today and we don't need government bribing any party to do so. (Actually insurance companies have been denying services to patients for years, THAT is why there has been such a outcry for the government to step in and regulate them so that people with preexisting conditions were not denied coverage and people with chronic illnesses were not kicked off of their insurance policies. THAT is what the Affordable Care Act helped to rectify.) See, Obamacare is about unnecessary government intervention and, ultimately, it's all about government control. Government needs to stay the hell out of our "end-of-life" discussions. I'm so angry at democrat and republican politicians who just rolled their eyes when I, and many others, rose up with warnings that each step forward taken by champions of this socialist program would jerk back two steps from every free American and our God-given rights. (There were no "God-given rights" when it came to insurance coverage. There were "insurance company rights" and now with Obamacare people have a whole lot more of them.) Life is not about the almighty dollar and someone's arbitrary decisions about who deserves rationed health care; life is sacred because it's provided by our Creator and in itself deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. Speaking of dollars, a bloated bureaucracy and weak-kneed politicians sent millions of Americans into financial distress, unseen in history, with this leftist scheme called Obamacare. (Also not true. In fact some insurance companies even refunded money to customers due to a provision in the Affordable Care Act which forces them to do so if they are not spending 80% of their premiums on actual medical care.)

2. Do you have any concerns about doctors and nurse practitioners being paid or encouraged to have end-of-life planning questions? 

Concerns? More than concerns! For anyone who's had health issues – from welcoming the blessing of a new life, to the frightening and unfortunate aspects of life – answering a government questionnaire that will be judged by faceless bureaucrats just doesn’t cut it. The Hippocratic Oath taken by our care providers is one of the oldest, most sacred binding oaths, and through any iterations it has never condoned the taking of innocent life through lack of care, and certainly not via direct action. If you've recently received care then you know the many intrusive, personal questions that government mandates a provider probe. Be aware that most of these questions are for the benefit of a far-away, bankrupt government, they're not for the benefit of the patient. It is happening in our assisted living facilities, our nursing homes, hospitals, doctors’ offices, and schools, despite many providers who disagree with the mandate but are forced or coerced to provide answers to the death panel of the fed. (Okay now if there had been a REAL reporter conducting this interview, this would be about where she snapped and went "What in the fuck are you babbling about? I can't hand this in to my editors! Their first question to me would why did I conduct an interview with a person who was clearly high on methamphetamines!".)


- Sarah Palin 

Palin then links to this video which she seems to think proves her point.

Yeah how do you like that for seizure inducing editing? (Did she actually have Stephen Colbert on there making her side of the argument? Maybe she should watch his show before including him in her clip.)

Wow first it was crosshairs, and now it's death panels, I feel like I'm trapped in some weird Palin time warp.

So is this what happens when Palin loses her spot on Fox News and TAPP kicks her to the curb? Just endless summer reruns?

I will assume her next post will be one arguing that "Dammit! I was too pregnant!"

According to Sarah Palin "Crosshairs are back."

Courtesy of the Queen of Slow Learners Facebook page:  

CROSSHAIRS ARE BACK 

Evil jihadists raping, enslaving, killing women; crucifying Christians; beheading anyone standing in the way of their demonic, twisted death cult... you'd think that would be the target of these liberals’ self-righteous denunciations. Instead, the Left targets women brave enough to expose the anti-women radical Islamists. Glad my daughters shoot straight.

Palin then links to a ghostwritten post on Bristol's blog, accusing a "radical left wing" site of releasing a "hit list" of conservative women so that Islamic terrorists can target them.

Now that is an extremely inflammatory charge and, as usual, completely false.

To prove the point Nancy French links to World Net Daily, which most reasonable people recognize as one of the looniest sites on the internet, and a rather over the top piece by Fox's Megyn Kelly during which she accuses a representative from this "radical left wing" site of putting conservative women on a "hate list."

Now at this point you are probably wondering which "radical left wing" site would do something so horrible.

Well the answer is that it was the Southern Poverty Law Center which I think most of us find to be fairly reasonable. And as it turns out their article "targeting" these women is also pretty reasonable and not at all as vicious and vitriolic as WND, Nancy French, and Sarah Palin would have us all believe.

The article (Which you can read here.) identifies twelve different women as being aggressively Islamaphobic, and backs that up direct quotes and examples of Muslim bashing.

Among them are Ann Coulter who said “Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims — at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America.” (I guess Coulter missed that recent mass killing in South Carolina.)

Also featured is former Texas GOP chairwoman Cathie Adams who claimed that while Muslims are “extremely hospitable when you are under their roof,” as their religion requires, “Walk out of their home and you can be shot in the back.” (Are Muslims the ones shooting people in the back in America? I thought that was the police.)

And of course the article also includes famous Muslim hater Pamela Geller and describes her thusly:

Geller has a special hatred for Obama, who she says is “a third worlder and a coward” who seeks only to “appease his Muslim overlords,” “a muhammadan” who “wants jihad to win.” 

(Yes how dare SPLC point her out for saying such reasonable things, as well as organizing that "Draw Mohhamad" contest in Texas.)

There are of course nine others, each with their own hateful quotes to demonstrate why they were included in the article. (And if you read the article you will probably agree that all of them earned their inclusion.)

WND has described this as a "starter kit" for "Jihadists" but I would suggest that any Islamic terrorist worth their salt is already well aware of these particular individuals, and probably love the fact that they serve as examples which illustrate the anti-Islamic sentiment that they want Muslims to believe ALL Americans embrace.

In other words they have no intention of targeting them as they are essentially helping the cause of the Islamic terrorist. 

However returning to Palin for a minute, I was once again fascinated with her penchant for revisiting past failures in an attempt to repurpose them to serve her current needs. (Much like bringing up the "wild ride" while speaking to anti-abortion groups.)

After all, dredging up the image of her crosshairs map for this post is incredibly spiteful, and also ill advised, as it allows folks like myself to post an image like this one...

...once again reminding folks of Palin's connection to the shooting of Gabby Giffords and of course her blood libel speech in response to the media's attention to the map.

For a sane person these would simply NOT be things that they would want to draw further attention to again.

However Palin seems to have significant difficulty differentiating between bad publicity and good publicity, and seems determined to get attention by whatever means necessary.

Which makes me think that she must be ripping out what's left of her hair now that she can no longer get face time on either Fox News or TAPP, and instead must resort to saying ignorant things on Facebook and hoping that the media does not have more important things to cover that day.

By the way this has been a pretty big news day, and so far I have seen no news outlets covering this desperate cry for attention. 

Mark Kelly: Gabby was "troubled" by Palin's crosshairs map. On the other side of common decency Fox News claims Diane Sawyer committed "journalistic malpractice" by including reference to Palin and crosshairs map in 20/20 segment.

Courtesy of The Hill:

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was "troubled" by a crosshairs chart that appeared on Sarah Palin's Facebook page, showing the congresswoman a target. 

"She was troubled that her district was one of twenty targeted on Sarah Palin's Facebook page and website," Giffords' husband, Mark Kelly, writes in their book "Gabby: A Story of Courage and Hope." 

Kelly recounts that Giffords' told him that "Palin's rhetoric had no place in political discourse." "It sends the wrong messages," he recalls Giffords saying. "It's a dangerous thing to do." 

After Giffords' was injured in the Jan. 8th shooting in Tucson, Ariz., Kelly writes that Palin's "rhetoric came quickly into my head." He notes that when President Obama called to express his condolences, "I told him Gabby and I had found Palin's website troubling." He admits he "vented" to Obama about his frustrations and that the president listened to his complaints without "commenting on them directly." 

Kelly admits "I don't know if the shooter in Tucson even looked at Sarah Palin's website" but he notes politicians "need to tone it down, speak more respectfully." 

He writes that Palin, who was contemplating a presidential bid at the time, never called although he was told by Palin adviser John Coale that "Sarah and her husband, Todd, were 'devastated' by the tragedy." 

Palin, at the time, posted a note on her Facebook page: "My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona. On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice," she wrote. 

But Kelly writes: "I thought Sarah Palin might call to say she wished Gabby well and that she was praying for her and the other victims. We heard from many Republicans offering heart-felt messages. Given that a lot of the discussion in the wake of the shooting had singled out Palin, I expected she might also want to clear the air." 

He even imagined what he would say to Palin, writing he planned to "graciously accept her words of consolation" and then add his own thoughts: "'You are not responsible,' I planned to tell Sarah Palin, 'But you are irresponsible.'" 

But "she never called," he notes.

Obviously considering how upset Giffords had been about the map, the idea of her husband immediately thinking of it after she was shot makes perfect sense.  And his expectation that Palin would have reached out to his devastatingly injured wife would have been completely appropriate under the circumstances. (Because of course he did not know Palin like we do.)

Therefore having it included in this segment also makes perfect sense. In fact if it had been left out it would have seemed cowardly of Sawyer and the producers of 60 Minutes, and indicated that they had gone out of their way to avoid upsetting the Palin-bots and Teabaggers.

But that is certainly NOT the way that Fox News sees it:

The documentary, which also contained the first public interview with Giffords since the shooting, was ruined by a gratuitous attack on tea party opponents of health care reform and on Sarah Palin toward the end of the one-hour special. A short segment showed Giffords confronting an angry crowd of constituents at a town hall meeting. Palin was shown briefly, as was the infamous cross hairs map. 

The segment was shown without context or detail. As Giffords is deservedly a national heroine because of how far she has recovered, the segment gave the clear impression of tea partiers as an angry mob and Sarah Palin as the cause of the shooting. 

ABC News and Sawyer committed journalistic malpractice by dredging up the old accusations without also showing evidence that debunked them. Palin and her map had nothing to do with Giffords' shooting, as was implied in the segment. Jared Loughner, Giffords' assailant, was an insane man who likely never heard of Palin and certainly was unaware of the cross hairs map. Yet ABC chose not to mention this. 

Really? So illustrating the out of control political rage, and the rhetoric that fanned the flames of that rage which was so pervasive around the time Giffords was shot in the head, is NOT good journalism?  Considering that it was this incident which inspired the President of the United States to call on Americans to " help usher in more civility in our public discourse," how could 20/20 have left it out?

So what do you think, did 20/20 take a cheap shot at Sarah Palin and the Teabaggers or are the folks at Fox just angry that bringing up the rhetoric and Palin's crosshairs map reflects badly on their pathetic brand of  yellow "journalism?"