If you’ve managed to scare Nat Hentoff with your policies, you can’t possibly claim that your opponents are all right-wingers motivated by race:
I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration…. Emanuel writes about rationing health care for older Americans that “allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination.” (The Lancet, January 2009) He calls this form of rationing — which is fundamental to Obamacare goals — “the complete lives system.” You see, at 65 or older, you’ve had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.
It’s always interesting to see how people use language to maneuver around the plain meaning of a term. Saying that a form of age-related discrimination is not “invidious discrimination” is an open admission that it is discrimination, you just happen to think that it’s justifiable. Clearly, that’s where the anti-civil rights forces went wrong… they should have argued that race-based discrimination wasn’t “invidious discrimination” and was therefore perfectly acceptable.
Many of America’s liberals have not only transformed into full-blown liberal fascists, they have reached a point of literal insanity from the Constitutional perspective. They’re now quite openly arguing that private individuals cannot legally discriminate while the federal government legally can. This is the exact opposite of the Constitutional position; one wonders just what they believe the Right of Free Association to be.