Chinese citizen Pan Chunyan's baby was born dead, "black and blue all over," after government thugs grabbed her from a grocery store and forced her to have an abortion. According to Monday's New York Times:

Pan Chunyan was grabbed from her grocery store when she was almost eight months pregnant with her third child. Men working for a local official locked her up with two other women, and four days later brought her to a hospital and forced her to put her thumbprint on a document saying she had agreed to an abortion. A nurse injected her with a drug.

China's "one-child policy" is something that our progressive vice president "fully understands" and won't second guess.

Addressing social and budgetary challenges faced by the U.S. and China in the wake of respective population booms, Biden told his audience, "Your policy has been one which I fully understand -- I'm not second-guessing -- of one child per family."

He added that the problem he had with the policy is that it is unsustainable in that retirees are supported by fewer workers.  Not that it's pure evil, mind you, just that they shouldn't kill quite so many people that it impacts pensions.

Naturally, the Obama Administration issued a "clarification," saying that it "opposes all aspects of China's coercive birth limitation policies" and the vice president finds them "repugnant." A Biden spokeswoman said that he was arguing that the one-child policy is "unsustainable" and therefore was criticizing it. Even if she's right, that means he only thought to criticize it on public finance ground and not on moral grounds.

Clarifications notwithstanding, the attempt to aggressively limit population growth is a hallmark of the Left--not just with Communists and National Socialists, but with progressives.

Margaret Sanger, one of the early leaders of the Progressive Movement, wrote that we should "apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to the offspring." She also believed that "the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."

Sanger's "no-child policy" didn't stop Hillary Clinton from saying she admired her "enormously" when receiving the Margaret Sanger award from the country's number one abortion provider. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton said she is a progressive in the style of the "progressive era at the beginning of the 20^th century"--Sanger's era--one "that we need to bring back to American politics."

What is that number-one abortion provider? Sanger's Planned Parenthood, an organization so sacred to progressives that they declare war on any group that dares to challenge it. Please note at this point that the organization overseeing China's one-child policy is the "National Population and Family Planning Commission." If nothing else, progressives are great and giving bad things happy names.

Sometimes they're more blunt. President Obama's science czar, John Holdren, floated the idea of forced abortions, forced sterilizations and government oversight of human population levels.

In a 1977 book, he and two other environmentalists wrote, "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."

The trio discussed possible government programs to regulate the population.

Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.

That's not far off from Pan Chunyan's forced-abortion injection.

Holdren's book continues with advocating a two-child policy:

Holdren and the Ehrlichs offer ideas for "coercive," "involuntary fertility control," including "a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child," which doctors would be expected to do right after a woman gives birth.

Are modern Progressive Democrats calling for forced population control in this country? No, but as Biden says, maybe they wouldn't second-guess it.

So far we've seen that the number one progressive in the United States, President Obama, saw fit to add to his administration a scientist who one advocated forced sterilizations. The number two progressive, Hillary Clinton, greatly admired a woman who advocated forced sterilizations, and said her entire political ideology is rooted in bringing back the movement that first championed population control in this country. The woman that she and other progressives identify as one of their movement's founders, Margaret Sanger, laid the framework for the country's biggest abortion provider and it remains one of the most fiercely protected organizations on the Left.

While they are unlikely to call for forced birth control anytime soon, is it a stretch to imagine that one day they may attempt to control population growth with a penalizing tax? Many taxpayers already get a credit for having children--how long before progressives flip that around and impose an additional tax on, say, any child after the third. Or perhaps, they can merely provide insurance coverage for the first two children and it's a 100% out of pocket cost after that? On the surface, they could make a pretty convincing argument: Now that government is in charge of health care, we all share each other's burden. Is it fair to ask people with no children to help pay for couples that have six? Shouldn't people kick in a little more if they want to have an "excessive" number of children?

Now that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has said that the government has the power to penalize any behavior with taxation, won't taxation as a form of birth control be the next logical step in the century-old progressive campaign to limit populations?

President Obama's Health Care Act and the subsequent Supreme Court stamp-of-approval clears any legal obstacles to the longstanding progressive vision of government control over "family planning". Forget about forced abortions or sterilizations--why go to all that trouble when it's legally possible now to just impose massive financial penalties on people that have "too many" children? 

See if this doesn't chill you down to your core.

A pro-Obamacare doctor wrote in Wendesday's Los Angeles Times that the healthcare law may do away with obstacles that "make dying much harder than it has to be."

Uh, is Obamacare making dying easier a good thing?

This doctor thinks so. He writes, "the state of end-of-life car in America is marked by too many treatments and too little attention to alleviating pain," adding that the amount of time and money spent on healthcare would make one think that people can be made to live forever.

Medical miracles abound: antibiotics, sophisticated surgery, organ transplantation, artificial kidneys, mechanical ventilators, implantable defibrillators and pumps to assist failing hearts. But medical science has yet to make one person immortal -- although from the way the healthcare is paid for and delivered, you would think we had.

In the current system, he complains, insurers "reimburse hospitals and doctors for treatments regardless of whether they have been proved to be effective." With Obamacare surviving a Supreme Court challenge, the era of easy reimbursements is ending.

The Affordable Care Act advances a new approach, called accountable care, that aligns financial incentives with high-quality treatment. This key feature of the law transforms healthcare by making local health systems -- made up of doctors, hospitals, clinics, laboratories and imaging facilities -- responsible for the outcomes of care and the costs for the population of people they predominantly serve.

Doctors will be on the hook financially if they prescribe treatments that aren't guaranteed to work.  Obviously, they'll cut back on such "wasteful treatments," as our good doctor calls them, that "make dying much harder than it has to be."

The doctor says that the withholding of these medical treatments is not rationing or death panels, it "gives people every chance of living longer and well and, when the time eventually comes, allows them to die peacefully."

What if patients want those special or experimental or expensive treatments in an attempt to lengthen their life? If insurers won't reimburse doctors for them anymore--a decision presumably made by some group of professionals or the government--the patient dies. A panel makes a decision that ultimately results in death for the patient. Sure, the phrase "death panel" does not appear in the health care laws. It doesn't need to. As the author of the piece shows , they'll form on their own.

The Star ran a story Sunday about Don Rosenberg, a Westlake Village man who embarked on a crusade against unlicensed drivers after his 25-year-old son was killed in a traffic accident in 2010. Here's some more information about his ordeal that will enhance the original article.

In February, Rosenberg dressed down the Los Angeles Police Commission for proposing to refuse to impound vehicles of unlicensed drivers.

"There's over a million unlicensed drivers in California, and they're killing people every day," he said.

"Almost all of them are illegal aliens," Rosenberg told immigration expert Michael Cutler in a May interview.

It doesn't take a leap of logic, then, to see that illegal aliens--some of whom who are learning how to drive "on the job" in California--are killing people every day.

After his son died, Rosenberg did some research and was "shocked" at what he found.

"All the killings, all the tragic accidents, and fifty or sixty thousand fender benders [were] caused by illegal drivers and nobody seemed to care," he said.

That understanding places Rosenberg--who describes himself as a "pretty far-to-the-left liberal"--at odds with the government and the media. He's testified against a bill from a Democratic legislator, called Jerry Brown's administration an "absolute disaster", and said the Los Angeles Times exhibited "a dereliction of their responsibility beyond belief."

"Even the newspapers never talk to the true victims" who lost loved ones or were badly injured, he said.

"They make the victims appear to be the illegal aliens."

Rosenberg's son was run over by man whose immigration status was in question. The Spanish language Hoy Los Angeles reported Roberto Galo was a "suspected illegal immigrant." However, according to the grieving father's story on unlicensedtokill.org, a police inspector originally told the family that the driver was an illegal immigrant, only to call back three days later and say he was in the country legally.

"I do not care if he's here legally or illegally, but he killed my son," Rosenberg has said.

Galo's immigration status notwithstanding, the passion surrounding the issue of unlicensed drivers is undoubtedly caused by frustration over the government's reluctance to enforce immigration laws.

When the Los Angeles Police Commission and Police Chief Charlie Beck appeared at a town hall event in Northridge, hundreds of people packed the room and one after another criticized LAPD's plan to not impound cars of unlicensed drivers. Rosenberg was one of them.

KTLA reported, "For many, this is clearly tied to illegal immigration."

When Rosenberg spoke about how his son died and against the policy for more than his allotted two minutes, the panel cut him off, leading to a dramatic confrontation.

"If you think this is fair you come down the road and you meet my son at the cemetery and you tell him that this is fair," he lectured. His voice shaking, he noted the irony the commission displayed.

"You're talking about violating the law but you won't allow your rules to be bent?"

Later that day, he told libertarian talk-radio hosts John and Ken that the commission's two-minute rule is "so sacrosanct, you can't break that" but they can ignore a law on the books that puts people's lives in danger without a second thought.

"I feel like I'm on another planet," he said.

When asked by a reporter what his son would think about the applause Rosenberg received from the crowd after his speech, he replied his son be satisfied because "he was in law school--he believed in the law."

While perusing the headlines today to see if anything was worth writing about or rebutting, I found so many half-truths, misleading information, and flawed arguments that I'm simply so buried in all the BS.

A CNN opinion piece invoked the Holocaust when arguing that use of the term "illegal immigrant" is racist. The author, who prefers "unauthorized migrants" even (ironically) claimed that a Fox News contributor was guilty of engineering words for political reasons.

A CNN/Forbes article listed 5 myths of the great financial meltdown. Myth #1 is "the government should have done nothing" and Myth #5 is "it's the government's fault" to give you a sense of where they are coming from.

The Los Angeles Times gleefully reported on Mitt Romney's "evolving statements" on the Obamacare tax versus penalty issue, but willfully ignored that President Obama spent a year telling us it was a penalty, not a tax, before the Supreme Court decided otherwise last Thursday. You'd think he would be criticized for that. Think again.

An opinion also published in the LA Times blamed racism for the negative impressions people have of Rihanna-beating Chris Brown. How come Glen Campbell, who allegedly beat a woman 25 years ago, has a better reputation Brown? LA Times answer: cuz he's white and Brown his black. Certainly doesn't have anything to do with the quarter century that elapsed.

Back to CNN, another opinion piece urged people to fight back against restrictive voting laws. Restrictive voting laws mean laws that make sure you are eligible to vote. You'd think that would be a good thing, but not when you're a Democrat trying to get a 115% turnout, apparently.

A Ventura County Star columnist wrote that Obamacare is a necessary first step in improving the United States healthcare, since--according to the author--it's fallen behind many other industrialized countries in that area. The problem is that he relies on a WHO ranking of healthcare systems that goes out of its way to penalize free market countries.  Does anyone believe that there are 36 other countries that have better quality healthcare than we do? That columnist does.

This just scratches the surface. With all the half-truths, flawed studies, illogical conclusions out there, with more being added every day, it makes me wonder if there's any point to addressing any of them.  Perhaps rather than showing where they are wrong in the present, it would be more effective to catalog who defended which policies and let history record their errors for posterity so their mistakes are not duplicated.

We often we pass hasty judgment on the decisions of political figures without knowing all the facts that went into making them. Unlike most members of the Right, I didn't criticize John Roberts right away after his ruling on Obamacare that saw him side with the Progressive side of the Court, even though I shared the sentiment that Thursday was a dark day for liberty.

While most conservatives speculated how the Originalist Chief Justice could have possibly ruled in favor of one of the biggest expansions of government ever--some even revived the Progressive canard that his medical condition affected his judgment--I held back.

Why did Roberts bend over backwards to reinterpret the individual mandate as a tax? Why was he the lone conservative justice to see it that way?  Had he spent too much time on the cocktail circuit rubbing elbows with the elite Left? Did he want to be praised by the media and secure his place in the history books? Was he afraid of the criticism he would receive if he voted the correct way? Was he threatened with an FDR-esque Court Packing scheme?

Something didn't add up. It had occurred to me that, as Chief Justice, he has more on his plate than just casting a vote. He's the face of one-third of the government, and must consider the credibility of the Supreme Court into consideration along with the good of the country.

It wouldn't be the first time the Supreme Court calculated the weight of a vote outside the courtroom. In the historic Brown vs. Board decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren lobbied the other justices for unanimous decision. Split decisions just don't send the public a message like the unanimous ones do.

Did Roberts cast his surprise vote on Obamacare in a vacuum, only looking at the narrow legal questions presented in the case? Or did he rule as the caretaker of the entire judicial branch of government?

Soon after the decision was announced, information became available that something beyond the ordinary had occurred.

The minority opinion that Obamacare was unconstitutional--that everyone expected Roberts to agree with but didn't--seems to have been written as the majority opinion, if you believe the experts. Some claim at the last minute that he changed his mind. Veteran Supreme Court reporter Lyle Denniston wrote:

"I think he was determined to try to uphold some key parts of the law, if he could find a way, partly because...he has grown concerned about the public perception that his Court is a partisan-driven Court."

But was Roberts being oversensitive to partisan criticism about his own legacy? Or was he looking at the bigger picture--the credibility of the Supreme Court as a whole?

Charles Krauthammer may hold the answer. In no uncertain terms, he wrote why Roberts ruled the way he did. Krauthammer doesn't form opinions on whims--he's well connected and I imagine he has some inside information on what Roberts was thinking. He wrote:

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court's legitimacy, reputation and stature.

Krauthammer goes on to say that Roberts wanted to curb the out-of-control expansion of the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause while avoiding looking too partisan. His decision was as crafty as John Marshall's in Marbury vs. Madison.

The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the Commerce Clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the Commerce Clause fig leaf.

Law upheld, Supreme Court's reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce Clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.

Did Roberts rule Obamacare as constitutional to reign in the Commerce Clause in a politically acceptable way that doesn't do damage to the institution entrusted to him? If so, he did it knowing his name would be dragged through the mud in conservative circles for years to come. He put his own reputation on the line for what he thinks is best for the country. If that's what happened, he's heroic--perhaps misguided, but still heroic.