Iran Spins Murder Of Neda Soltan

The murderous regime that took the life of Neda Soltan, a young woman who has become the symbol for the movement to force a fair and open reelection, has developed an interesting way to deal with the backlash. “We didn’t do it.” I said it was interesting. I didn’t say it was original:

But, according to Iran’s Press TV, police chief Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqadam declared Wednesday that the shooting was a “prearranged scenario” — a “premeditated act of murder” that could not have been committed by Iranian police.

The White House called that allegation part of Iran’s “ongoing campaign of misinformation” about the country’s widely-disputed June 12 presidential elections, which returned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to office and sent hundreds of thousands into the streets in fury over what they claim was a stolen election.

“I think the notion that the death of an innocent woman would be staged is — even with them — it’s shocking,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday.

[...]

“They cannot deny [Soltan's killing] anymore, so they are trying to fabricate a scenario in which they are not accountable and Ahmadinejad now becomes someone who is seeking the truth,” said Mehdi Khalaji, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Yes, the inquisitive Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has launched an investigation into the “suspicious” nature of the shooting, saying that anti-government elements were behind the murder. He’s suggested that the uprising is mainly based on the meddling of spies and foreigners. And now the government is, pathetically, saying that Neda was killed by her own people for propaganda purposes. The irony would be amusing, if it weren’t so staggeringly tragic.

The victims have been painted as the victimizers. And vice versa.

Required reading: A three-part series from Terry Glavin. The uprising changes everything.

Obama Forces Collectivism Down The American Gullet

In Barack Obama’s short seven months in power, he has rocked the United States with a series of very radical changes. The massive stimulus plan of over three quarters of a trillion dollars; the Waxman-Markey energy bill [read: carbon market/tax]; and now forced health care. Under one of the most sinister plans to be yet proposed by a government, Senate Democrats would fine Americans who refuse to buy medical coverage with penalties of up to $1,000. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that these fines would raise $36 billion in revenue over the next decade. Individuals who refuse, or can’t afford coverage, would be slapped with the penalty, with harsher ones for families who refuse.

The change is a marked one from the campaign trail that Barack Obama travelled down as Senator. During his battle against Hillary Clinton’s proposal to resort to penalties in order to achieve universal health care, he attacked his opponent:

“You can mandate it but there will still be people who can’t afford it. And if they can’t afford it, what are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?” And in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Mrs. Clinton conceded that “we will have an enforcement mechanism” that might include “you know, going after people’s wages.”

In this new era of health care, Americans would be as much required to get coverage as they are to pay for auto insurance. While the Obama government has promised to subsidize lower-income families, it still sounds like being on the wrong end of the gun. Driving an automobile is ultimately a choice, and users are forced to buy insurance as a result of that choice. Imposing mandatory health care is akin to making financial decisions on behalf of the citizen. It’s a fundamental collectivist precept, that demands that all people pay for the welfare of all, rather than the individualistic policies that the nation has been known for.

That’s why they’re called “shared responsibility payments”, the notion being to move Americans into a style more like ours in Canada, where health care coverage is not an option that can be balanced in the fiscal household budget. President Obama claims that the move is based on reform that keep private insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with health issues, arguing a state-run insurance plan would help workers and families.

Challenging this notion is the state of U.S. Medicare, which has been a costly drain on the country. While the administration of public insurance health care in the U.S. is lower than private insurance, it doesn’t make public insurance the better option. Private coverage operates in the free market where rates are determined by the dynamics of supply, demand, and advertising. Medicare doesn’t require advertising, since it’s a solitary governmental insurance agency. But where public insurance fails is in the primary procurement of operating profits, a necessary incentive in any market-driven enterprise. Medicare doesn’t generate profits, yet it bears the financial risk for operating a program prone to great economic costs, which are then reflected in the burgeoning costs of the federal government. Universal health care is similarly bankrupting the government in Canada, with recent estimates placing the burden at $4,867 per person in 2007.

The greatest fear among those living in the U.S. who favour the free market is that it is yet another government program that will lead to a government monopoly. Universal health care carries the entire burden of risk, meaning that no matter what happens, nobody goes uncovered [a source of pride for Canadians]. But this guarantee artificially lower’s the plan’s capital reserve requirements, which would give an edge over private plans that no company could compete with. Beginning down this road really means the collectivization of health care into the universalist doctrine that is so limiting, and ultimately unaffordable, here in Canada.