Civil Libertarian Nat Hentoff 'Scared' Of Obama Admin; Formerly Admiring NYT Pretends Not To Hear

Photo of Tom Blumer.
  • Bookmark and Share

NatHentoff2009

A well-known newspaper had this to say about writer Nat Hentoff upon his departure from the Villiage Voice at the end of 2008 after a 50-year run:

Across his 83 years, his three dozen books and his countless newspaper columns and magazine articles, Mr. Hentoff has championed free speech and opposed censorship of any kind, whether by liberals or conservatives. Few have more assiduously and consistently defended the right of people to express their views, no matter how objectionable.

The thing is that, agree with him or not, Nat Hentoff offers no opinion that isn’t supported by facts, diligently gathered.

Mr. Hentoff may not hear as well as he once did, or stand quite as straight. But he will not fade to silence.

That tribute appeared in the January 8, 2009 New York Times, in a column by Clyde Haberman.

Despite that praise, the Times is pretending that the fearful alarm Hentoff is sounding over ObamaCare doesn't exist. But it does.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

In his August 19 column at Jewish World Review, Hentoff reminds us of a mostly-forgotten presidential quote from April, and makes an important, real-world point about how Washington carries out vaguely written laws:

I am finally scared of a White House administration

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. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.

.... No matter what Congress does when it returns from its recess, rationing is a basic part of Obama's eventual master health care plan. Here is what Obama said in an April 28 New York Times interview (quoted in [a] Washington Times July 9 editorial) in which he describes a government end-of-life services guide for the citizenry as we get to a certain age, or are in a certain grave condition. Our government will undertake, he says, a "very difficult democratic conversation" about how "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care" costs.

..... As more Americans became increasingly troubled by this and other fearful elements of Dr. Obama's cost-efficient health care regimen, (Dr. Wesley) Smith adds this vital advice, no matter what legislation Obama finally signs into law:

"Remember that legislation itself is only half the problem with Obamacare. Whatever bill passes, hundreds of bureaucrats in the federal agencies will have years to promulgate scores of regulations to govern the details of the law.

"This is where the real mischief could be done because most regulatory actions are effectuated beneath the public radar.

..... Condemning the furor at town-hall meetings around the country as "un-American," Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are blind to truly participatory democracy — as many individual Americans believe they are fighting, quite literally, for their lives.

I wonder whether Obama would be so willing to promote such health care initiatives if, say, it were 60 years from now, when his children will — as some of the current bills seem to imply — have lived their fill of life years, and the health care resources will then be going to the younger Americans?

The Times has given no coverage to Hentoff's "facts, diligently gathered," as shown in this search of its news and this search of its blogs, both only on his last name.

Given the Times's open acknowledgment of Hentoff's stature just a short time ago, its refusal to recognize Hentoff's warnings is yet more proof, as if needed, that the Times is primarily about promoting a political agenda, and only tangentially about reporting the news.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Tom. 1st Helen Thomas - now this..

July 1st, 2009.  

Helen Thomas: Nixon didn’t try to do that.  They couldn’t control [the media]. They didn’t try that.  What the hell do they think we are, puppets?  They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants.  We pay them.  ...  I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well--for the town halls, for the press conferences.  It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.

August 19, 2009. Nat Hentoff:  I am finally scared of a White House administration.

Well, me too.

(;~/ gary

All that realization and poof they are so old.

 

Or so I'm lead to believe..

Longer one's liver lasts the more conservative they become, welcome! 
Finally!!  better now than NEVER...

On the other hand, the ratio 2/ 53 million...

Ain't no shame, haven't you heard!!

IT'S A DRYYY COLD   Niagara Falls froze over,jpg

When even Helen Thomas

When even Helen Thomas rebels against White House efforts  to manage the media, and says this is something even Nixon didn't do, you know it has to be bad.

And what this President does is to say things and then turn around and deny that he ever said them.  Out of his own mouth:

Our government will undertake, he says, a "very difficult democratic
conversation" about how "the chronically ill and those toward the end
of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total
health care" costs.

Must be than "nuance" thing again.  He didn't mean what it sounds like  he meant.

And you have to remember that he said the chronically ill along with those toward the end of their lives.  Diabetes is chronic. Multiple Sclerosis is chronic.  At what point does the government decide that they have had more than their "fair share" of medical care and should be figuratively set out on an ice floe,  as the Eskimos used to do?

 

 

 

The healthcare right dilemma

The moment you declare healthcare a civil right (as the liberals do), then you can't condone rationing. You can't justify massive meddling with the healthcare system on the grounds that every citizen deserves healthcare ... and then set up review boards to decide standards on who receives what care.

The words "universal" and "rationing" inevitably contradict one another.

 

Aaaah, but you can . . .

A right to health care doesn't define the level of care.  Once the Federal government's 'public option' undermines and decimates the private/commercial health insurance industry, they will determine the level of care and the eligibility of those subjected to it. 

That's the catch:  Proponents of a public-option who are currently without a health care provider assume that it will cover all health care, but it won't.

It's obvious that Obama-care will ration care based on cost, availability, age and health of the patient.  Those who don't think it's enough will be invited to find supplemental care outside the public option -- that is, if it still exists and the patient can afford it.

France has universal care, but many (most?) Frenchmen carry a supplemental health insurance plan for the care that the government bureaucrats won't provide.  Even Sarkozy went outside France for treatment, I believe.

So ... if I read you correctly...

You have a right to whatever they decide, is that it?

Old Helen's arthritis must

Old Helen's arthritis must have been acting up. Noticed how the old bat has darn well kept her mouth shut ever since? The msm are presstitutes disseminating lib-leftist-Communist propaganda to the marching orders of this administration in a way previously unseen in America. Don't think it's Communist?, just ask Van Jones.

Nat's Nutty Nuance

''I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking.''

What a brave, so very brave, man to ''rail'' against something that was created in the minds of the Left.  And that ''war'' tried to do what exactly, Nat?

And for that he was thrown

And for that he was thrown into a secret gulag, until released by the Obama administration.

On a serious note, whatever the Bush did (or did in the fevered swamp imaginations od the loony left) can be REVERSED, by counter-legislation and executive order.

What the hard left is all about, what they have always been about, is to bludgeon non-constitutional "change" that they know can never be reversed as it will be supported by a highly politicized SCOTUS.

At least by the supine RINOs.  I am still waiting for the GOP to make clear that...

1. Any move towards a government run healthcare will BE ROLLED BACK once they hold the majorities in the house.

2. Any move to "prosecute" Bush administration officials will be met by COUNTER PROSECUTIONS once thy hold the majority.

It's the only way to make people understand you mean business.

Thanks Barack! You've done more to promote conservatism than any president since Ronald Reagan (PBUH).

Myth

I thought the death panels were a Palin myth!

SARAH BARACUDA...

 The leftists in this country go after Palin with all guns blazing because they know she is close to the truth, & they know the American public is figuring this out. She also gets heavy flack because she is a threat to them, whether or not they will say it, their actions(reactions)speak louder then their words.

She was right about death panels, & she will continue to be a pain in the @$$ on the left. Keep it up.

 

"...How blind can you be, don't you see...

...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."  

Nightwish

I am amazed, almost

I am amazed, almost speechless. I was never particularly fond of Hentoff. I found him to be insufferably liberal to the extreme. But I must admit, his essay is brilliant. It reaches down into the heart of why so many people across the political spectrum are recoiling against Obama Care.

 I don't think the Democrats and The Annointed One realize just how bad things are if even Nat Hentoff is writing this way.  Wow!

→ Comes with the territory

It's easy to be a librul with other peoples money, but Hentoff has a dog in this fight.

Looks like Hentoff is afraid Obama will pull a Michael Vick on him.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

CA--

That's how I read it. I'm only in my 40s and Obama's plan scares me. If I were in my 80s like Hentoff, I'd be scared sh!tless!

→ You got it Kat

He's thinking two moves ahead.

He knows nobody's going to pull the plug on him.  At his age, he won't even get hooked up.

We will Barry you! - Russian prophecy

I don't think the Democrats

I don't think the Democrats and The Annointed One realize just how bad things are if even Nat Hentoff is writing this way.  Wow!

YG....

You said it all...yet the O-Team keeps it up.

I say keep on doing so...it is waking up millions across this land, all the better for the right side of the aisle in '10.

Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh

On Hentoff ....

.... I often don't agree with him, but:

- He doesn't change with the wind.

- He is uncompromising pro-life, including being one of the signers of the 1992 NYT full-page ad, along with the late Bob Casey, the recently passed Eunice Kennedy Shriver, and many others, that begged the Democratic Party not to cross into the pro-abort dark side.

- He is also against capital punishment, and I disagree with him, but you have to concede his recognition that if you're going to be against killing guilty life you have to be against killing the innocent at any stage of life.

Watch for a story on

Watch for a story on Hentoff's latent racism...

People like this guy and

People like this guy and Helen Thomas are part of the problem...and they are incapable of providing any solutions.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

Re Rationing

If you read the writings of the Bamster's Dr. Mengele, –Ezekial Emanuel, it's quite obvious that he and others on the government healthcare bandwagon plan rationing based on much more than just age. They believe in the concept of 'communitarian value'. This means that as well as age, they intend to look at the value of that person to the community in deciding how much money to spend to keep them alive. So an aging, cirrhosis-ridden and cancerous and obese alcoholic Senator will be kept alive at all costs because, –he's the 'Lion of the Senate'. On the other hand a regular working stiff like you or I would not be seen as having as much value, so they would not spend as much on us.

This is the more terrifying aspect of Obamacare. The notion of an age cutoff is bad enough, but they intend much more than simple blindly-applied guidelines. Communitarian value judgements really do require a panel of people to make the decisions. Will a black be worth more than a white, as a form of reparations? Will financial contributions to worthwhile causes like democratic politicians, give you points on the communitarian scale? Will community organizers get more points than plumbers?