Government-Run Healthcare that Can’t Possibly Be True According to Paul Krugman

• Daniel J. Mitchell
Paul Krugman has told us that awful stories about government-run healthcare in Britain “are false.”
I guess this means that the media must be dominated by conservative liars, since we keep getting reports about substandard care and needless deaths (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, hereand here).
And the Boston Globe and Associated Press must be part of this vast right-wing conspiracy, because the Globe just ran an AP report exposing more problems in England. Here is an excerpt.
 
When David Evans needed a hernia operation, the 69-year-old farmer became so alarmed by the long wait that he used an ultrasound machine for pregnant sheep on himself, to make sure he wasn’t getting worse. It was only after repeated calls from himself, his doctor and his local member of parliament that the hospital performed the surgery, nearly a year after it was first requested. Under government guidelines, he should have started getting treatment within 18 weeks. “I was in quite a lot of pain,’’ Evans said of his ordeal in Cornwall, southwest England. “It really restricted what I could do around the farm since I couldn’t lift anything heavy.’’ Across Britain, an increasing number of patients like Evans are facing more pain and longer waits.
The deep flaws in the British system, by the way, do not imply that the American system is ideal. As I’ve explained, the U.S. system also is heavily dominated by government, causing a massive third-party payer problem.

Government Insiders Rip Off Taxpayers…Again

I’ve written many times about politicians and bureaucrats screwing taxpayers with lavish compensation packages, but this story from Philadelphia is jaw dropping.

Councilwoman Marian B. Tasco is retiring Friday, but only so she can collect a $478,057 pension check and return to work Monday, when she will be sworn in for her seventh term. Tasco was one of six Council members to enroll in the city’s controversial Deferred Retirement Option Plan, better known as DROP. She did not immediately return a request for comment. …When DROP was introduced during the Rendell administration, it was thought that it would cost little or nothing. But a study by the administration of Mayor Nutter said DROP had cost the city $258 million over 10 years.

Remember stories like this every time ones of these reprehensible politicians claim that spending has been cut to the bone and taxes have to be raised.

America: The Living Portrait of Dorian Gray

By John Griffing

The song "God Bless the USA" is often still sung at commemorative events surrounding national days of remembrance, like the Fourth of July or Veterans' Day.  But, like with "The Star-Spangled Banner," the true meaning behind the vaunted words of this American doxology has been lost.  More importantly, the claims made in Lee Greenwood's timeless anthem are no longer accurate.

Public religious expression has been squelched in the last century, violating "free exercise" of faith in the deepest sense and ending America's status as a nation that unreservedly recognizes freedom of religion.  In one recent exhibition of this new anti-religious zealotry, the Department of Defense (DoD) ordered that Bibles no longer be available to injured personnel at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Priceless civil liberties like "privacy" have been abolished via anti-terrorism measures that neither sought amendment nor claimed constitutional legitimacy.  New legislation promises to permit "indefinite detention" of American citizens, effectively abolishing the right to trial and ending habeas corpus rights.  The legislation classifies America as a "battlefield" in the apparently limitless and never-ending "War on Terror."

Free speech is increasingly regulated, and plans are in the works to criminalize select political viewpoints, making those who hold these viewpoints enemies of the state.  One legislative proposal currently before Congress would give government regulators the power to censor political content on the web.

And finally, the American spirit, which balances respect for the individual with community, has been replaced by an entertainment obsession which is redefining traditional moral set-points with alarming speed.

All things considered, Americans can no longer say that "the flag still stands for freedom, and they can't take that away."  Nor can they utter in passing the words "at least I know I'm free."

At the root of all these changes is not merely one political deviant, or even some organized conspiracy to overthrow freedom and decency in America.  It is the collective abandonment of God and associated moral virtue by a once-God-fearing people.

The changing perception of violence is evidence of this reality.  Consider, for example, that where once gratuitous violence was understood in a cinematic and fanciful context, or in the boxing ring, violence involving the injury of real persons is now visible in seconds within the privacy of one's own home.  The next generation of youngsters are setting new standards for what is acceptable.

The dire warnings of some that TV and movie violence would one day lead to Romanesque stadiums filled with sanguine patrons looking for the next cheap thrill have proven correct.  But even these Chicken Littles could not have envisioned the internet.  Now we don't have to see the faces of victims or sweat in the presence of the abused.  We need only point and click to view the horror of the day.

Those who attempt to draw historical parallels between modern entertainment and Greco-Roman blood sports are usually laughed out of the room, but it is hard to joke when videos of gang-beatings are captured on YouTube by heartless teenagers for recreational viewing, or terrorists post scarring images of beheadings that go viral.  Millions watched the execution of Saddam Hussein.  Executions of hated dictators may be considered entertaining in certain societies, but why should so many Americans find an interest in this gruesome display?

More recently, a gang of about fifty teenage girls is reported to have camped outside a classmate's home with guns and knives, shouting death threats at the intended victim.  Two police who intervened were beaten within inches of their lives by this lawless teenage mob.  Teenagers no longer fit the Americana Frankie Avalon and Annette Funicello mold.

Few can deny that a substantial shift in community instincts has occurred.  Remember when the injury of a fellow citizen would bring the help of others, and maybe the police?  Now it brings phone-cameras and crowds of entertained observers.  Something is terribly wrong in America.

If America had a painting of itself hidden away, it would look more like Dorian Gray's demonic portrait and less and less like the Thomas Kinkade scenes of small-town America that have become the medication of choice for traditional Americans seeking shelter from the cultural firestorm.

Americans are beginning to lose their soul, and if we don't turn back soon, the Dorian Gray metaphor will be more than just an apt description of present events; it will become the American identity.

And it is not just a few violence-related recordings that should disturb traditional Americans.  The porn industry has warped a generation with so many delusions that boundaries continue to be pushed toward ever more extreme displays.

Movies have begun to reflect the change in mentality.  The controversial superhero movie Kick-Ass is representative of the trend.  The recent blockbuster features a torture/execution scene supposedly streamed live over the internet.  Everyone watches almost gleefully as the heroes are summarily burned alive.  No one attempts to call the cops or locate the site of the event.  Only hours before, these heroes had helped eliminate vicious criminals from the streets and yet were now the spectacle of bloodthirsty audiences with soda and corn-nuts in hand.

TV violence has escalated to a level few baby-boomers could envision even ten years ago.  The same goes for TV sex, which has reached borderline pornographic levels.  The problem is so extensive that Saturday Night Live was able to depict Betty White, 88-year-old icon of classic television, in severely compromising sexual positions of the most grotesque and perverse variety. 

And children are the real victims of such behavior.  Previous generations, having "liberated" themselves from traditional social parameters, are setting a terrible example for future generations of Americans.  Kids see, and kids do. 

In this conundrum is a profound truth: morality and law are not two separate spheres, but one cohesive whole.

Freedom itself is the result of a nation with laws.  And nations with laws are the product of cultures grounded in religious morality.  The two items are inseparable.  Legal boundaries are based on moral boundaries.  For example, why is it wrong to kill if there is no God, or alternatively, no universal source of morality?

In the same way, what is done in private cannot be separated from what is done in public.  At some point, worlds collide, and lawlessness is unleashed.  Warped minds in private will always yield warped behavior in public.  This claim is substantiated in numerous psychological studies.

Famous philosopher Nietzsche proclaimed at the end of a century that "God is dead."  For many Americans, this is true.  In the place of traditional religious orientation, Americans worship entertainment.  Americans have lost sight of the principles that made America the world's greatest superpower.

As Alexis de Tocqueville said in his documented journey to America, "[i]f America ever ceases to be good, it will cease to be great."  Tocqueville has proven prophetic.  American church attendance is now below 40 percent, as it is in most Western countries.  In America, consumerism and entertainment media have filled the gaping chasm left by Christian ancestors.  Even Christians seem to be OK with the change in ethos.  In fact, according to Pew Forum, over 60 percent of professing Christians say other systems of morality are just as valid as the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Most Americans would not see themselves as amoral sadists, and at present there is a prevailing dogma that defends traditional conceptions of morality.  But the baby-boomers are dying off.  What signs have we seen from Gen-Xers that traditional notions of morality like "Love your neighbor as yourself" will survive past the next thirty years?  "Occupy" protesters assaulting grannies outside Tea Party gatherings are not an encouraging indicator of what awaits.

The Roman Empire, second only to the United States in power and prestige, was destroyed -- not because of Goth invaders or foreign military debacles as some historians have claimed.  These events were merely that outward consequence of a deeper weakness.  Long before Rome abandoned its outer defenses and strained its soldiers in endless foreign wars, Rome became a cesspool of vice and corruption.  Women stopped having children, and men turned to less traditional means of sexual fulfillment.  Before the Goths ever set foot across the Danube, Rome lacked the social strength to resist the stronger, more unified Germanic culture.  Rome disarmed itself when it chose pleasure over long-term security.

If America is to be saved from the fate of Rome, it must first find its soul.  A nation of vice cannot be the beacon of hope for the free world.  Ben Franklin said it best: "As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."  Will we be a nation of upright freemen, or one of slaves to vice?

Pensions and Promises and Perfidy

• Paul Jacob

• Promises, promises.
  Politicians love to make ’em. But who has to fulfill those promises, and how?
  The tendency to rely upon political assurances without establishing workable, reasonable plans and follow-through has to be high on the irresponsibility list. Our politicians may promise us the stars, but what we wind up with remains of a more earthy nature.
  Take pensions. There are two basic ways of setting them up. One is to sock money away, or invest it, taking it out at retirement. The other is to promise to give somebody a certain amount of money on retirement . . . and figure out how to pay for it later.
  Between these two extremes lie compromise positions, of course. The government takes money from people now, for instance . . . but then immediately spends it on current retirees. That’s Social Security, and it combines the two methods in a rather fraudulent way. It’s not “our money” going into “our retirements”; it’s “our money” going into other people’s retirements. We will (if the system survives) take our retirements from younger “investors.”
  It’s a dubious deal on the face of it. Like a Ponzi scheme, it tends to reward earlier participants (retirees) at the expense of later ones. Of course, the government, being government, had an advantage Ponzi did not: It forces us all into the scheme — something ol’ Ponzi could not do — and it changes the deal as it goes along, and makes us accept it. Hence the long-term “viability” of Social Security.
  But Social Security isn’t the only pension system to over-rely on promises and skip the actual savings and investment part. Many a government employee pension system does the same. Not only do they unfairly shift burdens onto future retirees and future taxpayers, they also build up huge debt loads to whoever has done the promising.
  Well, that’s not exactly right. Politicians make the promises. Taxpayers get stuck with the bills. 

• The defined benefit pensions concocted by politicians are now throwing towns and municipalities into bankruptcy, and California and New York are just two of many states to be greatly harmed by the unworkability — the sheer irresponsible design — of the defined benefit packages contracted with government workers.
  This problem has been brewing for some time. In the mid-2000s, Congress attempted to forestall disaster with the U.S. Postal Service by requiring fully funding postal worker pensions.
  Now that the postal service is failing — for reasons having to do with any number of factors, including a decline in need for the service — the people who decide the fate of our public institutions are trying to take money from the pensions and save the current accounting.
  When private businesses do this, people cry Fraud! Theft! Greed!
  But when it happens in a badly run outfit controlled by government, you can count on some people to attempt to take a most dubious “high moral ground.” Consider this petition from the people at MoveOn.org:

  To be delivered to: The United States House of Representatives
  We, the undersigned, urge you to co-sponsor and vote for H.R. 1351, which will restore the U.S. Postal Service to a sound financial footing. We oppose H.R. 2309, which will unnecessarily destroy many good jobs and ultimately the U.S. Postal Service, itself.
  USPS management is proposing a drastic downsizing and service reduction. In part, it is due to an unreasonable requirement instituted by G.W. Bush through the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which requires the prefunding of retiree health benefits for 75 years within ten years. H.R. 1351 will relieve the some of the most unfair aspects of this legislation and refund to the USPS part of the current overpayment.

  Yes, a MoveOn fellow wants to take money from a funded pension program and “refund” it to the USPS, diminishing the viability of a pension system — not merely promised to current employees, butcontracted — to shore up a failing enterprise?
  One could be cynical and respond by saying that, if the commercial concern fails, they wouldn’t have a job, and . . . which do they want more?
  But this would simply sell out principle for short-term gain — it’s the kind of thinking that leads to utter disaster. Real businesses exist in time, over time. If they cannot meet current obligations, and move funds from a contracted future obligation to meet a current crisis, the danger is real, and smacks of embezzlement. Moving money from worker pensions to a business is not traditionally associated with those who lean left, like those at MoveOn.
  How can they justify the idea?
  Well, the email promoting the petition provided a clue.

  “The management of the U.S. Postal Service is proposing a drastic downsizing and service reduction—including possibly shutting down [your local] branch post office..., harming local service, and laying off 100,000 workers nationwide.

  You see. The appeal is partly to local patrons. Those services you use every now and then, why, some might be cut out so that at least a few core services can be financially sustained. How shocking! Whatever you think about mail delivery, six-day-a-week delivery and a post office in every podunk town is not written into the Constitution.
  Upon mere whims, nebulous expectations, and outrageous promises made by politicians? A campaign to take pension money and give it to the USPS to continue a losing business plan.
  Taking a wider view, one could ask why the postal service has a pension plan at all. Why not fund each retirement account at time of wage payment (in a defined contribution plan) and let the workers — perhaps guided by their union? — decide how to manage their individual pensions. At that point, any attempt to grab their pension would not only become unthinkable, but unachievable.
  Even for someone at MoveOn.
  Of course, MoveOn’s got itself covered. The above petition, and its promotion from the MoveOn.org email, was written by a MoveOn member, “not by MoveOn staff, and MoveOn is not responsible for the content.” Thank you. I believe MoveOn that MoveOn is not responsible for this bit of content.
  In general, it’s been my experience that, when it comes to understanding the nature of contracts and of responsibility itself, MoveOn is, indeed, not responsible.

Constitutional Education at Your Fingertips

By Matthew May

It is easy to decry the state of higher education in the United States, an arena in which William Ayers is a decorated figure.  But if you have access to a computer with an internet connection, you can rediscover a lost faith in academia and reaffirm the principles of republican government by watching and, more importantly, listening to Hillsdale College president Larry P. Arnn and members of his Hillsdale faculty teach a ten-week course on the United States Constitution beginning in February.

As you may have read in Imprimis, the speech digest of Hillsdale College of Hillsdale, Michigan, Arnn is overseeing an online seminar entitled "Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution."  Anyone can register for the course here.  There is no financial obligation, but donations are welcome.

Arnn's lectures bookend the course, which as a whole examines the fundamental aspects of the Constitution.  These aspects include the separation of powers, how religion and morality relate to property, and the rejection of the Constitution by the so-called Progressive movement.  Registrants may submit questions to Hillsdale faculty, participate in quizzes, and study readings identical to those assigned in the course taught to Hillsdale students.

While the course lecturers include first-rate scholars such as Thomas G. West, Will Morrisey, and David Bobb, Arnn is the main attraction.  If this country revered education as much as so many politicians and self-styled educators claim, Arnn would be a household name.  So who is this man?

Arnn is many things.  This man with the gray beard and graying hair is affable, deadpan, impish, and brilliant in person or behind the lectern.  He can and does rattle off phrases and paragraphs from Aristotle, Churchill, and the Declaration of Independence from memory.  He does this not to show off, but to demonstrate his reverence for the English language and the power of constitutional ideas and ideals, and to invite you to share in that joy and the joy of learning.  Simply, he loves to teach.

He bluntly -- and correctly -- calls the Republican Party the stupid party -- not for a cheap laugh, but to express his deep disappointment in and frustration with that organization for regularly squandering its many opportunities that arise to defend ordered liberty and limited government.  He is at his best when making the profound ideas and concepts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution applicable to contemporary issues.  He is unafraid to put the words and ideas of people like Barack Obama against people like Thomas Jefferson and demonstrate the differences and the consequences of those differences.  There is no relativism in the life of Larry Arnn.  Of how many other academics can one say that?

No college takes its mission, its charter, and its founding principles more seriously than Hillsdale College.  This is so because of the leadership of Arnn.  He came to Hillsdale by way of Pocahontas, Arkansas, Oxford, and the Claremont Institute.  He was the founding chairman of the California Civil Rights Initiative, later led by Ward Connerly.  He is not merely an administrator out of touch with and out of reach to those in his charge; on the contrary, he teaches courses to Hillsdale students on subjects such as Aristotle's Ethics.  Again, how many administrators do that in academia today?  He is both an homme sérieux and a man with whom it would be fun to share a drink.  He is what we wish all of our professors to be.  I think you will enjoy studying with him, too.

The purpose of this brief article is to let you know that Arnn and Hillsdale are giving a gift to the American people in the form of their online seminar on the Constitution.  It could not come in a more timely fashion as we approach a year in which we, as a republic, will make a significant decision in what kind of government we shall have and what kind of society we shall have.  It could not be easier to carve out an hour or so now and then and let a learned American professor and president of the finest undergraduate institution in the country into your home.  Class is in session beginning February 20.

Not a Ringing Endorsement

• Debra J. Saunders

• Mitt Romney may be the best candidate in the 2012 GOP primary, but that's not saying much. It's like being the best mayor of Oakland, Calif.
  Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota may not be ready for the Oval Office, but she's been a feisty challenger not afraid to take on Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. She will emerge from the primary with more authority than she had when she entered the race.
  Radio talk show host Herman Cain won points with his unique personal success story in the corporate world, no small feat for a black man who grew up in the Jim Crow South. It is sad that Cain's campaign started to melt down after a barrage of sexual harassment allegations, because other factors should have sunk his candidacy. Cain lacked the political experience to run for the highest office in the land. GOP fans might have liked his plain talk, but they were fooling themselves if they thought a political rookie could win in November.
  For a while, it looked as if Perry, with his 11 years of experience as Texas governor, could win the nod. Then Perry got into the debates, and he didn't catch on. So he started flailing -- hitting gays in the military one day, a full-time Congress the next -- in a manner that appeared gratuitous and scattershot.
  Then there's Perry's amateur-hour failure to muster the 10,000 signatures needed to qualify for the Virginia ballot on Super Tuesday.
  Former House Speaker Gingrich also failed to qualify for the Virginia ballot -- and he lives in Virginia. Worse, his campaign director quickly announced that he and Gingrich agreed that the fiasco was analogous to Pearl Harbor -- a sneak attack that left 2,403 dead. Later, Gingrich explained to the media that his campaign had hired a fraudster who had submitted 1,500 "false signatures." This is not the crack team you want running the White House.
  GOP primary voters might have told pollsters that they liked Gingrich because he was at the top of his game during debates. But Republicans didn't like the Gingrich package. They didn't like that Freddie Mac, the mortgage giant with a role in the nation's housing meltdown, paid Newt Inc. about $1.6 million. They had begun to remember how much work it became for House Republicans to carry the ethically challenged Speaker Gingrich through his verbal gaffes and ethics probes.
  Rep. Ron Paul of Texas could win Iowa, but he cannot win the GOP primary. Republican voters understand that -- however much they may want to downsize the federal government -- a candidate who wants to eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, capital gains taxes and the Transportation Security Administration is not going to beat President Barack Obama.

• Now it may be former Sen. Rick Santorum's turn to be the GOP's shiny new toy. While Santorum is a bedrock social conservative, he also is strong on foreign policy. Early on, Santorum was the best challenger to Paul's quirky views on Iran. Santorum argues that his ability to win two elections in Pennsylvania shows that he can attract independent voters. Alas, he lost his Senate seat to Democrat Bob Casey in 2006.
  Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman is the Republican whom Democratic readers cite as credible. Why? Because he insulted the GOP base -- not a smart thing for a candidate to do -- when he tweeted, "I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."
  Thing is, Huntsman isn't even a strong moderate. During an August debate, Huntsman raised his hand to join all the other Republicans in pledging to walk away from a deficit reduction deal that would raise $1 in taxes for every $10 in spending cuts. In a recent head-to-head debate with Gingrich, Huntsman had a chance to take on the former speaker. Instead, Huntsman cozied up to the Newter. The man has no fire.
  Romney emerges as the survivor, the Republican who has endured the spotlight under which others withered. In debates, he has been judicious of word. He's lived in the pressure cooker, and still voters do not question his personal character.
  He has written a thoughtful book, "No Apology," which lays out the case for American exceptionalism and against European-style government. Without ignoring the sometimes painful costs, Romney makes the case for the free market and makes it well.
  Former Ambassador to France Howard Leach was a Romney supporter in 2008, but he waited until recently to endorse Romney for 2012. "I delayed supporting him just to see who the potential candidates were and how they might stack up," Leach told me. After looking around and considering Romney's record as a manager -- he turned around the Utah Olympics -- Leach concluded, "Romney is head and shoulders above the other candidates."
  I remain unconvinced that Romney can beat President Obama in November, but at this moment, he looks to be the only Republican in the race with a chance.
  Oddly, the movement of Romney's positions could help him in November. Yes, he was pro-abortion rights in 1994 and now opposes abortion rights. Yes, he brought Romneycare to Massachusetts and now he promises to issue Obamacare waivers for all 50 states. On the bright side, Obamaland won't be able to paint Romney as a rigid ideologue.
  Most important: I don't think Romney will embarrass me. 

Invented People or Invented History?

By Jonathan F. Keiler

American pundits have spilled a veritable ocean of ink since Newt Gingrich's comment on the bogus nature of Palestinian nationalism -- Gingrich called the Palestinians an "invented people."  But interestingly, Gingrich's American critics, on both the left and the right, are largely in agreement that Gingrich's error was not in denying Palestine's historic national existence, but instead his use of the term "invented people."  All nationalisms are invented to some extent, they claim, and the Palestinians have simply invented theirs like everybody else.  Perhaps they even borrowed from Zionism, like the Americans from the English, or the French from the Americans.  That, goes the argument, does not make their claim inauthentic.  And Palestinian nationalism may be a net good, a useful fiction, by tamping down pan-Arabism. 

It is true that nationalism is a human invention, and a rather late one at that -- a Western idea that slowly developed through the Middle Ages and took its modern form during the Enlightenment.  By this standard, the Palestinians could not have been a nation in antiquity, but then neither could the Jews.

But that doesn't mean that nation-states ought not to have some reasonable historical legitimacy, lest any group of people demand nationhood for any reason.  And while the number of nations accepted by the United Nations continues to creep upward (193 at last count), that is still a tiny fraction of the tribes, clans, principalities, kingdoms, and empires that were the governing norm before the idea of dividing the world into nation-states took hold.

Claiming a legitimate national identity is serious business, and it requires a legitimate historical basis.  This was the heart of Gingrich's complaint, and it is the point his critics either avoid or brush over.  And the Palestinians do not have legitimate historical claims to nationhood, as historians more qualified than I have demonstrated time and again.      

Or do they?  What say the Palestinians?  The Palestinians have never accepted the arguments of their better apologists in the West.  They do not consider themselves an invented people like everybody else and so nonetheless legitimate and deserving of statehood.  Accepting that line of thinking would also legitimize other "invented nations" like Israel, and the one thing that the Palestinians don't accept is the idea of legitimate Jewish nationalism.  So the Palestinians are really in agreement with Newt Gingrich in this sense -- the essence of their rightful claim to the land must be historical or not be at all.  So what is their claim? 

In 1948, before there were "Palestinians" and there were just Arabs who lived in the British Mandate of Palestine, the local Arab inhabitants claimed simply that the land belonged to the Arabs.  That seemed good enough, since no local Arab thought of himself as much more than a person associated with a local tribe or clan.  Anyway, the Jews would soon be swept into the sea by Arab armies.  Thus although the United Nations offered the local Arabs a state called Palestine, they declined to take it. 

When the area was occupied by Jordanian and Egyptian armies in the West Bank and Gaza between 1948 and 1967, there was no call to create a Palestinian state in those territories, but rather to continue the struggle to eliminate the illegitimate (in Arab eyes) nation of Israel.  The PLO was created only in 1964 (after the Arabs had lost two wars attempting to destroy Israel) and it rose to become the representative of the "Palestinian people" only in the mid-1970s (after the Arabs had lost two further campaigns).

In the view of their Western apologists, this is the essential beginning of true Palestinian nationalism.  It doesn't matter that that it is only a generation or two old.  But this isn't good enough for the Palestinian Arabs themselves, who realize that such a limited view of their historical legitimacy would also legitimize the Israeli state.  And since attempts to destroy Israel by military force have failed, the better course is to combine military action with attacks on Israel's legitimacy.

So what is the Palestinian Arab's historical claim?  Yasser Arafat claimed that the Arab Palestinians were the descendants of the Canaanites.  It was a ridiculous assertion.  The Arabs conquered the area in the 7^th Century C.E., nearly two thousand years after the establishment of the first Jewish kingdoms, and six centuries after the Roman Diaspora of the Jews -- events firmly grounded in history.  Arafat needed to establish a historical claim to the land that predated Jewish claims.  And the Canaanite claim had a nice ring to fellow Arabs and anti-Zionists in general.  The Jews had twice dispossessed the poor Palestinians.

Now, however, in the wake of Gingrich's comments, the Palestinian Arab position has changed yet again.  In the Washington Post, Maen Rashid Areikat the PLO's chief United States representative, presents a broader and even more deeply rooted claim.  The Palestinian Arabs date back to the building of Neolithic Jericho in 10,000 B.C.E!  In accord with this new history -- tacking on another 8000 or so years of national existence -- the Palestinian Arabs now claim to be victims of the Canaanites as well as the Egyptians, Philistines (another previous proto-Palestinian people), Israelites (just one among many occupiers it seems), Persians, Greeks, Romans (they persecuted the Palestinian Arabs including one Jesus, not the Jews), Crusaders, Mongols, Ottomans, British, and finally those damned Israelites again.  Never mind countless other conquerors of the area besides, in all those millennia before humans learned to read and write so that Palestinian Arab travails could be recorded.  Surely, by Areikat's lights, the Palestinian Arabs are the most victimized people in the world. 

Most importantly of all though, according to Areikat, this very ancient of all peoples is indeed somehow, someway, still Arab, a view which legitimizes not only "Palestinian" claims to the land, but broader Arab claims as well.  This is absurd, but so what?  Arabs and legions of Palestinian supporters will accept it without question.

Thus do the Palestinian Arabs undermine the arguments of their many Western defenders, who argue that a defined Palestinian claim to the land is better for Israel and the West than a larger pan-Arab claim.  And for that matter, undermine the official positions of the United States and Israel as well.  For Palestinian nationalism, in whatever form, has never been about establishing a new Arab state called Palestine -- call it Canaan for all they care, for Palestine is a Roman name -- but destroying an existing state called Israel.  That is the truth that Gingrich touched.  It is not just that Palestinians are an invented people, but that by inventing a bogus history, they seek to rob the Jews, a historically legitimate people, of their own.

Obama's Support Faltering In Iowa

• Salena Zito

Bobby Burns has had a dramatic change of heart.

Burns, 23, was one of those young people swept up in Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. Three years and one college degree later, he cannot imagine a scenario in which he would consider voting for the president's re-election.

"I guess you could say I have seen the light," he said.

On Tuesday he will caucus in a precinct right down the road from where he grew up. His vote will go for Mitt Romney.

Davenport is 60 miles east of here along Interstate 80, past two closed service-station interchanges and a relatively new but shuttered chain hotel. In the center of the city, overlooking the Mississippi River, is the majestic Blackhawk Hotel.

The century-old hotel is where presidents -- or guys who want to be president -- come to speak. Richard Nixon campaigned there; Obama stayed there just a few weeks ago.

Last week, Romney packed an enthusiastic crowd into the Blackhawk's Gold Room. Garrison Gardner, the hotel's on-duty manager, watched the former Massachusetts governor make his pitch for caucus voters.

Gardner, who leans Democrat, said he is ripe to be persuaded to vote for Romney. "Anything is better than what he have going on now at the White House," the former Obama supporter said.

While everyone focuses on the Republicans' shifting nomination process, they overlook Obama's Iowa problem.

The Hawkeye State began Obama's string of caucus victories that gave him a majority of the Democrats' "super-delegates" over Hillary Clinton in 2008, followed by a comfortable victory over Republican John McCain in the fall. It is not electrified by his presidential record, however.

Iowa does not share the country's high unemployment rate -- but it does share the Midwest's disapproval of the president's performance. A Public Policy poll late last summer showed just 45 percent of voters approved of Obama while 48 percent disapproved; independents split against him, 43 to 47; only 79 percent of Democrats thought he was doing a good job, while 87 percent of Republicans disagreed.

On Earth Day, just a handful of months after being sworn into office, Obama visited Newton, Iowa, located farther south along I-80. Standing at the TCI Composites wind-turbine plant, he praised the state's efforts in "green" alternative energy.

"The nation that leads the world in creating new energy sources will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy. America can be that nation," he proclaimed.

He stressed the significance of wind energy as part of the green economy and he said TCI's new plant was critically important to Newton, which was devastated by the closure of Maytag's plant and corporate headquarters.

Late last week, TCI Composites, recipient of city and state tax credits and federal stimulus funds, laid off almost 200 workers. The company said it hoped to rehire them next spring.

Allen Anthony, 51, one of the furloughed workers, is not optimistic. "I really have no idea if they really will hire me or any of the other guys back," he said.

Leaning against a chain-link fence outside of the Iowa Speedway in Newton, Anthony looked exhausted. "Twenty-three years ago I made more than I did today," he said. "My future, my town's future, is all heading in the wrong direction."

His family spent a combined 85 years working at the Maytag plant. "Three generations in Newton," he said. "Now it is Maytag made in Mexico."

He will not support Obama again, he added.

Economic anxiety will play a larger-than-normal role in this year's presidential election. Less than a year out, the president lacks a message (although he has shopped a few of them, such as "We can't wait") or a policy that he can run on.

It's not going to be health care -- and definitely not bailouts. If the economy starts to recover, perhaps he can point to that.

All that he has right now, despite Washington media reports predicting his resurrection in the polls, is a political machine that can turn out just enough voters for him to win electorally.

Yet with guys like Allen Anthony, Barack Obama still lacks a persuasive reason for them to turn out and vote for him.  

•