Madam Speaker has unveiled the latest iteration of Health Care Make-Over legislation. The slightly-creepy Alchemist of San Francisco, along with her apprentices, spent days cloistered in her dungeon behind closed doors carefully blending various ingredients, all from earlier versions of various legislative concoctions. The problem with this esoteric approach, however, is that all these ingredients—herbs, metals, humors, elemental substances—are all poisonous. Blend, stir, heat, distill, siphon, and infuse all you want— you’re never going to spin gold, even if you try to burn off the dross of deficit spending. Far from achieving the Philosopher’s Stone, this arcane enterprise will only end up yielding an unknown inscrutable substance that turns out to be deadly.

These so-called lawmakers remind me of a bunch of snot-nosed, giggly, unruly pre-schoolers playing with a jumbo Lego™ set. They keep fumbling and flailing the pieces as they test one component after another in a frenetic trial-and-error effort to force-fit everything together. Some of the other kids offer to help, suggesting some new approach. But the little Lego™ legionnaires just bluster and stop up their ears. (They should really learn to play nice and share.) Eventually, they somehow manage to construct some gangly, weird oddity. But the thing is ugly and unwieldy, lacking elegance and functionality. They keep trying—bless their pointed little heads—adding a piece here, substituting a piece there. But each time, the end result is bigger, uglier and more monstrous than before. By comparison, Doctor Frankenstein’s fabled creature looks like George Clooney gracing the cover of GQ. The teacher really needs to step in and take away their toys.

In other words, these little Demo-brats really need to scrap all these self-indulgent legislative perversions and just start over from scratch—hopefully this time with a little help from their Republican classmates who are a lot smarter.

In contemplating the issue of the health care crisis that loomed large in this year’s election, it struck me that there is another dimension to this issue that has received scant consideration. Setting aside economics, I started to think about the potential political/social nature of an Obama health care plan.

Think back to the early seventies when a minority of gay activists, in the name of “identity politics” and “sexual liberation”, managed to hijack public health policy in this country. At that time a list of venereal diseases a mile long was traced back to the infamous bathhouses of San Francisco. Public health officials sensibly wanted to shut them down but ended up being intimidated by political correctness and a militant gay lobby. So the bathhouses remained open and disease spread at an alarming rate.

Perversely, gays were urged to wear their venereal diseases like a “red badge of courage”. Instead of calling for a moratorium on wanton trysting with multiple partners, the gay advocates preferred to hope for more and more antibodies and, later, antiviral “cocktails” to preserve their liberty to continue to engage in their sexual practices. They claimed that they had a “right to unsafe sex”.

In the mid-eighties, when AIDS emerged, the gay activists, with support from their allies in the Democratic Party, petitioned the courts against attempts by the public heath community to institute regular testing for HIV infection. So the disease continued to spread.

When officials became concerned about the purity of local blood banks, homosexuals protested. By being discouraged from giving blood, they cried that they were being discriminated against. Again, they won the day. One result was a dramatic increase in HIV infection among hemophiliacs, drug-users as well as the black and Hispanic communities. The cat was out of the bag.

Rather than submit to measures they considered to be transformative, gay organizations opted to push for AIDS research and AIDS “education”. This “education” campaign first tried to stress the nondiscriminatory nature of the disease by promoting what turned out to be the myth of widespread heterosexual AIDS cases. Curiously, the category of anal sex was nowhere to be found in the AIDS education curriculum.

AIDS became the most politicized and expensive disease ever in terms of money spent on research. Despite the “safe sex” campaign, the disease continued to reach epidemic proportions in the gay community, largely because gay men often chose not to wear their condoms.

Because of all this, to this day I want to puke every time I see some smiley naïve celebrity proudly wearing their pink AIDS ribbon at some award show. As if wearing a token ribbon means they're combating this disease. Instead, these sycophantic bleeding-hearts are really just dupes.

So what does all this have to do with Barack Obama whom I’m fairly sure is a devout heterosexual? One needs to recognize that the “gay politics” that emerged in the seventies was just another strain, albeit a virulent one, of the radical movement. They not only flaunted bourgeois society. They flaunted nature. The gay activists displayed the same reckless nihilism that is the very hallmark of the Radical Left. Not content to merely be equally protected under the law, they aspired to transcend the social order (and the natural order) in order to refashion a new humanity, to bring about a brave new genderless society without norms, norms that had evolved over time and had been tested pragmatically.

To many of us, this all sounds crazy. And yet, this radical fringe minority, was able to impose its will on the larger population. And at every turn they were defended and applauded by, not just the radical wing of the Left, but the liberal wing as well.

Whether one considers Obama an ultra-liberal or, as I’m inclined to, a bona fide radical of the first order, the question is, economics aside, do Americans really want to entrust the creation and overseeing of a universal health care system to someone of Obama’s ilk? I hope not.