Only in Obama’s America could a congressman who made the right statement at the wrong time be called a racist. But that’s exactly what happened to South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, herald of the now infamous “you lie!” interjection that sent on-call Washington hyper-partisans into a raving frenzy after the president’s big health care speech to Congress a few short weeks ago.

No sooner had those untimely words left the congressman’s mouth than did liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd insert her own addendum (“an unspoken word in the air,” she called it) to the shout-heard-‘round-the-world: “boy.” As in, “You lie, boy.” As in, good ol’ Southern white country club gentleman talks down to black president. As in, Joe Wilson and all those who stand in opposition to President Obama are racists.

Well, if the debate (if we can even dignify it as such) over health care reform in Washington hadn’t reached a boiling point already, it’s safe to say that it now borders on lunacy.

Add to Dowd’s preposterous fantasy this tidbit from Atlanta’s own, Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson (heir apparent – once figuratively, now literally – to Cynthia McKinney’s title as the most outrageously outrageous character in the Capitol): “I guess we’ll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people. [...] That’s the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked, and Congressman Wilson represents it.”

You can’t make this stuff up.

This latest D.C.-manufactured outrage, far from helping the Democrats promote the president’s reform agenda, has instead distracted from the matter at hand: health care reform and its many manifestations. Rather than debating the merits of the president’s reform agenda, Congress and, in particular, Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats, was content with drudging up the ugly specter of racism at a time when it should have been focusing on giving ObamaCare the PR push it truly needed.

But back to Wilson’s remark, err…inflammatory objection. All partisan feelings aside, “You lie!” was at a minimum unbecoming and without a doubt inappropriate for the setting. That being said, enraged Democrats like Rep. Jim Clyburn weren’t exactly crying foul when the entire Democratic Caucus booed President Bush during his 2005 State of the Union Address. The pot, it would seem, is calling the kettle black. But, no matter.

What should be at issue – what has thus far the political class and media alike have failed to adequate address – is the validity of Wilson’s claim. Was President Obama, in fact, lying when he said that illegal immigrants would not receive coverage under the health care reform plan currently before Congress? In his own defense, “that’s not true” was the president’s response to Wilson, emitted amidst a clamor of audible gasps and sheer horror on the part of the Speaker. Logic would indicate that both President Obama and Congressman Wilson can’t both be right, at least not completely. So who was telling the truth and who was playing a little Washington-style fudgery with their choice of words?

On the surface, the president appears to be in the right, referencing as he did the leading Democratic proposal, H.R. 3200, which states explicitly in Title II, Subtitle C, Section 246: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” Naturally, in following with the text of the bill itself, no illegal aliens would be provided with health coverage under the Democrats’ plan, right?

Not exactly. It doesn’t take a first-rate constitutional legal scholar to know that a statement without the backing of force has no meaning whatsoever. In other words, just saying that illegals won’t be covered under ObamaCare doesn’t guarantee anything without delineating a mechanism for enforcement. And, to no one’s surprise, there is no such mechanism in H.R. 3200. (Bare with me as we dissect the minutiae of federal law to categorize President Obama’s assertion as fact or fiction.)

Because there is no enforcement mechanism specified in H.R. 3200 to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining government health care benefits at law-abiding taxpayers’ expense, the federal residency definition as it applies to the bill is equivalent to the definition of resident and nonresident aliens as stated in the Internal Revenue Code (Section 7701, Subsection B-3). Under the IRC, residency for aliens is determined by the “substantial presence test.” In plain English, for federal tax purposes, the IRC views those who have resided in the U.S. for 183 days out of the last year no differently than any other foreign nationals who reside here. That’s because there is no rule in the code that directly talks about residency requirements for undocumented and unauthorized persons; it only addresses “nonresident aliens” like temporary workers and visitors.

That’s why, according to the Congressional Research Service (a nonpartisan government agency that reports to Congress): “It would appear that unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance.” That is straight from the mouth of the government bureaucracy itself, folks. Illegals, just like you and me, will fall under ObamaCare’s mandated universal health care coverage (i.e. government tax) plan.

So where does that leave Joe Wilson, that vexatious purveyor of white-power racism, and the president, whom he singularly accused of lying before a national television audience?

Perhaps more appropriately: what of the Democrats in Congress who raised hell over his malapropos yet factual declaration? Instead of effectively answering his and other Republicans’ questions, they were more satisfied with arousing 1950s-era tensions in an effort to promote discord and dissension than invent logical responses to the criticisms that have struck a chord with the U.S. public-at-large.

It’s a sad day in America when there can’t be sincerely two-sided political debate without resorting to childish mudslinging, rhetorical absurdities, or misleading, truth-bending proclamations. But then again, Washington is, as Mark Twain so aptly described it, “the grand old benevolent National Asylum for the helpless.” Hapless, more like.

*This article was originally published in “The Conservative Buzz” newspaper, and was an expansion and revision of a previous blog post entitled “Racism and the Liberal Last Resort.”