Friday, August 29, 2008

Yes! Sarah Palin for VP!

[click on the video to find Part 2]

Yesterday, reports of Tim Pawlenty abuptly canceling media appearances seemed to be a fairly good hint that he was the pick. Then early today, indications came that he was out. So was Mitt Romney. So was Sarah Palin. Add that to the recent scoop that the GOP should expect a "traditional" candidate (meaning, not a pro-choicer like Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge), and essentially the full field was out. Team McCain did a great job of keeping us all guessing.

But now we know: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is the Republican Vice-Presidential candiate!

Solidly conservative, vibrant, a reformer...what's not to like?

Bitter Hillary fans are in a tizzy, the Right is charged like you wouldn't believe a McCain-headed ticket could do, and Team Obama is actually trying to play the experience card in response (yeah, good luck with that, Mr. I-Majored-In-Foreign-Affairs-In College).

Simply awesome. For the first time in a good long while, I'm optimistic about this race. Bring it on, Dems. May the best man - and woman - win.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Just Once

Just once in life, I’d like to see a liberal admit he’s wrong when he loses an argument—especially on an issue on which the truth and the humane position are not ambiguous.
-
Although, I suppose it’s not as atrocious as
ignoring the issue altogether.
-
UPDATE: Yup, if you’re looking for integrity from Scott, you’ve come to the wrong place. He’ll preen all day long demanding others distance themselves from their candidate’s lies. His guy? Not so much. Just another day in the life of a cheap shill, I guess.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Biden?

Seriously? He chose Biden?!
-
Joe Biden is recognized as having a fair amount of foreign policy experience, which was very probably the main reason Barack Obama picked him, but Bill Richardson has a more-than comparable resume (UN Ambassador, Energy Secretary, Governor), plus is Hispanic and, most importantly, doesn’t have a reputation for being a walking embarrassment dispenser.
-
I mean, good grief! Mere days after the announcement, and even the most casual scan of the blogosphere (most of these stories were found on
Hot Air alone) have provided a treasure trove of ready-made opposition research. Apparent conflicts of interest, lobbyist issues, a casual acquaintance with the truth, arrogance issues all his own (those should nicely complement Obama’s preexisting problems on that front, eh?), contempt for the concerns of gun owners, some, uh, interesting praise for his own running mate…oh, and did I mention his foreign policy credentials are vastly overrated? How ‘bout issues with speech worthy of the Left’s number-one boogeyman, George W. Bush? Or maybe apparent confusion about who he actually thinks would be the better president? And then, of course, we can’t forget the plagiarism thing
-
Just imagine what goodies we’ll discover once they start trying. Not to mention the brand-new blunders in store on the campaign trail.
-
Sure, Richardson is a fairly-unremarkable lefty, and I’m sure he’s got a skeleton or two in his closet, but I can’t imagine this much crap would have come out this soon. As a minority candidate, Obama probably doesn’t have to worry too much about the Hispanic vote, but Richardson’s race would have to have been worth at least a few points, and again, he’s arguably got a more impressive resume than Biden.
-
Tim Kaine and Evan Bayh probably wouldn’t have brought much to the ticket, but (assuming Team Obama doesn’t have the exclusive scoop on some juicy info) nor would they be constant sources of stress for the campaign. Kathleen Sebelius, as a female Democrat who isn’t Hillary Clinton, would have been asking for trouble. And Hillary? It’s a pretty safe bet she and Barack hate each other’s guts.
-
Obama’s been fumbling big-time lately, with a crappy performance at Saddleback, his
disgraceful support of infanticide returning to haunt him, and now this, coupled with John McCain’s surprisingly-excellent (even conservative!) Saddleback showing and a willingness to hit The One where it hurts, and I’m optimistic about this election for the first time since Mitt Romney dropped out.
-
Now it’s especially important that McCain not squander his momentum with a bad VP pick of his own (that means you, Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman—now is not the year of the pro-choicer). I find Tim Pawlenty unremarkable, but he’d be a fairly safe choice. Bobby Jindal can fire up the stump, but I still think he needs time to build experience (and atone for
this profile in courage).
-
My choice would either be Mitt Romney (surprise!) or Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Romney has framed himself firmly to McCain’s right, has abundant economic expertise, and has proven himself an aggressive campaigner and an excellent debater. It can be said that Palin should have more experience, sure, but she’s been a successful and conservative governor, and, of course, is a woman, which could make for a mighty interesting election, what with all these disgruntled Hillary supporters running around (granted, this may smack of identity politics, but there’s no reason not to see race or sex as a selling point, provided—and this is the key—that you’re not doing so at the expense of qualification or principles).
-
Come on, John. As much as I hate to say it, I’ve seen and accepted the need to support you. Don’t let us down.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Obama: The Pro-Infanticide Candidate

Covered in my latest letter to the Fond du Lac Reporter:
-
After an Illinois hospital left a newborn who survived an abortion to starve to death in a closet, the state senate considered legislation protecting the rights of babies born alive during attempted abortions (
SB1082) in 2001. Barack Obama opposed it. Now he says he would have voted yes if the bill included language guaranteeing it wouldn’t be used someday to undermine Roe v. Wade.
-
He’s essentially saying that newborns dying of starvation matters less than the legal standing of
Roe, which is horrible enough (remember, reversing Roe would NOT ban abortion—it would just restore the people’s right to vote on abortion policy). But incredibly, the story gets even worse: we now know Obama is lying about his motivations.

-
In 2003, Illinois lawmakers tried again, now with the very language Obama claims was the original dealbreaker (
Senate Amendment 001). At the time, Obama chaired the health committee, which unanimously added the language—only for Obama to vote no anyway, killing it before it reached the senate floor [PDF link]. It shouldn’t surprise us, then, that he recently told Pastor Rick Warren that figuring out when people have human rights was “above his pay grade.”
-
This is every bit as evil as slavery. It’s shocking that a United States Senator could so callously disregard both his first duty (“to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”), and basic human decency and compassion—and appalling that a mainstream political party could nominate such a man for the presidency. All Americans—liberal, conservative, and independent—who have any sort of conscience should be utterly disgusted by this man. Obama doesn’t want to heal the sins of the past—he just wants to trade them for brand-new ones in the future.

-
Aside from his above lie, Obama and his apologists have deployed a full-blown revolving door of excuses for his vote.
-
They claim Illinois law already had sufficient protections in place for born-alive infants. But that’s not true; the
law in question, as Ramesh Ponnuru notes, said only fetuses of “sustainable survivability” would be protected, so any fetus deemed “pre-viable” would not be protected—SB1082 was intended to clear up any ambiguity.
-
They have argued that
there was no evidence what Jill Stanek alleged actually happened. But according to a US House Judiciary Committee report [PDF link], another Christ Hospital nurse, Allison Baker, gave consistent testimony, and the committee found:
-
When allegations such as these were first made against Christ Hospital, the hospital claimed that this procedure* was only used ‘‘when doctors determine the fetus has serious problems, such as lack of a brain, that would prevent long-term survival.” Later, however, the hospital changed its position, announcing that although it had performed abortions on infants with non-fatal birth defects, it was changing its policy and would henceforth use the procedure to abort only fatally-deformed infants.
-
* meaning, as described by the report: ‘‘induced labor’’ or ‘‘live-birth’’ abortions, a procedure in which physicians use drugs to induce premature labor and deliver unborn children, many of whom are sometimes still alive, and then simply allow those who are born alive to die.”
-
The Illinois Department of Health and Human Services failed to act on the charges not because they thought they weren’t happening, but merely because “abortion procedures” and “the rights of newborns”
were beyond the scope of their office.
-
According to the National Right to Life Committee:
-
Obama's defenders now (August 19, 2008) insist that the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was not needed because, they claim, Illinois already had a 1975 law "that requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions." They fail to mention that the law covered only situations where an abortionist decided before the abortion that there was "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb." Humans are often born alive a month or more before they reach the point where such "sustained survival" -- that is, long-term survival -- is possible or likely (which is often called the point of "viability"). Moreover, as Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune notes (August 20, 2008), "Prosecutors in Illinois entered into a consent decree in 1993 agreeing not to prosecute doctors for apparent or alleged violations of this law based on 'born alive' definitions or other definitions." To read or download the consent decree to which Mr. Zorn refers, click here.
-
Obama has also expressed indignation at the implication inherent in the legislation that doctors would ever do such a thing to a newborn. This is an idiotic reason to oppose a law—society makes laws precisely because some people will do wrong; one might as well be offended at speed limits in school zones because they imply a driver would ever drive irresponsibly with children present. But it’s also meaningless because, again, Christ Hospital admitted it, and the Committee report also found evidence of similar incidents elsewhere in the US and in other nations. Clearly, not everyone licensed to practice medicine is a saint.

-
They say bills Obama opposed had language “
clearly threatening Roe.” That language? “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law” (emphasis added). Come on, nobody with any self-respect can parrot this one with a straight face. It specifically refers to children who have already been born, which is exactly where most pro-choicers tell us they draw the line anyway.
-
They
have also said that “even if the federal and state versions had identical language, they would have very different consequences. The federal government doesn't have a law regulating abortion, so Congress could pass a ‘born alive’ measure without actually affecting anything. But Illinois has an abortion law that would be muddled by changing the definition of a person with full rights.” Please, do we really have to go over how transparent and stupid this one is?
-
They claim the bill was part of a package deal which went further, but as NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson notes, “Obama confuses these bills, which were entirely separate. They had sequential numbers, but they were not in any way linked. To call them a package is a tactic to try to reach out and grab issues in an attempt to divert attention from this one.”
-
And then, of course, it’s kinda hard to get past what Obama said at the time.
-
Further coverage:
-
Jill Stanek’s blog
Life with Obama” and “Life Lies” by David Freddoso
Why Obama Really Voted for Infanticide” by Andrew McCarthy
Dead Weight” by the National Review Editors
Red State
FactCheck.org: Obama and ‘Infanticide’ (though it should be noted that Fact Check does not devote the same level of detail to the claim Illinois already protected newborns as it does to Obama’s dishonesty, which they have confirmed is false)
-
These will be ignored or decried by the shameless propagandists whose ideological bias is so deep that not even infanticide can reawaken their consciences, but cries of “right-winger” or “theocon fundie” are no substitute for providing and refuting facts.
-
Facts are stubborn things. The evidence is clear, and the bottom line is this: Barack Obama was presented with the scenario of live, newborn, babies being starved to death by the very doctors who delivered them—and decided the continued possibility of this happening was preferable to a nonexistent threat to the logic of Roe v. Wade.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Pro-Life Alert: Media Blackout on Mass Arrest of Pro-Lifers

From ALL Communications Director Katie Walker:
-
MEDIA BLACKOUT OF PRO-LIFE MASS ARREST, FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS
-
Washington, DC (20 August 2008) On Aug. 1, 18 pro-lifers were falsely, brutally arrested on bogus charges by Maryland state police officers. Most were scared, crying teenage kids. They weren't told the charges for which they were being arrested and they weren't read their Miranda Rights. The girls were humiliatingly searched, and all were locked up. Most weren't allowed to see their lawyers and were denied their phone calls.
-
This is one of the largest mass arrests of pro-lifers since the days of the clinic rescue movement which ended in the early 1990s. It's a clear violation of First and Fourth Amendment rights.
-
It's being ignored in a massive media blackout.
-
"This type of harassment has been used against peaceful protestors in the past and never have these tyrannical methods been acceptable," said Jen Catelli, director of media relations at American Life League. "The pro-life community needs to stand up and demand media attention for these heinous abuses."
-
Defend Life's Maryland Face the Truth Tour had one final stop to make in Hagerstown, Maryland. They peacefully set up their signs along a stretch of highway and began to pray. State police officers soon showed up and demanded they take down their signs. The pro-lifers complied and moved to a different area.
-
State police followed and began making arrests.
-
"They violated all our rights," said Jack Ames, president and founder of Defend Life. Ames spent the night locked in a cell with the other pro-lifers. Ames and his fellow pro-lifers spent the night praying and singing the Lord's Prayer, the Ave Maria and Tantum Ergo. The next morning officials released the pro-lifers. Charges have since been dropped.
-
"American Life League is committed to making sure these people get the attention they deserve," Catelli said. "This kind of blatant disregard for pro-lifers' rights on the part of Governor Martin O'Malley's state police won't be tolerated. If these pro-lifers were pro-abortion activists or PETA protesters, this would have been on the front page of every newspaper on the East Coast."
-
"As more information surfaces about this mass arrest, ALL will ensure that everyone in the pro-life movement hears about these heroes," Catelli continued.
-
American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or media inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.
-
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
-
Covenant News: 18 Pro-Lifers Arrested in Maryland (4 August 208)
-
LifeSiteNews.com: Victory for 18 Arrested Pro-Life Demonstrators (15 August 2008)

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Trailer: "An American Carol"

Coming in October from comedy veteran David Zucker, "An American Carol" is a full frontal assault on Michael Moore, the far Left, and anti-Americanism. With an impressive cast, a truly zany mastermind, and political fearlessness, it could be awesome. Let's hope it's a hit and shakes up Hollywood.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Religion Battle Royale

Click here for the full video of a recent three-way debate between Dinesh D’Souza, Dennis Prager, and Christopher Hitchens, representing Christianity, Judaism, and atheism, respectively. It’s an excellent, stimulating, wide-ranging discussion on faith, reason, God, and morality, with three tremendously formidable debaters—even if Hitchens tends to be a snide, boorish ass.

Monday, August 11, 2008

McCain's Ace in the Hole

With Russia’s attack on Georgia and Barack Obama’s bumbling reaction, now is the time John McCain ought to be hammering the most powerful case for supporting him: in an increasingly dangerous world, America needs serious leadership instead of incompetence. McCain’s own reaction to the conflict is more coherent and substantive than Obama’s, and displays McCain’s knowledge of the issue, but unfortunately doesn’t offer a lot more than “we need to instantly mobilize people to talk about what we’re gonna do.”
-
If disgruntled conservatives are gonna be convinced to support McCain, it will have to be on foreign policy and national defense grounds. The good news is, he has one ace in the hole (if he realizes it):
the support of John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton has a clear view of both the threats facing America and the international community’s inability/unwillingness to deal with them, as well as a proven ability to speak plainly about them, without regard for Beltway hand-wringing. He’s earned the respect of the Right, the venom of the Left, and, if utilized by the campaign, could go a long way toward bringing the case for a strong, clear-eyed foreign policy to the American people in an accessible way.
-
But beyond that, I’d like to see McCain signal just how serious he is about a meaningful foreign policy change by pledging to put Bolton in a prominent post in his administration. More “realistic” (read: timid) conservatives and Republicans would probably advise against such a move, based on how much liberals would howl about it. I say let ‘em. Heck, they’re calling McCain a racist without anything to go on; what makes you think you can appease these people? Just do the right thing, and defend it with that “straight talk” we hear so much about from ol’ John.

Happy Anniversary, El Rushbo!

Celebrate 20 years of Excellence in Broadcasting with Human Events’ Rush Week!

Saturday, August 9, 2008

Question

Every now and then, atheists claim they’re being discriminated against because polling data suggests many Americans wouldn’t want their children to marry an atheist. I don’t see any reason atheists should be offended by this. Why should a desire to marry, or to see your kids marry, somebody with similar values be taken to mean you think somebody with different values is inferior? The issue isn't superiority, but compatibility: what will make a couple bond best, what will give children the clearest foundation and messages, and so forth. I don’t feel even remotely slighted by the fact that a Muslim would probably not want his daughter to marry me (whether or not Dad’s into honor killings, of course, is a different matter…). This claim is really grasping at straws.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Tell a Lie Loud Enough and Often Enough....

The New York Times has a celebrated history of shame, up to and including disclosing government secrets, and their latest editorial is another disgusting affront to journalism:
-
We know that operatives in modern-day presidential campaigns are supposed to say things that everyone knows are ridiculous — and to do it with a straight face.
-
Still, there was something surreal, and offensive, about today’s soundbite from the campaign of Senator John McCain.
-
The presumptive Republican nominee has embarked on a bare-knuckled barrage of negative advertising aimed at belittling Mr. Obama. The most recent ad compares the presumptive Democratic nominee for president to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton — suggesting to voters that he’s nothing more than a bubble-headed, publicity-seeking celebrity.
-
The ad gave us an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. That assault, too, began with videos juxtaposing Mr. Ford with young, white women.
-
Mr. Obama called Mr. McCain on the ploy, saying, quite rightly, that the Republicans are trying to scare voters by pointing out that he “doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills.’’
-
But Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, had a snappy answer. “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,” he said. “It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.’’
-
The retort was, we must say, not only contemptible, but shrewd. It puts the sin for the racial attack not on those who made it, but on the victim of the attack.
-
It also — and we wish this were coincidence, but we doubt it — conjurs
[sic] up another loaded racial image.
-
The phrase dealing the race card “from the bottom of the deck” entered the national lexicon during the O.J. Simpson saga. Robert Shapiro, one of Mr. Simpson’s lawyers, famously declared of himself, Johnny Cochran and the rest of the Simpson defense team, “Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck.”
-
It’s ugly stuff. How about we leave Britney, Paris, and O.J. out of this — and have a presidential campaign?

-
There’s no secret racist message in
McCain’s ad, implicit or otherwise. The intent was to call Obama vapid and his hype overblown, nothing more. If you’re looking for vapid, overrated celebrities, you’d be hard-pressed to find more worthy examples of any skin color. Is there really any doubt that if the campaign had used images of, say, Halle Berry instead, that would have been called a clue to the Right’s deep-seated yearning for segregation?
-
And the supposed OJ allusion? To say it was deliberate is wishful speculation at best, and “dealing the race card from the bottom of the deck” seems to accurately describe both situations: a minority figure invoking race victimhood to divert attention from the real issue.
-
The Times has no evidence for their thesis other than that
Barack said so (speaking of which, if that was Obama “call[ing] Mr. McCain on the ploy,” why did he initially try to deny it? And if his comments were in response to McCain, why did he say them back in June, too?). There’s no lie the Left, and their propagandists in the media and blogosphere, won’t tell or spread in the pursuit of power.

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Evil

While we can’t be entirely sure who will find salvation and who won’t, I think it’s pretty safe to say promoting the right to abortion while calling yourself a man of God is a surefire (no pun intended) way to reserve prime seating in Hell (hat tip: Eternity Matters).
The views expressed on this weblog are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of any other websites, blogs, campaigns, publications, or organizations where I have been employed and/or my work has been featured, nor do they necessarily reflect the views of any individuals employed by or otherwise affiliated with such groups.