Conservatism Has A New Face

Picture from The Sun

The reaction was predictable...and telling. The morning after Sarah Palin's brilliant GOP Convention speech, they best the left can come up with is that she was engaging in "mean-spirited personal attacks" and has a hairdo from 20 years ago.

Oh sure, you get your typical liberal whining from the LA Times, but it doesn't really address a single thing Palin said...it only decries conservatism in general with a long string of ridiculous emotion-based (rather than reason-based) arguments. It assumes that liberalism is self-evident truth (rather than self-preserving socialism) and then slams Palin for not falling in goose-step with that "truth."

As to the "mean-spirited personal attacks" that is a laughable charge. Let's look at some of these "personal attacks" included in her speech:

They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. - A subtle reference to Michelle Obama and her statement, as support for her husband began to solidify, that she was proud of America "for the first time in [her] adult life." I'm sorry...there's nothing "mean-spirited" about reminding people of the constant dragging down of America that Obama and those around him engage in.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. - A direct rebuttal to the Obama campaign's criticism of her supposed inexperience immediately following McCain's announcement of her as his running mate. Now of course community organizers are good people in principle. Unsurprisingly, Obama's attack dog (campaign manager David Plouffe) tried to spin Palin's comments into a derision of the notion that your average ordinary person can play a role in political leadership. The problem is that you can't deride a vice presidential candidate's executive experience as the mayor of a town when your presidential candidate has NO executive experience and lists "community organizer" among his credentials. Again, this is not "mean-spirited." This is a direct response to a challenge to Palin's own experience by the Obama campaign.

I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.
- What is "mean-spirited" about reminding people of how Barack Obama spoke of the "bitter" folks of Middle America who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment." How dare Gov Palin remind us of Obama's view of Middle America as preached to elitist Californians!

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate. - I still see nothing "mean-spirited" about pointing out the fact that Barack Obama has indeed never authored a single piece of major legislation in his time in Illinois or Washington, yet indeed he has had time to author two memoirs. There is nothing "mean-spirited" about pointing out his utter lack of leadership in this respect, especially after putting forth her own numerous accomplishments.

I'm sure there are several more "personal attacks" in the speech, but again...what do you expect Sarah Palin to do when the Obama campaign goes directly at her and dismisses her years of executive experience as inconsequential?

The left (most especially the mainstream media) has thusfar woefully underestimated Sarah Palin. Last night gave them a clearer picture of what they're dealing with, and the reaction has ranged from naked panic to panic disquised as dismissiveness. Whether or not I ultimately end up voting for McCain-Palin, I will love seeing the MSM squirm as they try to deal with the self-proclaimed "pit bull" and staunch conservative that is Sarah Palin

Ideological Party Shifts

Something else I've been thining about increasingly is the ideological shifts of both of the major political parties. Over the past decade and a half the Republican Party has been taken over by neocons and true conservatives have been pushed to the side. Well, the same thing has happened to the Democratic Party, but in the opposite direction. Mainstream Democrats have been pushed to the side by ultra-liberal, MoveOn.org types who have taken over the party. Obama's nomination and candidacy are proof positive of this. That is the only way that the most liberal Senator in Congress could be tapped as his party's nominee despite being a woefully inexperienced freshman. This fact was further reinforced today when his VP candidate, Joe Biden, said that he and Obama would pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration if elected. In other words, they're taking a page right out of the liberal whacko playbook (and in so doing appealing to their real base, the ultra-liberal fringe).

I feel bad for the true Democrats, mostly because as a conservative I can sympathize.

Are They Really That Stupid?

It seems the Obama campaign has decided to make abortion rights a major issue of this campaign in the remaining two months. The campaign has started running radio ads that attempt to scare women by telling them that John McCain will "take away their abortion rights."

When asked about the ad, the response from the McCain campaign was appropriate. They pointed out that Obama has strongly and consistently opposed legislation designed to protect the life of a baby who survives an abortion attempt. That's right...at both the state and federal level, Barack Obama has opposed legislation that would prevent doctors from killing a baby that survived an attempted abortion and was fully birthed. That means this actually happens, folks. Women attempt to late-term abort babies that are fully viable, and when the baby survives the attempt and is born they may still be put to death despite clearly and unequivocably being babies not fetuses.

In their panic following the nomination of the staunchly pro-life Gov Sarah Palin, the Obama campaign has now made a huge blunder by bringing to the forefront an issue that will not help Obama one bit. All the McCain campaign need to is begin pointing out clearly and repeatedly what Obama and his liberal ilk really believe about the sanctity of life and mainstream America will quickly begin to distance themselves from him. It was already done indirectly by the clear difference in answers between McCain and Obama at Rick Warren's political forum, and Fred Thompson stated it more explicitly yesterday in his GOP Convention speech.

(In case you missed Thompson's speech, here is what he said: "we need a President who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade.")

What Palin Does for McCain

Yeah, I know...I haven't posted anything in a couple months. Needless to say my life has become much busier and more complicated since my hospitalization.

Anyway, something occurred to me this morning that I wanted to put forth. I can't help but be drawn in to the amazing choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate. It's been stated over and over again that this was a shrewd move meant to attract votes from disaffected women who had supported Hilary Clinton...that it takes away some of the mystique of the "historic" Obama campaign by making history of its own with the first female on a GOP presidential ticket...that it represents an attempt to shore up the conservative Republican base who have little love or use for "Maverick McCain" by giving them one of their own.

All these things are true, but one thing it does more clearly...and I believe will ultimately accomplish more effectively...is to shed more light on Obama's specific positions. Case in point is the drama that occurred within days of Governor Palin's step into the spotlinght. She directly addressed rumors that were swirling around among the liberal blogs that she had faked a pregnancy to cover for that of her 17-year-old daughter. The truth is that her daughter IS pregnant, but more importantly she is keeping her baby and will be marrying its father. The Palin family is staunchly pro-life, and what fifty years ago would have been a devastating blow to a presidential ticket is actually serving to increase support. Sarah Palin is seen by many as somebody we can relate to with a family that reflects the heart of America and faces the same challenges many of us have faced.

Now, juxtapose that against statements from Obama back in March of this year. When questioned on the issue of sex education for America's children, Obama indicated that he believed both abstinence as well as safe-sex education should be taught. He then went on to explain just exactly what he means by sex education:

"But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know,
information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years
old and 6 years old," he added.

"I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if
they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," Obama said.

That last statement is simply amazing, and sadly reflective of the view of pro-choice liberals towards the sanctity of life. Only in their twisted rationale ("values and morals?") could a child be viewed as "punshment," and punishment that can be spared by simply making an appointment at the local clinic. It's very clear that Bristol Palin's family taught her about values and morals because she made the decision to keep her child on her own, and moreover will do the right thing in marrying the child's father (something else completely foreign to liberal feminists, who view him as little more than the oafish donor).

The more I think about it, the more brilliant the Palin pick appears to be. The whole "who is more inexperienced, Obama or Palin" angle is a lose-lose for Obama. Even if he successfully argues that he's more experienced, it's not by much and the fact is that he's running against McCain for the top spot, not Palin. The juxtaposition between Palin and Biden is almost comical, particularly since, as Mike Huckabee pointed out, Palin likely got more votes to be mayor of Wasilla than Biden got to be President during his primary candidacy. I would love nothing more than to see Palin eat Biden alive at the vice presidential debates.

I'm still undecided at this point on whether or not I can vote for McCain. I don't buy the "a vote for anyone else is a vote for Obama" bullcrap. If I can't in good conscience vote for someone then I won't vote for them, regardless of what the potential outcome may be. I cannot and will not give the approval of my vote to a party that has abandoned its principles just for fear of what the other guy might do.

Anyway, that's my rant for today. After months (seems like years!) of dullness in this campaign cycle, the race has finally gotten interesting. Oh, if only there could have been a Ron Paul/Sarah Palin ticket this year. I'd pull that lever :)

Selected, Not Elected

What a brilliant point Ann Coulter made today about how the Democratic Party higher-ups are suddenly and hypocritically silent on the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the primaries yet Barrack Obama is the nominee based on delegate count. This of course is the party who went apoplectic over the fact that "the will of the people is being ignored" when Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but failed to get enough electoral votes to win the presidency.

Universal Health Care: Harmful or Fatal if Swallowed

One of the major themes of both the Clinton and Obama campaigns is Universal Health Care. Despite the fact that it has been shown time and again to result in substandard care, bloated bureaucracy and smothered innovation everywhere it's been implemented, these two socialists are hell bent on implementing it in this country. There is no doubt that there are problems with the health care system in the United States, but too many people are drinking the liberal socialist kool-aid without heeding the warning on the container: Harmful or Fatal if Swallowed.

Just this morning I read yet another article, this one on Human Events, about the fact that the government run health care system in Great Britain killed over 17,000 people who should otherwise have been saved by their health care system. Sanitation is becoming a major problem in their system, with 9% of patients developing a hospital-acquired infection. These people didn't go to the hospital to get an infection treated...they got the infection just by being in the hospital!

People simply don't realize what government-run healthcare means. In Canada, if you are riding your bike down the sidewalk, fall and somehow manage to tear your ACL...figure on several months' wait before you can get it repaired (how'd you like to walk around with THAT pain for months before you get to start recovery and rehab from the surgery itself!). Currently in the United States if you get a referral from your physician to get an MRI you will likely have it scheduled within days. In Canada's single-payer system the average wait time for an MRI is THREE MONTHS. Neurosurgery services required? It could be a YEAR. Enjoy your carpal tunnel or severe migraines until then.

And don't you dare seek medical help from a private provider or you'll be prosecuted as a criminal. After all, it is ILLEGAL in Canada to spend your own money on healthcare provided by anyone other than the government run healthcare system.

It is simply beyond my comprehension why anyone would think that the government...the most amazing example of eggregious waste and bloat one could find...would somehow magically be able to efficiently and effectively handle something as vitally important as healthcare. There is a reason the United States has been at the forefront of medical innovation for so long, and Universal Healthcare will destroy that advantage.

Another Leader in Homosexual Community Now Straight

I don't write often about homosexuality. I probably should write more given how much media and political attention that sinful lifestyle garners. I've had gay friends in the past (after all, I have been involved in music and theater) and I've never "bashed" anyone or shunned them for being gay. But the fact is that as a Christian I have clear and immovable beliefs that homosexuality is a sin and Scripture leaves little room for a practicing homosexual to enter the Kingdom. This isn't something that makes me happy. I don't take joy in acknowledging or proclaiming that fact, but as a disciple of Jesus Christ I cannot compromise truth.

A well-known activist in the gay community and former editor of Young Gay America magazine, Michael Glatze, has recently announced that he has left the homosexual lifestyle and become a heterosexual. This comes at a time when there is a major push to further entrench homosexuality as "normal" by forcing the acceptance of homosexual marriage and other such "rights." Given the way the liberal media responds to anyone who stands in the way of the gay agenda, I truly feel for Mr. Glatze, who will no doubt be the recipient of some of the most venomous slander the gay establishment can muster. Just ask Charlene Cothran (see this AfterEllen.com article and the comments on this blog for examples). No doubt the liberal media will bury Michael's story, if they report it at all, in favor of anyone they can find who has "come out."

What this really does is further reinforce the fact that homosexuality is in fact a choice. There's a sense in people are "born that way" by virtue of the fact that we are born sinners with the potential for all manner of evil, but our sins are nevertheless a willful acts...ones for which we bear responsibility. Both Charlene and Michael attest to the fact that they've always known somewhere inside that homosexuality is "not what God intended for us."

In a time where morality is in increasing decline and Christian values are under constant assault, it is very encouraging to see men and women publicly step out of the bondage of homosexuality and proclaim the freedom from sin that salvation in Christ provides. May He encourage and strengthen Charlene, Michael and the many others who have left the homosexual lifestyle as they endure the ridicule and slander of those who once proclaimed their "wisdom."

Slander

Never let it be said that one can't profit from lies. Just ask Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards (and his wife). With some sixteen months to go before the election, Edwards is already turning (again) to one of his favorite sources of income, conservative commentator and columnist Ann Coulter.

Ms Edwards called in on Chris Matthews' MSNBC show Hardball while Coulter was being interviewed and confronted her with allegations of "hate speech," citing specifically comments made by Coulter on Good Morning America the day before (we'll get to those comments in a second). I've read several articles about the incident on GMA as well as Ms Edwards' rather ridiculous phone call. Nearly every single one presents it as Ms Coulter saying she wished Edwards would die in a terrorist attack. No context given; just a factual statement that Coulter wants Edwards dead.

So is it true that Coulter really said she wishes John Edwards had been killed in a terrorist attack? Let's hear her comments in their context:



So Coulter's comments were clearly in reference to Bill Maher's comments that if the terrorist attempt on Vice President Dick Cheney's life had been successful "people wouldn't be needlessly dying." In other words, she was exposing the hypocrisy of liberals in their giving other liberals a pass to say almost anything but railing against conservatives when they essentially say the same thing.

Of course, this didn't stop the Edwards campaign from posting the clip on YouTube...without its context...as a campaign ad:



And thus the liberals once again unwittingly proved Coulter's point in a blatant display of hypocrisy. Just as they did with Coulter's comments regarding Edwards and the word "faggot," which were (as she clearly explained) a joke in reference to actor Isaiah Washington "going to rehab" after making disparaging remarks about his homosexual costar on the show Grey's Anatomy. (I agree with Ann about the absurdity of equating an insult to serious problems like drug addiction to the extent that "rehab" is needed, and in that context her jab at Edwards was both funny and effective.)

Ann's formula is tried and true: make a joke (usually involving Edwards...an easy target), using similar comments to those made recently by a tasteless liberal, and it sends everyone in an uproar. Watch them foam at the mouth like lunatics, unleashing the liberal media machine on her. Then let conservatives, one by one, expose the hypocrisy of these liberals to all their liberal friends.

Redistribution of Wealth

I just get done researching that outrageous pharmacy bill and what do I see? An article by the Washington Post detailing a Democrat plan to impose a 4.3% surtax on the richest households.

Among the brilliant comments in this article:

"There is consensus to make sure that we have some responsible tax policy that will also treat taxpayers fairly." - Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.)

How exactly is this fair to the 2% (roughly 6,000,000 people) of Americans who are being targeted for higher taxation for no other reason than that they make more money than others?

Basically, the federal government stepped on its own nuts by not accounting for inflation in the Alternative Minimum Tax, and so a tax law that was intended to stop a very small number of wealthy individuals from escaping any taxation through loopholes and deductions is now beginning to hurt a lot more citizens who fall into normal tax categories. But rather than come up with an improved version or an new law which closes those loopholes, Democrats are instead looking at it as an opportunity to redistribute wealth like the good little socialists they are. They're engaging in typical class warfare rhetoric, trying to pass themselves off as Robin Hood as though the wealthy have stolen their money from the little guy and the Democrats are just heroically returning it.

It's very telling that some of them are wanting to postpone action on this to give them enough time to "educate" the masses about this issue. IOW, they want to have plenty of time to spin this into another faux-populist "we care about the working people" move by lying through their teeth in saying that they care about cutting taxes. This move doesn't cut taxes, it redistributes the tax burden from one group of people to another based on nothing but their income level. Shift it one way and it's "unfairly targeting people based on their income." Shift it the other, and it's "fair."

Ethical Phramacists Targeted

A Democrat effort is now underway to turn pharmacies into abortofacient vending machines.

Two Democrat Congresspersons from NY and NJ (go figure!) have introduced a bill that, among other things, would fine pharmacists up to $500,000 for acting out of ethical duty in refusing to dispense drugs which they feel may not be safe or appropriate for the customer.

Let me repeat that last part again...for the customer.

Though pharmacies are subject to some federal regulations because of the nature of the products they dispense, they are a business just like any other. Setting aside for a moment the issue of the abortofacients this bill is really meant to protect, this is a clear case of government once again trying to tell businesses how they must be run (which is ludicrous considering how poorly the federal government is run). Government has no right to tell a business they must either stock and sell a particular product or give them the information on how to purchase it from one of their competitors.

Of course, the real reason behind this measure is to ensure that abortofacients like the Plan B or "morning-after pill" are freely available regardless of whether or not a professional pharmacist believes the product to be hazardous or unethical. The issue is being cast as one of women's health and constitutional rights.

"Access to birth control is a women's health issue, a private matter and a constitutional right. No one – not pharmacists, politicians, or religious leaders – should be able to tamper with that right," co-sponsor Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) said.

I would like Ms. Maloney to show me in the Constitution of the United States of America where exactly access to birth control is a protected right. Utilization of preventative birth control may be a federally protected right, but access to it via consumer products most certainly is not. But abortion proponents such as NOW President Kim Gandy continue to paint this as an issue of "basic healthcare" and call any who dares refuse to dispense the "morning-after pill" abortofacient "religious and political extremists" engaged in an "all-out attack on birth control in this country."

In reality, a pharmacist is a professionally trained person who operates under a code of ethics just like a doctor, but that doesn't stop the bill's sponsors and supporters from politicizing their decisions.

"A pharmacist's personal beliefs should not come between a patient and their doctor," said co-sponsor Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). "Tomorrow it might be painkillers for a cancer patient. Next year it could be medicine that prolongs the life of a person with AIDS or some other terminal disease."

Typical liberal demagoguery. A phramacists professional and ethical opinion necessarily comes between a patient and their doctor. Otherwise there would be no need for professional pharmacists.

This quote by Lautenberg really gets me: "Pharmacies have an ethical and legal obligation not to endanger women's health by withholding basic health care."

First of all, no matter how many times this lie is offered, birth control is NOT basic health care. Any medication which is elective in nature cannot possibly fall under the category of "basic health care." They make it sound as though these people will keel over and die if they don't take their birth control pill or fix the mistake they made the night before.

Second, these pharmacists have an ethical and legal obligation not to endanger anyone's health. Period. What this legislation is attempting to do is REMOVE the pharmacist's ability to act according to their professional and ethical views. As Concerned Women for America rightly points out, "This bill would force pharmacists to distribute the controversial morning-after pill, … trampling on any professional or ethical concerns."

Make no mistake about it. This is yet another in a long line of legislative efforts to continue promoting convenience over responsibility and perpetuate the culture of death in this country.

Reductio ad absurdum? How about ad nauseum...

The basic goal of a reductio ad absurdum ("reduction to the absurd") argument is to take someone's position and find an extreme example that would bring about an "absurd" result if the same logic is applied. This can be an acceptable argument so long as the logic is being applied in a consistent manner and all relevant factors are taken into account.

A common argument used to attack just about any legislation restricting or outlawing abortion is that of the case of rape or incest. This is employed as a reductio ad absurdum by appealing to an extreme circumstance. Are rape and incest horrible crimes? Absolutely, and so the argument goes that because the pregnancy is the result of this horrible crime those vitcims should have the right to deal with it in the manner they see fit. This argument is made over and over again every time abortion legislation comes up. When a little logic is applied to the situation however, we'll see that this argument relies on emotion rather than reason.

I recently came across an interesting article written following South Dakota's landmark law in 2006 banning all abortions except those necessary to save the lift of the mother. The article was written by Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America, and dealt with the topic of why abortion bans shouldn’t include exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

The fundamental question that is raised by the issue of such cases is, "What makes the case different from other cases where abortion is ostensibly forbidden?" The answer has nothing to do with the child whose life will be terminated, but rather the circumstances under which the child was conceived. In other words, the child is condemned to be the victim in the termination of his or her life because the mother was herself a victim in the conception of it.

The article puts it this way:

Since the law does not permit a victim to aid her recovery by killing her rapist, why should the law permit her to kill the innocent unborn child? If aborting the child will aid in the woman’s recovery, why not permit her to kill the child at any age?

To do so is to make the child suffer for the crime committed by his or her father. It is why:

• We do not permit a parent of a murdered child to kill the child of the murderer.
• We do not permit a victim of robbery to steal from the robber’s child.
• We do not permit a victim of arson to burn the home of the arsonist’s child.

Somehow, the morality and sense of justice that is so obvious when considering these questions escapes many when the same principles are applied to the pre-born child.

To be sure, cases of rape and incest are terrible for the woman. However, I cannot see the justification for terminating the life of an innocent child because of it. It only compounds the crime by making the innocent child suffer for the sins of the guilty father. As the article points out, many studies have shown that those victims who do carry their pregnancies do not regret it and that their child actually "brought peace and healing to their lives."

So when it comes down to it, while the argument for rape/incest exceptions attempts to make a strong case on emotion grounds, it really ignores both the emotional and legal results. Killing an innocent child will not undo the crime that was done to the mother. All it will do is repond to one crime with another.

A Victory for Life!

The Supreme Court of the United States of America got one right for a change! In a 5-4 split, they voted to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act as Constitutional. While it's very narrow in their focus, laws like this one and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act are a positive step towards protecting the right to life of the unborn.

Naturally, as the 2008 Presidential Election is building, several candidates have made public statements regarding the ruling:

"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose." - John Edwards

Sweeping prohibition? Hardly. The bill does not prevent abortion at any stage of pregnancy. It merely outlaws a particular method of abortion, namely the brutal and unconscionable act of partially delivering a living child, inserting a catheter into the back of his/her head and removing the contents of his/her skull. But ultra-liberals like Mr. Edwards want to protect the "right" do to this under the Constitution. Mr. Edwards also flat out lies about its provisions for "the health of individual women." The PBABA still allows for the method in cases where it is necessary to save the mother's life.

"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito." - Hillary Clinton

Funny how "departure from past rulings" is decried when it's convenient to one's views. By such rationale, these people should oppose many of the civil rights rulings earlier in this century. Then there is the "health of the mother" exception. The exceptions being referred to here are so broad as to not serve as exceptions at all, but rather measures designed to ensure that a abortions would never fall outside them. The "stress" involved in gaining weight from pregnancy falls under such a definition (lest the "mental health" of the woman be adversely affected and she be forced to deal with the consequences of her actions). Last, we have the invocation of the Stenberg v Carhart case of 2000 where the Supreme Court struck down (by a 5-4 split vote) a Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortions in the state. Conveniently, Hillary ignores the fact that the majority opinion in that case made it clear that it sought to give blanket protection to any woman who sought an abortion in the second trimester even in the absence of pre-existing maternal or fetal health problem. Moreover, the definition of "partial-birth abortion" is much more specific in the PBABA, and the bill itself contains data from five years' worth of Congressional investigation and hearings which find that partial-birth abortion is not only NOT necessary to preserve "health" but also poses a much higher risk to the woman than other methods.

"I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women. " - Barack Obama

Boy it this a telling statement. Last time I checked the Constitution of the United States of America, Mr. Obama, establishing federal law is not in the job description of the Judicial Branch. All Obama is doing is lamenting the fact that conservatives are (at least in his view) beating liberals at their own game by using the judiciary to enact law. Of course, that's not the case at all. This act was lawfully passed, and upon being asked to review it by the angry anti-lifers the Court upheld it as constitutional.

And how in the world is this an issue of "equal rights for women?" I'm pretty sure I, as a man, don't have the "right" to a partial-birth abortion that women are allegedly being unconstitutionally deprived of. Of course, we won't be concerned with the "equal rights" of children who are literally inches from birth. No...we're much more concerned with the ability of a woman to kill a living child in a non-life-threatening situation. Even English "common law," which was cited by the Court in Roe v Wade as the historical basis used in the definition of personhood (defined therein as being at the point of "quickening" when the baby begins to move inside the mother's womb), would not account for this procedure and I GUARANTEE even the liberal justices who rendered the 1973 decision would have upheld this piece of legislation.

John Edwards is right about one thing...this raises important issues for the upcoming election. I have no respect whatsoever for anyone who would put politics ahead of ethics to the point of supporting one of the most heinous and deplorable medical procedures ever performed on defenseless human beings.

More Global Warming in the News

I didn't have much time today to comment, so I'll just leave you with these articles...

CEO Lashes Out at Gore: 'He is more dangerous than his global warming'...

William F. Buckley: Business of Global Warming Feels a Lot Like Inquisition...

DiCaprio: 'We find ourselves on the brink. It's clear humans have had a devastating impact on our planet's ecological web of life'...

Global warming hits Mars too: study...

Gore booed, heckled by students at Canadian University - Protesters shouted: 'What about your swimming pools?'...

Republicans demand investigation of U.N. climate-change agency...

Just Another Reminder...

The liberal community went nearly apoplectic when Ann Coulter used the "f-word" (no, not that one...the term used as a substitute for "gay") in a recent speech. The Human Rights Campaign went ballistic. The people at GLAAD tore their rainbow robes. Many liberal bloggers decried it as vile and organized a campaign to get companies to pull their ads from Ms Coulter's site.

Only one little problem here. As it turns out, many of these folks have used the very same term on their sites and elsewhere and have gotten away with it.

Just another reminder of the double standard you will always see with liberals when it comes to dealing with conservatives vs dealing with their own.

Opening Day for Cameron; More Gore Hypocrisy

Today is the day James Cameron will unveil the coffins of Jesus, Mary and Mary Magdalene ("Jesus' wife"). Or so the story goes.

Cameron is billing this as "one of the greatest archaeological finds of all time" in advance of his Discovery Channel documentary, The Lost Tomb of Christ. Except that his findings aren't so much the result of archaeology as of moviemaker pseudo-science. The coffins were found some 27 years ago. The Israeli Antiquities Authority (who certainly have a vested interest in anything which disproves the Messiaship of Jesus Christ) stated at the time that there was little cause for interest because the names were so common at that time in history. According to the article, "a connection to the holy family was not made until 15 years later, when a film crew stumbled across the collection in a storeroom."

That's right. Archaeologists pretty much agreed then that there wasn't anything of interest...but then the "Reel Experts" arrived on the scene and saw an opportunity for a big story. Forget the fact that the same names had been found in other tombs before, or that Jesus' family were Galileeans with no real ties at all to Jerusalem (and therefore no reason to have been buried there). Never let facts get in the way of a good story (right Michael Moore?).

Fortunately, the real experts still agree that the idea "fails to hold up by archaeological standards" and regard Cameron's work as nothing more than an attempt to make money.

Just as with every other fraudulent, overzealous claim of proof against the Word of God, this too will eventually be exposed and summarily forgotten while the next one is sought out and brought forth.

Meanwhile, in the wake of Gore's unsurprising Oscar win last night the Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued an interesting little press release showing that the Global Warming Alarmist Extraordinaire consumes more electricity in a month than the average American household uses in an entire year. As expected, the liberal elitist expects you all to do all you can to conserve energy and reduce consumption while he uses 20 times the national average per year of electricity.

If I'm the equivalent of a Holocast Denier for my refusal to buy the pseudo-science of Global Warming, I should think that makes Mr. Gore a dirty war profiteer.

Dixie Chicks Just Don't Get It

I haven't heard the Dixie Chicks' latest album, Taking the Long Way. You know...the one that swept the Grammy's this past weekend. I kinda liked the Dixie Chicks' music back when I first heard it. Then Natalie Maines decided to open her mouth in front of people and start talking about politics. I don't agree with what she said or the way she said it, so I stopped listening to her music. And according to her and many others, that is "unfair and unjust." In fact, some are saying that the decision by country music stations to stop playing their music is "not very American."

That leaves little doubt as to what side of the spectrum they hail from. Apparently, free speech is only free speech if you don't have any consequences at all. It doesn't seem to ever have occurred to Ms. Maines that freedom of speech does not mean freedom of responsibility for your words. You are free to say whatever you wish, but your words "can and will be used against you" in the court of public opinion. The Dixie Chicks do not have a divine right to have their music played over the airways, and therefore it is not "unjust" for stations to pull their music once they begin expressing their political opinions.

The Dixie Chicks are today's poster child for the entitlement mentality that is eating away at this country, and it goes hand in hand with the liberal drive to turn this democratic republic into a socialist state.

"Hollywood" Al Gore's Convenient Lie

Perhaps to bolster his support for the Nobel Peace Prize (barf!), or because he's still sore about being unable to lawyer his way into the White House six years ago, Al Gore is now claiming that the President Bush's administration is paying scientists to dispute Global Warming.

Really? I'd LOVE to see some shred of proof supporting this claim from the Love-Canal-whistleblowing, Love-Story-inspiring, tobacco-harvesting creator of the Internet. And of course we know that the scientists and politicians who are on the Global Warming Alarmist bandwagon can't possibly be doing so because of the cash flowing in all over the place from environmental advocacy groups and lobbyists.

Please, Mr. Gore. It's bad enough that you are not practicing what you preach when it comes to energy conservation, but to use such underhanded smear tactics to attack anyone who dares threaten your cash cow is, while not at all unexpected from you, nevertheless weak and absurd.

Feel free to provide the evidence, Mr. Gore. But don't expect that you simply get a free pass from scrutiny of that evidence, even though you seem to expect all your lecture circuit "facts" will be taken at your word.

European Union Talks Big

French President Jacques Chirac has threatened to push for a tax against American goods if it doesn't sign liberal environmentalist "treaties" like Kyoto and other such agreements. It's admittedly a strong-arm tactic by the EU to force the United States into compliance, believing that it's status as the number one export market for American goods will carry enough weight.

I wish I could say "go ahead...and watch what we do in return" but I'm betting this will become a political issue rather than an economic one, and the liberals will twist it around to make claims such as "My conservative opponent supports economic policies that isolate us from world markets and cost us jobs." After all, that's exactly what they did with the bogus "tax cuts to ship jobs overseas" mantra of the 2004 election.

Global Warming: Giving Darwin a Run for His Money

Forget where we've been...now it's about where we're heading.

One of the most consistent tactics of liberalism is the rewriting of history to manufacture support for what they want to do. Secular humanists have spent the last 150 years diligently rewriting history (and "other animals" which preceeded him) by promoting the pseudo-scientific myth of Darwinian Macroevolution. It was certainly pervasive and persistent enough to see the Haeckel Chart appearing in school textbooks even well after they had been proven a hoax. While there continues to be a growing chorus of dissent among the scientific community as to the viability of the prevalent Darwinian Macroevolutionary theories (and, ironically, it is self-defeating as it increasingly fails to adapt fast enough to maintain plausibility), it is still a concept firmly entrenched in the America psyche as fact.

Well, they are no longer content to sit fixated on that issue any longer. Continuing down the path of pantheistic nature-worship, they are now fighting to establish the Global Warming Theory as irrefutable fact. A major salvo was launched this past month by Dr. Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel. In one of her recent blog posts, Dr. Cullen stated her belief that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) should withdraw their "Seal of Approval" from any meteorologist who does not tow the party line in subscribing to and publicly supporting the Global Warming Theory should have their "Seal of Approval" revoked. The statement generated quite an outcry, and in a subsequent blog post she stated the following:

I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.

Actually, Dr. Cullen, you stated that those meteorologists who expressed such skepticism of the Global Warming Theory were unable to "distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy." In other words, you are free to be a skeptic all you want...so long as you keep your mouth shut.

She goes on to say: "Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention. " Dr. Cullen, you ARE making it political by your ridicule and advocacy of punitive actions for those who dare disagree with you.

Yes, we are well aware of the AMS's public position on Global Warming, but perhaps you should also read their Statement on Freedom of Scientific Expression:

Advances in science and the benefits of science to policy, technological progress, and society as a whole depend upon the free exchange of scientific data and information as well as on open debate. The ability of scientists to present their findings to the scientific community, policy makers, the media, and the public without censorship, intimidation, or political interference is imperative. With the specific limited exception of proprietary information or constraints arising from national security, scientists must be permitted unfettered communication of scientific results. In return, it is incumbent upon scientists to communicate their findings in ways that portray their results and the results of others, objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts.

Contrary to Dr. Cullen's bluster, this is all about politics. Take a minute to read Melanie Morgan's article on the political leanings of The Weather Channel over at WorldNetDaily, and ABC-TV's AMS-certified meteorologist Marc Morano in his response to Dr. Cullen's call for decertification.