Sunday, May 31, 2009
And for anyone out there calling for further violence against these abortion doctors, you are not one of us. You are not pro-life. You are not conservative. You are not for rule of law.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had people around him who were inciting violence to move the civil rights movement forward, but he decried such action in favor of peaceful protest. Let us not forget this: sometimes the quiet protest rings louder in the ears of those who perpetrate an affront against God, humanity, life and liberty.
Dr. King said it this way, "Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals."
Abortion is a plague upon our country that must be stopped, but wanton violence is not the answer.
Please Abortion Abolitionism for how I approach the issue.
Update: Not to be outdone, left-wing crazies are blaming Bill O'Reilly for the murder.
"First President in US History to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process"
I don't know if the Republicans will have the guts to filibuster Sonia Sotomayor in light of the historical nature of her being the first racist nominated to the Supreme Court this century, but I certainly hope they do.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Good News :)
The Korean Peninsula is not a nuclear wasteland! Hey, in the Age of Obama we have to count our blessings no matter how oddly non-assuring they feel.
Bad News :(
Two words: Sonia. Sotomayor. - It appears the high court will more than likely have an overt racist on the bench before the year is out. Go ahead and start your office pools on when the first news breaks of a lawyer chuckling when he or she is forced to refer to Sotomayor as "Your Honor."
Top 5 Posts of the Week!
1. Sonia Sotomayor- Female? Check. Hispanic? Check. Empathetic? Check. Understands Checks and Balances? Meh.
2. Korea Claims Successful Nuke Test. What Could Go Wrong?
3. Sotomayor Defends the "Good Parts Version" of the Constitution
4. Sotomayor: I'm the Best Pick Because I'm a Racist Latina
5. 4 Shocking Things Obama Wants You to Pay For
This week's poll asked:
How will the United Nations respond to North Korea's Memorial Day nuke and missile tests?
52% believe they will draft a strong resolution then do nothing.
35% believe they will debate what to do, then do nothing
11% believe they will ignore the event completely
Not surprisingly 0% expect to see a multinational force mobilized to disarm N. Korea.
Unfortunately for 11% of you the UN has already started talking about what to do, so the "ignore it" approach did not happen. Now they haven't actually done anything and the "Dear Leader" has continued to to defy international rules by firing missiles into the air all week. The UN is discussing sanctions. Yeah. That should work.
This week I reached the 900 followers mark on Twitter! Please tell you friends, as I have set the goal of 1,000 followers by the July 4th Tea Party!
I'm also trying to focus more attention on the RSS feed, so if you are having any problems with it, please don't hesitate to leave a comment on this post, send me a tweet or an email and let me know so I can improve it! And if you haven't subscribed, what are you waiting for?!
I love reading your comments, so keep them coming. And if you have any tips, suggestions, or just want to tell me off, send me a tweet or you can always email me.
Friday, May 29, 2009
In case you missed it, here's Pierson's speech at the April 15th Dallas Tea Party.
Yet the right can never bring its corrosive racial skepticism to bear on Thomas, a man who had proven his willingness to parrot reactionary bromides. He is the single most prominent beneficiary of the quest for diversity in American history, but he is their diversity candidate -- and thus deserved elevation, if not as a distinguished jurist, then because he had suffered discrimination as a conservative.So in defending their racist pick for the high court, liberals turn to racist assertions that Thomas was only successful because of his race even though he graduated from the same law school as the openly racist Sotomayor. In doing so they belittle the real suffering that Thomas faced in his life and, in turn the suffering of countless African Americans from Thomas' generation.
At Yale, Thomas faced discrimination that Sotomayor only dreams of dishing out against white people.
In a 2007 interview with CBS News, Thomas recalled,
"I honestly, honestly believed that Yale thought that having a kid who came from working people in the South, who had grown up through segregation, that this kid who had prospered, who had done well every single place he'd ever been, whether an all-white school, all-black school, he's always done well. He will do well here. And it will benefit both him and Yale," Thomas says. "That's what I thought. Well, that isn't what it was converted to."That perception did not cease when he became a Supreme Court Justice. You'll never guess who said this 45 minutes after Thomas' confirmation.
"It was converted to, 'Well, you're here because you're black,'" Thomas explains.
"I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don't believe he could have won had he been white. And the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush."Who said it?
Why the second-highest ranking racist in the country: Joe Biden.
Liberalism, and the Democratic party, in particular, is the last remaining institutionalized bastion of racism in this country, and for some reason minorities continue to elect them en masse. Look at places where liberal policies have been fully embraced and enacted and you'll find that in many cases minorities are in no better situation than they were when the social programs designed to save their communities were enacted.
Look at places like Texas where Republicans have been at the helm for a while and you'll find that everyone has benefited from job growth and prosperity regardless of race. And isn't that how Dr. King would have wanted it?
"A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that 'the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.'""Not a fundamental right?" It's the second one! It's as fundamental as the freedom of speech, the press, and right to assembly. Her position is not so shocking considering racists, like Sotomayor, traditionally prefer non-gun-related means of getting their point across.
No word on whether Sotomayor's robe has a
matching hood, but I'm looking into it.
Fortunately, our current President is a Constitutional scholar, a defender of individual liberty, and the smartest man in any room. I'm sure he would set her straight on this before submitting her nomination.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama was 'very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his.'"
In America, free-market-denying America-bashing President Obama hands out shares of car companies in order to by votes.
Given the standard of living between the two countries, I'd say the two leaders are neck-and-neck.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Gibbs faced a question about it today from Lester Kinsolving of World Net Daily.
WND has been running a billboard campaign requesting the birth certificate that has raised around $50,000 so far.
Again, I kind of feel like this is a closed issue and to keep requesting the birth certificate begins to smack of the Loose Change 9/11 conspiracy theorists, minus the psychosis, of course. But I could be wrong.
How many of you feel like this is something worth digging into or should we focus our money and attention on other things like stopping the confirmation of a racist Supreme Court nominee?
But at least a few Canadians blame the snub on the Obama administration. And it wouldn't be out of character considering the fact that Obama appears to hate England for some reason.
This royal snub is especially shocking considering the 2,700 men who lost their lives on Sword and Gold beaches. Not only that, but Queen Elizabeth is the only one of the bunch who actually served in The War.
From the NYT
"The queen, who is 83, is the only living head of state who served in uniform during World War II. As Elizabeth Windsor, service number 230873, she volunteered as a subaltern in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service, training as a driver and a mechanic. Eventually, she drove military trucks in support roles in England."
But, hey, if she doesn't get to speak, at least she has an iPod to pass the time.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Is North Korea attempting to draw South Korea, and, in turn, the United States into an armed conflict? Or do they know we're already spread pretty thin, so this is an opportunity to show strength without facing very much resistance a la Russia with the invasion of Georgia?
What do you think N. Korea is trying to do?
1. Use a Feed Reader
A feed reader will show any new posts that come up on the site and help you keep track of what you have read or haven't read. This is a good system for a blog like mine where new posts sometimes push older posts off the front page before you get a chance to read them.
Subscribe to the feed by clicking either the feed counter button to the left, or use the pull-down menu labeled "Posts" on the left and pick your preferred feed reader. I recommend using Google Reader, but there are many other great options out there. If you already have a Google account (and if you don't, you should since Google owns the internet), it's easy to check out your blogs and be on your merry way without having to type in different addresses and potentially miss something good.
2. Subscribe to Email Updates
If you are not a tech-savvy person, but you can check email, this is for you! Don't worry about filling up your inbox either. This just sends one email per day regardless of how many new posts there are, and if there are no new posts, then it doesn't send one at all! Pretty cool huh?
Subscribe by entering your email address on the left hand column. The prompts will walk you through the simple process. I just registered my address to make sure it's working, and it took almost.
3. Add as a Bookmark/Favorite
In Firefox, they are called bookmarks and in Internet Explorer they are called favorites. Either way, they're the same thing. A little icon that serves as a direct link to the site. In either browser you can usually find a pull-down menu or a button to save as a bookmark/favorite. And in Firefox, live bookmarks will show you any new posts that have come up since your last visit.
4. Follow me on Twitter
If you're on twitter, follow me! http://twitter.com/advocate4change I almost always tweet when I've posted something new, and twitter makes it easy to interact with one another in real time!
5. Just keep typing in the Link
If for some reason none of those options will work for you, please keep typing in the link and coming in for a visit!
Please tell your friends and twitter followers if you see something you like on this blog! Each post has an email icon to help you email the link to a friend and the Share This button at the bottom of each post will help you share the site in lots of different places on the web!
Interacting with other readers is a lot of fun, and I look forward to getting to know more of you in the future!
My wife has a theory that Sotomayor might be to Obama's Supreme Court pick what Harriet Miers was to George W. Bush's Supreme Court pick.
Bush nominated Miers and retracted her nomination two weeks later at her request. You may recall that she was attacked on everything from her make-up to her staunch anti-abortion position. Whether it was her eye-liner, her views on abortion, or just the public meat-grinder that is the press, Miers requested that her name be withdrawn from consideration.
Yeah, look at those HIDEOUS eyes!
But Miers softened the path for Samuel Alito, who still faced three months of open scrutiny before his confirmation. Arguably, Alito was a better move for the conservative cause than Miers was.
Maybe Obama have put up Sotomayor knowing she would face strong scrutiny from Republicans and constitutionalist Democrats, knowing that if she isn't confirmed his alternative can always fall back on the excuse, "I'm not as bad as Sotomayor."
Then again, many of us thought there was no way Obama was serious when he named Biden as VP, and that turned out to be all-too real.
Via Verum Serum
Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decision making, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”
"I'm perfect for the Supreme Court! Look how Latina I am!"
Here is the full-text of Sotomayor's 2001 Berkeley Speech as printed in the La Raza Law Journal by way of the New York Times. I'm still reading it, so I'll update this post as I find points of interest in the speech.
As of September 1, 2001, the federal judiciary consisting of Supreme, Circuit and District Court Judges was about 22% women. In 1992, nearly ten years ago, when I was first appointed a District Court Judge, the percentage of women in the total federal judiciary was only 13%. Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge. So changes are happening, although in some areas, very slowly. These figures and appointments are heartwarming. Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.
Identity politics at its finest, folks.
we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court.
That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.
So Sotomayor admits that her life experiences, gender and race will affect her method of judging cases.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Congratulations! Obama has chosen someone who may be the most racist Supreme Court nominee in decades.
Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.Whenever I read racist crap like what Sotomayor promotes in this speech, I think, if you turned this around, does it sound sickening. If so, it should sicken us as equally regardless of who says it.
For example, if the text of this speech had the sentence, "a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a hispanic female who hasn't lived that life," we would rightly be appalled.
We should be equally appalled when the actual text reads, "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
First off, race, gender and empathy should play no role in choosing a Supreme Court Justice, but one who not-so-secretly believes judges write laws from the bench should disqualify her immediately.
I questioned when justice Souter resigned whether Obama's pick would shift the court significantly. If Sotomayor is approved by the Senate, the court effectively
takes a 90 degree turn to the left.
The big question remains: has she paid her taxes?
Monday, May 25, 2009
This is not the first time North Korea has claimed a successful nuke test, but the previous test in 2006 was deemed a failure by the United States based on the available data.
This most recent claim is far more credible than the 2006 claim, which only measured at a magnitude-3.6.
North Korea also test-fired a short-range missile within hours of the alleged nuclear detonation bringing to fruition the nation's April 29th threat to "perform nuclear tests and test-fire ballistic missiles."
Granted, North Korea often claims things that are absurd, many of which can be found on Kim Jong Il's Wikipedia page, such as
"Also an apparent golfer, North Korean state media reports that Kim routinely shoots three or four holes-in-one per round. His official biography also claims Kim has composed six operas and enjoys staging elaborate musicals. Kim also refers to himself as an Internet expert."
Given that nuclear claims and very loud saber-rattling are far more concerning than whether the "Dear Leader" can make a few holes-in-one each round of golf, the United States is taking things very seriously as it investigates the veracity of the claim.
When North Korea launched a long-range missile less than two months ago in a "flagrant violation" of a 2006 UN resolution banning ballistic missile tests by North Korea, Barack Obama requested a "strong response" from the world.
Days later a coalition of 25 willing nations crossed the DMZ into North Korea, ousting its psychopathic leader and bringing freedom and hope to 23 million previously oppressed people.
No wait. That never happened.
Days later nothing had happened.
Months later nothing had happened.
That is, until North Korea test fired another ballistic missile in violation of UN resolution, and claimed to detonate a nuclear bomb. Somehow I doubt that was the "strong response" Obama had requested.
So new poll:
How will the United Nations respond to North Korea's claimed nuclear test?
Please vote in the sidebar on the left, and leave a comment as to why you feel the UN will respond in this way.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The statement from ACLU-Colorado
Where We Stand: Guantanamo Prisoners to Supermax?
The ACLU of Colorado applauds President Obama for making the closure of the prison at Guantánamo his administration’s first priority. We welcome these steps towards restoring the rule of law in America. For those considering Colorado’s ADX Florence prison (Supermax) as an alternative facility for housing these detainees, we offer these considerations. Many of the detainees are being held without charges while still awaiting trial. They haven’t been convicted of any crime and for many there is no evidence against them. While a transfer to the Supermax facility will indisputably bring the detainees under the protection of the United States justice system, overall their living conditions will not improve.
This prison is the most secure federal prison in the nation. Most individuals are kept in solitary confinement for at least 23 hours each day. They live in a 7×12 ft room with walls and furniture built almost entirely out of concrete. The single free hour is spent exercising alone in a separate concrete chamber. The federal government reserves these conditions for the worst of the worst, such as convicted terrorists Ted Kaczynski, 1993 World Trade Center bombers Omar Abdel-Rahman and Ramzi Yousef, and Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph. The cases against these men were clear, and they themselves were unapologetic in their guilt.
In contrast, many of the Guantánamo detainees are merely suspected of being guilty. They are held without charge, without the ability to see the evidence against them or to offer contrary evidence in their own defense. Several of them have been released after the last administration finally admitted it had no proof of their guilt. While at Guantánamo they endured psychological and physical torture such as waterboarding and sexual degradation, but at least they had two hours of exercise per day and some contact with others, if only by yelling from cell to cell. Waterboarding and the like won’t happen at Supermax, but for these men awaiting trial, indefinite detention in total sound and sight isolation is simply another form of torture, one which makes a mockery of “innocent until proven guilty.” To release these individuals from Guantánamo Bay, only to send them to the toughest prison in the country could well be considered a move “out of the frying pan into the fire.”
Executive Director, ACLU of Colorado
Only three men were waterboarded under the Bush administration and the ACLU called that torture. When Obama moves the fourth detainee to a federal supermax prison, according to the ACLU, he makes himself the worst American torturer in decades.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
It seems Obama falls into the latter group.
- Almost 1 of every 3 paragraphs had some reference to the Bush administration
- 5 specific mentions of George w. Bush
- 5 uses of the phrase "the last eight years"
- 3 references to events 7 years ago
- 1 specific mention of the "previous administration"
Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that - too often - our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us - Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens - fell silent.He went on to say
I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another.But don't worry Obama's above all of that.
So precisely what group is focused on the past because Obama should be the keynote speaker at their next meeting.
Abdul, Daoud, Hamza, and Amin want to blow something up. What will they choose?
A) A Jewish Place of Worship
B) Two Jewish Places of Worship
C) An Airplane
D) All of the Above
Yesterday the FBI brought down a group of four individuals who intended to blow up two synagogues and an airplane simultaneously with hopes of creating a "fireball that would make the country gasp."
When they were arrested they had already parked plastic-explosive-laden cars outside of two Riverdale Synogogues and were on their way to Stewart Air National Guard Base to take aim at an aircraft bound for the Middle East.
You'll never guess what their names were. According to the LA Times "The men were identified as James Cromitie, also known as Abdul Rahman; David Williams, or Daoud; Onta Williams, or Hamza; and Laguerre Payen, or Amin."
The group might have succeeded too if the guys who sold them the plastic explosives weren't actually undercover FBI agents who pulled a Dr. Emmett Brown move supplying the terrorists with fake weapons.
Wait. A year-long investigation? And the LA Times says the investigation began in July 2008? What was happening in July 2008?
Sources said the four men were arrested after a year-long investigation that began when an informant connected to a mosque in Newburgh said he knew men who wanted to buy explosives.
FBI agents supplied them with what they billed as C-4 plastic explosives and a Stinger missile.
The weaponry was all phony.
"The bombs had been made by FBI technicians," said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. "They were totally inert."
Senator/Candidate Barack Obama was
- criticizing the Bush administration saying that, "Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror."
- still reeling from his sit-down-and-talk-without-preconditions comments
- promoting the closing of Guantanamo Bay because he felt it was being used to embolden the terrorists
- introduced his plan to shift the focus of the war to Afghanistan
In July ,... the informant told Cromitie that he was a member of a Pakistani militant group with ties to Al Qaeda, Jaish-e-Muhammad, and Cromitie said he wanted to join so he could "do jihad" because U.S. soldiers were killing so many Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan.So while Obama was criticizing Bush for being too focused on Iraq, the Bush administration was actually preparing to take these guys down. And while Obama wanted to sit-and-talk, Bush was using subterfuge to foil a major terror plot. And while Obama claimed that GITMO was responsible for emboldening the terrorists, the terrorists themselves claimed to be emboldened by the war in Afghanistan.
Remind me again. Where did Obama say he wanted to focus the fight instead of Iraq?
So 121 days out of office, that crazy Bush administration is still at it: keeping you safe.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
When will voters in these states recognize that blue-state politics just don't work?
Yesterday, the people of California voted down a budget proposal that would have raised taxes state-wide in order to pay for the growing state budget shortfalls. Collectively the voices of Californians shouted, "STOP SPENDING!" rather than the expected cry of "WE WANT TO PAY MORE!"
Does this mean California is turning a blue-state corner in the direction of red-state ideals? Probably not. This is, after all, the state of Berkley, San Francisco, and some of the most asinine "green" laws in the union, but when the state policies meet the voter's pocketbooks directly suddenly red-state ideals become increasingly palatable.
The problem is that many blue-state policies are treated as if no amount of money is too much to spend. "Who cares how much it costs to save the planet!" So the financial argument will not work monolithically to draw blue-state thinkers into the red-state corner, but it does give a glimmer of one weakness in the liberal armor that conservatives must exploit.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Pro-life advocates should win the abortion argument by simple virtue of the fact that we hold the moral high-ground. Pro-choice advocates may argue that liberty is the highest virtue, almost everyone in our free nation would recognize that liberty extends only as far as another person, and abortion provides one of the most profound intersections the liberties between two people.
The path to winning the abortion argument can be found in a cursory study of history. In the early 19th century slave states were using many of the same arguments based on personal liberty that pro-choice advocates use today.
Personal Liberty: "It's my body, so I can do as I please."
The slavery advocates actually made a very compelling case against the federal government's involvement in the slavery discussion. As a freedom-loving proponent of personal liberty, I can understand where they were coming from, but the immorality that was slavery trumps personal liberty and even states' rights.
When the federal government abolished slavery, it did infringe upon states' rights and personal liberty, but the morality of such a decision was overwhelmingly more important.
In the same way, the call for an outright ban on abortion does infringe upon a woman's right to choose, but the moral abomination of a sink full of baby parts should sicken us at least as much as a field full of African-Americans working against their will.
Scientific Evidence: "It's not a person."
When the moral argument failed for the slavery advocates, they retreated to the position that took morality off the table.
From the beginning of the 19th century, you find a number of scientists, who begin to look for differences between racial populations. Most important was Dr. Samuel Morton, who in 1839 and 1845, produced a couple of major books that wouldn't have been read by the people at large, but were read by other scholars. And in these books he argues that there are physical differences that can be measured; there are differences in the brains of different populations who are called races.Shocking, I know. But in the 1800's people were actually arguing that the African was not even fully human, so slavery was not immoral because, as science proved, they weren't even fully human.
By the time you get to Morton and then later Louis Agassiz and a number of other people, they are arguing that blacks are not only inferior but they're a separate species altogether; that they were not created by God at the same time as other human beings, but they were a lower form of human - which is a fascinating kind of thing when you think about it.
Sound familiar? "It's just a tissue blob." "It's a cancerous growth within the womb." And so forth. See if it's not a person, morality doesn't matter. That argument didn't stand then and it shouldn't stand now.
Economic Impact: "I shouldn't be punished with a baby."
The slave states' depended on slavery as a means of supporting a relatively weak economy. The slave states argued that their economy would collapse if slavery were abolished, and they were probably right.
But economic stability is not a sufficient reason to abandon morality. Just as it was not a valid argument when the slavery proponents were using it, it is not a valid argument when pro-choice advocates use it.
You may think that they don't actually use this argument, but Barack Obama employed it when he said this during the campaign:
"I have two daughters... if one of them makes a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
Exactly how does a baby punish a woman? Barack Obama equated having a baby with contracting a sexually transmitted disease. But the physical impact of child birth, traumatic as it may be, is perfectly natural for a woman, unlike an STD. Clearly his point was that this baby-punishment would affect her life in a significant way, socially and, no doubt, economically.
The preservation of the slave states' culture was not an acceptable reason to keep men and women enslaved against their will. The preservation of woman's social and economic status quo is not an acceptable reason to snuff out the life of an unwilling child.
Seek Common Ground: "I would never have an abortion, but I won't tell someone else they can't."
At Notre Dame last week President Obama asked the nation to be open-minded in the abortion discussion try "to find common ground."
The argument given in the title of this section sounds like a good middle-ground compromise, but it fails on a number of levels. In the 1800's several compromises were tried and failed. The Missouri Compromise of 1820. The Compromise of 1850. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The only thing that worked was a change to the Constitution that outlawed the horrific act of slavery in this nation. And we are a better nation for it.
But to place the pro-choice advocate's words in another time period, the argument sounds like the abomination it is. "I would never own a slave, but I won't tell someone else they can't own one." It's absolutely reprehensible.
To find middle ground on the issue of slavery would abandon 4 million men and women to chains who by God ought to be free. And each year that abortion remains legal in the United States, we as a nation abandon the lives of almost 1 million children in the womb who by God deserve life.
But thank God the abolitionists would not settle for compromise. Thank God they chose "extremism" and "ideology" over finding "middle ground." Thank God they fought for the lives of those 4 million slaves so that our country can enjoy the richness that all cultures add to our nation's tapestry.
Dare we be half as brave as those abolitionists were, abortion in the years ahead may be merely an embarrassing page of our past and a dark lesson learned for our future.
Did I miss something? Are there other ways the abortion debate can be analogous to the slavery debate? Leave a comment and let me know. I would love to hear your ideas!
Sunday, May 17, 2009
PS. I already wrote about the protester speaking out at Barack Obama's speech at Notre Dame last week: Cue Liberal Attack Dogs: Protester Included in Official White House Transcript
It's difficult to hear in the video, but Huffington Post pointed out that the official White House transcript of the speech includes the shouts of the
THE PRESIDENT: I also want to congratulate the Class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Abortion is murder! Stop killing children!
THE PRESIDENT: That's all right. And since --
AUDIENCE: We are ND! We are ND!
AUDIENCE: Yes, we can! Yes, we can!
THE PRESIDENT: We're fine, everybody. We're following Brennan's adage that we don't do things easily. (Laughter.) We're not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes. (Applause.)
If you know this man, please warn him that the left-wing attack machine will be on full alert for the next few days. Dissent is their enemy and personal destruction is their weapon. They will stop at nothing to destroy this person who dared opposed the almighty Obama.
Are we going to see this man's family dragged into the public square? Maybe his wife got breast implants at some point in the past. Or will we discover that his parents got divorced? Did he at some point practice plumbing without a license?
I beg of you; if you know this man who spoke out, please warn him of the coming storm because the liberal attack machine destroys everything and everyone in its path.
Biden Reveals Location of Secret VP Bunker - At Least One American is Less Safe Under Obama Administration
While I don't really understand how closing the Guatanamo detention center, releasing enemy combatants, and treating terror suspects as run-of-the-mill criminals all serve to make America safer, I suppose the debate will continue.
However, when the sitting Vice President Joe Biden reveals the location of the secret Vice Presidential bunker, it is clear that at least one American is less safe under the Obama administration: The Vice President.
Can we please stop calling the profusion of Biden's buffoonery "gaffes?" The man is not "gaffe-prone," he's someone who I wouldn't trust with knowledge of an upcoming surprise party, much less volumes of state secrets.
Biden might be a great source of political humor and a comedic lightning rod that protects Obama himself from late-night television scrutiny, but when he reveals potentially classified intelligence, he's a danger to himself and potentially dangerous to the American people.
Friday, May 15, 2009
If there were only some way to really get how much money we're spending.
This gave me chills.
This is too cute to give me chills.
What do you think? Which is the more effective ad?
Still Awaiting Word on Temperature Status of Hell, But I Agree With Obama - Debt Levels ARE Unsustainable
In a speech fit for a tea party, President Obama called the current government debt load "unsustainable." From Bloomberg
President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.The White House predicts this years deficit to be $1.89 trillion. Don't just read past that. The White House predicts a deficit of $1,890,000,000,000!
“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”
Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”
Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.
Heritage warned us of this back in March just three weeks before the April 15th tea parties.
It looks like the CBO's numbers in March reflect the White House's numbers today. Since that is the case it would not surprise me at all if the CBO revises its March projections to predict a deficit closer to $2 trillion.
Nevertheless, the White House's projection is startling.
Obama's $1.89 trillion deficit
- requires over $12,000 in taxes from each American worker in addition to the taxes they already pay
- is greater than the GDP's of Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, and Hong Kong combined.
- is the size of the entire 2001 United States Federal Budget.
Odds that Obama actually gets it? Zero. In the same speech he continued to trumpet Obamacare which could cost the taxpayer an additional $1 trillion.
So not to worry. Nobody bumped the thermostat in hell; it was just more campaign-style rhetoric from the ever-campaigner himself.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Let's talk conflict of interest, shall we? On November 10, 2008, Keith Olbermann renegotiated his contract with MSNBC to from $4 million per year to $7.5 million per year. Yes. He received an 87.5% pay raise exactly one week after Barack Obama was elected president.
Two days later, GE, who owns MSNBC, received a federal bailout of $126 billion.
You could say that Keith Olbermann is among the universally despised AIG bonus recipients, except that he and his company were in a position where they could significantly affect public opinion and the outcome of an election. Olbermann officially works for the U.S. taxpayer now, so let's see some regulations thrown his way or at least ACORN camping on his front lawn.
GE, who owns MSNBC, is also positioned to make millions of of Obama's proposed cap and trade.
Washington Examiner reports
GE [who owns MSNBC] — a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which advocates cap and trade — leads the push for greenhouse gas restrictions.We can only assume that the millions of dollars GE, who owns MSNBC, spent on lobbying efforts does not include the entire operating budget of MSNBC which worked tirelessly during the 2008 campaign and continues to work tirelessly to support Obama and his policies.
In the fourth quarter of 2008 as the company’s stock fell 30 percent, GE [who owns MSNBC] spent $4.26 million on lobbying — that’s $46,304 each day, including weekends, Thanksgiving and Christmas. In 2008, the company spent a grand total of $18.66 million on lobbying.
Reviewing their lobbying filings, you might think you were looking at Al Gore’s agenda. GE’s [who owns MSNBC] specific lobbying issues included the “Climate Stewardship Act,” “Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act,” “Global Warming Reduction Act,” “Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act,” “Low Carbon Economy Act,” and “Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.”
Hence the lobbying, buttressed by generous campaign contributions: Employees and executives gave $1.35 million to politicians in the past election while GE’s [who owns MSNBC] political action committee shelled out $1.55 million. About 64 percent of this $2.9 million went to Democrats, with Obama easily the top recipient of GE [who owns MSNBC] money.
Obama’s budget includes the payoff, promising to start a multibillion-dollar greenhouse gas industry by 2012. In a letter this week, GE’s [who owns MSNBC] Immelt told shareholders that current events present an “opportunity of a lifetime,” because “capitalism will be ‘reset.’ ”
Immelt wrote: “The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.”
In short, GE [who owns MSNBC] plans to get rich by being one of the government’s closest partners — which it has always been, thanks to its unmatched lobbying efforts.
The point of this being that Olbermann's indignation over Palin's book deal might actually mean something were Olbermann not a puppet of the unholy trinity of political propaganda found in GE, MSNBC, and the federal government, a relationship that has been beneficial to all involved.
But with an 87.5% pay raise, Olbermann has benefitted the most.
Not bad for a guy with the highest rated show in cable news as long as you don't count O'Reilly, Bret Bair, Sean Hannity, Shepherd Smith, Gretta van Susteren, and even the newcomer, Glenn Beck. Wait that makes Olbermann the 7th highest-rated show behind the entire FOX lineup.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
As much as the Republican party rallied behind Gov. Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential race, there was this nagging feeling that she just wasn't quite ready for the big show after her awkward nationally televised interviews. Republicans stood behind her because they felt she was the ideologically Conservative Übermensch even though her press-relation skills did appear to lag at times.
Florida Governor Charlie Crist will almost certainly not recieve the same level of support should he run in 2012. He is socially conservative on the baseline issue of abortion, but his support of Obama's stimulus bill earlier this year will hang as a polical millstone during any Republican challenges in the primaries. And unlike his Alaskan counterpart, he does handle the press with skill.
Crist has been calling for moderation in the Republican Party, while some of the more vocal Republicans denounce such a strategy. In the wake of the Specter flip and the botched McCain cadidacy, it is unclear how excited Republicans will be about supporting another moderate in their ranks.
The thought of Tea Party Republicans finding hope in a man who vocally supported the stimulus bill is untenable, but in a very purple state like Florida, it might be the best the party can find for the Senate. In 2012, Crist's support for the stimulus bill will gray the distinction between President Obama and the governor in a time that the distinction needs to be sharper than ever.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
- Rev. Jeremiah Wright
- Rev. Jessie Jackson
- Rev. Al Sharpton
- Louis Farrakhan
- Dr. Joseph Lowery
I only hold Dr. Lowery aside because I don't know much more about him other than this blatantly racist speech he gave at Barack Obama's inauguration.
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right."I can agree. I don't think any race should be held back or held above the others for any reason. But maybe I'm one of the few whites who has embraced what is right. Switch the races around in this "prayer" and it sounds incredibly racist. "When blacks embrace what's right and the white man can get ahead man." If you can flip it around and it sounds racist then it's also racist in the original form.
But no prayer from Obama? C'mon! Even Jesus prayed, and he was the original Messiah!
The $17 billion cut is only half the size of George W. Bush's $34 billion in cuts from the 2008 budget.
So what exactly is being cut?
- Half of the $17 billion will come through cuts in defense spending. You read that right. In the middle of two wars and military flare-ups around the globe, the Obama administration sees fit to cut $9 billion from the defense budget.
- The other half comes from domestic programs.
- $400 million will be cut from a program that reimburses states for enforcing federal immigration laws.
- $66 million to entirely cut a literacy program for disadvantaged children and their parents.
Allow me to explain this like a liberal would if the president were a Republican proposing the same cuts. "Our buffoon of a president must feel threatened by school children who can read."
Now allow me to explain this like a conservative looking at a Democratic president. "Mr. President, you are proposing deficits that exceed the deficits of all the previous presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush combined and expect a 0.46% cut to actually help?"
The answer, of course, is that most of these cuts won't actually happen because the Democratic congress would never approve them. Correction: the democrats in congress would never allow for the non-defense cuts. They love cutting the military budget and undermining the country during a war.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The Obama administration refuses to release the photos from the April 27 Air Force One photo-op that terrorized the citizens of Lower Manhattan.
According to the New York Post
"The $328,835 snapshots of an Air Force One backup plane buzzing lower Manhattan last week will not be shown to the public, the White House said yesterday.
'We have no plans to release them,' an aide to President Obama told The Post, refusing to comment further."
The definition of transparency in this administration is staggering.
Obama declassifies documents that spell out exactly how we interrogate enemy combatants, putting American lives in danger.
But a few pictures of Air Force One taken at the expense of the shattered nerves of millions of New Yorkers, well that's top-secret.
Could it be there is more to the story?
Gibbs has no idea.
Either way, you can call the White House and see if your photos are in and what time you can pick them up. After all, you already paid for them.
Also notice how, by contrast, she actually knows what she's talking about. I wonder if that know-it-all kid is still licking his wounds after the thrashing she gave him.
Here's a tip for the future: when you're talking to Condoleezza Rice, you better have all your facts straight before you start accusing her of anything because she can intellectually beat you to a pulp in three languages and do so with a smile on her face.
I also have to give props to the person holding the camera that allows us to see the face of the guy asking the questions as he comes to terms with his own lack of intellectual prowess.
Remember what it was like to have an intelligent Secretary of State who had at least an ounce of class?
Monday, May 4, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor - Female? Check. Hispanic? Check. Empathetic? Check. Understands Checks and Balances? Meh.
If you're not familiar with Sotomayor (What? You don't follow the 2nd Circuit US Court of Appeals as closely as, say, the NBA playoffs?), here's a little clip of her thoughts on the roll of the Judicial Branch of our great nation.
(via: Hot Air and Verum Serum)
Her tongue-in-cheek "[judges] don't make policy" is a telling, if somewhat sad, reflection of how she views the American judicial system.
Don't forget to vote in the new poll: What is the most important characteristic to consider when nominating a Supreme Court Justice?
Ann's point is well made. A person can favor a practice without actually wanting to experience for herself.
For example: I saw my wife go through labor. I never, ever want to experience that, but I still remain staunchly pro-birth.
Here is the full interview in two parts.
In the full interview you hear Behar object that Coulter's response is "quite a leap." I understand that the two concepts, interrogation and abortion, are not identical.
I mean, in one you pour some water up a guilty terrorist's nose then ask him some questions. In the other you chop an innocent baby to pieces, suck it down a drain no questions asked.
What do you think? Is Coulter's response "quite a leap" or does it illustrate her point sufficiently?
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Tuesday, Republican Senator Arlen Spector became Democrat Senator Arlen Spector and in many Republican circles he adopted the nickname "Benedict Arlen." Wednesday the creation itself rejoiced with the celebration of surviving 100 days of Obama. Rounding out the week, Justice Souter announced his retirement, opening up a seat for an Obama appointee on the high court. Any bets on whether this appointee will also have tax problems?
And on top of all of that, a pandemic. Just another week in the post-Obama world.
The top five articles this week were:
1. Top 20 Tea Party Signs (Again)
2. EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Footage from Inside Cockpit of Air Force One
3. 4 Shocking Things Obama Wants You to Pay For
4. Obama Terrorizes Lower Manhattan with Air Force One
5. Oops! Liberals Opposed Pandemic Response Plan in 2005
The poll this week asked:
How concerned are you about swine flu versus Obama as president?
11% were more concerned about swine flu
69% were more concerned about the Obama presidency
19% said they felt both represented the same level of pork
So there you have it: Obama is more terrifying than a global pandemic.
You heard it here first.
As always, thank you so much for reading, leaving your comments, and tweeting your thoughts. Please subscribe to the feed to keep up to date with everything that's happening here at Change Barack.
And remember if you find something you like on the site, share it with your friends. Get the word out as we begin to prepare for the 2010 midterm elections and the 2012 presidential election that will finally remove the children from the White House so the grown-ups can clean up their mess.
Just remember: Democrats won their third election in 30 years. It's hardly fair to expect them to know what to do when they get there.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Our great republic has been hanging onto that rope ever since January 20th and this week two more snaps struck the weakening rope.
SNAP! Arlen Spector gives Democrats the 60 vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
SNAP! Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced that he is planning to retire after this current term.
Conservatives, unwittingly, wipe their furrowed brows thankful that it was "just Souter," one of the more liberal justices.
But my dear Republicans, proud members of the GOP, and principled conservatives, Obama is unlike any Democratic president most of us have seen in our lifetimes.
Obama been asked by more than one media outlet if he is a socialist or a marxist. He has been more cordial to dictators and America's enemies than to our allies. In 100 days he has proposed a level of debt that is greater than all of the previous presidents combined.
And you don't think Souter's retirement is a significant SNAP! in the rope that is the lifeline of the republic?
Do you think Obama is going to appoint a card-carrying socialist? Or am I just in a the-sky-is-falling mood tonight? Leave a comment and let me know.