Now that’s a scary image.
http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
"I’ve Killed More Babies Than You Have!"
You know the Democrat Party is messed up when this sort of thing is seen as a selling point: Hillary Clinton is professing to be a more vigorous defender of babykilling than Barack Obama. But in this skirmish, Obama has the upper (lower?) hand:
–
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
–
So Barack is even more extreme than NARAL. I don’t think Hillary can top that, but the fact that she’d like to speaks volumes about her.
–
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
–
So Barack is even more extreme than NARAL. I don’t think Hillary can top that, but the fact that she’d like to speaks volumes about her.
Post-Debate Analysis
Some reactions to last night’s debate…
–
The absence of the bottom tier was refreshing (and also whipped the Paultergeists into a frenzy).
–
I think Romney, Thompson & Giuliani all had good nights, though Huckabee suffered when Mitt pinned him to the wall.
–
We all know John McCain is a genuine war hero, but he seemed to remind us of it more than usual last night. If he’s not careful, he could wind up reminding voters of John Kerry (only without the treason).
–
There’s a perception out there that moderator Chris Wallace denied Fred his full share of the airtime. I sure didn’t see it.
–
The talking point du jour has been “change” lately, and Rudy actually had the best answer to it: that change can be for better or worse, and isn’t a positive in and of itself.
–
The absence of the bottom tier was refreshing (and also whipped the Paultergeists into a frenzy).
–
I think Romney, Thompson & Giuliani all had good nights, though Huckabee suffered when Mitt pinned him to the wall.
–
We all know John McCain is a genuine war hero, but he seemed to remind us of it more than usual last night. If he’s not careful, he could wind up reminding voters of John Kerry (only without the treason).
–
There’s a perception out there that moderator Chris Wallace denied Fred his full share of the airtime. I sure didn’t see it.
–
The talking point du jour has been “change” lately, and Rudy actually had the best answer to it: that change can be for better or worse, and isn’t a positive in and of itself.
Pathetic
I’ve never thought too highly of Wisconsin blogger and frequent Boots & Sabers commenter Scott Feldstein, but now he’s hit a new low. On December 19 he wrote an irate post about how morally inferior those of us who support torture of terrorists in certain circumstances are. The (censored) highlights:
–
When the f*** did we start condoning state sanctioned torture? Raise your hand right now if you’re for torture. I’ll make a list of people whom I would not let walk my dog, let alone have any position of responsibility or judgement. A list of moral retards…Anyone who wants to trade their souls for some perceived security is a chickens*** motherf***er who should be kept far away from small children and sharp objects.
–
Of course, we know waterboarding has worked, and a lot of innocent American civilians could very well be dead today if Feldstein had his way. Oh, and this guy’s concern about human rights, compassion, and the US’s moral credibility is wholly selective—predictably, he supports killing innocent babies. Phony.
–
When the f*** did we start condoning state sanctioned torture? Raise your hand right now if you’re for torture. I’ll make a list of people whom I would not let walk my dog, let alone have any position of responsibility or judgement. A list of moral retards…Anyone who wants to trade their souls for some perceived security is a chickens*** motherf***er who should be kept far away from small children and sharp objects.
–
Of course, we know waterboarding has worked, and a lot of innocent American civilians could very well be dead today if Feldstein had his way. Oh, and this guy’s concern about human rights, compassion, and the US’s moral credibility is wholly selective—predictably, he supports killing innocent babies. Phony.
–
As pathetic as all this is, it isn’t what spurred me to write this post. In the comments section, we see the following exchange:
–
MIKE: being a fomer us marine if it saves only one of my brothers im all for it,fight fire with fire. it is clear to me none of you have ever been to a combat zone or have ever served this great nation! its called war for a reason.suck it up butter cups!
–
SCOTT: It’s clear to me, Mike, that you don’t really understand what makes our nation great in the first place.
–
MIKE: Your telling a us marine he doesnt understand what makes his nation great ! its people like me that went to somolia ,the gulf .i earned my f***ing stay, what the f*** have you done? just keep running your sewer we all need a breeze
–
SCOTT: I stand by what I said, Mike. One of the things that makes our nation great is the fact that we have respect for individual liberty and human rights. One of the chief manifestations of this value is the fact that we don’t torture people. I won’t give up my values for safety (real or perceived). How about you? Thanks for your service, by the way. As for what I’ve done, I earn the money that pays your salary.
–
Where does this twerp get off thinking he can tell an American serviceman he doesn’t understand his country’s greatness? The arrogance, the sense of innate superiority, is stunning. What a pathetic, disgusting hypocrite.
As pathetic as all this is, it isn’t what spurred me to write this post. In the comments section, we see the following exchange:
–
MIKE: being a fomer us marine if it saves only one of my brothers im all for it,fight fire with fire. it is clear to me none of you have ever been to a combat zone or have ever served this great nation! its called war for a reason.suck it up butter cups!
–
SCOTT: It’s clear to me, Mike, that you don’t really understand what makes our nation great in the first place.
–
MIKE: Your telling a us marine he doesnt understand what makes his nation great ! its people like me that went to somolia ,the gulf .i earned my f***ing stay, what the f*** have you done? just keep running your sewer we all need a breeze
–
SCOTT: I stand by what I said, Mike. One of the things that makes our nation great is the fact that we have respect for individual liberty and human rights. One of the chief manifestations of this value is the fact that we don’t torture people. I won’t give up my values for safety (real or perceived). How about you? Thanks for your service, by the way. As for what I’ve done, I earn the money that pays your salary.
–
Where does this twerp get off thinking he can tell an American serviceman he doesn’t understand his country’s greatness? The arrogance, the sense of innate superiority, is stunning. What a pathetic, disgusting hypocrite.
Question
Mary Matalin was on Fox News today talking up Fred Thompson, whose campaign she works for. Um, since when do we turn to Mrs. James Carville for guidance on what constitutes a “true conservative”?
A Village in Arkansas Is Missing Its Idiot
Good Lord, where to begin…
–
Yet another smarmy episode for the “Why Mike Huckabee Is Wildly Unfit to Be President” file: whining that Mitt Romney is mean to him, Huck prepares an attakc ad of his own, then decides to take the supposed high ground by not running it—just before airing it for reporters.
–
You might be surprised to hear that such defense hawks as Frank Gaffney, John Bolton, and Richard Allen are foreign policy advisors to Mike’s campaign. Y’know who else was surprised? Gaffney, Bolton & Allen.
–
–
A lot of people have things to say about the Huckster. And they ain’t pretty.
–
Despite what the decreasingly-credible Michael Medved may say, it’s way past time to get this bozo off the national stage.
–
Despite what the decreasingly-credible Michael Medved may say, it’s way past time to get this bozo off the national stage.
–
UPDATE: Here’s the video of Huck’s press conference to show the ad he doesn’t want you to see (think about that for a minute), as well as the revelation that—surprise!—he’s lying again. It seems Huckabee is claiming he decided not to run the ad ten minutes before making his speech, yet TV stations were told not to run the ad two hours before.
–
As for the ad itself, you notice that it doesn’t actually address any of Romney’s anti-Huck claims?
–
As for the ad itself, you notice that it doesn’t actually address any of Romney’s anti-Huck claims?
Off to Protest Global Warming? You’d Better Bring a Coat
Hat tip to Dennis Prager for this Washington Times piece by geophysicist David Deming, which chronicles quite a few record decreases in temperature the globe’s seen this year. The conclusion:
–
If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you’re hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can’t make this stuff up. Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
–
Al Gore, call your office…
–
If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you’re hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can’t make this stuff up. Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
–
Al Gore, call your office…
The Lovefest Continues
–
Ah, yes, dear Mr. Freiburger and his little neocon fantasies. What do you have to say about the fact that Iran curtailed its nuclear weapons program in 2003, yet King George just recently acknowledged the same fact?
–
The “fact” our lib-of-the-day refers to is actually a National Intelligence Estimate—which, according to Alan Dershowitz, “falls hook, line and sinker for a transparent bait and switch tactic employed not only by Iran, but by several other nuclear powers in the past.” This, by the by, would be the same Iran that’s still doing this. And this. And this. Yeah, I really feel good about giving these guys a clean bill of health.
–
President Bush has been caught in a lie. Or is it a situation for people like you, Calvin, that you think the president’s own intelligence “cooked” the intelligence?
–
First, no he hasn’t. Second, what does “you think the president’s own intelligence cooked the intelligence” even mean? Is it a vain attempt at wit?
–
Maybe this quote by Herman Goering (he was a Nazi, in case you don’t know, since you supposedly received such a poor education at Fond du Lac High School) at the Nuremberg Trials can explain it better for you:
–
Such a poor education? I never said anything of the sort. Shouldn’t we expect a college professor to read a little more carefully, and get the basic facts right when he attacks someone?
–
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding to the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country.”
–
Predictably, our friend sees Nazis around every corner. Never mind that the attack, and the continuing threat, are all too real. It figures.
–
On second thought, I’m trying to talk logically to a neocon.
–
“Trying” being the operative word…
Ah, yes, dear Mr. Freiburger and his little neocon fantasies. What do you have to say about the fact that Iran curtailed its nuclear weapons program in 2003, yet King George just recently acknowledged the same fact?
–
The “fact” our lib-of-the-day refers to is actually a National Intelligence Estimate—which, according to Alan Dershowitz, “falls hook, line and sinker for a transparent bait and switch tactic employed not only by Iran, but by several other nuclear powers in the past.” This, by the by, would be the same Iran that’s still doing this. And this. And this. Yeah, I really feel good about giving these guys a clean bill of health.
–
President Bush has been caught in a lie. Or is it a situation for people like you, Calvin, that you think the president’s own intelligence “cooked” the intelligence?
–
First, no he hasn’t. Second, what does “you think the president’s own intelligence cooked the intelligence” even mean? Is it a vain attempt at wit?
–
Maybe this quote by Herman Goering (he was a Nazi, in case you don’t know, since you supposedly received such a poor education at Fond du Lac High School) at the Nuremberg Trials can explain it better for you:
–
Such a poor education? I never said anything of the sort. Shouldn’t we expect a college professor to read a little more carefully, and get the basic facts right when he attacks someone?
–
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding to the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country.”
–
Predictably, our friend sees Nazis around every corner. Never mind that the attack, and the continuing threat, are all too real. It figures.
–
On second thought, I’m trying to talk logically to a neocon.
–
“Trying” being the operative word…
Recap: Huck, Mitt & Fred
Looks like I spoke too soon about the potency of Mike Huckabee’s campaign—his standing has improved pretty dramatically in recent weeks. I still can’t see him winning the nomination, but I can see him further dividing the cultural Right, thereby helping Giuliani’s chances.
–
Of course, once people take notice of you, the warts get noticed too—and Huck’s got warts in spades. This Hot Air post links to a lot of the details, and there’s even reason to question his credibility on his main/only selling point, social conservatism. Most recently, Huck’s been taking flak for his foreign policy vision, which is peppered with complaints to the effect of “George Bush has been too mean,” both to the international community and to Iran (yes, that Iran).
–
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has picked up a couple major endorsements: National Review makes a compelling argument that not only is he the best man for the job, but his nomination is necessary to keeping the Republican coalition together; and Judge Robert Bork trusts Romney to shape the Supreme Court as President. Mitt’s much-speculated-about “Faith in America” speech (transcript here, video here) was outstanding, as well. From religion’s actual role in our nation’s past to its proper role in her present, he brought these truths to the public eye with eloquence and passion.
–
It hasn’t all been clear skies for Mitt, though. Romney’s recent Meet the Press appearance highlighted his past willingness to consider a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as well the fact that he stands by his support for an assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill.
–
On immigration, I’d be lying if I said Romney’s changes of opinion don’t give me pause, and I don’t begrudge anyone for mistrusting him. But again, there are also reasons to be wary of his opponents (check the Hot Air link above for the dirt on Huck, and my archives for Fred Thompson). Speaking of immigration, though, Romney’s not the only one who’s seen the light—here’s the “consistent conservative” arguing for a path to citizenship, every bit as recently as Mitt, if not more so.
–
As for guns, Romney is wrong. But every member of the Republican field is lacking in some way. It’s our job, then, to take a hard look at our priorities as conservatives. If gun rights are your number-one issue, then by all means, vote for Fred. I’m a full-spectrum conservative who understands and values the right to bear arms as well as the next guy. But I consider one million abortions annually a greater injustice than assault weapon bans, so the right to life takes precedence—and there (as well as marriage), Thompson is lacking. Further, as I’ve argued before, the fact that Mitt is sticking to his guns (no pun intended) seems to run counter to the idea that he’s a phony who abandons his opinions for expediency.
–
Of course, once people take notice of you, the warts get noticed too—and Huck’s got warts in spades. This Hot Air post links to a lot of the details, and there’s even reason to question his credibility on his main/only selling point, social conservatism. Most recently, Huck’s been taking flak for his foreign policy vision, which is peppered with complaints to the effect of “George Bush has been too mean,” both to the international community and to Iran (yes, that Iran).
–
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has picked up a couple major endorsements: National Review makes a compelling argument that not only is he the best man for the job, but his nomination is necessary to keeping the Republican coalition together; and Judge Robert Bork trusts Romney to shape the Supreme Court as President. Mitt’s much-speculated-about “Faith in America” speech (transcript here, video here) was outstanding, as well. From religion’s actual role in our nation’s past to its proper role in her present, he brought these truths to the public eye with eloquence and passion.
–
It hasn’t all been clear skies for Mitt, though. Romney’s recent Meet the Press appearance highlighted his past willingness to consider a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as well the fact that he stands by his support for an assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill.
–
On immigration, I’d be lying if I said Romney’s changes of opinion don’t give me pause, and I don’t begrudge anyone for mistrusting him. But again, there are also reasons to be wary of his opponents (check the Hot Air link above for the dirt on Huck, and my archives for Fred Thompson). Speaking of immigration, though, Romney’s not the only one who’s seen the light—here’s the “consistent conservative” arguing for a path to citizenship, every bit as recently as Mitt, if not more so.
–
As for guns, Romney is wrong. But every member of the Republican field is lacking in some way. It’s our job, then, to take a hard look at our priorities as conservatives. If gun rights are your number-one issue, then by all means, vote for Fred. I’m a full-spectrum conservative who understands and values the right to bear arms as well as the next guy. But I consider one million abortions annually a greater injustice than assault weapon bans, so the right to life takes precedence—and there (as well as marriage), Thompson is lacking. Further, as I’ve argued before, the fact that Mitt is sticking to his guns (no pun intended) seems to run counter to the idea that he’s a phony who abandons his opinions for expediency.
Is This the Best You Can Do?
And another vain attempt to demonstrate the error of my ways, this time courtesy of Brent Schmitz:
–
Mixed metaphors aside, Mr. Calvin Freiburger seems to think that Fond du Lac High School is full of evil liberal educators that are out to indoctrinate your children in their evil liberal ways.
–
It’s never a good sign when the falsehoods start in the first sentence. I wrote: “I was blessed to have many outstanding teachers. But I also encountered some teachers who were precisely the kind of liberal fanatics Rob Hynek warns us about.” Does that sound like I’m claiming FHS is “full of” them?
–
My own experience at the same school paints a far different picture. As an AP political science student, I was a witness to several informal issue debates in which the participants were two teachers. One of them I would describe as liberal, and the other was a conservative Gulf War veteran. Both were excellent teachers and great friends.
–
Their discussions were always polite and focused on the merits of a particular position; the debate never became personal. These exchanges taught me that through debate and argument that the best ideas are found. It is through discussion that we develop and reinforce our own thoughts and philosophies. It is also in these exchanges that our minds can be changed.
–
Good for him. However, just because he had certain experience with certain teachers doesn’t disprove the fact that I had different experiences with different teachers.
–
Mr. Freiburger seems to devalue debate and disagreement within the American political sphere. Evidently, only conservative teachers are worthy of community support and funding, as per the veiled threat he makes at the end of his letter.
–
This is an absurd mischaracterization of what I wrote, and I challenge Mr. Schmitz to back it up with a single one of my words. Only teachers who do their jobs—liberal & conservative alike—are worthy of community support & funding. Teachers who use their authority to advance any personal agenda—liberal & conservative alike—are not.
–
In a few months, I am going to graduate from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (yes, that liberal bastion) with a degree in political science. It is clear to me, as a student of politics, that oftentimes in the political debate we are so busy hurling partisan insults that we lose sight of what is at stake.
–
If Brent really cared about the integrity of debate, he would debate my actual words, not mischaracterizations.
–
In this case, the education of more than 2,000 students at Fond du Lac High School is in the hands of many teachers, some liberal, and some conservative. Just like America. And that’s the way it should be.
–
If that were the case, there’d be no problem. But that’s not what we’re talking about, Brent. Read a little closer next time.
–
Mixed metaphors aside, Mr. Calvin Freiburger seems to think that Fond du Lac High School is full of evil liberal educators that are out to indoctrinate your children in their evil liberal ways.
–
It’s never a good sign when the falsehoods start in the first sentence. I wrote: “I was blessed to have many outstanding teachers. But I also encountered some teachers who were precisely the kind of liberal fanatics Rob Hynek warns us about.” Does that sound like I’m claiming FHS is “full of” them?
–
My own experience at the same school paints a far different picture. As an AP political science student, I was a witness to several informal issue debates in which the participants were two teachers. One of them I would describe as liberal, and the other was a conservative Gulf War veteran. Both were excellent teachers and great friends.
–
Their discussions were always polite and focused on the merits of a particular position; the debate never became personal. These exchanges taught me that through debate and argument that the best ideas are found. It is through discussion that we develop and reinforce our own thoughts and philosophies. It is also in these exchanges that our minds can be changed.
–
Good for him. However, just because he had certain experience with certain teachers doesn’t disprove the fact that I had different experiences with different teachers.
–
Mr. Freiburger seems to devalue debate and disagreement within the American political sphere. Evidently, only conservative teachers are worthy of community support and funding, as per the veiled threat he makes at the end of his letter.
–
This is an absurd mischaracterization of what I wrote, and I challenge Mr. Schmitz to back it up with a single one of my words. Only teachers who do their jobs—liberal & conservative alike—are worthy of community support & funding. Teachers who use their authority to advance any personal agenda—liberal & conservative alike—are not.
–
In a few months, I am going to graduate from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (yes, that liberal bastion) with a degree in political science. It is clear to me, as a student of politics, that oftentimes in the political debate we are so busy hurling partisan insults that we lose sight of what is at stake.
–
If Brent really cared about the integrity of debate, he would debate my actual words, not mischaracterizations.
–
In this case, the education of more than 2,000 students at Fond du Lac High School is in the hands of many teachers, some liberal, and some conservative. Just like America. And that’s the way it should be.
–
If that were the case, there’d be no problem. But that’s not what we’re talking about, Brent. Read a little closer next time.
Conservative Standards 