Human Events TV

Human Events now offers video!

Zo on gay marriage...

I love this guy.

Help fight teenage affluenza...

... it's rampant across the U.S.

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

The Onion - The revelation that Obama's candidacy was the only thing that gave their lives any meaning has caused many supporters to wander aimlessly:

Newt in 2012?

I have to say, I'd love it. Aside from his meanderings on the subject of global warming, Newt is amazing. Baggage? Yes, but the MSM is going to attempt to knee-cap any conservative in the race, so why not bring out the big gun?

Newt/Palin or Newt/Jindal... yes, please!

Here's the story from Novak:

... It would be a rocky road for Gingrich to the nomination, much less the presidency, but there are no other serious candidates inside the party at the moment.

It is clear that Republicans are unanimous in trying to avoid a repeat of what happened this year, and there is a surprising consensus that McCain was going in the wrong direction and was the wrong candidate.

What one GOP critic calls Gingrich's "unlimited energy supply" must be overcome by anyone opposing him. Several old Republican hands feel that Gingrich in 2012 is no more outrageous than Ronald Reagan was in 1980.

What is certain is that Gingrich has the desire and the will. He has a deep-seated ambition. He had not even settled into the House speaker's chair in 1995 when he confessed to me his presidential desires for 1996. That was not to be, but he never abandoned the personal dream and is ready to pursue it now.

Here's Newt's site called American Solutions. Also, here's Newt.org.

UPDATE: Yes, this is a good idea!

What we can learn from the UK...

Melanie Phillips writes a great piece today titled Preventing National Suicide - Tips on conserving and protecting from across the pond. Here is the closing half:

... Obama believes America has to expiate its sins: both its original, Founding sins of slavery and racism, and its latter-day sins against the world of Islam. Britain likes the sound of that. It wants America to be humbled. Nations, it thinks, cause wars. Arrogant, hubristic, imperial nations like Bush’s America cause big and horrible wars. By contrast transnational institutions — such as the sacred UN or EU — promote civilised “engagement” with the enemy to discuss grievances and reach compromises. So it is thrilled that Obama will get out of Iraq and talk to Iran and may even force wretched Israel (which Britain blames for Everything Bad in the World) to give away the disputed territories and half of Jerusalem to the Arabs.

The fact that such actions would leave Iraq in chaos, empower Iran still further, destroy Israel’s security and imperil the free world doesn’t trouble it at all. And if Obama, under the responsibility of office, should change from an appeaser to a war leader in America’s national interest, then Britain’s new found love for America would revert once again into rage and disdain.

Of course. transnational progressivism, multiculturalism, victim culture, pacifism. and all the rest of it do amount to a national suicide note. The reason Britain has embraced them is because, for the past several decades, it has lost belief in itself as a nation and so has been systematically hollowing out its values and its defences.

The result is a cultural vacuum which is steadily being filled by radical Islamism. Paralyzed by its “universal” value system of multiculturalism and minority rights, Britain is failing to assert its own civilisational principles against the cultural onslaught being mounted by Islamists. Accordingly, it is permitting the spread of Muslim enclaves governed by a parallel jurisdiction of sharia law — the steady creation of a “state within a state” — encouraging the development of sharia finance, and permitting Saudi money to fund British universities and other institutions.

Millions of Britons are appalled by the implosion of British culture, identity, and values. But they find themselves politically disenfranchized, because the Conservative party does not understand that British values are under attack. And Republicans should take careful note of this in order to recognize a similar danger and dilemma facing them following their defeat.

The British Conservatives think that, to regain power, they have to show they have broken with cultural conservatism and go instead with the way society has changed — gay rights, green politics, anti-racism. What they have failed to grasp is that such change has turned values such as right and wrong, good and bad on their heads and has produced a sentimentalised, cruel, oppressive and perverse society — one where burglars go scot-free but householders are prosecuted for putting the wrong kind of garbage in the trash can, and where people are too frightened to protest at the erosion of British, Christian, or Western values because of the opprobrium that will follow.

The Conservatives don’t realize that by embracing such “change” they are endorsing a kind of enslavement. They don’t realize that the first duty of a conservative is to conserve that which is precious and protect it against attack. The result is that millions feel betrayed and abandoned by the absence of conservatism, and yet more still think the Conservative party is just a bunch of opportunists who don’t have any principles. Why vote for the progressive wannabes, after all, when you can have the real thing?

The challenge for conservatives on both sides of the pond is to find a way of conserving the essential values of Western Civilization and defend them against the onslaught being mounted against them both from within and from without — but to do so in a way that is generous and big-hearted rather than narrow and sectarian, and embraces rather than repels.

Very well-done, I think. It won't be easy, as anything conservative is often painted as hateful and mean by the U.S. media. Is a humbled, apologetic United States really a good thing for the rest of the world? I don't think so, but I guess we'll see.

A post-election letter from Mark Alexander...

Mark Alexander at the Patriot Post is fantastic. It's worth subscribing and/or donating if you're so inclined.

The quote below (in bold) is spot-on:

Fellow Patriots,

Tuesday, 4 November 2008, is a date which will live in infamy. While most presidential elections are followed with calls for unity by both candidates, Barack Obama issued no such call in his speech last night, with the possible exception of his observation, "I may not have won your vote tonight, but ... I will be your president, too."

Of course, none was expected - liberals have elected a Socialist with deep ties to cultural and ethnocentric radicalism, and his executive and legislative agenda poses a greater threat to American liberty than that of any president in the history of our great republic.

Obama has twice taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same." He has never honored that oath, and, based on his policy proposals and objectives, he has no intention to honor it after again reciting that oath on 20 January 2009. Obama seeks to, in his own words, "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

For that reason, this morning, the symbol of our national heritage of liberty, the American flag atop the 35-foot mast at our editorial offices, was respectfully lowered, inverted, and raised to full mast as a sign of national distress. It will remain inverted until next Tuesday, when we right it in honor of Veterans Day.

Today, at least 55,805,197 Americans are concerned for the future of our nation's great tradition of liberty. Some 63,007,791 Americans have been lulled, under the aegis of "hope and change," into a state of what is best described as "cult worship" and all its attendant deception.

One of our editors, a Marine now working in the private sector, summed up our circumstances with this situation report. It aptly captured the sentiments around our office:

"It's been tough, fellow Patriots; tough to stomach the idea that more than half of my fellow citizens who vote, have booted a genuine American hero to the curb for a rudderless charlatan. What a sad indictment on our citizenry that some are so eager to overlook his myriad flaws - his radical roots, his extreme liberalism, his utter lack of experience or achievement. Barack Obama is the antithesis of King's dream: He's a man judged by the color of his skin rather than the content of his character. If it's God's will that Barack Obama is our next president, then so be it. We Patriots will pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and wade back to the war front, intent on liberty or death."

This battle is lost, but the war is not. Let's roll.

Mark Alexander,
Publisher

Indeed. Yes we can.

Uncommon Knowledge - An interview with Thomas Sowell on "A Conflict of Visions"

Click the image above to be taken to Part I of V, where Thomas Sowell describes the critical differences between interests and visions. Interests, he says, are articulated by people who know what their interests are and what they want to do about them. Visions, however, are the implicit assumptions by which people operate. This idea elevates to politics, where visions are either “constrained” or “unconstrained.”

Here are the links and brief descriptions of the other parts:

Part II - Sowell describes the constrained and unconstrained visions of the law, noting that the former applies to John McCain and the latter to Barrack Obama.

Part III - Speaking of the differing visions of war, Sowell says the constrained vision is never surprised by war, while the unconstrained vision almost always is.

Part IV - Is John McCain’s the constrained vision of the economy, and is Obama’s the unconstrained? According to Sowell, the distinction is sadly not that clear.

Part V - Thomas Sowell discusses the dangerous unconstrained vision of Barack Obama and other elites. And what will happen if this vision scores a three-house sweep on Election Day? Sowell says we may have reached “a point of no return.”

The End of Journalism

Victor Davis Hanson nails it:

There have always been media biases and prejudices. Everyone knew that Walter Cronkite, from his gilded throne at CBS news, helped to alter the course of the Vietnam War, when, in the post-Tet depression, he prematurely declared the war unwinnible. Dan Rather’s career imploded when he knowingly promulgated a forged document that impugned the service record of George W. Bush. We’ve known for a long time — from various polling, and records of political donations of journalists themselves, as well as surveys of public perceptions — that the vast majority of journalists identify themselves as Democratic, and liberal in particular.

Yet we have never quite seen anything like the current media infatuation with Barack Obama, and its collective desire not to raise key issues of concern to the American people. Here were four areas of national interest that were largely ignored. ...

... The media has succeeded in shielding Barack Obama from journalistic scrutiny. It thereby irrevocably destroyed its own reputation and forfeited the trust that generations of others had so carefully acquired. And it will never again be trusted to offer candid and nonpartisan coverage of presidential candidates.

Worse still, the suicide of both print and electronic journalism has ensured that, should Barack Obama be elected president, the public will only then learn what they should have known far earlier about their commander-in-chief — but in circumstances and from sources they may well regret.

Read it all.

Point of No Return

Mark Steyn speaks for me:

...To govern is to choose. And sometimes the choices are tough ones. When has Barack Obama chosen to take a stand? When he got along to get along with the Chicago machine? When he sat for 20 years in the pews of an ugly neo-segregationist race-baiting grievance-monger? When he voted to deny the surviving “fetuses” of botched abortions medical treatment? When in his short time in national politics he racked up the most liberal – ie, the most doctrinaire, the most orthodox, the most reflex — voting record in the Senate? Or when, on those many occasions the questions got complex and required a choice, he dodged it and voted merely “present”?

The world rarely stands as one. You can, as Reagan and Thatcher did, stand up. Or, like Obama voting “present”, you can stand down.

Nobody denies that, in promoting himself from “community organizer” to the world’s President-designate in nothing flat, he has shown an amazing and impressively ruthless single-mindedness. But the path of personal glory has been, in terms of policy and philosophy, the path of least resistance.

Peggy Noonan thinks a President Obama will be like the dog who chases the car and finally catches it: Now what? I think Obama will be content to be King Barack the Benign, Spreader of Wealth and Healer of Planets. His rise is, in many ways, testament to the persistence of the monarchical urge even in a two-century old republic. So the “Now what?” questions will be answered by others, beginning with the liberal supermajority in Congress. And as he has done all his life he will take the path of least resistance. An Obama Administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and UN foreign policy. Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a “point of no return”, the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.

If a majority of Americans want that, we holdouts must respect their choice. But, if you don’t want it, vote accordingly.

Here's the whole article on NRO.

Top Ten Reasons to Vote for McCain/Palin

Mona Charen:

10.) John McCain is much, much funnier than Barack Obama. But then, almost everyone is.

9.) John McCain is a passionate patriot who has always been, and will always be, guided by what he thinks is best for America. He can trace his ancestry back to an officer on Gen. George Washington's staff and his family has served the nation nobly in war and peace ever since. McCain believes in winning wars.

8.) McCain's intimate familiarity with military matters also makes him less biddable by the armed services. He was able, when most others (most notably his opponent) were not, to see that a change of strategy in Iraq -- not a retreat -- was needed. He brings an informed skepticism to military procurement requests as well.

7.) As he told Rick Warren, McCain believes that there is evil in the world and that it must be confronted. While Mrs. Obama and many others seem to think that our enemies will purr like kittens once we inaugurate a black man with an Islamic middle name, that is dangerous fantasy. When asked for an example of evil, McCain mentioned al-Qaida putting explosive vests on two mentally impaired girls and blowing them up by remote control in an Iraqi marketplace. Obama, whose turn of mind is different, cautioned that the problem is sometimes us: " a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil."

6.) McCain may not be a Ph.D. economist, but he understands that raising taxes and adopting protectionist trade policies will deepen and prolong this recession. Nor would he permit Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to push through the "card check" law -- a union-backed measure that would reverse 73 years of labor law in this country by scuttling the secret ballot in union elections. Even George McGovern has denounced this job-killing, freedom-smothering law that Obama supports. Greater unionization will translate into lost productivity, inflationary pressure, and fewer jobs.

5.) John McCain will try to protect the unborn. Barack Obama is the most radical pro-abortion candidate ever to win a presidential nomination. Obama has promised to back the Freedom of Choice Act as his first presidential act, which would invalidate all restrictions on abortion at any stage of gestation -- and even in cases where babies are born alive after an attempted abortion.

4.) McCain will employ diplomacy, not worship it. Obama is deluded about the power of "talks." In 2007, he proposed, regarding Iran's nuclear program: "if we are meeting with them, talking to them, and offering them both carrots and sticks, they are more likely to change their behavior."

3.) John McCain has said that his models for good judicial picks are John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Senator Obama will pick Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich (just kidding, but his choices won't be far off).

2.) McCain's health care proposal will improve the world's best health care delivery system. He proposes to reform the most distorting aspect of our current system (the tax break for employers) and give the tax break to individuals instead. It is McCain's proposal, not Obama's, that will give individuals the choice to stay with the plan they have or take the tax credit and shop around (in a market enlarged by permitting interstate insurance). Obama's plan, by contrast, is a key first step to achieving his oft-repeated preference for a single-payer system like Canada's. By forcing employers to provide certain (as yet unspecified) benefits or pay a tax ("play or pay"), Obama's plan will encourage employers to dump more and more people into a government-run health insurance system like Medicare. Word to the wise: In Canada, they are seeking to reduce wait times for care. One province reported waits of 26 weeks for hip replacements, and others are trying to ensure (without success) that cancer patients are treated within 4 weeks of diagnosis.

1.) The financial crisis and looming recession, combined with President Bush's low approval ratings, have set the stage for this election to be a pivot point in American history. If Barack Obama is elected president and Democrats control large majorities in the House and Senate, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate will move the country decisively in the direction of dying Europe -- low productivity, high joblessness, low birth rates, high taxes, and limp foreign policies. The triumvirate will do this at a time when a vibrant America is more necessary than ever -- with Iran seeking nuclear weapons, Pakistan teetering, al-Qaida regrouping, China and Russia telegraphing hostility, and Iraq just barely emerging into the sunshine. This election has become about far more than John McCain versus Barack Obama; it has become about whether the United States will remain the champion of freedom -- economic and political -- or whether we will join the queue of formerly great nations now struggling to pay for all the social welfare "benefits" their aging and lazy populations demand.

And if you need some more help, read the always-insightful Charles Krauthammer's latest:

...This is not socialism. This is not the end of the world. It would, however, be a decidedly leftward move on the order of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The alternative is a McCain administration with a moderate conservative presiding over a divided government and generally inclined to resist a European social-democratic model of economic and social regulation featuring, for example, wealth-distributing growth-killing marginal tax rates.

The national security choice in this election is no contest. The domestic policy choice is more equivocal because it is ideological. McCain is the quintessential center-right candidate. Yet the quintessential center-right country is poised to reject him. The hunger for anti-Republican catharsis and the blinding promise of Obamian hope are simply too strong. The reckoning comes in the morning.

You may also want to read a fantastic Digest at the Patriot Post... The Audacity of Deception, by Mark Alexander.

Unless, of course, you don't want to worry about paying your mortgage anymore. In that case, vote for Obama:

A Random Rant from "Zo"

Posting has been on hold for some time, but this seemed too good not to share!

This guy is now officially one of my conservative heroes:


While you're at it, check out The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama.

...and for a little comedy, Palin breaks the tie in the dance-off:


And Fred Thompson chimes in too:

Failure to expand oil production caused by Democrats

From James B. Edwards, former Secretary of Energy under Ronald Reagan:

... The Democrats in Congress have blocked every attempt to drill offshore and in ANWR. Let's review that history:

-- 1984: Reagan recommended that we drill in ANWR and offshore, but a filibuster by Senate Democrats kept the measure from coming to a vote.

-- 1995: Republicans prepared to take up the battle again, and included a provision for ANWR in the federal budget. President Clinton, a Democrat, vetoed the entire budget and expressed his intention to veto any other bill that would open ANWR to drilling.

-- 1998: The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that there was significant oil in ANWR, mostly in the western part of the "1002" area. Estimates ranged from 5.7 to 16 billion barrels.

-- 2000: George W. Bush pushed to perform exploratory drilling for oil and gas in and around the refuge. The Republicans in the House of Representatives voted in mid-2000 to allow drilling. In April of 2002, the Democratic Senate rejected it.

-- 2005: The Republican-controlled House of Representatives again approved drilling but the House-Senate Conference Committee later removed the provision.

-- 2005: The Republican-controlled Senate passed Arctic Refuge drilling as a part of the federal budget resolution for fiscal year 2006. The provision was removed due to Democrats in the House of Representatives who signed a letter promising they would oppose any version of the budget that had Arctic Refuge drilling in it.

-- 2005: Republican Ted Stevens attached an Arctic Refuge drilling amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill. A group of Democratic senators led a successful filibuster of the bill on Dec. 21, 2005, and the language was subsequently removed from the bill.

-- 2008: President Bush pressed Congress to reverse the ban on offshore drilling in ANWR, in addition to approving the extraction of oil from shale on lands owned by the federal government. Congress has done nothing. In three Western states, it estimated that we have 80 billion barrels of oil recoverable from shale. We also have proven technology to extract this oil. Congress won't allow it.

The congressional moratorium on offshore drilling was first enacted in l982 and has been renewed annually. The Democratic party is owned and directed by radical environmental groups. The National Resources Defense Council is one of the groups that has brought the suit to block the refineries from expanding and also has fought the construction of new refineries. This is one of the same groups that have kept us from building any more nuclear generating facilities in America. Some of the same groups are trying to block the use of coal for electrical generation.

All this is going on while we import more and more oil. ...

Inflating our tires isn't a bad idea by itself, but Barack Obama implying that it can solve our need for more domestic oil/energy is completely ridiculous. We need to drill in ANWR ...through a caribou's skull if necessary! I don't see why it would be, but it makes a good point.

Diamond Rio sings 'Presidents Day'

A good friend just sent me this song and I thought it was worth sharing. There's not enough of this type of thing on the radio these days...unless you listen to country music!

Very good stuff. Here's the song/video:

Levin on Rush Limbaugh...

Mark Levin is a fantastic radio host himself, and is right on track with his nomination of Rush for Man of the Year over at Human Events:

... What is it about Rush that drives the left crazy (that is, crazier than they already are)? The answer is actually quite simple: Rush is the most important voice in the conservative movement. Others want to be, some claim to be, but he is. More than any conservative politician, columnist or pundit, Rush speaks for us. His opinions are principled and consistent. He has a brilliant mind and a voracious appetite for knowledge and truth, all of which he uses behind his golden EIB microphone to teach and persuade as he cuts through the daily media clutter. He has the guts to say what so many of us are thinking to ourselves. And Rush’s likable and optimistic personality and entertaining style attract increasing numbers of conservative adherents. Liberals consider Rush and his talk show the greatest threats to their agenda and pursuit of power, and they’re right. ...

Click the photo or link above to read the whole thing. You can go to WRVA.com to listen to Rush live noon to 3:00pm every Monday-Friday.

I completely agree with Levin. Rush is fantastic, and is without a doubt the most influential leader in the conservative movement. Listen to him whenever you can!

Click here for Rush's home site.

Mac Johnson talks straight...

Since you're reading this blog, you're probably a political junkie like me and are well-aware of the recent snubbing that McCain received from the NY Times. As usual, Mac Johnson gets straight to the point in his latest effort:

To: Senator John McCain
Evil Republican Standard Bearer
Washington, D.C.

From: Pinch Ahmadinejad Sulzberger
Editor-in-Chief-for-Life, New York Times
New York, NY

Re: Submission (yours)

Dear Senator McCain,

Thank you for your recent unsolicited editorial submission to the New York Times. While we appreciate your desire to have your piece published in America’s newspaper of record, we regret that we cannot use it at this time.

We understand that you have had many thoughts published in the New York Times in the past, and that you have enjoyed fawning coverage by both our editors and reporters for years. However, it has recently come to our attention that you are, in fact, a Republican. We therefore cannot publish any more of your work until after you have lost the upcoming Presidential election. We encourage you to submit bitter critiques of conservative figures after that time.

We hope that you do not take this rejection personally, as you have been very useful to us in the past, and -- like all good manipulable politicians -- you care deeply about how you are described in our venerable and uppity pages. But you must understand that our past praise of you was conducted only with the hope of damaging other leading Republican figures with whom you disagreed. Now that you are the leading Republican figure, our only hope is to damage you, the Anti-Barack. May you cease to threaten the coming 1000-year peace of the Dalai Obama’s reign. (Hock, Patooie!)

Oo, that reminds me, please (for old Time’s sake) post the following classified employment advertisement in the Senate break room. We suddenly have a position available.

Wanted: Republican or near-Republican Senator to serve as “iconoclastic maverick” in the eyes of the World’s Most Important Newspaper. Must be willing to criticize own leaders, comrades, underlings and especially the Party’s base. Must love pets and illegal aliens. Veteran status a plus. Only non-smokers, please.

Again, thank you for all your many past services, sucker.

Peace out,

Pinch

P.S. We would, of course, be willing to reconsider your article if you are willing to submit a revised “second draft” of the work. Please change “victory” to “American withdrawal and apology” wherever it appears, and offer to serve (if asked) in the upcoming Obama administration. Also, please try to work in a reference to speculators contributing to Global Warming. Thanks.

P.P.S. The newsroom says “Hi.”

Perfect. The straight-talk express just got hoisted by it's own petard.

Wright vs. Right... has America really been so terrible to black folks?

I've been meaning to post this for some time. It was forwarded to me from a friend, and at the very least it's a much-needed counterpoint to the white-guilt narrative that is so pervasive in our society.

Pat Buchanan wrote A Brief for Whitey back in March. It's part of a politically incorrect dialog that is long overdue in this country. Let me know what you think:

... Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new “ladders of opportunity” for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

I'm not always with Pat, but I am here. He's an impressive individual, whatever you think about him. Frankly, I'd vote for him before McCain at this point... easy. I guess I'm a racist for even posting this!

On a much lighter note... "My Dad's not a racist, he's just stupid":

Happy Mothers Day from Planned Parenthood

Sorry to post this on Mother's Day, but this is too disgusting not to share. Celebrate Mother's Day by killing babies... beautiful. (hat tip HotAir)

Update: Star Parker discusses Obama's beliefs on abortion and wonders Is Obama Really the Man Blacks Need?

... Shortly after the Supreme Court's decision last year upholding the constitutionality of the ban on partial birth abortions, Obama spoke at a Planned Parenthood conference in Washington, D.C. Condemning the court's decision, he said that it was part of "a concerted effort to steadily roll back" legal abortions.

Criticizing Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in the case, Obama said, "Justice Kennedy knows many things, but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor."

Of course, Kennedy's job is not to be a doctor, but to be a judge. And in doing so, he included in his opinion testimony of a nurse who participated in a partial birth abortion procedure:

"The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out ...The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out ... Now the baby went completely limp. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta, and the instruments he had just used."

Thus the end of what, for Obama, was "potential life."

Nat Hentoff, no conservative, but a libertarian who writes for the "Village Voice,'' calls Obama the "infanticide candidate."

In a recent column, Hentoff noted that, while in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This Act addressed cases where, during an abortion procedure, the live infant was actually born. The Act would have banned killing the living child.

Responding to John McCain's remarks delivered the other day at Wake Forest University about law and judges, Obama contrasted McCain's pledge of "judicial constraint" with his own concept of legal activism.

Obama said he'd seek out judges "who are sympathetic to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless."

Aside from this bizarre idea about the role of law, what irony there is in hearing this from a man with zero empathy for our most vulnerable -- the helpless infant in the womb.

For the 90 percent of blacks who are casting votes for Obama, know that almost 50 million children have been aborted since Roe V. Wade in 1973, a third of which were black babies. Is this really the man whom our community needs?

Answer: No.

And here's Dinesh D'Souza wondering if this barbaric road is where secularism is leading us?

Rush: God's Creation Is So Complex and So Massive, We Are Insignificant

Rush Limbaugh had a great commentary yesterday that included discussion of the spectacular and devastating eruption of the Chaiten Volcano in southern Chile. Here is a part that I enjoyed:

For those of you buying into this silly compact fluorescent lightbulb scheme, when you look at these pictures from the UK Daily Mail, I want you to try to convince yourself that the type of lightbulb you use matters a hill of beans to anything, when you look at the raw power. And then after you do that, after you ask yourself, after you tell yourself how worthless, how irrelevant, I should say, the kind of lightbulb you use is, I then want to ask you, "Are you one of these people that's bought into this silly notion to unplug your toaster and all of your electronic appliances when you're not using them?"

You might want to do that to save electricity, that's fine. But if you're doing it to save the planet, I want you to take a look these pictures and ask yourself if unplugging your Sunbeam toaster, your Mr. Coffee, your cell phone charger, will matter a hill of beans to the climate of this planet. If you answer yes, you have a serious vanity problem, or worse: Your life is meaningless and you'll be talked into any scheme or hoax to believe in in order to make you think your life has a purpose, such as saving the planet. You're simply helping a bunch of socialists tear down the greatest capitalist system on the face of the planet if you go along with this rotgut garbage.

Amen. Let's sue Al Gore.

NY Times gets spanked by Craig Ferguson

Craig Ferguson is outstanding... this just cements it: (hat tip HotAir)


Watch it all - Craig Ferguson at the 2008 White House Correspondents Dinner: Part I, Part II

Update: Sticking with the theme of the leftstream media getting spanked, here's George W. getting appropriately testy with white house reporters. Awesome... where's this been Georgie???

Newsflash: Obama is an all-too-typical politician...

... and that's not a good thing for someone whose campaign is based on change and hope. Barack Obama lies like a Clinton:


David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, also lies like a Clinton:

Lies, lies, lies:

Dueling fools

I'm sorry... I just don't think I can vote for this guy. How can he accept Letterman's premice that we're deserving of hatred around the world? I may be with Ann Coulter on this one. Hillary may actually be better. God save us from Obama though.


Hey John, global warming/climate change is a hoax. You look like an idiot answering Letterman's inane comment about how we're the bad guys with an inane comment of your own about how we're going to join in the international effort to stop global warming.

John Kerry: Obama will be a great President because we're all bad people... and he's black

I've caught as much of Rush possible lately, and at the end of today's show he played some clips of 'the haughty John Kerry who served in Vietnam' talking about how great President Obama will be for this country... because of, well, the color of his skin. Keep helping John!

Here's the transcript with El Rushbo's comments:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's how difficult it's going to be for Barack Obama to keep race out of his campaign. When you've got idiots like the haughty John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) out campaigning for you, you're rolling the dice. (laughing) Last Monday, Kerry did an interview with the New Bedford Standard Times. It's in Massachusetts, the New Bedford Standard Times editorial board, and of course they taped him. An unidentified reporter said, "Why would you say that? What gives Obama credibility on that score?" Kerry had said that Obama's blackness and Muslim background is his main qualification for office, and would help him with American foreign policy, and the reporter said, "What gives him credibility on that score, particularly?"

VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY: It would be such an affirmation of who we say we are as a people, if we can elect an African-American president, a young leader who is obviously visionary and got an ability to inspire people. It would give us an ability to talk to those countries, to, in some cases, go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can't otherwise. I think in the end, um, he has an ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism, to maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion.

RUSH: Man, this is what I mean. When you got guys like this speaking for you, you have no control over. Do you realize what you just heard? This is the former Democrat presidential nominee, and he has just encapsulated here the liberal Democrat view of this country where it comes to race: "We are guilty!" Whatever anybody, particularly our enemies - whatever radical Islam thinks of us - they're right. We are guilty, because we are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes and all that. And we need to elect an African-American president, a young leader, obviously visionary, to show the rest of the world that we are who we say we are as a people. To bridge the divide of religious extremism? (laughing) Kerry said this on Monday. I don't think Jeremiah Wright was a common household name at that time. (laughing) Bridge the divide.? He has created the divide! He's widening the divide! He's dredging the divide! He's dumping the sand of the divide on both sides of the shore. But Kerry wasn't through. The reporter said, "Why would you say that? What gives him credibility on that score, again?"

VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY: Because he's African-American! Because he's a black man who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country. His life story, you know, a Kenyan father who abandoned him and he was raised by a single parent and -- and -- and found the purpose and values to go to college and make something of himself. That's an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other places in the world where disenfranchised people don't get anything.

RUSH: Folks, I'm sitting here laughing because it's Friday, it's the end of the show, but this is outrageous, though. This is just... What must John Kerry think of his own country in order to say these kind of things? That only Obama, because he has a Kenyan father, his life story...? He hasn't had any oppression in his life. He wasn't raised as an African-American. He wasn't down for the civil rights struggle. He has no ties to that. That's what the black community was worried about when Obama first announced. That's what "Magic Negro" is all about. That's what "Is he black enough?" was all about. He found the purpose and values to go to college, make something of himself? That's an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan? What? He went to college? It's an important lesson to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia? This is ass backwards. This is 180 degrees out of phase. What ought to be happening here is that we ought to be telling some of these other places what's wrong with them and because if they don't fix it they keep attacking it, they are in peril. Did you see, by the way, the story that the Saudi Arabian government is going to start training 40,000 new imams to try to deal with this Wahhabi sect that's causing all the grief? So anyway, there you heard it: John Kerry (the haughty John Kerry who served in Vietnam), speaking Monday to the New Bedford Massachusetts Standard Times editorial board.

END TRANSCRIPT

I'm not proud to say this, but I truly despise the elitist, socialist Senators from MA... right up there with Al Gore, lefty Hollywood boneheads and Code Pinko.

Related, from the great Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters.

Also related (only because it further exposes Kerry) is this HotAir video of YAF's Jason Mattera catching up with Sen. John Kerry and confronting him about his unsubstantiated, troop-smearing testimony:


Link: sevenload.com

And here's Glenn Beck on Black Liberation Theology... terrifying.

Comedy Gold: The Daily Show makes fun of Berkley hippies and Code Pink

Jon Stewart going conservative??? Not likely, but it's nice to see The Daily Show smack the loony left for once... hope to see more.

This is absolutely outstanding: (hat tip HotAir)


Semper Fi Rob Riggle!

Related: TDS and Jon Stewart may not be going conservative just yet, but playwright and film director David Mamet is.

Update: Michelle Malkin has much more on Berkeley.

BMI Special Report: Global Warming Censored

A must-read report from the Business & Media Institute:

Global warming crusader Al Gore repeatedly claims the climate change “debate’s over.” It isn’t, but the news media clearly agree with him. Global warming skeptics rarely get any say on the networks, and when their opinions are mentioned it is often with barbs like “cynics” or “deniers” thrown in to undermine them.

Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS and NBC: global warming is an environmental catastrophe and it’s mankind’s fault. Skepticism is all but shut out of reports through several tactics – omission, name-calling, the hype of frightening images like polar bears scavenging for food near towns and a barrage of terrifying predictions.

The Business & Media Institute analyzed 205 network news stories about “global warming” or “climate change” between July 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. BMI found a meager 20 percent of stories even mentioned there were any alternative opinions to the so-called “consensus” on the issue.

• Disagreement Squashed: Global warming proponents overwhelmingly outnumbered those with dissenting opinions. On average for every skeptic there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a slightly better job with a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS’s ratio was abysmal at nearly 38-to-1.

• Can I See Some ID?: Scientists made up only 15 percent of the global warming proponents shown. The remaining 85 percent included politicians, celebrities, other journalists and even ordinary men and women. There were more unidentified interview subjects used to support climate change hype than actual scientists (101 unidentified to just 71 scientists)

• What’s It Going to Cost?: All “solutions” have a price, but the cost of fighting global warming was something you rarely heard on the network news. Only 22 stories (11 percent) mentioned any cost of “fixing” global warming. On the rare occasion cost came up, it came from the lips of a skeptic like Kentucky state Rep. Jim Gooch (D), who said one climate change bill in Congress “would cost $6 trillion.”

• CBS the Worst: Journalist/global warming advocate Scott Pelley helped CBS be, by far, the worst network. Pelley argued in 2006 that he shouldn’t have to include skeptics in such stories because “If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” In 2007, he helped ensure only four skeptics were included by CBS – and not a single one was a scientist. Compare that to the 151 people used by the network to promote global warming hysteria. The wildly one-sided outcome was not surprising given remarks by some of its other journalists. Harry Smith declared that “There is, in fact, global climate change” on the Aug. 7, 2007, “Early Show.”

• ABC the “Best”: Despite its over-the-top climate hypocrisy of jet-setting journalists around the world to cover climate change, ABC included more skepticism (36 percent) in its broadcasts than either NBC or CBS. Still, the network has plenty of work to do. Bill Weir made the outrageous claim during the Nov. 18, 2007, “Good Morning America” that “all these scientists” urge immediate action to stop global warming. Weather personality Sam Champion even referred to the most recent U.N. climate report as “unequivocal” and “definitive.

Read the Full Report. Video from Fox & Friends here.

For more, check out BMI's previous report on the on the great Global Warming hoax: Fire & Ice.

Also, here are some telling media quotes about global warming:

“What’s your best advice to me and families like me who really want to be responsible and pay even more, but do the right thing because we know this is an issue?”
-- Ann Curry, NBC “Today” Jan. 31, 2008

“I’m on the prowl for victims, converts in our growing movement.”
-- Matt Lauer, NBC “Today” Jan. 25, 2008

“Like the warming scientists are seeing in Greenland and the North Pole, the prime suspect behind the melting at the South Pole is global warming. Manmade carbon dioxide and other gases trapping heat that may well be warming the waters in the coldest police on earth.”
-- Anne Thompson, NBC “Nightly News” Jan. 14, 2008

"Al Gore, sexy man. The thinking girl's thoroughbred."
-- Mary Jordan and Kevin Sullivan, The Washington Post, Dec. 12, 2007

“The human race is doomed.”
-- Jeff Goodell, Rolling Stone Nov. 1, 2007

“Public awareness [about global warming] lagged behind, partly because of a disinformation campaign funded by the fossil-fuel industry.”
-- Bill Blakemore, ABC “World News with Charles Gibson” Sept. 23, 2007

“There’s great concern about the impact of the melting ice on the wildlife in that area. For example, the loss of Arctic ice could mean the loss of the homeland for polar bears.”
-- Sam Champion, ABC “Good Morning America” Sept. 18, 2007

“Climate change could have global security implications on a par with nuclear war unless urgent action is taken, a report said on Wednesday.”
-- Jeremy Lovell, Reuters Sept. 12, 2007

“[G]lobal warming may hasten the destruction of some of the world’s most treasured buildings and heritage sites.”
-- Mark Phillips, CBS “Evening News” June 19, 2007

“Scientists say the world’s temperature will rise about two degrees in the next 50 years no matter what we do, but if we act now it might level off after that.”
-- Bill Blakemore, ABC “World News Sunday” April 1, 2007

"It's surreal to have pre-eminent scientists tell us very seriously that civilization as we know it is over ... The scale is unprecedented. It touches every aspect of life."
-- ABC News correspondent Bill Blakemore in the Summit Daily News, March 13, 2007

“Global warming is not coming; it is here.”
-- Alexander Wolff, Sports Illustrated March 8, 2007

“Consider the case closed on global warming.”
-- Bryan Walsh, Time magazine Feb. 19, 2007

"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."
-- Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe Feb. 9, 2007

“The top climate experts from all around the world, speaking with one voice, issued a blunt and bleak assessment today on global warning. There was no ambiguity in their words.”
-- Charles Gibson, ABC “World News” Feb. 2, 2007

“Do people here know that very likely in the next – well – several decades all of this is going to be under water?”
-- Harry Smith, CBS “Early Show” Feb. 1, 2007

"Never has good weather felt so bad. Never have flowers inspired so much fear. Never has the warm caress of a sunbeam seemed so ominous. The weather is sublime, it's glorious, it's the end of the world."
-- The Washington Post, Jan. 7, 2007

“So I’m running in the park Saturday in shorts thinking this is great but are we all gonna die?”
-- Meredith Vieira, NBC “Today” Jan. 7, 2007

Also, you may already know that John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, said global warming is "the greatest scam in history" last November.

He's now saying that Al Gore should be sued "to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.” Video:


More from the great Noel Sheppard - CNN: Climate Conference Attendees Are Like Flat Earthers