No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

September 2, 2008

Punished By a Baby (cont.)

by @ 5:31. Filed under Politics - National.

About ten days ago we were having a national discussion about Barack Obama’s abortion positions.   Along with his Saddleback performance, the issue was regenerated when tapes of his Illinois Senate floor debate, along with the transcript, surfaced.

One of the issues that Obama raised as onerous in the “born alive” bill, was having a second doctor involved to determine the viability of the child.  

From the transcript, Senator Obama discussing the need for a second doctor:

So — and again, I’m — not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limb and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

Further on, Obama adds:

…an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

(Emphasis mine in both quotes)

A couple of things to note:

First note in the first quote that Obama is so far left on the abortion topic that he is unable to refer to a live baby as a “baby.”   Abortion extremists are loathe to refer to anything other than the birthling of a fully desired pregnancy a “baby.”   Giving anything other than this the term “baby” undermines their intent to keep anything unborn as nothing more than an inanimate object.   Calling it a “baby” undermines their desire to keep all abortion options open at all times.

Second, if you want some insight as to how Obama will handle Ahmadinejad, take another look at that first quote.   Obama didn’t even have the cojones to take a stand on whether they were discussing a fetus or a baby. He completely sidestepped the issue. Can you imagine him taking to Ahmadinejad? “I’d like to discuss your nuclear weapons or freedom tools, however way you want to describe them.” On the plus side, this may be the first core issue I’ve seen Obama hold to; he claimed it was above his paygrade to determine when life began, at the Saddleback debate and he had the same opinion back in 2002!

Third, this second doctor issue is a complete canard. When a premature birth occurs, it is very typical to have not only a second doctor, but a second medical team involved in the event. The obstetrician stays with the mother while the second doctor and team attend to the premature infant. In the event of a failed abortion what do we have? A premature infant! So if that is already typical procedure in most hospitals, why would that be onerous in this case? The answer to that is yet another quote from Barack Obama:

…that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

That last quote says all anyone needs to know about Obama’s position on abortion…it’s always about abortion, never about life.

August 21, 2008

Punished by a Baby (part 2.5)

by @ 8:29. Filed under Politics - National.

In case you missed Shoebox’s post below, go read it. There is an expansion or two based on what Ed Morrissey found, including a confirmation of the veracity of the YouTubed conversation Shoebox and Erick Erickson embedded:

Guy Benson not only tracked down the audio to the Chicago Tribune, but he came up with this little gem from the transcripts of the Illinois Legislature (specifically, pages 32-34, from the 4/22/2002 session):

[T]he only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made the assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health, is being "” that "” that labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, and in fact this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that the physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical procedures and practices that would be involved in saving that child.

Now, if "” if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I "” I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects that doctors feel that they would already be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations, and that essentially adding a "” an additional doctor who the has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

Now, if that’s the case –and "” and I know some of us feel very strongly one way or the other on that issue "” that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure they’re looked after.

Ed goes on to point out that the above statement came after it was revealed that the doctors at the mis-named Christ Hospital were allowing babies born alive during abortion procedures to die without any care.

To steal from another movie…

Denver, we have a problem. We have a main bus B undervolt. We’ve got a lot of thruster activity here, Denver. There’s another master alarm, Denver. We’ve got a computer restart. We’ve got a ping light. We’ve got multiple cautions and warnings, Denver. We’ve gotta reset and restart.

Punished by a Baby (part two)

by @ 5:55. Filed under Miscellaneous.

On March 30, 2008, at a townhall meeting in Johnstown, PA, Barck Obama made the following statement:

“When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include — which should include abstinence education and teaching the children — teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include — it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

At the time I wrote about the callousness Barack Obama had towards a life and how there was a difference between “punishment” and “consequences” of our actions and decisions.

Since the Saddleback Civil Forum, Barack Obama has had to reexplain his position on abortion, especially late term abortion. Since Saturday, I’ve counted at least 3 different explanations for Barack’s inability to support a bill in the Illinois legislature that would require doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions. At different times I have heard:

  • The bill didn’t have the federal language that preempted this from impacting existing abortion law (it did)
  • His committee didn’t have time to act on it (they did and passed it out of his committee unanimously)
  • It was unnecessary as IL law already covered the issue (so why did other legislators pass it overwhelmingly?)

The Obama campaign has continued to try to obfuscate the issue, dancing from one excuse to the other.   All along Obama has claimed “as he has repeatedly said” that the claim that he supports infanticide is a lie and ridiculous to even consider.

Um, yeah.

I can’t vouch for this audio clip but it has been placed on Redstate and if it passes their muster, it works here.   Here is Barack Obama on the Illinois floor explaining why he is against the bill:

In the audio Obama claims that having two doctors help the baby after a botched abortion would be a “BURDEN!”

When Obama made his March comment about “punishment” his sycophants (of which a couple chimed in on my post) tried to argue that he wasn’t talking about the baby as punishment but the subsequent effort to raise and provide for it. Nice Try!

Anyone, subsequent to the corroboration of this audio, who wants to argue that Barack Obama does not advocate the most self centered, arrogant positions on the issue of infant life may as well be arguing that the Bigfoot recently “discovered” wasn’t really a rubber gorilla suit but a uniquely mummified specimen.

If this audio is corroborated, Obama is toast. In fact, if this audio is corroborated, keep a close eye on the Democrats convention. With my apologies to Mad Max:

Two Dems enter, One Dem leaves. Two Dems enter, One Dem leaves.

Be careful as to who you assume will be the one leaving!

H/T Erick

April 1, 2008

Punished by a baby

by @ 11:30. Filed under Miscellaneous.

At a townhall meeting in Johnstown, PA yesterday, Barck Obama made the following statement:    

“When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include — which should include abstinence education and teaching the children — teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include — it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

There are sooooooooo many things I want to YELL at Barack right now.   Here are a few:

Barack, you talk about teaching values and morals, that’s great.   However, your teaching needs some updating because you have left out the end part where if you live short of values and morals, there are CONSEQUENCES!   Let me enlighten you on the difference between”Punishment” and “Consequence.”   “Punishment” is something that is done to you, “Consequence” is the result of something that you have done.   I understand how you easily confuse these concepts as you believe that you are being “punished” for standing by Jeremiah Wright when in fact you are suffering the “consequences” of your action of continuing to support his black liberation theology.
Read the rest of this entry…

October 21, 2008

The case against Obama

by @ 13:04. Filed under Politics - National.

Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson put together a very lengthy case against Barack Obama over at Hot Air, edited by Ed Morrissey. From abortion and especially the “punished by a baby” line (pursued by mostly Shoebox here), to taxes, to radical associations, to lack of foreign policy judgement (which was not at all cured by his running mate, specifically Biden’s inexplicable like of Iran’s Mad Mullahs), to a distain of American life, to the race card, to a lack of accomplishments, they make the case far better than I can.

September 4, 2008

Hell Hath No Fury Like (Bitter) Women Scorned

by @ 9:58. Filed under Politics - National.

 

Now that Sarah Palin has given her acceptance speech, it’s clear why the Left had reason to attack her….She’s Really Good!   But that’s really hindsight.   As I watched the attacks become more and more personal and vicious over the past 3 days, I kept wondering why?

It’s obvious that the Left doesn’t like Republican or Conservative women.   However, I’ve never seen the level of attacks that Sarah Palin has experienced in just 72 hours. While women like Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Elizabeth Dole  and even Condoleezza Rice have been degraded, none of them have seen the full fledged, scorched earth approach that Sarah Palin has experienced.

As I’ve previously discussed, the Left is all about emotional responses, even to situations that require significant thought.   So, I know the response is emotional.   But, what was the stimulus for the level of emotion that is being vented?

I suppose part of it could be that the MSM, the Left and frankly just about everyone else, was surprised by Palin.   While Obama’s campaign had talking points on all of the other folks that were alleged to be on the short list, they completely overlooked Palin.   I could imagine that some of the ferocity was an attempt to catch up after having been caught flat footed.

I suppose part of it also could be that the  announcement of Palin took Obama out of the news flow.   With an ego as big as  Obama’s, I don’t imagine it was easy being upstaged…especially by a woman!

I also suppose it could be that  the pick of Palin made Obama’s first public choice, his choice of Biden for VP, look silly.   Obama had first pick in VP.   Rather than picking the person who could shore up his party, extend his meme of “hope and change” and solidify his party, he, with his first pick, picked the equivalent of the kid who has been playing right field and batting ninth his entire career.   As an aside, I agree with Rudy Gulliani that Biden may want to ensure that he has the VP offer in writing.   As the days go on Obama is going to second, third, fourth and many more times reguess that choice.

All of those issues could be the reason why the Left has come unhinged but it doesn’t feel as if any one, or the combination of the three really explain what’s happening.

Yesterday, it finally hit me.

Who on the left, defines what a woman should be and how she should act?   Yup, the National Organization for Women (NOW).  

Who did NOW support for President?   Yup, Hillary Clinton

There’s a woman running in this election, what is her name?   Nope, not Hillary Clinton, it’s Sarah Palin!

And there’s the problem.   The left is all about identity politics; identity politics and making sure that the various groups maintain the identity of victimization that the Left has scripted for them.   African Americans are supposed to suffer from the ills of slavery and racism and unable to advance in the economic strata.   Teenage girls who become pregnant are supposed to be reliant on Planned Parenthood for their “pregnancy options” to ensure that they aren’t “punished by a baby.”   Women are scripted to be continually “rising” but never “attaining.”  

Sarah Palin represents not just a cracking of the glass ceiling ala Hillary Clinton, but a complete shattering of it if she and John McCain win.   A shattering brought to you not by the party of victimization but the party that believes an individual’s value is not defined by their identity, but by their abilities and their hard work.   This leaves the Left and especially NOW, nearly apoplectic.   Sarah Palin is exposing the false claims  of victimization that NOW and the Left have spewed about women for over 40 years.  

NOW was organized in 1966.   It’s core mentality comes from women who came of age during the 60’s and early 70’s.   Those women are now in their 50’s and 60’s.  

The reason the Left has become so vicious towards Palin is a combination of the items I previously listed.   Those  and Sarah Palin  exposing and negating the victimization of women that has been perpetuated by groups like NOW.   NOW’s reason to exist, the thing that gets them up in the morning and gives them a reason to breath is about to be cut out from underneath them and that makes them mad.   But what really gets the cranky old women, the NAGs going,  is that they are about to lose the love of their life not to a peer, another cranky old woman but to a smart YOUNGER WOMAN with a positive outlook on life.   Losing your love to a younger woman, no matter that it’s your own fault, really pisses them off!

April 23, 2008

Sgt. Hulka’s political Wisdom

by @ 7:00. Filed under Immigration.

As I watched the Democratic debate last week, I found it odd that the segments began with a  reading of a part of the US Constitution.   Sometimes the follow up questions would vaguely  align with the subject of the reading but several times it was just the constitutional reading and then the debate would restart with  no context of the reading.   I didn’t understand what ABC was doing at the time but I think I’ve now figured it out.

The TV networks have been fighting with lowered audiences for the past several years.    This has been especially true with anything that is news related.   The debate last week had the highest ratings of any debate to date.   I think ABC was trying to kill 2 birds with one stone.   The were trying to get ad  revenue  based on the large audience AND they were getting in some of their required public service announcements.   What better way to get your PSA requirement in than by teaching Liberals about the constitution!

I’m sorry to say that while ABC’s plan was novel and laudatory, it  apparently failed.

During a debate on whether to  have the State of Colorado aid “immigrant” workers in getting a federal work visa, the following exchange took place on the General Assembly Floor:


Read the rest of this entry…

April 8, 2008

Obama and Patriotism

by @ 7:00. Filed under Miscellaneous.

Obama seeks to affirm his patriotism

That’s the headline from this article  by the AP, that talks about how Barack has been inserting more patriotic statements in his recent speeches.

The article quotes the following as his “patriotic” statements:

I love this country not because it’s perfect but because we’ve always been able to move it closer to perfection,” he told an audience in North Dakota.

And in Montana: “It’s a country where … I’ve seen ordinary Americans find justice, where I’ve seen progress made for working families who need leaders who are willing to stand up and fight for them. That is the country I love.”

But are these really patriotic statements?

I’ll concede that these statements are factually accurate, but they don’t seem patriotic to me. They strike me as more of the “yeah but” kinds of statements that Barack uses when he tries to deal with an issue without making himself look like the leftist he is.

“…move it closer to perfection,” I wonder where on the perfection scale Barack thinks we are? By his statement I assume he thinks we’re at least at 1 but not at 100, but where between 1 and 100 are we? Factually, I would agree with Barack that we are not at 100 for the simple reason that much of the country still views abortion as a valid birth control method, but I digress….See, if Barack wanted this to be a patriotic statement he would have said something like,

“I love this country because it’s the best system in the world. While we may not be perfect, we have a process that allows us to make constant, peaceful strides to that end.”

You may say I’m playing with semantics and that’s true. However, wasn’t it Barack who kept talking about the importance of “just words?” Words and how you choose to use them say alot about the intent of the speaker.   Making a beginning declarative statement rather than starting by trying to establish equivalency, would have made this patriotic, putting it together as he did makes it “yeah but.”

“I’ve seen ordinary Americans find justice,”   Is Barack suggesting that it is unusual for “ordinary” Americans to find justice?   Is he suggesting that only the wealthy or well connected can be assured of justice in our country?   Again, start with a declarative statement,

“I love this country because we have the best justice system in the world, a system where regardless of your economic or social standing, you can expect justice to serve you.   And in those few instances where the system doesn’t work as it should, I’m proud that there are leaders who will step up and fight to correct injustice.”

Once last comment on “just words” and the Obama supporters who will tell me that I’m twisting his language.   These comments came not from off-the-cuff remarks.   These comments came from prepared speeches.   Off-the-cuff remarks like “I don’t want them to be punished by a baby,” show me the individual’s true heart on a topic as they haven’t had time to think through the words and craft them.   Statements may be mad in  factual error but when it comes to judgements,  they speak with their most prevalent thought on the topic.   However,  with  prepared remarks, words that are considered and crafted in a particular order, well, you don’t get the chance to say “but he really meant XXXXXX.”   See, if he had really meant “XXXXXX,” he would have  crafted “XXXXXX.”   Barack purposely chose not to use declarative, patriotic statements simply because he will not declare his patriotism.   How tough is it?  

Barack tried to distance himself from Jeremiah Wright’s hateful speech by saying he didn’t agree with it and then quickly added a “yeah but” by telling us that Wright had come out of a generation where this speech was acceptable and we needed to appreciate that.   Now Barack’s trying to tell us he’s patriotic, and it seems to me that he’s also trying to tell us that people are “patriotic” even if they don’t believe the US is the best country in the world.  

December 18, 2009

Is this what Obama and Feingold wanted?

by @ 12:44. Filed under Law and order, Politics - National.

(H/T – Ed Morrissey)

Back when the United States Senate was debating a “born-alive” protection act, then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) asked Russ Feingold (Moonbat-WI) what should happen if a baby happened to be born alive during an abortion procedure. Feingold’s answer of leaving it up to the woman and the doctor proved to be so repugnant that Feingold had the Senate record scrubbed of the answer.

Meanwhile, when he was in the Illinois State Senate, President Barack Obama voted against a “born-alive” protection act no less than three times, and went on to infamously say on the Presidential campaign trail, “But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

Fast-forward to Rustburg, Virginia, where WSLS-TV is reporting that one fucked-up repugnant piece of repugnant shit bitch of a “mother” who smothered her newborn won’t be charged with anything because the baby was still attached to the mother. I’ll let Investigator Terry Emerson explain the state of the law in Virginia:

In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it. She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.

Before you think that this is the first case of its type in Virginia, guess again. The WSLS story goes on:

The Campbell County Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson says they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.

What. The. FUCK?!?!?!

August 17, 2009

But, Of Course It Is

by @ 5:45. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

Early last year as the endorsement battle was fully engaged, videos and quotes of Obama’s long time pastor, Jeremiah Wright, came to light.  These videos and quotes showed the man that Obama referred to as his “mentor,” was a racist and anti-Semite.  Although he had spent the bulk of his adult life in Wright’s congregation, Obama denied that he knew of Wright’s heinous perspectives.  When challenged about Wright, Obama responded:

He does not speak for me.

In other words, Obama and the compliant media which echoed his defense, were telling us that this was a problem entirely with Wright, or as Obama might say “This isn’t about me!”  Those of us who had our own ability to think knew that the opposite was true, it was entirely about Obama and his acceptance of Wright’s ideology.

After the Saddleback Forum last August in which he denounced late term abortions, an audio tape surfaced of Obama arguing against an Illinois statue that would require medical support for babies that survived botched abortions.  In his attempt to reconcile his recently stated position with the past recordings, Obama tried multiple explanations.  All of the explanations were focused on issues that other people had created.  None of the explanations had anything to do with Obama changing his position, misunderstanding the issue or lying.  In other words, Obama could have said, “This isn’t about me!”  Again, a reasonably inquisitive mind was able to see that the excuses Obama rasied were red herrings and that in fact, the issue was all about Obama.

If you do a Google search of “Obama “not about me”” you’ll find numerous instances in stump speeches, his world reunification speech in Germany and even his endorsement acceptance speech where Obama told people that his candidacy was “not about me.”

During his last prime time media love fest, President Obama refuted that health care reform was a personal issue for him saying:

This isn’t about me!

In fact, you might say that Obama’s entire national political career has been spent with him telling people “this isn’t about me!

Since that last statement, President Obama has inserted himself directly and personally into the debate over health care reform.  At town hall meetings in New Hampshire, Montana and now Colorado, President Obama has personally defended health care reform.  At each stop he couriously debates and defends what is or isn’t in “the plan.”  Curious because President Obama doesn’t have a plan of his own and repeatedly responds to the few challenging questions by avoiding an answer or by making erroneous assertions about what the House plan contains.  Even the USAToday, a paper that is not considered unfriendly to Obama, identified numerous Obama falsehoods following the New Hampshire townhall.  Many of these falsehoods were repeated in Montana. 

What are the results?  In the month since he claimed it wasn’t about him, Obama’s dream of a government take over of health care has been met with stiff resistance.  Since Obama’s personal involvement, Rasumussen Reports polling shows that support for health reform has fallen 5% and those who disapprove of health care reform now represent a majority.  In a new poll by Rasmussen, 54% of voters now believe that doing nothing would be better than implementing the plan that is coming through the House.  This is especially important as independents favor doing nothing by almost a 3 to 1 margin.

Contrary to his protests, the health care debate is all about President Obama. 

Obama came into office on the sweet spot of a wave.  Iraq, a sagging economy and a Republican party that operated largely indistinguishably from the Democrats, gave Obama a populace that wanted change so badly they were willing to give an inexperienced, opportunistic, job hopper a chance to play president.  In fact, change was desired so badly that neither the media or those who supported Obama, stopped to ask much about the details as to what Obama wanted to change.  If they had, they would have found that from the start Obama was focused on the takeover of the health care industry via a single payer system and the takeover of energy via cap and trade.  These two items were/are cornerstone to the transformation of America that he envisions and promised.

After moving through the House with relative ease, Cap and Trade is sitting in the Senate.  60 votes are required to move the Cap and Trade bill through the Senate.  With Kennedy and Byrd rarely in the Senate due to their illnesses, the Democrats would need to get 2 Republicans to side with them if they can get the other 58 Democrats to support the bill.  That is a big IF, and moving towards “not likely,” as the economy continues to struggle, the economic reality of the bill continues to sink in and global warming “science” is finding less and less support amongst voters.  In fact, Cap and Trade has lost so much momentum that even Democrat Senators are now saying that it won’t receive a hearing until next year….if at all.

Having Cap and Trade in limbo is good and bad.  It’s good because passage of the legislation would be disastrous for the US economy.  It’s bad because as one of Obama’s two major pieces of legislation, having it in danger of dying puts more pressure on the issue of health care reform.  As the only other major legislation, if health care reform fails it will relegate the man once held in messianic admiration to that of purveyor of just another mystic religion that serves no purpose other than to provide emotional highs with no ability to resolve anything.  It is this fear that has Obama personally engaged in the health care debate.

President Obama’s personal insertion to the middle of the health care debate is much like Kevin Bacon’s appearance towards the end of Animal House.  Standing in the middle of the melee and shouting “All is well.  All is well,” didn’t calm the public for Kevin nor will it for Obama.  In both instances the acts were those of desperation.  As it didn’t work for Bacon, neither will it for Obama.

With President Obama fighting to find new scapegoats to blame and allies for support, the path and outcome of the health care reform debate is far from certain.  That said, one thing is certain.  The next time you hear Obama, discussing any topic, say “This isn’t about me,” you will know without a doubt that after sifting through all of the obfuscation and half truths, the one thing in fact it is about is Obama!

January 26, 2009

Party Unity

by @ 7:52. Filed under Politics - National.

Even with the Democrats controlling both houses and the Presidency, there have been reports of rifts within the party:

  • Liberals say not enough money is being spent on the stimulus
  • Blue Dogs want less spent on the stimulus
  • Gays didn’t like the choice of a Pastor at the inauguration
  • Taxes aren’t being raised fast enough
  • etc.
  • etc.

It’s nice to see that unity within the Democrats isn’t split when it comes to core principle issues….say like abortion on demand:

But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.   Barack Obama, March 31, 2008

Well, the family planning services reduce cost. Nancy Pelosi, January 25, 2009

While even known terrorists get hope and change from President Obama’s administration apparently, the unborn will be hoping for change until after he leaves office.

September 2, 2008

The Morni..er, Afternoon Scramble – 9/2/2008

by @ 13:45. Filed under The Morning Scramble.

Sorry about missing yesterday; I was still wiped out from my 700-mile bonzai run to Centerfield for the Grizzly Groundswell pre-convention party, where I finally met Shoebox, ran into Fausta and Eric (along with the Chicago Cannonball) again, and met Stix, Cyberpastor and Mrs. CP, and the gang from Grizzly Groundswell. Somehow, I didn’t get the word to guide Sean Hackbarth into the fun until after I was on the way back home; sorry about that.

In any case, that’s not why I’m running today’s song; it’s because see-dubya (who I’ve called “The Super Sub” for his guest-blogging stints on Hot Air and Michelle Malkin’s site) is hanging up his blogging spurs…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn0bgdsCxXE[/youtube]

At least it was morning when I started this. You don’t want to know how many posts I went through to get to these.

  • Jon Ham noted Sarah Palin, when offered an American flag to sign, signed the pole instead of the flag. If I weren’t already sold on her, that would’ve completed the sale.
  • Ed Morrissey found the first female VP nominee calling Palin’s pick “historic”.
  • John Hawkins explains why Palin was a “brilliant choice”.
  • Selwyn Duke questions the wisdom of the pick (and that was before the Bristol Palin pregnancy became known).
  • Speaking of that, Dr. Melissa Clouthier has the definitive wrap.
  • BrewFan summarizes my thoughts on that.
  • Tom McMahon expands the 4-Block World by 2 to explain the not-so-hypothetical.
  • Uncle Jimbo reminds us that it is Alaska’s National Guard that’s running the ABM missiles poised to protect the US from missile attack. Care to guess their commander-in-chief is?
  • Lance Burri and Jim Hoft report from the front lines of the protestors anarchists that have descended on the Twin Cities like locusts.
  • Pam found some wayward protestors. It’s a shame the St. Paul police didn’t point them in the general direction of the Mississippi and invite them to jump in.
  • Allahpundit found PUMAs continuing to desert the Obamination Express.
  • Jim Geraghty is wondering if the Obamination Express will borrow from New Jersey. While they may yet dump Plugs, there’s no way they’ll get the head PUMA back up off the jungle floor.
  • Ace laughs at the Obamination Express’ attempt to make experience matter.
  • Bull Dog Pundit cheers the “experience” trap ensaring the bus. Guess that calls for a 2-song Scramble…

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q04_ClDxRsk[/youtube]

  • RightwingSparkle has the latest Obamination Express sticker.
  • Heather Radish crunches the numbers on small-town America.
  • Ace found that Joe Biden, noted Mad Mullah cheerleader, told the Israelis that in the event he becomes Vice President, Iran will become nuclear. Either HopeAndChange doesn’t work on theocratic thugs or the Obamination Express really wants said theocratic thugs to have the weapons capable of igniting their apocalyptic visions (or both).
  • Owen isn’t buying the pro-forma denials of the above item.
  • Stephan Tawney found Biden unable to stick to his “no political attacks today” call. I’m shocked, SHOCKED that a DhimmiRAT would forget what he said.
  • Mark McNally found the PUMA FAQ.
  • Mary wonders where all the “free-speech” liberals are. I hate to break the news that they’re not about free speech, but about power by every means possible, especially if it involves hypocrisy.
  • Professor Stephen Bainbridge notes there is no Rebel Yell on either ticket.
  • Allahpundit notes that, in the event of an Obama win, things will be wide open on the Republican side come 2012 as there won’t be a “next in line” (i.e., no Mitt Romney).
  • William Teach found an illegal alien doing two jobs Americans won’t do; working for a ‘Rat as a ranchhand and killing people.
  • Michelle Malkin found the pressitutes couldn’t even wait until Palin was on-stage Friday to unleash their sexist insults.
  • Allahpundit busts the first lieberal meme about Palin. It was all-too-easy for him because they cut apart his video to spread it.
  • Jeni did what Charlie Sykes would call a flagrant act of journalism, went through the donations from Gannett higher-ups, and compared that to Gannet’s “Ethics” policy. I’m shocked, SHOCKED to find out that 30 Gannett bigwigs donated to the Obamination Express.
  • Jim Geraghty asks whether the MLSM is just the Kos/Sullivan publicists. The fact that he asked the question ought to be a clue on the answer.
  • John juxtaposes the presstitutes’ non-coverage of John Edwards’ love child with the non-stop Palin slams.
  • Bill Quick notes that August will be the first month in a century without sunspots. Unspoken scientific fact; the last 3 mini-Ice Ages have been tied to a lack of sunspot activity.
  • Fred Keller highlights recent events in the restoration of the Soviet Union.
  • The Wisconsin Institute for Leadership held a memorial service for Wisconsin jobs. In the less-than-6-years of the Jim Doyle administration, there have been 4 (5 if the job gets filled) Commerce Secretaries.
  • Jib has some odd Greek Wisconsin factoids.
  • James Wigderson wonders whether the homosexual crowd is going to be successful in buying Wisconsin like they did Colorado.

Hopefully tomorrow will be better.

June 9, 2008

A New Class Of Human?

by @ 5:02. Filed under Miscellaneous.

On March 31st, at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama made the following statement:

When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include "” which should include abstinence education and teaching the children "” teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include "” it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information."

Amongst other things, this statement shows that contrary to Barack’s earlier contention,

No one is pro-abortion and I do not sanction infanticide

That he made at Benedictine University in October, 2004, he is not only pro-abortion but also believes that abortion is an acceptable means of birth control.

I’ll admit that having a Senator with the most liberal Senate voting record, supporting abortion and its use as a contraception may not be big news. But even the most liberal Senator must have limits?

In August 2002, President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIP). The act confers the status of “human being” on any child who survives an abortion attempt. The implications of this is that it imposes a requirement on doctors to take necessary action to support the life of the child and not “perform an abortion” by simply “shelving” the child and allowing it to expire as a result of neglect.

Interestingly, the Born alive Infants Protection Act was was passed by unanimous voice consent of the US Senate. It was passed even though Barabara Boxer was unable to confirm or reconcile in her own mind that a baby; breathing, heart beating and separated from its mother was actually alive.

While his time in the Illinois Senate and particularly while he was Chairman of the Illinois Health & Human Services Committee, Barack Obama had an opportunity to pass a similar bill for Illinois. Obama had numerous reasons why he didn’t want to pass a BAIP bill for Illinois. Jill Stanek  does a fantastic job of deconstructing Barack’s objections to passing such a bill. As Jill points out in her article, all the objections that Obama had were removed by the wording of the Federal bill which the Illinois bill mirrored, except for one. When “Born Alive” was defined as having the child separated from the mother, Obama balked. He refused to amend the Illinois language to mirror the federal language because a: the bill would have surely passed and b: any definition of “life” in a bill that deals with an abortion issue is seen as being the start of a slippery slope that radical abortion rights advocates don’t want to go near.

Today I saw this article about a boy born in the UK, despite an attempt to abort him at eight weeks. While suffering from a kidney defect, the boy is expected to live a normal life.

So here’s what I’m trying to figure out…

There was an attempted and failed abortion attempt on this boys life.
In spite of the attempt, he survived to be born.
If he lived in Illinois, what would he be? Barack Obama doesn’t believe that he is a “human person” or even that classification as “member of the species homosapiens” is applicable. So what is he, alien?

Is the definition of new species the change that Obama is always talking about?

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]