Nothing good can come of this . . .

Tiller

George Tiller, abortion doc, killed at church.

 

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.” For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller’s life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our “weapons” in the fight to defend the lives of abortion’s tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit. 

— Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.

Voting For A Racist?

To The Senators Who Will Vote To Confirm Sotomayor:

When you vote to confirm Sotomayor, you will have failed in your responsibility to stand up for impartial justice and the separation of powers.  

Sotomayor doesn’t know whether biology, culture or experience is the most important source of her prejudice, but she anticipates that her bias will confer judging skills that will make her superior to white males.

From a speech, Sotomayor in her own words (and with ample context):

  • “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences… our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
  • “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. …I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
  • “Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. …I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First…there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

[Translation: Judges are prejudiced, my prejudice will stem from my female gender and my Hispanic heritage …my prejudice will be an asset.]

From NRO:

“So accustomed have we become to identity politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males.
 
“Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.”

That Sotomayor touts her prejudice would be reason enough to vote against her confirmation, but Sonia has also hinted at a preference for legislating from the bench.  While Sonia Sotomayor was participating in a panel discussion at Duke University Law School, she said the following:

“…Court of Appeals is where policy is made, and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t MAKE law.  I know…uhm…ok…  I know, I know.  I’m not promoting it and I’m not advocating it.  I’m…you know…uhm…ok…uhm…”

Reaction to the statement from Verum Serum:

“Talk about a ‘wink, wink, nudge, nudge‘ moment. Everyone there KNEW what she meant.  That’s why they were all laughing.”

So Sotomayor is quite comfortable with the idea of legislating from the bench and admits to being prejudiced.  How can you take this candidate seriously?

In nominating Sotomayor, Obama is delivering on a promise he never should have made:

“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory… I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

From The American Spectator:

“Obama’s call for Supreme Court justices who demonstrate the proper ’empathy’ isn’t merely wrong; it’s unlawful, indeed anarchic, and it utterly trashes the entire American tradition of equal procedural treatment under the law.  The proper conservative response to any nominee forwarded by Obama under such criteria is to demand, and force, extended and illuminating public debate in the Senate.”

FYI, The Judicial Oath, for all Federal Judges and Justices:

“I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (name of position) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
 

Prop 8 Upheld

Prop 8 Upheld


Californa supremes will recognize previous gay marriages. 

The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.

Obama’s Notre Dame Speech, Full Text

Obama’s Notre Dame Speech: FULL TEXT

Highlights:
  • “Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest…in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game.”  [Look who’s talking.]
  • “Those with power…find all manner of justification for their own privilege.”  [Pot, I’d like you to meet Kettle.] 
  • The strong too often dominate the weak. [You don’t say!]
  • Read the whole speech…and look for the shameless plug for his book, The Audacity of Hope.
More

OBAMA INTERRUPTED at Notre Dame (Video)

Protests Build Ahead of Obama’s Notre Dame Speech

 

Why I Voted Democrat….

 

Wherein Obama is Beaten Up by the Media

Has any sitting president ever had it so bad?  Obama thinks not:


“I just want to make a little commentary about the media here, if you don’t mind. When Congress included in last year’s budget a whole bunch of earmarks, you remember there was a week worth of stories about how terrible these earmarks were. You remember this, Chip — a week worth of stories — ‘oh, these earmarks, this is what’s blowing up the deficit, this is terrible,’ blah, blah, blah.”

[Interesting.  We say: “Obama, you’re breaking your promise to curb earmarks.”  Obama hears: “Blah, blah, blah.”]

Obama goes on:

“And yet, as I said before, that was less than 1% of that entire budget that had been signed. When we find $17 billion worth of cuts in programs, what do the same folks say? They say, ‘Oh, that’s nothing.’ (Laughter.) ‘Now, that’s not even — that’s not even — that’s not significant. That’s not important.’ Well, you can’t have it both ways. If those earmarks were important, then this money is important, too.”

Reaction from Allah Pundit:

“Of course…he didn’t really ‘cut’ any money at all; he just reallocated it to other programs. Combine that with the fact that the total budget was revised upwards this week by another $89 billion — more than five times the amount of the cuts we’re all supposed to be so impressed with — and the more apt comparison here is between 1% in earmarks and, er, -2% in ‘cuts.’ Good work, Barry.”

More commentary on the same speech (wherein Obama starts talking like a tea bagger), this time from Ace of Spades…

Obama: “The long-term deficit and debt that we have accumulated is unsustainable. We can’t keep on just borrowing from China, or borrowing from other countries because part of it is, we have to pay for — we have to pay interest on that debt.”

Ace of Spades: Shut up, really?!

“He’s talking up ‘spending cuts’ even as he spends more and more. And he’s selling his universal health care rationing program as some kind of savings, because, somehow, this will drive costs down. Or somethin‘.

“I think we sort of know where this is headed. He’s going to pull the old con man move of talking around a possibility, until it ultimately starts occurring to people ‘Hey, maybe we need to raise taxes on ourselves!’

“At which point Obama will exclaim, ‘Wow, what an interesting idea! …Golly Gee Willickers, that sure seems to make a tremendous amount of sense! Sorta cuts the Gordian Knot right in half with a decisive chop, doesn’t it? You really are a very smart person, you know that? Here, have a cookie.'”


More


Poll: By 3-to-1 Majority, Public Says It’s Time for Obama to Stop Blaming Bush and Start Taking Responsibility.

Laying the Predicate: Obama Admits Long-Term Debt “Unsustainable

Liberalism: Cruel, Corrupt, Unjust, Wasteful, Deluded

Is the financial crisis “accidentally feminist“?

The Most Dangerous Bailout

The media are on a kamikaze mission for Obama. Ratings for the evening news on the big TV networks continue to languish and the left-leaning newspaper industry is circling the drain, but they never stop shillin’ for Obama. Hey — they might be rewarded with an afterlife (tax breaks, bailouts and non-profit status), so it’s totally worth it!

You already know the media are Obama’s volunteer PR machine.  The MRC lets us know exactly how bad it is. MRC analysts looked at all 982 broadcast evening news stories about Obama and his administration from Inauguration Day through April 29. Here are some of the interesting, though not surprising, things that they found:
  • Obama’s first 100 days were defined by massive spending, aggressive intervention in the private sector and proposals for a huge expansion of the federal government. Yet none of the networks aired a single story on whether Obama’s policies were pushing the U.S. toward socialism, and no reporter used the term “socialist” to describe Obama.
  • Network reporters never used the word “liberal” to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days.
  • The networks lavished good press on every major initiative of the early Obama administration, including the massive stimulus package, all of the various bailouts, health care, stem cells, the environment and foreign policy.
  • In the days before the President unveiled his unprecedented $3.5 trillion budget — with a record-shattering $1.75 trillion deficit — four out of five statements on the evening newscasts parroted the White House spin that Obama was a deficit fighter.
  • President Obama’s decision to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan was greeted by nearly unanimous (91%) positive coverage — a far cry from the highly negative coverage of President Bush’s successful troop surge in Iraq two years ago.
The Democrats’ greed is astonishing.  They have the media licking from their palms, but they are still not happy.  They want to own their media handmaidens. And so they offer bailouts and tax breaks and non-profit schemes.

If the government continues to subsidize the press with bailouts, tax breaks and gratuitous non-profit privileges, will the press be free?  Free to bite the hand that feeds them?  Not at all.  

Government bailout of the news media is the most dangerous bailout of all.  (He who pays the piper calls the tune.)

When did the First Amendment become so inconvenient for the left?

News Flash: Obama supporters support Obama!

A self-described group of “stakeholders” has reached out to the Obama administration on behalf of the private sector.  The Democrat Media are quite excited:
  • “Private sector signs on for health care reform.”
  • “Obama wins business support for health care reform.”
  • “Obama Promised $2 Trillion Savings in 10 Years by Health Groups”
  • “Obama has secured the commitment of several industry groups to do their part to rein in the growth in health care costs.”
  • “Obama lauds industry offer to cut health costs.”
  • “These and other reforms will make our health care system stronger and more sustainable.”
This sounds good, right?  Finally, everybody coming together to solve problems.  It’s nonpartisan, and it’s very warm and fuzzy.  

Do you believe this?  Don’t.

This group of stakeholders says it wants to provide support for the bloated Obama administration to do the following
  • Reduce waste and improve efficiency
  • Encourage coordinated care 
  • Focus on administrative simplification and transparency
  • Reduce the cost of doing business
Obviously, bloated government bureaucracies are better than anyone else in finding ways to reduce the burden administrative costs, improve efficiency, eliminate waste and reduce the cost of doing business.  Why didn’t I come up with this brilliant plan?

The so-called stakeholders claim to represent the private sector: physicians and other health care workers, hospitals, payers, suppliers, manufacturers, and organized labor.  But who are these people — really?

RightKlik takes a look at the signatories:

Service Employees International Union.
SEIU spent $18,818,358.97 through December of 2008 to help elect Obama. This does not include the money SEIU spent against McCain.  News flash: Obama supporters support Obama!

The American Medical Association
Forget what you think you know about the AMA.  The AMA (based in Chicago) is an increasingly leftist organization (on issues ranging from global warming to LGBT advocacy). The AMA in no way represents the majority of physicians in the United States.  Reliable numbers are not easy to find, but AMA membership is estimated to represent 15-26% of America’s practicing physicians.  The AMA is credited for having helped to defeat HillaryCare, but since that time, the AMA has made a 175 degree turn.  The AMA has been pushing for universal health care for years.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
The President of PhRMA, Billy Tauzin, was a Blue Dog Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives during the Reagan years.  After the balance of power shifted with the success of the Contract with America, he jumped ship to join the Republicans.  Tauzin played a key role in shepherding the massively expensive and unnecessary Medicare prescription drug entitlement program through Congress.

American Hospital Association
No advocate of free market solutions to America’s health care ills, the AHA calls for a three-pronged approach to the problems of the uninsured: increased government spending, greater government spending, and more government spending.

America’s Health Insurance Plans
Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, was once a big wig at the AFLCIO. AHIP proposes guaranteed government coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions (the sick people) in conjunction with an enforceable individual coverage mandate (how convenient).  To help working families afford coverage, advanceable and refundable tax credits should be available, phasing out as income approaches 400 percent of the federal poverty line (People making up to $100,000/year or more, those poor dears).

Advanced Medical Technology Association 
It’s not easy to find dirt on AdvaMed.  It should be noted, however, that members of AdvaMed can expect to profit handsomely as they position themselves to benefit from Obama’s push to implement Health IT in its various forms (electronic health records, telemedicine).

These lobbyists, union bosses, politicians, and business executives have been in bed with government for a long time.

They see the incremental takeover of the private banking system, they saw how Obama seized control of the U.S. auto industry, and they know that public support for government-run health care is creeping upward. 

They see the writing on the wall and they know Obama plays hard ball.  They know political gamesmanship is an increasingly important part of the process of doing business.  If big business doesn’t play by Barack’s rules, the results can be painful.  

These people don’t represent you, me or the future generations who will pay for Obama’s socialist dystopia.  They don’t represent the “private sector.” They don’t fight for the free market and they’re not champions of capitalism.  The represent their own narrow, short-sighted self-interests.