Flinty Chicago Tough Guy Scratching His Face with His Middle Finger Again

"My children's school was canceled today," Obama said, speaking to reporters before a meeting with business leaders. "Because of what? Some ice? . . . We're going to have to apply some flinty Chicago toughness to this town." . . .

Obama he kept at it. "I'm saying that when it comes to the weather, folks in Washington don't seem to be able to handle things."

--Washington Post, January 29, 2009

WASHINGTON — The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

--New York Times, January 28, 2009

Do you really think that President Obama, et al. could give a rat's ass what you think about him contemptuously calling you a wimp about the cold weather and demanding that you sacrifice, while he cranks up the heat?
.

Just Go Away NOW

People that I never, ever, ever want to see on TV or hear on the radio or read in the print media ever again. EVER! Just go away. Must we always have the exact same crowd of people shoved in our faces?? How many trillions of times must we be subjected to these moronic blowhards?? Go. Away. Now.

Lanny Davis
David Gergen
Jeffrey Toobin
Paul Begala
James Carville
Bill Schneider
Roland Martin
Dana Bash
Ali Velshi
Fareed Zakaria
Jeff Greenfield
Mark Shields
Keith Olbermann
Dan Abrams
Andrea Mitchell
David Gregory
Rachel Maddow
Ed Rendell
Paul Krugman
David Shuster
Amy Holmes
E.J. Dionne, Jr.
David Corn
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Joe Klein
Bill Kristol
David Brooks
Mike Huckabee
Bob Beckel
Ann Coulter
Peggy Noonan
Chris Cilliza
Mark Furman
Sean Hannity
Marc Lamont Hill
Ed Rollins
Keith Boykin
Craig Crawford
Arianna Huffington
Alex Castellanos
Bob Shrum
Lawrence O'Donnell
Rick Sanchez
Jonathan Alter
Chuck Hagel
and, of course, John McCain
.

Once a Piece of @#$%, Always a Piece of @#$%

The piece of crap that is John McCain is apparently back to doing what he likes to do best -- oppose and attack and obstruct and frustrate the efforts of his own party.

A joke made its way around the Capitol yesterday: How do you know the 2008 election is really over? Because John McCain is causing trouble for Republicans again. . . . In some instances, he's even carrying water for his former rival [Barack Obama]. . . .

When he's not being a useful idiot by carrying water for President Obama and the Dems, he's attacking his own.

The surest sign of McCain's return to his "maverick" ways came when he caught wind of an effort by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) to delay Clinton's confirmation vote by a day, pushing it from Tuesday to Wednesday because he was seeking greater disclosure about foreign donors to former president Bill Clinton's charitable foundation. McCain found the objection gratuitous -- despite policy disagreements with Clinton, he and most Republicans consider her well qualified -- and said so publicly.

And, of course, if Obama is working to dismantle anything that President Bush did, even to the detriment of the security of the American people, McCain is all for it.

And he continues to march to his own tune. Yesterday, McCain applauded Obama's executive order to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year.

(See full story at Washington Post)
.

Important Questions About the Holiday Season!

I'm hoping that you all can help me out with something. I know that everyone does it a little differently, and some like to celebrate for about 12 days and some even all year round, but for most the holiday season does eventually come to an end (at least until next year), and I'm not really sure exactly when that should be.

So, let me ask you --

When is the most appropriate time for taking down our Obama lights?

How long should we leave up the Inauguration Scene?

Do we really have to stop singing Obama carols after tomorrow, or can we sing them for a while longer?

I know that times are tight, but it is the season for giving, so should we really set a limit on how much we can spend for Obama presents?

Now, I already have a quite beautiful image of Obama (aren't they all?), but can someone tell me where I can get an incense burner to go with it?
.

The Eternal War Against Israel

Dawn Eden reports on her blog, the Dawn Patrol:

While the United Nations cries out against Israel for defending itself—and takes no notice of Hamas' using its own citizens as human shields—residents of the Israeli town of Sderot, one mile from Gaza, have lived under Hamas rocket fire for eight years.

A guy named Dave asks why there are so few comments in response to this and related posts about attacks on Israel by Hamas, as well as verbal attacks by various bloggers, including "Catholic" bloggers.

Well, before there was the "blame America first" crowd, before there was "blame everything on Dead White European Males," before there was "hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Civ has got to go," before there was "blame everything on the Evil Misogynistic Patriarchy," before there was "blame everything on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy," before there was Bush Derangement Syndrome, blaming every single solitary bad thing ever in the history of the world on George Bush -- before all these things -- there was blame everything on Israel, and before there was that, there was blame everything on those sneaky, dirty Jews. They are always to blame. They are always at fault.

The only time they are given vocal support is in order to (often falsely) accuse one of the other aforementioned groups of anti-Semitism (e.g. the slanders against Pope Pius XII). That is, only used as a tool in which to bash the others.

So, when Israelis and Jews are attacked and attacked and attacked, the only reaction they get is a yawn. When they defend themselves, or if they even try to peaceably live side-by-side in the same territory as the people who have sworn to exterminate them, and whose scriptures instruct them to fight and detest, as the dogs and apes that they are, then and only then does the world take notice, and then only to demand that they stop defending themselves or try to live peaceably together, and to further demand that they get the hell out of the region.

When other nations are attacked in war, and they defend themselves, counterattack, and consequently take over the territory of the enemy, they get to keep that territory, especially if needed in order to prevent the area from being used as a launching pad for later attacks. But Israel is unique in the world in that, not only were they denied international recognition as a nation for years, that is, denied the right to even exist, they are denied the right to keep lands seized from their enemies in war.

When other enemies start wars and attack peaceful countries, they forfeit the territories from which the attacks began, and they subject themselves to legitimate occupation for as long as the victorious country chooses. But when "Palestine" starts war after war (or, more precisely, continues to engage in the same war, interrupted every now and then with dishonest and false cease-fires, the sole purpose of which is to prevent the ultimate losing of the war and to give time to re-arm), it is to be given support, and given back the lands that it occupied for a short period of time, but were never part of some nonexistent country of Palestine.

Meanwhile, we are assured that the root cause of rockets and car bombs and kidnappings and restaurant bombs and masked gunmen dressed as civilians shooting innocent Israelis and Palestinians alike, is not because the terror groups and their many supporters in Palestinian areas have chosen to engage in criminal terroristic behavior, but rather, it is because of the Jews. It is the fault of the Jews. And when I say the Jews, I mean, the Jews, not the Israelis. Because if Israel were not a Jewish state, if it were Muslim or even secular, it would not be the one to blame. (If it were a Christian nation, then we would be back to "blame everything on Western Civilization" and Palestinian terror would, again, not be the fault of Palestinian terrorists.)

When thugs in Europe and America take to the street, again dressed in masks, and start burning things, damaging synagogues, damaging Jewish businesses, assaulting Jewish bystanders and observers, while shouting things like "go back to the ovens," and while German modern-day stormtroopers come busting into Jewish homes to forcibly remove Israelis flags, like some cross between neo-Nazis and good little dhimmis, despite all these things being aimed at Jews generally, not Israelis, we are told that, "no, opposition to Israeli military action is not anti-Semitism, but merely anti-Israeli aggression" and "anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism" (even though, as said above, they remained silent in the face of Palestinian and Arab and Muslim terroristic aggression).

No one says anything, Dave, because it would be superfluous. "Hey, did you notice that the sun rose in the east today?" It's rather pointless, don't you think? Likewise, it is pointless to say much here because EVERYONE knows that those poor innocent Palestinians and radical Islamists are NEVER to blame for anything. That the Israelis, Jews that they are, are ALWAYS at fault because of the very fact that they are present in that area (or in any area), and because they refuse to recognize that this should be a Jew-free zone (world). And when it is not the fault of the Israelis, it is America and George Bush's fault.

America and George Bush are to blame for 9-11, not Islamic terrorists. Western Civilization is to blame. To be sure, it is the fault of the Christians that, 1300 years ago, the armies of Mohammed's followers attacked and conquered Christian lands across the Middle East, Northern Africa, Eurasia, and halfway into Europe, before being stopped. It's the fault of those evil crusaders, and those evil Christians who only want to subject us all to the "tortures of the Inquisition." And the fact that many of the followers of Mohammed today want to take us back to the 7th Century is, again, not their fault, but ours.

We are silent, Dave, because we hate the good and embrace the evil, calling the good "bad" and the bad "good," and because we have decided on the option of civilizational suicide. Everything about traditional Western society is bad, hence the need to tear down every existing institution and reengineer mankind, including remaining silent on anti-Jew and anti-Israel attacks, and remaining silent on many anti-American attacks. They are bad. They must go. And any defense of them must be opposed.

Everyone knows this, so why waste our time talking and writing about it?

For those who blame Israel, rather than Palestinian and Islamist terrorists, for the ongoing conflict, we might ask who is to blame for the PLO and Islamist terrorists starting, in 1975, the civil war in Lebanon, which once had large Christian population? Or why the PLO was kicked out of many Arab countries?

The sad fact is that many Palestinians are not at all interested in having their own independent nation. That is not their priority. So to say that all Israel needs to do is allow Palestinian nationhood is fooling oneself. So long as Israel exists, and Jews are living in the Middle East, these people are interested in only one thing -- killing Jews. Even to the extent of glorifying suicide bombing in children's books.

Now, to be sure, there are some Palestinians who want peace. They are tired of the fighting and are willing to live side-by-side with Jewish Israelis. But there are not enough of them. Perhaps they are even a majority. But there are not enough of them. And they are too silent and too inactive in opposing the high numbers of Palestinians who care little about peace with Israelis and Jews.
.

The ESAD List

John McCain
McCain staffers
McCain cheerleaders
Lindsey Graham
Arlen Specter
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Chuck Hagel
George Voinovich
Mel Martinez
John Warner
Tom Ridge
Tom Kean
Christie Todd Whitman
Colin Powell
Trent Lott
Richard Lugar
John Sununu
Tom Davis
Lamar Alexander
Charlie Crist
Bob Taft
Mike DeWine
Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee
Tim Pawlenty
Scott McClellan
Sean Hannity
David Brooks
Bill Kristol
David Frum
George Will
Peggy Noonan
Ramesh Ponnuru
Kathleen Parker
Michael Steele

Updated:
Orrin Hatch
Judd Gregg
Warren Rudman

.

Quote of the Day (Week, Month, Year)

Here is the best description of moderate/lib/big-tent/country-club/RINO/maverick “Republicans” that I’ve seen in a long time –

“Your entire existence is defined as living off of conservative votes and then stabbing those voters in the back. You’re like some tapeworm in the Conservative intestine…draining resources, selfishly sustaining yourself at our expense…until we sh*t you out.”

Tapeworms Republicans. Yep, that’s it exactly, “my friends.”
.

Put Not Your Trust in Man or the World

So, while the State of Washington votes for a ballot measure for physician-assisted suicide, America has voted for politician-assisted suicide.

Wow, dude — you really think it that dire?

Yeah, I do. The storm clouds are nearly upon us. The tsunami tidal wave is just over the horizon. We’ve been talking about the slippery slope for many years now — well, eventually you’ve gone so far as to slip off the slope and into the abyss. When things as fundamental as truth have been, not only relativized, but turned into something that can be applied or not applied, or wholly manufactured out of whole cloth, at the will of those having power — government, politicians, media, academia — when truth no longer exists as truth, then we are past even a dictatorship.

Perhaps the problem is that we have been guilty of the same error as the “progressives,” who think that we can and should create a utopian paradise here on earth. We conservatives have long held to the idea that America is a “shining city on a hill,” that we are a beacon of hope and liberty to the world. If that was ever true, then it surely has been the rarest of exceptions in the history of mankind. We have had it really good in this “land of liberty” for a long time, and we perhaps have allowed ourselves to falsely believe that this is the way it has always been and always will be, here and everywhere. In our zeal for natural rights, we have perhaps failed to see the world as it really is in practice. If we take a truthful look, we must see that freedom has been the exception in the world, and that, more often than not, the bad beats the good. (That will not be the case in the end, but it has been the case in the meantime.)

In short, perhaps we must come out of our dream and realize that being in the oppressed minority is the (worldly) usual state of things. And that our trying to create a conservative utopia, a conservative Kingdom of God on earth, is as much a folly as is a progressive utopia and Kingdom.

Perhaps we must realize that, although we may be in the world, we are not of the world. We are strangers in a foreign land. We are merely sojourners passing through the shadow of the valley of death. We pass our days on earth, but are citizens of heaven. Perhaps it is time to remember that. All of this — America included — will inevitably turn to dust. So we should place our trust and hope in those persons and things which do not decay or decline, we should place our trust and hope in those persons and things which are eternal and incorruptible. Trust Him and only Him.
.

The Future

The knives are going to have to come out, and we must do what we failed to do back in 1992. And it is that failure that has largely brought us to where we are today.

Back then, we should have rid ourselves once and for all of the squishy, stab-you-in-the-back, big-tent, elitist, snobby, moderates and liberals that have been the disease of the Republican Party. We failed to do it, and they have now brought to the brink of ruin. Even though they succeeded in having one of their own nominated, and demanded that we all fall in line and support him, now they are all scurrying away, turning their fire on their favorites targets — not the opposition, but their own side.

Very well then. If they mean to have a war, then let the blood run.

But won't a doctrinally pure GOP be increasingly marginalized in the wider wicked world?

Conservative principles attract people, not repulse them. Modern conservativism, in its truest, most pure sense, is based on truth and reason, especially the truths about the human person and liberty. Modern conservativism, which is grounded largely in the philosophy of this Nation’s founding, is where most people in this country naturally are. Most people are drawn to true conservativism because they are naturally drawn to truth and reason.

One of the greatest errors of the modern age has been the error of big-tent Republicanism — this idea that most people are opposed to true conservativism, so we have to make the Republican Party more attractive by countering those conservatives (especially those embarassing social conservatives) with moderates and liberals. But that kind of strategy, of not having any core principles, of implicitly opposing your own ideology, and of trying to appeal to everyone, does not attract centrists or moderate Dems, it only validates their opposition to Republicans.

Me-too Republicanism, Republicanism that is nothing more than more efficient liberalism or socialism, is doomed to failure. Republican clubism, promoting and voting Republican merely because they are “our” team, regardless of what they stand for, is also doomed to failure.

I have voted Republican, and was once a member of that party, only because it was a convenient vehicle by which to advance conservative principles of governing. That is the reason for being of the party — to advance conservative principles, principles of liberty, human dignity, and limited government. Merely electing more Republicans and merely stopping Democrats is NOT the party’s reason for being. So when you have, to use David Brooks’ term, a cancer in the party, as is the moderates and liberals like Brooks, you must cut it out and radiate or else the party will die — and deservedly so if all the Republican Party stands for is Democratism by a different name.

Are we sliding into the abyss?
Are we in the midst of the act of slow national suicide?
Is there some self-inflicted disease that is continually eroding and degrading our social body?
I don’t know. Maybe we are.
If so, is it any surprise? Can a people survive when they have been killing their children for 35 years?

The one thing I do know for certain — it is folly to place your trust in man. If we look to any human institution to be our savior, we are only ensuring our demise.
We must remember that we are a pilgrim people in a strange, foreign land.
.

The Inevitable Happens

Now do you McCain folks see why we went ape-sh*t when he became the inevitable nominee?

Look, when you got one guy attacking and running against the Republicans, and you got the other guy who is a rabid, pro-abortion Marxist, the Republican ticket hasn’t got a chance.

That there was no one better who was running, for that, too, McCain should be held to answer. He spends the last seven years fragging his own party, giving the opposition cover for attacking conservatives and Republicans, including legitimizing Bush-hate, with the result of not gaining the respect of Dems and independents, and only sabotaging the Party, so is it any surprise that any possible up-and-coming stars out in the states were snuffed out in the crib and, thus, not in a position to run?

Time to settle all family business. The McCain camp, big-tent moderates, anti-Palin elites. Give them the Carlo Rizzi treatment. It’s not personal, it’s strictly business.

It is John McCain and his “maverickism” that blew a gaping hole in the Republican Party; it was McCain and his anti-Bushism that helped foster and feed totally irrational Bush-hate, thereby dragging down, not only Bush, but conservatives and the entire Party; it was McCain and the Gang of 14 and the rest of the “Republican” moderates that have decimated the Party.

It was this idea, for way, way, way too long of “let’s not do that,” that we must have a big tent and must support and elect a whole bunch of people on the Republican ballot who are antithetical to Republican and conservative principles, that left us with nary a single viable candidate for president this year. It was maverickism and big tentism that left us with a tent full of squishes and worms and slick used car salesmen.

This idea that McCain would be the Dems’ worst nightmare, because he is so loved by Dems and independents, pushed on us by elites and those who know better than anyone else (like the Maverick), was a blatently obviously falacious idea from the get-go because it was clear that they would all abandon him as quickly as they could. It was clear to all who had eyes to see that the most likely outcome was total ruin. And that is what McCain has brought us.

Well, if we have now crashed and burned, the wisest thing to do would be to rebuild the right way, to purify, and not repeat the mistakes of the past.

In case you all think that all my venom is directed toward McCain, his “moderate” friends, and the sh*t-for-brains elites, if folks are worried about what President Obama is going to do, let not your heart be troubled.

I’m sure that if Sean Hannity only keeps pounding away on Rev. Wright and William Ayers a couple more thousand times, the country will see Obama for who he really is.

If only we had run that play a few more times. After all, when it failed to work the first 17,342 times it was run, surely it would have worked the next time!

Looks like the laugh is on us, as we have been suffering under the total delusion that, in the fight against Communism, we won and the Commies lost. The truth is, more and more, it is apparent that we lost.

Let’s not forget, comrades, in true Communism, it is not the government that controls everything, rather, it is the Party that controls everything, especially the media. Is there any institution of American society that is not controlled by the Party? The media, the schools, the courts, the government, the entertainment industry, much of industry — all of these are controlled by the Party. Even some of our religious denominations have been infiltrated and controlled by Party members. Meanwhile, too many of the non-Party members have sold them the rope to hang us all.
.

We all saw this coming (except for the McCain sycophants who attacked us for not supporting him)

So back when I made my last post, I thought that perhaps things had turned around, that McCain would be smart enough to let his campaign be smart enough to let Sarah Palin be the driving force to victory.

But then the McCain folks, envious of her HUGE popularity overshadowing the tepid response people have to McCain, decided to over handle Palin and keep her in a box.

Meanwhile, McCain thought that that was the time to play his "winning card" by running 20 trillion commercials supporting human embryo killing stem cell research as being some kind of snake oil miracle cure for everything. Then he decided to make a big show of "suspending" his campaign to be the savior of the economy and instead merely made himself look like a doddering fool.

I knew it. I just knew it. We all knew it.

McCain throws a spectacular 80-yard pass with Palin to get to the 10-yard line, and instead of driving it in, he punted. I just knew that when Palin was picked, causing McCain to surge into the lead, that it was not too late for him to piss it all away.

I knew this - we knew this - because we know and have known that McCain is an ineffectual DISASTER. After attacking conservativism and conservatives for the last eight years, he has no clue about how to defend them and advance conservative principles. After attacking his real friends, whom he mistakes for his enemies, he has now been savaged by his real enemies, but because he has mistaken for his friends, he has no clue as to how to fight against them.

THIS is why we were so vehement in our opposition to him. Not because of sour grapes, not because "our guy lost," but because McCain is a walking disaster.

People express disappointment and anger at George W. Bush?? Well, Bush could have and would have been a lot more "conservative" if he did not have to placate and appease folks in Congress like John McCain these last eight years. Much of Bush's unpopularity can be laid at the feet of John McCain. If McCain had been supportive of Bush all this time, rather than obstructive and oppositional, Bush could have achieved many more positive things. And that is ANOTHER reason we went ape-sh*t when it because apparent that McCain would get the nomination.
.

Sarah "the Barracuda" Palin

President Bush Needs to Take Charge and Do the Job that McCain Refuses or is Unable to Do.

Dan Henniger reports, "Recently the subject came up of Al Gore's assertion that the U.S. could get its energy solely from renewables in 10 years. Sen. McCain said: 'If the vice president says it's doable, I believe it's doable.' What!!??"

Since the presumptive nominee for the Maverick Party is not up to the job, I would urge President Bush to take charge, even if it will make McCain look incredibly small by comparison.

George W. should put together a grand-slam of a speech -- putting together all of the above points, noting that high gas prices are really hurting the economy and threatening the national security; that putting food (corn) into our gas tanks only exacerbates the problem and creates new problems; that oil is used for more than gasoline (the History Channel or some other cable channel last night had a show demonstrating how practically every product we use in everyday life has a petroleum component to it); that we have "clean" and "safe" methods of extracting oil from all sorts of areas; that current alternatives actually end up using more energy than does oil; that the economy would boom from new jobs building and operating new drill sites, new refineries, etc.; that we are in our current mess ONLY because of the obstruction tactics against drilling and refining that have gone on for the last 25 years; and that we need to drill, drill, drill, and refine, refine, refine.

George W. should then present these facts point-by-point in a speech in a prime-time Oval Office speech, and announce that he is recalling Congress from their derilicition of duty and abdication of their responsibilities, and ordering them back into session until they pass a comprehensive bill that he is presenting to Congress obtaining all the necessary objectives. Or better yet, call Congress back into session and give it another similar speech before a joint session.

George W. should hammer it home again and again and again, loudly and with all the public-relation resources at his disposal. I know that he does not want to steal any thunder from McCain, and so he is holding back more than he otherwise might, but it ain't going to get done by the current crop of candidates.

What else can I say? I agree.

Once again, John McCain is praising the opposing side. That is to say, the conservatives' opposing side. Given McCain's history, however, I suppose it could be said that he is praising his own side -- the Democratic side.


Is John McCain Stupid?
By DANIEL HENNINGER
July 31, 2008; Page A13

What I'm asking is, does John McCain have the mental focus, the intellectual discipline, to avoid being out-slicked by Barack Obama, if he isn't abandoned by his own voters?

It's not just taxes. Recently the subject came up of Al Gore's assertion that the U.S. could get its energy solely from renewables in 10 years. Sen. McCain said: "If the vice president says it's doable, I believe it's doable." What!!?? In a later interview, Mr. McCain said he hadn't read "all the specifics" of the Gore plan and now, "I don't think it's doable without nuclear power." It just sounds loopy.

Then this week in San Francisco, in an interview with the Chronicle, Sen. McCain called Nancy Pelosi an "inspiration to millions of Americans." Notwithstanding his promises to "work with the other side," this is a politically obtuse thing to say in the middle of a campaign. Would Bill Clinton, running for president in 1996 after losing control of the House, have called Newt Gingrich an "inspiration"? House Minority Leader John Boehner, facing a 10-to-20 seat loss in November, must be gagging. . . .

Yes, Sen. McCain must somehow appeal to independents and blue-collar Hillary Democrats. A degree of pandering to the center is inevitable. But this stuff isn't pandering; it's simply stupid. Al Gore's own climate allies separated themselves from his preposterous free-of-oil-in-10-years whopper. Sen. McCain saying off-handedly that it's "doable" is, in a word, thoughtless.

Speaker Pelosi heads a House with a 9% approval. To let her off the hook before the election reflects similar loss of thought. . . .

In this sports-crazed country, everyone has learned a lot about what it takes to win. They've heard and seen it proven repeatedly that to achieve greatness, to win the big one, an athlete has to be ready to "put in the work."

John McCain isn't doing that, yet. He's competing as if he expects the other side to lose it for him. Sen. McCain is a famously undisciplined politician. Someone in the McCain circle had better do some straight talking to the candidate. He's not some 19-year-old tennis player who's going to win the U.S. presidential Open on raw talent and the other guy's errors. He's not that good.

.

Thump, Thump, Thump (sound of head banging against the wall)

Sigh --

At a town hall meeting Tuesday, a GOP voter posed a question McCain has heard everywhere from Sparks, Nev., to Dayton, Ohio: Why should Republicans support him?

"I think I speak for a lot of conservatives when I say I'm not very excited about this election," the questioner said, noting that he differs with McCain on issues including "amnesty" for illegal immigrants and the senator's support for "the global warming crowd's agenda."

But rather than rattle off his most conservative positions -- his opposition to abortion and support for the war -- he launched into a long explanation of his role in a compromise on judges, something that conservatives often criticize him for.

He sparked applause from the Republican audience by mentioning his support for conservative Supreme Court Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., but he then noted that he had backed liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer as well.

McCain finished off what was supposed to be an explanation of why conservatives should back him with a pledge to push for a cleaner planet.

"I've stood up against my party many times," he said, "because I've done what I thought was right."

-- Washington Post, July 31, 2008

And you wonder why I think the guy is a disaster.

If it is simply a matter of us against them, we lose.

Someone on another site recently wrote -- "Pro-lifers will win. I'm convinced of it."

That is wrong, wrong, wrong. Disasterously wrong.

Pro-lifers are NOT going to win. Present-day pro-choicers are going to win -- but they will win it for the pro-life side.

To get into this whole idea and talk of pro-lifers defeating pro-choicers/pro-aborts is a guaranteed losing strategy. Such talk implicitly adopts a static, set-in-concrete, us-against-them worldview.

The problem is that there are more of them than there are of us - even with us having babies. There are more of them, and they have more power and resources. As such, pro-lifers will never defeat the pro-choicers/pro-aborts.

The only way to win is, not to defeat them, but to convert them -- and there is a BIG difference between the two. The war will be won for the pro-life side only by present-day pro-choicers being converted over to our side, i.e. by becoming pro-life. The war will be won for the pro-life side only when present-day pro-choicers demand an end to abortion, etc. It is only when THEY demand it, not when we demand it, but only when present-day pro-choicers demand an end, will abortion, etc. stop.

And one day they will. But not when we continue to think of their views as forever set in stone (even the views of someone like Obama). But not when the strategy is not to convert them, but to beat them down and defeat them. That only strengthens their resolve and ensures our own defeat.

What Would Jesus Do?

So Barack Obama goes to the Western Wall and puts a written prayer in one of the cracks. Someone later comes by, retrieves the prayer, and gives it to the media for publication. A few folks were outraged by this apparent invasion of privacy. But there are indications and suspicions that the Obama people themselves were responsible for the prayer being given to the press. Indeed, there are reports that a copy of the prayer was directly and openly given to the press by the campaign. So, now, there is outrage at the politization of prayer.

What is worse in my estimation, far worse, is the Obama camp’s use of campaign posters and banners at the Western Wall, which is not merely some prayer spot, but is part of the wall of the Temple Mount, which until the Incarnation of Jesus was deemed to be the holiest place on earth.

Such defamation of the grounds surrounding what used to be the Temple used to be pretty serious business. I seem to recall Jesus Himself getting rather ticked off about it.

So if the Obama camp could desecrate holy ground with their campaign rally signs, I’m sure that they could use a prayer to God as a political ploy. Sacrilege and blasphemy go hand in hand.

Cindy is the hero in the adoption of daughter Bridget, not John

At the risk of raining all over John McCain, yet again, let me suggest that the pro-McCain people pushing the episode about the adoption of Bridget does not necessarily prove his virtuous character, much less pro-life bona fides, as much as some folks have advocated.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled, Getting to Know John McCain, Karl Rove reports that

in 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.

Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. "I hope she can stay with us," she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget."

Accordingly, Gateway Pundit declares, "Obama Talks About Lifting a Child In Bangladesh From Poverty... John McCain Already Did" Well, the truth is, not really. It was Cindy who brought Bridget home. It was Cindy who brought Nicki to America. It was Cindy McCain who lifted these children from poverty, not John McCain.

Newsweek's story on Cindy McCain gives a few more details:

In 1984 Cindy was on a scuba-diving trip in Micronesia when a friend was injured and had to be taken to the hospital. She was sickened by the filthy conditions in the ER: "There were cats in the operating room and rats everywhere," she says. When she returned home, she began collecting medical supplies and sending them to the hospital. "Finally, the hospital called and said, really what we need is a good orthopedic surgeon," she says. "So I called some friends and we planned a trip … I don't know what made me do it."

She named her charity the American Voluntary Medical Team. In 1991, she camped in the Kuwait desert five days after the end of the gulf war to take medical supplies to refugees. That same year, she visited Mother Teresa's orphanage in Dhaka, Bangladesh, where she saw 160 newborn girls who had been abandoned. The nuns handed her a small baby with a cleft palate so severe that the infant couldn't be fed. Another baby, also just a few weeks old, had a heart defect. Worried they would die without medical attention, Cindy applied for visas to take the girls back to the United States. But the country's minister of Health refused to sign the papers. "We can do surgery on this child," an official told her. Frustrated, Cindy slammed her fist on the table. "Then do it! What are you waiting for?" The official, stunned, simply signed the papers. "I don't know where I got the nerve," Cindy told Harper's Bazaar.

When she arrived in Phoenix, she carried the baby with the cleft palate off the plane. Her husband met her at the airport. He looked at the baby. "Where is she going?" he asked her. "To our house," she replied. They adopted the little girl and named her Bridget. Family friends adopted the other little girl.

That says a great deal about Cindy's compassion and virtues. As for John? Both Karl Rove's WSJ op/ed and the Newsweek story make clear that John knew absolutely nothing about Bridget's existence, much less her plight, until Cindy carried her off the plane, and he had absolutely nothing to do with bringing the children to the United States. It was all Cindy, Cindy, Cindy.

Now, it is a very admirable thing that he did say "yes" when his wife went to the trouble of bringing the girls home. But could he realistically have said "no" to her when Cindy had already told him that Bridget was going home to their house? Yes, he gets credit for acquiescing in Cindy's wishes, but Cindy is the real hero here.

As for who raised young Bridget after John agreed to her adoption --

"For most of the 20 years we've been married, he's been in Washington all week while I'm in Arizona with the kids," she told The New York Times. . . . [After Cindy suffered a stroke in 2004,] she fretted about who would take care of her kids. Her friend Sharon Harper told her she should leave town and focus on recovering. That summer, Cindy moved to San Diego, and rented a condo on Coronado Island. Friends looked after her sons and young Bridget.

Again, it has been Cindy for the most part playing the hero at home, being the one taking care of the kids, Cindy and Cindy's friends, while John has been "wrapped up too much in Washington and [his] ambitions" (John McCain's words, not mine).

OK, maybe I suffer from John McCain Derangement Syndrome. Maybe I am totally irrational and my dislike for him is so great that I can never admit to any good that he has done (at least since returning from Vietnam), and maybe folks are sick and tired of me being a "maverick" against the McCain love train and always bad-mouthing McCain -- maybe that is all true. But in any event, it is Cindy who is to be admired on this count. She's the one who deserves the credit.

NYT rejects another inffective attack by McCain on Bush and Obama

So the New York Times has refused to print a rebuttal by John McCain to a prior opinion piece by Barack Obama, which the Times did see fit to print.

This action by the Times IS dangerously outrageous. Dangerous that the powerful MSM (and they are still powerful) could have so much say as to when someone gets heard or is kept silent.

At the same time, the opinion piece by McCain(’s staff) is, once again, little more than (a) McCain egotistically pushing his resume, as if he has been the only one with the answers, while once again enthusiastically jumping on the MSM bandwagon of bashing Bush with “mission accomplished”, and (b) McCain critiquing Obama. In the entire piece, McCain devotes only a couple of sentences to what he would do, what his plans are. But that is consistent with much of his campaign, which more and more appears to have only three prongs — attack Bush and attack Obama while pushing his resume.

Rarely, if ever, to we get a simple statement of philosophy or advocacy for some policy, and only such a simple statement, e.g. “we should do this . . . and we should do that . . .” Instead, the main focus is always on the narcissistic personal, “me good, they bad.”

What is McCain’s over-arching philosophy for the Middle East? What is his overall philosophy and strategy for combating and defeating terrorism beyond “stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until we decide to leave”? I don’t know. I have no clue. McCain’s maverick, ad hoc, “do whatever he feels like doing today” approach to everything gives me absolutely no indication of what his comprehensive geopolitical worldview is.

Clearly he does not subscribe to the Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld-Cheney strategy of destablizing and eventually conquering Islamic extremism and oppressive Islamic countries by boldly and audaciously planting a seed of Western-style freedom right in the middle of Islamodom. And I suppose that he does not subscribe to the Dem strategy of cut-and-run-and-hide-under-our-beds. But what is his philosophy and/or strategy? I dunno. “Peace with honor”? “Declare victory” and slink home? Some other throwback to the Vietnam era? I don’t know. And perhaps McCain doesn’t know either.

Farewell to a Good Man

.

Tony Snow, Political Commentator and Former White House Press Secretary, Dies at 53
Saturday, July 12, 2008

Tony Snow, the former White House press secretary and conservative pundit who bedeviled the press corps and charmed millions as a FOX News television and radio host, died Saturday after a long bout with cancer. He was 53.

A syndicated columnist, editor, TV anchor, radio show host and musician, Snow worked in nearly every medium in a career that spanned more than 30 years.

"Laura and I are deeply saddened by the death of our dear friend Tony Snow," President Bush said in a written statement. "The Snow family has lost a beloved husband and father. And America has lost a devoted public servant and a man of character."

Snow died at 2 a.m. Saturday at Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C. * * *



His tenure at the White House lasted 17 months and was interrupted by his second bout with cancer.

Snow had his colon removed and underwent six months of chemotherapy after he was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2005. In 2007 he announced his cancer had recurred and spread to his liver, and he had a malignant growth removed from his abdominal area.

He resigned from the White House six months later, in September 2007 * * * At the White House, Snow brought partisan zeal and the skills of a seasoned performer to the task of explaining and defending the president's policies. During daily briefings he challenged reporters, scolded them and questioned their motives as if he were starring in a TV show broadcast live from the West Wing.

"The White House has lost a great friend and a great colleague," said Perino in a statement released to the media. "We all loved watching him at the podium, but most of all we learned how to love our families and treat each other." * * *

A sometime fill-in host for Rush Limbaugh, Snow said he loved the intimacy of his radio audience.

"I don't think you ever arrive," he said. "I think anybody who thinks they've arrived or made it, anywhere in the media — they're nuts."

Robert Anthony Snow was born June 1, 1955, in Berea, Ky., the son of a teacher and nurse. He graduated from Davidson College in 1977 with a bachelor's degree in philosophy, and he taught briefly in Kenya before embarking on his journalism career.

Because of his love for writing, Snow took a job as an editorial writer for the Greensboro Record in North Carolina and went on to run the editorial pages at the Newport News (Virginia) Daily Press, Detroit News and Washington Times. He became a nationally syndicated columnist, and in 1991 he became director of speechwriting for President George H.W. Bush.

"He served people, and we can learn from that. He was kind, and we can learn from that. He was just a good person," the senior Bush told FOX News. * * *

Snow is survived by his wife, Jill Ellen Walker, whom he married in 1987; their son, Robbie; and daughters, Kendall and Kristi.

Tony Snow Speaks About Life

Tony Snow later said that cancer was "the best thing that ever happened to me" because it brought him closer to his wife, Jill, and their three school-age children and made him appreciate what was really important in life. He was forced to think about the eternal things in a new way. He became an advocate for positive attitude and not letting cancer take over one's life.

In an interview with David Gregory, Tony Snow said "God put us on earth to help each other."

And, "when you die, you graduate."
.

The Character of John McCain

When did I begin to have such antipathy toward McCain?

It started back in early 2000. Actually, during that election season, I was open to supporting him and backing him for president. That's because I did not know that much about him except for his claim to be a conservative and his POW experience. But as I watched his conduct and remarks in the 2000 campaign, including listening live to his melt-down with on the Michael Reagan radio show, I began to oppose and then dislike the man. His opposition to overturning Roe played a big part. His paranoid-schizophrenic behavior played a part.

Also playing a part was learning, back in 2000, about how he dumped his faithful first wife -- the heroic first wife who remained faithful and diligently worked for his return when he was a prisoner of war. In return for first wife Carol's steadfast love and fidelity, John McCain gave her repeated adulteries and infidelities, before finally dumping her overboard into the ocean like refuse in favor of a newer, younger, prettier babe. (And if you read the Newsweek article on second wife Cindy, you will see that McCain has often treated her with abandonment and distain as well.)

This much I already knew about John McCain, and such dishonorable and contemptable behavior is enough to disqualify him to any authentic defender of marriage and family values. Now, the Los Angeles Times has picked up the story.
.

America

Land of the free for those who seek to destroy her and land of the oppressed for those who wish to preserve and save her?

.

The Crisis -- The Judiciary, the Left, and Islamic Terrorism

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. . . .

I have as little superstition in me as any man living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent. . . .

I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it. . . .

It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.

My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other.

Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man, [such as those on the Supreme Court]. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America.

There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both. . . .

This is our situation, and who will may know it. By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils -- a ravaged country -- a depopulated city -- habitations without safety, and slavery without hope. . . . Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented.

COMMON SENSE.
.

Authentic Freedom of Choice

Why is it that "pro-choicers" and advocates of a "woman's right to choose" so adamently oppose authentic freedom of choice? For a choice to be freely made, it must necessarily be an informed choice, not a decision made in ignorance or, worse yet, misinformation. It must be made knowingly, intelligently, and willfully, with a full understanding of the nature and consequences of the choice and the action to be taken. Without such information, such as the living and human nature of the unborn in the womb, a decision such as whether to abort, and thereby terminate the life of that unborn, is made blindly, and to willfully and purposely withhold such information from the one making such choice and taking such action is to deprive her of the ability to make a free choice, it is to oppress her, not respect her liberty or autonomy. This is simple commonsense, and a court has FINALLY upheld the principle. --


Mike Rounds, Governor, et al. v. Planned Parenthood Minnesota, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 05-3093 (en banc)
June 27, 2008

The Governor and Attorney General of South Dakota ("the State"), along with the intervenor crisis pregnancy centers, appeal the district court's preliminary injunction preventing the 2005 version of South Dakota's statute regulating informed consent to abortion from becoming effective. For the reasons discussed below, we vacate the preliminary injunction and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

I.

In 2005, South Dakota enacted House Bill 1166 ("the Act"), amending the requirements for obtaining informed consent to an abortion as codified in S.D.C.L. § 34-23A-10.1. Section 7 of the Act requires the performing physician to provide certain information to the patient as part of obtaining informed consent prior to an abortion procedure and to certify that he or she believes the patient understands the information.

* * *

In addition, § 8(4) of the Act amended S.D.C.L. § 34-23A-1 to define "Human being" for the purposes of the informed-consent-to-abortion statute as "an individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens, including the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation." A physician who violates the Act knowingly or in reckless disregard is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. S.D.C.L. § 34-23A-10.2.

* * *

In June 2005, Planned Parenthood moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Act from taking effect as scheduled on July 1, 2005. In support of the argument that §§ 7(1)(b)-(d) would violate physicians' free speech rights by compelling them to deliver the State's ideological message, rather than truthful and non-misleading information relevant to informed consent to abortion, Planned Parenthood's evidence consisted solely of affidavits from Dr. Ball and bioethicist Paul Root Wolpe, Ph.D. In her affidavit, Dr. Ball described her professional background, including a board certification in obstetrics and gynecology. Without elaboration, Dr. Ball stated that the disclosures in §§ 7(1)(b)-(d) "are statements of ideology and opinion, not medicine or fact." Ball Aff. P 2. Dr. Ball also stated that she would be unable to clarify the disclosures upon a patient's request, as required by § 7, "because these are not medical statements or facts that I am trained as a Medical Doctor to address." Id. P 4. The affidavit made no reference to the Act's definition of "human being" in § 8(4).

Dr. Wolpe's affidavit included a curriculum vitae detailing his expertise in "the area of ideology in medicine and bioethics." Wolpe Aff. P 1. Dr. Wolpe stated that the proposition "that from the moment of conception, an embryo or fetus is a 'whole, separate, unique, living human being' . . . is not a scientific or medical fact, nor is there a scientific or medical consensus to that effect." Id. PP 2, 3. Dr. Wolpe further averred that "to describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or environmental incident interrupts its gestation." Id. P 6.

In its opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction, the State introduced portions of the Act's legislative history and several affidavits. The legislative history includes testimony from several women who had obtained abortions in South Dakota and felt their decisions would have been better informed if they had received from their abortion providers the information required by § 7. In addition, the legislative history includes testimony from experts such as Marie Peeters-Ney, M.D., a physician and geneticist, explaining the scientific basis for the disclosure required by § 7(1)(b) that "the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Dr. Peeters-Ney testified that use of the term "human being" was accurate because:

Becoming a member of our species is conferred immediately upon conception. At the moment of conception a human being with 46 chromosomes comes into existence. These chromosomes, the organization, the chromosomal pattern is specifically human. The RNA, the messenger protein, the proteins are distinctly human proteins. So this new human being is a member of our species, and humanity is not acquired sometime along the path, it occurs right at conception.

Senate State Affairs Comm. Hearing at 25. Dr. Peeters-Ney also stated that an embryo or fetus is whole in the sense that "[a]ll the genetic information sufficient and necessary to mature, and the information that is needed for this human being's entire life is present at the time of conception"; that it is "separate from the mother" because "[t]he genetic program is totally complete and this human being will mature according to his or her own program"; and that it is unique because it has "a totally unique genetic code." Id. at 25-26.

The State augmented the points raised in the legislative history with eight affidavits from medical experts and eight from women who had undergone abortions or worked at crisis pregnancy centers. For example, David Fu-Chi Mark, Ph.D., a molecular biologist employed in the pharmaceutical industry, stated that the Act's definition of "human being" as an "'individual living member of the species Homo sapiens,' including human beings living in utero, makes it clear that the statement under [§ 7(1)(b)] is stated as a scientific fact and nothing more. As such, it is truthful and scientifically accurate." Mark Aff. P 1. The affidavit described in detail the DNA and RNA science supporting the accuracy of the statement. Similarly, Bruce Carlson, M.D., Ph.D., a professor of medicine and author of a widely used textbook on human embryology, stated that "[t]he post implantation human embryo is a distinct individual human being, a complete separate member of the species Homo sapiens, and is recognizable as such." Carlson Aff. PP 1, 5.

* * *

In Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Supreme Court held that "a requirement that a doctor give a woman certain information as part of obtaining her consent to an abortion" implicates a physician's First Amendment right not to speak, "but only as part of the practice of medicine, subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by the State." 505 U.S. 833, 884, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992) (plurality opinion). However, the Court found no violation of the physician's right not to speak, without need for further analysis of whether the requirements were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, id., where physicians merely were required to give "truthful, nonmisleading information" relevant to the patient's decision to have an abortion, id. at 882. * * * Furthermore, the fact that the information "might cause the woman to choose childbirth over abortion" did not render the provisions unconstitutional. Id. at 883.

* * *

Taken in isolation, § 7(1)(b)'s language "[t]hat the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" certainly may be read to make a point in the debate about the ethics of abortion. Our role, however, is to examine the disclosure actually mandated, not one phrase in isolation. Planned Parenthood's evidence and argument rely on the supposition that, in practice, the patient will not receive or understand the narrow, species-based definition of "human being" in § 8(4) of the Act, but we are not persuaded that this is so.

* * *

The disclosure actually mandated by § 7(1)(b), in concert with the definition in § 8(4), is "[t]hat the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," § 7(1)(b), and that "human being" in this case means "an individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens . . . during [its] embryonic [or] fetal age[]," § 8(4). The State's evidence suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician, cf. Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S. Ct. at 1627 ("[B]y common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb."), and Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppose that conclusion. Indeed, Dr. Wolpe's affidavit, submitted by Planned Parenthood, states that "to describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or environmental incident interrupts its gestation." Wolpe Aff. P 6. This statement appears to support the State's evidence on the biological underpinnings of § 7(1)(b) and the associated statutory definition. Planned Parenthood's only other evidence, Dr. Ball's affidavit, ignores the statutory definition of "human being." Finally, this biological information about the fetus is at least as relevant to the patient's decision to have an abortion as the gestational age of the fetus, which was deemed to be relevant in Casey. See 505 U.S. at 882. As a result, Planned Parenthood cannot meet even the less rigorous requirement to show a fair chance of prevailing, much less the more rigorous requirement applicable here to show that it is likely to prevail, on the merits of its claim that the disclosure required by § 7(1)(b) is untruthful, misleading or not relevant to the decision to have an abortion. See Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S. Ct. 1865, 138 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1997) (per curiam) (emphasizing that a preliminary injunction "should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion" and presents proof even more substantial than that required on a motion for summary judgment) (quotation omitted).

* * *

Given Planned Parenthood's failure to produce sufficient evidence to establish that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its compelled speech claim, we need not address the remaining Dataphase factors. In summary, the district court abused its discretion by failing to give effect to the statutory definition of "human being" in § 8(4) of the Act. Planned Parenthood's evidence at the preliminary injunction stage does not establish a likelihood of proving that, with the definition incorporated, the disclosure required by § 7(1)(b) is anything but truthful, non-misleading and relevant to the patient's decision to have an abortion, and thus "part of the practice of medicine, subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by the State." Casey, 505 U.S. at 884. Accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction entered on compelled speech grounds by the district court. * * *

The larger question, raised by the implications of this decision, is whether the decision could be a vehicle by which to affirm in law the personhood of the unborn, or at least to, once and for all, torpedo Roe's reliance on "philosophy" and "theology," rather than scientific fact, to deny that the entity in the womb is a living and separate and distinct human being.

.

Putting Food in the Gas Tank - Save the Planet, Kill the People

Another case of societal desolation and starvation by global warmists --


Biofuels to increase poverty among Timorese

According to a report by Oxfam, growing crops for biofuel will remove land from food production and push up prices. In East Timor the government is prepared to turn over a sixth of the country’s arable land to biofuel crops.

Dili (AsiaNews/Agencies) – The government of East Timor has come under fire over its decision to turn over 100,000 hectares or a sixth of the country’s arable land to a $100 million ethanol project by an Indonesian company, GTLeste Biotech. The reason is that the replacement of traditional fuels with biofuels has dragged more millions people worldwide into poverty, this according to a report by the Oxfam aid agency.

Under the terms of the agreement, GTLeste Biotech is granted a 50-year lease over “unproductive land” with an option for another 50 years.

The government is touting the move as a major potential source of foreign cash that could generate more than 2,000 jobs.

The foreign company plans to grow sugar cane and other plants to produce ethanol.

But East Timor’s main opposition party has complained that the plan was made with little public consultation, arguing that the land in question cannot be unproductive if there are plans to grow sugar cane. Furthermore, it stressed that increasing food production is more important and that creating 2,000 jobs is not much for 100,000 hectares.

“We have learned from other countries that sugar cane plantations will have negative impacts on agriculture and farmers’' lives. Over 80 percent of Timorese are farmers, they live on agriculture, so the land is important for them,” said Maximus Tahu, from development watchdog La'o Hamutuk. “Our concern is that the project will contribute to the destruction of land fertility.”

In its report Oxfam accuses biofuel-oriented farming of removing land valuable for growing food. This in turn has contributed to the current food price hike, pushing an additional 30 million people into poverty.

The report's author, Oxfam's biofuel policy adviser Rob Bailey, criticised rich countries for using subsidies and tax breaks to encourage the use of food crops for alternative sources of energy like ethanol.

“If the fuel value for a crop exceeds its food value, then it will be used for fuel instead,” he said. The net result is that food supplies will be reduced and prices pushed up.

Don't think that this drive for forced poverty will end with the poor countries -- the global warmists and social engineers seeking to recreate man and the world are looking to destroy all of the contemporary world and send us all back to the 18th century.

.