May 2009 Archives

In response to today's murder of abortionist George Tiller, I'll quote (with my complete approval) the abortion violence statement put forth by the long-time pro-life advocates at Stand To Reason:

It's always wrong to take a human life without proper justification. Abortion is such a wrong because it takes the life of a valuable, innocent, human being without good reason. Therefore, it is morally obligatory for civilized people to campaign vigorously against such a wrong and use appropriate means to end it.

In opposing this evil, one is justified in using only the degree of force necessary to stop any harm that it is within his power to prevent. Therefore, one is never justified in using lethal force when other measures are available.

Since there are no imaginable circumstances in which lethal force is the only means available to end the harm of abortion, then lethal means are never justified.

Killing abortionists is, therefore, also an example of taking human life without proper justification. To do so would be to violate the basic principle of life that pro-lifers are committed to defending.

Therefore, Stand to Reason does not condone violence to end the harm of abortion and does not knowingly associate with those who do.

I hope the murderer is brought to justice swiftly.

Details here.

The more we give to Marco Rubio, the more the folks at the NRSC have to realize we mean business.

If donations are all the National Republican Senatorial Committee understands, then I say let your money talk.

I echo Tom Blumer's open letter to John Kasich. Politicians like Husted aren't the solution to Ohio's woes. They're a big part of the problem.

Here's another disturbing quote from Sonia Sotomayor's infamous speech in 2001:

I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.

The emphasis is mine. What in the world does she mean by "relative morality" here? Moral relativism? If so, how can she be trusted to impartially uphold the law?

Oh, those wacky Black Panthers! Gosh, they sure do the darnedest things. I'm sure a little talking-to is all that's needed to make them straighten up and fly right.

I guess it's only racism if Whitey does it.

H/T: Ace

Update: Please read the affidavit of a civil rights titan who knows voter intimidation when he sees it.

How would Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor react to this dispute?

Update: Brilliant!

Update 2: Also brilliant!

Update 3: More from Power Line

How can the following quote from Sonia Sotomayor not be a racist statement?

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. 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 not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, 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.

The emphasis is mine. So, how about it, lefties?

Update: Consider this, too.

Update 2: Could Judge Sotomayor even serve on a jury?

He wants the State Treasurer job:

Let the fun and games begin, Mr. Boyce.

Uplifting "Hope & Change" shirts and sweats like these ...

... can be bought here.

What a shock. Tax revenue is dropping during a recession. If (just for the sake of argument) we assume that maintaining that pre-recession level of tax revenue is a Good Thing™, what should the federal government do?

In other words ... duh!

5/28 Update: Double duh!

Mark Krikorian's absolutely right. Americanizing the pronunciation of one's name should be high on the priority list for immigrants arriving in America. My immigrant parents and grandparents did it: my name has an Americanized pronunciation.

The conventional wisdom in your crowd appears to be that Barack Obama is a brilliant man possessing great intellectual horsepower. What evidence supports your belief?

This is a speech delivered today at the American Enterprise Institute in which former Vice President Cheney defended the Bush Administration's actions and policies during the War on Terror in the years after 9/11. Cheney carefully and completely refuted allegations of torturing terrorist detainees, and he eviscerated Barack Obama's foolish defense policies, naïve defense decisions, and nakedly opportunistic demonization of the outgoing President.

If you prefer, you can watch the whole thing on AEI's site.

Once the White House posts the video of Obama's speech on the same subjects today, I'll add it below so you can compare and contrast each man's honesty, seriousness, motivations, wisdom, and statesmanship ... or lack thereof.

Transcripts: Cheney's speech; Obama's speech

Update: Here ya go ...

I don't watch any ABC shows other than "Lost", but this ...

... might make it to my DVR. It might have a mildly conservative message.

5/22 Update: A little too close to the mark?

The effort to nail ACORN through the RICO statute continues:

The Buckeye Institute, a Columbus-based think tank, Friday filed objections to a federal Magistrate's conclusion that individual voters lack standing to protect their voting rights from groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and Project Vote.

The Buckeye Institute's objections are the latest turn in a case seeking to designate ACORN as enterprise engaged in organized crime and revoke its license to engage in unlawful [sic] voter registration in Ohio. The objection cites to federal cases from the civil rights-era, where courts found that citizens had standing to protect their civil rights from Ku Klux Klan intimidation.

"The right to cast a vote in an election that is not perpetually threatened with dilution by unlawful votes is a fundamental right, and if Ohio voters like Ms. Miller and Ms. Grant cannot enforce that right, the right itself is eviscerated," Maurice Thompson, Director of the Buckeye Institute's 1851 Center for Constitutional Law said.

...

The Magistrate's recommendations come on the heels of the Nevada Attorney General's decision to indict ACORN for crimes similar to those alleged in the Buckeye Institute's Complaint.

Keep up the good work, Buckeye Institute!

Under what circumstances is it morally justifiable to intentionally kill a human being? Please hold forth in the comments section below, or post your response on your own blog and leave a trackback.

Remember that I'm talking about morality here, not legality. I know the law.

Dr. Samuel Stupp and Dr. Ramille Capito explain their research in the field of Bionanotechnology and its contributions to regenerative medicine:

I'm a C-6 quad due to a diving accident in 1998, so this research fascinates me. What's even better is that no embryonic stem cell research is involved.

They let Dave Stacey go.

More ads like this one, please.

Hat tip: Brutally Honest