Listen to this, think about it, reflect, and be of good cheer. If you can’t spare the time now, bookmark this link.
Logically, there are a limited number of possible positions for a person to hold regarding government policy on abortion. Here’s a Venn diagram that lays them all out.
Anyone who’s thought about the issue for more than a couple of seconds understands this. So how do we make any sense of Herman Cain’s stated position? He’s never given any indication that he’s in the blue area above, so we can rule that out. But when you watch this interview on CNN, it’s impossible to pinpoint where he stands beyond that.
He says “I think it’s a sin.” That puts him in either the red or purple area. Moments later, he says “I believe life begins at conception, and abortion under no circumstances.” That puts him squarely in the red area. But when pressed on making an exception if his daughter or granddaughter were to be raped and become pregnant, he replies:
It’s not the government’s role, or anybody else’s role, to make that decision. … It ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as President, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.
I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.
That puts him somewhere in the purple area. If we take him at his word, he would be morally opposed to abortion, but would reluctantly allow it on demand. That’s squarely a pro-choice stance. When you take that position, you are in favor of a woman’s right to abort her unborn child for any reason or no reason. That is not a pro-life stance.
Now listen to his statements in this Fox News interview with John Stossel.
Both candidates spoke yesterday at the Values Voter Summit.
After a video of Mitt Romney’s speech finds its way online, I’ll update this post.
That shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, but to hear the Left’s explanations, the federal government can extract more and more money from their preferred targets without any repercussions. In Progressive Fantasyland, rich fat cat CEOs who run oil companies, banks, and Fox News have a secret stash of unlimited money hidden somewhere in their corporate jets or on the grounds of their posh estates, from which they simply pull more money after Washington takes what it wants. The government spreads the wealth around, the members of the middle class find excellent green jobs with full dental benefits, the poor all move up to the middle class, everyone votes for progressives, conservatives crawl back into the bowels of Hell from whence they came, and unicorns poop skittles to feed the hungry.
In the real world the vast majority of American wealth belongs to the middle class, but facts never get in the way of a juicy class warfare talking point. Here in flyover country where common sense still exists, we know that taxes influence people’s behavior. If the government collected no taxes whatsoever, then its revenue would be zero. Likewise, if the government taxed away every last cent people earn, revenue would also drop to zero. Nobody would have any incentive to conduct any economic activity at all, so there would be no wealth to tax. Somewhere in between no taxation and total taxation, there’s a point where the government will collect the maximum possible revenue. The conclusion isn’t magical, farcical, or deserving of ridicule. It’s common sense. It’s logical. It reflects reality.
It also means everything to your way of life, so pay attention.
Well-known supply side economist Arthur Laffer sketched out this thought experiment decades ago — reportedly on a napkin over drinks with conservative political heavy hitters — and came up with the curve that soon bore his name. Here’s a very simplified version of the Laffer Curve:
This is worth watching.
Uh, which party is this guy from again?
Thankfully, he has competition.
Since we all know that the default Democrat tactic in the 2012 presidential race will be to slander all of President Obama’s critics as racists, we should be prepared to turn the tables on them. To that end, I hereby release into the public domain the following graphics to anyone and everyone to use, totally free, gratis, no rights reserved, etc.
This one is a PNG file with a transparent background:
If you’re handy with PhotoShop you can “rubber stamp” it over any image you want, as in this example:
And of course, there’s the ever-so-useful Race Card; it’s perfect for pre-emptive throwing atop anything you write that dares to criticize The One:
So get busy, my fellow
conservatives critics individualists racists! Our progressive betters intend to sling plenty of incendiary accusations at us no matter what we do, so we might as well start countering the meme now. Just remember … there are five R’s in RAAAAACISM!
10:00 PM Update: Not running. Good.
Y’know who this helps?
Here’s a screenshot of the brand new SarahPAC site revealed today.
Does this mean she’s getting ready to announce?
Would you rather eat a thick slice from a small pie, or a slightly thinner slice from a much larger pie?
If you can grasp this concept, then you can figure out why tax cuts increase tax revenue. Mark Goldblatt hammers the point home.
If you think jacking up tax rates on individuals and corporations will fix the deficit, you’re dreaming. See for yourself by clicking on these two graphics.
Time to get to work.
@Nikkonito & @dirtseller: 68
You can learn a lot about people’s character by how they treat public property. Take a look at what was left behind at the World War II Memorial on the National Mall after Saturday’s “One Nation” radical rally for socialists/communists/unions/Democrats (aka Left-a-palooza):
Here’s a look at another part of the National Mall after the filthy moonbats left:
Play this for ’em.
Start watching the odds.