First Victory For Unborn Children Since 1973

Unborn children got their first major win before the US Supreme Court today, as the court decided to uphold the partial-abortion ban:

The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions.

For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents.

While this is good news, millions of unborn children are still be slaughtered daily around the world. At the very least, this will further bring to the attention of the public how this horrible procedure works.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion (odd), in which he notes the law is not unconstitutional in that, "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice..." But curses! Do conservatives want women to die! The law doesn't include an exception for when the mother's life is at risk! This argument just shows that liberals are missing the argument conservatives make. We believe that abortion is murder; in what way does that make it sound like we'd make an exception for murder to save the mother's life?

President Bush says:

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."

I don't know who decided that the Supreme Court has the right to define when life begins and ends, but I guess that's what happens when the court has the ability to tell us what their powers are. Checks and balances? More like Judicial rule with an iron fist.

It was a 5-4 decision, with Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia in the majority. All-in-all, great news.

***Update, 4:44pm***

Drudge rounded up the response of most of the Presidential candidates.

Hillary: "Erosion of our Constitutional rights..."
Obama: "I strongly disagree..."
Edwards: "I couldn't disagree more strongly..."
Romney: "A step forward..."
McCain: "I'm very happy about the decision..."
Giuliani: "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion..." (BS)
Brownback: The ruling would result "in lives being saved."

Well, I guess Edwards will get the Democrat nomination. After all, he "couldn't disagree more strongly." Obama just disagreed.

Half Of Americans Wouldn't Vote For Hillary

Ouch:

Half of voting-age Americans say they would not vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) if she became the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, according to a Harris Interactive poll released Tuesday.

Of course, I'm among them.

Can Hillary really win if half the country wouldn't vote for her? Her socialist agenda is bound to just scare more people off.

Elizebeth Edward's Cancer Is Back

Looks like Elizabeth Edward's cancer is out of remission. I can't believe he's going on with the campaign, I don't think I'd be able to. But then, that's what they've devoted their lives to, so I can see her not wanting it all thrown out because of her cancer.

I think we all saw this coming with yesterdays news that they'd be having a press conference today after John Edwards flew home to go to the doctor with her for her check-up. My prayers go out to the Edwards and all other people suffering this horrible disease.

I feel shallow making a political point with this one, but how much would you be willing to bet that, as usual, the conservatives are actually concerned for Elizabeth Edward's life and that liberals have probably said some disgusting things about the recent passing of conservative columnist Cathy Seipp at the hands of lung cancer (she never smoked a day in her life, by the way)?

The Diggbats didn't even break from their practice of burying things from LGF for an obituary for Cathy. The stories that did slip through had sarcastic comments like this one:

Yes, remebering [sic] the gallant Cathy Seipp. What I remeber [sic] best is how gallant she was. That is what I remeber [sic].

There was this lovely comment on Kos from April, so I guess it's alright because she only had cancer, she hadn't died yet:

I'll reserve my sympathy for people more deserving of it, thanks

And right below it, this comment about Cathy's struggle with her insurance company:

but I never forget that it is people who share her beliefs that helped bring this fate down on her and all of our heads. If it weren't for the Republicans and the invisible hand true believers, we might all have universal health coverage by now.

Now, I was surprised at how many comments on these libs sites weren't horrific (not many, but still, any is better than they usually do), but most still made my stomach turn.

Now, here are a few from those vile conservatives over at Hot Air:

To Sen. Edwards: sincerest best wishes for your wife’s health.

Best wishes to the Edwards family and to Elizabeth for a full recovery. Say what you want about the man as a politician, but his priorities are well in order on this one.

Pray for them.

This is the closest any of those evil right-wingers got to stepping out of line:

I hope it’s not the cancer, but I can’t feel too bad about Edwards dropping out. It was hard to take him seriously.

However, I wouldn’t wish cancer on anyone.

And he's just knocking Edwards while wishing his wife the best.

Anyway, my prayers go out to Elizabeth. They also go out to these moonbats; clearly, something is wrong with their heads...

Hillary: You Will Conform!

Jawa says this add is Obama supporters cutting Hillary down, according to Fox, Obama's campaign says they know nothing about it:



Maybe it's not from Obama, but the advertisement for Obama's site shows that it's from Obama supporters.

I guess the libs aren't following the Golden Rule of primary politics: don't cut down your opponents. Chances are it'll be Hillary, not Obama, taking on the GOP opponent in 2008, and then all these Obama supporters will either have to do a 180 to support Hillary, or wind up with a Republican President. And to them, which is worse?

A Magic Negro?

Well I guess I'm extra-racist, since I don't like Obama. Apparently, he's the "magic negro," sent to relieve me of all my white guilt!

Fred Thompson In The Race?

Sorry about the slow posting (or rather no posting) this weekend, I was busy having fun, enjoying the last of my spring break, which is sadly now over.

The only story I missed that I really care about is the possibility of Fred Thompson entering the Presidential race. He pretty much rocks, mostly conservative on everything that matters, with the occasional well intentioned slip-up.

Here's the video of where he stands on the issues (something you can't find for say, Mitt Romney), hat tip to Hot Air:



He was a Senator from Tennessee, replacing Gore and being reelected with Tennessee's largest landslide for a state-wide office, or something, and now acts (on Law and Order) as well as serving as a visiting fellow for the American Enterprise Institute, researching national security and intelligence (automatically giving him more national security experience than, say, Obama).

What A Fag (It's A Joke, Settle Down)

Apparently Ann was right: John Edwards, America's first female President?

Edwards To Boycott Democrat Debate On Fox News

John Edwards knows that he really has not shot at the Democrats' presidential nomination, and so he continues to take a wild shot by trying to appeal to the extreme left of the party:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards won't participate in a debate co-hosted by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic Party, his campaign said, as party officials tried to settle a dustup over their partnership with the cable network.

Edwards' campaign said the involvement of Fox News, which is often accused by liberals of having a conservative bias, was part of the decision to pass on the Aug. 14 debate in Reno.

"There were a number of factors and Fox was one of those. We're already planning to participate in a jam-packed schedule of debates across this country ... we can't attend every single debate and forum," the campaign said in a statement.

Other factor that have convinced him to skip the first debate: he doesn't want to win. While it may be a good move in some ways to appeal to the nutroots and moonbats and what-not, I think the other candidates have probably realized the best way to win support is to get out your message and distinguish yourself from the other candidates.

See if you can catch the conflict of opinion and truth in the next chunk of article (bolded to help you out):

The two Democratic presidential frontrunners, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, have not indicated whether they will attend the Nevada debate. Fox boss Rupert Murdoch threw a Senate fundraiser for Clinton, and is said to have a good relationship with the former first lady.

Online activists and bloggers quickly hailed Edwards' decision as a victory in their campaign to urge Nevada Democrats to drop Fox News as a partner.

MoveOn.org Civic Action says it has collected more than 260,000 signatures on a petition that calls the cable network a "mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel."

Yeah. Clearly Rupert had the intention of creating a "mouthpiece for the Republican Party" when he founded Fox.

Fox is and will always be a right-wing bogey man to the left, who feel the need to place all of the blame for their failing party on someone or something.

Osama Hussein's Finances

Obama's fuzzy investing:

Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.

One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Mr. Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.

The most recent financial disclosure form for Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, also shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.

What to make of this. Some - mostly on the right I'm sure - will see this as evidence that Barrack is as corrupt as Harry Reid. Hell, maybe even getting up there with the big boys like Hillary Clinton (yes, "boy." She has a penis, after all.)

Me? I'm more inclined to see this as two coincidences in what is most likely the gigantic portfolio of a millionaire. Hell, I may even buy the excuse the Obama camp is putting out there:

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination in 2008, said yesterday that the senator did not know that he had invested in either company until fall 2005, when he learned of it and decided to sell the stocks. He sold them at a net loss of $13,000.

The spokesman, Bill Burton, said Mr. Obama’s broker bought the stocks without consulting the senator, under the terms of a blind trust that was being set up for the senator at that time but was not finalized until several months after the investments were made.

“He went about this process to avoid an actual or apparent conflict of interest, and he had no knowledge of the stocks he owned,” Mr. Burton said. “And when he realized that he didn’t have the level of blindness that he expected, he moved to terminate the trust.”

To me this is what should be a non-story. But here I am, living in a country of liberals that cook up bizarre, out of the way conspiracy connections like: "Bush was on the same board of trustees as this guy who once worked for a company that once employed someone who was at another time employed by another company that was partially funded by some Middle Eastern guy who owned shares in another company that Osama Bin Laden's brother-in-law's dad once owned."

The left loves to play "10 degrees of George Bush" to tie him to the most heinous criminals, terrorists and despots of our time and then they expect us to just brush something like this under the rug. Well, I'll chock this little Obama fiasco up to a blind trust, but it's a good thing to have in mind the next time someone tells you that "Bush's brother's wife's dad's uncle bought stock in Halliburton - only five years before we invaded Iraq! Coincidence? Please."

Side note: Why on earth is this story in the New York Times. It's either that the NYT has decided that they would prefer Hillary to Obama for president, or, more likely, they feel the need to get the story out there and provide the usual ten paragraphs defending Obama to ever one criticizing him before a more fair and balanced news outlet can crack the story.

What I Learned From The CPAC Straw Poll

Captain Ed sees little in Romney's CPAC victory. I'm not sure what his evidence is (other than being there), but here's how he views the Romney win:

However, the straw poll probably reflects Romney's organizing abilities far more than his popular support among conservatives. The Romney campaign turned CPAC from a get-acquainted event to a mini-convention by recruiting scores of young activists to attend CPAC and haranguing attendees to vote for Mitt. The Brownback campaign did the same with a smaller coterie of foot soldiers. None of the other candidates bothered to do anything of the kind.

In my opinion, Mitt's win comes from his mix of conservative values and a great Presidential appearance. It's CPAC; they're going to pick a conservative. And since the only other ones in the race (Gingrich and Tancredo) don't have much name recognition, they went with the conservative they felt was the most electable.

Then how did Giuliani and McCain do so well? They're not exactly the model conservatives. And McCain didn't even bother going to CPAC! Well, I'd say their high rankings are the results of scared Republicans. It can be a little daunting when they media is constantly licking Obama and Hillary's balls and paying no attention to the Republicans. Some of the folks at CPAC probably just went with the Republicans with the most name recognition (McCain and Giuliani) out of fear that they didn't have anyone electable.

It's far too early to be calling the Presidential race. I doubt most people could even guess who would win the primaries, let alone the general election. But if there's one thing CPAC showed, it's that conservatives won't be frightened by the Mainstream media into voting for a candidate just for name recognition; we'll pick a conservative who shares our values and can do the job.

CPAC Straw Poll

I'm one to say that it's ridiculous to pay attention to straw polls and to try and say who's going to get a party's nomination this far out from 2008, but here are the results from CPAC anyway:

WASHINGTON - Mitt Romney won the most support for the Republican presidential nomination in a straw poll of GOP activists attending an annual conference.

Despite his record of inconsistency on some social issues, the former Massachusetts governor got 21 percent of the 1,705 votes cast by paid registrants to the three-day Conservative Political Action Conference. They were asked who their first choice would be for the Republican nomination.

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor whose moderate stances on social issues irks the party's right wing, was second with 17 percent.

Both were among the more than half-dozen White House hopefuls who spoke at the conference.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., who rounds out the top tier of serious GOP contenders, skipped the event — and was punished for it. He got only 12 percent of the vote.

Ahead of him were Romney, Giuliani and two others. Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) of Kansas, a favorite of religious conservatives, got 15 percent, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, who says he won't decide whether to run until the fall, got 14 percent.

It's nice to see McCain at the bottom where he belongs. It really is fascinating to watch his campaign completely self-destruct in front of our eyes. It's also nice to see that Sen. Brownback was able to make it into the top three (although barely beating a candidate that's not even a candidate yet.)

***Update, 9:46pm***

For those of you who want the numbers without having to read an article:

Mitt Romney 21%
Rudy Giuliani 17%.
Sam Brownback 15%
Newt Gingrich 14%
John McCain, 12%

McCain Pulls An Obama

I've got a question for John McCain: how can you further alienate the conservative base? The answer: Act like Barack Obama by smearing our fallen heroes:

Republican presidential contender John McCain, a staunch backer of the Iraq war but critic of how President Bush has waged it, said U.S. lives had been "wasted" in the four-year-old conflict. Democrats demand the Arizona senator apologize for the comment as Sen. Barack Obama did when the Democratic White House hopeful recently made the same observation.

"Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be," McCain said Wednesday on CBS' "Late Show With David Letterman." "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives."

Wow. Video:

"Will the Real Rudy show up at CPAC?"

A good question. I know there's some question as to wether or not Romney is set in his conservative ways, but I think he is and I find videos like this of Giuliani disconcerting.



Meanwhile, we all know McCain is a Liberal in Republican's clothes, which makes me have to agree with Paul over at Power line who said, "Romney is the social conservative in this race as far as I'm concerned."

Romney at CPAC

Mitt Romney over at CPAC talking about the need for disciplined federal spending:



Pretty damn good, Mitt. I especially like the pledge to veto gross over-spending. I'd almost forgotten that a President could do that.

Giuliani Tries To Fool Conservatives

Load of crap:

"We don't all see eye to eye on everything," Giuliani told the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

"You and I have a lot of common beliefs that are the same, but we have some that are different," he told several thousand activists, comparing such disagreements to different perspectives within a marriage.

But Giuliani argued he shared the core conservative creed on low taxes, the historic role of American primacy, a tough stance in the war on terror, and freeing individuals from the shackles of government.

Yeah, and the core conservative values of gun control, gay marriage and abortion? Give me a break. It' going to have to be a sad field of candidates for him to get my vote in the primary.

Who's Running In '08, Anyway?

WaPo has a list of all the Presidential candidates, including some I've never heard of. Probably because it includes people who haven't announced they're running yet, like The Goracle. It's worth a look anyway.

Failed Presidential Announcement, Or Crappy Joke?

Drudge seems to think this was a failed Presidential announcement by The Goracle at the Oscars, I think it's obviously just a bad joke:



I didn't actually watch the video, by the way. I can't stand to listen to The Goracle. Nor did I watch the Oscars. The Oscars suck.

Vilsack's Out! Wait. Vilsack Was In?

Wow. I honestly didn't even know he was "running."

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack dropped out of the presidential race today, saying he was a victim of the high-dollar fundraising that increasingly dominates the nomination process.

He goes on to say a ton of BS about how no one's discussing the issues or something. I don't really care. Go back to Iowa where you belong.

Romney v. Douche

I happen to think that Mormonism is a crackpot religion based on the ridiculous claims of an insincere criminal, but with that said, I also find most Mormons to be kind, reasonable people who are perfectly capable of being in positions of leadership. Back when JFK was elected, some warned us that the US would be beholden to the Pope (not that JFK was a good Catholic, but anyway ...) I don't think Romney will sell us out to Salt Lake City either.

Here's a video of some jackass telling Mitt that he won't be receiving the guys vote because he doesn't "know the Lord" and is a phony. Ouch. Romney hits back, but not as hard as he could've/should've:

Senator Clinton, 2.0?

Why do former Democrat presidents feel the need to bother the country once they're out of office. Ford, Reagan, Bush I; they settle down and enjoy the rest of their lives out of the spotlight, Democrats like Clinton and Carter continue to be media whores and won't go away. Here's a charming story on that note:

WASHINGTON — If Hillary Clinton is elected president, the next senator from New York could be her husband, Bill Clinton.

Supporters are touting that scenario in the event the seat currently held by Mrs. Clinton opens up as she moves to higher office. New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, would be tasked with appointing someone to fill the open Senate seat for the remaining two years of Clinton's term.

Come on Fox. Aren't you going to lick Clinton's balls at all?

Could Clinton still fit the bill? One of the most popular presidents with black voters, he spoke Sunday to the annual meeting of the New York State Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators, where he received a standing ovation.

"I know how come I'm here — I'm here because I'm a stand-in for Hillary," he said.

At the event, he spoke about health care, renewable energy technology and education, all issues that Sen. Clinton has focused on during her campaign.

"He's one of those individuals that has a reputation as a liberator for minority communities," said Lt. Gov. David Paterson, who is black and is backing Sen. Clinton for president. "Bill Clinton had a reputation for delivering. He does have a tremendous effect that I've observed when it comes to minority communities."

Nice.