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.

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?

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.

Ban State Flags, Too!

Ann Althouse on Hillary's bizarre argument against the Confederate Battle Flag:

Speaking yesterday:

"I think about how many South Carolinians have served in our military and who are serving today under our flag and I believe that we should have one flag that we all pay honor to, as I know that most people in South Carolina do every single day"...

Huh? That would be an argument against all state flags!

It seems she's trying so hard to say just the right thing and please everyone that she ends up saying something weird.

More stupid than weird, but I get your point.

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.

Blood Drinking Witch

Apparently Hillary's having some trouble with the law out in Arizona:

Arizona Woman Arrested After Allegedly Stabbing Man During Sex to Drink His Blood

Leave it to the media to spin the story by printing an alias:

A woman has been arrested on suspicion that she tied up a man during sex, then stabbed him repeatedly with a knife and told him she likes to drink blood, police said.

Tiffany Sutton, 23, was arrested on suspicion of aggravated assault Tuesday night at a Tempe home where she and the victim were living, according to authorities.

The man, whose identity was not released, told police he had consented to being tied up but became scared when the woman attacked him with a knife.

He eventually freed himself and ran away, but Sutton chased him with a pickax, police said.

Racist Southerners

Imagine, if you will, a Republican who said that they didn't support a particular candidate for president for the particular reason that he was black. It had nothing to do with his politics or experience, this Republican just didn't want the candidate on the ballot because of the color of his skin.

Now read this:

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- Two key black political leaders in South Carolina who backed John Edwards in 2004 said Tuesday they are supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

State Sens. Robert Ford and Darrell Jackson told The Associated Press they believe Clinton is the only Democrat who can win the presidency. Both said they had been courted by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama; Ford said Obama winning the primary would drag down the rest of the party.

"Then everybody else on the ballot is doomed," Ford said. "Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he's black and he's at the top of the ticket _ we'd lose the House, the Senate and the governors and everything."

"I'm a gambling man. I love Obama," Ford said. "But I'm not going to kill myself."

Hillary - If You Earn It We'll Take It

Boy, Hillary's not even beating around the bush anymore on her liberal policies of stealing money from those who earn it. She actually said "I want to take those profits ..." in regard to Exxon and Shell's record breaking year.

Here's video:

Biden Will Run For Presidency

Joe Biden (D, Delaware) has entered the race for the White House. He's run before:

Biden was a candidate for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination, but withdrew from the race in 1987 amid accusations that he had plagiarized passages in his speeches.

His biggest danger is his big mouth. He kind of says horrible things... All the time... Such as: “You CANNOT go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts without an Indian accent.” (But don't worry, it's not racist when a Dem says something like that, just like when Hillary said Gandhi worked at a gas station, or some nonsense).

Rutheford:

Also, Biden on Obama:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

2007 State Of The Union: Good Stuff!

(Here's a full transcript of the speech)

Well, the State of the Union was far better than I thought it'd be. It definitely had some high points, which I'll mention while pretending the low points didn't exist (who needs a downer like hearing about more No Child Left Behind?)

First of all, GW mentioned what the MSM has refused to, the booming economy. Send this quote to all your friends who don't know the economy is booming:

A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy -- and that is what we have. We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs -- so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move, and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government, but with more enterprise. (Applause.)

Next week, I'll deliver a full report on the state of our economy. Tonight, I want to discuss three economic reforms that deserve to be priorities for this Congress.

First, we must balance the federal budget. (Applause.) We can do so without raising taxes. (Applause.) What we need is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. (Applause.) Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. (Applause.) I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and we can balance the federal budget. (Applause.)

Next, I loved this line about health care:

In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors.

Take that Hillary, with your "universal health care!" You make me sick...

GW's whole part about Islamofascism was great! Here's a large chunk of it:

For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger. Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that the terrorists can cause. We've had time to take stock of our situation. We've added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us -- unless we stop them.

With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled: that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy. (Applause.)

From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since 9/11 has never been the same.

Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented, but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them. (Applause.)

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that's the case, America is still a nation at war.

In the mind of the terrorist, this war began well before September the 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse." Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah -- a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. Whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people. (Applause.)

This war is more than a clash of arms -- it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come and kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom...

Good stuff! One of my favorite lines: "They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent."

And as a final note, one part that made me sick to my stomach was when GW delivered this great line:

Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East, to succeed in Iraq and to spare the American people from this danger.

And the Dems actually didn't applaud! I mean, WTF is wrong with these people? They practically (and finally) admitted that they don't want America to succeed in Iraq!

And the speech ended with a definite high point, with GW introducing us to several people who show how great America is.

All in all, a great speech (with the exception of having to look at Nancy Pelosi the whole time) with some definite high points! I'll post video once it's on Youtube, until then, it can be viewed at Whitehouse.gov.

Hillary's Announcement Video

Well, the nauseating Hillary video is finally up on YouTube (Finally! It's only been a day!) Here it is, if you haven't seen it yet, watch at your own discretion, as it may cause vomiting:



God, she's so damn smarmy it makes me sick...

Good News ...

... Oh wait. No it's not:

Post-ABC Poll: Clinton, Giuliani Lead Primary Fields

Nothing motivates the base like an election between a candidate you hate and a candidate you could care less for. I never feel better than on an election day when I vote for someone I don't want to hold the office.

Hillary on Hardball on SNL

Here's a video from SNL that parodies "Hardball with Chris Matthews" in which Hillary is the guest. It's not really that funny, sucks up to Barack Obama a lot, and the actress portraying Hillary doesn't really act or sound like the real thing.

However, the portrayal of Chris Matthews is hillariously accurate. (Hat tip: Hot Air)

Hillary: 'I'm In'

Oh God; I think every right-winger's worst nightmare has come true. Watch this nauseating video of Hillary Clinton announcing her "exploratory committee" (aka, she's running for president.) Imagine a Clinton/Obama ticket... Just makes you want to die, doesn't it?

In case you missed it, Obama and Edwards (yes, the same crazy trial lawyer as last time) are also running. Here are their nauseating videos:





***Update, 01/21/07, 5:59pm***

We've got the Hillary video off of YouTube, view it here and you won't be giving her site traffic!

A Slogan About a Slogan is Too a Slogan

Good point Ann:

"A slogan is not a strategy."

Says Hillary Clinton, confronted -- on NPR -- with Bush's line "Failure is not an option" and asked whether failure actually is an option.

Confronted with her line, I say: A slogan about a slogan is too slogan-y. And don't think that by making a slogan about a slogan that you can distract us from seeing that you think failure is an option.

The audio at the link will not be available until 10 ET, and I recommend listening. Clinton talks of going to Iraq and meeting Prime Minister al-Maliki. She says outright that, based on this meeting, she did not believe that al-Maliki intends to do what he has promised to do. She's running for President (presumably). She makes a trip to Iraq and meets with its leader. And then she flatly says she doesn't believe him. Is that presidential? Meet with leaders, then call them liars.

Obama To Run For President

Guh... Not that I'm surprised, but the thought of him in the White House makes me feel like vomiting all over my laptop... And a Hillary/Obama ticket... I think I just died a little on the inside...

On a side note, I think we can count this as the "Obvious Headline of the Day." I mean, did anyone suspect he wouldn't run? Then again, weren't we all sure Hillary would run in '04?

*** Update - Jan 16, 3:38 pm ***

There's a video on Obama's website, but I don't know why you would want to watch it.