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.

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 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.

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.

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:

Romney's Running In '08

Mitt Romney has declared from Michigan that he's running for President in 2008.

Mitt Romney Loves Cars More Than Jews

Wow. The Democrats lost absolutely no time in slamming Mitt Romney as a racist:

Republican Mitt Romney's choice of a museum honoring auto pioneer Henry Ford as the site of his presidential announcement was strongly criticized Monday by Jewish Democrats, who noted Ford's history of anti-Semitism.

The former Massachusetts governor, who is scheduled to formally launch his presidential candidacy from the Henry Ford Museum in Detroit on Tuesday, was taken to task by The National Jewish Democratic Council.

The council "is deeply troubled by Governor Romney's choice of locations to announce his presidential campaign," executive director Ira Forman said in a statement.

"Romney has been traveling the country talking about inclusiveness and understanding of people from all walks of life," Forman said. "Yet he chooses to kick (off) his presidential campaign on the former estate of a well-known and outspoken anti-Semite and xenophobe."

Forman said Romney's "embrace of Henry Ford and association of Ford's legacy with his presidential campaign raises serious questions about either the sincerity of Romney's words or his understanding of basic American history."

My bullshit meter almost exploded as I kept reading these libs' complaints. Theirs is the party that could care less if every Jew in Israel were wiped off of the map. They're the party whose base frequently derides Jews on any one of their left-wing blogs. Would they criticize someone for launching their campaign from the MLK Jr. Museum - after all, he was a know womanizer, and communist sympathizer.