The Tebow Ad

This is what had feminists and anti-lifers all up in arms? Unbelievable.

(h/t the Corner)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

You Know How Pres. Obama & The Liberal Propagandists Said Conservatives Were Deluded About Government Funding Of Abortion?

They lied to you.

President Obama and other "fact checking" groups explicitly stated that the President's plan (really, whatever Speaker Pelosi put forward) didn't and wouldn't fund abortions. They wrote long articles and gave speeches about how conservative, right-to-lifers were wild eyed and deluded--that abortion was one of the "myths" of the Obama plan that wasn't really true.

You know, that it was a myth just like the death panels were a myth.

Fortunately, there are some life-loving, honest Democrats in the House of Representatives--63 of them, to be exact.

For months, the Michigan Democrat has been threatening to bring down any health-care bill unless the House was given the opportunity to vote to extend the ban on taxpayer dollars for abortion to the new federal programs being created. On Saturday night, Mrs. Pelosi caved and Mr. Stupak prevailed.

The result is one of the few, real up-or-down votes we ever get on abortion—and the only part of the health-care mess that shows any bipartisan consensus. In the end, 63 Democrats and Mr. Stupak joined all but one Republican on an amendment that does two things: prohibits federal funds for an abortion or for abortion coverage; allows (notwithstanding pro-choice propaganda) private insurers to offer abortion coverage so long as tax dollars are not involved.

Not that the press ever noticed. Up until almost literally the 11th hour, Mr. Stupak's push for a vote was treated as a sideshow. Nor was President Barack Obama ever called to answer for his flatly contradictory public statements on the place of abortion (the preferred term is "reproductive health care") in any health-care reform.

Mr. Stupak has just changed all that. On Sunday, the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, sent out an action alert asking supporters to tell Mr. Obama to "make good" on his "promise to put reproductive health care at the center of [his] health care reform plan." She should know: She was standing next to Candidate Obama in 2007 when he declared that "reproductive care is essential care, it is basic care, so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose."

Unfortunately for Ms. Richards, during his recent appearance before a joint session of Congress, Mr. Obama promised something different: "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."

Notwithstanding the president's promise, page 110 of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill authorized the secretary of Health and Human Services to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. All Mrs. Pelosi's preferred "compromises" left this undisturbed, using what in effect would be a money-laundering scheme to cloak the reality of a federal agency paying for abortion.

But Mr. Stupak stood firm, and Mrs. Pelosi realized something would have to give if she wanted to get a health-care bill passed. So she gave Mr. Stupak his vote—and his victory.

Big ups to Bart Stupak and his 62 fellow, pro-life Democrats.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

I Am Pro-Life

If Sarah Palin doesn't become the first female President of the United States, it might be this little girl.

She's now 12 years old, the Constitution requires that she be 35, so, watch for her in 2032.



(h/t The Other McCain)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Thank You, President Bush (UPDATED)

Thank you, President Bush, for keeping us safe.

On 11 September 2001, I watched the news reports and listened to every last pundit say that terrorist attacks were the new reality. The question was not if, but when. Thank you, President Bush, for outlining and executing 7.5 years of policy that have protected America from further terrorist attack.

I think 70% of Americans (those who disapproved of President Bush in the last poll) are wrong. I think that future, fair-minded historians will re-evaluate Bush 43 and find a good and successful presidency.

His was a presidency marked, not by political expedience, as was that of his predecessor, but by one question: What's best for the country? President Bush is a good, honest, kind man. I believe he was right about Iraq. Iraq was the great test of his presidency.

He could have cut and run as the entire Democrat left and some on the right advocated, but he did not. And in so doing, by staying and fighting and finding a way, he spared untold millions of lives and through the instrumentality of an unparalleled fighting force, created a stable, peaceful, democratic friend and ally in the Middle East.

President Bush supported many good causes. He was a friend to Israel and a friend to the oppressed in Cuba & China and anywhere that felt the boot of tyranny. He brought attention and care to Africa--more than any President or any leader of any nation before him. Africa loves George W. Bush. On the life issues--stem cells and abortion--he was a right good defender of the defenseless.

I am overwhelmingly grateful to President Bush and proud to have had him as my President.

21 January 1:26pm BST:


Found at Little Green Footballs, add your thanks to President Bush to this long list. I was #11,737.

Given that his #1 responsibility was to keep us safe, I'd say, hell yeah, Mission Accomplished.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Nobama: An Appeal To Reason

Among my friends who support Barack Obama, there are very few who can actually name or describe in any detail, his admittedly few policy prescriptions. In most cases, I know more about what he has said he would do than they do. For them, a vote for Obama, in addition to being a vote for "change" and "hope," is also a feel-good vote.

Thomas Sowell put it pretty well:

Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.

It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don’t want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts.

An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short: “You don’t like him and I do!” she said. End of discussion.

When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations yet to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style.

Whether that feelgoodedness comes from the collective cool transferred to them by the Obama camp (another way Obama is a collectivist) or because they believe the hype and the rhetoric or perhaps even because they think electing Obama will somehow help America get past its history rather than Presidentializing a racial grievance monger--whatever reason they feel good about voting for Obama, my sense is that it's going to turn into a feel-bad outcome.

What little we know about Obama--his foul associations with racist, hate-monger Reverend Jeremiah Wright, commie-terrorist Bill Ayers, slum lord Tony Rezko--does not match his airy rhetoric and campaign promises.

Why should we believe a man who promises to cut taxes when, at every opportunity, he has voted to raise taxes or opposed tax cuts?

Why should be believe that a man has any respect for human life when he voted against protecting those babies who, against the odds, survived the abortion procedure and were born alive?

Why should we believe a man will successfully lead our armed forces and protect America when he has demonstrated that politics--winning an election!--is more important than winning a war?--A man who refuses to acknowledge the success of The Surge and would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Why should we believe that Barack Obama will ever do anything that is unpopular politically for the good of his country, when all he has ever done is voted present?

Why should we believe that Obama will do anything to change the way government is run when, after receiving over $100,000 in campaign donations, he so willingly went along with the Fannie Mae train wreck, opposing any attempts at reform. If you believe Obama will change anything in Washington with respect to earmarks, corruption, kickbacks, etc., you are woefully mistaken.

We have no reason to believe--no rational, logical reason to assume--that Barack Obama will actually do what he has promised or be able to do what millions of people have hoped. Those who vote for Obama, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, cast aside all logic and reason and ensconce themselves in a willfully ignorant, padded room of feel-good platitudes.

Unless you are a far left liberal, then you may be pleased with what you will get.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Barack Obama Is Not Just Pro-Choice, He's Pro-Abortion

I've been meaning to post this for a long time. Like the author of this article (Robert George), I know a number of pro-lifers who have talked themselves into voting for Barack Obama. After numerous conversations with them, I can't give them any more credit for their vote than they're voting for him because he's cool. (or is it because it's the cool, hip thing to do? I forget.)

Obviously this is my summation of their reasoning, not theirs.

Back to the point at hand. As George points out, 'Barack Obama is the most extreme anti-life, abortion advocate to run for President in the history of the United States.' His positions on every aspect of the life question--from embryonic stem cell research to infanticide--put him in the extreme left.

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - [ed. note: and Mormons] who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

What is going on here?

I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice."

This is my appeal to the Obama backers of my generation--especially those who, like me, consider themselves social conservatives. I know you're out there. Many of you have been peer pressured into your support of Barack Obama by liberal professors and classmates. Some of you don't care about the politics, but are doing it because, as above, it's cool. If you care about human life at all, you owe it to yourself to read this article with and open mind and the consider: how does Obama's answer to the life question match your own beliefs? And then, vote accordingly.

Depending on where you look, there have been some 48 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. The good news is that those numbers have been going down over the last few years. Obama's policies, clearly laid out in this article, will increase that number.

In a very real sense, depending on who is elected--Obama or McCain--we could see abortion numbers rise and add to the despicable 48 million, or we could see the diminishing trend continue.

I urge you to stand and vote for life, for the rights of the unborn, to protect defenseless.

Vote for John McCain.

(h/t & thanks to Jonathan S.)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Carol Fowler & Democrats' Obsession With Abortion

For the hardcore left of the Democratic party--the wing of the party that controls party ideology & messaging--a woman is only a woman & and a feminist if she is pro-abortion.

As I wrote last week in my convention coverage, this is why the leftists are attacking Palin so vociferously--she threatens their narrow definition of feminism & female identity.

This attitude is reflected in recent comments by the South Carolina Democratic party chair:

Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate " whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

The latest battle in the culture war has been joined.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Family Follow-Up

Yesterday's post prompted some very thoughtful discussion. We appreciate your comments whether you agree with our point or not.

We hope that you will not get distracted, as in times past, by our examples. Of course gay marriage is an issue that affects the family, but it is by no means the only or even the biggest issue--it's part of a larger cultural problem afflicting marriage. The larger cultural problem surrounding marriage is that marriage and family is no longer a big deal. And we don't mean this in the Anchorman sense.

Marriage and families are started on a whim. We keep referring to Wilson because he's awesome, and his point about the diminution of the family bears repeating--especially for those of you who haven't done your homework. Speaking of marriage, Wilson wrote

we have learned how it (marriage) can be undercut by people who think that their lives will be fuller, their opportunities greater, and their burdens fewer if they are allowed to treat sex as recreation, children as toys, and income as an obligation of government rather than a result of work.

We probably should have had said that "relationships and children" are had on a whim. Meaning, people get together, live together, whatever and have unwanted children with little or no thought to the consequences.

We can think of few more selfish acts.

Then, they either get married or put the child up for adoption or abort the baby, etc., etc.--nearly all of these, certainly the most common, are complete abrogations of their filial responsibilities.

As "rights" have increased in this country, so too have the methods for escaping what should be the responsibilities that automatically accompany them. It's easy to point to women and the right to choose, but where are the prospective fathers? Don't they care at all for their children? Historically, men have always been able to avoid their paternal responsibility because they can just up and leave. Rarely could a woman could do the same with her pregnancy. Abortion, in some women's minds, has leveled the playing field--as though sex and children were some sort of tit-for-tat game.

Spikers is right in the sense that it would probably take a Constitutional Amendment to legally protect marriage in this country. As difficult as that may be, it doesn't mean that it's not a battle worth fighting.

An equally difficult battle, but one which we can fight every day, is the larger cultural battle that buruboi referred to in their comments:

we, those who believe that functioning families are integral to society, should pursue cultural standards that protect the traditional and intrinsic values of marriage. That means cultivating sensible cultural norms that motivate people to realize the right, responsibility, privilege, commitment, and even sanctity of marriage and family (i.e. the Mormon community). This can be effectively accomplished, I think, without instituting legal parameters defining what constitutes marriage.

We would expand the thrust of their comments to include not just marriage, but also the family. Regrettably, there are cultural assaults on more than just marriage and motherhood and fatherhood. In Wilson's articles, the impact of culture on the family is a constant theme. We agree with him and buruboi in believing that there needs to be a cultural sea change with respect to marriage and the family.

For this reason, we oppose abortion and pop cultural attacks on the family and gay marriage and all that stuff because it all affects the family. And for us, the family isn't just this nebulous thing that needs saving just because of political-religious mores. For us, it makes good policy sense. As we mentioned in yesterday's post, strengthen the family and you strengthen America. Want to combat crime or illiteracy or, pretty much anything? Do whatever you can to encourage the necessary policy and legal and cultural changes to help America's families.

*UPDATE 3 April 12:20am MST: Obama's Abortion Extremism, by Michael Gerson


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.