Another he-double-hockeysticks-freezes-over moment

Last week, Erin Manning wrote He** freezes over: It has finally happened: Maureen Dowd has written a column that I actually sorta almost completely like.

Well, now it's happened to me: Jack Cafferty of CNN says something I agree with completely!



"President Obama hasn't even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of openness and transparency in Government, it was all just another lie that was told in order to get elected"

Check out the video, especially the last part.

Is this for real? *Updated*

I can hardly believe that a department of the Federal Government of the United States of America could have put out such a pathetic report, free of content except for making unsubstantiated claims against the "dangers" of obviously political targets: those who are pro-life, anti-tax, pro-traditional marriage, pro-2nd Amendment, have served a military tour of duty, or are conservatives.

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment. [my emphasis]

Translation:

We at the DHS/I&A have no data that rightwing terrorists are doing anything, or even if they exist. None. Zero. Zilch. Yeah, literally. But we are afraid our political opponents will advance because we are failing spectacularly at fixing the economy. Oh, and of course anyone who disagrees with BHO must be a racist, so we expect all the racists to join up too.

Erm, hello? This is what the Department of Homeland Security is doing? Publishing a totally unsubstantiated and speculative report claiming that people who merely happen to disagree with the views of the current Administration are actually "extremists" and probably terrorists? Does the word "propaganda" ring any bells?

Pathetic and content-free as the report is, I would not be surprised to find it referred to in all seriousness by those arguing that those rightwing [sic] extremists -- like old ladies praying the rosary outside Planned Parenthood -- need to be kept in check and lose their civil liberties in order to protect society.

Can you imagine The Media letting it slide if the government issued a similarly thin report on left-wing extremism? (Check out this "right->left translation" if you are tempted to believe there is no double standard. h/t for link: the Anchoress.)

Arizona's gain is the nation's loss.

PS An in-depth analysis is here. Please do read it.
The American Legion response is here.
h/ts: FRC, Michelle Malkin, the Anchoress

Hear, hear!

Daniel Hannan is a Member of the European Parliament from South East England. Wish we had some members of Congress like this!

Imagine the Potential

This new ad from CatholicVote has been making the rounds.



Wow! Ironic ... and brilliant!

Obama vs. jobs - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

What are the likely results of Obamanomics?

I interviewed two plumbing company owners over the weekend about Barack Obama's economic proposals for small business.

One has 15 employees and 12 trucks. The other has 52 employees and 34 trucks. They're Joe the Plumber, writ large.

Both owners had the same reaction to Obama's proposed new taxes and mandates. To not have their bottom lines reduced by government fiat, both said they'd be forced to lay off employees.

Read the rest here

Obama says his plan will bankrupt coal, raise energy costs

A YouTube video has appeared featuring audio of Obama's comments during an interview with a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle (the video says SF Gate, which is the name of the Chronicle's website) back in January. The Chronicle inexplicably failed to report on it. On the audio recording, Obama says:

What I've said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a hundred-percent auction on the cap-and-trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greeenhouse gas that's being emitted.

[emphasis added]

Incredible that he can be so casual about destroying an industry and thousands upon thousands of jobs. He also acknowledged that energy costs for all of us would rise under his scheme:

When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.

That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers.

How is that going to help the poor?

The Ohio Coal Association commented on the audio, saying: "Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it."

Chris Hamilton, the senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association, described Obama's comments as "unbelievable." On Sunday, Hamilton said,

His comments are unfortunate and really reflect a very uninformed voice and perspective to coal specifically and energy generally.

In Ohio recently, when Joe Biden said 'not here' about building coal-fired power plants -- this is exactly what will happen. Financing won't be directed here. It will all go aboard for plants elsewhere in the world. The United Sates is importing more coal today from Indonesia, South Africa and Colombia than we ever have.

If we're going to create a situation where coal-fired power plants are at that much of a disadvantage, there will be new ones built. But as Biden said, just not here.

People in coal-belt states like Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania need to hear this.

I am thinking that if McCain had said anything similar, whether about this industry or any other, it would have been headlines for weeks. Instead, we have the media once again using the Obama campaign's talking points and pretending these comments were taken out of context. No bias here, folks.

Bias? What bias?

I was pleasantly surprised to find a link to this article in my inbox a few days ago. Even more so because it was on ABC's website.

Media's Presidential Bias and Decline: Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why is an article you don't want to miss.

A couple of paragraphs to tempt you:

But what really shattered my faith - and I know the day and place where it happened - was the War in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia only carried CNN, a network I’d already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse. I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story . . .but it never happened.

But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign. Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass - no, make that shameless support - they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press. I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather - not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake - but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

I'd say when Dan Rather recognizes media bias, it's gotta be getting pretty obvious.

Are journalists even getting basic stuff right?

Apparently not, at least when it comes to Sarah Palin. According to this piece in GetReligion:

Let’s just get right to it. This Los Angeles Times piece about the religious views of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is pretty much worthless.

Considering that I am a journalist, I’m somewhat sad to report that I believe nothing I read or watch when it comes to coverage of Palin. I have seen way too high an error rate, way too much in the way of unsourced allegations presented as fact, way too much seething anger, even about issues that have nothing to do with religion.

But let’s look at this Los Angeles Times piece, one of the many recent examples of this phenomenon. Here’s the headline:

Palin treads carefully between fundamentalist beliefs and public policy

Which would be a fine headline. If PALIN WERE A FUNDAMENTALIST. She’s not.

What's at stake in this election, in Barack Obama's own words

"With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman's fundamental right to choose [abortion] for the first time since Roe v. Wade and that is what is at stake in this election." [my underlining]

"we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation—laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito.

So, you know where I stand. But this more is than just about standing our ground. It must be about more than protecting the gains of the past. We’re at a crossroads right now in America—and we have to move this country forward. This election is not just about playing defense, it’s also about playing offense. It’s not just about defending what is, it’s about creating what might be in this country. And that’s what we’ve got to work together on.

There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield."

- Barack Obama, address to Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

(from transcript by Laura Echevarria, video available at "One Million for Planned Parenthood")

When Obama refers in this speech to the "federal abortion laws" and "federal abortion bans" he is talking about laws such as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, the federal ban on Partial-Birth Abortions, and the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (Laci and Conner's Law). When he speaks of "playing offense" he is referring to overturning limitations on abortion that currently exist, taxpayer funding of abortion, and other features of the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA).

Also see: Obama pledged to Planned Parenthood: “I will not yield” to pro-life concerns

Update 10/20/08: Video clips of Obama and McCain - including the above quotes


Or go to America's Choice Now.

Obama and Intrinsic Evils

An intrinsic evil is something that can never be justified under any circumstances. On some issues, there is only one right position because they involve intrinsic evils.

The Bishops' document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship identifies several such issues. Foremost among them are the life issues: abortion and infanticide, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning. Another is the protection of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

We must evaluate every candidate's positions on these issues. Frankly, I find Obama's record and positions on life issues, marriage, and parental rights disturbing. His stances on these issues are extreme, to put it simply. For example:

I. Abortion

Obama is a firm supporter of legal abortion, consistently earning 100% scores from NARAL. He has reiterated his support for abortion many times, including in his statement to NARAL: "I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. I oppose any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in this case."

In line with his beliefs, he is a co-sponsor of FOCA, the "Freedom of Choice Act," which goes even beyond the Roe and Doe decisions to nullify virtually all federal and state limitations on abortion. It would make taxpayer-funded abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy into a fundamental right. Nearly all the pro-life achievements in legislation at both the state and federal levels, such as women's right to know laws (informed consent), parental notification, and even the ban on partial birth abortions would be reversed. Even the right of medical personnel and hospitals (such as Catholic hospitals) to decline to provide abortions due to conscientious objections would be denied by this law.

When the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial-birth abortions, Obama opposed that decision.

Planned Parenthood's political action arm has endorsed him based on his record and his pledge that "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

(Update: also see What's at stake in this election, in Barack Obama's own words)

II. Embryonic stem cell research

Obama has consistently voted in favor of embryonic stem cell research, even saying that, "Embryonic stem cells can be obtained from a number of sources including in vitro fertilization. ... We should expand and accelerate research using these embryos."

III. Human cloning. Actually, this contains two intrinsic evils - the first in the creation of the clone for research, and the second in the destruction of the new human life once it has served its purpose.

He co-sponsored a bill that would allow the cloning of human embryos for research purposes, but require that they then be killed.

IV. Euthanasia

When Tim Russert asked Obama and Clinton if “there are any words or votes that you’d like to take back ... in your careers in public service,” Obama answered that it was a "mistake" to have joined the Senate in the unanimous consent on the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case. This consent provided her family with a last opportunity to try to save her. In other words, Obama singled out his agreement in a last-ditch attempt to prevent the starvation death of a severely disabled woman as the mistake of his public career.

Just to clarify, a lot has been reported in the media about Terri's case. There were many claims that she was in a "persistent vegetative" state as well as counter-claims that she was responsive to people and things around her. Yet this was irrelevant. She was not dying from any underlying condition. She was not on any life-support machines. It is a little-known fact that 29 disability-rights organizations filed legal briefs and lobbied Congress to make them understand that this was not about a "right to die" but about protecting her right to continue living. All she needed was food and water, just like the rest of us.

As Pope John Paul said:

Just because the chances of recovery are judged small and waning, when the ‘vegetative’ state lasts more than a year, does not justify withdrawing minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or thirst is, in fact, the only possible outcome of such a withdrawal. If done knowingly and willingly, this ends up being euthanasia by omission.

The sick person in a ‘vegetative’ state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery.

I want particularly to emphasize that the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and thus morally obligatory, insofar as and until it attains its proper goal of nourishing the patient and alleviating his suffering." (John Paul II, Address on Life-Sustaining Treatment and the ‘Vegetative’ State §4)

This teaching has since been confirmed by the CDF with Pope Benedict's approval.

V. Marriage. Not a direct life issue, but equating homosexual unions to marriage is again intrinsically evil.

"Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. ... all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions." (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, CDF, approved by Pope John Paul II)

Obama has pledged to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

VI. Infanticide.

OK, so we are all used to pro-abortion politicians but this one shocked me. Are you familiar with the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" (BAIPA) that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2002? This very simple law states that once a baby is born alive, even if it happens "accidentally" during an abortion, that baby is legally entitled to all the normal care than any baby is legally entitled to have. In other words, once born, the baby cannot be discriminated against, killed, or left to die in a utility closet simply because he or she is unwanted.

Initially, NARAL opposed the measure, but later dropped its opposition to avoid the political fallout. Indeed, this is such a common-sense measure that the US House passed it 380-15 and the Senate 98-0.

Obama was not a member of the US Senate at that time. But, when the Illinois senate considered a very similar measure, then-state senator Obama tried to prevent it's reaching the floor for a vote, argued against it on the Senate floor, and voted against its passage three times. You can read the text of the measure yourself, at the Illinois General Assembly website. It's very short and clear.

His position on this issue is nothing short of approving murder. Obvious and cold-blooded murder of the weakest, the most innocent, and the most defenseless.

Is that not disturbing?

Many people say that you cannot rule out a candidate on the basis of a single issue. Generally, I think they are right, but here's what our bishops said: "As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support." (Faithful Citizenship, my emphasis)

If that is the case, then what about the candidate who supports a half-dozen intrinsic evils?

Palin misquoted on Iraq War

I just ran across this info unexpectedly yesterday.

Many mainstream media reports claim Palin said that the Iraq War was "God's task". I am really disgusted with their selective quoting -- which really amounts to misquoting -- by omitting the beginning "Pray ... that".

Here are Palin's actual words -- as quoted by NPR, no less:

"Pray our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country - that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

The full quote makes it quite clear that she was really saying we should make sure we pray that there is a plan, that it is God's plan, and that the task our troops are going out on is from God. IOW, we have to always be sure to seek to do God's will and when things aren't in our direct control, we should still pray that our nation & its leaders act according to His will.

Isn't that a very good thing?