I am convinced now more than ever, that when people claim to be fiscal conservatives and social liberals who don't want to make abortion an issue, they're flat-out ignorant. Everyone who thinks abortion shouldn't be an issue in electoral politics should be required to watch a few abortions or... perhaps they could just start following the trial of Kermit Gosnell.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist now on trial in Philadelphia charged with seven counts of first-degree murder--he allegedly cut the spinal cords of late-term aborted babies who were born alive--apparently used to joke about the large size of some the infants he aborted and in one case, according to what a co-worker told the grand jury, said, “This baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.”
Gosnell, 72, who ran a multi-million dollar abortion business in West Philadelphia, was arrested on Jan. 19, 2011, and his trial started Monday, Mar. 18, 2013. The first-degree murder counts refer to seven late-term aborted babies who were born alive and then killed, their spinal cords cut with scissors.
On second thought, perhaps government largesse is a drop in the bucket compared to abortion.
The reason fiscal liberalism is wrong is the same reason that socially liberal positions like abortion is wrong. That reason can be summed up with one word.
Less than one month ago, Dr. Ben Carson's stock with conservatives shot into the stratosphere after a thirty minute speech at the Washington Prayer Breakfast. Never before had someone so eloquently and politely embarrassed Barack Obama while sharing the same room. I remember pumping my fist a few times while watching that speech. Conservatives began to entertain the idea that Carson would be presidential material in 2016.
Now, er not so much. In fact, the degree to which Carson seems to have diluted and convoluted his message is more than just a little vexing. It's as if he doesn't want conservative support.
My antennae first went up with Carson back on February 17th during his appearance on ABC This Week, just ten days after his speech. Take note beginning at the 1:45 mark, when Carson says we need to 'tone down the rhetoric' and 'discuss things in a reasonable and rational way'. He then advocates for both sides coming together rather than 'one side or the other side winning'.
Exhibit A (strike 1):
Does this mean Carson believes Capitalists can compromise with Marxists? Because of how well Carson did at the prayer breakfast, he seemed to receive a bit of a pass there but conservatives are a little hypersensitive whenever the 'both sides need to come together' rhetoric starts. Such thinking includes a premise that says both sides are equally to blame. That is a false premise indeed. Anecdotally, just look at how Obama ran his presidential campaign compared to how Romney ran his. Obama's campaign lied about Romney being a murderer and a felon while Romney's campaign wouldn't tell the truth about Obama - that he's a socialist.
Here is Exhibit B (strike 2).
It occurred on the Andrea Tantaros show. During the interview, the topic of CPAC came up. Specifically, the group's decision to exclude New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and GOProud - the largest conservative homosexual group - from speaking at the event was discussed. After talking about the cultural underpinnings of our society, Carson bemoaned the exclusion of Christie and GOProud. Take note at the 3:00 mark. This is where Carson alienates social conservatives while championing fiscal conservatism.
Then, at about the 4:47 mark, Carson utters words that conservatives are simply loathe to hear:
"You need to make the tent as big as you possibly can."
Ah, the hypocrisy of the big tenters... They always seem to bemoan the alienation of groups that are socially liberal but never seem to care about alienating social conservatives.
In Exhibit C (big fat strike 3), we find Carson with a fork stuck in him.
During an interview with Glenn Beck, the talk show host asks Carson about the second amendment and whether people like Beck should be allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon. Carson's answer is so ridiculous, you just have to see it for yourself.
In light of the newly released undercover videos of Planned Parenthood employees who are all to willing to help facilitate abortions based on gender, this exchange between Fox News Channel's Ed Henry and White House press secretary Jay Carney takes on added significance.
Note that Carney deflects the concern away from one that asks about "doctors" who are willing to kill unborn females because they're females to one that involves placing too much of a burden on doctors for determining the reason for the abortion.
As the House was preparing to debate a bill authored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) was doing an interview with MSNBC. Franks wants to pass a bill that will make gendercide illegal, which is increasingly in the news due to undercover videos from Live Action. Nonetheless, Lee avoided questions about that topic and instead leapfrogged to an alternate future reality where women would be dragged out into the streets from their patient rooms and beaten if such a bill were passed.
Uh, what do you expect from a woman who asked if the Mars rover could drive over to where the Astronauts planted the US flag?
After the first Live Action undercover video in Texas, that exposed Planned Parenthood as an entity that is facilitating gendercide, the abortuary issued a statement that vehemently denied condoning the practice. Now Live Action has released another video that shows Planned Parenthood doing the same thing in New York City.
In a news story that sounds like it is more out of a bad science fiction movie than reality, a newspaper in India reports doctors in one city are so desperate to hide evidence that they are doing sex-selection abortions that they are feeding the remains of aborted girl babies to dogs.
Sme physicians in the city of Beed, India are engaging in the practice, according to India Today, which spoke with Varsha Deshpande of Lek Ladki Abhiyan, an NGO working against the practice. Maharashtra’s Public Health Minister Suresh Shetty also admitted to the newspaper that he had heard of reports of the practice taking place.
A person even saw a foetus being fed to the animals. This is known to everyone in Beed, but the police are not taking action as Munde is influential,” Deshpande said.
She added that some other doctors in Beed kept dogs for the same purpose – to avoid the hassle of disposing of the bodies.
Health Minister Shetty said: “I have heard of the practice but have no evidence.”
He added that since the local police seemed to be under a lot of “pressure”, he had decided to ask the crime branch to investigate the latest case.
When it comes to the most evil acts on planet earth, this has got rank in the top three.
It's a bit too early to get worked up about this but the mere fact that a pro-choice, tax-hiking Governor is even being remotely considered as Romney's running mate is disturbing. If team Romney does select someone like Nevada's Brian Sandoval, it will communicate a 'have your cake and eat it too' attitude on steroids.
There's a children's story about a dog with a bone who sees his reflection in the water. Thinking it's another dog with another bone, he tries to get it. In attempting to do so, he loses the one in his mouth. Romney very well could be that dog if he were to choose a 'mini-Mitt.' It will mean that he's an ideologue who thinks he can have whatever he wants and conservatives will still vote for him because the anti-Obama sentiment is so strong.
Along with being relatively new and unvetted, he (Sandoval) is pro-choice; and he has raised taxes twice during his short time as governor. Those are deal breakers, according to several Republican strategists.
“I just don’t see with his rumored pro-choice stance how he fits into the equation,” Republican strategist Chuck Warren told The Daily Caller. “Great governor, superb future, but I think that one policy position makes him untenable for [the Republican] evangelical base.”
“The pluses of Sandoval: he’s in a key state, he’s a governor, and he’s Hispanic, three huge considerations of the Romney team,” added Republican strategist Phillip Stutts. “The downside is he recently had to raise taxes,” something the conservative electorate would not like.
Trey Hardin, another Republican strategist, said Sandoval would be a poor choice for Romney.
Again, reading that, you're left with the impression that Sandoval is an unlikely choice but that he's even being looked at when the base is already disillusioned with Romney only validates the concerns of conservatives. The opening two stanzas of the Caller's piece seem to indicate that a door to this possibility is open, at least to some degree:
Conventional wisdom among Mitt Romney VP-watchers is that the presumptive GOP nominee should pick a running mate who is experienced and rather boring, someone who would neither embarrass him nor outshine him.
Just two years into his first term as Nevada governor, Brian Sandoval doesn’t exactly fit that bill. But a source familiar with the proceedings said not to count Sandoval out.
We're already staring at an election that is far too close for one simple reason: Romney is a liberal Republican who doesn't energize the base. That was McCain's problem and it all changed when he picked Sarah Palin. In fact, he wouldn't go anywhere without her on the campaign trail because he knew that by himself, his crowds would be miniscule. With her, they were enormous.
To be fair, Romney has an advantage McCain didn't have. Obama-mania has dried up but his chances go up, not down, if he were to pick an energizing conservative like Palin.
If Romney doesn't balance the ticket with a strong conservative, his chances of beating Obama will decrease, regardless of how strong the anti-Obama sentiment is.
Did Jay-Z suddenly have a homosexual road to Damascus experience on gay marriage? Based on his song lyrics, either that's the explanation or it's something more simple, like being told to get in line with the president's views. After all, Jay-Z did get to sit at the head of the table in the White House situation room.
In any case, the Daily Caller has made an interesting observation about Jay-Z's new position vs. his old, racist one:
Rap mogul Jay-Z publicly backed President Barack Obama‘s newest position on same-sex marriage, an interesting move for an important figure in an industry that is regularly regarded as outspokenly homophobic.
In an interview with CNN on Monday, Jay-Z said he has always believed prohibiting same-sex marriages was “holding the country back.” He said, “you can choose to love whoever you love.”
But a short journey through the prolific history of the iconic rapper’s lyrics indicates that he may not be the best spokesman for gay marriage advocacy.
Here are some of those lyrics:
“What you gay? Nigga Jay straight like Indian hair” – From “2 Many Hoes”
“And since you infatuated with sayin’ tha gay shit” – From “Super Ugly”
“Had niggas mad for real like ‘I wish he was gay’”- From “Hey Papi”
“Hate a nigga like that faggot, get your own”- From “Lucky Me”
“That’s gay, I ain’t into liking dudes no way”- From “La La La (Excuse Me Again)”
Again, if gays today = blacks 50 years ago, the once racist Jay-Z has had an amazing evolution.
Or, maybe he just got his mind right:
Perhaps Jay-Z should consult with Bruce Springsteen about getting in touch with his gay side when writing songs:
Once again, the left cannot be allowed to have it both ways. One of the talking points from the liberal left when it comes to gay marriage is to equate the plight of the homosexuals to the plight of blacks prior to the 1960's. As such, homosexuals of today are fighting the same fight blacks did then, according to the left. With that as a premise the left has chosen to accept, Chris Matthews essentially called Bishop Harry Jackson a racist when he expressed a desire to see Jackson 'evolve.'
And so it begins. A white liberal identifies a black man as a racist for not supporting gay marriage. I think Mr. Matthews mis-diagnosed the thrill that ran up his leg.
It's looking increasingly like the Joe Biden gay marriage gaffe was truly a gaffe and not a calculated distraction on the part of the administration. Obama continues to drop in the polls and now it appears there is a certain segment of black pastors who are withdrawing their support for Obama.
Just days after President Barack Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, pastors and priests around Maryland took to their own pulpits with their reaction– and in some cases– condemnation of the president.
Derek Valcourt explains the president’s comments have folks on both sides of the issue fired up.
Both sides hope the president’s position helps sway votes in their favor when the issue hits Maryland’s ballot this November.
“I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said.
When Obama announced that his position on same-sex marriage had evolved, it outraged some African-American pastors like Pastor and Del. Emmett Burns.
“He has said to his base, African-Americans, ‘I am going against your beliefs and your thoughts,’” Burns said.
He’s so opposed to same-sex marriage, he told church members he will no longer support the president and now predicts Obama will lose the election because of it.
Perhaps an unintended consequence of Obama's new public stance is that white homosexuals will begin referring to black heterosexuals who reject gay marriage, as 'racists.'
For you atheists out there... Haven't you ever stopped to ask yourselves why a country's decline always seems to coincide with moral depravity? Perhaps not so coincidentally, as that moral depravity rises, so does our debt. Have you ever stopped to think... never mind, you haven't.
Over the span of less than one week, two of America's once most prominent magazines - TIME and Newsweek - featured a toddler breastfeeding and America's 'First Gay President' on their covers, respectively. That's right, Newsweek has prominently displayed Barack Obama as a homosexual.
Today, Newsweek magazine released this week’s cover via Twitter: a hopey, changey Barack Obama staring into the future, his head swirled with a rainbow halo. The bold font title: “THE FIRST GAY PRESIDENT.” And the cover story is written by none other than Andrew Sullivan, famed Trig Palin truther (he believes the bizarre conspiracy theory that Trig Palin is actually Bristol Palin’s son rather than Sarah Palin’s). The last time we saw Sullivan writing a cover story for Newsweek, he was asking “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?”…
...The Newsweek cover is obviously a take-off on the old line about Bill Clinton being the “first black president,” but it’s also an unintended backhanded in-kind contribution to the Romney campaign. In the liberal press’ desperate gushing over Obama’s same-sex marriage stance, they’ve alienated more than half the country – every state that has ever held a referendum on same-sex marriage has voted it down. The most polarizing president in history by every measurable statistic has polarized the country yet again – yet Newsweek insists on portraying Obama as a holy figure for embracing an anti-Biblical position, thereby also alienating every religious person in the country.
Anyone still believe Obama is a Christian?
That leads to another question. Why do leftists who reject Christianity, get mad when you say they're not Christians? Shouldn't they agree with you?
Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the upcoming book, Unsung Davids
The "evolving" Obama timeline continues... On Sunday, Joe Biden comes out in support of gay marriage; on Tuesday, Jay Carney can't answer reporters' questions about Obama's position on the subject; on Wednesday, Obama comes out in support of gay marriage. Now, on Thursday, the Washington Post is reporting about how Mitt Romney mistreated a homosexual while in high school.
Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.
“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.
A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.
Does anyone honestly believe this wasn't timed to capitalize on Obama's public stance on gay marriage one day earlier?
It also seems to indicate that the Washington Post is engaging in Alinsky's Rule #8:
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
The problem for the Obama administration is that the opposition is increasingly reacting to his disadvantage.
Alinsky is beginning to fail Obama. Once he realizes that, he's completely lost.
There always seems to be a new social issue that the Obama administration is either manufacturing or in the middle of. The latest involves gay marriage. It started with Vice President Joe Biden (no surprise there) and his appearance on Meet the Press this past Sunday.
Keep in mind that Obama's public position has been that he supports civil unions but that he is against gay marriage. Public opposition to gay marriage is strong and it's become rather obvious that Obama wanted to wait to come out in support of gay marriage until after the election. That's not going to happen because Biden reached into the pantry, pulled out a can of worms and grabbed a can opener.
Here's the VP endorsing gay marriage:
That exchange with Gregory led to an uncomfortable round of questions for White House press secretary Jay Carney, who has become quite adroit at impersonating a human pretzel.
After having his position on gay marriage mocked for more than 24 hours, Barack Obama came out today and told ABC's Robin Roberts that he supports gay marriage. Watching this, it should be rather obvious that Obama did not want to do this now; he wanted to wait until after the election.
Here ya go:
Now, Obama in 2008 at Saddleback Church:
Which brings us back to Joe Biden's "who do you love" comment...
This could be a sign that Mitt Romney won't be able to shake that etch-a-sketch completely clean. Last week, after all but sealing up the Republican nomination, it was learned that one of Mitt Romney's foreign policy advisers - Richard Grenell - was openly gay. The news definitely raised the dander of social conservatives already hypersensitive about Romney's very liberal streak.
Now, less than a week later, Grenell has resigned.
Richard Grenell, the openly gay spokesman recently hired to sharpen the foreign policy message of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, has resigned in the wake of a full-court press by anti-gay conservatives.
In a statement obtained by Right Turn, Grenell says:
I have decided to resign from the Romney campaign as the Foreign Policy and National Security Spokesman. While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama’s foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign. I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.
Perhaps in an attempt to play both sides of the fence, team Romney released a statement of regret that Grenell decided to leave:
“We are disappointed that Ric decided to resign from the campaign for his own personal reasons. We wanted him to stay because he had superior qualifications for the position he was hired to fill.”
Well, of course, by expressing sorrow for the departure, the Romney campaign doesn't alienate the GOProud crowd while also taking the gay rights pinata down from the tree so social conservatives can't beat on it anymore (in this case).
For what it's worth, Van Jones and Al Armendariz both resigned (wink, wink) without being prompted by the White House.
The band's name is Downsiid and they rock. It's not often you see something like this. A band with a front man that's got a set of pipes that makes you think you're listening to a cross between Staind, Creed, and Van Halen. They've also got some killer riffs!
These guys are good.
The best part? They're apparently Pro-Life and this is one awesome song / video.
When the HHS rule that demanded Catholic employers must offer insurance providers that pay for contraception for their employees, Bishops across the country expressed indignation in the form of letters read to multiple congregations. It was a good start but where was the steady drumbeat and marching in the streets?
Here is a very nicely done political ad by a group called Catholics Called to Witness:
Someone has an extremely bad case of RINO fever and he just so happens to be the Republican Party nominee for president - Mitt Romney. Last week, he received kudos from Al Gore for telling an audience in New Hampshire that he believed in man-made global warming. Now he's revealing his true liberal colors on abortion. Romney has flip-flopped on the abortion issue so many times, he makes John Kerry look like a piker. Consider his refusal to sign the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life Leadership Presidential Pledge as another in a long line of convoluted and quite equivocal examples.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney drew criticism Saturday for being one of only three Republican presidential candidates to have refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s Pro-Life Leadership Presidential Pledge.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who did sign the pledge, sent out a press release saying he was “stunned” at Romney’s refusal to sign.
“This past Monday night at the Republican Presidential Debate, I was asked about Governor Romney’s pro-life conversion, and I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I apparently spoke too soon. It is incredibly disappointing that Governor Romney chose not to defend those who cannot defend themselves,” said Santorum in the statement.
Romney's explanation was quite lame:
“As much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List, its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it,” Romney wrote.
Romney appears to be quite overt about his liberalness these days, probably because he's still the frontrunner. That very well might burn him as we get closer to the election and voters begin paying more attention. At that point, look for Romney to tack to the right.
Perhaps even more confusing is the fact that Ron Paul signed the pledge and Herman Cain didn't. Gotta say, if had predicted which one would and wouldn't sign, I would have had those reversed.
LifeNews has more on why Cain said he didn't sign the pledge but remains pro-life. Frankly, I have a tough time buying his logic. He's starting to sound too much like a politician and his stock dropped with me on this one. Bachmann, who signed the pledge, continues to rise.
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels got into some hot water with the Tea Party recently over his comments about social issues needing to take a back seat in the interest of - what else - a bigger tent in the face of dire issues facing our nation. The problem with this outdated logic is the law of diminishing returns. In the interest of getting more people to enter the tent, it only serves to dilute the passion of those firmly inside.
Give me a smaller but passionately righteous grouping over a diluted larger one any day. The problem with folks like Daniels is that they consistently underestimate the power of a galvanized base that includes social issues. The opposite leads to nominees like John McCain.
If you watch this, Daniels clearly has to walk back his comments for that very reason.
