Pray To End Abortion

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I said in an earlier post that, “[r]ather than discard it, we should seek to strive for the ideal.” Thus,  Republicans, after first having sought to end slavery, seek now to end abortion. Meanwhile, the Democrats, after first having been the party of slavery, are now the party of abortion.

And yet the Democrats, in their guilt, must over-compensate—in the case of slavery, with the doctrine of Affirmative Action, which does nothing but to perpetuate what President Bush has called “the soft bigotry of low expectations,” and in the case of abortion, with the push to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, requiring countries to “act in the best interest of the child” (an irony considering that they see no rights for the unborn).

The right to life enshrined in the Declaration of Independence should extend to the unborn; adults have a responsibility to defend the defenseless.

Doesn’t anybody edit Obama’s speeches?

Doesn’t anybody edit Obama’s speeches? Where are all the teachers’ union employees?

“ ‘Either we gut education and medical research or we’ve got to reform the tax code so that the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies don’t get. We can’t afford to do both.’ ”

Assuming for the moment that either gutting education and medical research or reforming the tax code to eliminate tax loopholes would reduce the budget deficit, doesn’t he mean that we can’t afford to do neither?

If either of these would reduce the budget deficit, wouldn’t it be better (from a budget deficit perspective) to do both? What does he mean when he says, “We can’t afford to do both.”? By his own logic, doesn’t Obama have this exactly backwards? Who edits this stuff?

The Obama Tax

The fact that Obama seems to like toxic programs that don't take effect until 2013 or beyond, such as Obamacare and the Buffett tax, has given me an idea.

The Republicans in the House should propose and push an explicit Obama tax—a 50% tax rate, across the board (payroll, capital gains, whatever the source)—on anyone making more than $20K that takes effect in 2013 only if Obama is reelected.

1984

I just finished reading (re-reading?) 1984. I thought I’d read it before, but what I remembered as my favorite part of the book ... was not even in the book. My new theory is that what I remembered as my favorite part of 1984 is actually a scene from Fahrenheit 451.

George Orwell was a Socialist, in any case. His ideas on Capitalism were seriously flawed.

That is all.

Irony

Does anyone else see the irony in the juxtaposition of this post on Obama’s pledge to mobilize the military to combat the oil’s assault on our shores with the post earlier this week on the forfeiture of a swath of Arizona to Mexican smugglers? Talk about an assault on our shores….

Narrative

Once upon a time, the Republican party was the party of Big Business and the Democrat party was the party of the little guy. FDR was able to milk this for eight years—and then was able to milk casting the Republicans as the party of isolationists and appeasers for five more.

Fast forward to today, when the Democrats are the party of crony capitalism while at the same time continuing to paint Republicans as in bed with Big Business.

Meanwhile, the Republican party is the one that can lay a credible claim to being for the smallest of minority groups—the individual.

“May you live in interesting times.”

Hyperbole

No, we can’t all just “agree that there’s nothing more Nazi than saying ‘Show me your papers[.]’ ”

“Show me your papers” was not the defining characteristic of the Nazis. Cremation ovens in concentration camps was the defining characteristic of the Nazis.

A Letter to the Program Director of My Local Radio Station

Dear [Program Director],

I find it ironic that, between segments of conservative talk radio from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, your radio station would air Democrat talking points passing as legitimate news updates. I refer specifically to today’s stories about Senator Bunning’s refusal to go along with unanimous support for cutting off debate on a spending bill that does not meet the Democrats’ own pay-as-you-go standard—stories that do not even mention the pay-as-you-go standard.

If I wanted stories like that, I’d watch MSNBC.

I wonder if your station couldn’t find a different source for its news updates—something a little more fair and balanced, perhaps.

Sincerely,
DavidD

P.s. For more on this subject, see this fine post from theblogprof:
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/03/liberal-msm-no-checks-for-jobless.html

Pop Philosophers

Leonard Peikoff, from The Ominous Parallels, p. 139:

Today Americans no longer seek philosophic guidance from philosophers, but from whoever fills the place philosophers have vacated: politicians, economists, psychologists, gurus, etc.

No, it’s worse than that. Americans today, as a general rule, seek philosophic guidance from celebrities—pop singers, movie stars, etc.; basically, whoever is the box office draw du jour. At least politicians, economists, and psychologists are generally well-educated and can be expected to read a book once in a while.

A Public-Service Announcment

In recognition of the EPA’s declaration that CO₂ is a public danger, this blog has been declared a CO₂-free zone.

Please hold your breath throughout the duration of your visit to this blog.

NO EXHALING ALLOWED!

Irony

While thumbing through a copy of Celebutards from the library, I came across this sentence from the foreword where the author, Andrea Peyser, describes herself as “right of center”:

I support classic conservative causes, such as crime-fighting, tax-cutting, welfare reform, and the death penalty, but I'm live-and-let-live on a variety of social issues, including abortion and gay rights.

Hmm. Live-and-let-live on abortion. More like live-and-let-die. Or live-and-let-actively-kill.

How, exactly, is one “live-and-let-live” on abortion? Does Andrea Peyser not see the irony in this statement? Wouldn’t the “live-and-let-live” position require one to be pro-life?