The Liberal Plan for Women

Kevin McCullough's latest article takes Liberals to courting the woman vote, doing things like allowing Debbie Wasserman Schultz to assume control of the DNC.

They intend to win the votes of women, and they will lie, confuse, and mislead if necessary to do so.

Yep we're just awful. He lists a number of prominent Conservative woman politicians to prove that Conservatives just care about women more, and then says this.

. . . a simple question for Rep. Schultz, "Where is your proof that the GOP is at war with these ladies?" Because while I'm not 100% certain, I'm fairly sure none of them embrace your ideas of equality for women--a world without men, where butchery of your own children is praised, immoral liberties are encouraged, and the idea of nurturing one's children is the equivalent to dropping a nuclear bomb.

A world without men? This in an article where he admits that admits that Schultz is married and has children (and even concedes that she might be a pretty good mother). It then turns around and ascribes to Schultz all of these cliches.

Presumably McCullough really does believe that we liberals, particularly liberal woman, want a world with no men and praise the butchery of our own children. Either he believes that is what sort of people we are or he is simply a deceitful propagandist.

The comments seem to contain multiple posts by a guy who believes that Liberalism is wanting to turn Heterosexual males into Diaper Dads.

UNTIL 50% of men in office are repalced by women.. that's their whoopi-agenda.

(now you know...) .. DIAPER DADS WE ARE TO MADE...

This includes School Boards, local, County and State government (in which to warm up) along with the Federal Government. To be 'included' are Judges all the way up to and 'including' SCOTUS. Add to this.. corporations plus Government departments and agencies.

YOUR SONS.. 50%.. ARE TO BECOME DIAPER DADS

.. while mommy legislates, adjudicates, governs or runs a corporation.

That should probably be "DIAPER DADS WE ARE TO BE MADE." Still kind of awkward.

Surveying the Field

Jonah Goldberg's latest article is in praise of a field of electable Republicans, people like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney and Mitch Daniels. Both Romney and Gingrich have shown that they can reach the middle ground (Romney with his Romneycare defense, Gingrich with his mockery of Ryans Medicare phase-out).

For those paying attention, these should be fascinating developments given the perennial claims that the GOP base is too right wing, extremist and closed-minded to tolerate such philosophical diversity. (And with the exception of Gingrich and Paul, there are no Southerner candidates in a party allegedly captured by the South.)

. . . It also suggests that the front-runners -- a group that includes former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- might be ahead of the rank and file of the GOP.

Now that's an interesting tack to take; suggesting these moderate candidates are more intelligent than the base. Of course Gingrich did have to walk back his comments on phasing out Medicare (and has also stated that anybody who replays clips of that appearance is lying), and Romneys defense of Romneycare was in the middle of an attack on Obamacare. So maybe the base still has a few cards. And let's see what the base has to say.

Would anyone in their right mind vote for Ron Paul?! He's odd, weird, and did I mention odd? Strange choice.

Romney has flipped flopped more than my beach sandles. Newt does a commercial with Pelosi on climate change and wants health care mandates?

NO WAY is Romney electable! We all ready know that. I heard him described yesterday as a cardboard person. Very descript.

Bomb thrower Newt needs to get out also...he might just be trying to sell books.

Michele Bachman is another limited appeal bomb thrower.

Still there are some things that unite them.

EVEN IF YOU THINK THE CHOICE ISN'T CLEAR , ..IT IS !!!!!!!...... YOU CAN VOTE FOR A COMMUNIST,SOCIALIST,MARXIST,MUSLIM OR .....AN AMERICAN, ITS VERY SIMPLE AND ANY RED BLOODED AMERICAN SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM MAKING THIS DECISION..................
BHO = AMERICAS PUBLIC ENEMY MUSLIM TERRORIST NUMBER ONE

So I'm sure they'll pull it together when the election actually comes around. Or not.

Fear the Muslim and his Money Donating Ways

John Ransom's latest article is about an South Florida Imam and some of his family members who donated to the "Muslim Taliban," who were going to use that money to overthrow the Pakistani Government and maybe kill Americans in the process. Of course this leads to a fairly blanket if sarcastic condemnation of American Muslims.

Oh, those poor Muslims in America. Cue the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other unindicted co-conspirators to give us one of their stock racism lectures.

Unindicted co-conspirators are always feeling the backlash in the U.S. of the actions of just a few very prominent heroes in their community. Those heroes, we’re assured, always seemed harmless as they were plotting to murder and maim.

The presumed “backlash” probably has nothing to do with the fact that Muslims tolerate such people in their midst. The spokesmen for the mosques always seem SO shocked that such people are their leaders. Their ignorance is reassuring to me.

Actually Muslim Leaders are waiting for the rule of law to proceed, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Ba-Yunus said the mosque has suspended Mr. Khan indefinitely and has been in regular contact with the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI.

If the accusations against the imam are true, "we unconditionally condemn" his actions, said Mr. Ba-Yunus. But he emphasized that "these are the alleged acts of a few people and one family" and not representative of the broader Muslim community.

That's probably not good enough for the likes of Ransom and his readers; they should be condemning him unconditionally even before the evidence is in. Of course his readers have pretty strong opinions on Islam.

Time to round them all up and ship them back to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran or wherever it is these vermin migrate from.

There is no peaceful muzzie and they all need to be deported right out of this Christian nation.

I wonder what he wants to do to the ones who were born here.

All muslims are soldiers in the Army of Islam. Be he shopkeeper, book keeper, imam or terrorist, all are soldiers.
Some train in far off bases to commit acts of terror.
Some emigrate to foreign countries where they become an intelligence network, a disbursing corps and a supply corps. They set up safe houses and underground railroads for the terrorist arm. The terrorists are but the Special Forces of the Army of Islam. They are the spearhead of military action.
The "moderate" muslims are the regular soldiers and everywhere they settle they awari the call to take up arms and follow their Special Forces in conquest for Islam.
We are at war. We are at war with a religion. We are at war with a religion that is also an army.
And that army is over ONE BILLION strong.

Now that's grim and apocalyptic. But why focus just on our Muslim Enemies, when there are also liberal bedwetters out there?

Liberal bed wetters - Their keyword is racist or racism. What a tired bunch of morons!

And if wanting a bunch of smelly, nasty, dirty swine deported out of America is racist, well so be it!

As for the libtards - I want you deported as well. You do nothing but lie, steal and destroy everything you touch. You serve no purpose other then to suck at the public teet. Time for the law of the fittest to take over and allow you to expire as should have occurred by natural selection at some point in your despicable little lives. You are good for nothing!

I actually do hold down a regular job, but it is tangentially related to the Government so I suppose I am despicable.

Thoughts on Thor

Relayed from AlternativeRight by Bleeding Cool. The reviewer saw it as a multi cultural mess, but it was defended by commentators.

The movie works fine from a White racial perspective - I see the addition of a Black Heimdal as a minor concession to get the film produced and marketed in 2011 America. And this Black Heimdal has a really bad job - being a Black doorman/gate keeper who must work 24/7/365 far, far away from the fun of the White gods in Asgard.

Thor is perfectly cast - the little Nordic White boy actor of young Thor is also very good, so is the presentation of Loki - a sinister, alien looking being who was taken at birth from a foreign race and raised to be a son of Odin, even though he isn't. NS folks should notice a nice parallel to alien Semitic races who have lived amongst us, but are always, somehow not quite right.

The Thor - Jane Fonda chemistry is excellent, a really solid White god/mortal romance. Jane isn't some pushy feminist , she's certainly smart, but she lets her man do all the fighting and goes for the Elizabethan strong Nordic guy with the long golden locks.

There are no - ZERO promotions of race mixing, multi culturalism, anti racism, cultural marxism etc.

I actually really liked Thor on the level of dumb comic book entertainment. But after reading this guy, maybe I was missing something.

That said, while I find this moderately amusing, it's silly to pretend this tiny website is somehow representative of America Conservatism. These are a small subcategory of open racists, as witnessed by their low comment count; an article at Townhall (where I cull plenty of comments) might have up to 500 comments; the longest comment count I see here is maybe a tenth of that. So, amusing but irrelevant.

Someone is Paying John Hawkins to write Articles

Possibly. His articles are reprinted at Townhall, at any rate, and one presumes they aren't reprinted for free. It looks like he runs a number of websites, so possibly that's where his money come. His latest article is lazy as hell. It starts out with the observation that many liberals seem proud of America in the wake of our killing of Osama Bin Ladin.

Not that there aren't patriotic liberals. They certainly exist, much in the same manner that albino alligators exist. You see one every once in awhile in captivity, but if you ever run across one in the wild, you'll be genuinely surprised.

The rest of his column is a list of hateful things "liberals" have said. Not even recent comments. But oldy moldies from such liberal champions as Ward Churchill and Jeremiah Wright. In the wake of killing Osama bin Ladin it wouldn't be too hard to troll Liberal columnists and bloggers to find a few not joining in on the glee of Osama's death. But that would be too much work for the lazy Hawkins.

I wonder if he genuinely believes his quotes reflect mainstream liberalism; probably. I don't grant him enough wit to know how full of crap he is. His readers also genuinely believe Liberals to be hateful.

Liberals only seek to fundamentally change America, weaken her, overcome her and rule over her, and if they can't have theri way with her then destroy her.

Get the h*ll out of my country if you think it's so bad.

That last one is a common charge; which is fascinating when you think about it. The truth is that for many of these far right tea party guys, America is far closer to my vision than it is to theirs. They are going to have to overturn a century of progress to get us back to the Laissez Faire small Government Ideal. So why don't we ever offer to let them move to a third world strongman state? I guess because Liberals recognize a kinship with conservatives; we are all part of the same nation.

Equivalence

This is from Dennis Prager's latest article, in which he chides Robert Klitzman for writing an article critical of his country, when he lost his sister in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Asking what America did to elicit the hatred of Muslim terrorists is morally equivalent to asking what Jews did to arouse Nazi hatred, what blacks did to cause whites to lynch them, what Ukrainians did to arouse Stalin's hatred or what Tibetans did to incite China's hateful treatment of them.

It's a little different Prager because you have to take into account power and previous actions. Blacks in the South and Jews in Germany had no power. America has been, since the end of WW2 and possibly before, the most powerful nation on the planet.

Secondly we have actually done some lousy things in the middle east, even if we aren't going to talk about Israel and the Palestinians. We help prop up friendly dictatorships and have been since the days of the Shah.

Prager seems to belong to the "America is the bestest nation on all the earth" belief system; in which criticism of American actions abroad shows hatred of America somehow. His readers pretty much agree.

Hate America First!

It's written in stone. And it's the law of the liberal, progressive, far left.

It's sad how Conservatives look at things sometimes; they seem genuinely unable to understand how one can be critical of something that one loves.

Gerson Vs. Rand

Michael Gerson's latest article takes on Ayn Rand and the recent movie (first part of a trilogy) of her Seminal Work "Atlas Shrugged." He is not a fan.

If Objectivism seems familiar, it is because most people know it under another name: adolescence. Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship. Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others

Gerson points out that she saw average Americans as looters and parasites and that she wasn't a fan of Christianity. He says that her philosophy, with it's laser like focus on freedom of the individual, doesn't work.

But both libertarians and Objectivists are moved by the mania of a single idea -- a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness. This unbalanced emphasis on one element of political theory -- at the expense of other public goals such as justice and equal opportunity -- is the evidence of a rigid ideology. Socialists take a similar path, embracing equality as an absolute value. Both ideologies have led good people into supporting policies with serious human costs.

Conservatives have been generally suspicious of all ideologies, preferring long practice and moral tradition to utopian schemes of left or right. And Rand is nothing if not utopian.

So a good take down. But, there are other points of view, such as those of Gerson's readers.

i am not sure why gerson does this hit piece. it may be that he is simply a pawn of the overlords who recognize that freedom for the individual is the greatest threat to their desire to be complete rulers of the masses. consequently, knowing the overlord's wishes, gerson seeks to discredit the movie before more and more people tune in to the socialism that is creeping surreptitiously into the american gestalt.

I just checked the list of pawns and Gerson's name isn't on it. Oh and there are no overlords. And I am certainly not an overlord.

Thank God for the movie. It was released just when we have the most totalitarian government ever in power in the USA. Ayn, we miss you. You would see instantly the parallels between the Obama Administration and Stalin's USSR. Your old nemesis is right here, right now, in Washington, D.C. And the clueless observers like Gerson don't even recognize it!

We live in the most totalitarian government in power? Why doesn't overlord Obama just get rid of those annoying Tea Partiers than? Send them off to Alaska (America's Siberia).

Gerson's writing is that of a disgusting blue-blood republican that may even be more dispicable than Obama. Gerson wants the rest of us to go back to the slimy days when Republicans cut deals with democrats to sell out the public in favor of the elite (to whom if you ever watched him or read him he considers himself one of). . . . Gerson you disgust me truly.

Funny that Ayn Rand, who was pretty elitist, is being held up as a champion of the little guy.

Trump! Trump! TRUMP!!!!

Several articles about Trump today. Cal Thomas wrote about how Trumps connection to Christianity may not be all that sincere.

He [Trump] did say he goes to church "as much as I can. Always on Christmas. Always on Easter. Always when there's a major occasion." Christians know a lot of people who attend church only on Christmas and Easter and special occasions. They are usually not serious about their faith. Not to judge, but if Trump intends to use faith to win votes from people of faith, then those people have a right to determine whether he is sincere or simply trying to manipulate them.

I pretty well agree with Thomas here; if he is playing to get Conservative Christian votes by pretending to be one of them, well, they have a right to ask how committed he actually is.

That said, Conservative Christians generally don't actually care about the faith of their candidates, so long as they vote the right way. Trouble is Trump has shown himself to be all over the map on that score.

Thomas does carefully exclude Trumps biggest selling point to the Right, i.e. his willingness to take Birtherism seriously. I suppose that makes sense, no sense bringing up embarrassing aspects about your base.

Larry Elder has no such compunction though, and dedicates his article to the proposition that Trump is asking questions that the media won't.

But are the "birther" folks wackier than the majority of Democrats who believe George W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11 or are unsure that he did?

Are the "birther" folks wackier than the majority of Democrats who believe that "Bush Lied, People Died" our way into the Iraq War or are unsure that he did?

Are they wackier than the majority of Democrats who, in 2008, held Bush responsible when gas prices hit $4 a gallon?

What's the point? When people are unhappy with a politician and/or his policies, they sometimes see the worst -- whether or not there is a factual basis. But the media do not even have a name for the Democratic equivalent of "birthers," despite these vicious, unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of Bush.

Poor Elder. Not a very strong section. But lets go through it.

First of all, 9/11 "Truthers" have never been taken seriously by any major Liberal pol. Liberal website Salon went out of their way to take the mickey out of the Truthers. In contrast there are several Republican pols who are taking this seriously, from state legislators putting up bills that require Presidential candidates to put up Birth Certificates to Presidential Candidates and Congresspeople giving a wink and a nod to Birthers.

Second and three are just said. People think that Bush lied us into Iraq because what he told us about Iraq turned out not to be true. We didn't find weapons of mass destruction. There is strong evidence that Bush and his advisors were determined to invade Iraq regardless of the evidence. Did they genuinely believe we needed to invade Iraq? Probably. Did they present all the evidence to the American people so they could make up their minds with all the facts? It does not seem so.

And of course our invasion of Iraq had something to do with Gas Prices going up.

Finally, yes, the media do have a name for people who think that Bush allowed or caused 9/11 to happen. It's Truthers as mentioned above.

Elder does more than wink at the Birthers, but makes it clear that he thinks they have some good points. Which is nice, since he's Black. This is helpful for Birthers, who are regularly accused of being racist for questioning whether or not President Obama is legally qualified to be President. This is because some of them are clearly racist, and others seem concerned that Obama isn't a real America like the rest of us. So Elder does provide a valuable service to the Birthers here.

Still, even with Elder, you can't get around some of the ugliness in their comments.

I am not so concerned about the so-called "birther issue as the "What are we going to do to Obama when his birth issue proves to be correct. I always have the image of his grandmother stating that "li'l Barry was born in Kenya," in front of me.

There has to be some kind of splendiferous punishment for the con - death by firing squad seems too little in view of the level of the fraud.

When you tell a 224 year old Christian nation that we are not a Christian nation any more and you are going to change the foundation that made us great, then people are going to have questions.

Barack Obama is a limp-wristed-panty-waist, who does not like getting his own hands dirty, instead he surrounds himself with those who are willing to do whatever criminal act or illegal operation Barack Obama has in his bag-of-community-organizing-tricks.

Interesting mix. The top one speaks for itself. The middle one plays off of the belief of many on the right that Liberals just aren't very good Americans. And the bottom one is homophobic crap, which I guess is slightly better than being racist.

Who Loves America?

Michael Medved's latest article takes on that old conundrum, why are liberals and conservatives so different. Turns out conservatives see America as a great place and liberals aren't as keen on it.

The right views America as exceptionally blessed and righteous — chosen by God (or fate, if you prefer) to inspire humanity with distinctive ideals of liberty, self rule and free markets. The left, on the other hand, expresses an intensifying tendency to see the U.S. as exceptionally guilty (for slavery, "genocide" against Native Americans and arrogant imperialism) and exceptionally backward when it comes to "social justice." Progressives never tire of reminding us that the United States lacks the welfare state guarantees that characterize other wealthy nations, and that it tolerates a vast gap between rich and poor.

Or to put it another way, Progressives want an America that works for all Americans, not just the wealthy.

Medved is pretty transperant here; this is the simplistic way Conservatives beleive that Liberals look at America. We don't like it, and want it to be more like Europe. Conservatives love America and are content having a small powerless Government with a strong military, because they believe in the American people.

Putting Troops First

Mike Needham's latest article is intended to put pressure on Congressional Democrats to cave and pass the Republican Budget.

President Obama and Senator Harry Reid have an obligation to explain to our military why they have refused to come to the table and either pass H.R. 1 through the Senate or pass an alternative.

Needham does let on that he'd be satisfied if they just passed the military section of the resolution; and I'm more or less with him on that. We are fighting a couple of wars, no reason to stop paying our troops. That said, this is a pretty big bargaining chip for either side to play around with.

Of course Needham doesn't mention some of the controversial riders attached by Republicans, such as defunding Planned Parenthood and NPR, limiting the EPA and defunding the Consumer Protection Complaints database. It is possible that the American people would see some of those as Republicans settling scores on the backs of our troops.

Not many comments, but one notable one.

These pathetic, excremental democrats will hold out paying our troops in order to blame Republicans.

Die democrats, die!

Nice.

I'm Using Technology

Apparently Robert Knight feels that with all this talk about Japan and Libya, we are losing sight of what is really important; making sure the Gays stay second class citizens.

Now there’s a scenario for building respect for the military among the nation’s youngsters. Boy: “Look, mom, those men in uniforms are, uh, making out right there in the food court! I’m not sure I want to be a soldier after all.” Liberal mom: “Well, that’s a relief. I didn’t want you to be in the military anyway. All those guns give me the creeps. But why do you find this odd? Are you some kind of religious bigot? Honestly, we’re going to have to call your school and ask them to step up the tolerance training. You won’t even wear that nice polka dot dress and pumps I bought you.”

"All those guns give me thec creeps?" Anyway it's sad drivel, of the sort you expect from a town hall third tier columnist trying to build his profile by being extra hateful. Fortunately his readers enjoy hating Homosexuals.

Homosexuals are about trashing this country and Christianity. Look at every program advanced by the Leftists, it is at it's root, anti-Christian. No open homosexuals should not be allowed in the miltary since the lack the discipine to be good sailors, Marines, ect.

So there you go.

America is the Bestest Nation Ever!

This is American Exceptionalism. Basically idea that America is better than all the other nations intellectually, morally, and militarily. And this is the theme of Lurita Doan's latest article. She comments on liberal reactions to the Gulf oil spill, the coal mining tragedy, and the nuclear situation in Japn, and how Liberals seem to think these accidents prove that we should move away from oil, coal and nuclear power.

In each of these cases, the defeatists seemed to be saying is that America was no longer capable of inventing better solutions to solve these and other challenges--better to just give up after any setback.

This may be the silliest American Exceptionalism article I've read. First of all, if you want to talk about not beliving in our ability to innovate, go read articles on solar or wind power by your fellow conservatives. You will see some real defeatism there.

Secondly, it's not American ingenuity that is being tested in some of these cases. It's American corpratism. It's not that we can't make safe coal mines or protect against oil spills; it's that it is unprofitable to do so (not to mention that we are eventually going to start running out of oil and probably coal).

Doan is down on Obama too, as you would expect.

Americans deserve a president who believes that we are an exceptional nation, capable of achieving everything that is good and great.

Everything that is good and great. You know what I believe America is capable of achieving everything that is good and great. I suspect many of my fellow liberals agree with me. It's just that our definition of what is good and great probably differs from your own.

But her readers are very supportive.

Democrats and other liberals are losers who project their own inability to succeed onto the rest of us.

As for humility, there's nothing un-humble about knowing that our system is best, because the evidence for that FACT is all there for anyone to see.

And then this gem.

Any problems with nuclear, oil, coal or other energy source can be overcome if we only just lined up all the regulators from the EPA and other alphabet soup agencies that constantly get in the way, and just shoot them.

That's just hilarious. After 8 years of Bush gutting the regulatory industries, we just need to shoot anybody with the temerity to work there? Do people really think that corporations are going to do spend the money to do things safely if they aren't required to? Apparently they do.

"The most evil population on the face of the planet"

Ben Shapiro's latest article is about the Israeli Palestine conflict. In particular he writes about a particularly brutal murder of Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

And the Arab Palestinian populace, which by and large constitutes the most evil population on the face of the planet, celebrated.

So that is Shapiro's opinion of the Palestinians. But he's particularly upset about a movie shown at the United Nations.

It was a premiere screening of "Miral," a film by Julian Schnabel, a self-hating Jew and world-famous director; it's based on a book by his Arab Palestinian girlfriend, Rula Jebreal. "Miral" is a virulently anti-Israel movie casting the state of Israel in the worst possible light. Every Israeli soldier is a brutal murderer; every Palestinian is a wounded innocent; Jews are usurpers of Arab Palestinian property rights. Every anti-Israel trope is employed. "These settlers living here are our real cancer," says one Arab Palestinian character.

A few interesting points to make, but let's start with the key one. Moments after writing Palestinians off as the most evil population on the face of the planet, Shapiro excoriates Schnabel for not showing both sides in the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Presumably, in Shapiro's mind, a fair representation of the Arab Israeli conflict would show the Arabs to be the monsters they are, and would completely exonerate the Israelis.

Unfortunately for Shapiro the events portrayed in Miral are historically accurate; they did happen. By all accounts (and the movie hasn't made it's way to the US yet), the movie is disjointed and ungainly, but has some good performances (although reviewers are torn about the performance of the actress in the title role). But the history is essentially correct, even if presented from one specific point of view.

At any rate, the choice for the United Nations to screen this movie, and to allow the attendance of Hollywierdos like Robert DeNiro and Sean Penn proves the immorality of the United Nations.

His readers certainly agree.

Yes, our departure from the UN should be immediate for a thousand reasons. It is corrupt from top to bottom.

I'll say it again: GET THE U. S. OUT OF THE U. N. AND THE U. N. OUT OF THE U. S.

there should be a new united nations for CIVILIZED nations only! no muslim nations need apply. agree 100% this UN should be shut down.

So nice to see some unity; although crapping on the United Nations is always popular over there at Townhall.

Caricatures are Reality

John Hawkin's latest article is written from the point of view of a liberal. Not a real liberal mind you, but a pleasing caricature of a liberal. Which is why his version of a liberal basically thinks America Sucks.

The problem with you Teabaggers is that, unlike liberals, you have such an unrealistic view of America. Liberals have a balanced view of America, which is why they understand that America is the source of all evil in the world. Hello, slavery! Like any other nations ever did that? And we brought slaves to a country that shouldn't even be ours in the first place. It should belong to the Indians, Mexicans and buffalo. Then there were all the people we've killed in our wars of aggression against the Nazis, the Soviets, and Al-Qaeda, all of whom hated us for perfectly valid reasons. Maybe if you Teabaggers stopped waving your flags and chewing your chaw for 5 seconds, you'd realize the world might be better off if "Murica" were broke, poor, and humbled.

Part of me thinks there is no point to responding to this kind of tripe. But the problem is that Hawkins probably thinks this is a fair representation of what people like me think. They really think we don't like America. It's telling that he brings up slavery, our taking of the land from the indians, and our wars (although he botches all three's description particularly the war one. Yes America has aggressively interfered in other nations affairs, but the three enemies he mentions aren't the ones that we feel ashamed about opposing). Hawkins has correctly identified our nations great sins. But in traditional Conservatoid fashion the solution isn't to be an adult, admit our mistakes while also being proud of our successes. Instead, even bringing up slavery and our treatment of Native Americans makes one not love America. Either America is perfect or it is evil, apparently.

The Big A

Mike S. Adams has taken a break from complaining about how hard it is being a Conservative University Professer to write a confusing article on Abortion. Short answer is that he is against it. He thinks that people who are pro-choice are hypocritical or confused, and he proves this by asking leading questions that don't make any sense. The overall thrust seems to beas follows.

You pro-choice people seem to believe in a right and wrong.

11. My opposition to those who bomb abortion clinics is rooted in my religious views. Should I impose those views on others by supporting laws against bombing abortion clinics?

Ideas about right and wrong come from God, who definitely exists.

12. If the universe’s expansion had been too slow or too fast the result would have been elements either too light or too heavy to sustain life. Do you think there is a God who intended for life to be sustained on this planet?

Abortion kills a baby.

8. Is ultrasound technology helping people converge upon certain undeniable truths about the complexity and origins of life?

. . . 13. Do you consider the fetus to be a life? If not, would you concede that it is at least intended to be a life?

. . . 19. Do human beings have a right to commit murder in a safe way?

That last one is interesting in light of his comments on bombing abortion clinics. He doesn't reference Dr. Tiller here, but if you see Abortion as Murder doesn't it follow the executing those who perform abortions is the correct action (assuming you favor the death penalty I suppose). He lends further credence to this argument in another pair of questions.

16. Imagine that a woman is headed to the hospital to have an abortion. Her car is hit by a man who ran a stop light in his car. Her offspring is killed. In most states, he can be charged with homicide. Does that make sense to you?

17. In the previous example, I forgot to add that the man who hit the woman headed to the hospital just happened to be her doctor – the one scheduled to perform the abortion. In most states, he can still be charged with homicide. Does that still make sense?

Of course pro-choice people generally don't think it should be homicide. But leave that aside, isn't this a clear argument that Doctors who kill babies should be charged with homicide? And isn't homocide a capital crime? So what is wrong with executing abortion doctors (if you follow this chain of thought)?

There is also this gem.

18. In 1961, there were 210,000 abortions performed in America. Within seven years of Roe v. Wade, there were 1.2 million abortions in America. Have we succeeded in making abortions safe, legal and, rare?

OK - let's unpack this. In 1961 there were 210,000 abortions. In the seven years following Roe V Wade, which I take to be 1973 to 1979 (Roe was decided January 1973, so it could also be 1974 to 1980), there were 1.2 million abortions. That works out to be an average of 171,428 million abortions annually, which is fewer abortions than previous. However in those years, I don't think the goal was to make Abortion "safe legal and rare" as that particular terminology was coined by President Clinton in the 1990s. Or to put it another way, I don't know what the hell Adams is talking about here. He probably meant to put in an "annually" there.

Abortions, incidentally, peaked in the 80s and declined through the 90s.

Some interesting bits in the comments.

I told you that on Wednesday, my dad bought a Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun.

Well, on Friday, he took it shooting for the very first time, with his retired policeman neighbor.

The neighbor was actually fairly impressed with my dad's aplomb with the gun, considering he had never been a gun owner before in his life and the last time he probably even FIRED a gun would have to be at least over 40 years ago.

So if some libcreeps try breaking into my parents' home at night with the thought of "aborting" my parents, the libcreeps are likely to be "aborted" first!

You don't really abort adults, do you? But lets get on to what Townhall readers should be done about abortion.

If abortion is murder then it is to be dealt with as every other murder.

Christians can use this column to stiffen up their backbone and follow Jesus Christ of Nazareth in educating American that ACCORDING TO GOD, abortion is MURDER.

“Don’t like Abortion? Don’t Have One?" Don’t like murder? Don’t commit any. Don't allow any to be committed, either.

i beleive abortion is murder and anyone supporting it has blood on their hands ,,, and they know it and a only denie it when it when the light of truth shines on em

Yeah they really think abortion is murder; and at least a few of them have thought through the implications of believing that.

2012

Jonah Goldberg's latest article is a reaction to George Will's latest article, in which he talks about who the likely candidate for the GOP will be in 2012. Will suggests it will be one of the more centrist possibilities (Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, or Pawlenty), writing off Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and Mike Huckabee.

Ultimately the election will largely be a referendum on Obama and the economy. The desire to order off-menu will abate over time. And Republicans will surely stomach the nominee, if for no other reason than they're ravenous to make Obama a one-termer. And, as the Irish say, hunger is the best sauce.

I hope Goldberg's wrong, but I have to admit, Steve Kornacki over at Salon has an article largely arguing the same thing, giving the nomination to Romney.

Meanwhile, Romney, for all his flaws, starts with a significant base of support -- or at least potential support. The elites still see him as an acceptable, maybe even preferable, option for the nomination and plenty of Republican voters are still open to supporting him. If you assume that Huckabee and Palin won't run (or that Palin, if she does, will be marginalized), then Romney still begins this campaign as the closest thing there is to a default choice for Republicans.

I don't want to see Romney as the candidate for a number of reasons. He's patently phoney, he changes his opinions with the political winds, and he's Mormon (which I am as well).

I think though, a lot can happen between now and then. The base may or may not be as hungry as they should be to settle for a Romney (as exemplified by the comments to Goldberg's column).

I will NOT vote for Romney or Huckabee. Romney is deeply flawed and I don't even consider him to be a republican.

If any of the old RINO "retreads" run, THEY WILL LOSE. Yes, this includes, romney, huckabee, gingrich and any of the "old guard".

I will not vote for Romney whom I consider to be a closet socialist . . .

I certainly don't want Romney, whoever he is THIS week.

In fairness there are plenty of posts that assert they will vote for whoever runs against Obama.

I have a Legal Right to be an Asshole and I'm Determined to Exercise It

Apparently Doug Giles feels this way in his latest article in which he gleefully smokes a cigar despite annoying a nearby lesbian.

Yes, I don’t believe in being bullied to put out my legal smoke just because she finds it offensive. I’ll put out my smoke when she gets a new doo and quits lip locking Melissa Etheridge in public. Maybe.

It's not clear that he is defending his right to be an asshole or his right to be an asshole to lesbians. If a nice clean-cut heterosexual mom had come up to him, what would he have done? But apparently his point is that oral sex is more dangerous than cigars. Therefore even though he seems like a total asshole, he really has a point.

It's hard to see past his mountain of assholery to see his point, though.

Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator, auditions to be Mini-Beck

Shapiro's latest article essentially regurgitates Beck's theories that the Union Protests in Wisconsin and the protests in Egypt and Libya are part of the same movement designed to destroy everything that is good.

Why now, after 9/11 and after the fall of the Soviet Union, is the socialist-Islamist axis of ideological evil rising once again? Because the president of the United States stands at the center of that axis, bridging the gap.

President Obama is a committed socialist with a history of warmth toward Islamism. His father was a communist and a Muslim; his grandfather and mother were communists; his stepfather was a Muslim.

American Unions and Muslims are also apparently united in their hatred of jews. This is proved by a lot of international unions taking the palestinian side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Apparently American unions do this too, although poor Ben is unable to find any actual examples of the part of American Unions. It's kind of pathetic really.

And sad that Ben doesn't get a lot of comments on his article; only ten. A really popular article can get hundreds. Still they is a gem or two.

An enemy is an enemy and will spill your blood the same no matter what you label them as.

Unless, presumably, you spill their blood first.

Just to Make it Clear

This is from Jonah Goldberg's latest article.

Wisconsin labor officials fairly note that they've acceded to many of their governor's specific demands -- that workers contribute to their pensions and health-care costs, for example. But they don't want to lose the right to collective bargaining.

But that is exactly what they need to lose.

So there it is; despite what others pretend, this has nothing to do with balancing Wisconsin's budget. The unions have acceeded to the budgetary demands of Governor Walker. It is about smashing unions; taking away their tools and reason for existance.

And his readers seem to be on the same page.

All those teachers need to be fired and not wait. There is no way that you can justify that they were sick and it is one camera anyway. Get new teachers, they are willing to work and not allow them to ambush the people who pay their jobs.

I will be happy when every cockroach infested public sector union is exterminated.

They will not give up their power willingly or through legitimate political means and unless the Right begins to recognize what's behind these things and girds up its loins for a long and bloody battle, it really is over

And I mean "bloody" in the literal meaning of the word.

Grim. A long and bloody battle between liberals and conservatives.

Filthy Liars

John Hawkin's loves his lists. This week's article is a list of 5 political catchphrases you shouldn't believe. Most of them are kind of silly (and the sorts of things politicians don't actually say. For example, "It's for the children." Well, when you are talking about cutting school lunch programs or funding for after school activities, well, yes, liberals do think it's good to think of the children at those times. But then he brings up Social Security.

It’ll be paid for with the Social Security trust fund: When people think of a "trust fund," they think of a big pile of cash sitting around somewhere, waiting to eventually be used by the beneficiaries. We don't have that with Social Security because we've already spent ALL of the money. So, what exactly is in the "trust fund?" It’s a bunch of special bonds that the government can refuse to honor at any time. Put another way, it's an IOU that future generations of Americans will have to pay off.

This is a filthy lie, one so transparent that most Republicans have abandoned it. But not John Hawkins apparently. The trust fund is invested in United States Treasury securities; some of the most stable investments on the planet. The are not worthless IOUs, and should they become that, well, our entire civilization will have collapsed. To pretend like there is no Trust Fund is simply deceitful. It's possible that Hawkins doesn't know any better.

He also takes issue with the believe that Liberals want Abortions to be safe, legal, and rare. Apparently we are lying when we say that; we really love abortion (the way Michael Jackson loved little boys (and isn't that a nasty thing to bring up considering Jackson is dead)).