Because you can’t defeat Obama by voting “present”.
Handy one-page version of the presentation: here
This is a great resource, informative and crisp, illustrating the fetal development timeline.
There has long been a common misperception that most abortions occur before the embryo or fetus is recognizably human. Day after day, thousands of aborting women wrongly believe that they’re simply eliminating some undifferentiated human cell tissue. Because the general ignorance of prenatal development is so convenient to the abortion industry, it’s not hard to guess why Planned Parenthood does so little to accurately educate their clients. Of course, even if human embryos didn’t become so recognizably human in such a short amount of time, would that somehow change the ethics of abortion? Afterall, isn’t it the height of injustice to abuse another member of the human community simply because they don’t look the way we expect them to? Abortion is not the mere removal cell tissue; it is the death of living, growing human beings.
Those who know me know that I am quite firmly agnostic. I am not weak case agnostic, which states that I do not know, but strong case agnosticism, which states that humans cannot know. I feel that this is a more valid, scientific point of view than to state a definite opinion on the nature of something which is not properly the realm of science. To say that I do not believe X is most particularly a statement about me, not about X. So my objection to abortion is rooted not in religion, nor in a conceit of the relative importance of my own opinion compared to reality. What is simply is, and we must admit an imperfect knowledge in order to speak honestly.
Those who support abortion rely upon a balance of rights between a pregnant woman and a developing fetus. To speak reasonably on this topic, then, we must know something about fetal development. Yet the conversation is invariably couched in terms of a woman’s right “to choose” and so forth by those who support abortion. That is a valid concern, but like many questions of balance, if considered by itself it does not illuminate the debate.
ATTENTION CONSERVATIVES:
Have your cake and eat it too. Support Romney to defeat Obama. Meanwhile, AVENGE YOUR FAVORITE CANDIDATE on the GOP by taking the information here (see link) and putting it to work:
We have worked diligently to provide a method of finding, cataloging, and searching for Republicans in Name Only. This site functions based on user feedback. That’s why you’ll find an area to discuss RINOs in your area, on every State page. You can click on the map below that corresponds to your State or click on the State link below the map.
– via http://www.rinolist.org/rinos/
Happy Hunting
Going to let this picture soak into Google for a couple. Then I’m going to use it to learn a couple of things. Muaahaahaaa.
ZARZARZAR
We kick off the Dahl and Young podcast just to prove we can. Topics range from Strom Thurmond to South Park. Some day, this will be a collector’s item.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
I am trying to educate myself on some of these things, in a detailed way. I am seeking clarity on bouncaries, and I think I found the source of problems with Social Security. If we allow for the fact that the government is going to run a safety net, and we wish to choose between good approaches and bad, then the following paragrpah from the SSA website shows the difference to me:
The original Act provided only retirement benefits, and only to the worker. The 1939 Amendments made a fundamental change in the Social Security program. The Amendments added two new categories of benefits: payments to the spouse and minor children of a retired worker (so-called dependents benefits) and survivors benefits paid to the family in the event of the premature death of a covered worker. This change transformed Social Security from a retirement program for workers into a family-based economic security program.
The problem is that this did just the opposite of its claimed result. It did not center the program on the family, but began the government’s intrusion into the family. Again, let us take as a given that it is not too improper for the government to run a safety net, as this is already a relationship between a worker and his employer, in which the government already figures heavily. So we as a society decide that the provision of a safety net to workers upon retirement is a reasonable function of government. At no point, however, does that begin to reasonably be translated into direct support to the spouse or minor children of that retiring worker. The responsibility for taking care of the family has been transferred from the worker to the government. The extended family’s motivation and ability to exert pressure on a deadbeat have been reduced or removed. I view this 1939 expansion of the scope of Social Security into the otherwise not engaged family of a retiring worker a landmark moment in the destruction of the American family.
From the excellent Public Sector Inc. blog, run by Troy Senik.
City Administrator Bruce Malkenhorst… pulled down an annual pension of over $540,000 — the highest in the state — for having governed a city of 95 people.
There’s this publication of methods and means in the Washington Post (read to see what I mean) with the campaign payload buried close to the end of the story: Obama caught these guys.
The disruption of the threat also indicates that the CIA and other agencies have gained significant traction on their target two years after President Obama began deploying more spies, eavesdropping equipment and armed drones to the Arabian Peninsula.
via CIA unraveled bomb plot from within – The Washington Post.
At the time of the bin Laden killing, the Pentagon was opposed to the loose lips approach the administration took:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates expresses dismay that the Situation Room pact not to talk about the details of the SEAL Team Six operation ‘lasted about 15 hours.’ Adm. Mike Mullen says further leaks could jeopardize the effectiveness of future special ops.
via SEAL Team Six: Pentagon ramps up war of words over White House leaks – CSMonitor.com.
And there’s the administration’s pooh-poohing of the surging increase in “green-on-blue” attacks, wherein the Afghans we train and assist turn their weapons on us.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Monday that the killing of U.S. and NATO troops by Afghans are sporadic incidents and do not represent a trend that should derail ongoing negotiations with the Afghans on night raid operations and other issues.
Except that it *IS* a trend, and this sort of happytalk is particularly galling when it minimizes the deaths of US troops.
Since mid-Sept. 2009, there have been at least 21 fratricide-murder incidents where bona fide Afghanistan National Security Force (ANSF) members (n=20) or an Afghan Security Guard (ASG) (n=l) have murdered or attempted to murder ISAF or UNAMA personnel, leading to the known deliberate fratricide killings of 50 ISAF and 1 UNAMA personnel (49 by ANSF members and 2 by an ASG), with a similar number ofwounded (See APPENDIX A, pgs. 55-58). As of May 12, 2011, this represents 6% ofall hostile deaths ISAF has suffered in Afghanistan during this time period. (TIris increases to well over 10% ofall ISAF combat deaths ifIED attacks are discounted.) To put this into perspective, this averages one murdered ISAF or UNAMA member by an ANSF or ASG member every 12 days during the last 20 months and one attack per month. But this trend is worsening. Since mid-July, 2010, there have been at least 15 incidents that have led to 39 ISAF members being murdered; 32 were U.S. This averages one murdered ISAF member every week over the last 10 months; one every 6 days over the last 6 months (30-40% ofall small arms caused KIA). During the last 5 Y2 month period from Nov. 29,2010 and May 12,2011,16% ofall hostile ISAF deaths in Afghanistan have been at the intentional hands of ANSF / ASG personnel. (TIris increases to an astounding 33% ofall IS~ combat deaths ifIED-related attacks are discounted.) Six more U.S. Soldiers were killed in ANSF committed fratricide cases that occurred prior to Sept. 2009. In all, at least 58 ISAF and UNAMA members have been murdered by ANSF (n=55) or ASG (n=3) personnel since 2007.
– Source:
A CRISIS OF TRUST AND
CULTURAL INCOMPATIBILITY:
A Red Team Study of Mutual Perceptions of Afghan
National Security Force Personnel and U.S. Soldiers in
Understanding and Mitigating the Phenomena of
ANSF -Committed Fratricide-Murders
May 12, 2011
I have broken that down into a handy table:
| Start date | End date | Days in period | Deaths in period | Deaths per month in period |
| 6/1/2007 | 1/9/2009 | 578 | 6 | 0.31 |
| 1/9/2009 | 7/15/2010 | 546 | 13 | 0.71 |
| 7/15/2010 | 5/1/2011 | 286 | 39 | 4.09 |
And here’s the piece that pushes me over the edge:
Sickening. Re-read the last sentence.
Some links for today…
Outstanding moral clarification of what is at stake, and what has already been lost in America’s betrayal of Guangcheng.
Whatever fate awaits pro-life activist Chen Guangcheng, we know two things for sure: The Chinese tyrants will continue to force women to kill their wanted children.
And President Barack Obama, who has ramped up the campaign fiction that Republicans have declared a “war on women,” will continue the detente with the real war on women, in Communist China, where real blood is being shed in a fanatical crusade against mothers and their children.
I am not a supporter of drug legalization, but this is the single-best argued position I have heard in favor of it. That is because he is not talking about drugs per se, but about a whole raft of social ills including a great big taboo. Take twenty minutes and truly enjoy a fresh take:
Over the weekend, the “Chronicle of Higher Education” cashiered a well-respected writer for daring to call out the nonsensical race-baiting campus grievance industry of “black studies” for what it is. Cowards.
At first, the Chronicle stood its ground, suggesting that my post was an “invitation to debate.” But that stance lasted for little more than a weekend. In a note that reads like a confession at a re-education camp, the Chronicle’s editor, Liz McMillen announced her decision on Monday to fire me: “We’ve heard you,” she tells my critics. “And we have taken to heart what you said. We now agree that Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles.”
When I asked Ms. McMillen whether the poem by fellow blogger Ms. Barreca, for instance, lived up to such standards, she said they were “reviewing” the other content on the site. So far, however, that blogger has not been fired. Other ad hominem attacks against me seem to have passed editorial muster as well.
This man made his way to one of my Facebook groups: “Tea Party”. He posted there using his own account, and I checked him out. I like him. There may be other good Republican candidates, but fine, this is my guy. He got to where I am, and that means something.
People have asked me what are my qualifications to hold a Congressional office? In a half joking response I tell them two things. First, I am not an incumbent and secondly, I am not a lawyer. I received my engineering degree from the University of Florida in 1969 and came to Long Beach in April, 1969 to start work at McDonnell Douglas Corporation. Like most engineers, I have made a major career change. For the past 17 years I have been self-employed as a business author and professional speaker.
There’s a lot to like here. Not only do I like his “Likes”, his friends, his groups, his interests, and so forth — all the Facebook metadata I could get to — but I also like his platform.
That’s straight from his promo site, linked above. What’s not to like? A candidate who reaches out through Facebook to a group called Tea Party is my kind of guy. Just to be surem, though, I did my due diligence and checked him out for abooouut fifteen minutes. Which is more than most things get these days.
I support Sanford Khan for the California 47, as an exemplary Tea Party candidate, and in accordance with the Tea Party Strategy 2012:
Toward Romney, which is a necessary evil at this point. He’s not all the way there yet, but he will be soon. Watch this space:
In Massachusetts, [Mitt Romney] undeniably championed abortion, gay rights, global warming, gun control, big government statist mandated/socialized health care programs, liberal judges, TARP, bailouts, stimulus spending, debt limit increases, etc, and even though he’s recently claimed a complete reversal in political beliefs and no longer despises pro-life conservatives or the time of Reagan-Bush, I still don’t trust him. He still stubbornly holds on to some of his statist beliefs, like global warming, gays in the military, RomneyCare, stimulus spending, etc, so there is no way I can vote for him or join Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Newt or any others who are endorsing him. But I will not act on my prior promises that I would actively campaign against him if he wins the nomination. Our combined movement is already torn and splintered and is going to have to be mended if we’re going to have any impact whatsoever against the liberal/progressives and statists after the election. To that end I propose a TRUCE among our conservative forces during the remainder of this election cycle.
– via Frank discussion re our loss to Obama/Romney and the future direction of FR and tea party movement
I am not criticizing — quite the opposite. I fully support what I perceive to be Jim’s initial position, which was that even if he saw a possibility of supporting Romney later in the cycle, only a fool (like John Boehner) would admit it up front. You cannot negotiate with your bottom line in view, and you cannot bluff with your heart on your sleeve.
I fully support Jim’s move to consolidate the base, and I expect he will go further in a while. I will support him there too, and not only because I am already beyond neutrality to the disaster Romney, but I actively support him now. Oh, how that hurts to admit. But I am out of the influence by resistance business. My next target is not defeating Romney, at which I was not successful, but defeating Obama, at which I must not fail.
(See Tea Party Strategy 2012)
I respect those who are still die-hard for beating Romney, but that is yesterday’s fight. The danger is not in seeming inconsistent–trust me; we left marks all over that Romney fellow, and he will not forget us. Maybe next time we will unseat him like we are about to do to Lugar, and a number of other RINOs. And this is the fight for today: punish RINOs in the House and especially Lugar in the Senate. Tomorrow’s fight is back to the White House to get Obama out of my chair.
Those who still toil in the fields of Newt are at great risk of becoming irrelevant, the one thing they must not become. They poke and stab at the bodies of friends and enemies alike from a long-finished battle, while their friends could use the help a valley away, where the fight is now.
Jim at Free Republic did the right thing, and must pull his readership back together to allow Free Republic to become once more the hammer of the right. He could stand on the conservative Jihad, stabbing at thee from the heart of Hell etc etc, but the fact is, Freepers need to engage on the next fight, and in order to do that–they must disengage from the previous.
Good luck, Jim. Good job. I support you one hundred percent.
The black ship on the right turns first, and the one with the flag goes last. By the time they have all turned, they are where the grey ships are.
Finally, a note about my phrase “making the turn”. When maneuvering a formation of ships, there is a method to turn a line abreast sailing one direction to sail another direction without having to have some ships slow and some speed up, an agony and a hazard. Instead, the ship furthest from the new direction ducks behind the rest, and as the sail on their original course, he hits the new course, and opens up room behind the withdrawing remaining ships. When there is room to go, the next furthest ship turns behind the remainder. And Voila! he rolls out of his turn just abreast of the first ship.
In my ship-driving days, this was one of my favorite discoveries. An elegant solution to a vexing problem of self-organizing the movements of individuals with one goal toward a completely separate goal. So I am not alarmed that we are making the turn at different times. I will not criticize those who turned before me as sell-outs, nor those who delay as hopeless, but assume that most everybody will get the turn done at the right time for them.
Well what else would you have people do?
Dahl & Young
