Charles Krauthammer in today’s Patriot Post on embryonic stem cell research- one of the top 3 Democrat peices of legislation being advanced in the first “100 hours.”
You don’t need religion to tremble at the thought of unrestricted embryo research. You simply have to have a healthy respect for the human capacity for doing evil in pursuit of the good. Once we have taken the position of many stem cell research advocates that embryos are discardable tissue with no more intrinsic value than a hangnail or an appendix, then all barriers are down. What is to prevent us from producing not just tissues and organs but humanlike organisms for preservation as a source of future body parts on demand?
The fact that Krauthammer is permanently disabled- confined to a wheel-chair, in my humble opinion ,gives him a fair ammount of credibilty on this issue.
Entire article here
Peggy Noonan sums up the current state of the Democrat Party today:
And they seem–and seemed in their statements after the president’s speech–wholly unprepared to fill it, wholly unserious in their thoughts and approach. They seem locked into habits that no longer pertain, and absorbed by the small picture of partisan advancement at the expense of the big picture, which is that there nation is in trouble and needs their help. They are sunk in the superficial.
When Nancy Pelosi showed up at the White House Wednesday to talk with the president it was obvious she’d spent a lot of time thinking about . . . what to wear. She wrapped herself in a rich red shawl. Dick Morris said it looked like a straitjacket. I thought she looked like a particularly colorful mummy. She complained that the president had not asked for her input as he put together his plan. He should have. But what would she have brought to the table if she’d been asked to it? It is still–still!–unclear.
Letter to the Editor-
To the 20,000 plus servicemembers and families….
Thank you from the bottom of our”freedom loving hearts” for serving our country! You all play crucial roles in defending freedom; what the family and loved ones do here in the states is equally appreciated as is the deployed servicemembers’ role in the call to serve.
We want to extend to you, our support during the last phase of news that has extended your stay in Iraq. Soldiers’ Angels, is an Internet-based nonprofit that matches thousands of soldiers with those willing to write or send care packages to them among many other projects. We are currently readying ourselves for a jump in the workload that will likely coincide with the increased troop levels.
We encourage the nation to stand up and support our servicemembers as well. “If you can not stand behind our troops, please feel free to stand in front of them!!!” You can quickly get involved at www.SoldiersAngels.org or feel free to email soldiersangelprteam@gmail.com or contact us at (615) 676-0239.
“Your call is important to us. Please leave a message including your name, email if possible and phone number and we will contact you within 24 hours.”
For Monetary Donations
Soldiers Angels1792 E. Washington BlvdPasadena, Ca 91104To send donated items ship to:
Soldiers Angels914 Tourmaline DriveNewbury Park, CA 91320Patti Patton-Bader
Pasadena, Ca 91104
To learn more about Soldiers Angels founder Patti Patton Bader, click here. To listen to Patti on Pundit Review Radio, click here, and here.
Pundit Review was mentioned in the Sunday Boston Globe in a story about the next batch of quicksand under Mitt Romney’s campaign, his position on gun control. The Globe linked to the home page, but not the post itself, here it is. Here’s the Globe story,
Romney Retreats on Gun Control
Romney’s past positions on gun control have also drawn some attention in the blogosphere, though not nearly as much as his statements in support of abortion rights and gay rights. (He’s now antiabortion and takes a harder line on gay rights.) “Wait until the 2d amendment crowd gets a hold of Mitt’s views on gun control,” one blogger wrote on punditreview.com .
Romney was clearly trying to allay such concerns by attending the massive Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show and Conference at Orlando’s Orange County Convention Center. Romney, joined by his wife, Ann, and trailed by local television stations and a few reporters, chatted enthusiastically with vendors displaying a wide variety of weapons.
“Let’s see your shotguns here,” Romney said to Michael F. Golden, CEO of the Springfield-based gunmaker Smith & Wesson. Romney’s dark suit stood out in a sea of camouflage, but he gamely introduced himself to anyone in his path.
That sounds eerily familiar to something from last campaign, man of the people John Kerry in Iowa,
Can I get me a hunting license?
It is beyond obvious at this point that the debate in this country over taxes is essentially a political one, driven by Democrats desire to divide the country through class warfare. The debate can’t possibly be an economic one, because the evidence is so clear. Tax cuts stimulate the economy by putting more money in the hands of consumers and businesses. The result, we are seeing record high revenues pouring into the federal treasury, higher than anyone predicted. When government spending actually slows, as it has recently, the result is the deficit shrinks dramatically.
It’s pretty simple. Cut taxes, control spending, reduce the deficit.
Deficit Falls to Lowest Level in 4 Years
WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal deficit has improved significantly in the first three months of the new budget year, helped by a continued surge in tax revenues.
In its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Friday that the deficit from October through December totaled $80.4 billion, the smallest imbalance for the first three months of a budget year since The budget year ends Sept. 30.
Tax collections are running 8.2 percent higher than a year ago while government spending is up by just 0.7 percent from a year ago. Last year’s spending totals were boosted by significant payments to help the victims of the Gulf Coast hurricanes.
The Treasury said for December, the government actually ran a surplus of $44.5 billion, the largest surplus ever recorded in December and a gain that reflected a big jump in quarterly corporate tax payments.
The $80.4 billion deficit for the first three months of the current budget year was down 32.6 percent from the imbalance for the same period a year ago of $119.4 billion.
For the year, analysts are still forecasting that the deficit will worsen from last year’s total of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest in four years.
Shame on the GOP Congress for not making permanent the Bush tax cuts while they had a chance. Now, instead of lower taxes going forward, the Democrats are going to turn the spicket off by raising taxes on “the rich” and “big business”. The economy is slowing, this is the exact wrong time to be raising taxes. Higher taxes DOES NOT mean more revenue for the government.
Imagine how low the deficit would be if the GOP Congress hadn’t spent like drunken sailors on a weekend furlough. Imagine how low the deficit would be if the GOP Congress addressed earmarks and pork, as they promised. Imagine how low the deficit would be if President Bush could locate his veto pen? Imagine, because it’s all about to be a distant memory and the Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves.
Democrats have no answers on Iraq and no interest in victory, only partisan games. Here is their leader on the Intelligence Committee, Silvestre “I Don’t Know Shiite” Reyes,
In December, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes stated, “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … I would say 20,000 to 30,000-for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.”
â?? Newsweek, December 5, 2006Chairman Reyes, however, has changed his tune. “We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level.”…Reyes, who met with Bush on Tuesday to review the plan, said sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens.
â?? El Paso Times, January 11, 2007
How in the world do you defend that? The good news for Reyes is he’s a Democrat, so he doesn’t have to.
Hat Tip, The Corner
Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush’s tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.
“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”
Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”
Andrew Sullivan calls Boxer “Vile”, I say he’s being too kind,
That’s the only word to describe Senator Boxer’s ad feminam attack on Condi Rice yesterday. There was a trace of homophobia to the smear as well. This kind of attack is like the “chickenhawk” smear and worthy of low-life liars like Michael Moore. We really should be able to debate national security without the politics of personal destruction. The senator should apologize. Today.
When Sullivan’s liberal readers objected, with arguments along these lines,
Asking if Dr. Rice can truly understand what the parents are preparing to do is not wrong in my book. It is bringing up a real issue. For many people this is not an abstract discussion of geo political strategy it involves Death. That is real!
Sullivan, rightly, stands his ground,
Sorry, but I’m not buying this for a second. Boxer’s was the kind of cheap shot that makes substantive discourse impossible. Boxer was questioning Rice as a senator questioning a secretary of state. Their family relationships are utterly irrelevant to the point at hand, i.e. the current Iraq strategy. As readers know, I tend to agree with Boxer on this. But I’m not going to personalize it. What Boxer was clearly doing was insinuating that those without children or without children in combat somehow have less moral and political standing to debate this issue. If that’s true, why allow any non-soldier to have a say on this? Why allow women an equal say, since men comprise an overwhelming majority of combat soldiers? Since openly gay people are barred from the military, are they also to be told they have less standing to debate? Once you go down this line of emotional and mroal blackmail, you end up with virtually no one being able to debate the central issue at hand without Sheehan-style idiocy. Boxer’s remark was a piece of slime. And she should apologize.
Yes it was slime, plain and simple.
Can you imagine if a Republican Senator said something like that to a liberal? It would be the lead story on the 6pm news. The New York Times would be calling for their resignation. The Kos crazies would be, well, crazy. When a liberal does it, the media just skates right past it. Don’t want to make a fuss about it, doesn’t advance their agenda. The hypocrisy is stunning, though not surprising.
This is really deplorable on the part of Barbara Boxer.