Image 01 Image 03

Dems would rather risk being seen as celebrating death than talk about the economy

Dems would rather risk being seen as celebrating death than talk about the economy

AbortionFest 2012 to be held in Charlotte on Sept 3-7

I don’t often mention the dispute over abortion.

There is something sickening over the Democratic National Convention turning into an abortion-fest, a celebration of the right to kill one’s own unborn child.  It may be a right, but it’s a curious right on which to orchestrate a national convention.

The DNC is turning into an abortion-fest because of Todd Akin’s comments about women who do or do not get pregnant as a result of rape.  John Hinderaker (via Instapundit) notes:

The Democrats apparently think they have hit the jackpot with Todd Akin’s moment of stupidity, but I’m not so sure. How, exactly, are they going to take advantage of Akin’s blunder? By talking ceaselessly about abortion.

In order to capitalize politically on Akin, the Democrats are happy to expose the extreme extremism of their party and their leader, who of necessity would allow the killing of even fully viable fetuses late in a pregnancy in order to be consistent with their view of autonomy of decision:

That these rights result in the killing of more female fetuses than male is one of the cruel ironies of a party determined to fight a made-up war on women.

As Rich Lowry points out, Obama was even more extreme in his pre-presidential record, resolutely opposing even the protection of infants born alive after a “failed” abortion:

In the Illinois legislature, he opposed the “Born-Alive Infants Protection  Act” three times. The bill recognized babies born after attempted abortions as  persons and required doctors to give them care. Obama’s stalwart opposition to  the bill came up during the 2008 campaign, and his team responded with a farrago  of obfuscation and distortions.

The bill was supposedly redundant. Except it wasn’t. Protections for infants  who survived abortions were shot through with loopholes, which is why the bill  was offered in the first place. (Abortion doctors were leaving infants to die  without any care.) The bill was supposedly a threat to abortion rights. Except  it wasn’t. Obama opposed a version that stipulated it didn’t affect the legal  status of infants still in the womb.

I addressed this issue last February, What don’t you (or didn’t Obama) understand about killing a baby born alive?

It all exposes, as Prof. Glenn Reynolds points out, the most raw aspect of the culture war:

What about pregnancy that results from rape?  Akin doesn’t want to confront that this happens, which is why he put forth his dumb rape-doesn’t-cause-pregnancy theory.  Pro-choicers, for the most part, don’t want to confront that an abortion that happens after a rape is still just as much an abortion as one that happens because nobody bothered with birth control.

I think both sides should own it.  Stand in your truth and be straightforward about what you really believe.

I think Democrats are fine with that.

Democrats would rather risk being seen as celebrating death than talk about the economy and Obama’s abysmal record of failure.

Update:  John McCormack, Audio: Obama Says “That Fetus or Child” Was “Just Not Coming Out Limp and Dead”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Henry Hawkins | August 23, 2012 at 1:09 pm

This is awesome news, the absolute worst thing Dems could do. If Obama keeps up the negative campaigning, which is pushing indies towards RR faster than they can pull them over, and then turns the focus of the convention to abortion, which polls as an important issue this election in just 1% of those polled, he essentially gives away the 5 pts any incumbent enjoys, no matter how bad he is. Obama doesn’t have 5 to give away.

If he keeps these major mistakes up, he loses, and his historical legacy will be twice horrific: “Obamacare” and “The Man Who Killed The Democrat Party”.

There is even more that Team Obama seems willing to do. It seems that DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES MAY BE TRYING TO USURP RNC CONVENTION messaging, by staging false flag events. I think it may be time for GOP to review “Infiltrator” handling techniques.

They have nowhere else to go.

Besides, they know they’re dealing with weak-kneed people running the GOP. If you can appeal to the fool and ignoramus vote without consequence, why no, if it will win you the presidency in an election that has essentially become a referendum on our Constitution. (That is how Obama et al will view a victory in November.)

Senator Blutarsky | August 23, 2012 at 1:20 pm

If the GOP manages to rid itself of Todd Akin then I wonder if the debacle he created doesn’t redound to the benefit of the Republican ticket. The all-harridans-all-the-time lineup Democrats are putting together to capitalize on Akin playing into the “war on women” meme seems likely to play about as well as Pat Buchanan’s tirade in 1992.

For that matter, even if the GOP can’t shed Akin, the fact that he’s been largely ostracized may make the Republican party seem like the reasonable one compared to a party that wants to make Sandra Fluke et al its public face.

    As far as I’m concerned the Republican Party needs to perform a major mea culpa for not standing behind Todd Akin, whose only sin was that he inarticulately — and with political naivete — voiced the pro-life position that MANY Americans hold, that even is the same position as Rick Santorum holds. The problem is that the establishment is poising itself to capitulate to a rabid Marxist media that intends to make of pro-lifers the equivalent of retrograde neanderthals for their views on HUMAN LIFE.

    Once again, when the going gets tough, the establishment abandons principle.

      Estragon in reply to HarrietHT. | August 23, 2012 at 2:42 pm

      If he is too stupid to make the pro-life case without resorting to nonsense that brings disrepute upon the pro-life cause and candidates, he should put on his dunce cap, get out of politics, and STFU.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Estragon. | August 23, 2012 at 2:53 pm

        Pro-lifers have been advocating for over forty years (Roe v Wade 1973). Akin absolutely blew a basic Abortion 101 question from a reporter, and did it with made up science to boot. He caused and continues to cause major damage to all tangent issues: pro-life movement, GOP campaigns, conservative agenda, etc.

          It’s amazing. He clearly hasn’t listened to any of the arguments against abortion, so he’s gotta make stuff up. What an absolute nut.

      Senator Blutarsky in reply to HarrietHT. | August 23, 2012 at 3:12 pm

      I disagree that articulating a pro-life position was his sin, however inartfully he may have done so. I have no quarrel with his view on what the law should be.

      I have a great quarrel with someone who discredits those views by offering as support a crackpot theory of biology more appropriate to Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber, than to a 21st Century discussion of how babies are made.

      I agree that conservatives should strive to avoid circular firing squads, but at the same time I don’t see how one can deny that Akin has set back the very cause he claims to want to advance by associating it with ideas an 8th grade bio student would recognize as absurd.

        Two questions for you three:

        Is, or is there not, a legal difference between actual rape and a false accusation of rape?

        Are there instances of emotional and physical trauma which lead to miscarriage?

        Again, Akin’s error was that he did not hold his cards close enough to his chest. He should have known that the culture of death that permeates our culture would have its minions skewer him alive — and that includes the feckless Republicans who PRETEND to be morally superior to the left, which advocate for clipping off babies’ heads at the drop of a hat.

I wouldn’t worry about “Abortionfest” as much as I would worry about “Debatefest,” where the morons – yes, morons – negotiating for the GOP allowed the Democrat fix to be in (and it’s worse than previously thought):

The Party of Death versus the Party of Life. Very powerful distinctions could be made in the hands of skilled communicators with the ability to reach the smart as well as the stupid, the latter of which are quite possibly more numerous.

Death is one of their most cherished dogma.

That sounds harsh, but it just is true. Abortion is their highest sacrament.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Ragspierre. | August 23, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    Not entirely true. The same people who fully support the violent decapitation and dismemberment of amost 2 million innocent pre-born children every year, often oppose the death penalty for convicted murderers.

    They also adamantly oppose one terrorist responsible for killing 3000 Americans have his head dunked in water.

    So they believe in death for truly innocent pre-born children, but oppose death of notorious murderers found guilty in a court of law.

      But think…Who do they intercede FOR? Killers, convicted.

      And who do they look the other way for when “drones attack”?


      And who do they apologize for WRT Israel? Killers!

It’s impossible to celebrate anything like this:

Please watch the 30 second video and witness the sorrowful look on the young man’s face.

From the link:

“In America today, almost as many African-American children are aborted as are born. A black baby is three times more likely to be aborted as a white baby.

Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent. Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.

80 percent of abortion facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. About 13 percent of American women are black, but they receive over 35 percent of the abortions.”

Source: Life Dynamics, Inc.

Which is more extreme being pro life (with some limitations) or allowing abortion right up until the birth of a child? Barack Obama just pointed out he supports late term abortions.

This is the sort of convention that would drive me to the bar and drink heavily. And not in a good way. More of a late Hemmingway/Dylan Thomas sort of way.

NC Mountain Girl | August 23, 2012 at 1:43 pm

The 2012 Democrat National Convention could end up sounding like San Francisco 1984 inside the hall and looking like Chicago 1968 on the streets.

I can only speak for myself but I know Im not that unusual with how I perceive abortion politics.
Some democrats parade their position on the issue as some great civil rights decision when in fact, for most of us, the issue is about as elevated as discussions about weekly garbage collections or new rules at the local landfill.
The arrangements made can be seen as necessary perhaps, but not anything that needs unnecessary elevation in “status” so far we are all concerned.
Why a politician applauds current or future law with the issue says more about their own values than the public demands or expects.
In just about every case, the decision is difficult and there is some measure of either sadness or regret.
Im sorry but there is no way to spin the reality as a positive.
No more than there is a legitimate positive spin attached to capitol punishment.
Its simply something the law allows in some cases.
To assume that anything “the law allows” must be a good thing is denial.

9thDistrictNeighbor | August 23, 2012 at 1:45 pm

Okay, bring it on…. A number of the links discussing State Senator Barry’s opposition to the Illinois 2002 equivalent of the Born Alive Infant Protection act (IL SB1663) are dead, but Jill Stanek still has the audio snippet of Barry discussing having another physician available if an infant survives the abortion as a “burden” (IL erases audio of Senate proceedings once a transcript is complete). It’s a 20 second soundbite. Put that on a loop.

If the only time the American electorate seriously discusses abortion is during an election year, bring it on. Many people who consider themselves well informed have no idea about his radical stand on abortion, notwithstanding the current HHS controversies.

Cowboy Curtis | August 23, 2012 at 1:45 pm

In all fairness, killing babies is a far sunnier topic than the current state of the economy.

    Either way, human lives will be prematurely terminated. We need to stabilize the economy, and we need to counter the effort to normalize abortion, with the ultimate goal of ending its practice. The issues we are addressing are dependent. Part of the crisis arises from a diminishing population and a progressive devaluation of human life. We cannot reasonably avoid debate of the so-called “social issues.” That would be a stop-gap measure, which may be sufficient in the short-term, but will leave the causes to fester and the effects to reemerge at a later time.

quiksilverz24 | August 23, 2012 at 1:47 pm

Picturing my now 2 month daughter in my mind and reading this, I’m now utterly sick to my stomach. How could anyone kill or not provide for a live born baby?

I am by no means a religious person, but believe in science and personal responsibility. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Take responsibility for your actions. Don’t take the cop out, and don’t expect anyone, including the baby, to pay for your actions.

It troubles me that these folk seem to be so willing to make the law work for them to get what they want, what they demand. Yet, are also so quick to dimiss or disobey ones with which they disagree. Of course, other folk who hold to other views are held to a different standard.

No society can long exist under such conditions for it will experince a very shredding of societal fabric, much like we’re witnessing. If an innocent infant can’t be defended by a society, don’t look for it to value and defend much else, except that which is utilitarian.

We’ve a president (I know it ought to be capitalized. However, I choose not to do so, because of the “smallness” of the one who currently occupies the office) who is the very image of this in word and deed. Just another in the long list of why he and his team are a disaster for this country.

As disgusting as it is, it’s good news for us. Republicans should deflect any questions about abortion (“I’m personally against it but there’s no point in discussing hypothetical legislation that would never pass Congress” or something to that nature) and go back to the economy. Abortion is at the bottom of the list when it comes to important issues for likely voters.

Democrats advance their political, economic, and social standing through an exploitation of people’s desire for instant gratification (i.e. physical, material, ego), momentary vulnerability, and opportunism. This, more than anything, is what distinguishes between the two parties. One party is established on planks which promise anything and everything to gain supporters, while the other promises opportunity without guaranteed outcomes. It should be obvious why many people continue to support Democrats, despite reality exposing the myopic vision of their underlying philosophy. Hopefully, the Republicans will recognize superior compromises, and, with respect to economics, the middle class which sustains their party and conservative philosophy generally.

DINORightMarie | August 23, 2012 at 2:13 pm

I could see the RNC using this contrast as just another addition to Ryan’s speech about “clear contrast” – but they may not be brave enough to do so. They seem to forget that the majority of Americans are AGAINST abortion, not in support of it.

Ad/commercial idea:

Play snips of the audio of Obama supporting infanticide (with the grisly, horrifying racial and sex ratios/stats rolling visually), the above video – a snippet, then repeat Obama saying over and over his clip from 2008 “punished with a baby”….and then Ryan saying, “This election is about two clear choices of who we want to be.”

It would never happen, and would be too depressing – maybe even nauseating. However, everyone would KNOW – from his own words, his own voice speaking – where Obama stands on life and babies.

    A majority may indeed oppose it, but there is also a large minority who don’t want to hear about it, and they do want to preserve it as an insurance to mitigate the possibility of harshing their mellow. Unfortunately, we cannot reasonably predict our response if we are faced with that choice, and yet it is imperative to promote superior principles, and not set policy according to accommodate the lowest common denominator or exceptional circumstances.

What about pregnancy that results from rape? Akin doesn’t want to confront that this happens, which is why he put forth his dumb rape-doesn’t-cause-pregnancy theory. Pro-choicers, for the most part, don’t want to confront that an abortion that happens after a rape is still just as much an abortion as one that happens because nobody bothered with birth control.

I think both sides should own it. Stand in your truth and be straightforward about what you really believe.

That straightforwardness only is appropriate if the discussion is about personal belief, not legislation. One should avoid answering “If You Were The King of The World” questions because that’s not what the being a lawmaker or an executive leader is.

Too many people are regurgitating the Cliffs Notes version of Roe v. Wade, and think that 1) abortion was illegal in all fifty states previously, and 2) if Roe is “overturned,” it will make all abortions illegal immediately. Certainly, the Sandra Flukers want independent ignoramus voters to believe that rights established in 1973 can be dismissed by mere fiat, and that to combat that, they need to elect a man who will abuse his authority to expand those rights by fiat.

If Todd Akin was actually thoughtful and not a scatterbrained, talking point-spouting mannequin, he wouldn’t have dribbled out some fuzzy biological gibberish about how a woman’s body “shuts down” before rapist sperm fertilizes it. That’s what happens when you are defensive about talking about volatile topics and just want to run down the clock in an interview, and move on to a less-touchy subject. If I was a political consultant, I would instruct my candidate to capsulize his/her beliefs, and prepare an honest, relevant, educational answer that debunks common misconceptions. Then, vigorously prepare him/her to defend it from all angles of attack.

theduchessofkitty | August 23, 2012 at 2:20 pm

Let them celebrate death.

And make sure we send them lots of Halloween costumes and “Day of the Dead” props.

Akin can still get off the ballot until September 25th. It requires a court order, but it is not so difficult as some have portrayed it to be – IF he goes along with it, removing him against his will would be a long shot.

If he withdraws before the D-Con, all their abortion whores on parade will look a bit silly. Oh well, they have to talk about something, I suppose, and it certainly can’t be Obama’s record of failure.

If Romney wins because of this, do you think he will have a few kind words to man who made it possible? Maybe even a thank you letter? God know I would put Akins in my administration just so I could hear the Howls of the left!

BTW, i think having Bill Clinton give the keynote is a great idea, as he is an expert on rape, but I think they should probably give his daughter Chelsea a spot too as a child of rape, she could certainly shed light on whether she should have been aborted in retrospect with some moral authority.


Hopefully the Democrats will overplay the opportunity Akin handed them.

Hopefully extremists on the Right will not bail the Democrats out.

I notice the DNC is not featuring any speakers who have actually been aborted.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Anchovy. | August 23, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    Reminds me of a line Maxine Waters, Democrat from California said about a decade or so ago at a pro-choice rally. It was so stupid I may never forget it.

    While speaking to the crowd about to start the march she said, “I have to walk with you today because my mother could not get an abortion”.

    That’s when I first knew she was a certifiable loon.

[…] Oh, you dumb broads. Didn't you hear that the theme was abortion abortion abortion? […]

THere is a reason why America has reached the point where Democrats celebrate death, anyone opposing them is frist beaten down by Republicans.

Bar none the best analysis offered by Jeff Goldstein- which he has written for well over a decade now- on why this is has happened:

“After all, if you are fully pro-life, you are fully pro-life — and while special circumstances obtain with what to do with the (potentially) resultant human produced by a rape, what doesn’t change is the idea that abortion, considered in such a way, kills a human. And you oppose that in all circumstances. So it matters what his actual argument is — and a party that positions itself for political purposes as pro-life ought not be so quick to dismiss the argument as outrageous, heretical, etc., particularly when they are free to respond intelligently to the argument being made to evince, perhaps, a wider trajectory of “pro-life” thinking than is typically portrayed by the media, the left, or Hollywood.

Communication doesn’t necessarily stop with a soundbite. We have the capacity to press the question, to draw out longer responses, to explain what it is we meant.

– unless, that is, we yet again wish to play the left’s game and pretend that a text exists on its own, divorced from any originary intent, and subject to our interpretive whims (or, for the more advanced, cowardly, and self-serving sophists on the right, subject to being taken out of context, and so therefore irredeemably faulty and worthy of condemnation for its very inartful presentation).

In which case, as I’ve tried to explain time and again, we’ve already lost.

There’s a reason we keep rushing to eat our own, and the left simply sits back and smiles every time we do so. As we pretend we’re holding “our own” to some lofty standard of intellectual rigor, terrified at the supposed consequences should we not, what we’re really doing is straining to appear as something other than the knuckledraggers the left has attempted to paint us as en mass (when really, the knuckle draggers are but “purist” nutjobs at the fringes of the base).

And in so doing, we’re propping up and institutionalizing an idea of language that is collectivist and authoritarian, along with an intellectualism that is so tied to socially/politically approved speech that it is not only PC, but it acts as a kind of self-abnegation of the First Amendment.

And Republicans are helping lead the charge.


To gain further insight on language, intentionalism, how the Left controls the narrative I suggest reading some of his Greatest Hits.

Finally, the herd starts to turn. All it takes is for the “right people” to take up the differant view. Conservatives can be locked into a course ~ position as any dem. The dems ~ media are emanantly beatable by going at them head on and we get spooked by an ill worded thought. Our “leaders” once again freak out at the shadows they have been jumping at for years. Wake up people ,they have been controling us this way for years. Atkins is not the problem ; by our predictable response we are.

Here is another Jeff Goldstein gem:

“First, I am not supporting Akin in any specific way. What I’m doing is criticizing as deplorable, stupid, politically retarded, and all too frequent, the canned, PC, preemptive (and in many cases, I believe, if not ridiculously hyperbolic, then outright phony) outrage that came from the right in reaction to a impolitic phrase from a GOP candidate. I’m criticizing it for its cowardice and its cynicism. I’m criticizing it for its moral preening and its tacit acknowledgment that, because the left would doubtless make a stink about what has become, in our PC culture, a kind of social third rail — everything we know of rape is settled science — those on the right, or in the pro-life camp, who don’t wish to be tarred with the brush Akin wielded, had better get out front of it, fast, and distance themselves from his comments in the most forceful way they knew how. As if not doing so was an admission of some sort of guilt by association.

That is, I’m criticizing them for repeatedly being manipulated by the left, oftentimes before the left even has to spring into orchestrated action. That’s how scared many on the right are of being called anti-science or knuckle draggers, etc. Without stopping to tell themselves that those who are making these charges are doing so solely for political purposes — to try to shame you, to try to mock you, to try to fluster you and silence you. And that, no matter what you say — even if you’ve apologized, or you were one of the first to distance yourselves from the comment to show you aren’t “moronic” or “one of those kind of conservatives” — it doesn’t matter: they’ve determined merely to tie all Republicans to it any way, regardless of your very public protestations that you are nothing like that horrible horrible man who said horrible horrible things.

– When really, the proper response would have been, from the right, well, I don’t agree with Akin and I’d like to ask him on what, exactly, he’s basing certain assertions about rape and pregnancy, because I suspect he has his facts wrong — or at least, he’s relying on old theories. In which case, I’m happy to present him with my facts, and perhaps persuade him to change him opinion on the matter.

You know, treat it as an intellectual exercise, show voters that Republicans can speak intelligently about the finer points of their Party’s pro-life platform, that they are capable of intellectual growth, when the need arises, and that they don’t react to speech like the left does, instantly denouncing, shaming, and calling for excommunication so as not to run afoul of the cultural PC police — all so that they can assert their own moral and intellectual superiority in a way that is terrible ostentatious and entirely self-serving.

In fact, I find it rather odd that those who instantly called on Akin to leave the race for the good of the party and the cause — this race is, they keep reminding us, bigger than just one man, and so much is at stake! — didn’t themselves stop to think just how badly their very public shunning of Akin might hurt the party’s electoral chances, particularly if they failed in their efforts to chase Akin off the ballot and replace him. As is often said, if you’re going to kill the king, you’d better kill the king.”

    Henry Hawkins in reply to syn. | August 23, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    I couldn’t care less what the left thinks or believes and am not moved by it. My position on Akin is due to Akin himself and no one else. I don’t care how badly it hurts the conservative cause or the GOP cause. If you don’t get morons like Akin off your team, you obviously keep him on your team. Keep doing that and as time goes by you end up with a team overwhelmed by morons.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 23, 2012 at 4:33 pm

      Exactly! I had always thought one of the distinguishing marks between the two parties was that the Republican party tried to get rid of our own idiots and reprobates. On the other hand the Democrats will not only circle the wagons around anyone who has made an idiot of him or herself, they promote many such people to leadership!

If you support killing babies in utero what aren’t you willing to destroy? With Obamacare soon the elderly will be at risk of needless suffering and early death due to rationing of care. When insurance companies denied care, people were rightly upset. When the government denies care, people should also be upset. President Obama has ruined our prestige and our credit rating and he is ruining our economy. If you vote for Obama you are voting for an abortion president and as a side benefit you’ll get a destroyed economy! Really, ladies, is abortion so wonderful that you don’t care that President Obama may actually completely destroy the country?

    Well said Catherine. This is the tack we should take and not savage our own. The left will split us social from fiscal because we enable them to. “A house divided will not stand.”

‘Every single second, of every single day, I will and must have negative thoughts’

Mantra of the Left. Looking at you Dem’s..

“It’s a Wonderful Life”

NC Mountain Girl | August 23, 2012 at 4:13 pm

The Archdiocese of Charlotte is sponsoring a 24/7 Prayer for Life vigil in St. Patrick’s Cathedral during the run of the convention. I may sign up for a shift there then spend a couple of hours wandering around near the convention hotels.

I was a supernumerary at the 1988 Republican convention in New Orleans. In 1996, I volunteered with the RNC Truth Squad at the Democrat convention in Chicago. I was between jobs and the RNC had asked the local party for people to advise on transit times/best routes during rush hour, closest vendors for stuff they might need and general go-for duties. I expect a different mood in Charlotte than for those two conventions.

Rove was just on Hannity with his usual insightful analysis. ‘Yada yada yada yada “Todd get out.” What ya gonna do folks?

Demoncrats are the party of death and that’s why they are celebrating death. No surprise here. Look at the public record of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm’s brother) and his role in Obamacaretax. He is a eugenicist, radical beliefs in infanticide, genocide of the elderly as well as the “right” of women to partial birth abortion.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel and Obama’s Health Policy Adviser, announced a new “Complete Lives System” for selecting which sections of the population should be killed, in his article “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions.”. His writings were published Jan. 31, 2009 (THIS YEAR!) in the British medical journal Lancet…11 days after President Obama’s inauguration.

On March 19, Emanuel was appointed to the Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, to begin the design of a Federal system for withdrawing care from those chosen for death. Dr. Emanuel provides a preview of how such a system will get started…”

The Obama administration is rife with these radical eugenicists. Cass Sunstein “Science Czar John Holdren’s Eugenicist Idol Harrison Brown

Revelations just keep coming regarding Comrade Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren. First we learned that he’s an ecofascist opposed to free markets; then that he wanted to put sterilants in our drinking water; next that he doesn’t regard babies as human until after they’ve been socialized. Now we discover that his role model is eugenicist Harrison Brown:

John Holdren, the Science Czar of the United States, has long expressed an intense admiration — one that bordered on hero-worship — of a man named Harrison Brown, a respected scientist from an earlier generation who spent his later years writing about overpopulation and ecological destruction…” Read more at Moonbattery:
The G-d of Israel has spoken in the Tanakh regarding preborn babies:
תהילים 139:14 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Code
אֹֽודְךָ֗ עַ֤ל כִּ֥י נֹורָאֹ֗ות נִ֫פְלֵ֥יתִי נִפְלָאִ֥ים מַעֲשֶׂ֑יךָ וְ֝נַפְשִׁ֗י יֹדַ֥עַת מְאֹֽד׃
I will praise thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made marvellous are thy works and that my soul knoweth right well…”
44:2 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex
כֹּה־אָמַ֨ר יְהוָ֥ה עֹשֶׂ֛ךָ וְיֹצֶרְךָ֥ מִבֶּ֖טֶן יַעְזְרֶ֑ךָּ אַל־תִּירָא֙ עַבְדִּ֣י יַֽעֲקֹ֔ב וִישֻׁר֖וּן
Thus saith the LORD that made thee and formed thee from the womb which will help thee Fear not O Jacob my servant and thou Jesurun whom I have chosen…”
Matt Staver, dean of Liberty University School of Law has publicly spoken about the rape and incest of his sister by her father and the child that was allowed to be born. Ethel Waters, that great gospel singer and black actress was the result of a rape. James Roberson, mighty Baptist preacher was the result of a rape. It would be great if all the people whose lives started as the result of a rape would converge on the Demoncrat Convention and shout G-d’s truth at those pagans!

theduchessofkitty | August 23, 2012 at 5:25 pm

“Celebrating death” doesn’t just make Democrats look bad. It also make us women look bad.

What does it tell you of a huge segment of the population that is female, which will opt for the killing of an innocent creature, with the excuse that it would “help fulfill their destinies”?

I don’t know about you guys, but I’m very sure no man would marry that kind of witch.

Besides, these Democrats seem to forget this one little saying: “The future belongs to those who show up.” And I’m sure Democrats, as a demographic group, don’t seem to be breeding at replacement rate levels… don’t you think?

It’s not a BABY, don’t you know.

It’s fetal tissue. Even when it’s an 8 pound baby…I mean, fetal tissue.


I don’t often mention the dispute over abortion.

There is something sickening over the Democratic National Convention turning into an abortion-fest, a celebration of the right to kill one’s own unborn child.

Well said, Professor. I’m glad you mentioned it.

For more than 30 years now, the Dems’ non-negotiables have been abortion and sodomy, no restrictions, no apology. Sickening is right.

Every time Akin is brought up bring up ObamA3 (cubed) – Obama supports abortion three ways: in the womb; late in the womb; outside the womb.

Remind the American voter where Obama stands.

Since Lynard Skynard is entertaining at the RNC, they should at least dedicate a song to the DNC:

Ooooh that smell
Can’t you smell that smell
Ooooh that smell
The smell of death surrounds you

David R. Graham | August 24, 2012 at 1:30 am

Hinderaker in the same post quoted by our host:

“If the Democrats want to define themselves to voters as the party of abortion and gay marriage, please, God, let them do so!”

IMO that is the “money line” of John’s post. Reynolds, also, did not highlight it. I suspect John considers it the money line there. (One reason for its drama is its invocation of Divinity, hardly expected of a lawyer.)

As John points out, Ds contemplate celebrating not only death but also the unnatural (probably not his characterization, but I only guess he supports “gays” because he is a lawyer, do not know for sure whether he does or does not). Again, hardly expected of a lawyer to make light of most lawyers’ forceful and persistent advocacy for abortion and “gays.”

In any case, in the spirit of Hinderaker’s enthusiastic insouciance, my bride contemplates obtaining every classic leftist/chaotic bumper sticker she can find and plastering her car with them, especially, of course, the rear end.

Well, I for one am looking forward to McCaskill articulating her stance on partial birth abortion. She needs to tell us why an exception to perform a partial birth abortion needs to exist when in fact there is no medical circumstance that would threaten the life of the mother during the final phase of delivery.

Barack Obama needs to explain to his daughters why a child who is a survivor of a botched saline abortion needs to die. If liberals are so hep to teach sexual orientation and sex methods to elementary schoolers, then they also should be telling them some kids gotta die because some lives are less important than others. I’m sure some really clever lib has found a way to candy coat that turd.

Trent Telenko | August 24, 2012 at 10:53 am

From Byron York’s latest article:

“But not all of this is a rational calculation. If you stand on the floor of a Democratic convention when a speaker is discussing abortion, you can feel the depth of the emotion that many Democrats feel on the issue. Conservatives like to say abortion is a liberal sacrament. Maybe that’s going too far, but it is very, very important. And when something means so much to a group of people, they can easily convince themselves that it means that much to others, too.

Meanwhile, the voters continue to say, overwhelmingly, that they want their president to focus on the economy and job creation. By choosing to spotlight abortion and gay marriage at their national convention, Democrats could give voters the impression that they’ve got their priorities all mixed up. Sandra Fluke may draw headlines, but does she really represent what voters think is most important?”

Abortion as the major issue at thier national convention is all about Democrats expressing thier collective identity, not election results.

Full test at link:

[…] Wasserman Schultz and every Democrat is seizing this topic once again as an agenda item for at the Democratic National Convention in a matter of weeks to gain votes in the coming […]