Posts Tagged ‘abortion’

LinkSwarm For February 15, 2012

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

Time for another roundup of this and that:

  • Media Matters is a paranoid interest group that works as an extension of the Democratic Party, and which many liberal journalists take their marching orders from. In other news, pro-wrestling is fake.
  • Mark Steyn on Obama as Henry VIII.
  • Harry Reid and the Democratic caucus totally support Obama’s war on Catholicism.
  • A goodly percentage of Notre Dame’s professors have rendered their judgment on Obama’s war on Catholicism: Unaccapetable.
  • Your tears, Rahm. Let me taste them.
  • Texas ranks top in exporting yet again, with exports bringing in more than $249.8 billion in 2011, up 20.7% from $206.9 billion in 2010.
  • Is the redistricting fight all about Lloyd Dogget? So black and Hispanic interest groups are fighting a long, drawn-out court battle to protect a single white incumbent.
  • I got that story from Must Read Texas, which seems like a veritable firehose of Texas news and links.
  • To support its welfare state, Denmark travels quite a way down the road to serfdom: “A suspected terrorist has more legal protection than the ordinary Danish taxpayer.”
  • Bin Laden gave up on jihad. Maybe.
  • Iowahawk takes aim at a certain Clint Eastwood commercial.
  • Clayton Cramer: A lot more people use guns to defend themselves than you think. (Hat tip: Say Uncle.)
  • Holly Hansen breaks radio silence to note skulduggery in Round Rock ISD. And here’s Part 2.
  • Some Marin County residents are fighting George Lucas’ plans to expand film-making facilities. Because California is just doing so well it can afford to alienate job creators.
  • LinkSwarm for December 26, 2011

    Monday, December 26th, 2011

    Still getting back up to speed after Christmas, so here are a few links that I’ve been squirreling away like nuts for winter:

  • Is Obama preparing for war with Iran? This interview with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta sure makes it sound that way…
  • If I’m reading these tea leaves correctly, Gary Johnson is about to give up running as a Republican and run as a Libertarian. Which is a shame, because the Republican Party needs more libertarians. But his campaign never caught fire. Alternately, he’s going to pull out and endorse Ron Paul, which his front page sort of hints at.
  • To clear the air on Ron Paul: He’s not an Anti-Semite, he just wishes Israel didn’t exist, and he’s not a homophobe, he just refuses to shake gay’s hands or use their bathrooms.
  • Amy Alkon gets a TSA agent patdown. And by “patdown” I mean “repeatedly stick their fingers in her vulva.”
  • Jill Stanek on Christopher Hitchens and abortion. And Hitchens’ own, fairly conflicted thoughts here.
  • The Zeta Drug cartel has built their own national radio system. Let’s hope that Eric Holder didn’t give them that as well. (Hat tip: Dwight.)
  • Rebel Syrians holding a sign slamming Obama and praising Bush. Real, or Photoshop? I try to have a healthy suspicion of things that fit too neatly into my worldview.
  • Additional hat tips to Insta and Ace.

    Dewhurst, Cruz Trade Social Conservative Endorsements

    Monday, November 14th, 2011

    Big senate race news on the endorsement front:

    First, Texas Right to Life PAC endorses David Dewhurst. That’s a very good pickup for him, as he has not exactly been overwhelmed with conservative endorsements. I’m sure the Ted Cruz campaign is not happy that Dewhurst snagged this one. (Also not happy: ex-senate candidate Elizabeth Ames Jones, now running for the state senate from District 25…where they endorsed rival Donna Campbell for the same seat the same week Jones (who has repeatedly stressed her pro-life credentials) got into the race…)

    Then, in short order, the Cruz campaigned fired back with an endorsement from Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson.

    Of the two, I have to rank the Dewhurst endorsement as the better pickup, mainly because his conservative endorsements for this race have been thin on the ground.

    Can Dewhurst snag more conservative endorsements? Maybe. He’s been endorsed by groups like the NRA and Texans for Lawsuit Reform in the past…but that was when he was running against Democrats as Lt. Governor. Such groups may decide that Cruz is the better alternative, or pass on endorsing anyone before the primary.

    Obama to Troops: Drop Dead

    Friday, April 8th, 2011

    When I first read on Ace of Spades that Obama intended to let our soldiers go without paychecks during the shutdown, I was somewhat incredulous. After all, even Obama should be able to see how lousy the “optics” are with withholding paychecks from troops involved in no less than three wars kinetic military actions overseas. Surely not even Obama could be that stupid?

    Evidently I was wrong. Obama would rather let our troops go without pay than stop taxpayer funding of abortions.

    To dramatize the issue, I’ve actually created a small film about the topic. I’ve taken the details of who all will still be getting checks in a shutdown from this piece up on Reason (which was, in turn, taken from The New York Times, saving you the 15 seconds it would have taken you to defeat the paywall…) Keep in mind that I’m putting it up in advance of the actual shutdown, so the details may vary…

    I did this quick and dirty, and I didn’t see any actually U.S. soldiers as part of any character sets…

    (Hat tips: Dwight, Ace, and Insta.)

    Selected House Democrats Who May Be Swamped By The Coming Tidal Wave

    Monday, October 11th, 2010

    So how bad are Democratic House members doing this election? According to the National Journal, pretty bad. They count 60 seats among the most competitive and another 19 very close. Of those 79 House seats in play, 72 are currently held by Democrats.

    As for where Democrats are spending their money, six of the seven districts the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is spending money on went for Obama by more that 54%. They say that they’re trying to “nail down” relatively easy seats before moving on to harder ones, but that makes absolutely no sense; if you really want to help the marginal seats, you start helping them out first, because they need the most work. No, this smacks of triage, and suggests that the DCCC considers most districts below that line as good as gone.

    There are a number of interesting races and names that should be familiar to regular BattleSwarm readers, either from being in Texas or having been mentioned here before:

    • Chet Edwards (TX 17) comes in at #7. (I would say that Edwards is the last remnant of the old Texas Blue Dogs, but I didn’t know that Henry Cueller (TX-28) was an actual member of the Blue Dog Collation, which Edwards is not.) Edwards voted against ObamaCare and Cap-and-Trade, but did vote for the Stimulus and the TARP bank bailout. District is heavily Republican; went for Bush by 68% in 2000, 70% in 2004, and 67% for McCain. His opponent is Bill Flores.
    • Suzanne Kosmas (FL 24) comes in at #9 on the list. You may remember this BattleSwarm piece on her back when she was a wavering no vote on ObamaCare; as I predicted, she was easier to flip to a Yes vote that Rep. Jason Altmire (PA 4), who I also profiled, and who stuck to his no vote. Which goes a long way toward explaining why Kosmas is likely to lose her seat, while Altmire isn’t on the list of endangered Democrats. Go figure. She also voted for the Stimulus and Cap-and-Trade. (Kosmos was first elected in 2008, so she didn’t vote on TARP.) District went for Bush in 2000 by 53%, Bush in 2004 by 55%, and McCain by 52%. Her opponent is Sandy Adams.
    • Indiana’s open 8th congressional district, held by Brad Ellsworth, who is leaving for a Senate run (which polls show he’s currently losing by 17 points), comes in at #11. The contest is between Democrat Trent Van Haaften and Republican Larry Bucshon. Ellsworth was of the theoretically Pro-Life members of the Bart Stupak bloc that rolled over for Nancy Pelosi on ObamaCare. District went for Bush by 57% in 2000, 62% in 2004, and for McCain by 51%.
    • Paul Kanjorski (PA 11) comes in at #15. Another Stupak bloc turncoat. Voted for TARP. Voted in favor of the Stimulus, but evidently decided oversight was so unimportant that he that he only attended three of the ten Pennsylvania Stimulus Oversight Board meetings. Has a reputation as a big spender: “Asking Paul Kanjorski to make sure our tax dollars are being spent wisely is like asking John Dillinger to keep an eye on the bank safe.” (IBID). Yesterday’s LinkSwarm mentioned how he earmarked $10 million for a business run by his own family. District went 54% for Gore, 53% for Kerry, and 57% for Obama. His opponent is Lou Barletta.
    • Steve Driehaus (OH 1) comes in at #16. Another Stupak-blocer who rolled over to let Nancy Pelosi rub his furry belly. In addition to ObamaCare, he voted for the Stimulus and Cap-and-Trade. (He was elected in 2008, and so didn’t vote on TARP.) District went 51% for Bush in both 2000 and 2004, but only 44% for McCain. His opponent is Steve Chabot, who held the seat for 12 years before Driehaus edged him 52%-48% in the Obama wave of 2008.
    • Kathy Dahlkemper (PA 3) comes in at #20. Yet another turncoat Supak-blocer Pelosi flipped for ObamaCare. Also voted for the Stimulus but against Cap-and-Trade. Wasn’t in Congress when TARP was voted on. District voted 51% for Bush in 2000 and 53% in 2004, and McCain edged Obama by a mere 20 votes in 2008. Her opponent is Mike Kelly.
    • Speaking of Stupak, Michigan’s open 1st congressional district comes in at #35. Realizing that his betrayal of his Pro-Life position to pass ObamaCare made him electoral toast, Stupak declined to run for reelection, leaving the battle to Democrat Gary McDowell and Republican doctor Dan Benishek. District went for Bush by 52% in 2000 and 53% in 2004, but 50% for Obama.
    • Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23) is off the list of top 60 races, but shows up in the “Knocking on the Door” section. Another Stupak bloc turncoat. In addition to ObammaCare, he voted for the Stimulus, but against Cap-and-trade and TARP. His district went for Bush by 54% in 200 and 57% in 2004, but for Obama by 51%. His opponent is Francisco “Quico” Canseco. Rodriguez came to national attention recently thanks to his defensive tone when constituents asked him to defend his vote on ObamaCare:

    Time permitting, I’ll try to do additional posts on each of those races, plus a few others (including some longer shots that just might pay off in a tidal wave year). But if you’re looking for places your campaign contributions might be the most effective at unseating Democrats, the challengers linked to above are certainly worthy of your consideration.

    References

    An Explanation for the Left’s Irrational Hatred of Sarah Palin

    Sunday, September 12th, 2010

    “Oooo, I don’t like that woman,” said a non-conservative of my acquaintance when Sarah Palin’s name came up. And indeed, the reason for the American left’s pathological hatred of Palin, a reaction based on a visceral emotional reaction rather than intellectual disagreement, is one of the great mysteries of our time. Kevin Burke suggested that one reason was repressed shame over themselves not living up to Palin decision not to abort Trig.

    This essay over on Chicago Boyz suggests that the real reason is status anxiety:

    Status-anxiety occurs when a person believes that their position in a real or imagined social hierarchy is threatened. Leftists react emotionally to Palin because of the threat she poses to their own individual sense of status. All their other arguments are just put forth to rationalize that emotional reaction.

    In short, it is not the ideas she puts forth, its that someone like her is significant at all.

    Status-anxiety occurs most strongly when a group has no meritorious claims to its social position. The classic example would be the pre-WWII European aristocrats who inherited their wealth and position, and who therefore had no right to status in an industrial society other than from cultural inertia. Closer to home, the most vicious white racists were poor and working-class whites who knew full well that only racism kept them from being on society’s bottom status tier. As long as all non-whites were judged inferior to any white person, a poor white person still had some status. They bitterly resisted losing what little status they still had.

    Leftism at its heart holds that a small percentage of humans have a vastly superior understanding of everything compared to ordinary people. The point of leftism is to empower these superior individuals to impose their superior understanding upon society by the force of the state. Leftists must be viewed by themselves and others as superior human beings if they are to have a claim to power and status.

    Also:

    Since they have few meritorious indicators of a personal and group claim to status remaining, leftists are forced to fall back on the same standards employed by the European upper classes. They try to restrict status not by merit but by conformity to their own life pattern. They demand that people go to the right elitist schools. They demand that people live in certain communities. They demand that people have the right recreational interests. They demand that people enjoy uniform kinds of art and music. They demand that people have the proper modes of speech, accent and allusion. They demand that people have the right religious beliefs. And so on.

    On this basis Palin is a nightmare: She went to a state college. She lives in the “backwoods”. She likes hunting, fishing and sports. She likes country music and representational art. She doesn’t have the right accent. She doesn’t dress appropriately. She’s a Pentecostal instead of atheist, Unitarian, Episcopalian, etc.

    Palin’s success stabs them in the heart of their anxiety. If Palin can be a successful political leader, what does that say about the leftists’ claims of intellectual and moral superiority? If people don’t just instantly assume that leftists are smarter and better than everyone else, why would people trust a leftist government to make so many decisions about the people’s live, e.g., medical care?

    That is why leftists see Palin as a genuine and significant threat of unusual magnitude. In the emotional thinking of leftists, she is a personal threat to everything each individual leftist has attained in life. They feel a sincere, visceral sense of danger about her because she attacks the very core of their egos. They feel the same hatred towards Palin that the European upper classes felt towards the upstart middle-class. They feel the same hatred that poor whites felt towards non-whites. They feel that way for the same reasons. If she succeeds, worse, if she is right, then they become nobodies.

    As long as she is viewed as a significant political figure, the left’s obsession with Palin will never wane because it does not spring from rational roots. She threatens something too deep and too profound in a political subculture built around the belief that a small percentage of human beings have a vastly superior understanding of the world compared to all the rest.