… is not what we have.

Instead we have a guy who spews left-populist, class warfare rhetoric at his State of the Union addresses campaign speeches while raising beau coup bucks at a high-end fashion show that even some of the Evil One-Percent(tm) might have trouble affording.

Republicans are hammering President Obama for his reelection campaign’s New York City fashion-show fundraiser in a new Web ad debuting Tuesday, arguing the optics of the event are inappropriate while the economy continues to struggle.

The ad opens with shots of the invitation to the event, co-hosted by actress Scarlett Johansson and Vogue editor Anna Wintour. Both have been prominent donors for the president in the past. Subsequent shots of the invitation reveal other big-name attendees, including pop stars Beyonce Knowles and Sean Combs and fashion icons Marc Jacobs, Diane Von Furstenberg and Vera Wang.

The RNC wasted no time turning this into a commercial:

Yeah, I can see all those out-of-work Obama voters who lost out on the opportunity for thousands of good-paying jobs when President Common Man killed the Keystone pipeline just rushing out to buy $95 scarves, or tote bags with the symbol of Hope and Change plastered all over them. They must be thrilled to see his campaign pandering to millionaire glitterati while they themselves may be choosing between making the mortgage and getting the car fixed.

Keystone. The new HHS contraception regulations. The Gulf drilling “permitorium.” Fabulous taxpayer-paid vacations for Marie Antoinette Michelle. Attacking the Supreme Court. “I won.” And now this. Sometimes I wonder if the Obama campaign isn’t going out of its way to hand the opposition political prime beef in some subtle trap meant to goad conservatives into overreacting and thus scaring moderates.

Or maybe it’s much simpler. Maybe this administration is simply an egregious example of leftist urban academic elitism mixed with a remarkable political tone-deafness.

My bet is on the latter.

via Jazz Shaw

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

President Obama personally signed off on his campaign’s decision to actively encourage donations to Democratic Super PAC Priorities USA, according to senior campaign officials who spoke on a conference call with reporters Tuesday morning.

But an official would not characterize the tone of Obama’s agreement to back a policy that is at odds with his previous vocal opposition to the Citizens United decision that allows Super PACs to solicit unlimited donations.

Conversations among top advisers about the need to “lend support” to the outside fundraising effort have been going on for “weeks,” and the decision was made after a review of FEC filings from the Super PAC committees supporting the GOP presidential candidates, officials said.

As a result of the decision, some White House officials, campaign aides, and cabinet members will appear at Priorities USA events to “amplify [Obama's] message” but will not directly solicit donations. The president, First Lady, and vice president will not attend any Priorities USA events, however.

The campaign said Tuesday that it will not encourage donations to a related 501(c)4 organization that does not disclose its donors to the FEC as the Priorities USA SuperPAC will.

The reversal opens Obama — who has long bemoaned the influx of money into the political process — to accusations of hypocrisy as his campaign now hopes to lure big donors to the fundraising body founded by former White House aide Bill Burton.

The rationale being, of course, that they need the money to “counter GOP lies” or some other such “politi-speak.” I guarantee you they could have managed just fine without going back on the pledge – after all, this President and his minions always find ways around laws (and “pledges”) restricting “big money donations” (including playing word games) all the while putting on a public “man of the people” facade. This just enables them to snag even more money to use to saturate key voting markets with lies, demagoguery, and other various and assorted nonsense against Republicans.

Hey, if this is what they want to do – fine. “They all do it.” Just wish they’d stop lying about their motivations and their current fundraising situation! I know, won’t happen – but it sure sounded good, didn’t it?

I don’t have much time to write this morning, but was curious as to your thoughts – key among them, whether you think he could effectively beat President Obama in the general election.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick of Charlotte says she won’t run again for re-election to North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District.

Myrick made the announcement Tuesday through Facebook and her campaign site with a brief video. She said she made the decision after thoughtful discussion with her family and plans to serve out her ninth two-year term through the end of the year.

“After thoughtful discussion with my family, I have decided not to run for another term in Congress,” Myrick said. “I’m grateful for the privilege of serving you. We have all been blessed by staff members who truly care and delight in helping to solve problems for everyone in the district.”

The 70-year-old Myrick is a former Charlotte mayor and previous U.S. Senate candidate who joined Congress in the Republican sweep during the 1994 elections. She has been in a relatively safe Republican district that this fall will cover portions of Union, Mecklenburg and Iredell counties.

Here’s the video of her announcement:

Myrick is 70. No doubt she’s ready to leave the limelight and enjoy time with her husband, kids, and grandkids. I hope she writes a book one day.

I’m sure there will be some people in District 9 and elsewhere who will say it’s been beyond time for her to retire from Congress considering she pledged back during her first term to be a one-term representative, but whatever. I think she as one of the more staunchly conservative members of Congress has done a fantastic job in Washington, DC – not without controversy – representing the interests of the people in her district, and she will be missed greatly. Her years of dependable service have stronly influenced my argument against mandatory term limits. Yours truly was fortunate enough to interview her a while back when I was in the talk radio biz. A very gracious, down to earth lady. I wish Rep. Myrick well in her future endeavors and would like to thank her for her commitment to both to her country and her district.

Mecklenburg County Commissioner and former Meck County Sheriff Jim Pendergraph is expected to announce tomorrow that he will run to replace Myrick.

Incidentally, one of Myrick’s sons – Dan Forest – is running for Lt. Governor. You can learn more about him here.

In related news, Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC12) may be considering retirement as well this year, according to COXTV’s Scott MacFarlane:

More N. Carolina drama looming? Rep Mel Watt says he’s not decided whether he’ll run for re-election. Still judging impact of redistricting

Mel Watt and Sue Myrick have HUGE seniority, influence in House. To lose *both* Reps in 2013 would cost Charlotte-area big power in DC

Watt, as I’m sure you know, represents one of the most bizarrely drawn districts in the country – the infamous District 12, drawn specifically so that black Democrats in this state could have a lock on black liberal representation in that district in Congress for as long as they wanted to:

NC-12 - via NationalAtlas.gov

I’m not getting my hopes up. Even with the disputed redistricting (pre-approved in November by the US DOJ) that has taken place here recently courtesy of the GOP-controlled state legislature (map here), his district is probably still “safe” because it will be more “African-American” – hence, more liberal. And because of that, even if Watt does retire, another Democrat will take his place.

Blue Dog Democrat Heath Shuler (NC-11) announced his retirement from Congress a few days ago, contributing to the rapid decline of the “conservative Democrat” influence in the US House. Shuler gave brief consideration to a run for the Governor’s chair, which is being vacated this year by Bev Perdue, but decided against it. Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC-13) announced his retirement from Congress a couple of weeks ago. Both he and Shuler cited the redrawn Congressional maps as a big reasons why they were stepping down.

Fun times in NC on the political front. Will be interesting to see how things shake out come November.

There’s a great article today by Bob Owens at Pajamas Media. Here’s an excerpt:

Whether Operation Fast and Furious was a legitimate law enforcement operation, as the Department of Justice claims, or was part of a plot to impose gun control, it was radically different from all other border gun operations in one crucial way. Operation Fast and Furious was the only border gun operation that was undertaken with the full intention of the straw-purchased guns leaving the control of law enforcement officers and reaching the armories of drug cartel murderers. That fact alone should lead to the impeachment or administrative removal of everyone, from field agents to political appointees and elected officials that knew or should have known about the plot.

But that is only half of the horror story.

Operation Fast and Furious was specifically conceived so that “walked” guns would be recovered at crime scenes in Mexico. Their serial numbers would be provided to the ATF by Mexican authorities for tracing. Regardless of motive, the entire operation was premised on weapons being recovered at crime scenes in Mexico, and law enforcement agencies are well aware that criminals primarily abandon weapons only after they’ve been used in serious felony crimes such as murder or attempted murder.

Operation Fast and Furious was conceived knowing that Mexican nationals would be sacrificed in significant numbers if the tracing operation had any chance of working.

Operation Fast and Furious allowed more than 2,000 weapons to “walk,” indicating that those in charge of the operation were willing to let thousands of Mexican nationals die in an effort to identify the ringleaders of a cartel’s weapon acquisition team.

The Department of Justice claims that they did this so that they could trace the weapons to higher-ups in the cartels and take down entire gun-smuggling networks. Decent people can disagree on many aspects of crime fighting and the amount of risk we should be willing to absorb to fight crime, but we should all agree that no criminal network is worth sacrificing the lives of hundreds or thousands of victims. Yet that is precisely the way Operation Fast and Furious was designed to work.

Bob then follows up with three questions and explorations of their implications. Read the whole thing.

These are the kinds of questions the press should be asking of the administration. But, just as importantly, these are the kinds of questions we should be peppering our congresscritters and senators with every day, letting them know we want them asked, we want answers, and we will hold them to account for not asking.

RELATED: Previous posts on Operation Fast and Furious, aka “Gunwalker.”

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

It’s never just one thing that sets a polity on the road to decline, but for several years now I’ve felt that one of the paving stones of California’s own road to ruin was the transformation of the legislature from a part-time body to full-time. (1)

This change created a class of professional legislators, career politicians who, to justify their (until recently) six-figure salaries and abundant perks, feel they have to pass law after law, whether or not they’re needed or even sensible.

And what have we gotten in return for creating a playground for professional pols? A sclerotic economy, a regulatory regime that sends businesses screaming in the other direction, the destruction of our manufacturing base, an energy and resource-development policy that gave us rolling blackouts, and nanny-state that feels it can regulate even the way we light our homes.

One legislator, Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), feels it is time to fix that long-ago mistake and return the legislature to part-time status:

A proposal by Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) probably won’t make her many friends among her colleagues. She wants to reduce the Legislature to part-time status and cut its pay from $95,000 annually to $1,500 a month.

Grove is one of the organizers of an initiative that was approved Monday to begin circulating petitions toward qualifying for the ballot. The constitutional amendment would limit regular legislative sessions to 30 days each January and 60 days starting each May. In odd-numbered years, the legislative sessions would be devoted to budget issues.

(…)

“Since switching to a full-time body in the 1960s, the Legislature has steadily deteriorated, infiltrated by professional politicians, beholden to special interests, and has sunk to a ‘whatever it takes’ gang — where anything goes to remain in power,” Grove said.

This would go a long way toward ending the mischief in Sacramento and returning the legislature to what it should be: a body of citizens who gather periodically to tend to the state’s basic business. The professional progressive oligarchs currently lounging under the Green Dome will have to look elsewhere for a “career.”

Grove and her allies have to gather over 800,000 signatures in the next five months to qualify the initiative for the November ballot. I have but one question.

Where do I sign?

RELATED: It’s not all happy news. Read how California’s branch of the Party of Stupid screwed up and allowed the Democrats to hijack the citizens redistricting commission, and how they then flushed $2,000,000 down the drain, money that could have been used to capture legislative seats. Argh.

Footnotes:
(1) Yep. Ballot initiative. This was the people’s own-goal. We’re one of ten states with a full-time legislature.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

That’s what they said.

No, really:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney explained that the number of people dropping out of the work force, which artificially depresses the unemployment rate, can be regarded as an “economic positive.”

“A lot of that is due to younger people getting more of an education, which is an economic positive,” Carney responded when asked what would happen when people “inevitably” raise the unemployment rating with their return to the work force. He also noted that “an aging population” going into retirement has contributed to the number of people dropping out of the work force.

Head, meet wall.

If people are staying in school longer, it’s because there are fewer and fewer jobs available on graduation, so they stay in school hoping for an eventual turnaround. Oh, and many of them accumulating debt in the process. Is that an “economic positive,” Jay?

But beyond that, people are dropping out of the work force not because they’ve decided to enjoy their “golden years, but because of discouragement, because they’ve been out of work so long, they don’t think they have a good chance of finding a decent job.

Honestly, this administration shovels the you-know-what so fast, you need hip-waders reading one of their press releases.

SHEDDING LIGHT ON THE WHITE HOUSE DARKNESS:

1. Is the unemployment rate 8.3%, 8.9%, 9.9% or 11.9%?
2. Why the official 8.3 percent unemployment rate is a phony number—and what it means for Obama’s reelection
3. Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low
4. GOP: Jobless rate above 8% for three years, worst since the Great Depression
5. Was Today’s Jobs News Good?

via David Freddoso

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Last Saturday I wrote about my… “disappointment” at Justice Ginsburg’s dismissive attitude toward using the US Constitution as a model for others. Thanks to a link from Jim Vicevich, I was reminded of one of Madame Justice’s earlier moments of glory, from 2009: her inability to understand why anyone would have a problem with an American judge using foreign law to shape US judicial decisions:

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.

(…)

Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.

She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court.

The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is “probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court.” There is one reason for that, she said: “You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”

She also offered a theory about why after World War II nations around the world started to create constitutional courts with the power to strike down legislation as the United States Supreme Court has.

“What happened in Europe was the Holocaust,” she said, “and people came to see that popularly elected representatives could not always be trusted to preserve the system’s most basic values.”

American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.” She predicted that “we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts.”

(Emphasis added)

I’m a helpful, caring sort of guy and I have a great deal of sympathy for confused little old ladies, so let’s see if we can help Justice Ginsburg out, shall we?

First, I suggest she reread the article, with special emphasis on the quote from her colleague, Chief Justice Roberts:

“If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. “And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.”

And there’s the key: democratic accountability. While we rightly shield federal judges from base politics and the need to run for office, we can still say with reason that they are accountable to the people because we elect those who appoint and confirm the judges. And, in the worst cases, they can be removed by the people’s representatives.

More directly, US judges rule on laws passed by American legislators who are democratically accountable to the American people, and the US judge operates under rules established by precedent (common law) and legislation (statute and constitutional amendments). He is the heir to an evolving legal and political tradition stretching back over 1,000 years to the origins of the trial-by-jury and the field of Runnymede, and coming forward through the development of elected parliaments, separation of powers, and judicial review to form a system that works because it has the legitimacy of the people.

None of that applies to the hypothetical German judge, who works within his own context and whose rulings carry none of that legitimacy here.

I would suggest to Madame Justice that, regardless of what law reviews she chooses to read (and I applaud her desire to broaden her horizons), it is not at all unreasonable or incomprehensible that she or any American judge should be expected to confine her judicial rulings to the law derived from that rich Anglo-American heritage and enacted with democratic legitimacy under the US Constitution.

If she wants to refer to the writings of Edward Coke, great! But a ruling of the French Constitutional Council? Non!

PS: A “passing phase?” Why does this sound like Justice Ginsburg is telling the rest of us (and her colleagues?) to “grow up?” Oh, wait. That’s because that’s exactly what she is doing, because that’s what progressives do: condescend. We’re just not enlightened enough and too busy clinging bitterly to our old, outdated Constitution to understand progressive, sophisticated jurisprudence.

PPS: And why should a US Justice care how often her court is cited relative to others? What matters is the Court’s legal influence within the United States, not being a finalist in some international judicial beauty contest.

PPPS: Though she did raise an interesting question. I wonder how often foreign law was cited in the Early Republic?

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Oh – and to Tweet, of course.

While on the topic of football, congrats to Panthers rookie QB Cam Newton, who racked up two rookie of the year awards last night:

INDIANAPOLIS – Cam Newton capped a record-breaking rookie season by taking home two trophies from a red-carpet awards show Saturday on the eve of Super Bowl XLVI.

The Carolina Panthers’ quarterback won the Pepsi Rookie of the Year Award, as well as AP Offensive Rookie of the Year honors after a season in which he threw for more yards than any rookie in NFL history.

Newton, the No. 1 overall pick last year, set several league and team records, beginning with a 422-yard passing performance at Arizona that was the most prolific debut for a rookie quarterback.

Newton finished the season with 4,051 yards, breaking the mark held by the Colts’ Peyton Manning (3,739 yards) since 1998.

Panthers fans here are expecting great things to come from Cam – and the rest of the team – next season. The Panthers showed such promise this year that their record really doesn’t reflect, but in the end it is about wins and losses, the playoffs and ultimately the Super Bowl. Hopefully next year we’ll be able to break at least .500 — or more.

And last but not least, this football post would not be complete without a Tebow mention. Make sure you read a recent interview he did with ABC’s Hannah Storm about his critics, his faith, and his football future. I continue to be seriously impressed with this guy’s maturity, poise, and grace. God bless him.

Please feel free to use this thread to comment not just on the game, but whatever else happens to be on your mind. Haven’t written anything about the Nevada caucuses – especially considering it was known beforehand Mitt Romney was going to win there. From what I read last night, though, turnout was lower this year than it was in 2008. For what it’s worth …

I wrote earlier that Catholic bishops across America had come out strongly against the Obama administration decision requiring religious organizations to pay for the cost of providing contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees. Jewish and Protestant groups aligned themselves with the bishops.

Now Orthodox Christian bishops have joined in:

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. This freedom is transgressed when a religious institution is required to pay for “contraceptive services” including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization services that directly violate their religious convictions. Providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care. We, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama Administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment.

As Joshua Treviño describes it, it is very unusual for Orthodox bishops to make an overtly political declaration. (Also h/t)

I really don’t think Team Obama quite knows what they’ve unleashed on themselves. But they’ll find out on Election Day.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Old and outdated?

**Posted by Phineas

Pardon me, but …ahem… WTF??

Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, on which she sits to rule on constitutional matters, gave an interview to Al Hayat TV on the revolutions overtaking the Arab world and the prospects for democracy. (Video here.) She starts off fine:

Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution – first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor.

Can’t argue one bit with any of that. If there’s one thing fundamental to genuine democratic rule (and one reason why Sharia-based societies can never be truly democratic), it’s the guarantee of freedom of speech.

But then she runs off the rails and into WTF-land:

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

“But, for God’s sake, don’t use only the most successful governing document in Earth’s history. It’s so… old!”

I wonder if she and Ezra Klein are related?

Now, to be fair, there is a “this wasn’t a stupid thing for a SCOTUS Justice to say at all” argument. It runs something like this:

The Constitution of the United States arose under conditions unique to the time and place in which it was written, and to the people who wrote it. The traditions of British Common Law and Whiggery with its limitations on the power of government and protection for the rights of the individual; the Classical examples of Greek democracy and the Roman Republic, which the Founders knew by heart; the Judeo-Christian traditions that separated government from God; and the Enlightenment, which applied reason to government. Thus all Justice Ginsburg is saying is that this mix was unique to 18th century America, and that the new Arab governments should look to examples reflecting more current conditions.

But I don’t buy it.

When she refers to a “charter of rights,” I have to wonder if she’s ever heard of this little thing called the Bill of Rights. It secures the political rights of the people (free speech, free assembly, the right to a jury trial and habeas corpus) and their rights to their own property. (1) Beyond that, it leaves the people to take care of themselves as free citizens.

In that lies the problem, I suspect, for Justice Ginsburg: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are negative charters. They grant limited powers to the general government and largely circumscribe what it may do, restricting it to those things necessary to the general welfare.

All else is left to the people and the states.

And I suspect that bugs the heck out of progressive liberals, such as Justice Ginsburg. They want government to do more for the people, because the world is too complex and just too difficult for people to take care of themselves:

This isn’t a new phenomenon by any means. It’s old, going back to the roots of American progressivism in the 19th century, what we now call, incorrectly, “liberalism.” It’s fundamental thesis is that the modern world is too complex for a governing system designed in the 18th century for a rural, isolated republic; that legislatures were too fractious and trapped by partisan interest to do what was best; and that these complexities were best handed off to boards of experts and technocrats who could make the correct decisions with scientific dispassion — Orszag’s “depoliticized commissions.” Woodrow Wilson crystallized this contempt for democratic governance when, before becoming president, he argued in essence that the Constitution was obsolete. (See also Goldberg’s excellent “Liberal Fascism.”)

Politically, it’s represented in modern times by FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights” and its modern promoter, Cass Sunstein, as well as the idea of the “Living Constitution” — a document that “evolves” with changing times and needs. Justice Ginsburg would be its judicial exemplar.

Take a look at a portion of one of the documents she praises, the South African Bill of Rights. It speaks not only of political and property rights, but health care, housing, the environment, and linguistic and community rights. That is, welfare state-style economic and social rights, far beyond what we understand as “unalienable rights.” I suspect that she would love to see the courts in the US step in to provide those economic and social rights when the legislatures fail to do so, acting themselves as a sort-of legislature.

But, to get back to Justice Ginsburg’s assertion that the US Constitution is not a good model for new Arab governments, I’d say quite the opposite. The danger in societies under Sharia is repression and the loss of individual rights, especially if one is a woman or a non-Muslim — or both. Sharia is totalitarian, governing every aspect of daily life, and its adherents are a threat to the liberties of others wherever they gain control of government.

And even if not Sharia-based, Arab governments have shown themselves far too willing interfere in their economies in the name of “fairness” (and to keep control for themselves), with results that have ranged from mediocrity to outright wreckage.

Hence what is needed and what new Arab governments should look to, if they want to guarantee liberty and prosperity, are precisely those governing philosophies and documents that limit the power and reach of government.

Gee, something like the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. (2)

It’s a shame that a Justice of the United States Supreme Court doesn’t understand that.

via David Freddoso, Phillip A. Klein, and Weasel Zippers

RELATED: Justice Ginsburg, eugenicist?

LINKS: More at The American Spectator and Hot Air.

Footnotes:
(1) Yeah, I know these have been eroded to one degree or another, here, especially after Kelo. Bear with me.
(2) No slight meant to South African or Canadian readers, though Canada is a bit dodgy from a US point-of-view on free speech.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

I had planned on writing the epic rants of all epic rants tonight, which would have probably have included some uncharacteristic profanity on my part, but I’ve mellowed a bit as the night has gone on – which is probably a good thing, and Daniel Foster’s piece is pretty definitive.

What I would add to what Foster wrote above is this:

Point of clarification: The Komen Foundation is not “pro-life” and are arguably not “pro-choice”.  Steve Ertelt at Life News makes a good point about that here:

FACT:  Komen is not a pro-life organization.

When Komen announced its decision to change its policy to not funding organizations that are under formal investigation or that act as pass-through agencies rather than providing direct support for women’s health, some pro-life advocates went beyond merely thanking them and acted as if Komen had suddenly become a pro-life group worthy of unreserved support. It is not.

Komen is, or is attempting to be, an abortion-neutral organization. As such, it will likely continue making decisions that disappoint pro-life advocates as it attempts to find a non-existent middle ground in the debate between those who cherish the right to life of unborn children and the well-being of their mothers and those who favor their destruction.

If you want to put your trust fully in an organization that has as its only mission the betterment of the health of women and unborn children, support your favorite pro-life group (or LifeNews) or your local pregnancy center.

Yep, although I think in the context of an outfit like Komen that it is arguable they can’t be neutral on the issue of abortion for purposes of fundraising and donations (I’m sure Steve will disagree with me on that!).  Very likely, they’re tired of being “in the middle” and want to get out of the controversy altogether and do what they do best, which is to fight breast cancer. For years they’ve been under pressure from pro-life groups to stop giving money to Planned Parenthood, and even though their stated reason this week for halting that ‘tradition’ of sorts was due to Planned Parenthood being under investigation, it’s hard to believe that the pressure from pro-lifers (not to mention the fact that their vice-president is pro-life) didn’t impact its’ decision to a measurable extent.  On the flip side, this week Planned Parenthood responded by utilizing its’ high degree of power and influence over the easily manipulated in order to – with the despicable help of Democrat politicos coming down on a PRIVATE organization – to bully, shame, and intimidate Komen into doing a reversal of sorts (although the level of reversal is up for debate at this point), even going so far as to actively encourage people NOT to contribute to an organization whose whole mission is to eradicate breast cancer.

Zapping breast cancer is a women’s health issue, right?

Of course it is, but as we all know abortion is the mother of all issues for so-called “women’s health” groups like Planned Parenthood and the like.  It’s how they make their money – by touting their “pro-choice” credentials and stirring up divisiveness – especially during a crucial election year – which is exactly what’s happened here. What’s also established fact now is that “women’s  health” is code for “abortion” with the pro-abortion crowd. And Planned Parenthood demonstrated this week is that, above all else, in their minds the “right” to terminate a developing unborn child at any stage of development is more essential to a woman’s health and well-being than treating and trying to find cures for a top killer of women: breast cancer.

That Planned Parenthood made a special point to influence their supporters not to donate any more to Komen out of pure spite just proves what pro-lifers have said all along about them and where their real priorities reside: Not with breast cancer sufferers or any other major women’s health issue instead but with women who want to abort their unborn child because they’d rather finish college first,  or because it would impact their careers, etc.   In essence, Komen is saying here that women who have a choice as to what to do about their “health issue” (unborn baby) should take priority over women who don’t have a choice over their health issue (breast cancer).

It’s a pretty stunning accusation, isn’t it? But it is dead-on accurate.

Pro-choicers would say that Planned Parenthood is doing the same thing that pro-life groups do: Encouraging people not to donate due to disagreements over practices, but that’s not accurate in this case because pro-lifers have an issue-based reason for not supporting Planned Parenthood: Every dime of money that goes to them even earmarked for something else is money that frees up use of the “private” money they use to perform abortions (the last stats I saw on the number of abortions they performed was somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 a YEAR – certainly not “rare”).  The idea is to make it so Planned Parenthood has no choice but to cut back on its’ abortion services in order to provide other health services for women. In short, it’s an effort to get PP to re-prioritize how they use their money, as well as to make the point that  an unborn baby is not a “health issue” – it’s a living, developing child that most likely will not cause health issues down the road for any woman.   Cosmetic “issues”, yes – but health issues, more often than not – no.

On the flip side, what is Planned Parenthood doing?  This outfit, famous world-wide for it’s so-called “commitment” to “women’s health issues like abortion and breast cancer”, demonizes and uses bullying tactics, including utilizing their powerful tools in the government (20+ Democrat Senators, for starters) to try and intimidate leading-breast-cancer researcher Komen into changing their minds. And in the midst of it all, their plan was clear and open: You don’t continue donating to us, we’ll work to try to make it to where you don’t get a dime of money from anyone.  Translation: No matter the good work you’ve done in the past, we’ll put you out of business.  Maybe your clients will then come see US, even though we don’t even PROVIDE mammograms and breast cancer screens!

It’s extremely important to understand how dangerous this was and is: They didn’t want people to stop donating to Komen because Komen had all of a sudden gone pro-life (they hadn’t), and they didn’t want people to stop donating to Komen because Komen was no longer offering breast cancer services (they still do).  They wanted people to stop donating to Komen – a word-leader in cancer research – because Komen wanted to stop giving money to them.

And if there’s anyone out there who doesn’t understand the distinction between boycotting an organization on an issues-basis versus urging people to boycott it because they’ve pulled some of your funding that you damn well know you can get elsewhere (yeah, PP already raised enough this week to take care of an entire year – roughly the amount they would get from Komen), then I really can’t help you.  Same same for anyone who doesn’t see the rank hypocrisy of a “women’s health” group like PP essentially trying to have shut down one of the premier providers of breast cancer treatment and research out of  pure, b*tchy spite.

Planned Parenthoood: “Pro-choice” – unless you’re a private organization that chooses to stop giving them money that make’s it easier for them to provide elective abortions.  Then it’s game on!   This week’s shameful actions by Planned Parenthood should tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about these parasites to decency and humanity – that is, if you didn’t know already.

Bill Whittle returns in Afterburner to skewer Our Betters on the Left (all bow) for on the one hand publicly proclaiming the evils of America and the free market while, on the other hand, making big profits from it.

Or maybe that should be two faces instead of two hands.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Encounter Books recently published “The Grand Jihad: how Islam and the Left sabotage America,” by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. It’s a book I highly recommend as a study not of the threat of terrorism, per se, but of the assault on the Western liberal tradition of tolerant, pluralist politics. It is a battle waged by political, legal, and cultural means, in which jihadist Islam and the secular Left are allies.

The following video, narrated by Bill Whittle, looks at one aspect of this struggle: the Muslim Brotherhood and the feckless response of the Obama administration.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) went on MSNBC’s “dog whistle” expert Martin Bashir’s show and unleashed an assault on freshman Rep. Allen West (R-FL) that focused exclusively on the unrelated subject of Congressman West’s African American heritage. Not only does he refer to the black congressman in terms of the African animal, the hyena, he ties the animal to its depiction in the “Lion King”. Both the movie and the play portrayed the hyenas as “jive-talking” (NPR) “gangstas” (Newsweek). If that wasn’t enough – yet unnoticed by Bashir who tried to falsely connect Andrew Breitbart to racism in an interview last year – Moran doubled and tripled down on his racist tirade – even challenging the black congressman’s black authenticity.

Will the Caucasian representative be held to the same standard of racial insensitivity by MSNBC’s team of racial hysterics led by Rev. Al Sharpton, Toure and a whole host of other progressive liberals who seek to stifle dissent by reflexively discovering racism in all political disagreement coming from the right?

I won’t hold my breath waiting for the Revs. Al and Jesse to come to West’s defense. Sickening. Absolutely sickening. Same same for MSNBC. Not surprised by any of this, but that doesn’t make it any easier to stomach.

Related/Prior:

• Profiles in how black conservatives are treated by “tolerant” black liberals

Phineas Butts-in: More Jim Moran goodness — “Let the President rule by decree!“