Day One

The first official ad of Mitt Romney’s campaign is here.  Take a look.

And while this may be the first official Romney ad, the PAC’s and think tanks have been at it for a while.  These are a couple of my favorite ads so far:

 

Posted in National Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

My Picks

Higher Education?

The Chronicle of Higher Education fires a writer for pointing out that most “black studies” courses are racist.  I guess this is what happens when you accurately quote liberals. Mob on the Quad

Video of the Week

Yeah, I’m sure most of you have already seen this.  But, it is such a good example of the stupidity of the Occupiers that it deserves to be seen again.

Disregard for the Law and Mob Rule

The larger implications of the Occupy Movement  Occupy and the Moral Infrastructure

How California Was Ruined

Good thing the President doesn’t want to run the country the exact same way!  The New Class Warfare

The End is Nigh

A short, but pointed summary of the disaster that is France The French Election

The Cleveland Five

A story that for some strange reason seems to bore the msm Homegrown Terrorists

Fact and Fiction of Voter Fraud

Yes, there is a very serious concern about voter fraud in 2012.  But, no, all is not lost.  Here are two links to help put things in perspective. Scytl: Fact and Fiction, Project Veritas (this is their homepage, which contains links to countless videos and articles about voter fraud), The SOSP and What it Really Does

Facts About Communism

It’s important to teach our kids what the things that they no longer learn in schools.  Facts Some Teachers Ignore

 

Posted in Links, What I'm Reading | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mitt Romney: Can He Do It?

Now that a little time has passed since the departure of Rick Santorum from the primary race, it is time to start dealing with the reality of Mitt Romney as our nominee.   No, he won’t get 100% of the vote from here on out.  Many conservatives will cast their vote for Gingrich, right up until the end, in an effort to keep Mitt Romney from getting too comfortable and to keep pushing him to the right.  And I think that’s probably a good idea.   2008 left those of us on the right with a bad taste in our mouths and we’re all a little afraid of jumping on board with the front-runner before it’s absolutely necessary.  At this point, the Gingrich vote is less about voting for a candidate than it is about saying to Mitt Romney, “I need you to show me a little bit more.” But after two primary contests, is there anything left for Romney to show us?  Is he doomed to be the candidate that only gets votes because Barack Obama is the alternative?  Or is there a plausible path to get people genuinely excited to vote for him?  I think that there is.  While I acknowledge that there is a real possibility of him “going McCain” on us this summer, I think that Mitt Romney has all of the necessary tools to be a great candidate.  He just has to use them.

First, we  should take a minute to acknowledge that Mitt Romney does have an awful lot of good qualities.  No, he was not my first, second, or even third choice, but that’s because we had an unusually large number of conservative candidates to choose from.  Let’s not forget that in 2008 we would have been thrilled with the primary results had Romney won.   On his worst day, Mitt Romney is 1,000% more conservative and less in love with being called a “maverick” than John McCain ever was.  Furthermore, the Mitt Romney of 2012 is more conservative than the Mitt Romney of 2008.  So, it may not be the outcome we were hoping for, but it isn’t all that bad either.  Mitt Romney is a better than average Republican candidate. The problem is that if he expects people, particularly younger people, to tell their friends to vote for him, he has to be better than average.  Like it or not, people want to be wowed now days.  I wish it weren’t so, but it is.  People voted for Barack Obama because they liked the way he made them feel.  That it is a game that Republicans can’t win. We don’t do feel good politics.  If Mitt Romney wants to excite people he must do it by contrasting the empty promises and abysmal record of the President with his own real life successes.

The key to the general election always starts with your own party.  But, I think we can safely skip the “uniting the party” step that usually follows a primary and move straight to the part about getting them fired up.  Yes, this was a tough and divisive primary, but Barack Obama is so unpalatable to Republican voters that it wouldn’t matter who they ran. People who typically vote Republican would sooner vote for Charlie Sheen than for Barack Obama.  We don’t need to be brought back into the fold.  We’ll vote for Romney when the time comes.  But he still must find a way to get us excited to vote for him.   While it’s true that a this-guy-will-do vote counts as much as a vote cast by a die-hard supporter, an enthusiasm gap does translate into fewer votes overall.  There are those who plan on voting, but a rainy day or a last-minute trip to the grocery store is enough to make them decide to just sit this one out. “What’s one vote?” they might say.  But statistics show that when voters aren’t excited, a lot of people decide that their one vote doesn’t matter.  Historically, low voter turn out favors the incumbent, which would be bad news for the Republicans.  Furthermore, if Mitt Romney plans on swaying the people who are still on the fence, he needs to get their Republican friends and neighbors excited enough to talk about him.  Saying that “at least he’s not Obama” won’t fly with people who still think the President is a nice enough guy.  He needs to get the voters who are already in his corner to go out and say, “You have to listen to this guy.  He’s got great ideas and he knows what he’s talking about.”  As of right now, that isn’t happening.

Step one is to get the most vocal corner of the Republican party, the conservatives, fired up.  Aside from RomneyCare, Mitt Romney doesn’t have any glaring policy issues that would give right-wing voters a cause for concern.  Yes he’s flip-flopped, but he’s always flipped to a more conservative position and isn’t known for flipping back. In fact, it’s probably more fair to say that he’s grown more conservative over the years than to say that he flip-flops.  His problem is that even after years of being “severely conservative,” he hasn’t developed an instinct for conservatism.  He often hesitates to embrace the more conservative option until someone else pushes the issue.  Whether it is the individual mandate, Cap and Trade, or even abortion, Mitt Romney took the scenic route to the “right” position.  Wouldn’t it be nice to see him take our side right from the jump?  This summer, he must find a way to show that he can quickly take the lead on any issue that comes up.  Jumping on a hot news story with a passionately conservative position would go a long way to get people on our side excited. Between now and election time he must look for opportunities to be the first voice to respond to breaking news.  Just repeating what he heard some other conservative say won’t cut it he needs to be the originator of his position.  If he demonstrates an instinct for conservative ideas, 90% of the hesitation of Tea Party voters would melt away.  Unlike John McCain, who time and time again abandoned conservatives to “reach across the aisle,”  Mitt Romney is pretty reliable once he settles on a more right-wing position.  We just wish it didn’t take him so long to get there.

His other issue with the base is that he is having a bit of an image crisis.  Is he a true conservative who occasionally puts his foot in his mouth because he has spent too much time among the moderates of Massachusetts or is he a “Rockefeller Republican” who feigns conservatism to get votes?  I think his record shows that it isn’t all an act, but all that matters is that when he talks about his passion for conservative values, he sounds like he’s just been coached by someone who read a book on conservatives without ever actually meeting one.   The most obvious example being that he describes himself as “severely conservative.”  People on the right don’t describe themselves that way.  We don’t think there is anything severe about our beliefs, liberals think that.  It would be like President Obama calling himself  “spinelessly liberal.” He repeatedly falls into the trap of using left-wing language to explain policies.  He even does it when he’s talking about himself!   And I think that’s what lays at the heart of his image crisis.  He oftentimes employs liberal political language to downplay his own success.  And it’s really a shame that he is so uncomfortable with himself because he has a lot to offer.  Mitt Romney’s life should serve as a shining example of the sort of success that is possible with right-wing  policies. The guy is a walking talking tribute to the free market system.  His economic knowledge and business experience alone should make him a shoe-in for President, if only he didn’t act like he was so darned ashamed of them.  Like saying that he would “make sure the top 1% keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more.”  Why, when the President is trying to paint him as part of the evil elitists that comprise the “1%,” would he even acknowledge the 1% vs. 99% nonsense?  Mitt Romney’s life is an inspirational story.   Playing into the “rich people don’t pay their fair share” argument is a cheap ploy used by Democrats to drive emotional malcontents to the ballot box.   Every time Mitt Romney pretends that he too is worried about the wealth gap, he misses a wonderful opportunity to explain true capitalism.  If he did that, Republican voters could point to him as the perfect example that conservative principles both in business and life are a recipe for success.  But instead of highlighting what is perhaps his best qualification for President, he pretends to buy into the Wall St. vs. Main St. propaganda because he thinks it will make him more likeable.  Unfortunately for him, it just makes him seem ridiculous.  He’s like one of those moguls with the bad wigs on Undercover Boss.  Guess what Mitt? You don’t fit in with most of us and you never will.  But that’s OK because we’re electing a President not a new best friend.  I don’t want a President who’s just like me.  I want a President who has enough knowledge and experience to help turn things around.  And Mitt Romney has that, if only he weren’t afraid to tell people about it.

Which brings me to my next point.  If Mitt Romney got a little bolder in his policies and was a little more willing to talk about his success, swaying Independents would be easy.  Just like in his quest to excite conservative Republicans, his first job is to stop acting like something he is not.  Not just because it comes off as insincere, but because he puts his foot in his mouth every time he does it.  Bad jokes about bakeries, factories, and his father’s campaign days all stemmed from his relentless attempts to come off as a slightly cooler and funnier version of himself. But why try to be cool and funny when he is genuinely smart? Isn’t that a more important quality? He is considerably more intelligent than his recent string of gaffes would lead us to believe.  He just has to stick to what he knows. He is not a typical working class guy.  He is an exceptionally wealthy man who made his fortune with hard work, sound investments, and fiscal responsibility.  He is not particularly funny.  He is a stiff dork who tells bad jokes, but, hey, that’s what we expect from financial geniuses. Not too many people have funny accountants.  He is not cool, at all.  He is a squeaky clean candidate without so much as a whisper of scandal in his past.  Think about how rare that is.  No DUI’s, no rape/sexual harassment accusations, no rumors of affairs, no cocaine use, no communist mentors, no terrorist friends.  The worst thing anyone has accused him of is improperly transporting his dog during a 1983 family vacation.   Let the other guy be the “cool” candidate, because he’s really bad at everything else.  Mitt Romney should be the smart and responsible candidate.  After all, having Saturday Night Live paint you as a dork is way better than having everyone else perceive you as an idiot.

Finally, after watching the primary debates, we can probably rule out one more thing about Mitt Romney’s character.  He is not, by nature, a push-over.  Even when I personally disagreed with him, I must admit that he wasn’t afraid to go toe-to-toe with other Republicans. He used every resource at his disposal to showcase his own strengths and expose his opponents shortcomings.  His reputation among past GOP contenders in 2008 as well as this year is that of a ruthless competitor.  That says, to me, that if we see him start to play the Obama-is-a-nice-guy-and-I’m-not-going-to-attack-him routine this year, that he is once again trying to appear to be something he is not. I’m not saying that I want to see him play dirty politics or distort the truth, I don’t.  But I would like to see him run for President in an honorable way without looking like he decided to run for Mr. Congeniality instead.  And he’s off to a good start.  When he speaks of the President he has been more forceful and bold than we’ve seen him be in the past.  But this new-found willingness to attack Democrats, can’t be a tactic just to get him through the rest of the primary.  If he gives in to pressure to reinvent himself as a happy-go-lucky moderate for the summer, he will lose big time.  He must show swing voters that his ideas aren’t just good enough, they are good enough to warrant a passionate defense.

President Obama’s first term has been one of the most polarizing in recent history.  It’s hard to imagine that there are still some people on the fence, but there are.  If Mitt Romney plans on winning those votes, he won’t do it with subtlety.  Most swing voters don’t follow politics all that closely.  He has to get their attention.  He won’t get it with an emotional appeal.  President Obama owns that game. He has to win by being direct and unapologetic.  He has to demonstrate, not that he is a slightly better choice, but that he is the only choice!  He has to boldly show that the President’s promises are hollow and his policies have failed.  He has to be willing to expose President Obama as an empty suit who relies on a hip image and emotional pandering to get votes, while showing himself to be the opposite.  A clean-cut, kinda dorky guy who is very smart, very successful and has lots of good ideas for our country now and in the future.  In other words, a winning campaign for Mitt Romney needs to be the exact opposite of what we’ve come to expect. He needs less coaching, fewer image consultants, and a lot less restraint.  He has everything it takes to win and win big, he just has to stop trying so hard to hide it.

Posted in Articles, National Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

How Do You Feel About Santorum Dropping Out?

I, for one, was sad to hear that Rick Santorum was dropping out of the race.  I knew it was a long shot, but I liked seeing him in there.  So I want to know what you think.  Was it time for him to drop out?  Or should he have hung in a bit longer?

Posted in Polls | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Video Pick of the Week

This video demonstrates just how hateful and ridiculous the New Black Panther Party is.  Remember, this guy is their spokesman which implies that the other members actually got together and decided that he was the best person to put in front of the cameras. 

Posted in National Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

My Picks

Vet the President, Vet the Media

Last week, we all assumed that CNN’s Soledad O’Brien was in the early stages of some sort of psychotic break.  But after looking at her background, it turns out she’s just a liberal.  What’s the Matter with Soledad O’Brien?

Dominating the Skies and Keeping Our Pilots Safe

A look at the new standard in defense, In Defense of Drones

Al Sharpton, World-Class Hypocrite

If there is one person who should never, ever, ever criticize someone for careless speech it’s Reverend Al  Where’s Sharpton’s Apology?

Attack  of the Hysterical Feminists

Self-appointed women’s expert Sandra Fluke is doing her part to fan the flames of ignorant panic.  In this article, Ann Coulter calls her on it Who is Sandra Fluke?.

It’s Never a Dead Issue

Just about the time that liberals have the public convinced that social issues are a loser for conservatives, another poll comes out and proves them wrong Social Issues on Track to Matter

Be Careful What You Wish For

Ignoring the Constitution means redefining the term President.  This author asks, ” Why does the left want a king?”

 

Posted in Links, What I'm Reading | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is It Time for Gingrich to Drop Out?

OK, I like Gingrich as a candidate.  He’s amazing as a debater and some of his ideas, like his plan to reform Social Security, are the most exciting and inventive proposals out there. But a combination of hefty personal and political baggage (not to mention a healthy dose of exaggeration from Team Romney) and a poorly run campaign have left him lagging behind the top two candidates.  Rick Santorum, on the other hand, went from being the guy that every conservative really liked but didn’t think stood a chance of beating Romney to being the guy that we really like who also has the best chance of beating Mitt Romney.  So, should Newt Gingrich drop out for the sake of the conservative movement?  Or, if he is convinced that he is the best candidate, should he stay in at all costs?  I want to know what you think.

Posted in Polls | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Here We Go Again

So now we finally know what this election cycle’s Republicans-are-out-to-get-you campaign of hysteria will focus on, “women’s reproductive rights.”  It’s funny because as abortion has grown less popular in public opinion and the pro-life/personhood movement has grown more popular, Democrats have assured us that social issues don’t matter anymore.  They said that it was a dead issue no one cared about.  But in a race where the incumbent can’t run on his record and the media can’t recreate the mania that carried him into the White House, the left needs a boogie man.  When they were sure that Mitt Romney was going to be the nominee, they focused on the imaginary fight between Wall Street and Main Street, the 1% vs. the 99%.   But as Rick Santorum has emerged as a real contender for the Presidency, suddenly, liberals decided that the economy wasn’t so important after all.  By their calculations, the markets will be looking super-awesome by the end of the year anyways. So, why worry about it?  Now, after years of telling us that no one cares, Democrats have rediscovered a passion for social issues. Or, to put it more honestly, they have pounced on an opportunity to make wild accusations and whip the public into a frenzy of ignorance. It’s all over the news: evil, rich, white, Christian men are trying to put women in their place. They want a ban on condoms and are encouraging doctors to perform cruel tests on any woman who dares to exercise her “right to family planning.”  It should be obvious that such claims are not even remotely connected to reality, but the Democrats have managed to convince a large portion of the public that this is indeed true.  They believe that they will be able to ride this wave right through the 2012 election.  And if Republicans continue to merely play defense or avoid the topic all together, they will.  But it needn’t be so.  Democrats are the ones with radical views on these issues and if conservative politicians would merely explain the facts, the voters would see that.

If you have turned on the TV or plugged into any sort of social media in the last week, you were probably bombarded with hysterical claims like this one from the Coalition to Protect Women’s Health “This past Thursday, women all over the country saw the Republicans mount an all-out war on reproductive freedom.”  Then, you were asked to sign something to protect “women’s health.”  These sites are filled with nonsense rantings about politicians and churches teaming up to stop female access to medicine. And what’s worse, judging from the comments floating around on Twitter, many people have accepted these claims at face value.  They actually believe that Republicans are currently engaged in some sort of battle to end contraceptive use and make sure that all women are barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.  It’s actually pretty sad, especially when you consider just how easy it is to expose these lies.  For one thing, no one, I repeat no one (not even Rick Santorum) in the Republican party has shown even the mildest interest in banning contraceptives.  No one.  The hearings in regards to the contraceptive mandate are about whether or not we ought to be required to provide contraception, including abortifacients, at no cost to the user.  It has nothing to do with stopping the distribution of birth control pills, nothing to do with forcing religion on people, and absolutely nothing to do with a battle between men and women.  Those claims are nothing more than an attempt to confuse and frighten people, particularly those people who are prone to repeating catchy little sayings without giving them much thought.  For example, in the last two weeks how many people have you heard say, “men get Viagra, and we just want equal rights?” The two issues aren’t even remotely related.  Viagra corrects a part of the body that isn’t working properly, birth control does not.  More importantly, the government doesn’t demand that insurance companies provide Viagra with no copay.  Clearly, equal rights is the last thing feminists want in this debate.  It’s all a smoke screen.  The real issue surrounding this dispute can be broken down into a simple question.  Can the government a.) force an employer to violate his religious beliefs and b.) force the public to provide an elective prescription at no cost to the user?

One of the ways this issue has become so distorted, is with stats like this one: “Two Thirds of Americans (67%) think that a women’s choice is more important than her employer’s.”  The problem is, that is a remarkably misleading statement.  No one is suggesting that a “women’s choice” ought to be turned over to her employer.  No one is suggesting that an employer can force “his religion on a woman’s body.”  But what we are suggesting is that no one has the right to force their wants onto the employer.  A business does not exist to provide workers with every one of their heart’s desires.  A business exists to make a profit.  The employer takes the risk of investing in a company.  He spends the time growing that company.  He may then choose to offer payment and benefits to others who wish to seek employment there.  If someone wants more than what he offers or they want something that he is morally opposed to, he can either negotiate or tell the applicant to take a hike.  Yes, we have a few labor restrictions like minimum wage, but allowing employees, even empowered feminist employees, to demand that an employer pay for something just because they want sets a dangerous precedent.  Now, mix in a violation of his right to free religious exercise and you have a downright terrifying precedent.

Secondly, there is no such thing as “free contraceptives.”  Someone has to pay for it.  And by someone, I mean everyone.  The idea that all of us should be forced into an expensive insurance program to cover someone else’s copay for an elective prescriptions is outrageous.  You can’t get a prescription for heart medication without a copay! There’s no logical reason to do this.  Liberals like to use bogus stats like “98% of sexually active women use contraceptives,” and then turn around and tell us that women don’t have access to birth control!  Even if it were true that many women can’t afford any sort of birth control ( which it isn’t), that doesn’t mean that he rest of us have an obligation to buy it for them.  Legally, I have the “right” to spend my weekends gambling into the wee hours of the morning at a casino.  However, I don’t gamble because I can’t afford to lose.  Does that mean that the public should be forced to pay for gambler’s insurance  so that I can exercise my legal right to waste money without fear of the consequences?  Of course not. How about if everyone was forced to pay for gym memberships for those of us who wish we could eat lots of chocolate without getting fat? Hey, it’s my right to eat chocolate.  Don’t try to force your diet on me, just give me the money for the gym membership!  It sounds silly, but it’s no different from what we are fighting about in the contraceptives mandate. Just because you have the right to engage in certain behaviors doesn’t mean that the public has a financial obligation to shield you from the risks of those choices.  If you don’t want a child and you can’t afford contraceptives, you have a decision to make.  Gamble or abstain, it’s your call.

The second source of the if-men-could-get-pregnant-this-wouldn’t-be-happening frenzy, is the new Virgina law which would require an ultrasound before an abortion takes place.  I have written before about conservatives unwillingness to address the issue of abortion head-on.  We are often so afraid of seeming cold and uncaring that we hesitate to defend the one truly compassionate position, the one that protects innocent life.  But the issue of requiring an ultrasound before an abortion takes place, should be a no-brainer.  The law requires that a woman be given an ultrasound and shown the images before she goes through with an abortion. Studies show that 80% of women who are planning on aborting their babies, change their mind when they see an ultrasound (claims that a woman doesn’t change her mind after an ultrasound include ones only the doctor sees).  Anyone who has ever had a surgical procedure of any kind knows that there is always an extensive testing and prescreening phase.  If 80% of the people going through a prescreening for an appendectomy decided it wasn’t necessary, we would hold that test in high regard. Hasn’t the President told us we need to stop unnecessary medical procedures?  Didn’t he even say that we should be giving old people pain pills instead of  life-saving operations? Why then is an ultrasound that discourages people from an elective procedure a bad thing?
Besides, even if no one changed their mind, it has always been an excepted principle that nobody should ever undergo any surgery without having the procedure explained in detail, X-rays and all.   Imagine if you saw a doctor for lump under your skin and he immediately said “give me $350 in cash and I will take care of this thing before lunch time.”  Every alarm bell in your head would be sounding.   What is it? Is it a tumor? Where is it? Is it cancerous?  What kind of surgery? Shouldn’t I be given a day to think it over? Why is this guy pushing for surgery before we’ve had a real in-depth discussion? You would assume that the doctor was either a quack or a scam-artist.  That’s not how medicine works.   We expect a doctor to tell us exactly what he’s doing, where he’s doing it, how he’s doing it, what the effects will be, and what the alternatives are. The idea that it is somehow cruel to require a “physician” to fully explain exactly what he will be removing from a woman during her scheduled abortion is ludicrous.  Liberals have always claimed that this is nothing more than a routine medical procedure, like getting a mole removed.  Why then are we told not to talk about it, not to explain it, and for goodness sakes not to show anyone what is about to happen?  Instead of letting them paint this as some outlandish and punitive requirement, our leaders ought to be out there demanding that they answer that very question.  If you want to call it a medical procedure than why can’t we treat it like one? And the distortions don’t end there.  The left has not confined themselves to phony outrage over doctors providing women with information, they’ve also thrown around laughable exaggerations of the intrusive nature of these ultrasounds. Dahlia Lithwick of Slate Magazine, claimed that the bill requires a transvaginal ultrasound and such forced “penetration” would “constitute rape.”  Her article went on to be quoted by every liberal in the U.S. including pundits on major news networks and the web pages of activist groups like Think Progress.  Nevermind the fact that her original article had a list of corrections added to the bottom including a note that under no definition of rape does this qualify as “state-sanctioned rape,” the press took her analysis and ran with it. “What is this, the Taliban now?,” asked Joy Behar (Yes Joy, it’s the Taliban.  Except for the part where they stone women instead of giving them x-rays).  First of all, the bill makes no requirement as to which type of ultrasound is to be used.  Second, the procedure is voluntary.  No one is forcing these women to have an abortion.  And I hate to be graphic, but the small probe used to capture images in an ultrasound is nothing compared to the intrusive nature of  the vacuum hose used to suck out a baby.  Thirdly, almost all abortionists, including those working for Planned Parenthood, already require an ultrasound before they begin the procedure.  They must determine the size and age of the baby before they can know which method will be most effective in killing it.  The difference is that they don’t typically show the ultrasound to the mother.  Again, I ask if you have ever had an ultrasound or an X-ray for so much as a sprained ankle without the doctor showing you the results?  The fact is, abortion enthusiasts know that the more informed people are about abortion, the less they think it’s just like getting a wart removed.  The fury coming from the left is not about respecting “a women’s right to make an informed decision with her doctor.”  It is about keeping frightened and vulnerable mothers in the dark so that abortionists can keep the cash flowing.

Republican politicians, particularly those who ran on a conservative platform, have to stop avoiding an honest discussion on these issues.  In the mid 90′s, the country was overwhelmingly pro-abortion.   Today, thanks in large part to greater access to information about the realities of abortion, the American voters are pro-life by about a 10 point margin.  The Democrats can’t afford to run as just the pro-choice party anymore because abortion grows less popular all the time.  Instead, they have to paint the other side as the anti-women party. Yes, it’s irritating, but if minds were changed by exposing the truth about abortion, then more can be changed by speaking candidly about these social issues.  This is why conservative politicians can’t let these distortions go unchallenged.  No, we don’t want women to be punished for their “mistakes” for the rest of their lives.  Forgetting to carry the one on your math test is a mistake, backing the car over the garbage can is a mistake.  Sleeping with someone who you don’t think of as father material at a time when you’re not all that into the “mom thing,” is a choice.   It’s not as though you thought you were baking a cake, but read the recipe wrong and ended up pregnant.  It was a choice.  Likewise, using birth control is a choice.  If you want it, you are legally free to buy it.  But no one is obligated to buy it for you just because you want it.  These are the arguments that we should be making.  When liberals start the “my body, my choice” mantra, we ought to say “Yes, it’s your body, your choice, your consequences.” Most Americans believe that no one should have to pay for someone else’s choice to engage in risky behavior.  They don’t believe that an unborn baby should pay for the choices of his parents and they certainly don’t think that they themselves should have to pay for the choices of a stranger. If Republicans really want to win Independents and conservative Democrats, than they shouldn’t run away from this issue.  They should boldly state their views. Doctors have an obligation to keep their patients informed, business owners have the same right to religious freedom as the rest of us, and those who make risky decisions can’t demand that  society pay for them.  It’s not a radical message.  It’s not even a very exciting message.  It’s just common sense.  And there is nothing that liberal Democrats fear more than the American electorate getting a big old dose of common sense.


Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

My Picks

Tim Geithner defends his budget proposal by admitting it won’t work

Planned Parenthood and Your Kids

Fair warning: this is a graphic video, but if you still don’t understand why we must defund Planned Parenthood, this is the reason  What PP is Teaching Your Kids

Media Matters Scandal

If you haven’t been following this, you should.  The Daily Caller has pulled back the curtain in Inside Media Matters

What War on Women?

A good look at the left’s latest hysterical lies  Kulturkampf as Public Health

The Prez’s New War on Terror Strategy

Apparently, the President has decided that the best way to fight Islamic terrorists is to pretend they don’t exist.  Obama Purges FBI Files

Obama’s Cynicism

Now that the President has boldly declared his opposition to “cynicism,”  this author asks “Who’s the real cynic?”  For Me, Not for Thee

Foreign Courts

Another reason why we should be on guard when an American judge says they look to foreign courts for guidance  The Rise and Fall of Judge Baltasar Garzon

Posted in Links, What I'm Reading | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Is The Santorum Surge For Real?

After Tuesday’s sweep, many believe that it is Rick Santorum’s turn to rise to the head of the race.  What do you think?  Is he now Mitt Romney’s biggest competitor?  Or did the lack of delegates make Tuesday’s vote irrelevant?

Posted in Polls | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment