SquarePOST by SquareWON.org

You are currently browsing the archive for the Liberals category.

The murder of Dr. George Tiller will likely incite a great deal of discussion in the coming week. Many will state their opinions, debate, and make judgments. As you find yourself weaving in and out of these discussions make sure that two truths are always recognized: Dr. Tiller was a despicable person, and so is his assailant.

Dr. Tiller represents the worst in American society. He was blessed with the necessary talents to become a physician. However, instead of using those talents to enrich, protect, and heal people, he did the opposite. Unlike noble physicians who save lives, he destroyed them. He is responsible for many deaths, and he made a killing off of it. Being one of the few doctors who performed partial-birth abortions, Dr. Tiller was happy to kill anyone’s baby regardless of its viability so long as the woman was healthy enough and wealthy enough for an abortion. He, like all abortionists, was a stain on the medical profession, and his practices were more than worthy of protest and condemnation.

His assailant’s actions are equally worthy of protest and condemnation. He is just as bad as Tiller. He may claim he is saving lives, but he is no martyr. He represents the difference between simply being against abortion and pro-life. He is not a member of the pro-life movement because what he did is inherently contradicts those positions. The pro-life stance is an ethical based on a number of principles. One of those principles is that “ends never justify the means.” Even if Tiller’s death saves life in the short term, which it may not, it was procured through immoral and unjust means, which undermines the pro-life movement.

In fact, Tiller’s death is as tragic for the pro-life movement as the abortions that he profited from. First and foremost, it adds to the death count of born and unborn lives. Second, it makes the pro-life movement appear to be extreme because of improper connections between the pro-life movement and the assailant. As a result of this killing, people will unreasonably paint opponents of abortion with a broad brush and take abortion related violence out of context. Although abortion clinics and abortion providers are frequently protested, abortion related violence in America has only claimed nine lives[1]. While this is nine too many, it shows that 99.9% of the people who oppose abortion in America are not violent—like Tiller’s assailant. In truth, the pro-life movement condemns anyone who kills an innocent life. Thus, we condemn both Tiller and his assailant.

As a child, I remember having discussions which sometimes led to arguments over the popular topic of the moment. Without change, both sides of the discussion would be firm in their views until the decisive answer was handed down by a parent or an encyclopedia. That was pre-Google, if any of us can recall those days. It was a time when encyclopedia britannicas, not wikipedia, resolved disputes.

When no adults were available, or a vastly over-priced collection of books wasn’t handy, you had to end the dispute along a defined line of responses. ‘We agree to disagree,’ ‘whatever (thanks to Saved By The Bell),’ ‘think what you want to think but I KNOW I’m right,’ ‘Nuh-uhhhhhh,’ or the ever popular, ‘it’s science,’ would make the short list for common final arguments. All juvenile, and all were based on pride and lacking in facts. The ‘it’s science’ response was my favorite because it was an attempt to establish a certain fact out of the clear, blue sky.

When one side couldn’t successfully argue their way to the finish line, they would attempt to bludgeon the other side into submission by suggesting that the facts were on their side and any resistance was futile.

I was reminded of this argument today when reading through Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) comments at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China. She was speaking on the issue of “climate change,” a subtle, clever phrase shift away from “global warming” which suffers from a dwindling population of legitimate proponents in the scientific community. Speaker Pelosi began her comments to the gathered crowd by saying, “we are all in this together.” She hammered her point home by saying that goverments “should make decisions and choices based on science.”

She went on to deliver a dizzying array of comments, too scatter-shot and thoughtless for me to cover in this post. Some of the gems [read: eggs] she laid included: “The impact of climate change is a tremendous risk to the security and well-being of our countries;” “They also have to do it with openness, transparency and accountability to the people;” “everyone has to have their situation improved by it;” and “I do see this opportunity for climate change to be … a game-changer.”

As for my obviously differing view on the issue of “climate change,” they have zero argument from me that we should take ownership of our actions and be conservatives when it comes to the environment. Where Pelosi and Co. lose me and a large portion of the population is when they politicize and polarize the issue on the basis of incomplete information, all in the name of “science.” It is an intimation that we are to bow at the alter of “science” and adjust EVERY aspect of our lives on the basis thereof.

This begs a painfully obvious question: how do we account for errors, agendas, and a lack of information with regard to this science? Make no mistake, this argument isn’t, ‘we don’t have all the information, so we shouldn’t act,’ rather I am saying that we should preserve our “well-being” by avoiding costly jaunts into a green economy without any significant return on investment, and look upon the Al Gores and Nancy Pelosis of the world with a politically skeptical eye.

Instead of heavy-handed suggestions that we let climatologists determine what is best for our countries, economies, and personal lives, all under the basic argument that ‘it’s science,’ shouldn’t we be having a rational, non-political discussion about the environment? I suppose that is too much to ask for with the stellar leadership of House Speaker Pelosi. What do you think?

Don’t you just love it when a person is hell-bent on attacking another and they end up under a mountain of criticism? Well, that philosophy may not appear in the Bible, but it has been entertaining to watch Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) taking it on the chin over what she did or did not know regarding enhanced interrogation techniques at Gitmo. As an observer, one has to wonder how she could take the largest cannon in the liberal arsenal and turn it on herself in less than a week. It is doubtful whether Pelosi will be effective in her current roll going forward, and that is to say nothing of her fumbling the last best chance to demoralize Repubs over waterboarding.

Maybe U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) was correct when he called Pelosi, “Tom Delay in a skirt.” Though such a comparison was meant to demonstrate how heavy-handed and politically isolated both have been, the latest comparison is that both are obvious liabilities to their respective parties. I recall hearing Tom Delay’s desperate attempts to salvage his position as House Speaker and thinking, ‘this guy has lost it.’ Well, after watching Pelosi’s PR nightmare that has become a circus side-show, I thought to myself, ‘this lady has lost it.’

What was most surprising was to see Leon Panetta, the CIA Director, who is a former U.S. Congressman from California, and former White House Chief of Staff for President Clinton, push back against Pelosi’s suggestions that the CIA lied to her. Yesterday, he stated, “If they start to use these issues as political clubs to beat each other up with, that’s when we not only pay a price but this country pays a price.” In short, Pelosi has walked the political plank and has run out of options for backing out of the situation. This will not end up in a resignation, because, well, liberals don’t do that. At least, she won’t be jumping off the plank until Obama gives the green light, something that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Now, that dirty word “waterboarding” has been defanged and it leaves the retributive ultra-lib electorate feeling disappointment over Pelosi’s behavior. They will surely continue to push for “truth-commissions,” a concept that sounds like a grand inquisition.

With Pelosi down but not out, I wouldn’t expect her to be so attacking in the foreseeable future. Perhaps, I’m wrong, in which case she would continue to draw parallels between herself and Tom Delay. That is something that likely makes Dems everywhere cringe.

Dear President Obama and Wanda Sykes:

I would like to take a brief moment to say thank you for your performances at the White House Correspondence Association dinner. You may think that this is an attempt at sarcasm; however, there is nothing further from the truth. To explain the reasoning for my gratefulness, allow me to defer to great minds from the past.

First, Frederick Douglass said, “I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence.” True to your liberal tendencies, you both chose to focus, not on specific issues, but rather emotion to portray your political feelings. In stark contrast, those who you ridiculed, take strong positions on controversial issues regardless of what their opponents think. For this, I say thank you to the both of you for allowing conservatives the esteemed opportunity to be true even in the face of your ridicule. We will stand strong and will not waver on our issues regardless of your feeble attempt at opposition.

Second, Oscar Wilde, said, “Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities.” Thank you, therefore, not only for the compliments paid through your ridicule but also for placing yourself in the position that should be justly afforded to you.

Finally, Louisa May Alcott said, “Let my name stand among those who are willing to bear ridicule and reproach for the truth’s sake, and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won.” Therefore, most importantly, thank you President Obama and Ms. Sykes for giving conservatives yet another reason to celebrate our return to power and liberals’ defeat in the quickly approaching 2010 elections.

Yours truly,

C.Dodgson

I interrupt my series of articles on why illegal immigration hurts America to discuss a politician who has no principles except that of protecting his own political career—the exact opposite of public service. This article is about the recent change of Arlen Specter from Republican to Democrat Senator. My other fellow SquarePost-ers have weighed in, and I will also.

As most folks know by now, Benedict Arnold was general to George Washington in the Revolutionary War; he left and betrayed the American principles to support the British. The name has come to stand for a high level of betrayal.

Senator Arlen Specter’s recent party change from Republican to Democrat, while explained in language that seems like it had to be done, is nothing more than a high level of betrayal. And the sickening thing about it is he, by his own words, did it for selfish pride.

Specter’s reasons or defenses for this are: (1) that while he came in the Republican party under the Ronald Reagan “Big Tent,” the Republican Party has drifted to the right, and (2) polls of his state reveal his unpopularity and he is not going to let his 29 year Senate career be based on the voters of the Republican primary. This explanation is, plain and simple, wrong. Here’s why.

Just a brief comparison of the party platforms of 1860 (the first year the Republican Party existed; available here) , 1980 (Reagan’s first year; available here), and 2008 (the most recent Republican Party platform; available here) shows that the party has not moved; Specter is dead wrong. While each platform obviously reflects the issues facing the nation at each different time period, the approach to solving these issues and the goals of the platforms all center around (1) inalienable rights given by God, (2) limited government power, (3) low taxes, and (4) personal responsibility. In the 1860’s the issues were trade and slavery; in the 1980’s the issue were the Cold War and abortion; in 2008 it was the war on terror, social program spending, the economy, abortion, and traditional marriage. And the Democratic opposition was against these core values each time. In the 1860s the Democratic Party was pro-slavery, it has always been a tax-and-spend party; has no problem with the “government is the solution to our problems” approach, which has the result of giving people “fish,” creating a nation of dependent people, rather than independent responsible people.

For the Republican Party, while the issues change, the approach to the issues remains the same. Republicans believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution provide for inalienable rights, a limited federal government, that government is not the answer to all our problems, and that people are over the government, not the other way around. These ideas also form our solutions: we are for the rights of the unborn; allowing people to keep more tax money so that social programs come from people who care—churches and private civic groups who always [read: forever] are more efficient than government programs; handing people fish [read: constant social welfare dependency] is never as effective as teaching people how to fish [read: training folks to be independent]; and that government spending should be like household spending—that is, you don’t spend what you don’t have, and you don’t hike taxes on folks in Texas to pay for bridges in Pennsylvania.

So Specter has no truth in his claim that the Republican Party has moved to the right; but what about his other reason: his 29-year Senate career? In his press release, he wrote:

In the course of the last several months since the stimulus vote I have traveled the state, surveyed the sentiments of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania, done public opinion polls, observed other public opinion polls and have found that the prospects for winning the Republican primary are bleak. I am not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.

Basically he is writing that because the people of Pennsylvania are voting more Democratic, his principles must change. This, from the standpoint of the Christian public servant, is sickening. Two examples come to mind. First is that of Cincinnatus, who became a public servant in Rome only to lay down the “reins” of leadership when he was no longer needed. When he ruled, it was on his principles and only so long as the people asked him to be there. When his time was done, he went back to farming.

The best example though, by far, comes from Jesus, both in word and deed. In Luke 22, Jesus told his disciples he would be gone. “Within minutes they were bickering over who of them would end up the greatest. But Jesus intervened: ‘Kings like to throw their weight around and people in authority like to give themselves fancy titles. It’s not going to be that way with you. Let the senior among you become like the junior; let the leader act the part of the servant.’” (The Message Version) Specter is acting like the disciples, concerned about his place and position, leaving behind a set of core values which are supposed to animate everything he does for his own self interest and self gain, so he can hold onto the “title” of Senator no matter what.

And Specter admitted this. His only guiding principle is not serving others, but serving himself. He remarked, “No, I’m putting principle at the top of the list. The principles that I subscribe to are my independence, which I will retain regardless of party label.” Who knows how he will vote? Independence is good, because you can stick to your principles. But when your only principle is yourself, you will in the end bow down to and worship yourself through greed, envy, and pride—the desires that corrupt our hearts, instead worshiping God through compassion, service to others, and selflessness—the desires that make the world a better place.

After yesterday’s confirmation of the not-so-secret fact that Senator Arlen Specter (R errr D-PA) is in fact a liberal, many people on both sides of the political spectrum began to weigh in with their thoughts. I, for one, gleefully say, “good riddance,” as my fellow contributor, JeffG, stated yesterday. If the Republicans were to ever differentiate themselves from the liberal tsunami of governance that is rolling across the country, then Sen. Specter had to find his way to the other side of the aisle with a helpful shove. Though Sen. Specter stated that this was about principles and not about politics, I wonder if he saw the freight train called Pat Toomey through his windshield. According to Rasmussen Reports, Specter was polling 20 points behind Toomey for the 2010 senatorial race (30% Specter/ 51% Toomey), and 55% of Pennsylvanians held an unfavorable view of Specter.

Some people are tripping over themselves screaming about a supermajority for the Democrats. While the Democrats are now technically filibuster-proof, they shouldn’t put on that Teflon suit just yet. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), who is the current Senate Majority Leader stated that his reason for not removing Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) from his chairmanship in committees after supporting John McCain’s run for president had more to do with “counting votes” than with forgiveness.

Now, hasn’t Reid already been counting Specter’s vote anyway, ehhh hmmm… Stimulus Bill, anyone? Also, now that Specter has made it official that he is, in fact, a liberal, doesn’t that make Lieberman a bit of a lame duck senator? Mid-term senators who become lame ducks are rare birds, indeed (pardon the pun). One wonders whether Lieberman will continue to caucus with the Democrats now that he is no longer needed. Further, one wonders whether Lieberman will want to be part of the supermajority knowing what that means for the political future of the Democrats in the Senate.

But what does this mean for Democrats in the Senate? Ask, Jim Martin.

Mr. Martin ran a very successful campaign against incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss in Georgia. Martin was able to ride the political wave (or Obama’s coattails, whichever you prefer) to force Chambliss into a run-off. However, this run-off election was all about whether Georgians were willing to send Martin to the Senate and solidify the supermajority for the Democrats. In a rout, Chambliss beat Martin by 14.8% in the run-off, after a general election which was separated by a mere 3%. This sudden change in the political sea-level possibly signaled the end of the broad support for giving Democrats any additional control. Now that we are in year three of the Democrat-controlled Congress, it will be a tall order to blame former President Bush for any problems in the 2010 Congressional elections.

Lieberman may sense this change and will likely be approached to consider either caucusing with Republicans or officially switching to the Republican party. Further, once the supermajority machine gets cranked up and running, meaningful debate will go the way of the dinosaurs. This will place all public political disapproval squarely on the shoulders of those who thus far have completely shirked it, Sen. Specter’s party. I would consider this short-term pain to be a shot a long-term gains. Thanks, Arlen.

I, along with most conservatives was both thrilled and appalled at the statement and reactions coming out of the Miss USA pageant last week. I was thrilled that someone from California would speak her mind, and I was appalled at the consequences of her speech. As ridiculous as I think the idea of a “beauty pageant” may be, it is shameful that someone would be asked to deliver a poised, well-thought-out response to an issue in our country, only to be ostracized for the opinion she shared. She did a remarkable thing, and I applaud her.

However, I was equally appalled that the Alabama State legislature found the time to issue a statement applauding her actions.

When did we as a country and a state decide that government must comment on and take a hand in every aspect of the lives of the citizens? When did we decide to pay and give people the honor of representing us in Washington, Montgomery, and all other state capitals, only to have them spend six hours debating the merits of what Miss California said in the Miss USA pageant??

The sad thing is, Republicans are the worst culprits. Who do you think got that resolution hammered through last week? Republicans. Who do you think introduced legislation to change the way the College Football national championship is decided? A Republican. Mike McCaul, from Texas, introduced a bill to eliminate the BCS. Who do you think leads the charge to fix the steroid situation in baseball from the government perspective and wants to check in on the NFL’s Patriots for Spygate? A Republican (albeit in name only), Arlen Specter.

Now, I don’t care how you feel about gay marriage, the BCS, or Barry Bonds. It is absolutely ridiculous that our representatives take the time to even talk about these things (For the record: 1- totally against, 2- love the current system, I know, you don’t respect me anymore, and 3- can’t stand him). When I heard about McCaul’s bill, I phoned his DC office and told his staffer who answered the phone that he really needed to reconsider his party affiliation (as someone who has answered the phones in several of these places, I can assure you, it meant nothing). He obviously doesn’t know what it means to be a conservative.

It is time to re-think how we elect our representatives. Someone who won’t stay out of something like the BCS that has obviously nothing to do with government can’t be trusted to make tax policy that will reflect conservative ideals. As happy as I am that the state house in Alabama is positioned staunchly in favor of the traditional family structure, I am concerned that we have completely lost perspective. Let’s right this ship in 2010. Defeat Specter and get a real Republican in his seat. Call out McCaul for his ridiculous position, and tell your local representative to stay on task with the business of the people.

After the crazy week we had, planning and executing one heckuva successful Tea Party, I took some much needed R&R. Needless to say, this post will be short and to the point, but I did feel like a brief comment on one angle of President Obama’s foreign policy is in order.

President Obama (did it irk anyone else when the media didn’t refer to President Bush as “President Bush”? Maybe it’s just me) seems to be willing to “have a dialogue” with any and every president, dictator, prime minister, premiere, etc., that wants one, even if those countries have worked against American interests and trod on her values with great regularity and fervor. Some would say that this is the way we should be conducting ourselves in the 21^st century. However, I for one have a problem with our President accepting gifts from Hugo Chavez and having meetings with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While this is my personal preference, I feel like Democrats should have an even bigger problem with these conversations. The fact that the feminists in this country will stand for discussions with Iran blows my mind, as does the fact that the human rights issues in Venezuela go unchecked while the President joins Chavez’s book club.

So why does the left not call out the President on these apparent inconsistencies? I have no clue. It seems like nobody on the left will take any firm stance to condemn these foreign leaders for their actions. I guess I can’t blame them, Chavez and Ahmadinejad called the U.S. and President Bush “Evil” for so long, even Americans started to believe it. President Obama should be buying his boy Hugo the books – he helped his election campaign as much as anyone.

Some of you may have noticed the link at the bottom of this post regarding the CNN reporter attacking a protester, but the latest version from FoundingBloggers.com shows the aftermath:

What many news outlets haven’t yet figured out is that this new Internet era allows regular people to call them out on their shenanigans. Ten years ago, the idea that viewers could capture this video, post it in a medium where everybody could view it as often as they liked, and then endlessly analyze it in public would have seemed crazy. It would simply have appeared on CNN and be seen only by the few people who happened to catch it. Now we can watch them try to spin the story and push their narrative on us, and know who’s credible and who’s not. That’s real progress.

You think I’m joking, except that I’m not. Actor Kal Penn, best known as Kumar from the stoner comedy “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle” is now employed as President Obama’s liaison to Asian-American communities and the “arts community” (i.e. Hollywood). His official title will be Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison. Let the jokes commence.

HT: MAS

Liberals

ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS

…It’s Science…

Pelosi’s Problems

A Thank You to President Obama and Wanda Sykes

Benedict Arlen: An Betrayal by Any other Name is Still the Same.

Joe Lieberman, come on down?

Miss California, a Great Statement, but Did We Need to Make Such a Hoopla?

Hugo’s Socialist Book of the Month

A Continuing Theme: Slanted Media Coverage of the Tea Parties

BREAKING NEWS: Kumar Hired as Obama’s Hollywood Liasion

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives