Tuesday, 09 June 2009

OBAMA'S JOB FRAUD AND MEDIA'S COMPLICITY

Ken Berwitz

From William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal (the bold print is mine):

   OPINION: MAIN STREET

    JUNE 9, 2009

The Media Fall for Phony 'Jobs' Claims

The Obama Numbers Are Pure Fiction.

By William McGurn

 

Tony Fratto is envious.

 

Mr. Fratto was a colleague of mine in the Bush administration, and as a senior member of the White House communications shop, he knows just how difficult it can be to deal with a press corps skeptical about presidential economic claims. It now appears, however, that Mr. Fratto's problem was that he simply lacked the magic words -- jobs "saved or created."

 

"Saved or created" has become the signature phrase for Barack Obama as he describes what his stimulus is doing for American jobs. His latest invocation came yesterday, when the president declared that the stimulus had already saved or created at least 150,000 American jobs -- and announced he was ramping up some of the stimulus spending so he could "save or create" an additional 600,000 jobs this summer. These numbers come in the context of an earlier Obama promise that his recovery plan will "save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years."

 

Mr. Fratto sees a double standard at play. "We would never have used a formula like 'save or create,'" he tells me. "To begin with, the number is pure fiction -- the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being 'saved.' And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it."

 

Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama's jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures "jobs saved." As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama's jobs claims are "based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs." Nice work if you can get away with it.

 

And get away with it he has. However dubious it may be as an economic measure, as a political formula "save or create" allows the president to invoke numbers that convey an illusion of precision. Harvard economist and former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw calls it a "non-measurable metric." And on his blog, he acknowledges the political attraction.

 

"The expression 'create or save,' which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius," writes Mr. Mankiw. "You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus."

 

Mr. Obama's comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.

 

It's not only former Bush staffers such as Messrs. Fratto and Mankiw who have noted the political convenience here. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.

 

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

 

Now, something's wrong when the president invokes a formula that makes it impossible for him to be wrong and it goes largely unchallenged. It's true that almost any government spending will create some jobs and save others. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, that doesn't tell you much: The government, after all, can create jobs by hiring people to dig holes and fill them in.

 

If the "saved or created" formula looks brilliant, it's only because Mr. Obama and his team are not being called on their claims. And don't expect much to change. So long as the news continues to repeat the administration's line that the stimulus has already "saved or created" 150,000 jobs over a time period when the U.S. economy suffered an overall job loss 10 times that number, the White House would be insane to give up a formula that allows them to spin job losses into jobs saved.

 

"You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama's jobs claims that they did toward President Bush's tax cuts," says Mr. Fratto. "But I'm still waiting."

McGurn and Fratto are 100% correct.  This is fraud so blatant that it would be laughable --- if our wonderful "neutral" media were not so pathetically in the tank for President Obama.  Unfortunately they are, which moves it from laughable to terribly damaging.

How blatant does this have to be for them to wake up?  Are they even capable of waking up?


IS THIS THE NASTINESS KATIE CARWRECK WAS TALKING ABOUT?

Ken Berwitz

Earlier today I blogged about Katie Couric (I call her Carwreck based on her ratings) speaking at Princeton and imploring students not to be nasty - then taking pot shots at her various demons, including Sarah Palin.

I don't want poor Katie to feel as if she's alone in doing this so I thought I would point out that:

-David Letterman, one of the unfunniest people I have ever seen on TV, compared Governor Palin to a "slutty stewardess".

-Chris Matthews, whose MSNBC show continues to underperfrom ratings-wise, calls her a "black helicopter" person (i.e. a raving lunatic).

-And there were no doubt others, but those are the ones I read so far.

Did you ever notice that liberal-left people are allowed to say things like that about conservatives and there is never any price to pay?  They can declare open season on Governor Palin and they won't be criticized by their kindred spirits among mainstream media.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


WHEN DO REPUBLICANS FIGHT BACK?

Ken Berwitz

Until this morning I was unfamiliar with Nancy Morgan.  But I assure you I will be seeking out her writing in the future.

This column - this insightful, fact-filled column - is the reason why:

June 09, 2009

62 Million Voiceless Americans

By Nancy Morgan

 

Is it still called debate when only one side controls the conversation? That's the question the 62 million Americans who didn't vote for Obama are asking themselves. 

These millions now have absolutely no voice in the way our country is being governed. No say in the quadrupling of our debt or in the onerous taxes being piled on top of record unemployment. They have no say in the pending trillion dollar health care 'reform' or the more costly 'cap and trade' legislation steadily making its way through Congress.   With Democrats firmly in control of the White House and the House of Representatives, and most likely the Senate, the left has found no need for bipartisanship. After all, 'Obama won.' Case closed.   Should any pesky Republican complain, the voice goes unheard - kinda like a tree falling in a forest. Did it really fall if no one heard it? The right is reduced to pondering questions like these as the left continues implementing radical changes at breakneck speed. Change that affect every segment of our society and every single American. Changes that are being implemented without the requisite 'national conversation'.

Why hold a conversation?   The left is in control and there is no need to consult with the people they were elected to govern. The politicians and the experts know best. And should the GOP try to halt this tsunami of 'change', a quick change of the filibuster rule to 51 instead of 60 is put in place. That'll teach em. 

Under the guise of fighting the non-crisis of global warming, the EPA has declared the very air we breathe to be dangerous. Not to worry. Uncle Sam will save us. Here comes cap and trade. It will only cost $3,100 extra in energy costs per family.  

Under the guise of universal health care, our government is preparing to take over approximately 17% of our economy by nationalizing health care. Not to worry, they are consulting with the policymakers in Canada responsible for the sterling healthcare in that country. The very same government health care that forces Canadians to come to the US to get their medical needs taken care of.

Under the guise of saving the economy, the feds have taken over banks, insurance companies and car companies, prompting even thug dictator Chavez to joke, "Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right."  

Under the guise of saving us from those nasty capitalists, Obama has appointed a new Pay Czar to make sure no-one is paid more than the politicians deem they are worth. At least those who are unfortunate to work for companies that have received bailout funds.

And in one case, the formerly sovereign state of South Carolina has actually been forced to take bailout funds, and accept all the strings that come with it. Consent of the governed is being ignored as the Obama administration hijacks ever more power to the federal government, in direct contravention of the 10th Amendment and the Constitution.

And 62 million Americans can do nothing except marvel at the audacity.

The left is rejoicing at finally being able to implement utopia here on earth. A utopian vision that has consistently failed whenever it has been foisted upon a populace, either through charisma or brute force. But never mind. Obama's utopia will work, experts assure us.   The experts who hold us hostage are first and foremost, political beings, having been appointed 'czars' on the basis of political connections as opposed to merit. They are thoroughly steeped in theory and liberal orthodoxy and severely lacking in real world experience.

These unelected czars (15 at last count) now have control of our tax dollars and the regulatory bureaucracy that enables them to enforce their whims. Whims which are based more on political expediency rather than the rule of law. They will never be held accountable when their theories are tested and fail. And fail they must, as history has taught the 62 million people who didn't vote for Obama. 

As we speak, the left, with the willing compliance of an adoring media, are kowtowing to our enemies while demonizing and penalizing capitalists, the very wealth creators whose money now allows the government to implement an agenda anti ethical to the American way of life.   The Obama administration, under the guise of tolerance, inclusion, multiculturalism, empathy and concern for the disenfranchised, are destroying jobs though regulation and taxation. A total of 2.19 million jobs have been lost since Obama became President. (The news that Wal-Mart will be adding 22,000 jobs this year is ignored, as they did it without unions or government help.)

The Democrats are enacting legislation that makes it impossible for America to become energy independent, while at the same time, partnering with Arab countries to help them develop nuclear energy. Our 'leaders' are burdening America with an unsustainable level of debt while at the same time, continuing to send our tax dollars ($106 Billion) to the IMF to bail out the world. And sending $200 million more to the Pakistan to help with their refugees. The Left, with Obama as its messiah, believing that all cultures and countries should be equal, are systematically reducing America to third world status. A level playing field at last. Whew. 

Meanwhile, the 62 million people who didn't vote for Obama wait in vain for their own elected representatives to stand up and say STOP. Alas, aside from a handful of Republicans like Sarah Palin, Mark Sanford, Jim DeMint, Rick Perry and Dick Cheney, the silence from the Republicans is deafening. Sixty-two million Americans are watching America squander its greatness on the altar of catchy, unproven, politically correct notions. And this American is wondering if the destructive policies that are being foisted upon us without our consent and without debate, are being enacted through stupidity or design.

Ms. Morgan is dead on target. 

When do Republicans wake up? 

When do Democrats of good will wake up? 

When do media wake up? (Ok, that last one is a stretch, I admit it)

 


ERIC HOLDER AND VOTING INTIMIDATION

Ken Berwitz

Several days ago I put up a column by Michelle Malkin which talked about the despicable, malfeasant actions of Attorney General eric holder concerning voter intimidation.

Today's Wall Street Journal also has an excellent piece on holder's one-way-street concept of voting rights.  Here it is:

Holder Winks at Voter Intimidation

 

On ballot integrity, the Justice Department is taking us backward.

 

By HANS A. VON SPAKOVSKY

When Eric Holder became U.S. attorney general, he promised to administer the law in an objective, nonpolitical manner. So it's disappointing that the Justice Department had spent the last several months misinterpreting key voting rights laws for nakedly political reasons.

 

Exhibit A: Justice's inexplicable dismissal of a civil lawsuit for voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party. The Black Panthers weren't content to endorse Barack Obama. They sent their members to the polls last November to "patrol election sites." Fox News aired a video of two Black Panthers in military-style uniforms in a Philadelphia precinct. One of them was carrying a nightstick.

 

The complaint the Justice Department filed in January (before Messrs. Obama and Holder took over) says the Panthers made "racial threats and racial insults" to voters and "menacing and intimidating, gestures, statements and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters." One witness, Bartle Bull, a civil-rights lawyer who worked with Charles Evers in Mississippi in the 1960s, called it the worst voter intimidation he had ever seen.

 

Justice won the suit by default when the Black Panthers and three individual defendants didn't show up in court to deny the allegations. But instead of following through and getting an injunction to prevent this behavior in future elections, the department, now under Mr. Holder, dismissed the lawsuit against all but one of the defendants (the nightstick holder). Even then, Justice requested only a watered-down penalty: an injunction to prevent him from carrying a weapon in a polling place. But only in Philadelphia and only until 2012!

 

Exhibit B: Justice recently stopped Georgia from implementing a key provision of the Help America Vote Act. Passed in 2002, the act requires states to verify the accuracy of information voters provide on their registration forms by comparing it with state driver's license and Social Security records -- a sensible requirement. With input from Justice Department lawyers in 2008, Georgia implemented this verification process, including checking the citizenship status of applicants. It is a violation of federal and state law for a noncitizen to register and vote in federal and state elections.

 

Under Georgia's program, anyone flagged as a potential noncitizen would still be registered if he could confirm to local election officials that he was indeed a citizen. Georgia sent letters to over 4,000 potential noncitizens. More than 2,000 failed to confirm their citizenship, strong evidence that noncitizens were prevented from illegally registering and voting.

 

Has this verification process depressed minority voter turnout, as some claim? Hardly. There has been a 140% increase in Hispanic turnout and a 42% increase in black turnout since the 2004 election.

 

But Georgia is still covered under the outdated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires the state to submit any "change" in voting to the Justice Department for preclearance to assure it is not "discriminatory." On May 29, the department vetoed the state's verification program based on the spurious claim that it would have a "disparate" impact on minority voters -- particularly Asians and Hispanics, who are supposedly "twice as likely to appear on the list" of potential noncitizens than whites. Never mind that only 35% of Hispanics and 58% of Asians in Georgia are citizens. Or that not one eligible individual has come forward to claim this program prevented him from voting in the November election. Georgia was doing exactly what the federal government requires private employers to do in checking the citizenship of all employees.

 

Justice's objection defies common sense, manipulates federal law, and shows a complete disregard for the integrity of our election process. It is this kind of abuse of the applicable legal standard that is yet one more reason for the Supreme Court to hold, in a Texas case now pending (Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder), that the renewal of Section 5 in 2005 was unconstitutional and unjustified. If the Justice Department believes a state voting law is discriminatory it should be required by law to file a lawsuit in federal court to prove it, thus allowing the state to defend itself against the charge. That would certainly be an improvement over the current administrative system, where Justice gets to choose the evidence to consider and be the one to decide its legal effect.

 

But that's apparently too much for the current administration, which is trying to stop verification of voter registration information. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires states to maintain their voter lists by removing ineligible voters, such as those who have moved or died. In 2005, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in Missouri against the secretary of state for not cleaning up voter registration lists. (A similar suit was settled with the Indiana secretary of state, who agreed to clean up the state's list.) Justice successfully litigated the Missouri lawsuit all the way up to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which remanded it to the district court for further proceedings.

 

Registration numbers from the November 2008 election show that more than a dozen counties in Missouri have more registered voters than the Census shows they have voting-age residents. Clearly, the state isn't keeping its lists current. However, in March, one month after Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (a Democrat and the defendant in the lawsuit) announced she was running for the Senate seat being vacated by Republican Kit Bond, the Justice Department dismissed the lawsuit without explanation.

 

All of these decisions seriously undermine confidence in the rule of law and our election process. Under the Voting Rights Act, the Department of Justice is charged with protecting voters, no matter what their racial or ethnic background. Under the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act, the department is also charged with securing the integrity of the voter registration process. In just the first five months of this administration Justice seems to be moving as fast as it can to defeat that charge.

 

Mr. Spakovsky is a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation and a former counsel at the Department of Justice.

Would it be fair to say that eric holder is using his power as Attorney General to fix elections for Democrats?  Would it be fair to say that each instance cited above would generate that result?

You tell me.  And then tell me where our wonderful "neutral" media are. 

If this were a Republican President engaged in legal malfeasance on behalf of Republicans do you doubt that they would be talking about it?  Me neither.

Then they wonder why people call them biased.

 


KATIE CARWRECK: THE NUMBERS

Ken Berwitz

From www.drudgereport.com, with no further comment needed:

 

EVENING NEWS RACE
WEEK OF JUNE 1, 2009


NBC 7,960,000
ABC 7,150,000
CBS 5,180,000*

*Lowest Total Viewer delivery since NIELSEN records kept


JACKASS JOE STRIKES AGAIN

Ken Berwitz

From The Bergen Record, via Fox News:

Avid train rider and Vice President Joe Biden, on a conference call Monday with reporters, mistakenly claimed that the planned Hudson River tunnel between New Jersey and Midtown Manhattan would provide a much-anticipated route for automobiles. 

Problem is, it's for trains. 

The $8.7 billion tunnel is among the largest new projects to be funded in the Obama administration's $787 billion stimulus package.

"Look, this is designed, this totally new tunnel, is designed to provide for automobile traffic," Biden said, according to The Record of Bergen County. "It's something, as you know, up your way, that's been in the works and people have been clamoring for for a long time." 

The Record, which asked Biden the tunnel-related question on the call, called the vice president out on the error. The north Jersey newspaper noted that the tunnel would accommodate more New Jersey Transit trains during peak hours -- cars are not part of the equation. 

The mistake is notable given the former Delaware senator's well-documented affinity for trains and frequent Amtrak commutes between Washington and Wilmington during his Senate years. Biden also inadvertently irked public transit when he warned Americans in late April not to travel in "confined places" for fear of contracting swine flu. 

This man is to gaffes what ice is to the Arctic Circle.

Now;  try and find any mention of his comment about the new tunnel in the New York Times today.  Or the network news tonight.

Isn't it nice that our wonderful "neutral" media treat Joe Biden just the same as they treated Dan Quayle? (if you agree, give me a puff of whatever you're smoking).


PETA: PROTECTING THE DEAD SALMON OF SEATTLE

Ken Berwitz

When I started reading this I did a double-take.  I had to check and make sure it wasn't a satire.  But it wasn't. 

Here, from www.mynorthwest.com, is PETA's latest attempt to make complete idiots of themselves (and a successful one at that):

Updated Jun 9, 2009 - 2:58 pm

PETA targets Pike Place fish throwers

 

PETA has taken a stand against one of the most popular tourist attractions in Seattle - the fish market at the Pike Place Market that tosses salmon.

PETA heard that the American Veterinary Medical Association planned a Pike Place Fish Market demonstration at next month's convention at the convention center.

PETA sent a letter to the association saying people who care about animals are appalled fish would be treated as toys. A spokeswoman for PETA in Norfolk, Va., Lindsay Rajt, says veterinarians should show compassion.

PETA hasn't heard from the veterinarians.

An assistant manager at the Pike Place Fish Market, Justin Hall, says workers there respect fish because it's their livelihood and they take pride in having the best seafood.

Message to PETA:  The fish they are throwing around are dead. 

I know.  I've been to that market and bought fish from that stand.  The salmon are sitting there on ice.  Dead.  They are throwing around dead fish.  As in not alive.  They don't swim around anymore.  Got it?

Yeesh.  Get a life.


THE BARACK OBAMA SALES PITCH

Ken Berwitz

From political cartoonist Eric Allie: 

 

Editorial Cartoon by Eric Allie


KATIE CARWRECK LECTURES US ON NASTINESS

Ken Berwitz

From Christopher Neefus, writing for www.cnsnews.com:.

Katie Couric Tells Princeton Grads to Avoid 'Nastiness,' Then Takes Swipes at Sarah Palin, Carrie Prejean
Monday, June 08, 2009
By Christopher Neefus


(CNSNews.com)   CBS News Anchor Katie Couric told Princeton's graduating seniors last week that they should avoid "nastiness" and then mocked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Miss California Carrie Prejean, while praising Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, First Lady Michelle Obama and Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The latter two are Princeton graduates.

Couric was speaking at Princeton's "Class Day," an annual event held by the school's seniors the day before they graduate. She was chosen to speak by a vote of the graduating class itself.

As she started her address to the Class of 2009, Couric told the students, Coming here was a real no brainer! After all, I can see New Jersey from my house!
 
The anchor was referring to an interview Palin gave to ABC News during last year's presidential campaign, in which Palin had said of Russia, Theyre our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
 
On "Saturday Night Live" comic Tina Fey, who impersonated Palin, mocked that remark by changing it to:  And I can see Russia from my house!

Couric also took a swipe at traditional-marriage-defending Miss California Carrie Prejean in the same passage that she praised Judge Sotomayor and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  In this instance, Couric likened Prejean to Anita Bryant, a popular singer from the 1950s through the 1970s, who led a successful campaign in Miami to repeal a pro-homosexual ordinance.  
 
[I]t's been quite a year for women," said Couric. "After all, a Latina has just been nominated to the Supreme Court ... only the third woman in history. And I heard she graduated summa cum laude from a little school in New Jersey! Hillary Clinton was the first serious female presidential candidate and made 18 million cracks in the ultimate glass ceiling. And then of course, there's Carrie Prejean, Miss California. No one has done more to motivate gay rights activists since Anita Bryant. (Your parents know who she is.)"

During the final questions of the Miss USA pageant in April 2009, Prejean was asked whether she thought same-sex marriage should be approved nationwide and she replied, You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But thats how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. 

By contrast, Couric had high praise for First Lady Michelle Obama. 
"But as you head out into this daunting job market, at least you have many illustrious alumni lighting the way," said Couric. "Like The First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama. She was class of 1985, and now she's wowing them in Washington."

Couric also took swipes at conservatives Rush Limbaugh, the talk radio host, and Donald Rumsfeld, the former secretary of defense.

She then advised the Princeton grads that they must guard against "nastiness."

"Next, don't be a hater," said Couric. "Princeton has taught you to think critically, to approach things with a healthy dose of skepticism ... and that's a good thing, as Martha Stewart would say. But you really must guard against the cynicism and nastiness that are so pervasive today, particularly on the internet. It can be a wonderful, powerful and equalizing tool, but it's also populated by haters and trolls. People think they can say or do anything online under the cloak of anonymity. Don't get sucked in."

"Rise above the collegial nastiness and instead....celebrate excellence," said Couric.

Thanks Katie.  What will your next lecture be on?  Consistency or hypocrisy?


BILL O'REILLY ON THE KILLING OF DR. GEORGE TILLER

Ken Berwitz

Now that media have had their fun accusing Cable news show host Bill O'Reilly with a level of responsibility, maybe the responsibility, for George Tiller's murder, I thought it would be fair to show O'Reilly's side of things.

Here it is, courtesy of the Washington Times:

O'REILLY: The killing of Dr. Tiller

The liberal outcry over the murder of Dr. George Tiller, the late-term abortion doctor from Kansas, demonstrates exactly where American discourse is going. Shot dead in a church by an anti-government militant, Dr. Tiller did not deserve his fate. Even though the man destroyed an estimated 60,000 fetuses that could have lived outside the womb, he was an American citizen entitled to protection. No matter what you think about abortion, it is a sad day for the country when vigilantism takes a life.

It took just minutes after the report of Dr. Tiller's murder for the far-left loons to hit the Web sites. Postings on Daily Kos and the Huffington Post immediately blamed Fox News and me for inciting Dr. Tiller's killer. Even though I reported on the doctor honestly, the loons asserted that my analysis of him was "hateful."

Chief among the complaints was the doctor's nickname: "Tiller the baby killer." Some pro-lifers branded him that, and I reported it. So did hundreds of other news sources. But the bigger picture here is the glorification of Dr. Tiller.

The uber-liberal New York Times led the way, editorializing: "For his principled devotion to women's health and constitutionally protected rights, Dr. Tiller was the target of protests at his clinic, his house and his church."

The Times made Dr. Tiller out to be a hero. The paper's editorial never mentioned that he aborted fetuses after 21 weeks, when they could live outside the mother's womb. The Times opinion also did not mention that Dr. Tiller became a millionaire doing this, or that only three late-term abortion clinics exist in the entire country. Nor did the editorial writer put forth that 36 states restrict late-term abortions without violating the Constitution.

As usual, the Times editorial page failed to tell its readers the whole story.

But that was nothing compared to NBC News, which went full tilt in blaming pundits for the death of Dr. Tiller. NBC anchorman Brian Williams led that charge, overseeing a report that emphasized the verbal criticism of Dr. Tiller rather than the militancy of the person who shot him. NBC pundits filled the night with slanderous wails against those who opposed Dr. Tiller's deadly practice.

But behind all the bluster was a well-thought-out, coordinated campaign. By exploiting the death of Dr. Tiller, the far left is seeking to silence Americans who are appalled at late-term abortion. By demonizing people like me who believe that terminating viable fetuses must only be done when there are catastrophic health ramifications, pro-abortion zealots are trying to inhibit dissent on the abortion issue in general.

That's the same tactic in play on gay marriage: Oppose it and you're a homophobe. The far left well understands that the media will pick up the demonizing tactics and shove them down the throats of the American people.

The debate in America is no longer about rational points of view. It is now about the strategy of destruction. The murder of Dr. Tiller, as misguided as he was, can never be condoned.

But neither can the hateful, dishonest tactics of the far left.

FYI, I have never used the expression "Tiller the baby-killer".  But if someone had asked me whether George Tiller was a baby killer I would have said he was.  Let me tell you why.

Personally, I do not believe there is a child at conception or early in the pregnancy.  Therefore, when a woman uses contraception or the "day-after pill" to avoid a child, I don't believe she is killing a human being, and neither is the company which provides the product(s) she is using.  I believe there is a child when the fetus has brain activity and a beating heart.  I know that some people will agree with this opinion and some will disagree.

But the 7th, 8th and 9th month is an entirely different story.  I don't see any room for disagreement then. 

When a pregnancy is in its final trimester the baby is physically formed, has brain function and has its own heartbeat.  It is a human being.  And if a woman aborts then, she is killing her child. 

George Tiller had no problem performing late term abortions - and getting rich on them.  When Tiller "aborted" children in the 7th, 8th or even 9th month of their bearers' pregnancies, he was killing babies.  Period. 

Think about those facts, and you'll understand why "Tiller the baby killer" may not be a nice way of describing him, but is an accurate one.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!