Thursday, August 27, 2015

Cruising the Web

Jonah Goldberg has a great column noting how so many Democrats are horrified at the thought of reinterpreting the Constitution concerning birthright citizenship.
Now bear in mind, all of these Democrats oppose justices who believe the Constitution should be read narrowly, according to the original intent or plain meaning of the text. They like justices who worship at the altar of the “living Constitution” — you know, the mythical document that magically provides rights never imagined by the Founding Fathers.

Meanwhile, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, announced that one of her four central goals is to change the First Amendment. She wants to do this on the grounds that we must do anything we can to get rid of “unaccountable money” in our political system.

Never mind that this is a funny position for a woman who plans on raising a reported $2 billion to win the presidency and whose foundation — which is neatly aligned with her political ambitions — is awash in foreign money. If only she hadn’t scrubbed her illicit private email server, I’m sure she could allay any fears that she is tainted by unaccountable money.

And yet, where is the outrage?

It isn’t coming from activist groups like People for the American Way, an organization founded to uphold the First Amendment. It has denounced the Republican effort to tinker with the 14th Amendment as an affront to human decency, but it applauds Clinton’s desire to tamper with the First Amendment as proof of her commitment to democracy.

Some Republicans disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which applied the 14th Amendment to immigrants born here. Some Democrats disagree with the court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which says the First Amendment applies to groups of citizens acting in concert. Both, or neither, may be right, but only Republicans are forbidden from acting on their conviction.

Whenever a Republican is asked about potential court appointments, he must swear that he will offer no “litmus tests,” specifically on abortion. But Democrats routinely vow that they will only appoint living constitutionalists who see a right to abortion-on-demand lurking between the lines of the Bill of Rights. Clinton recently added a new litmus test. She’s told donors — accountable ones, no doubt — that she would only appoint justices who would overturn the Citizens United decision.

Don’t strain yourself trying to hear the outrage. Outrage is saved for Republicans.

Shop Amazon Toys - 30% Off - Prime Member Appreciation
Shop Amazon Fashion - 20% Off Shoes
Shop Amazon Fashion - 50% or More Off Kids' Fashion

Aaron Goldstein contrasts Ben Carson's reaction to the question Megyn Kelly asked him during the debate to the three-week tiff that Trump has been nursing against Kelly. I'd forgotten the question she asked him.
For all intents and purposes, Kelly basically asked Carson if he was an idiot. And yet unlike Trump, Carson didn’t tell Kelly she wasn’t being very nice. Instead, he handled himself with grace and dignity. I’ve had some deep reservations about Carson, but there is something to be said for not becoming defensive when something is asked of you. I’m sure Carson didn’t care for Kelly’s question, but we don’t see him whining about being asked a tough question nearly three weeks after the fact. In which case, perhaps Dr. Carson can give Trump a prescription that will toughen his thin skin.

Shop Amazon Sports & Outdoors - New Markdowns in the Fan Shop
Shop Amazon Sports & Outdoors - Save Big, 60% off Select adidas Apparel
Shop Amazon Back to School - Save on Supplies, Learning Toys & More

Christina Hoff Sommers nails it.
In August 2014, 12 members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard charged into 28-year-old artist Atena Farghadani’s house, blindfolded her, and took her to prison.

She had posted a satirical cartoon on Facebook to protest proposed legislation to restrict birth control and women’s rights. Farghadani has since been found guilty of “spreading propaganda” and “insulting members of parliament through paintings.” She has been sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Farghadani is one of millions of women whose basic rights are being ruthlessly violated. In countries like Iran, Yemen, Egypt, and Cambodia, women are struggling for freedoms most women in the West take for granted.

But American feminists are relatively silent about these injustices — especially feminists on campus. During the 1980s, there were massive demonstrations on American college campuses against racial apartheid in South Africa. There is no remotely comparable movement on today’s campuses against the gender apartheid prevalent in large parts of the world. Why not?

Today’s young feminist activists are far too preoccupied with their own supposed victimhood to make common cause with women like Farghadani.

This past year I visited and spoke at several US campuses, including Yale, UCLA, Oberlin, and Georgetown. I found activist feminist students passionately absorbed in the cause of liberating themselves from the grasp of the oppressive patriarchal order. Their trigger warnings, safe spaces and micro-aggression watches are all about saving themselves from the ravages of the male hegemony.

It’s not that they don’t feel bad for women in places like Iran or Yemen. They do. But they believe they share a similar fate.

And they can cite a litany of victim statistics from their gender studies class that shows their plight. Someone needs to tell them that most of those statistics are specious and that, although the threat of harm is a human constant, they are among the most liberated and privileged — and safest — people on earth.

Because their professors would not tell them, that someone turned out to be me; for this I was furnished with a police escort on more than one occasion.

Samantha Power, the able US ambassador to the UN and human rights champion, recently addressed the graduating class of Barnard College. Instead of urging them to support women struggling against oppression in places like Afghanistan, she congratulated them for waging a parallel struggle on the US campus.

She cited Emma Sulkowicz — a much-publicised Columbia University student who carried a mattress for months to protest her alleged rape by a fellow student — as a symbol of ongoing oppression of US women, and compared her plight with those of young women in Afghanistan struggling for elementary gender justice.

Never mind that a campus discipline committee found the accused not guilty; never mind the questionable basis of Sulkowicz’s public shaming campaign. Sulkowicz lives in a country where laws, institutions, and customs protect her. The women of Afghanistan do not. Afghan women are coping with the Taliban; Sulkowicz is coping with Columbia classmates. The US ambassador to the UN should be able to distinguish the two.

It is not my view that because women in countries like Iran or Afghanistan have it so much worse, Western women should tolerate less serious injustices at home. Emphatically they should not.

But too often, today’s gender activists are not fighting injustice, but fighting phantom epidemics and nursing petty grievances. Two leading feminist hashtags of 2015 are #FreeTheNipples and #LovetheLines. The former is a campaign to desexualise women’s breasts; the latter promotes stretch-mark acceptance. If the imprisoned women of Iran and Afghanistan were free to tweet, what would they say about these struggles?
It is so very true. And these so-called feminists should be called on their misplaced values at every turn.

Tevi Troy has an interesting column looking at what the 2016 GOP candidates are reading - or claiming to be reading. It gives a look at what they consider important.

Marc Thiessen reminds us of an ominous precedent that should worry Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton likes to point out that she is not the first senior national security official to conduct official business on a home computer system. She’s right about that, but the precedent should not give the Democratic presidential front-runner much comfort.

Former CIA director John Deutch was also found to have stored classified documents — including top-secret intelligence — on computers in his homes in Bethesda and Belmont, Mass., leading to an investigation by the CIA inspector general and a criminal investigation by the Justice Department. Deutch was stripped of his security clearance and ended up reaching a plea agreement admitting to his crimes — but was saved by a last-minute pardon from none other than . . . President Bill Clinton....

On Feb. 18, 2000, the CIA inspector general issued a scathing report in which he found that throughout his tenure as director, Deutch had processed “large volumes of highly classified information” on unprotected home computers. After the computers were seized, he wrote, “a technical exploitation team, consisting of personnel expert in data recovery, retrieved the data from Deutch’s unclassified magnetic media and computers” and found “classified information . . . related to covert action, Top Secret communications intelligence and the National Reconnaissance Program budget.”

Among the classified documents found on Deutch’s hard drive and memory cards were multiple memorandums to the president and vice president that “contained information at the Top Secret/Codeword level.” The specific information was redacted in the inspector general’s public report, but Newsweek reported that it included documents related to Iraq and a 1996 terrorist bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. troops.

In one case, the data recovery team discovered that “[t]he files on [a memory] card with the unclassified sticker had been erased; however, the contract network engineer was able to recover data by the use of a commercially available software utility.” He found top-secret information on it.

Another parallel with Clinton: The inspector general found that Deutch had used the same unclassified computers to process both classified information and conduct personal business, which made the “classified information residing on Deutch’s computers . . . vulnerable to possible electronic access and exploitation.”
Not quite a joke, is it - even on Snapchat?

Shop Amazon - Off to College
Shop Amazon Fashion - Fall Denim
Shop Amazon - Back to School - Up to 25% Off Groceries

Robert Tracinski has a typically intelligent column trying to figure out how many of Trump's supporters would follow him if he were to run as an independent candidate. Would he have the impact of a Perot, a Nader, or be more like Ron Paul. Tracinski breaks down Trump's supporters into six different groups and postulates that it depends how large each group is among the Trumpians since each group has a different likelihood of voting for Trump in a three-way race.
1) “Low-information voters” who don’t really know much about Trump or his policies, but hey, he’s a celebrity, so they tell pollsters they’re voting for him.

2) Actual conservatives who like Trump because he’s a tough-talking “fighter” and a businessman who “gets things done.”

3) Disgruntled non-ideological independents who normally don’t vote because “it never makes any difference.”

4) Single-issue anti-immigration fanatics.

5) Archie Bunker types who normally vote Republican because they see it as the party of “identity politics for white people,” the ones who want the country to be run by and for “people like me.” These are the folks on Twitter and in the comments fields of my articles who extol the virtue of “European” immigrants, without realizing that “Hispanic” derives from the word for Spain, and that Spain is in Europe.

6) Outright racists who don’t normally vote because neither party has the guts to embrace White Power.

Obviously, if it’s mostly 1) and 6), we can expect the Trump phenomenon to flame out quickly. Group 1 is large, but their political interest is fleeting and they don’t tend to turn out for actual elections. Group 6 is, thankfully, quite small. And the more Group 1 actually hears about the people in Group 6—say, the guys who were inspired by Trump’s rhetoric to beat up a Hispanic man in Boston, or the guys shouting “White Power” at the Trump rally in Alabama—the more they are going to decide they don’t want to be on this particular bandwagon.
Read the rest. Obviously, we don't really know how large each group is, but Nate Cohn has some analysis in the NYT using Civis polls which polls only from registered voters. This gives us some insight into what fraction of Trump's support comes from people less likely to vote. The Civis poll showed Trump with 16% rather than the 22% which other polls are averaging. Of course, those who are not registered to day could certainly register before primaries begin. But the analysis is certainly interesting in this moment when all we have to go on are polls.

Though, if we're to believe the Huffington Post, Trump is getting ready to promise that he won't run as an independent.

One thing that Trump is extremely good at is garnering media attention. Every day there seems to be another storyline about Trump that monopolizes the media. Nate Silver marvels at Trump's ability to keep himself in the news.
What’s interesting is how Trump seemed to go out of his way after the debate to ensure that he’d remain the center of attention, with his tirade against Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly (a feud that he’s since resurrected). That tended to drown out most of the coverage of whether, say, Fiorina or Kasich had gained momentum after the debate, perhaps preventing them from having the sort of feedback loop of favorable attention that can sometimes trigger surges in the polls.

I don’t know whether this was a deliberate strategy on Trump’s behalf. But if so, it’s pretty brilliant. Trump is perhaps the world’s greatest troll, someone who is amazingly skilled at disrupting the conversation by any means necessary, including by drawing negative, tsk-tsking attention to himself. In the current, “free-for-all” phase of the campaign — when there are 17 candidates and you need only 20 percent or so of the vote to have the plurality in GOP polls — this may be a smart approach. If your goal is to stay at the center of attention rather than necessarily to win the nomination, it’s worth making one friend for every three enemies, provided that those friends tell some pollster that they’d hypothetically vote for you.

Is it sustainable? In the long run, probably not. There are lots of interesting candidates in the GOP field, whether you’re concerned with the horse race, their policy positions or simply just entertainment value. Sooner or later, the media will find another candidate’s story interesting. Cruz has a lot of upside potential in the troll department, for instance, along with better favorability ratings than Trump and a slightly more plausible chance of being the Republican nominee.

But there’s not a lot of hard campaign news to dissect in August. Fend off the occasional threat by throwing a stink bomb whenever another story risks upstaging you, and you can remain at the center of the conversation, and atop the polls, for weeks at a time.

John Podhoretz sees parallels between Obama and Trump.
In fact, what Trump is promising is simply a different form of Obamaism, and that is what perversely makes him attractive to so many people.

Obama’s astonishing second-term efforts to do an end-run around the constitutional limits of the presidency have given Trump’s approach peculiar resonance with certain conservatives.

They’ve watched in horrified amazement as Obama has single-handedly postponed parts of the Affordable Care Act; unilaterally installed people in federal jobs (at the National Labor Relations Board) that require congressional consent and announced in November 2014 that he’d cease enforcing certain immigration laws and effectively grant protection to 5 million so-called “dreamers” — when it is his constitutional obligation to enforce existing laws passed by Congress.

Trump is, in effect, promising to be a right-wing Obama, to run roughshod over the rules to fix things Obama and other politicians have broken.

It’s easy to see why this is seductive.
George Will writes on this same theme of noting that conservatives excoriate Obama's unilateral actions, yet seem to desire the GOP to act in the same way.
Some supporters simply find Trump entertainingly naughty. Others, however, have remarkable cognitive dissonance. They properly execrate Obama’s executive highhandedness that expresses progressivism’s traditional disdain for the separation of powers that often makes government action difficult. But these same Trumpkins simultaneously despise GOP congressional leaders because they do not somehow jettison the separation of powers and work conservatism’s unimpeded will from Capitol Hill.


For conservatives, this is the dispiriting irony: The administrative state’s intrusiveness (e.g., its regulatory burdens), irrationalities (e.g., the tax code’s toll on economic growth), incompetence (Amtrak, ethanol, etc.) and illegality (we see you, IRS) may benefit the principal architect of this state, the Democratic party. This is because the other party’s talented critics of the administrative state are being drowned out by Trump’s recent discovery that Americans understandably disgusted by government can be beguiled by a summons to Caesarism.

Trump, who uses the first-person singular pronoun even more than the previous world-record holder (Obama), promises that constitutional arrangements need be no impediment to the leader’s savvy, “management” brilliance, and iron will. Trump supporters consider the presidency today an entry-level job because he is available to turn government into a triumph of the leader’s will.
I would sure hate to see Republicans embrace the idea that our leaders should act as unilaterally as Obama has, but I'm afraid that they will. Once that elastic of presidential power gets stretched out, it never bounces back to the vision the Founding Fathers had.

Amusingly, Donald Trump had a very different opinion of Megyn Kelly's debate moderating skills back in 2011 when Trump was toying with the idea of moderating a GOP debate.
Kelly asked, “Do you really think you’re a better moderator than I am?”

Trump responded, “No, I could never beat you. That wouldn’t even be close. That would be no contest. You have done a great job, by the way, and I mean it.”

Shop Amazon Warehouse Deals - Deep Discounts on Open-box and Used Electronics
Shop Amazon Warehouse Deals - Deep Discounts on Open-box and Used Camera Equipment
Shop Amazon Outlet - Clearance, Markdowns and Overstock Deals

Politico has a long article about what is going on behind the scenes as Biden weighs running for office. He seems to clearly not have made up his mind. Reportedly, his family is still rather ambivalent.Contrary to some reports, Obama leans to supporting Clinton over Biden.
Obama, according to current and former West Wing officials, is more inclined to support Clinton’s candidacy. Despite her woes, he sees her as a more electable candidate and a more effective keeper of his policy legacy. He’s done everything but endorse her already, putting his vast fundraising network in the hands of Clinton’s super PAC allies. Two of Obama’s top White House aides, John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri, are running Clinton’s campaign and report regularly to their old West Wing friends — including the president.

But Obama has told people around him to give the vice president “space” to make his decision, and urged his staff not to make Biden feel pressured not to run.
Meanwhile, he can spend the time he's using to make up his mind to keep his name out before the public. As Harry Enten notes how Biden is keeping the media interested, there are still some interesting data about the success of candidates who jump into the race late.

The media used to pride itself on not talking about minor presidential children. But the NYT throws that circumspection out by running an article about how Malia Obama is influencing fashion. She's stepping into the gashonista shoes of her mother whom fashion writers have spent years raving about.


wmr333 said...

As a good Madisonian I don't see how we can respond to Obama's executive lawlessness with a Republican who is honors the pre-Obama constitution. If we do, we will set up two different constitutions, one when a Democrat is elected (virtually no limits on executive authority) and one when a republican is elected (traditional balance of power, limited executive). It seems to me like the next Republican president will have to achieve some great conservative reforms with Obama-like abuse of authority in order to create an environment where both parties admit the traditional constitution is better.

Does this make sense? Otherwise Democrats and Republicans move forward with two sets of rules in which people who believe in limited government and rule of law certainly lose.

mark said...

Trump made those comments about Obama's birth certificate in 2011. No concern from Will, Krauthammer or other conservatives. Now that Trump has struck gold with the idiot/racist vote, it's suddenly a problem. Just as Trump ignored the chants of "White Power" at his Alabama event, conservatives ignored the inanities of the Donald.

While we consider "reinterpreting" our Constitution regarding birthright citizenship, perhaps we can reinterpret the right to bear arms. I'm sure are founding fathers never imagined such reckless, insane and immoral policies.

Betsy Newmark said...

Mark, here is Krauthammer ridiculing Trump back in 2011 over his birther theories. Here is George Will back in 2012 on Trump's birther claims.

And I don't see why people would have had to comment on idiotic things Trump said back in 2011. He wasn't a candidate then - just a troll making ridiculous claims.

mark said...

You are right. They did speak out. My mistake.

Trump was not "just a troll". He was a leader in the party. His endorsement was highly sought by republican candidates well after he started his racist birtherism insanity. Mitt traveled to Trump's hotel to kiss his (Trump's) ring. Not your run-of-the-mill troll.

tfhr said...


You'll remember that it was Hillary's 2008 campaign that started the whole birth certificate issue. It was Obama's cynicism and divisiveness that sustained it.

As for Romney kissing rings - I don't know about that - but you've sure been kissing Obama's ass for years. He lied to idiot liberals and Progs like you about his healthcare scam and you just sat there and begged for him to lie some more.

mark said...

Birtherism is Obama's fault? Umm, okay.

I was the first one here to point out Obama's lie about "keeping your plan" (I suggested people here focus on real issues instead of mimicking Palin about the "death panels").

Just as I was the first to call you out on your claims to be posting from the battlefield in Iraq and your laughable claim to be working in military intelligence.

More evidence? How about your latest musings about using body parts:

Maybe you could make a lamp shade or a "Baby On Board" sign - made of real baby - to hang inside your Prius, you repulsive ghoul!!!!

tfhr said...


You're thrashing, grasping for anything..."I was the first here to point out Obama's lie...."? What does that even mean?! Are you saying you were the first to figure that one out, CPT Obvious?! Do you really believe that?! And your "advice" was to focus on "real issues"? You don't think a bogus program delivered under a cloud of outrageous lies isn't a real issue???

Your comment is simply amazing because you admit that you knew he was lying to Americans all along! Is that why you supported him? That's why you voted for him twice? How stupid are you?

Hillary's creeps, flush with experience from hammering Bill's "bimbo eruptions", did the digging on Obama's birth certificate and raised the issue when her campaign began to flounder in 2008. Do you need me to supply a link for that? If you don't already know that or you haven't bothered to check on it yourself if you had doubts, then your ignorance is willfully self-imposed. I don't know if anyone can help you with that. Obama decided to play it out when he could have just put the information out there on day one, end of story.

My DD-214 is what it is - come see it for yourself instead of blubbering on with your whimpering "liar" meme. This one takes the cake though:

"Just as I was the first to call you out on your claims to be posting from the battlefield in Iraq and your laughable claim to be working in military intelligence."

I should point out, that for some reason, you're also the only one. Perhaps you should check with Betsy before this drives you to the darkest corners of Moonbattery. Perhaps she can calm your nerves.

Then again with your propensity to admire and support certified liars like Obama and Bill and his doormat, Hillary, I guess I should take your attempt to smear me as some sort of weird compliment. Then can keep all that. I don't need a remora.

As for my comment about using dismembered babies - that was one serving suggestion just for you because you're a Progressive that likes the trappings and bumper sticker slogans of Progressivism. I don't think you really would want to live the life Progressives are so fond of prescribing for the rest of us. You really should go to Planned Parenthood as they are the avowed experts on using baby body parts to get the biggest bang for the buck. Hillary goes to Planned Parenthood all the time - with her hand out for campaign donations. That's blood money, mark.

mark said...

I was also the only one who, when you went on a two-week rant calling Sen. Menendez a child-rapist, suggested you wait for actual evidence. Your refusal to acknowledge you were wrong proves you have no integrity.

Your "serving suggestion" about using body parts is proof you're not mentally balanced.

tfhr said...

The problem with Progressives is that they seldom have the intelligence to realize when they are being mocked.

mark said...

Are you now saying I shouldn't have taken your insane accusations seriously? No worries. I didn't.

The only people you are mocking are the true war-heroes and actual military intelligence experts.

tfhr said...

Would those people include the dead Americans, whose sacrifice you desecrated with your tasteless Peace Corps fish kill joke? I was just outside Fallujah when you wrote that in 2008 and quite a few American Marines and soldiers had died there - what a knee slapper, mark! And now, into his second term, your "hero", Barack Obama, has handed that city and much, much more to his "JV team" for further desecration.

I've never called myself a hero or even an expert but lets face it, you sneer at Americans that have served in the Armed Forces. Again, if you think I'm lying about my military record, prove it. But if you think lying is a problem, and you should, why on Earth do you support serial liars like Obama and the Clintons?

mark said...

I have always had a great respect and appreciation for those who have fought for our country. To continue to twist one stupid comment I made into something else is shameless on your part.
Even though I obviously did not agree with the decision to invade Iraq, I was not "spitting on the troops" or supporting Saddam, as you pretend to believe.

I have not said you didn't serve, but I do not believe you were posting to this site from a battlefield in Fallujah, as you once claimed.
Your own insane posts and accusations against me and others undermine your claim that you work for military intelligence. I'm not sure why you offer your discharge papers as proof of either.

tfhr said...


You're losing it again. A "battlefield in Fallujah"? I don't think I've ever used the term "battlefield" and certainly not regarding my location.

You don't believe I could post on a website? Find any person that served in Iraq. Ask them how they kept in touch with their families and friends. Ask them how they fulfilled all of the administrative requirements that befalls anyone serving in the military. It wouldn't be easy to do in 2003 or 2004 for a lot of personnel but by 2008, the time period in question here, not only did you see NIPR terminals in office spaces just about everywhere, you also had a lot of MWR supplied options via additional unclassified networks - even out at some of the forward operating bases.

The first time I logged on during my deployment was while I was enroute through Qatar. There were about a dozen MWR supplied terminals in the facility where I was housed while I waited for transportation into Iraq. When I got to Baghdad, the first time I logged on there was at a MWR internet café located above a gym which made it possible for me to send my wife an email to let her know that I had arrived safely and had a place to stay while I awaited better weather for the hop over to Fallujah.

By 2008, Fallujah was a pretty quiet place, one that was flush with supplies and services. At my location there were two huge dining facilities and a couple of decent gyms. The compound where I worked had enough thoughput available that some people even went so far as to chew up bandwidth with Skype.

Consider this: For the entire time I was there I'm aware of only one mortar round that might have impacted somewhere on the larger installation that contained our compound. The so-called "Surge" had brought the Sunnis out against AQI and things were pretty good. The people I supported spent most of their time training the Iraqi Security Forces and Iraqi SOF forces to handle things across al Anbar. If you want to use a term like "battlefield" to describe that, I guess you can, but the term is pretty archaic by itself and totally inaccurate when describing a conflict that had dwindled to that point in al Anbar.

Now in 2015, al Anbar, to include Fallujah, is a very different place and for that we can thank Joe Biden's personal efforts that ended in a failure to reach a SOFA agreement and above all, his boss' utter ineptitude and gross negligence. Obama reversed everything that was achieved in Iraq and today you have Iran there on the ground leading the fight against the Islamic State. If it were just that particular province, it would be bad enough, but it is so much worse: Unsatified with the wide scale atrocities they have committed against Iraqis, Yazidis, and Syrians, the Islamic State is now using chemical weapons on Kurdish Peshmerga in Northern Iraq and probably in Syria, according to the Germans:

The German Defense Ministry confirmed the reports of mustard gas during the attack when it said it had credible reports that 60 Kurdish fighters had suffered breathing problems during the assault. It also noted that none of the 37 German soldiers training Kurds in the area had been hurt.

I can understand that someone like you wouldn't have a clue about the DD-214 or some of the information typically found on the form. Regardless of whether you are enlisted or an officer, the schools you attended, your specialty or specialties, and your foreign service are all indicated, between blocks 11 and 18.

But as is so often the case with you, mark, you allow your political bias to stoke the strident and willful ignorance that has become your hallmark.

mark said...

Gotta admit that you make fairly a convincing case.
And then contrast that with the guy who has made absolutely disgraceful accusations and claims/lies about people supporting terrorists, being child-rapists or enjoying abortion "as a blood-sport".

These are not the words of a sane person:

Maybe you could make a lamp shade or a "Baby On Board" sign - made of real baby - to hang inside your Prius, you repulsive ghoul!!!!

tfhr said...


Again, you need to be able to understand when you are being mocked. If instead of calling abortion a blood sport, I simply say, "money making process conducted on an industrial scale wherein the proceeds from the parts of vivisected babies are transferred into the coffers of leftist politicians", would that make you feel better, you sensitive Prog, you? If there's something factually incorrect about that statement, let me know. Blood sport is more cavalier, if not just succinct but, I guess I can make the exception for you if I must.

Think seriously about it, mark. When millions upon millions of babies have been aborted over recent decades and from each mother, both a certain amount of "tissue" (I know you pro-abortion types like that tidy little euphemism) and a certain amount of money is extracted, doesn't it make you at least a little uneasy? I mean it's not quite like pulling gold fillings from teeth for money but doesn't pulling a life out of a living being and exterminating it seem equally, if not more horrible? If you cannot see the moral depravity in the conduct of those we've seen in the recently revealed videos, if it doesn't make you ask yourself "What is going on here?", if it doesn't make you squeamish, then I'm concerned for your sanity.

Finally, consider this: Abortion is an acceptable alternative to adoption, for some. I think most people, including you, would be disgusted if a woman conceived and carried a child to term for the purpose of selling the baby to the highest bidder. Not a surrogacy but an outright commercial prospect from day one. Why would selling that baby's organs ala cart be acceptable?

mark said...

Yes, tfhr, clearly your grotesque comments about abortion, child rape, and using baby parts are my fault. Let's throw in your "joke" about people being decapitated. In the meantime, keep pretending to be mortified by my dumb "fish" comment, which as I've said before, was a lame attempt to criticize the incompetence of the Bush admin during the Iraq war, and not to "desecrate" the troops, as you continue to falsely claim.

Take responsibility for your words, or "retract" them. Not that hard.

tfhr said...

So with your feeble attempt to deflect, you're saying you're good with harvesting baby parts for campaign funding, got it. That's shocking on so many levels but surprising nonetheless since you're always such a sensitive scold in these threads.