Steve Skojec

Thomas Fleming, via Jeff Culbreath:

“Watching McCain on the news or in a commercial, I become convinced that he is the most evil piece of selfishness who has ever run for the presidency, but my disgust quickly ebbs away when the simpering Obama takes the stage.  I can understand people who vote for McCain’s resume or support him as the lesser of two evils, but I no longer want to know anyone who votes for Obama for any reason.  He is an enemy of anything good that has ever been done in this country or this civilization, and when he is elected, I hope that all those Silicon Valley libertarians who supported him will live to see their property confiscated and their kids sent to reeducation camps.  Yes, that is mean-spirited and unChristian but it is unsettling to realize that you have lived among such monsters for so long without grasping the depth of their depravity and stupidity.”

To a man I wish I’d had the wisdom to vote for when I had the chance, and whom I lament more than ever that I can’t elect today - God grant you many years! (Heaven knows we need his insight down here more than they need his company up there.)

Kiana came up with the idea, based on personality and size difference, to do a Cat in the Hat theme. It was perfect.

Kids come home with such a haul these days. We had half a pillowcase full of candy when it was all said and done. And someone in the neighborhood was giving out money - can you tell we live close to the Federal Government?

This octopus can juggle crabs, rearrange a room, throw rocks, shoot out lights, and short circuit an aquarium. And that’s just when he’s bored.

Staff believe that the octopus called Otto had been annoyed by the bright light shining into his aquarium and had discovered he could extinguish it by climbing onto the rim of his tank and squirting a jet of water in its direction.

The short-circuit had baffled electricians as well as staff at the Sea Star Aquarium in Coburg, Germany, who decided to take shifts sleeping on the floor to find out what caused the mysterious blackouts.

A spokesman said: “It was a serious matter because it shorted the electricity supply to the whole aquarium that threatened the lives of the other animals when water pumps ceased to work.

“It was on the third night that we found out that the octopus Otto was responsible for the chaos.

“We knew that he was bored as the aquarium is closed for winter, and at two feet, seven inches Otto had discovered he was big enough to swing onto the edge of his tank and shoot out a the 2000 Watt spot light above him with a carefully directed jet of water.”

Director Elfriede Kummer who witnessed the act said: “We’ve put the light a bit higher now so he shouldn’t be able to reach it. But Otto is constantly craving for attention and always comes up with new stunts so we have realised we will have to keep more careful eye on him - and also perhaps give him a few more toys to play with.

“Once we saw him juggling the hermit crabs in his tank, another time he threw stones against the glass damaging it. And from time to time he completely re-arranges his tank to make it suit his own taste better - much to the distress of his fellow tank inhabitants.”

Not saying I’m going Baldwin, but I’m certainly considering it:

(h/t to MBD)

My good friend James Sullivan at The Rule links to a WND story by John Lofton that’s pretty shocking - saying that President Bush’s administration has given $2.2 Billion dollars (that’s NINE zeros) to Planned Parenthood:

So, where do I get the $2.2 billion figure? I get it from Jim Sedlak of the American Life League, an expert on Planned Parenthood and its federal funding. In an interview, Jim tells me yes, the Bush administration has indeed “extensively” funded Planned Parenthood, the total amount of federal funding (through 2006, the most recent figures known) being at least $2.2 billion. In Bush’s first year (2001), he approved $202 million for PP; in the last year for which there is reporting (2006), Bush gave PP $337 million – a single year funding increase of 67 percent. Sedlak notes that in 2006, PP showed a $114 million profit so did not need federal funding.

And “yes, certainly,” Jim says, every federal tax dollar given PP frees up one of its other dollars to pay for abortions. He adds: “And there are dollars that go into Planned Parenthood, especially state dollars, that pay for abortions. There are Medicaid programs, for example, that actually pay for abortions in some of the states. So some of this [federal] money goes directly to abortions.”

Jim says he has “no good answer” as to why Bush, supposedly pro-life, supposedly a “compassionate conservative,” would OK giving $2.2 billion in federal tax dollars to a group as evil as PP. He adds that he and others were hopeful that when Bush was elected he would cut off all Title 10 money to PP, “but he never has.”

When asked if over the years his group and other pro-life people have asked Bush or his people to cut off all PP federal funding, Jim says: “Yes, we made it absolutely clear that it is outrageous that Planned Parenthood continues to get all of this money.” So, what did Bush and his people say? “They gave no legitimate excuse for not cutting off the money. They told us this is difficult to do, they were working on it, they had to deal with Congress, etc. There was no substantive answer.”

Jim says that under President Bush, “Planned Parenthood has gotten more and more [federal] money every year – a slightly greater increase than under President Clinton.”

If this is true, it’s a bombshell, even if the program is funded through side channels. Steve Ertelt of Lifenews.com left a pretty huffy comment in James’ comment box about the article:

Not mentioned is the fact that this isn’t directly from Bush but from part of the Congressional budget. Pro-life advocates have tried for years to cut this family planning money to Planned Parenthood and we have lost the votes. Most recently we lost a 52-41 vote in the Senate to cut this funding (see http://www.lifenews.com/nat3385.html).

If we could cut the funding, Bush would gladly sign the non-gifting Planned Parenthood budget, so it’s totally disingenuous to say Bush wants this money and directly gave it to Planned Parenthood.

What is keeping us from having the votes to defeat this PP funding? We don’t have enough pro-life members of the House and Senate. Who opposes these pro-life candidates? Oh yes, John Lofton, a third party advocate, who says any pro-life Republican or Democrat really isn’t pro-life.

If Lofton is serious about cutting this $2.2 million in Planned Parenthood funding, he would launch a vigorous campaign to up our pro-life numbers in Congress. He’s done no such thing to my knowledge and frequently attacks the strategy of pro-life groups like Focus on the Family and National Right to Life that do and that have led the fight to cut this funding (http://www.lifenews.com/nat3405.html).

So Lofton does nothing to remedy the situation that enables the PP funding. Talk about hypocrisy.

The truth of the matter is that Bush has repeatedly cut off abortion funding. He installed the Mexico City Policy to prohibit funding of abortions abroad, he has signed bills with numerous abrotion funding bans domestically, and repeatedly cut off funding to UNFPA (and expanded the Reagan year limits in addition) because it is involved in China’s forced abortion programs. To say Bush is not against abortion funding is simply not factual.

So which is true? The WND article is more compelling, if for no other reason than that it offers substantiation, and a pretty damning interview. Even if Ertelt is correct and the blame lies with Congress, where is the Bush Administration’s fight to bring this to the public’s attention so it can be remedied? If it were me sitting in the White House and I knew this money was going, unchecked, to America’s largest abortion provider, you bet your bottom dollar I’d be making a racket and doing all in my power to get it stopped.

But then again - I’m pro-life - I don’t just campaign on it.

And that brings us again to the distinction that we so often fail to make. Politicians who claim to be pro-life believe in a platform that secures a voting base. They rarely seem to possess the personal conviction and sense of urgency that those of us who actually believe that abortion is murder do. Maybe it’s why we’re so disappointed every time we elect one of these schmucks only to have them phone it in on January 22nd and maybe appoint a judge or two when it’s their turn, or sign off on a parental notification law.

Where’s the fight? Where’s the passion? Where’s the guy who is willing to leverage every ounce of his political muscle as President (or Congressman, or Senator) to make abortion an unavoidable issue?

Nowhere, far as I can tell. Stories like this only back that up.

Just a reminder of why relying on John McCain to fight for the life of the unborn may be a bit…optimistic:

His position in 1999/2000 (and today):

And again, during the debates leading up to the 2000 campaign (note how combative he is toward G.W. Bush on rape/incest/life exceptions - and how correctly Alan Keyes points out the flaw in the argument of both McCain and Bush):

On the ESCR issue:

A bit more on his ESCR support:

And yet, at Saddleback - a seeming contradiction:

Cindy McCain, asked about Roe, says she is pro-life like her husband, yet opposes any elimination of life exceptions, and does not think it should be overturned (and then says, wait, yes, she does think it should if it goes to the states):

In the event this might just be considered a slip of the tongue, GMA follows up - and look how curtly she dismisses abortion as “not the major issue on people’s minds right now” (McCain tries to recover):

While there’s no question that McCain is substantially less pro-abortion than Obama, he does not deserve the honorable label of pro-life. Considering that many of us are planning to vote for him on that issue alone (and I am not immune from the temptation) I think it’s important to remember who he is, the positions he has taken in the past, and even the potential influence of his wife.

I also believe that it’s worth noting - and I hadn’t read this before this evening - that all the way back in February, Republicans for Choice endorsed McCain (emphasis mine):

Republicans for Choice initially favored Rudy Giuliani for president, but have given their endorsement to McCain following Giuliani’s withdrawal from the race on January 29. Stone says that McCain is the least pro-life candidate in the field, and is thus deserving of the Republicans for Choice endorsement.

“[McCain] is [pro-life], but it’s not at the top of his agenda, not like Huckabee or the born-again Romney,” Stone said in an interview with CNS News. “He’s shown his willingness to reach across the party, and we look forward to those discussions.”

This organization also praised McCain’s campaign earlier this year for modifying the party plank on abortion:

Was there any good news at the Platform Hearings in Minnesota for Moderate/Conservative Pro-Choice Republicans?

Yah Sure You Betcha!  But you didn’t read about it or see it on TV.

But the platform is still anti-choice and very anti-woman in many parts. So, how can we say there is any positive to be found?

First, the McCain campaign did not have control over what ultimately would be finalized in the Platform.  If they had their way they would have cut it down to just a few pages and stripped out most of the stuff with which we disagree.  That was their original intent but there were not the votes on the Platform committee to get that done.

Many of the Delegates on that Committee were not McCain Delegates — they were Huckabee and Romney et al Delegates.

Second, the McCain Platform staff writers, at our prodding, put in language into the Abortion Plank itself that talked about the need to work with those in the Party who disagree on this issue to find common ground.

This is the first time ever that any Presidential contender tried to tinker with that plank to add in language that recognized us.

This was not our first choice of what to put in — but it was RFC’s suggestion.  The more extreme elements of our Party who were on the Platform Committee in abundance stripped that language out.

We may have been defeated in the subcommittee but Platform Chairs Congressman Kevin McCarthy (CA) and Senator Richard Burr (NC) came through for us in the full Convention.

They added and reworked language that we, at RFC, had submitted, into the Preamble!  Not the appendix as had been done before — sticking some pathetic and weak attempt to appease us into the back end which no one sees.

No instead they took our suggested language and made it stronger and put it right up front.

Interestingly, Republicans for Choice also makes the case that neither John Roberts nor Samuel Alito are known quantities when facing a challenge to Roe - and that in fact both of them have records which could be construed to favor precedent in such a situation. I’ve been concerned about this for some time - New Oxford Review has expressed the same doubts about these two justices - and it does make me wonder what our odds are, even if McCain gets in, that he will:

a) pick a truly anti-Roe justice (or justices)

b) be able to have such justices, if nominated, confirmed by a democratic Congress

c) create an actual, willing majority on the SCOTUS which will strike down Roe

So there you have it. I’m looking for the truth here, for my own sake as well as anyone who cares to listen, and there’s a lot to be concerned about. There’s plenty of stuff out there saying John McCain is pro-life, that he’s feared by the pro-abortion lobby, etc., but I think his own words speak for themselves. He is not someone we can really trust on this, and we have to know that going in, even if we feel compelled (as many of us do) to vote for him against our will to help fight an Obama win, which will admittedly be worse.

For my part, I still don’t think I can do it. I’ll compromise a lot to save lives, especially babies, but I remain unconvinced that a vote for McCain is really the right thing.

(Credit: Gary McCoy)

As you were!