There's much to discuss in terms of implication, as regards the shooting of abortionist George Tiller, none of them particularly complimentary to those claiming to take up Tiller's side.
Even from the outset, my instinct was that the reaction to the Tiller story was overblown... intentionally so. Whatever else might be said, we're talking about one man's death. Absent the issue of Abortion, and in light of the seven men in Chicago alone, shot in the same 24 hour period, one man being shot just isn't national news, sorry. It also and most certainly doesn't rise to the level of 'terrorism' as some have been loudly claiming.
It's interesting, too, how the word "'Terrorism" has been rediscovered by the left, to be applied to this thing, isn't it? Let's examine this, for a moment:
Since back in 1993, there have been seven abortion clinic workers killed as such. If this constitutes an organized bit of terrorist activity, I suggest it to be so far below the radar as to be invisible. This is a misapplication of the term terrorism, in light of the much larger terrorism we've seen in the last decade... terrorism that for the most part, the left ignored. They also ignore that the killing of Tiller has been condemned by every mainstream pro-life group. Their entire response seems out of the bounds of reason.
So unreasonably loud is the howl over this one in fact, that one cannot help but wonder if it wasn't orchestrated so. If we take what we see on the web as indicative, for the most part these are leftists.... who are people already used to making noise far in excess of their actual numbers. I think we can take this level of noise as an indication of the number of organized mouthpieces on the web right now. (And I think that has implications for our political future.)
There are a goodly number of left-of-center bloggers that have [...]
Next to the Holy Bible, the US Constitution is probably the most important document you will ever come in contact with. Some may argue whether the Bible actually takes precedence, but that's a discussion for another time.
But few would debate that that, in a world where we put aside our differences with regard to faith, the document hammered out in 1787 to replace the failing Articles of Confederation is the most important bullwork to protecting our liberties.
And yet, without the accepted social contracts that the Constitution implies we operate under, and the willingness of those who "lead" our nation to maintain the integrity of the purpose and protections the Constitution affords us, we would likely drift into chaos. But as long as we can point longingly at that document and proclaim it's efficacy to protect our rights, we are safe.
On Saturday, I spent my usual morning perusing my favorite daily periodical, the Wall Street Journal. As I began reading an interesting piece by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey on the D.C. Voting Rights Act (an excellent treatise on the issue), my dear wife (who likes to [...]
Weâ€™ve recently watched as Israel and Hamas have slugged it out. As always, when Israel seeks to defend itself, there have been many saying Israelâ€™s response to Hamas has not been â€œproportionalâ€.
What is, in fact, a proportional response?. Any other country suffering under the weight of literally thousands of rockets landing indiscriminately on their territory would not only have responded with harsher and more deadly methods, but the world community would have likely agreed with their doing so. Yet Israel has to defend its right to survive in the court of world opinion. Thatâ€™s a discrepancy Iâ€™ve never understood.
Some historical perspective is in order. Letâ€™s take World War II, Japan. The Allied offer at Potsdam was rejected. Pottsdam demanded surrender. Japan refused and kept fighting.. Nothing short of total Japanese defeat was going to end the war, So, the only way out of this fight was to win it.
As a direct result of unrestrained force.. (What, after all, is nuclear warfare but unrestrained force?) resulting in defeat of Japan, the war [...]
Yes, we've been out of pocket for a few weeks now. After returning from family matters, work (yes, I have a real job) was a bit overwhelming for many reasons. At any rate, we hope that the new year will provide us both more opportutnity to share daily thoughts and to begin expanding the focus of The Conservative Reader to more principled discussions.
Tonight and tomorrow many of us will be visiting our local churches to share in celebration of the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Our family will be worshiping this evening.
Three things to share today.
The First Amendment
Thank God for the freedom in our society, as declared by the wisdom of the founders of our country, to worship freely as we see fit, or not to worship at all. I'm sure that some of the motivation behind this right comes from the surprising amount of diversity and infighting among different groups (denominations) who all profess to worship the same Christ, and the history of violence of government against those who do not worship the government's official "church". And yet I'm also confident that the generation that established our Bill of Rights also perceived the need to protect any who chose to worship other than the norm, including Jewish, Islam, Native American religions, Oriental religions, or none at all.
This is a precious freedom, and one of a handful that if we ever [...]
Britt Hume a couple nights ago:
A traditional Thanksgiving meal between two elementary schools in Claremont, California, has parents in an uproar over costumes.
The kindergarteners have long celebrated the holiday by dressing up as pilgrims and Native Americans and taking turns visiting the other school to share in a holiday feast, but parents this year are divided over what the costumes represent and whether they should be allowed at all.
Michelle Raheja, whose daughter is a kindergarten student, wrote to her teacher, â€œItâ€™s demeaning. Iâ€™m sure you can appreciate the inappropriateness of asking children to dress up like slaves (and kind slave masters), or Jews (and friendly Nazis) or members of any other racial minority group who has struggled in our nationâ€™s historyâ€¦ There is nothing [...]
Thatâ€™s what Ben Smith is reporting, yesterday morning:
Andrea Mitchell reported this evening that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, something thatâ€™s been buzzed about as a possibility for a few days.
I havenâ€™t been able to confirm it, and neither Obama nor Clinton camps would comment, though NBC apparently has confirmation that she went to Chicago today.
One interesting item: Clinton aides are not knocking the report down, which they might.
Since Ben wrote that, apparently, there are confirmations are coming from a number of sources, including the Washington Post:
Thereâ€™s increasing chatter in [...]