E!!

Much has been said about Obama’s hurried, we-must-do-it-now approach to health care reform.  I don’t want the rush, and further, I think rushing through this is a really good way to ensure we end up with some really bad policy.

Now CNN’s Dana Bash is reporting that Harry Reid said there will be no Senate vote until after August on health care.

But, from Ohio, Ed Henry reports that a “senior administration official” said Reid’s comment does not change the president’s plans:  He still wants votes in both houses before August recess.

H/T:  K-Lo @ The Corner

Update:  Mr. Crum just called me and said he thinks Harry Reid’s statement was made with one eye on the polls and one on Reid’s 2010 senatorial campaign.  If a bill is rushed through and things don’t end well, Reid can say he tried to slow things down.  If things do turn out well, he can still point to how cautious he was.

Dina Titus (D-NV) casts a vote that earns my respect. 

From an article in the WSJ:

A group of Democrats elected in recent years from some of the country’s richest congressional districts have emerged as a stumbling block to raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for President Barack Obama’s ambitious health-care overhaul just as the plan has begun to meet increasing resistance over its cost.

Friday, two freshmen representatives — Dina Titus, from suburban Las Vegas, and Colorado’s Jared Polis, representing Boulder, Vail and some of the tonier suburbs of Denver — joined Republicans to vote against Mr. Obama’s top-priority health-care overhaul when it faced a vote in their House Education and Labor Committee. One reason was a one-percentage point-surtax on couples earning between $350,000 and $500,000 — gradually increasing to 5.4 percentage points on earnings more than $1 million — to pay for it.

Excerpted and condensed from an email from Erick Erickson at RedState:

Obama has proposed sending the International Monetary Fund (IMF) billions of dollars as a quasi-bailout for European banks. 

The word is, House Republicans are going to vote in a block to oppose this, which means around thirty Democrats are needed to defeat the bill.   Blue Dog Dems are the key, along with Dems in districts that tilt Republican.  

Call 202-224-3121. Ask for the members of Congress below and tell them to oppose H.R. 2346, the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Bobby Bright AL-02
Parker Griffith AL-05
Ann Kirkpatrick AZ-01
Suzanne Kosmos FL-24
Walt Mitnick ID-01
Frank Kratovil MD-01
Glenn Nye VA-02
Tom Perriello VA-05Travis Childers (MS-01)
Harry Mitchell (AZ-05)
Gabby Giffords (AZ-08)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Bill Foster (IL-14)
Baron Hill (IN-09)

If  you can, call and urge these NV legislators to vote against the budget:

Sen. Reid       202-224-3542

Sen. Ensign     202-224-6244

Rep. Heller     202-225-6155

Numbers for the “Mod Squad” in the Senate:

Evan Bayh (IN): 202-224-5623
Mark Begich (AK): 202-224-3004
Michael Bennet (CO): 202-224-5852
Thomas Carper (DE): 202-224-2441
Kay Hagan (NC): 202-224-6342
Claire McCaskill (MO): 202-224-6154
Mary Landrieu (LA): 202-224-5824
Joe Lieberman (CT): 202-224-4041
Ben Nelson (NE): 202-224-6551
Jeanne Shaheen (NH): 202-224-2841

Also… these Republicans are on the fence:

Arlen Specter (PA): 202-224-4254
Olympia Snowe (ME): 202-224-5344

Leslie Carbone, on tomorrow’s Stimulus anti-Stimulus vote in the House, that is.

Michelle Malkin provided us with the entire roll call vote on the Geithner nomination including the 10 GOP’ers who voted Yes:

Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Voinovich (R-OH)

Come on, guys:  even Arlen Specter voted No on this one!

As did Democrats Tom Harkin, Robert Byrd, and Russ Feingold - and Independent Bernie Sanders.

Kim Strassel @ the WSJ reports a general lack of Senatorial enthusiasm for Big Labor’s card check proposal.  Nice to see most reasonable Dems are willing to curtail the unions – and preserve the integrity of elections via the secret ballot.

Hat Tip:  Cranky Hermit

Read about it here on Boston.com.

If you think fraudulent voter registration cards can’t turn into votes and that all the “vote fraud” stories are just Hype, you should read this excellent new piece by WSJ columnist John Fund writing for Politico.  As usual, John’s fact checking and research is stellar. Here are some excerpts from his article:

ACORN’s second line of defense has been that fraudulent registrations can’t turn into fraudulent votes, as if the felony of polluting voter lists was somehow not all that serious. But that defense goes only a short distance. “How would you know if people using fake names had cast votes in states without strict ID laws?” says GOP Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, who this year won a major Supreme Court case upholding his state’s photo identification law. “It’s almost impossible to detect and once the fraudulent voter leaves the precinct or casts an absentee ballot, that vote is thrown in with other secret ballots there’s no way to trace it.”

AND

Anita MonCrief, an ACORN whistle-blower who worked for both it and its Project Vote registration affiliate from 2005 until early this year, agrees. “It’s ludicrous to say that fake registrations can’t become fraudulent votes,” she told me. “I assure you that if you can get them on the rolls you can get them to vote, especially using absentee ballots.”

AND

There are already documented examples of fraudulent registrations being converted into fraudulent votes in Ohio, where ACORN and other groups were active. Darrell Nash, an ACORN registration worker, submitted an illegal form for himself and then cast a paper ballot during the state’s “early voting” period.

Franklin County prosecutor Ron O’Brien also cracked down in the case of 13 out-of-state registrants who came to Ohio to register voters in Columbus for the group Vote From Home. The group all lived out of the same rented 1,175-square-foot house in Ohio, registered to vote and then most of them either cast early voting ballots or submitted applications for absentee ballots before leaving the state. They have agreed to have all of their ballots canceled in exchange for the prosecutor’s decision not to file charges.

AND

Perhaps the clearest look at how fraudulent registrations can be converted into votes comes from Wisconsin. Earlier this year, the Milwaukee Police Department’s Special Investigation Unit released a stunning 67-page report detailing an “illegal organized attempt to influence the outcome” of the 2004 presidential election. 

It noted many documented cases of staffers for a presidential campaign and an allied 527 group who illegally voted. Those involved in the scheme “represent multiple levels of both the organizations, from upper management to the street level canvassers.” The task force report found many ineligible voters had cast ballots, ineligible felons not only had voted but also worked at the polls, transient college students had cast illegal votes along with day-trippers from nearby Chicago, and homeless voters may well have voted more than once.

Read the whole thing!

I’ve got two new posts up @ Vote Fraud Squad:

Judges to rule on Georgia citizenship case

and

GOP hired hand arrested in Cali on suspicion of voter registration fraud

E!! is a Proud Supporter of the VIP

Kathleen Parker chimed in on the Christopher Buckley thing.  A very well written piece, and I agree with much (though not all) of it.

Let me be clear that I have no issue with Buckley’s complaints against and dissatisfaction with the Republican party.  In these things I agree with him and am similarly disgruntled.

My criticism was not of the fact that Buckley left National Review; it was the way he left.

And, though his vote is his own, I don’t think it makes sense to show your disgust for the lack of conservatism in the GOP by voting for the candidate/party who has even less of it.

UPDATE:  As for the “shunning” of conservatives like Buckley, I have to agree with what Rich Lowry said just a bit ago, mentioning both Kathleen and Peggy Noonan:

In her Palin-centered column, Peggy says those “whose thoughts lead them to criticism in this area are to be shunned, and accused of the lowest motives,” and then cites Christopher’s resignation from his NR column as an example. Peggy is a busy person, so I suppose she hasn’t had time to notice that Kathleen Parker’s columns ripping Sarah Palin have appeared on NRO. That David Frum has aired his discontent with the Palin pick on NRO. That others of us—Ramesh and even me (between my occasional bouts of rhapsodic gushing!)—have criticized aspects of her performance. And that other writers on NRO have stuck up for Palin and pushed back against the critics. It’s called debate.

Now, I regret how some conservatives immediately question the motives of the critics of Palin, but it’s equally regrettable that Noonan, Parker et al are portraying most conservatives as irrational thugs. It makes you wonder: Who is really being overly emotional and deeply unfair in this intra-mural conservative debate? Which brings us naturally to Kathleen Parker’s column today. Read and judge for yourself. Is this calm, cool deliberation? Or hyperbole worthy of a peeved e-mailer? (By the way, I hate that Kathleen got any abusive e-mails at all; it’s a very unfortunate part of the world of the web. But hate e-mail goes both ways. I wouldn’t want to live for a minute with, say, Kathryn Lopez’s or Jonah Goldberg’s in-box on any given day.)

Finally, on Christopher, I already addressed it here. But he proffered a “sincere offer” of resignation of his column that he had taken up temporarily while Mark Steyn was on hiatus. It struck us as a win-win: Chris would get out of a column we thought he wanted out of; we’d get Mark Steyn, who had recently returned to writing, back on our back page. We never imagined Chris would feel he’d been “fatwa-ed.” In any case, Chris is still on NR’s board, and is welcome to write pieces for us going forward, which I’m hoping he’ll do after everyone, very much including the Noonans and Parkers of the world, takes a deep breath.

And BTW, I posted on what Peggy Noonan said earlier over at Culture11‘s LadyBlog.

Apparently the peeps back in Massachusetts are considering getting rid of the state income tax.

Didn’t believe it myself until I read this (very biased) Globe piece which confirms that Question 1 is indeed on the ballot, that it would completely abolish the state income tax, and that the last time around (2002) the measure got 45% of the vote.

If approved, the state income tax would be cut from 5.3 to 2.65 percent on Jan. 1, 2009 and then be abolished a year later.

The usual suspects are opposed to the measure, citing concerns about the loss of tax revenue and the subsequent “catastrophic” cuts to “needed” services.  

Taxaholics always warn of the rapid decline of schools, roads, and public safety if voters dare to abolish taxes.  They paint a dire picture of social disintegration:  your kids will suddenly become uneducated boobs; you’ll have to drive a covered wagon to work on a dirt road; and your town will be plundered by Viking marauders.

Or, as supporters of the measure say, Beacon Hill will be forced to find more efficient ways to achieve what really matters and cut unnecessary spending. 

Currently, seven states manage to avoid sliding into total anarchy while imposing no income tax:  Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.  Additionally, New Hampshire and Tennessee limit their state income taxes to dividends and interest income only.

(Hat Tip on Question 1:  My friends at the Americans for Tax Reform blog)

From a Newt e-blast today:

To give you a sense of how failed the current [financial] strategy has been, consider this: This summer a $300 billion housing bailout was passed with a $500 million a year payment to a radical, anti-free market group called ACORN and other left-wing organizing groups.

ACORN is a left-wing, political extortion racket. It’s currently busy bussing people to vote early in Ohio and elsewhere…these are your tax dollars at work.

You get taxed to send a left-wing group money to use to elect left-wing predatory politicians to raise your taxes to give more money to groups who help them get elected…etc.

It was suicidal for a Republican president to sign that housing bailout bill and any bill that contains funding for groups so radically opposed to the values and interests of the vast majority of Americans.

If you aren’t in the loop on all this, in Ohio and other swing states ACORN has been bussing poor and homeless people to voter registration stations where they sign up, and vote, same day, in some cases without providing proper proof of residency/address.  In many cases, it’s being reported that election monitors are not present at these stations.

Will these thousands of same-day registrations/votes be properly examined and rejected if invalid?  Who knows?

I’m doing some research here in Nevada, where ACORN is also active, and will report back with any findings. 

 Just received a press release (statement) from the Titus campaign.  Here are some excerpts:

Titus: Bailout Package Is One More Example of How Washington Is Broken

1.  Titus fails to mention that the government policies which birthed the Fannie/Freddie financial crisis were enacted in the Carter and Clinton administrations with the approval of both Ds and Rs in Congress, so she’s either uninformed or being deliberately dishonest.

2.  Titus says Bush and Porter are to blame for the lack of oversight when nearly everyone including the present Democratic leadership was complicit in looking the other way, so she’s either uninformed or being deliberately partisan.

3.  Titus rips Porter for being in favor of the imperfect bailout bill, but then says “with so many critical tax breaks” for Nevada she would have “reluctantly” voted for the inadequate bill also, so she’s either very confused…or being hypocritical.

Porter voted for the bill.  Titus bloviates at length – and then says she would have voted for the bill.  When all the ranting and raving is done, what in Sam Hill is the difference?!

Neither the guy who’s in, nor the gal who wants to BE in, has the gumption to stand on principle and fight for good policy when there are special tax credits to be had.  Of course:  how else could they ingratiate themselves to the voters?  Just look at all they’ve done for you!!

That’s a REAL example of how Washington is broken – and Nevada, too. 

E!! sends enthusiastic kudos to Nevada Congressman Dean Heller.  He voted against the bailout bill earlier this week AND voted against the dressed-up version again today. 

Two thumbs down to Nevada Congresswoman Shelley Berkley who switched her earlier “no” to a “yes.”  Ditto downers to NV Senator Ensign and Rep. Porter who also voted “yes.”

See this post at Politico for a list of vote switchers in other states.  The vote was 263-171.

It sickens me to think this bill was the best Congress could manage to give us after working on nothing else for over a week.

Economic expert John Lewis (D-GA) said about his ‘yes’ vote, “I have decided that the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing something.”

So comforting to know we have geniuses like Lewis looking out for us in Washington.

“I understand the impulse to obsess over the pain and potential catastrophe staring us in the face, but what if the wages of drastically altering the capitalist system that has been our engine of freedom are decidedly worse?” — Andy McCarthy

NOTE:  There is nearly NO commentary about this on conservative/libertarian blogs yet.  I surmise everyone has logged off and is headed to their favorite bar to drown their sorrow (and disgust).

Double Ketel One and cran, please.

If no bailout bill is passed and no other/better solution can be agreed upon, I am just fine with having us (and the rest of the world) go into a recession where everyone becomes more financially conservative and/or moderate. 

If I personally have to lose a little in the short term, so be it.  It’s what is best and wisest in the big picture that matters.  “Principle over pain.”

(Note to Chris Matthews on his statement that Dems “overwhelmingly” voted for the bailout bill:  sixty percent is not overwhelming.  In fact, I’d say it’s rather underwhelming.)

Well, with Nevada’s state senate head count sitting at 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that this campaign season is becoming increasingly unscrupulous.  The Dems want that majority so they can rule supreme in the next legislative session.  And apparently they are willing to lie, cheat, smear, and steal the victory if necessary.

Earlier this week we read about attempts to smear Senator Bob Beers via malicious and misleading bright yellow billboards.  Now the Las Vegas Sun reports that we have a flurry of expensive glossy mail pieces snowing down on District 5’s Republican state Senator Joe Heck.

The colorful mailers feature a series of vivid images of suffering cancer patients and say that Heck, a Nevada doctor, voted against requiring insurance companies to include cervical cancer screenings in their basic coverage, while simultaneously accepting campaign donations from those very insurance companies.

That claim is false.

Insurance companies have been required by the state of Nevada to cover screenings for cervical cancer since 1989.

The mailers don’t include any citations (of course!) but are reported to refer to legislation from 2007. 

Heck did vote against a 2007 bill that required some insurance companies to cover Gardasil, the vaccine for the human papilloma virus, which has been proven in clinical studies to be a precursor to cervical cancer…and was criticized by some for doing so, but Heck says he opposes new mandates on insurance companies because they increase the cost of coverage.

Interestingly, the multi-colored mailings don’t say a peep about Heck’s opponent, retired Clark County School District administrator Shirley Breeden, who had little to say about the mailers.  She told the Sun, “The tone, to me, is exactly how he voted. Times are tough and people want a change.”

The TONE [of the mailers]…is exactly how Heck voted?  What does that mean? 

Heck either voted Yes or No on this bill, and these mailers either Lie or do not Lie.  Talking about their “tone” is meaningless and has no bearing on the facts.  I am so tired of this kind of verbal sidestepping from some of these Dems as they speak loftily of the “tone,” “mood,” “feeling,” and “nuance” of issues.

These touchy-feely terms evade the stark truth and help candidates wiggle out of calling a spade a Spade:  these shiny, brightly colored mailers are lying about Heck’s voting record!! 

Shirley Breeden’s comment about how well their “tone” goes with the pitch, timbre, and tint of (this darkly dishonest campaign against) Heck should tell Nevada’s voters all they need to know about her. 

And let’s not overlook this little political tidbit:  Not only are the Dems champing at the bit to control the state Senate, they are also Quite concerned because (it is rumored that) Heck, a well respected doctor and colonel in the Army Reserve, may challenge Harry Reid in 2010.

AND Heck’s name has been thrown in the hat as a possible candidate for future governor. And in that case, he could wind up facing off against another Reid — Harry’s son Rory, current chairman of the Clark County Commission.

Is the shade, hue, and color of these Democratic paint-by-numbers smear projects starting to look like something to voters now…?

UPDATE:  A reader rightly points out that campaign seasons cannot be unscrupulous (see my first sentence).  Political seasons aren’t unprincipled, and the age is not corrupt.  It’s people who are dishonest, dodgy, and devious.

Every now and then an E!! reader-commenter deserves front-and-center for noting some aspect of a story I overlooked…or for seeing it in a new way.  Here’s Mike Davis quoting and commenting on a LV Sun story about the four Nevada Ron Paul delegates who ended up voting for McCain:

“Carl Bunce claims Gestapo tactics were used to coerce him into voting for McCain, but I found Lisa Mascaro’s article in yesterday’s Sun to be particularly revealing:

“Dyer said he and Bunce, who ran recently failed in congressional primary elections, want to run for office again. So they had motivation to play nice.

“When the roll call vote came, Bunce and Dyer forfeited their seats so two McCain supporters could fill the slots.

“Not all of Paul’s supporters are pleased. Wayne Terhune, the Sparks dentist who had helped lead the fight, said ‘they should have at least abstained’

“As party Chairwoman Sue Lowden announced Nevada’s 34 unanimous votes for McCain, Bunce and Dyer were at a concert a few blocks away.

“They were listening to Rage Against the Machine, the 1990s rock band that once offered a soundtrack for a generation of politically disaffected young fans.”

After all of the nonsense over the last 4 months to get these guys there, and when the vote finally goes down, two of the four delegates weren’t even in the building.

That’s frigging sad.”

(Mike Davis is the state chair of the Nevada Republican Liberty Caucus, a grassroots org for libertarian-leaning members of the NV Republican Party who are committed to advancing the Republican majority by recruiting and electing candidates dedicated to constitutional government, economic opportunity, and individual liberty.)

UNbeLIEVEable.

After all the gripes, demands, curve balls and chaos out of the Ron Paul camp here in Nevada this past 5 months…starting with the attempted overthrow of the GOP convention in April and followed by a long, hot summer filled with bitter accusations, a rogue convention, various court filings, angry refusals to negotiate or cooperate, and a formal appeal to the RNC….

AND after being granted four delegates by the RNC – the EXACT NUMBER earned by Ron Paul in the NV caucuses and that was agreed to by the NV GOP way back when…what do you suppose happened on the floor of the convention last night?

All four “Ron Paul delegates” voted for John McCain.

What a colossal waste of time, energy, and money, for all concerned.

After carrying herself in a fair, patient, and professional manner over the past eight months, it seems Sue Lowden must now bear up under the label “inept” by the RNC Committee on Contests.  This tag seems harsh and unfair in light of the extreme difficulty and complexity of Lowden’s position this election cycle.

The real story – which is not one of party ineptitude but instead of the combative and unreasonable demeanor of one Mr. Jeff Greenspan – began early this year.  Greenspan, an official Ron Paul campaign representative with whom Lowden was working after Paul received 14 percent of the vote in our presidential caucuses, agreed that the Nevada GOP would give Paul 14 percent of the state delegation (equating to four delegates).  Lowden invited Ron Paul to speak at our state convention, and Greenspan submitted the names of four Ron Paul supporters to the Nominating Committee for consideration.

But on the morning of the convention, April 26, for reasons I have yet to understand, Greenspan went back on the deal with the Nevada GOP.  Instead of moving to an up-or-down vote on the delegate candidates pre-screened from the dozens that had been submitted for consideration, Greenspan teamed up with a Paul supporter named Mike Weber, led a floor “revolt,” and threw the convention into chaos.  How did they accomplish this?  By insisting on opening up nominations from the floor.  This resulted in some 287 new nominations for 31 delegate slots and 31 alternates.

There was no way the convention and/or state party could hear and vet 287 last-minute nominations in one day.  In fact, in light of the time it takes to hear individual speeches/pitches for candidacy, eat meals, take bathroom breaks, allow for interruptions, and take care of other necessary convention business, it is doubtful whether full, fair and proper vetting of 287 new delegate candidates could have been done in two, three, or even four days.

And so it was that the well coordinated, pre-arranged delegate selection process put in place by the party and agreed to by Jeff Greenspan turned into an unholy mess.  The convention fell apart.  And to outsiders, the process meltdown probably did appear “inept.” 

After the convention fell apart, Greenspan, Weber, and other Paul supporters like Wayne Terhune continued their crusade, doing what they could to impede reconvening and even holding their own unsanctioned “convention” in June.  Due to the boycott by the Paul people, the GOP was unable to obtain enough RSVPs to obtain a quorum for the reconvening of the official state convention.

This week the RNC Committee on Contests reviewed the matter, ruled that the Paul “convention” in June was unauthorized, rejected the “delegates” that were “elected” at that meeting, and recommended a compromise by which the Nevada Republican Party will replace four of the current convention delegates (which the Nevada GOP’s Executive Committee appointed last month) with four Ron Paul delegates. 

Readers will note that four delegates is exactly the number of delegates the Nevada GOP had originally agreed to include before Greenspan reneged on the original deal.

Chairwoman Sue Lowden has agreed to the compromise.

“It was always my intention and hope to bring the Ron Paul people into our party,” she said yesterday.   “In fact, I was the only state Republican party chairman to invite Ron Paul to speak at our state GOP convention.  So I’m more than happy to accept the compromise proposal from the Contest Committee, especially since it’s exactly what we had already agreed to last April.”

The matter is scheduled to move to the national convention’s Credentials Committee next.  If the Paul camp also accepts the compromise proposal, this mess will be at an end.

Either way, Greenspan and his minions owe Sue Lowden an apology for their antics and the tremendous amount of time and energy that has been wasted trying to work with them and around them.  And Ron Paul should dismiss Greenspan from his campaign.

While I’m researching the latest with our state delegation, Erick Erickson is saying this re: Nevada:

Two states are quietly seizing on the disarray with the Nevada delegation. I’m told quite reliably that if McCain picks a liberal Vice Presidential nominee the majority of delegates in two states plan to force a vote on the convention floor.

From how it was explained to me, five states must support a motion to vote on the nominee. Two states just might do it and they are calculating on Nevada going along with it, which would necessitate only two other states needed.

Hospital nurse Jill Stanek – the woman who held that late-term Downs Syndrome baby in her arms for 45 minutes as it suffered and took its last breath and then later testified before the Illinois state Senate and Congress – was on Hannity & Colmes last night. 

She said that in her experience, babies survive 10 to 20% of all late term abortions and could survive if given the proper medical care.

And she said that even after hearing her detailed testimony about what had gone on in this hospital, Obama still spoke out against the Born-Alive law in no uncertain terms.

Obama stated (and I heard the sound byte played this morning, exactly as she represented it) that having another doctor come in to evalute and save a born-alive baby after a botched abortion is “too cumbersome because…it burdens the original decision” i.e. it overrides the mother’s decision to abort.

In other words, Obama knew exactly what had happened – and would happen again – without the passage of the Born-Alive Act and he still voted against it when not one other member of the Senate did.

Obama has given us (at least) four explanations for his vote and still has not admitted the truth.  Clearly, he realizes that what he knew, when he knew it, and why he did what he did is so unthinkable to the average person that it is basically political suicide to admit it. 

Focus group studies on this issue have shown that even people who are “pro-choice” are repulsed and sickened by the thought of someone standing by and doing nothing while a living, breathing baby dies.  The average person possesses a primary, deep-seated instinct to help a suffering, dying creature and cannot understand or relate to someone who would not do so if given the chance.

Obama once said his definition of “sin” was to be “out of alignment with my own values.”  This past Sunday at Saddelback, he lamented that we do not do enough to live out the value of doing well unto “the least of these.”  (As you have done unto the least of these, so you have done unto Me.”  Matthew 25:40)

When all this has passed, I hope Obama contemplates his present failures and the grave errors which preceded them, that he feels the sting of shame and remorse, and that he begs mercy from the Maker he says he believes in…for doing nothing to stop the suffering and dying of “the least of these.”  For who is more powerless and helpless than a tiny baby unwanted and abandoned by its own mother?

 Peter Kirsanow is on fire today over on the Corner.  Here are his remarks from blog post entitled “The Seminal Question Regarding Obama and Born-Alive”:

Asked on CBN about his past opposition to an Illinois bill protecting babies born after surviving botched abortions, Obama replied, “I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”

Someone IS lying, but is it “folks” or is it Obama?  Here are the facts:

In 2000, when Congress took up legislation clarifying that infants born alive after abortions are Persons under the law, the bill passed the House 380 to 15…yet in 2001, when Obama was in the Illinois state Senate, he verbally opposed and then voted “present” – effectively a ”no” – on a similar bill. 

(Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a “no” vote because only “yes” votes count toward the passage of a bill. Legislators vote “present” rather than “no” for a variety of reasons, including making it harder for political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.)

In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a “neutrality clause” saying it didn’t affect Roe one way or another. The bill unanimously passed the House and Senate and was signed into law…yet in 2003, back in Illinois, Obama still opposed the state version of the law.

Obama has been saying he voted against that bill because it didn’t include the same “neutrality clause” as the federal form – but the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has now found documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted against it anyway.

Confronted about this, Obama said the NRLC was lying…but his campaign has since admitted Obama is “mistaken.”  Once again, Obama either doesn’t know his own record or is so comfortable lying that falsehoods roll off his tongue with ease.

When asked by Pastor Rick Warren @ Saddelback when a baby has rights, Obama said, “I’m absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue.”  Apparently Obama’s predictable equivocating is exceeded only by his ability to state the obvious with all the seriousness of a self-styled Socrates. 

In that same forum at Saddleback, Obama said that deciding when a baby gets the rights of Personhood is “above his pay grade.”  But shouldn’t our chief executive have an opinion about the legal definition of a Person…especially if he says he is willing to permit abortions in ANY circumstance? 

Put another way, what kind of morally bankrupt and moronic person says he realizes there is a serious ethical aspect to an issue, and then says it is beyond the scope of his capabilities to decide the matter, but then goes ahead and makes a choice anyway?  I mean, doesn’t any sane and reasonable person stay neutral on issues of which he is unsure?

One would think so, but in 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation he’d sign into law as our president. The act would end ALL current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the federal funding of abortions.

I usually avoid name-calling here on E!! but today I make an exception.

Barack Obama is either an Idiot or Pathological Liar or Both.  I cannot think of any candidate in recent times who was/is less deserving of the presidency.

Question:  How many years does it take a group of Clark County Commissioners to decide to open a finished beltway interchange for public use?

Answer:  Two.

Read about it here.  Hopefully common sense will win out at the August 19 meeting.  Contact your commissioner before then if you give a hoot.

AFF is on Reid’s case again, this time via the radio airwaves in Nevada.  Here’s part of the transcript:

How’s Harry Reid using his position as Majority Leader to help lower gas prices?  Reid and Congress just took a five week vacation – instead of working to lower gas prices. Congress found time to pass National Apple Month, but Reid continues to block votes to explore for energy in America.

America has huge energy reserves, but Congress has placed up to 85 percent of them off-limits. Reid repeatedly blocks efforts to lift the moratorium on safe exploration off our coasts. Reid opposes exploring a tiny portion of Alaska – less land than the Las Vegas airport – and he’s against developing our massive oil shale reserves.

Call Harry Reid: 702-388-5020. Tell him his vacation should end and the Senate should vote on S. 3202.”

Hat Tip:  PolitickerNV

Some House Republicans are still carrying on their protest on the floor of the House.  The White House says they will not answer the call for a Special Session because the majority leadership still sets the agenda and no one can force them to do an up-down vote on energy/offshore drilling.

Call, email or write to your House Democrat(s) now and demand that they return to D.C. and put offshore drilling (and other sound energy policy) to a vote.

Here’s some video footage from the press conference that followed the Republicans’ attempt to reconvene the House on Friday.  At one point it was stated that the Republicans are not going home until the Dems agree to re-adjourn and vote on energy – or until W. orders a Special Session.  I hope they stick with it.  Nobody in Congress has any business taking a vacation until the People’s business is done.

John Derbyshire @ NRO on Obama’s speech:

If you got a leg tingle from that, one of your computer cables is stripped & resting against your leg.

Is it just me, or have presidential candidates been getting worse and worse these past few decades? These two are appalling. I shall not vote for either. Fact, I wouldn’t trust either of them to mail a letter.