« Helpful...To A Point | Main | A Word from the Wise (?) »

June 15, 2008



Great show on the McLaughlin Group this weekend and good discussion on the tax issue. The expiration of the the Bush tax cuts will mean a tax increase for everyone across the board, not just the rich. The Democrats have been putting out this propaganda that the Bush tax cuts was just for the rich, but the fact is everyone got a tax cut back in 2003. When the tax cuts expire everyone will have a tax increase, even the lower income tax brackets. Also, the majority of Americans benefit from the lower capital gains and divident tax cuts that are part of Bush's legacy. If Obama wins in November and the Democrats maintain control of Congress they will increase the capital gains tax and tax on dividends. That will effect everyones 401k plans and other retirement plans and savings.

The other issue which I believe you raised is the 1 trillion dollars in new spending on social welfare give away programs including national health care.

Many people point to the Clinton tax increase in 1993 as evidence that their policy won't hurt the economy, but we were coming out of a recession in 1992/1993, not going into a possible recession as we are now. A tax increase (expiration of the Bush tax cuts) at the very time we are on the brink of a recession will have a different effect than the Clinton tax increase of 1993.


(WSJ: John Fund):"It's true that Mr. Franken won the endorsement of the state's Democratic Party and held a victory rally attended by other prominent Democrats. Yet dark clouds are forming. Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum of St. Paul refused to attend the rally, saying she will not endorse Mr. Franken's candidacy because of comments he made as a comedian making light of rape and demeaning women. One infamous article Mr. Franken wrote for Playboy included graphic descriptions of sex with robots. Ms. McCollum and other Democrats are now quietly questioning whether their celebrity candidate can beat GOP incumbent Norm Coleman in the fall."
It's hard to believe the Democrats in Minnesota would nominate someone like Al Franken to run for a high office like Senator. Why would you nominate a nutjob to represent you in the US Senate? God bless the people of Minnesota but they appear to have lost their minds.


Hey Monica, I think I'm in love with you. }:-)....

Just joking.........maybe....:-)


Milwaukee, WI.

Account Deleted


I am not sure why you believe being pro-life is a façade for converting people to Christianity. Pro-life belief stems from an ethical view of life, but not necessarily religious. Admittedly, it is a more than coincidence that Christians have been vociferous about respecting life; because that is the way we are trained. But so too are the Jews; see for example, Jews for Life. Muslims fundamentally are pro-life, as abortion and euthanasia are outlawed in Quran, according to Dr A. Majid Katme of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (London). Even if pro-life philosophy were the exclusive province of Christianity, does that necessarily indicate a hidden agenda?

Can you imagine, for example, an agnostic or atheist being pro-life strictly on the basis of ethics? For, if one cannot imagine such a possibility, one cannot admit that agnostics or atheists can be ethical, which is not possible. Therefore, ethics, not religion, drives respect for life. Christians, Jews, Muslims, or others who rely on religion to be pro-life, are building their ethical belief on the intellectual foundations of their respective faiths, as they might with other ethical decisions.


Tom TB

Monica, you are absolutely correct that we don't want to give stateless jihadists the rights to American courts, as if they were American citizens. What lawyer in their right mind would defend someone that doesn't recognize our legal system?

J. Pierpont Finch




Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of several Operation Pastorius German saboteurs in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States.

It was argued July 29 and July 30, 1942 and decided July 31, 1942 with an extended opinion filed October 29, 1942.

This decision states:

“ …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. ”

IF, AS A RESULT OF THIS WORST SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY, a judge orders the release of any of the captive terrorists, they should be released in Washington DC inside the Supreme Court while the Supreme Court is in session!

J. Pierpont Finch

I thought the short Mcclaughlin Group tribute to Meet the Press host, Tim Russert was just right.

But the displayed orgy of NBC coverage of Russert's death was totally over the top. It was another display that for NBC, it's the personality delivering what they deem to be news that counts most.


Michael --

We may be misunderstanding each other, or we just plain disagree. I believe that the pro-life movement is being driven by irrational religious beliefs that I do not want controlling my life or decisions.

I'm not saying that the pro-life movements seeks to convert people. It's worse than that because it seeks to have its interpretation of Christianity imposed on others through legislation.

The pro-life movement goes beyond the belief that life must be protected. It is also overwhelmingly anti-birth-control and anti-sex-education. (I am aware that there are pro-lifers who are not that absurd, but the movement has been hijacked by the extremists.)

You are simply wrong about Judaism's role in the pro-life movement. The Jewish religion dictates that the mother's life must be saved in the event that a choice must be made between the mother and the fetus, and it therefore is not in league with the pro-life movement, which dictates otherwise.

I simply cannot abide the pro-life movement, and it is that concern that has made me realize that I simply cannot vote for John McCain.

J. Pierpont Finch

Apparently others also believe that the coverage of Tim Russert's death has been ove the top.



Good to see you back on the board, J.P.

Even better to hear your outrage at what I agree is THE WORST DECISION EVER by the Supreme COUP.

Why bother with elections!

I agree.. any released terrorists should be released outside into the care and custody of the INFAMOUS FIVE!!

The lives this will cost will once again not be liberals.

It's always US who pay the price for liberal stupidity and arrogance!!

Account Deleted


I am not expert on Jewish law, but it seems that saving the life of the mother is restricted to medical necessity and born of a time when medical science had no other recourse. This is different than using abortion as a birth control means. To illustrate this, about 536,000 women die each year from pregnancy complication, according to the UN Population Fund. Only 960, or 2/10 of 1% are in developed countries. Contrast this with about 1.2 million abortions in the US alone. Something is askew in the national debate! Maybe we should talk about a way to move countries, and sectors of our economy, out of poverty and build better medical care to save both mother and child. We are instead arguing over some imputed right of privacy as a way to extend birth control after-the-fact.

These remarks are not just directed at liberals, but more so to conservatives who may wish to resolve the issue with a strategy other than fighting Roe v. Wade.



(Fred)"I'm not saying that the pro-life movements seeks to convert people. It's worse than that because it seeks to have its interpretation of Christianity imposed on others through legislation."
Fred, you do believe in representative democracy don't you? Do you find it a perversion of our form of government that people would actually work through a legislative body to vote their ideas into law? Many in the pro-abortion side believe their views should be imposed by edict from a judge in a black robe without any say of the people. I find that an odd interpretation of our representative government.


About abortion:

1. We deliver between 220 and 310 babies per month at the hospital where I work, including many, many high-risk pregnancies. I've sat through numerous OB M&M conferences, and I hardly know of any instance where the mother's life can only be saved by aborting the baby (ectopic pregancy where the fetus doesn't have a chance to survive is one exception). The problems we encounter--eclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction, placental abruption, infection, etc--all have one common treatment, and that is the delivery of the baby, not killing the baby. Plenty of mothers' lives ARE at risk during pregnancy, but the scenario that you have to kill the baby to save the mom just doesn't come up on a routine basis in the real world.

2. It has been 48 years since the FDA approved the first hormonal birth control, and it has been 35 years since Roe vs Wade. There was a lot of hope that these two changes would mitigate the problem of unwanted pregnancy. It's like hoping that diet pills and gastric bypass surgeries will rid America of obesity. In both sex and food, there are entire industries that benefits from campaigning against the notion of moderation.

3. The classic ethics of Christianity demands, first of all, a moral introspection: What can I do to serve God and my neighbor better? What is the repentance for my own sins? Look, the preacher who rails against abortion or homosexuality is safe in the knowledge that the weekly tithing remains safe. I doubt anyone leaves these sermons a better Christian. The last thing that the parishioner goes home thinking about is how HE can become a better person. It's all about "What are THEY (gays, abortionists) doing wrong?"

4. There lies a sharp line of demarcation between modernity and classic Christianity. The ones who have hopped aboard the train of modern Western civilization believe in technology and political ideas solving the problems of the world, but they haven't a clue about restraint of their own destructive appetite. I count myself as one of those who are left standing on the platform. It is lonely, cold, and painful to be "left behind," but since when did the world reward "Doing the Right Thing" with anything but contempt, the hemlock, and the cross?


I guess I'll have to continue clarifying what I say, which is fine.

It is not the legislative process I have a problem with, Steveok. It's having other people's religion imposed on me. You have to understand where I'm coming from. I find religion detestable in general, mainly for the reasons set forth eloquently by Emineid in #3 above. Religion makes feel better about their own prejudices by concentrating on what everyone else is doing wrong.

I agree with the point made above about the supposed right to privacy. I think people on both sides agree that "Roe V. Wade" was a messed up decision, making a difficult topic even more of a wreck. I've addressed this before and don't have time now.



Roe Vs. Wade separates the fascists from the American idea. Unelected Black Robes steal the right of States to decide on abortion. These unelected Black Robes give that stolen Constitutional right to Washington.

This thuggery is typical crypto-Communism, foisted on a free people by these Latte Leninists, preening for the Sulzberger Times etc. Which is exactly why Libdom loves it and will scream its liberal fascist lungs out to keep it

Some Christians, of course, go to the other fascist extreme, by demanding a Constitutional amendment. They too, like the liberals, want to deny American States the right to decide.

ps. Theoretically, I might reconsider if abortion could drastically reduce the millions of mental defectives and liberals. Since there can be no such guarantee, I acquiesce in what the Founding Fathers intended: leaving this question to the individual states, far from the clutches of the neo-Marxist Leninists and the womb witches and, on the other side, the theocratic wannabes.


Besides this lamer case, there is another- a suit against Exxon because some employees in Indonesia had attacked other Indonesians. They brought suit against Exxon for human rights violations, presumably to get rid of Exxon.

The supreme court had upheld the decision against Exxon in this case, as a human rights violation. Exxon claimed it is up the executive branch to make these decisions, not the courts.

My concern, which apparently was not a court concern, is that Indonesians can file suit against Americans, or Chinese threaten journalists with lawsuits.
What jurisdictional right do they have in these cases? Should we let our courts be clogged with cases from foreign countries attacking our citizens and companies? They should not be allowed to use the courts to in effect, wage a cultural or economic war agsaint us.

What has happened to our supreme court? There seems to be an unaddressed chaos in the courts as to jurisdiction. There needs to be a body of domestic law dealing with foreign relations, that is missing.

ABORTION : The Pro-Life movement should be pressing for people to consider having children and supporting families by asking people to forego contraception in those countries like the US with a negative population growth (excluding illegal immigration). The Pro-Life movement in overpopulated countries ought to impel people to improve the quality of their life by using contraceptives. Imagine, being born into a culture of dearth and hunger like that.

Monica, please do something. This is a place for a leadership role.


The catholics are often a good group, but I sometimes wonder if their stance on abortion is not primarily because it gives them an issue to persue, a cause, a raison de etre. How could anyone be against aborting unwanted pregnancies harmlessly in the early part of a pregnancy? Why not be concerned about every unfertilized egg, or even every unused gringo-ized spermatazoa (zoa is life, right??)


Most people, including a lot of Catholics, would be nothing short of shocked at just how far the Catholic doctrine goes.

Of course, a distinction should be made between what individual Catholics say they believe (and that includes Bishops and Cardinals) and the official teachings of the Church.

Artificial insemination and fertilization even among married couples is "morally unacceptable" according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Unfertilized ovum or spermatozoon are allowed their natural, as opposed to artificial, course.

There is, strictly speaking, no logical contradiction in the teachings of the Church (as opposed to what individual Catholics say). But it is definitely not palatable to modern sensibilities. It is EXACTLY the lack of logical contradiction that makes the Catholic teachings so hard to swallow, but hey, that's the price one pays for living by the faith.

Gregg Easterbrook of NY Times wrote an EXCELLENT piece about population growth in "Science 84." The gist is that people in countries like Tanzania decide, on their own terms, how many children they plan to have and how many they end up having. Access to birth control is one issue, but in the end, they end up doing what they think is best for themselves. When the family plot shrinks to a quarter-acre due to the division of land via inheritance, then it no longer makes so much sense to have nine children. And the woman may plan on having just three children but end up with five.

Encouraging more Americans to have babies to adopt out to childless couples is a wonderful idea, but I've seen it work in real life and it's not always pretty. Methadone addicts sign up with unscrupulous adoption agencies to get pregnant for yet another time for measly few thousand dollars, only to give birth to an underweight preterm infant already withdrawing from narcotics.

I get teary thinking about childless couples who are so desperate to have a baby, who would go through such unimaginable nightmarish hurdles.


Gringoman --

Nice to see you writing as yourself for a change. It gives us a chance to see who you really are. A person who is so against abortion that you would consider it as long as it means less people who disagree with you.

Keep talking so you can continue showing everyone that you are part of the lunatic fringe that no one takes seriously.

Account Deleted

Truther, Emineid,

You somehow managed to connect being pro-life with Catholic positions you find objectionable by virtue of what you perceive to be a dialectic against modernity, precisely what Fred was complaining about!

So, here we go ... as a Catholic, I can assure you both:
1) We have other things to do in this world besides making pro-life our only cause célèbre. In fact we see abortion as related to injustice of any kind against human life, and it is injustice that is the primary object of Church's earthly work.
2) Most of us are not at all shocked by the logical consistency in the Catholic doctrine that in essence says: fooling around with life at any level is not man's business but God's alone.

One can be a) tolerant of pre-conception birth control, b) not a Catholic, c) for artificial insemination, d) liberal, e) for an activist Court, and still be pro-life. I happen to be a, not b (sorry for the double negative), not c, not d, and not e and pro-life. I do not seek to impose my view on other matters on the basis of a pro-life philosophy (but reserve the right to debate all issues on their isolated merits!)



How did we end up discussing abortion when the Supreme COUP has just usurped the exective branch of Government?!

We won't be discussing abortions or much of anything else when they start letting the jihadists run wild in our streets pretty soon.

The SOWdis keep getting their 30,000 visas a year so they're developing quite an army as well.

Any of then can just go to the local gun shop and arm up..

And courtesy of the Supreme COUP they'll enjoy all the protections of our "legal" system!!

Complete with taxpayer-funded lawyers too.

This is so sick..

So when islam comes to finally take over the discussion will be something like to Shia or to shyte.. Soonie or Moonie.. How long is your burka.. to veil in Vail?

This evil is encroaching on us.. these weak-minded libertals are paving their way..


Or.. which hand to cut off.. sever heads from the left or from the right side..?

Oh.. that's what life will be in a post-liberal world when our dunces have successfully turned over the keys to the Barbarians..

And then there won't be any more liberals.

Only a bunch of headless useful idiots.

Cya, Bullfred..


Could this Supreme Court decision have been avoided if the Bush Administration had just brought the people being held in Gitmo on charges instead of just attempting to hold them indefinitely just because? Instead of being so angry at the Supreme Court you should be angry at the Bush Adminstration for not doing its job. Of course, when has it done its job in the last 7.5 years?


Fred, this is WAR!! You don't "bring people in on charges"!!!

What is this liberal MADNESS!!??

This is WAR!!

You want our troops to mirandize the enemy??!!

Why not send them out there without guns to show our good will?!

Good grief.. the liberal insanity is deep-seated.. completely devoid of reality and reason.

All we can do is try and reach the reachable.. or we will all suffer for these liberal jesters and clowns.

They are going to get us all killed for their "ideals".


OK, Ummah. If it's a war, then they are not being held as criminals, but as enemy combatants, right? In that case, they are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.

I'm sure that your answer to that is that many of are not fighting on behalf of a sovereign nation, so they are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention.

Which makes me go right back to my earlier argument. They are then being held as criminals, and then they are entitled to their rights under the doctrine of habeas corpus.

We can go back and forth on this all day. Either way, you can't just hold people as prisoners indefinitely without either declaring them as POW's or advising them of their rights as accused criminals.

You may not like that, but those are the same principles that protect us, as well.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759)


Fred, I really do appreciate - and understand more than you think I know - your high-mindedness regarding the legal and moral premises concerning how enemy combatants are held.

There is however a very important precedent dealing with German infiltrators NOT IN UNIFORM who were actively waging war "behind enemy lines" during World War II.

Noone would ever see anything wrong with these enemy agents being held or treated as ENEMY COMBATANTS".

There was even a Constitutional challenge to these people being held like that and the COURT did NOT agree at that time that these clandestine combatants should be treated as common criminals subject to all the rights afforded American Citizens under the Constitution.

Do you REFUSE to get it..?

They entered the USA ILLEGALLY with intent and purpose to WAGE WAR by means of TERRORISM and SUBVERSION and thus were deemed as deserving LESS protections than those Germans or Japanese IN UNIFORM who fell into American hands ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

The very simple and cogent fact that Al Quaeda and other similar groups enjoy only semi-official and clandestine sponsorship is no reason why they should now be treated as common criminals subject to American Civil Criminal Law.

I rerally do not understand why it is so difficult for some to make this crucial distinction.

We cannot fight wars where the enemy chooses to adopt a legal formula under which they are exempt from WAR CRIME prosecution.


Actually, Michael I was a bit of liberal in my younger days and it did seem that the abortion issue was one of Christian Control so I can still understand why people - that includes Fred - would see it in that context.


Personally I am conflicted about that and my big thing is that we fought so very hard to wrest Christian control..


..out of our public life both in the USA and in Europe which now makes some of us blind to the present realities we face.


Which is EXACTLY why I am so strongly opposed to islam and its even worse forms of societal control which it seeks over all of our lives.

I just don't understand why so many people don't get this!!

We have had but a few decades of Freedom FROM religion and while our Western societies keep beating back Christianity we are creating inroads after inroads for this islamist doctrine which would be all too glad to fill the vacuum it perceives by our rollback of Chrisitan religious control of all of our lives.

What gives..?

Why are liberals so reluctant to see this?


This is what I really cannot understand.. Just because islam casts itself as a form of resistance or alternative to our Western Culture why does that make it exemot from close and vigorous examination and critique..??


We can change ourselves in a peacefukl and c ontrolled manner.. examine and discuss.. but once we allow a totalitarian doctrine to impose its means upon us and thus silence all meaningful resistance by shutting down debate and critique..


And that includes you liberals.. which long ago I was too.. they don't care either way, friends!!


When I say friends, I include you liberals like Fred.. I am desperate for you to understand the true nature of what is going on..

Maybe I lack the proper skills of persuasion to make you see what we are facing.

I have lost friends once I realized what is going on and having mentioned it has certainly cost me dearly many times since.

But when I can see something so clearly and inevitably coming our way it is simply impossible to remain silent just so I don't stick out from the herd..

Yes.. I know.. Bush is an idiot.. and as much as I agree.. he is an idiot bought by our common enemies.. I hate him for reasons so much more egregious than any liberal could ever imagine..

Why can I not get through to the very people we have to get to understand that we are in a War which is different than any conventional concept we have of War?


UG --

When you write sooooooooooo much, and post sooooooooooooooooo many times, I just end up blowing past your posts. You really are self-absorbed, aren't you? Try limiting your diatribes occasionally and I'll find time to read them.

Right now, I just want to make clear that I'm not conceding any of your points because I'm not reading them.


Speaking of self-absorbed.. what makes u think I am posting just for u Fred?

Now I get a clearer understanding why u like Hitlery so much.. in common with her.

Your dismissive tone does not get you off the hook for failing to address substantive issues.

Your tactic of avoidance by ridicule, insults etc, is a standard tack in Marxist Rhetoric training.

By the way, islamists also argue the waqy you do. The more insulting and nasty they get the more you know they're being shown as who they really are..

But hey.. here in this country they can go with the Red Sox and say LAWYER UP!

Only in America, kids.. only in America.. do we hire defense attorneys for millions of dollars.. that's incidentally why the Big Empty O likes the idea so much.. plenty of money for his lawer buddies.

So all this dodging and weaving means you have no arguments. And a liberal would rather die than admit he is wrong. It's all a part of the syndrome and why it is properly described as a mental disorder.

And islam is a mental disease.


I read the first line, Ummah, but nothing else.

It's clear you are writing for me. But I am not reading for a while. Like I've said: taking a little break from the meaningless drivel of the lunatic fringe.

The comments to this entry are closed.