August 7, 2008

AP Writer Misses the Main Reason Why the Rich Are Getting Stingy

If you believe there’s a 50-50 chance that your take-home pay will be cut by almost one-fifth beginning in as little as five months from now, would that belief affect your current spending habits?

Of course it would. But that idea apparently never occurred to the Associated Press’s Mark Jewell.

In the course of a 950-word article Monday about how the rich are getting more stingy, he focused on how “the economic slump” and “downturn” are affecting their spending, while ignoring the massive tax hits high-income earners will likely be forced to absorb (illustrated in detail below the fold) if Barack Obama wins the presidency and Democrats retain control of Congress.

On Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh made the point (link will expire next Tuesday evening) that Jewell at least conceded that what the rich do with their money affects us all, and that we should care. That’s fine, as far as it goes. A much larger and more salient point is that the rich see the possible post-November political landscape, and are recognizing that they have to start adjusting their situations now, not five months from now, just in case Obama wins. The Illinois senator’s proposed tax increases, which I will refer to as ObamaLaw, along with the choke-hold the congressional majority has placed on offshore and other drilling for oil, are affecting the economy to a much greater extent than President Bush can, and in a very negative way. That’s why I’m referring to this pre-election period as the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy.

Here is some of what the AP’s Jewell wrote (bolds are mine):


What a Vote for Obama Means: First in an Intermittent Series (Update: Bob Casey Jr., PLINO)

Filed under: Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:15 am

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote supporting the reinstatement of partial-birth abortion. ANY candidate supporting Obama gives de facto support for reinstating partial-birth abortion.


In a speech to Planned Parenthood in July 2007, “The One” I refer to as “Mr. BOOHOO-OUCH” (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi” Obama – Objectively Unfit Coddler of Haters) decried the Supreme Court ruling a few months earlier that had given the constitutional okay to the recent federal law that prohibited partial-birth abortion (a term, by the way, accepted by the Supreme Court as appropriately descriptive in the course of its deliberations and in its pronouncement).

Thus, it is clear Obama would like to see the legality of partial-birth abortion restored. It is clear in the context of the Planned Parenthood speech that, as president, he would work to see it restored.

A President Obama would nominate any and all judges, up to and including justices of the Supreme Court, who would conform to his radical proabort views. Once appointed, his judges would rule to reinstate partial-birth abortion when given the first opportunity.

Additionally, it appears probable that there will be no meaningful counterweight. As president, Obama’s party would likely have a Senate majority that would vote to confirm any and all judges he nominates.

Thus, a vote for Obama for president would be a vote that would more than likely lead to a reinstatement of this heinously barbaric procedure (WARNING: I’m about to link to descriptions of the procedure which contain disturbing graphic words, pictures, and upsetting language — Here, in words; here, in pictures).

Partial-birth abortion so disturbed the late Democratic New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan that he initially said:

“I think this is just too close to infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus. What on Earth is this procedure?”

Later, in a March 2, 1997 Meet the Press interview, Moynihan went further:

“….. it is infanticide, and one would be too many.”

With Obama, it’s not just about continuing the abortion status quo; it’s about extending it. So another politician’s position that he or she is “personally prolife, but Roe v. Wade is the law of the land” no longer suffices (as if it ever did; but that’s an argument for another time).

Anyone who supports Barack Obama is supporting a presidential candidate who will work to see that partial-birth abortion is restored, and who will, if elected, more than likely be in a position to see that it is restored.

Thus, any politician supporting Obama, or anyone voting for Obama, is giving de facto endorsement for the reinstatement of partial-birth abortion, regardless of his or her own supposed “personal views.”

For starters, this would include Mr. “Abortion Is ‘a Distraction from What Really Matters,’ But I Really Am Prolife.” That would be John Boccieri, who is running for the open seat in Ohio’s 16th Congressional District. The video at the link shows that Boccieri, who claims to be prolife, won’t make any kind of commitment to voting prolife. Boccieri’s Issues page at his web site is, conveniently, silent on abortion.

But it really doesn’t matter what he claims to believe anyway, because since he has endorsed Obama (I confirmed this), he has give de facto endorsement the reinstatement of partial-birth abortion, and is not in any sense prolife.

The only way Boccieri can regain any kind of prolife credibility is to formally announce that he has withdrawn his endorsement of Obama.

More names will be named as the campaign season progresses. But the fundamental point, that supporting or voting for Obama for president endorses the reinstatement of partial-birth abortion, remains salient for those both named and unnamed.

This is not arguable, and there is no rhetorical dodge.


UPDATE: Add to the list the Pennsylvania Senator who is now officially a PLINO (ProLife In Name Only).

That would be Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania.

Casey’s endorsement of Barack Obama (“I believe in this guy like I’ve never believed in a candidate in my life, except my father”) gives de facto support for reinstating partial-birth abortion. Sorry, Bob, your father is spinning in his grave, and you are a disgrace.

Casey’s rumored agreement (HT Hot Air) to speak at the Democratic Convention in an attempt to shore up the CINO (Catholic In Name Only) merely confirms the obvious.

As with Boccieri, the only way Casey can regain any kind of prolife credibility is to formally announce that he has withdrawn his endorsement of Obama.

UPDATE 2, August 9: The certainty that Obama would nominate judges who would overturn the court ruling on partial-birth abortion is further reinforced by Obama’s consistent opposition as an Illinois state senator to a bill (the Induced Infant Liability Ac) “mandating medical care for children born alive during induced abortions.” Deal Hudson at Life News runs down the history:

No one disputes that in 2001 he voted against medical care for these children in committee and voted “present” on the floor; in 2002, against the bill both in committee and on the floor; and in 2003, as chairman of the committee, kept the bill from going to the floor at all.

And yet in spite of the facts, Obama’s backers continue to insist that he should not be considered a supporter of infanticide.

But why shouldn’t his opposition to the Illinois bill earn him that label? After all, in opposing the state legislation, Obama signaled his willingness to allow newborns to die without receiving medical attention after surviving a failed abortion.

….. Obama claims he would have voted for the 2002 federal bill if he had been presented with it.

That’s a strange assertion, given the fact that the 2003 state bill was identical to the 2002 federal bill.

Obama’s record makes it very difficult to believe anything other than he has been a supporter of infanticide. If he has changed his mind, all he has to do is say so.

UPDATE 3, August 9: While at the Democrats’ national convention, Michelle Obama will be at “a gala reception” of the national organization that will only give money to candidates who will reinstate partial birth abortion:


Thomas Edsall of the Washington Post laid out Emily’s List’s radical views in 2002. The organization’s reaction to the 2007 Supreme Court partial-birth abortion ruling is here (“a call to arms”). This June 6 statement at Emily’s List’s web site leaves no doubt that it supports Barack Obama for president.

UPDATE 4, August 11: Captain Ed took a long time to get there, but correctly concluded that there is no “Catholic Conundrum.” Even if you somehow think Obama is better on issues of social justice (a very weak claim, IMO), life and death issues trump those considerations. It’s not arguable.

Couldn’t Help But Comment (080708, Morning)

The latest metro area unemployment report from Uncle Sam says that as of June, the unemployment rate in Metro Chicago, home of “The One” I refer to as “Mr. BOOHOO-OUCH” (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi” Obama – Objectively Unfit Coddler of Haters) , was 7.1%.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rates in the home state of the presidential candidate I refer to as JS3M3 (John Sidney the Mad Maverick McCain III) were 4.3% in Phoenix, 4.6% in Prescott, 4.6% in Flagstaff, and 4.8% in Tucson.

If McCain doesn’t know enough about economics, the chances that he will be advised by home-staters who know something about creating jobs would appear to be pretty good.

The chances that Obama, who is breathtakingly ignorant in economic matters (not even understanding the difference between income and net worth), will find similar real-world expertise among Land of Lincoln residents would appear to be much lower.


If you think my last point about Obama was too harsh, check out the core of his “energy policy”:

  • Get 1 million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on U.S. roads within six years.
  • Require that 10 percent of U.S. energy comes from renewable sources by the end of his first term – more than double the current level.
  • Reduce U.S. demand for electricity 15 percent by 2020.

The third point is literally flat-out crazy. By 2020, the estimated US population will be at least 336 million, at least 10% higher than it will be at the end of this year (I say “at least” because the linked table seems to underestimate what the US population will be in 2010).

Obama’s goal means a ridiculous reduction in per-capita consumption of about 23% (1 minus [.85 divided by 1.10]).

But the best response to all of this is “Why?” There’s not a darn thing wrong with consumption going UP, if the energy that’s available in abundance would just be produced. What would be objectively immoral — and I mean that — would be reducing everyone’s standard of living, and as a result increasing a large number of health and other risks, for no defensible reason. And there is no defensible reason.


Following up on the AIDS/abstinence/Bush gets no credit for PEPFAR post yesterday, there’s this LA Times op-ed (HT e-mailer Gary Hall), where Helen Epstein makes a few stunning and depressing observations:

….. (in the 1990s) when researchers presented their findings on these examples of behavior change (that reduced HIV and AIDS) at conferences and in academic journals, all the big agencies working on the epidemic at the time, including the UNAIDS program, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the European Union, already determined to pursue a medical approach, ignored them. Reports were shelved or never made public, and in one particularly egregious case, the results of a key study on partner reduction in Uganda appear to have been distorted to make it seem as though partner reduction had not occurred. Meanwhile, researchers who understood the primacy of partner reduction early on saw their careers falter.

It has become increasingly clear that those researchers were right after all …..

Ideology, and a grim, tone-deaf determination not to suggest that one’s behavior might improve their situation, are trumping what works in a matter of life and death. The behavior changes Ms. Epstein references are primarily abstinence and monogamy. Jettisoning them as strategies, which so many still want to do, would be truly sick.


Mort Kondracke, Democrat, punctures a myth that will become clearer if improvements in Iraq continue:

The “central front” in the war on terrorism — along with platoons of terrorists, intelligence agencies report — has moved back from Iraq to Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan.

But Obama — and his fellow Democrats, especially — may not appreciate how difficult a task it will be to “rout the terrorists … and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets.”

If the going gets rough in Afghanistan, will a party that wanted to pull out of the Iraq “quagmire” at the first sign of trouble really back President Obama as he wages war, or will Democrats fracture as they did over the Vietnam War 40 years ago?

A Gallup Poll last week showed signs of potential trouble. While Americans generally believe — by a margin of 68 percent to 28 percent — that it was correct for the U.S. to send troops to Afghanistan, a full 41 percent of Democrats believe it was a mistake.

But, but, but I thought that Michael Moore and the far left said that eeeeeverybody supported going into Afghanistan? Christopher Hitchens exposed that falsehood in June 2004.

Those of us with memories recall the obviously antiwar newspeople warning of the “brutal Afghan winter” and the like. We also remember a growing, organized protest movement. Ah yes, that remembrance is accurate. Fortunately, that was won quickly. Unfortunately, the occupation hasn’t been consolidated, largely because other NATO participants haven’t done what they promised (first item at link).

Kondracke fears that the cut-and-run crowd would move a malleable President Obama, fearful of being seen as another LBJ, to abandon Afghanistan. That’s a legitimate fear.

Things I’d Like to Post About Today ….. (080708, Morning)

Filed under: TILTpatBIDHAT — Tom @ 7:51 am

….. But I Don’t Have Any Time For:

  • Very crowded under that bus — This wasn’t the Ludacris that “The One” I refer to as “Mr. BOOHOO-OUCH” (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi” Obama – Objectively Unfit Coddler of Haters) knew.
  • This video from late last week, embedded at Hot Air, is one of the more amazing YouTubes I’ve seen — It shows that Colorado Senator Ken Salazar and his party won’t consider the option of drilling for more oil, even if gas hits $10 a gallon. What IS their limit (or is there one)?
  • It’s amazing that Barack Obama is holding up California (seasonally adjusted unemployment at 6.9%, budget deficit $15 billion) as a model of anything, let alone responsible energy policy. This is one yet another demonstration that the gaffe-prone, insufferably arrogant Democrat (according to his own fellow party members) has no business in the US Senate, let alone the White House.
  • “Bill Clinton refuses to say Barack Obama is ‘ready’ for White House” — Belaboring the obvious.
  • As of early this morning, Drudge is flashing that Jerome Corsi’s book on Obama, “The Obama Nation,” is becoming a best-seller, and that Nancy Pelosi’s book, “Know Your Power,” is failing to chart. Again as of early this morning, “Obama” was #8 on Amazon and was Pelosi’s book was #1,644. Ms. 14% should have published when her stock was high, i.e., before America got to see her in action.
  • Al Gore, call your office — “Maui County (Hawaii) experienced a record low 64 degrees on Sunday that combined with steady afternoon showers to provide another near record 65 degrees on Monday …..”

Positivity: Sergeant re-enlists before being medivaced

Filed under: Positivity,US & Allied Military — Tom @ 5:59 am

From Fort Carson, Colorado:

JUL 26, 2008 4:55 PM

Sgt. Daryl Williams is brave, has a keen eye for detail, and doesn’t leave things until the last minute.

The Long Island, Va., native is recuperating at the post from wounds suffered in Iraq. But before he was medivaced, Williams took the time to re-enlist, the Fort Carson Mountaineer reported.

The Army credits him with alerting his squad to the nearby presence of two improvised explosive devices. Both were detonated on July 8 without injury to his men.

But Williams was hit by shrapnel from an anti-personnel mine 30 feet away when he left his vehicle to provide cover for other troops. He suffered injuries to both arms, one leg, his face and neck.

“He’s very dedicated; his troops come first. Before he got hit, he told his solder (Pfc. Raymond Riley) to get back in the vehicle. He probably saved his life,” said Sgt. Samuel Hyer, who serves with him in a Scout-Sniper platoon.

And the reaction of his comrades was just as swift. Before medics could reach him a Quick Reaction Force had picked him up and was headed to an Army hospital in Baghdad. Some Army units are configured as Quick Reaction Forces, including helicopters in some cases, designed to react within 15 minutes to attacks and other incidents.

The first thing Williams did when he woke up in a hospital bed the next day was to say he wanted to re-enlist. …..

Go here for the rest of the story.