I wonder if those folks from “We The People” would be willing to defend against an onslaught that has killed over 42 million in this country alone (a whole lot more than Bush ever has or will)? I speak, of course, of abortion on this 30th anniversary of the rewriting of the Constitution that was Roe v. Wade. This “judicial legislation” has killed far, far more people than any dictator, fascist or communist you can name. And today Democrats and liberals in general are trotting out the same tired and misleading catch-phrases that their constituents just eat up.

From Rep. Dick Gephardt: “There is nothing moral in strong-arming a personal belief, and there is nothing moral to a presidency that imposes personal morality through acts of government power.” Murder is not a “personal” morality. It most certainly involves at least two people, only one of whom gets a vote. That’s the real imposition of moral values.

From Sen. John Edwards: “The right to choose is an essential ingredient to realize the full equality of America.” Of course, he means that the right to kill one’s child is sacrosanct while other rights to choose, like where to educate one’s child, must not be given to the parents. Isn’t it obvious from his statement? Of course not, because admitting that would show the hypocracy inherent in those two positions.

From Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women: “…we will not be the generation that both won and lost reproductive rights in our lifetime.” Again, we’re seeing a very general phrase being used to mean something very specific, and hoping no one notices. “Reproductive rights” is her codephrase for “abortion”, but those rights begin at a point much earlier than Ms. Gandy recognizes. If you don’t want to get pregnant, there’s still a 100% effective means of insuring that. (And of course, that’s another choice liberals don’t want presented either.)

Being pro-abortion is a postion that cannot be honestly defended, and that tradition is being carried on faithfully. Consider that.

See also: My essay, “Just One Question About Abortion”.

Wanna volunteer for the Iraqi defense force? A number of folks are with a group called “We The People”. They, a hundred or so communists from the Romanian Workers Party and an eclectic mix of other countries are shipping out to become Saddam’s human shields. They bristle, of course, at the suggestion that they’re essentially working for Hussein. Still, the Baghdad government is welcoming them with open arms, since it beats having to kidnap Westerners or getting off a lucky shot and taking down a British air force pilot. Saves time and money for Saddam, while boosting his PR campaign. And somehow this isn’t working for him?

Well, the head of “We The People”, Ken Nichols, says that, no, he’s not working for Saddam because we gave him his biological weapons in the first place. Now there’s a non-sequiter if there ever was one. If we gave him those weapons, that doesn’t negate the treaty he signed to get rid of them. That has nothing at all to do with people going overseas with the intention of giving their lives for a murderous dictator. Regardless of the origin of his weapons, going there to promote his cause is “working for him”. This is a pro-Saddam move, plain and simple.

It’s also demonstrably an anti-American move as well. Nichols goes on to say that George W. Bush is the biggest threat to world security at this time, not Hussein. I guess I’d really like to know what his definition of “world security” is. Sounds like a new war joke in the making. “Hey, what’s the difference between Bush and Hussein? One kills his own people, ignores treaties he’s signed, shoots at UN-sanctioned patrols, won’t explain where all his VX nerve gas went and cavorts with Al-Qaeda terrorists…and the other is a threat to world security.”

But wait, there’s more! Nichols started this group partially in “penance” for his participation in the Gulf War. He’s so sorry and beside himself over having liberated a country and returning stability to the region, that he’s going to make up for it by protecting the dictator that overran Kuwait in an attempt to gain more power for himself by controlling more oil fields (Saddam being the actual “Blood for Oil” guy). Perhaps Nichols ought to take his alleged “penance” all the way, and fight in the Iraqi Republican Guard to retake Kuwait, since he’s so sorry for kicking Saddam out of there.

This is not just blindly anti-war, it’s overtly anti-American, plainly pro-Saddam, and completely unjustifiable.

Would you vote to have a member of the Taliban government head a international group on reducing terrorism? Or how about making a Lybian head of a human rights comission? Preposterous? Well, the first one might be, but the second one has happened, courtesy of that bulwark of sanity, the United Nations. Of course, it’s not all that strange given that Cuba, the Sudan and Syria have seats on the commission as well.

And still there are those that think this body should speak for the world.

The UPI web site finally caught up with UPI stories, and now the blogging article is finally available. You can’t look it up on the Sci/Tech desk since it insta-scrolled off that page.

But my thanks anyway to Mr. Huffman for including me in that.

Well, my guess was correct. Just did a search on Google News for “blog” and found where the Washington Times has picked up the story.

My 15 minutes of fame begins now. 🙂

UPI update: I’m guessing that, even if the aforementioned blogging article isn’t up on the UPI site yet, it has been picked up by some newspapers via other distribution channels that UPI has. The reason I suspect this is that some folks are finding this site by doing a Google search on the word “Considerettes”. That’s not a typical search phrase 🙂 so I’m betting they (or you, if you happen to be one of them) are picking that up from a local paper carrying the story.

So let me welcome you who are visiting me for the first time to my humble blog. I hope you find it useful and worthy of some consideration.

Well as of right now, the UPI site does not have the blogging article on it’s site. Ah well, it’s a bit of a consolation that there’s only been one story from any section posted today, and that was sometime after 4am, while there are many on there from yesterday. So perhaps they’ve been having trouble updating their web site today. (That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)

Thomas Jipping has a good piece on the stark inconsistancy in supporting abortion but opposing the death penalty, especially as it relates to the mass commutation of sentences done by former Illinois Gov. George Ryan for all death row inmates. Best paragraph:

And the jarring contrast between this blanket reprieve for guilty killers and next week’s anniversary of the Supreme Court’s blanket revocation of the right to life is stomach-churning. Ryan said all murderers must avoid their rightful punishment because one innocent person might be killed. Yet we know, to a moral certainty, down to an individual person, that every single child killed by abortion was innocent.

Starting from that fact, you just can’t reconcile the two positions.

Mark Steyn of Canada’s National Post has a devastating response the Boston Globe’s (and others’) treatment of the Mary Jo Kopechne incident vis-a-vis Senator Ted Kennedy; minimizing the former to canonize the latter. He notes (with examples) how the left will excuse anything as long as your (liberal) ideology is pure.

My favorite paragraph explain that not only are the left’s actions out of line with their words, but that it’s only the words that really matter at all to them.

If we right-wing madmen do indeed spend every waking minute dreaming up ways to kill as many children as possible, we’re not very good at it. By contrast, the left does a wonderful job of sacrificing the little people in the name of its own corporate interests. In America, generations of black children have drowned in the swamp of inner-city public schools because the Democratic Party subordinates their interests to those of the teachers’ unions. Overseas, the hypothetical body-count of an Anglo-American war with Iraq exercises Bill Blaikie far more than the actual slaughter Saddam has already visited on his people. But then one of the curious qualities of the ideological left is its increasing imperviousness to reality. The uselessness of Canada’s billion-dollar gun registry is not the point: Just having one, no matter how expensive, no matter how irrelevant, “sends the right message.”

Scathing, and full of examples. It’s nothing we don’t already know, frankly, but it’s all in the presentation.

UN Weapons Inspections: Day 49: The media pounced upon Hans Blix’s pronouncement that after 6 weeks they hadn’t found a smoking gun. Today we hear the rest of the story: Hans thinks Iraq is still playing cat-and-mouse, citing cases of illegal weapons smuggling and incomplete disclosure in Iraq’s weapons declaration. I do hope this gets as much press as before.

(Speaking of a “smoking gun”, it appears that Tony Blair is convinced there is one.)

Hussein is considering exile, which would be an OK solution except that it means (according to terms he’d agree to) he’d live out his live in luxury in an Arab capital free of any repurcussions from his actions. I don’t see that as a reasonable solution.