"In her tenure as Secretary of State, what would you point to as Hillary's biggest accomplishment?"

... asked of Democrats at the annual Democratic Executive Committee Conference.



Something tells me that this could be a recurring theme for the RNC in the 2016 election.

America's oldest civil rights organization unveils new ad

Great NRA video at this link.

I am not yet a member. I think I'm gonna join. It's becoming increasingly obvious that armed citizens are necessary and are a bulwark against a creeping atheist/leftist totalitarianism.

God bless these defenders of the Second Amendment, which is the Amendment that preserves the rest of the Constitution. 

'All experts agree...', vintage 1970.

Scientific predictions from Earth Day 1970:

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist 

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist 

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist 

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University 

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day 

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970 

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist 

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist 

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director 

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist 

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day 

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson 

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist 

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

This stuff never changes. Science apocalypticism is the scourge of the 20th century, and shows no sign of letting up in the 21st.

Coming out of the closet, pushing others back into the catacombs

Defensive End DeMarcus Walker:

Y'all praise Michael Sam for being gay but y'all mocked Tim Tebow for being a Christian...

HT: Jim Hoft 

"This is not intended as an argument against abortion..."

From Theo Malekin:

When I was six, my friend Tom died. My Mum took me aside when I got home from school and explained that he had gone into the hospital for routine surgery but something had gone wrong. She said it was just as well that he had died. You see, Tom had Down syndrome. 

I don't mean to slander my mother. Like my father, she thought this was humane and rational -- that we should not cling to life if that life is one of terrible suffering. She was repeating the conventional wisdom of the day, and that wisdom said that if you had Down syndrome, your life was not worth living. Others who ought to have known better were often worse. In the eyes of many doctors, children with Down syndrome were burdens that would bring only disappointment to their families and they pressed parents to put their children in institutions and tell everyone that the baby had died. These children, it was believed, would never be any use to anyone, and their birth was treated as a tragedy. 

This is not intended as an argument against abortion. It is an argument for giving prospective parents of children with Down syndrome a full picture of what their life will be like. 

My daughter Hazel was born with Down syndrome five years ago. I found myself thinking of Tom a lot in the months that followed her birth. My wife and I, and especially Hazel, are lucky that things have changed since Tom died. Hazel has had an array of specialists who have helped her learn to walk and talk and she goes to a regular elementary school with other 'normal' kids. She still has challenges. We haven't got her potty-trained yet. On the other hand, she knows her alphabet and she can count better than some of her classmates. She likes learning and she is enthusiastic about going to school. Much more than I ever was. I hated school. 

We were also lucky that the head of the pediatric intensive care unit where Hazel spent her first month of life had a positive outlook on children with Down Syndrome. I remember him telling us not to place limits on what she could do, his relief when it became clear we were committed to our daughter. You see, old attitudes persist. Some people still believe that children with Down syndrome are a burden, their lives not worth living. A lot of people, to judge by message boards under articles about pregnancy screening. The problem is compounded by the doctors who present prospective parents with a uniformly gloomy outlook. Many parents of kids with Down syndrome can attest to this. In some cases, rather than congratulations new parents get a barrage of health statistics and there is still often an assumption by medical professionals that women carrying a child with Down syndrome will terminate the pregnancy. Around 80 percent of women who get a positive test for Down syndrome still choose to have an abortion. Yet I cannot think of any parents of a child with Down syndrome who would give them up for anything. 

Love has a way of making statistics irrelevant, and it brings its own kind of knowing. I do not love my daughter any less because she has Down syndrome. Her diagnosis says very little about who she is. She is not a disease or a syndrome but an individual: affectionate, naughty, infuriating at times, stubborn, self-willed and utterly charming. Certainly she has medical problems and developmental challenges not faced by other children. I'm not saying those don't exist. But they're one part of a much bigger picture. 

This is not intended as an argument against abortion. It is an argument for giving prospective parents of children with Down syndrome a full picture of what their life will be like. It includes a lot of work. Their child will likely have more medical problems due to their condition, and it will take time and effort to reach developmental milestones that other parents take for granted. But all these challenges are manageable, especially with the level of support available now. Expecting parents need at least to talk to the family of a child with Down syndrome. Otherwise they cannot know what it is like or what to expect. Statistics cannot tell you this. 

It is also an argument for changing attitudes that appear self-evident to too much of the general population. You cannot know if someone else's life is worth living without asking them and without even knowing them. A disability does not necessarily stop you living a full, satisfying life. Oddly enough, I'm not sure that disabilities have anything to do with living full satisfying lives. When it comes to Hazel, her life is not a burden to her family but an unending source of delight. For my part, I cannot imagine life without her. But most importantly, her life is valuable to herself, and definitely worth living.

But it is an argument against abortion. It is an argument for the sanctity of life-- every life. It is an argument that human worth is not determined by a test. It is not a matter of sentience, or intelligence, or even health or suffering.

Human worth is merely a matter of being human. We all have the same worth-- transcendent worth.

Mr. Malekin's experience is the experience that I see with nearly all of the families of the handicapped kids I care for (most of my patients are handicapped kids). These kids are a joy and a grace to their families. There can be hard times, of course, but life is about hard times. None of us ever really escape them, completely.

Our eugenic abortion culture is a lie about these kids and their families. Handicapped children are a gift, as are all children, and we need to clear away our pride and our fear to see them as they, and we, really are.   

Government-run healthcare has a bad week

Or, rather, victims of government-run healthcare have a bad week.

How VA hospitals are a government-run disaster

Why on earth would we want the government to run everyone's healthcare, when they are killing the unfortunate veterans who are stuck in the government health-care system that already exists?

And why haven't the mainstream media pointed out the obvious-- that liberals want to make all of America's healthcare like the VA system?

Justice Ginsburg: abortion was for babies "that we don't want to have too many of"

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a New York Times interview in 2009:

[Question by reporter]: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong. [emphasis mine]

The McRae case was decided in 1980. So for at least seven years after Roe v. Wade, future Justice Ginsburg was untroubled by her knowledge that abortion was a strategy for eliminating certain kinds of people.

In case you were wondering what Ginsburg was doing in the 1970's, in 1972 she co-founded the Women's Rights Project at the ACLU. In 1973, she became the ACLU's General Counsel, where she remained until she was appointed to the federal bench in 1980.

During the time she was the ACLU's General Counsel, by her own admission, she believed that the purpose for Roe vrs Wade-- which she passionately supported and still supports-- was to eliminate certain kinds of people by abortion.

What kind of people, pray tell, did Ginsburg have in mind? (see above)

Since 1973, black children have been aborted at a rate twice that of whites. Planned Parenthood preferentially sites their abortion mills in minority neighborhoods, and PP accepts contributions designated to prevent the birth of black babies. From a telephone sting by Lila Rose's Live Action:

The donor and a representative of New Mexico Planned Parenthood were recorded as saying:

Donor: "I really face trouble with affirmative action. I don't want my kids to be disadvantaged ..."

Planned Parenthood representative: "Yeah."

Donor: "... against blacks in college. The less black kids out there the better."

Planned Parenthood representative: "Yeah, yeah, it's a strange time to be sure."

Rose claimed that Planned Parenthood development officials in all seven states that her group contacted gave similar responses and were encouraging donations that were limited to funding only abortions for black women.

A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood wrote FOX News that the group questioned the “authenticity of elements of these edited tapes” and added that Planned Parenthood had expanded its employee training program so that employees understand that “our organization helps all individuals — regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation.”

'Expanding the training program' is an admission of the authenticity of the tapes.

Bottom line:

Justice Ginsburg admits that she knew for years that the abortion movement is motivated by desire to limit 'population growth' of blacks, and remained silent.