Pundette: “Kagan lied, babies died.”

What’s a liberal lawyer to do if it turns out that the medical body opposed to legislation banning partial birth abortion “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman”?

In said liberal lawyer’s own words: it “would be a disaster.”  Disaster for whom?  For those sworn to slavishly uphold abortion on demand as a “right.”

So said liberal lawyer manipulates the statement by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists while a Clinton appointee, and in the process said manufactured statement becomes the piece of evidence to which the Supreme Court turns in overturning Nebraska’s partial birth abortion ban in 2000.

Said lawyer left a paper trail.

Whoops.

“

So Elana Kagan, Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nominee, the liberal lawyer in question and defender of abortion-for-all turned the statement “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure… would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman” into “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”

Funny how that happens, huh?

Read the original filibuster-her-liberal-ass-NOW-expose, “Kagan’s Abortion Distortion” at NRO. 

Pundette:

Thanks in great part to Kagan’s apparent fabrication, all state laws banning partial birth abortions were struck down in 2000. No one knows how many children might be alive now if it weren’t for Kagan’s alleged falsification. Accurate data on partial birth abortions is hard to come by; there are many reasons why a doctor might not want to own up to performing this diabolical “procedure.” But low estimates put the number of victims at somewhere between 650 and 2200 babies terminated annually before the ban. I don’t know how many were killed in states that had a ban in place before the 2000 decision. But would it be going too far to say, if these charges are true, Kagan lied, babies died?

The Other McCain wonders where Kagan received her medical degree, and recalls “Animal House.”  Oddly enough, that seems an apt description of the Obami shenanegans, doesn’t it?

John at Powerline notes:

[I]t appears that Elena Kagan participated in a gigantic scientific deception. On behalf of the Clinton White House, she deliberately subverted what was supposed to be an objective scientific process.

I thought the liberals were slaves to science?  Oh, that’s right: not when science negates the political agenda at large.

Gateway Pundit calls it the “Kagan smoking gun.”  Will it be? 

Join the discussion at Potluck.  And start calling your Senators: Filibuster. Kagan. NOW.

UPDATED: linked at The Other McCain here and here (my first FMJRA!)

Advertisement

Why liberals make dangerous friends

They might urge you to “suck it up” for the greater good.

The massage therapist sexually harassed by the Nobel prize-winning hack former VP who invented the internet confided in friends after the assault:

Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her “to just suck it up; otherwise, the world’s going to be destroyed from global warming.”

Good grief.  I hope she recovered from the incident and was smart enough to find new friends to boot.  Speaking of urges, if you’re intrigued enough about Al pleading for the release of his “second chakra” (oh GAG me to have even written that), read Byron York’s detailed account at the Examiner.  Gore’s silence adds to the credibility, as does the level of detail from this woman’s police interviews–you don’t dream up … chakras. (Shudder). 

Also tabbed: this from Instapundit, a long-time Gore fan and sex crime expert.  As she wrings her liberal hands and bemoans, “Why now?”

I’m as fierce an advocate as exists for crime victims, but I’m having a tough time figuring out how to feel about Al Gore being publicly accused now of committing a sexual assault in 2006.

It’s not that he didn’t seem the “type.” After the Catholic priest scandal, I gave up thinking there was a man alive who wasn’t capable, though if Jimmy Carter gets in the same trouble I will lose my lunch.

Why, why must you bring up priests?  Oh, because the cult of AGW really is a religion!

But the go-green halo around Gore’s presence set him apart somehow. Not that being an environmentalist makes a guy a saint, but Gore seemed almost desperate to have us see him as more moral than the average Al.

I asked a bunch of women in my community how they felt about the Al Gore news, and they said perplexing victim-blaming things such as “She was in her 50s. Doesn’t he know menopausal women aren’t horny?” And, “How did she not know that a request for a three-hour massage at 10:30 p.m. is code for ‘the guy wants a hooker?” A couple of women cracked jokes: “After she rejected him, did he Tip-per?”

The greenest of the green people I talked to felt betrayed. Gore was their leader and the movement is now, um, stained. The woman even said, according to the transcript of her interview with Portland, Ore., police made public on the Internet, that her “Birkenstock Tribe” friends told her to “suck it up” and not tell anyone or the “world’s going to be destroyed from global warming.”

That’s right, suck it up after being sexually assaulted by a “crazed sex poodle.”  What fabulous friends. 

Cross-posted at Potluck.

 UPDATE: linked at Pundit & Pundette (Recommended Reads).  Thanks!

UPDATE: linked at BackyardConservative.  Thanks!

Oil disaster and what does he do?

Appoint a gaggle of lawyers and environmentalists, of course.  They’ll have all the answers. (One, primarily: no more drilling! Let them suffer and walk!)

On Obama’s BP Commission Sham:

there are two scientists, no engineers, and no real representatives of the oil and gas industry. The panel is primarily made up of lawyers, environmentalists and career politicians.

 One of the members is president of the National Resources Defense Council, one of five environmental groups that has filed an appeal to Judge Feldman’s ruling against the deepwater drilling moratorium

Head over to RedState  to count the lawyers and find out who should have manned the commission.  It’s shameful. (Not that shame could ever stop the Chicago way).  A few Republicans are crying foul, though not loud enough.  Remember in November.

For a reality check of what’s going on in the Gulf, head over to And So it Goes in Shreveport.  Great reads here and here on why Thad Allen needs the boot (not Salazar’s) and the criminal negligence of the Obami.

Quote of the day

 

From Jim Geraghty:

Remember yesterday morning when I told everyone to be on their best behavior about the death of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd? Yeah, sorry about that; I didn’t realize the epic scale of the whitewash we were going to have to endure. I got through about midmorning, when somewhere around the headline “With Byrd’s death, the era of statesmen fades” I found myself unable to resist wondering whether in his honor today all white bedsheets would be flown at half-mast.

I understand not speaking ill of the dead, but the mainstream media pushes it; the career of Robert Byrd may have set a new record for glossing over horrific past views and behavior yesterday, and a new level of praising garden-variety corruption.

Amen.

UPDATE: Another Black Conservative shares this view.

Normally when someone important passes I do a Rest In Peace post. However given Byrd’s Klan past, I just cannot bring myself to actually post such a title.
The media also seems to be having some difficulty with Byrd’s Klan history.

He points to Newsbusters to illustrate the MSM “whitewash” of the Democrat statesman:

When Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond died, the MSM was quick to stress his segregationist past. The New York Times ran the headline “Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100,” leaving readers to imagine the South Carolinian had remained an advocate of segregation.  The very first line of USA Today’s story described Thurmond as “the nation’s most prominent segregationist.”

Strange how the MSM can suddenly become reticent about mentioning someone’s segregationist past when the late politician in question is a Democrat.  On Morning Joe today, Mark Halperin and Mike Barnicle used elliptical language worthy of a State Department dispatch to avoid mentioning that Byrd had been a member and leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

 What do you get with a Republican with a history of racism?  A sordid story.  What do you get with a Democrat with a history of racism?  Nothing to see here, move along!

So this might come as a shock, but that’s why you have breasts

An editor of a parenting magazine in England ignited a firestorm with her assessment of breastfeeding as “creepy.” 

From the UK Guardian:

Under the headline “I formula fed. So what?”, Kathryn Blundell says in this month’s Mother & Baby that she bottlefed her child from birth because “I wanted my body back. (And some wine)… I also wanted to give my boobs at least a chance to stay on my chest rather than dangling around my stomach.”

She goes on to say: “They’re part of my sexuality, too – not just breasts, but fun bags. And when you have that attitude (and I admit I made no attempt to change it), seeing your teeny, tiny, innocent baby latching on where only a lover has been before feels, well, a little creepy.”

Heh.  You weren’t creeped out by birthing the kid, but feeding him is a problem? 

More:

She concedes that “there are all the studies that show [breastfeeding] reduces the risk of breast cancer for you, and stomach upsets and allergies for your baby. But even the convenience and supposed health benefits of breast milk couldn’t induce me to stick my nipple in a bawling baby’s mouth.”

She continues: “I don’t think I’m the only one, either – only 52% of mums still breastfeed after six weeks. Ask most of the quitters why they stopped and you’ll hear tales of agonising three-hour feeding sessions and – the drama! – bloody nipples. But I often wonder whether many of these women, like me, just couldn’t be fagged or felt like getting tipsy once in a while.”

The drama, indeed.  Breastfeeding does more than prevent allergies.  Via Live Science a few weeks ago (h/t Pundette‘s Recommended Reads):

A newborn gulping breast milk may be doing his or her genes good, researchers say.

Breast milk, but not formula, may improve the functioning of a baby’s genes in a way that protects the infant from illness, according to a new study published in the May issue of the American Journal of Physiology, Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology.

Scientists have long reported that breast is best. Breast milk-fed babies have stronger immune systems, fewer allergies and may be more resistant to chronic diseases, such as asthma, digestive disorders, and perhaps diabetes (Types I and II) and obesity.

And we now have our first clues why.

Researchers have shown that an infant’s first food affects his or her gene expression, giving a possible mechanism for how breast milk impacts health. (Gene expression is the process by which instructions in a gene are used to synthesize a functional gene product, mostly proteins. When genes are expressed, it is as if they are “turned on.”)

“Genes are really sensitive to nutrition,” said study researcher Sharon Donovan of the University of Illinois. “And we now have genes that may explain many of the clinical observations of how breast-fed and formula-fed infants differ.”

Using a novel noninvasive technique, researchers compared 10 formula-fed 3-month-olds with 12 breast-fed infants of the same age. Capitalizing on the natural sloughing off of intestinal cells during digestion, the researchers looked for signs of gene expression, in the form of messenger RNA, in the babies’ poop.

Breast milk and formula have different effects on at least 146 genes, the researchers found.

Read the rest.  It’s absolutely fascinating. 

(And not the least bit creepy).

H/T Hot Air Headlines

UPDATE: linked at Retriever.  Thanks!

Sunday morning

Cream biscuits and strawberry freezer jam.

Brewer 2, Obama 1

This cannot end well for Obama even if he decides to shred the Constitution a little more via amnesty-by-decree.

ROTFL

H/T Ianswife @ Potluck of celery juice fame.   I needed a good laugh this evening, Thank you!

“Do questions of race, class, and gender determine the degree to which the federal government considers enforcing existing law?”

So asks VDH of the Obami willingness to um, bend the law as it suits them to enact “hopenchange.”

In short: 

As Obama’s polls continue to erode and congressional support for his agenda further dwindles, expect his cabinet to continue to seek ways around the enforcement of existing law. You see, in the current climate, the law is seen as retrograde, an obstacle to the advancement of long-overdue social change — which is to be implemented by a law professor and a past fierce critic of George Bush’s supposed constitutional transgressions. 

H/T Backyard Conservative  who reminds us of Obama’s promise to “break free from the essential constraints” of the Constitution.  So he IS able to keep his word, what a relief!

Suits me just fine, Gloria

Gloria Steinem draws a line reiterating that women who oppose abortion cannot be feminists when asked about Sarah Palin’s “claim” to be a feminist (which Katie Couric hilariously says raised objections from “traditional feminists” because Palin obviously doesn’t share their values.  Values?  What values?)

These. Women. Gag. Me.

Allahpundit notes:

There’s no pretense with Steinem, as there is with her colleague, that abortion isn’t an absolute litmus test for feminism. If you support restricting the right to choose, your Girl Power merit badge is summarily revoked.

Please head to Hot Air to watch the short video of the interview.  I find it striking that both Steinem and Jehmu Greene cloak abortion in terms of “government interference” with their reproductive choices.  You know, if I want to murder someone for pure convenience, I guess I’d be pretty pissed if old Big Brother objected, too.  Seriously.  When else is any liberal worried about “government interference”?  Ah, only if it involves the “right” to slaughter babies.