Trick or treat!

In a mad rush: the unexpected doctor’s appointment this morning cancelled out the last of the hand-sewing on pjKid’s costume. Almost done. In the meantime, enjoy this, because humor and socialism alwas go hand-in-hand:

As long as you’re making fun of the socialists!

H/t Daniel J Mitchell.


“Illegal immigration: For the sake of the children”

That’s the headline of the article at the LA Times. No joke.

Is there anything that can’t be rationalized with the argument but it’s for the children?

Apparently not:

This is what I learned in Mexico: that parents will make any sacrifice for their children. Why do so many come across the border illegally? If you told me that one of my daughters would die young after stepping on a nail in a village without a doctor, or that my girls would have to leave school because they were needed to work and support the family, or that they would be in danger every day from drug cartels, I can promise you I would risk everything to give them a better life, especially if that life was available just across the border.

Living only 100 miles from the Mexican border, I’ve seen wave after wave of immigration and a variety of laws intended to control it. I saw lives changed by Reagan’s amnesty in the 1980s and by Clinton’s Operation Gatekeeper in the 1990s. And through all the policy shifts, the migration has continued. We can’t simply open the borders, of course. But we need to acknowledge the labor issues, and family realities, that have produced the situation and develop policy that acknowledges those complexities.

A teacher friend told me recently about her second-grade student whose father was killed in drug violence. An uncle helped the boy and his mother get to California, but then the uncle was killed. The boy has nightmares and never says a word in class, and his mother is desperate. But will she return to Mexico? Would you?

Why can’t we “simply open the borders” since everyone on the other side who has a sob story or children apparently has the right to make that child’s life better by breaking a law? It’s for the children. They can learn to abuse the welfare state here without ever learning the language. It’s for the children.

It’s for the children until folks realize the local elementary school has more native Spanish speakers than locals, or when the local ER closes because it’s in bankruptcy after treating wave upon wave of illegals who cannot be denied treatment and who never pay. It’s for the children. Until that impacts your own.


No wonder Herman Cain says he’d be Romney’s Veep

He seems to have taken a few flip-flop lessons of his own.

Via Creative Minority Report, CNN reports:

The campaign attempted to spell out his views Thursday in a statement obtained by CNN, but did not address any exceptions.

“I am pro-life, and believe in advancing the culture of life. My record as a pro-life candidate speaks for itself,” Cain said in a statement. “Anyone who says differently is simply not telling the truth. Next question.”

When pressed by CNN on his position, however, a campaign adviser said Cain follows the same policy used by the George W. Bush administration, which said abortions should be allowed in the instances of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at stake.

“He has learned more about the issue,” including the number of women affected in those instances, the adviser told CNN, explaining Cain’s view.

Dude, it’s classic Romney, and it won’t win him any friends. Matthew Archibold of CMR writes:

Anyone else worried about a candidate who’s running to be the head of the free world and is still learning the issues? He’d never thought before about abortion in light of cases of rape or incest before? Seriously? Give me a break. I’m thinking Herman Cain saw some polling.

I’m done with this guy. I’m not even going to consider him a serious candidate.

I’m just praying the not-Romney Cain supporters see the error of their ways.

Speaking of Romney, George Will calls him the Republican Michael Dukakis and challenges the notion that he’s the “most electable” of the candidates:

Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable; he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate. Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming.

Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from “data” (although there is precious little to support Romney’s idea that in-state college tuition for children of illegal immigrants is a powerful magnet for such immigrants) and who believes elections should be about (in Dukakis’s words) “competence,” not “ideology.” But what would President Romney competently do when not pondering ethanol subsidies that he forthrightly says should stop sometime before “forever”? Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?

No lie. McCain was more conservative than Romney the last go-round, and that isn’t saying much. After four years of Obama angst and the damage he’s inflicted upon our country and economy, the best we can do is Romney?

Not so much.

Pundette agrees:

Rick Perry may be a lousy debater and weak in certain areas but he’s arguably the most qualified and most conservative of the candidates.

I put my chips on Perry. Debate is an acquired skill, not an innate one. Hire Perry the best damn debate coaches and so with the most conservative candidate. I’d rather see Obama act like Gore did in the Presidential debates–condescending as he thought he did mental laps around GW. What a brilliant trap, eh?

Linked by Pundette. Thanks!

The 10%

Via LifeSiteNews‘s facebook page, a smiling reminder of the grim toll of Roe v. Wade:

I fight for him. Do you?

A Pundette “Recommended Read.” Thanks!

When do facts ever matter to liberal (Congressmen, no less)?

Charlie Rangel can’t help himself. Via Hot Air, a choice tidbit of liberal nonsense from The Hill:

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) on Wednesday called for the redistribution of America’s riches and hammered the wealthy for benefitting from a war effort fought by the poor and middle class.…

Rangel offered no specific remedy for adjusting those figures during his comments on the House floor, but argued further that the wealthiest one percent have the added benefit of not needing to get involved in military service.

“Why is it that we know, or that we can suspect, that in this war where we lost so many lives, that so many people have been wounded, that our brave men and women coming home will subject themselves with a lack of funds to deal with their physical or mental problems?” he asked. “Any yet we somehow know that that 1 percent was not involved in defending our great nation.”

“We can almost know without any investigation that the wealthiest of Americans never found themselves protecting our flag,” he added.

Truth matters not to liberals, especially when invoking the 99%. They want socialism because it’s the greatest. Who cares about truth? When confronted with it, they deny vociferously.

In Rangel’s case, The Heritage Foundation has debunked this mythology for years. A refresher from last month:

Who serves? It isn’t the poorest of the poor with no other option

Quite the contrary. From the WSJ [emphasis mine]:

In 2008, using data provided by the Defense Department, the Heritage Foundation found that only 11% of enlisted military recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth, or quintile, of American neighborhoods (as of the 2000 Census), while 25% came from the wealthiest quintile. Heritage reported that “these trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40% of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods, a number that has increased substantially over the past four years.

Indeed, the Heritage report showed that “low-income families are underrepresented in the military and high-income families are overrepresented. Individuals from the bottom household income quintile make up 20.0 percent of Americans who are age 18-24 years old but only 10.6 percent of the 2006 recruits and 10.7 percent of the 2007 recruits. Individuals in the top two quintiles make up 40.0 percent of the population, but 49.3 percent of the recruits in both years.

Go figure. I guess Rangel doesn’t read The Journal. Nor does he–or any liberal for that matter–care about the blatant lie of perpetuating demonstrated untruths on the House floor no less.  Never forget the mantra of liberalism: All’s fair in the name of wealth redistribution

H/t: Pundette.

A Pundette ”Recommended Read.” Thanks!

“Triplets are dangerous. And you know, if they all survive to term, it takes parents more than 24 hours a day to care properly for three infants.”

So you might as well kill one now, ya know, before you’re changing diapers all day.

That was the sage medical advice given to Jennifer Conley by her doctor, who was apparently undeterred by Conley’s comment that she would not “selectively reduce” her natural triplet pregnancy.

The doctor hadn’t given up, though. “If it developed,” she said, “that one of the babies was threatening the health of the others, would you consider ‘reduction’ at that point?”

Jennifer reiterated her opposition to anything that would harm any of the triplets. “We came out of the office traumatized,” she says. “I don’t think Erin had completely digested what she was saying. Later he called me from work and he was crying.”

Fortunately she and her husband found another doctor, and thankfully they delivered three healthy baby girls at 36 weeks gestation–Jillian, Rebecca and Sarah.

It strikes me, though, that a doctor would dare suggest that caring for three infants be such an impossible task that it would be better to kill one.

But it shouldn’t surprise me. There are mothers out there who can’t bear the thought of changing more than one diaper at a time, so why not?

H/t: CMR

A Pundette “Recommended Read.” Thanks!

Perry’s flat tax: It’s so easy Tim Geithner can do it!

On a postcard, no less.

Rick Perry discloses details of his new tax plan in the WSJ. As someone who gave a persuasive speech on the glories of a flat tax to an undergraduate speech class eons ago, I’m smitten:

On Tuesday I will announce my “Cut, Balance and Grow” plan to scrap the current tax code, lower and simplify tax rates, cut spending and balance the federal budget, reform entitlements, and grow jobs and economic opportunity.

The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.

This simple 20% flat tax will allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard, saving up to $483 billion in compliance costs. By eliminating the dozens of carve-outs that make the current code so incomprehensible, we will renew incentives for entrepreneurial risk-taking and investment that creates jobs, inspires Americans to work hard and forms the foundation of a strong economy. My plan also abolishes the death tax once and for all, providing needed certainty to American family farms and small businesses.

My only beef: it’s optional. Why preserve the “mind-boggling complexity” for those who would choose to use it? It keeps the IRS folks employed? Raze the building and put the few needed in a trailer somewhere in the middle of Iowa. Dismantle the bureaucracy.

Learned something new:

To help older Americans, we will eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits, boosting the incomes of 17 million current beneficiaries who see their benefits taxed if they continue to work and earn income in addition to Social Security earnings.

What is this? The government taketh away what the government giveth? I had no idea seniors paid taxes on SS benefits. Why?

Even better than a flat tax, a balanced budget by 2020:

We should start moving toward fiscal responsibility by capping federal spending at 18% of our gross domestic product, banning earmarks and future bailouts, and passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. My plan freezes federal civilian hiring and salaries until the budget is balanced. And to fix the regulatory excess of the Obama administration and its predecessors, my plan puts an immediate moratorium on pending federal regulations and provides a full audit of all regulations passed since 2008 to determine their need, impact and effect on job creation.

If I can persuade a class full of folks who don’t give a lick about politics that the current tax system is inherently unfair and a flat tax would simplify their lives in 15 minutes, Rick Perry damn well better run with this hard. Steve Forbes is in. Robbie Cooper is, too.

Unsurprising: Ol‘ Flip-Flop Mitt–who famously derided Steve Forbes and the flat tax–now says he loves him some flat tax.  Serve it up with syrup and a smile, Rick.

Read the rest.

H/t: Memeorandum

UPDATE: To borrow R.S. McCain’s shtick, since Ed Morrissey is an influential blogger of consequence and linked by the likes of Memeorandum when he pings ’em, he was included in a conference call this morning with Perry. The Q&A is interesting reading as is his conclusion:

I’m encouraged by this plan.  I think there are a couple of points to quibble over — I’m not a fan of making the flat tax optional on the personal side, as I think we have enough problems with one system, let alone two.  I agree that this issue will mainly take care of itself, though, as people flock to a system that’s simpler while still maintaining their mortgage interest deductions.  Having the exemptions for a family of four reach $50K keeps Democrats from demagoguing it as an attack on the middle class, too.  I’m most excited about flattening the corporate tax rate, where Congress creates the most mischief.

I think he may be right regarding the mass exodus of folks to the postcard plan. Hardest hit: tax preparers.


Linked by Pundette as a “Recommended Read.” Thanks!

Oxymoron alert: headline of the day

The NYT can’t help itself:

Moderate Islamist Party Heads Toward Victory in Tunisia

Moderate Islamists, eh? Like the new “moderate shari’a” government in Libya.  

How long till they’re all known as “Conservative Islamists” once the media figures out they’re all bad guys?

Need a laugh? OWS edition

Seems as though everyone has a complaint, no?


Bestiality brought to by your public school system: Reason 10,017 to homeschool

Ah, where would we be sans mandatory sex ed? Kids can’t read or write with any degree of clarity, but boy, they’ll sure know how to, um, do it:

New York City 11-year-olds will soon be learning sex education from workbooks that include instruction on “mutual masturbation, French kissing, oral and anal sex, and “intercourse using a condom and an oil-based lubricant.”

Since bestiality and anal sex are among the topics of discussion, a liberal activist will cry foul over this:

Middle school students will be assigned “risk cards” that rate the safety of different activities, the paper says, from French kissing to oral sex.

Why? Well, how dare a teacher say homosexual anal intercourse is less safe than, say, fisting! What a cesspool.

R.S. McCain points out the obvious:

Seriously, if any random stranger tried to talk to kids about stuff that schools teach in sex-ed classes, parents would be calling the cops. It’s just downright creepy to teach this kind of stuff to sixth-graders.

Damn skippy.