Rather than being coy, NARAL's wording shift reflects that the terms prochoice and prolife are not beong used consistently by the general public. In the recent Gallup poll, 51% called themselves prolife but by your definition only 20% are prolife.

Sotomayor has proven herself at least a judge who practices law rather than politics. Her rulings have been, by and large, very well-reasoned, and, even when her ruling "sides" with the liberal position, she does so from a strict constructionist, stay strictlly within the precedents, and even states' rights approach.

We're going to get a "pro-choice" justice, or at least one who appears so. There's no question of that. But I'm just praying the tradition of justices going the other direction than the president expects will work in our favor this time, as it worked against us with Souter.

Emma, I've been reading your side say that a lot in the last week or so to explain the shift in the polls. Interesting you didn't think Americans were ambiguous on abortion when the polls went your way.

yet again by sleective quoting. The rest of Barnes' quote from the same article was "The goal, she insisted, is to “reduce the need for abortions.”

You know Jill, most people realize that if they have to lie, either by omission or commission, to support the a point, then that point needs some serious re-examination. WHy are you such a thick-headed exception to this course of action?

Was there ever any doubt jill what people mean when they say "I am pro choice"? Do you honestly think that by saying they are pri choice they might mean they think abortion should be illegal? No of course not. You know very well that the confusion or discrepancy lies in the term prolife. Some people will say they are prolife but don't want to take away other's choice.

Jill, glad you brought that up. Barnes' 2nd statement makes no sense in relation to her first statement. How does one quantify whether the goal of "reduc[ing] the need for abortions" has been met unless one counts whether the number of abortions has been lowered?

And isn't wanting to "reduce the need" for abortion attaching a negative value to abortion?

Souter was not what President thought he nominated. This one is a little light intellectually and also my end up being not what we think. I am fair and do not have a final opinion.

So Emma, you're saying people know what they mean when they say they're pro-choice but don't know what they mean when they say they're pro-life?

In fact, don't polls indicate it's the reverse? Polls have historically shown, despite a "pro-choice" majority until now, that people oppose 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, people oppose abortions as a means of primary or secondary contraception, people support parental notification of minors before abortions, people oppose partial birth abortion, and people agree abortion takes a human life.

Don't those facts mean, in fact, people have not clearly understood what it means to be "pro-choice," whose organizations and groups all take positions contrary to those supported positions by the majority of Americans?

Jill ( stanek as opposed to Jill Lies). By saying the goal is to reduce the need for abortions Barnes is simply being more specific. Reducing the number of abortions could mean making the laws more restrictive. It's a clarification.

Boy, that Obama sure is a smart one. He wanted his first Supreme Court appointment to go smoothly, so he nominated the first Hispanic justice. Now the Republicans have to choose: approve the nomination and woo Hispanic voters who are largely Catholic and anti-abortion, or fight the nomination and alienate even more Hispanic voters (2/3rds of whom voted Democrat in 2008)?

Well played, Obama. Well played.

You know Jill, most people realize that if they have to lie, either by omission or commission, to support the a point, then that point needs some serious re-examination. WHy are you such a thick-headed exception to this course of action?

Posted by: Jill Lies at May 27, 2009 10:16 AM

Your insult of Jill Stanek and your fake name remind me of a troll.

Lies. The pro deather is about lies from it's foundation. It is named pro choice. It is not about choice. it is about he death of the baby
All pro deathers use a dishonest definition of fetus. fetus is offspring. It is not a medical term relegated only to the unborn,

The whole roe Wade court case was founded on a handful of lies.

People know what THEY mean when they say they are prolife. They just don't necessarily mean they are what you call prolife. To you, it's cut and dry what prolife means. Makes all abortions Illegal. Right?

Now when people say they are pro choice they know that means they do not want all abortions to be illegal. Some may never choose abortion themselves. Some might want strict restrictions on later abortions. Some might want parent notification. Some might not want tax funding of abortion. Yes there is some degrees but they all know that they don't want to make abortion illegal. Right?

No, Emma, that's not at all what she said. What she said was verbal gobbledygook. Please answer me: How do you know your goal of "reducing the need for abortions" has been met?

And it's untrue that the only way to reduce the number of abortions is through "making the laws more restrictive."

Obama could reduce the number of abortions by giving less money to abortion groups, rather than more.

Obama could reduce the number of abortions by increasing funding to abstinence education, rather than throw more at the 40-years failed "comprehensive sex education."

Obama could reduce the number of abortions by upholding the Mexico City policy, rather than overturn it so as to give taxpayer money to international abortion groups.

Obama could reduce the number of abortions by upholding the DC ban against taxpayer funded abortions, rather than striking it.

Obama could reduce the number of abortions by upholding the ban against funding UNFPA, which is involved in coercive abortions and sterilization in China, rather than rescinding it.

Obama could reduce the number of abortions by continuing to allow pro-life health care entities and professionals to abide by their consciences and not participate, rather than attempt to force everyone and every hospital everywhere to abort.

In fact, don't polls indicate it's the reverse? Polls have historically shown, despite a "pro-choice" majority until now, that people oppose 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, people oppose abortions as a means of primary or secondary contraception, people support parental notification of minors before abortions, people oppose partial birth abortion, and people agree abortion takes a human life.

And yet, more than 60% believe that Roe v. Wade should NOT be overturned.

People can oppose certain abortions without wanting them to be illegal. Why do you think the efforts to outlaw abortion in South Dakota failed?

Jill, thank you for all those examples of how the number of abortions could be reduced. They illustrate perfectly why Barenes felt the need to clarify what the goal is. The goal is to reduce the need for abortion.

Emma - you don't know? Obama chose the anti-life path in each of my examples.

Obama could reduce the number of abortions by giving less money to abortion groups, rather than more.

Taking away contraceptive funding would increase abortions.

Obama could reduce the number of abortions by increasing funding to abstinence education, rather than throw more at the 40-years failed "comprehensive sex education."

Studies have shown that abstinence-only education does nothing to reduce sex or abortion.

Comprehensive sex ed, on the other hand, is a proven success. It's why California (with mandatory comprehensive sex ed) has a low teen pregnancy rate, and Texas (with mandatory abstinence-only) has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation.

Obama could reduce the number of abortions by upholding the Mexico City policy, rather than overturn it so as to give taxpayer money to international abortion groups.

That funding pays for contraception, so again, that reduces abortion.

Obama could reduce the number of abortions by upholding the DC ban against taxpayer funded abortions, rather than striking it.

DC should be allowed to make its own funding decisions without federal bureaucrats from Arkansas and Oklahoma meddling in their local affairs.

Obama could reduce the number of abortions by upholding the ban against funding UNFPA, which is involved in coercive abortions and sterilization in China, rather than rescinding it.

That's just a lie. UNFPA is not involved in coercive abortions at all.

Obama could reduce the number of abortions by continuing to allow pro-life health care entities and professionals to abide by their consciences and not participate, rather than attempt to force everyone and every hospital everywhere to abort.

Anti-choice health care providers already have conscience protections, and have had them for decades. Obama is not doing away with them.

The "anti life" path jill? No he choose the path that would not restrict freedom or choice and the path that would be most effective. Thanks again though for illustrating my point about the need for Barnes to clarify with the examples you gave.

Wow a lot of Jill bashing huh?

Seems to me a couple people on here who are pro-abortion are trying to change the minds of those who are pro-life.

All this madness is making my head spin and I don't think I can continue to watch the news and keep up with the blogs anymore. All this is just getting crazy!

Emma, since when did giving more money and freedom to groups lessen their impact? You ignore Econ 101 as well as common sense to make such a statement. How old are you, if you don't mind my asking? What is your education level?

Emma - are you an innocent human being?

Boy, that Obama sure is a smart one. He wanted his first Supreme Court appointment to go smoothly, so he nominated the first Hispanic justice. Now the Republicans have to choose: approve the nomination and woo Hispanic voters who are largely Catholic and anti-abortion, or fight the nomination and alienate even more Hispanic voters (2/3rds of whom voted Democrat in 2008)?

Well played, Obama. Well played.

Posted by: reality at May 27, 2009 10:45 AM

Seems that you think the appointment was more politically motivated.

I thought a president was supposed to find the most fair minded scholar for the benefit of all citizens.

Why do that when you can find an average judicial mind and drive a wedge between people at the same time. So much for unity.

You sound pretty divisive and derisive.

What's the charge Chris? Are you?

For what it's worth, ChildConnections' Chairperson, Phyllis R. Farley, appears to have contributed $250 to NY Choice PAC in 2005. The Secretary, Kira Wilson Gould, gave $1,000 to Tom Daschle in 2002.

Well you misunderstood my comment then jill. By freedom and choice I was refer to women not organizations. As for impact of programs I draw your attention to reality's comment above.

Since it matters to you,I will inform you that I have a post graduate degree. You?

Texas (with mandatory abstinence-only) has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation.

Posted by: reality at May 27, 2009 11:01 AM

This is an out of context statistic.

Texas has one of the highest birthrates for women in every age category.

In general, states with higher birthrates have higher birthrates for every age category.

I have posted this article before, but maybe not all have read it.
I know many people do not understand math, but the author uses graphs and explains well. The blog authors are genetic research scientists and statisticians, not journalists.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/01/teen-birth-rates-up-but-nothing-to.php

excerpt:

Most of the recent increase is due to 18 - 19 year-old births, so that's another reason not to care about an increase in "teen pregnancy" -- 18 and 19 year-olds are adults. Moreover, there is an increase across all age groups, especially 20 - 24. So, there's nothing special about teens of any age -- the 15 - 17 year-olds increased a bit, while the 18 and 19 year-olds appear to really be part of a larger group of 18 to 24 year-olds. (Nature doesn't adhere to our numbering system, where there's a bright line between 19 and 20.) Births are just up overall, and the closer we get to the female fecundity peak in the early 20s, the stronger the signal is.

There is a downward trend throughout, with a steady oscillation around that trend. So, the rate will probably continue to decline into the following decades, and we shouldn't be fooled by a temporary increase. For the near future, it looks like the rate will remain pretty flat for about 5 years, then start to increase again, with a decrease again after that, all on a downward trend.

Posted by: Emma at May 27, 2009 11:34 AM
----

Morally, is it okay to kill innocent human beings?

Texas (with mandatory abstinence-only) has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation.

Posted by: reality at May 27, 2009 11:01 AM

This is an out of context statistic.

Texas has one of the highest birthrates for women in every age category.

It seems "reality" is really trying to make her point by omitting relevant facts.

She is selectively quoting her statistics.

Didn't someone just say, "most people realize that if they have to lie, either by omission or commission, to support the a point, then that point needs some serious re-examination."

I guess Ms. Lies needs to explain that to 'reality'.

Chris does my answer to that question make me innocent or not? What's the charge?

I'm trying to track down whether or not she really said that a Latina female would make better decisions than would a Caucasian male. Such a comment in itself should cause one's rejection.

Comprehensive sex ed, on the other hand, is a proven success. It's why California (with mandatory comprehensive sex ed) has a low teen pregnancy rate, and Texas (with mandatory abstinence-only) has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation.

Posted by: reality at May 27, 2009 11:01 AM

I call BS on that one! And here's the proof!

http://womensissues.about.com/od/datingandsex/a/TeenAbortRates.htm

California is ranked 7th for teen pregnancy. Texas is ranked 5th with only 5 more per 1000. Hardly the drastic difference that seems to be suggested by you.

California ranks 5th - that's FIFTH - in the number of teen abortions while Texas doesn't break the top ten. California also has the highest abortion rate overall. (Link below)

Seems to me that if California did SUCH a good job with their sex ed then shouldn't the older women, as well as the teens, remember the lessons? That doesn't seem to correlate to the fact that Cal. is ranked #1 for abortions in the U.S.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/04/20/abortion/

Posted by: hippie at May 27, 2009 11:54 AM

Sorry Hippie, I didn't see that you addressed reality. Still I think she needs my links to educate herself. She's been listening to PP too much.

As for impact of programs I draw your attention to reality's comment above.

Posted by: Emma at May 27, 2009 11:39 AM

You might want to stop using reality to back up your argument. See my 12:34 post.

bmmg39 @ 12:32PM,

I'm trying to track down whether or not she really said that a Latina female would make better decisions than would a Caucasian male. Such a comment in itself should cause one's rejection.

I agree. Read this.
Excerpts: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html

Sotomayor said:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing....

.....Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”

In making her argument, Judge Sotomayor sounded many cautionary notes. She said there was no uniform perspective that all women or members of a minority group have, and emphasized that she was not talking about any individual case.

She also noted that the Supreme Court was uniformly white and male when it delivered historic rulings against racial and sexual discrimination. And she said she tried to question her own “opinions, sympathies and prejudices,” and aspired to impartiality.

Still, Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.”

“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.....

Boy, that Obama sure is a smart one. He wanted his first Supreme Court appointment to go smoothly, so he nominated the first Hispanic justice. Now the Republicans have to choose: approve the nomination and woo Hispanic voters who are largely Catholic and anti-abortion, or fight the nomination and alienate even more Hispanic voters (2/3rds of whom voted Democrat in 2008)?

Well played, Obama. Well played.
Posted by: reality at May 27, 2009 10:45 AM

You seem to be implying that because she is Hispanic this should give her a free pass, and opposing her for any reason is racism.

What do you call Democrats opposing Clarence Thomas? And they did more than oppose him, they attempted character assasination.

Were those Democrats racist?

Oh and what about Democrats opposing Miguel Estrada?

Where they racist?

And I remember how Justice Roberts was treated for being pro life.

Raving Theist, 11:36a: Great find to add to the mix. Thx for conducting the research.

Chris does my answer to that question make me innocent or not? What's the charge?

Posted by: Emma at May 27, 2009 11:57 AM
-------

I'm not making any charge -in fact, I'm assuming you are an innocent human being.

What I don't know: Do you believe it is moral to kill innocent human beings?

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Can you imagine if a Republican nominee had said this? The Democrats would be screaming at the top of their lungs!

Instead The Communist News Network, MSLSD and other "mainstream media" are cheerleading this and more or less daring the Republicans to vote against her, no matter the reason.

The Media sharks are on an intense campaign of trying to scare the Republicans into submission. There will be no fair media coverage if they attempt to oppose, criticize, or expose any truth or facts about Sotomayer, no matter what they may discover. The "news" media will attack Republicans and keep up the attack for however long it takes until they cave in. These "journalists" are telling the Republican party to shut up and cave into whatever Barry wants.

Just like Reality's post above, if Republicans oppose this they are racist and will lose whatever Hispanic support they have, so they may as well roll over and play dead now or they will be hammered by a totally biased, partisan and disgusting "news" media.

And the Democrats were so civil when they were in opposition. *sarcasm*

Chris does my answer to that question make me innocent or not? What's the charge?

Posted by: Emma at May 27, 2009 11:57 AM

Is Emma straw man baiting.

She hopes no one will call her out on it.

She hopes someone will supply her with a straw man so she can debate him.

Kristen I did not look at reality's specific examples. But the sad truth is that the US has the highest teen preg rate of developed world. Countries that do not teach abstinence-only have a more accepting attitude toward teen sex have lower rates of teen pregnancy. We can learn from them. I'm glad we have a government committed to improving this.

What do you call Democrats opposing Clarence Thomas? And they did more than oppose him, they attempted character assasination.

Posted by: Joanne at May 27, 2009 1:10 PM

I would call Anita Hill lying under oath to congress, perjury.

Hippie he asked if I was innocent. I am asking what the charge is.

Posted by: Emma at May 27, 2009 1:24 PM

You are neglecting countries like Japan and Korea. They have the lowest teen pregnancy rates and do not teach comprehensive sex ed. Those countries (and others with strict moral traditions) were left out of all the "studies" conveniently enough for the pro-abort arguments.

You need to look at ALL the information, not just what fits your needs.

You know Emma, I think the people in Iraq were innocent people who didn't deserve to die in the current war.

But I guess I should rethink that now that I don't have a particular charge of which I can now call them "innocent".

Or maybe not. Maybe that is just a word game and a straw man.

Maybe the people in Iraq really are innocent people who didn't deserve to die.

I would call Anita Hill lying under oath to congress, perjury.
Posted by: hippie at May 27, 2009 1:25 PM

Yes but was she ever charged? Certainly not that I can recall.

Nope it was ok to assassinate the character of a good man who also was black because he was a conservative. And the democrats were doing the attacking so that made it ok too. They weren't racist, they were being "fair." They can't allow a Justice who just may favor life.

Conservatives are fair game. However liberals are not. We are all supposed to be liberal and never question anything Barry ever says or does.

This according to the "news" media, with the exception of Fox of course. One sane news network with all the others being far left liberal.

That anonymous post was mine.

We can learn from them. I'm glad we have a government committed to improving this.

Posted by: Emma at May 27, 2009 1:24 PM

Yep, we can learn that if we keep on this track the number of divorces will triple and the number of people even bothering to get married will drop about 65 percent. Then one in three children born will be illegitimate, despite the fact that half of all teenage pregnancies are aborted. Sounds GREAT!!!!

BTW - this is exactly what happened in Sweden. Yes, they are much better off now.

Kristen I did not look at reality's specific examples. But the sad truth is that the US has the highest teen preg rate of developed world. Countries that do not teach abstinence-only have a more accepting attitude toward teen sex have lower rates of teen pregnancy. We can learn from them. I'm glad we have a government committed to improving this.

Posted by: Emma at May 27, 2009 1:24 PM

This is another out of context statistic.

The states with the highest teen birthrates also have the highest rates of immigrants from the third world and those teen moms are more likely to be immigrants or children of immigrants from the third world. Look at the states with the lowest birthrates and you will find that the all have low levels of immigrants.

You have to look at the whole situation, not just take numbers out of context. Teen pregnancy in Europe is much higher among immigrants from the third world.

Come on Emma, be honest.

I'm glad we have a government committed to improving this.

Posted by: Emma at May 27, 2009 1:24 PM

Our gov't is not committed to anything of the sort. They are not trying to lower immigration from the third world which is where the high teen pregnancy group is coming from.

Come on Emma, be honest.

Posted by: hippie at May 27, 2009 1:53 PM

Unfortunately I think so many pro-choicers have been too thoroughly brainwashed to realize what they're feed is one-sided garbage. You'd think they'd be outraged at the brainwashers when we point out the missing information, but no! They continue to argue while dismissing pertinent information that is presented to them.

I, for one, hate when I miss something. I guess others aren't as concerned.

I am being honest hippie.

And as for this "innocent" thing, chris asked me if I am an innocent human being. I don't know what he means by innocent. Innocent of what? He hasn't answered me yet.

Kristen that's an open invitation, your one- sided garbage nonsense, but I'm not even going to start.

Emma,

Taking statistics out of context is not honest. You have to look at the trend in the data, not just a data point. For example, researchers often do analysis of a number of studies to see if an important factor is being overlooked, so that info can inform future research. Deliberately ignoring studies that don't show what you want is considered dishonest.

I am tolerant of teen sex. So are most people. Consider the year in US history with the highest teen pregnancy rate, 1957. 97% of those women were married and only 9% of those babies were born into poverty. No one was wringing their hands over "teen pregnancy" rather they were bragging about their precious grandbabies, little nieces and nephews, etc.

The problem is men abandoning their families instead of supporting them.

Single motherhood is the leading indicator for child poverty regardless of the mother's age.

Only 6% of children living with married parents are in poverty.

Those are honest statistics.

Emma:

For having a post-graduate degree I am amazed that you have to be spoon fed the question which really is self-explanatory in it's context.

Innocent means "have you done anything that justifies another human being taking your life".

Innocent means "have you done anything that justifies another human being taking your life".

Posted by: HisMan at May 27, 2009 2:18 PM
--------

Thanks HisMan - this is what I was asking, although more respectfully and completely it has do with with a grievous violation of the law wherein the state requires the taking of your life (as in capital punishment), which is the ultimate form of the state's expression of power.

Emma asked about charges, but innocent also means pure, undefiled in the ways of the world.

Kristen that's an open invitation, your one- sided garbage nonsense, but I'm not even going to start.

Posted by: Emma at May 27, 2009 2:11 PM

Because you can't. But that's okay it would take forever. You offering one side, me refuting with the other. You seem wholly uninterested in the truth of the issue.

...but I'm not even going to start.

Posted by: Emma at May 27, 2009 2:11 PM

This is always how it ends... we give proof of the other side and Emma just can't be bothered with the ACTUAL truth of ALL the stats. So, acting bored, she bows out, looking even more dishonest. We're used to it.

What the hell is with NARAL and Planned Parenthood's letters? One: stand with women? Who on earth said that all women read about abortion and- miracle!- arrived at the exact same conclusion? What are we- a block that can't think for itself? Why do they keep up with the propaganda like crazy?

"This is freedom, ladies..."

And they call themselves representatives of everyday Americans? They know absolutely nothing of what everyday Americans face. Nothing. How could they? They have more money than many Americans combined, have the best clothes to attend the fancy reception in Washington D.C.

They have no idea who the people who work until their fingers bleed are. They don’t know anything.

Hisman, as chris has pointed out, innocent can mean different things. Not sekf-explanatory to those who realuze this Hisman.Thank you Chris. So have I ever done anything to warrant anyone taking my life? No. Absolutely not. According to that definition then yes chris, I am innocent.

Uh, oh, uh.....I think innocent in the context of a pro-life web site, uh, uh, um, huh, in the context of a discussion on abortion uh, ah, um, oh, um can mean only ONE thing.

Well maybe it means something specific in your world hisman but not in mine.

As an aside, Dollard did not write that piece History Unfolding. Though given his drug habits he could have. Just thought you'd want to know before you pass it around yet again as his work.

hippie,

The problem is men abandoning their families instead of supporting them.

Only 6% of children living with married parents are in poverty.

Great points. The pro-aborts would have us think that men are inconsequential to the woman and her child-bearing decision. What a mess.

* * * *

Vannah,
NARAL and PP certainly don't speak for me either!

Childbirth Connections' Chairperson Farley also gave $750 to Emily's List in 2005-06. I'm pretty sure it's the same Phyllis Farley because she has the same Park Avenue address as the Phyllis Farley of the American Association of Birth Centers.

That said, none of the other board members seem to have the remotest pro-choice affiliations. Nor does there appear to have ever been any cooperative efforts between Childbirth Connection and the pro-choice axis (PP, NARAL, etc.) Farley, who wasn't ever active in pro-choice circles, seems to be an outlier. Given its mission, I'd be inclined to believe that a significant percentage of CC members lean more pro-life than pro-choice.

I guess the question is why Sotomayor would pick CC of all organizations to join. Has no children, but apparently dotes on her nieces and nephews -- maybe Kos is right about her being a stealth pro-lifer.

Given the way some of the left has turned on her, including Prof. Jonathan Turley, maybe we shouldn't wish too strongly for her defeat. If she is pro-choice, then as Turley indicates, she might not be the most effective advocate on the court. And if she does have secret pro-life stirrings, the abuse she'll take from leftists during the confirmation process might bring them out a little more.

If she gets rejected, Obama's next pick won't be any better. More than likely, it'll be one of the far-left academic superstars with a documented pro-choice record. I can live with Sotomayor, given the alternatives.

Here's the link Emma:

http://www.tcunation.com/forum/topic/show?id=2476373%3ATopic%3A31554

By the way, nothing about the article changes, in fact, I'll edit it as if I wrote it because every word of it is the truth:

I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I
can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and
how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten to fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve,
which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the $700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are
the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally
de-industrializing our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools,
ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are we exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting,
teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of
protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain
between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?) We have corrupted our sacred political process by
allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing
prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke - the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And now we have elected a man no one knows
anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla , Alaska . All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn
about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh
of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more important.)

Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change. Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together,
something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning. And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about
whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through
great oratory. Conservative "losers" read it right now.

And promises. Economic times were tough, people
were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power,
department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill
pride once again in the country, across Europe , and across the world. He did it with a compliant media-did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and . . . change. And the people surely got what they voted for.

(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)

Read your history books. Many people objected in
1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.

Don't forget that Germany was the most educated,
cultured country in Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years-a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency-it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of
intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved
with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to
emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.

Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I
am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe-and why I
believe it. I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.

HisMan... your well-written posts today have sparked an interesting set of history lessons for my "returning-to-homeschool" youngsters newly out for summer break.

Just thought you'd enjoy knowing you've sent a group of kids aged 8-16 running to their encyclopedias to hunt down details regarding the issues surrounding the rise of Hitler in post WWI Germany....

The states with the highest teen birthrates also have the highest rates of immigrants from the third world and those teen moms are more likely to be immigrants or children of immigrants from the third world. Look at the states with the lowest birthrates and you will find that the all have low levels of immigrants.

New York has a low teen birth rate. Does this mean that New York has low levels of immigrants?

NYC also has a high abortion rate. But if the difference in teen birth rates is about immigration, then wouldn't NYC's immigrants be raising the teen birth rate and not the abortion rate?

Thanks for the link, Janet. We can just imagine if a white male had uttered the same comment in reverse.

And I still say that teen pregnancy is not a social ill that should be lumped in with drive-by shootings, AIDS, and homelessness. Teen pregnancy, for all its inherent difficulties, is still the beginning of a new life, whereas those other things are life-destroying.

bmmg39,

You're welcome!