Pro-Choice, or Pro-Abortion?

President Barack Obama has taken another step in advancing his "pro-choice" agenda. The Chicago Tribunereports that today the new administration "will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows health-care workers to deny abortion counseling or other family-planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs."

Last month, President Obama overturned the Mexico City policy, which prevents taxpayer money from going to groups that provide abortions overseas. The conscience protection that Obama seeks to overturn has stood for more than 30 years.

Supporters say the change is necessary to protect women's health.

Isn't it interesting how often those who wrap themselves in the "pro-choice" flag end up restricting the choices of those with whom they disagree? First taxpayers, and now medical professionals with moral objections to abortion, get their choices nullified.

Perhaps we should be honest and simply call our bright young president what he really is, "pro-abortion."

Press Time

Barack Obama is turning out to be every bit as radical and inexperienced as many of us had feared. If even ABC News is labeling Obama's budget as "radical," you know it's bad. There's no excuse for the ideological obtuseness of this budget. We all know, or should, that tax-and-spend doesn't grow the economy. All it does is punitively take from one group and give to another-and increase government control, which I suspect is the main agenda here.

There's a meanness, a whiff of payback, a grubbiness even, that belies the president's winning smile and soaring rhetoric, exemplified by the purported plan to turn the Census over to Rahm Emmanuel. Billions for ACORN and nothing for disadvantaged D.C. parents who want to send their kids to a decent school?

Those who make $250,000 and more aren't robber barons; they're largely business owners who provide most of the jobs in this country, pay most of the taxes, and give the most to charity-and now the government is poised to tax even charitable giving punitively. This will end up hurting the poor the most (while helping government bureaucrats, who will be forced to create new programs as private giving recedes).

The verbal attacks and investigations of big business are setting a strangely chilling tone in the middle of an economic crisis and stock market freefall. The promises to institute an expensive cap-and-trade carbon scheme will hurt big business, of course, while doing little for the environment we all love. But it is an especially regressive act against (you guessed it) the poor, whom Obama claims to champion.

Then there are rumblings from Democrats like Dick Durbin about broadcasters acting "in the public interest." While they disavow any intention to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine (the removal of which allowed talk radio to flourish and provide the public with alternative political views), if they're not planning to restrict the freedom of those who seek to hold them accountable when the mainstream press won't, why do they keep talking about it? Methinks they doth protest too much.

Of course, Obama supporters can rightly say (and as Obama himself has repeatedly reminded us) that their man won and consequently has earned the right to govern. True, but he's a president, not a king, subject to the same checks and balances as anyone else who occupies the Oval Office.

With the Republican Party in disarray, who will step forward to fill that vital role of loyal opposition? It will be interesting to see if those who fretted about the concentration of too much power in the executive branch during Bush II will manage to clear their throats over Obama's astonishingly bold power grabs.

If the former community organizer and junior senator from Illinois thinks he's another FDR, he's got another thing coming. It's a different world (though many seem just as eager for government handouts as then), and we know a lot more about economics.

It's time for the badly damaged mainstream press, its balance sheet and credibility in tatters, to get out of his lap (leaving that for the presidential dog) and do its job in this republic. It's time for some real media fairness. It's time to give the president and his many plans the scrutiny they demand.

Bloated Budgets

During his speech the other night President Obama put in a dig at the Bush administration, complaining about the budget deficit "we inherited." Sorry, Mr. Obama; that won't wash any more. Any budget you put forward or sign from now on is your budget.

And I'm not encouraged that the budget you are unveiling today represents an 8 percent increase over last year. So while the economy is in recession, and American families are being forced to cut back, government spending just keeps rising. Who else is getting such an increase this year, other than the Wall Street execs you love to demonize? I know a lot of people who have gotten pay cuts of 10 or 20 percent, and some who have actually lost their jobs (but none in government).

Plus, in your speech you promised to oppose earmarks, those "porky" amendments put in by members of Congress, usually for their districts. Well, Harry Reid apparently told you to put your earmark ban where the sun don't shine, because this bill is loaded with earmarks, worth billions of dollars.

While earmarks are definitely chump change in a bloated budget such as this one, you could set a new tone for your administration (and even garner some real bipartisan support) by threatening to veto this largesse when we should be in a time of austerity. Go ahead, Mr. President. Take a stand, even a symbolic one, for fiscal sanity. The American people will support you.

Then you need to take a sober look at all other the spending that has taken place since the fall, courtesy of you and the Bush administration. One of the highlights of the Obama administration is how it can undermine long-held stereotypes. Unfortunately, the president and his compatriots in Congress seem to be playing to the easy stereotype of Democrats as big spenders who increase government the first chance they get.

If that doesn't change, Team Obama will eventually pay a big price at the polls-even bigger than the current bloated budgets. If you want to earn the right to run things for a long time, you can, but you'll have to play against type.

The list below gives a rough snapshot of where we are right now. Forgive me if I'm off by a billion here or a billion there; it's hard to keep track of all the spending. These items do not include specific bailouts to AIG, the auto industry, the banks, and the like.

- Bailout I, $700 billion;

- Bailout II, $787 billion;

- Mortgage Bailout, $275 billion;

- New budget, $4 triillion;

- Fund to nationalize healthcare, $634 billion.

Who's going to pay for all this spending? The top 2 percent alone? Us? Our children? Our grandchildren? Or are we going to borrow from foreigners, and on what terms?

Something tells me we'll all have to learn Mandarin Chinese.

Quick Points

A few random thoughts reflecting on President Obama's speech last night:

- His call to Americans not to drop out of high school and his recognition that education begins in the home were welcome and inspiring;

- His recognition that the education establishment needs reform was interesting (though he didn't go far enough);

- His desire to have America lead the world in college graduation was intriguing (though he didn't mention that higher ed also needs revamping);

- His call for bigger financial commitments to bailouts, health care, and education may stimulate government and the Democratic Party but will do little to stimulate the economy;

- His simultaneous attempt to shovel money out the door while posing as a deficit hawk gave me a case of political whiplash;

- His cursory attention to matters of national security in our post-9/11 world was worrisome;

- His desire to do many big things at once is testament to his self-confidence (some might say "hubris"); he would probably do better to focus on one or two and get them right.

One more point:

- His promise not to raise taxes on anyone except the upper 2 percent to pay for this New New Deal is not at all credible.

And finally:

- His determination, during a painful recession, to impose a cap-and-trade scheme on American business for a dubious global-warming benefit belies his claim that fixing the economy is his top priority.

Hookup Ink

By Wendy Shalit

In ten years, we’ve gone from denial about the hookup scene to a section in the bookstore devoted to the problem. Dare one suggest that enough ink has been spilled, and that it is now time for action?

My comment: The term "casual sex" is an oxymoron. There is nothing casual about it.

Supercilious Christians

My CT Politics Blog post on the "Imagine" video (also posted below) prompted the following response:

As a Christian and an opponent of abortion on demand, I object to the ad because it will do nothing to change a single mind on the important issue of abortion. The implicit message is obvious: "If you liberals like abortion so much, have you considered that you might not have this left-wing 'pro-abort' President if his single mother had aborted him?" Such a message is not persuasive advocacy; it is a petty effort to poke a finger in the eye of one's political opponents.

This kind of pettiness has become all too typical of pro-life advocacy. Such ads probably help with fundraising among those already committed to the cause. But their pettiness leads many moderates to conclude that pro-life folks are nothing more than "carnival barkers" who must resort to populist, sensationalistic appeals to reach an audience.

In the US, social conservatism has generally taken a populist stance, and set itself against so-called elites. But need this be so ingrained that we have no ability to speak persuasively in the culture without resorting to populist sensationalism? Apparently so.

Posted by: Bob at February 21, 2009

Here's my response:

Bob,

Your reading of the ad seems cramped and ungenerous. An alternative reading of the ad's implicit message might be: "Difficult circumstances surrounding a birth should not blind us to the potential inherent in every unborn human life. Think before you abort." Yes, it is an arresting ad, but not at all petty (at least to me). If this tasteful, powerful ad is petty, then you leave me wondering what would pass your impossibly high standards.

You also present a false choice: Either an ad must, all by itself, change a mind immediately, or it is worthless. This ad may or may not change some minds, but it will definitely get people to think, and it will perhaps move some people to consider the issue in a new way. With other types of persuasion, it might even help change some minds. Such changes often come cumulatively, little by little, over time.

And now some questions for you: If you agree that abortion is an important issue, what is your alternative if you don't like this ad? It's hard to say a lot in 40 seconds. Can you do better? Or do you think Christians and pro-lifers should just abandon this medium altogether, leaving its persuasive powers in the hands of the pro-choice movement?

Stan

Update:

I will concede this: Many pro-lifers do engage in gruesome tactics, such as the perennial "aborted baby" sign, so I share your concern that we don't make what is beautiful into something ugly. But this particular spot is far from ugly. Ironic, maybe-but then so is much of the Bible.

Christians vs. an Atheist

I'll be moderating a panel on "Does the God of Christianity Exist, and What Difference Does It Make?" on Saturday, March 21, at the Christian Book Expo at the Dallas Convention Center.

Here's a description of the panel: "The New Atheists usually make two charges against Christianity: (1) that it is untrue and (2) that it is harmful. A panel of apologetics experts responds to atheist critic Christopher Hitchens with evidence from Scripture, science, and history about why the faith is both reasonable and good for the world."

What Obama Will Give the Left

By Robert P. George

With political realities preventing Obama from satisfying his left-wing base on economic and foreign policy questions, look for Obama to give the left the barn on social issues. And expect him to do so in significant measure through the courts.

"Imagine" Viewpoint Discrimination?

Brian Burch of CatholicVote.com says CNN has rejected the group's "Imagine" ad for broadcast during the president's State of the Union address next Tuesday. Previously NBC rejected the video, which links the pro-choice Barack Obama with a strong pro-life message, for airing during the Super Bowl. Executives at both networks cited concerns with the content of the ad: NBC that it doesn't run issue ads during the Super Bowl, and CNN because the ad suggests that Obama is pro-life. In an e-mail today to supporters, Burch disputes CNN's conclusion:

This is absurd. Our ad does not suggest that Barack Obama is pro-life. Instead, our ad presents nothing but facts. President Obama, like every human being, began as an unborn child. Because he was born, he was able to become the President of the United States.

CNN and others simply don't like the obvious conclusion of our ad - there was no ‘choice' for abortion back in 1961. Thankfully, we had laws then safeguarding unborn children -- laws that protected the life of a future president who tragically is unwilling to fight for those same protections today.

What Would Jesus Spend?

First we had "What would Jesus drive?" Then we had "How would Jesus vote?" Now, apparently, we have "What would Jesus spend?" The answer, according to a conservative anti-stimulus video ad making the rounds, might be, "Not as much as Barack Obama."

The 60-second spot, funded by the American Issues Project, states:

"Suppose you spent $1 million every single day starting from the day Jesus was born — and kept spending through today. A million dollars a day for more than 2,000 years. You would still have spent less money than Congress just did.”

Sense and Insensibility

Last night night conservative columnist David Brooks spoke at Wheaton College and said a lot of funny, insightful, and sensible things.

But he also said a few things that left me scratching my head, such as his comment that all the people surrounding Barack Obama are "nice." Later he told a hilarious story of how Obama's chief of staff, the cut-throat Rahm Emmanuel, had been, in the words of Obama, rendered "mute" by the accidental loss of his middle finger.

Brooks also lauded Obama’s understanding of religion and said/implied that the new president would have a deeper understanding of human nature as it applies to policy (unlike the Bush administration, which misread the Iraqi thirst for freedom). But then he admitted that the Obama administration is returning to the secularistic, failed approaches of the ‘60s (involving government programs over heart issues and relationships) when dealing with the nation’s problems. So where’s that religious nuance he was talking about?

Makes me think that even some conservatives are star-struck by our bright young president. Steady, boys ... let's keep our eye on the ball.

Here's an audio recording of the speech.
WS113369.WMA

Update:

Q+A: David Brooks
The conservative New York Times columnist explains how socially conservative evangelicals can repair their public image.
By Sarah Pulliam, Christianity Today

Another update:

The Big Test

By David Brooks

President Obama has concentrated enormous power on a few aides in the West Wing of the White House. These aides are unrolling a rapid string of plans: to create three million jobs, to redesign the health care system, to save the auto industry, to revive the housing industry, to reinvent the energy sector, to revitalize the banks, to reform the schools — and to do it all while cutting the deficit in half.

Bibliophiles We

Did we mention that we love books?

By Mark Galli

Is the Administration Winging It?

Obama's reputation for competence is at risk.


By Karl Rove

My Comment: Barack Obama has shown himself to be an outstanding campaigner and, so far, a poor CEO. There's a difference between campaigning and governing, and I'm not sure he has figured this out. (Nor did Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.) In just a month in the Oval Office, the junior senator from Illinois has dug some pretty deep holes for the nation (such as a return to the era of big government). I'm not saying he can't get out of them, but the performance so far has not matched the hype.

No-Confidence Vote

Barack Obama is promising to turn around the economy-eventually. Now that he's signing his $787 billion "stimulus" bill in Denver, today's a good time to see how he's doing. Here's a handy chart on the close of the Dow Jones Industrial Average at key points in the political life of the new president.

OBAMA AND THE DOW
Nov. 4: Obama elected. Up 305 points, to 9625.
(Market loses ground rest of 2008.)

Jan. 2: First trading day of 2009. Up 258, to 9034.

Jan. 20: Inauguration Day. Down 339, to 7949.

Feb. 17: "Stimulus" bill signed. Down 271 at midday, to 7579.

So since the junior senator from Illinois has been elected, the market has also voted: with its feet. The Dow is off by 21 percent. Not exactly a vote of confidence.

Obama's Rhetoric Is the Real 'Catastrophe'

The latest survey pegs U.S. unemployment at 7.6%. That's more than three percentage points below the 1982 peak (10.8%) and not even a third of the peak in 1932 (25.2%). You simply can't equate 7.6% unemployment with the Great Depression.

By Bradley R. Schiller

My comment: Remember when Democrats excoriated George W. Bush for supposedly "talking down the economy"? If he did talk it down for mentioning the obvious fact that the country was in a recession, what are we to call Obama's repeated use of the words "catastrophe" and "Depression" during the current recession? Shouting down the economy?

Hitler's Nightmare

Another hilarious YouTube video. You don't have to thank me; just watch and enjoy!

HT: Gina Guthrie

Liberal Education Gesture

New research shows that 14-month-olds who gesture while speaking develop better vocabularies than those who don't gesture. That's unfair. To ensure equality of opportunity, let's pass a law banning all toddlers from gesturing.

A Bad News Break

If you're weary from the economy and the "stimulus" bill, take a look at this YouTube video, courtesy of my 10-year-old son-especially if you like Star Wars parodies.

Pivoting Toward the Faraway Neighbor

Gary Haugen says rescuing the oppressed is within our reach.

Interview by Stan Guthrie

Reading on Lincoln

Today is the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. I thought I'd provide a list of the Lincoln books I have in my library (with every intention of someday reading them all!).

By Justin Taylor

The Ad NBC Rejected

CatholicVote.com produced a tasteful, thought-provoking ad for the Super Bowl that NBC rejected. See it here.

The Unstimulating Stimulus Bill

Duke University's Robert Munger on the Obama plan: "It won’t work in the sense that it will provide no stimulus. And it will do harm in the sense that we are all grabbing our children by the ankles, and shaking them upside down to get the change out of their pockets."


HT: Rush Limbaugh

Ideological Blockage

Barack Obama’s feel-good era of transformative politics lasted, oh, about three weeks. It was buried in an avalanche of pork.

When the junior senator from Illinois was elected November 4, many on the right were apprehensive about his lack of experience and liberal political positions. But amid the national euphoria over America putting a black man in the Oval Office, we were willing to take a hiatus from partisan sniping and give the man a decent honeymoon. He had earned one, after all.

Mr. Obama’s approval ratings were through the roof, and practically everyone (myself included, for what it’s worth) wished him well, reasoning quite naturally that if the president did well, the country would do well. Okay, Rush Limbaugh didn’t, but perhaps he knew more than the rest of us. But we all agreed that if the president, a smart man, governed from the center in the light of reality that the Oval Office can provide, he had a chance (a chance, mind you) to do great things. Or at least good ones.

His early moves, however, were not reassuring. One of his first acts (after his re-do on the oath of office) was to reinstate the Mexico City policy, which releases U.S. government funds for groups that advocate and “provide” abortions. (Moral questions aside, one wonders how that is a good use of money in a recession. It certainly provides a good “stimulus” to Planned Parenthood.) Next, his propensity to trust people who think paying taxes is optional didn't help. Then he ramped up spending on the SCHIP insurance plan, covering families making up to $80,000 and “dependents” up to the age of 30—again, in the midst of an economic “crisis.”

Soon, we would discover his plan: (1) When in doubt, spend; and (2) pay off your political allies. This became evident quickly with the $800-billion-plus “economic stimulus” plan, which throws money at many liberal stalwarts such as ACORN but produces jobs at a cost to future generations of about $300,000 each.

The Republicans, facing minority status for the next generation, were only too willing to be co-opted, but Mr. Obama dissed them instead. He shut them out of negotiations on the plan, which was presented by Nancy Pelosi and company as a fait accompli. Then the GOP discovered, after years of overspending, that it had reached its limit and balked at signing on.

Obama, perhaps angry that the Republicans would not provide the political cover such a bad plan requires, complained that he “won” the election and should get his way. Obama did get his bill in the House on a straight party-line vote. In the Senate, it went much the same, but at least this time the president picked off three eastern “moderates.”

Last night, Mr. Obama again complained of partisanship and “ideological blockage.” Talk about a classic case of projection! Of course, George W. Bush faced vicious partisanship throughout his presidency, but I don’t once recall him complaining publicly about it. That’s life in the big city, Mr. Obama. Perhaps you’re not used to it, Chicago being a one-party town and all.

Mr. Obama, you have the votes in your own party to ram through whatever “stimulus” you want. But no matter how much Vaseline you put on this pig, the one thing that won’t survive is your credibility. You’ve frittered away most of the political capital you had. Now Republicans, and the American people, are going to be a lot more wary. Win or no win, you have yourself to thank for that.

--

Update: Hundreds of economists, including Christian ones, speak out against the faith-based stimulus plan.

The Fierce Urgency of Pork

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."

-- President Obama, Feb. 4.

Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

By Charles Krauthammer

Now You Can Hear Me

Fresh podcasts about the best books and movies of the year are available here. New CT programs are going up regularly, so check back often. Better yet, subscribe. It's all free!

Bracing Ourselves

By Peggy Noonan

[The president's] serious and consequential policy mistake is that he put his prestige behind not a new way of breaking through but an old way of staying put. This marked a dreadful misreading of the moment. And now he's digging in. His political mistake, which in retrospect we will see as huge, is that he remoralized the Republicans. He let them back in the game.

My comment: Peggy's definitely got her A-game going. This is an alarming, sobering column. I hope Mr. Obama takes time out from his grandstanding to read it.

How Much Is $1.1 Trillion?

Justin Taylor at "Between Two Worlds" links to a post that attempts to help us grasp how much money is in the so-called stimulus plan. Here are some interesting facts:

- If you ... collected ... $1 million per day, ever[y] day from the birth of Christ, in 2009 you'd only be about 3/4 of the way to a trillion.
- If you got $1 every second, it would take almost 32,000 years to get to a trillion.
- If you stacked a trillion dollar bills on top of each other, it would go 68,000 miles into space--1/3 of the way to the moon.
- If you took [a trillion] 100-dollar bills and put them side to side, it would circle the equator 38.9 times

Justin notes, "So the proposed "stimulus" package costs more than the Marshall Plan, the Korean War, and the New Deal combined."

Barack Obama, CEO

President Obama, blessed with virtually no executive experience of his own, nevertheless apparently can divine how much compensation other executives, whose companies receive bailout money, should receive (no more than $500,000). That's really rich-and I'm not talking about the salaries.

Then our commander in chief, facing Republicans who disagree that a pork-laden spending bill laced with goodies for Democratic Party favorites is the only possible response to the recession, is reduced to sputtering, "But I won the election!" Reminds me of the childish Trelaine character in Star Trek, who, when called inside by his parents, whines, "But I was winnin'!"

Yes, Mr. Obama, you won the election, but now it is time to start governing. Winning an election doesn't give you a blank check. It gives you the opportunity to lead. Do you know how to do that?

Leading is more than simply announcing a policy without consultation and expecting the other political party to fall into line. It involves listening, horse-trading, and persuading.

If you truly want this to be a bipartisan bill, you'll have to be a better chief executive officer. Otherwise, we may be forced to cut your pay.

Look at the Time

That's what the stimulus bill was about—not knowing what time it is, not knowing the old pork-barrel, group-greasing ways are over, done, embarrassing. When you create a bill like that, it doesn't mean you're a pro, it doesn't mean you're a tough, no-nonsense pol. It means you're a slob.

By Peggy Noonan