R. R. Reno over at First Things has some interesting insights into the alleged “pregnancy pact”:

…it seems pretty clear that some teenage girls in Gloucester wanted to get pregnant, talked about it with their friends, and succeeded in conceiving. The school offers free pregnancy testing, and the school nurse reported girls celebrating when the tests came back positive. So, official pact or not, there has been an upsurge in Gloucester of something that our oh-so-inclusive age finds alien and threatening: planned teen pregnancies.

One predictable reaction has focused on sex education, or more accurately the bemoaned lack thereof. If only the students had better information about the real consequences of sexual intercourse! If only the school health clinic were permitted to dispense birth control pills! If only Gloucester didn’t suffer from the repressive mentality of a majority Catholic culture!

Hello. We’re talking about girls who wanted to get pregnant. Is it so difficult to notice that girls who want to get pregnant are not victims of supposedly prudish culture that won’t teach children the truth about sex and give them condoms?

Another reaction is less easily dismissed: It’s not about sex but parenting. If only these girls knew the extraordinary difficulties of raising a child, then they never would have done such a silly thing! So the way to prevent teen pregnancies is to dramatize the challenges of motherhood, especially single motherhood.

Mr. Reno says he has to chuckle about these reactions – especially the suggestion of “if they only knew”, that would have stopped them. My reaction is this – given what we teach our children these girls did absolutely nothing wrong.

Now, as a Christian I can say quite properly that what the girls – and the boys who impregnated them – did was wrong. But our society is, at least in popular culture, entirely post-Christian. These girls violated very basic Christian morality, but what they did is entirely in keeping with the morality prevalent in our public square in 2008. To throw up our hands in horror and ask how this could have happened is akin to a drunk asking how he could have passed out on the floor again: We tell the kids how to have sex; we refuse to tell them not to have sex; we refuse to impart to them Judeo-Christian morality; we do impart to them the concept that “right” and “wrong” are mere social constructs subject to our individual will; we place no moral opprobrium on those who engage in extramarital sex and/or have children out of wedlock – and in conjunction with this we propagandise them massively via books, magazines, music, movies and television that sex is just the coolest thing anyone can do. What is surprising is that many of our youngsters still refuse to be drawn into this sort of thing – not at all surprising that large numbers of them get into it.

People make rational decisions based upon the information they have – we are, after all is said and done, creatures who have reason at our command…the only thing which can be different from one person to another is the sort of information they have to base their decisions upon. Can anyone out there demonsrate that these girls had information which in any way, shape or form would dissuade them from their actions? Only if its Judeo-Christianity…and we don’t know if they had any of it at all or, if they did, how strongly they had been instructed in it vis a vis how strongly they were instructed in the morality of our public square. If this event in any way disturbs you, then there’s only one thing for you to do – insist upon a greater application of Judeo-Christian values.

Bob Beckel, taking a page right out of Barack Obama’s strategy book (the chapter on playing the victim card at every turn) whines about angry readers who wrote to him in response to a poorly written post at The Fox Forum about the “arrogance” of George Bush. He opined,

Is it my imagination, or are many of you angry? If I were a Republican and facing the rejection of conservatism on an unprecedented scale this coming November, I suppose I’d be angry as well. Perhaps I can help you understand why your political philosophy is about to be rejected by the American people.

Yeah, we heard the same “you’re going to lose big time in November” line before back in 2004. But, Beckel’s wishful thinking is combined with a lack of understanding of what is really going on. Conservatism is not being rejected. Far from it. The truth is conservatives are frustrated when Republicans they elected stray from conservative principles. If conservatism was being rejected, as Beckel wants to believe, then Barack Obama wouldn’t be trying to win votes shifting his positions towards the center, and taking more conservative positions on the Second Amendment, tax cuts, even abortion.

1. Conservatives are supposed to be fiscally responsible yet when your crowd inherited a trillion-dollar surplus from Bill Clinton, Bush/Cheney and a Republican Congress turned it into a $3-trillion-dollar deficit.

You certainly won’t find fiscal conservatives justifying the increases in spending, but Beckel is absolutely ignoring the impact of the 2000-2001 Recession and 9/11. It is also worth noting that two key economic achievements of the 1990s, welfare reform and the balanced budget, while signed by Bill Clinton, came to be because of the efforts of the Republican Congress.

2. Conservatives strongly support the war in Iraq but won’t help pay for it. Never has our country been at war without asking and getting our citizens to help bear the financial burden…until this war. Conservatives don’t want to give up Bush’s tax cuts for the top 5% of wage earners to help pay for this war. Why?

I guess I must be in the top 5% of wage earners, because how else can I explain the tax cut that I received? But, I’m not in the top 5%, so, enough with that argument. Also, Beckel is either choosing to ignore the record economic growth that resulted from Bush’s tax cuts. And of course, Beckel’s argument loses all credibility when you consider government tax receipts went up as a result of those tax cuts.

3. The American people got tired of being lectured on “family values” by conservative clergy and Republican members of Congress, e.g. Larry Craig, who didn’t practice what they preached.

I’m sure the American people are tired of being lecture about the rich paying “their fair share” of taxes by rich Democrats in Congression who keep large chunks of their personal wealth in off-shore tax shelters to avoid paying taxes on it. I also can’t help mentioning Democrat governor Eliot Spitzer, who built his career on breaking up prostitution rings, only to be involved in one himself. Though, it may be true that conservatives are more likely to punish the hypocrites in their party than liberals are to punish the hypocrites in their party.

4. Or maybe the voters got tired of Republicans controlling the US House of Representatives for 12 years during which they handed out more wasteful pork projects than all the pork handed out by Democrats in the 42 years preceding the GOP takeover.

And what have Democrats done to control spending and cut pork since returning to the majority? Oh yeah, nothing.

5. Or maybe voters got angry when they learned the Vice President of the United States manipulated intelligence and misled the American people on why war with Iraq was in our national security interests.

Despite several investigations by various bipartisan and independent commissions and committees, all concluded that there was no manipulation of intelligence, and that statements made by the administration were supported by the intelligence available at the time.

6. Or maybe the public didn’t like George Bush vetoing legislation to provide health insurance for millions of kids.

Another ridiculous point predicated on the belief that health insurance should be funded by the government regardless of whether federal assistance is necessary. The Democrats’ proposed expansion of SCHIP would have provided taxpayer funded health insurance to children in families who didn’t need such government assistance – but also would have left many who needed it, with no such assistence.

7. Or maybe the public got embarrassed by Republicans in the Bush Administration who refused, in the face of overwhelming evidence, to accept the reality of global warming, aka “The Flat Earth Society”.

No, what’s more embarrassing are Democrats who think global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, and who are afraid to debate skeptics of global warming.

Beckel then concludes his poorly written list with a self-righteous rant filled with feigned resignation about his alleged experience with conservatives. If the situation were reversed, and a conservative pundit attempted to generalize liberals based on experiences with a select few, Beckel might have written something about how you can’t judge an entire party or ideology, based on an angry, vocal minority.

I expect Beckel to look at things through a partisan lens, but now I think he’s just blind. As a liberal, he certainly finds it in his best interest to talk about elections with an attitude of inevitability of the eventual positive for his party, but doing so really destroy’s his credibility as a political strategist and pundit.

Out here in Las Vegas we did the usual – a rather general popular defiance of the laws against rocket-type fireworks. That plus a few hundred thousand out of towners dropping by to pay a goodly portion of our State budget for next year.

What did you do?

UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: Here’s where I was Friday…

At 86 years old:

Former Republican Sen. Jesse Helms, a leading conservative on Capitol Hill, died Friday morning. He was 86.

The Jesse Helms Center posted a brief statement on its Web site saying Helms died at 1:15 a.m. in Raleigh, N.C.

“He was very comfortable,” said former chief of staff Jimmy Broughton, who added Helms died of natural causes in Raleigh.

The five-term senator from North Carolina formerly chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and often railed against Communism, liberalism and big government.

Known by some as “Senator No” for his opposition to Democratic measures, Helms was a polarizing figure for his positions on social issues.

He was a proponent of school prayer and an opponent of abortion rights and gay rights groups.

Colleagues said he always was a gentleman, no matter what his positions were.

“America has lost a great public servant and true patriot today,” a White House spokesman said, after learning of Helms’ death on the Fourth of July.

Liberals hated this man – but he was, by all accounts, a very kind person who treated everyone with the respect they were due as human beings…and when slavery reared its ugly head in Africa, it wasn’t the “civil rights” movement which led the fight against it, but Senator Jesse Helms.

May God bless you, Senator, and bring you home.

The phrase is in our Declaration of Independence – used to describe how our ancestors had resisted the attempts of King George to invade the rights of the people. Can you imagine anyone in America uttering such a phrase in 2008? And yet, there it is – in the primary American document. We are, in a sense, afraid to use the words our ancestors wrote and pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to defend. And, lets also understand that words like “sacred” and “honor” are, while not banned as completely as “manly”, are certainly rarely used. What has become of us?

This concern over words used has been turning over in my mind for some days now – I was reading a book by G. K. Chesterton where he discussed the issue of birth control. The thing is, he called it as it was, and although I am 43 years old and fairly well informed, I had never approached the issue from Chesterton’s angle – the correct angle, as it is. You see, it isn’t the control of birth which is desired by “birth control” advocates, but the prevention of birth. Birth Control would actually be the process whereby we control who is allowed to give birth and when – but, of course, that is not what is wanted. What is wanted, by the advocates, is a smaller number of births. But they call it birth control, and even we who are opposed to the basic concept call it birth control…we’ve all bought into a cowardly way of avoiding the real issue because to confront the real issue would require a great deal of courage and a sublime disdain of the modern pieties.

Our whole society has become unmanned, and this is revealed in the way we deal with issue after issue. If three men who live on the street are, respectively, insane, alchoholic and shiftless, we don’t call them what they are – they are all “homeless”. Abortion is a “choice”; men who suffer from the awesome mental and spiritual weight of battle suffer from “post-traumatic stress disorder”; rape is “sexual assault”; we can murder by degrees (he isn’t so bad, he only committed second degree murder…please un-remember that the person is first degree dead, all the same)…we can no longer, in America, oppose tyrants with manly firmness…we’re not allowed to. To be manly in our firmness is forbidden…blow up our citizens, rape our daughters, butcher our unborn children – we can’t be manly in our opposition. We are to ask politely if those oppressing us will please leave us alone.

The first step in the recovery of our society is going to have to be the recovery of our manliness – our ability, even amongst women (you ladies aren’t off the hook here, ya know?), to call things as they are and demand they stop in clear, ringing tones which leave no doubt as to where we stand. The late, great Pope John Paul II advised us early in his pontificate that we should be not afraid – and that is, indeed, what we must be. And JPII, by the way, resisted with manly firmness the depraved spirit of our current age. Politely and with love, he yet managed to make himself clear and stand firm for what is right – and that is the model we must take.

Take that first step – without being rude or seeking opportunities to stir up ill will, yet always state clearly and concisely exactly what you believe is happening. Let us start to be as manly as our ancestors, and make them proud we are their descendents.

Ed. Note: This first appeared over at Battle Born Politics last year.

…If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! – Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

These inspiring words are what it means to be an American. One can believe a lot of things, but unless one subscribes whole heartedly to every iota of our sublime Declaration, then one is not an American. Outside the bible, there are no words written by the hand of Man more valuable.

Wow, Obama goes back on his own pledges so much, one can only wonder what his position on an issue will be from day to day.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) promised primary voters a swift withdrawal from Iraq, in clear language still on his Web site: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

Not anymore. Heading into the holiday weekend, Obama and his advisers repudiated that pledge, saying he is reevaluating his plan and will incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month.

A top Obama adviser said he is not “wedded” to a specific timeline and Obama said Thursday he plans to “refine” his plan.

This is not going to sit well with the liberal base that delivered the nomination to him…

From the Washington Post:

“Sen. Barack Obama left open the possibility of slowing his promised, 16-month withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq, saying he would consult with military commanders on an upcoming trip to the region to ensure a withdrawal would keep troops safe and Iraq stable.”

…the Los Angeles Times:

“Is Barack Obama softening his Iraq withdrawal time line? … On the campaign website, Obama says he would “immediately” begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and would have “all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months.” But at a news conference, he was asked about concerns by some that he was backing off on that timetable.”

…Associated Press:

“Democrat Barack Obama is opening the door to altering his Iraq policy. Campaigning in North Dakota, Obama says his upcoming trip to Iraq could alter his plan to bring U.S. troops home within 16 months. The Illinois senator says it all depends on what he hears in consultations with military commanders there.”

…and the New York Times:

“As he arrived for a campaign stop in North Dakota, Mr. Obama told reporters on Thursday that he intended to conduct “a thorough assessment” of his Iraq policy during a forthcoming trip to the country. … It’s been more than two years since Mr. Obama has visited Iraq, which Republicans have used as a point of criticism. After dismissing an invitation from Mr. McCain to visit Iraq together this summer as a “political stunt,” Mr. Obama began making preparations for his own trip to Iraq.”

Matthew Rothschild over at The Progressive:

…those things that truly made us great—the system of checks and balances, the enshrinement of our individual rights and liberties—have all been systematically assaulted by Bush and Cheney.

From the Patriot Act to the Military Commissions Act to the new FISA Act, and all the signing statements in between, we are less great today.

From Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Force Base and Guantanamo, we are less great today.

From National Security Presidential Directive 51 (giving the Executive responsibility for ensuring constitutional government in an emergency) to National Security Presidential Directive 59 (expanding the collection of our biometric data), we are less great today.

From the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to InfraGard and the Terrorist Liaison Officers, we are less great today.

Admit it. We don’t have a lot to brag about today.

It is time, it is long past time, to get over the American superiority complex.

It is time, it is long past time, to put patriotism back on the shelf—out of the reach of children and madmen.

The madmen would presumptively be Bush and Cheney – now, to be fair to Mr. Rothschild, he does list other American sins which are noy intrinsic to Bush/Cheney – our consumerism and other evils, real and imagined, which the left dredges up from time to time to prove that we’re a bunch of creeps…and if we’d only all become leftists, all would be made better. The curious thing about Mr. Rothschild’s article is that it starts out condemning nationalism – even saying that it is a worse killer than religion, and that is a great concession on the part of any leftist. After all, the whole point of religion – and especially Christianity, and most especially Catholicism – is to kill and destroy and hold down…so to say that nationalism is a bigger ill is astounding, and demonstrates the author’s sincerity in being the anti-patriot.

And yet, he ends his bit by lamenting the way Bush and Cheney have allegedly done away with the US Constitution – in other words, he’s distressed over the supposed demise of a national government. This would seem to indicate that it isn’t really nationalism which gets Mr. Rothschild upset, but a sort of nationalism he doesn’t like. He’s convinced himself that if only we could recover our old, hallowed Constitutional structure, we’d be a better nation…no reactionary ever said it better (side note: the curious thing about leftists is how very reactionary they actually are).

Earlier in the piece the author condemns another writer for pointing out that we love our nation the same way we love our family – because they are ours. Mr. Rothschild doesn’t like this concept at all – in fact, he’s of the opinion that there’s something inherently wrong with loving the nation you’re born in simply because it is your native land – such love is somehow imposed and thus false. For Mr. Rothschild, we should love what is lovable – which is true, in a very narrow sense, but the real test of human character is to love what is unlovely.

It is easy to love the sublime, much harder to find the love in the ridiculous. Given that most human actions tend towards the latter, however, if we are to really love at all, then we’re going to have to set our minds to loving those things which we find disagreeable. Its either that, or hardly have any love at all. The great hearted person looks upon America – warts and all – and still says, “I love you”. Just as a good man will say of his wife that she is beautiful, even if her prime was some time ago – just as a kindly person will observe the flawed, remember his own flaws, and then seek out what is wonderful amongst the flaws, and build on that. If we’re to suspend our love of country – our patriotism, that is – until such time as our country exactly suits us, then we will wait forever, and never get what we want. To hold to Mr. Rothschild’s view is to hold a view common to a petulant child, but not something a mature mind concerns itself with.

I, on the other than, do love America – even Mr. Rothschild, and those like him. I wouldn’t dream of having an America without them – they are mine, and so I love them, even as I hope they’ll eventually change their views. I love this land not because it is perfect, but because it has much good in it, and I’ll concentrate on that and seek to expand that, in order that this land I love becomes more lovable over time, even though it will never through human agency become entirely lovable.

From the Associated Press:

Obama, McCain’s Democratic rival in the race for the White House, also lists bipartisanship as a congressional credential. A recent Associated Press-Yahoo News poll showed about 40 percent of the electorate believes both men would work across party lines.

Even so, none of the examples cited by Obama’s aides, beginning with a bill to secure nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union, placed the Illinois lawmaker at odds with the leaders of his own party or gave significant offense to outside interest groups aligned with Democrats.

Not so, McCain.

The Arizona Republican “took on his own party’s leadership, and that takes enormous courage,” says former Rep. Martin Meehan of Massachusetts, a Democrat who worked closely with McCain for years on the campaign finance legislation that Bush reluctantly signed into law. He added that such defiance can often lead to retaliation by the leadership.

“He’s a tough adversary. He’s a very effective legislator,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said in an interview.

As a longtime member of his party’s leadership, McConnell has often borne the brunt of McCain’s bipartisanship, yet he said he has never seen him cross an imaginary line into foul territory.

There is one very good reason why Obama has not strayed from the leftwing base of the Democratic party: No Democrat who strays from the leftwing base in any serious way would ever be the Democratic nominee for President. Why is the feckless Obama the nominee while the very much more qualified Hillary forced to campaign for a man she is, apparently, convinced will lose in November? Because Hillary strayed from the left – she voted for the war and then, much worse, when the left demanded that all Democrats who so voted denounce their vote, she refused. Oh, she went as close to the wire as she could – but somewhere deep inside Hillary Clinton is someone who isn’t stupid enough to really believe (a) that the war is lost and (b) that its all a corrupt scheme by Bush and the PNAC/Neo-Con/Likud cabal. And so she wouldn’t say she was wrong for casting her vote for the liberation of Iraq. Obama, on the other hand, conveniently denounced the war in 2002, even more conveniently forgot his 2004 support for the war and all through 2006 and 2007 trumpeted the leftist, defeatist line. And so he’s the nominee.

While McCain from time to time angers movement conservatives, we should be happy to take a man who does what he thinks right even at political risk over a man who won’t risk anything. Obama wanted to be a State legislator; then we wanted to be a United States Senator; now he wants to be President and in each step of his rise he’s never – not even once – stuck his neck out beyond the leftwing worldview. There is nothing in Obama which isn’t entirely predictable – from defeatism in Iraq to “windfall profits” taxes on oil, each and every Obama opinion comes right out of central scripting at the leftwing wordshop. In any given situation, anyone with even a cursory knowledge of politics will be able to tell precisely what Obama will say and do – and this is why we conservatives know that the election of Obama means a disaster for the nation.

In these terribly dangerous times, we need a President – like McCain – who will tell it like it is and who will be willing to defy everyone in service of the right policy for the United States of America. We don’t need an Obama who will always seek the blessings of the left before he even opens his mouth.