I just got off the phone with Andy Barnett, who informs me that he just recently spoke with Pawlenty Press Secretary, Alex Carey. While Mr. Carey did not actually state that Pawlenty was the choice, there was excitement in his voice, and he did state that Governor Pawlenty “cleared his schedule” for the weekend.

Meanwhile, according to Barnett, a source very close to the Romney campaign stated that Governor Romney had not heard anything with regard to VP plans within this past hour.

…developing

The other day at the Saddleback affair, when asked at what point a baby would be deserving of human rights, Obama responded, “Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”

From a theological perspective, the question remains a no-brainer:

Thou shalt not kill.

Pretty black and white, if you ask me. Especially given the innocence of the developing life in what should be the safety of a mother’s womb. So unless Barack Obama’s pay grade is below that which one would consider literate, it is my opinion that he is unfamiliar with his job description.

Obama’s theological ignorance aside, his reliance on the cloak of science from which to hide from his inequities hardly provides any meaningful cover.

Science is a discipline of facts, not of values. It is within the purview of exploring our ethics and values to determine how to interpret scientific data in the context of human interactions and the values of society. The question of what stage to assign a developing life form the title of “human being” and when to bestow all rights and privileges therein is necessarily a question of values, not of science.

Recognizing a child as a “human being” with the right to live from the moment of conception is most assuredly a values decision, just as assigning only live-born children rights concomitant with humanity is also a values decision.

But let’s take a closer look at the “values” involved in each of those mindsets, shall we?

In the former circumstance, assigning the title of “human being” to a child beginning at the moment of conception is a values decision, born of the belief that every human being, regardless of stage of development, or of ability to independently or otherwise function, is a manifestation of human life, must be held sacred, and is necessarily worthy of protection under the law.

In the latter circumstance, assigning the title of “human being” exclusively to children who are born alive (and I’m giving Obama wayyy too much credit for even this) necessarily stems from a value that the title “human being” and privileges thereof should be bestowed based solely on functionality; not on the mere existence of the child.

To assign humanity based solely on functionality rather than on merely “being” is a decision based on values, not on any “facts,” nor on any “science.”

When you assign humanity exclusively to born-alive infants, you have made the value judgment and choice to limit humanity and/or the value of a person based exclusively on functionality. At the risk of evoking Godwin, wasn’t that mindset pretty much the underpinnings of the eugenics movement? (Not ironically, Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a big fan of eugenics)

Obama at once tried to justify his moral malfeasance by claiming both religious and scientific ignorance; it is quite apparent that he failed in his attempted justification on both counts.

If this is indeed the extent of his “pay grade,” it may behoove the Obamessiah to set his sights on a somewhat more lowly ambition than POTUS.

Unsurprisingly, Lincoln Chaffee is one of them. As is Jim Leach (who supported sending Dhimmi Carter as an envoy to “broker peace” between Israel and the Palestinians). And Rita Hauser.

Wait a minute–who is Rita Hauser?

Glad you asked.

A professor coming to Columbia University this fall to head up a Middle East studies institute has said that killing armed Israelis is legitimate Palestinian “resistance” to occupation.

The money Columbia is using to pay the professor comes in part from Rita Hauser, a high-profile New York philanthropist whose former law firm was a registered agent of the Palestinian Authority. Also contributing was a foundation with close ties to Saudi Arabia.

So, a message to Team Obammesiah: You want these three self-loathing, mental midget clowns to head up your “GOP for Obama” contingent? Fine. They’re a great match for your self-loathing, America-blaming platform.

You can have them, with shouts of “good riddance,” to boot.

Take all the RINOs you want.

We never claimed them to begin with.

With a major Presidential hopeful openly pining for one-world socialism, and the prospect of encroaching socialism moving ever more mainstream, it would appear that John Lennon’s dream in his protest song, Imagine, is much closer to fruition this day and age.

So, with conservatism becoming the new counter-culture, I offer a protest song for the 21st century.

Imagine, for the 21st Century (without apology to John Lennon)

Imagine there’re no Liberals
It’s easy if you try
No welfare state to enslave us
Or taxing us to the sky…
Imagine all the people
Keeping their own wealth…

Imagine we have a country…
It isn’t hard to do
One that we’ll defend and die for..
And secure our borders, too
Imagine all the people
Living life secure…

You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And our nation will be as one.

Imagine no class envy…
I wonder if you can
Opportunity for everyone..
From fetus unto man
Imagine all the people
Living the American Dream.. ah-haaa-ah!

You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll be conservative
And our nation will live as one.

Stop. And. Think.

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Dueling delegations pitting Ron Paul’s Nevada supporters against those of John McCain vow to take their fight to the Republican National Convention.

That’s just one sign that the outsider, Internet-fueled movement led by the feisty Republican congressman from Texas remains afloat in the wake of McCain’s victory in the GOP primaries.

In the libertarian-leaning West, where Paul’s message of distrust of the federal government and ardent individualism played particularly well, there is talk of Republicans straying from McCain. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr has emerged as a favorite alternative for Paul activists, followed by Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.

Even if the numbers of such dissenters are small, in tight contests in key Western states they could spoil McCain’s chances, experts say.

"In Nevada, there’s absolutely enough to have an effect on the election," said Chuck Muth, a leading conservative activist in a state in which early polls show McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama in a statistical tie.

"I think that you will see not just Libertarians who always vote for the Libertarian candidate but conservative Republicans saying we’ve had it, we’ve had enough and they’re going to go ahead and vote Libertarian," Muth said.

Paul — or "Dr. Paul," as his followers reverently refer to the obstetrician-turned-politician — ran as the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1988. But this year he carved out a following as an antiestablishment Republican. His campaign won more than 1 million votes and became a catchall for anti-war, anti-government voters and disaffected Republicans.

Now I’m sure you’re thinking that 2008-2012 will be transitional years. Either Obama wins, FUBARs the nation, serves a one-term presidency, and loses in 2012; or McCain wins, FU the nation (but not beyond all recognition); gets old, and we get another shot at 2012. So, you say, either way it’s all good, right?

But there will be three reasons to vote for, and yes, even work to help elect John McCain this go-round: and those reasons are, to put it simply, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, and, oh, did I mention Supreme Court?

John Paul Stevens, 88

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75

Antonin Scalia, 72

Anthony Kennedy, 71

Stephen Breyer, 69

David Souter, 68

Clarence Thomas, 60

Samuel Alito, 58

John Roberts, 53

There’s no way that Stevens is going to last til 2012, and Ruth Vader Ginsberg will no doubt follow him out the door. Hell, Scalia ain’t getting any younger, either. That leaves two or more openings before 2012. To put it simply, a Barack Obama presidency (not to mention a continuing dem majority in both Houses) will most certainly poison an already-precariously balanced Supreme Court for years to come. An Obama presidency will be the catalyst in a perfect storm that will leave this nation saddled not with liberalism, but with out-and-out socialism for the foreseeable future.

Scorched earth. Is that what you really want? In the process of "sticking it" to the Republican party, you’ll be able to kiss conservatism, and yes, libertarianism goodbye. Put those ideals into a storm shelter, and perhaps take them out in a couple of decades. If we’re still around by then.

So, Paulbots– you still want to "stick it" to the Republicans?

Think hard. Think long and hard before you answer.

You’re showing weakness, my friend:

Republican Sen. John McCain, engaged in increasingly sharp attacks on rival Barack Obama, pledged that if elected president, he would work closely with Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, praising her as an effective leader and an “inspiration to millions of Americans.”

“I respect Speaker Pelosi. I think she’s one of the great American success stories,” McCain said during an interview with The Chronicle prior to a fundraiser at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco.

“We talk about (New York Sen.) Hillary Clinton and her inspiration to millions of Americans. Speaker Pelosi has been an inspiration as well” in a role that is “in many ways … more powerful than the president.”

And McCain also had high praise for the 2000 Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore and his advocacy on the issue of climate change. McCain recently raised eyebrows in GOP circles by calling “doable” Gore’s suggestion that the country could become entirely energy independent through use of renewable resources within 10 years.

“I agree with his goal,” the Arizona senator said Monday of Gore’s idea. “I may disagree with all the ways of getting there. But I again want to emphasize my respect for the former vice president’s leadership on this issue and his continuous leadership. And I am in no way trying to get into a fight with him.”

You should know by now, Senator, that any time you extend an olive branch to those on the left, all they’ll do is turn around and whack you with it.

Do you honestly think for one moment that since you’re “Maverick John McCain” that they’ll go easy on you? That they will finally see the error of their ways, and a new wave of bipartisanship will descend upon the Capitol steps?

Give me a break.

You ain’t playing with no choirboys, John McCain. While they may exchange a nicety or two in return, they’ll still stab you in the back at every chance they get. Again, and again, and again. Don’t ever, I mean ever expect them to “get along” with you, Senator McCain.

At the same time, Senator, you’re not impressing anyone in your base by this unilateral show of civility. We want someone who will fight for what is right, not one who will acquiesce to the left for the mere purpose of avoiding confrontation. It’s not that we’re mean spirited grumpy old men and women, Senator. It’s just that we’ve been around the block enough times and observed enough occasions to know that any show of civility toward these creeps will be met with disdain and sardonic laughter, followed by a series of stabs in the back that will truly make your head spin.

And then they’ll get really mean.

The point is, your show of civility will not be met in kind with any degree of substance, period.

Save your accolades and your handshakes for the people who will support you, Senator McCain.

History has proven that to waste your time with these morons is much like trying to teach a pig to sing; though you may actually have more success with the pig.

‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’
-Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

The Tenth Amendment, which is supposed to hold weight equal to the First, Second and every other Amendment to the United States Constitution, has in the last 80 years been regarded as “a nice idea” but optional. This has resulted in usurpation of powers from the States in everything from health care to education (and everything in between).

Far from being taken seriously, the Tenth Amendment has become the red-headed stepchild of the Constitution, and has been ignored with impunity by the Federal government.

There is a movement afoot in Oklahoma, however, to rectify the situation:

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution’s language, in part, reads: “Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

The measure passed overwhelmingly in the Oklahoma State House of Representatives, but was hung up in the State Senate (sound familiar?) However, Representative Charles Kay plans to re-introduce the measure when the Oklahoma State House reconvenes next year.

What would upholding the Tenth Amendment entail? Walter E. Williams writes,

Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution’s framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, “The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.”

Of course, the eye of the needle through which the camel squeezed its head was the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave the Federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. All well and good; however, meaning of the term “commerce” has been twisted and manipulated to not only cover business transactions between residents of different states, but everything else under the sun:

These scholars interpret interstate commerce to mean “substantial interstate human relations” and find this consistent with the meaning of commerce at the time of the writing of the Constitution. They also argue that this expansive interpretation makes more sense for the foreign and Indian commerce clauses as one would expect Congress to be given authority to regulate non-economic relations with other nations and with Indian tribes.

This ‘liberal translation’ of the term, ‘commerce,’ of course, flies in the face of Jefferson’s writings; which is SOP for liberals, who true to their moniker often take great liberty in using the words of the Constitution as so much silly puddy to bend and shape their meaning to fit their cause d’jour. This led to the creation of FDR’s “New Deal,” which led to the notion that the government pretty much had the right to step in to any situation, for any reason, if there was any indication of interstate commerce whatsoever. While minor shifts toward state’s rights have occurred in between, the Federal Government still maintains overwhelming authority over areas of our lives in which they Constitutionally have no business to regulate.

This could be the start of a groundswell of opportunity to defeat Federal usurpation of power, and to once and for all defeat the federal imposition of liberalism and its even uglier cousin, socialism. I look forward to a Republican legislator from my home state of Minnesota to take up this mantle (I know it won’t be a democrat).

While the lamestream press and rock-concert goers were salivating and tripping over themselves to touch their messiah’s garments on Obama’s recent European tour, others were not so impressed

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth – for the first time – to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

Read, as they say, the whole thing.

In Germany today, Barack Hussein Obama had this to say about his “actions” regarding Iran. As Powerline notes,

Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don’t have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.

But Obama is not a member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. Obama just made that up so he could count the committee’s action as one of “my deeds.”

How is it that a U.S. Senator, one who is supposedly made of the “right stuff” to lead this nation on a glorious path toward…uhh.. change, doesn’t even know on which committee he serves? Is he that dense? Or is it that Obama is just that brazen a liar, in the knowledge that his fawning, sycophantic media posse will provide the needed cover?

In either case, it may behoove you Obamatons to really think, and think hard, before pulling that lever in November.

CORRECTION: I mistakenly stated that Obama made the quoted speech in Germany; in actuality, Obama made the speech yesterday at Sderot, Israel. Thanks, Casper.

Possibly, very short list?

ROCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) – It’s VP tea leaf reading season, and a Republican source who attended a small private meeting with John McCain Tuesday in New Hampshire tells CNN that the GOP candidate dropped a serious hint about Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

The Republican source said “out of the blue” McCain told the gathering that he thinks they are “really going to like” Pawlenty.

As Chairman for the national McCain For President Committee, the perceived degree of possibility of Tim Pawlenty as a possible Veep pick for McCain has vacillated wildly since February of this year; at times it looked like he was a definite pick, at other times a longshot. Don’t get me wrong. I like Governor Pawlenty. But a Pawlenty pick would do very little to shore up McCain’s conservative bonafides. A pick of a true-blue conservative such as Bobby Jindal, on the other hand, would take the McCain campaign light years toward healing the obvious rift between conservative purists and some of the uncomfortably left-leaning policies of the McCain platform.

***UPDATE***

I guess a Bobby Jindal candidacy is not in the cards.