From Ace of Spades guest poster (chad?) via Cold Fury:
A suggestion to the GOP (chad)
Read the whole thing. Some of it might sound a little high brow - read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and some Frenchie’s ideas? But worth the effort.
Apparently, liberal politicians in Britain also view the disabled as less than worthy of support and help.
My belief is that there are children, born at those very early ages, who are not viable people. It would be in their best interests to have been aborted.
This from a member of the House of Lords.
A sane person (from the Society for the Protection of the Unborn) retorted:
“Baroness Meacher,” Smeaton said, “clearly considers that her own capacity and achievements in life put her right to life in a different category from the right to life owed to people with cerebral palsy - that she is ‘viable person’ but ‘they’ are not ‘viable people’.”
Apparently, baroness Meacher follows the same logic as our liberal party. If you are already here, you can’t be kicked out no matter what you have done. If you haven’t entered the festivities, you CAN be kept out.
For those who miss the logic, here’s P.J. O’Rourke’s take:
“…a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view.”
Britain’s Molly Baroness Meacher: Severely Disabled Children “Not Viable People” (Wizbang)
Tammy Bruce has gone public with her support of Mitt Romney. On her web site, she adds a comment that puts an interesting twist on the argument:
Here’s another point, also made by commenters on the Hot Air site–if the nation is going to be driven into a wall at 80 miles an hour by either of the candidates, then let the Dem do it.
Reading the Yahoo News article about MG Lynch, I was struck by how the idea of the small footprint in Iraq at the beginning was a sensible plan.
“When we were doing all of our planning back then, we were convinced we could have a gradual withdrawal of coalition forces and the Iraqi security forces would stand up,” the general said at the headquarters of the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad on Friday.
But, as everyone knows who’s planned significant activities, especially contested ones like war, all the variables don’t play well with your plan.
Then came the February 2006 destruction of the Golden Mosque, a site revered by Shiites, which set off weeks of horrific sectarian violence.
“Everything changed,” Lynch said. “The mission changed from transition to securing the population.”
So, for those not blind to facts, it’s conceivable that senior Pentagon and administration planners had a good idea that might have worked, except for the factors that they couldn’t control - the brutality and wantonness of their enemies.
That brutality was on display again this past week when al Qaeda used two women with Downs Syndrome to take bombs into a crowded market area.
Al Qaeda fanatics plumbed sickening new depths yesterday when they turned two women with Down’s syndrome into human bombs to kill 70 people in Baghdad. (from the Daily Mail)
Maybe senior planners can be faulted for a lack of perverse imagination in not conceiving of the moral depravity of their enemies. I don’t think they can be faulted for not trying what they thought would be a successful way to help Iraq recover from Saddam’s dictatorship.
Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome | Theme designs available here
