We had a film crew from South Africa at the house today interviewing Charmaine on the campaign.

The rest of the world is confused at our continuing frictional discourse on abortion. Most of the world has real restrictions on abortion on national levels. The world does not understand that we do not.

The USA is one of the few countries in the world that has abortion on demand for any reason through all nine months (and longer under the Obama Born Alive Abortion Plan). Including China where the government makes the demand -- not the mother.

Unless the baby is a girl -- then everyone wants the child dead...

Or in India where abortion also is used for sex selection to allow only male babies born. Because boys are superior to girls as all advanced nations know.

USA abortion proponents tell us that the "health of the mother" is the only exception. Scare quotes are used in print and air quotes are used in conversation as John McCain does.

The quoting is used because the "health" issue is the exception that swallows the rule as Clarke Forsythe at Americans United for Life reminds us. Because anything, anything can be interpreted as "health." As in mental health. As in a bad hair day. Any reason is sufficient reason to abort.

There are no exceptions.

The Supreme Court has so ruled. Not we the people.

This was the background for the reporting by Joan Biskupic at USA TODAY in
Election comes at key point for high court's stance on abortion,

"This is a historic election," says Charmaine Yoest, [Ph.D.] president of Americans United for Life. "With the next president having the opportunity to appoint one, two or even more justices," she adds, the election could change the law "on the life issue."

Ed Stoddard at Reuters writes, Win Or Lose, Sarah Palin To Be A Political Force,

If McCain loses the exit polls will be scoured but many pundits seem likely to blame it on centrist concerns about Palin during a financial crisis.

"It's really clear that there are some people out there who would like to make her a scapegoat if things don't go their way Tuesday," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life Action, which opposes abortion rights.

"But she's has very clearly connected with the base of the party and the life and family voters and I think that is going to give her a really strong base going forward whatever happens," she said.

Jessica Arons writing at the Huffington Post has the best summation of the state-by-state, incremental Pro-Life strategy in Not All Politics Is Local: Connecting the Dots on Abortion Initiatives,

California Proposition 4 is endorsed by Americans United for Life, among others.

This is an organization that has worked to slowly erode women's access to abortion care with bills that limit available abortion methods after 12 to 13 weeks of pregnancy; require waiting periods, biased counseling, and ultrasound viewings prior to an abortion; create burdensome and medically unnecessary regulations for abortion clinics; assert that fetuses feel pain during an abortion; and allow health care employees to refuse to counsel, refer, or treat patients for any service to which they object.

She intends it to be dire and evil, but it comes out good and accurate. Something Biblical in there...

Deacon Keith Fournier at Catholic On Line has SPECIAL: Interview with AUL Action's Charmaine Yoest on 'Open Letter to Barack Obama'

Your Business Blogger(R) also recommends Values Voters

CatholicWifeAndMom

Obama the Abortionist

Makeup of U.S. Supreme Court Hangs in the Balance

J. Margaret Datiles, staff counsel for Americans United for Life representing the interests of the weakest citizens of the United States and abroad has an article in The Washington Times, A price on your head. Good read. Would get us ready for money saving suicide plans under an Obama administration.

Posted at 3:31 PM | Permalink
Comments (3)

AUL Action to Bob Schieffer: Americans Want to Hear a Question About Abortion

Last update: 10:21 a.m. EDT Oct. 15, 2008

WASHINGTON, Oct 15, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ --

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D. president and CEO
AUL Action

As CBS News' Bob Schieffer prepares to moderate Wednesday night's final presidential candidate debate, AUL Action President Dr. Charmaine Yoest released the following letter.

Dear Mr. Schieffer,

As you prepare for Wednesday night's final presidential debate, I know that you will be working to raise questions on domestic issues that are of interest to a wide range of Americans. I encourage you to ask each candidate about his views on abortion -- something that has not been done at either of the previous debates.

Many Americans are single-issue voters when it comes to abortion, and many more view a candidate's position on abortion as one of a handful of issues on which they select a candidate.

While each candidate's position on Roe v. Wade is well known, it remains unknown what restrictions on abortion each candidate would support in order to achieve the widely agreed upon goal of reducing abortion.

And that is the question I encourage you to ask: What restrictions on abortion would you support in order to achieve the widely agreed upon goal of reducing the number of abortions in our country?

Possible follow up questions include:

-- A recent study by Dr. Michael New (University of Alabama) found that parental involvement laws reduce abortion by 13-31%.


Do you support the right of parents to be involved in the medical decisions of their minor daughters when abortion is being considered?


-- Do you support taxpayer funding for elective abortions?


-- Do you support laws that mandate abortion clinics meet minimum health and safety standards commonly applied to other types of medical practices?


-- Do you support laws requiring abortions be performed by licensed physicians?

Particularly given that Wednesday night's debate was scheduled to focus on domestic policy, the American voters need to hear each candidate respond to at least one question that addresses the topic of abortion, which is one of the central policy questions of our day.

I wish you all the best as you prepare for and moderate the debate.
Sincerely,

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
AUL Action

About AUL Action,
AUL Action is the legislative arm of Americans United for Life (AUL). The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971. In addition, AUL has been involved in every pro-life case before the Supreme Court since Roe v. Wade.
SOURCE Americans United For Life

Copyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved
End of Story

Posted at 10:53 AM | Permalink
Comments (4)

The best indication of future performance is past performance.

We don't know exactly who Obama will nominate for the courts, but we do know who -- and what -- he likes.

Watch Wendy Long in this compelling 60 second spot by the good-guys at the Judicial Confirmation Network:

Posted at 12:01 PM | Permalink
Comments (2)

Charmaine is taping an interview for CNN American Morning on the Senator Barack Obama flirtation with Bible believing, Jesus loving, Evangelicals who hold for the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D. is pictured at left during a taping of Ethics in America with Barney Frank(D).

Obama has a chance with some church goers. About 30% of self-identified Christians voted for Bill Clinton.

Obama believes reporter Michael Weisskopf who wrote that members of the Christian Right are, "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command."

So while the poor impoverished are clinging to guns and religion, how would the elitist Obama lead the nation?

1) Bring legislation forcing citizens to embrace homosexual demands: Homosexual Marriage and the Homosexuals in the military.

2) Raise taxes.

3) Raise gas prices by punishing oil companies. He refuses to explore and drill for energy.

4) Demand that some babies born alive be left to die.

5) Force citizens how and what to think. Mark Steyn is being sued under hate-crimes law in Canada for his writing about Islam in America Alone, a must read. Barack X. Obama supports this mind-thought control through legislation.

The ObamaNation will force churches and the Boy Scouts to hire Homosexuals.

The ObamaNation will force government-controlled doctors on the country.

The ObamaNation will place women in land combat and in submarines.

The ObamaNation will take more of the citizen's money in taxes and fees.

The ObamaNation will force these government doctors to perform abortions.

The ObamaNation will force babies born during a botched abortion (re: live birth) to die.

The ObamaNation will continue the African-American genocide thru Planned Parenhood.

The clip will air next week. Hit times will be announced. Please let us know what you think. Comments are now open.

Thank you (foot)notes,

Obama may be a disciple of Jesus Christ, but he doesn't understand the Bible. And after attending Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, it figures. For example, the Old Testament dietary restrictions no longer apply. This is a "new" teaching in the New Testament that is different from the Old. Obama is going to be confused about these Old and New Testament issues:

Dietary restrictions.
Circumcision.
Animal sacrifice.

Homosexual abominations remain in effect.

Obama is fuzzy on his Biblical interpretations. And a bit confused on secular matters -- but he is consistent with the old-style liberal world view.

Your Business Blogger(R) looks forward to the continuing debate between Obama and Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family.

Obama might come to Jesus yet...

Voters will not answer the ObamaNation altar call, Lord willing.

Click here for more on Ethics in America.

Larry Cirignano sends us this article by Bishop Harry Jackson on Planned Parenhood.

Posted at 10:09 AM | Permalink
Comments (7)

"Let all the babies be born.

Then let us drown those we do not like."

GK Chesterton, Babies and Distributism, GK's Weekly, 11/12/32

GK Chesterton writes a prophesy: He sees evil and wants it to stop --

Barack Obama writes a policy: He sees no evil and wants it to continue.

Obama is the full-spectrum abortion candidate.

Abortion thru nine months
Abortion at birth
Abortion after birth

Obama demands that some babies born alive be left to die.

Obama makes clear what he will do about the killing of babies -- born and pre-born,

"Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women's health.

"With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 12:05 AM | Permalink
Comments (1)

Charmaine was interviewed by LAURA MECKLER from The Wall Street Journal, McCain Speech to Shed Light On Judicial Philosophy:Social Conservatives Look for Assurance Of Common Agenda, May 6, 2008; Page A8,

In town-hall meetings, Sen. McCain makes a point to explain his positions on terrorism, taxes, the economy, energy and health care. But in his prepared remarks, he never mentions abortion, same-sex marriage, judges or gun rights. When asked, he often responds quickly and moves on.

McCain and Huckabee
How Important is Pro-life?

"Imagine if you were an economic conservative and someone never talked about tax policy unless they were asked about it," said Charmaine Yoest, [Ph.D.] a vice president at the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group focused on social issues.

Asked whether she thinks Sen. McCain really cares about the abortion issue, she said, "I don't know, and that's his problem."

When asked in February what social issues are most important to him, Sen. McCain didn't directly answer. "It's hard for me to rank them because a lot of us who are social conservatives focus on what we think are the threats to them," he said. "It's not so much that you have priorities...It's very difficult for me. I can't prioritize them for you."

John McCain is now giving a speech on the abuse of power by the courts -- liberal judges have no self-restraint and are making law based on their "own experience" -- not legislators' and the founders' intent. Liberals want "judges who push the limits of constitutional law."

And McCain is right. The country must have conservative judges.

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

John McCain's body language gives his positions away. See Is John McCain Courting the Religious Right? by Your Business Blogger(R)

Full Disclosure: Charmaine served as senior advisor to the Huckabee presidential campaign.

Posted at 9:30 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Charmaine on an earlier FOX debate Charmaine will be interviewed on FOX News tonight. She will be discussing the politics of John McCain's work on judicial appointments and "The Gang of 14."

McCain and Huckabee
credit: CNN Hit time is scheduled to be 6pm Eastern.

This segment was taped earlier today.

Let us know what you think.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Update: Your Business Blogger and Charmaine and the Penta-Posse will be attending CPAC as Official Bloggers. Be sure to call and visit if you are among the 6,000 conservatives across the country coming to Your Nation's Capital today thru the weekend.

Mike Huckabee is scheduled to speak on Monday at 9am.

CPAC Blogger

Update: From the Family Research Council Action,

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, FRC Action's Vice President for Communications will appear on Fox News "Special Report with Brit Hume" at 6:10 PM ET this evening to discuss the Super Tuesday results.

Alert Readers will recall that Charmaine has served as a paid senior adviser to the Huckabee campaign. She has returned from her leave of absence from the Family Research Council as Vice President of Communications.

See the Washington Post Campaign Tracker: McCain has raised $7 million, spent 10 million and has 3 mil on hand. (6 mil came from somewhere -- accounts payable? Owner investment?)

Campaign finance does not add up in the same way numbers do when Your Business Blogger teaches his business courses...

McCain bio at the jump.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 2:46 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Charmaine at a Pew Charitable Trust
panel discussion on national elections last year Charmaine was interviewed by CT Magazine in 'How Much Time Should She Serve?' Pro-life groups answer by defining the victims of abortion, by Susan Wunderink, posted 8/14/2007 08:46AM,

Several of the pro-life activists admit they have been participating in anti-abortion demonstrations for years without considering the question of penalties.

Abortion rights advocates see an opportunity in that confusion. Organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the new National Institute for Reproductive Health are encouraging people to ask politicians, "How much time should she serve?" The question shows "that choice can be a winning issue if you force people to stop evading the hard facts," Anna Quindlen wrote in a recent Newsweek column. Quindlen suggests that people who have pro-life convictions haven't thought past their animosity to the idea of abortion.

And Quindlen may be partially correct: Pro-Lifers want the baby to live. It is indeed odd that the liberals only will discuss punishment in a civil society when abortion is the topic. Liberals would fling open all jail house doors...then blame conservatives for the increase in crime.

Charmaine Yoest, [Ph.D.] vice president of communications at the Family Research Council, explained that she sees abortion as an act of violence against both a woman and her child. "We've always argued that the doctor is the appropriate target because they're the ones who are actually performing -- there's no nice way of saying it -- they're the ones who are actually murdering the baby," she said.

Land doesn't deny that women who have abortions might be addled, but he, along with Yoest, Earll, and Gans, takes exception to them being described as bystanders—or as enlightened women making free, educated choices.

The above paragraph has the liberals most excited. 85% of women who see a sonogram of their baby do not go through with the planned abortion. Which, of course, liberal abortionists do not want. Liberals want abortion. Women should be informed.

The liberals would say, No, young lady, no, you cannot see a picture of your baby.

The CT article continues,

"Moreover, it's a false assumption that even legal abortions are safe, said Yoest. "Women are still at serious risk. Abortion is the most unregulated health provider industry in the country today. We don't keep good records of outcomes of abortion for women." "

Your Business Blogger played a small role in a number of medical device start-up companies selling to clinicians and hospital groups. Each decision maker would demand data and detailed studies of efficacy and risk.

(Back in the day, many doctors would not even consider my clinical studies from Europe as not being rigorous. Only US of A clinical trials were acceptable.)

The clinicians well understood that any medical intervention entailed some risk, but the health care business is about minimizing risk and improving outcomes.

Which the abortionists obviously don't need. The desired outcome of a successful abortion is a dead baby.

Good Outcome = Dead Baby.

This is a horrific contradiction in medicine. That liberals do not understand.

Thank you (foot)notes:

The Hippocratic Oath (An Early Version)

I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.

The liberal blogs are in a tizzie. See Pam Spaulding on AmericaBlog, Fundie Richard Land: Women who have abortions are mentally 'impaired' Liberals do not know the difference between 'impaired' and 'uninformed.'

"The fetus beat us," says our friend Naomi Wolf.

Posted at 2:43 PM | Permalink
Comments (2)

Don't miss Connie Mackey's report on Inside-the-Beltway scuttlebut on the White House's reaction to winning the Alito nomination: they found the fight so bruising that they are considering a moderate for the next open Supreme Court seat.

Rumored to be on the horizon for the Spring.

They won the Superbowl of politics. . . and now they are saying, "Ouch, I got bruised!"?

Posted at 10:16 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Cross Posted From Jack Yoest.

at www.FRCBlog.org. FRC launched the blog on January 6th to promote public education on important policy issues.

The non-profit is on the cutting edge of conversation on the Sam Alito Senate hearings.

I think they are off to a great start as a new group blog. Do visit the FRCBlog and let me know what you think.

Soon, all major corporations and not-for-profits will be hosting blogs. FRC is proving to be an early adopter of this communication channel.

Was this helpful? Please comment.
Consider a free eMail subscription.

Thank you (foot)notes:

The Managing Editor of the FRC Blog is Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., who also blogs at Reasoned Audacity. The wife of Your Business Blogger.

Posted at 4:21 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Pete Williams, of NBC News, noted an interesting irony about the Alito nomination tonight on PBS. This week the ABA announced that they had rated Judge Alito "well-qualified," their hightest rating.

Wonder what their rating was for Justice O'Connor? Since the Left is making such a fuss about him "replacing" her?

The ABA rated Justice O'Connor "well-qualified" on judicial temperament and integrity; but only "qualified" on professional competence.

Posted at 11:32 PM | Permalink
Comments (1)

So says Red State.

(JRB still ahead here at Reasoned Audacity -- Be sure to VOTE in the poll on the left side-bar!)

LATE-AFTERNOON SCUTTLEBUT UPDATE: Luttig gaining. With some Chris Cox thrown in for good measure.

JRB still way out ahead here, though, with almostover 1,000 votes now cast.

Posted at 1:20 PM | Permalink
Comments (4)

NOTE: Updates added, please scroll.

Who's next? Take a minute and VOTE! Look left (on the sidebar); Vote right.

Ironically, the President this next time needs to nominate a divisive figure: someone, that is, who is drawing fire from the right quarters.

Or actually the Left quarters.

Someone whose name is not anywhere near Harry Reid's short list.

Janice Rogers Brown
Someone like Judge Janice Rogers Brown. People for the American Way hate her. Need I say more? This would be what someone referred to as a "bench-clearing fight." Bring it on.

Ted Olson
Or, someone like Ted Olson. I sat next to Ted at a luncheon honoring his wife, Barbara, shortly after she died on 9/11. He is such a gracious gentleman. I realize that has little to do with qualifications for the Supreme Court. (Or does it?) But there's plenty more that does. The Left hates him too.

Edith Jones
Or, someone like Edith Jones. "I am hopeful that with the debacles of the twentieth century ... we can recover the original intentions of the founders of the Constitution," Jones said in a speech at the University of Texas. She thinks Roe v. Wade was an exercise in "raw judicial power."

More coming. . .

Or someone like Alice Batchelder.

Alice Batchelder

Not sure who she is? Christopher Flannery, from Claremont, makes the case for her.

Michael Luttig

Or, Michael Luttig. Graduated from UVA, worked for Reagan and clerked for Scalia. A triple-threat. And upheld the constitutionality of a partial-birth abortion ban. [corrected] That should be a no-brainer, but in these judicial times, that makes you pretty gutsy.

Michael McConnell

And Michael McConnell. Talk about guts -- and intellectual honesty: he's on the record calling Roe "an embarrassment to those who take consitutional law seriously." PFAW hates "strongly opposes" him too. Still, like John Roberts, even many on the Left concede that he is "one of America's most distinguished constitutional scholars."

Samuel Alito

And finally, Samuel Alito. Another Reaganite who is on the Left's hit list for a ruling in an abortion case. Alito was the sole dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in the Third Circuit, arguing in favor of a Pennsylvania law that required wives to notify their husband's prior to an abortion. Again, not exactly, a wild-eyed idea, but enough to get him in trouble.

* * *

UPDATE: For the POLL, use the comments, or email me, with your write-in candidates. . . I will tally and add these in with a final report.

FRIDAY UPDATE: Welcome Powerline readers (Thanks John!) And welcome Captain's Quarters readers; thanks Ed.

Chris Cox

Lowell Brown wrote and reminded me of Chris Cox. At the Hedgehog Blog Lowell makes the case for Chris. As does Quin Hilyer at NRO.

Lee Jenkins writes in with Karen Williams.

MORE WRITE-INS: (The complete list -- links to follow)
Chris Cox



Maureen Mahoney (Background post from law-blogger, A3G)


Karen Williams


Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit (1995 George magazine profile, via A3G)
Judge Roy Moore
Miguel Estrada


Diane Sykes, 7th Circuit
Richard Posner (A blogger on the Supreme Court!)
Emilio Garza, 5th Circuit
. . . and John Cornyn

And note to the White House: the ultimate stealth strategy is floated in the comments -- both Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are attorneys. Turn one of them loose on the Judiciary Committee.

* * *

Here are profiles of Samuel Alito, Janice Rogers Brown and others from WaPo.

Confirm Them has profile links down the right sidebar.

Thanks to Mudville's Open Post. Hey, milbloggers: take a minute and VOTE!

Captain Ed says this is "No Time to Celebrate." He also has a whole post on Maureen Mahoney -- the Drill Sergeant brings up her name in the comments below as well.

GOPUSA did an overnight poll, Bobby Eberle at the Loft reports, of 1,000 conservative Republicans and found the majority felt the Miers withdrawal was the right thing. Who did they want as the next nominee? Janice Rogers Brown.

The Washington Post has an overview of possible candidates this morning.

Posted at 10:47 AM | Permalink
Comments (33) | TrackBacks (10)

A new book from Texas judge Janice Law argues that Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark Supreme Court case that declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional, was a staged set-up. . .

This you've got to read. I always wondered about the factual details behind that case. It never made sense to me.

Turns out that's because there were no real facts. And it didn't make sense.

Posted at 2:52 PM | Permalink
Comments (2)

Thank you for visiting.

See more at The Women's Chair

Posted at 9:34 AM | Permalink
Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Thank you for visiting from NRO and PowerLine.

Posted at 5:21 PM | Permalink
Comments (2)

Sandra Day O'Connor
Credit: Joe Marquette
EPA/Associated Press

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down from the High Court this morning, but the President has announced that he will not nominate a replacement until he returns from next week's G8 summit.

The President's official statement said that he will be consulting with his advisors on the nomination during the trip. But of course that selection decision has already been made.

The real discussion focuses on the politics of the nomination battle. All of Washington is still speculating that the President will put his friend Alberto Gonzalez (currently serving as Attorney General) in O'Connor's chair. See this earlier post for more on that rumor.

I was part of a press conference today on the O'Connor nomination,and the questioning was most pointed about Gonzalez.

Loyalty to his friends is one of this President's good qualities. But in this case, he needs to find someone to put on the bench who will be loyal to the Constitution.

Thank you to the Honorable Mudville Gazette for the Open Post

Ready for battle joining the ProLifeBlogs in O'Connor Retires.

Right Wing News gets it right at O'Connor Snatches Defeat...

Posted at 11:40 AM | Permalink
Comments (1)

Bill Kristol says that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will step down next week -- not the Chief Justice as everyone has been expecting -- and that the President will replace her with his close friend, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. (Heard hangin' out at the Corner from John Podhoretz.)

Alberto Gonzales

A moderate for a moderate. That's how they'll sell it. That's how Washington works.

Sandra Day O'Connor
Credit: Joe Marquette
EPA/Associated Press

The Gonzalez appointment has been kickin' around for a looong time. The President is determined to see him on the High Court. For more on Gonzalez and the politics of his nomination, see this 2003 article from Ramesh Ponnuru.

Posted at 2:22 AM | Permalink
Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Thomas Sowell writes a must-read column about bigotry. . . and he sees it in the Senate maneuvering to keep judicial nominees from getting a vote.

Thomas Sowell

Maybe the non-stop denunciations of judicial nominees by Senate Democrats will seem relevant to some people but it is in fact wholly beside the point. Senators who don't like any particular judicial nominee -- or any nominee for any other federal appointment -- have a right to vote against that nominee for any reason or for no reason. . .

. . .The real issue is whether those Senators have the right to deprive all other Senators of the right to vote on these nominees. . . The essence of bigotry is denying other people the same rights you have. For generations, it was racial bigotry which provoked filibusters to prevent the Senate from voting on bills to extend civil rights to blacks. But bigotry is bigotry, whether it is racial bigotry, religious bigotry or political bigotry.

The truth is, the Left lost the election in November. And they simply refuse to accept the loss. After all, "those people" couldn't have won, could they?

Case in point: Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation, on This Week yesterday talking about those "right-wing Christians." Voice dripping with scorn. That's bigotry. And it's not any prettier dressed up with intellectual pretension.

Katrina vanden Heuvel

And they can't say that the question of the courts wasn't part of the election: Judicial nominations were a part of the national discussion at the time.

So now, we've moved on to a raw power grab. The debate over the filibuster is hardball politics, plain and simple. Fueled by, as Sowell brilliantly recognizes, good old-fashioned bigotry.

Posted at 10:48 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)