UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE tends to cut the abortion rate.

Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions -- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations. All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States.

Umm ... and all the other “advanced, free-market democracies” have aging populations with significantly declining fertility rates. Isn’t it just barely possible that older women having fewer pregnancies might affect abortion rates as well?

KINGSVILLE (with apologies to the city in Texas).

Chris Muir supplies the image:


And Donald Sensing supplies the facts:

First, government at almost all levels is growing like unchecked cancer, and spending along with it. Last month's deficit of $221 billion was 37 percent larger than the entire year's deficit of 2007 of $161 billion.

Read Sensing’s post in full, and be sure to follow his links.

TURF AND ASTROTURF. Tea party founder; Coffee party founder.

Grassroots; nutroots.

PALIN ON LENO: you have to suffer the advertisements, but it’s worth the effort. Watch them both.

Leno (with Palin) wallops Letterman and Nightline in the late-night ratings.

MORE ON LATTE LIBERALS. "First the Washington Post (Feb 25), then the New York Times (Mar 2) chimes in with a stories on the new, grassroots, latt-liberal Coffee Party. The first blog post on the Coffee Party website is dated February 23, as is the 'About Us' page, which means it took the two biggest papers in America less than a week to catch the fee-vah."

How long did it take them to recognize the Tea Party movement?

Link from Hot Air.

Heh.

RIGHTS AND WISHES

True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.

None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one’s own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.

Additional thoughts here.

SARAH PALIN is Obama by proxy? Doctor Zero suggests that perhaps the Left is really angry at Obama and redirecting that anger to a more “appropriate” target.

Palin’s admirers often marvel at how the charges leveled against her are far more applicable to the current President.

People who voted for an undistinguished junior senator from Illinois with few accomplishments are quick to assault Palin’s “lack of experience.” The same folks who instruct us that Barack Obama is a physical paragon, and Michelle Obama is the most beautiful woman in the world – a goddess who causes fashion models to slink from her path in shame – belittle Palin for her good looks. Defenders of the most fabulously corrupt administration in modern history mumble about the murky details of obscure “scandals” manufactured by Alaskan bloggers. They turn away from the sad spectacle of a manifestly incompetent President to sneer that a woman who alters the course of legislative battles with blog posts is some kind of an idiot.

They dismiss Going Rogue as “ghost written” while ignoring the specter of Bill Ayers plodding through Obama’s books, a sputtering bomb clutched in its skeletal fingers. A few lines scribbled on Palin’s palm glow more brightly in their imaginations than terabytes of data flowing across the screen of Obama’s teleprompter. They accuse Palin of being a “divisive” and “polarizing” figure, while Obama launches Taxi Driver rants against evil insurance companies, cops acting stupidly, tonsil-stealing doctors, and everyone else who crosses his path.

Interesting hypothesis. Read it all.

OBAMA AKBAR! the Democrats’ death wish.

When I saw the cartoon, my immediate reaction was the Democrats' favorite catch-phrase, "fake but accurate."

But isn't that exactly what an editorial cartoon is supposed to be?

SPRING FORWARD! It's time to adjust your clocks to where the sun in back in the eyes on the morning and evening commutes.