The Abortion President 

The famously misnamed Planned Parenthood is hosting its national conference in Washington, D.C. this week. Today Barack Obama became the first sitting president to address the event, sponsored by the nation's largest destroyer of innocent human life. 

His speech was full of distortions. As is so typical of the left, Obama accused the pro-life movement of wanting to "turn back the clock to … the 1950s." He added that there is an "orchestrated and historic effort to roll back basic rights when it comes to women's health." Isn't it amazing that in Obama's world, 1.2 million abortions a year is seen as progress?

It is obscene when Obama equates the killing of innocent unborn children with healthcare. Pregnancy is not a disease! Even accepting that there are occasions when a woman's life or health may be in danger, such circumstances are among the rarest of reasons why abortions are performed today. 

If Obama cares so much about women's health, when will his administration speak up about the growing scandal where women are dying along with babies? It is outrageous that he is addressing Planned Parenthood's conference when a butcher like Kermit Gosnell, who collected the feet of his little victims, is standing trial for "after-birth" abortions -- literally killing babies after they were born. 

And, by the way, Planned Parenthood knew about the horrific conditions at Gosnell's clinic, but to this day refuses to condemn him. Obama too is silent. 

But Obama was there today, pledging his fealty to Planned Parenthood, promising to be "a president who is going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way." 

Let me translate that for you: While we are cutting back on education, cutting air traffic controllers, cutting our military, cutting benefits to our seniors, Obama will be there to make sure that your hard-earned tax money keeps flowing to Planned Parenthood to subsidize abortions and to make sure that no legislation preventing any abortion of any kind ever becomes law. 

Did Welfare Pay For Jihad? 

When news broke that the Boston Marathon jihadists had been receiving state welfare benefits, liberal Governor Deval Patrick's administration shutdown press inquiries citing privacy concerns for the accused terrorists. One administration official told the Boston Herald that such information was "confidential and not a matter of public record." 

What about the public's right to know? The bombing was an assault against the public and the taxpayers of Massachusetts will be picking up the tab for that attack for some time. Were any of the materials used in the attack purchased with taxpayer-funded welfare benefits? 

Here's an interesting question: Did the bombers have Obamaphones? Qualifying is pretty easy if you are receiving any form of federal or state welfare assistance. 

The people of Massachusetts ought to be demanding that the governor release all the records of welfare payments to these terrorist thugs. That is not a violation of their privacy, and the taxpayers have a right to know how their dollars are spent. 

Ron Paul's Strange Think Tank 

I have never been a fan of former Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has played footsie with conspiracy theorists and apologists for radical Islam. 

Paul recently launched a Washington, D.C., think tank called the Institute for Peace and Prosperity. But according to the Daily Caller its academic board is comprised of "9/11 truthers," apologists for Iran and one avowed secessionist. For example: 

• In an article questioning who was responsible for 9/11, Eric Margolis wrote: "I remain uncertain that Osama bin Laden was really behind the attacks," and then goes on to compare the attacks to Hitler's infamous Reichstag fire, which Hitler exploited to target his political enemies and suspend liberties. Margolis rhetorically asks, "Sound familiar?" Margolis is suggesting Bush was responsible for 9/11 and wanted it to happen to provide an excuse to take away our liberties.
   
• Butler Shaffer, another member of the board, doesn't go quite that far. But he has been open to the idea that we attacked ourselves. In 2006, he wrote, "…how can any intellectually honest person categorically deny the possibility of the involvement of American political interests in 9/11?"
   
• Professor Walter Block somehow thinks breaking up the United States is the answer to world peace. Block wrote: "A century and a half after the war against Southern secession, the foreign policy of our country is still hampered by this tragic event. … When and if the U.S. ceases to imprison the Confederacy, we will be in a far better position to bring about world peace."

The executive director of Paul's institute defended the appointments, replying, "For the purposes of the institute, [Dr. Paul] wanted important academics who agree with him on the moral and practical necessity of a foreign policy of peace. He has such a board." There you have it. Paul picked these nuts to be on his board because there is a lot they agree on. 

Obama vs. The Courts 

The courts are rarely sources of encouragement for conservatives. The process is slow and many judges are left-wing activists. But they have considerable authority, and there is news this week indicating that the Obama Administration may be facing major setbacks in two high-profile cases. 

House leaders are in court right now trying to enforce a subpoena for documents on Operation Fast and Furious after Obama asserted a claim of executive privilege. In defending its position, the Obama Justice Department essentially told the court to stay out of it, saying it was a dispute between the executive and legislative branches. 

The judge was having none of it. At one point she interrupted the Justice Department attorney and said, "You keep talking about the two [branches] as if the third one isn't there." 

According to Politico, the judge was very skeptical of the administration's claim and "suggested that by refusing to enforce the House subpoena, she wouldn't really be sidestepping the dispute, but tilting the playing field in the White House's favor." 

The second case involves Obama's executive order suspending our immigration laws. Federal immigration agents sued the administration claiming they were being ordered to ignore the law and break their oaths as law enforcement officers. 

A federal judge in Dallas seemed sympathetic, writing, "The court finds that [the Department of Homeland Security] does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings." 

Final judgments are still pending in both cases, but these judges appear inclined to force the administration to obey the law!