When I was your age, I was wrestling with questions about who I was; about what it meant to be the son of a white mother and a black father, and not having that father in my life.

Fair enough. Most people go through a period in their life when they must come to terms with their identity. President Obama has spoken and written about his struggle to come to terms with his mixed-race ancestry and his father’s abandonment of his wife and young son. It hardly comes as a surprise to anyone that abandonment by a parent would leave a lasting scar. Neither does it come as a surprise that a young boy might be confused about where he belongs when his parents belong to different racial groups and different countries.

Unfortunately, when someone who isn’t Barack Obama comments on his heritage, the press seizes on it as evidence as racism. This expected fate befell former House Speaker and favorite media punching bag Newt Gingrich, who is now pilloried as a racist by none other than Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post. Capehart declares:

Gingrich’s comments on President Obama and his worldview are so beyond the pale that the only time the presumed presidential aspirant should ever come close to the Oval Office in the future is either on a tour of the West Wing or as a guest of the next Republican president of the United States.

What could Gingrich have said that is so incredibly offensive? After all, a certain vice-president once commented while on the senatorial campaign trail, “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.” Another former senator who went on to bigger and better things described Rust Belt Midwesterners as “cling[ing] to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment…” What could Gingrich have said that trumped these two quotes?

Echoing an influential piece in Forbes magazine by author Dinesh D’Souza, Brace yourselves. Gingrich said that “President Obama may follow a ‘Kenyan, anti-colonial’ worldview.” Yes, that’s it. To claim that referring to a “Kenyan, anti-colonial’ outlook is brazen racism is as absurd as claiming that referring to an academic’s embrace of French existentialism reveals hatred of all things Gallic. It’s particularly absurd to cry racism when the person whose views are up for discussion has trumpeted his ties to the country in question. Tony Blair was mocked as an American poodle for much less.

Questioning whether a particular person shares the same worldview you do is not inherently racist. At its most basic level, it’s an attempt to understand how another person thinks. Recognizing that a person’s worldview may have been shaped by influences that did not shape one’s own worldview leads to understanding that people view the world differently. And aren’t we supposed to celebrate diversity?

Furthermore, agree or disagree with Gingrich’s comment and the D’Souza article that spawned it, Gingrich himself is far less concerned with the Kenyan aspects of Obama’s politics than with the leftist aspects. In the same interview, Gingrich opines that Obama followed the great tradition of Saul Alinsky and crafted an image of moderation that was fundamentally false. In fact, Gingrich places Obama as a member of a long line of American opportunists: “Edison, Ford, the Wright Brothers, Bill Gates.”

If the Left truly views Gingrich’s remark as racist, they ought to go back to junior high and review the lesson, “Some people think X, and other people think Y. In America, most people think X, but in other countries most people think Y. Even so, some people in American who think Y, and some people in other countries think X.” Otherwise, they ought to stop cynically shouting “racism!” every time someone criticizes The One. Come on, guys, you’re looking desperate.

Which, of course, you are.

Mr. Cohen is perturbed by President Obama’s indifference to tried and true European allies, noting with consternation:

[Obama] has dedicated scant diplomatic energy to Europe. . . . he is the first post-Atlanticist president, drawn by temperament, upbringing and circumstance to focus elsewhere.

But where? Or, rather, what has the president gained by abandoning European allies?

President Obama gave a famously fawning speech in Cairo. Despite his best efforts, a year later people in Egypt have a less favorable view of the U.S. than during the end of the reign of the hated Bush the Younger. Middle Eastern, Asian and Russian governments Obama has wooed seem to show much interest in cooperation, while Western governments mope like jilted lovers.

After the President’s infamous gift to Gordon Brown, snub of Binyamin Netanyahu, cancellation of his trip to Australia, and general lack of chemistry with any foreign leader whose name is not Hugo Chavez.

In short, Mr. Cohen, my only question is this: what took you so long?

I would be tempted to commend CNN for firing Nasr and move on. But moving on lets CNN off the hook too easily. Nasr was the Senior Editor of Mideast Affairs for the network. She had worked for CNN for twenty years. Her views could not have been a secret to her colleagues, but the network continued to allow her to work at CNN. Giving CNN the benefit of every doubt, Nasr’s colleagues and superiors thought that Nasr’s work was unaffected by her admiration for Hezbollah’s leaders, and by implication, for Hezbollah itself.

More likely, Nasr’s views were considered unremarkable, and perhaps were shared by, her colleagues. It was only when she was so gauche as to tweet her admiration for a terrorist that she got into trouble.

There are certain beliefs that render one a social pariah. In current American society, racist beliefs – at least of the white-supremacy kind – spell social death, as well they should. Yet odious as they are, and as much violence as was perpetrated against African-Americans in the South after Reconstruction and until civil rights legislation became a reality, white supremacists generally did not and do not advocate mass slaughter of African-American people. (Of course, I realize that if laws forbidding murder were not a reality, they might advocate murdering all black people. And I am not an expert on the odious views voiced by members of the Klan and the Aryan nation.) If Nasr had harbored affection for, say, David Duke, her tenure at CNN would’ve lasted about two minutes after her fondness for white racists became known.

Yet Sayyed Fadlallah was, if possible, even more odious than members of the KKK. According to the website islâmi Davet, Sayyed Fadlallah’s last wish was “Israel’s vanishing.” His nephew said, remembering Sayyed Fadlallah’s views:

Politically, his eminence used to have two concerns. Mainly, he had the concern of the Resistance, the Resistance in Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine and everywhere. He was also concerned with safeguarding the Islamic Republic of Iran.

That “resistance,” of course, involves killing American soldiers in Iraq, Israeli soldiers and civilians, and crushing Lebanon’s hopes for democracy. In a paper published by the Hudson Institute, the author notes:

As for the notion that it was “integrating” into Lebanese parliamentary politics, and adopting “democratic principles,” it was exposed for the sham that it always was when the militia attacked Lebanese civilians in their homes (in response to a government decision pertaining to Hezbollah’s illegal parallel fiber optic telecommunication network). For months before that, the Party had paralyzed the political process through mobilized intimidation, making a mockery of the concept of democracy. As for its voluntary disarmament after the Israeli withdrawal, in reality, it was precisely after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, and within the Syrians’ warm embrace (contra the theory that free-rein for Syria in Lebanon would “check” Hezbollah), that Hezbollah secretly built the massive bunker infrastructure in Lebanon’s border villages and acquired the rocket arsenal that was displayed in the summer of 2006.

In short, Sayyed Fadlullah was the sort of person who should be abhorrent to all decent people everywhere. The organization which he helped lead stores weapons in heavily populated villages near Israel’s border, guaranteeing high civilian casualties when Israel decides to remove these weapons. Hezbollah is supported by and supports Iran, a regime that brutally kills its own people. Yet CNN gave Octavia Nasr a cozy job from which to admire Sayyed Fadlallah.

Charming.

“Last year, after Bristol and I broke up, I was unhappy and a little angry. Unfortunately, against my better judgment, I publicly said things about the Palins that were not completely true,” he tells PEOPLE exclusively. “I have already privately apologized to Todd and Sarah. Since my statements were public, I owe it to the Palins to publicly apologize.”

Bristol added her own statement Tuesday saying, “Part of co-parenting is creating healthy and honest relationships between the parents. Tripp one day needs to know the truth and needs to know that even if a mistake is made the honorable thing to do is to own up to it.”

It would seem obvious to any observer of human behavior that a disgruntled, publicity-hungry former fiancé is not the most reliable source for information about anyone. Caution is doubly warranted when the information offered is about a high-profile, controversial politician.

Unfortunately, the media didn’t exercise the same level of skepticism a normal person would exercise when listening to gossip about his or her neighbor. Vanity Fair published a piece entitled “Me and Mrs. Palin,” in which Johnston “turns a number of commonly held beliefs about the former governor – the purportedly loving wife, devoted mother, and prolific hunter – upside down.”Some choice — now retracted — excerpts:

For “Me and Mrs. Palin,” Johnston tells Vanity Fair his story about life with the Palin family—with whom he lived for two months after the election—over the course of his two-and-a-half-year relationship with Bristol. He turns a number of commonly held beliefs about the former governor—the purportedly loving mother, devoted wife, and prolific hunter—upside down…

Even before Palin became John McCain’s running mate, she seemed worried about what a grandchild would do to her political career. According to Johnston, she had a plan for how to handle her daughter’s unexpected pregnancy.

Sarah told me she had a great idea: we would keep it a secret—nobody would know that Bristol was pregnant. She told me that once Bristol had the baby she and Todd would adopt him. That way, she said, Bristol and I didn’t have to worry about anything. Sarah kept mentioning this plan. She was nagging—she wouldn’t give up. She would say, “So, are you gonna let me adopt him?” We both kept telling her we were definitely not going to let her adopt the baby. I think Sarah wanted to make Bristol look good, and she didn’t want people to know that her 17-year-old daughter was going to have a kid.

Over at CBS, Johnston repeated his assertion that Palin routinely called her son, Trig, “retarded.” Reporting Johnston’s claims uncritically might seem to be simple journalism, but would he have received any press if he had repeatedly asserted that Palin was a devoted wife and mother? At least if the media had made a huge fuss about Palin’s great parenting skills there would have been more than one person testifying in Palin’s favor.

Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan, Palin conspiracy theorist extraordinaire, had a field day with Johnston, even anointing him “The Real Rogue of 2009.”

And what a story he has told.

It is as follows: Palin is a total fraud. She is not what she says she is. According to someone who lived with her for years, who fathered her grandson and fell in love with her daughter, the last thing she is is what her followers blindly believe: authentic.

She’s a phony, according to Johnston, a negligent mother, a devious plotter, an alienated wife. Far from a “real American”, she is layer upon layer of political artifice, designed cynically to appeal to pro-lifers and feminists, evangelicals and populists, independents and rock-ribbed Republicans, all laid on top of a fanatically narcissistic sociopathy.

And on what did Sullivan base this? Well, the boy’s just so gosh-darn convincing! Sullivan briefly raises the idea that Johnston could be lying, but quickly dismisses it, because “Johnston is the only family member who actually knew and lived with Palin and has broken ranks,” and “he deserves at least as fair a hearing as she [Palin] had. . . . “

Who else did Sullivan expect to break ranks? Piper? As for receiving a fair hearing, interviews with CBS, Vanity Fair, and Andrew Sullivan would seem to be as fair a hearing as one could expect.

But guess what? It was all a lie. If the media hadn’t been quite so eager to pillory Palin — to destroy the only real threat to their beloved Obama and the miraculous narrative of his wondrous rise — perhaps they would’ve exercised some due diligence. Instead, they have egg all over the faces again.

Here’s Sullivan’s conclusion:

What can we make of this?

It’s unverifiable – but no less so than Palin’s autobiography. And compared with her bizarre, constantly changing stories and multiple lies about any number of empirically indisputable facts, Johnston’s monosyllabic yeses and nos and plain English eye-witness accounts that have never changed are like oases of sanity and calm.

When I got to meet Johnston, I asked him simply how he seemed so calm as a nineteen year old up against an international celebrity with millions of dollars and every pimp in the “publishing” and political industries trying to suck up to her. “Because I’m tellin’ the truth,” was his simple, and immediate answer.

I can’t know who’s telling the truth for sure. But after a decade of frauds enabled and abetted by political corruption and media cowardice, Palin might well be the biggest fraud of all, perpetrating a hoax so massive no one can quite see it.

But let’s let Levi have the last word:

“So to the Palin family in general and to Sarah Palin in particular, please accept my regrets and forgive my youthful indiscretion,” Johnston says in the statement. “I hope one day to restore your trust.”

Oops.

Thomas’s comments are indistinguishable from the pus spewed by members of the aid flotilla and their Hamas compatriots. The “peace activists” on the aid flotilla told the Israelis to “Go back to Auschwitz.” Yet the media portray the aid flotilla as a group of humanitarians seeking to deliver relief to distressed Palestinians, and the Israelis as bloodthirsty butchers. Thomas’s comment, horrible and reprehensible as it is, is the natural child of utter historical ignorance and the media’s continual focus on the supposed evils of the Israelis and lamb-like suffering of the Palestinians.

The Palestinians certainly suffer, but most of their suffering is the result of Hamas’s insistence on killing civilians within Israel. If terrorists wouldn’t cross over into Israel, there would be no need for a fence. Egypt also fears Hamas, and also prevents Gaza residents from entering Egypt. (“Israel consistently alleged that Iranian and other weapons were being smuggled into Gaza through a series of tunnels, and with Egypt maintained tight control on the enclaves borders,” Hamas, Council on Foreign Relations.) The Israelis take extreme measures to avoid killing civilians.

Hamas, on the other hand, happily murders women and children and is responsible for the deaths of more than 500 people in 350 separate terrorist attacks. CBS reports:

Israel’s international image had already taken a beating from allegations that it committed war crimes during its 2008-2009 winter war in Gaza, and from widespread global opposition to the blockade. Hamas was also accused of rights violations in that conflict.

Over at the New York Times, Hamas is described as a “militant” group, “peace activists” are given ample space to bewail their innocence, and Israel is suggested to be in violation of international law. Israel’s contention that their commandos were attacked first is given a throwaway line. In short, the Times article makes it clear that all right-thinking people should be appalled by Israel’s actions and by its blockade of Gaza.

Many members of the media profess shock at Thomas’s remark that the Israelis should go back to Poland and Germany. Yet by supporting Hamas’s amphibious auxiliary, they are aligning themselves with people who endorse Thomas’s views. Why not show some consistency, guys?

But mixing sports with politics? Running an interview with President Obama during an NBA playoff game?  No thanks.

So how does something like this happen? I guess you and the president just talk all the time, and he says “why don’t you come over with your TV crew?”

Marv Albert: He keeps calling! And after a while, it just gets annoying, you know?

No, we came up with the idea of doing this for a pregame show in the Western conference finals. They said yes right away. It was just a matter of trying to come up with a date. Because he’s obviously very busy, and I’m jumping back and forth between cities in the playoffs. So we finally settled on Friday, which worked out because there was a little bit of a three-day break. We did it on the basketball court, at the White House.

He was just … it was a great experience. He was tremendous. He knows his stuff. That’s apparent.

When I watch Steve Nash throw a pass from mid-court to a teammate who sinks a three, I could not care less who Nash voted for in the last Canadian election. Unfortunately, sports and politics do collide from time to time, to the detriment of both. A few weeks ago, the Suns decided to publicly oppose the new Arizona immigration law by wearing their “Los Suns” jerseys on Cinco de Mayo. Now, I don’t care if the Suns players oppose the law on an individual level. They can all take out an ad during the game explaining their opposition to the law, much like the Tim Tebow ad during the Super Bowl. I don’t care if they wear their Los Suns jerseys on Cinco de Mayo.

What I do care about is the Suns’ politicization of the game itself. Arizonans love the Suns, which has made the Suns one of the most valuable franchises in the NBA. Seventy percent of Arizonans also support the new immigration law. The split in public opinion does not lessen the acrimony and emotion on both sides. Now, instead of bringing all Arizonans together as we root against our longtime rival, the L.A. Lakers, many Arizonans feel insulted by their sports team. Among people I know, just rooting for the Suns now draws comments.

Had you ever met him before?

Albert: No I hadn’t. I was there once before. When I did the baseball pregame show at NBC in like 1988 it was arranged for me to do an interview with that famous left-handed first baseman from Yale, George Herbert Walker Bush. He was terrific. So, you know we did that. He was really on it, in terms of baseball. Obviously, they invested in the Texas Rangers, so that family has been around it.

But Obama, he really knew what he was talking about.

We did more than just basketball. Some political issues. There’s nothing about the health insurance or the economy, but we dealt with immigration policy in Arizona, and should sports teams be involved with political issues, and take stances. You know with the “Los Suns” jerseys, for instance.

Enter the great healer. Apparently deprived of media coverage, President Obama has given an interview to Marv Albert, bits of which were aired recently and the remainder of which will be aired on TNT during the pre-game show for Suns-Lakers playoff game tomorrow. In addition to discussing basketball, he will discuss the Suns’ position on the Arizona immigration law.

President Obama criticized the Arizona law in a press conference with Mexico’s president Felipe Calderon, which almost certainly has not endeared him to Arizona voters. And now he is appearing in the pre-game show for the Suns-Lakers game, which will doubtless revive many fans’ ambivalence toward the Suns for publicly opposing the law, and also further confirm in Arizonans’ minds that President Obama considers them a bunch of bitter, racist, gun-clingers.

Now, in Arizona, being called a gun-clinger isn’t an insult, but being called a racist carries the same sting that it does elsewhere in the country. So thank you, Mr. President, for once again mixing sports and politics. I certainly do not appreciate it.

I’m going to way jump the gun here, but remember when George W. Bush was president, there was talk that one day he might like to run baseball. Barack Obama wouldn’t be a bad NBA Commissioner, huh?

Albert: Probably! Yeah! I’m sure he’s thinking that he would prefer another term.

And thank you, Marv Albert, for mixing sports and politics.

Incomprehensible, that is, except that pro-life Democrats have a history of sacrificing their pro-life convictions to political expediency. Stupak can now trudge the trail of shame blazed by Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, and Dick Gephardt, among others.

Stupak had led a small group of Democrats who refused to vote for healthcare legislation that did not prohibit funding abortions. Stupak and his coterie succeeded in prohibiting funding of abortions in the House healthcare legislation. But never tell “devout Catholic” Nancy Pelosi that seventh-eighths of a loaf is better than none. Pelosi and her pals hammered away on their reluctant brethren, unwilling to give an inch on the abortion language. They bet that “pro-life” Democrats’ devotion to enacting universal healthcare would trump their commitment to the unborn. And the bet paid off.

In voting for the healthcare legislation, Stupak betrayed the principles for which he claimed to stand. He traded principled resistance for the fig leaf of a useless executive order. Aside from the meaninglessness of the executive order, the continued existence of the executive order depends on Barack Obama’s good faith. If you’ll sell out your principles on nothing more than Barack Obama’s word, there’s a bridge I’d like to sell you.

But somehow Stupak was able to brazen his way through voting for a bill he had fought for weeks while every observer nodded knowingly at his gullibility.

Thirty-four Democrats voted against the Senate healthcare bill. Why didn’t Bart Stupak have the courage to stand with them?

Being the tenderhearted folks they are, the liberal MSM diagnosed the real problem for us: “[I]f there’s a real crisis in the House right now for the Republican Party, it’s the gradually diminishing voice of moderation.” Over a year later, MSNBC was still going strong with the GOP civil war theme, warning that an ideological purity test “threatens to derail moderate Republican candidacies in heated 2010 Republican primaries already underway.”

Obviously, there have been and are ongoing arguments about the direction of conservatism and the Republican party. The 2008 election would’ve shaken the confidence of Alexander the Great, had he been a political candidate instead of a slaughtering conqueror. But the media is missing the real story again. The story now isn’t the demise of the GOP moderate. It’s the sudden downfall of last season’s debutante, the “moderate Democrat.”

Think back to 2006 for a moment. That year, moderate Democrats were all the rage. The New York Times wrote a story on the conservative Democrats who were threatening Republican seats. That year, Heath Shuler defeated GOP incumbent Charles Taylor. Joe Donnelly took an Indiana district from GOP incumbent Chris Chocola. And in 2008, candidate Obama promised to move beyond red states and blue states.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the GOP moderate’s funeral. The post-partisan healer turned into The Thing That Ate The GDP.  Faced with the prospect of NHS-style health care and death by a thousand T-bill cuts, discontent began to spread through the populace. What first seemed to be an isolated outbreak in the Southern backwoods turned into a pandemic that claimed victims as far away as the sacred ground of Massachusetts.

Democrat moderates saw their political careers begin circling the drain. Meanwhile, Republican moderates seem hale and hearty (the oleaginous Charlie Crist notwithstanding.)

This is what Obama has brought to his party. Instead of reducing the GOP to a rump party, formerly secure members of his own party are headed for the hills, pausing just long enough to leave a note. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana is the perfect example. Considered a moderate by his party, he “started tacking to the right almost immediately after Obama’s election,” as the Huffington Post notes.  He’s managed to win five statewide races in Indiana during his political career, a state that last year voted for the Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in decades. Yet he’s retiring. Why?

Former vice-president Dan Quayle, who formerly represented the Hoosier State in the Senate, notes that Bayh “tried to run for president, was passed over by Obama as a vice-presidential candidate, and he’s not in the Democratic Senate leadership . . . . “ In other words, the party of Barack Obama and Harry Reid doesn’t have room for Evan Bayh. Oddly enough, the party of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner does have room for Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.

More important than the usual ejection of moderates from the Democratic party, though, is the political havoc Obama has wreaked on his own party members. Bayh is the fifth Democrat to announce his retirement from the Senate, and his announcement follows hard on the heels of Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s decision to retire. A friend in Indiana informs me that billboards with the message, “Don’t let Evan Bayh destroy jobs!” have sprouted along the interstates.  Remaining Democrats are feeling vulnerable, particularly Blanche Lincoln and Harry Reid.

But is Obama giving them some cover? No way! Full steam ahead, baby, right over that electoral cliff. This lack of loyalty could be why Bayh waited until the day before the Indiana petition submission deadline to announce his retirement. Whatever the reason, Sen. Bayh, I thank you. And thanks to you too, Mr. President. Keep up the good work.

“America must always stand on the side of human dignity.” – President Barack Obama

I would like to thank the mainstream media for remembering Gao Zhisheng. One should give credit where credit is due, and in this case, it is well-deserved.

On February 4, 2009, Gao Zhisheng was abducted by the Chinese government. He has not been heard from since.

Mr. Gao is an attorney. According to The Economist, he is “one of China’s ten best lawyers.” He is also a Christian who has represented those persecuted by the Chinese government. His wife writes in the Washington Post that “he fought for those abused by the police, those who had their land stolen by the government and those who were persecuted for their religious beliefs.”

Gao not only defended his fellow Christians, but also members of the Falun Gong. This religious group is virulently hated by the Communist government. The U.N. Refugee Agency quotes a report on China’s persecution of the children of Falun Gong members:

Many children [of Falun Gong practitioners] have been directly targeted and tortured to death or thrown into prisons and labor camps. Hundreds of thousands of children have been forced to slander Falun Gong or, upon refusal, [have been] expelled from school.

Gao wrote an open letter to the U.S. Congress, in which he detailed crimes committed by the Chinese government, including the theft of private property, wanton environmental degradation, corruption of the legal system, and suppression of rights. His longest  section dealt with religious persecution, particularly of practitioners of Falun Gong.

One of the instances of torture detailed in the letter is the case of a mother and son tortured to death within earshot of each other. He offered evidence to support the letter’s claims:

1). For each of the over 3,000 confirmed cases of Falun Gong practitioners who were persecuted to death (the number is still growing thanks to our indifference), we have:

a. their full name, date of birth, ID, and addresses

b. detailed accounts of how they were tortured to death

c. documents to prove their deaths

d. their corpses, ashes, and tombs as material evidence

e. testimony from their living families or friends

f. evidence for their arrests in most cases

g. for those whose organs were removed, the stitching on the bodies and the telephone conversation record with involved hospitals, and evidence provided by the transplant doctors involved

h. a large number of photos of the dead bodies

i. The people responsible for the killing are still alive and can be summoned and investigated by a special tribunal.

2). Many Falun Gong practitioners were never heard from after their arrest. Their families can testify.

3). More than 100,000 survivors who can testify about the tortures they suffered, such as electric shock on private parts, tortured with the “tiger bench,” and pricked by sharp bamboo sticks.

4). Tens of thousands of surviving Falun Gong practitioners who had been detained in labor camps

5). Those who are stilled jailed in labor camps

6). Millions who used to be detained in the brainwashing camps

7). Those who are still detained in the brainwashing camps

8). A large but unidentified number of children who were expelled from school and left homeless

9). Tens of millions who lost their jobs and financial sources, who were denied freedom and the right to go abroad

10). People of conscience within the CCP system who can serve as witnesses

This letter only exacerbated the Chinese government’s hatred toward Gao and his family. A year and a half prior to his disappearance—not arrest, as he was never formally arrested — he was kidnapped and brutally tortured for days. His written account of the torture is here.

Gao’s wife and children have fled to the United States to escape a terrifying form of house arrest the Chinese government imposes upon dissidents and their families. Gao’s wife, Geng He, continues to ask the U.S. government for help in learning what has become of her husband. It is feared that he is dead, as the Chinese police say that Gao:

… went missing while out for a walk.

Of course, these are the same people who abducted Gao in the first place, so they are not to be trusted. Geng He writes that she is unsure whether to hope her husband is dead, for if he is alive he is certainly being tortured.

Gao’s case has received a remarkable amount of media attention. President Obama, unfortunately, has remained silent. So it has always been. For every Solzhenitsyn there are a hundred craven informers. For every St. Thomas More there are dozens of graspers for whom power is the only principle.

But it isn’t too late for the president to stand for Gao Zhisheng. If he meant what he said in the State of the Union address—that “America must always stand on the side of human dignity”—standing for Gao would be a good place to start.

If you would like to learn more about how to help Gao, please go here.

All right, you say, so a college football star is going to be in a Super Bowl ad. Big deal. But wait! The ad was purchased by the dreaded Dr. James Dobson’s pro-life  Focus On the Family! And Tim’s mom will discuss her decision not to abort Tim when he was in her womb.

You see, Tim Tebow’s parents were both Christian missionaries in the Philippines. As is not uncommon, Pam Tebow contracted amoebic dysentery while pregnant with Tim. She was terribly ill, and her doctors urged her to terminate the pregnancy. She refused, and little Tim was born — and just look at him today

What an inspiring story! Isn’t that the kind of maternal love that makes Mothers Day one of the biggest holidays of the year? Not to the mainstream media. Instead of simply reporting the story, the MSM is compelled to add its own snide commentary. Over at the Washington Post, Jonathan Capehart writes:

[It’s] wonderful is that Ms. Tebow was able to make an informed decision. Her doctors weren’t muzzled by far-right zealots who want women to carry their pregnancies to term no matter what. And she wasn’t forced by those doctors to end her pregnancy.

Whether CBS is right to run this advocacy ad after rejecting others in the past, I’ll leave to others for the moment.  But could possibly be hypocritical about showing that a child whom the doctors thought was doomed can grow up to be a great quarterback and a fine human being?  About about encouraging women to envision their unborn baby as a person instead of a punishment?

Over at the ABC News blog, April Dudash wrings her hands over the political ramifications of the Tebows’ appearance in a pro-life ad. Daniel Smith, a UF political science professor and the faculty advisor for “Gators for Choice,”  is quoted warning that the home-schooled Tebow “[has] a good chance of alienating half your fan support.” If Prof. Smith thinks that appearing in a pro-life ad is going to significantly dampen fans’ enthusiasm for Tebow, he obviously doesn’t watch much football.

The AP reports on the opposition of “women’s groups” to the ad. In an essay of approximately 500 words, the writer has three quotes opposing the ad, and only one—from Tebow himself—defending the ad. The ad is accused of “[using] sports to divide rather than unite,” of representing an “anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization,” and of defacing “the holiest day of the year” for sports fans.  That’s odd — I’m a sports fan (go Irish!), and I thought Easter was the holiest day of the year. Silly me.

What’s really got these folks fired up? Why be so upset that a mom and her son are telling their inspiring story on national TV? It’s because the ad works.

When Tim Tebow appears on that ad on Super Sunday, he doesn’t just represent himself. He represents almost fifty million other people—the fifty million Tim Tebows whose mothers didn’t choose life. And he represents everyone born in the United States since 1973.

The Post’s Capehart entitled his piece, “Tim Tebow rushes into the abortion debate.” I have news for Mr. Capehart. Tim Tebow didn’t rush into the abortion debate: the abortion debate rushed into him; in fact, he was born into it.  Every person born in the United States since Roe was decided in 1973 is part of this debate, because every one of us could have been aborted by our mothers.

That’s why the MSM hates this ad. It puts a face to fifty million missing children. And when Americans start to see a human face instead of a punishment, the abortion regime will be in serious trouble.