Not often are we able to witness such a comical and entertaining interview as the one that appeared on Larry King Live with Ann Coulter and Joy Behar.

Ann as always was poised and didn't let Behars loaded questions get the best of her.

Here is my favorite part:

BEHAR: OK. All right. I want to know if you want to be waterboarded, because Sean Hannity has volunteered to be waterboarded, but I don't see him sticking his head under the faucet yet.

COULTER: Well, for one thing, about half of the male hosts on Fox News have been waterboarded on TV. I've seen worse on "Fear Factor." And, no, I don't want to be waterboarded.

Do you want to be...

BEHAR: Are you sure?

COULTER: Do you want to be aborted, because I think you support abortion?

In fact, could we abort the terrorists instead of waterboarding them?

BEHAR: Oh, that was quite a jump. But you know what, Ann's taking your calls tonight.

Burn! I'm not always crazy about what Ann Coulter says. But man can she stick it to lib's.

If you want to take a look at the video you can head over to Newsbusters.

As you all know I got on board very early with the Red Envelope Day project. This was really an amazing opportunity to show the president what we think of his stance on abortion.

It turns out that this campaign was amazingly successful.

WND reports:

The White House mail office has confirmed it received a "deluge" of as many as 2.25 million red envelopes
symbolizing the empty promise of lives snuffed out in abortion in a massive campaign that was larger than most White House mailing
movements in the last 35 years.

White House mail worker "Steve" has handled letters for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for more than three decades. Every single package and letter destined for the White House goes through his office.

Asked if he has seen a flood of red envelopes bound for the White House, Steve chuckled.

"Uh, yes," he said emphatically. "Believe me, they made it here."

Steve said while Obama has been occupied in Europe, his administration has noticed millions of red envelopes on behalf of aborted children.

"Quite frankly, there was definitely a deluge of mail coming through," he laughed. "I had to handle them all."

"I've been here 35 years, so I've seen presidents come and go," Steve told WND. "This campaign ranks up there with the big ones."

Well its good to know they noticed, the real question is will it make a difference. The pessimistic side of me says no. But I'm a naturally optimistic person so lets hope and pray that President Obama will listen to his citizens.

If something is a right given by a court, not a legislature, and that right is constantly being contested, it's not debateable. That's one guy's view, and the video is telling. Idiot:

Allahpundit at Hot Air has posed a few questions that should be answered about this video. My exit question is simply this: "Is there any reason not to arrest or punish this man?"

I've been having a debate with a friend of mine about whether or not Justice Scalia's recent statements are Conservative or more moderate than we've known Scalia to be. First, in case you missed the comments, FOX News has a brief summary:

WASHINGTON — The Constitution doesn't prohibit abortion any more than it allows it, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says in a television news interview to be broadcast Sunday.

Scalia told CBS News' "60 Minutes" that he may be conservative, but he is not biased on issues that come before the court. "I mean, I confess to being a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases," Scalia said in excerpts released Thursday.

"On the abortion thing, for example, if indeed I were ... trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like to see adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion," Scalia told correspondent Lesley Stahl.

"And you're against that?" Stahl asked.

Scalia replied, "Of course. There's nothing" (in the Constitution to support that view).

My friend, in his debate, is saying that the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution gives the government power to ban abortion for society's general welfare (and theoretically levy taxes to pay for the enforcement of the ban). Unfortunately, he's relying on the old liberal argument that the clause grants government power, when in all honesty it's a descriptor that limits power. I think in this case, Scalia is right, and abortion will either need to be handled by individual states banning the practice after the overturning of Roe, or a Constitutional amendment. I'd take either.

Abortion claims the lives of over a million children a year, many the products of casual sex, and a disproportionate number of them within the minority community. A student-run magazine from UCLA did an undercover investigation to see if Planned Parenthood would accept racist money. Via Hot Air, some of the results are disgusting:

You have to ask yourself, why would a multi-million dollar industry that is built entirely on the premise of child death turn down racist money? Why would they turn down any money? The baby-killing lobby is a prime example of the evil in society.