Exactly two days ago in Israel, a premature baby survived an abortion, and when doctors found out she was alive (five hours after putting her in a cooler), they rightfully scrambled to save her life.

Barack Obama would have her die.

And this is what I tackle in my column today. Obama thrice opposed an Illinois bill that would have allowed babies who survive an abortion, and who are fully outside of their mother's body, to receive humane treatment. And as I conclude in my column, this is morally extremist, or evil, or dreadfully reckless. Which one do you think it is?

I've been repeatedly asked to provide my thoughts on the GOP VP stakes, and have thus far refrained from doing so, perhaps because I am so unenthused by the choices in the Republican Party.

Finally, I decided to write something about it. In my column today I insist that the choice be conservative, and even give my take on some names, though without the analysis.

If you have ever had a conversation about taxes with a liberal, you've inevitably heard the refrain: "Well, I don't mind giving more to the government."

In my column today, I respond, "then why don't you give more?"

Any answer from my liberal friends would be highly appreciated.

I saw The Dark Knight - twice, actually - and it was an amazing movie.

But more importantly, it made me realize I want a president like Batman. Which, as I point out in my column today, Barack Obama can never be.

The media gave us the entire positive side about Obama's adventure abroad. But what happened behind closed doors?

We may never know for sure, but in my column today, I put forth some possibilities. Excerpt:

Germany: Obama meets with Chancellor Angela Merkel, opening, “Angie sweetie, don’t worry, I’ve been opposed to the Iraq War from the start too, so high five!”

Merkel, looking at Obama’s waiting hand, asks him, “You do realize I was happy with the invasion, right?”

Obama: “But what was the big fuss about Old Europe being virulently anti-war and anti-Bush?”

Merkel: “That was the guy before me. And by the way, you’re not speaking at the Brandenburg Gate.”

You may have read this column I wrote last week, sarcastically suggesting that knives should be banned because, just like guns, they could potentially be used to commit a crime.

Well, this may not be that far-fetched after all. A friend sent me this article discussing how Denver police want to prevent protesters from carrying pipes and chains. I'm sure that'll resolve their problems just like gun bans made DC and Chicago the safest cities in America.

Ever notice how Barack Obama's speeches sound excessively pretty? Or how he gives several examples demonstrating a single point, when he could have proven that point in three words?

Well, I've noticed it. And in today's column, I analyze some of the verbiage in Obama's latest major speech.

The logic of the anti-gun crowd is: Since guns are used to kill, then we should ban guns.

My column today asks, then why not ban knives too?

My latest column covers the rare truthfulness of Jesse Jackson. Why is anyone surprised that even he would say that Barack Obama talks down to black people?

Read it here.

You may have read the Inside Higher Ed article I linked to a few days ago, about how the American Bar Association's pressure on George Mason Law to accept more black students resulted in unbelievably high failures rates among those accepted at lower standards.

Inside Higher Ed has another excellent piece out, discussing how universities obsessed with an image of physical diversity are putting out viewbooks with pictures that are much more diverse than the schools' actual demographics. In some cases, they are even doctoring photos of white students to add minorities in them.

I wrote a column on this issue more than a year ago. Excerpt:

I decided to track the website of Cornell University, my alma mater... On one of my visits to the site, the pictures showed a total of eight students, all minorities, with seven of them being women. For reference purposes, Cornell is split down the middle gender-wise, with blacks making up five percent of the student population.

This quote from the Inside Higher Ed article says it all: “Sometimes you see the same black kid in every picture."

In keeping with my higher academia theme of the last couple of days, here is a long article from the New York Times discussing how some of the paper's best ideological allies, meaning university professors whose formation years were in the nutty 1960s, are finally getting to that age where they are retiring from the institutions they should have never gotten hired to in the first place.

We can only hope that the next generation of professors doesn't teach students to chain themselves to trees and to embrace socialism, as some of my 1960s Cornell professors did (check out my latest column for the details on that).

With the Berkeley tree-sitting fiasco coming back to light in recent weeks, and considering its parallels with similar events in recent years at Cornell, my alma mater, I wrote a column on the subject. Enjoy!

One of the reasons I dislike political pundits is that they tend to make false predictions left and right without ever being held accountable for them. This is why, as a pundit myself, I usually stay away from making predictions, and only make them when I can solidly back them up.

Well, today is one of those rare days. After one of my friends directed my attention to the fact that my recent blog post about Obama losing Virginia amounted to a prediction, I thought I might as well turn it into a column and ask my readers to hold me accountable for it. So, here we go: Why Barack Obama Will Lose Virginia.

There is nothing that has fascinated Democrats this election cycle more than the prospect of their nominee taking Virginia in the fall. Indeed it would be their first time to do so for more than 40 years, and the idea of beginning to cut into the Republicans' hold on the south is, understandably, extremely exciting for them (although if any of them have set foot in Northern Virginia, which contains a third of the state's votes, they would understand the foolishness of interpreting a Virginia victory as anything resembling the takeover of  a "southern" state.)

Nonetheless, that's all they are talking about. But they are wrong, wrong, wrong. In fact a recent editorial in the Richmond Times-Dispatch made some of the same arguments I would, and even a bit more mildly than I would, as to why Barack Obama does not have that much "hope" of winning the state:

Sure, moderate Democrats such as Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, and Jim Webb can win here -- especially when their GOP opponents run terrible campaigns. But even these able Democrats found it impossible to garner more than 52 percent of the vote. A liberal like Barack Obama may find it impossible to reach 50.

It is true that the Democrats have been basing their hopes of winning Virginia on the gubernatorial victory of Tim Kaine in 2005 and the senatorial victory of Jim Webb in 2006. But let us not forget that first of all, the two are quite conservative Democrats - Webb, in fact, endorsed George Allen in 2000, the same Republican he defeated six years later. Obama, on the other hand, is the most liberal member of the Senate.

Second, their victories were extremely close, and Webb's was razor-thin - so close that there is no doubt in my mind that had George Allen been a Democrat, he would have dropped his classiness to demand a recount.

Third, the Republicans' gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Kilgore, was far from the best that the Virginia GOP could come up with, and ran an awful campaign. As for George Allen, he held a 20-point lead before making the "macaca" comment that was exploded by the media (read my column on the subject). And, finally, let us not forget that the results of presidential elections are far more reflective of a state's future presidential picks than smaller races will ever be. And in that department, Virginia is solidly Republican - George W. Bush won it by eight points last time around.

I do, however, disagree with the Richmond Times-Dispatch's concluding statement:

If Obama has problems in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and perhaps Pennsylvania, he may be the first Democrat in years who simply cannot afford to lose Virginia.

I would say that if Obama has problems in those states, which I believe he will, he will not even bother to waste time in Virginia, where his chances of winning would almost certainly be nil.

Barack Obama is beginning to outdo John Kerry in flip-flopiness. Or maybe not. But he probably is.

Anyway, read my column about it here.