Posts Tagged ‘pro-life’

A Deal Is A Deal – Unless Weasel Democrats Are Involved

November 16, 2009

Remember that House vote the other week?  220-215.  Three votes go the other way and it fails.

Democrats knew that.  So they allowed the Stupak Amendment banning federal dollars be spent on abortion.  And what would have failed instead passed.

In a surprise move after hours of tumultuous negotiations, the House Rules Committee, very early Saturday morning, approved rules for debate on the pro-abortion health care bill. Although it appeared Speaker Nancy Pelosi would deny one, it allows a vote on an amendment to remove abortion funding.

Pelosi’s hand appeared to have been forced when pro-abortion House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced earlier in the day that she did not have enough votes to pass the bill because of objections from pro-life Democrats.

The committee okayed a Rule that allows the House to vote on the Stupak amendment, offered by pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, to the health care reform legislation.

Stupak had dozens of Democrats who threatened to vote against the Rule and the bill if he did not get a vote on his amendment. If the amendment is defeated, Stupak and pro-life Democrats will likely still oppose the bill because of the abortion funding.

Republicans could have simply voted “present” and the Pelosi version of Obamacare would have died an agonizing death as moderate Democrats voted against it.  But they remained true to their principles and did the honorable thing in voting for the amendment.

They passed up the opportunity to play politics and did what was right.

Which makes them better than the Democrats under Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will ever be.

Democrats got what they wanted in passing what The Wall Street Journal calls “The Worst Bill Ever.”  And then they turned around immediately and began discussing how they could stab the representatives who voted for the bill because it contained the Stupak amendment in the back.

Updated November 15, 2009
Axelrod Signals Obama Will Try to Strip Abortion Language From Health Care Bill

by FOXNews.com

White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod suggested Sunday that President Obama will intervene to make sure a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion coverage is stripped from final health care reform legislation.

In doing so, the president would be heeding the call of abortion rights supporters like Planned Parenthood that have called the White House their “strongest weapon” in keeping such restrictions out of the bill.

The abortion amendment was tacked on to the House health care bill and was a key factor in securing the votes of moderate Democrats before the bill was approved by a narrow margin last weekend. The amendment, authored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., went beyond preventing the proposed government-run plan from covering abortion to restrict federal subsidies from going toward private plans that offer abortion coverage.

Axelrod said in an interview Sunday that the amendment changes the “status quo,” something the president cannot abide.

Sixty-four Democrats showed the courage of their convictions against heated opposition and voted for the Stupak amendment.  I hope they learned how dishonest their leadership is from this experience.  I hope next time they vote ‘no’ no matter what lies the Democrats promise.

Negotiating with Democrats is rather like negotiating with North Korea.  They are a bunch of dishonest Marxists.  They’ll break their word, and renege on whatever they agreed to once they get what they want.

P.S.  It’s fitting that the proponents of a bill that will result in death panels as seniors die by medical neglect that will be imposed by their own government demand that abortion be included.

Mind you, the Democrats’ bill isn’t just a death panel — it is 101 death panels.

It’s as simple as this: Democrats want a system by which people who traditionally have not bought health insurance – including healthy young people – are forced to purchase health insurance coverage.  If they do not purchase coverage, they will be forced to pay a fine.  The idea is to expand coverage and spread out the risks to bring down the unit costs of health care coverage.  But here’s the problem: in order to sell this government monster, Democrats gutted the amount of the fine.  It’s simply not enough to serve as a suitable deterrent.  Young people (and many others) will simply pay the fine and NOT purchase the considerably more expensive health care coverage, knowing that under the Democrat plan they can purchase it later, in the event they need it, and that they could not be turned down for their “pre-existing condition.”  The Democrats won’t get nearly as much revenue as they claim they will.  Per unit costs will necessarily skyrocket, and rationing of care will become an absolute necessity.  And old people will begin dying in droves.

Which is a big part of the reason The Wall Street Journal called this “The Worst Bill Ever.”

The late D. James Kennedy once said:

“Watch out, Grandma and Grandpa!  Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you!”

And that day has now come.

Will Mainstream Media Attack Left Over Murder Of Pro-Life Activist?

September 14, 2009

“Pro-Choice Terrorist Murders Pro-Life Activist.”

That would be a genuinely incredible headline to see on CNN, MSNBC, or, heck, even Fox News, wouldn’t it?

Not going to happen.  It would mean that the mainstream media actually had the capacity for balance – and it doesn’t.

A Factiva search for mainstream media articles on the murder of Jim Pouillon returned a total of 19 hits; by contrast, the murder of abortionist Dr. George Tiller turned up 643 hits.  That’s “balance” for you.  The mainline media’s project is to tarnish the right with intolerance, hate, and murder.  And they simply aren’t willing to entertain any facts that conflict with their chosen narrative.

The fact that the murder occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 makes the “terrorist” angle even more obvious – but the mainstream media will avoid that angle like Superman avoids kryptonite.

We’re told of the murderer: “Mr. Drake did not believe children should view the graphic material on the signs Mr. Pouillon carried.”  But it was a “crime of hate, not a hate crime.”  What a ridiculous rationalization!  They’re trying to say that the murderer wasn’t ideological about abortion, but simply quibbled over Pouillon’s sign.

Jim Pouillon was murdered because he was a pro-life protester.  Pure and simple.  To his credit (in pointing out the obvious), even Barack Obama – who had a 100% lifetime NARAL support record – recognizes the fact.  The mainstream media, which fell all over itself to condemn the “climate of hate” of the right and the pro-life movement, refuses to turn its lens on the left and the pro-abortion movement.

We have known for years that the mainstream media have been ideological supporters of the pro-abortion movement, and ideological opponents of the pro-life movement.  And the dishonest mainstream media is revealing how corrupt they are yet again as they virtually ignore the murder of a pro-life activist, and utterly refuse to see the murder as an act of leftwing hate.

A prominent pro-life activist was shot repeatedly and murdered outside of a high school, and the media that came absolutely unglued over “rightwing extremists,” ” intolerance,” “hate,” “domestic terrorism,” etc. etc. etc. will very likely not even mention it.  They just don’t have the integrity.  And they certainly will not use the “leftwing” pejoratives to denounce the murder of a pro-life activist the same way they denounced the “rightwing” for the murder of abortionist Dr. George Tiller.

Anti-abortion activist shot in front of Owosso High School
by Elizabeth Shaw | Flint Journal
Friday September 11, 2009

OWOSSO, Michigan — State police at the Corunna post have confirmed a well-known anti-abortion activist was shot multiple times and killed this morning in front of Owosso High School.

The victim’s identity has not yet been released but the shooting occurred around 7:30 a.m., after most students were off the buses and safely inside the building, said Owosso schools transportation supervisor Jayne Campbell.

State police also confirmed that a suspect was taken into custody about 8:15 a.m. at the suspect’s home.

Owosso High School secretary Wendy Smith said the students remain in lockdown this morning and confirmed that no students were involved and all are safe with classes going on as normal. The shooting did not occur on school property, Smith said.

Meanwhile, police have completely ringed with police tape a section of North Street in front of the school.

A black car can be seen parked at the corner of North and Whitehaven streets, where a portable oxygen tank is lying in a front yard next to a large sign bearing the image of a baby and the word “Life.”

Again, the victim has since been revealed to be James Pullion.

Here is a link to MSNBC’s senior cockroach Keith Olbermann loudly demonizing conservatives, Bill O’Reilly, the pro-life movement, rightwing extremists, hate speech, and whatever else the demons whispered in his ear for him to repeat.  And he was hardly alone in the hatefest.

Mind you, even the media’s presentation of this activist is typical of the left: one who favors the killing of babies in the womb is “pro-choice,” standing for something.  But one who stands up for life is depicted as being “anti.”  It would be nice if the media that likes the term “anti abortion” would choose a similar term such as “anti life” to describe what they invariably call the “pro choice” movement.

We’re seeing it depicted in the health care debate.  Liberals are “pro,” and conservatives are “anti.”  The fact of the matter is I’m actually “pro” a lot of things regarding health care.  I’m “pro” for tort reform, for ending mandates and allowing competition among the 1300 private insurers, for dealing with the problems caused by illegal immigration relating to health care, for keeping government socialism from taking over more of the system than it already has, and a lot of other things.  And liberals are “anti” a lot of things, aren’t they?  But it’s more rhetorically effective for the mainline media to describe me as a “health care opponent” belonging to “the party of no.”

One lone nutjob shot Dr. Tiller, and Keith Olbermann made an entire movement responsible for the act.  What do you want to bet this dishonest purveyor of propaganda at a dishonest network will somehow find the murder of a well-known pro-life activist as nothing to become concerned about?

Every single mainstream media, every single liberal blogger, everyone period, that used the murder of Dr. Tiller to attack the right will now either similarly demonize themselves for their “leftwing terrorist murderer,” or else stand forever condemned of hypocrisy, demagoguery, and propaganda.

Let me provide as an example the partial-birth-loving abortionist who is replacing Dr. Tiller – Dr. Leroy Carhart:

Dr. Carhart calls the murderer of his beloved colleague a “terrorist” saying his friend’s death is  “a declaration of war” on the part of radical anti-abortion activists whom he calls “fundamentalist terrorists . . . no different from al-Qaida, the Taliban or any of them.”

Is this guy going to have the intellectual and moral decency to demonize radical pro-abortion activists as a bunch of “fundamentalist terrorists… no different from al-Qaida,” et al, or is he going to be the hypocritical, dishonest ideologue slimebag that I fully expect him to be?

Obviously, that amounts to a rhetorical question, doesn’t it?

Well, allow me to provide a newsflash.  It is not “the left’s” fault that this pro-life activist was murdered.  It was the fault of one deranged man.

The left was despicable beyond the pale for not recognizing that fact when Dr. Tiller was murdered.

I suppose that is one of the big things that differentiates the right from the left.  For the left, individual identity, individual responsibility, amounts to a social construct.  If an abortionist is murdered, well, the blame must extend to everyone who in any way believes abortion is wrong and speaks out.  You can’t just hold one man accountable for his actions, after all.  Rather, you are a soulless meat puppet driven entirely by DNA and social conditioning.  “O’Reilly made me do it.”

At least, you can’t if he comes from the political right – and his actions are a convenient target for liberal propaganda and demagoguery.

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe profoundly in individual identity and individual responsibility.  Does the left pump out hatred by the tonnage?  Sure it does.  But when some nut commits murder or performs some other hateful act, it is THAT person who bears the full weight of responsibility for his or her actions.  And that person alone.

So allow me to pat myself on the back for my moral superiority to Keith Olbermann and everyone like him as I refuse to attribute their “anti-choice” characterization of this martyr for the pro-life cause as being the reason for his murder.  Because whoever shot this pro-life activist HAD a choice – and chose to murder.

I’m the one who affirms choice, while demagogues like Olbermann and Dr. Carhart – who call me “anti-choice” for my pro-life stand – in all actuality believe that people don’t really have a “choice” at all, but are merely robots programmed by Bill O’Reilly or some other favored bogeyman.

The simple fact of the matter is that the left is “pro-choice” when it suits their agenda, and profoundly anti-choice the rest of the time.

So, go ahead, Keith Olbermann.  I’m waiting to hear your “balanced” coverage of the murder of a pro-life activist.

I leave you with a profound statement from the “terrorist” “anti-choice” position:

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” — Mother Teresa

Guns, Ammo, And The Only Jobs Being Created By Obama’s Politics Of Fear

May 21, 2009

People are stockpiling guns and ammunition in a way that no one has ever seen in this country.  And it’s not just conservative rightwing extremists who are bitterly clinging to their guns and religion and racist antipathies as Obama earlier mentioned, either; it’s ordinary people.  Even liberal Democrats are buying guns.

A CNN story puts it this way:

AURORA, Colorado (CNN) — Gun shops across the country are reporting a run on ammunition, a phenomenon apparently driven by fear that the Obama administration will increase taxes on bullets or enact new gun-control measures.

“Driven by fear.”  That’s probably the best way to put it.

Obama talked about “hope” during his demagogic run for the White House.  But a lot of Americans are now finding cause to be very afraid of what Obama hopes for.

I see Obama saying he has no intention of running the auto industry while he fires CEOs, picks boards of directors, converts to common shares of stock so his administration can have an inside presence to change company policies, dictates the advertising budget of an auto company, threatens hedge funds that owned secured debt in auto companies, and changes bankruptcy proceedings to favor politically connected unions.  If that’s what NOT wanting to run the auto industry looks like, I’d sure be terrified to see what Obama would do if he really wanted to run them.  And he’s doing even more to impose his will on the banking and finance industries.

I see such naked displays of fascism, and I am driven by fear.

The Obama administration uses the Department of Homeland Security to contact every police agency in the nation to inform them that returning combat veterans, pro-lifers, and opponents of illegal immigration are not citizens who can be trusted, but should be categorized as “rightwing extremists.”

I see such clearly ideological-driven partisan political branding, and I am driven by fear.

Barack Obama and key members of his administration have repeatedly demagogued guns and the U.S. gun industry by falsely claiming that “90 percent of the guns going into Mexico come from the United Stats.”  If this isn’t demagoguery and propaganda, what is it?

I see such demagogic and dishonest behavior coming out of an administration, and I am driven by fear.

And so we see movements by states to say, “We shouldn’t have to be afraid of our own federal government.”  We see unprecedented movements of states to assert their rights under the 10th Amendment.  And so Montana passes an in-your-face gun law intended to directly challenge the Obama administration.  Utah and Texas began to follow with their own versions of a firearms freedom act.  And the floodgates are opening, as Minnesota and South Carolina are also entering the revolt.  And numerous states are beginning to sponsor state sovereignty resolutions.

States, too, are clearly being driven by fear.

Obama could largely end this fear by simply clearly stating what his until-now twisted and contradictory stance on guns actually is.  The fact that he will not do so only stimulates MORE being driven by fear.

Well, there’s a single good thing coming out of Obama’s politics of fear.  To cite Vice President Joe Biden, all of Obama’s fearmongering is creating “a three letter word”: “J-O-B-S.” In the gun and ammunition industry.

The Obama administration has to make up numbers to justify how its stimulus program has failed.  They have to ignore the 2.6 million jobs they’ve lost and point to 150,000 jobs they can’t show they’ve created.

I think Obama is looking in the wrong place for his “jobs.”  He should point to the jobs in the gun and ammunition industry that he has inspired.

There’s no question that these industries owe their success to Obama and the fear he has created in millions of American hearts and minds.  Obama should take credit for it.

More stockpiling ammunition: Fear of potential Obama laws causing mass sales
By PERRY BACKUS Ravalli Republic

FLORENCE – Every day, Darren Newsom’s three Bitterroot Valley Ammunition facilities crank out 300,000 rounds of ammunition.

It’s not nearly enough.

“I’m going about 100,000 rounds in the wrong direction every day,” Newsom said. “We probably have about six months of back orders right now.”

Newsom has been in the ammunition manufacturing business for more than 20 years and he’s never seen demand this high.

Fearful of the Obama administration’s potential to tighten gun control laws, people from all over the country are stocking up on guns and ammunition.

“I went through the Clinton years and there was a bit of a scare then,” Newsom said. “This is like the Clinton years on steroids.  On the day of the election, our phones started going nuts. It hasn’t stopped since.”

As a master distributor for ATK – the world’s largest ammunition business – Bitterroot Valley Ammunition supplies other ammunition manufacturers around the country with the components needed to make bullets.

“I get a million primers in every other day and most are shipped out the very next day,” he said. “I have 100 million primers on back order right now. We just can’t get enough of them.”

At a recent gun show in Salt Lake City, Newsom sold somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000 rounds in the first two hours.

“It’s just unreal,” he said. “Somewhere in lots of basements around the country, there are millions of rounds of ammunition being stored.”

Local businesses have felt the ammunition shortage.

At Bob Ward’s in Hamilton, Mike Matteson said there has been quite a run on ammunition and reloading supplies like bullets and powder since the election.

“We are especially low right now with pistol ammunition,” Matteson said. “There are four or five calibers that we don’t even have on our shelves.”

Matteson said he didn’t believe manufacturers were prepared for the panic buying that’s occurred since the election.

“They tell us that they’re months behind on some calibers – .22 ammo is really tough to come by,” he said. “Our gun sales are up somewhere between 30 (percent) to 35 percent or better. A good percentage of those sales are pistols.”

Firearm and ammo sales aren’t the only place where concerns about gun control are cropping up.

Ravalli County Sheriff Chris Hoffman has seen a marked increase in the number of people applying for concealed weapons permits since November.

Montana is a “will-issue” state for concealed weapons permits. Any law-abiding citizen who fills out the application and can show they’ve completed some form of firearm safety course can obtain a permit.

The county is averaging about 38 requests for renewals or new permits a month. Last year, the requests averaged about 25.

“It’s definitely a noticeable increase,” Hoffman said.

The sheriff said he’s hearing from people who are concerned about what might happen over the next four years with the gun control issue.

“We are being asked what would be the stance of local law enforcement if the federal government calls for the confiscation of firearms,” Hoffman said. “That’s a very real concern for people.”

Gary Marbut, the longtime president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association in Missoula, said the seeds of the current ammunition shortage can be traced back almost a decade to the Y2K scare.

“Many people became concerned about their ability to get ammunition back then and they stocked up quite a bit,” Marbut said.

In the intervening years, China blossomed and bought up world copper supplies. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan used up warehouses full of U.S. ammunition that needed to be replenished. That forced higher prices for civilian ammunition and people started using some of the bullets they had squirreled away after Y2K, Marbut said.

And now, with the current economic and political uncertainty, people are looking to restock their supplies at a time when most ammunition manufacturers aren’t willing to expand their operations.

“The whole demand side of this is so flexible and the supply side is not,” he said.

The ammunition shortage is creating a bit of an economic boon for Ravalli County.

Newsom plans to open a fourth manufacturing facility in Stevensville sometime in September. He employs about 50 people right now and could add up to another 100.

“There are a lot of people out of work right now,” he said. “Two years ago, I probably couldn’t find 10 people to go to work for us. Now I have 10 people a day coming in here looking for a job.”

Newsom believes the need for ammunition won’t go away. This scare is creating a whole new group of ammunition customers for the future, he said.

Need proof?

Take the .380 caliber pistol. A year ago, Newsom said there was hardly a demand for the ammunition. Since then, the .380 auto pistol has become very popular with women.

“One year ago, it wasn’t in demand and now it’s some of the most sought ammunition in the U.S.,” he said. “There are more people getting into shooting and that’s one thing about ammunition – you can only shoot it once.”

People need to understand that the Obamamania fear that is creating such an incredibly high demand for guns and ammunition is not merely fear of Obama gun laws; it is fear of the future that Obama’s out-of-control spending will have on our economy.

We may very well have a short-term recovery (which is what happened during the Great Depression following the stock market crash of Black Friday in October 1929); but that recovery will be devoured by the sheer massive weight of trillions and trillions of dollars in debt.  Obama will spend $9.3 trillion and nearly DOUBLE the national debt.  The administration has spent, loaned, or committed more than $12.8 trillion .  This year Obama is spending more than four times as much as George Bush did in 2008.  Obama is creating more debt than every single president from George Washington to George W. Bush – COMBINED.  And the Congressional Budget Office says that by 2019 a whopping 82 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) will be going to pay down the national debt.

That mind-boggling spending and that mind-boggling debt is a disaster weighting to happen.  It is only a matter of time before a ten trillion ton anvil falls on the American economy.

Trends Research Institute CEO Gerald Celente is on record predicting food riots by 2012 as massive spending creates massive inflation and devaluing of the currency.  If Celente is a nutjob, he is a nutjob that CNN, The Economist, USA Today, CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The New York Times, CBS News, The Detroit News, the Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, and the New York Post have all gone on public record to praise for his incredible predictive accuracy.

People are scared, and judging by the continuing massive purchases of people stockpiling guns and ammo, they’re not clearly not getting any less scared.

So you get your gun.  And lock and load.  Because the beast is coming.

Gallup: Four Months Into Obama Rule, Republicans Now Tied With Democrats

May 19, 2009

If you’re a conservative, you’ve just gotta like this.

In the wake of a poll released after April 24, 2009, Democrats were loudly proclaiming a study showing Republican identification had dropped to 21%. The mainstream media pundits all agreed that the Republican Party was clearly dead. What the talking heads failed to mention was the fact that both parties had declined in identification (with independents growing and now representing the largest group), and the actual difference from the earliest poll result shown from January 2008 showed the Democrats had only picked up two points.

But get a load of what has been happening since:

Selected Trend on Party Affiliation: 2004-2009

Republicans

Independents

Democrats

Republicans
(including
“leaners”)

Democrats
(including
“leaners”)

%

%

%

%

%

2009 May 7-10

32

34

32

45

45

2009 Apr 20-21

27

36

36

39

50

2009 Apr 6-9

24

40

35

34

53

Just who has been losing, and just who has been gaining? With independent leaners factored in Republicans have pulled even with Democrats. And Republicans have gained 8 points while Democrats have lost 6 in just a month’s span. If you go back to April 9 – just a little bit over a month ago – the Democrats (who were 16 points up) have lost 14 of those points. And while the polling isn’t specific enough regarding independents, I don’t doubt for a nanosecond that conservative federalist-loving Libertarians are swelling the exploding ranks of independents, either.

Where are all of you mainstream media talking heads? You know, you guys who pronounced – and who are STILL pronouncing – the death of the Republican Party and conservatism based on the other poll a month ago? Where are you now? Where’s your “fair, accurate, and objective” reporting? Are you still mocking the Tea Parties with sexual innuendo that only you perverts understood in the first place? Where are your pronouncements of the demise of the Democratic Party now? You damn nest of dishonest propagandist demagogue snakes.

Nothing revitalizes the Republican Party like Democrat control of both the executive and the legislative branches. In just a few short months of hyperactive and incredibly expensive liberal unchecked power, Democrats no longer represent a majority of the nation, for the first time since 2005.

We’ve seen the worm turn just like this before: following the disaster of Jimmy Carter in 1980; and again following the disaster of the first Clinton term in 1994. People begin to realize that giving liberals power is rather like giving kindergartners loaded guns.

This comes on the heels of another beautiful new poll that shows 51% of Americans now identifying themselves as “pro-life” versus only 42% who identify themselves as “pro-choice”.

Democrats and the mainstream media have been ever so eager to pronounce the death of conservatism, but we aint going anywhere.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have a Speaker of the House who is having an increasingly difficult time keeping her various stories straight even as she undermines national security by falsely claiming the CIA lied to Congress. The Democrats have a Senate Majority Leader who is very unlikely to win reelection in 2010. They’ve got a Vice President who stupidly revealed the location of the VP’s bunker. Most political analysts outside of the mainstream media establishment would likely agree that such behaviors are not the best way to build the party brand.

Obama also faces looming catastrophes on the international front. A single terrorist attack and the President’s own Democratic Party may turn on the commander-in-chief who relabeled the “war on terror” the “overseas contingency operation” and then relabeled “terrorist attacks” as “man-caused disasters” to save their own political skins. Iran will almost certainly develop nuclear military capability under Obama’s watch. Pakistan – along with its nuclear arsenal – is looking more vulnerable to collapse almost by the day. North Korea has thumbed its nose at the U.S. and has restarted its nuclear weapons program. And there are literally more international crises developing than you can shake a stick at.

It is with that background that Democrats – who relentlessly demagogued and demonized George Bush over Gitmo – are now cringing their way into the very Bush policy they previously worked so hard to undermine.

As the world collapses, don’t think that Americans will continue to listen to the Democrat’s claims that it is all George Bush’s fault. The world is their baby now.

But what will likely ultimately most undermine the Democratic Party is that Democrats rammed through a porkulus package which is accomplishing little or even nothing – and which is actually locking out the counties that needed stimulus the most while giving the most funds to counties that needed it least.

While many economists believe that the economy will recover (including many economists who predicted that the economy would recover as well or better without a stimulus), there is an increasingly likely probability that any recovery will be temporary. The more than $12.8 trillion the administration has spent, loaned, or committed will ultimately devalue the currency and lead to economy-crucifying stagflation (a condition whereby inflation rises while the economy remains stagnate seen in the 1970s under Carter).

There’s little question that the anvil will fall on the US economy due to the near doubling of the national debt as Obama adds a projected $9.3 trillion to the $11.7 trillion hole we’re already in. Obama is borrowing 50 cents on the dollar as he explodes the federal deficit by spending four times more than Bush spent in 2008 and in the process “adding more to the debt than all presidents — from George Washington to George Bush – combined.” And most terrifying of all, Obama’s spending will cause debt to double from 41% of GDP in 2008 to a crushing 82% of GDP in 2019.

What will be the result of all this insane spending, and not very far off?  A quote from a CNS News story should awaken anyone who thinks the future will be rosy:

By 2019, the CBO said, a whopping 82 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) will go to pay down the national debt. This means that in future years, the government could owe its creditors more than the goods and services that the entire economy can produce.

We may literally be already doomed.  How are we possibly going to repay this?

Obama promised again and again that 95% of Americans would get a tax cut (which actually just means more welfare for the 43.4 percent who already don’t pay any federal income tax at all even as our small business owners who employ most American workers are increasingly taxed into oblivion). But Obama is going to make your upcoming new car dramatically more expensive; he’s going to make your energy dramatically more expensive; and just for your information the average 30 year old will pay $136,932.75 just for the interest of just Obama’s 2010 budget over the course of his or her working lifetime. Americans will be paying FAR more of their money to the government – and we will have only Democrats to thank for it.

The only two questions are 1) how soon the ten trillion ton anvil will fall on the U.S. economy, and 2) whether it will be too late for conservatives to save the country by the time the electorate return to their senses and realize that they voted for a gaggle of fools in 2008.

What Was Wrong With Obama’s Notre Dame Speech On Abortion?

May 18, 2009

By the mainline media’s “oh, isn’t he just wonderful?” gushing accounts of Obama’s speech at Notre Dame, it was a grand slam home run.  He was conciliatory, gracious, and non-partisan – and did I mention wonderful?

Among his other remarks, Obama said this:

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let’s make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.” Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It’s a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. (Applause.) Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.” And I want to join him and Father John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today’s ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about. (Applause.)

First of all, Obama’s statement that abortion is a “heart-wrenching decision not made casually” is simply not true for a LOT of women.  For example, abortion is the top birth control option for women in Russia.  Are they a different species there?  Are women in Russia not women?  Are they not human?  Are they not in fact very much like us?  Another study found numerous women in the UK who had had five or more abortions, with “30 teenage girls a week asking for repeat abortions.”  I looked for numbers regarding the United States, but the numbers are not nearly as forthcoming given that NARAL and mainline media propaganda seem to dominate.  Abortion is surely a difficult choice for some women, but it is most certainly not a difficult choice whatsoever for all.  And I’m not going to pretend it is.

Some women decide to have abortions out of fear for the future.  But many others decide to do so for their own convenience for the simple reason that they don’t want a child and aren’t willing to carry their baby to term so he or she can be adopted.  It is not women who are victims of abortion, but the babies whom they abort.  Don’t ever forget that.

Then Obama says, “let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions.”  My question is why?  Because it sounds good coming out of the mouths of liberals talking the language of pro-lifers?  Why should a liberal care about reducing the numbers of abortions?  Isn’t abortion a sacrosanct right?  How many other sacred rights should be reduced? Would less free speech be a good thing?  How about fewer voters?  Maybe we can reduce the number of attorneys made available to those accused of crimes?

In the same vein, what of Obama’s description of abortion as “having both moral and spiritual dimensions”?  Really?  How does that make any sense whatsoever unless we are talking about a baby human being, rather than a blob of tissue?  Does having one’s tonsils removed have “moral and spiritual dimensions”?  Clearly it doesn’t.  There is clearly something more to the implications of abortion.  This use of language is nothing more than another example of Obama and those like him trying to use language in a deceptive manner to convey a false illusion of truth, of compassion, and of a genuine understanding the issues involved.

The fact of the matter is that pro-abortion folk speaking of wanting to reduce abortions or calling it a moral and spiritual decision is simply gobbledygook.

If pro-abortionists want to reduce the number of abortions, why on earth would they push so hard to make abortion more available?  Does anyone think that if we made drugs more available, the number of drug abusers would go down?  Should we offer crack cocaine in our schools, so that kids can be “pro-choice” on drugs and “reduce the number of addictions”?  How can you not spot the asininity of this rhetoric?

But it was when Obama spoke about honoring one another while we disagree on abortion that was the most insulting to moral intelligence.

Let me illustrate why I say the above thusly:

Suppose you have two little girls, and I kidnap one and kill her (to put in in abortionist terms, I “terminate her life”).  And it is my plan to soon do the same to the second daughter.  And I meet with the girls’ parents and I say, “Let’s not let our differences in opinion result in our hating one another.  I tell them, “The fact that I don’t believe your children are human beings worthy of life doesn’t change the fact that you shouldn’t ‘reduce those with differing views to caricature.'”  I beseech them to maintain “their open-hearts, their open minds, and their fair-minded words” as I dehumanize and terminate their precious babies.

Does anybody believe the parents would politely nod their heads in agreement?  After all, can’t we all just get along and disagree honorably about such things?

You know that isn’t what would happen.  Those parents would do anything to stop me.  And so would the police.  So would any passing citizen who had any moral decency at all and was in any position to prevent my harming those children.

The fact of the matter is, Obama’s rhetoric presupposes that this debate isn’t about the lives of babies, but rather some academic discussion regarding the rights of women over which we can disagree.  In other words, Obama’s call to “friendship,  civility, hospitality, and love” as we politely agree to disagree presume that babies aren’t being killed and no one is getting hurt.

For all the intelligence Obama is supposed to possess, listening to him is much more like eating candy than it is dining on profundity.  It’s junk food for the mind and the soul.

I don’t mind it one bit when pro-abortionists call me “anti-choice.”  I’m fine with their intensely hard feelings directed at me.  Because that’s the way it frankly should be: we are on opposite sides of the greatest life and death moral issue of all time (unless you can tell me something else that has ended more human lives than abortion).  It’s not supposed to be civil with such incredibly high stakes.

Which is why I’m not going to allow Barack Obama or anyone else to tell me, “Don’t get so worked up over abortion.  We’re all good people just trying to do the right thing.”

Sorry, Barry, but you are an advocate for baby killing.  You and people like you have murdered well over forty million innocent human lives, and one day a just and holy God will damn you to hell for it.  I’m not going to treat you with quit dignity and respect when you are systematically depriving millions of children of not only their dignity but their lives.  In the meantime, abortion and other child-reduction strategies have resulted in this nation going from about 16 workers for every retiree to only three workers for every retiree.  And within a matter of a relatively few years it will go down to only two workers for every single retiree.  And as our system breaks down we’ll get to enjoy hell early, and right here on earth, due to our abortion mindset.

With this in mind, consider another comment Obama made in his Notre Dame address, from the perspective of helpless unborn babies who have been dehumanized so that they can be killed by people who elevate convenience over another human being’s life:

Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” — is not easy. And part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man — our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

A new poll gives cause for celebration and hope: 51% of Americans now identify themselves as “pro-life” versus only 42% who identify themselves as “pro-choice” according to Gallup.  It never mattered whether a majority of Americans believed abortion was murder or not to make abortion murder.  For example, there was a time in this country’s history when most Americans believed blacks weren’t fully human; were they therefore not fully human?  But it is marvelous that the “majority says” argument has now officially been taken away from abortionists.

Three articles detailing Obama’s own association with abortion and outright infanticide:

Why Barack Obama Is A Baby Killer. Period.

Jill Stanek On Why Barack Obama Voted For Infanticide

Obama Crossed The Line From Abortion To Genuine Infanticide

Sarah Palin Puts Her Money Where Her Mouth Is On Abortion

August 29, 2008

Character is revealed in crisis, and Governor Sarah Palin had a crisis that challenged her basic values when she learned that the child she was carrying – her fifth – would have Down Syndrome.

What would this pro-life wife and mother do?

For Sarah Palin, there really was no question: she would love her child.

Women who argue that men have no right to talk about abortion (as though ideas and morality have male or female genitalia), who argue that a child with Down Syndrome is the “poster child” for termination, are stymied in the face of this courageous woman.

Tim Graham wrote a magnificent article on the story, saying in part:

Immediately the family made this announcement: “Trig is beautiful and already adored by us. We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives.”

Trig Palin has Down syndrome. Early prenatal testing alerted the Palins to this chromosomal abnormality, as it is alerting more and more families in the early stages of pregnancy.

Unfortunately, because of early screening, more children with Down syndrome are aborted and fewer and fewer are being born.

Children with Down syndrome do bring “unspeakable joy” into this world. I know the laughter and blessings my 5-year-old nephew, Ethan, with Down syndrome, has brought to our family. But how do you explain this joy to a perfection-at-any-price world?

Sarah Palin didn’t want perfection; she wanted her child.  And, with a true mother’s heart, she loved her child no matter what, and – with her husband – was willing to fight for her baby.

And she chose to rejoice in her newborn baby even though he wasn’t “perfect.”  Who is?

The Nazis had a phrase that they used to justify the killing of all kinds of unwanted human beings – lebensunwertes leben – “life unworthy to be lived.”  Sarah Palin proved with in the most powerful way imaginable that she believes all innocent human life is worthy to be lived.

The liberal’s response?  That makes her a terrible, narrow-minded person.

She’s everything Barack Obama despises: she’s clinging to her guns and her religion, and add to that a baby that Obama would have gladly left out to die.

But the reaction to Sarah Palin is already revealing who really has “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”

In Defense of Life

March 27, 2008

There are many people who oppose the abortion industry, but they generally can’t do a very good job explaining why. The Republican Party is officially pro-life in its platform, but I’ve never heard a GOP candidate offer a good reason for being pro-life. But there are excellent reasons for being pro-life, and it is way past time that society heard them.

Democrats and “pro-choice” proponents offer “a woman’s right to choose” as the primary reason to support abortion. But let us think about that for a moment: should women have “a right to choose?” Sure they should, up to a certain point. But should that right extend to anything a woman might want to do? What if she wants to drive her car through a crowd of people? What if she wants to hijack an airplane and fly it into a skyscraper? Clearly, a woman doesn’t – and shouldn’t – have a right to do anything she chooses. The first question needs therefore needs to be, “the right to choose to do what?”

If you were busily working on peeling potatoes over the kitchen sink when your oldest child came in and said, “Is it okay if I kill this?” What would you do? Would you say, “Sure! Go ahead! Since I’m not certain of the ontological status of whatever you’re considering killing, I’ll leave the decision up to you!” Or would you turn around and look to make sure your little gremlin wasn’t talking about your youngest child? (Or maybe it wouldn’t matter, because you’d figure your firstborn was exercising that sacrosanct “right to choose“?). The ability to use rhetoric to cast metaphysical doubt on the meaning of “being human” does not mean that ignorance is bliss, and one can abort at will. The fact of the matter is, we haven’t even begun to understand the miraculous – and it truly is miraculous – process of a baby forming in mommy’s womb. The age of viability has decreased dramatically; medical experts have been repeatedly proven dead wrong again and again in determining brain function in comatose patients who later recovered after being declared ‘brain dead'; the Hippocratic Oath recited by doctors for centuries explicitly banned the performing of abortions; and so on, and so on. When in doubt, why not choose life?

And there really is no doubt, once we truly consider the issues. Ever hear the argument that fetuses aren’t human beings, so it’s okay to kill them? Think again. Both science and logic assure us that – from the moment of conception – that thing in the womb of a human mother is fully a human being. Take a moment and consider the taxonomic system by which every living thing is rigorously categorized and classified. By that system a human embryo is of the kingdom Anamalia, of the phylum Chordata, of the class Mammalia, of the order Primate, of the family Pongidae, of the genus Homo, and of the species Sapiens – same as any other human being. Put even more simply, that embryo is a human by virtue of its parents, and a being by the fact that it is a living thing: it is a human being.

And then there’s that whole “It’s a woman’s body” line. That one falls rather flat as well. The fact is that that from the moment of fertilization there is a separate, distinct, unique genetic individual in the mother’s womb; every cell in its little body is different from that of its mother. Half of children are male, for goodness sake! We are clearly not talking about a woman’s body; we are talking about her child’s body.

Then there’s the notion of a woman’s rights to her own body, which views the baby in her womb as a hostile invader forcing itself upon her. Why should she carry it to term if she doesn’t want to? Well, for one thing, because it’s her child. The so-called “violinist argument” is fatally flawed from the outset by casting a woman’s child in terms of an unwanted intruder whom the woman has no moral obligation to care for. Furthermore, we would never consider that rather despicable line of moral reasoning after a child is born – when it actually requires a far greater sacrifice and burden to care for (ask a new mother whether her child required more chasing around the house before or after birth). We go from the rather passive act of “being pregnant” to the extremely active act of caring for a newborn – and that burden proceeds to continue for years as the child grows up. Leave your five year old at home and go gamble in Las Vegas for a week and see what happens when you come back home if you don’t believe me. See how far that, “But I have a right to my own body” line takes you. It ought to take you all the way to jail for abandoning your child.

If this isn’t enough to dispel the “woman’s right to her own body” argument, then let us think about the way they are using the term “rights.” We must realize that in virtually every case one person’s right presupposes someone else’s duty. One person’s right to freedom of speech imposes the duty upon the remainder of society to tolerate what might be offensive to them for the greater good of a free society. In other cases, the duty imposed is far more selective: When liberals describe the duty of the rich to pay their fair share of taxes, they are imposing a duty on a small class of people. The wealthiest 5% of Americans already pay 57% of the taxes, and the wealthiest 10% pay 68% of the tab. The top 1% earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the taxes; meanwhile the “poorest” 50% of Americans earn 13% of the income but pay only 3% of the taxes. This introduces a legitimate question for some future discussion: just how much more should the wealthy be expected to pay? [Don't allow the issue of taxation to distract you from my argument: I merely raise taxation as an issue in which certain advocates subjectively claim that a few should have a duty to pay more, while the majority should have a right to pay less]. But in the case of abortion, the right given to the mother presupposes the most extreme duty upon one single individual – her child – the duty to die for the convenience of its mother. On the side of the “right of a woman to choose” are not only women who suddenly find themselves pregnant and their anxious parents, but hedonistic men and women who want to abdicate any responsibility for their “sexual expression,” along with a powerful media culture that aggressively pursues the same end, a powerful abortion industry and its lobby, the stem cell research lobby, unelected judges who impose their will on society, etcetera. Who is on the side of the right of the unborn to live? The Constitution – which guarantees the right to life as preeminent over all others – but other than that, far too few allies. One side has sole access to the megaphone; the other cannot speak. If we were to stop focusing on the Constitutionally-invisible “right to choose” and focus just for a moment on the DUTY OF PARENTS to nurture and care for their children, we would have a very different discussion indeed. I cannot help but remember the slogan of the Ministry of Health vans that Nazi Germany used to haul away retarded children, epileptics, children with malformed ears, chronic bed wetters, and the like to their deaths: Lebensunwertes Leben – “Life Unworthy of Life.” Today I still see cars bearing bumper stickers with the equally oxymoronic – but far more deadly – slogan, “Pro child, Pro choice.” What a shame that so many Americans have so blithely come to champion Nazi morality.

Then there’s that, “It’s only a potential human being” pseudo-argument. First of all, I’m not even sure what it means to be “a potential human being” – and neither do those who are reciting it. I do understand what it means to be “a human being with potential.” Let us begin this discussion with the straightforward observation that had your mother decided to have an abortion during her pregnancy with you, that you would not have been born. It would NOT have been some potential you that perished; it would have been you. You would have been one of the nearly 50,000,000 babies in America alone who were killed by abortion. Just as you were once a child, once a toddler, once an infant, you were also once a fetus, once an embryo, once a zygote. Killing you while you in any of those stages would have killed you just as dead.

And let us pause for a moment to consider what murder actually does to the victim. The character Clint Eastwood played in Unforgiven put it pretty well: “When you kill a man, you take away everything he has and everything he’s ever going to have.” A human baby will naturally inherit every quality of human life unless someone steps in and unnaturally ends that life. It is simply his or her nature as a human being to do so. You merely have to contemplate your own life to consider what would have been taken away from you had you been among the abortion statistics. This idea of “potential” as some ambiguous term that allows a mother to kill her baby is as ridiculous as it is amoral. If I were to walk up to you in a parking lot as you got out of your car and shoot you to death, what would I be guilty of? I certainly didn’t take away your past, as it has already happened. And if your future – when is clearly merely “potential” - doesn’t count, all I truly deprived you of is the two or three seconds of immediate conscious awareness. And I could have deprived you of at least that much had I merely asked you for the time instead of shooting you! For murder to be a serious crime, “potential” has to be a real, tangible thing that has intrinsic, incommensurable value. To attempt to argue that an unborn baby’s potential is somehow meaningless but a born person’s matters is both a fundamentally irrational and immoral distinction that leads inevitably to a degradation in the value of human life. Tyrants have routinely made the same type of “status of humanity determined by selective criterion” distinction when they said that Jews, or blacks, or any other class of people should not matter.

Deep down, I believe that even the Democrats and other abortion advocates realize the immorality of abortion in their choice of language. They demonstrate this by reciting the new mantra, “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” But why on earth should it be rare if it is a fundamental human right? How many other basic rights should be rare? Put “free speech,” “freedom of the press,” “the right to peaceably assemble,” or any other right that liberals hold as sacrosanct into this “____ should be safe, legal, and rare” equation and see how it flies. If abortion is a good thing, why on earth should it be rare? In point of fact, we should be encouraging more of it, not less.

During the Lincoln-Douglas presidential debates, when Douglas said that states ought to have a right to choose the institution of slavery, Lincoln famously said, “One cannot say that people have a right to do wrong.” Fortunately the country chose Lincoln’s moral reasoning over Douglas’. The Civil War was subsequently waged by a Confederacy which argued that their own rights were being systematically violated, even as they inhumanly violated the most fundamental rights of the blacks they oppressed. Apart from the fact that the party of Lincoln, the party of abolition, was the Republican Party and the party of Douglas, the party of institutionalized slavery, was the Democratic Party, I cannot help but see the parallels between the Party of Slavery and the Party of Abortion. For one thing, the Party of Abortion uses the identical arguments to justify its abominable institution that the Party of Slavery relied upon. For another, the Party of Abortion is just as insistent upon its “rights” as was the Party of Slavery, even as they systematically violate the rights of the most innocent and most helpless.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers