3,400 confidential and totally free groups to call and go to in the U.S...1,400 outside the U.S. . . . 98 of these in Canada.
Free, financial help given to women and families in need.More help given to women, families.
Helping with mortgage payments and more.More help.
The $1,950 need has been met!CPCs help women with groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places.
Help for those whose babies haveDown Syndrome and Other Birth Defects.
CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

What Do CNN and The Washington Post Have In Common?

Willful ignorance of real science.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo Has Absolutely No Idea Where Babies Come From...

...and neither does the Washington Post. Marco Rubio is right, because he's using noted embryologists for his science. Like we've done repeatedly for years also.

Who does CNN and WaPo use for their "science?" The ACOG, long known to be pro-abortion, even pro-partial-birth abortion, and who advocate a redefined definition of pregnancy to be starting now at implantation instead of conception, even though the world-renowned embryologists haven't changed their definitions because the science hasn't changed.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Pro-choice New Hampshire Politician Defunds Planned Parenthood

Pro-choice politician in New Hampshire who previously supported allotting taxpayer dollars to his state’s Planned Parenthood clinics, says nuh-uh:
States should not fund an organization facing credible criminal allegations and currently being investigated by Congress and a dozen state governments...“If this had been any other business with this type of legal and ethical scrutiny, there would be no question about cutting state funds.”
The launch of the congressional investigation, however, prompted Sununu to search for alternative providers. He asked the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services to aid in his search.

New Hampshire has a variety of clinics and hospitals with different services and specializations. “The options are definitely there,” [Republican executive councilor Chris] Sununu says. “We need to entice those providers to bid” on this newly available contract, especially because “more-rural areas do have sparser health care.”
Governor Maggie Hassan has refused to investigate New Hampshire’s Planned Parenthood clinics based on what she calls “a rumor.”...Hassan declined to help expand women’s alternatives to Planned Parenthood. That decision “made no sense,” Sununu says. “It was beyond belief. How providing choices is ever a negative thing, I can’t imagine. She’s trying to justify the monopolistic position Planned Parenthood has put themselves in.”

That's because, for Gov.Hassan, and all those like her, it isn't about helping women, it's about preserving abortion.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Friday, August 14, 2015

Daily Beast Columnist and What His Pro-Life Wife Called Him On

The Daily Beast's Ruben Navarette Jr. writes "I Don’t Know if I’m Pro-Choice After Planned Parenthood Videos":
As I’ve only realized lately, to be a man, and to declare yourself pro-choice, is to proclaim your neutrality. And, as I’ve only recently been willing to admit, even to myself, that’s another name for “wimping out.”

At least that’s how my wife sees it. She’s pro-life, and so she’s been tearing into me every time a new video is released. She’s not buying my argument that, as a man, I have to defer to women and trust them to make their own choices about what to do with their bodies. To her, that’s ridiculous—and cowardly.

“You can’t stand on the sidelines, especially now that you’ve seen these videos,” she told me recently. “That’s bullshit! These are babies that are being killed. Millions of them. And you need to use your voice to protect them. That’s what a man does. He protects children—his own children, and other children. That’s what it means to be a man.”

I didn’t like the scolding, but I needed to hear it. For those of us who are pro-choice, the Planned Parenthood videos are a game changer. As to whether that means I’ll change my view, I’m not sure. I’m on the bubble. Ask me in a few weeks, after the release of more videos.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Democrats' War on Blacks And One Dozens of Black Folks' Responses

(yeah, you read that right)

HT to Chicks on The Right for the post on that street-level news conference in Harlem, NY this month. It's no news that many Democrats condemn you if you're African-American but don't tout the Democrat party line about race.

Know who else has gotten attacked this way? Watch all the videos, but if you only want to watch one, watch the last six.

  1. Condi Rice (also called an Aunt Jemima)...
  2. ...and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina (at the 1:50 mark), both in this video:

    ...and here's Tim Scott responding to more insults from black liberals:
  3. Lt. Colonel Allan West (US Army, Ret):
  4. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:
  5. Louisiana State Senator Elbert Lee Guillory:
  6. PhD. Economist/Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution (Stanford University) Thomas Sowell:
  7. Sheriff David Clarke, speaking before Congress:

    and responding to a threatening email full of "Uncle Tom" racial slurs:
  8. Liberal Juan Williams defends Republican conservative son Raffi Williams (after Raffi was mistaken for and called a "white dude" by an EBONY Magazine writer!):

    HT for the above to the Mediaite site here.

  9. Alfonzo Rachel (ZoNation commentator):
  10. Niger Innis, of TheTeaParty.Net, who also features in the above video at the 12:22 mark, and in the following video in a TV Interview:
  11. This guy, can't seem to locate his name, but he's great:

    posted by INFORMED TV.
  12. these Chicago activists, reacting to the President's 2014 State of The Union Address:

    [HT to Allan West and Rebel Pundit who also posts the next video...
  13. ... of four more Chicago grassroots activists Paul McKinley, Mark Carter, Joseph Watkins and Harold “Noonie” Ward:
  14. These Chicago citizens are "fed up with President Obama ignoring the black community and placing favor on illegal aliens at the southern border." At the 1:28 mark, one mother says angrily, "MISTER President, you're spending billions of dollars in Texas! But we've got a problem here in Chicago!" Note the young kids and grownups wearing the "I am part of the Manchild Movement" t-shirts. Sounds like an awesome group doing something real and real good:
  15. This young man (handle: xpandergt) speaks of the liberals' attacks on actress Stacey Dash in the last election cycle, her being defended by the conservatives, the Democrats' twitter game of "Negro-spotting", and "How come it's a woman's decision when it comes to abortion, but it's not a woman's decision, especially of color, when it comes to vote?":
  16. David L. Gray offers two reasons why black liberals call black conservatives "Uncle Tom," or "Sambo" or "Aunt Jemima:"
I could go on, there are tons more Youtube videos by other black conservatives, but there are only 24 hours in a day.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Ross Douthat of the New York Times

Pro-Choice Questions, Pro-Life Answers, August 12, 2015.

Long but a good read, especially if you're pro-choice.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

What Do Bill Clinton and Carly Fiorina Have In Common?

* [image of NASDAQ graph modified from the original "Nasdaq Composite dot-com bubble" by Original uploader was Lalala666 at en.wikipedia - Transfered from en.wikipedia. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - ]

(And it isn't that they both dislike Hillary)

Jan. 1993 – Jan. 2001: Bill Clinton's tenure as President of the United States
April 1997 – June 2003: Dotcom Boom / Bubble
Mar. 2000 – Oct. 2002: Dotcom Crash (steepest increase began 1999; steepest decline began 2001, continued through 2003
July 1999 – Feb. 2005: Carly Fiorina’s tenure as HP CEO

Fiorina came to Hewlett-Packard at the start of the Dotcom Boom's steepest increase, and endured all 3 years of the ensuing Dotcom Bust.

Bill Clinton rode the best years—all of them—of the Dotcom Boom, and exited the White House just before the steepest decline in the Dotcom Bust.

I've been saying for years: the so-called "Bill Clinton boom-times" weren't because he was President. The mass media doesn't want you to make that connection, though. They want you to think it was All Bill.

While the media never gave credit to the Dotcom Boom for Bill Clinton's so-called economic success, they also won't give any of the blame to the Dotcom Bust for Carly Fiorina's bad timing to be CEO of HP during its entirety.

But when Fiorina says this, I believe her because I know it's true:

When pressed by the [Des Moines] Register's Lynn Hicks—who noted that HP's stock price had fallen by "65 percent" following the [HP/ Compaq] merger—why Wall Street investors did not reward her performance, Fiorina blamed the tech bubble. "No, actually 50-something," Fiorina corrected, "but if you look at the NASDAQ, that it's only now recovered to its dot-com highs... after 15 years. So, you go check how many tech stocks were down in that period."
Go do just that. You'll find that virtually all of them were down, and by miles, in that period, and for a long time afterward: "While the [NASDAQ Composite] index gradually recovered since then, it did not trade for more than half of its peak value until May 2007."

Should Fiorina's five (count 'em) CEO successors and the Board of Directors now at HP be held over the fire for not making its stock bounce back to its peak levels for the past fifteen years?

While HP stock outperformed the market in Fiorina's early years there (during the Dotcom Boom), the company's shares fell (with the Dotcom Bust) and stayed subpar the rest of her time there. Just like most other high-tech companies, even ones that survived the Dotcom Bust. In that same crash, for example, Amazon saw its stock go from $107 per share to $7. That's nothing: Microstrategy's went from $3,500 per share to $4.

This is an era of which I am intimately aware. I lived through that, directly. If you didn't, if you weren't directly involved in high-tech in some way, you really don't understand what that boom and bust were really all about, from the business side, the insider side, the worker's side.

It was utterly insane.

I remember going to tech conferences with thousands of dotcom companies hawking their products. Getting t-shirts, coffee mugs, branded items galore, to remember them by. It was like one massive high-tech carnival.

Two of my prized mementos are the T-shirt and coffee mug from a dotcom startup called "". It was a "gripe about your boss" website, long since defunct. But then, the paraphernalia went like hotcakes.

Do you remember F*** I do. They were the successful (for a time) version of, long before today's social media sites appeared. It was huge back then. Everyone read it; everyone feared their company would be next on the website.

For the uninitiated, read about F*** Read some of these stories to really get a sense of what the Bust did, to companies, to people, to money, in 66 accounts of "What was Silicon Valley like after the bubble burst in the early 2000s?"

There was a stratospheric, frantic euphoria that perhaps led one high-level Vice President to publicly skewer people and cuss on an online site he thought non-tech-folks didn't even know about (and no, it wasn't Donald Trump), not knowing or caring that he could be identified as the high-level, high-profile Veep he was. That same VP became President of his Top-15, high-flying tech firm, only to (mis)lead it to ruin, fire 20% of its workers, have to sell off to a successful company, and be forced out himself.

Everyone and almost everything high-tech went from arrogantly soaring to crashing and burning, and almost in the blink of an eye.

Fiorina here refers to the ill-fated but now well-regarded 2002 HP merger with Compaq, which had just four years before digested bad acquisitions Tandem Computer and Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), two large-footprint computer manufacturers both on the downhill slide.

Remember 2002: the steepest decline of the bust had just started a year before, by some measures. So her judgment may have been off, buying Compaq and at the precise time when hunkering down, not acquiring anyone, might have been the better choice.

At least Fiorina didn't make this list, Business Insider's "The 15 Worst CEOs In American History:"

"Eckard Pfeiffer ruined Compaq, one of the original PC companies, and for years one of the most successful. Compaq was started in 1982 with a $3,000 investment from its three founders. That same year, the company released the first commercially available portable computer, the father of the laptop. In 1984, the company released its first desktop, arguably making it the PC company with the broadest product line of any in the world. In 1989, Compaq moved into the low-end server market and pushed IBM and Packard Bell out. By the late 1990s Compaq would have been better off focusing on the PC and server markets. Unfortunately, Eckard Pfeiffer, the company’s CEO from 1991 to 1998, had plans to greatly expand the company’s businesses and sales. In 1997, he bought Tandem, a manufacturer of high-end servers. He then purchased DEC, the leading mid-frame computer company, in 1998. In both Tandem and DEC, Pfeiffer strayed from Compaq’s core business, buying high-end brands that were not only expensive but were in the process of becoming obsolete. Notably, Pfeiffer was unaware of the value of one of DEC’s assets, Altavista, the original search engine and the predecessor to Google and Yahoo!" [emphasis this author]
But for all the Walter Hewlett commentary about "the HP Way" and the HP traditions being sacrosanct (read CNN's hatchet-job if you can stomach it),
"Fiorina, 60, did try to restructure HP and execute a mega-merger with Compaq, which set off a bloody proxy fight, pitting her against Walter Hewlett, son of company co-founder Bill Hewlett. She ended up laying off thousands of employees and tried to push the company’s staid culture forward into the Internet era. It’s neither surprising nor conclusive that a woman CEO in those circumstances would be targeted with unattributed, qualitative criticism." [emphasis this author]
Staid culture? The backward, non-Internet era? I know about those. Today's 20-and-30-somethings don't, really. I know firsthand about those kinds of high-tech companies. Why do you think Tandem and DEC were on the way to Outsville?

Could it be that Fiorina saw what happened to those companies who had protected the bloated status-quo, the "Our Way" culture, all the way into the ground? Could it be she was trying to keep HP from becoming another one of the gutted, sold-off-pieces-parts-in-fire-sales dinosaur skeletons?

I saw companies like those, beginning in 1991-1992, start protecting middle management's phoney-baloney marketing jobs (they had tens of thousands of them, among them) and instead whittled away at those in the trenches working at least in part on commissions—the sales force, the systems engineers, the consultants, all those actually bringing in the sales of the products—while the fat, middle-section of the firm, the managers and VPs, ducked and ran for cover from one useless, six-figure, self-justified, middle-management job to another, to another, to another, after failing in each one before.

Kind of like what this company did, only about eighteen years later.

Big, bloated, "Our Way" companies like HP, DEC, Tandem and others had gobs of fat they could have eliminated in the early to mid-90's, without damaging the growth of the companies in all facets. That's what CEOs' jobs are, to increase viability, sustainability, sales, profits, cut fat if necessary. But fat (staid, overgrown, job duplication), dumb (non-Internet), happy (everyone keeps their job for life, no matter what) was "Our Way" back then for several high-tech firms.

Perhaps Fiorina decided HP wasn't going to go "Their Way." Perhaps she wasn't successful at it, but perhaps she was, in the long view, as some have come around to write:

"It’s true that HP was flagging when Fiorina came on board. And you can find a few Carly defenders out there: Bob Knowling, who was on HP's board of directors during Fiorina's tenure recently told CNN that, 'Contrary to what has been written in terms of a lot of negative things, she did what she was hired to do and that was to lead a transformation.' Another person close to the company says: 'She certainly does not deserve all the blame, there is plenty to go around, and you could argue that no one could have saved HP from its decline from a once great company.'
Yahoo Finance also doesn't say that Fiorina was responsible for "tens of thousands" of lay-offs, as Mother Jones and other liberal sources have said. And doesn't really say exactly, but implies it could be minor numbers laid off, or it even could be a net gain, in the aggregate:
"According to SEC filings, HP had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. That comes to a total of 148,100 workers. In 2005, just after her departure, HP's worldwide workforce reached 150,000. That includes acquiring some other companies, the Los Angeles Times reported."
Were those later acquisitions immediately following her departure, or long after, and how large were they in terms of employees? Yahoo doesn’t give the LA Times link, and doesn't quote them as saying either. This makes me wonder if it isn't so damning to Fiorina, after all, because if it was, they'd have told us about it.

Still, other sites have quoted SEC filings listed at around 30,000 layoffs. Certainly if you or I were one of those 30,000, we'd be rightfully upset. I can only cite my exposure to the bloatedness and job duplications those companies had allowed themselves to effect by the early/mid 90s, and the ludicrousness of watching thousands of people in six-figure, middle management jobs jetting around on fat expense accounts, trying to justify unjustifiable jobs.

If anyone has ever been outraged by the 1%-ers, you should also be outraged about capitalists creating tens of thousands of these jobs that should never have been filled in the first place. And then not be so upset if those jobs were among the 30,000 eliminated.

The point to this discussion is: Don't believe what sound-bites Big Media chooses to show you. Dig. Dig deeper. Ask around. Consider the context of that era. It was bizarro to say the least.

And for Fiorina to even attempt to make a difference, to transform a company for the better, well, isn't that what half of you voted for this past two Presidential terms? Someone completely untested and unaccomplished really, at anything—never mind leading a Fortune 500 company or division—who said he'd "transform the country"? How well do you like what he's done so far? Not much:'s Average of seven major polls as of August 12, 2015: 49.3% disapprove, 45.4% approve, with five of the seven disapproving by 3 to 9 points, and the Fox News one a tie!

So why wouldn't you also vote for someone who spent two years as Chairman of the CIA's External Advisory Board and who once said "I have met Vladimir Putin [in a 45-minute private, one-on-one meeting], and I know his ambition will not be detoured by a gimmicky, red reset button.”

Or four successful years as President of the largest division of Lucent Technologies, whose "$3 billion offering was the biggest, most successful IPO in U.S. history"?

Or a Senior Vice President at AT&T chosen from among the many capable men there to spin off Western Electric and Bell Labs into that new company (Lucent) and "direct the strategy, orchestrate the IPO, and lead the search for a name and a corporate image"?

Who, in 1998, was Fortune Magazine's "No. 1 on its first-ever list of the Most Powerful Women in Business"? Who has her MS degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management, plus an MBA from University of Maryland?

And did I mention: a breast cancer survivor, after being diagnosed and fighting it while running for the 2010 Senate seat occupied by uber-liberal Barbara Boxer in uber-blue-state California?

Maybe she didn't happen to be at HP at the right time (smack dab in the entire Dotcom Crash), but there are several other successes under her belt. She's worth a serious, unbiased look.

Unless of course, you have this "War on Women" thing going on.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

G.N.P. Dream Team - First Revision

I'm going to update from time to time my Dream Team concept from this post of eight months ago, with changes as debates and time go by. I assure you it's a work in progress.

I'd love to see the best of the best of them recruited into a powerful team, to create the most potently smart and effective White House Cabinet, perhaps ever.

Imagine the nationwide sound of jaws dropping you'd hear for this:

President: Marco Rubio
Vice President: Carly Fiorina
Secretary of State: Condi Rice or Rob Portman
Secretary of the Treasury: Paul Ryan
Secretary of Defense: Eric Edelman
Attorney General: Kelly Ayotte
Secretary of Commerce:Mitt Romney
Secretary of Labor: Chris Christie
Secretary of Health and Human Services: Dr. Ben Carson
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Nikki Haley
Secretary of Transportation: John Kasich
Secretary of Energy: Bobby Jindal or Susana Martinez
Secretary of Education: Louisiana State Senator Elbert Lee Guillory
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Lt. Colonel Allan West (US Army, Ret)
Secretary of Homeland Security: Jeb Bush
Secretary of the Interior: Scott Walker
Secretary of Agriculture: Chuck Conner, President/CEO, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; former deputy secretary of Agriculture under George W. Bush

So what about that as The "Grand New Party" Team for the nation?

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Wednesday, March 04, 2015

How The Cross Taunts ISIS, an article by Robert Barron

In the wake of the executions [of twenty one Coptic Christians], ISIS released a gruesome video entitled "A Message in Blood to the Nation of the Cross." I suppose that for the ISIS murderers the reference to "the Nation of the Cross" had little sense beyond a generic designation for Christianity...

In the time of Jesus, the cross was a brutal and very effective sign of Roman power. Imperial authorities effectively said, "If you cross us (pun intended), we will affix you to a dreadful instrument of torture and leave you to writhe in agonizing, literally excruciating (ex cruce, from the cross) pain until you die. Then we will make sure that your body hangs on that gibbet until it is eaten away by scavenging animals."

The cross was, basically, state-sponsored terrorism, and it did indeed terrify people...the cross [Christ died upon] meant the victory of the world, and the annihilation of Jesus and what he stood for.

And this is why it is surpassing strange that one of the earliest Apostles and missionaries of the Christian religion could write, "I preach one thing, Christ and him crucified!" How could Paul -- the passage is taken from his first letter to the Corinthians -- possibly present the dreadful cross as the centerpiece of his proclamation? He could do so only because he knew that God had raised the crucified Jesus from the dead, proving thereby that God's love and forgiveness are greater than anything in the world. This is why his exaltation of the cross is a sort of taunt to Rome and all of its brutal descendants down through the ages: "You think that scares us? God has conquered that!" And this is why, to this day, Christians boldly hold up an image of the humiliated, tortured Jesus to the world. What they are saying is, "We are not afraid."

Robert Barron, founder of the global ministry, Word on Fire, and the Rector/President of Mundelein Seminary, in his article "How the Cross Taunts ISIS," Feb. 27, 2015

Woodcarving by sculptor A. Vonn Hartung, image found at this website

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Funny How Fiction Is So Often Believed As Fact

Think The DaVinci Code. The Bridges of Madison County. The Celestine Prophecy (which, years ago, I first bought into, hook line and sinker, till I realized it was just. a. novel).

Much of the impetus to smear the Vatican regarding World War II came, appropriately enough, from a work of fiction—a stage play called The Deputy, written after the War by a little-known German Protestant playwright named Rolf Hochhuth.

The play appeared in 1963, and it painted a portrait of a pope too timid to speak out publicly against the Nazis. Ironically, even Hochhuth admitted that Pius XII was materially very active in support of the Jews. Historian Robert Graham explains: "Playwright Rolf Hochhuth criticized the Pontiff for his (alleged) silence, but even he admitted that, on the level of action, Pius XII generously aided the Jews to the best of his ability. Today, after a quarter-century of the arbitrary and one-sided presentation offered the public, the word ‘silence’ has taken on a much wider connotation. It stands also for ‘indifference,’ ‘apathy,’ ‘inaction,’ and, implicitly, for anti-Semitism."

Hochhuth’s fictional image of a silent (though active) pope has been transformed by the anti-Catholic rumor mill into the image of a silent and inactive pope—and by some even into an actively pro-Nazi monster. If there were any truth to the charge that Pius XII was silent, the silence would not have been out of moral cowardice in the face of the Nazis, but because the Pope was waging a subversive, clandestine war against them in an attempt to save Jews.

"The need to refrain from provocative public statements at such delicate moments was fully recognized in Jewish circles. It was in fact the basic rule of all those agencies in wartime Europe who keenly felt the duty to do all that was possible for the victims of Nazi atrocities and in particular for the Jews in proximate danger of deportation to ‘an unknown destination.’ "[9] The negative consequences of speaking out strongly were only too well known.

Imagine Oskar Shindler, Raoul Wallenberg, Irena Sendler, and all the people who helped shield Jews during that time, speaking out, denouncing the Nazis, "not remaining silent"? Imagine how long they would have lasted, to continue shielding the Jews?

And before anyone thinks that the Nazis would never have taken out a Pope who "didn't remain silent" against them, think again. It's kind of a, you know, history, with Catholics.

Jimmy Akin is one smart, level-headed cookie and not only knows his Catholic history but explains it in a non-"priestspeak," non-talking-down manner. This is a long but well-documented article.

If you are interested, go watch any of his videos on that website. He answers many of the challenges and valid questions that even good Catholics have. (He's the one with the red beard.)

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Friday, February 13, 2015

Educating at PowerLine and NRO

All job growth in U.S. since 2007 has gone to foreign-born workers. Go watch the video on that link, worth the time:
Senator Jeff Sessions talks about the American job crisis and how indiscriminate immigration is costing America’s tech workers jobs. He cites the case of Southern California Edison, which laid off its IT staff and replaced them with imported visa holders from India–whom the Americans on the way out the door were required to train.

Another great article about Eric Holder, Political Animal-in-Sheep's-Clothing

Two Weeks In Pictures.

The Brute-Force Left: The Left lost the argument, but is determined to win the fight. By Kevin D. Williamson:

...bureaucracies do not have the collective cognitive firepower to replace markets, or even to intelligently guide them. From the Soviet five-year plans to Obamacare, all central-planning exercises begin in hubris and end in chaos.

And when the chaos comes, the natural thing to do — the imperative thing — is: find someone to blame. The planners and schemers are intellectually incapable of dealing seriously with the fact that the project that they have set for themselves — substituting their own judgment for that of the billions of better-informed parties in the market and coming up with superior outcomes — is an impossible one. But once you’ve accepted real limits on what planning can do — on what government can do — then you have at some level essentially surrendered to conservatism.

And that means that somebody, somewhere, must be a racist.
“А у вас негров линчуют” is a bitter Soviet-era punch line meaning, roughly, “But in your country they lynch Negroes.” There were a million Cold War variations on the joke: The Soviet farm minister meets his U.S. counterpart, who inquires about whether the heroic Soviet farmers are meeting their five-year plans. Asked about each crop in turn, the Soviet minister is forced to sheepishly admit that they are woefully behind on every goal, and then demands: “But what about the blacks in the South?” A U.S. car salesman asks a Soviet counterpart how many months the typical Soviet citizen must work to purchase an entry-level car, and the Ruskie answers: “In your country, you lynch Negroes.”

When Matt Yglesias says he wants to “lay down a marker and say once again that Obamacare implementation is going to be a huge political success,” and that doesn’t happen, what happens next? Another chorus of “The Tea Party Is Racist!” from Ezra Klein, or from whomever.
The [Woodrow] Wilsonian vision of domestic governance through expertise and fiat quickly devolved into a reality of goon squads, political persecution, crushing of dissent with formal and informal political violence, politicization of law enforcement, etc. The Occupy bomb-throwers and the imbecile hooligans committing arson to prove that “black lives matter” are not quite the American Protective League, but they’re of a piece with it. In the Wilson years, we had politicized police; in the Obama years, we have a weaponized IRS . . . and Justice Department, and police unions, and jailers’ unions. The Wilson-era progressives tried to use the Sedition Act to shut down critics of the great progressive. In our time, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Harry Reid want to throw people in prison for unpopular political activism of which they disapprove. The grand plans of 2009 are coming unraveled, as grand plans do, and so the Left grows ever more naked in its coercion. On the official side of the spectrum, you have Senate Democrats voting to repeal the First Amendment so that they can suppress political criticism...
The Left’s last big idea was Communism. When Lenin turned out to be the god who failed, the Left undertook wide exploration for another grand unifying idea: environmentalism, multiculturalism, economic inequality, atheism, feminism, etc. What it ended up with was an enemies’ list.

That and a taste for brute force.

The enthusiasm for coercion and the substitution of enemies for ideas — Christians, white men, Israel, “the 1 percent,” the Koch brothers, take your pick — together form the basis for understanding the Left’s current convulsions. The call to imprison people with unapproved ideas about global warming, the Senate Democrats’ vote to repeal the First Amendment, the Ferguson-inspired riots, the picayune political correctness and thought-policing that annoys Jonathan Chait, the IRS’s persecution of conservative political groups, Barack Obama’s White House enemies’ list, the casual violence against conservatives on college campuses and the Left’s instinctive defense of that violence — these are not separate phenomena but part of a single phenomenon.

Yes, Virginia, you read that right: The Democrats voted "to repeal the Heart of the First Amendment", yes, Free Speech. This was in September, before some of these were voted out of office, but "Every Senate Democrat–every one, a 54-vote majority–voted for First Amendment repeal." Go see the list of names at that link. And don't forget.
Note that under the amendment, Congress could both “regulate” and “set reasonable limits on” raising and spending money on elections. The power to “regulate” is not qualified by any other term of the amendment except Section 3, which means that a Democratic Congress would have the power to regulate campaign spending by prohibiting all spending on behalf of Republican candidates, or in opposition to Democratic candidates. Ridiculous! you might say–that would obviously be unconstitutional. Not any more it wouldn’t be; not if the Democrats get their way. The First Amendment would be repealed as it relates to politics.
Powerline goes on to quote the above-mentioned Kevin Williamson at NRO:
Harry Reid’s war on the First Amendment [is] hardly [an] isolated episode...The same Texas prosecutor behind the indictments of Governor Perry and Mr. Hall was also behind the indictments of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Representative Tom DeLay, both of which ultimately were laughed out of court. The point of these indictments is not to obtain convictions; the prosecutor did not even present a case against Senator Hutchison when the matter came to trial. And the point of the Ohio Inquisition was never to achieve a legal victory against the Susan B. Anthony List: The point was to bully the group, and the billboard company, into remaining silent and forgoing criticism of Democratic candidates. In that, the censors were successful: SBA List won in court, but those billboards never went up.

Likewise, the point of indicting Governor Perry and Mr. Hall is not to send either man to jail, but to harass them, to bully them, to bankrupt them if possible, and to keep them from functioning as effective critics of entrenched Democratic political interests.

The only thing stopping federal authorities from suffocating free speech — not only by independent groups such as the SBA List, but by individuals, trade groups, National Review, and the New York Times — is the First Amendment.

And Harry Reid wants to gut it. Figure out why that is and you’ll know everything you need to know about the Democratic party, which with each passing day functions less and less like a political party and more like a crime syndicate.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Scott Walker: Having a Chance?

Russ Smith, a sometime Wall Street Journal contributor, makes somewhat of a case for Scott Walker:
I think the reason why [left-leaning, Hillary-loving The Daily Beast's] Tomasky—soon to be followed by less blatantly biased journalists—is bashing Walker as if he’s a joke candidate like Donald Trump, Al Sharpton or Herman Cain, is because if the Governor prevails in the primaries he has a real shot of winning...
Yet Walker’s biggest attribute, which is barely acknowledged by the media in a campaign environment that’s income inequality non-stop, is that he’s a middle-class pol who hasn’t enriched himself by exorbitant speaking fees or board directorships. Think of multimillionaire Hillary Clinton (and the high-rolling Wall Street/Hollywood donors in her corner) trying to explain how she’s one of the “regular folks” who, borrowing from her husband, “feels their pain.” Walker isn’t charismatic (nor is Hillary), but that might not matter in this post-Obama cycle. Walker’s a union-buster, which is a popular stance in most of the country—and it’s not as if any Republican will attract union voters anyway. Walker, like all the GOP candidates, is anti-Obamacare, which also won’t hurt him.
I do believe the left-leaning media bashes those Republican hopefuls who might resonate the best with us common folk, in hopes of duping us into thinking that candidate couldn't possibly win, all while practically nominating the one actually most likely to fail against the Democrat favorite, so they can tear him/her to shreds once nominated.

The latter happened with Romney. The press couldn't wait to go to town on his wealthy-businessman-rapes-the-worker-thinks-women-belong-in-binders, media-fabricated persona. And Romney, for all his business savvy and capability, wasn't prepared for it. He wasn't able to fend it off.

It happened with McCain. Old-white-guy-war-hero-out-of-touch-with-people-of-color. Bam. The liberal media spoke of him relentlessly as the only Republican who could win, then once he was the candidate, they demolished him too.

The media was scared to death (still is) of Sarah Palin, hence they sent teams of lawyers to Alaska to dig up any dirt they could fabricate and thus hounded her out of the Governor's office. McCain did her a great disservice by throwing her into the ring with only a weekend's prep on foreign affairs, national affairs, anything. No United-States-Governor-then-Presidential-candidate since Reagan has been savvy enough out of the gate on international affairs. Had Palin been briefed over months, instead of three days, the media would have hated her even more than they did and do still, because she wouldn't have made the mistakes she made. (INTERESTING NOTE: when Biden, Obama or Hillary says it, they "misspeak" or "exaggerate"; when Palin said it, it was the media that "exaggerated" her words and those exaggerations went viral on Saturday Night Live AND on every liberal "news" outlet times 100)

Initial news stories in the last few months all seem to have declared Jeb Bush the GOP's only great hope. Do I sense a pattern here? Or do I? Are the media crowning Bush to sway our choice, only to soundly thrash him into the ground once he's nominated too?

And the million-dollar question: are you gonna let them?

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Connecticut Allows Obamacare Members Opt-Outs of Paying For Others' Abortions

I wonder if this applies to anyone in Connecticut who signs up for ObamaCare? It looks like you have to ask specifically for the plan(s?) that don't include abortion coverage. I'd be interested to know, if anyone looks to sign up for one, if the premiums/out-of-pocket/deductible costs are different (the premiums should be lower) when compared to abortion-covering plans...
Nov. 2014, BRIDGEPORT, Conn. – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing a Connecticut pro-life family voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit against federal and state officials Wednesday after the addition of Obamacare plan options that, for the first time in Connecticut, will not require participants to pay for others’ elective abortions. Despite the Connecticut change, many American families are still being forced to pay hidden abortion surcharges.
Federal law forbids taxpayer subsidies for elective abortions; however, the Affordable Care Act requires every exchange plan that includes abortion to collect a separate fee that is used exclusively to pay for abortions. The ACA further forbids disclosure of the abortion surcharge to customers.

The Connecticut state health exchange only offered plans that include abortion coverage, and thus every plan on the exchange required the hidden abortion surcharge. While plans not requiring the abortion surcharge will now be available in Connecticut, many families in Connecticut and elsewhere are unaware that a portion of their premium is being used to pay solely for abortions.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Sunday, February 08, 2015

Even Andrea Mitchell Thinks Obama Went Too Far

"You don't use the word Crusades, number one, in any context right now," Mitchell said on NBC's Meet the Press today. "It's just it's too fraught. And the week after a pilot is burned alive, in a video shown, you don't lean over backwards to be philosophical about the sins of the fathers. You have to deal with the issue that's in front of you or don't deal with it at all...He's the president, and you can't really go back to 1095."

"Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish history at Emory University, said the president’s remarks seemed to be an attempt to avoid alienating Muslims by blaming their religion for groups like ISIS.

"She said the remarks at the prayer breakfast will rightly bolster critics who insist that Mr. Obama should simply say that the United States is at war with Islam.

'He has bent over backwards to try to separate this from Islam,' Ms. Lipstadt said. 'Sometimes people try to keep an open mind. And when you have too open a mind, your brains can fall out.'"

The President showed his complete ignorance of real history:

"Two hundred years of Crusades? How about 14 centuries of jihad?...Responding to the conquest of Christianity’s birthplace and jihad’s westward thrust, the Crusades were an effort not at imperial conquest but at reclamation... try reading a book or two on the subject. Meanwhile, here’s a starter course in the vast tragedy jihad has posed for every civilization it’s touched for the past 14 centuries — while the Crusades mythologized by Islam’s apologists were a two-century blip whose only practical legacies are a few ruined castles... the southeastern Balkans gained their freedom only on the eve of the First World War, after suffering atrocities worse than those perpetrated today by the Islamic State terrorists (do visit the tower made of Christian skulls the next time you’re in the Serbian city of Nis).

"And the Inquisition? Much of it was inexcusable. But all the centuries of the notorious 'Spanish Inquisition' put to death fewer human beings than jihadis killed last year. And the Inquisition elsewhere never remotely approximated the appetite for blood of the Islamic State’s cadres. The Church’s past has blemishes aplenty, such as the merciless suppression of the Albigensians and Hussites, but Christianity has made some progress since the Middle Ages.

"Our president, of course, doesn’t want to hear it."

"There is no high horse. Christians are not climbing on it. And no one has claimed religious violence is unique. The whole line of thought is not so much a straw man as the logical equivalent of an entire thatched roof of those stuffed puppets.

"[Obama] also called up slavery as being done, by some, in the name of Christ, as if the practice owed something very particular to Christian belief, ignoring that the ignominy of slave-trading has been practiced since ancient days by peoples of varying faiths, to the everlasting shame of them all.

"The Americans, to their equally everlasting credit, fought a civil war and ended slavery, and it was the greatest of presidents, and the country’s greatest true moralist, who conducted that war.
"In his impulse to absolve Islam, [Obama] offers a rebuke to Christianity. He enfolds the most extreme acts of ISIS and other branches of radical Islam into a story of Christian hypocrisy. He goes back a thousand years to indict, at least partially, Christianity, and ignores yesterday in order to maintain that all of Islam is peaceful.

"There have been many sins committed by many faiths, and there are tragedies even now underway. But it is a very displaced analysis that seeks to offer corrections to Christianity during a period of Islamic turmoil, and seeks out forgotten sins to ignore those so very close to mind."

When is Obama going to stop pretending he's a Christian?

And all this, while the United States flails in every single area of foreign policy. Even Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, not known for being a conservative/right-side pundit, thinks "an overall national security strategy doesn't really seem to exist in the Obama administration right now."

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Traducir todo esto en español, o cualquier otro idioma, copiar las palabras, y luego ir aquí y pegarlo en el cuadro en el lado izquierdo de la página, a continuación, haga clic en el idioma que desee en el lado derecho de la página y haga clic en el derecha botón azul para traducir.

NATIONAL REVIEW Online's The Corner ~ Kathryn Jean Lopez links to Ap blog, 1/22/07

Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle: Banno On Boxer and the Illegal Abortion Deaths Urban Legend

San Diego Union Tribune: more Boxer Urban-Legend-Debunk coverage

Ellen Goodman retraction impetus: Aa blog initiates The Straight Dope coverage...and is listed in National Review Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru's book The Party of Death, p. 255, Chap. 3 Endnote #11,   4/2006

NY Daily News: "Atheist's Site Is All The Rave

"After Abortion, by Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, two women who had abortions in the 1970s, ...tries to avoid the political tug-of-war that tends to come with this turf. They concentrate instead on discussing the troubling personal effects of abortion on the mothers." ~ Eric Scheske, Godspy contributing editor, in NC Register's "Signs of Life in the Blogosphere", 2/2006

"Godbloggers could, in the best of worlds, become the new apologists...[including] laymen with day jobs: Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, for instance, at the blog After Abortion..."~ Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard online editor, in First Things's "God on the Internet", 12/2005

Amy Welborn, at BeliefNet, links to AfterAbortion blog's Crime & Abortion Series

Catholic News Service: Silent counterprotest at the March For Choice

COMMENTING   Also see Harris Protocol. Correspondence is bloggable unless requested otherwise.
E-mail                Joy

Who We Are        Hiatus Interruptus
NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom

4,800 confidential groups helping now.

We are too. Here are folks who can help:

Feeling Really Bad?: Call
1-800-SUICIDE (784-2433)
& a friend, right now.

Suicide Hope Lines: U.S.A. (by state) or call 1-800-Suicide (784-2433)

Suicide Help - Canada: "If you can't find a crisis centre near you, any of the 24-hour tollfree numbers in your province will be able to help."

UK, ROI: 08457 90 90 90 ,

Suicide Helplines in over 40 other countries

George & Linda Zallie, Stacy's parents, "assisting women who made the difficult choice of ending their pregnancy in finding nonjudgmental help" for suicidal feelings.

For immediate help, call tollfree, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: national, confidential, post-abortion-recovery hotlines:
1-877-HOPE-4-ME or
1-866-482-5433 or

...more help below...

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion...[many are] aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and [do] not doubt that it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace...You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child..."

Hope after Abortion
Ideas for Healing
Rachel's Vineyard Retreats
(non-Christians, even non-religious do attend; they also have interdenominational retreats designed expressly for people of any religion or no religion)
Abortion Recovery
"Entering Canaan" - a ministry of reverence for women and men who suffer following an abortion
Lumina - Hope & Healing After Abortion
Option Line
Books that help
(includes non-religious Post Abortion recovery books)
In Our Midst
For MEN - Resources List
     ** UPDATED 2015 **

Message boards, chat rooms &
   e-groups ** UPDATED 2015 **

Regional & local resources
         ** UPDATED 2015 **

Silent No More Awareness Campaign
After Abortion
Welcome! Our sidebar continues at great length, just below the "MORE HILLARY BACKPEDALS" section, with many links to helpful, respect-life folks of all shapes, sizes, minds & creeds, science, research, stories & just.plain.stuff. Just text-search or browse. But grab a cup of Joe first.

FULL-SEARCH AbortionPundit:

Powered by


Why NOT Hillary?

  1. Abortion Rhetoric Backpedal
  2. Chicago Tribune: "Our hero: Hillary Clinton, the last truth bender"
  3. Rapper Timbaland's $800K and "Ho's" lyrics
  4. Criminal "fugitive", media-ignored Hsu
  5. $5K per Kid
  6. Criminal Berger
  7. "I remember landing under sniper fire...we just ran with our heads down."...
  8. ...and other false claims on her Foreign Policy "chops"

The sidebar continues...

(Below, 320-Links Sidebar Reorg In Progress: Thank You For Your Patience)



Obama On Abortion: A Summary 1990-2009

1) Obama Is 2nd-Highest-Paid Politician by Fannie Mae, Taking $126,346 in only 4 years as Senator; Now Derides GOP/Bush for Allowing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac To Do Business, When It Was Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton & Jimmy Carter Who Passed The Law Requiring Fannie & Freddie To Give Out Bad Subprime Loans To Those Who Couldn't Afford Them, Which Caused The Entire Financial Meltdown … 2) Jim Johnson (Obama VEEP vetter and former Fannie Mae executive who made millions there) Backpedal … 3) Obama's hiring, connection, support of ACORN, which supported that very law and whose staff have been involved in voter fraud … 4) Rezko's Favor A "Boneheaded" Mistake … 5) Jeremiah Wright Backpedal … 6) Fr. Michael Fleger Backpedal … 7) NAFTA Backpedal … 8) Campaign Financing Backpedal … 9) Mr. "Negotiates-With-Terrorist-States" … 10) Bittergate … 11) Hamas' Chief Political Adviser Hopes BO Will Win Election … 12) Banning Handguns Backpedal … 13) Who Exactly Are "The Rich" He's Going to Sock it to? … 14) Flag Pin Backpedal … 15) Once Open to School Vouchers That Work, Now Deadset Against … 16) Now OK with residual force in Iraq...up to 50,000 troops. … 17) First voted against a law protecting babies who survive an abortion procedure, then lied saying he didn't, then finally forced to admit that he did vote to deny such born babies protection. 18) … "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." ~ MO

Region-specific blogs of note: Washington, Midwest, California, Connecticut, Canada (adding as we get the time)


A 3-D Single Mom in the Making

ISBN # 1-58736-024-1

a novel by Deirdre Weaver

"A story for a special audience
who doesn't mind hearing and
healing from the truth."

author of But I Didn't Want a Divorce

Midwest Book Review:

"In her very highly recommended book, Loosely-Braided Fog: A 3-D Single Mom In The Making, Deirdre Weaver blends fact with fiction in a totally engaging read that takes us on an insightful, entertaining, informative, and compelling story of relationship decision making and mistakes; single-parenting moments; and "re-entry dating" which confront all women who find themselves being single parents in the world today. Although a novel, Loosely-Braided Fog is one of those much appreciated works that is more informative, accessible, and revealing than any non-fiction study or essay could ever hope to be about the perils, pitfalls, and rewards of single parenthood."

Atom Site Feed

Powered by Blogger

FREEDOM OF RELIGION and FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS NOTICES: From its inception in 2005 forward, the postings on this site are the co-bloggers' own personal opinions, observations and research, do not reflect or represent the views of any employer(s), past, present or future, nor do/will they relate in any manner to said employer(s) or their businesses at any point in time. The writings expressed herein are protected expression by virtue of the First Amendment of the United States of America and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Articles 18 and 19, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948:

1) The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons."

2) Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948, states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

3) Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of the physical, emotional, social and spiritual negative effects of abortion on women, men and families, and to provide resources for help and information to anyone experiencing these effects or trying to help those who are. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

"COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This weblog is Copyright © 2005 - 2015 - Annie Banno - All Rights Reserved. "Skews" Reporting ™ is a trademark of Annie Banno Copyright © 2004 - 2015. All Rights Reserved. All original content by the weblog author(s) is protected by copyright(s). This includes writings, artwork, photographs, and other forms of authorship protected by current U.S. Copyright Law, especially as described in Sections 102(a) and 103. PERMISSION GRANTED FOR UNLIMITED BUT NON-COMMERCIAL AND ONLY RESPECTING-ALL-HUMAN-LIFE USE. CREDIT REQUIRED. No rights in any copyrighted material, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, may be transferred in the absence of a written agreement that is the product of the parties' negotiations, fully approved by independent counsel retained by the author(s) and formally executed with manual signatures by all parties to the agreement pursuant to the statutory requirements of Section 204(a) of current U.S. Copyright Law, Federal Copyright Act of 1976, appendices and provisions."

Since 6/13/2005