REAL, CONFIDENTIAL, FREE, NON-JUDGMENTAL HELP TO AVOID ABORTION, FROM MANY PLACES:
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.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

CRIME and ABORTION - The 4th of the 5-Part Series


This is the fourth in a five-part series, continued from original post, please comment there, thanks. Upcoming topics include how five renowned Ph.D. criminologists/economists can't all be wrong and how Freakonomics author Steven Levitt ignored another major factor boosting crime, one which may have been a result of legalized abortion...

Part One
Part Two
Part Three


"...some details are misreported, misexplained, misread and/or misanalyzed."

IV. MISANALYZED

B. EXTRA! CRIME SPIKES AFTER ROE EFFECT SHOULD HAVE LOWERED IT!
(continued)

3) The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) shows that, after spiking in 1980 (to 596.6) parallel with the overall crime rate, the violent crime rate then jumped even more drastically, surpassing 1980's rate every year from 1986 through 1997, when it was 610.8. The rate hit an all-time high of 758.1 per 100,000 population in 1991.

In 1991, there were 2 million fewer potential criminals aged 18 through 21. In 1996 and 1997, there were 7.9 and 9.4 million fewer potential criminals aged 18 to 27, respectively. Had abortion truly affected crime rates as presumed, the overall and violent crime rates in 1991, '96 and '97 should have decreased accordingly but clearly didn't.

4) Though the murder rate did decline since 1991, it had spiked in 1991 (from under 9 per 100,000 population between 1984-’89) to a high of 10.6 (higher than Great Depression levels), despite having 2 million fewer potential criminals aged 18 through 21 (only 745,000 of which would have been 18). The rate remained above 9 from 1989 through 1994, years when there were 700,000 and 5.2 million fewer 18 to 24 year olds, respectively, thanks to legalized abortion.

Murder in small cities in some years also contradicts the abortion/crime theory:
"[A] comparison of the data from 2002 and 2003 showed increases in the number of murders in all other population groups labeled city. Cities with 100,000 to 249,999 [Table 12, Group II] inhabitants experienced an increase in murders of 6.8 percent…The 2-year trend data indicated that the number of murders in cities with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants increased 20.0 percent from 2002 to 2003…[Table 12, Group VI]"
There were 24,549,216 people in "Group II" cities, and 19,422,822 in "Group VI" cities in 2003. That’s 8.4 percent and 6.7 percent of the total 2003 population (290,809,777), respectively.

Due to Roe, the nation had a total of 18.8 million fewer 18 to 33 year olds in 2003.

Thus Group II cities (100,000 to 249,999 people) shared a total reduction of 1.6 million fewer potential criminals that year due to legalized abortion—but also a single-year murder rate increase of 6.8 percent. Another 1.3 million fewer lived among all Group VI cities (under 10,000) where the murder rate jumped 20 percent that year.

Of course, the "missing persons" count is a cumulative effect and the murder rate jumps are single-year incidences, but the cumulative effect is notable. Why?

Each "big abortion year" (1.5 million or more annually) of 1980 through 1992 theoretically most cut criminal-age population starting in the subsequent 16-18 years. If abortion were even partly responsible for reducing crime, crime's decline should be pronounced and steady from 1996 through 2002 (technically we'd track through this 2010)—when there were respectively between 10.9 million and 20.4 million fewer people aged 16 through 26.

Because "the big abortion years" most decreased the criminal-age population in the 1996-2002 period, 2003 should have been a banner year in the "war on crime" everywhere, but it wasn't.

5) Also while "the big abortion years" most decreased 1996-2002 criminal-age populations, the drug arrest rate peaked in the consecutive years 1995, 1996 and 1997 (up from 400 to 590-600) despite having 9.4 million, 10.9 million and 12.5 million fewer potential criminals aged 16 to 27, respectively. The abortion/crime theory indicates that this rate should have been dropping since at least 1989, if not 1986 when those who would have been born in 1970 would have turned 16.

6) The percentage of heroin/cocaine possession arrests spiked up from about 10 percent in 1980 to 32 percent in 1989 (the year that crime rates should have started dropping). These percentages remained at high levels (30 percent +/-) from 1990 through 1998, the year there were 9.4 million fewer people aged 19 through 28. Also in 1998, the percentage of heroin/cocaine dealer arrests remained higher than pre-1987 levels, after having increased from 5 percent in 1980 to about 19 percent from 1989 through 1998.

7) The U.S. prison population stayed under 175,000 from 1925 until 1973, broke the 300,000 prisoner mark in 1980, then climbed drastically to 1.13 million state penitentiary prisoners by 1997, despite the population having 9.4 million fewer 18-27 year olds because of abortion. We rose most steeply to the 600,000-prisoner mark by 1989. That year, this rate presumably should have started dropping due to abortion, yet it did and continued to do the exact opposite.

Others have written extensively about the other factors affecting prison rates (e.g., legislation, enforcement, wars, drugs, poverty, education). I don't ignore these factors. But neither can it be ignored that, in the eight years from 1989 to 1997, this prisoner count climbed approximately 88 percent, or 11 percent a year, while by 1997, the country had 9.4 million total fewer 18-27 year olds. Compare that with a 2.4 percent average annual growth rate of prisoner counts for the 50-year period 1925 - 1975 (from under 100,000 prisoners to 200,000). For about 48 years prior to the time of Roe v. Wade, prison populations were not a huge problem needing paring down either.

Put another way: it took the U.S. just under 50 years to increase the prison population by 100 percent (from under 100,000 to 200,000). It took us eight more years to reach 340 percent of 1925's prisoner count ('75-'83; 400,000), nine more years to reach 780 percent of 1925's number ('84-'92; 800,000) and five more years to reach 1,150 percent of 1925's prison population (1.13 million). This, after losing 13 percent of what would have been 2002's population (331,759,000 = 43.4 million abortions plus actual 2002 population of 288,368,698).

It seems apparent that abortion at least isn't very responsible for making a serious dent in the prison population.

8) For twenty-two years from 1978 to 2000, the number of prisoners under death sentence rose steadily from 482 to 3,601 (647% or a 29.4 percent average annual increase). Yet by 2000, there were 12.5 million fewer people aged 19 through 30 due to legal abortion. We cumulatively had lost about 22 percent of what would have been 2000's 19-30 year old population (56 million = 12.5 million abortions plus 36,318,000 [2000 population for 20-29 year olds] plus 7 million total for 19 and 30 year olds).


Why was there greater and more violent crime, some warranting death sentences, when abortion is theorized to have helped reduced all that? Could the spikes in murders and increase in death row inmates be partly a result of higher immigration? Drug wars, especially crack? Gangs? The "super-predator" scare? Could it be partly because those who were being born being were "more criminally-inclined?" Did abortion eliminate those less criminally inclined? Are those who were born "less wanted" or "more disadvantaged" after they were born than abortion's promise led us to believe, thus committing worse crimes? Is the increase in death row inmates greatly due to increased vigilance and tougher laws?

The answer to all of the above could be "yes." And even the hardest pro-choice advocate honestly can see the possibility that, after legally valuing life inside the womb for over one-hundred years, once we then devalued human life that way, the value of any human life came into question.

There aren't easy answers, if any. These examples point out more difficulties in assigning credit to abortion for lowering crime.


The fifth and final segment tomorrow.
0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, April 18, 2014

Eugenic Abortion - Genetic Research

Those Supporting Eugenic Abortion (and thus supporting genetic research to "search and destroy" imperfect unborn children):

  1. March of Dimes: "Instead of trying to solve the problem of birth defects, the March of Dimes now disposes of those problems by funding "search and destroy" missions. Eighty-eight percent of all March of Dimes geneticists favor abortion on demand. "Seventy-one percent argur that if amniocentesis tests prove a child to be defective, he should be terminated regardless of the stage of the pregnancy. A large number even revealed that they were involved in live fetal experimentation and fetal harvesting. This despite the claims by the organization that it is "abortion neutral.""
  2. The Roe v. Wade decision, as viewed by Supreme Court Justics Ruth Bader Ginsburg
  3. Planned Parenthood
  4. Planned Parenthood
  5. Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger, In Her Own Words
  6. Planned Parenthood
  7. Eugenics, genocide and the abortion industry. The latter employs the middle to effect the former.
  8. Planned Parenthood
  9. Planned "Before I was for abortion, I was against abortion as it was 'killing the life of a baby after it has begun'" Parenthood
  10. Susan G. Komen, known for supporting and giving money to Planned Parenthood, thus making themselves supporters of eugenic abortion.
  11. The American Cancer Society, known for supporting Planned Parenthood, thus making themselves also supporters of eugenic abortion.
I could go on, but the picture is quite clear.



Also, click here instead, for the better alternatives, including:

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, April 17, 2014

St. Jude Warrior-To-Be --- Yikes


That's someone else's LAST year's video, but you got the point. I can't imagine anyone looking at the photos in that video with a dry eye and NOT being able to spare one. lousy. dollar. to help these kids and families.

I mentioned in this post how I'm hoping to get in shape enough to do a Warrior Dash in my son's state later this year, raising money for St. Jude Children's Hospital.
Please: donate--even just one lousy dollar--online at my personal Warrior Dash webpage www.warrior.stjude.org/AnnB. You can even do it ANONYMOUSLY, I'll never know your name, and if not anonymous, you can choose how you want your name to appear and can choose not to show the amount you give. There's even a way to choose mailing it in, but check out this video too at the official homepage first and

Meet the REAL St. Jude Warriors.

If I reach my goal, we can pay for one day of oxygen, AND one transfusion unit of red blood cells, for a St. Jude patient like those in the videos. Check out my webpage for the other things your donations can do.Some St. Jude Warriors have raised over $1,000 and are now shooting for $2,000! Wow. Maybe I'll up my goal? Depends on you!
And we can help St. Jude's prevent kids like Christi Thomas and Jessica Joy Rees, memorialized in that video, from succumbing to their disease.
I figure, heck, if these kids can fight cancer as hard and as bravely as they do, this 50+ year old tub of a woman can plan for this 5K obstacle course/run.
Need more reasons to help these kids? How about 30 more reasons?
Know someone else who's planning a Warrior Dash anywhere else? You can search for them and donate to them here.
And while I'm here, it's Holy Thursday. Blessings to all, because of it.








0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

March of Dimes "March for Babies" 2014 Update- Still Supporting Planned Parenthood, And Worse

A neighbor and friend of mine recently asked me to walk with her in this year's local March of Dimes, and/or to donate. One of her children had been a preemie. I care about her, she's a great neighbor and a kind, wonderful woman, and I wanted to help, but my heart sank when she asked me. This is why.

First, though, I decided to do current research, to see if maybe the MOD had changed. It was only fair to be sure.

But sadly, it seems the March of Dimes is perhaps more troubling to me now than it ever was, for four reasons. There is good news though: there still is the better alternative to support preemie babies that doesn't compromise its commitment to ALL babies' lives (more on that at the end of this post).

1) MOD gives money (grants) to the largest abortion provider in the nation, Planned Parenthood.

I'm not the only one who found this out, ten years ago or now. There are many regular folks who know this, both supporters of MOD (see the first commenter) and those who no longer can support MOD, having done their own homework, like this woman who lost a daughter, stillborn at fullterm, writing on her blog Rose and Her Lily:

I am going to share with you today the reasons why I will no longer support the March of Dimes. The reasons are probably unknown to most others who are participating, which is why I find it necessary to share...so at least people will realize what the March of Dimes supports. I in no way judge others for participating themselves, but as someone who is pro-life, I cannot participate (though I would love to walk in honor of babies both in Heaven and on Earth).

After I walked last year, my mother and grandmother both informed me that March of Dimes has been boycotted by those who are pro-life for decades. I was shocked to hear this because it seems like such a wonderful organization! After doing some research, I was very saddened to discover that they support Planned Parenthood (the nation's largest abortion provider). That in itself was enough to make me say "No, thank you." I know people think that Planned Parenthood is this amazing organization that does so much more for women than just providing abortion. Read about the 9 things you should know about Planned Parenthood - which reveals their true agenda. There are many others reasons why I do not support Planned Parenthood (such as the fact that it was founded by a racist eugenicist named Margaret Sanger), but that is another post in itself. The MOD says the money they give to PP doesn't fund abortions, but I wouldn't give money to even pay the electricity bill to keep that place operating. MOD says they are "neutral" on the abortion issue. The way I see it, not taking a stand is taking a stand. I don't see how an organization that is for babies can also be against them? Being for life should mean being for-every-life, both born and unborn, wanted and "unwanted."

Hannah Rose has many good links to articles about the not-good things MOD has supported over the decades, including "embryonic stem cell research, fetal tissue research, and abortion as an alternative to prenatal abnormalities."

It's long been known, though not widely, that March of Dimes changed its original focus. This 1996 article in the Iowa Daily Reporter newspaper is explicit (CLICK THE IMAGE, THEN CLICK AGAIN TO ENLARGE):

As recently as 2002, MOD stated it only gives Planned Parenthood money "specifically for preconception health services and prenatal education services."

But Hannah Rose put it best when she wrote, "I wouldn't give money to even pay the electricity bill to keep that place operating." Her closing statements are those I echo, especially as it was Planned Parenthood that never once talked with me about my "prenatal education services" options and only steered me toward the abortion clinic:

"I am just trying to give people the truth so they can make their own decision on whether or not they want to support this organization. I also said above that I in no way judge anyone for walking or raising money because yes, it's true, MOD does do good...however, I cannot justify supporting the good they do in light of the bad...As a pro-life, post-abortive woman, this is where I stand in my beliefs and I will not make exceptions."

2) MOD denies that having had an abortion dramatically increases the risk of premature delivery:

I lost a son in 2001. He was born just a few days shy of six months gestation. After a week in the NICU, he surrendered his fight. I carry that child in my heart every day. I also carry the weight that his death was 100% avoidable. Like many doctors who continue to believe and advise their patients that abortion is a harmless procedure, my OB/GYN dismissed my concerns over my previous abortions.

It wasn’t till I became pregnant with my second son, that another doctor finally was brave enough to state the truth. My past two abortions had severely damaged and weakened my cervix. The medical term is incompetent cervix. With the proper diagnosis I was able to have a cervical cerclage and carry my second son to term. The link between abortion and incompetent cervix is not a new discovery. Anytime you forcefully dilate the cervix, you weaken the muscles. In fact, researching the causes of incompetent cervix, you’ll see these same words over and over again…

“…Caused by previous trauma to the cervix, such as a D&C (dilation and curettage) from an abortion or a miscarriage.”
How any reasonable person can ignore the obvious — abortion causes premature birth — is mind blowing. It’s unconscionable, unfathomably irresponsible, and completely unethical for organizations, like the March of Dimes, to request financial support for a medical condition they can help vastly reduce but intentionally choose not to, by refusing to acknowledge and educate women against the harms of abortion.

3) March of Dimes has long had a eugenics history, one that can't be erased, although it could have been forsaken. MOD over the decades has funded the following research:
• Peter A. J. Adam used the severed heads of live aborted babies between three to five month gestation in his fetal brain fuel metabolism experiments conducted at the University of Helsinski, Finland.
• Dr. John F.S. Crocker used 60 pairs of human embryonic kidneys obtained from “therapeutic” abortions after five to 12 weeks gestation in his renal research program.
• Dr. Stanley J. Robboy used the reproductive tracts of baby girls aborted by D&C and prostaglandin in his DES experiments.
• Dr. G. Cunha used the reproductive tracts of male and female aborted babies in similar experiments dealing with the teratogenic effects of certain drugs on developing human organs.
• Dr. A de la Chapelle of the University of Helsinki received a MOD grant to develop a non-evasive, simple and safe early prenatal test to replace mid-trimester amniocentesis, thus shifting the abortion timetable from the second trimester to the first trimester. He obtained cells sources from maternal blood samples and the open-heart puncture of healthy 10-week aborted fetuses.

During the 1970s and early 1980s it was MOD's private foundation monies that permitted these researchers and many others including Drs. Blanch Alter, David Nathan, Haig Kazazian, Yuet Wai Kan, and Mitchell Golbus to bypass the government ban prohibiting the use of federal funds for such non-therapeutic, lethal experimentation on live human fetuses. A virtual international "medical underground" was created to supply fresh human fetal tissues, blood or organs to "needy" researchers both in the U.S. and abroad.
...
On September 21, 1978 all members of the House of Representatives received a letter from NF/MOD president Charles Massey claiming that
"the financial cost of treating and institutionalizing our severely affected survivors (of genetic disorders) is staggering" and "we cannot begin to measure the cost to survivors themselves and their families."...Massey said that it was time for federal and state governments to take over the war to "prevent birth defects." He stated that the expansion of genetic service including prenatal diagnosis could help reduce the incidence of such disorders as Down syndrome and Tay Sachs. Left unsaid was the fact that since no cure exists for these disorders, this "reduction" could only be achieved eugenic abortion. [Emphasis mine]

Similarly, in 1982, MOD Vice President Dr. Arthur Salisbury claimed that expanding health insurance coverage for genetic services would save the government billions of dollars in "custodial care" of "genetically handicapped children" born in the United States each year.

In the Final Report of a joint MOD-financed study (1982-1983) by the Health Services Foundation on genetic health insurance, the HSF determined that screening and prenatal diagnosis were cost-effective when compared to the high cost of caring for "blighted" children.

"Blighted" children? No parent hopes for their child to be anything less than 100% healthy and normal. But advocating to eliminate, to euthanize such children before they are born, just to save "the government" billions of dollars?

Would that be the same government that lately cares nothing about throwing trillions of dollars at half the population in order to secure their lifelong and utter dependency on said government, and thus their lifelong votes, keeping said government in power in perpetuity?

Yes, it would be that same government, which only cares about you if you're already born and can vote for them. The hypocrisy is jaw-dropping.


4) Recently, MOD also signed on to obstruct Americans' right to religious freedom, as did Planned Parenthood, Easter Seals and others:

The March of Dimes, the American Cancer Society, and the Spina Bifida Association were listed in Planned Parenthood’s recent white paper, Taking Control, as being among “a wide range of health care groups” that joined the abortion giant, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in opposing the Blunt Amendment’s religious exemption from providing insurance benefits because of “moral conviction.” Easter Seals is added to the list of charities opposing religious freedom, as noted by a nationaljournal.com article.
In that nationaljournal.com article, Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y., hits the nail on the head succinctly,

"This is not an issue of contraception, or abortion, or sterilization...This is an issue of First Amendment rights."

RockForLife.org has a great post (with pictures) about recent protesters against religious freedom and for forcing their employers to pay for their birth control and abortifacient drugs, and the signs they created. RFL's reply? "If it’s not your boss’s business, then why are you making him/her pay for it?"

Here is the simplest way to define what ObamaCare and the HHS mandate is forcing upon practicing Catholics, Christians, Jews and even some Muslims, all because they run their businesses with their religious beliefs and principles as their guides:

Our religious belief is that the loss of one's soul is worse than the loss of one's life, or of any right or freedom. Why should we be forced, by the very government founded to ensure freedom from religious persecution, to think and act as those who do not value a human being's soul?



American Life League points out there's an alternative to March Of Dimes that is without all their horrific history:

In 1978, following the Pro-Life Movement's decade-long battle with the March of Dimes, the International Foundation for Genetic Research, popularly known as The Michael Fund, was founded as the [life-affirming] alternative to the MOD.
The Michael Fund has four stated mission goals (summarized for this post): 1) to support an international genetic research program aimed at finding life-saving treatments for prenatal disorders that would otherwise risk babies' lives, 2) to help further the care and treatment of babies born with such problems, 3) to defend "the rights of physically and mentally handicapped persons – born and pre-born", and 4) to stop and even reverse the growth of "eugenic abortion of affected pre-born children and the euthanasia murder of handicapped children and adults."

Sounds like a cause I'd donate wholeheartedly to (like the St. Jude Children's Hospital Warrior Dash I'm doing with my son in the state where he lives, late this year--I know, I know, I'm insane and will probably break every bone in my aged body attempting that).

The Michael Fund doesn't have the publicity or cachet of MOD, St.Jude Warriors in the Warrior Dash, or the American Cancer Society's Relay For Life (that's another one I've silently protested and boycotted for years for their support for abortion and ignoring the link between abortion and breast cancer). But The Michael Fund is where I'd donate, in my friend's name, to help at-risk babies before they're born, so they can be born.

Just like these angels:

[HT for that video to RockForLife.org which posted two weeks ago about World Down Syndrome Day being March 21.]

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Obama Were Really Pro-Life (Hint: He Isn't)

Excellent point made by LifeSiteNews.

So when Obama says "We can't accept events like this as routine," we already have done so, with abortion, and at least one abortionist admits that it truly is, as Obama spoke, "violence visited on our children:"

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, April 01, 2014

Pro-Life Sites - Another Running Links List

As we try to update all our links, especially in the sidebars of both blogs, I'm reposting a list of pro-life website links from another website, minus the spammer-links they couldn't delete. That site may not have been updated since 2007. Some links may be defunct, some may be repeats, but will try to go through them in time and weed out the dead links.

Pro-Life Plus

Organizations which are pro-life but also take stands on other issues.

Helping Women Organizations

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Speaking of Hate Speech

Speaking of hate speech, Alfonzo Rachel outs another liberal writer for putting words in another Republican's mouth that never were there. Or even implied:

It's kind of sad to think of how many people have, in the recent past, gotten their clocks cleaned by that "(p)regressive" ThinkProgress writer (but don't even know it), Stephen D. Foster, Jr. Seriously, dude, you do realize that more than half the country has finally wakened up to your and your cronies having pulled the wool over their eyes?

Yet still, from you and your ilk, it's more of the same. Ooh, let's demonize Charles and David Koch so the Dems can raise boatloads of campaign funds and no one will ever ask us about George Soros, oh no! Ooh, let's keep up the myth of the solely Republican "war on women" and say nothing about Democrats' war on women or the Clintons' war on women! Oooh, let's lie more because the stupid Americans bought all our earlier lies!

You'll do   a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g.   to distract us from what you've really done to destroy healthcare, to destroy national security, to destroy morals, to destroy religious freedom, to destroy our collective American dream of working hard and improving our individual selves, and instead prove you just want to keep us down on "the government plantation."

But more than half the country can see right through you now, Mr. Foster, and the rest of you Soros sheep. (All except maybe the audiences for Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, I suppose, but you can have 'em.)

But I think you--and George Schwartz / Soros-- have underestimated the American people, as well as the premise by which this country was founded.

"Who will come out on top? George Soros or George Washington?"
I'm counting on the latter. Or the U.S. will cease to exist.
0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

A Dozen Hate Crimes...That Weren't

So when someone of liberal persuasion accuses anyone of any other persuasion of being a hater, consider that liberals have falsely accused others of hate crimes often enough and publicly enough that it calls into question all their accusations of hate, which only serves to weaken the case of those who are legitimate victims of hate acts. Honestly, are people so craving of attention, that they must make up hate crimes and even go so far as to perpetrate these against themselves? Reading that article, isn't it painfully clear to all how desperate this makes them appear, and how much they are responsible for discrediting the believability of anyone legitimately suffering from another's hatred? Notice you never hear the "outing" of the hoaxes on national news afterward. I certainly do remember seeing the big blurbs all over Yahoo and other sites when several of those alleged "hate crimes" from that list were nationally reported, but never the outing of them being hoaxes.

Does it say something that at least seven people, possibly more, of those involved in those dozen hate-hoaxes were female? Something isn't right, if women have to make this stuff up to feel better about ourselves.

I know personally of two additional incidents of false assault accusations being made by college students--females from the best of homes and upbringings--in the past several years, in which the accused were damned without a fair hearing and punished severely without recourse. All because of the political correctness that's gripped this nation by the....neck.

Had my daughter lived, well, I think it'd be much harder to be growing up female in this past couple decades especially. Still, I'd give anything, anything, to have made a different choice back then, so that I could have helped her try to thrive and grow in this so-called "progressive" era.

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Back In The U.S.S.R."...Soon?

Loved the song, hate the reality. Like this news outlet's   summary map of how Russia is pressuring and obstructing its former territories and why they're in danger of possible "re-Russiafication."

This is an enormous problem. And folks could be excused from thinking that this is so much bigger a potential nightmare than being forced to give up one's religious freedom in this country.

Those of us who fight for our religious freedom don't do so because we want to oppress or burden others, as some pundits would have you think.

We do so simply because we believe that the loss of one's soul is worse than the loss of one's life. St. Maxmilian Kolbe is a perfect example.

Why should we be forced, by the very government founded to ensure freedom from religious persecution, to think and act as those of you do, who do not value a human being's soul?

Those who can't understand that, may never understand that.

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Your reasoning would permit requiring profit-making corporations to pay for abortions"

“Your reasoning would permit requiring profit-making corporations to pay for abortions,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who defended the contraceptives provision of the Affordable Care Act.

...Verrilli argued that for-profit corporations do not have a right to religious liberty that trumps federal law.

Oh, really? So if federal law is passed that requires for-profit corporations to pay not only for abortion-causing medications like contraceptives and emergency contraceptives, but also for abortions, or non-profits for that matter, then our religious freedom is KAPUT and to hell with the First Amendment?

Do you even hear what they are saying and trying to do to this country? (For why this freedom applies to corporations as well as individuals, read this and this.)

Do you even care? Maybe not. I would challenge you: pull your eyeballs away from Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow for just. one. hour. and really begin to educate yourselves. You simply have to have more working brain cells than to listen solely to those types of sources.

For those who honestly say they don't care about religion or the rights of those who are religious, or they're angry like Bill Maher is angry because who would follow a God who's a "psychotic mass murderer" (in his response to the upcoming feature film "Noah"), let me ask you one question:

Do you want to take the word of someone who hasn't ever really tried all that hard to answer his own questions about God, but also avoids doing so because it keeps his TV ratings high?

And now a second question:   Or do you want to hear some real answers?

Here's a short answer to Maher's rant about the movie "Noah" and his objection to God:

Responding to [Maher's] comments, conservative radio host Bryan Fischer, director of Issue Analysis at the American Family Association, reminded listeners on Monday that the picture presented of God in Scripture is that He is the Creator of the entire world, and that the reason for the flood was the evil of men at the time, who according to the story had nothing but evil in their hearts.

"The point was, God had nothing left to work with. God's heart was not to destroy, God's heart was to redeem, but He only found one man, and perhaps the members of his family, who had a heart to respond to Him, to work with Him, to obey Him, and that man's name was Noah," Fischer said.

Want to do some more thinking for yourself? Think about this relevant response to Bill Maher by actor Kevin Sorbo, here. Think about how the blackest, meanest, nastiest of atheists, somehow, not through anyone's convincing or preaching to him, becomes religious, and even a Roman Catholic convert. Think about intelligent folks, intellectual even, who ranted in eminently more eloquent terms than Bill Maher ever will, against the God of Christians and Jews, one day becoming devout Catholic.

What did it? I'm not entirely sure, but in my opinion, it had something to do with just seeing a few true Christians going about the things they do as Christians, helping pregnant women in need of help,   not attacking people back in kind when they'd been attacked, verbally, emotionally, for just standing up for what they believe,   seeing how liberal, secular friends had been emotionally moved to their own conversions by "the story of St. Maximilian Kolbe."

That's it. That's all it took, for them to start Doing.Their.Own.Research.

What will it take for you to start doing yours?

So it really does matter, if not to you, then to at least to the 74% of Americans who believe in God (according to the Harris Dec. 2013 poll), when the Supreme Court Justices note in court, that

"Under your view, a profit[-making] corporation could be forced in principle to pay for abortions," [Supreme Court Justice] Kennedy said. That is true in principle, Verrilli said,

but he added that no law "requires for-profit corporations to pay for abortions." Roberts sounded surprised. "I thought that's what we had before us," he said.
"THAT IS TRUE IN PRINCIPLE, Verrilli said." This is the absolute definition of "slippery slope," to 74% of us, as we have been saying since 2010, before the ACA/ObamaCare law was passed:
$11 BILLION [earmarked and "paid for" by ObamaCare, i.e., taxpayers and premium-hike-payers like me and you and everyone else] THAT IS OUTSIDE THE HYDE AMENDMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO GO, FROM YOUR AND MY TAX DOLLARS, TO "COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS" INCLUDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND AS SUCH WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS.
And we were not the only ones upset in 2010, but most of Americans also were, then:

ACCORDING TO THE LATEST [2010] QUINNIPIAC POLL: "Voters disapprove 52 – 42 percent of the way the President is handling health care" AND "Voters mostly disapprove 48 - 40 percent of the proposed health care reform pending in Congress."

So it's only gone from bad to worse: the RealClearPolitics Aggregate Poll today (averaging 9 media polls) on the question of "Public Approval of Health Care Law" shows that 53.2% oppose it today, with CNN/Opinion Research's poll at 57% against (same as FOX's poll!), and Gallup's at 55% against it. And the maximum support shown for ObamaCare was a mere 43% in GWU/Battleground's poll, 42% in Rasmussen Reports. Not one of the 9 polls had ObamaCare as favored by a majority, and the average in favor currently is only 39.8%. The margin of disapproval is between +9 and +18 points higher than those approving.

Not exactly a "winner," as quoted earlier.

Another objection to think about that the Obama Administration cannot counter:

As Chief Justice John Roberts observed, minority-owned businesses can bring racial discrimination lawsuits. So why can't Christian- or Muslim-owned businesses exercise religion? Solicitor General Donald Verrilli had no good answer.

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm A Woman, And I've Gotten Over Myself. When Will You?

This is especially addressed to Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Bader Ginsburg. I'm ashamed of you all.
"Women will have the same constitutional rights to acquire and use contraception regardless of whether Hobby Lobby wins or loses. More than that, they’ll have the exact same rights as they had before the contraception mandate was a gleam in Sec. Sebelius’ eye. What women won’t have is the right to force other people to pay for their contraception, but that has never been a right recognized by the Supreme Court.

"In the Bizarro World of the newspapers, not paying for someone else’s contraception is the same thing as prohibiting them from purchasing and using them themselves. This is an obviously false equivalence, but one that leftists are bent on telling themselves. No matter how many times you point out that the business owners in these cases aren’t preventing their employees from purchasing and using contraception, a smug leftist will smile and say 'but women’s rights, you see,' as if these magic words excuse the lie."

Talk about dog whistles.

The simple truth is: those words DON'T excuse the lie.

Another lie that article exposes:

"The beliefs of Hobby Lobby’s owners are just the same as the beliefs of thousands of owners of non-profit corporations who Sec. Sebelius exempted from the mandate...Sec. Sebelius has already exempted 190 million people from the contraception mandate, either because they work for non-profit corporations or because their plans were “grandfathered” when Obamacare became effective.

"In short, when 190 million people are purposefully exempted from a law, there can be no argument that it is aimed at 'a compelling purpose.' Providing broad exemptions intended to go on in perpetuity demonstrates that the contraception mandate is the opposite of compelling."

And another:
"As with speech rights, individuals do not give up their religious rights when they incorporate, for whatever purpose. In the Hobby Lobby case, where the organization’s mission statement explicitly included a charge to operate in accord with the owners’ religious faith, there can be no question that the corporation was intended to further the 'quintessentially human activity' of religious behavior. It is astonishing that leftists cannot grasp the simple truth: corporations are made up of people."
This is not about taking away any women's rights. This is about taking away my, Hobby Lobby's and others' rights to religious freedom, which has been the law of the land since the birth of this nation, even the very reason for this nation's existence! Thus this right is a whole lot more fundamental than whether a woman can force her choice of employer to pay for her $9 a month contraception, aka "health care."

Here's a screenshot of that link, of the current list of birth control prescriptions available at WalMart for $9 a month, including two of the most used ones at the bottom of the list (HT to NewsBusters for the link and info):

In the words of a famous celebrity,

"...if you looked at their cable bill, their telephone, their cell phone bill… it may turn out that, it’s just they haven’t prioritized health care."

There isn't an able-bodied, thus able to be sexually active, teenager or woman in this nation who hasn't already "prioritized health care", aka "figured out how to afford $9 a month for contraception," all on her itty-bitty own.

Get over yourselves.

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pelosi's "Mission Accomplished" Moment & Drudge Outs The Uneducated White House Staff

Pelosi’s sparsely attended press conference may be to Obamacare as “Mission Accomplished” was to the Iraq war.

...House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi assured reporters “it’s a winner” for Democrats, but her testiness suggested otherwise.

"[I]t’s called the Affordable Care Act," she corrected a reporter. "It’s called the Affordable Care Act." And why? "Affordable. Affordable," she replied. "There's a reason. Affordable. Affordable. Affordable. Affordable. Affordable."

Except that in some parts of the country, premiums are expected to double. A report by eHealthinsurance found that premiums in the individual and family markets have already increased more, before factoring in taxpayer subsidies, since early 2013 than in the previous eight years combined.

The most common reason cited by people who have yet to purchase insurance under Obamacare, McKinsey & Company found in a marketing survey, is that they can’t afford the premiums. As many as four of five companies surveyed by Mercer LLC may raise deductibles on their employees to offset costs imposed by Obamacare regulations...the White House has taken to counting anyone who has selected an insurance plan as “enrolled” in Obamacare regardless of whether they’ve actually paid. They claim not to have any reliable figures about how many people haven’t paid, despite making six announcements about enrollment data...Much, if not most, of the new coverage has come from the Medicaid expansion. Despite campaigns calling antiexpansion Republican governors killers, some research suggests that the substandard care Medicaid beneficiaries receive due to the program’s low physician reimbursement rates isn’t much of an improvement from being uninsured...Finally, the Congressional Budget Office has projected that Obamacare will cover fewer people at greater cost than originally expected, while creating incentives for workers to abandon the labor force....So you might not keep your doctor, you might not keep your old health-insurance plan, you might not like or even be able to afford your new one, and you might not keep your job. If you complain about your situation under Obamacare, leading Democrats may call you a liar.

That sounds like a real winner, alright.

Wow. And she said "Affordable" SEVEN additional times. Disconnected from reality much? Now don't you wonder about Washington Democrats being out of touch with our reality?

[kudos to W. James Antle III in that National Interest article, great sum-up]

Drudge indicated in follow-up tweets that since he is self-employed as proprietor of the Drudge Report, he files as a small business. Drudge followed up with

"Dazed team Obama media reporters think Opt-Out tax 'year away'? Not for small businesses that file Qtr estimates. We're there NOW, baby."

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, March 23, 2014

"Hobby Lobby IS the Green family."

"To argue otherwise is a risible example of highly strained arguments that give lawyers a bad name.

"Legal niceties aside, Hobby Lobby is, at bottom, the five Green family members. They are its nerve center and soul. They determine, with accountability only to and among themselves, whether to turn aside substantial profits by closing the doors of their 600 stores on Sundays; to greet Hobby Lobby patrons with strains of Christian music; to advertise Christian holidays, not the latest Hobby Lobby wares manufactured in exotic venues; and to donate millions of dollars of corporate profits annually to a variety of Christian missions. No Wall Street gnomes, corporate raiders or dissident shareholders can hold the five owners accountable, nor do they have any pecuniary interest whatsoever in Hobby Lobby's business plans or the execution of its corporate strategy.

"...To the Greens, all five of whom are devout evangelical Christians, requiring the Hobby Lobby employee benefits plan to include four contraceptive methods which they view (with substantial empirical support) as abortifacients is morally repugnant. Their religious freedom claim carried the day in the federal Court of Appeals in Denver, but the Obama Administration has fought the case all the way to the nation's highest court.

"...At first blush, the government's argument seems plausible. How can, say, General Motors or Intel be seen as exercising freedom of conscience? But Congress itself provided the counter-intuitive answer in yet another part of federal law that by its terms extends RFRA's [Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed into law by President Clinton] coverage to any individual or entity – including for-profit corporations."

USA Today, Ken Starr: "Obamacare shackles religious freedom", by Ken Starr, EDT March 23, 2014

Any individual or entity - including for-profit corporations.

Case. closed. Yet Obama fights to the Supreme Court, to remove the freedom of religion, of the Greens of Hobby Lobby, and of the entire Catholic Church and all the Catholic hospitals it runs that care for non-Catholics and Catholics, equally. He is trying to destroy freedom of religion in this country. He's already destroyed healthcare. And national security. And our international reputation and respect. History is recording all of this. Republicans told you about the mess Obamacare would cause, choosing, to a person, not to vote for it. Republicans also have been sounding the warning about the trashing of freedom of religion, and loss of international respect, a long time too. Just because the Mainstream Media wasn't allowing those messages to get through on the nightly news, doesn't mean Republicans weren't sending them out.

Question is...

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Must-read article on something I thought could never be turned into part of pop culture:
When I read that the DC Abortion Fund was thanking its donors with the gift of a “lovely” wire-hanger pendant, I assumed that this was going to be one of those made-up stories that make the grandmotherly rounds on Facebook but is not true. It is true, and the DC Abortion Fund is proud of itself. We as a people should not be.
So I guess he means that Whoopie Goldberg is a liar. After all, she claims she had six abortions, and if she truly gave herself one at age 14 with a coat hanger, then how in the world did she manage not to perforate or scar up her insides so badly that she could still get pregnant and then have abortions five more times? We've reported before about how abortions, legal, clean, "safe" ones, can lead to infertility, tubal/ectopic (thus failed) pregnancies, etc.

Whoopie, if she actually had one, has really just proven that having a coat hanger abortion is really the safest thing in the world, hasn't she?

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Seth MacFarlane, Hater

I just had to post this, to get this off my chest. I liked "Family Guy," despite all its irreverence, but its creator is bashing my faith and I don't stand for that.

Neither would Fr. Georges LeMaitre (1894-1966), the originator of the actual, real, original "Big Bang Theory", and a Catholic priest.

Seth MacFarlane, just shut up. You prove your ignorance with stunts like this that your fame and money allow you to do, but just. shut. up. I am so sick to death of Catholic-bashing. And every chance I get, I'll out such ignorance here. Enough is enough. You wouldn't keep up your attacks and rants on Jews or Muslims like you do with Catholics, I'm fairly sure. Leave my freedom of religion alone and stop fomenting the rest of the nation with your hate.

Yes, Seth MacFarlane, you're a hater. Grow up. And I'd say this straight to your face if I ever could.

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Millennials Slightly Less Likely To Support Abortion

Interesting, but not surprising, findings:
"[T]he centrist Democratic think tank Third Way's... Michelle Diggles told me that while it's true they are more liberal than previous generations, "a plurality of Millennials are moderates." She added, "They are more pro-gay marriage, but also slightly less likely to support legalized abortion."
I'm guessing the presumed reference means "slightly less than they used to be, some unspecified time before."

That USA Today article also notes that in

"...a 2013 Harvard survey, 52% of 18- to 24-year-olds said they'd recall and replace President Obama."
Another of that poll's other "key findings": "Most Millennials believe ACA/Obamacare Will Bring Higher Costs, Worse Care."

As one Millennial wrote recently in this Las Vegas Review-Journal Op-Ed piece, "Obamacare leaves the average 27 year old facing a gender-averaged 47.5 percent premium increase, according to Forbes. Even after subsidies, that's an expense that many Millennials can't afford. . . . We know a bad deal when we see one--and we're not as dumb as Obamacare's marketers seem to think." (HT to the WSJ for that link.

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alfonzo Rachel On SNL's Definition of Planned Parenthood

He's blunt, he's direct. But he's right.

And who is this Alvin Holmes Zo mentions? This guy:

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proof Obama Is Incompetent

Add "clueless," "naive," "narcissistic" and "dangerous":

On Sunday, March 16, we have this:

"[Russia is still] the only country in the world capable of turning the U.S.A. into radioactive dust"

spoken on Russian state-sanctioned news by the state-sanctioned news anchor "named by President Vladimir Putin back in December as the head of a new state agency with the directive of casting Russia in the best possible light."

And three days later, March 19, we have this:

"President Obama's Bracket for the 2014 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament"


............


In case you somehow missed it because you had your nose buried in your Obama Phone, the New York Times covered the "radioactive dust" glove being thrown down, as did the Washington Post, USA Today, oh, heck, EVERYBODY covered it.

Obama's "bracketologist-in-chief-ness"? Also covered by the above so-called "newspapers," with video live from ESPN as he filled in the actual brackets on a big posterboard, and even press-released by the White House itself.

This columnist also wrote succinctly about this eye-popping disconnect in a March 17 article:

A Malaysian jetliner has vanished into thin air, while Russia has completed its seizure of Crimea and may yet invade other parts of Ukraine. Serious stuff, you might say. But the big story of last week as far as the president is concerned is his appearance alongside the star of "The Hangover" movies, the guy who last year smoked a joint live on the Bill Maher show.
For those who haven't really been paying attention, this indicts the P.I.N.O. as well as the MSM (MainStream Media) as being completely out of touch with reality. The Chicago Sun-Times' Steven Huntley believes this has finally "ended the left's daydream," but I don't think so. The powers that be on the left are doing everything they can to remain in the their Pajamas forever, and to make you do likewise.

Why not, instead, put on your Big Boy Pants?

You can watch the entire "radioactive dust" video here, in Russian, but you can't miss the mushroom cloud in the graphic behind this "official." That link quotes Russian journalist Leonid Ragozin, who tweeted, "[Dmitry] Kiselev is not your average moron. He is Russia's most senior government media executive, essentially minister of propaganda."

We are not only the laughingstock of the world, thanks to Obama, we are also effin' doomed.

But first, the Ukraine is, ahead of us:


(Transcript here)

Trifecta's Whittle-Ott-Green Team points out more of the obvious here, especially how Russian lawmakers all voted to have Obama "sanction" all of them as pitifully as he slapped the wrists of only 11 Putin cronies.

Consequences, Schmonsequences.

What we have, and have had, with Obama in the Oval Office, is Jimmy Carter all over again, but worse, because at least Carter woke up and bit back in several effective ways. This P.I.N.O. shows no sign of even being aware of the need for waking up. He again is proving himself incapable of anything effective, abroad or at home. And now thanks to his PajamaBoy ineffectiveness, we now have the Cold War all over again.

And on top of that, Obama's giving up control of the Internet, allowing Russia, China, all of them, to step in and control it: "If authoritarian regimes in Russia, China and elsewhere get their way, domains could be banned and new ones not approved for meddlesome groups such as Ukrainian-independence organizations or Tibetan human-rights activists." Maybe only when the Gimme-Gimme's find their unfettered Internet access infringed upon and favorite websites banned, maybe then, they'll wake up and see what they've allowed to happen, through their choice of Obama.

From giving away control of the Internet, to making income inequality worse and then smearing any Republican who tries honestly to advocate against such inequality, to ObamaCare premiums skyrocketing and other costs as well because of new Obamacare "rules" just "issued," to "some the nation's best cancer hospitals are off-limits" under ObamaCare, to Russia invading and land-grabbing other countries now, Obama's Presidency and the Democrat Party have truly damaged and endangered this nation and its people, as well as others abroad. It's amazing that about 50% of the country still cannot see this.

Not only that: if this was a Mitt Romney or a George W. Bush going on about his basketball-picking prowess, or how good he really, truly looks in jeans (with photo opp to prove it), or any other supremely inconsequential, über-trivial, irrelevant personal-tribute "news", while the Malaysian jet and all 239 people aboard are still missing, while Russia is allowed to invade another country and then laugh at the U.S. for its puny "sanctions," you all know that Romney/Bush would be roasted alive.


AN INTERESTING POSTSCRIPT, from NPR blog on March 10th:

"When Ukraine gained independence in the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union, it inherited a nuclear arsenal that included some 1,800 warheads, making it the third largest in the world, trailing only Russia and the U.S. Ukraine could have clung to those weapons at a time when it and many other former Soviet states faced varying degrees of turmoil. But in 1994, Ukraine agreed to relinquish them and eventually sent the warheads by train to Russia. In return, Ukraine got assurances its sovereignty would be respected."
Looks like we have Bill Clinton to thank for helping start what Obama's weakness is finishing:

"President Bill Clinton (from left), Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk, clasp hands after signing documents whereby the U.S. and Russia agreed to stop aiming long range nuclear missiles at each other, and the Ukraine agreed to dismantle all of its 1,800 nuclear warheads. The event took place on Jan. 14, 1994, at the Kremlin in Moscow."

Photo by Diana Walker/Time

Just twenty short years is all it took, just about the Millennials' lifetimes so far, for two Democrat Presidents to put us back in the Cold War, or worse.
0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, March 13, 2014

John Kerry - Why NOT Him in 2016 - And Other Democrat Embarrassments People Actually Voted Into Office

"John Kerry: Russia has until Monday to reverse course in Ukraine".... or, WHAT? Another war? Or America just being made weaker and weaker because of these useless, idle threats? This, from the guy who threw his own combat ribbons, as well as others' military medals over the White House fence in anti-war protest? Why on earth does he or anyone think Russia would EVER take this guy seriously?

Either way it goes, it won't end favorably for the U.S. as it did for Bugs in the following, but rather, just the reverse:

At least in the final analysis, Russia ain't no Yosemite Sam.

Also exemplified in the cartoon blogged at Passed Up Strange blog here.


"I am a queen, and I demand to be treated like a queen." ~ Democratic congresswoman, Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee (who seems to have forgotten that the Ku Klux Klansmen were Democrats, not Republicans, and thinks the Constitution is 400 years old).

BTW, the Democrats are still the ones who will "put y'all back in chains", so opined Dr. Ben Carson...

and Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory:

And Dr. Carson's speech was last October, 2013, BEFORE the ObamaCare ScheissDreck hit the fan as it has been doing ever since, and will continue to.


Harry Reid's mouth trips on his foot, again, trying to trick Americans into focusing on anything other than the horror show that is ObamaCare. Again. Just like when "he said in 2012 that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes in 10 years — because he had heard it from some guy."


And of course, the P.I.N.O. (President-In-Name-Only) himself, and, specifically, what his Presidency (and his alone) has brought us:

* ...government debt has increased 64 percent and is on track to double by the end of the President’s second term...

* America is in the midst of slowest recovery since the end of World War II.

* Workforce participation has shrunk to a nearly 40-year low.

* The Labor Department reports that most occupations pay less today than they did when the President took office.

* Government debt has leaped from roughly $10 trillion to $17 trillion, yet median income has dropped $2,268 per household over that same time, and the decline has actually accelerated.

The White House’s average 2013 growth projection in their 2009 through 2012 budgets was 3.9 percent...But actual growth last year came in at half what was projected, 1.9 percent—a huge difference with real impact on millions of Americans...CBO has repeatedly said that the Administration’s $870 billion stimulus bill would be a long-term drag on the economy...

...the President propose[s] in his new budget...[to increase] spending growth by almost $1 trillion, bursting through the Ryan-Murray spending caps he signed into law only two months ago.

The plan also raises taxes more than $1 trillion—in addition to the $1.7 trillion in taxes he’s already enacted...

...the White House budget plan would add another $8 trillion to our $17 trillion debt.

...last year, we paid our creditors $221 billion in interest on our federal debt. Under the President’s plan, according to his own numbers, annual interest payments will nearly quadruple to $812 billion.

None of this is good, but it's all true. And it doesn't make anyone "racist" for citing these facts or for reporting them. As Malcolm X once said, "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I'm a human being, first and foremost, and as such I'm for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole." And all the above just doesn't even benefit all Americans as a whole, never mind humanity.
0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, February 14, 2014

Obama's Next Papal Visit-- Same As The Last One?

It is reported to be taking place on March 27. The last one went so well, I'm sure Obama will expect he can lie to this one's face, too.

An interesting jab at what Obama might say to Pope Francis, here. Go on, Obama. Tell him #4 and #6.

One of the comments to that article is quite astute, but I hope only partly true:

"I don’t trust President Obama’s motives for meeting with the Pope. Honestly, I think it is a purely political move - he wants to absorb and co-opt some of the Pope’s positive mojo. He’ll talk about how they both abhor income inequality and have so much in common. And the Holy Father, I predict, will say nothing of the President’s support for homosexual marriage and the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion, his persecution of Catholic institutions in the U.S. through his HHS mandate, his abject failure to speak out in support of persecuted Christians around the world, his State Department’s evil promotion of contraception and abortion around the world, even going so far as attempting to tie humanitarian aid to acceptance of these, or his diplomats’ working in the United Nations to have abortion defined as a fundamental human right. Then all the left-wing dissenting Catholics in the U.S. who reject Church teaching on these issues and instead support President Obama and his agenda can feel better about themselves and look at the wonderful pictures of their beloved progressive president arm-in-arm with the Holy Father with big smiles on both of their faces. In other words, President Obama is going to use the Holy Father for his own political purposes, and the Holy Father is going to let it happen. Wouldn’t it be a dream if Pope Francis actually said something to the President, like “Shame on you, Mr. President, for persecuting Catholics in your own country; and shame on you for failing to speak out for persecuted Christians around the world.” NOT-GOING-TO-HAPPEN."
I will be upset if that's all that happens. I still pray that Francis is direct and blunt with Obama, even if in complete privacy. If Francis is who I think he is, I believe that even if it's in private, just mano a mano, Obama will get a talking to that he expects never to get, from anyone. A little bit like the admonition Notre Dame University heads deservedly got recently. And the thing is, we will never, even know about it.

You go, Francis. Give him an earful in your respecting, Christian-Catholic but straight-shooting, no-sugarcoating way. I believe you will. I pray you will. Let Obama spin it as he undoubtedly will. But represent Jesus to him, you must. He is the whitewashed hypocrite, who professes to follow Jesus Christ, then supports so much that Christ was against.

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, February 13, 2014

The Democrats' Selective (Mis)Use of Science

"I’m still waiting for progressives to embrace Chu’s expert analysis. More likely, though, they will treat their former hero just as they treat science itself—essential and praiseworthy when it reinforces their politics and nonexistent when it doesn’t...Health, education, and energy are three arenas in which progressives display a universal tendency: They champion evidence that gels with their intuitions but shrug off data that disrupt them."
This was about the former Obama Department of Energy Chairman Steven Chu, "a genius physicist with a Nobel Prize", stating that the decision to kill Keystone Pipeline was "a political one and not a scientific one."

Reminds of how the "progressives" shrug off all this world-renowned science, since it also disrupts their politics.

Really. How stupid they think we all are. How doing so, makes them look stupid, instead.

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

"The president doesn’t write laws. Congress does" But What Else Is There?

"...the administration had almost four years to get its ducks into a row. Four years. That was more time than it took us to win World War II, which we fought across three continents, a bunch of islands and two oceans. And yet here we are, four years later, and the administration has spent the past six months effectively rewriting the law for both political and practical reasons.

"It shouldn’t be able to do this, because it is, you know, a law. The president doesn’t write laws. Congress does. He signs them and it’s his job to implement them. If he can’t write laws, he can’t rewrite them either.

"But he is, and without resistance. Someone would have to stop him from doing it. But Democrats won’t stop him from doing anything, and the changes he’s making actually do limit ObamaCare’s deleterious effects, so Republicans have no incentive to stop him.

"The rewriting began even before the famous Web site made its debut on Oct. 1, 2013. A month earlier, Patrick Hedger of the conservative activist group FreedomWorks delineated 11 provisions in the health-care law the administration had unilaterally revised or delayed...

"By far the biggest was a one-year delay in the so-called “employer mandate,” imposing fines on businesses that do not provide health care to their full-time workers. On Monday, that delay was extended to two years for smaller businesses — because, you know, once you delay something one year, why not two? Why not 10?

"The way this is going, the administration could just repeal every provision of the law unilaterally and still claim its historic legislation had passed and was its signature accomplishment. After all, it will still be on the books. It’s the law. It just won’t be enforced, like the law that says you can’t pick your feet in Poughkeepsie.

It’s what early computer geeks used to call a “kludge,” which Webster’s defines as “a system made up of poorly matched components.” It was a workaround solution to an enormous problem it is only going to make worse...The question is whether we’re going to spend decades layering new systems on top of the kludge or whether we’re going to be sensible about this and throw the whole thing out. And start anew."

And how, exactly, to do that?

Well, if the country decides finally that enough is enough, and holds the Democrats who support ObamaCare accountable for people dying because of ObamaCare and children, breast cancer patients and Stage IV cancer patients losing their doctors and being turned away from supposedly-included Covered-California/ObamaCare doctors, then the country will finally be able to see the better alternatives that Republicans and even some Democrats have been submitting FOR YEARS (scroll down to "Short-term? I'm for the Democrat Landrieu bill, and so are six prominent Senate Dems") and which the media and the Democrats completely refused to recognize or report. And here's one:

A Winning Alternative to Obamacare
Feb 10, 2014 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL AND JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

And here's the rest of the long list no one wanted to tell you about.

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Workable Alternatives to ObamaCare- A Running List

These are some plans that have long ago been proposed, contrary to what Obama and the media have been telling the American people. They have wanted you to think the Republicans had no alternative, no solutions, when nothing could be further from the truth.

If you decide finally that enough is enough, and hold the Democrats who support ObamaCare accountable for people dying because of ObamaCare and children, breast cancer patients and Stage IV cancer patients losing their doctors and being turned away from supposedly-included Covered-California/ObamaCare doctors, then the country will finally be able to see the better alternatives that Republicans and even some Democrats have been submitting FOR YEARS and which the media and the Democrats completely refused to recognize or report. Here's just a few:

  1. A Winning Alternative to Obamacare
    Feb 10, 2014 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL AND JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
  2. James Capretta and Robert Moffit's plan, original and updated version.
  3. Solving the Pre-Existing Conditions Issue (Yes, it can be done--and done better-- without ObamaCare)
  4. "Interstate insurance will work, but the market will evolve gradually..." in which it has been
    "projected that a national insurance market would increase health coverage by 49 percent in New Jersey and 22 percent in New York. 'We find evidence of a significant opportunity to reduce the number of uninsured under a proposal to allow the purchase of insurance across state lines. The best scenario to reduce the uninsured, numerically, is competition among all 50 states with one clear winner. The most pragmatic scenario, with a good impact, is one winner in each regional market.'"
    "The main barrier to establishing the sale of health insurance across state lines is the lobbying of each state’s insurance commissioner...These state insurance commissioners fight against this popular health care reform for one reason: power. Right now, they have it. When the sale of health insurance is restricted to just inside their state, they have the power to set and enforce the rules however they would like. In fact, that’s their primary response to the reform proposal: You can’t trust those other insurance commissioners, they’ll set worse rules than me, overly lenient ones! You don’t know anything about insurance, especially not health insurance; it’s much too complicated. Don’t worry about it though, I’ll protect you. As long as I set the rules for insurance in our state, I’ll make sure the insurance companies cover everything you need. Promise!

    Realistically, it’s a power struggle. Insurance commissioners, like all bureaucrats, need to wield power in order to justify their position. Losing their total control over regulating the health insurance offered in their state means a loss of power. And like any other bureaucrat, they’ll fight that to their last breath.

    Tell them to just step aside. They're standing in the way of people benefiting.

    Part two of the last link is here:

    "Increasing market competition by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines will lead to lower costs, greater choice, and better quality of care. Representative Paul Broun’s (R-GA) Patient OPTION Act is just one of several conservative bills that will allow Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines."
  5. The Republican Study Committee's (RSC) plan
    "would, obviously, repeal ObamaCare and associated tax hikes and replace it with market-based, patient-centered reforms that lower health insurance costs expanding access to health savings accounts (HSA) and by removing barriers that discourage competition."
  6. The Media's "Republicans Have No Obamacare Replacement" Myth....
    Congressional Republicans know what they want to do...This is a picture of broad agreement throughout the [Republican] caucus on numerous health policy issues – the only real disagreements are about how to achieve these goals, not what the goals are. But what’s notable about this approach is that unlike PPACA [aka ObamaCare], you don’t need the Rube Goldberg-like assemblage of a 2,700 page bill to do it. You can do this in fifty pages, as Rep. Paul Broun does (he also reforms EMTALA, too!), or you could break them up and pass them separately. You don’t have a situation where pulling one block out makes the rest collapse, as we’re seeing even now in the arguments over states passing on the Medicaid expansion. Journalists who say this more gradualist approach to reform means there is no plan betray their ignorance or their bias or both.
  7. In fact, we might still have too many (this was written 19 months ago, not sure if these bills are all still around):
More on all those, whenever I have time...Feel free to DYOR.
0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since 6/13/2005