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.

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     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now Children in Need Are Losing Their Doctors (CBS News)


"...President Obama said in September 2009 there were 31 million uninsured. The [Congressional Budget Office/CBO] report says in 2024 there will be 31 million uninsured. If 31 million uninsured was unacceptable in 2009 and the key fact in creating this new $2 trillion program, how could the projection that there will be 31 million uninsured in 2024 be considered an endorsement of ObamaCare’s success? In any case, what is missing from any such projection is the fact that one way or another, had there been no ObamaCare, there would still have been significant revision at some point of the health-care system, which everyone acknowledges is broken. Since we can’t know what other changes might have been made, we can’t possibly know how many uninsured there might have been in this alternate 2024."

~ "The Risible ObamaCare Counterattacks", in Commentary Magazine. John Podhoretz, 02.07.2014 - 12:17 PM


"Here's a bit of news you won't find among the White House's top talking points: According to the CBO, the penalty for employers who don't provide health care to their workers 'will be borne primarily by workers in the form of reduced wages.' Workers stand to make less money -- and that, too, presents an incentive to work less."

~ Affordable Care Act -- Paying More to Work Less, By Debra Saunders - February 9, 2014, RealClearPolitics


Several websites (BizPacReview.com) Powerline blog, InstaPundit) have duly noted the ironic timing of this WalMart ad. I say they're right about the irony, and that Obama misses it entirely, and also that it's about damn time Walmart gave something back to America. Their low, low prices have certainly put enough mom and pop shops out of business in this country, as have other bigbox stores like Home Depot. Let's see them follow through on this promise. It's certainly more than Obama can say or do.

Found another vid in that "Work Is A Beautiful Thing" series that hits the American Dream nail on the head. Note how it's so the opposite of what ObamaCare is doing:

And another:

And another:

I don't care if this seems like I love Walmart (I don't, I rarely go there and then only because it has a catfood to help my supposedly diabetic cat avoid needing insulin). I've got no ties to Walmart, no incentive to plug them. None of us do here at AfterAbortion or AbortionPundit blogs.

But I'll tell you one thing: if I need new towels or sheets or a candle as a gift, I'll go buy 1888 Mills products, or Hanna's Candles, at Walmart. You bet. I'm on my second American car in 20 years (yes, they both lasted over 10 years each), and I'll buy American again when the current one goes. Maybe I'll steer to a Ford, since "Ford didn't need, and didn't receive any funds [from the bailout]". Maybe a Ford Fusion or a Fiesta. Or maybe even a Ford F-150 XL Supercab. Oh, yeah.

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

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

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

When Life Begins - by Real Geneticists, Med.School Textbooks, Molecular Biologists, SCIENTISTS

[Originally posted by Annie in 2008 as a response to CINO (Catholics in Name Only) Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi for misleading real Catholics into thinking abortion and abortifacient medications like contraception are acceptable to Catholics]:
  1. From the Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981):

    Dr. Landrum Shettles, known as the ‘father of in vitro fertilization:’ “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.”

  2. Dr. Jerome Lejeune (discovered Down Syndrome’s genetic cause): “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence.”

  3. Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

  4. Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, Professor of pediatrics/obstetrics at Ivy-League University of Pennsylvania: “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception… human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life. I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty… is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

  5. Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter-- the beginning is conception.”

  6. Dr. Micheline Mathews-Roth of Harvard Medical School also testified, citing over 20 embryology/medical textbooks that human life begins at conception, including:

  7. Ronan O'Rahilly, International Board Member, Nomina Embryologica (the international body determining correct human embryology terminologies in textbooks), and an original founder of The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryological Development, in his med school textbook, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, O'Rahilly and Muller): “Just as postnatal age begins at birth, prenatal age begins at fertilization.” (p. 88)

  8. O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1994): “Fertilization is an important landmark because a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. (p. 5); The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo.” (p. 19).

  9. William Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997): “the male and female sex cells, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point.” (p. 1).

  10. Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (2nd Ed., 1977): “The cell (a single-celled zygote) results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of human life.
These are just a few.


In Roe v. Wade, the justices refused to answer the question, “When does human life begin?” which led to the confusion Pelosi, Biden and many others still share. The Supreme Court treated it as solely a philosophical question back then. Since then, as the scientific evidence and testimony shows, human life has been shown scientifically to begin at conception. This is a scientific fact now known for many years by world-renowned embryologists and other human biologists, as well as taught from medical school textbooks and testified to under sworn oath to Congress.

Science, since 1973, conclusively tells us that human life begins at conception (also known as fertilization), not at birth.

It is not a matter of "faith" nor a "belief," "religious," "philosophical," "personal" or otherwise.

Further confusion results when some in the medical profession choose to rewrite textbooks to contradict those expert scientists’ findings, and even to rewrite the ancient doctors' oath, the Hippocratic Oath, to allow abortion. Don't take my word for it. Research it yourselves. Google the phrases "I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy" and then this phrase, ""it may also be within my power to take a life" and tell me it doesn't open Pandora's box further to allow euthanasia against someone's will when the doctor thinks it's best. Because it most certainly does and that is not an opinion but fact. (We have Tufts University's Dean of the School of Medicine to thank for that latter "modern" version, written apparently in 1964)


Below are the online Internet links for folks to find the above embryologists' and textbooks' quotes and facts for yourselves, but feel free to do your own research. You'll find many medical professionals who flout the scientific fact that a new human life begins at every conception but there is no denying the fact that those professionals are going completely opposite of the true experts, the human embryologists noted above.

Never underestimate that some medical professionals recognize a lucrative, prosperous specialty (abortion and its related procedures) when some of them see it.


Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981), answering the question, “When does human life begin?”
400,000 People and Counting, by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
Information on the hearing is here: Can Congress Settle the Abortion Issue?, by Mary C. Segers © 1982 The Hastings Center
The Association of Pro-Life Physicians
University of North Texas

Carnegie Stages of Developments

Textbooks are not online, but there are references to them by experts (and students perhaps using these very textbooks):
Oxford Journals, Human Reproduction, Volume 20, Number 11 Pp. 3008-3011: "Just as postnatal age begins at birth, prenatal age begins at fertilization...Clinicians do have to acknowledge that a woman does not become pregnant during the LMP or during ovulation, but exclusively after conception."
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
THE ENDOWMENT FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, INC. (“Embryo — means “growing within” and refers to the “human offspring in the first eight weeks following fertilization”)
Princeton Students Pro-Life Group

Additional references to various above quotes were found (accessed Feb. 12, 2014) here: American Thinker: "Science Boxes In Barbara Boxer", December 10, 2011, by Jeannie DeAngelis

Unveiling The Left, google books view, 2008, By Alex Locay.

Two very well-done, intelligent discussions by a very well-spoken young woman:

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

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

Sunday, February 09, 2014

How Do You Survive, Pay Rent, Etc., When You "Choose" Not To Work?

Our eyes are twitching here at Abortion Pundit. Honestly, we just have one question for anyone who supports Obama out there to answer:

How do you just decide to quit working, and still survive?

Or reduce your hours, or go be an artist, or spend more time with your kids or grandkids, if you have to pay rent, and for groceries, and gas for a high-mileage 10-year-old car, or even just bus fare, and for a dimestore cellphone with no camera or Internet?

What is Obama smoking, to think that the equivalent of 2,500,000 Americans working now will just be able to "choose" to stop working? How detached from reality can he be? Who's going to pay for them to live? Are they all just going to go on welfare and open their mouths to be fed by the rest of us who keep working, when they themselves are able-bodied enough to hold up their own bootstraps?

Oh, I forgot. That is the Obama plan, all along. Redistribute what people make to those who won't make for themselves anymore. By force of his pen and his phone. So much for ObamaCare creating all those promised jobs:

CBO Director: Obamacare "Creates A Disincentive For People To Work"

"To some, the Democrats’ glee over offering people health care so they’ll quit working reprised memories of a hilarious old headline in the satiric online magazine The Onion: “IBM Emancipates 8,000 Wage Slaves.”

"There’s a serious side to this, a seriously disquieting side: For years, it seemed that although Democrats profess to love jobs, they couldn’t stand employers. Now they’ve gone a step further: They don’t even favor work." ~ Carl M. Cannon, Washington Bureau Chief for RealClearPolitics


"The Economist Who Exposed ObamaCare"
And Professor Casey Mulligan did so, last August and even before, in February 2013!

"The Chicago professor examined the law's incentives for the poor not to get a job or work harder, and this week Beltway budgeteers agreed." ~ By Joseph Rago, Feb. 7, 2014

"...the CBO—Congress's official fiscal scorekeeper, widely revered by Democrats and Republicans alike as the gold standard of economic analysis—reported that by 2024 the equivalent of 2.5 million Americans who were otherwise willing and able to work before ObamaCare will work less or not at all as a result of ObamaCare. As the CBO admits, that's a 'substantially larger' and 'considerably higher' subtraction to the labor force than the mere 800,000 the budget office estimated in 2010. The overall level of labor will fall by 1.5% to 2% over the decade, the CBO figures. Mr. Mulligan's empirical research puts the best estimate of the contraction at 3%. The CBO still has some of the economics wrong, he said in a phone interview Thursday, 'but, boy, it's a lot better to be off by a factor of two than a factor of six.'

"...Because the insurance subsidies are tied to income and phase out as cash wages rise, some people will have the incentive to remain poorer in order to continue capturing higher benefits. Another way of putting it is that taking away benefits has the same effect as a direct tax, so lower-income workers are discouraged from climbing the income ladder by working harder, logging extra hours, taking a promotion or investing in their future earnings through job training or education.

"...Instead, liberals have turned to claiming that ObamaCare's missing workers will be a gift to society. Since employers aren't cutting jobs per se through layoffs or hourly take-backs, people are merely choosing rationally to supply less labor. Thanks to ObamaCare, we're told, Americans can finally quit the salt mines and blacking factories and retire early, or spend more time with the children, or become artists.

"Mr. Mulligan reserves particular scorn for the economists making this 'eliminated from the drudgery of labor market' argument, which he views as a form of trahison des clercs. 'I don't know what their intentions are," he says, choosing his words carefully, "but it looks like they're trying to leverage the lack of economic education in their audience by making these sorts of points.'

Very professorily put. In everyday terms, it looks to Prof. Mulligan like the left-leaning who make that argument are taking full advantage of left-leaning people who don't know any better that they've just been put down on "the government plantation" (quoting African-American and Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory)--- by Obama himself.

Here's the chart accompanying the above-quoted article which shows the effects of ObamaCare to each of us paying taxes (since that is what the Supreme Court said ObamaCare was when it punted on this):

Firstly, the subtitle may be erroneous: looking at Prof. Mulligan's own paper which generated this chart and his blog, he refers to "Average Marginal Labor Income Tax Rates" under ObamaCare, while this chart's transcriber wrote "Average Statutory Marginal Income Tax Rates." Two different things, according to most sources I went to for definitions.

I'm no economics whiz and don't need to be, and neither do you, to see that yours and my average marginal income-tax rate right now is about 45%, and that because of Obama Care, it's jumping to 46% this year and to 47% the following year. TAXES GOING UP, especially when you can't afford them, is never a good thing.

[And for those who say "It's just as good as you think RomneyCare was in Massachusetts!", here's what Mulligan found: "The ACA will increase the national average marginal labor income tax rate about fourteen times more (sic) than the 2006 'Romneycare' health reform law increased the Massachusetts average rate."]

Mulligan continues in the WSJ article:

"...'are we saying we were working too much before? Is that the new argument? I mean make up your mind. We've been complaining for six years now that there's not enough work being done. . . . Even before the recession there was too little work in the economy. Now all of a sudden we wake up and say we're glad that people are working less? We're pursuing our dreams?'

The larger betrayal, Mr. Mulligan argues, is that the same economists now praising the great shrinking workforce used to claim that ObamaCare would expand the labor market. He points to a 2011 letter organized by Harvard's David Cutler and the University of Chicago's Harold Pollack, signed by dozens of left-leaning economists including Nobel laureates, stating 'our strong conclusion' that ObamaCare will strengthen the economy and create 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually."


And it's quiz time. Who said this?

“History shows that nations that uphold the rights of their people — including the freedom of religion — are ultimately more just and more peaceful and more successful.”

...while at the same time is "so dedicated to forcing people to act against their own conscience. By requiring through the contraceptive mandate that some religious-affiliated groups provide health plans covering what they consider abortifacient contraceptives..."?

I'm sure that last part gave it away. Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post hits the surrealistic nail on the head asking,

"...isn’t the Obama administration effectively imposing its own religious rules? Thou shalt not protect unborn life.

...pry my jaw from the floorboards. Without a hint of irony, the president lamented eroding protections of religious liberty around the world.

Just not, apparently, in America.

As the man says in this video at the 1:20 mark, peacefully standing in protest of Obama, standing up for his Constitutional rights, to the police officer threatening to arrest him just because he didn't like his anti-Obama sign, "This used to be America!" And the officer infringing on his Constitutional rights shoots back, "It ain't no more, OK?"

[HT to Jim Vicevitch who has famously, repeatedly, played this soundbite on his program, and to Hot Air, for helping me find the vid.]

[Also the New York Times reports on that same "prayer breakfast" speech, saying that Obama praised Pope Francis and plans to meet with him next month when he visits the Vatican. Looking to capitalize on a selfie with the Pope, I'm sure, but I would love to be a fly on the Papal Walls to hear what Francis will call Obama out on the carpet about. He's just the man to do it.]


And speaking of free speech, oh, how Obama hates it when it's ours.

But he does more than just hate our free speech. Listen to the lengths his administration goes to to try to shut-up this woman, mother, business owner, and shut her down, financially.

(And they accuse us of waging a "War on Women"!)

She is just one of far too many.

From Powerlineblog, whose headline is "Barack Obama: The George Wallace of Free Speech:"

"Bitterly hostile to free speech when exercised by their political opponents, Democrats have done whatever they can to undermine Citizens United, just as they did decades ago with Brown vs. Board of Education. The I.R.S. scandal can best be seen in this light. The Democrats are using the levers of the executive branch, particularly the I.R.S., to deter Americans from exercising the First Amendment rights that were guaranteed them by the Supreme Court. For a full history of the Obama administration’s assault on civil rights, read this letter of February 4 from Darrell Issa and Jim Jordan of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to John Koskinen, newly-appointed Commissioner of the I.R.S...So, just as Democrats of the 1950s and 60s tried to fix the problem of racial integration, the Obama administration tried to fix the problem of free speech."
The Democrats even try to silence the free speech of other black Americans, like South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott:

I'd vote for Sen. Scott, or Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory in. a. heartbeat.


The Irony Of It All (Or At Least The Last Five Years)

It was Obama's policies (re: The Federal Reserve) that made the rich so very much richer, this past five years:

"What you have is a president who campaigns on income inequality and has absolutely no answer to what to do about it other than to raise the minimum wage, which is not going to have any effect on closing the gap, and then his own administration, over half a decade, has absolutely increased the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, and here he is campaigning against the results of his own presidency."
0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

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

Saturday, February 08, 2014

ObamaCare Explained In 5 Minutes

ObamaCare Explained In 5 Minutes

HT: VodkaPundit (love the name, hate the liquor)

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

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

Zonation quotes Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger

Alfonzo Rachel leads off his most recent talk with the famous, direct quote by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. It's really such a shame that so many people don't know that truth, or have such trouble believing it when it's staring them right in the face.
0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

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

Monday, February 03, 2014

Bill Whittle's Latest Afterburner

Thanks to PJTV.com

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

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

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Roe v. Wade and The Liberals Who Criticize It

"My Senate Testimony on Roe v. Wade"

By Ed Whelan, at National Review

Read the link inside that article. It covers a number of quotes criticizing Roe v. Wade, by those who support abortion:

Here are typical criticisms of Roe—from liberals who support a right to abortion:

“What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking. John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Yale L.J. 920, 935-937 (1973).

“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” Laurence H. Tribe, The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 7 (1973).

“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.” “Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.” Edward Lazarus, The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell’s Nomination Only Underlined Them, Oct. 3, 2002 (at http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/lazarus/20021003.html). (Mr. Lazarus was a law clerk to Blackmun and describes himself as “someone utterly committed to the right to choose [abortion]” and as “someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather.”)

“[Roe’s] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” Archibald Cox, The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government 113-114 (1976).

“Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.” William Saletan, Unbecoming Justice Blackmun, Legal Affairs, May/June 2005 (at http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/feature_saleton_mayjun05.msp).

Roe “is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” Benjamin Wittes, Letting Go of Roe, The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.

Do read that entire testimony for yourselves. It's quite lucid and lawyerly, but easy for even laymen/non-lawyers to read.

While it's not news to those of us who do read both sides of the (legal/moral/whatever) argument, Roe v. Wade is basically unconstitutional. The same way slavery and racial persecution were, and and were eventually overturned, once the Supreme Court recognized the errors of its previous decisions in those matters.

As Ed Whelan testified:

"Roe is the Dred Scott of our age."

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

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

Monday, January 20, 2014

Martin Luther King Jr. Day...from ZoNation

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

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

Thursday, January 02, 2014

ZoNation: "You Have Violated The Constitution"

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

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

Wednesday, January 01, 2014

For the Seventh Through Twelfth Days of Christmas...

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

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

A Step In The Right Direction

Oh, this is good news, on New Year's Day:
Justice delays health law's birth control mandate

Associated Press - By JESSE J. HOLLAND 6 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has thrown a hitch into President Barack Obama's new health care law by blocking a requirement that some religion-affiliated organizations provide health insurance that includes birth control.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor decided late Tuesday night to block implementation of the contraceptive coverage requirement, only hours before portions of the law would have gone into effect on New Year's Day.

Sotomayor acted on a request from an organization of Catholic nuns in Denver, the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. Its request for an emergency stay had been denied earlier in the day by a federal appeals court.

Sotomayor gave government officials until 10 a.m. EST Friday to respond to her order.

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

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

Monday, December 30, 2013

The Sixth Day of Christmas

DECEMBER 30:
    "On the sixth day of Christmas my True Love gave to me, six geese a-laying."

The six geese a-laying represent the six days God took to create the earth, the universe, and all creatures. It was a way for all Catholics to remind fellow faithful and be reminded that, despite persecution, they were not second-class citizens but rather first-class children of God and rightful heirs to His mansions in the Heavenly regions if they persevered in the One, True Faith. It encouraged all Catholics, in the face of great apostasy, to believe and adhere the first dogma of the Church, "Extra Ecclesia Salus Nullum" - "Outside the Church, there is no salvation." Thus the sixth day represents the sixth day octave of Christmas and Creation.

Do read the rest of that article for background on those days of persecution of Catholics, and why that song was written. Bet even many Catholics don't know some of this history.

For the record, I'm not a literalist. I don't know if God created all of us and the universe in 6 days or if the 6 days represented 6 millenia or 6 eons. I wasn't there and neither were you, so we both only have our theories, scientific or otherwise. I see no reason why the inspired writer of Genesis didn't just "make it simple" for the listeners, the readers, the common folk of that time to understand. They'd understand "day" and "night" but "eons?" I doubt it. I see no reason either why God couldn't have created all that He did using thousands or millions of years and yes, even evolution, in the process. After all, if you believe He's really The Creator, there isn't anything He cannot do, right?

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

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

Since 6/13/2005