Rush Limbaugh: "Planned Parenthood, Doing The Job The Klan Could Never Finish"Yes, it's a revolting thing to have to say, but it is nonetheless true. Planned Parenthood has its origins in Margaret Sanger, a eugenics proponent, who publicly defended the idea of the sterilization of blacks, the handicapped, and the general dregs of society.
"The Most Dangerous Place for an African-American is in the Womb"
And, it seems, the niece of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King agrees. In 2009 59.85% of all abortions in New York City were performed on African American women. In this country today, Genocide is being committed upon the African American population! If only liberals could see it, and do the right thing. And what would the right thing be, you ask? Stop defending the evil practice.
Obama to be Tried by Muslims 'When They Take Over U.S.?Hey, Duckie! Is there a more kinder, gentler version of Sharia than this? One that recognizes women as having innate, God-bequeathed value? A Sharia where noses and clitoris' are honored as belonging to the women who possess them? As in, not to be cut off willy-nilly because some gray-bearded bastard doesn't want women to enjoy their lives? What better way to keep them in burkas, eh? Cut their noses off so they actually HAVE something to hide!
Now, I'll grant you; this chowder-headed guy [Anjem Choudary] from Great Britain is a nut-job. But then, so is everyone else who refuses to believe that it is not the goal of Islam to impose Sharia in the U.S., and everywhere else on earth.
Sting, in his first solo album, Dream of the Blue Turtles, beautifully expressed the foolishness of nuclear war in the song, "Russians." I would add to his sentiment, here and now, and say it would be equally foolish of the West to allow Islam unchecked freedom within its borders if we do indeed love our children... especially our daughters.
If you want to call that bigotry, fine. But according to my bible, Islam is a false religion, and I'm to give it no quarter. I am to love my neighbors, but that love should be expressed through the earnest desire and attempt to lead them to Christ. There is freedom in Christ, but there is only slavery and degradation, and eternal damnation, in Islam.
2 points.
ReplyDelete1. "In this country today, Genocide is being committed upon the African American population! A genocide is slaughter carried out by one group of people against another. Abortions of African-American children are carried out by their African-American parents. No genocide. Please correct your language.
2. It's pretty rich to condemn one group from practices control over a woman's body when you yourself agitate for that same control. You want the power to deny women the right to terminate pregnancies. I fail to see the difference between you and the Muslims you condemn.
Hmmm. Sharia seeks to maim, stone, and subjugate women. I, on the other hand, only desire to see far fewer abortions than the annual millions currently seen in the U.S. today. If you're incapable of seeing the difference, I can't help you.
ReplyDeleteI accept your definition of 'Genocide.' The liberal mindset, and all liberals who accept and promote the idea that abortion is a human right, are then guilty of genocide. That most liberals don't deliberately target the African American community is irrelevant. Blacks are STILL overwhelmingly targeted for abortion, as evidenced by the fact that Planned Parenthood sets up their clinics in predominately poor neighborhoods. That liberals believe Planned Parenthood is doing a great service for women in this country, and that we the taxpayers should be made to pay for abortions, then these same liberals, whether they accept the charge or not, are guilty of facilitating genocide on the African American community first and foremost, and on babies in general. Liberals prefer to support the rights of convenience, rather than the rights of those lives with no voice to cry "FOUL!"
You know, the Liberals, especially the homosexuals and liberated women, would be the first to be murdered under Sharia Law.
ReplyDeleteI know Liberals like to pretend the Muslims are nice normal people, but the fact is, given the opportunity, Muslims would slaughter each and every one of them unless, of course, they converted to Islam. Also of course, many professing Christian Liberals would likely convert to Islam to save their own wretched skins.
"Blacks are STILL overwhelmingly targeted for abortion". Targeted? Nonsense. Blacks are being rounded up and forced to have abortions?
ReplyDelete"Planned Parenthood sets up their clinics in predominately poor neighborhoods."
Um, the poor are the people who could least afford the health services provided by Planned Parenthood, like mammograms, STD prevention and screening, gyno exams, and contraceptives. Provide services in the neighborhoods that need them? What a concept!
Sharia law? I'm quaking in my boots. I swear to Allah. If I hadn't lived through the days of the red menace and the yellow peril, I don't think I could laugh as hard as I do at scaredy cats like you folks.
"...many professing Christian Liberals would likely convert to Islam to save their own wretched skins."
ReplyDeleteThe operative word being 'professing'... little 'c' Christians... Christian in name only.
Jim...
Now you're just acting the fool. No one has said-- least of all me --that Sharia is coming to America anytime soon. But what is coming (behold! It's already here!) are more and more Muslims, more and more indoctrination, more and more political correctness and bowing so as to not offend Muslim sensibilities. You're a fool if you can see the danger in this. On top of being a fool, you've got blood on your hands for your support of abortion.
"No one has said...that Sharia is coming to America anytime soon."
ReplyDeleteYou're joking aren't you? How many states are trying right now to outlaw Sharia law?
Indoctrination? What indoctrination?
"you've got blood on your hands for your support of abortion."
I have no blood on my hands. I don't "support" abortion. I support the right of a woman to have a legal medical procedure performed if she chooses. I'd prefer fewer abortions.
The people who will have blood on their hands are those of you who support defunding Planned Parenthood which will decrease access to contraception causing more unplanned pregnancies and more abortions.
"You're joking aren't you? How many states are trying right now to outlaw Sharia law?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know, Jim, but it's a fine preventative measure. Outlaw it before anyone gets any ideas. As we've seen in various parts of the Western world, large populations of muslim immigrants have clustered together without trying to assimilate, and in their clusters have tried to carry one with sharia. England's Archbishop stated that he thinks sharia can somehow be tolerated. Dearborn, Mich likely has pockets of sharia influenced policies within it's "protected" muslim population.
"I support the right of a woman to have a legal medical procedure performed if she chooses."
Actually, I doubt if anyone would disagree with what a woman is legally permitted to do. The question is regarding support for that legal "right". Do you support THAT? Do you support laws that enable women to have the "right" to dismember and destroy their own pre-born children? If a candidate or party is attractive to you in part due to their "pro-choice" stance, then you are supporting the action of taking innocent life. There's no dancing around it. If you believe abortion should be legal in the manner it currently is, then you are complicit in the deaths of all those children.
"The people who will have blood on their hands are those of you who support defunding Planned Parenthood which will decrease access to contraception causing more unplanned pregnancies and more abortions."
Jim,
This is stupid. First of all, contraception is available in any gas station or convenience store, not to mention pharmacies all over the country. And though it is akin to mortal sin to suggest such a thing, one need only abstain from sexual intercourse until one can deal with the possibility that a child will result. The act is, after all, designed for that purpose primarily, not for pleasure.
"Unplanned" pregnancy? There's no such thing. There are only the natural consequence of engaging in the act that is designed to bring about new life. Immature and irresponsible people CHOOSE to ignore, not forget, but ignore, that salient point. Now, those same people want to CHOOSE to murder the children that result from their actions.
Your logic and reasoning both are diseased.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that poster of the little black girl, because as best I can tell, conservatives, pro-lifers, tea partiers, republicans don't care about her at all. If they did they wouldn't consistently vote to make her life and future harder and more unstable.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans propose cutting funding for social services, orphanages, foster care, medicaid, WIC, education, the FDA and EPA. Plus of course they keep voting against regulations that benefit mothers and pregnant women.
As far as I can tell all of the right-to-life rhetoric is a smokescreen to hide a puritanical desire to punish women who have sex. That's the only logical conclusion when you consider the violent demand to criminalize abortions against zero support for children and families.
Ben,
ReplyDelete"As best as you can tell" doesn't suggest you are capable of "telling" accurately what the truth is. You think that because our policy proposals support notions of virtue that somehow we don't care? Weird. You seem to insist that because we care about the lives being taken through abortion that we seek to control anyone? No more or less than so many laws now on the books control us all as regards the lives of others. You believe at the heart of our ideology is some puritanical desire to punish women who have sex? Rank foolishness! At the heart of our ideology is personal responsibility. It is the responsible person that understands the purpose of intercourse is somewhat higher and nobler than merely getting one's rocks off.
Regarding violent demands, what is more violent to a human being than to be burned to death or dismembered while still alive? You demand that such heinous and barbarous practices remain legal and available to any who are too self-centered to abstain from sexual behavior.
It should also be remembered that the right-wing, particularly church-going right wingers, tend to give more time and money to charitable causes of all kinds, such that if the secular liberal counterparts would join in, no forced donations through taxation would be required. What's more, conservative economic and regualtory policy always results in more jobs and a more solid economy which means fewer poor in need of my tax dollars to handle the consequences of their apparently uncontrollable sexual desires. As Neil Simpson can attest, CareNet Pregnancy Centers do a whole lot more for crisis pregnancies than any tax supported Planned Parenthood, and they do it without tax dollars. They also do it without murdering defenseless unborn children.
Golly! If it were any darker in Liberal Land Ben and Jim wouldn't be able to find truth if it slapped them in the face!
ReplyDeleteThinkers are serious out of whack in THAT country!
"Do you support THAT?"
ReplyDeleteYou bet.
"dismember and destroy their own pre-born children"
Interesting how you inflame the discussion with something that occurs in only a small percentage of these legal procedures.
"you are supporting the action of taking innocent life."
Your characterization. I don't subscribe to it.
"legal in the manner it currently is"
What other "manner" might we be talking about?
"complicit in the deaths of all those children"
Your characterization. I don't subscribe to it.
"murder the children"
Murder is a legal term that doesn't apply to a legal medical procedure.
OMG, people have SEX! Keep trying...you'll never stop it.
"As far as I can tell all of the right-to-life rhetoric is a smokescreen to hide a puritanical desire to punish women who have sex."
Ya think?
"Interesting how you inflame the discussion with something that occurs in only a small percentage of these legal procedures."
ReplyDeleteI see. So there is in use today "humane" alternatives to destroying innocent human lives? Or are you suggesting that most of the unborn being aborted aren't being destroyed?
""you are supporting the action of taking innocent life."
Your characterization. I don't subscribe to it."
You don't believe that innocent lives are being snuffed or that your support for the legal right to do so isn't support for those killings?
""legal in the manner it currently is"
What other "manner" might we be talking about?"
The alternative even the staunchest pro-lifer doesn't oppose: abortion when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother.
""complicit in the deaths of all those children"
Your characterization. I don't subscribe to it."
But you do. You don't like the sound of reality, but to support abortion as it now stands and to suppport candidates or political parties that defend the current laws, you are helping to insure that millions of unborn are being put to death. That's more than merely a characterization, it's the absolute truth of the matter.
"Murder is a legal term that doesn't apply to a legal medical procedure."
It is a legal term because of the type of killing it represents. Murder is the willful unjustified killing of another person usually for personal gain. There is no more heinous example of that than abortion, where babies are regarded by small people as non-human in order to allow for their weaknesses to go on unchecked.
"OMG, people have SEX! Keep trying...you'll never stop it."
Sadly no. But an attitude like that is far worse as it presumes it's not worth consideration. Let's just kill the babies we produce, pretend they are not people so we can act childishly with our crotches. How mature. How progressive. How pathetic. So is this:
""As far as I can tell all of the right-to-life rhetoric is a smokescreen to hide a puritanical desire to punish women who have sex.""
THIS kinda crap is a characterization to which you'll subscribe. How utterly sad. I feel sorry for you.
"unjustified killing of another person"
ReplyDeleteIn this context the law doesn't regard a fetus as a person and Justice Antonin Scalia agrees. You can call it a "baby" or a "human being" if you like, but it is not a person, legally. I agree.
So, Jim, in a very spineless and cowardly manner, or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say "self-serving", which would mean spineless and cowardly go without saying, you hide behind legality so as not to be bound by morality. I call it a human being because it is a human being. I don't know that our laws have defined the unborn as less than a person and fully human being. Perhaps you have the law handy to present here. I know science absolutely refers to the fertilized human ovum as a new human being.
ReplyDeleteAnd Scalia does NOT agree with you. All he has said is that he doesn't think the founders had the unborn in mind when spelling out our God-given unalienable rights. I don't recall him being asked if the founders had toddlers in mind, or 12 year olds. They likely weren't thinking of women, either.
Scalia said:
ReplyDeleteThey say that the equal protection clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings.
I think that’s wrong. I think when the Constitution says that “persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws” I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don’t count pregnant women twice.
"I don't know that our laws have defined the unborn as less than a person and fully human being."
Obviously they have since the medical procedure is legal.
"you hide behind legality"
Are we not bound by the rule of law? Do you only obey the laws you don't consider morally objectionable?
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI stand by my previous comments regarding Scalia, and should I ever get the opportunity, I will definitely ask him those questions. I have no doubt that the founders were likely thinking of walking around people. But that's only because that is what the average person would think. I contend that they likely were thinking about walking-around men.
"Obviously they have since the medical procedure is legal."
Only by implication, Jim. There has been no law or SCOTUS decision of which I am aware that ever addressed when life begins, when one is officially a person, whether or not an embryo is a person or any variation of the point.
"Are we not bound by the rule of law?"
That isn't the question. And especially in this case, you break no law by not supporting the "legal" murder of innocent unborn people. But you do veer horribly away from morality. And as laws have gotten changed, altered or abolished quite a bit in our history, to look upon this one as something that must never be overturned is to put yourself amongst those with lower character. Can we overturn Roe? I hope so, but if we can't, accepting it as a good for our culture is to accept barbarism. Can we outlaw sex? Of course not. But to accept promiscuity is to coarsen our national character and by mocking those like myself who seek to encourage maturity and moral purity, you need to presume the unborn are not people in order to lessen the shame the tolerance for promiscuity brings.
You mock about trying to get people to stop having sex (something I've not really been saying). But yes, I have high expectations. Too bad you don't. For those of you with such low expectations, abortion is right up your back alley. It's the logical progression.