President Obama to Enslave US Military in Order to Protect Abortion Funding
Planned Parenthood protected. Armed Forces go unpaid.
Planned Parenthood protected. Armed Forces go unpaid.
"Jesse Jackson says the government shutdown would be a return to the Civil War. If today's troops still engage in battle -- if they go to war and execute the orders -- but are not paid by their commander-in-chief, are they his slaves? It sure sounds like Obama has more in common with President Jefferson Davis than he does with President Lincoln."
[...]
"What's a few dead babies between friends? President Obama has no problem ordering a moratorium on drilling for oil, but he will not support a moratorium on drilling for babies."
--Rush, April 8, 2011
The best way to beat Liberals, in ANY election, is to play them at their own game. Hit first, hit hard, do not ease your attack, keep them on the defensive, give them no opportunity to establish a beach head. In other words, Alinsky rule no. 13
"Identify, isolate, freeze and escalate."
Prime example. When Boener and Reid appear at a microphone together Boener should make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that we are in this position because democrats; Reid, Pelosi, AND president Obama failed to provide or pass a budget for two years. Call them out every time they attempt to blame a stiff-necked GOP by pointing out, repeatedly, in the microphone, at every opportunity, that Democrats have failed to do their job; that all their tears spill from crocodile eyes; for if they truly cared about their precious government and the people it purports to help they would have ensured it was funded when it was their job to do so.
Democrats are not interested in returning to fiscal sanity. All they want to do is spend. And tax. They have no desire to cut. They want everyone on some form of government assistance. They want a populace enslaved by government, for the purpose of empowering government, to the detriment of the very people the government is supposed to protect. Democrats are pushing a fascist ideological world-view; they are not interested in personal responsibility, for themselves especially. They view the American people as piggy-banks to be upended and shook till every last penny spills from their pockets. They will not be happy until everyone is miserable. Except for themselves, of course. Didn't Orwell kind of presage this day at the end of Animal Farm? I think he did!
The more I hear them bemoaning the shutdown of this, that or the other, I can only think that this was deliberate on their part. They wanted a shutdown, this year, because they believe that, just like the shutdowns in 1994-5, the GOP will be blamed. And if this is what they have really done; that they really planned this crisis for just this reason, they don't deserve to be in office. They don't deserve to be called American. Not one single conservative or member of the GOP should feel the slightest compunction toward civility with democrats. If they are deliberately spending this nation into insolvency and collapse while cynically staging a shutdown scenario to blame their opponents, the fires of hell are not hot enough for this collection of rat dropping we "affectionately" call democrats. If the democratic leadership has actually done this on purpose, the gloves are off! It's time to blacken their eyes, kick them in the proverbial nuts, and kick and spit on them while they're down. They'll deserve nothing better. I'm talking destruction here. I mean utterly destroy them. Not physically, mind you, but politically, financially, personally. Give them nothing to turn to but God... where they can beg forgiveness and a reprieve from the Hell they so richly deserve.
For the record, I do not believe the GOP will take the fall for this. The American people know where the blame lies, even if democrats do not. Every time they open their misbegotten pie-holes I have to fight the urge to puke. And there's nothing I hate worse than puking...
Tell 'em how you really feel EL!
ReplyDeleteThe fact is:
ReplyDelete"Each year, Planned Parenthood provides more than one million cervical cancer screenings, 830,000 breast exams, and nearly four million exams, treatments, and tests involving sexually transmitted diseases. The federal funding received by the organization goes strictly toward these basic needs and others, such as birth control and annual exams. In fact, just three percent of its work is related to abortion."
None of the funding for abortion services comes from the federal government. BUT suddenly this program that has an important impact on the health of disadvantaged women is a step too far for today's republicans. This program which has been funded by the federal government since 1970, under five republican presidents is so odious to today's conservatives that they will shut down the federal government if it is not eliminated.
Remind me who the fanatics are again?
Oh yes when everyone thinks of Planned Parenthood the first thing that comes to mind is cancer screenings. I cannot fathom why BenT and all the other Liberals worship abortion and treat it like a holy sacrament.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry conservatives are misinformed. Blame the pundits you listen too.
ReplyDelete"Planned Parenthood itself estimates it prevents more than 620,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and 220,000 abortions."
I don't worship abortion. I support organizations that provide health services to poor people though. I support organizations that are demonized for political/religious ideology.
Planned Parenthood uses private money to provide abortions. Conservatives can't plainly outlaw that action, so ya'll are attacking this organization by demonizing it and ignoring the other services it provides to the low-income.
The Supreme Court has said that abortion is a right that women have. If the government is shutdown because bible-thumpers are trying to accomplish with the budget what they can't get through ordinary legislation, then ya'll deserve all the public disapproval such a move will generate.
Bent, Planned Parenthood is not the only provider of these non-abortion services. If taxpayer funding of PP ended, these services could easily be provided elsewhere – preferably somewhere that doesn’t kill humans beings, hide statutory rape, hide sex traffickers / human traffickers, etc.
ReplyDeleteYou need to get your info from websites other than Planned Parenthoods. They've already proven themselves to be immoral, unlawful, unethical, and devious. What would prevent them from lying about what they do as well?
The fact is, supporters of PP are lying.
Money is a great motivator. And, PP makes millions doing abortions. Why wouldn't they lie to keep the money flowing?
By the same logic, why would Planned Parenthood's opponents lie? What is our personal or financial benefit to opposing PP's agenda?
Hey, Bent (and I spell it that way intentionally, because you ARE bent), Planned Parenthood spent over a hundred million dollars to convince the US that they do mammograms as well as these "other" services you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteCheck out this video which proves they don't do mammograms at all: http://www.breitbart.tv/mammosham-planned-parenthood-ceos-false-mammogram-claim-exposed/
"Oh yes when everyone thinks of Planned Parenthood the first thing that comes to mind is cancer screenings."
ReplyDeleteNo, most people think contraceptives. You know those pills and devices that prevent abortions?
"Planned Parenthood is not the only provider of these non-abortion services."
True, but it is the primary low-cost provider to poor people. THAT'S why clinics are located in urban areas. NOT to kill off the African Americans, as you hypothesize.
"They've already proven themselves to be immoral, unlawful, unethical, and devious."
Proven by whom? James O'Keefe and Lila Rose? Talk about unlawful, unethical, and devious!
"What is our personal or financial benefit to opposing PP's agenda?"
Your agenda is all about stopping nookie. If it were about stopping the "baby killing", you would be the biggest supporters of Planned Parenthood in the country.
"...trying to accomplish with the budget what they can't get through ordinary legislation, ..."
ReplyDeleteYou mean like Roe v Wade, only through the courts? Accomplishing through the courts what you couldn't get through ordinary legislation? Defrauding the States of their constitutional rights under the 10th amendment? Well, it looks like ya'll deserve all the public disapproval and polarized communites THAT move generated as well, yes? Righteously despised by everyone who knows better.
@Jim...
"Your agenda is all about stopping nookie."
You are a buffoon, and a first-class idiot. You know damned well it's not about stopping "nookie," it's about stopping the government from forcing us, via taxation, to pay for what we know is morally reprehensible; forcing us all to pay the price of your depravity.
The American government has no business subsidizing the destruction of human life. There are free health services in every city, funded by the taxpayer. There is no need to fund Planned Parenthood, whose PRIMARY purpose has, traditionally, been the facilitation and provision of abortions.
Oh, and Jim, before you even think of throwing the following back in my face...
"The American government has no business subsidizing the destruction of human life."
...arguing we shouldn't therefore be in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, let me remind you that the lives, limbs and sovereignty the United States of America aren't jeopardized by children in the womb. Not one single unborn child is trying to kill Americans. In point of fact, it's actually the other way around; Americans (read: Liberals and Democrats) are trying to kill the unborn... and doing a damned fine job of it to boot.
---
You and I both know, Ben, that just because a website says a thing, doesn't make it so. It's our business, after all.
I just heard that after a shut-down in the mid 90's, the GOP picked up two seats in the House in the following election. I haven't checked this out myself, but if true, we could certainly have similar results if the truth of why the shutdown occurred was properly explained.
ReplyDelete@Mark,
I heard those phone calls, too, but couldn't remember off the bat who had posted them (Neil, I think). Glad you offered them here.
@Jim,
Find a woman who'll talk to you and have her make a few calls herself. See what PP tells her if she asks about the cancer screening they provide. That's a simple enough ploy to find out if O'Keefe et al are devious and dishonest. (And if by dishonest you mean their methods of exposing bad behavior, then that makes liars of every law enforcement agency that worked a sting.)
Also, Jim, why is it a government duty to provide contraceptives (assuming they are contraceptive, like a condom, not like the pill which can cause a fertilized egg to be flushed)? Are the poor incapable of controlling themselves? YOUR agenda is to protect nookie regardless of the consequences. Such selfishness is bad for America.
@EL "You are a buffoon, and a first-class idiot."
ReplyDeleteI know you are, but what am I. Name calling is so clever and persuasive. I'm impressed.
"it's about stopping the government from forcing us, via taxation, to pay for what we know is morally reprehensible...The American government has no business subsidizing the destruction of human life."
The Hyde amendment prevents any federal money to be used to fund abortion. So this is a PHONY argument. You are NOT forced to pay for abortion. Your tax dollars go to provide services that prevent abortion. The fact that PP does things you don't like with other money is beside the point.
".arguing we shouldn't therefore be in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya"
Never occurred to me to go there. Next.
"whose PRIMARY purpose has, traditionally, been the facilitation and provision of abortions."
This is simply false. It's FALSE.
"And if by dishonest you mean their methods of exposing bad behavior".
They DIDN'T expose bad behavior. They manufactured a story of bad behavior.
"Are the poor incapable of controlling themselves?"
See? It's about stopping nookie.
"@EL "You are a buffoon, and a first-class idiot."
ReplyDeleteI know you are, but what am I. Name calling is so clever and persuasive. I'm impressed."
Actually, Jim, there is something idiotic and buffoonish regarding your comments. I'll start with the following:
"They DIDN'T expose bad behavior. They manufactured a story of bad behavior."
Once again, they set up a sting, the same thing law enforcement agencies do to expose criminal behavior. They manufactured nothing but the plan in which they would do this. PP had every opportunity to say, "We will have to report the statutory rape." in cases where the caller pretended to be underage and impregnated by an adult. They could stop advertising that they provide services the caller found didn't exist at any of the PP locations called. And so on. So to say they didn't uncover bad behavior is indeed idiotic and buffoonish.
""Are the poor incapable of controlling themselves?"
See? It's about stopping nookie."
The point is that if the goal is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, there is no cheaper way to accomplish that goal than by refraining from the very activity designed to provoke a pregnancy. To pretend that poor women need any gov't help to prevent pregancy is idiotic and buffoonish.
I do wonder, however, about your fear of "no nookie". Do you have some sort of psychological addiction? Are you so corrupt that your life is so greatly diminished if you are unable to indulge? If you had your crotch shot off, would then seek to kill yourself?
"Your tax dollars go to provide services that prevent abortion."
PP is an abortion provider. It is what drives their business. They have no intention of denying that service in order to operate with the help of tax dollars. There is no way to separate the use of tax dollars that they receive. To think that our tax dollars aren't funding abortions there simply because they supposedly offer other services is buffoonish and idiotic. If an organization receiving tax dollars performs abortions, our tax dollars are funding those abortions.
You would believe anything, wouldn't you Jim, if it came from the lips of liberals or was delivered to support liberal ideals. This is so utterly sad. You can't even think for yourself. You defend the indefensible simply because if comes from the lips of your own petty, fallen and soulless saints.
ReplyDelete"there is no cheaper way to accomplish that goal than by refraining from the very activity designed to provoke a pregnancy."
ReplyDeleteProof again that it's all about trying convince people to not have nookie. You will NEVER accomplish that.
"I do wonder, however, about your fear of "no nookie". Do you have some sort of psychological addiction?"
Um, I'm married, monogamous, had a vasectomy. My nookie is not an issue.
"You would believe anything, wouldn't you Jim"
Nope, I question everything and I actually research claims, especially yours. I learn a lot from doing this. It's really the only reason why I visit and post on this and your other blogs. Gives me claims to verify and usually find inaccurate. I've learned SO MUCH thanks to you guys!
"Proof again that it's all about trying convince people to not have nookie. You will NEVER accomplish that."
ReplyDeleteAre you hoping to provide more evidence of idiocy and buffoonery on your part? It's about what people do with the consequences of their "nookie". Anyone who can't afford, or who chooses not to have a child needs to first consider not engaging in the procreative act. It's called responsibility. It's called character. You showed some by having your package cut because doing so was easier for you than refraining. Cool. Not all wish to limit their abilities to reproduce, but that option is available to all and worth a little abstainence and overtime in order to provide themselves with the opportunity.
But for all others, you would have them simply go out and kill their own kid rather than exert a little spine.
That's not at all surprising to me. You pretend it's all about inhibiting the sexual activities of others when in fact it's really a matter of people like you wanting so badly to protect the "right" to pork that you're willing to deny the right to life for the child produced by the exercise of that "right". How sad and pathetic that so many have that attitude (mostly leftists). The issue isn't that anyone can stop another from having the desire or satisfying it. The issue is scumbags who make all kinds of excuses in order to force the rest of us to fund the heinous abdication of the responsibility that goes with it.
"You showed some by having your package cut because doing so was easier for you than refraining."
ReplyDeleteWhat a bullshit analysis! I did so because I did not wish to have anymore children and I wanted to continue a normal sex life. Easier than refraining?
There you go again? Are you a Puritan or something? You imply that a more moral course of action would have been to simply stop having sex instead of having a vasectomy. But I chose the easy way?
Yeah. I like nookie.
"I did so because I did not wish to have anymore children and I wanted to continue a normal sex life."
ReplyDeleteRight. And the only other reliable way to continue engaging in a "mormal sex life" would have been to refrain from having sex. Quite clearly that option would be too hard for you to employ, so you went with what was for you, the easier option. Thanks for helping me make my case.
"You imply that a more moral course of action would have been to simply stop having sex instead of having a vasectomy."
You thought I meant to imply that? I'm sorry. I thought I was being rather emphatic rather than merely suggestive. You have chosen to take out of God's hands the ability to choose whether or not your engagemnet in the act designed for bringing about new life actually can. How silly of me to take the position that abstaining would be morally superior to "cutting off" the possibility of new life in order to indulge one's carnal desires. You chose the easy way. Thanks for helping me make my case.
"And the only other reliable way to continue engaging in a '[n]ormal sex life' would have been to refrain from having sex."
ReplyDeleteHuh? How would that be a normal sex life?
"that option would be too hard for you to employ".
Too hard? No. Simply not an option that any sane person would even consider.
"You have chosen to take out of God's hands the ability to choose whether or not your engagemnet in the act designed for bringing about new life actually can."
You really are out there on the fringe, aren't you?
""And the only other reliable way to continue engaging in a '[n]ormal sex life' would have been to refrain from having sex."
ReplyDeleteHuh? How would that be a normal sex life?"
Ah! Good catch, Jim. I didn't proof read my comment, typing one thought while considering another. Naturally, what I meant to say was that the only other reliable way to prevent having kids is to abstain. You went with the easy way, because for you, a "normal" sex life means sex whenever you want without consequence.
But yes, Jim. I am way out here on the fringe where people see things as they are without making excuses for not liking the way things are. For example, out here on the fringe, we're just as horny as the rest of you, but we understand the ramifications of indulging our horniness, as well as understanding that denying ourselves will not kill us. We understand that if our lives and relationships depend on getting our nuts off, then we are as pathetic as people like you. We understand that doing what must be done, such as denying ourselves sexual pleasure when pregnancy isn't feasible is not insanity, but a sign of character. How sad that you are too crotch centered to understand any of this. The irony is that it is I who is often accused of being obsessed with sex.
"You have chosen to take out of God's hands the ability to choose whether or not your engagemnet in the act designed for bringing about new life actually can."
ReplyDeleteHow can someone espousing such Amish/Puritanical views use a computer?
We've taken over fate's and nature's design in all aspects of our lives. Start with medicine and show me where the Bible says yea or nay about radiation therapy to treat cancer, open heart surgery, bone marrow transplants for leukemia, even simple blood transfusions.
We've moved beyond biblical prescriptions for housing and transportation, work and education, child rearing, and warfare. Using the Bible as a definitive single source guide to today's world is madness!
"...is madness."
ReplyDeleteOnly for those who can find no relevance in prescriptions of the past.
There is nothing wrong with technological advances. But what often occurs with the development of something new or innovative is a cementing of ego... a hardening of the heart, if you will.
"I did this... no fingerprint of God whatsoever. It has MY stamp all over it."
I honestly don't think God views computers as 'evil.' Nor does He view surgery and medical advances similarly. What he finds evil is the heart behind it's creation, its use, and the level of reliance upon which we give them. He is a jealous God, and will suffer no other gods before Him.
Another thing to consider, I believe, is our own hubris. When we become so learned in a field of study that we forget what we knew at the beginning.
Medicine in America is a prime example. Many doctors today tell patients that vitamins and minerals aren't particularly necessary; that we can get everything we need from our diet. But this isn't true. These same doctors will tell us that too many vitamins can be harmful, even fatal, but this isn't true either. Is it hard to believe that doctors can be ignorant in this regard?
"The Journal of the American Medical Association published papers, which indicated that approximately one hundred and six thousand Americans die from properly proscribed-- non-physician error --pharmaceutical drugs each year. This statistic does not count overdoses or misuses.
"Therefore, if a hundred and six thousand people die from normal expected side effects of drugs just in America, just in one year, in twenty-three years we are talking millions of people dead from pharmaceutical drugs.
2,438,000
And in twenty-three years-- ten allegedly dead from vitamins."
-- Andrew W Saul ~Ph.D
Approximately 39,000 people die due to unnecessary surgery and other errors in hospitals each year. In 2000, approximately 103,000 people died due to infections contracted while in the hospital.
Doctors say, vitamins can be dangerous, so we should stop taking them. Using this logic, should we then stop going to the hospital? Because in 23 years only 10 deaths have been attributed (not proven) to vitamin overdose, but in the neighborhood of 2.4 million have died in hospitals because of infections and medical mistakes.
Just because the Bible is a very old book doesn't mean there isn't something of worth and relevance to today's issues to be found between its covers. For instance: a prescription for good health and long life.
"but in the neighborhood of 2.4 million have died in hospitals because of infections and medical mistakes."
ReplyDeleteMy bad... 2.4 million in 23 years from properly prescribed and used pharmaceutical drugs. The medical mistakes and hospital contracted infections are in addition to the aforementioned 2.4 million.
But then again, it's not fair to compare 23 years of results to just one so...
ReplyDelete106,000 deaths attributed to properly prescribed and used pharmaceutical deaths each year, plus (in 2000) 103,000 in medical mistakes and hospital infections. 219,000 deaths attributed to the medical industry a year? But only 10 alleged deaths in twenty-three years due to vitamin overdose?
"Using the Bible as a definitive single source guide to today's world is madness!"
ReplyDeleteI'm aware that the truth is madness to fools. There's nothing about today's world that would suffer by using the Bible as a guide, except those things that conflict with His will. And those things that conflict with His will have never been good for mankind.