Publicado: 04-11-2011 06:50 PM
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 4/11/11
Herodes Obama: "Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
New reports issued today on the exchanges between pro-abortion President Barack Obama and pro-life Speaker John Boehner show Obama refused to agree to Boehner’s demand to cut Planned Parenthood funding.
For over an hour on Friday, Boehner kept lobbying Obama to agree to some kind of funding cut. However, according to Bloomberg News, after Obama agreed to reinstate a ban on taxpayer funding of abortions in the District of Columbia, he refused to cut any taxpayer disbursements to the abortion business.
“Nope, zero,” he told Boehner when the pro-life Speaker asked him how much he would cut from Planned Parenthood.
Bloomberg also indicates pro-abortion Vice President Joe Biden told Boehner the Obama administration was prepared to take the battle to voters and allow a shutdown of the federal government over Planned Parenthood funding.
Boehner asked Obama again, to which Obama responded, “Nope. Zero. John, this is it.” After that, the New York Times says one participant told it there was a long awkward silence following the exchange where everyone had a facial expression as if yo say, “What do we do now,”
The answer was for Bohener to get pro-abortion Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid to go back on a promise he made to not allow a vote on de-funding Planned Parenthood. With no vote originally planned on the Pence Amendment, securing one to go along with the DC abortion funding ban was a victory.
Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican who is pro-life, told the news service Boehner told Republican lawmakers he got the best deal he could given that Republicans only control half of Congress and don’t have the White House.
“We control one half of one third of the government,” Issa said. “We don’t mandate anything.”
Pro-life advocates responded to the news reports on the inside negotiations between Obama and Boehner and praised the deal pro-life advocates won.
Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest thanked Boehner “for his leadership in gaining Senate votes on de-funding the scandal-ridden Planned Parenthood and repealing the President’s pro-abortion health care law.”
“Speaker Boehner achieved what most said was impossible – cutting taxpayer funding of abortion in the District of Columbia and guaranteeing straight up-or-down votes in the Senate on both defunding Planned Parenthood and President Obama’s pro-abortion health care law,” she told LifeNews. “Now it is time for the U.S. Senate to go on record on these critical issues and to get the American taxpayer out of the business of funding abortion. Their vote will be closely watched and AULA intends to score both as key votes.”
“Long-term de-funding of abortion is a strategic goal that has advanced this session, thanks to hard work and key support. More can be done, but we see pro-life momentum and look to the Senate to respect the wishes of the American people regarding federal funding of abortion,” she added.
Jill Stanek also praised Boehner’s maneuvering, saying he was able to get Democrats on record and set up election battles to defeat pro-abortion senators.
“While pro-lifers lament Planned Parenthood wasn’t defunded in the final 2011 budget, Harry Reid and Barack Obama threw seven Senate Democrats under the bus in the process,” Stanek says. “Reid and Obama agreed to let the Senate have an up or down vote on defunding Planned Parenthood.”
“We already know such a vote will fail, since 41 Democrats signed a letter on April 4 saying they’d oppose such a measure, making it bullet-proof,” she explained. “But House Majority Leader John Boehner’s strategy is to force so-called Democrat moderates to go on the record, potentially getting ammo for the 2012 elections.”
Stanek also hailed the educational value of such a vote, “Obama and Reid also threw Planned Parenthood under the bus by agreeing to Boehner’s demand. A vote in the Senate to defund Planned Parenthood keeps it in the news, further tarnishing its brand.”
Thomas Peters of CatholicVote says, “I believe this reported exchange can provide us some lessons. The President evidently has promised that he will never cut taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. At the same time, he has not demonstrated one scintilla of interest in the claims made by Live Action (and others) that PP is a corrupt organization which harms women (and kills their children). Pause for a moment and consider what sort of things the President and his administration would be doing and saying if the claims made about Planned Parenthood were being made about pro-life health clinics. Suddenly he and his friends would be very interested.”
“Here’s why Planned Parenthood is such a sacred cow for Obama and the Democrats: it absolutely represents their own vision for “health care” for women. There is not a shred of difference between what they want American women to be told about these issues and what Planned Parenthood tells them.
PP is an ideological vehicle for the left’s agenda when it comes to sexuality and reproductive “choice,” Peters continued. “What is outrageous about all of this is that Planned Parenthood remains a “non-profit” organization and is funded in large part by Americans’ taxes. I believe this represents a clear conflict of interest. After all, PP donates overwhelmingly to Democrat candidates and causes, who in turn channel more of our tax money to Planned Parenthood. The glaring point in this whole picture is who is paying for this: us.”
“The President’s total inability to make even the smallest cut to Planned Parenthood’s federal taxpayer funding should trouble those who are also concerned about our government’s record-high spending, debt and deficits. If Obama can not even defund even a corrupt, harmful organization like Planned Parenthood how will he ever cut bloated government entitlements – entitlements which you and I are being forced to fund?” Peters asks.
“Obama’s response to Speaker Boehner that he is unwilling to cut (or even lower) the amount of taxpayer money given to Planned Parenthood each year isn’t a message to Boehner – it’s a message to you and me,” he concludes. “The message from the President is: “Your money will pay for what I tell you it will pay for. And I say your money will pay for Planned Parenthood.” How do we feel about that?”
In 1999 OBAMA was the only Illinois State Senator to vote against a bill barring early release for (criminal) SX offenders.
He voted against filtering pornography on school and library computers and he voted for SX education for kindergarten children through the 5th grade.
Also, in 2001, he voted “present” on a bill to keep pornographic book and video stores and strip clubs from setting up within 1,000 feet of schools and churches.
Twice, Obama voted against bills prohibiting tax funding of abortions.
In February 2004, his wife, Michelle, sent out a fundraising letter, which actually stated her concern over the rise of conservatism in the Country, and that the ‘so-called’ partial-birth abortion was a legitimate medical procedure that should be protected.
Obama said on Tape that if his girls get pregnant he would have them abort the baby, his grandchild ... !!!!
What a guy what a family. Let's give out free abortions to everyone on the taxpayers dime and no worries if the abortion doesn't work we will just listen to your baby cry without giving any medical attention until it dies. Yeah let's keep that sc...um in the Whitehouse.
Giving a great speech is one thing...being inspired by the message okay I get it...but it is your fault not knowing the facts of the person you put in office.
Publicado: 04-13-2011 11:04 AM
The Democrats and Immorality
By Arnold Ahlert On April 12, 2011 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage |
In a recent radio show, Rush Limbaugh said something that encapsulates the dilemma of achieving the genuine fiscal reform envisioned primarily by the newly-elected class of Republican Congressmen and their standard-bearer Sen. Paul Ryan (R-KY). “Republicans own the facts,” said Mr. Limbaugh, “but Democrats own the narrative.” The facts are simple: the Obama administration is running a deficit of $1.6 trillion for the current fiscal year and our national debt is approaching $14.3 trillion. The narrative is equally simple: any significant spending cuts constitute an “assault” on the American public. So how do we achieve genuine fiscal reform?
In my early twenties, I taught study skills in after-school programs at various locations in New York City. This was a time when the crack cocaine epidemic was in full bloom. It wasn’t unusual to see rows of drug dealers openly hawking their wares along several major thoroughfares throughout the city. It was also not unusual to see police cars drive right by without stopping. Thus, for many young New Yorkers, selling crack was seen as a lucrative way to generate a fairly substantial income with relatively little risk.
Whenever the subject of earning money came up in class, kids would ask me what they should do. I told them I used to work in a hamburger joint when I was their age, and that taking a job at McDonald’s seemed like a pretty good choice to me. Such advice was always greeted with a level of scorn, and there was always one kid who asked the inevitable question: ”Why should I work at McDonald’s when I can make ten times as much selling crack on a street corner?” My answer was always the same: ”The only way I can convince you to work at McDonald’s is if I can convince you that selling crack is morally wrong.”
In terms of morality, or more accurately, faux morality, Democrats have owned the narrative for decades. Thus, while Sen. Ryan offers facts, as in “I asked CBO to run the model going out and they told me that their computer simulation crashes in 2037 because CBO can’t conceive of any way in which the economy can continue past the year 2037 because of debt burdens,” House Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweets the all-too-familiar narrative that fiscal responsibility ”is a path to poverty for America’s seniors & children and a road to riches for big oil #GOPvalues.”
Typically, Republicans respond to such charges factually, as in saying they’re not true, even as they abandon the narrative that Democrats, who controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency until 2010, failed to produce any budget at all for the first time since 1974 when the current procedures for enactment were adopted–and that such gross irresponsibility is immoral and has done far more to endanger all Americans than any attempt to address the problem would.
Republicans must also explain that taking revenue from the future to pay current expenses is fundamentally immoral because it consigns the very same children and seniors Ms. Pelosi ostensibly cares about to a future which, absent fiscal reform, will yield a dramatically lower standard of living than Americans currently enjoy. They must seize the narrative and tell Americans that borrowing from the future to pay for today is nothing less than stealing–and that stealing is immoral.
So is lying. “Any plan to reduce our deficit must reflect the American values of fairness and shared sacrifice. Congressman Ryan’s plan fails this test,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Wednesday. “It cuts taxes for millionaires and special interests while placing a greater burden on seniors who depend on Medicare or live in nursing homes, families struggling with a child who has serious disabilities, workers who have lost their health care coverage, and students and their families who rely on Pell Grants.”
The truth: this chart from the Heritage Foundation demonstrates that “shared sacrifice” consists of the top one percent of earners paying 40 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent pay less than three percent. What the chart doesn’t show is that 47 percent of Americans pay no income taxes at all. Furthermore, absent substantial reform, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, which consume almost 60 percent of the budget, are on a trajectory towards bankruptcy.
Yet Democrats are never pressed to explain why allowing America to go bankrupt is not only illogical, but indecent.
They are never asked to justify why the obvious moral failure of keeping millions of Americans dependent on government with all its attendant pathologies, most brutally expressed in the destruction of the nuclear family, is better than fostering self-reliance. They are never taken to task for fostering fear instead of hope, for playing one group of Americans off another, or why the accumulation of wealth is something to be envied instead of aspired to. They are never challenged by Republicans to explain their “compassion” whose goal is to put more people on government programs instead of weaning them off such unseemly dependency.
Republicans must understand that while facts matter, they are less important than countering a narrative with a narrative. For the last five decades, American school children have been taught that feelings are just as important, if not more so, than thinking. Thus, facts, no matter how compelling, will never resonate with a substantial portion of the electorate, unless the narrative which accompanies them is equally compelling. They must realize that Democrats, going as far back as Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, have been fostering a culture of self-entitlement for fifty years and many of it adherents, five decades later, are virtually immune to facts.
I’ve mentioned this in previous columns, but it bears repeating: one of the best emotional appeals Republicans could make would be to announce that, as part of their overall budget plan, Congress will forego their Cadillac heath and pension plans, and put themselves into the same Social Security and health programs available to ordinary Americans.
Factually, it wouldn’t make much of a dent in the budget deficit, but it would be one of the most compelling narratives ever engendered by Congress, and would demonstrate that “shared sacrifice” is high on the Republican agenda. It would simultaneously expose the hypocrisy of any member of Congress in either party who dared to vote against it.
There is no question that Republicans have the facts on their side. No one can argue that we are not $14 trillion in debt or that the current annual deficit is not approximately $1.6 trillion, or that America isn’t headed over a fiscal cliff. But they have to learn how to fight emotional fire with emotional fire. And they must do so proactively, not reactively. If they can’t put the most spendthrift administration in the history of the country on the defensive, America may never recover. More importantly to Republicans, they may never recover.
In 2010, a substantial majority of Americans, via the Tea Party movement, demonstrated that they are no longer interested in a choice between bad and awful with respect to the nation’s fiscal integrity.
Republicans should recognize that the rise of that movement was as much a desire to change the narrative as it was to explain the facts. With so much at stake, the 2012 election may be one of the most emotional election campaigns the republic has seen in quite some time. Republicans can ill-afford to cede so much of the playing field to Democrats. Governing with facts is fine. But without winning the hearts of Americans along the way, Republicans may never get the chance to govern at all.
Publicado: 04-15-2011 04:16 PM
Margaret Sanger, the Soviets, and Democrats: Loving Abortion
LifeNews ^ | 4/15/11 | Paul Kengor
“[W]e could well take example from Russia,” advised Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, “where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government.”
My, how far modern liberal Democrats have progressed.
Sanger, Planned Parenthood matron and racial-eugenicist, who ran a “Negro Project,” who spoke to a KKK rally in 1926, who wished to rid America of its “human weeds” and “morons” and “imbeciles,” and who wanted birth control for “race improvement,” had just returned from a pilgrimage to Stalin’s Russia. Like many Potemkin progressives, she went there to soak in the glorious triumphs of the communist motherland. Each progressive dupe had a particular interest; John Dewey, for instance, hailed the Bolsheviks’ “Great Experiment” in public education. Sanger marveled at Lenin’s and Stalin’s wondrous advancements for women.
And so, in the June 1935 edition of her flagship publication, Birth Control Review, in an article titled, “Birth Control in Russia,” Sanger concluded:
Theoretically, there are no obstacles to birth control in Russia. It is accepted … on the grounds of health and human right…. [W]e could well take example from Russia, where there are no legal restrictions, no religious condemnation, and where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government.
I could quote more, including this jaw-dropping prediction: “All the officials with whom I discussed the matter stated that as soon as the economic and social plans of Soviet Russia are realized, neither abortions nor contraception will be necessary or desired. A functioning Communistic society will assure the happiness of every child, and will assume the full responsibility for its welfare and education.”
Now there, ladies and gentleman, is progressive utopianism, an aabsolute faith in central planners. Contrary to the Planned Parenthood founder’s optimism, abortions skyrocketed to seven million annually in the USSR.
Looks like Margaret Sanger was wrong on that one. Talk about being duped.
What struck me in recently re-reading this article is how Democrats in America have arrived at Sanger’s ideal, where Planned Parenthood’s services have become, in their mind, “part of the regular welfare service of the government” — just like good old Stalinist Russia.
Consider the hysterical response by Democrats to completely legitimate Republican attempts — amid record deficits and debt levels — to cut taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood:
“The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate,” vowed Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), echoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who told House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) that there’s no chance defunding would pass the Senate. Indeed, how could there be? Democrats have a majority there.
Reid said Republicans had placed a “bull’s eye on women in America,” preventing them from getting “health services they need.”
Democrats are united in their vitriol: “The real reason that the right-wing extremists in Congress orchestrated this outrageous government shutdown is to try and defund Planned Parenthood as part of their ideological assault on women’s health care,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO).
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) calmly explained, “This is a war on women. They’re trying to inject their politics and their religion into local family planning.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) insisted that defunding efforts were “nothing more than an opportunity for the right wing in the House to sock it to women.”
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called it a “very dangerous situation for the health — the reproductive health — of women across our country.” Pelosi told reporters: “It’s degrading to women; it’s disrespectful; it doesn’t make any sense; and if you want to reduce the number of abortions in our country, you must commit to supporting contraception and family planning.” The lifelong Roman Catholic and mother of five said Republicans were using Planned Parenthood as a “whipping boy.”
And the always measured Barbara Boxer described Republican efforts as a “vendetta” against women, insisting, “Behind each of these Republican proposed cuts, there are thousands, maybe millions of people who would be hurt.”
I thought liberals had called for civility? Well, I guess civility stops when conservatives want to kill American women.
Remember when President Obama referred to “tax cuts for the wealthy” as the Republicans’ “Holy Grail”? Well, taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood appears to be the Democrats’ Holy Grail (click here). As was reported earlier this week, as Obama and Boehner battled over a budget compromise, Obama drew a line in the sand. As Boehner pushed the president to defund Planned Parenthood, Obama finally snapped: “Nope. Zero. John, this is it.”
The room fell silent. Obama had hoisted the Holy Grail.
You’d think from Democrats’ reaction that taxpayer funding of the nation’s largest abortion provider was Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, an inalienable right in the Declaration, the heart of Federalist10, Washington’s Farewell Address, the writings of Franklin and Adams and John Locke, the cornerstone of the New Deal and Great Society, a sacred political covenant with the American taxpayer, etched in cement at the base of the Washington Monument.
It’s preposterous that America has run so far aground that one could even seriously entertain directing taxpayer dollars to America’s largest abortion provider. The “right” to an abortion had to be read into the Constitution, at the total exclusion of sections guaranteeing a right to life, such as the 14th Amendment. Abortion was read into the “right to privacy,” three words which themselves don’t exist in the Constitution. Democrats should praise their stars that they have that much; even then, it isn’t enough. Now they want those of us who are pro-life to fork over our dollars to an organization that exterminates more unborn babies (millions of them) than any other. It’s downright obscene.
The Democratic Party has truly lost it.
It took Democrats a while to get there, but, finally, almost a century after the launching of the Bolshevik Revolution and Margaret Sanger’s organization, they’ve finally arrived at where Sanger and the Soviets found common ground. They indeed act as if, as Sanger said about Stalin’s Russia, “birth control… is part of the regular service of the government.”
The saddest thing of all is that neither they, nor their supporters, nor America, seem to comprehend the outrageousness of their pposition.
LifeNews.com Note: Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His latest book is The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007).
Publicado: 02-04-2012 11:41 PM
PICHON DE TIRANO ORDENA SILENCIAR A CAPELLANES DEL EJERCITO
Army Silenced Chaplains Last Sunday
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
February 3, 2012
In Catholic churches across the country, parishioners were read letters from the pulpit this weekend from bishops in their diocese about the mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services giving Catholics a year before they’ll be required to start violating their consciences on insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs. But not in the Army.
A statement released this afternoon — which happens to be the 67th anniversary of the sinking of the USS Dorchester, on which four chaplains lost their lives – from the Archdiocese for Military Services explains:
On Thursday, January 26, Archbishop Broglio emailed a pastoral letter to Catholic military chaplains with instructions that it be read from the pulpit at Sunday Masses the following weekend in all military chapels. The letter calls on Catholics to resist the policy initiative, recently affirmed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, for federally mandated health insurance covering sterilization, abortifacients and contraception, because it represents a violation of the freedom of religion recognized by the U.S. Constitution.
The Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains subsequently sent an email to senior chaplains advising them that the Archbishop’s letter was not coordinated with that office and asked that it not be read from the pulpit. The Chief’s office directed that the letter was to be mentioned in the Mass announcements and distributed in printed form in the back of the chapel.
Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants.
Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop’s letter. Additionally, the line: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law” was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.
The AMS did not receive any objections to the reading of Archbishop Broglio’s statement from the other branches of service.
So not only were chaplains told not to read the letter, but an Obama administration official edited a pastoral letter . . . with church buy-in?
Didn’t people flee across an ocean-sized pond to be free of this kind of thing?
UPDATE: Army spokesman confirms “the Army asked that the letter not be read from the pulpit.”