Advertisements
Home

2016 Democrats On Abortion Are 1857 Democrats On Slavery

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Wire.

Proverbs 6:16-17 King James Version (KJV)

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.

First the DemocRats caused the shedding of innocent blood with their founding of The Ku Klux Klan then by passing Jim Crow Laws.

Then in the 21 century by pushing abortion.

At the final Democratic debate last night between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist-Loonbaggia), Clinton brought up the issue of abortion. This is not her strongest issue, given that Democrats’ stated position is that killing babies up to the point of birth represents true exercise of female freedom. But she went for it anyway.

We’ve had eight debates before, this is our ninth,” said Clinton. “We’ve not had one question about a woman’s right to make her own decisions about reproductive health care. Not one question!” Abortion, she continued, “goes to the heart of who we are as women, our rights, our autonomy, our ability to make our own decisions, and we need to be talking about that and defending Planned Parenthood from these outrageous attacks.”

The left’s position on abortion is truly extreme and repulsive. The “right to choose” for any person should never include the ability to “choose” whether another human being is in fact a human being. By labeling the ability to redefine human life at will an aspect of female identity, Clinton puts herself in the company of antebellum Southern plantation owners who believed that their special status as white men gave them the ability to define whether a black person was property or a human being.

Here’s Hillary on abortion, after being asked by Chuck Todd of NBC “does an unborn child have constitutional rights”:

Well, under our laws, currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have Constitutional rights.

Here’s Roger Taney’s infamously evil and legally wrong decision in Scott v. Sandford circa 1857:

T]he Constitution recognises the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draw such a distinction or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the Government.

Call it the slaveholder right to choose.

The root of evil lies in dehumanization on the basis of convenience. There is a reason the Nazis routinely referred to their enemies, particularly Jews, as “subhuman.” Hutus demonized Tutsis in Rwanda as subhuman “cockroaches.” As David Livingstone Smith has argued, “When people dehumanize others, they actually conceive of them as subhuman, they actually conceive of them as subhuman creatures,” freeing them to “liberate aggression.”

A society that tolerates – celebrates! – the murder of the unborn to the tune of 1 million per year in America alone must rely heavily on dehumanization. Your freedom to choose does not extend to your definition of human life. Hillary calls abortion a “most difficult decision” – but your decision about whether another innocent human being gets to live isn’t difficult. It’s easy. It’s just inconvenient.

Democrats believe about abortion what their Democratic forebears believed about slavery: it’s a peculiar institution bearing a unique set of decisions; no one else can understand those decisions; anyone who tries to intervene in those decisions violates the freedom to choose. This is evil. Humanity doesn’t begin at the Mason-Dixon line or at the vaginal canal.

Advertisements

I AM A HATER

4 Comments

This is from BarbWire.

After reading this article I have come to the conclusion I am a hater also.

 

I have finally decided to come clean. I suspect that many of you have realized it for years. In fact, my inbox usually fills up very quickly after I write one of my stinging commentaries.

“You are a hater!” goes the usual template. The writer then of goes off on a litany of accusations which supposedly prove that I am a hater.

In the earlier stages of my somewhat “public” life as a “conservative” commentator I used to spend valuable time trying to convince the email trolls of my virtue and the fact that they are mischaracterizing my character.

Eventually I grew tired of the rather boring ad nauseam, semi conjunctive apology for a trait that I didn’t possess. I finally figured out that trying to convince haters that I was not a hater was a waste of valuable time. After a bit of introspection I decided it was time to come clean and admit what all those who don’t know me had concluded they know about me.

I am a hater. I finally admit it. I am a hater. And a proud one, I might add.

I hate what homosexuality does to people. I hate the destructive nature of that debaucherous behavior and the impact it has on the individual. I hate the pain that it causes to innocent parents and siblings. I hate that it is taught to our children as normal behavior.

I hate abortion. I hate the fact that precious little babies created in the image of God never get the chance to have their pictures appear on a refrigerator. I hate that unsuspecting grandparents are having their grandchildren murdered without their knowledge. I hate that most women live a life of regret after they have killed their unborn child. I hate that Planned Parenthood which makes millions of dollars off of killing the innocent, is viewed as honorable. I hate that our government forces us to pay taxes to fund the slaughter. I hate that most Christians don’t do a darn thing to stop it.

I hate that my government lies to me. I hate that they spend money that they have no right to spend. I hate that the control of our money lies in the hands of a privately owned bank and that the people have no control over how the value of the money is regulated. I hate that the government sends our young people to fight and die in meaningless wars. I hate that they live by a different set of rules. I hate that the elections are pretty much rigged. I hate that I am forced to “voluntarily” pay an income tax for which I will be punished if I fail to “voluntarily” comply. I hate that crime has become big business for a corrupt injustice system.

I hate our “public” education system. I hate that the schools do not teach the values of the public but, instead, teach the values they want the public to hold. I hate the National Education Association and their endorsement of candidates who support child-killing. I hate the fact that millions of inner city students are trapped in prison-like neighborhood schools where their chance of advancement in society is blocked by those same money-grubbing unions and the sold out political candidates that they support. I hate that our children are taught lies. I hate that Christian parents continue to send their children into those Humanistic indoctrination centers. I hate that every church in America doesn’t have a means by which they can provide a Christian education to ever child in their flock. I hate that a Godless education is no education at all and that our pastors continue to be complicit in propping up such an anti-Christ system.

I hate that so many people believe so much that isn’t true. I hate that the media lies so blatantly in their coverage of what is really happening in America. I hate that they cover up so much of what is real news and cover so little of what really is. I hate that news is now considered fair and balanced rather than just…well…news. I hate the fact that you have to have blond hair and wear short skirts to make it on some of our favorite news channels. I hate their hidden agendas.

I hate that mothers have to put their children in daycare. I hate that many women miss the precious early years of their children’s life…time that can never be recaptured…because they have to work in order to pay the overbearing and odious tax bill that the fraudulent IRS holds over their heads. I hate that women value career over childbearing. I hate that our economic system forces many mothers to choose between full time work and full time Mommy.

I hate adultery. I hate what the shack-up culture is doing to American society. I hate that 70% of babies born in the black community are born into a home where there is no father. I hate the fact that men no longer take the responsibility of being fathers because the women have lost the value of their virtue. I hate that chivalry is no longer honored. I hate that at our current rate of reproduction the White European Christian Population that built our great nation will soon see their grandchildren become slaves on the continent that they formed. I hate that motherhood and fatherhood are so cheaply valued. I hate that young people can’t see that parenthood is the most noble job they will ever have in their entire life. I hate the sissification of men.

I hate that more people don’t hate. I hate that we have been trained to love things that are repulsive. I hate that we are forced to tolerate things that we shouldn’t tolerate. I hate that most people so easily give-in to social pressure. I hate that pastors have invited worldliness into the church and that they have become so comfortable with it that they can’t even recognize it. I hate it that no one judges anything anymore.

I hate that we have become such poor witnesses for the God we claim to serve. I hate that we have rejected the Christian values that our fathers’ generation fought and died for. I hate that we don’t value their sacrifice. I hate that we laugh at their values. I hate that we love the things that they hated.

I hate what America has become. I hate that we have rejected God. I hate that nobody seems to care about that anymore. I hate that our nation no longer serves or honors the precepts of the Christian God. I hate that not enough of us hate the right things. I hate that most Americans don’t know that God also hates.

People I love…sin I hate. I hate that I am hated for boldly pointing that out.

Here Is Where Paul Ryan Stands on 13 Key Policy Issues

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Signal.

My question is will Paul Ryan be like Willie The Weeper (Boehner) and cave to Obama?

 

Rep. Paul Ryan came to Congress as a 28-year-old policy wonk who had already established his chops in Washington, D.C. Working as a speechwriter for former Rep. Jack Kemp and serving as a legislative director on Capitol Hill gave Ryan a perspective on the policy battles that play out in the nation’s capital.

Over the course of his 16 years in the House, he led the Budget Committee and currently serves as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He was also tapped to be Mitt Romney’s running mate in 2012. During his time in Congress, he’s accumulated a lifetime average of 63 percent on the Heritage Action scorecard and an 83 percent lifetime score from the Club for Growth.

Now, as he considers a run for House speaker—a job he’ll only do if all factions of the GOP stand behind him—The Daily Signal takes a look at some of the key issues that have shaped Ryan’s career.

1) Abortion: Ryan has supported pro-life legislation and efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. According to Politico, Ryan said, “I support the rights of the unborn child. Personally, I believe that life begins at conception, and it is for that reason that I feel we need to protect that life as we would protect other children.”

2) Budget: Ryan has spearheaded several budget proposals during his time at the House Budget Committee. Ryan’s 2014 proposal sought to “balance the budget within 10 years by cutting spending, reforming poverty programs, and importantly, reforming the health care entitlements,”according to The Heritage Foundation’s Romina Boccia. However, conservatives haven’t always approved. One of his plans, the 2013 Ryan-Murray spending deal, was criticized for including a backdoor tax increase in the form of “user fees.”

3) Education: Ryan voted for No Child Left Behind in 2001before supporting the A-PLUS Act to give more control over funding to local communities. “Many educators and parents have expressed frustration with the numerous federal requirements that have come with NCLB funding,” Ryan said in a 2012 statement. “The A-PLUS Act allows local school districts to implement their own, individual education plans.”

4) Energy: Ryan opposed President Barack Obama’s cap-and-trade initiative. In the 2012 Path to Prosperity proposal, Ryan wrote that the “heavy-handed regulations circumvent accountability to voters and leaves decisions in the hands of a bureaucratic infrastructure … [tying] the hands of small businesses and create a hostile and uncertain business environment.”

5) Financial Bailout: In 2008, Ryan voted for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. He argued the vote was consistent with his free-market philosophy. “I’m going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles,” Ryan said in afloor speech, “in order to preserve this free-enterprise system.”

6) Gun Rights: Ryan has been a strong proponent of gun rights, voting numerous times against background checks and in favor of pro-gun legislation. A bow-hunter, Ryan is also member of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus.

7) Health Care: Ryan has opposed Obamacare since its passage and recently helped spearhead partial repeal by means of the budgetary tool known as reconciliation. “You can’t fix a fundamentally broken law; you’ve got to replace it,” he wrote in USA Today.

8) International: Ryan wanted to lift the Cuban embargo before supporting it. In 2002, he told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that “if we think engagement works well with China, well, it ought to work well with Cuba.” After “learning from friendships just how brutal the Castro regime is,” Ryan has changed his position, The New York Times reported.

9) Immigration: Ryan has supported immigration reform bills that included amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants in the past. Last summer, he outlined a vision that included a pathway to citizenship, bolstered border security, and a fast-track to legal status for the children of illegal immigrants. “People say, ‘amnesty!’ No, it’s taking a problem that’s intractable, that’s been around forever, and trying to fix it in a way that as best guarantees as you can that we’re not going to be in the same [situation] 10 years from now,” he told Hillsdale College students, according to National Review.

10) Labor Unions: Ryan remains unwavering in his support of federally mandated, prevailing wages. Opposed by national labor groups like the AFL-CIO, Ryan has enjoyed the support of local Wisconsin unions for his unwavering backing of the Davis-Bacon Act. “He’s supported us on every Davis-Bacon vote that’s been held,” Wisconsin State Council of Carpenters Executive Director Mark Reihl told Mother Jones.

11) Marriage: Ryan voted in 2006 in favor of the Marriage Protection Act, a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. In 2007, though, he supported legislation that would ban workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians. Defending his vote, he told reporters, it wasn’t as if employees “[rolled] out of bed one morning and choose to be gay. That’s who they are.”

12) National Security: Ryan voted to go to war in bothAfghanistan and Iraq, later opposing an early military withdrawal. “I believe that the continued engagement in Afghanistan is necessary, and demands careful consideration for the safety of both our Armed Forces and citizens,” he said in a statement.

13) School Choice: Ryan has supported increasing school choice options for families. “Sending your child to a great school should not be a privilege of the well-to-do,” Ryan said in a 2012 speech. “I believe that choice should be available to every parent in our country, wherever they live. Education reform is urgent, and freedom is the key.” In 2011, Ryan voted to reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, legislation that increased school choice opportunities for families inside the District of Columbia.

July 23, 1944

Leave a comment

Hat Tip To Proud Hillbilly@From the Caer.

These are powerful words.

 

That would be the date that the forces of the Soviet Union liberated the Majdanek concentration camp near Lublin, Poland, the first of many that they would enter as Nazi Germany fell.  Efforts were made by the Nazis to destroy the evidence of their death camps, but they were forced out so quickly that too much evidence was left behind.  And many in the world were horrified.  Piles of belongings systematically taken from camp victims.  Tons of hair.  Piles of dead.  Walking, empty-eyed skeletons.  Enough evidence that some were hanged after Nuremburg.  Enough that some are still being taken to trial and convicted of crimes 70 years later.

The world had been warned – there had been voices crying in the wilderness.  But by and large the world had ignored the warnings because it could not believe that such a thing was happening.  It could not comprehend the levels of brutality accepted by the Reich and those who, in one way or another, accepted and followed it.   This despite that fact that the Allied countries were themselves not far distant from another evil, slavery, that is born out of and sustained by exactly the same core belief that fueled what became known as the Holocaust.  The belief that some human beings aren’t quite human enough.  And if they aren’t quite human enough some argument can be made for their disposal, their unwilling disposition.

Recently, videos have revealed that Planned Parenthood not only deals in the body parts of aborted human beings but that they can even offer a “less crunchy” method of dismemberment so as to ensure less damage of the body parts they are providing.  Body parts, of course, requiring a fairly advanced level of development.  Human body parts, of course, requiring a human.  None of this surprises me.  Nor would it surprise me if the supporters of Planned Parenthood stopped reading right here.   I can guarantee that Planned Parenthood isn’t the only one trafficking in the body parts of those they kill.  Nor does the cavalier, casual way in which it is discussed between sips of wine and bites of food surprise me.  It’s to be expected.  We’ve seen this over and over in the history of the world.  First, declare someone not quite human.  Then do what you will with them.  With proper rationalization, of course.  See the Wansee Conference for one of many parallels.

Nobody who calls themselves pro-choice can be made uncomfortable by these videos as they are released.  In reality, I don’t believe they will watch them anyway.  To do so might cause discomfort and require serious contemplation and reflection and we are in too much of a mass media, bread and circuses environment for that to happen.  The preference for the comfortable will take priority.  But also there is the fact that if a human being is not being killed in an abortion then there is no more reason to be bothered by it than there is to be bothered by the package of chicken livers that one picks up at the local grocery store.  If it’s not a human being and not your household pet then it’s just meat, no different from the roast or wings housed in a cooler.

If, on the other hand, it is not just meat, then what is it?  No magic happens at some point between conception and birth.  The same chromosomes – half from the mother, half from the father – and the same biology exists for 9 months.  And for every month after.  It’s just a matter of development.  A unique entity appears at conception, first dependent on and nourished by just the mother, then dependent on and nourished by both mother and father.  X and or Y chromosomes combining to form an entity carrying various characteristics of both parents.  Nothing about that changes at any point from the moment of conception to the moment of death.  There is no person alive or dead who can prove that that changes.  The only thing that is proved as time goes on is how amazing a developing human being is.

In order to support abortion under any name, one of two things has to happen.  Either “humaness” has to be denied or it has to be accepted that a human being who has never committed a crime and cannot defend itself can be killed.  And that is the exact pathology that has allowed slavery, lynchings, the Third Reich, and countless other evils to flourish and grow.  It always will.  The pro-choice person is no more than the “good German” who, while perhaps not entirely accepting the extremes of the Reich, accepted that Jews were not quite human and possibly were a problem.  Those people were otherwise kind and giving.  They went to church, they brought a sick neighbor a casserole, they socialized and they looked after one another’s children.  They lived in the proximity of death camps and maybe even made a little money on the side selling produce from their farms for the commandant’s table.  They had a vague feeling that if someone was in Dachau they deserved to be there and then they went about their lives.  Because doing otherwise was unthinkable.  And hard.  The pro-choice person is the Yankee who would never consider owning a slave and yet feels that plantation owners have a right to their own property.

Since not a single pro-choice person can verify the instant a human being magically appears, a pro-choice person, no matter what they say, has to accept that no human being exists until birth.  That particularly onerous opinion does exist in the pro-choice community and is demonstrated in partial birth abortion.  Yet there is zero evidence to support one time or another as far as when a human life begins if it does not begin at conception.  Without anything to back it up, it’s just a matter of personal opinion.  If human life, despite the evidence of biology, only begins at some middle time, then that time is tied to a clock that is tied to  exact instant of conception and to a capability for a measurement of time that we don’t have.  For a pro-choice person, human life isn’t tied to any science – it’s tied to personal feeling.  For human life to be defined at some x along the developmental way, that x has to be defined to the tiniest, most infinitesimal  fraction of time.  An instant on the wrong side of that time and a human being is dead.  In a sane world, this is ludicrous.  In the pro-choice world, it is fine.  A member of a jury is required to only convict when there is no reasonable doubt. A pro-choice person not only convicts but hands out a death sentence thousands of times a day from deep within the shadows of doubt and personal opinion.

And there lies slavery.  There lies the Final Solution. There lies Hutus and Tutsis. There lies the millions dead under Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot.  It is exactly the same evil: insidious, comforting for those that accept it, normalized.  Promoted as progress and freedom.   And funded under the name of the Reich, the Glorious Revolution, Planned Parenthood.  All the born of the same idea – some are not human enough to not be expendable.

I don’t expect anyone who calls themselves pro-choice to have finished reading this.  It will have made them too uncomfortable.  Or, if they do get this far their sense of superiority will be outraged and they will call me names, condemn me.   They are part of a clique, surrounded by waves of media and persons with whom they feel comfortable, and any challenge to that will make them angry and frustrated.  At the very best they will call me divisive.  Many will deride opinions such as mine as stupid, ignorant, anti-woman, etc., because they cannot address the core arguments.  And those who at minimum call me divisive will continue to congregate where they feel safe.  If they contemplate otherwise they run the risk of being themselves called divisive and their comfortable community and the approbation of such as John Stewart are too much to risk for them.

They also have an advantage.  They will never in this life have to look into the eyes of the victims whose deaths they supported and justify themselves.  It’s all very neat and distant and clinically described for the pro-choice community.  After the Ohrdruf labor camp was liberated in April of 1945, General Walton Walker began the practice of making local civilians view the death camps, made them face up to what they had allowed and supported.  Very very few supporters of abortion will ever have to do that in this life.  They will oppose pain capable laws but never, ever interact with a survivor of abortion, despite the fact that there are thousands in this country alone who have survived that horrific, agonizing, and sometimes crippling attempt on their lives.  Those who are pro-choice will never look into the eyes of those survivors and tell them why they had to die, why their lives are a mistake.  That would require integrity and courage.  That would require the admission that the they, those that call themselves pro-choice, are exactly the same as those neatly dressed middle-class citizens who stand looking at a pile of bodies of those who weren’t quite human enough.  That sort of integrity and honesty doesn’t exist in the pro-choice community.  It’s much too frightening.

 

Kids Need Permission to Eat Oreos But Not to Get an Abortion

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

More liberal lack of logic you need a permission to eat an Oreo, but you can murder your unborn child without your parents knowing.

 

We live in a topsy-turvy moral/immoral world.

There’s a Bible verse for it

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;

Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;

Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isa. 5:20).

If an underage child living at home with her parents wants to get an abortion, the law says that she does not need to get permission from her parents. It’s all about “personal choice.”

But as most conservatives know, personal choice is a one-way street. School choice is out. The choice not to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding will lead to liberal bullying and civil sanctions that will close down a business.

Obamacare eliminated a lot of personal choice. Try to choose to opt out of Social Security. It will never happen. It can’t be done.

It’s OK for a teenage girl to kill her unborn baby, but heaven forbid should this same teenage girl make the independent choice to eat a Double-Stuf Oreo cookie.

Liberals are the biggest hypocrites around. Choice only goes so far. Sugar and fat may not be good for a person in high doses, but killing an unborn baby is all about freedom of choice, except, of course, for the baby.

Consider that New York State has just passed a law that will permit abortions during any time during a pregnancy for any reason deemed “relevant to the well-being of the patient” including physical, emotional, psychological, and familial factors, and the mother’s age.

Assemblywoman Deborah J. Glick, a sponsor of the killing unborn children bill, “has also been active in protecting animals.”

This is OK:

digoxin2
This isn’t:

double-stuf-oreo

 

The following is from Reason.org:

“There are 18-wheelers with brake problems, hungry bears just stumbling out of hibernation, and lawnmowers that suddenly shift into reverse. And then there’s the unparalleled danger of Double Stuf Oreos. Thank goodness this teacher requires parents to sign off on cookie consumption—if they dare.

“A screenshot of the permission slip comes from Twitter mom Main Line Housewife in Pennsylvania. Check it out below:
3a5f9a471016f125a158e9149a4a7945

Senate Democrats Hold Up Human Trafficking Bill Over Unconstitutional Federal Funding of Abortions

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom OutPost.

Abortion is a sacrament to the DemocRats they will do whatever they can to see it funded.

Even if that something is allowing the vile practice of human trafficking.

 

The reasons Senate Democrats give for suddenly slamming the breaks on an anti-human trafficking bill this week are numerous, but one thing is clear: for them, it’s definitely been awkward.

The 68-page anti-human trafficking bill has 13 Democratic cosponsors and was supposed to pass easily Tuesday, but Democrats suddenly reversed course and are now holding the bill hostage over standard language preventing federal funding of abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother.

Democrats claim they didn’t notice the abortion language until this week, and accuse Republicans of “sneaking” it into the bill. Republicans say that’s bogus, and accuse the Democrats of lying about it for political gain. (RELATED: Dems Remember To Read Bill They’re Pushing, Throw A Fit)

Whatever the case, it’s not a good look for Senate Dems.

The language of the bill has been publicly available online since it was introduced in January, and the abortion language is on page 4 of the bill. In February, it passed unanimously through the Senate Judiciary Committee after Republicans and Democrats on the committee examined the bill and offered amendments.

So it’s hard to believe not a single Democrat or any of their staffers read the bill carefully enough to catch the abortion language. And yet, that’s exactly what they claim.

“Republicans were aghast that Democrats were sticking to their insistence that their aides had not read the bill,” wrote Politico’s Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim.

Their aides. Had not. Read. The bill … which was months old and less than 70 pages.

“In order to think that people missed it, and all of a sudden discovered it just this week really is not plausible,” Republican Sen. John Cornyn, a sponsor of the bill, said at a press conference Thursday.

A Senate aide told The Daily Caller News Foundation it’s a fundraising ploy. “Democrats are basically trying to fundraise off of this,” he said. “They’re trying to make it sound like they are standing up for women’s rights by holding up a bill that is protecting women.”

“Look how quickly they turn on their own people,” he added.

Maybe they did create this mess on purpose to score points with pro-abortion groups, such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood, who are now condemning the bill and calling on Senators to remove the abortion language with the hashtag “StrikeTheBan.”

Or maybe they did it to obscure a different objection to the bill — an amendment designed to curb illegal immigration proposed by Republican Sen. David Vitter. (RELATED: Senate Democrats Fight For More Illegals In Anti-Prostitution Bill)

“It appears they’re scared to vote on amendments like mine, to close the birthright citizenship loophole,” Vitter told TheDCNF.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell offered to let Democrats offer an amendment stripping the bill of the abortion language, if they stop blocking the bill, but they refused his offer.

Maybe Senate Democrats aren’t actually blocking a bipartisan bill that would help trafficking victims for political purposes. But that would mean they failed to read the bill carefully enough to catch the abortion language.

“Of course we read the bill,” Adam Jentleson, a spokesperson for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, told TheDCNF. “But it’s easy to miss the language if you’re not looking for it, which we weren’t since Republicans told us it wasn’t in the bill.”

Read it, but not carefully, he said.

Is it worth then killing bill over the abortion language?

“No. We want the bill to pass,” he said.

So Reid and McConnell are in yet another face-off.

“I’ll say this to everybody out there who cares about this bill,” McConnell said on the Senate floor Thursday. “We’re going to stay on it until we finish it.”

Reid also insisted the bill would pass, but without the abortion language. “The legislation dealing with human trafficking is going to pass this Congress, but it’s going to pass this congress without abortion language in it,” he said on the floor Thursday.

The Senate will take up the bill again next week.

Source
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/03/senate-democrats-hold-up-human-trafficking-bill-over-unconstitutional-federal-funding-of-abortions/#HFZhpjfvEbiA6Krw.99

 

5 reasons why abortion never empowers women

Leave a comment

This is from The Matt Walsh Blog.

Abortion is murder, no matter how the left tries to spin it.

Proverbs 6:16-18King James Version (KJV)

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

 

Here’s the first clue that a romantic comedy won’t be any good: it’s a romantic comedy.

The second: it’s about abortion.

Well, not abortion abortion, as Whoopi Goldberg might say. More like “abortion.”  Abortion — the real kind — is reductive, destructive, and degrading, whereas “abortion” — the kind that appears often in Planned Parenthood brochures and Lena Dunham tweets — is warm, cuddly, and lighthearted.

Obvious Child, a quirky little flick (soon to be widely released across the country) about the most charming child murder you’ve ever seen on the big screen, definitely features an abortion of the latter type.

Child ‘boldly’ and ‘hilariously’ tackles this touchy subject matter by portraying infanticide as both heroic and utterly free of emotional, spiritual, and physical consequence. The heroine of the story is a stand up comedian, who, for a change of pace, is apparently ‘foul mouthed’ and ‘edgy.’ Because there’s nothing more edgy (in a 6th grade homeroom) than saying ‘penis’ and ‘sex.’

In a groundbreaking plot twist, our protagonist gets drunk and sleeps with some guy. Hilarity and abortions ensue, some more penis and vagina jokes are told, and they all live happily ever after. Except for her child, whose corpse will be sold as medical waste to fuel power plants in the northwest.

Here’s the preview, if you’re interested:

Of course, the media can’t stop gushing about the film, giving it an 89 percent positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics, salivating over the chance to prove their progressive bonafides, have been playing a game of Competing Hyperbole, heralding the abortion comedy with words like ‘genius,’ ‘poignant,’ ‘endearing,’ ‘insightful,’  and ‘captivating.’ These are many of the same critics who panned Bella several years back, a drama about a young woman who gets pregnant, considers abortion, [SPOILER] but ultimately chooses adoption. This was enough to earn it predictable scorn, and descriptions like ‘corny,’ ‘simplistic,’ ‘pedestrian,’ ‘clichéd,’ ‘clumsy,’ and ‘trite.’

If there’s going to be a crisis pregnancy in your film, it better end with blood and death or you won’t be invited to any Hollywood cocktail parties anytime soon, mister.

This is not to say that Obvious Child is just a movie about abortion. In fact, the director has rejected that label, claiming that it “makes the movie feel small.” She has a point. One look at the poster clearly shows that the filmmakers are trying to be very subtle about the abortion theme:

 

11178532_800

 

But of all the absurd things said about this movie and its message, none are so stupid or so dangerous as this:

It’s ‘empowering.’

The official Obvious Child Tumblr page calls it a movie about ‘self discovery and empowerment.’ Many folks in media and the blogosphere have said similar things, including Sarah Seltzer from RH Reality Check. She attempts to explain it this way:

“[Abortion is] empowering in the sense that the very act of making a decision about our future, even if in desperation, gives us control”.

Wait. Isn’t EVERY decision a decision about the future? You can’t make a decision about the past, can you? I’m so confused.

Here now is the next stage in the abortion movement. It’s not enough to win in the courts and the Congress, they want to win in American’s heart and soul. It’s not enough for abortion to be legal, it needs to be loved. That’s why these kinds of movies exist, to promote abortion as something positive, affirming, constructive, empowering.

The empowering abortion. A work of fiction, indeed, but one marketed cleverly enough to dupe millions of people.

I thought about this empowerment notion for a while, and I think I identified a flaw in it. Actually, I identified five:

1. There is nothing empowering about the mere fact of making a choice.

In the literal sense, a thing has power if it’s able to do or act. But if ‘empowered’ is to mean anything besides ‘has the ability to do stuff,’ then we have to understand an empowered person to be an individual of strength, achievement, courage, and virtue. Otherwise, we are left with a definition that allows us to call a man ‘empowered’ because he made the choice to smoke crack, beat his wife, or eat from a dumpster.

We are empowered when we act from a place of strength and virtue. We are weakened and enslaved when we act out of fear and hatred.

If you want to prove that abortion is empowering, you’ll need to work a little harder than simply shouting ‘CHOICE.’  We know abortion is a choice, but a choice isn’t automatically justified or empowering just because someone chose it.

 

2You cannot be empowered by rejecting your greatest power.

Saying a woman is empowered through abortion is like saying a mountain climber is empowered through paralysis. A woman’s most profound power is her ability to create life. Now, that isn’t to say that women who can’t conceive children are powerless,  but simply that the capacity to bring brand new life into the world is a power unmatched by any other human function.

Most of us have the choice to not conceive, but once we do, we are faced with two distinct paths. In one, we can pay someone to demolish and erase the human life we’ve just formed, while down the other we can allow this life to come barreling into the universe. We can raise the child, mold her, teach her, love her. We can shape her into an adult who, in time, will also go out and change the world, for good or for ill. Either way, one path gives you the power of absence, of nothingness, of destruction, while the other gives you the power of presence, of creation, of love, of motherhood.

 

3. Most women get abortions because they feel powerLESS.

Stand outside of an abortion clinic and look at the women being escorted inside. Those are expressions of anguish and doubt on their faces, not empowerment. They will end up on that table, grimacing as a usually male doctor extinguishes the life burgeoning in their womb, precisely because they felt that they had NO choice and NO power. In the same ironic vein that finds Planned Parenthood ending parenthood, the pro-choice movement stifles choice.

If abortion clinics wished to empower women, they’d stop being abortion clinics. Or, at the very least, they’d make a serious effort to help women explore ALL of their options before charging them exorbitant sums to take advantage of the worst possible option. But they make no such effort. That’s why Planned Parenthood registers one adoption referral for every 149 abortions. They don’t want to give women choices, or information, or a better understanding of what the abortion procedure entails. They work in darkness and they peddle powerlessness.

 

4. We are empowered when we claim agency over our own actions.

Pro-abortion zealots will tell us that they just want women to ‘have control over their own reproduction.’ On this point, virtually every sane human being in civilized society agrees. We part ways on what happens AFTER reproduction has occurred. Abortion, by definition, only comes into play if the woman has already reproduced. This is not a matter of opinion but of science. That entity in the womb — call it what you will — is the result of reproduction.

Definition of ‘sexual reproduction’ from a medical dictionary: reproduction by union of male and female gametes to form a zygote. Once you have conceived, you have reproduced. Period. Whatever you do next will have absolutely nothing to do with reproductive rights. Your time to hoist that banner has passed. This is basic biology, everyone.

The real question is this: should a woman have the authority to kill what she reproduces, provided that she does it within some arbitrary window of time?

Pro-lifers answer no. Disagree if you like, but you cannot claim that you are disagreeing on the grounds of ‘reproductive rights.’ That ship has sailed, friends. Abortion does not prevent reproduction. It just destroys the fruits of it.

True empowerment comes from true reproductive rights. It comes from both women and men exercising authority and control over their own bodies. This is control that originates within ourselves, not within a Planned Parenthood office. A woman who chooses not to have sex because she is not ready to bear its natural consequences is a woman fully in command. She is empowered because she is not a slave to her urges and she is not allowing herself to be exploited by a man who wants to use her like a blowup doll and discard her 90 seconds later.

It’s notable that the people — the ones behind this movie included — who treat abortion like the ultimate expression of female empowerment are also the ones who laugh hysterically anytime a crazy reactionary suggests that we all control our sexual impulses a little more. In other words, we are powerful because we can kill our unborn children, but we are also powerless because it is an absolute impossibility that anyone could ever refrain from casual sex and drunken ‘hook-ups’ in the first place. 

 

5. Love is empowering.

The list could begin and end with this point alone.

At the risk of sounding like a Disney movie, love is the greatest power in the universe. If we act out of hate, or selfishness, or fear, or indifference, we are lessening ourselves. Trust me, I have experience being fearful and selfish, so I know what I’m talking about. We are never made better, we are never empowered, if we do not make the loving choice always, no matter what.

Abortion is never the loving choice. It is an act of violence upon the innocent.

In the vast majority of cases, children are killed by abortion because their parents didn’t want to make the profound sacrifices raising a child would require. Say what you want about that choice, but you cannot say that it is loving. Of course, there are the harder and much rarer situations. Rape, life of the mother, fetal defects. These are the outliers, yet they are presented as the norm because the abortion movement is too cowardly to even face itself.

Still, I’m not afraid to acknowledge the more difficult scenarios. And, tragic as they are, they do not change the immoral nature of the act. They also cannot make murder loving. In the end, regardless of circumstance, the child is alive and he is innocent. It is always wrong to kill innocent children, even the ones with birth defects, even the ones conceived through rape, even the ones who might have a difficult life. Children are entitled to life. We conceive them and so we owe them our care and our protection. This may not be a dictate of law anymore, but it is a dictate of love.

 

Abortion cannot empower because it can only take away. It is a negative force. It has the power to reduce and destroy, never build, never uplift. It doesn’t just remove a baby’s life; it removes a woman’s identity. She is a mother the instant she conceives; abortion does not prevent motherhood, it severs her from it. In a sense, it severs her from herself. She is left to pick up the pieces — and she can, and her life will still be incredibly meaningful and important, because all life is meaningful and important. That’s the whole point of this ‘pro-life’ deal.

But sometimes our lives can take on a meaning that we didn’t expect, maybe even one we didn’t want. That’s what parenthood is to some people, at least at first. So we can empower parents by helping them embrace this beautiful and terrifying meaning, or we can help them avoid it, even to the point of killing to escape it.

Those are the two options.

Two roads diverging in the woods and you can take the road of avoidance and death, but the road of empowerment goes in the opposite direction.

 
Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/06/24/5-reasons-why-abortion-never-empowers-women/2/#6g3QDTCHPTuyLHjJ.99

Stories Liberals Don’t Want You to Know About

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

Liberals only want free speech if that speech agrees with their agenda homosexuals,gun control, abortion, globull warming etc.

If you do not tow the liberal line they try to silence you through threats, lawsuits and any intimidation they can dream of.

 

 

Liberals are the biggest censors. Conservatives are often portrayed as suppressors of contrary opinions. The facts do not support this claim. Try to teach a view contrary to the religions of evolution and climate change. To question any part of evolution allows a “divine foot in the door,” and this cannot be allowed by the materialists.

Here’s the latest from President Obama on “climate change”:

“President Barack Obama called on Americans coming of age to demand that politicians respond more aggressively to climate change, comparing those skeptical about man-caused alterations to the environment to a belief that the moon is ‘made of cheese.’”

How do reputable scientists who have scientific and factual doubts about “climate change” claims go public with their views when the president of the United States considers them to be crazy? So the legitimate deniers keep quiet, thus, skewing the numbers of those who oppose the supposed majority opinion.

Try opposing the food Nazis:

In 1977, “a Senate committee led by George McGovern published its landmark ‘Dietary Goals for the United States,’ urging Americans to eat less high-fat red meat, eggs and dairy and replace them with more calories from fruits, vegetables and especially carbohydrates.

“By 1980 that wisdom was codified. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued its first dietary guidelines, and one of the primary directives was to avoid cholesterol and fat. . . .”

eat Butter

Now we are learning that the learned foodsters were wrong, but it’s taken decades, and with their diet “wisdom” they’ve helped to create one of the most obese nations on earth.

If you want to thank God at your high school graduation, you’ll be denied the right to do so. How about reading the Bible during free time? Denied.

 

Oppose same-sex relationships and you’ll be fired from your job or be compelled by the State to comply with arbitrary anti-discrimination laws.

Then there are the stories about people who have engaged in same-sex sexuality who have denounced their lifestyle choice.

Consider how former lesbian and radical feminist professor Rosario Champagne Butterfield was treated by about 100 demonstrating students at Wheaton College after she gave her testimony at the Christian university:

“It turns out that they did not like the message that Butterfield was bringing to the college. And the message they didn’t like was the story of her own conversion to Christ.

******

“The students who demonstrated said that it was wrong for the university to give the impression that Butterfield’s ‘story’ was the only valid story. According to the demonstrators, there are gay people who follow Christ and who see no need to repent of same-sex behavior. Their stories are just as valid as Butterfield’s, and Butterfield’s story of repentance from sin should not be held out as the norm on Wheaton’s campus.”

Then there’s this from former practicing homosexual Janet Boynes:

“In the midst of these public confrontations [like the CEO of Mozilla, Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty, and David and Jason Benham who were ousted from HGTV] there is a ‘behind the scenes’ scenario playing out. Thousands of those living the homosexual lifestyle along with thousands who are not actively involved in a relationship, but are dealing with same-sex attraction are looking for a way out!”

These stories cannot be heard about by the general population. The intimidation will continue until everybody is beaten into ideological submission. The left knows that conservatives either give in or capitulate. We’re seeing it happen among churches and prominent pastors on the homosexual issue.

The pro-homosexual narrative has to be attacked with stories like those of Rosario Champagne Butterfield, Janet Boynes, and thousands of others.
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15953/stories-liberals-dont-want-know/#Qdbxzf2Y8UVVQe25.99

20 Reasons You Wouldn’t Want To Live In An America Controlled By Liberals Like Obama

3 Comments

This is from Town Hall.

I only need one reason to not want to live under liberal rule it is the fact they are liberals.

 

The only thing more disturbing than the arrogance, incompetence, and lawlessness of Barack Obama’s administration is that most liberals are perfectly fine with everything he’s doing. It’s shocking that there are so many Americans who don’t care about the Constitution, the rule of law, or even what happens to the country just as long as someone they agree with ideologically is in charge. In fact, the only time liberals seem to get really upset these days is if someone criticizes Barack Obama or tries to put ANY KIND of restraint on his power. Want to know how America would look if liberals like Barack Obama had complete control of the country?

1) Abortion would be the only “choice.” Almost everything else including light bulbs, TVs, health care plans, cars, and the schools your child goes to would be chosen for you by people in D.C.

2) You could be sued for failing to warn people that you are about to say something that could conceivably be offensive to women, gays, transsexuals, or minorities.

3) Every sports fan of teams like the Redskins, Braves, Chiefs, Indians, Blackhawks, and Seminoles would be branded as a bigot and all of those teams would be forced to change their names.

4) We would have open borders and anyone who walks across would be welcome to sign up as a citizen and collect welfare, food stamps, and Social Security.

5) It would be illegal to say the Pledge of Allegiance or fly an American flag because it might “offend people.”

6) All criticism of black and Hispanic politicians would be shrugged off and treated as racism.

7) Government investigations of liberal wrongdoing would be handled by friends, associates, or campaign contributors of the liberal being charged.

8) So many nuclear and coal plants would be shut down that we’d end up with regularly scheduled blackouts in many parts of the country.

9) Anyone could choose not to work and get a monthly stipend from the state — well, until the money runs out.

10) Cities, states, and even well-connected big businesses that spend irresponsibly and go broke could always be bailed out by the federal government.

11) Women would have to get mandatory abortion counseling from Planned Parenthood before giving birth just to make sure they are ready to have a child.

12) Conservative talk radio, blogs, websites and especially Fox News would be regulated out of existence and only government-approved media sources would be allowed.

13) Christians and conservatives would have to hide their beliefs to get government jobs.

14) The IRS would be allowed to audit people solely for contributing to conservative candidates or being a member of conservative groups.

15) Men who have sex with women who are drinking would be treated as rapists by default.

16) Merit and even basic competence would be secondary in importance to hiring people who are the right race or sex for a job.

17) Any child who plays with a toy gun would be considered a potential psychopath and expelled from school.

18) Americans would only be allowed to buy tiny, overpriced electric cars that don’t work very well.

19) It would be illegal to oppose gay marriage.

20) Guns would be confiscated from everyone except the criminals, the cops, the military, and the bodyguards for rich liberals.

Exclusive: Democratic senators file amicus brief in Hobby Lobby birth control case

1 Comment

This is from Yahoo News.

How do these people call themselves and their party Democratic?

There is not one Damned thing democratic about them.

DemocRats demand that everyone marches to the tune of their

freakish base.

They demand people worship Roe vs Wade like they do.

 

In a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, 19 Democratic senators are siding with the Obama administration against evangelical Christian businessmen who argue that paying for their employees’ birth control, a requirement under Obamacare, violates their company’s religious freedom.

The senators—five of them women—argue in their“friend of the court” brief that the owners of the Oklahoma-based crafts store chain Hobby Lobby are not exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate simply because some forms of birth control offend their religious beliefs.

Hobby Lobby’s owners, David Green and his family, are suing the federal government over the mandate, which says large employers’ insurance plans must offer birth control without co-pays or else face steep fines.

A lower court upheld the Greens’ case, ruling that the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects the Greens from having to adjust their insurance plans to cover contraception for their 13,000 employees. (RFRA says the government must have a compelling reason to infringe upon an individual’s religious beliefs, and that laws that do so must be narrowly tailored.)

The case is novel because religious freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment, typically has been thought to apply to individuals, churches and other religious nonprofits—not corporations. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, siding with Hobby Lobby, said the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 , which upheld a free-speech right for corporations, conferred a right to religious expression on businesses.

The 19 senators—all of whom voted for the popular RFRA in 1993—argue that the law’s religious protections were never intended apply to a for-profit company. Hobby Lobby’s “gross misapplication” of the law perverts Congress’ intent in passing it, they write in the brief, which was obtained by Yahoo News.

Congress intended RFRA to protect individuals and non-profits from government interference in their religious beliefs, and explicitly left out for-profit companies from its protection, they write. The Democratic senators argue that a decision in favor of Hobby Lobby would allow “a secular, for-profit corporations’ shareholders, through the corporation, to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and to deny employees health benefits and rights to which they are entitled.”

The case, which the Supreme Court will consider on March 25 and likely decide by June, is just one front in a widening war between Democrats and Republicans over gender and reproductive issues. Democrats have seized upon Republican opposition to the contraceptive mandate as proof that Republicans are waging a “war on women.” Some Republicans, meanwhile, say the mandate panders to women, as well as infringes on employers’ religious liberty. Just last week, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told a cheering audience at a Republican National Committee meeting that Democrats “insult the women of America” with the mandate, which he said suggested the government thinks women “cannot control their libido.”

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, a Democratic senator who led the amicus brief effort, is planning to criticize Huckabee and other Republican opponents of the mandate in remarks on the Senate floor tomorrow announcing the brief.

“Allowing a woman’s boss to call the shots about her access to birth control should be inconceivable to all Americans in this day and age, and takes us back to a place in history when women had no voice or choice,” Murray will say, according to prepared remarks provided by her staff.

The case is the second big challenge to President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement to reach the Supreme Court in two years. The government fought back a challenge to the heart of the health care law, the individual mandate, in a split decision authored by Justice John Roberts in 2012. One of the lawyers who argued against the individual mandate then, Paul Clement, has joined Hobby Lobby’s legal team.

Meanwhile, cases brought by dozens of religiously affiliated non-profits against the birth control mandate are also likely to reach the Supreme Court soon. Last week, the justices ruled that a non-profit group of Catholic nuns does not need to comply with the mandate while their legal challenge is pending.

The Greens do not object to providing most birth control pills to their employees, but do not want to provide intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the so-called morning after pill. Neither contraceptive causes abortion, but they may prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus, which the Greens consider tantamount to abortion.

If the Supreme Court were to side with Hobby Lobby, it’s unlikely the justices would strike down the contraceptive mandate altogether, according to Timothy Jost, a law professor and health care reform expert at Washington & Lee University. Such a decision would instead allow religious for-profit corporation owners to opt out without paying the government fines.

The other senators who signed the brief are: Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Barbara Mikulsi (D-Md.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: