Nancy Pelosi explains why unemployment is good for the economy.The Ignorance of Liberals cannot be overstated.
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Monday, April 22, 2013
Politizoid - Nancy Pelosi - The Benefits of Unemployment
Nancy Pelosi explains why unemployment is good for the economy.The Ignorance of Liberals cannot be overstated.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Jeannie DeAngelis - The Butcher of Germantown Strikes Again
Originally posted at Live Action NewsWhen Nancy Pelosi talks about Republicans wanting “women to die on the floor” for lack of reproductive services, she never mentions recently deceased women like Jennifer McKenna-Morbelli. Jennifer was a 29-year-old woman who, together with her 33-week-old in-utero daughter Madison Leigh, according to their obituary, “passed away suddenly” on February 7.
The truth is that Jennifer and Madison Leigh died as a result of a late-term abortion at the hands of a renowned Germantown, Maryland executioner named LeRoy Carhart.
Jennifer to her “college sweetheart,”
was married TJ Morbelli, and worked as a substitute kindergarten teacher at Church Street Elementary School in White Plains, New York. A few weeks prior to her death, Jennifer was informed that the “wanted” child whose birth she was anticipating suffered from a fetal anomaly that caused seizures. In other words, unlike the picture-perfect children Jennifer taught every day at school, the little girl she carried in her womb was flawed.
So, rather than raise a child who didn’t fulfill the dream of what Jennifer had imagined her baby would be, she, her husband, her parents, and her sister decided to drive to Maryland and pay a visit to Germantown Reproductive Health Services so that a Maryland butcher otherwise known as Dr. LeRoy Carhart could relieve the McKenna-Morbellis of a defective inconvenience named Madison.The entourage arrived at Dr. Carhart’s clinic on Sunday, February 3. After signing in, filling out papers, and leaving her anxious family in the waiting room, Jennifer allowed a lethal injection to be shot through her belly into the heart of the unborn baby she had registered at Jennifer Morbelli & TJ Morbelli’s Baby Registry.
For the record, a late-term abortion is done in stages, so Jennifer and her family returned on Monday to begin the second phase of dilating the young woman’s cervix. The plan was that with the help of hormones, she’d expel the dead baby from her womb by Wednesday. Visibly weakened, Jennifer returned again on Tuesday. Then, on Wednesday – delivery day – a lethargic and ashen Jennifer returned to the clinic to deliver Madison Leigh. It took nine hours to rid her body of the lifeless baby.
By Thursday, Jennifer was experiencing chest pains. The family tried repeatedly to reach “circuit abortionist” Dr. Carhart, who was unavailable probably because he was off terminating babies in another state. Jennifer’s condition deteriorated so much that at 5:00 am, her mother and father, husband TJ, and sister Kristin chauffeured her again, only this time it was to Shady Grove Adventist Hospital in Rockville, Maryland.
As Jennifer’s life was slipping away, LeRoy Carhart was called but was unavailable to provide “informational assistance” to medical personnel. According to Bruce Goldfarb, a spokesman for the Montgomery County Medical Examiner’s Office, “Jennifer Morbelli … bled to death after amniotic fluid in her womb spilled into her bloodstream,” making it impossible for her blood to clot. Jennifer coded six times before dying. Carhart did eventually check in by phone, but he failed to make it to the hospital before Jennifer died.
At 9:30 am, three and a half hours after arriving at the emergency room, someone had to inform Jennifer’s “adoring parents” Lisa and Kevin that the beautiful daughter they drove to the abortion clinic would be leaving in a hearse.
Jennifer’s death was the result of a ruptured uterus and “massive internal bleeding into her abdominal cavity.” Madison Leigh expired from a lethal injection through the heart. In Jennifer’s memory, her family wrote a telling obituary, which read in part: “Jennifer McKenna-Morbelli of New Rochelle, passed away suddenly on Thursday February 7, 2013 at age 29 with her baby girl Madison Leigh.”
It took the death of a daughter, sister, and wife to get a grieving family to finally acknowledge as human the damaged baby they were willing to dump into a red biohazard bag in Germantown, Maryland the week before.
After a wake at Coxe and Graziano Funeral Home, Jennifer was honored in a Catholic Mass at the Holy Name of Jesus Church. Then, the mother and the baby girl were laid to rest together in a grave at Greenwood Union Cemetery in Rye, New York. In lieu of flowers, the family requested that contributions be made to the St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in memory of those lost.
For years to come, memories of Jennifer McKenna-Morbelli will be evoked, but not for her smile or “living every day to the fullest.” Instead, young Jennifer will be remembered as yet another woman who died at the hands of late-term abortionist Dr. LeRoy Carhart – a woman who lost her own life as a result of subjecting her unborn daughter to a brutal death for the sin of being imperfect.
Jeannie DeAngelis
Thursday, December 27, 2012
PJTV - Wht We Learned in 2012
John Phillips, Stephen Kruiser and Tammy Bruce review 2012. What are the lessons learned from the 2012 presidential election? Did Mitt Romney's campaign do a better job than expected? Could the real lesson be that the demographics of America have changed? Find out.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Jeannie DeAngelis - Fast food medicine in Canada
Take, for instance, Canadian doctor Alan Lund realizing an "end of life" discussion he was having needed a more private location. Dr. Lund's creative solution gives credence to Washington DC eventually being capable of instituting a low quality, cost-cutting bureaucratic package by mandating that filing taxes be done while getting an annual physical.
Before discussing where Lund's dying patient ended up, maybe Americans should contemplate a potential Obamacare nightmare: For lack of a hospital bed, you expire in a waiting room on a stretcher, with Family Guy blaring on the overhead flat screen as a roomful of moderate to deathly ill people try not to stare.
Up north at New Westminster's Royal Columbian Hospital, Dr. Lund was "trying to have a private conversation with [a] patient...near the end of life." Lund said, "Everybody in the waiting room was sitting with their eyes on the television, trying to pretend that we were not doing patient-care right underneath them."
That's when Lund came up with the brilliant idea to ferry the man, along with some other "overflow patients," into an "adjacent coffee shop." Dr. Lund said he felt he had to do something for the dying, as well as those waiting for more than 90 minutes to receive "medications and treatments."
Lund wheeled the ailing into a location where catheterizations and café au lait provided the terminally ill both "privacy and dignity." Patients able to tolerate solid foods were probably ecstatic about the availability of Tim Horton coffee and donut favorites like Sour Cream Glazed and Canadian Maple.
Americans admire our people-friendly neighbors to the north, and Obama aspires to the type of single payer system that Canadians on stretchers in coffee shops enjoy. If instituted, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius can easily make cost-cutting recommendations such as coupling a soft-serve ice cream cone with a visit to a podiatrist.
Dr. Lund said his coffee shop "decision was made in consultation" with other hospital personnel. Sort of a DMV worker's conference on how to better provide hundreds of people the self-respect they deserve as they wait for hours for a two-minute eye test.
British Columbia critics contend that using "coffee shops for emergency patients raises concerns over so-called hallway medicine and whether inadequate government funding [compromises] patient care." We're talking a future filled with stitches at Dunkin Donuts, and drive-by EKGs at Mickey D's.
New Democratic Party Health Services critic Sue Hammell said, "I think it is outrageous. What are we coming to when we are serving up...health care in a fast food restaurant?" Americans on the cusp of coffee shop examining rooms should heed Hammell's single payer warning that "The problems of delay and cutbacks [show up] a number of years later."
Dr. Lund said overcrowding is so common that at times people clamoring to get free health care are "double parked" on stretchers in hospital hallways. Think Baby Boomers stacked against the counter at Starbucks.
About the coffee shop decision, Lund responded to detractors by saying "I think it was a good decision. We were able to move patients who were in a totally inappropriate space." Thus, if one day Obamacare falls short of "appropriate space," the original prediction about saying "Ahhhh" at 7-11 becomes a distinct possibility.
Jeannie DeAngelis
Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Joe Biden - Joe Biden, ‘Practicing Catholic’
Amid all the smirking, chortling, and
“give me a break, kid” sniggering that ill-mannered Joe Biden exhibited at the 2012 vice presidential debate, when he piously explained his stance on abortion, he exposed in totality the hypocrisy of liberal thinking.
Toward the end of the debate, Biden’s friend and one time houseguest, moderator Martha Raddatz, posed the following question to the candidates: “We have two Catholic candidates … [a]nd I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion[.]”
After Paul Ryan expressed how personal faith impacts his pro-life views, Joe Biden sobered up for a second and said, “My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life.”
Like many liberals, whether it’s a game of constitutional Twister or flexible religious creed, Joe fashions his faith to accommodate his personal beliefs. Therefore, the vice president and the enthusiastically pro-abortion Barack Obama both feel comfortable calling themselves Christian.
Mr. Biden identifies with Roman Catholicism but doesn’t let that identity get in the way of his support of policy that directly contradicts church teaching on the sanctity of life. Joe may believe he’s been “practicing” Catholicism his whole life, but he’d better keep those training wheels on his theological bicycle.
Echoing fellow Catholic Nancy Pelosi, Joe told Martha that except when it comes to the legally sanctioned death of innocent human beings, Catholicism has “particularly informed [his] social doctrine.”
According to Joe, “[t]he Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who-who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help,” which Biden agrees with except when he’s approving of brutally dismantling helpless innocents “who can’t take care of themselves.”
But isn’t that what liberals do? Quote Scripture and fund Planned Parenthood? Talk about caring for the “least of these” and then lobby for dilation and curettage? Receive communion and vote “yea” for partial-birth abortion?
After attempting to convince America of his firm commitment to the largest Christian church in the world, Joe Biden repeated twice that, “with regard to abortion,” the church’s position that “life begins at conception” is de fide, or “belonging to the essentials of the faith, by virtue of a papal ruling.” Happy-go-lucky Joe said he accepts “divinely revealed teaching,” but only in his “personal life.”
In other words, Joe Biden’s liberal form of religion says that in the political realm he can grant himself dispensation to approve of, fund, and justify the murder of the unborn, all of which he claims he shuns when he’s at home or attending Mass. Sorry, Joe, but Pontius Pilate found out that personal disapproval doesn’t erase the stain of innocent blood from guilty hands.
Biden further extended Christian charity to Raddatz, Ryan, and the Sandra Flukes of the world, as well as to “equally devout Christians, Muslims, and Jews,” whom Joe believes also condone abortion on demand. Joe Biden explained that as a Christian, he cannot impose his unwavering devotion to Catholic doctrine on others. However, he is perfectly comfortable with imposing an agonizing death on those whom, if he’d walk in the faith he professes, he could save.
For the entirety of the debate, Joe hid his Roman Catholic “light under a barrel,” especially when, referring to Paul Ryan, he said that “unlike my friend here, the-the congressman, I-I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body.”
Winding down his touching soliloquy on faith, Joe stressed that when it comes to abortion, “[i]t’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that[.]” And Joe Biden is certainly not going to let God or the Catholic Church sway or interfere with that opinion.
In light of Biden’s lopsided philosophy, one can’t help but wonder whether the form of trendy religiosity he professes also believes that Jesus had no right to tell the adulterous woman to go “and sin no more.” After all, she was a woman, and it was her body.
In the end, Joe Biden can smirk, sneer, and disparage Paul Ryan and his stance on abortion that marries truth, core conviction, and selflessness with personal faith all he wants. For those who had ears to hear, Biden’s apostate theological view concerning abortion confirmed during the debate that, as Peter said in 2 Peter 3:3, “in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.” And those scoffers occupy the pews of the liberal Democratic Party, right alongside “practicing Catholics” like Joe Biden.
Jeannie DeAngelis
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Austin Hill - Questions To Ask Democrats As They Abandon Barack
Last week Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi instructed Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives to not attend this September’s Democratic National Convention. Instead, Ms. Pelosi insisted, their time would be better spent campaigning at home, rather than partying in Charlotte, N.C.
Ms. Pelosi’s announcement falls in line with the AFL-CIO, which announced the previous week that it won’t be spending money to bankroll the convention. And Pelosi and her Big Labor friends are in lockstep with Democrat U.S. Senators Jon Tester of Montana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia – all of whom have chosen to avoid Barack Obama’s nomination for a second term.
After three and a half years of Barack Obama radicalizing their party, it now appears that some very powerful Democrats have had a startling realization: the Obama agenda is both dysfunctional and destructive, and has become politically lethal – Americans see that it bares little resemblance to America’s time-honored history and heritage, and they have begun to reject it outright.
Democrat candidates at all levels of government will go about campaigning over these next few months, making promises based upon their party platform without mentioning President Obama’s name. But as they talk about the following agenda items – all of which appear in the “issues” section of Democrats.Org, the national party’s web home – consider asking the candidates the accompanying questions below.
Let’s start with the issue of “energy independence.” Democrats tell us that “President Obama knows we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices,” and that their party is focused on “developing all of America’s natural resources...” The President himself has said that he is committed to an “all of the above” approach to energy policy, implying that he’s okay with petroleum-based energy, along with the alternative energy development that he’s promoted.
This sounds great- but consider asking Democrats this question: “If President Obama is committed to an ‘all of the above’ strategy, why did he reject the Keystone XL pipeline project that would have produced employment opportunities from the Canadian border all the way to Texas?” In reality, an “all of the above” approach to energy policy means “anything except Big Oil” within the Obama worldview – but Democrats would prefer to ignore this.
Your Democrat candidate may prefer, instead, to tell you about their party’s agenda for “green energy.” On this point, you may wish to ask “how do you feel about CBS News reporting that the Obama Administration has lost $6.5 billion of our money already on what they described as ‘risky green energy ventures?’ Did CBS lie to us?”
You may also hear from your Democrat candidate that the party is fighting for “civil rights” on behalf of LGBT couples –which is to say that they’re working for legal sanctioning of same-sex marriage. Mention to them that Democrats in the California legislature are now working on a bill to expand parental rights to more than two parents per child. Under the California plan, any individual child could have three or perhaps more, legally identified mommies and daddies. Then ask the Democrat, “Why would you limit the structuring of marriages and families to only two adults? Given how President Obama’s position on this issue has evolved, and given the highly evolved position among California Democrats, aren’t you being a bit exclusionary and narrow-minded, trying to limit a marriage or a family to only two adults?”
Concerns about the economy are top of mind for us all, which puts Democrats in an awkward situation. Still, your Democrat candidate will likely remind you that President Obama inherited a bad economy and is now working to “creating jobs.” To this you may wish to simply ask “how is a job created?” Then listen carefully to the response. It will likely be highly amusing.
There are so many other questions to ask of your local Democrat candidate, regardless of the issues the candidate raises. “Why does the so-called ‘healthcare reform law’ expand the force and power of the I.R.S.?” “Why are illegal aliens exempt from the Obamacare tax?” “Is it purely coincidental that the executives of the ‘green energy’ companies that were recipients of President Obama’s grants and loans were also donors to his previous presidential campaign?” “Why has President Obama abandoned the work requirements imposed on welfare recipients by President Bill Clinton?” “Why is 80% of the Department of Agriculture’s budget spent on food stamps, while less than 20% of it is devoted to the farming industry?” “Why is the Obama Administration ‘collaborating’ with the government of Mexico to give American food stamps to illegal aliens?” Your local Democrat will probably not want to hear these questions, and may have to admit that they disagree with parts of the President’s agenda.
You might even hear your local Democrat say that they’re abandoning the President’s agenda for America altogether – just like so many of them have abandoned the President’s convention in September.
Austin Hill
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Austin Hill - Are We Still Serious About Our Republic
Those are three simple words that form one simple question. And the question has led us to this moment in time.
Recall in October of 2009, when then-Speaker of the U.S House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi was asked about the formulation of the Obamacare bill, and she asked that very question of a reporter. “Madam Speaker,” a reporter from CNSNews.com said to her, “where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Ms. Pelosi seemed surprised. Her indignant “are you serious?” response was followed with a slight bit of nervous laughter, as she then repeated herself. “Yes,” the reporter answered Ms. Pelosi, “yes I am."
Pelosi’s Press Secretary Nadeam Elshami stated that the reporter’s inquiry was “not a serious question,” Pelosi shook her head in disbelief, and they both moved on to address another reporter, completely ignoring the question about “constitutionality.”
And after ignoring concerns about constitutionality for over three years, Democrats are now watching the Administration of their party Leader, Barack Obama, struggling to answer serious questions before the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. The left’s disregard for the limitations of government has been apparent for decades – President Obama himself was on record years before his election lamenting that the Constitution only stipulates what the government cannot do to you, instead of specifying what the government should do for you.
But now a moment of truth is staring all Americans in the face, as the Supreme Court will soon determine if the government can force you to buy something, along with determining whether or not the distinction between “citizen” and “non citizen” (as in Arizona’s illegal immigration law) matters any longer. As President Obama’s former Pastor Jeremiah Wright once famously said, “America’s chickens… are comin’ home to roost..”
The fact is that when Presidents and members of Congress dismiss the Constitution as Mr. Obama and his party have, the only thing standing between the individual citizen and the raw, brutal force of governmental power is the Supreme Court itself. The American founders understood some things about the history of the world, as it existed leading up to our nation’s birth, and they recognized the natural human tendency of those in power to control and ultimately brutalize those beneath them. This is why our Constitution stipulates that we are governed by three co-equal branches of government (not just one or two), and why those branches intentionally create a “check and balance” between each other.
So what if the Supreme Court says that Barack Obama is wrong? What if the Justices collectively determine that our government cannot force the individual citizen to buy something, and that the distinction between being a citizen and an illegal immigrant is real? The Democrats would prefer a Supreme Court stacked with Obama appointees, who would then presumably approve of everything that Obama wants, but (thankfully) they haven’t achieved this yet.
If Democrats must campaign for the final months of this year’s election against a backdrop of Obama failures at the Supreme Court, we may see a well-financed P.R. assault against the Supreme Court Justices themselves. History provides a lesson about this matter, becausePresident Obama is not the first White House occupant to desire more power than the Constitution allows.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, angered when the Supreme Court overturned some of his “new deal” (read “big government”) programs that he believed were unquestionably necessary to save the country, famously began maligning the Justices of the Supreme Court, publicly labeling them as the “9 Old Men.” Additionally, as a means of overcoming the “separation of powers” obstacle, he proposed to “reform” the old, antiquated Supreme Court system by adding up to six new justices – justices that would all be selected and appointed by himself.
Thankfully FDR didn’t get his way. The Congress rejected his court reform legislative proposal (the checks-and-balances phenomenon worked again), and the American people took a dim view of Roosevelt trying to circumvent the Constitution.
But that was the America of 1937. Today, it’s not difficult to imagine that President Obama could curry the favor of millions of Americans, if he chose to campaign against the Justices who may vote to overturn his all-important “Obamacare” law.
Who would stand with Obama in a campaign of Supreme Court bashing? Start with the entire AFL-CIO. Then add the entire “occupy” movement, and the burgeoning “99% Spring” uprising, and eventually one could include all the prevailing powers of the Democrat Party.
Put them all together, and you’ve got a critical mass of Americans who neither care nor understand a wit about history, “limited government,” the U.S Constitution, or the Separation of Powers. They want “stuff” – “free” healthcare, education, or whatever – and they want raw power in Washington to deliver that stuff to citizen and non-citizen alike, and by whatever means.
So is America serious about a constitutional government? Many of us are far more serious about receiving “things” from our government than the idea of a constitutional republic.
Depending on how the high court rules this summer, we may see Democrats campaigning on an agenda of “constitutional and judicial reform” before November arrives.
Austin Hill
Friday, April 20, 2012
PJTV News Break with Scott Ott - Zimmerman to Be Released on Bail. Plus, Pelosi Pushes New Constitutional Amendment Against Big Biz
A Florida judge set Zimmerman's bail, and ABC released new photos showing injuries to Zimmerman's head. What's next in the case? Plus, the National Organization for Women goes after Rush Limbaugh. Will their campaign work? Find out the latest news and Nancy Pelosi's latest push to amend the Constitution on this PJ News Break.Friday, March 30, 2012
Nancy Pelosi - Congressman Rush showed 'courage' by wearing hoodie on House floor
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Illinois Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush "deserves a great deal of credit" for showing "courage" by wearing a hooded sweatshirt Wednesday and getting ejected from the House floor in protest of the Trayvon Martin case.UPDATE: Former Black Panther Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) made quite a fuss when he donned a "hoodie" during a speech in the U.S. House of Representatives until he was escorted out. At the time, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "applauded his courage" for doing so.
Meanwhile, back home in Rush's district, two men wearing hooded sweatshirts, or "hoodies," were the shooters in an incident that left one dead and five injured.
In fact, during a span of six-hours Thursday night (3/21/2012), 13 people were shot, leaving two dead in Chicago. It would seem it takes more courage to simply walk down the street in Rush's district than it does to wear a hooded sweatshirt in the House of Representatives by way of a stunt in a bizarre tribute to a young man shot and killed in Florida during a shooting incident still under investigation.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder silent about Chicago Youth Violence.
Bill Whittle - Merchants of Despair
Who is responsible for the current economic malaise? If you ask Bill Whittle, it's Obama's pals like David Axelrod, Harry Reid and Tim Geithner, some of the many Merchants of Despair. These merchants are costing taxpayers trillions and creating deep national divides based on class and race. Will the despair continue for another four years? Find out.Friday, November 18, 2011
Star Parker - Sexual Responsibility and Fiscal Responsibility Go Hand in Hand
Originally Published October 21, 2011.Last week the House passed with bi-partisan support the Protect Life Act, which amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to assure that no taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortion. It also assures that health care providers which do not wish to provide abortions are not forced to by government.
The bill’s Republican sponsor, Joe Pitts (R-PA), had co-sponsored essentially the same amendment along with then-congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI), when Obamacare was in the making in 2009.
Because a similar provision was not in the Senate version of the bill, and had no prospect of making it through the Senate, Stupak stood as a major obstacle to the passage of Obamacare.
In the end, the ways of Washington prevailed, and Stupak caved to pressure from the White House. He agreed to support the health care bill without his anti-abortion provision, in exchange for President Obama issuing an executive order prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions in health care provided in the framework of Obamacare.
An executive order is a flimsy substitute for law, thus Rep. Pitt found another pro-life Democrat, Dan Lipinski (D-IL), to co-sponsor his amendment, which has now passed the House 251-172.
However Pitt’s new bill faces the same prospects as the amendment that he co-sponsored with Stupak in 2009. Its chances of passage in the Senate are remote.
So why bother?
After the bill passed, I was asked on a PBS talk show, To the Contrary, if Republicans were being frivolous in taking up congressional floor time to deal with abortion when what Americans want today is congressional action on the economy.
My response was “no, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and actually in light of Obamacare, it is critical for lawmakers to protect healthcare workers and hospitals with a conscience clause.
In fact, the attention that the bill has gotten in the short time since it passed the House indicates that the level of interest in abortion, and the potential use of taxpayer funds for it, remains high.
Two high post Democrats – former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Democratic National Committee chairperson - issued statements criticizing the bill shortly after it passed.
According to Pelosi, the provision assuring that health care providers, including hospitals, are not forced to provide abortions, even thought they receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, means “that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene.”
Wasserman Schultz said “This extreme legislation is dangerous for women’s health and does nothing to address the jobs crisis facing American families.”
Liberals love to frame the killing of developing humans as being about women’s lives, health, and rights.
But, according to the Center for Disease Control, about 3% of abortions are performed for reasons of a woman’s health. Abortions that are performed because a woman’s life is in danger amount to a fraction of one percent. That leaves more that 96% for convenience with some 50% repeat customers.
Regarding abortion, the liberal agenda is really about two things. One, an alleged right to sexual promiscuity and two, an alleged right to have others bear social and financial responsibility for that promiscuity.
Fortunately, a sizeable part of the American population doesn’t see things this way. And, fortunately, a sizeable part of our population remains in awe of the miracle of life and our responsibilities toward all aspects of life, both in and outside of the womb.
It doesn’t take that much thought to realize the fallacious thinking that suggests that matters of economy and matters of morality have nothing to do with each other.
The “right to abortion” culture is simply a subset of the entitlement culture, the culture that says your life is about making claims on others rather than personal responsibility.
Disrespect for life and disrespect for property go hand in hand. We can’t divorce our sexual promiscuity from our fiscal promiscuity. Restoring personal responsibility in both areas is what we need today to get our nation back on track.
Star Parker
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Jeannie DeAngelis - Pelosi Warns: Protect Life and Women Die
What the left fails to mention is that since the enactment of Roe v. Wade, millions upon millions of female fetuses have been routinely executed because of the self-centered choices of mothers who care more about their own lives than the lives of their children.
Statistically, since 1973, 60 million fetuses have died, but as of 2008, only 362 (or 0.0006%) of the 60 million women submitting themselves willingly to a legal abortion have died.
Therein resides the dichotomy of liberalism. The left attempts to defend unbridled insanity by appealing to selfish emotion that, if analyzed, defies logic and reason. Thus Democrats, headed up by the most pro-abortion president in the history of America, remain determined to force Americans who disagree with slaughtering the unborn to pay for something they morally and spiritually repudiate.
With that in mind, the President is anxious to display his unwavering commitment to abortion rights. Apparently, Obama is planning to veto the Protect Life Act, calling it "a divisive, politically motivated piece of legislation that unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that women and their families have today." In other words, Obama heartily approves of abortion and believes no law should be passed that allows people who disapprove of the barbarism to be excused from paying for it.
Despite predictable Democratic scare tactics, the Republican bill merely attempts to close the door Obamacare opened that would allow government to finance abortion, something the Hyde Amendment has prevented for decades.
Detractors of the Protect Life Act argue that the bill threatens the rights of women and prevents them from getting a healthcare policy that covers killing the unborn even on the rare occasions when an abortion is medically necessary to preserve the life of the mother.
Echoing the president, liberal California congressman Henry Waxman described the bill as "an assault on women's reproductive health and their constitutional rights to choose when to bear children." Clearly, Waxman is convinced that pro-life Americans should be coerced into being accomplices to murder by bankrolling women who would rather make the "healthy" reproductive choice to dispose of the child growing within their womb.
Predictably, Nancy Pelosi takes it a step further and employs the ultimate in liberal illogical logic. According to Mrs. Pelosi, Republicans who support a bill that merely says women should pay for their own abortions "will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene."
Nancy's words are reminiscent of what actually does happen to infants born alive in botched abortions. Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Act because he believes that providing warmth, oxygen and hydration for a child who refuses to cooperate and die "burdens the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."
Unlike Obama voting against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, doctors attest that the Protect Life Bill "does not change or alter the practice of medicine or the responsibility of physicians in any way." However, in order to convince the hesitant to reject the bill, Pelosi clings to the twisted argument that if the funding of killing stops, women die.
According to the histrionic words of Nancy Pelosi, if Americans don't agree to fund the butchery of unborn human beings who are the ones being tossed into red biohazard bags on the floor, the lives of the mothers who choose to place them there are at risk.
Thus, the logic of liberals continues to defy the reasoning of thinking, feeling human beings. Democrats like Obama, Pelosi and Waxman are convinced that financing the death of the innocent is a valiant endeavor because by using everyone's tax dollars to finance abortion, Americans are doing the moral thing and saving the lives of the selfish.
Jeannie DeAngelis
Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog
Related Post:
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)