Abortions declining, the prolifers get damned for it...

NEW YORK, July 31, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Center for Reproductive Rights has issued a report blaming pro-life activism and a growing "stigma" surrounding abortion for a steady decline in the procedure across the U.S., and is calling upon the U.S. government to help expand abortion by eradicating pro-life laws. (You're shitting me. Are they really saying that abortion is becoming so unpopular they need help to keep it going? What next, MANDATORY abortions?)

Nancy Northup, the center's president, said physicians and clinics providing abortions have fallen by 25% since the 1990s - a decline it blamed on the pro-life presence outside the businesses of abortionists, whom the group upheld as "human rights defenders." (Those poor, brave baby killers. Working tirelessly on the front lines of human dignity to make the world safe. Noted. At one of the clinics my church prays outside the owner always drives up in his brand new Corvette. Must be a midlife crisis deal, the guy is older than dirt. Moloch rewards his followers.)

The report also targets legal restrictions on abortion, including the 24-hour waiting period and regulations for cleanliness in abortion clinics, and called upon federal, state, and local governments to abolish such laws as restricting the "constitutional right" to abortion. (If my tonsils get pulled the hospital has to satisfy health code requirements. Why shouldn't an abortion clinic?)

"The Center for Reproductive Rights encourages the government at all levels to adopt and enforce measures to improve the safety of providers and to eliminate laws that impede their work," stated the report.

In particular, the group called for the repeal of the Hyde amendment, which restricts Medicaid from funding abortions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, such rules prohibiting public abortion funding save the lives of about one out of every three children who would have been aborted had public funds been available. (Take note all supporters of government run health care.)

In response to the growing popularity of the pro-life movement - over half of participants in a recent Gallup poll considered themselves "pro-life" - the group called for active promotion of abortion as a mainstream health care procedure. (Holy shit. They're serious too.)

"Because abortion is not integrated into mainstream healthcare, it is marginalized and perceived as 'dirty' and outside of normal medical practice," complained the group. (Wah!)

However, pro-life analysts believe the decline in physicians providing abortion can be traced to growing awareness of the repulsive nature of the procedure itself, rather than an imposed "stigma." (Something about vacuuming out a baby's brains affects the appetite.)

"I think they [abortionists] have been diminishing in number for years because this is the type of trade that is contrary to the reason that people go to medical school," Mary Spaulding Balch, state legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, told the Catholic News Agency. After all, she noted, most medical students enter the profession with a desire to save life, not destroy it. (Ya think? An RN of my acquaintance told me she was ambivalent about the whole thing until going to nursing school and realizing what the hell it all entailed. Isn't education wonderful?)

Because of advances in ultrasound technology and fetal surgery, Spaulding Balch said that younger doctors "are understanding the unborn child as the second patient." (Good for them!)

Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, noted how the report's timing coincided with the push on Capitol Hill to fund and provide insurance for abortion in President Obama's vast health care overhaul. (Purely coincidental of course, right?)

"I can't help but think it's nothing more than an attempt to scare the American people away from being informed and concerned about the massive abortion mandates that are in the proposed health care reform bills and that will remain there unless explicitly excluded," Culp told the Kansas City Star.

I've skimmed through the report. It's bizarre. If you want to subject yourself to it, the damned thing is here; http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/DefendingHumanRights.pdf

Healthcare bill to promote euthanasia? (bumped back up)

I'm bumping this post back to the top because of a comment that was left by a woman who disagrees with the original article. She sounded fairly on the level until I did some checking of her organization and a "Catholic" healthcare system she referenced. This illustrates the importance of NEVER trusting anyone who blithely references what sound like reliable sources. Always check for yourself and that also holds true for those you normally agree with. Just my opinion.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Two Republican leaders in the House of Representatives are confirming reports that the health care restructuring bill the House is currently considering promotes euthanasia. A leading patients rights advocate is worried about the effects of the legislation.

Betsy McCaughey, the former New York lieutenant government who is now a patient's rights advocate, notes that the government-run health care plan would require "end of life" counseling for seniors.

The counseling, she says, would be focused on telling seniors how to end their lives sooner. (How much of a journey is it from "counseling" to "recommending" to "persuading"? Hey, in the Netherlands they have legalized euthanasia and old folk are afraid to see their doctors. They're afraid they'll check in but not out.)

In a statement sent to LifeNews.com House Republican Leader John Boehner Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter confirm those fears.

"Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care providers to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration’ and other end of life treatments,'" the pair say.

That section "may place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life directives they would not otherwise sign." (And we all know that senior citizens are never, ever confused into signing paperwork for items they don't want. Riiigghhhtttt!)

"This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law. At a minimum this legislative language deserves a full and open public debate – the sort of debate that is impossible to have under the politically-driven deadlines Democratic leaders have arbitrarily set for enactment of a health care bill," they state. (Yeah, the mindset of "Hurry up, hurry up, this is a crisis we have to take care of!" is being used yet again. Even though the brakes are being put on passage of healthcare reform there still isn't any indication of everyone slowly and deliberately reading EVERY STINKING PAGE of the legislation!)

The members of Congress call the section a throwback to 1977 when the old Department of Health Education and Welfare proposed federal promotion of living wills for cost-savings purposes described as "enormous."

At that time, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago decried this effort by saying, "'The message is clear: government can save money by encouraging old people to die a little sooner than they otherwise would. Instead of being regarded with reverence, and cherished, human life is subject in this view to a utilitarian cost-benefit calculus and can be sacrificed to serve fiscal policy and the sacred imperative of trimming a budget."

Boehner and McCotter are especially concerned about the provision given that Oregon and Washington have legalized assisted suicide and Montana has given conditional approval depending on the outcome of a state Supreme Court decision.

“With three states having legalized physician-assisted suicide, this provision could create a slippery slope for a more permissive environment for euthanasia, mercy-killing and physician-assisted suicide because it does not clearly exclude counseling about the supposed benefits of killing oneself," they say.

"Health care reform that fails to protect the sanctity and dignity of all human life is not reform at all," they conclude.

In section 1233 of the tri-committee health care bill, a government-run "Advance Care Planning Consultation" is created.

McCaughey, in an interview with former presidential candidate Fred Thompson on his radio show warned people to "protect their parents" from the measure and said the consultation is essentially an attempt to kill off elderly Americans.

"One of the most shocking things is page 425, where the Congress would make it mandatory absolutely that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session," she said. "They will tell [them] how to end their life sooner.

The bill calls for the recommendation of "palliative care and hospice" in the mandatory counseling sessions, which is pain relief as patients die.

The House bill requires "an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title."

The measure also recommends a discussion on "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration," which suggests that elderly patients could be advised not to receive it, which would hasten death. (Because they'll be told how painless it is, just ask Terri Schiavo. Oops, can't do that now can we? They're still debating whether or not she suffered from being starved to death.)

Yep, it's worth a thousand words...

I found the picture and caption shown below at American Thinker via Lucianne.com. Take note that the supposedly racist cop is aiding his "victim" down the stairs. This cop was vilified by the man on the MSM, held up for derision and scorn nationwide and yet can still do the charitable thing for someone who is handicapped. It says something about the character of that police officer. Just my opinion.

And do you notice that the "friend" of Gates just keeps on trucking ahead of everyone? Doesn't even look back to see if he needs help with the stairs. Uh-huh.



(President Barack Obama, Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Sergeant James Crowley walk from the Oval Office to the Rose Garden of the White House, July 30, 2009. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Oh well, we'll always have Lowe's...

Found this over at One Million Moms via the Prolife blogs;

Home Depot seeks children at multiple gay pride parades

According to the Nashville Gay Pride website, Home Depot gave over $5,000 to be a major sponsor of its 2009 Gay Pride Festival in June. But simply financing the event wasn't enough for the big box chain.

Home Depot also signed on as a vendor, conducting kid's craft workshops for children via a special booth set up just for them.

To this end, Home Depot is basically encouraging the attendance of children at events which openly expose them to transvestites, cross-dressers, and homosexual activities.

Unfortunately, Home Depot's participation in the Nashville Pride Festival doesn't stand alone. It has also sponsored kid's booths at other gay events in Atlanta, Kansas City, Durham, Portland, and San Diego.

Gay pride events have a long track record for offensive public displays of homosexual conduct. Obviously, Home Depot is OK with the idea of exposing children to an unhealthy and risky environment. So much so, it is willing to participate in it.

For those who care, the link to the One Million Moms site will take you the Current Issue page where you can send an email to the Chairman of the Board for Home Depot.

B.O. and the "beer summit"...

It's ridiculous that B.O. is still calling attention to the incident that happened between a Cambridge cop and a black professor at Harvard. Still, this may be B.O.'s highest level of competence, trying to act as intermediary between the two principals in a rural dispute. He certainly hasn't shown any aptitude in foreign affairs for this sort of thing.

Having said that, the President may regret staying involved and putting on the "beer summit". If Gates tries playing the race card to elicit an apology from Officer Crowley and the cop doesn't roll over on command like a good little white boy, the whole thing could blow up in a very public manner.

B.O. should never have opened his mouth and once he (finally) realized his mistake, should have backed out at full speed. Letting the affair die of it's own accord is preferable to escalating the thing in full view of the MSM (who may still be Presidential lapdogs but won't pass on an opportunity to report on an increase in hostilities).

B.O. continues showing his incompetence.

Just my opinion.

Too true, too true

"perfectly capable of living a normal and fulfilling life..."

This article effectively refutes the "quality of life" drivel that comes from the mouth of so many followers of Moloch;

July 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Scientists are stunned to discover that a ten-year-old German girl's brain has rewired itself to allow her to see out of one eye as though she has two, even though half of her brain tissue was entirely missing from birth. In a report published this week in the online version of the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Lars Muckli, a neuroscientist at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, said, "Despite lacking one hemisphere, she's capable of living a normal life."

The girl, called AH in the study, was born with only one cerebral hemisphere after the right side of her brain stopped developing at seven weeks gestation. She was also missing most of her right eye. Neurological researchers are astonished that an fMRI revealed her retinal ganglion-cells "changed their predetermined crossing pattern" and re-mapped in her brain to create nearly normal bi-scopic vision.

"The human cerebral cortex," the report says, "contains continuous topographic
maps" that help the person process visual, auditory and other sensory information. "It is believed that these maps result from a self-organizing process that is supported by complex interactions between molecular cues and neuronal activity." The fact that AH's vision was nearly normal, "suggested a drastic reorganization" of her sensory or receptor neurons, "from the normal left eye to the intact left hemisphere."

AH, described by the researchers as a "unique" case, lives a normal life, attending school with other children her own age and participating in sports. She has a history of seizures in early childhood and suffers only a slight weakness on her left side.

Dr. Muckli said, "This study has revealed the surprising flexibility of the brain when it comes to self-organising mechanisms for forming visual maps.

"The brain has amazing plasticity but we were quite astonished to see just how well the single hemisphere of the brain in this girl has adapted to compensate for the missing half."

Muckli added, "Despite lacking one hemisphere, the girl has normal psychological function and is perfectly capable of living a normal and fulfilling life. She is witty, charming and intelligent."

The discovery may help to rekindle a debate on eugenic abortion that was recently sparked by comments from US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who said that abortion could help eradicate unwanted sections of the population. "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of," Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon of the New York Times.

Increasingly abortion, coupled with in-utero diagnosis, is being called into question by disability rights campaigners, who have criticised it as a deadly form of prenatal discrimination.

Most countries that allow abortion include permission to kill a child deemed to be defective in the womb. The legislation in the UK allows abortion "when there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped." In Britain, a diagnosis of possible "abnormalities" - such as those suffered by AH - means the child can be killed without a legal gestational time limit, up to the stage of full development.

Yeah gramps, you and your grandkids are history...

Found this at Creative Minority Report;

Newspeak arrives and it's doubleplus good!

Had this sent to me by the Ignorant Redneck, it's an article from Human Events;

GOP Not Allowed to Say 'Government-Run Healthcare'

by Connie Hair

Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), the secretary of the House Republican Conference and a former District Court Judge, is having his messages to constituents censored by Democrats on the Franking Commission. Republicans are no longer allowed to use the words “government run health care” in the communications to their constituents.

Carter received an email from the Franking Commission informing him of the censorship.

“It came to me from the Franking Commission and I have the email from the Franking Commission here if you’d like to see it,” Carter said. “We held a telephone town-hall… When you hold telephone town-halls you have a recorded message that introduces the town-hall and the subject matter you’re going to be talking about. You have to now submit that language to the Franking Commission.

“What we proposed as language was as follows, ‘House Democrats unveiled a government-run health care plan,’” Carter said. “Our response from Franking was, ‘You cannot use that language. You must use, ‘The House majority unveiled a public option health care plan,’ which is Pelosi-speak or ‘just last week the House majority unveiled a health care plan which I believe will cost taxpayers…’”

“I would submit to you this is a free speech issue, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,” Carter said. A highly-placed Hill staff source tells HUMAN EVENTS this is the new policy being enforced by Democrats. Republicans will be forced to use the Democrats’ version of language describing their attempted government takeover of healthcare on their official communications with their constituents or they will have to pay for the postage personally.

Now if the Republicans had tried anything like this prior to B.O. taking office you can bet the MSM would have been singing like the Temptations. Anyone heard of this outside of the blogosphere?, Anyone?, Bueller?, Bueller?

R.I.P.

KILLED IN ACTION: JULY 5 - 11, 2009

Please pray for the peaceful repose of the souls of those who served our nation with honor, and remember also those who mourn their loss.

Pvt. Lucas M. Bregg, 19, MO
Lance Cpl. Pedro A. Barboza Flores, 27, CA
Master Sgt. Jerome D. Hatfield, 36, VA
Rifleman William Aldridge, 18, England
Rifleman James Backhouse, 18, England
Cpl. Jonathan Horne, 28, England
Cpl. Matthew R. Lembke, 22, OR
Rifleman Joseph Murphy, 18, England
Cpl. Lee Scott, 26, England
Rifleman Daniel Simpson, 20, England
Pvt. John Brackpool, 27, England
Spc. Joshua R. Farris, 22, TX
Rifleman Daniel Hume, 22, England
Lance Cpl. Roger G. Hager, 20, NC
Master Sgt. John E. Hayes, 36, FL
Spc. Christopher M. Talbert, 24, IL
Master Cpl. Patrice Audet, 38, Canada
Sgt. Brock H. Chavers, 25, GA
Capt. Mark A. Garner, 30, NC
Pfc. Nicolas H. J. Gideon, 20, CA
Spc. Chester W. Hosford, 35, MN
Cpl. Martin Joannette, 25, Canada
Spc. Issac L. Johnson, 24, GA
Petty Offcr 2nd Cl Tony M. Randolph, 22, OK
2nd Lt. Derwin I. Williams, 41, IL
Lance Cpl. Dane Elson, 22, Wales
Master Cpl. Charles-Philippe Michaud, 28, Canada

May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

White House using class warfare?

Found this via Pewsitter.com, the man makes a lot of good points. My comments are in red;

White House using class warfare to sell health reform plan

By MITCH ALBOM
Detroit Free Press columnist

In explaining why it was OK to sock a new 5.4% tax on the highest earners in this country — to pay for health care reform — President Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said this: “The president believes that the richest 1% of this country has had a pretty good run of it for many, many, many years.”

Ah. So that’s it. The old “You’ve had it good enough for long enough” policy. That’s why a family earning a million dollars a year should now cough up $54,000 of that — in addition to all the other taxes it pays — to cover health care for people who may not pay a penny of new tax themselves.

Because, after all, those rich folks have had a pretty good run of it.

Now, it is not that I don’t think we need health care reform. We do. It is not that the rich should not pay fair taxes. They should.

But to justify a grossly overweighted tax by saying “You people have had it good long enough” is to engage in the worst and most destructive form of politics: class warfare. (Amen and there's too damned much of it lately.)

By making a snarky comment like that, Gibbs suggests that the top 1% are a bunch of Bernie Madoffs, that they’ve been scheming their way to riches, evading the system, hiding their money in complicated offshore deals. You know — wink, wink — they’ve had it “pretty good.”

This is every bit as insulting as saying all poor people are lazy welfare cheats. Imagine the uproar if he’d said that. What’s the difference? (Other than bleeding heart libs will stand in line to defend the poor, even the welfare bums?)

Both are dangerous lies.

One nation, taxes for all

For a moment, let’s take Gibbs and Obama at their words. “A pretty good run of it for many, many, many years.” OK. In what way? Did those people earn their money? Yes. Did they work for it? Yes. So in that regard they are no different than a schoolteacher or postal worker. They worked, they got paid. (Part of the class envy comes from the amount they're paid. Funny how it's always rich businessmen who get slammed for being overpaid, never a word about liberal politicians and their perks.)

Presumably, then — unless he’s suggesting they’re all crooks — when Gibbs says “a pretty good run of it” he means in taxes. Hmm. Let’s see. Those high income earners currently shell out around 35% in income taxes, the highest rate, plus state income taxes, local income taxes, property and other taxes that likely chew up between 45% and 50% of their money. If Obama’s tax-related plans all go through, it could, for some, approach 60%.

How is that a “pretty good run”? It’s clearly a bigger chunk than poor people pay. In fact, those evil one-percenters pay about 40% of all income tax in this country. (It would help if this guy cited a reliable source for these statements. Seems both sides of the aisle are prone to NOT giving the source of their statistics.)

So if they’ve had a pretty good run, so has the other 99% of the country that’s been using their money.

Look. It would be one thing if we had a flat tax in the United States or if you could shelter your income or hide it offshore. But most wealth experts will tell you tax shelters for individuals are long gone, and offshore is a rapidly disappearing corporate trick. (Again, he needs to cite sources to be credible.)

For the most part, if you earn a lot of money in America today, you have to pay your taxes on it. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate, but in most cases, before you have money to buy and sit on stocks, you have to earn it and therefore pay taxes on it.

Watch what you say

On the other hand, would you tell people who pay no taxes that they’ve had a pretty good run? Would you say it to people who never really look for work, who don’t bother in school, who look for ways to live off the state?

Yet all such people, under Obama’s plan, will get health care — paid for by those lousy, conniving rich people. And please, let’s not imagine that all poor people are noble single mothers with two jobs, three kids, good credit and an ailing mother. Unless you’re naive enough to believe that all wealthy Americans are greedy pigs. (Unfortunately there are too many who believe precisely that!)

You don’t get a country behind you by pointing fingers. And you don’t inspire effort and ingenuity by always milking the rich. Suggesting that if Americans do too well they’ll be resented is not how this country became a prosperous nation. After all, the dream of being rich is often being dreamed by the poor.

Mr. Gibbs and President Obama should realize they are no longer only speaking to rooms full of giddy campaign volunteers. It’s the nation. All of us are in this together. That means poor and yes, rich — if there are any left once this is all done. (They may start emigrating to more favorable locales.)

Gov. Rick Perry to invoke 10th Amendment against Obamacare...

Taken from http://www.star-telegram.com/ Up until recently I figured Perry was just another political hack. I'm starting to revise that thinking.

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be "disastrous" for Texas.

Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as "Obama Care." But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a "number" of states might resist the federal health mandate.

"I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare," Perry said. "So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."

Perry, the state’s longest-serving governor, has made defiance of Washington a hallmark of his state administration as well as his emerging re-election campaign against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 Republican primary. Earlier this year, Perry refused $555 million in federal unemployment stimulus money, saying it would subject Texas to long-term costs after the federal dollars ended.

Interviewed after returning from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, Perry spoke out against President Barack Obama’s healthcare package less than 24 hours after the president used a prime-time news conference Wednesday night to try to sell the massive legislative package to Congress and the public.

'Not the solution’

"It really is a state issue, and if there was ever an argument for the 10th Amendment and for letting the states find a solution to their problems, this may be at the top of the class," Perry said. "A government-run healthcare system is financially unstable. It’s not the solution."

Perry heartily backed an unsuccessful resolution in this year’s legislative session that would have affirmed the belief that Texas has sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

In expressing "unwavering support" for the 10th Amendment resolution by state Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, Perry said "federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens and its interference with the affairs of our state."

Returning to the "letter and spirit" of the 10th Amendment, he said in April, "will free our state from undue regulations and ultimately strengthen our union."

Perry, in his on-air interview Thursday with Davis, did not specify how he might use the 10th Amendment in opposing the Obama health plan. His spokeswoman, Allison Castle, said that the governor’s first goal is to defeat the plan in Congress and that any discussion of options beyond that would be "hypothetical."

"I don’t think it’s surprising that the governor is taking a stand against it," said Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based research organization that supports the House version of Obama’s plan. "Unfortunately, the national dialogue on health reform has been extraordinarily partisan and polarized."

The White House Media Affairs Office, asked to comment on Perry’s statements, did not have an immediate response. In his remarks to the nation Wednesday, Obama restated his midsummer deadline for passage of the bill in Congress, saying it is urgently needed to help families "that are being clobbered by healthcare costs."

High stakes in Texas

Texas has a higher percentage of uninsured people than any other state, with 1 in 4 Texans lacking health coverage. Dunkelberg, whose organization supports policies to help low- and modest-income Texans, said the House version would create a "predictable and comprehensive benefits package" for thousands of struggling middle-income Texans.

Former Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth of Burleson, a senior fellow for healthcare at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, echoed Perry’s assertion that the Obama plan is the wrong approach and could have disastrous financial consequences for Texas.

Under the Senate version of the bill, she said, an expansion of the joint federal-state Medicaid program for the poor could cost Texas $4 billion a year.

"There are good solutions" to the country’s healthcare problems, Wohlgemuth said. "This isn’t it."

Perry said the plan is another example of the Obama administration’s "massive takeover of the private-sector economy."

"I hope our leaders will look for solutions that don’t dig our country further into debt," he said.

Perry called on Texans in the House and Senate to oppose the plan. "I can’t imagine that anyone from Texas who cares about this state would vote for Obama Care. I don’t care whether you’re Democrat or Republican," he said.

Of those Texans who might consider supporting the plan, he said: "This may sound a little bit harsh, but they might ought to consider representing some other state because they’re sure not representing Texas."

"Right to choose" only if you're ignorant...

Evidently a woman's "right to choose" doesn't entitle her to all the information leading to a truly informed choice;

Fargo, ND (LifeNews.com) -- A Fargo, North Dakota abortion business has filed a lawsuit to stop women from having the ability to see an ultrasound of their unborn children before the have an abortion. Gov. John Hoeven signed the measure into law in May after the state House easily approved the ultrasound measure.

The House backed House Bill 1371, on a strongly bipartisan 77-9 vote in February and the Senate signed off on the bill in April. The measure is designed to help women learn the humanity of their unborn child and to consider abortion alternatives.

While most abortion businesses do an ultrasound before an abortion is done on a woman and her unborn child, that doesn't mean the mother will have a chance to see it. Rep. Bette Grande, a Republican sponsoring House Bill 1371, hopes the bill changes that.

However, the Red River Women's Clinic, the only abortion business in the state, filed a lawsuit to stop the law from taking effect on August 1.

With help from the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-abortion legal group, the abortion center is asking for a temporary injunction against the ultrasound measure.

The law requires that a woman seeking an abortion be offered the opportunity to see an ultrasound of her unborn child and hear the fetal heartbeat, which can begin as early as eighteen days after fertilization.

Red River claims the law is confusing and would limit a woman's ability to get an abortion. It also claims allowing a woman to hear the heartbeat of her baby is inconsistent with best medical practices and claims the cost of the equipment is too burdensome.

Mary Spaulding Balch, an attorney with the National Right to Life Committee, talked with LifeNews.com about the lawsuit.

“It’s unclear why a clinic, which claims to care about women, would be afraid to offer their patients all the vital and relevant information before performing a life-changing and intrusive medical procedure," she said.

“Diagnostic ultrasounds and listening to the fetal heartbeat provides mothers accurate information about the development of their unborn child. Why is the abortion industry afraid of these tools?” she asked.

Balch says the new North Dakota law joins six other states with similar provisions.

“We want women to be informed, and receive all possible information available - much of which has historically been omitted by those in the abortion industry,” Balch said. “It is shameful in our society that women cannot rely on abortionists to voluntarily provide them with information that would help them make the best decision for themselves and their unborn children."

North Dakota Right to Life, the North Dakota affiliate of Concerned Women for America and the North Dakota Catholic Conference supported the bill along with the North Dakota Family Alliance.

Pro-life advocates say the bills are important because the Red River Women’s Clinic is expected to set a record for the number of abortions it is doing annually.

The abortion center has been doing abortions for just over ten years and did a record 1,358 abortions in 2003 and another 1,238 abortions last year.

Yep, all choices are equal. Some are just more equal than others. Noted.

From the gov't: Die, you idiot!

Found this at FOXNews.com via Prolife blogs. It gives those of us who are "of a certain age" a glimpse into the future with government funded healthcare;

PORTLAND, Ore. — Some terminally ill patients in Oregon who turned to their state for health care were denied treatment and offered doctor-assisted suicide instead, a proposal some experts have called a "chilling" corruption of medical ethics.

Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon's state-run health plan for help.

Lane Individual Practice Association (LIPA), which administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County, responded to Stroup's request with a letter saying the state would not cover Stroup's pricey treatment, but would pay for the cost of physician-assisted suicide.

"It dropped my chin to the floor," Stroup told FOX News. "[How could they] not pay for medication that would help my life, and yet offer to pay to end my life?"

The letter, which has been sent to other terminal patients throughout Oregon, follows guidelines established by the state legislature.

Oregon doesn't cover life-prolonging treatment unless there is better than a 5 percent chance it will help the patients live for five more years — but it covers doctor-assisted suicide, defining it as a means of providing comfort, no different from hospice care or pain medication.

"It's chilling when you think about it," said Dr. William Toffler, a professor of family medicine at Oregon Health & Science University. "It absolutely conveys to the patient that continued living isn't worthwhile."

In issuing their latest Prioritized List of Health Services, state officials reported a new emphasis on preventive care and cost effectiveness. Dr. John Sattenspiel, LIPA's senior medical director, defended the measures.

"I have had patients who would consider knowing that this is part of that range of comfort care or palliative care services that are still available to them, they would be comforted by that," Sattenspiel said. "It really depends on the individual patient."

Toffler called it a callous practice that went against medical convention. "It corrupts the consistent medical ethic that has been in place for 2,000 years," he said. "It's absolutely breathtaking."

Oregon is the only state to legalize doctor-assisted suicide, which came into effect in 1997. Since that time, there have been 341 reported cases where doctors provided lethal doses of medicine to patients to end their lives.

Oregon voters have upheld the "Death with Dignity" law three times, and Sattenspiel says it is the state's duty to inform patients of all their legal options.

For Stroup, however, suicide was never an option. He fought back, and the Oregon Health Plan eventually reversed its decision and is now paying for his chemotherapy, giving him hope he'll be around a little longer for his 80-year-old mother and five grandchildren.

It's all about the rationing of resources. If anyone says it won't be done with Obamacare, they're either lying or dumber than a box of rocks!

Witholding Communion necessary for proabort pols...

ROME, July 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A high level Vatican official has reminded US bishops of their responsibilities to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, including the possibility of withholding Communion. Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, the head of the Vatican's liturgical office, told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview today that the guiding principle for bishops considering withholding Communion from pro-abortion politicians in their dioceses should be "caritas in veritate" or "charity in truth."

Canizares explained that according to Catholic teaching those who insist upon receiving Communion in a state of serious sin are in grave spiritual danger and emphasized that the withholding of Communion is meant for the person's spiritual salvation.

He said, "I think that the strongest words are found in St. Paul: one who goes to the Eucharist and is not properly prepared, duly prepared, 'he eats his own condemnation'. This is the strongest thing that we can say and what is the most truthful statement."

The Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments, in an exclusive interview with LSN, said that it is the duty of bishops and priests to instruct Catholic politicians who refuse to accept the Church's teachings on life, to help them understand the "gravity" of what they are doing.

"Politicians should become aware and they should be helped to become aware of the gravity of their conduct," the cardinal said at his offices in Rome. "When they approve laws against life, in favor of abortion or euthanasia, priests and bishops should say this."

He said that the principle that should be applied is the one that gives the title to the latest encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI, "Caritas in Veritate."

"This principle, caritas in veritate [love in truth], should be the principle used, first by politicians when they come to Communion, and second it should be the rule for bishops when they decide whether to give or to withdraw Communion."

While the cardinal said he does now know whether the Vatican is preparing a document on the problem of pro-abortion politicians, he reiterated the Church's position that to be actively involved in procuring abortion is the gravest of offenses and one that incurs the most severe punishment the Church has: excommunication.

"In the cases of public sinners," he added, "we don't know what is happening in the consciences of those politicians. And I understand the prudence with which we have to act. But I think also that it is our duty to clarify their consciences. To help the person to act in accordance with a right and true conscience."

This is part of the function of bishops, he said, "to help the due formation of conscience. To form consciences in such a way that people should act in accordance with the truth."

Cardinal Canizares's remarks echo those of Archbishop Raymond Burke, the former head of the archdiocese of St. Louis and current head of the Vatican's Apostolic Signatura. During the 2004 presidential campaign, Burke told Democrat candidate Senator John Kerry, who though Catholic held a 100 percent approval rating with the country's leading abortion lobbyists, that he could not receive Communion in the St. Louis diocese.

In an interview with LSN in February, Archbishop Burke said the politicians who are persisting in what the Church says is a "grave sin" must be refused Communion for the sake of their own souls. "When you talk to these people, they know," he said. "They know what they're doing is very wrong. They have to answer to God for that, but why through our pastoral negligence add on to that, that they have to answer to God for who knows how many unworthy receptions of Holy Communion?"

Similarly, in Canada, Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast told LSN in an interview last year, "The Church's concern is for anyone who persists in grave sin, hoping that medicinal measures (which is how excommunication and interdict are to be understood) may draw them away from the wrong path to the truth of our faith."

Cardinal Canizares pointed to two documents that bishops can use for guidance on how to deal with politicians who refuse to reform their consciences - the encyclical of the late Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae and the document produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2004 when Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect. That document stated clearly that pro-abortion Catholic politicians "must be refused" Holy Communion if they attempt to receive at Mass.

The cardinal emphasized that such a formation of conscience merely means that "politicians should act in accordance with the truth."

I recall a story I recently read about St. Padre Pio, a Catholic mystic who purportedly could look at a person and see the condition of their soul. According to the story, Padre Pio was hearing Confession one day. A penitent went into the booth, Padre Pio immediately jumped out, grabbed the man and commenced beating the shit out of him. When the man asked why he was getting roughed up, Pio answered he could see how the man was leading his children into Hell. THAT is pretty tough love as practiced by a saint! Effective too!

Tough love, it's what denial of the Eucharist is all about. Are the bishops for the dioceses where Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, etc. able to read this LSN article?

Catholic Charities kisses ass, forgoes condemning abortion.

Found this at Catholic Culture;

Washington, Jul. 24, 2009 (CWNews.com) -

As President Obama presses for Congressional action on a sweeping health-care proposal that would include funding for abortion, the president of Catholic Charities USA has written to legislators urging them to "make comprehensive health care reform a top priority," without mentioning the heated debate over abortion coverage.

In his July 22 letter, Father Larry Snyder does not specifically mention the Obama health-care proposal. And he does remind lawmakers that a Catholic approach to health care would "address health needs at all stages of life, from conception to natural death." But the thrust of his letter is clearly favorable to the Obama proposal. And a time when pro-life organizations are working diligently to strip abortion funding from the initiative, Father Snyder does not address that concern.

"Catholic social teaching affirms that health care is a fundamental issue of human life and dignity," writes the head of Catholic Charities USA. He urges Congress to implement legislation that will "expand and strengthen Medicaid…cap out of pocket costs… address health disparities." Father Synder emphasizes the need for reform that will offer protection to those who are most vulnerable, provide help for populations currently underserved by health-care agencies, ensure coverage for racial minorities, extend protection to all legal immigrants, and emphasize prevention.

This is absolutely disgraceful. The fight against abortion should be foremost in all Catholic minds as this health care bill is debated and voted on. Anything less is the shirking of our duties. Period.

As it is, asshats like Catholic Charities (CC) leave the faithful of the Church twisting in the wind as CC kisses ass on this administration. There should be NO compromise, NO softpedaling on the issue. The establishment of a Culture of Life should be paramount.

B.O. trash mouths a police department...

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama said Wednesday that police acted "stupidly" in the arrest of prominent black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and that despite racial progress blacks and Hispanics are still singled out unfairly for arrest.

"This still haunts us," Obama said. (Now what the hell would he know about this? B.O. was raised by his well-to-do grandparents in Hawaii. The fiftieth state isn't the Deep South, trust me on that one. As a matter of fact, go do a Google search on "Kill Haole Day" to find out who gets the dirty end of the stick for skin color in those islands. After that he went to an Ivy League college and his been either an academic or "community organizer" before entering politics. He has as much first hand knowledge of racial bigotry in this country as my cats.)

Obama called Gates a friend, and said he doesn't know all the facts of the case. (Saying that, he should have just shut his pie hole. But why let a political opportunity slip by?) Nonetheless, Obama said, anyone would have been angry if treated the way Gates claims police in Cambridge, Mass., treated him. Gates claims he was arrested in his own home after showing ID to police who responded to a report of a possible burglary.

"Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof he was in own home," Obama said during a prime-time news conference that otherwise focused on the health care debate. (Check out the police report, Gates was yelling at the top of his lungs at the cop AFTER the officer was satisfied he was actually the resident of the house. After being repeatedly asked to quiet down he was cuffed and led away. Hell, if I was singing at the top of my lungs in my own front yard I'd get the same treatment for the same reason, i.e. making an unpleasant disturbance.)

"What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately," Obama said. "That's just a fact." (Going for all the political points he can, never mind trashing all police in general.)

The nation's first black president held himself up as testament to what he called the "incredible progress" minorities have achieved.

Gates' arrest followed a report of a possible burglary. A neighbor apparently saw Gates force the front door and called in a police report. Police came, and demanded that Gates showed identification. Gates was arrested shortly afterward for disorderly conduct, a charge that was dropped Tuesday. (Dropping the charges would be expected, getting pulled into the local iron bar hotel to cool off for the night is enough chastisement for most hot headed folks. But this is turning into a "Woe is me" moment for a race hustler.)

I understand the cop involved is refusing to apologize. Good for him. Too bad his supervisors don't tell Gates & Co. to pack sand.

The bottom line is this, a sitting President sees the opportunity to shoot his mouth off and he goes for the gold, never mind that he doesn't know all the facts of the case. B.O. should have just told the reporter he was unqualified to give an answer at the present time. Hell, just say making that judgment is "above my pay grade", it's worked for him before!

RN forced to assist in abortion...

Found this at the Alliance Defense Fund website. The shape of things to come with B.O. and his buddies running the show;

NEW YORK — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Mount Sinai Hospital on behalf of a Catholic nurse who was forced to participate in a late-term abortion under the threat of disciplinary action, including possible termination and loss of her license. The hospital has known of her religious objections to abortion since 2004.

Hospital administrators told the nurse that the scheduled abortion was an "emergency," though evidence shows otherwise, and insisted moments before the procedure that she assist doctors despite her repeated objections to the procedure, which dismembered a preborn child in the 22nd week of gestation. By federal law, hospitals that receive federal funds cannot force employees to participate in abortion procedures under any circumstances.

"Pro-life nurses shouldn’t be forced to assist in abortions against their beliefs," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "Requiring a devout, Catholic nurse to participate in a late-term abortion in order to remain employed is illegal, unethical, and violates her rights of conscience. Federal law requires that employers who receive funding from tax dollars must not compel employees to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, but this nurse’s objections fell on deaf ears."

"Chasing away workers from the health care field is disastrous health care policy," said Bowman. "An individual’s conscience is likely what brought them to the health care field. Denying or coercing their conscience will likely drive them right out."

Administrators at Mount Sinai Hospital threatened senior nurse Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo with disciplinary measures if she did not honor a last-minute summons to assist in a scheduled late-term abortion. Despite the fact that the patient was not in crisis at the time of the surgery, the hospital insisted on her participation in the procedure on the grounds that it was an "emergency" even though the procedure was not classified as such.

"Category I" is the classification reserved for "patients requiring immediate surgical intervention for life or limb threatening conditions." The surgery in this case was classified as "Category II," for operations needing to take place within six hours, indicating that the hospital had no reason to insist upon Cenzon-DeCarlo’s assistance in the abortion in order to protect the patient. Plenty of time existed to find a different nurse to assist, especially since evidence indicates that the patient’s condition did not rise even to a Category II. In fact, Cenzon-DeCarlo observed no indications that the abortion was a medical emergency while in the operating room.

ADF attorneys filed the complaint in Cenzon-DeCarlo v. The Mount Sinai Hospital with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. They are also requesting a preliminary injunction that would order the hospital to honor Cenzon-DeCarlo’s religious objection against assisting in abortion and refrain from retaliation against her while the case moves forward. New York ADF-allied attorneys Joseph Ruta and Piero Tozzi are serving as local counsel in the case.

I'm just a retired mechanic but being married to an RN has taught me some things. So they had up to six hours to perform the surgery? Hey, the charge nurse could have contacted an oncall agency and gotten another RN to fill in. This was a blatant disregard of the woman's religious convictions, something the recently rescinded Executive Order issued by the last President was designed to prevent. Period.

We're not talking about a minor detail either. According to Catholic teaching abortion is the murder of an innocent. Period. Never mind what the RN's supervisors thought of that, they were bound to honor her wishes. Thats as far as it goes and as far as it has to go.

Unfortunately we can expect a lot more of this in the next few years, maybe even longer than that.

Honey? Where'd I put that tinfoil hat?

This is where anyone who knows me starts placing bets on how soon I'm carted off to the screw factory for rethreading.

I recall reading that B.O. doesn't respond to the word, "No" very well. I notice that cap & trade and it's chances of success in the Senate are a coin toss according to some pundits. At the same time, the healthcare bill is starting to hit turbulence while the MSM is growing restless in some quarters and the honeymoon with the nation is showing signs of being over.

So, what are the chances of the following scenario being played out?

Both cap & trade and the healthcare bill die in Congress. B.O. tries an end run by issuing a series of Executive Orders that enact this legislation in fact if not name. Congress puts up a fuss, at the same time the Supreme Court takes a hard look at the orders for their questionable legality. Fed up with resistance, B.O. in his capacity of Commander-in-Chief orders the military to start incarcerating selected foes (check out Lincoln's actions during the Civil War if you think it's unprecedented in this nation). The military balks, the Supremes order B.O.'s arrest and his supporters take to the streets. We have anarchy that makes whats happening in the Honduras look like a slap fight in a girls' high school gym class.

How likely is it? Any comments?

I'd be real happy to hear I need a long rest. Honestly, I would. I'd rather that than the crap that has started circulating in my pointed little head.

God help us all.

What racial equality?

Found this via Adrienne's Catholic Corner; http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html

It talks about the health care bill and it's racial preferences for medical schools.

Now why am I reminded that in the USSR (socialized medicine at it's finest) doctors enjoyed less respect than the garbage collectors?

YouTube can take a flying leap...

According to this article, YouTube has removed a Lila Rose video; http://www.lifenews.com/state4305.html

Does anyone know of a Catholic/Christian version of YouTube? I'm pulling my membership to them and would like to find a replacement.

Sheesh, what next? Will they penalize drowning victims?

Holly Ramer, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS CONCORD, New Hampshire - A teenager who spent three nights alone on Mount Washington in April after he sprained an ankle and veered off marked trails has been fined more than $25,000 for the cost of his rescue.

Scott Mason had been praised for utilizing his Eagle Scout skills - sleeping in the crevice of a boulder and jump-starting fires with hand sanitzer gel. But authorities say he wasn't prepared for the conditions he encountered and shouldn't have set out on such an ambitious hike.

"Yes, he'd been out there in July when you could step across the brooks. And people have been out there in winter in hard-packed snow. But with these spring conditions, it was soft snow, it was deep snow," said Fish and Game Maj. Tim Acerno.

Acerno said he believes Mason's fine is the largest ever sought under a 9-year-old New Hampshire law that allows lost hikers and climbers to be charged for rescue costs. Mason's rescue was particularly expensive because the helicopters the state typically used were unavailable, and a helicopter from Maine had to be brought in, Acerno said.

Mason, 17, of Halifax, Massachusetts, had planned to spend one day hiking 17 miles (27 kilometres) in the New Hampshire mountains but ended up lost after he hurt his ankle and decided to take a shortcut. The shortcut led him into rising water and deep snow caused by unseasonably warm weather.

Mason was negligent in continuing up the mountain with an injury and veering off the marked path, Acerno said. Negligence, he said, is based on judging what a reasonable person would do in the same situation.

"When I twist my ankle, I turn around and come down. He kept going up," Acerno said.

"It was his negligence that led to him getting into that predicament," he said. "Once he was in that predicament, yes, that's what we praise him for - he used his Boy Scout skills, and that's why he's still alive."

Several states, including neighbouring Maine and Vermont, have rescue repayment laws similiar to New Hampshire, though others tend to be more lenient.

New Hampshire officials have estimated that they could seek reimbursement in about 40 of the 140 or so rescues it typically handles each year. The money goes to the Fish and Game department's rescue fund. In most cases, hikers pay a few hundred dollars.

Expecting a 17 year old to exercise the judgment of a mature adult is idiotic. Thats why the age of being able to vote, buy cigarettes, enlist in the military without parental consent, etc. is set at 18 (even that may be too optimistic for an expectation of adult reasoning).

The kid and his parents should tell the state of New Hampshire to pack sand.

Future organ donation procedures...

Found this over at Molten Eagle, really makes a point;

The rest of the post is here; http://aquilinefocus.blogspot.com/search/label/organ%20donors%20chart

For verification of the claims made in the post, do a search of how health care was dispensed in the USSR. Organ donation wasn't as common at the time of it's demise as is presently true throughout the world, but the overall favoritism for party apparatchiks is a historical fact.

I cite the USSR as what I believe is the most appropriate example of socialized medicine carried to it's logical end. Nations such as Canada and the UK may not presently practice it to that extreme, it's just a matter of time. Human nature is unchanging, the "buddy" system always is in place.

R.I.P.

KILLED IN ACTION: JUNE 21 - JUNE 27, 2009

Please pray for the peaceful repose of the souls of those who served our nation with honor, and remember also those who mourn their loss.

Sgt. Roger L. Adams Jr,. 36, NC
Sgt. Juan C. Baldeosingh, 30, NC
Spc. Robert L. Bittiker, 39, NC
Sgt. 1st Class Edward C. Kramer, 39, NC
Sgt. Timothy A. David, 28, MI
Sgt. Terry J. Lynch, 22, MN
Pfc. Justin A. Casillas, 19, CA
Lance Cpl. David Dennis, 29, Wales
Pfc. Aaron E. Fairbairn, 20, WA
Pvt. Robert Laws, 18, England
Cpl. Nicholas Bulger, 30, Canada
Lance Cpl. Charles S. Sharp, 20, GA
Trooper Joshua Hammond, 18, England
Lt. Col. Rupert Thorneloe, 39, England

May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

More on class warfare...

I've no problem in being a fan of this guy. His writings are more often than not right on the mark. In this article, written primarily about the economy in general, he mentions many of the things I've noticed in the ongoing trashtalk being perpetuated at the expense of the financially successful;

On Shearing Sheep
Obama’s economic plans are relentlessly hostile to small business.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

You don’t produce wool by skinning the sheep. But that seems to be the present strategy to get small businesses to begin hiring, buying, and expanding.

There is apparent surprise among Obamians that unemployment has soared the last six months. The much-anticipated stimulus sputtered, and there is a sense of bewilderment in the administration about why joblessness and economic growth are stagnant after the government injected trillions of dollars into the system.

Perhaps the Obama administration needs to remember the psychology of business. After the shock of the September meltdowns, the natural reaction of anyone whose livelihood relied directly on markets was to conserve, pull in one’s horns, and ride out the mess. To restart the paralyzed economy called not just for printing money, but also for words of encouragement to businesses that their assets would be safe, interest rates would be stable, and their work would lead to greater profits.

Instead, exactly the opposite message was sent in a time of crisis. Take first the “spread the wealth” rhetoric. The impression created in the last half-year is that business is culpable for the new mess, while unions and the general public are victims who need relief from the greedy.

Everyone is angry at the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street, but under Obama ironies abound: Banks and investment houses, whose recklessness largely caused this problem, have been lumped in with the small-business person as the kindred “wealthy” who make over $200,000 a year. The family dentist, neighborhood contractor, and owner of the local insurance firm feel neither wealthy nor culpable in the fashion of AIG or Lehman Brothers. If one wishes to stimulate the economy, it makes no sense to conflate productive small businesses with financial-sector zillionaires as enemies of the people.

Team Obama also talks of taxation as if it was slicing salami — a little slice here for new FICA taxes on income above $250,000 (or is it $200,000 or is it $150,000?), another little piece cut off for new income-tax rates of about 40 percent, an additional chop for a surcharge for health care, and then let the poor states have a go with more whacks for increased sales and income taxes. The result is that though each slice may seem tiny in itself, in the aggregate there is not much salami left. Paying out 50 percent of one’s income in taxes may not be socialism, but paying out 70 percent surely is.

For the wheat farmer, electrical contractor, and 20-person law firm, the strategic calculus now goes something like this: “I think I just lost about 20 percent of next year’s income to pay for more income, health-care, state, sales, and payroll taxes, so I won’t be buying that tractor, doing any more Saturday jobs, or hiring that new litigator.” Worse still, many may add, “I will begin reducing or hiding income, avoiding taxes, and dealing in barter to save my business — rather than paying for vast new dubious entitlements for someone else.” These reactions may be unfounded, even wrong, but they are based on logical conclusions nonetheless, considering the promiscuous rhetoric of taxation that emanates daily from the Democratic Congress and the White House.

Worse still, businesses see long trends ahead that in their reckoning are disturbing. They realize that even though they will soon be paying whopping new taxes, these contributions will neither balance the budget (given the new spending) nor win them any psychosocial satisfaction from “paying their fair share.”

More likely, the president will continue to demonize businesspeople, as if their compliance in paying new taxes is proof that such new taxes were long overdue — and evidence of their ability to pay even more. Remember, impressions, not just reality, are important right now in giving businesses the confidence to once again take risks.

Nor is there any certainty about investment and interest rates. How does one borrow or lend when there is no indication how a $2 trillion deficit, and another $9 trillion in proposed debt, are to be serviced? Will it be by inflation, more taxes still, higher interest rates — or all three? Why would a bank this year lend at 4.8 percent for 30 years when it suspects it may be forced to pay 10 percent on passbook accounts in the near future?

And when small businesses turn to vent their grievances to government, they see almost no one who has ever met a payroll, hired new employees, or purchased equipment. Instead there are plenty of Ivy League technocrats, whose past worlds involve economic theorizing, tenure, lifetime job security, and much experience in regulating productive others.

Had Barack Obama run a Chicago law firm, or had Timothy Geithner created a software company, perhaps they would have some understanding of all the psychological impulses that determine whether businesses gamble or freeze up. It does not help to suggest that those who make above $250,000 are somehow self-indulgent — while our populist first couple flies in cooks, serves $100-a-pound beef, wears $400 tennis shoes, and seems to enjoy the life of the rich and famous as much as they deplore it in others — especially given the past tax hypocrisy of Geithner, Daschle, Solis, and others. We are a long way from the lives of Harry and Bess Truman.

Nor does government accept any blame. One could argue that our Barney Franks and Chris Dodds were as culpable for the Fannie/Freddie meltdown as any Wall Streeter, and, in matters of probity and ethics, as lax — given their compromised positions as simultaneous regulators and donation recipients. Instead, they almost seem to think that if they blame others for the crises, we will forget their culpability. The message is again clear to business: “You made the mistakes; we, the morally superior beings, are here to put you back on the right path — and if you don’t like it, we are the only game in town.”

Then there are all the other random business-bashing efforts. Americans were shocked by the AIG bonuses, but to deny them would have involved potentially violating the workers’ contracts. In the bailout, GM’s creditors soon discovered that traditional rules of risk and exposure did not matter, because the government deemed some creditors more morally worthy than others.

Add in new regulations about charitable donations, and again the message is clear: “You need to be taxed more, regulated more, and preached to.” At no point did the Obama administration warn the American people that they must not spend more on their credit cards than they can pay back, take out mortgages for more house than they can afford, or spend on extraneous things rather than save for essentials like catastrophic health insurance.

The imagery was instead that 280 million Americans had been cheated by banks, gouged by credit-card companies, neglected by government, and held at the mercy of business — innocent children unable to think or act on their own behalf. That demagoguery may win elections, but it turns off businesses and persuades them to sit out the next few years in puzzlement over what the new landscape and rules will be.

So the proper question is not why is unemployment rising, growth stagnant, and the future uncertain — but rather why shouldn’t all this be true, with worse still to come?

"Hope & change" indeed...

Forwarded to my email from the War Department;

Posted on the bulletin board in the break room of a small company......

As the VP of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our President, and that our taxes, and government fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%

Since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been bothering me, since I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who would have to go.

So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lot and found six 'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. They voted for change; I gave it to them.

I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.

It would be funnier if not so likely to be true.

Our ongoing class warfare...

Lately I keep hearing a steady beat of, "tax the rich" in order to pay for Obamacare. The implicit message seems to be one of class warfare & envy. How the hell did we get here anyway?

In the movie, "The Pursuit of Happyness" the character played by Will Smith gets a job as an unpaid intern for an insurance company. It's a good flick and I'll not give anything more away that might spoil it for anybody. But one item sticks in my head, during the entire flick Will Smith is shown interacting with wealthy folk. ALL of them are shown to be decent human beings, when was the last time you remember seeing that in a film?

I'll never be rich, having three children while in my 50's has guaranteed that. It doesn't bother me either. Really, how much steak can a person eat in a week anyway? In the interests of full disclosure, we last ate steak around Christmas. Which is when we might see it again. Maybe. BFD. Whether you eat steak or hamburger it all comes back out looking the same.

But if someone has a wad of dough I'm happy for 'em. They probably earned it and deserve it, good on them!

So I really don't get the whole class warfare mindset.

To listen to the MSM though, you'd think it was an accepted ideal.

Just don't get it.

They say hindsight is 20/20...

Cheerfully stolen from Sig94.

I'll assume she's packing a derringer...

Some time ago I shifted my attention from the threat of Islamic fascism to the useful idiots that enable them. Why? Because followers of the Pedophile Prophet are incredibly stupid, even when taking events like 9/11/2001 into consideration. Left to their own devices they'll provide the world with endless lessons in idiocy.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about, found via a commenter at Always On Watch from the archives of the Israel National News;

PA: IDF is Using Elite Female Stripper Death Squads

Published: 08/14/01, 11:59 PM

The Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida carried a story this past week about IDF tactics that surpassed all previous accusations of supposed Israeli deviousness - poisoned candies, hormone-laced gum, poisoned wells, magnetized belts -in its bizarreness.

According to an Al-Hayat Al-Jadida front page report, the IDF has turned to using armed, female strippers in its war on upstanding Palestinian boys. The newspaper reports that when the Arab rock-throwing begins, IDF soldiers run for cover. Then, the story continues, after some time of hiding, an Israeli woman stands up on top of a barricade and begins to perform an alluring strip tease. Innocent Arab teenage boys, distracted from the business of rioting, are enticed to approach, when, according to the newspaper, the woman ? an IDF soldier ? shoots them with a pistol she had hidden in her underwear.

You just can't make this shit up.

Memories in the unborn...

Tell me again how an unborn baby is just a blob of tissue...

July 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 30-week-old babies in the womb already have short-term memory capabilities, a new study from the Netherlands, published in the July/August 2009 issue of the journal Child Development, has found.

Researchers at Maastricht University Medical Centre and the University Medical Centre St. Radboud examined 93 healthy pregnant Dutch women and their unborn children, measuring changes in how the child responds to repeated stimulation. The children were tested at 30, 32, 34, and 36 weeks, and again at 38 weeks gestation.

The study showed that the unborn children would initially respond to a "vibroacoustic" stimulus. The stimulus would then be repeated every 30 seconds until "habituation" occured, and the children no longer reacted, evidently accepting the sound as safe. Ultrasonography showed that in a second session ten minutes after the first, the children apparently "remembered" the stimulus and the number of stimuli needed for habituation grew much smaller.

The scientists found that at thirty weeks, the child in the womb has a short-term memory of about ten minutes. At 34 weeks, the child can store information and retrieve it up to four weeks later. The younger children who had been tested at 34 and 36 weeks were later able to habituate much faster than children at 38 weeks who had never been tested.

"This is the next step into a better insight in the development of the foetal central nervous system," said study co-author Dr. Jan G. Nijhuis, director of the Centre for Genetics, Reproduction and Child Health at Maastricht University Medical Centre in the Netherlands. "We aim to develop an 'intra-uterine neurologic examination,' which could then be used in foetuses at risk."

The more science looks into life prior to birth, the more evidence is uncovered of the unborn child's humanity. By implication this increases the heinous nature of abortion, we know more certainly it's an innocent human being getting killed in the womb yet it continues.

Many pro aborts are impatient with comparisons to the Nazi driven Holocaust, claiming those comparisons are unfair. They're right, the concentration camp inmates always had the potential ability to revolt & fight back. That they didn't is a testimony to the efficient brutality visited upon them to deter that possibility, no such measures need to be taken with the unborn.

They're completely helpless and at the mercy of their killers.

Even Russia didn't have this many czars!!

Found the list below via The Anchoress, she has one hell of a post well worth reading; http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2009/07/16/obamas-science-czar-when-life-is-devalued/

Here is a list of Obama’s current and prospective Czar positions:

1. Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra

2. Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske

3. Copyright Czar: Not appointed yet.

4. Energy Czar: Carol M. Browner

5. Car Czar: Ron Bloom

6. Terrorism/WMD Czar: Gary Samore

7. Health Care Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle

8. Education Czar: Not appointed yet.

9. Economic Czar: Paul Volcker

10. Mortgage Czar: Not appointed yet.

11. Urban Affairs/Housing Czar: Adolfo Carrion

12. Guantanomo closure Czar: Danny Fried

13. Great lakes Czar: Cameron Davis

14. Stimulus accountability Czar: Earl Devaney

15. Cyberspace Czar: Not appointed yet.

16. Border Czar: Alan Bersin (Former US attorney)

17. Intelligence Czar: Admiral Dennis Blair

18. Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein

19. Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg

20. Iran Czar: Not appointed yet.

21. Tarp Czar: Herb Allison

22. Middle-East peace Czar: George Mitchell

23. Science Czar: John Holdren

24. Green jobs Czar: Van Jones

25. Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke

26. Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration

27. Mideast policy Czar: Dennis Ross

28. Information Czar: Vivek Kundra

29. AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley

30. Faith-based Czar: Joshua Dubois

31. Climate Czar: Todd Stern

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Healthcare rationing to come

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- One of the greatest fears for the pro-life movement when it comes to a government-involved heath care restructuring bill is health car rationing that would lead to euthanasia. Now, Peter Singer, the so-called Princeton bioethicist infamous for backing infanticide, is promoting rationing.( Why is this surprising? If there is only a finite amount of government money available for various treatments, rationing of resources is inevitable. If proponents of government funded health care say it isn't, they're lying.)

His comments, which are already drawing enormous outrage, appear in a new editorial in the New York Times.

In "Why We Must Ration Health Care," Singer pushes a “quality of life ethic” and supports the system established in England called QALY that determines when a patient is qualified for medical care. ("Quality of life", for some reason that term has always carried an Orwellian ring to it.)

The system determines that people who are disabled enjoy a lower quality of life and should be less likely to receive medical treatment. (A practice which is already prevalent in the EU and has surfaced here in the state of Washington.)

Singer sets up one hypothetical and says he understands "Some will object that this discriminates against people with disabilities."

"If we return to the hypothetical assumption that a year with quadriplegia is valued at only half as much as a year without it, then a treatment that extends the lives of people without disabilities will be seen as providing twice the value of one that extends, for a similar period, the lives of quadriplegics," he writes. (This dispenses with the notion that all human life is sacred. Is anyone surprised?)

Singer is more crass in the lead paragraph.

“You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?” (Hell, why stop at a few months? Most middle-aged folk have some sort of limiting medical condition, e.g. bad knees, let's just encourage them to off themselves.)

Singer says someone with the money would likely pay for the treatment, but he supposes members of insurance plans would prefer the patient die.

"If the insurer provides this man — and everyone else like him — with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value?" he asks. (As a matter of fact, I would.)

Wesley J. Smith, a leading bioethics watchdog, responds to the article by saying Singer is "pushing his ongoing campaign to dismantle human exceptionalism and instill utilitarianism as the foundational value of society." (Ah yup. Soon we'll have full blown eugenics.)

As a result, Smith says Singer "would discriminate against the ill, the elderly, and people with disabilities." (Plus unwanted children, including orphans. The slippery slope doesn't have a short span.)

"Singer is merely conflating whether one would prefer to not be disabled with the intrinsic equal value of the lives of people with disabilities, as if both positions cannot be held at the same time," Smith says.

He notes how Singer talked about how Christopher Reeve was wrong to ask for his life to be extended.

"Using Reeve, there is no question he wanted to walk again. But that doesn't mean that his life had less value because he couldn't," Smith asserts. (

"Rationing would put bioethicists of the ilk of Peter Singer in charge of who received or did not receive wanted care. If that doesn't turn you off the rationing agenda, what will?" Smith adds. (Our lotus eating, kool aid drinking population that thinks it'll never happen to them because B.O. & Co. have said it won't will gladly sign on to this.)

Smith also says he is surprised that the Times would allow the editorial. (He still has thoughts it's a decent paper?)

"You would think that an ultra liberal newspaper like the New York Times–which claims to believe in human equality–would look askance at an advocate who argues that parents should be allowed to murder their babies if the child does not suit the interests of the family," he writes. "Illustrating how off the rails contemporary liberalism has become, the Times loves Peter Singer." (Well, he's hit that nail square on the head!)

Dr. Benjamin pro-choice? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 15, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A White House spokesman appears to have settled confusion on the position of Surgeon General nominee Dr. Regina Benjamin by saying that the doctor, though widely considered a devout Roman Catholic, supports President Obama's agenda on abortion. (Another CINO along the lines of Biden, Sibellius, etc.)

White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said in a Miami Herald report yesterday that Benjamin "supports the president's position on reproductive health issues." Earlier this year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explicitly confirmed that for the Obama administration the term "reproductive health" includes abortion. (Because calling it "abortion" is so distasteful, as is calling the "fetus" an unborn child.)

Cherlin added that Benjamin also aligns with Obama's position on seeking "common ground" on abortion "to try and reduce the number of unintended pregnancies." (How do you find "common ground" with intrinsic evil?)

The New York Times also recently reported that an associate of Benjamin's said the Catholic doctor regularly distributes contraception, despite the Catholic Church's teaching against contraception.

Benjamin's reputation for being a devout Catholic stems in part from the fact that she is a past recipient of the "Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice" award from Pope Benedict XVI for her humanitarian work. She has also received the National Caring Award, an honor which was inspired by Mother Teresa. When Benjamin's nomination was announced, Catholic League president Bill Donohue welcomed the doctor as an "excellent choice" for surgeon general. Donohue has not yet commented since the White House commented on Benjamin's position on abortion. (Proving it's better to know what you're talking about before enthusiastically sticking your foot in your mouth.)

However, not everyone is convinced by the White House's statement. Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, on the board of which Benjamin has served, stated in response, "We have an outstanding woman with a great heart for the dignity of people at all stages of life who has been active in her church and recognized by her local archbishop. (That means squatolla, especially given the lunacy of some archbishops.)

"Her public and private statements on the dignity of life have always been consistent with church teaching."

Benjamin herself will not be available to comment on her own position until after the confirmation proceedings have concluded, according to one Health and Human Services spokeswoman. (Smart move.)

President Obama prefaced his introduction of Dr. Regina Benjamin yesterday with a lengthy endorsement of the healthcare reform package, and described Dr. Benjamin as someone "who understands the urgency" of nationalized healthcare. (Oh boy! This is supposed to be an endorsement?)

As Surgeon General, Benjamin will head up the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, which is designated to decide which services will be covered in the nationalized healthcare plan. This evidently would give Benjamin the final say on whether the basic coverage in the new plan will include abortion. (I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to be turned down. Our tax dollars doing Moloch's work.)

Pro-lifers fear the bill's implicit inclusion of abortion coverage is bound to trigger a landslide of abortion funding de-regulation across the United States. The National Right to Life Committee, as well as leading pro-life Congressman Chris Smith, have warned private and public insurers would be forced to match the federal plan in abortion coverage, and healthcare providers would be required to provide more access to the procedure. (So we'll not only be forced to pay our tax dollars into funding baby killing, any healthcare insurance we subscribe to may also be funding abortions. We get hosed two ways, lovely.)

Stupid question time; Did anyone REALLY expect B.O. to pick an ideological opposite for any major post in his administration? If you did contact me for some waterfront property I have for sale in Florida, we can go look at sometime during a low tide.