It Was Obama Who Made The Bogus Claim
Dec 23, 2009 Political
On several occasions Barack Obama has stated that his health care plan would not cover abortions. What he specifically said was that federal dollars (read taxpayer money) would not be used to pay for abortions. Obama said that the people who were saying this were making “bogus” claims:
In a one-line response to charges that taxpayers will foot the bill for abortions, Obama Wednesday night called it a “bogus” claim.
“One more misunderstanding I want to clear up — under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place,” the president said in an address to a joint session of Congress to sell health care reforms. Fox
The bill that the House passed allowed taxpayer money to pay for abortions until a Democrat worked to change the bill. The Senate bill absolutely allows for abortions to be paid for with taxpayer dollars. Representative Bart Stupak, the Democrat who introduced the amendment changing the language in the House bill has read the language in the Senate bill and he says that it is not good enough and that it allows for taxpayer money to fund abortion. He claims that he cannot vote for the bill if the language is changed to the Senate version.
Stupak also claims that he has been contacted by the White House and by House leadership telling him not to make any statements on the issue until they get a chance to sell him the language. In other words, they want to try and buy him off like they did all those Senators but Stupak said he does not need to discuss this with the White House or House leaders because he can read. He indicated that he does not need the language sold to him and that what he has read is not good enough.
Now let’s revisit the statement Obama made about taxpayer money paying for abortions. He said it was a bogus claim. It looks like Obama’s statement that it was a bogus claim was a bogus claim. Obama said that abortions would not be paid for with taxpayer money but the bill will allow that so he made the bogus claim as he has done with a lot of legislation. Remember Mr. “no earmarks” who has signed bills with earmarks totaling around 10,000? There is also no mechanism to keep illegals from getting coverage so when Joe Wilson said “you lie” he was right.
But back to abortion. If the White House wants Stupak not to talk about this it means that they know it exists, that the bill covers abortions and that it would be a problem for some in the House. The request for silence also means they are playing the kind of politics that Obama said he would put an end to. He is trying to get this through without drawing attention to his LIE. The Democrats passed this stuff in the dead of night and now the Obama thugs are trying to keep things hush-hush.
There is still a big chance that this whole thing will go down in flames because it is unlikely that the House and Senate will agree. Of course, there appears to be no such thing as truly moderate Democrats and the only real question is how much do they need to be bought off. I would like to believe that Stupak will stand his ground but recent events involving Democrats indicate that they will stand their ground until their price is reached and then they fold like a bad poker hand.
One thing is for sure. They do not have our best interests in mind. They want to pass something, anything, to make the messiah look good and they don’t care what it has in it.
Their philosophy is to pass something now and then fix it later which is no way to do anything. Would you have faith in a car company if its philosophy was to slap cars together quickly and with little regard to what is right and then worry about fixing them later? Come to think of it, you might have that now that government owns a few car companies…
This will be interesting to watch but it is important for people to remember that the Democrats do not care about getting it right, just getting it passed and Obama will sign whatever hits his desk even if it contains things he said would not be in his plan. Obama and House leaders are anxious to keep certain things quiet so they can pass them without public scrutiny.
This is the most transparent administration in history, just ask them.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: abortion, clandestine, deception, lies, Obama, Reid, stupak
Kennedy Worried About E-Medical Record Privacy
Sep 30, 2009 Political
The government health care takeover calls for all medical records to be electronic. Electronic records can make life a lot easier and I have seen some amazing technology with regard to electronics and medical application. But, as with all electronic records, there is a chance that data will be compromised and someone who shouldn’t will gain access to the records. Look how many electronic data bases, government and private, have been compromised.
Patrick Kennedy said that sexually transmitted diseases and abortions will not be required to be reported in electronic medical records. The cynic might wonder about the abortions. Is this so they can be paid for with taxpayer money and not be recorded?
Probably not. Kennedy is worried about the data being compromised and people being embarrassed by it. Kennedy should know about items in medical records that could be embarrassing given his treatment for substance abuse.
Kennedy, probably without realizing it, told us that the electronic records might not be so secure after all. If they were then why would he want these items omitted (upon patient request)? They are not omitted from paper records because there is not a great a chance that they will be compromised. By asking that they not be included he has indicated that there is a concern that they would be inadvertently released. Therefore, the electronic records will not be as secure as the government wants you to believe.
I am having trouble understanding why these two items were selected by him. The left is proud of its support of abortion and it is a badge of honor for a young liberal woman to have an abortion and the younger the better.
Perhaps the STD issue is to allow people to exclude a positive HIV test.
No matter what the reason, Kennedy gave us a glimpse as to how secure the records will be.
He is not so sure or he would not want certain things omitted.
Source:
CNS News
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: abortion, electronic medical records, HIV, patrick kennedy, std
What is the big deal?
May 18, 2009 Political
When Barama spoke at Notre Dame Sunday, he thought he and his prompter could smooth the waters of controversy regarding his horrific stance on abortion. He failed the test of sounding statesman- like, instead coming off as an ambivalent slacker determined to have it both ways.
This is becoming more of a problem for him than he would like. While most young people in the crowd and elsewhere have been obliviopus to the fact that Skinny B and his posse regularly hose them because they can, most people who truly listened to the man could see and hear that he was speaking out of both sides of his teleprompter.
This is a problem for this administration, because according to a Gallup poll, more people identify themselves with the pro- life movement than with the pro- choice.
For the first time since it began asking the question in 1995, Gallup reported Friday, a majority of adults questioned for its annual survey on values and beliefs — 51% — said that when it comes to abortion, they consider themselves “pro-life”; 42% consider themselves “pro-choice.” (The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.) LA Times
My personal take on the situation is that people are beginning to shy away from the personal attacks of ridicule that those who choose life are regularly subjected to by those liberals who favor abortion on demand. Ridicule is a tricky weapon- it can backfire on you if you use it too often, or against a sympathetic figure.
Our country has always loved the underdog, and what could inspire more sympathy than a baby? How someone could favor an abortion over a live baby is beyond me- I attribute this attitude to the fact that we have become a throw- away society. Everything is temporary- homes now have a one year warranty, and it is now expected that if a home lasts twenty years, it has had a full life. Our dishes are throw- away- witness Dixie cups and plates. Our cars- they are built with a “Planned obsolescence” factor built in. No more “Classic” cars for us- they are built to last a general average of ten years, so we will buy new ones.
But babies are different- they SHOULD BE different. To choose taking a life over saving a life at that innocent age is unreasonable, when there are so many people willing and able to adopt. If the reason that you choose to abort is that of convenience- you do not wish to take the time to see this act you chose to perform seen to it’s rightful conclusion, you are a murderer. There is no difference between what you chose to do, and shooting someone who was ahead of you in the line for a burger- he was inconvenient, and was keeping you from your burger. No difference- wait, there is one- the guy in line ahead of you might have been able to defend himself, the baby never will.
All people who wish to diminish the importance of life do so by referring to the baby as a “fetus”, and yes, that is the technical name for a baby still in the womb, but what do you raging Liberals call him when you have dragged his lifeless body from the protection of his mother’s womb? Do you then call him a baby, because now that he is out from the womb, that is what he is. Oh yes, he is one other thing- he is now dead.
I understand the choices teens and others have to make. My daughter had to make the same decision years ago, and she chose life with adoption, and I have never been prouder- it was her choice, and while we did not approve of abortion, we gave her the information and she made up her own mind. This was not easy for either my wife, or me, but I know the choices my daughter faced were even more difficult for her.
Today however, a couple now has a happy, healthy, getting into everything boy that they would not have had without my daughter’s choice, and while, as I said before, I do not like Roe v. Wade, it is law- I just pray that abortion is the last choice people consider.
Our children deserve more than to be treated as if they were Dixie Cups.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Obama’s Speech Inspired Me
May 17, 2009 Political
I listened to the speech Obama gave at Notre Dame today and it was a good commencement speech. Sure, it was full of the ideas of wealth redistribution and making life fair and all the stuff he believes but it was a good speech. It is not surprising because when he has a functioning teleprompter he is pretty good. I was not one who believed that he should not have been invited but I was against him receiving the honorary degree. Having written that, I am happy that those who objected demonstrated peacefully and that they did what they thought was right with regard to their own conscience.
I listened to him because I wanted to see how he addressed the controversy of his invitation and he did it well. In fact, I was inspired by him when he discussed the subject of abortion.
He told the audience that people could disagree on issues but that they needed to come together to reach a common ground. He said that he did not believe that the right to an abortion should be taken away from women but that abortions should be rare and other options should be available.
I have a different view on abortion as I believe the Roe v Wade decision was wrong. The Constitution does not give a right to an abortion so that means the issue should be decided by the states. I have always believed that it was a state’s right issue and should have been left at that level.
However, Obama’s idea of having abortions but making them rare inspired me with regard to another issue that liberals take a strong stand on. That is the issue of the death penalty. Liberals want to abolish the death penalty.
Using the Obama logic with abortion we should change the debate on the death penalty from abolishing it to leaving it as an option for each state (or a state’s choice, if you will) and make them rare. Since we already have other alternatives such as life or life without parole the same criteria Obama has for abortion already exists for the death penalty.
This should end the debate on this issue and the liberals should stop trying to abolish the death penalty because Obama has told us to find common ground and this is common ground that meets the exact same requirements he set forth for abortion.
I know that some folks will not agree. My liberal friend Adam, who comments here, is always worried about an innocent person being put to death. Yes, DNA has exonerated people but it is rare that an innocent person is put to death though I am sure it has happened. However, in order to follow the Obama logic with regard to abortion, we have to be willing to accept that an innocent might accidentally be put to death.
You see, each time an abortion is performed an innocent person IS put to death. There was no trial, there was no jury, and they did nothing wrong and yet they are murdered. Obama is willing to accept a low number of innocent people being put to death in order to keep abortion as a woman’s choice.
Therefore, we should accept a low rate (much lower than that of abortion) of innocent people being put to death after a trial in order to keep that penalty in place.
Adam commented that even if it cost more money to keep people alive he considered it a good expenditure of his tax dollars if it prevented an innocent person from being killed.
That is perfect for abortion. Even if it cost the mother and father more money it is worth it to prevent an innocent person from being murdered.
And every abortion is the murder of an innocent life.
I am glad Obama inspired me with his speech. I am sure the liberals are now happy that the death penalty issue has been cleared up.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: abortion, controversy, death penalty, notre dame, Obama
Fetus Don’t Fail Me Now
May 16, 2009 Political
Well, Skinny B is set to speak at Notre Dame University, a supposedly staunchly Catholic institution that allegedly supports the Right to Life movement, and should be anti- abortion.
Skinny B is pro- abortion, so pro- abortion that he is in favor of sucking a baby’s brains out in late term abortions and killing a baby in the womb. What a great guy, huh? Love to have him at a party, some light convo, a little fetus killing, everyone goes home happy, right?
There is a disconnect here, between the folks at the university, and the rest of the Catholic leadership, apparently. The students, and the university professors (who you would expect to be liberal) seem to want this person to speak at the commencement- well, that is one thing, but to give him an honorary degree from this prestigious University is another thing entirely, as it appears that the University is honoring, or at least condoning his stance on abortion, which runs counter to that of the Catholic church.
This is wrong- while my convictions are pro life, I realize that Roe v Wade is law, and I can’t change that myself. I also realize that this is a law that is better when used VERY sparingly, and Barama seems to believe that we should have a Big Box Store that caters to abortions, to hear him talk about this. He has been evasive as to just when he believes life begins, and I believe that is so there will not be a certain date where abortions could not be performed. Take that to the extreme, you could feasibly abort as a baby is being born, according to his ambiguity.The man will not take a position here- “That question is above my pay grade.” Really, or do you not have the cojones to actually stake out a moral position and defend it?
I can understand Notre Dame allowing him to speak- after all he is (shudder) the president- but the honorary degree is too much. First, you have to believe that the man has some honor, and I do not. Barama is a man of convenience, and his ideals shift according to his audience. If that sounds like I am calling him a liar and a con man, you would be hearing right.
He makes and breaks promises faster than the speed of Nancy Pelosi’s medications. When in Chicago, as a State legislator, he voted for a bill that would, in effect, kill babies in the womb, well after there would be a discernible heartbeat- something that I would think anyone with any sense of humanity would shy away from, but not him. One might be excused from thinking that Barama has stock in some fetus- sucking, stem cell producing start- up company, and needs some raw material. His positions seem to reflect something like this scenario. Perhaps his share is being kept in Al Gore’s “Lockbox” for after he gets out of office.
The bottom line here is that Barama should speak at Notre Dame, but he should not get the honorary degree, because that would demean the University’s stated position. The students seem to want to hear this faker, but that’s their privilege.
Winston Churchill once said, ” If you are 20, and not liberal, you have no heart- if you are 40, and are not conservative, you have no brain.”
I’ll let that quote sink in.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: abortion, compassion, notre dame, right to life