After a lovely weekend of conjuring up lies about the health care proposal and more ways she could exploit her spawn…
As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.
Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.
We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.
The woman has no shame, and does not care if we know that she has sold her soul to the highest bidder. She does not care that everyone can see that her primary concern for her infant is his exploitation potential.
But anyway, after a weekend of being on the receiving end of outrage calling her out for her lies, she has announced that America needs more civility…
There are many disturbing details in the current bill that Washington is trying to rush through Congress, but we must stick to a discussion of the issues and not get sidetracked by tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation or harassment. Such tactics diminish our nation’s civil discourse which we need now more than ever because the fine print in this outrageous health care proposal must be understood clearly and not get lost in conscientious voters’ passion to want to make elected officials hear what we are saying. Let’s not give the proponents of nationalized health care any reason to criticize us.
Sarah, you are gonna burn in Hell. Oh, I forgot. You were chosen by god to do this, and you have been exempted from all laws, rules, and sins.
But most of all, she’s got her health care. You losers can let the death panels of the insurance companies pull the plugs on your parents and disabled children because they are too expensive to bother saving.
Inspired by an article in Salon entitled “What’s wrong with the new pro-lifers” by Frances Kissling, a woman who appears to be opposed to abortion but has lots of issues trying to reason her way through the sticky issue.
Twenty-eight pages of letters later, I came to a comment by keenplanner, who stated
The New Anti-choicers
Same as the old anti-choicers.
The bottom line is that abortion will never dissappear, even if it is made illegal. What will dissappear are clinically safe abortions performed by medical profesionals.
Over 40,000 women all over the world die from botched abortions. Do these anti-choice religious fanatics and bigots want the US to join the ranks of countries with filthy, illegal, back-alley abortion providers?
This movement should not be called anti-choice, and it’s far from pro-life.
They should be called pro-coathanger.
I responded (and have expanded):
If you hang out where anti-abortionists feel free to speak their minds, you will find that actually many of them do feel that the punishment for abortion should be death, even if that means that 1/3 to 1/2 of women would die.
Of course, you can’t tell by looking at a woman whether she is one of the guilty ones. But that simply means that in their minds, any woman they meet could already be a murderer, and every woman of childbearing age, given the “choice”, could become one with her next act of moral agency. This dovetails nicely with their notion of the nobility of women dying as a result of a doomed pregnancy.
They honestly believe that late term termination of healthy pregnancies is so frequent that it is a huge problem, that it is the natural tendency of women to change their minds in the last week of pregnancy for no reason whatever, and that women who do this have no problem finding doctors to accommodate them.
Step back and you see that men who lead the movement are arguing that women are morally inferior. Women made the “choice” not to “keep their legs shut”, and therefore, should be forced (but not “punished”) to bear and raise the baby at their own expense (unless of course it is marketable for adoption). It annoys them to no end that there is no stigma to this.
They see abortion as enabling women to “get away with” sex. They think that not only should women be forced to bear any such child conceived out of wedlock (or within a marriage that she should have known in advance was going to end), but that women who do end up raising such children should be punished by society with poverty, as should their bastard children.
Let’s look at the religious issue here that is never spoken, as the argument implies that sex is a moral choice for women but not for men. It’s just the old garden-of-eden story claiming that wicked women tempt men, who are too weak morally to resist. Therefore, women deserve to be punished for tempting men to have sex, but men can’t help themselves.
If men are truly morally inferior, then they have no business lecturing women about moral choices. How about this imperative for moral choices by men: Men who are opposed to abortion can end abortion now just by keeping their pants zipped up.
There’s a new “Bobby Jindal for President” ad out that misquotes a great many newspersons without their permission. Cenk Uygur caught himself pimping for Jindal in the ad, which is pretty remarkable, since the original of his broadcast was calling Jindal stark raving insane.
It had something to do with believing that little exorcism he took part in cured a woman’s cancer. Right.
I have read a lot about witch-hunting in Africa before. Usually the stories involve tales of women who were blamed for just about all illness and bad luck that befell anyone, whereupon they were murdered or run out of town.
But this is the first time that I have read about children being tortured and killed, and the first time a connection was made to Christian sects which encourage this activity.
Remember Sarah Palin’s Reverend Muthee who laid his hands on her and exorcised demons, while casting a spell to protect her from witches? She believes in this stuff. The “prayer warriors” who are members of her movement to infiltrate the government at all levels and turn our country into a theocracy have been busy at work, praying for the deaths of people they don’t like (they claim credit for Mother Teresa’s death), and for bringing illness and death on their mortal enemies, which is apparently you and me.
She is where she is because someone thought she had the potential to rise to power, and she has been groomed for just that for years. Unfortunately, the primary intellectual requirement was for ideological purity and familiarity with the Bible, which is why they selected someone with no knowledge or curiosity about national or global issues, science, or ethics.
But for her, the end justifies the means. God supports her in everything she does. God wants everybody who doesn’t belong to her church to be vanquished. He told her so.
With the added pressure of a shattered economy, more and more angry men are loadin’ up the guns and goin’ on a rampage. They’re shooting their families, their neighbors, their former co-workers, and a whole bunch of strangers who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
They’re targeting women, minorities, and liberals.
The demagogues on hate radio and television like to think of themselves as being at the forefront of a glorious movement, where gun nuts armed to the teeth will seize power with a few deft and well-coordinated maneuvers and return it to “Real Americans”, whatever they are, and have the country run by a paramilitary fascist force.
The unfortunate fact is that the people with the guns are not tactical military geniuses. They are desperate, close to insolvency and homelessness. They blame everyone but the politicians whose policies are responsible for their misery. For all the endless posting on unmoderated right-wing sites and repeated calls and emails to their Congresspeople, they are small in number, and it is impossible for them to maintain the delusion of ubiquity without seeing an occasional crack in the facade.
Nor are the hate-mongers who are trying to encourage their supporters to arm themselves for the coming insurrection geniuses, although they certainly see themselves as just that. (Hint: If you think you are the only sane person in the country, you are neither.)
Many of the armed warriors believe that the Rapture is imminent. Like Sarah Palin, they may believe that we are in a cosmic struggle between good and evil, between witches and demons on one side and angels on the other, and apparently those angels are carrying semi-automatic weapons.
People like this are literally on a crusade.
Rather than forming “well-regulated militias”, these people will crack one at a time, taking out whoever they can shoot before they are cornered and kill themselves.
I see no difference between this and a guy in Iraq who straps on a bomb, walks down to the market and blows up himself and a dozen others for a political cause and a fast forward into heaven.
Guess what? Studies have finally outed “abstinence-only” sex education as the fraud it is. Abstinence-only sex education has no effect on the age at which teens have sex or how much sex they are having. We have poured millions of dollars into this scam, the sole purpose of which is to inject religion into public schools.
Abstinence-only sex education does have an unintended result: teaching kids that condoms and other forms of birth control don’t work has had the result that when kids who have taken part in these programs do have sex, they don’t bother to use any contraception. So pregnancy and STD rates among these students are much higher because of the program they have taken part in. Think Bristol Palin, spawn of Sarah, who believes that no sex education should be taught, and that parents can teach the kids at home. Good work there, Mom!
Another thing that has no effect on teen sex is the “chastity pledge” that young teens may take at a ceremony where they may get a ring symbolizing chastity. Most kids don’t remember they took the pledge, and even if they did, they don’t let it affect their sexual behavior.
Responses: That it’s still the right thing to do, the only right thing to do, even if it is wrong.
Yeah, really. It sounds like the start of a dirty joke.
He told his parishioners that they couldn’t take communion anymore if they had voted for Obama.
This has been in a lot of blogs, but since I don’t watch television, I don’t know if it’s in the MSM. However, there’s been an update. The Monsignor in charge of that parish has sent out a letter repudiating that position, and the local parish took down their position statement from their website.
When President Bush took office, the nation’s abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute’s studies).
Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.
I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky’s increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan’s increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania’s increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).
Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.
How could this be? I see three contributing factors:
First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.
Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.
Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency – with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million – abortion increases.
The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back. …
What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.
As I wrote in a blogpost to conservative Catholics,
If you want to keep abortions at their lowest possible level, vote for the candidate who will actually help the working poor to support their children–that only makes sense. That candidates name is not John McCain, who assumes an income just shy of five million is actually middle class, who rails vehemently against ‘spreading the wealth’, and who thinks maintaining Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent is just dandy; while arguing for a jury rigged healthcare system that would further burden the poor by actually taxing their health care benefits. Voting for a candidate who can actually attempt fairness in our tax codes and redistribution in some meaningful way is being truly ‘pro-life’ in its largest and most generous sense.
DelicateMonster a slightly left of center reading experience
I would disagree with the idea that the effect of policies that disproportionately affect single mothers is incidental. I think it is intentional that they have the effect of permanently disadvantaging both the woman in this position and her children. The current administration has attempted to pass programs that give tax breaks to married couples, claiming that somehow these would be a disincentive to remain single, as though the only reason single mothers decided not to marry was because there weren’t enouogh punitive programs in place.
Bush has been trying to return women’s health to a biblical state. Preventing conception is going against god’s will, since god wants women who have sex outside of marriage to get caught and be forced to raise bastard children. Women whose lives are threatened by a problem pregnancy should be denied medical care and die, even if there is no hope for the life of the fetus.
The logical extension of this is that only the Christian Science health model (prayer-only) is really following the will of god in any medical case. Did god really want Sarah Palin to have all that plastic surgery to make her look more appealing to voters? I think not. That was definitely going against god’s will.
Health care for single women? Only if they can afford to pay in advance. But it’s perfectly acceptable for them to pay the taxes that subsidize health insurance for the employed.
It’s all part of the demonization of women in general that says that late term abortion is a huge problem, and many women currently choose to terminate healthy full term pregnancies on a whim. It says that women are child-like creatures who need to be told what to do, just like Sarah Palin and her followers who have been taught not to think, question or learn.
Sarah Palin does need to be told what to do, as her internal compass seems to be stuck on the same message from the campaign. I bet she’s gotten tons of advice on what to do, but she can’t learn from it. She saw so much “success” with that demagogue act that she’s going to go with it.
I’ll tell her what to do: Sarah, sit down and STFU.
Hmm, maybe I could start a petition drive on that…
Yeah, she’s accusing her opponent of being an atheist, which she’s not, of course. But neither of them is giving us any indication that they have a clue that it’s not only legal to be an atheist, but it’s also not legally an impediment to public service.
Now clearly the public has been bamboozled into believing that the vast majority of us are “God-believers” who all agree on just about every religious, economic, and political issue (“Hey, that’s ME!” you’re supposed to say at this point.). “The Others” are Muslims, atheists, satanists, demon-worshippers, witches, and who knows what else, and for some of these fanatics, all at the same time. They believe that those who do not belong to a church aligned with theirs are evil amoral people who are out to get you.
But that is an issue for another post. Right here and now, you can watch the little video I put together to show what I find truly scary about Liddy Dole.
Gosh, I forgot to hit publish, and what do you know? I found this:
Seriously, it’s time for a good ambush interview with Michelle Bachman, Republican rep from Minnesota. Ask her some tough questions, but word them in a neutral way, so as not to set off her “UnAmerican meter”. Let’s find out if she thinks a “House UnAmerican Activities Committee” might be a good idea. I want to know if she knows who Joe McCarthy was.
People like this piss me off. She’s convinced that she wasn’t elected by the people of her district, she was chosen by God, because God supports everything she ever has done or will do, regardless of how amoral her behavior appears.
By pretending to be devout but not a religious fanatic, she has duped enough people into her disctrict into thinking that she’s a good person who would fight for their rights. And the rest? By claiming that her opponent personally wants to speak with Bin Laden and wants to see dead babies in the streets, she’s got the whacko vote tied up.
She’d probably disenfranchise 95% of Americans, given the opportunity.