SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MJ who wrote (87859)7/21/2010 7:47:33 AM
From: lorne  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224755
 
Obama toadies vs. abortion freeloaders
July 21, 2010
Jill Stanek
wnd.com

Obama sycophant SodaHead's July 15 blog post headline blared, "Latest Right-Wing Lie Blows Up In Their Faces: NO FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ELECTIVE ABORTION."

SodaHead was attempting to beat back conservatives who were in an uproar over National Right to Life's finding that federal funding for Pennsylvania's health insurance high-risk pool includes abortion coverage.

Pro-life Democrats voting for Obamacare had maintained this couldn't happen given Obama's executive order supposedly insuring a firewall between tax dollars and abortion.

They said the EO had the same impact as the defeated Stupak Amendment, which would have imposed a blanket ban on federal funding of abortion in Obamacare.

Likewise, another of Obama's online guardians, Media Matters, quickly hurled a 1,700-word tome into the blogosphere with such cocky subtitles as (emphasis mine):

"[Glenn] Beck repeats discredited claim that Obama admin has OK'd federal funding for elective abortions"

"National Right to Life, Family Research Council falsely claim federal funds are going to fund abortions in PA"

"Media chain: Right-wing blogs take the falsehood, gin up outrage"

"PA, HHS, Stupak debunk notion that PA high-risk pools will cover elective abortions"
The only problem is the abortion industry agrees with (all) pro-lifers (other than Democrats) that Obama's EO didn't apply to high-risk pools and were furious when in the wake of NRLC's discovery a busted White House quickly directed the Department of Health and Human Services to write rules ensuring that federal funds indeed would not go toward abortion in state high-risk pools – rules that have yet to be seen.

So while Obama rags were proclaiming his innocence, pro-aborts who had smartly remained silent during the EO sham could no longer contain themselves and began writing just the opposite.

Jessica Arons at the pro-abort blog RH Reality Check snapped, "But here's the catch, nothing in federal law actually restricts the use of federal or state money for abortion in [high-risk pools]."

Rebecca Sive at the same site was even more frank, astoundingly detailed. This is a long quote, but in it Sive lays Obamcareabortiongate all out (italics hers):

In fact, and as we all know, the executive order was nothing but a most willingly made sop to Rep. Stupak. For, after all … it was Mr. Stupak's vote that stood in the way of passage of the health-care reform law, the one for the history books the president most wanted.
As such, the executive order's creation and signing was a deeply hypocritical and cynical act. "Hypocritical," because it did not do (only) what the president's men said it would do – "codify" existing law, i.e., the Hyde Amendment. "Cynical," because the order's utility depended on the willingness of White House women-leader allies to suspend disbelief, and say: Oh, yes, we agree, when you say that this isn't going beyond the Hyde Amendment (knowing that it did).

Do you think for one minute that Bob Bauer, the president's campaign and personal, political lawyer, now his White House counsel, didn't know all the potential ramifications (read: opportunities) of the executive order – both for the law and for the politics – when he directed his staff to draft [it]?

Do you think for one minute that Don Verrilli, an associate White House counsel, rumored to be appointed U.S. solicitor general once Elena Kagan is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice – missed this either?

Not hardly: These guys are really, really smart. These guys don't miss these things: That's why they are doing what they are doing. That's why they are where they are.

Putting the best face on it, Mr. Bauer and Mr. Verrilli saw what the White House women-leader allies also saw, and, again, like the pro-choice leaders, didn't protest, for fear the whole health-care reform apple cart would be upset.

But, make no mistake: Mr. Bauer and Mr. Verrilli also saw the executive order as a useful context for massaging federal health-care reform regulations that could help diminish dustups over abortion; dustups never good for a president or a president's men's futures.

Why was the executive order AT ALL NECESSARY if all it did was "codify" existing law? The answer is it wasn't, because it didn't. And now we're in the dumpster. …

Now all the pro-abort groups, furious with Obama, are letting loose with the truth about Obamacare and Obama's EO. Over the weekend, Planned Parenthood's CEO Cecile Richards wrote to supporters (bold highlight hers):

Now, a Stupak-like rule is back – and it came from the Obama administration. …
Nothing in the new health-care reform law requires a ban on abortion coverage in the high-risk pools. No law passed by Congress forced this decision. The Obama administration has chosen to place a new burden on ill and medically vulnerable women seeking abortion coverage.

Nancy Keenan, president, of NARAL, e-mailed (bold highlights hers):

To our dismay, the Obama administration just announced it will exclude abortion coverage in the temporary health-insurance pools that will transition us into the new health-care system.
I am outraged that such a decision would come from a pro-choice president that we helped elect. …

Believe it or not, the administration's policy is similar to the ban proposed by anti-choice Rep. Bart Stupak.

Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU's D.C. office, wrote:

Remember all the hard work you and other ACLU activists did to defeat Rep. Stupak's draconian abortion coverage ban during the health-care debate?
Well now, the White House has decided to voluntarily impose the ban for all women in the newly created high-risk insurance pools. What is disappointing is that there is nothing in the law that requires the Obama administration to impose this broad and highly restrictive abortion ban.

The complaints go on and on.

At this point, pro-lifers have the upper hand. Obama led Americans to believe federal funding of abortion would be barred from the federal health-care plan, and at present he's stuck with the lie.

And now Obama not only has to deal with the pro-life Democratic faction but also the media faction that wants to perpetuate the lie for him vs. the pro-abort faction demanding he give up the sham.

I can't say as I enjoy watching the spectacle, because babies' lives are at stake.

But I do note that increasingly we're seeing pro-aborts hoist on their own petard – and they're supposed to have the political advantage.



To: MJ who wrote (87859)7/21/2010 10:24:42 AM
From: lorne4 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224755
 
MJ...Now here is a candidate who grabs your attention...A couple of hundred of people like this around the White House could change America back to a powerful, fair and generous country...may even put a halt to the islam invasion of America before it's to late...like Europe and england...?

Great video here.

Tea-party fave 'under fire' in primary
Palin-like Republican 'aims' to beat GOP establishment, media mockery
July 20, 2010
By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
wnd.com

Pamela Gorman

Like Sarah Palin, former Arizona State Sen. Pamela Gorman is a Christ-professing, gun-toting firebrand who took on the Republican Party establishment in her state and who is now under fire – both by her party's leadership and by a mocking media.

Gorman is also facing an uphill battle in a crowded field of 10 GOP candidates seeking election to Arizona's third congressional district, a seat held by eight-term Republican John Shadegg. Included among her opponents is Ben Quayle, son of former Vice President Dan Quayle.

A tea-party favorite, Gorman's resumé reads like a conservative wish list: endorsed by Arizona Right to Life, Arizona Tea Party and Concerned Women for America; boasting a 100-percent rating from the National Rifle Association and a 100-percent pro-life rating from Arizona Right to Life PAC; pledging herself to efforts to repeal government-run health care and pledging to assert Israel's "historic right" to live in its land; praised by the presidents of Americans for Tax Reform and National Taxpayers Union; on record as a sponsor of Arizona's controversial SB 1070, which requires state police to assist federal officials in illegal immigration enforcement; even garnering an endorsement by WND columnist Pat Boone:

"I'm a direct descendant of Daniel Boone, so you could say I know a 'straight shooter' when I see one," Boone is quoted as saying on Gorman's campaign website. "I proudly endorse Pamela Gorman for Congress."

But it's Gorman's "straight shooting" that has drawn criticism not just from local media, but also from national commentators at the Huffington Post, Politico and even Comedy Central.

The huff and fury is based on a commercial some of Gorman's volunteers shot for her campaign, one that features the candidate firing a machine gun and pledging to "shoot" down new taxes.

Gorman claims the YouTube commercial, meant partially in fun, has nonetheless drawn unhinged fury from the left.

Case in point, Andrew Sullivan, who blogs on the website for The Atlantic, mocked Gorman for fitting too closely to the Sarah Palin mold:

"If the pretty, big-boobed, gun-toting hottie paradigm was enough to get an unbalanced know-nothing this close to the presidency," Sullivan writes, "then you can rest assured others took notice."

Referencing a famous fake photo of Palin in a swimsuit brandishing a rifle, Stephen Lemons of Phoenix's New Times writes, "The only thing that stands between State Senator Pamela Gorman and Sarah Palin is a bikini and someone with a little spare time and Photoshop."

The advertisement that has elicited such a reaction can be seen below:

youtube.com

Gorman has stated she's surprised by the level of media criticism, derision and even profane e-mails she's received over the ad:

"Who would have known that this little volunteer project would have been what triggered the left to take notice and really hate me with such vigor?" she asks on her campaign website.

The criticism, however, hasn't stopped her from perpetuating the advertisement's "pun-ny" rhetoric.

"I shoot guns as a fun sport," she states. "But I destroy bad policy ideas as a mission."

Under fire from her own party

Gorman's path to Washington, however, may be thwarted before it can truly begin, at least in part because of her refusal to play politics.

Last year, Gorman stood toe-to-toe with Republican Party leadership and the state's GOP governor, Jan Brewer, over a proposed tax increase the governor was scrambling to push through the Arizona Congress. As the Senate majority whip, Gorman was expected to get other senators in line with the governor's plan, but she refused.

Instead, Gorman resigned as whip rather than violate her principles.

"I actually do what I say I'm going to do when I run for office," Gorman told WND. "I really believe that when you raise taxes, it slows the economy, hurts families and kills jobs. If all that's something you really believe, how can you pass an enormous tax increase, particularly during a recession?"

She says her answer to the GOP was straightforward: "If you want someone to break their pledge to voters and lead taxpayers over a cliff, I'm not the gal to take you there."

Now, however, after resigning as state senator to run for U.S. Congress, Gorman says she is facing the full retaliatory force of the Republican machine.

Gorman told WND the GOP establishment has "made it known" on the streets in Arizona that if a contributor's name appears on her donor rolls, their name "is mud."

"Voters don't know how much of that ugly, machine politics is just Hollywood and how much is real," she said. "I can tell you, when you bite hand that feeds you, it comes back, hard."

Financial records show that she is indeed lagging behind in the 10-dog race for the Republican nomination. The Arizona Republic reports that she's facing a big financial gap, with Quayle leading the field in fundraising with nearly $700,000 in campaign cash, while Gorman has raised only $28,000.

Gorman, who says she's exactly the kind of "momma grizzly" Palin has talked about in campaign speeches, has also reached out to her fellow firebrand:

"My battles against Republican tax increases and Republican bad policy proposals have put me in a place of dubious honor," Gorman writes in an appeal to Palin obtained by WND. "I am exactly what the people want, but exactly what the GOP establishment fears.

"I am fully aware that only a miracle can overcome the 'machine' that is determined to elect one of their own in my race," she continues. "I beat the big boys at their own game many times, and they are none too happy about it."

Fighting against the establishment, however, seems to be exactly what Gorman believes the tea party is all about.

"I don't want to be puppet of machine. It's not what I want, not what tea party wants," she told WND. "There's a lot of Republican policies that have brought us here too, and if we don't pull back quickly toward our Founding Father's vision for this country, we're going to be led to the brink of socialism and then over the edge.

"I want to go to Congress and steer us back from brink," she said.