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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (123704)2/9/2012 1:53:04 PM
From: lorne3 Recommendations  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 224759
 
ken..here is some good reading about your idol. :-(

ObamaCare Abortions: Will Catholics Vote for Him A Second Time?
February 2nd, 2012
William Kevin Stoos
stoosviews.blogivists.com


During the last presidential election, Catholics voted by a margin of 55-45% for the most pro-death President in history. Of course, he started out by covering up the crucifix at Georgetown before delivering a speech, so as not to offend Muslims or Atheists, proceeded to declare that “America is not a Christian nation,”, then bowed before a Saudi king. Therefore, should we be surprised when this secular humanist, pro-abortion President now attacks religious freedom by backing regulations which force Catholic hospitals–against their will and the tenets of their religion–to fund and or even perform abortions or risk sanctions and closure?

Before it is too late and we re-elect the most pro-abortion politician ever to hit Washington, perhaps we should revisit Obama “family values.”

Let’s start with babies. Of course we know that Obama would not want his daughter to be “punished with a baby” [sic] if she became pregnant. But it gets worse. In February of 2004, Michelle Obama authored a fund raising letter soliciting funds for Obama’s senatorial campaign. Preaching to the radical, left-wing, pro-abortion, feminist choir, she railed against the federal partial birth abortion ban, and trumpeted the fact that her husband would never allow pro-life judges to interpret the law and would preserve the right of a woman and her doctor not just to perform an abortion, but to kill viable babies who were inches from life, by stabbing them in the head with scissors and sucking their brains out— euphemistically referred to as “partial birth abortion.” (Perhaps if commentators, politicians, and the rest of us referred to the procedure as “stabbing a nearly-born baby in the head and sucking his or her brains out”

rather than “partial birth abortion,” people would better understand the hideous nature of this procedure.) But, back to the fund raising letter. Michelle Obama, when raising money for her husband, referred to “partial birth abortion” (“stabbing a nearly born baby in the head and sucking his or her brains out”) as:

“…a legitimate medical procedure.” [sic]

This, of course, begs the questions: 1. In whose book is this a “legitimate medical procedure?” and 2. When did Michelle Obama go back to school and get her medical degree?

Of course the salient point is this: The Obamas, when raising money for his senatorial campaign, elicited money from the radical left pro-baby- killing wing of the Democratic party, bragged that Obama would prevent the politicians and the courts from ever presuming to protect babies, and trumpeted the “legitimate medical procedure” [sic] of stabbing babies in the head and removing their brains— just inches and moments from birth. I don’t know whose family values these are, but they are not mine, and certainly not those of Middle America or Kansas either, I presume.

But it gets worse. Forget about “punishing your girl by allowing her to have a baby.” Forget about stabbing live babies moments from birth in the head with scissors and sucking their brains out. The Obama family values go even further. Obama does not even favor protecting innocent babies who actually are “lucky” enough to survive late term abortions. In testimony before the United States Senate just before the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act was passed (98-0 with Hillary Clinton supporting the Act) the Senators heard of instances in which babies surviving late-term abortions were actually thrown into waste bins or allowed to die by indifferent doctors or mothers who found the babies inconvenient. This is not just an abortion, this is not just a partial birth abortion; this is nothing less than infanticide. However, when a similar measure was brought to committee in the Illinois Senate—a committee chaired by none other than then Illinois Senator Barack Obama—he let the measure die in committee. Like the babies who survived late-term abortions and then were allowed to die, the bill protecting born alive babies in Illinois was allowed to die by none other than Barack Obama. Put simply, whenever Barack Obama had the chance to vote on and promote a bill in the Illinois Senate which would have prohibited doctors from allowing born alive babies to die or be killed or be thrown into dumpsters, Obama—the family man with good ole fashion American values—did nothing. Worse yet, he prevented the bill from being passed and argued against it. He would, as it turns out, let born alive babies die rather than prevent their deaths because to do so might some day, restrict a woman’s right to an abortion or result in the questioning of Roe v. Wade—God forbid.

So, before you vote again for the first secular humanist president of the United States, and as you watch the campaign commercials touting the Obamas’ family values, featuring the Obama family sitting around a cozy fireplace, think not of the image that they want to sell you. Think rather about the reality of who they are and what they stand for. If killing nearly born babies, and allowing born alive babies to be thrown in to a dumpster while still alive is your idea of family values, then vote for Obama. He is, after all, the champion of the right to kill babies. But just don’t say you didn’t know. Fifty million American babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade. And the Obamas are proud to have done their part to expedite the slaughter. As Michelle once said: “He is a fighter [for the right to abort and kill babies] and he will be a champion we can be proud of.”

Should it therefore have come as any surprise that Obama once announced to a meeting of Planned Parenthood Action Fund that:

“Well, the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do”?

That legislation “….applies to every Federal, State and local statute, ordinance, regulations, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this act” and proscribes any impediment to the delivery of reproductive health services, including abortion, in the provision of benefits, facilities, services and information.

Recently, the Department for Health and Human Services on behalf of the Obama administration released guidelines as part of the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The guidelines mandated that by the summer of 2012 all individual and group health insurance plans, including self-insured plans, cover all FDA-approved contraception, sterilization procedures and pharmaceuticals that result in abortion.

These regulations apply to all Catholic hospitals and there are no provisions exempting Catholic hospitals (which employ Catholics and non Catholics alike) from their reach. Accordingly, Catholic hospitals and health care providers either have to provide or fund abortion services or drugs which induce abortions or face closure. Clearly, the freedom to kill babies trumps the freedom to exercise religion.

The President worships at the Altar of Choice. He considers freedom of choice so sacrosanct that pro death legislation was and is his top priority; he is more than willing to risk closure of hundreds of hospitals around the country and force them to act against their religious beliefs all for the sake of the right to kill a baby. As remarkable as this seems, it is the tragic truth. Government, it seems, has outlawed God, and has, in effect, become God.

So when, in time, Catholics observe their local Catholic hospitals close down because they refuse to abide by this modern-day Herod’s proclamation that babies must be killed, will they be so anxious to vote again for the man they blindly embraced four years ago? Will they too late suffer buyer’s remorse when they re-elect him? Even worse, will Catholic hospitals accede to his demands that they kill babies or provide the drugs to abort them? That seems unimaginable. Yet, after watching the majority of Catholics embrace the most pro death president in the history of our country, anything, sadly, seems possible.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed the Illinois Senate after Obama left for Washington



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (123704)2/9/2012 2:53:35 PM
From: Celtictrader  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224759
 
Mitt Romney's latest humiliation will goad him to unleash hell on his foes


Mitt Romney addresses supporters on a caucus night event in Denver, Colorado.
Photograph: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images


After a devastating triple defeat, Mitt Romney will seek to scatter his rivals in a cloud of negative campaigning

Jim Newell
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 8 February 2012 15.10 EST

Those of us still basking in the glory of a humiliating three-state Mitt Romney [ guardian.co.uk ] defeat last night should try to prolong the schadenfreude as much as possible. We're now entering a phase of vast nothingness in terms of Republican nominating contests until the Michigan and Arizona primaries are held on 28 February. What forms of ersatz political entertainment can we look to until the next set of Mitt Romney losses?

While last night's Missouri "beauty pageant" primary and the twin caucuses of Colorado and Minnesota were non-binding and didn't directly allocate delegates, the momentum shift towards Rick Santorum [ guardian.co.uk ] will drag Mitt Romney back into his latest fresh hell. The demographic groups that make up the deeply conservative Republican base, who had flocked to Newt Gingrich [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/newt-gingrich ] as the primary Romney alternative in recent weeks, have shifted to Santorum [http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/big-day-for-santorum.html ]. And the emergence of a culture war issue like the Obama administration's battle over contraceptives with Catholic interest groups [ globalpost.com ] has handed Santorum's campaign a new magnetism among social conservatives.

It's hard to believe that in 2012, six years after a grouchy Senator Santorum was crushed in a defining race of the 2006 Democratic sweep of Congress, that he would become the most viable conservative alternative to whatever slick robot presidential candidate the GOP establishment went about selecting this time. Yet here we are.

So what's Romney going to do about this weird has-been upstart? Oh, plenty.

No primary contests for the next three weeks will allow Romney to launch the end game he's been craving for so long: spreading out the field and discarding his rivals in a disorienting smoke cloud of multimedia attacks.

Just look at how his campaign has moved since Tuesday night's crushing losses to Santorum: his aides are already murmuring about the the dirty quest [ nytimes.com ] on which they'll soon embark, "defining" Santorum "aggressively and negatively, for voters who still see Mr Santorum largely as a blank slate". Between Romney's own cash-flush campaign and his insanely cash-flush Super Pac, a nationwide barrage of multimillion dollar ad buys should do the trick.

And yet who was the Romney campaign hitting today? Newt Gingrich, who is still running for president [http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2012/02/08/after-loss-to-santorum-romney-targets-gingrich/ ], but didn't seem deserving of the great Romney machine's ire this morning. "Speaker Gingrich just doesn't seem to get it," a Romney spokesperson emailed reporters early today in its big message blast. "Our staggering national debt and recurring deficits are jeopardizing America's fiscal future – yet he attacks critics of his moon base proposal for being 'cheap' and 'stingy.'" This coincides with a Romney rally today in Georgia, a Super Tuesday state and Newt Gingrich's "home state", at least until he moved to northern Virginia, the better to lobby for major corporations.

It's not a bizarre strategy. Romney needs to win a southern or deeply conservative state and has picked Georgia, a move that could force Gingrich to defend and devote resources to the "home state" that he should be easily winning. From there, he'll hopscotch across the country doing photo-ops in nearly every state while his less wealthy rival campaign fail to keep the pace.

A big test for Romney, though, will be his speech at Washington's annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which begins on Thursday. Romney, Gingrich and Santorum will each be speaking, and the former Massachusetts governor will have to dig deep to offer the ultra-conservative crowd something resembling emotional resonance, that proves to them he's on their side.

Because if he doesn't, conservatives might just keep voting for Rick Santorum.

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited

guardian.co.uk [with comments]



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (123704)2/9/2012 3:08:00 PM
From: Celtictrader  Respond to of 224759
 



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (123704)2/9/2012 6:52:13 PM
From: Celtictrader2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224759