Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Plan B pills available to 15 year old kids? This has enormous implications.

Once again, the illusion of consequence-free sex trumps parental rights, medical risks and more.

President Obama, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the radical Left are in favor of all children having unrestricted access to the “Plan B morning-after pill,” though for now the limit is 15 because one judge picked that age.  But what if another judge says it is 14, or 10?  Elections matter, and this is what you get when you stay at home or don’t understand the worldviews of those you are voting for.

Not only is this terribly dangerous for the children, but it aggressively usurps parental rights.  They are saying that as a parent you have no right to know if your kids are having sex or taking powerful drugs.  If it is legal for 15 yr. old children to buy them over the counter, why won’t adults buy be able to buy them and give them to kids in schools?

Like so many other birth control methods, this will give a false sense of security and increase pregnancies, abortions, diseases and emotional damage.

In nearly every other area of life and health 15 yr. olds are treated as not having the ability to make important decisions: Voting, alcohol, smoking, military service, whether to go to school, whether to take Advil at school without parental consent, drive, get tattoos, curfews and more. Yet the Left wants this powerful drug available to your daughters and sons and grandchildren.

I’m waiting for statutory rapists and pedophiles to use this and similar Leftist actions as a blanket defense. If 15 yr. old girls are mature enough to consent to sex with those 17 or younger and to purchase strong medicines by themselves, what is morally significant about their partners being 18 or over?  “But your honor, the State considers the 15 yr. old to be mature enough to consent to sex with a 17 yr. old and to buy these powerful drugs.  Why isn’t she mature enough to consent to sex with an 18 yr. old, or a 21 yr. old, or a 31 yr. old?”

And note that sales aren’t limited to girls.  Just think about all the guys who will buy these pills and use them as part of their seduction schemes. “Just take this pill tomorrow and there will be no consequences” — right?!

Worse yet, many of the extremists don’t want an age limit at all.  And in a sense they’ve already achieved their goal.  Since 15 yr. old children can’t drive they typically don’t have identification, so pharmacies will ultimately have to take their word for it.

Also see Thoughts on Plan-B – Sifting Reality and Hyper-sexualized, asexual America.

.

About that new hero . . .

While our culture not only accepts but applauds all sorts of deviant behavior, most people still frown on abandoning spouses or committing adultery. The exception is for gays who leave spouses and children to indulge their preferences, such as Episcopal “Bishop” Gene Robinson.  Their happiness at doing the opposite of what God commands trumps any lifetime commitments they made to their spouses, and of course the feelings and needs of their children are irrelevant.

Given that, why would anyone be surprised that most media accounts about one-point-per-game NBA player Jason Collins managed to “fake” it as a heterosexual for years and waste the youth of his former fiance’?  Via Jason Collins ‘outs’ himself, but fails to tell ex-fiancé he’s gay:

Eight years down the drain…

Basketball’s Jason Collins made headlines recently by telling the world he’s actually homosexual, but the one person he didn’t notify was his long-time ex, as reported by the New York Daily News on April 30, 2013.

The jilted Carolyn Moos claims that her former fiancé of eight years, Boston Celtics center Jason Collins, failed to notify her that he was homosexual, despite the fact that the two had been planning their nuptials for almost a decade.

Collins came out of the closet this past week-end, thusly being the only athlete in a major American sport who has publically identified himself as a homosexual.

Moos stated to the gossip network TMZ:

“It’s very emotional for me as a woman to have invested 8 years in my dream to have a husband, soul mate, and best friend in him.

This is all hard to understand.”

Benghazi? Let’s Talk About Collins Instead…

During today’s press conference, Barack Obama gushed on regarding his admiration for the Boston-based baller, saying he “couldn’t be prouder of him.”

Unlike the four Americans killed in the al-Qaeda attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Obama took time out of his busy schedule to place a telephone call Collins.

Even if he was “born that way” (another lie) then stringing his fiance’ on was reprehensible.

This guy waited to come out until it not only cost him nothing but will profit him greatly.  I’m not seeing the bravery that results in calls from the President, etc.

Oh, and Collins claims to be a Christian.  Meditate on that.  And the media ignores his “Christian” view that his behavior is acceptable yet blasts a man with the nerve to politely point out authentic biblical views.

Woe to those who call good evil and evil good.

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. 

 

Words matter: The Democrats are pro-abortion, not pro-choice

I’ve mentioned this before and will probably only mention it six or seven more times, so please read carefully.  Do not let the pro-abortion people get away with using terms such as pro-choice or reproductive choice.  It is easy to show how false those are.  And don’t let them call you anti-abortion or anti-choice without taking the time to explain why they are correct on that claim.  You can take what they mean as a personal attack and use it to our advantage.

I used to try and be charitable and refer to pro-abortion people as pro-choice.  I preferred to get into the facts and logic and didn’t want to get people distracted by thinking we were just calling them names.  But with the latest platform of the Democratic party the most accurate term for them is pro-abortion.  

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

We should take the time to explain why pro-abortion is the correct term.  If you insist on taxpayer-funding of abortions, that is the opposite of choice.  Your are forcing pro-life people to pay for abortions.  And you are claiming that we don’t have enough abortions and that society will be better if we have more.  They don’t want them to be rare, they want more of them.  Those claims aren’t pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.

The majority of those who identify as “pro-choice” agree that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester, that women should have a 24 hour waiting period before having the abortion, that parental consent should be required for teens and that taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund abortions.  That makes Obama and anyone supporting the Democrat’s platform the extremists.

Consider how many people who identify as pro-choice agree with pro-life positions on specific topics, then consider how radical the Democrats’ platform is (unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortions at any time, including “partial-birth abortions”/infanticide).

Regarding “reproductive choice” or “reproductive health,” just point out the irrefutable scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization.  Therefore, abortions are designed to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.  Perverse organizations like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice have self-refuting names.  It may seem subtle, but explaining how their pet terms are false undermines their credibility and helps point to the science and logic that are on our side.

These suggestions may seem unimportant, but they can make a big difference.  The Left uses terms to their advantage all the time, such as “marriage equality” and the pro-abortion phrases noted above.  Don’t let them get away with it.  By politely pointing out how pro-abortion their policies are and how “reproductive choice” is about birth control and not abortion we can plant seeds and persuade the middle ground about the truth.

Also, use verbal Judo and turn attack phrases such as “anti-choice” or “anti-abortion” back on them.  Just say, “Why yes, I am anti-abortion.  Abortions kill innocent but unwanted human beings without adequate justification, so I oppose them.  Thanks for noticing!  You should oppose them, too.”  I’m beginning to prefer the term anti-abortion over pro-life.  It is accurate and it spells out the word they hate to say: Abortion.

Regarding “anti-choice,” just ask them to complete the phrase and then agree with them: “You are using ‘choice’ in the sense of choosing to crush and dismember an innocent but unwanted human being without adequate justification, so I am against that choice.  You should be, too.  But I favor all sorts of other choices for women: Whom to marry, what career to choose, the freedom to speak out against “same-sex marriage,” whether to fund abortions of other people, whether to own a gun, what size soft-drink to consume, whether to home school, and more.  How do you feel about all of those choices?”

Roundup

Gun registries and background checks are either meaningless or malicious.

Meaningless: The criminals won’t participate, so all you have is an expensive, burdensome process to gather a list of law-abiding citizens.  And even if they worked on guns, they would do nothing about knives, clubs, pressure cookers, etc.

Malicious: The lists will ultimately be used to disarm law-abiding citizens.  Anyone denying that is part of the problem — either via evil intentions or via naiveté and/or ignorance of history.

Mark Steyn nails it, as usual.

In America, all atrocities are not equal: Minutes after the Senate declined to support so-called gun control in the wake of the Newtown massacre, the president rushed ill-advisedly on air to give a whiny, petulant performance predicated on the proposition that one man’s mass infanticide should call into question the constitutional right to bear arms.

Simultaneously, the media remain terrified that another man’s mass infanticide might lead you gullible rubes to question the constitutional right to abortion, so the ongoing Kermit Gosnell trial in Philadelphia has barely made the papers — even though it involves large numbers of fully delivered babies who were decapitated and had their feet chopped off and kept in pickling jars. Which would normally be enough to guarantee a perpetrator front-page coverage for weeks on end.

In the most recent testimony, one of the “clinic”‘s “nurses” testified that she saw a baby delivered into the toilet, where his little arms and feet flapped around as if trying to swim to safety.

Then another “women’s health worker” reached in and, in the procedure’s preferred euphemism, “snipped” the baby’s neck — i.e., severed his spinal column.

“Doctor” Gosnell seems likely to prove America’s all-time champion mass murderer. But his victims are ideologically problematic for the media, and so the poor blood-soaked monster will never get his moment in the spotlight.

Hey, don’t miss Fossil Freedom Day of Action this year!  I wonder how the participants will get there, because they would never be hypocritical and use fossil fuels to go to an event dedicated to not using fossil fuels.  Right?!

20 Questions Liberals Can’t Answer

Ben Carson Silenced, Bill Ayers Given Podium

Inspiring role model Ben Carson was forced to cancel a commencement speech at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, despite being director of the school’s Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery, because he does not endorse the grotesque blasphemy of homosexual “marriage.” In stark contrast, unrepentant communist terrorist Bill Ayers — best known for his involvement in bombing the Pentagon, the Capitol, and NYPD Police Headquarters; for encouraging his followers to “kill all the rich people” and “kill your parents”; and for still more damagingly launching the career of Barack Hussein Obama from his living room — was well received last spring at the University of Oregon, where he crowed that America is in decline . . .

The USA is declining, all right. What healthy country would silence Ben Carson, while tolerating an evil freak like Bill Ayers, even electing his protégé to the White House?

But the decline can be reversed, so long as people remember the principles that prevailed when America was great, and are willing to fight to restore them.

Good commentary on original sin.  Or just funny.

Pearls Before Swine

Planned Parenthood agrees with them as well, as do many false teachers.  Oh, and they all want them to be funded by taxpayers.

This was floating around last week, which no Christian should ever use.  Real Christians know that praying to any other “god” is not only useless but blasphemous.

902718_849210977950_649796047_o

But it gets better: In a bit of morbid irony in the midst of this tragedy, the car hijacked by the terrorists had a COEXIST bumper sticker.  Talk about being mugged by reality!

More from Mark Steyn on the COEXIST bumper sticker from the car the terrorists hijacked:

I wonder, when the “CO-EXIST” car is returned to its owner, whether he or she will keep the bumper sticker in place. One would not expect him to conclude, as the gays of Amsterdam and the Jews of Toulouse and the Christians of Egypt have bleakly done, that if it weren’t for that Islamic crescent you wouldn’t need a bumper sticker at all. But he may perhaps have learned that life is all a bit more complicated than the smiley-face banalities of the multiculturalists.

Did FDR help end the Depression or prolong it?  The pesky Law of Intended Consequences resulted in the latter.

How to expose the false pro-abortion outrage over Kermit Gosnell

While most media outlets, politicians, pro-abortion groups and false teachers are still silent on the Kermit Gosnell infanticide case, some have realized that there is no way around it and are trying to feign outrage and hypocritically and falsely blame pro-lifers. It is your basic damage control, but they shouldn’t get away with it in the way Planned Parenthood gets a media pass when busted for hiding statutory rape and sex-trafficking.

Cases in point are the Planned Parenthood Tweet in the image below and a typical “Gosnell was so bad but it is the fault of pro-lifers” nonsense from wolves in sheep’s clothing.

So how do you “out” these people? Simple. Just point to the facts by saying:

1. Kermit Gosnell was pro-late term and “partial-birth” abortion. So are President Obama, the rest of the Democrats* and Planned Parenthood. Do you agree or disagree with them? If you agree with them, why are you and they so outraged at his actions?

2. The main horror of Gosnell was killing babies 30 seconds after it was legal. Planned Parenthood and Obama are both on record as opposing protections for infants who survive abortions. Please explain the moral significance of those 30 seconds and why one is capital murder and one is merely the morally benign or even morally good choice of the mother. Also explain whether you agree with Obama and Planned Parenthood, and why it isn’t hypocritical for PP to complain about Gosnell.

3. Kermit Gosnell was pro-taxpayer-funded abortion. So are President Obama, the rest of the Democrats* and Planned Parenthood. Do you agree or disagree with them? If you agree, then would you concede that forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions would be more of a pro-abortion position than a pro-choice position?

4. Democrats and Planned Parenthood have aggressively fought the application of health standards and inspections of abortion clinics. This political pressure resulted in even existing laws being ignored by multiple agencies. Isn’t it hypocritical to now blame the Republicans for Gosnell’s safety issues?

5. Given the complete breakdown in oversight over Gosnell’s activities by multiple agencies and that he was only caught by accident by another agency, what makes you think that all the other abortionists run clean clinics and have adequate oversight when killing innocent but unwanted human beings?

6. Given that the Left plays the race card over all sorts of made-up things, why are they ignoring the real racism of Gosnell, and, presumably other abortion clinics — not to mention the fact that abortions kill blacks at a rate three times that of whites and that taxpayer-funded abortions will increase that ratio?

7. As bad as Gosnell was, there weren’t any documented cases of him hiding statutory rape or sex-trafficking as there have been for Planned Parenthood. They broke many laws. Should they be punished to the “full extent” for running a “criminal enterprise” as they have called for in Gosnell’s case? Should they still receive hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding?

Please ask those things as nicely as you can to let people have a “dignified surrender” and acknowledge how wrong they are on the greatest moral issue of our time.

Reminder: Keep Tweeting #gosnell as much as you can — such as with this post!

* If you vote for Democrats, you are now pro-abortion, not pro-choice. And not just pro-abortion, but pro-“partial birth” abortion (aka infanticide). From their platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

If you want to require taxpayer-funded to increase abortions then you aren’t pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. Forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions = pro-abortion. Wanting to increase the number of abortions = pro-abortion. If you are pro-“partial birth” abortion then you are really pro-legalized infanticide.

12 Things You Should Know About the Gosnell Infanticide and Murder Trial

If you have a Twitter account, post about #gosnell and ask why there is a media blackout.

Why aren’t more people outraged about this?  Where are the “if we can only save one child” chants?  Look how many human beings Gosnell destroyed compared to Newtown.

See 9 Things You Should Know About the Gosnell Infanticide and Murder Trial for a good overview.  Read them all, including the parts about the explicit racism (white women got better care) and the unsanitary conditions.  Where are Jesse, Al and the mainstream media when you need them?  Oh, right . . . the abortionist was black . . . and, well . . . an abortionist.  So where they usually see racism in everything, including where it doesn’t exist, they ignore it when it is undeniable.

Then consider these 3 additional things:

1. The mainstream media has a blackout on this case.  It has everything they would normally love — bizarre murders, cover-ups, blatant racism, etc. — but it involved an abortionist, so they keep silent.  Search for Kermit Gosnell at MSNBC and Politico and you will literally get zero items, even though it is one of the most frequently searched items (more on that below).

2. President Obama and Planned Parenthood are both on record defending the killing of infants who survive abortions.

3. Killing those babies was just as evil as regular abortions on smaller human beings. The media knows this, which is why #1 is there.  It is a scientific fact (and basic common sense) that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization.  It is simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions.  The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons).  Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life.

From Sifting Reality, this screen shot says it all.  Try it yourself at http://tv.msnbc.com/?s=kermit+gosnell .  The same thing happens at Politico and the LA Times.

Not. One. Story.

Just how many infanticides would an abortionist have to commit before MSNBC and Politico would find it newsworthy?  How many would he have to commit before President Obama, the Democrats and the  false teachers spoke out against it?  Do not let them preach to you about gun control until they address this topic and the media,  political and church silence.  If they really cared about children they would do something about this instead of consciously ignoring it.

This screen capture is not photoshopped.  I took it at 8:50 PM tonight

msnbc no match

Please consider sharing this with everyone you can!

Is this Planned Parenthood representative extra-evil, or just remarkably consistent?

Planned Parenthood kills babies for a living, they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking, they encourage kids to have all sorts of out-of-wedlock sex and pretend that it can be done without risks, and so much more.  Yet one of their representatives managed to shock people during a public hearing. Watch it yourself:

She and Planned Parenthood, like Barack Obama before her, are fighting the restrictions against withholding medical care and killing infants who survive abortions.  She specifically says that the decision regarding what to do about the baby on the table is between the mother and the “healthcare provider.”  (She initially said the family, then thought better of those implications and reverted to just the mother later in her testimony).  And while this question may not have been asked, presumably she would insist that taxpayers fund the killing of the baby on the table.

Apparently the horrors of being a little too far away from a hospital were too much for Planned Parenthood to take, so speaking like Dr. Nick Riviera of The Simpsons, just to be on the safe side they need to be allowed to kill the baby.

Of course it is spectacularly evil to withhold care or directly kill a baby on a table.  Just because the abortionist failed on the first try doesn’t mean he deserves a second shot.  Anyone without a warped moral compass would agree.  But who are the inconsistent ones?  I submit that she is entirely consistent with the Democrats’ platform of abortions without restrictions, funded by taxpayers.

Remember, the successful abortion would have had the mother and child in the same room, with an irrelevant change in the distance between them.  Everyone in the video seems to concede that.  This Planned Parenthood representative would have been entirely consistent in saying the following (channeling Hillary Clinton):

With all due respect, the fact is we end up with a dead baby who wasn’t wanted by her mother. Was it because she was killed slightly inside the mother or slightly outside? What difference at this point does it make?

And she would be right.  While killing the baby on the table seems worse, it is morally equal to the abortion.  (Speaking of red equal signs . . .)

And if those babies can be killed, why not any baby delivered naturally?