Archive for the ‘Abortion/Pro Life’ Category
Posted by Dim Bulb on January 22, 2010
Posted by Dim Bulb on December 26, 2009
Obama spent a lot of hot air belittling the banks for their role in our economic woes, conveniently forgetting that Congress-especially his party-had a major role in the troubles (e.g., the sub-prime mortgage fiasco). Now we find out that politically connected banks have been receiving more TARP money than others. This revelation comes on the heels of another revelation: Democrat Congressional Districts received twice as much stimulus money as Republican Districts. Is anyone really surprised that the single biggest piece of pork went to Obama’s home state, or that Pelosi’s and Reid’s backyards also received sweetheart deals?
Now it’s being reported that the “cash for caulkers” program spent a cool 2 million dollars to caulk 7 homes. Meanwhile, our Profligate and Chief is vacationing in an 8.9 million dollar mansion at a rental cost of 4,000 dollars a day. A fancy way to celebrate the 12 anti-family gifts he and his Congress have dumped on the American people; not to mention the deficit he’s managed to triple in the span of 11 months.
These are the people who are about to grab one-sixth of the economy under the guise of health care, claiming that it will pay for itself by cutting waste. Hoax and Chains! Yes they did!
Posted by Dim Bulb on October 12, 2009
It also mentioned his dubious miserable stand on abortion.
From Catholic News Agency: The semi-official Vatican daily, L’Osservatore Romano, has called the decision to award President Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize premature and more of an invitation to choose peace through politics. The award is also questionable because of his position on various bio-ethics issues, especially abortion. Read the rest.
Posted by Dim Bulb on August 22, 2009
Brian McClaren, the pied piper of Evangelicalism’s latest flavor of the week fad-the emerging church-would have us believe that President Barak Obortion’s health care bill does not open the door to abortion.
Statement to McClaren: “The reason I do not support the President[on health care] is his pro abortion views. The Senate Bill will mandate government payment for abortion.”
McClaren’s response: Where did you hear this? Whoever told you this was misinforming you. I have been involved with a group of religious leaders who are working hard to be sure this will not be the case. The language we’re using is “abortion neutral”-health care reform, we believe, should not become a surrogate battlefront for either side in the abortion conflict. Whoever told you this is a fact-that reform will involve abortion-was either intentionally trying to mislead you or they were passing on misleading information unintentionally. (I hope you will notify them). Although it is highly unlikely, it is possible that such a bill could pass, and that’s why many of us are involved in seeking good reform that will be abortion neutral.”
First: “health care reform, we believe, should not become a surrogate battlefront for either side in the abortion conflict.” Who gives a rodent’s rump what you believe! At issue here is what the belief of the most pro-abortion administration is. But even more important is the fact that they attempt to justify their death-dealing ways by hiding them beneath the term “health care”, or its equivalent. President Barak Obortion, while he was campaigning for the presidency, spoke before a group of planned paretnhoodlums while standing at a podium with a banner reading: Stand UP For Women’s Health! “In my mind,” he said, “reproductive care is basic care. It is essential care. It is at the center, at the heart of the plan I proposed….We’re going to set up a public plan that all persons, and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services.” For the deathocrats “reproductive health,” “reproductive care,” and “reproductive services” mean, among other things, abortion. “And reproductive health includes access to abortion.” Thus Spake Hillary. (see video)
Second: does it really need to be pointed out that neutrality can be neutralized.
Imagine if a dictator in country “A” (let’s call him “Balak”)-who holds superior force over us in country “B”- decides to establish a buffer zone between our two countries “for the common good of all.” And suppose Balak has a long history of telling people what a benign ruler he is, how he is very much against agression towards babies, for example. But we in country “B” know for a fact that this isn’t true. He has done nothing to show that his words on the wind are as substantial as his deeds written into law. We know that NARALOB (Nazis Against the Rights And Lives Of Babies) has consistently given him a 100% approval rating. We know he understands and uses vagueness to propagate his agendas. We know he understands how important it is to “calibrate” his words.
Would we not be stupid to allow ourselves to enter into a “buffer zone” treaty with him, even if it’s being touted as “for the common good?” What good does a buffer zone treaty do us if it contains no restrictions on aggression? And if the Tyrant Balak’s minions at work in the concocting of the treaty rebuff THREE TIMES our request that a non-aggression clause be added-well, only a fool would be unconcerned since they, after all, hold the superior power. Consequently, the assurance of Balak’s Minister of Propaganda that the passing of a bill approving or supporting agression is “highly unlikely,” leaves the heart cold.
Posted by Dim Bulb on July 25, 2009
Perhaps we should mint a new word to refer to our current President. Lincoln was known as The Great Emancipator; Reagan was known as The Great Communicator; perhaps Obama should go down in history as The Great Deceptiator. Consider these words from Dr. William Brennan:
Obama resorts to verbal duplicity extensively in presenting such destructive measures as moderate, reasonable, and beneficent actions. The mainstreaming of abortion into a basic component of health-care reform is based on the portrayal of medicalized destruction as a legitimate “medical procedure” and “health-care service.” His issuance of executive orders increasing the funding of embryo-destructive research belies an attempt to get the public to embrace the view of human embryos as nothing more than “raw material” for bolstering biomedical research in the service of humanity. Some claim that he rescinded the Bush administrative order supportive of adult stem cell research because it contained a clause asserting the biological truth that “human embryos and fetuses, as members of the human species, are not raw material to be exploited or commodities to be bought and sold.”
Obama’s slavish conformity to pro-choice doublespeak is especially relentless. In a talk before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, he repeatedly parroted pro-choice slogans, characterizing the “right to choose” as “one of the most fundamental freedoms,” reminding his audience, “I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate,” and reassuring them, “On the issue of choice . . . I will not yield.” He further vowed that the first thing he would do as president “is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” On January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, Obama boasted about his “100 % pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America” and again stated he would continue defending “the woman’s right to choose” by “passing the Freedom of Choice Act.” Soon after becoming president, he released a statement asserting, “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.” By the end of April 2009, he repeated his hardcore allegiance to the woman’s “right to choose,” but announced that the “Freedom of Choice Act” is no longer “my highest legislative priority.” Apparently, the limitless access to abortion so strikingly evident in FOCA has a better chance of success when its totalitarian provisions are enacted within the less transparent context of subtle, incremental, and step-by-step stealth strategies.(Read the whole post from Ignatius Insight)
The Abortion Administration.
Posted by Dim Bulb on June 18, 2009
Posted by Dim Bulb on June 17, 2009
A response to atheist P.Z. Meyer’s vegetative critique of the Pope’s condom remark. Beneath the video you will find links to some related information.
Please note that some of these items may contain overlapping facts, quotes, ect.
Condoms Spread HIV?AIDS.
Rethinking AIDS Prevention (A review of Edward C. Green’s book)
Posted by Dim Bulb on June 5, 2009
The title of this post is taken from the title of an essay written by Dr. David L. Schindler in the Spring ’09 edition of Communio: International Catholic Review. In this brief essay (4 pages) Schindler “focuses on the nature of the dialogue implied by Father Jenkins’s invitation, in light of the reasons offered by him.” His probelm is the Jenkin’s appeal to dialogue ignores a crucial point: “that his invitation to the President already helps define the basic terms and horizon of the intended dialogue. The fact of the invitation itself begins a conversation the terms of which already reflect a proportional ordering of social-moral issues much like that of the President himself.” In other words, Jenkins sold part of the fort to the invaders, and their general wasted no time in strengthening this surrendered position by appealing to a rather skewed version of Cardinal Bernardin’s famous “Seamless Garment” theory. Simply put, Obama-like all who pervert the SG theory-refuse to see it “in terms of the venerable of the venerable Catholic principle of analogy.” He goes on to note: “According to analogy, the community among these issues exists only simultaneously with what are always their real–even radical–differences (maior dissimilitudo). It is the intrinsic nature of each moral issue that determines the significance of its difference from the others. Thus rudeness and the taking of innocent life are both intrinsically wrong and should both be opposed, but only coincident with recognizing the radical disproportion within the “proportion” implicit in their both being wrong.” And with this he puts the following question to Jenkins: “whether there exists any unconditional social-moral good whose gravity is such that its defense would entail a dialogue different from that defended by President Obama–a dialogue, for example, inclusive of
the need for what may be termed “witness.” With this question Schindler moves to the heart of his essay. My brief and rather hasty summary of the first two pages cannot do it justice, so I encourage you to read the article HERE. PDF format HERE.
While you’re at it you should also read THIS post by David of Cosmos~Liturgy~Sex. The post is about the secular media’s comic and irrational attempt to demonize all pro-lifers on the basis of the Tiller murder. It should come as no shock that those who pimp the culture of death also pimp a culture of ill-logic, and they wont be happy until they’ve made it an illness unto death. David too catches the absurdity of accepting Obama’s concept of dialogue: “Like BO’s speech at Notre Dame implied, these writers (i.e., the secular media) begin with the premise that abortion is not murder. For BO it may be a significant moral consideration but it is not the killing of an innocent human person. For BO dispassionate dialog can only begin on this premise. It is not clear that those represented by the above media representatives are even open to allowing the prolife community a platform. However, if they are, prolifers must first disavow the equation of abortion with murder. This is the trap that so-called pro-life/pro-Obama Catholics seem to fall into. To be invited to the table, they must be willing to reject such inflammatory language as ‘murder.'”
Posted by Dim Bulb on May 21, 2009
President Obama came to the campus of Notre Dame armed with all his usual arrogance. Despite his radical abortion record-which includes championing a policy in Illinois wherein aborted babies who manage to survive are tossed aside to die-he posed as the national moderator of “common ground.” And he did it by plugging a yellowed old tale from his campaign memoir “The Audacity of Hope.” All he left out were the words “Order now on Amazon.com. Just $16:50 in hardcover.”
Obama is loaded with nothing more than audacity. His speech no doubt pleased liberals, who love to pretend they’re all for all the mushy inclusiveness Obama pretended to favor-“Open hearts; open minds; fair-minded words.” This, from the politician who spent twenty years listening to the rantings and ravings of Jeremiah Wright? This, from the politician who unleashed mote than 100,00 negative ads on John McCain?’ Read the Rest