Posts Tagged ‘Abortion’

San Fran Nan is worried again?

September 17, 2009

Seems that Madame Speaker is concerned. Concerned about what? Losing her job perhaps? I seriously doubt that, but the Golden State of my birth has a notoriously fickle electorate. Even in the Bay Area at times. However, as I stated, I doubt it. What she probably does have valid fear about is quite simply what she, and those like her have done that could provoke some to resort to violence as a means of secession. Her astounding support of anti liberty legislation may only be topped by Frank Lautenberg, Chuck Schumer, and the late Ted Kennedy. I would speculate that the only reason for that would be her relative newness to Washington.

Nancy apparently wants to blame all these troubles on race and “astro turf.” Why not be honest Nancy? Why not point out your horrible record when it comes to sexism via legislated mysandry, your taxation policy votes, and yes, your rabid hate for the Bill of Rights? Then after you realize that you have been one of the most detrimental people ever to serve in office at any level we can give voice to all those that never had a chance to live because of you and your support for mass murdering profiteers…

Read on…

Pelosi worried about angry health care rhetoric

By LAURIE KELLMAN (AP) – 46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the anti-government rhetoric over President Barack Obama’s health care reform effort is concerning because it reminds her of the violent debate over gay rights that roiled San Francisco in the 1970s.

Anyone voicing hateful or violent rhetoric, she told reporters, must take responsibility for the results.

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, suddenly speaking quietly. “This kind of rhetoric was very frightening” and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.

Former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White was convicted of the 1978 murders of Mayor George Moscone and openly gay supervisor Harvey Milk. Gay rights activists and some others at the time saw a link between the assassinations and the violent debate over gay rights that had preceded them for years.

During a rambling confession, White was quoted as saying, “I saw the city as going kind of downhill.” His lawyers argued that he was mentally ill at the time. White committed suicide in 1985.

Pelosi is part of a generation of California Democrats on whom the assassinations had a searing effect. A resident of San Fransisco, Pelosi had been a Democratic activist for years and knew Milk and Moscone. At the time of their murders, she was serving as chairwoman of her party in the northern part of the state.

On Thursday, Pelosi was answering a question about whether the current vitriol concerned her. The questioner did not refer to the murders of Milk or Moscone, or the turmoil in San Francisco three decades ago. Pelosi referenced those events on her own and grew uncharacteristically emotional.

“I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made,” Pelosi said. Some of the people hearing the message “are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume,” she said.

“Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe,” she added. “But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to a request for examples of contemporary statements that reminded the speaker of the rhetoric of 1970s San Francisco.

The public anger during health care town hall meetings in August spilled into the House last week when South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” at Obama, the nation’s first black president, during his speech. On a largely party-line vote, the House reprimanded Wilson.


From the ‘Non Compos Mentis’ File

August 22, 2009

You can fool some of the people all the time…

From the ‘Non Compos Mentis’ File

The Leftmedia continue to portray town hall protestors as right-wing, gun-toting racist nutjobs, even when the shoe clearly doesn’t fit. As we noted last week, some “protestors” are carrying signs with Barack Obama sporting a Hitler mustache and the message “I’ve changed.” Of course, the media dutifully highlights the signs, while ignoring that they are distributed by and bear the Web site name of LaRouche PAC, the political action committee of seven-time Democrat presidential aspirant and committed socialist conspiracy nut Lyndon LaRouche. That doesn’t fit the template.

Protestors with guns are also a target. The Leftmedia frets that citizens can carry guns near some of these town halls, including outside one held by the president in Phoenix, Arizona. MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer commented, “A man at a pro-health care reform rally … wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip…. [T]here are questions about whether this has racial overtones. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency, and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or onto their legs.” What Brewer failed to mention is that the man carrying the rifle was black. In addition, the video shown on MSNBC was carefully cropped to avoid showing that the man was black — it only showed the man’s back and waist, not his face.

Of course, the anti-gun narrative is not new to MSNBC or Contessa Brewer, and neither is the racial double standard mentioned Thursday by Mark Alexander. Truth, unfortunately, is kicked to the curb.

Abortion Will Be Part of ObamaCare

It should come as no surprise that the health care overhaul being designed by congressional Democrats include provisions for federally mandated coverage of abortions by insurance providers. After all, liberals embrace what President Obama has called “reproductive justice,” which apparently includes killing unborn children. (The “justice” aspect has us scratching our heads.) Some members of Congress and the president himself on occasion have stated publicly that no such mandate exists, but they are lying.

The word abortion does not appear in the draft legislation, but several provisions would not only force insurance companies to cover abortions, they would override several state laws and would ultimately lead to taxpayer funded abortions. This is what groups like Planned Parenthood have worked for all along, but the secret is out now, thanks in part to some liberal members of Congress who brazenly admit their stance that taxpayers should pay for abortions, regardless of their moral stance on the issue. “Abortion will be covered as a benefit by one or more of the health care plans available to Americans,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), “and I think it should be.” Naturally, a broad cross-section of the public is opposed to this idea, but that’s never stopped liberals before.


Bumper Sticker Politics and the First Amendment

February 20, 2009

The first salvo against the right to free expression was recently fired in Oklahoma of all places. Although this worked out it never should have happened in the first place.

The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the Secret Service “could construe this as a threat against President Obama,” according to the incident report released this morning.

Full Story here

Committee recommends gun rights resolution

February 9, 2009

Mostly those fly over states, the ones with square sides? They have been quietly  telling the Federal Government to take a hike. From unfunded mandates to inalienable rights we the people are telling the big-shots in Washington D.C. to back off. The constant and continual effort to wax fat from the backs of those that they attempt to laird it over is becoming more than can be bared. Not since prohibition has there been such a flare up of resistance against Federal tyranny. Soon, it will reach proportions that lead to the bloodiest conflict the United States has ever known. Latest of the rebellion is Wyoming:

CHEYENNE — A state legislative committee backed a resolution Friday that seeks to reinforce Wyoming’s right to bear arms.

The House Judiciary Committee endorsed the resolution unanimously. The resolution would instruct Congress to stop trying to pass federal legislation that restricts firearm ownership.

Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, R-Cheyenne, the legislation’s sponsor, said Wyoming citizens are concerned that Washington might begin imposing stricter gun control laws.

“A resolution like this isn’t going to change much,” Zwonitzer said, but added that the resolution would send the federal government a message.

The resolution mentions the Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, a federal bill Zwonitzer said is gaining strength in Congress.

He said the bill would impose more stringent government licensing measures on gun owners and place increased restrictions on guns in homes with children under 18.

Zwonitzer said the resolution has wide support among Wyoming citizens. He said the bill would “strengthen the bond between us all.”


For too long the Federal government has used the interstate commerce clause as an excuse for wielding power that is in fact reserved to the states by the Constitution. Both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are very clear about this, and no, you don’t need to be educated as a high powered attorney to understand the meanings. The Bill of Rights isn’t about what rights you, or the states have, it is about the limits of the Federal government. Over you as a person, and you as a state when combined with others in your locale.

Now, these very same people are attempting to pull a fast one on we, the people, that will have generational effects upon the ability of Americans to live a normal life:

“On page 151 of this legislative pork-fest [the ‘stimulus’ bill] is one of the clandestine nuggets of social policy manipulation that are peppered throughout the bill. Section 9201 of the stimulus package establishes the ‘Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.’ This body, which would be made up of federal bureaucrats will ‘coordinate the conduct or support of comparative effectiveness and related health services research.’ Sounds benign enough, but the man behind the Coordinating Council, Health and Human Services Secretary-designate [since withdrawn] (and tax cheat) Tom Daschle, was kind enough to explain the goal of this organization. It is to cut health care costs by preventing Americans from getting treatments that the government decides don’t meet their standards for cost effectiveness. In his 2008 book on health care, he explained that such a council would, ‘lower overall spending by determining which medicines, treatments and procedures are most effective-and identifying those that do not justify their high price tags.’ Once a panel of government experts decides what is and what is not cost-effective by their definition, the government will stop paying for treatments, medicines, therapies or devices that fall into the latter category. … Mind you, they are not simply looking to exclude treatments that don’t work, but to exclude treatments that are effective, but whose cost, in their opinion, does not justify their use. You, the patient, and your physician don’t get a vote. This would make the federal government the single most important decision-maker regarding health care for every patient in America.” –public affairs consultant Douglas O’Brien

Things like the above are just the tip of the iceberg. It’s not simply about firearms rights, or abortion, it is about the fundamental rights of Americans to be free of oppression from government. Be that Federal, State, or local.

How so..?

“The so-called stimulus bill may not do much for the economy, but it’s certainly stimulating a lot of laughter, as its supporters are reduced to arguing essentially that it would be irresponsible not to waste boatloads of taxpayer money. We do not exaggerate. Consider this article by Michael Hirsh of Newsweek: ‘Obama’s desire to begin a “post-partisan” era may have backfired. In his eagerness to accommodate Republicans and listen to their ideas over the past week, he has allowed the GOP to turn the haggling over the stimulus package into a decidedly stale, Republican-style debate over pork, waste and overspending. This makes very little economic sense when you are in a major recession that only gets worse day by day. Yes, there are still some very legitimate issues with a bill that’s supposed to be “temporary” and “targeted” — among them, large increases in permanent entitlement spending, and a paucity of tax cuts that will prompt immediate spending. Even so, Obama has allowed Congress to grow embroiled in nitpicking over efficiency when the central debate should be about whether the package is big enough. When you are dealing with a stimulus of this size, there are going to be wasteful expenditures and boondoggles. There’s no way anyone can spend $800 to $900 billion quickly without waste and boondoggles. It comes with the Keynesian territory. This is an emergency; the normal rules do not apply.’ Who is this Michael Hirsh, who has elevated unrestrained spending of the people’s money to a high principle? Here’s his bio: ‘Michael Hirsh covers international affairs for Newsweek, reporting on a range of topics from Homeland Security to postwar Iraq. He co-authored the November 3, 2003 cover story, “Bush’s $87 Billion Mess,” about the Iraq reconstruction plan. The issue was one of three that won the 2004 National Magazine Award for General Excellence.’ The bill for ‘Bush’s mess’ is less than the margin of error in reckoning the cost of the ’emergency’ legislation about which Hirsh now chides lawmakers for ‘nitpicking over efficiency.'” –Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

What I am suggesting, is that the Federal government, at least the vast majority in the Congress, Senate, and Executive branches, are, in fact working day and night to change the Untied States into some socialist utopia, and that the several states, are rebelling.

New voices in Congress..?

January 6, 2009

The new voices that are coming to the Congress appear to be sending differing signals to observers. We very well may be seeing the groundwork for a classic clash between Blue dog and Red dog Democrats. Or more probably with the Yellow Dogs in a coalition that will thwart extremism.

story here

Still, rumors of pay back time political extremism have been popping up just enough to let those in the know realize that there are some pretty extreme actions on the agenda. Other bloggers are already going after these stories with a vengeance and I will defer to them so that their work gets proper attribution.

Abortion full federal funding, gun control that will make the “Assault Weapons Ban” look like a has been, and a Constitutional Convention that will have as it’s goal the destruction of the Bill of Rights are all being discussed behind closed doors.

Time will tell.

Men and Abortion « Petunias

January 13, 2008

Men and Abortion « Petunias

Funny that one position that is, or could be held by men was not even mentioned. If a woman can elect to have an abortion or not to. Then why can’t a man demand an abortion, or not be held responsible for child support if she refuses it? I personally know of at least a dozen men that were seduced as it were into eighteen plus years of paying for a womans life of leisure.

Lessons to be learned? Keep it in your pants men.

The Libertarian Case Against Abortion

January 3, 2008

I decided to stir up a hornets nest, and show that Libertarians can be against abortion while still holding to fundamental Libertarianism.

The Libertarian Case Against Abortion

To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:
1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide — the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother’s body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

For details, please read LFL’s literature.

Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong, not a right. Our reasoning is expressly scientific and philosophical rather than either pragmatic or religious, or merely political or emotional.  Politically, of course, our perspective is libertarian. Libertarianism’s basic principle is that, under justice, each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else — for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy.


%d bloggers like this: