Featured Post

Third World problems...we've got them.

It is going to get worse and it may never get better, kiddies. Just watch for the reaction to come... GOP Rep. Steve Scalise shot at co...

"Let no freedom be allowed to novelty, because it is not fitting that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture." -- Pope Sixtus III

Friday, May 25, 2012

Yeah, right. He's the smartest jug-eared commie EVER.

Ghoulbama The Flatulent doesn't know who, what, or where Jesse Owens, Adolf Hitler, and World War II are. I guess that's what happens when you are the misshapen product of a sham communist marriage.

His act would be funny if he wasn't killing people by the truckload.

From Power Players, the bastard child of ABC and Yahoo! News:

Obama’s Olympic oops

 Politics, it's not a game exactly.  But there are rules, and when you break them you are running Politically Foul!

 President Obama felt inspired to give a sports history lesson at a fundraising event in Colorado this week after meeting some former Olympians.

"They were U.S. Olympians in 1938, with Jesse Owens," said the president,  "Think about that -- 1938 -- '48, excuse me.  I'm sorry.  I'm making them even older."

So what was it Mr. President:  1938 or 1948?  The answer: neither!  Flag: illegal shift….time shift, that is.

It was the Berlin Olympics of 1936 where Jesse Owens won four gold medals.


Photobucket

Hee-hee. Mayhem, mutilation, and death are funny.


From the clowns at The Atlantic Wire via the clowns at Yahoo! News:

Expect Traffic Jams on Everest This Weekend

 Traffic jams, rush hour--yes these concerns not only apply to the upcoming holiday weekend, but also to the highest mountain in the world. The only difference being that on Mount Everest, those inconveniences could totally kill you. Four climbers have died on Everest in the past week, not because of the treacherous mountain, but because there were too many people on it at once creating a "traffic jam."  

 That jam will only get worse this weekend as guides are once again expecting the peak to be overrun with around 120 climbers, reports The Associated Press' Binaj Gurubacharya. "This is the last chance for climbers to attempt to reach the summit. If they can't, then there is not going to be another opportunity this season," an Everest official said.  

 

 Mount Everest climb carries hefty price tag

CBC via Yahoo! Canada News

 

Days after deaths, another crowd attempts Everest

Associated Press via Yahoo! News

 

Mount Everest: It's there and it's deadly

AAP via Yahoo!7 News

 

Everest climber skips summit, rescues friend

Associated Press via Yahoo! News

Here's a real puzzler. It seems WOMEN like MEN after all.

Lisa Freedman of Food Network Magazine [???] offers some advice to the lovelorn at Match.com via Yahoo!:

Bad-boy moves that women like


Sorry to break this to you, single men, but it is possible to be too nice. And if you’re reading this article, you’ve probably fallen into the trap of following all the rules — you wined and dined her, asked her questions, called the next day — but still didn’t win her heart. What gives? “Women like a nice guy at first,” says Dr. Robert Glover, author of No More Mr. Nice Guy. But niceness can also be seen as weakness — and that’s a major turn-off for most women. So how do you show a date that you’re genuinely interested in her without going overboard? We asked Dr. Glover and single men and women for some pointers that should help even the meekest man make a stronger statement during dates.

DO take charge

“Dating is like a dance: If you don’t take the lead, she has to,” Dr. Glover says. “Most women don’t want to be in charge.” Asking her out is a big step, but it’s not enough. Dr. Glover suggests having a particular day and plan already picked out in advance: “Asking her to go out sometime leaves too many details to be determined. Instead, ask her to meet you for drinks on Tuesday.” That way, all she has to decide is whether or not she’s free that night. 


 DO disagree with her
“Nothing irritates me more than someone who agrees with everything I say, even when I can tell he has another opinion,” says Theresa M. from Washington, D.C. “If I wanted to hear my thoughts on a subject, I would just talk to myself. I want a guy who will challenge me.” By avoiding conflict with your date, you may as well be wearing a big sign that says, I’m a pushover! If you don’t see eye-to-eye with her, say so.

DO tease her a little

You won’t ever find a woman who doesn’t like a man who’s funny. So go ahead and let your sarcasm streak or dry sense of humor shine — just make sure to do it playfully. Sean, 35, from New York City, attests to the power of this move: “I used some playful teasing on my last date — I told her, ‘Your head isn’t nearly as large as it looks on your profile’ — and we were able to use all that built-in first-date tension to our advantage.” By carrying yourself this way, you’ll look confident — which, by the way, is a turn-on for everyone.



 

DO talk about yourself
Don’t ramble on about your own life constantly, but mentioning things here and there is a good way to make sure your date doesn’t feel like she’s interrogating you. Instead, ask her where she was born; then, when she’s done answering you, drop a few relevant details about your life. “Everything was always about me with this one guy I dated. It was so annoying,” says Alina from Chicago. “There’s no way I’m that interesting! I kept waiting for him to tell me something.”

DON’T plan elaborate dates

“The first two or three dates should be simple, casual coffee-type meetings. You should pay for them, but they should be cheap,” says Dr. Glover. Do the opposite, and you just look like you’re trying too hard, says Marissa from Johnson City, TN. “A guy bought concert tickets for a band I had mentioned in passing,” she explains. “He spent way too much money. It was shocking, and I felt like I owed him something afterward.” Clearly, these are not good feelings to build a relationship on.

DON’T compliment your date too much

“An ex-boyfriend gave me compliments all the time,” says Rachel from Harrisonburg, VA. “It got to the point that I didn’t believe him anymore, and I figured he said those things to every woman he dated.” Seeming insincere is bad, but it can get even worse: “She’ll like it at first, but persistent flattery will start to spook her in some way,” says Dr. Glover. Forget the usual flood of flattery, then, and show her you care by the occasional compliment from the heart — and by being reliable.

DON’T try to speed up the relationship

After a great date, you may feel compelled to ask her out again — right then and there — for the next night… and the weekend after, too. Go slowly — don’t overwhelm a woman with attention. Dr. Glover suggests you only see each other once a week (at most) at the start of a new relationship. If you seem too eager, you’ll look needy and available for most women. “After a second date, this guy wanted to spend all of his time with me,” says Caroline, 28, from Los Angeles. “I started to wonder if he had his own life, but I didn’t want to stick around to find out.” So to avoid that fate, pace yourself, enjoy the anticipation — and let things unfold slowly and steadily.


Fyodor heartily endorses Claussen's Hot & Spicy Pickles

Photobucket


 Make no mistake, these boys are hot. Slice one lengthways and surround a hot dog with them. They taste great on subs, heroes, hoagies, et cetera.

I have one request of the fine folks at Kraft Foods: Please give us hot & spicy sandwich slices.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Left-fascists bully babies to death.

You can actually hear the Philadelphia Daily News' Amy Worden picking pieces of dead babies from between her teeth as you read her child-abusing hate speech...

 First it was the "Women's Right to Know Act," a so-far failed bill that would force women undergoing an abortion to watch an ultra-sound of her unborn baby before undergoing the procedure.
Remember how well that went over? After Gov. Corbett offered that patients could "just close [their] eyes" when facing the ultrasound machine and when it was revealed that the procedure could involve transvaginal or internal probes, bill co-sponsors started dropping like flies.

Today Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R., Butler) unveils his own anti-abortion bill, one simmilar to those being considered in other states, that would eliminate public funding for Planned Parenthood.

The organization provide health services to some 123,000 Pennsylvanians a year. By far the majority of the services it provides are health screenings for cervical and breast cancer, birth control and testing for sexually transmitted diseases, often for low income and uninsured patients. Abortions represent roughly 3 percent of Planned Parenthood's services.

 Bullshit. There are thousands of places where poor women can get free real healthcare. Planned Murder-in-the-Hood was created by the arch-racist Margaret Sanger for one purpose and one purpose only: TO MURDER BLACK CHILDREN AND KEEP OUR CITIES "SAFE" FOR NEO-NAZIS LIKE SANGER.

Metcalfe's bill would put health care providers that offer abortion services at the bottom of the state funding list. Yet the legislation is called the "Whole Woman’s Health Funding Priority Act."

Joining Metcalfe at the Capitol media center for a news conference at 10 a.m. are co-sponsors Reps. Gordon Denlinger, Ryan Aument and Bryan Cutler, all Republicans from Lancaster, and Rep. Kathy Rapp (R., Forest), sponsor of the ultrasound bill. Supporting the bill are the Pennsylvania Family Institute, People Concerned for the Unborn Child, Pro-Life Coalition of Pennsylvania and the national anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List.

Mallory Quigley, communications director for SBA List, told the Huffington Post the bill an "upgrade" for women's health services because it directs money away from Planned Parenthood clinics and toward hospitals and other kinds of family planning clinics that don't provide abortions. The SBA list keeps a scorecard that follows states cutting funding to Planned Parenthood.

Six states enacted legislation to defund Planned Parenthood in 2011: Wisconsin, Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, Texas and Tennessee. District judges in all of those states except Wisconsin have since determined that those laws were unconstitutional and have temporarily blocked them, the Huffington Post reported.

Arizona successfully stripped funds from Planned Parenthood, and legislators dropped similar proposed laws in Iowa and New Hampshire, but lawmakers in Kansas, Oklahoma, Ohio and Michigan are considering such proposals.

Remember, kiddies, abortion is bullying.

Once a babykilling Repansycan, always a babykilling Repansycan.


From The Daily Caller:

Pro-lifers concerned about Romney fundraiser with Plan B maker

 Some pro-lifers tell The Daily Caller they are concerned about a Romney campaign fundraiser scheduled to be held with the chairman of the manufacturer of the emergency contraceptive Plan B One-Step, known as the “morning-after pill.”

Not one Wisconsin teacher's job has been lost; Scott Walker puts his state in play for Romney.


From Breitbart.com:

Breaking Poll: Walker Up 8 in WI, 50-42

Breitbart News has received an exclusive first-look at a poll to be released tomorrow morning by Reason. The Reason-Rupe Poll, conducted May 14-18, shows Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker now leads his opponent, Democrat Tom Barrett, by 8 points, 50%-42% among likely voters

Eugene Polley, Requiescat in pace.

 From AP via Yahoo! News:

Eugene Polley, inventor of TV remote, dies at 96

 Couch potatoes everywhere can pause and thank Eugene Polley for hours of feet-up channel surfing. His invention, the first wireless TV remote, began as a luxury, but with the introduction of hundreds of channels and viewing technologies it has become a necessity.

Just ask anyone who's lost a remote.

Polley died of natural causes Sunday at a suburban Chicago hospital, said Zenith Electronics spokesman John Taylor. The former Zenith engineer was 96.

In 1955, if you wanted to switch TV channels from "Arthur Godfrey" to "Father Knows Best," you got up from your chair, walked across the room and turned a knob. Clunk. Clunk. Clunk.

Or you could buy a new Zenith television with Flash-Matic tuning. The TV came with a green ray gun-shaped contraption with a red trigger. The advertising promised "TV miracles." The "flash tuner" was "Absolutely harmless to humans!" Most intriguing of all: "You can even shut off annoying commercials while the picture remains on the screen."


Photobucket

Polley was proud of his invention even late in life, Taylor said. [Huh? Why wouldn't he be? Keep reading, kiddies. - F.G.] He showed visitors at his assisted-living apartment his original Flash-Matic and how it had evolved into the technology of today. "He was a proud owner of a flat-screen TV and modern remote," Taylor said. "He always kept his original remote control with him."

Polley's Flash-Matic pointed a beam of light at photo cells in the corners of the television screen. Each corner activated a different function, turning the picture and sound off and on, and changing the channels.

Chicago native Polley and fellow Zenith engineer Robert Adler were honored in 1997 with an Emmy for their work in pioneering TV remotes. In 2009, he received the Masaru Ibuka Consumer Electronics Award from the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers.

Beyond keeping TV viewers pinned to their chairs, Polley's invention unchained technology from mechanical knobs and levers, opening vast possibilities, said Richard Doherty, CEO of suburban New York-based technology assessment and market research company Envisioneering.

"Without his idea you might not have gotten to the Internet," Doherty said. "It allowed you to go beyond the physical dial. It set the pace for dozens for follow-on inventions that go beyond the physical."

During his 47-year career as an engineer, Polley earned 18 U.S. patents. At Zenith, he worked his way up from the stockroom, according to a biography from Lincolnshire, Ill.-based LG Electronics, which owns Zenith. Polley also worked on radar advances for the U.S. Department of Defense during World War II. He helped develop the push-button radio for automobiles and the video disk, a forerunner of today's DVD.

Polley's invention made life easier — perhaps too easy — for a generation of children.

Yep, here we go. Mr. Polley is responsible for your kid being a fat-ass. That's what's known as logic, kiddies.

"In my house, the remote control was named Rick," said Doherty. "'Rick, change it to Channel 7. Rick, change it to Channel 2. Rick, go back to the ballgame.' It kept me fitter as a kid."

Dumbass.

 

King Goober II IS a porn star...

...even with his disease-ridden, hideously deformed primary sexual organ.

Bill Clinton posed with porn stars at gala he co-hosted
- The Atlantic Wire via Yahoo! News

Romney voters send faxes to their blacksmiths.

Yahoo!'s The Ticket wants you to know that you're an unhip and uncool fuddy-duddy who won't chop up a baby even on a dare if you refuse to vote for Ghoulbama.


Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has a narrow lead with voters who use landlines.

BTW, who in the world calls them cellphones anymore?

Don't bother, boys. Lolo Jones can easily outrun you.

From the pages of The King Abdullah Gazette:


Remember this story from 2009 at SportsByBrooks?


Photobucket

Olympian Lolo Jones’ Pic From ESPN ‘Body Issue’

Her contribution to the issue, while not as high-profile as the cover athletes, has its own measure of controversy–not the least of which is the revelation about her weight. Looking at Jones’ gaunt face and lithe frame, what do you suppose it is?

 

The answer, according to Des Moines’ (her hometown) WHO TV 13, is probably substantially higher than you expected:
The stunning picture of Lolo is part of a “bodies we want” section. Jones tells our Keith Murphy, she was very concerned about posing nude, and was initially against it.

However, she decided she would do it if she could take a tasteful picture that would send young girls the message they don’t have to be skinny or starve themselves. The 5 foot 9 inch Jones says she weighs 160 pounds. She knows that number surprises people, but muscle weighs more than fat, and Lolo has a lot of muscle, and next to no fat.

5'9" and 160! She's obese according to the government and Hollyweird.

Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket

Lolo Jones can't meet decent guys. For God and country, Fyodor volunteers!

My new favorite female athlete is a good girl and rightly proud of it.

From ANI via Yahoo! India News:

Lori 'Lolo' Jones says keeping virginity harder than training for Olympics

 Olympic athlete Lori 'Lolo' Jones has revealed that she is still a virgin, and insisted that keeping her vow of not having sex before marriage has been harder than even training for the games.

The 29-year-old track and field star has yet to have sex because it's "a gift I want to give my husband," and despite her hardest efforts, she hasn't been able to find any contenders. 

Jones first announced she was a virgin on the social networking website Twitter.
"I've been tempted," ABC News quoted her as saying on HBO's 'Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel'. 

"I've had guys tell me ... 'Hey, you know, if you have sex, it'll help you run faster'," she said. 

Her response: "If you marry me, then yeah."

"This journey has been hard," she said. 

"It's the hardest thing I've ever done in my life. Harder than training for the Olympics. Harder than studying for college has been staying a virgin before marriage," she added.

Did you know those little black lawn jockeys decried as racist were once markers for the Underground Railroad?

It makes you wonder when they'll publish the photo of Chaz Bono touching Benito's wee weenie after he incredulously asked if the Great Dick-Tater [America's first sodomite Chief Executive!] had one too.

From Yahoo!'s The Cutline [What idiot names these things?]:

The boy [Racist.] who touched the president’s hair [Racist.]


The story behind a photograph showing a 5-year-old black [Racist. - F.G.] boy touching President Obama's hair--which has been hanging in the West Wing of the White House for more than three years--may be coming to your inbox soon.



The New York Times published the adorable back story on Thursday, and it's quickly become the most-emailed article on the Times' website.

In May 2009, the child, Jacob Philadelphia, was visiting the White House with his father, a former Marine, who was leaving his 2-year stint working for the National Security Council as part of the White House staff. The father asked to take a family photo with the president. Jacob said he had a question for Obama, who was then in his fifth month in office.

The Times recounts the rest:
"I want to know if my hair is just like yours," he told Mr. Obama, so quietly that the president asked him to speak again.

Jacob did, and Mr. Obama replied, "Why don't you touch it and see for yourself?" He lowered his head, level with Jacob, who hesitated.

"Touch it, dude!" Mr. Obama said.

As Jacob patted the presidential crown, Mr. Souza snapped.

"So, what do you think?" Mr. Obama asked.

"Yes, it does feel the same," Jacob said.

As the paper noted, President Obama has largely avoided discussing race during his first term. But the photo "is tangible evidence" that the president "remains a potent symbol for blacks, with a deep reservoir of support."

"As a photographer, you know when you have a unique moment," White House photographer Pete Souza told the paper. "But I didn't realize the extent to which this one would take on a life of its own. That one became an instant favorite of the staff. I think people are struck by the fact that the president of the United States was willing to bend down and let a little boy feel his head."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Bolshevik The Clown [The Gayest Clown Around, except for John Wayne Gacy] vomits forth another knee-slapper.


Obama: I'm not an overspender
- ABC via Yahoo! News


Photobucket 

...Obama was referring to an analysis released this week by Rex Nutting, a reporter for CBS MarketWatch who is also affiliated with the Wall Street Journal. Nutting concluded that Obama has presided over the slowest growth in federal spending in decades...

 Let's look at Mr. Nutting's "analysis", kiddies.
 
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.


But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.


Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.


Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:


In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.


In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

I'm calling "shenanigans", kiddies. The key phrase above is "the 2009 fiscal year " which included ol' Jug Ears' so-called Stimulus I, a nearly $1 trillion vote-buying bribery scheme. The commies are trying to pin that one on CuriousGeorge BushMonkey.

The hapless Mr. Nutting is either a low grade moron or a commie agit-prop operative...or he's got a degree in journalism.

You don't have to take my word for it. Here's James Pethokoukis from the American Enterprise Institute's The Enterprise Blog:

Actually, the Obama spending binge really did happen

 Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946. Here’s the Obama spending record:

– 25.2% of GDP in 2009
– 24.1% of GDP in 2010
– 24.1% of GDP in 2011
– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.

Yet financial columnist Rex Nutting of  MarketWatch tries to portray the president as being downright stingy in a piece entitled, stunningly, “Obama spending binge never happened”:
Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.
And here’s the chart summarizing Nutting’s argument:

  Photobucket


As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. [Emphasis mine. - F.G.] Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond.

It’s as if one of my teenagers crashed our family minivan, and I had to buy a new one. And then, since I liked that new car smell so much, I decided to buy a new van every year for the rest of my life. I would indeed be a reckless spender.

Here is another way Nutting could have framed the spending issue:



Photobucket

The Obama spending record looks a little different now, yes?

GET YOUR WOMBS OFF MY CONSTITUTION!

I was pleasantly surprised to see Bishop Trautman of Erie on the front line of this battle.

From PA Catholic.org:

Erie and Pittsburgh Dioceses dare to defy Jug-Eared Baal

On Monday, May 21, the Diocese of Erie and the Diocese of Pittsburgh filed separate federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the HHS mandate that would require nearly all religious organizations to cover abortion causing drugs, sterilization and contraception in health care plans.

These lawsuits are two of 12 such suits representing 43 separate plaintiffs nationwide. The lawsuit in Erie includes the Diocese of Erie, the St. Martin Center and the Prince of Peace Center as plaintiffs. The Pittsburgh lawsuit includes the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Catholic Charities of Pittsburgh and the Catholic Cemeteries Association of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.


Bishop Zubik of the Diocese of Pittsburgh wrote, “we did not pick this fight or this timing. This is the federal government’s choice to impose this on us now. Our goal in filing this lawsuit is to take this issue out of the political arena and turn it over to the courts where we are confident the Religious Freedom and the rights of the Church will be protected.”

Bishop Trautman of the Diocese of Erie wrote, “Clearly this [mandate] would prevent us from continuing the significant work we have accomplished in the almost 160 years during which we have served in the 13 counties of northwest Pennsylvania. As a matter of religious commitment, we serve everyone—whether or not they are Catholic.”

Bishop Trautman continued, “We’ve been seeking relief from this over-reaching mandate since we first learned of the possibility in 2010,” he said. “The regulation was proposed in August 2011 and finalized in February 2012. The White House has not budged on core issues and we’ve exhausted our other options including a bi-partisan legislative effort.”

Cardinal Dolan, the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said “we have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress – and we’ll keep at it – but there’s still no fix. Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now.”

 Click here to send a message to HHS and your elected officials in support of religious liberty.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Repeat after me: "Abortion is bullying. Abortion is bullying. Abortion is bullying."


 From The Week via Yahoo! News:

Are anti-abortion activists framing Planned Parenthood?

 Clinics in about a dozen states are being visited by suspiciously similar women seeking an oddly specific type of abortion. Is there a "gotcha" coming?

Planned Parenthood clinics in at least 11 states have noted suspiciously similar walk-ins in recent weeks by young women asking remarkably similar questions, and suggesting they want an abortion only if they are pregnant with a girl. The apparently coordinated series of "hoax visits" has Planned Parenthood bracing for another "propaganda campaign" by anti-abortion activists who selectively edit secretly videotaped visits to "promote misinformation about Planned Parenthood and our services," spokeswoman Chloe Cooney tells The Huffington Post. Are we about to see a new series of "sting" videos? Here's what you should know:

What happens in these "hoax visits"?

"Patient privacy laws prohibit Planned Parenthood from offering specific details about the visits and where they occurred," says Laura Bassett at The Huffington Post, but the script is always the same: A woman walks into the clinic, says she's pregnant, then asks a series of provocative questions, including how soon she can find out the baby's sex, how it could be done, and whether she can schedule an abortion if she's carrying a girl.

SEE MORE: Does defunding Planned Parenthood hurt women's health?

Why are women asking about aborting girls?

"Spotlighting the issue of sex-selective abortions is an increasingly common tactic that the anti-abortion community has been using lately to turn the 'war on women' around on Planned Parenthood," says The Huffington Post's Bassett. Several states have outlawed abortion motivated solely by gender or race, over objections that such measures force doctors to read a woman's mind to determine her motivations. 


Is sex-selective abortion common in the U.S.?

It does happen, but it isn't nearly as common as in parts of Asia, Miriam Yeung at the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum tells The Huffington Post. And the best way to combat the abhorrent practice is to "address the social and economic root causes of gender preference," not attack Planned Parenthood, Yeung adds. And remember, says Laura Clawson at the Daily Kos, that "the vast, overwhelming majority of abortions are performed long before sex can be determined."

That is so obviously racist. If it's a good thing for the Slave Chinese, it must be a good thing for poor American blacks.

Does Planned Parenthood perform sex-selective abortions?

Wh-wh-what? How did that question sneak in?








Almost certainly. Planned Parenthood says the "deeply unsettling practice" runs "contrary to everything our organization works for," and notes that it doesn't even offer "sex determination services" at its clinics. But at the same time, Planned Parenthood is "pro–minding their own damn business about why a woman is choosing to have an abortion," says Erin Gloria Ryan at Jezebel, so they won't turn a patient down unless the abortion violates state law.

Whom does Planned Parenthood suspect in this case?

Cooney says the most likely culprit is Live Action, a James O'Keefe–inspired anti-abortion group that sent actors dressed as pimps and prostitutes to Planned Parenthood clinics to covertly videotape interviews with staff, then heavily edited the videos to make it look as if Planned Parenthood were complicit in sex trafficking. Planned Parenthood has no proof that Live Action is behind this, but the recent string of odd visits "follows their pattern exactly," Cooney tells The Huffington Post. Live Action spokeswoman Kate Bryan says her group "does not comment on any investigations until after public release."

Has Planned Parenthood preemptively neutered any "sting"?

Proponents and opponents of abortion rights agree that last year's Live Action video was effective in turning the legislative tide against Planned Parenthood, and helping strip it of its longstanding "political Teflon" in Congress. Not this time, though, says Jezebel's Ryan. "The gig's up." But if "Planned Parenthood is indeed arranging sex-selection abortions for women and couples," says Steven Ertelt at LifeNews, no amount of preemptive spin will help. "The further public damage to its tenuous reputation may be hard to calculate." 

 From Roto-Reuters:

Nancy Keenan will step down as head of the abortion-rights advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America at the end of the year, a change she said on Thursday was timed to coincide with the rise of a new generation voters.
Keenan, 60, who has led NARAL for nearly eight years, has chosen not to renew her contract, which expires at the end of December.

Under Keenan's tenure, NARAL has supported dozens of candidates elected to Congress and has earned a reputation for helping to sway close races. But there also has been a jump in new abortion restrictions enacted by states since 2010, the group said.

She has devoted energy most recently on reaching out to so-called Millennials, those mainly under 30 who are fast becoming an important voting bloc.

While independent research conducted in recent years has suggested some retreat on voter support for abortion rights, a study for NARAL in 2010 found solid support for those rights among young people. But the findings also noted more intensity over the issue among anti-abortion supporters in this age group.

"For me it's about the future ... to give that generation time to lead," Keenan said in a telephone interview. "We're in a strong place."

Chopped up kids are our future.

Keenan also said she announced her decision to leave now to give the board sufficient time for a smooth transition. A search committee will identify a successor.

Left-fascist media racists call slightly less fascist Democrasses "racists".

Are they simply preparing an excuse for a potential Haile Unlikely loss or are they trying to bully D's with a conscience back onto the plantation?

Probably both...

From Washington's other newspaper:

Kentucky, Arkansas primaries: Is it racism

 That President Obama lost roughly 40 percent of the vote in Democratic primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky and West Virginia over the last two weeks has drawn massive national headlines.

 Those headlines have drawn a collective eyeroll from Democrats — and many others who closely follow national politics — who ascribe the underperformance by the incumbent to a very simple thing: racism.

 They argue that conservative white Democrats — particularly those in the South and Appalachia — don’t want to vote for an African American for president and, therefore, are willing to cast a ballot for almost anyone else up to and including an incarcerated felon. (Keith Judd, we are looking at you.)

The problem with that theory is that it’s almost entirely unprovable because it relies on assuming knowledge about voter motivations that — without being a mindreader — no one can know.

“There’s no easy or simple answer,” said Cornell Belcher, president of Brilliant Corners, a Democratic polling firm. “One man’s racial differences is another man’s cultural differences.”

What we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that Appalachia and portions of the South — particularly those states without large African American populations — have long been hostile to President Obama.

There are any number of data points that make that point plainly. 

During the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign, Obama lost Kentucky by 35 points and West Virginia by 41(!) points to then Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton even though both states voted late enough in the process that it was already clear Obama would be the nominee.

In the 2008 general election, only five states voted more Republican than they had four years earlier. Those five states were: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia. (In Oklahoma and West Virginia, Obama and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry got the same percentage of the vote but Obama got less raw votes.) 

And, since a picture is worth a thousand words, here’s an amazing graphic courtesy of the New York Times that shows the counties that voted more Republican in 2008 than they did in 2004.
 
It’s abundantly clear then that the problems Obama has had in primaries in places like West Virginia and Arkansas aren’t new.

But, sussing out the “why” of Obama unpopularity in these states is far more tricky.

Former Texas Rep. Charlie Stenholm, a longtime conservative Democrat, acknowledged that “race is definitely a factor for some Texans but not the majority,” adding: “The most significant factor is the perception/reality that the Obama administration has leaned toward the ultra-left viewpoint on almost all issues.”

Martin Frost, another former Texas Democratic Congressman, seconded that notion. “In states like West Virginia and Oklahoma, it’s just that voters are down on national Democrats generally, and I don’t believe it is due to race,” said Frost.

Other theories abound. The average voter in Appalachia and the South is simply more conservative than they believe Obama to be. His Administration’s policies regarding mining have hurt him in coal country. Obama’s academic pedigree — Columbia, Harvard Law School — reek of elitism to many people in the South. (Of course, Kerry was tagged as an elitist by President George W. Bush during the 2004 campaign and managed to overperform Obama in a number of the states we are talking about even while losing nationally.)

“Race, resentment [and] fear,” explained Donna Brazile, a Louisiana native and Democratic strategist when asked about Obama’s underperformance. “Democrats have not had any messaging in those states for more than a decade. It’s hard to get voters to like you or even know you when all they hear is negative stuff.”

Quantifying how much any of these factors up to and including race matter when it comes to why lots of Democrats don’t like Obama in Appalachia and certain southern states remains very difficult.

Race is clearly a factor in some portion of peoples’ votes nationally and it’s more likely to be considered a negative factor in the South. In a December 2007 Washington Post-ABC News poll, six percent said a candidate being African American made them more likely to support him while five percent said it made them less likely. Among southern whites, seven percent said a candidate being black made them less likely support him while three percent said it made them more likely to back him. 
 
(There has been a drastic dropoff in that response on the race question; in 1988, 27 percent of people in an Associated Press poll said a candidate being black made them less likely to support him/her for president.)

And, just prior to the 2008 election, Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that 61 percent of southern whites were “entirely comfortable” with Obama as the first black president. Whites in the Midwest (75 percent), Northeast (80 percent) and West (83 percent) were much more likely to say they were “entirely comfortable” with the idea of Obama as the first African American president.

So, what does all of the above tell us? That, yes, President Obama’s race probably is regarded as more of a negative politically in Appalachia and portions of the South than it is in other regions of the country.

But, simply labeling the 42 percent of Kentuckians who supported “uncommitted” over Obama or the 41 percent of Arkansas who backed Tennessee lawyer John Wolfe over the incumbent as “racists” is a major oversimplification.

Untangling or decoupling how people feel about Obama’s race from how they feel about the policies he has pursued in office and his general beliefs about the size and necessity of government is impossible. No poll or election result can divine voters’ motivations.

And that means figuring out how much of the anti-Obama vote in these southern and Appalachian state primaries is directly attributable to racism simply can’t be done. It’s a tough answer but the right one.

This news isn't as good as you'd think.

Since most folks around here are protestants, they'll change to pro-murder as soon as they get knocked up or knock someone up.

From ABC:

'Pro-Choice' Americans At Record Low, Poll Finds

 The percent of Americans who identify as "pro-choice" regarding legalized abortion is at a new low of 41 percent, according to a newly released Gallup poll. The figure is one percent lower than the previous all-time low registered by Gallup, which was in May 2009.


The decline appears to fall along party lines, with the percent of Republicans identifying as "pro-choice" decreasing from 28 percent last May, to 22 percent in this most recent poll. Democrats remain somewhat consistent, around 60 percent identify as pro-choice.

Pro-choice and pro-life was the language used in the Gallup poll questionnaire.
Potentially troubling for Democrats heading into the fall is the drop among voters who are registered as Independents identifying as "pro-choice." The survey found 41 percent of Independents identified as "pro-choice," while 47 percent identified as "pro-life," marking only the second time since 2001 that the number of "pro-life" Independents has outweighed the number of "pro-choice" Independents.

The reason for the shift in numbers is unclear, but the potential political implications may not actually be that great.

When polled on the question of legality, 52 percent of  Americans said they believe that abortion should be legal "in certain circumstances." That number remains consistent with polling from May 2011.

Gallup found that 25 percent believe that abortion should be legal "in all cases," while 20 percent believe it should be illegal "in all cases." Those numbers are also consistent with polling from the same time last year.

 

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

How many divisions of lawyers does the Pope have? Our jug-eared Stalin is about to find out.


Of course, the courts are just as corrupt as Benito and the media and the schools and the culture, so it may not matter after all. But THE Church has to attempt to play by the laws of the land first.

We, kiddies, should prepare to head underground anyway...


Catholic dioceses, colleges sue over Obama mandate
Roman Catholic dioceses, schools and other groups sued the Obama administration Monday in eight states and the District of Columbia over a federal mandate that most employers provide workers free birth control as part of their health insurance.
- Associated Press via Yahoo! News 
U.S. Catholic groups sue to block contraception mandate
(Reuters) - The University of Notre Dame and dozens of other Catholic institutions sued President Barack Obama's administration on Monday to block a government regulation that requires employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives to employees. The regulation, which is part of the president's healthcare reform law, has sparked a nasty fight between the administration and the ...
- Reuters via Yahoo! News
Major Catholic Institutions Sue Over Birth Control Rule
Catholic University, the University of Notre Dame, and the Archdiocese of Washington are suing the federal government over a controversial birth control rule in the health care law.
- National Journal via Yahoo! News
Notre Dame, Catholic Dioceses Sue Obama Over Contraception Mandate
Forty-three Catholic groups, including the University of Notre Dame and Archdioceses of New York and Washington, have sued the Obama administration over a controversial mandate requiring employers to offer insurance plans that include contraception coverage. In a coordinated filing of 12 lawsuits in federal courts...
- ABC OTUS News via Yahoo! News

The One, True Church fights back, but it is probably too little and too late.


From The Week via Yahoo! News:
The Catholic mega-lawsuit is a 2012 nightmare for Obama

 Dozens of religious organizations sue the administration over a contraception mandate. Not exactly what the president was hoping for heading into November

On Monday, the Catholic Church offered a formal response to the Obama administration's refusal to extend the religious exemption to the HHS mandate on contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients to Catholic hospitals, charities, and schools. In a coordinated move, 43 Catholic institutions — including several dioceses — filed lawsuits in federal courts over the alleged infringement of freedom in religious practice that the mandate imposes on its organizations. The lawsuits serve notice on Barack Obama that he can expect the Catholic Church to fight him throughout the summer and all the way to the November election.

The lawsuits could not have come at a worse time for Obama and his campaign. Until recently, Catholic bishops had held out some hope of convincing the White House and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to expand the exemption in the mandate that covers only churches. A negotiated restatement of the mandate to cover all organizations run on behalf of churches would have sidelined the issue and put the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops back on the sidelines, nominally opposed to ObamaCare but in favor of government-run universal health care in general. Instead, Obama has yet another ally-turned-opponent, just as the general election fight heats up.


This fight could not have come at a worse time for Obama and his campaign.

This exemption is the crux of the fight for the mandate's opponents, as it offers a breathtakingly arrogant position that claims authority to define religious expression. According to the administration, the First Amendment protection against laws that "prohibit the free exercise" of religion only applies to churches themselves, not the affiliated or subordinate organizations that provide services to their communities. That distinction rewrites more than two centuries of American law and would force churches to violate their doctrine in matters that government defines as public policy.


This case involves forcing Catholic organizations to provide free access to birth control, but if this mandate stands as precedent, it might not stop there. The president of one organization that filed a lawsuit made clear the stakes involved for religious liberty in a statement accompanying the news release of the court actions: "For if we concede that the government can decide which religious organizations are sufficiently religious to be awarded the freedom to follow the principles that define their mission, then we have begun to walk down a path that ultimately leads to the undermining of those institutions. For if one presidential administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements."

The identity of this declaration's author points out the extent of the political danger in which President Obama finds himself. That statement did not come from an ultraconservative Catholic institution or cleric, but from a man who extended a personal invitation to Obama — and received considerable criticism from his fellow Catholics for having done so. Father John Jenkins asked President Obama to speak at the University of Notre Dame's commencement ceremonies in 2009, a controversial move at the time due to Obama's support for abortion and Planned Parenthood. Notre Dame is seen within the Catholic Church as a politically liberal institution, and perhaps particularly so under Jenkins' governance. Notre Dame's inclusion in this first wave of lawsuits sends a clear signal from the bishops that it has united Catholics across the political spectrum against this infringement of religious liberty.


And the unity goes beyond the Catholic Church.  The Family Research Council, a group that tends to speak mostly for evangelical churches, announced its support for the legal assault on the HHS mandate within a few hours. FRC President Tony Perkins cheered Cardinals Timothy Dolan and Donald Wuerl "for championing this most fundamental freedom in court." Perkins has been a frequent critic of the Obama administration, and the FRC is deeply conservative, so their unity with Catholics on this point isn't exactly a surprise. But what should worry Obama is that his actions have pushed Catholics into the arms of Perkins and the FRC just a few short months before the presidential election, and that the lawsuits and those that follow will further solidify that alliance.

Catholics, unlike their evangelical Christian brothers and sisters, are normally not a monolithic voting bloc. Catholics accounted for 29 percent of the vote in 2008, according to CNN's exit polls, and Obama won a nine-point victory in that bloc, 54 to 45. This demographic includes a significant number of Hispanic voters, a group Obama hoped to win by promising yet again to pursue immigration reform, having failed to deliver even a coherent proposal for it while Democrats held overwhelming majorities in Congress in 2009 and 2010.

Instead, parishioners attending church every week will hear constant updates on the lawsuits and their status. They will hear appeals from the bishops asking Catholics to pressure the White House into retreating on the mandate. Homilies from the pulpit are likely to echo arguments such as this from Cardinal Wuerl, noting that Mother Teresa's charitable AIDS hospice in Washington, D.C., wouldn't qualify as a religious organization in Obama's mandate. How many priests will ask from the pulpit for their congregations to consider the absurdity of government regulations that would have forced Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity to provide free sterilizations and abortifacients? I would bet the number will be more than just a few.

Obama and his team could have avoided all of this simply by allowing the exemption to apply to all religious organizations and not just the churches themselves. Now, however, it's probably too late; the damage to their relationship with the bishops has been done, and a retreat now would make Obama look considerably weaker. Instead, they will have to fight the bishops and the heretofore sympathetic Catholic organizations in court all the way past the general election, while trying to convince the parishioners that Obama is, to quote an old joke, more Catholic than the Pope.


The first casualty of Obamacare is the First Amendment.

If you've been to the national Right To Life march in DC, you've probably noticed the good Franciscans of Steubenville kneeling in prayer in front of the Supreme Court.

From The Lookout at Yahoo! News:
Catholic college to drop health care coverage over contraception mandate

 The Franciscan University of Steubenville, a small Catholic college in Ohio, announced Tuesday that it will drop coverage for students entirely rather than "violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life," Reuters reported. The change will affect 200 out of the school's 2,500 students, although with its overwhelmingly Catholic student body—the university has been called "The Most Catholic University in the World"—the Franciscan University would likely fall into the category of exempt employers. Some other Catholic and evangelical schools are suing over the mandate and have threatened to drop health coverage. (It's possible that the Supreme Court will announce next month that it has struck down the health care law altogether, which would make such suits unnecessary.)

Most employer insurance plans will have to start covering birth control this August, but religiously affiliated employers will have another year before they must come into compliance. The bishops want the government to either rescind the mandate altogether or add a clause that allows any employer to opt out if he or she has moral or religious qualms. President Obama said in February that he respected religious freedom but that all women should have access to affordable birth control, no matter their employers' religious beliefs.

Babykilling über alles!



From the Family Policy Network:

White House Blocking State Efforts to Ban Abortion Funding

Newly empowered Republicans in states across the country are pushing to kill public contracts with Planned Parenthood, only to find their efforts blocked by the Obama administration and federal courts.

In New Hampshire, the administration circumvented officials by awarding a $1 million grant directly to the nation’s largest provider of abortion services after state officials blocked a grant to the organization.

Every federal district court that has ruled so far has sided with Planned Parenthood. That’s helped the administration, which has threatened to cut off states’ Medicaid funding if they refuse to work with the organization.

The next fight is likely to be in Arizona. Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed a bill Friday barring any public money from being funneled through the state to any abortion provider.

 

Why is Fox News necessary? Because they are the only ones who report this kind of thing.


From Fox News Insider: 
 Federal Judge Wants Ten Commandments Cut By 40%

Wednesday on The Five, the hosts discussed the case brought by the ACLU on behalf of a student in Giles County, Virginia and U.S. District Judge Michael Urbanski’s suggestion that the first 4 commandments be removed and only 6 be displayed. Greg came up with 4 “P.C. Commandments” of his own to replace the ones that were nixed:
  • Thou shalt not take the Obama’s name in vain
  • Thou shall honor thy father and thy mother, or mother and mother, or father and father, or transgender father and transgender mother
  • Thou shalt not steal, unless it’s from the rich who are not paying their fair share
  • Thou shalt not commit adultery, unless you offer to pay for their birth control 

     

    More from the Family Policy Network:

    Judge Suggests School Remove Commandments that Mention God


    A federal judge in Virginia has proposed that two parties involved in a dispute over the display of the Ten Commandments at a public high school consider modifying the display by removing the four Commandments that mention God. U.S. District Judge Michael Urbanski said “If indeed this issue is not about God, why wouldn’t it make sense for Giles County to say, ‘Let’s go back and just post the bottom six [commandments]?’”

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia sued the Giles County School Board on behalf of a student over a Ten Commandments display at Narrows High School, arguing that it violated the First Amendment’s protection against endorsement of religion. The school board said the Commandments were part of a larger display of historical documents and therefore not religious.

    The Commandments were already removed once from the school, but the school board voted last summer to reinstall them after pressure from the community.

About Me

My photo
First of all, the word is SEX, not GENDER. If you are ever tempted to use the word GENDER, don't. The word is SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! For example: "My sex is male." is correct. "My gender is male." means nothing. Look it up. What kind of sick neo-Puritan nonsense is this? Idiot left-fascists, get your blood-soaked paws off the English language. Hence I am choosing "male" under protest.

Labels

Blog Archive