President Obama on protecting our children from violence:
“They had their entire lives ahead of them; birthdays, graduations, weddings (wipes away a tear), kids of their own… This is our first task – caring for our children. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged. And by that measure, can we honesty say that we are doing enough, to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm? I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is NO.”
See 2-minute video:
If protecting our children from violence is “Our First Task,” why is Obama not going after the primary causes of child death?
Is intentional death by firearms the best place for President Obama to focus if he wants to protect children?
Shouldn’t the focus be accidents, or motor vehicles, or drowning, or suicide?
Why is President Obama focusing on one of the smallest dangers and the least of possibilities?
See graph for comparison:
Now, let’s add a bit more data: children’s lives lost by abortion:
Madison Commemorates the 40th Dolorous Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
January 12th, 2013
Fr. John Sasse leads the Rosary
The 4oth anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion in the United States was commemorated today in Madison, WI, with the prayer of 15 decades of the Holy Rosary on the State Street steps of the Wisconsin Capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin.
The event was sponsored by Pro-Life Wisconsin, Vigil For Life Madison, and the Diocese of Madison.
Father John Sasse led the prayers, and mentioned the progress our prayer has made in winning Americans over to the defense of life.
Despite the ‘flu epidemic, the cold and the wind, scores of people braved the elements for this event to pray together.
Faithful Catholics knelt and stood with rosaries in hand on the Capitol steps.
Hecklers arrived, too, shouting rudely and trying unsuccessfully to disrupt our prayer. Two were led off in hand-cuffs by police.
No media coverage was apparent. Madison’s media, like much of the secular media, neglects to cover events which reflect the spiritual life of Americans.
Click images or arrows below to advance slideshow:
Praying the Rosary on the State Street Steps
of the Wisconsin State Capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin
Fr. John Sasse leads the Holy Rosary
A beautiful but blustery day.
Everyone bundled up.
Holding the Crucifix
Bette Wiessharr of Vigil for Life Madison bravely holds the Crucifix for an hour in the frigid wind. The crucifix was damaged by wind at the start of the Rosary Rally.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us!
Praying for our government and for our nation.
Pray the Rosary to end abortion.
Peggy Hamill of Pro-Life Wisconsin
Thank you, Jeanne Breunig!
Father John Sasse leads 15 decades.
Angry heckler led away in handcuffs.
Police escort heckler away.
The Rosary continues...
Police escort another handcuffed heckler away.
Praying in the cold!
On our knees...
A whole group of rude hecklers walk by.
Kurt Jacobson of Knights of Columbus holds the flag.
Prayers at the Capitol for our nation and it's future citizens.
Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion,
was issued on January 22, 1973.
This January 22, 2013, will commemorate
the 40th anniversary of that Supreme Court decision.
To date, 55 million infants have been aborted in the United States, and are missing from our ranks as a nation.
55 million of us were not born, were not baptized, did not graduate, did not marry, did not have children, and did not contribute to the world in all areas, including philosophy, science, art, and religion.
At least one out of 6 Americans is missing. If these children, who would now be 40, also had children, as many as one quarter of all Americans could be missing by now.
One person who escaped abortion very narrowly, yet lived to contribute mind-boggling contributions to our society’s present capabilities, was Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple. What would our world be now, without Steve Jobs?
President Obama is another example of a person who might have been aborted, if Roe v. Wade had been legal at the time he was born. As the black child of a single mother, his chances of being aborted would have been extremely high. 77% of African-American pregnancies are aborted right now, a black child is 5 times as likely to be aborted as a white child.
Numerous potential Presidents may have been aborted in these past forty years.
President Barack Hussein Obama,
the most radically pro-abortion President in United States history,
will be re-inaugurated on January 21, 2013,
the eve of the 40th anniversary,
of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
The Significance of the number 40 for Christians
The number 40 is a very meaningful number in Judeo Christian history.
During the Old Testament great flood, rain fell for forty nights and forty days, during which all living beings on earth perished, except those on Noah’s ark.
Spies explored the land of Israel for forty days (Numbers 13).
The Old Testament Exodus from Egypt lasted 40 years, with the Jewish people wandering the Sinai desert. This period of years represents the time it takes for a new generation to arise.
Moses’ life is divided into 40 year segments in the Old Testament.
Eli, Saul, David, and Solomon, Jewish leaders and kings of the Old Testament, ruled for forty years.
Goliath challenged the Israelites twice a day for forty days before David defeated him.
Moses spend three consecutive periods of forty days and forty nights on Mount Sinai.
40 lashes is one of the punishments meted out by the Sanhedrin.
Christ fasted and prayed in the desert for 40 days prior to His Temptation, Ministry, Passion, Death and Resurrection.
Forty days was the period from the Resurrection of Jesus to His Ascension into Heaven.
The Purple Heart is a medal awarded to soldiers for being wounded or killed while fighting an enemy of the United States.
I’ve already seen several Catholic Bishops this week, courageous spiritual warriors who have risked all in defending the values encoded in the Constitution of the United States – the defense of life, liberty and property. The wounds they suffer may not be physical, but courageous Catholic Bishops suffer death threats, and many other forms of abuse.
I am sure there will be more reports of courageous Bishops before November 6th. Send me reports, and I will add them to this list.
Bishop Robert C. Morlino of Madison, WI
Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, WI – for a courageous election homily delivered on October 28th, 2012, entitled Lord, I Want to See. Audio at Madison Cathedral Parish website.
Transcript below at end of this article.
Bishop Morlino spoke about the November 6th election, on Benghazi, on gay marriage, on cafeteria Catholics, on abortion, on the Wisconsin State Journal, on the media, on a candidate who promotes abortion without restraint and at no cost:
As a result of this election, our country could become more and more inhuman in it’s soul, and the consequences of that, foreseen and unseen, would be catastrophic.”
“This is the most important election in my lifetime, the essence of what it is to be human is what’s at stake. That’s far more important than the economy. Because if humanity is under attack, nothing can go right with the economy.
Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois:
Your vote will affect the eternal salvation of your own soul. – Breitbart.com
When I started on this article, I had 3 Catholic Bishops.
Now I have 5.
More and More and More!!! … …
I thought I was finished with this article… Breitbart.com informs us that many Catholic Bishops are beginning to unite publicly against the Democratic Pary’s championing of abortion.
Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia Pennsylvania is included, #6
Please note: that this was the MORMON
Transcript of Bishop Morlino’s Election Homily on October 28th:
Lord, I want to see.
Bishop Robert Morlino’s Sunday Homily, October 28, 2012
Based on the Gospel reading, Mark 10:46-52
Bartimaeus was not born blind, like the man in the gospel according to John, whom we always recall one of the later Sundays during Lent. Bartimaeus was not born blind. He had his sight for many years, and then lost it. So he knew what he did not have. And on top of it, he was reduced to begging by his blindness and disability, so that he was without human dignity.
Bartimaeus is sitting there in his misery, and along comes Jesus. And Bartimaeus can’t control himself, because all of a sudden, hope invades his misery, and he cries out to Jesus. Jesus says “Bring him over here. What do you want from me?” Bartimaeus is s plainspoken man. “Lord, I want to see.” He receives his sight, and what does he do? Go back to his former life? No. With his new sight, he immediately follows Jesus.
That’s what our New Evangelization during the Year of Faith is all about. So many once had their sight, but have become blind. The problem is, they don’t know enough to say, “I want to see.” And somehow, we are to be the instruments of the hope of Jesus Christ that moves them to say that. But we have a major problem in our country and in our society, with people, including many Catholics, who simply do not want to see.
There is an article in the State Journal today, and you can almost conclude from that that it’s unreliable, but it is, by a sociologist, about Vatican II. And Vatican II brought life to lay people. Vatican II took lay people seriously. All of that is right.
How did Vatican II take lay people seriously? Vatican II pointed out that lay people don’t simply obey the Church any more. They’re adult. They’re too adult for that. So what Vatican II said is the lay people are obligated to find out what the Church teaches, and then make up their own mind about it. Find out what the Church teaches, and then say yes or no. In other words, this sociologist, whose observations are included in the State Journal article, believes that what Vatican II did for the Church is make possible “cafeteria Catholicism.” Vatican II pushed “cafeteria Catholicism. O, you have to find out what the Church teaches, but then you decide whether you have to follow it or not.
If one is called to be Catholic, one follows what the Church teaches. That is the correct understanding of conscience. And if one really cannot follow what the Church teaches, then one’s conscience requires that one leave the Church. But one’s conscience does not require that one make up one’s own personal religion from A to Z, finding out the Church’s teaching, and then saying, “Well that’s O.K., that’s O.K., that’s O.K.; over here, I don’t like this, I will cast my line-item veto, on what the Church teaches.
Cafeteria Catholics were not always blind, but now they are, and they don’t want to see. And the reason they don’t want to see is that there are people around telling them the whole point of Vatican II was to create cafeteria Catholicism. How could that ever be true?
There are many Catholics who happen to be Democrats, who don’t want to see. There are many Catholics who happen to be Republicans, who don’t want to see.
What is there to see?
A candidate who promotes abortion without restraint and at no cost.
Promotes abortion. And on top of it, it’s free. Promotes artificial contraception. And it’s free.
Sometimes I think to myself, “It would make sense that someone would not worry about the effects of colossal death on future generations if their policy discourages future generations. If abortion is promoted, free, if artificial contraception is promoted, free, who are going to people future generations? The birth rate goes down, down, down, down, down. And so you worry less about handing on a debt to future generations because there might not be any, if we just abortion and artificial birth control ourselves as a culture and a society into oblivion.
This is very serious business. And yet there are many who call themselves Catholics who don’t want to see.
Written in our very human nature, in the language of our body, by the Creator, is that marriage means one husband, one wife, one lifetime, with openness to children. Every human being has the right to marry the person he chooses, or she chooses, of the opposite sex. No one’s right to marry a person of the opposite sex is threatened. But there is no right to redefine marriage as same-sex marriage.
To redefine marriage is to attack the essence of being human. “God made them human, male and female.” And He made them for marriage. He gave their bodies a nuptial meaning. That’s who we are as human. We are male and female. If that doesn’t matter, then humanity as it was created starts to ebb away. And now we have people who want to play some kind of a game that is deadly to humanity, that says, “Well, let the child be born, and after some years, let him or her decide whether he wants to be he or she.”
Instead of being what God created me to be, I become what I think I am. God is no longer in charge, what I think is in charge. I don’t want to see.
Many Catholics, unfortunately, are caught up in that. And if someone does not want to see, there’s no hope for healing. Because they don’t know that they need to be healed, obviously. And look at the press and the television, the mass media. We’re getting an overdose of it every day. “I don’t want to see what happened in Libya, in Benghazi. I don’t want to see it—at least until the election is over. Then, maybe. ”
Bartimaeus’ salvation turned out to be in those four words,, “I want to see.” Our country, and our culture, including many Catholics, proclaim, “I don’t want to see.”
That’s the challenge of the New Evangelization. And that’s the challenge that awaits our country that we have to face, ready or not, on November the 6th, and I’m terribly afraid that we’re not ready to face it. Because an electorate that doesn’t want to see, including Catholics, cannot elect wisely.
You and I have to be instruments of waking people up out of their blindness. They’re blind, and they think it’s fine. At least for right now. That blindness could lead our country more and more in the direction of inhumanity. As a result of this election, our country could become more and more and more inhuman – in it’s soul – and the consequences of that foreseen and unseen would be catastrophic. This is the most important election in my lifetime, the essence of what it is to be human is what’s at stake. That’s far more important than the economy. Because if humanity is under attack, nothing can go right with the economy.
We have to pray hard, and we have to speak up, in the next nine or ten days, to our friends, our neighbors, our fellow family members who don’t want to see. If the can discover that in not wanting to see there is no hope, there is no joy, maybe they would repent, by God’s grace. And so above all, we have to pray for them, pray for our country, pray for those who do not want to see. That they will decide in the favor of hope, and for the long-term future of our country they will choose life, rather than death, for humanity.
Getting Past the Theatrics;
Going Right to the Substance
It’s Not Fixed
First, a Short Word On the Theatrics
The performances so far have been most entertaining.
Romney mopped the floor with Obama in the first presidential debate; even the liberal press agreed. Chris Matthews, not too pleased with Obama’s performance, had an epic meltdown, live, on MSNBC.
During the vice presidential debate last week, Biden put on a performance that elicited speculations on dementia and drunkenness, as well as a three-minute roast by the usually very liberal Saturday Night Live.
No comedy act, however, topped the actual video of the Vice President’s performance:
Poised for more mayhem in the second presidential debate last night, I was somewhat relieved to find that a certain degree of sanity was restored.
President Obama no longer looked like a deer in the headlights, and with the exception of one Drudge Report photo, he did not nervously leer, make faces at his opponent or the cameras (much), as Biden had done last week.
Well, Romney isn’t looking; let me just give him a quick evil eye…
But now back to the substance!
Cuttting Through the Folly
More important than laughing or wondering at the performances, is to cut through the folly, and to analyze the substance.
And the substance consists of two major components in this election: policy and reliability.
Policy - how do the candidates and their party propose to solve our biggest problems today?
Reliability- will the candidates and their parties actually do what they say they will do, or are the candidates liars?
Policy – What Do Voters Say America Needs?
Yesterday’s MSNBC leading headline read: What readers want answered at the presidential debate: Gas prices, Social Security, jobs.
Translation: Economy is the primary problem facing our nation and concerning our voters today.
Aside: Some Americans, myself included, believe thatabortionis the primary problem/issue facing our nation. That economy is actually dependent upon abortion. That a nation that kills its own children cannot prosper. That no amount of economic prosperity can justify the killing of 54 million human beings. That economic prosperity will not be bestowed on a nation that defies God’s fundamental commandments. But, although correct, that is not the dominating mainstream thought, and is a subject for a future blog article.
Back to Economy, the primary problem readers wanted answered at last night’s presidential debate.
Obama-Biden Economic Policy
The Obama-Biden team proposes to solve economic problems by raising taxes on the rich, in contrast to Ryan and Romney’s plans to solve economic problems by cutting spending, and cutting taxes, in order to create jobs, which would generate an expanding economy, resulting in increased government revenue.
Biden’s statement one week before the October 11th debate outlined and clarified the Obama-Biden position on the economy: .
Biden clearly stated their intention to let the trillion dollar “Bush” tax cuts expire, effectively raising $1 Trillion worth of taxes. The tax cuts would only be extended for all households earning less than $250,000 per year, so those households would have no effective tax hike. The $1 Trillion tax would be paid only by people earning $250,000 or more per year.
The Slogan is catchy: $1 Trillion Tax Hike for Top Earners
Sounds like a great idea, doesn’t it?
We get Scrooge McDuck to fork over all the extra money we want to spend.
But is that possible?
Will it produce enough money to cover Obama’s spending?
How much will we be taking from the “rich guys”?
How will the “rich guys” respond to this maneuver?
Let’s look at some details.
That won’t dent Obama’s annual $1.3 Trillion deficit much, but let’s continue with the analysis, because it leads to a surprising place.
For data on how many rich guys there are, and how much money they have, we looked at the Tax Foundation’s Data Tables. They don’t list Obama-Biden’s top 1.5%ers who earn $250,000 per year or more, but they do list the 1%ers, who earn $340,000 per year or more. Close enough for our purposes. The two sets of numbers are not likely to differ too much.
The top 1% group has a combined Adjusted Gross Income of $1.3 Trillion, of which they already pay 24%, or $0.3 Trillion in tax per year. In order to raise another 0.25 Trillion from this group as Biden proposes, they would have to be taxed an additional 19%, almost a doubling of their Federal tax bill. Their federal tax would go up from 24% to 43%.
Jaguar XF ($82,000)
So, the small businessman or doctor who now earns $340,000 per year already pays $82,000 in Federal income tax per year. Yes, that’s right, each small businessman or doctor first gives the federal government the equivalent of a Jaguar XF every year. Add Social Security, Medicare, and State and Local tax deductions, and rich guy’s annual take-home pay becomes about $227,000. Now he has given Uncle Sam about $113,000 per year; a Mercedes SL55AMG every year. (This car can do 155 mph.) On top of this now, the Obama-Biden proposal would raise these people’s federal taxes an additional 19% and would mean an additional $65,000 in taxes for that household. This would bring down their take-home income to $162,000. The total given over to the government would be $178,000 per year; like buying the government an Aston Martin DB9 Volante every year. This household is left with 48% take-home pay of $162,000 per year, after they started with $340,000.
Aston Martin DB9 Volante ($178,000)
This also changes the proportion of taxes that the 1%ers pay. Right now, as a group, they pay 37% of all federal income taxes. Yes, the 1% pays 37% of our bills. The new Obama-Biden proposal would change this to the 1%ers paying 66% of all of America’s federal taxes. WOW!
Doubling a Household’s Federal Income Tax
How many Americans in any income bracket can afford to have their federal taxes doubled and to have their take-home pay reduced to 48%?
Most people earning upwards of $250,000 don’t work 9-to-5 for a boss. Not too many bosses are that generous with salaries. Many of these “rich guys” own a small business and are working long hours. Evenings and weekends. Others are medical doctors, who are running an office and are paying off medical school loans. Whether they are businesses or doctors, they will have to come up with the extra $65,000 Obama and Biden want somewhere. Guess where that will be? They will hire less help at the business or office, and they will cancel any plans of expansion. Their actions will eliminate jobs, and will stifle the economy. The people working under them will lose their jobs.
Biden and Obama’s proposal to hike up taxes by failing to extend expiring tax cuts is often termed Taxmageddon. This plan could push the U.S. back into a recession, and the Taxmageddon expiration date is fast approaching – January 1, 2013, in two months.
Summarizing the Obama-Biden Economic Policy:
Here’s a summary of Obama-Biden’s economic plans :
Obama/Biden will double taxes on the “rich guys” with Taxmageddon. The 1%ers who now already pay 37% of the nation’s federal tax bill will get to pay 66% of the nation’s tax bill.
Another recession? Who cares?
This maneuver will only reduce the deficit by 0.25 Trillion per year (19%)? Who cares?
The national debt, now $16 Trillion, will continue to grow at the rate of $1 Trillion per year? Who cares? Not Obama/Biden.
Despite the ballooning deficit, Obama-Biden will continue spending.
Whenever Romney proposes spending cuts, Obama-Biden will ridicule the solution most households (or nations) in serious debt ought to use – they will ridicule spending cuts.
Obama-Biden will particularly ridicule cutting government funds to Big Bird. No matter that Big Bird is a one-percenter with an annual income of over $50 million per year, about four times higher that what Mitt Romney makes. Yet Big Bird still gets federal subsidies through PBS, and Obama-Biden don’t want to see those cut. Who cares?
Biden-Obama will also ridicule Romney’s plans to cut Planned Parenthood funding. Planned Parenthood continues to make money, despite its status as a nonprofit organization. Planned Parenthood is now a $1 Billion Group which makes a profit from it’s primary income generator, abortion, and which still receives 46% of it’s budget from tax money. 51% of Planned Parenthood’s revenue comes from abortions.
Two thirds of America opposes federal funding of abortion. But who cares? Obama likes abortion, and he loves Planned Parenthood. Why not subsidize more 1%ers, as long as they are Obama’s friends?
Big Bird and Planned Parenthood were 1%ers.
Solyndra and a series of over 20 green energy companies which received $4 Billion in federal grants? All 1%ers.
But they are Obama’s friends, so that’s O.K.
Anyone who supports Obama with donations or in the media is Obama’s friend. He will help them all become 1%ers. And they don’t need to worry about taxation, Obama will make sure his friends obtain or retain tax-exempt status no matter how rich they are, like Big Bird and Planned Parenthood.
Reliability and Honesty
That leads us to reliability and honesty, the second major component of importance in this election.
What good are promised policies, if they are never implemented?
What good are debates, if lies are used in the arguments?
The last two debates, Biden’s and last night Obama’s, were fraught with lies.
Not only Biden and Obama lied, but moderator Crowley lied and manipulated last night.
During the Vice Presidential debate, Joe Biden lied about religious freedom, about Libya, about Medicare, lied about his own voting record for the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war, lied about the Iranian nuclear program, lied about Ryan cutting embassy security budget, lied about his previous debate with Sarah Palin, and lied about the details of the Bush tax cuts. See the above links for details.
Obama lied about tax cuts made by himself, about Romney’s statements in interviews, about Romney’s immigration views, about mammograms provided by Planned Parenthood, about tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, about oil and gas production on federal lands, about women’s salary discrepancies, about Romney’s intentions toward auto manufacturers, and about his own misrepresentation of the Benghazi attacks as demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video.
Gaffe: Obama claimed that low gas prices cratered our economy and will crater it again if Romney is elected and gets gas prices down.
Yes, you read that right: President Obama seems to believe that low gas prices kill the economy. It’s not Obama’s economic policies that have damaged our economy, it’s the low gas prices that he inherited from Bush that have damaged our economy. And if you elect Romney, he will lower the gas prices again, and he will thus damage the economy again.
How did that come out of the mouth of the President of the United States?
Candy Crowley’s Debate Lies and Biased Manipulations
Debate moderator Candy Crowley interrupted Romney when he accused President Obama of not acknowledging that the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror the day after the Benghazi attacks. She was wrong, admitted she was wrong after the debate, and it turns out that she had been in perfect command of these facts almost 3 weeks ago, but conveniently forgot the facts when jumping to silence Romney during the debate. She saved Obama with a false fact-check:
While moderating Tuesday’s debate, Crowley forgot the timeline and facts she commanded two weeks earlier, and she inexplicably took President Obama’s side when Obama and Romney were arguing about whether Obama referred to the Libya attacks as acts of terror on the day after. – Breitbart.com
There has even been a sugggestion that Candy Crowley may have acted in collusion with Obama in this interchange; the probability that Candy Crowley would have the text of the President’s Rose Garden speech handy and opened to the correct line on such short notice has been questioned.
On Policy, Obama-Biden propose to continue the bulk of their present spending. The taxation of the “rich” which they propose will generate inadequate revenue to staunch the fiscal bleed, and will risk a second, larger recession.
Romney-Ryan propose the repeal of ObamaCare and tax cuts to spur the growth of business; when business grows, government tax income grows without increasing taxation.
History has shown repeatedly that reduction of tax rates generates more prosperity, so that a larger chunk of the tax burden is taken on by rich people when you lower rich people’s taxes, because their businesses start to flourish. They not only transact more business, and give the government more taxes, but they also create more jobs. This phenomenon was observed three times in the 20th century, in the 1920’s, and under Presidents JFK in the 1960’s and Reagan in the 1980’s; more tax revenue went back to the federal government each time the taxes were lowered.
The explanation for this seemingly contradictory phenomenon is that rich people reinvest more in their businesses, expand, generate more jobs, keep their businesses in the US, and thus generate a more thriving, larger economy when you lower taxes on the rich. Taking a smaller percentage from a larger number of rich guys give you more money in the end.
This is why nations do not overtax the rich. Overtax the rich, and they either go away or they close their companies and the nation loses jobs.
Apparently, United States top earners already pay a larger share of taxes than any other industrialized nation. America’s top 10% earners pay 45% of the nation’s tax bill. President Obama apparently wants to hike up the amount that our top earners will pay to something on the order of 66%.
Any logical person must either challenge President Obama’s grasp of fundamental economics and arithmetic, or must challenge his dedication to his sworn duty to protect this nation as President of the United States. This has been suggested by some; 2016: The Movie points out the compatibility of President Obama’s actions during the past four years with an anti-colonialist philosophy that seeks to level the global playing field and to take away America’s economic advantage. But either way, one cannot rationally, based on economy, vote for Obama on Novemer 6th.
So take your pick: would you prefer that your job depends on “rich” people like small businesses or doctors hiring you and paying a competitive rate for your work, or would you rather have the government take the “rich” people’s money, squander much of it on creating 1%er jobs for previous campaign donors, and dole the rest out to you through meager welfare checks, which expire and no longer regard you as unemployed after 26 weeks, as Obama is doing now?
Reliance on our rich people for jobs = democracy.
Reliance on the government for jobs = communism.
Reliability and Trust
Neither Obama, nor Biden have given America any reason to believe anything they promise. Few of their 2008 campaign promises have been fulfilled, and their debates are laced with lies and fallacious attacks on Romney/Ryan, rather than a focus on a serious plan for repairing the economy.
Sorry fellas, the Taxing the Rich slogan won’t work. We just disproved it with arithmetic, and Obama has disproved it in practice during the last four years. The Taxing the Rich slogan will only get you votes from those who don’t know their arithmetic, and who are bitter, envious, and who want to bite the hand that feeds them.
Results Not Too Surprising
In the light of all that has been discussed, it is not surprising that as the debates progress, Romney is beginning to beat Obama in the polls.
And speaking of polls, and speaking as a person who has hung up the telephone on at least 40 pollsters during the last few months, and who as a conservative, in Clint Eastwood’s words, “plays it closer to the vest,” and as someone who has previously blogged about the disparity between poll results and election results, particularly in the Walker Recall Re-Election, I would not be surprised if President Obama is ousted by a landslide less than 3 weeks from now, by a much larger margin than any poll ever shows. Conservatives often refrain from participating in polls.
How sadly right Clint Eastwood was about the empty chair!
“When someone does not do their job, we have to let them go.”
Confirming my suspicions, later today, two pieces of news came out:
President Clinton, during a campaign event in Ohio today, acknowledged that the economy is not fixed:
Governor Romney’s argument is “We’re not fixed, so fire him, and put me in.” It is true, we’re not fixed. When President Obama looked into the eyes of that man, who said, in the debate, “I had so much hope four years ago, and I don’t now,” I though he was going to cry. Because he knows that it’s not fixed. – Bill Clinton
Yet Rep. Todd Akin, not even a medical expert, is being attacked for believing that the violent nature of rape might prevent conception, a concept suggested by medical doctors online! Duh, maybe the stress of a rape might affect the outcome; after all, stress is one of the leading causes of infertility in 2012. People, including members of his own party, are demanding that Akin drop out of the Missouri Senate race as a result of stating this medical opinion.
Liberals are just looking for any dirty tactic to knock out contenders for Senate seats. Why don’t they clean up their own act first? And why are Republicans so quick to join in and go on the defensive?
True choice would let a woman be rewarded equally for choosing life. If the government doesn’t contribute towards raising children, why should it contribute towards destroying them?
Women’s Rights and Women’s Votes
The squeaky wheel minority who just doesn't get the point.
Liberals might also stop claiming women’s votes and fabricating the non-existant “War on Women.” It is unwarranted to imply that Democrats represent women’s interests better than Republicans do. Actually, conservatism outweighs liberalism in both genders – Gallup poll. More than half of all women are conservatives, yet the liberals lie, and claim to represent their interests. Liberals claim that conservatives, the group favored by both women and men, is declaring a war on women. How can anybody take them seriously?
Moreover, 2/3 of America (including women) opposes federal funding of abortion, yet liberals ignore that.
Republicans should focus on how liberals LIE, and how they are ANTIi-democracy and ANTI-choice, rather than rushing to cooperate with liberals in picking off conservatives one by one for errors that they make.
What Women Want- Media and Liberals Have it Wrong
Most women love and want their babies, and don’t appreciate the suggestion that their baby is a burden which should be painfully dismembered and discarded. 64% of women who have abortions were coerced, pressured by others into abortion. Abortion is the unfair choice.
Liberals brag about providing free $7 birth control pills through ObamaCare mandates, but do nothing to strengthen the family, or to help women keep their babies, which is the BEST way to raise good future citizens. Providing pills thorugh ObamaCare is simply a cheap trick for buying votes, which insults women by presuming their ignorance.
The REAL War on Women
Obama mandating what's good for women
The REAL War on Women is being waged by the Obama Administration and it is waged on a woman’s intelligence. Obama offers to buy women’s votes, an intellectual prostitution of sorts, and implies that women are so stupid that they will get on board : “You are so stupid that I can purchase your vote for $7 worth of birth control pills per month, and you will not notice that you still have to pay for your own aspirin, food, rent, and everything else. For $84 per year, I get your vote, and you foolishly believe that I have your bests interests at heart.”
Republicans Should Spend Less Time Reacting to Democrat (Alinsky) Attacks, and Spend More Time Attacking the Dissolute and Illogical Morality and Bad Policies of the Obama Adminsitration
In addition to the above CNS speculations on whether the GOP is dumping their wounded because they are nervous about the popularity of their social and moral positions, I will suggest that recent in-fighting in the Republican Party may also influence the willingness of some “moderate” Republicans to discard their more staunchly conservative colleagues. See The Presumptive Nominee, or The Secret Insurrection.
Yesterday (8-23-12) a FOX opinion, written by psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow, blasted Todd Akin, putting words in his mouth, or rather, attributing thoughts to him, and then proceeded to psychoanalyze him in a most unflattering and unjustified way. Dr. Ablow actually suggested that Todd Akin believes that “women consciously or unconsciously wanted to be fertilized by the men they are identifying as their rapists.”
Ablow’s analysis was based on projection and supposition, and not on what Todd Akin had actually said.
Dr. Ablow should lose his medical license over such unprofessional meddling in politics if he does not publish an apology and a retraction.
In actual fact, Todd Akins’ reasoning may have been quite simple: stress is well known to be one of the major causes of infertility. Rape clearly produces a phenomenal level of stress. An online doctor at Christian Life Resources claims that rape rarely produces pregnancy, and analyzes the scientific reasons why this might be true. Whether this analysis is correct or not, Todd Akin cannot be blamed for believing it, or some similar scientific analysis. Maybe the level of stress and terror in a rape could prevent conception; nobody has the data to indicate either way.
A Double Standard in Defining Rape
Finally, Todd Akin’s use of the word “legitimate” rape distinguishes the rape from a statutory rape, in which, for example, a 17-year-old woman could have willingly participated, yet is legally labeled a rape. Our culture cannot simultaneously allow Planned Parenthood to hand out condoms to 12-year-olds with instructions on their use, then lynch any man who slept with a 17-year-old. What about her 18-year-old boyfriend who has been sleeping with her for 5 years, but now he is 18 and she is 17, and suddenly it’s statutory rape? What about casual college “hook-ups,” in which the 17-year-old freshman (freshwoman) lies about her age?
The term “legitimate” rape also distinguishes rapes from false accusations, which are a possibility in the real world.
This is the United States of America, and no woman should have the power to destroy the career and life of any man of her choice by simply accusing him of rape.
If men are guilty until proven innocent, our democracy and our Constitution are a farce.
Women are not guilty until proven innocent, at least not yet.
Taking Life and Death Out of the Hands of Providence and Placing them into the Hands of Human Beings Paves the Way for Tyranny
Why Democrats Should Rethink Abortion
January 22, 2012 marked 39years since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion in the United States (1973).
For 39 years, we have been terminating pregnancies clandestinely, most of us giving little thought to the ethics, economic implications, medical dangers, psychological effects, or any other aspect of abortion.
Media does not discuss abortion. Friends and relatives rarely mention abortion. Yet one third of all children conceived since 1973 in the US (54 million of them) have been aborted. That means that 15% of our population is missing, and that one out of every 7 people is missing. And, if you consider that they would also have had some children, the number missing is even greater. Many of us may be missing brothers and sisters about whom we know nothing. Scores of women we know have aborted children, and most of us know nothing about it.
The present article reviews the enormity of abortion, its effects on our entire society, and the exploitation of whole populations by modern politicians, who appear to be motivated by the same quest for power and gain as famous historical tyrants.
The central questions:
Is abortion right or wrong?
Is abortion a big deal?
How much is 52 million?
Do most Americans favor abortion?
Are women who have had abortions better off?
Why do most women avoid discussing their abortions?
Is a fetus a dispensable blob of tissue (see photo above), or is it a human being with a right to life guaranteed by the US Constitution?
Have we done anything to imbalance our society and our economy with all of this abortion?
What are the major motivations of abortion proponents? continue reading…
UN Officials Wrong. No Right to Abortion.
New Expert Document Issued at United Nations
Where: UN Press Briefing Room, Dag Hammarskjold Auditorium
When: October 6, 2011, 11 a.m.
What: Launch of the San Jose Articles
OPEN TO UN ACCREDITED PRESS
Tomorrow morning at the UN press briefing room, internationally recognized scholar Professor Robert George of Princeton and former US Ambassador Grover Joseph Rees will challenge claims made by UN personnel and others that there exists an international right to abortion in international law.
As recently as a few weeks ago the UN Special Rapporteur on Health, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Secretary General have all said such a right exists. And, according to Human Rights Watch the CEDAW Committee has directed 93 countries to change their laws on abortion.
Professor George, Ambassador Rees and 30 other international experts are releasing the San Jose Articles to refute these claims and to assert the rights of the unborn child in international law.
Other signatories to the Articles include Professor John Finnis of Oxford, Professor John Haldane of the University of St. Andrews, Francisco Tatad, the former majority leader of the Philippine Senate, Javier Borrego, former Judge of the European Court of Human Rights, and Professor Carter Snead of UNESCOs international committee on bioethics. continue reading…
You should stop calling abortion a woman’s “right.”
Half of all women disagree with you. Half of all women are pro-life, and half of all women believe that abortion is morally wrong – Gallup Poll 2011.
Women have no more “right” to kill an inconvenient child than they have to kill an inconvenient husband, an inconvenient elder parent, or an inconvenient neighbor.
Abortion also hurts women physically, emotionally and psychologically — abortion facts.
As a woman, I have a right not to have my taxes spent on the killing of human beings and the damaging of women’s lives.
There is a new, much improved feminism which is superior to the old outdated feminism which demanded the destruction of what a woman values the most—her family.
Alan (name changed):
And the half that don’t agree with you Syte? Their voices matter less than yours? Abortion is legal whether or not you agree with it. You might want to revise your BS line about it being the same as killing a husband. Or was that “not intended to be a factual statement”? By your logic I have a right not to have my tax dollars go towards illegal foreign wars and gas subsidies. In a democracy you don’t always get what you want.
If you want democracy, the Gallup poll shows that 51% of Americans consider abortion to be morally wrong, while 39% find it morally acceptable. Not that public opinion can alter morality, but even on your terms, you lose.
BTW, despite your attempts to call pro-life opinions “BS”, morally, the “wrongness” of the killing of a pre-born child is not less than the killing of a husband. A human is a human, no matter how small.
From the the exact same poll you keep posting 49% are Pro-Choice while a measly 46% are Pro-Life (or anti-choice as I like to call it). A human is a human sure but a fetus is a fetus and a zygote is a zygote and abortion is legal. Tell me again why Republicans did NOTHING while they controlled ALL of the federal government from 2001-2006? Keep fighting the good fight though if it makes you feel morally superior. It’s a fight you’ll never win. As soon as Republicans take action they lose this as a wedge issue. And that’s all this is. Republicans manipulating Christians.
No need to get so emotional. Perhaps YOU like to feel morally superior, but you have no grounds for throwing that accusation at me. It is possible to disagree with people and to debate the facts without feeling morally superior or turning it into a fight.
You might like to call pro-lifers “anti-choice,” but I refrain from calling you guys “pro-murder,” and I also point out that the only reason that you are debating with me today, and the only reason other readers are reading this, is that nobody killed US when we were zygotes, fetuses, pre-borns, or whatever terminology pleases you.
So what about the “choice” of the unborn child? The Constitution guarantees the right to “life, liberty and property.” Abortion takes away the first, fundamental right, life, without which there can be no further rights.
Just trying to put the facts out there. BTW, you misquoted the poll. You might concede that within the error margin of the Gallup poll, Americans have been pretty much 50/50 on pro-life and pro-choice for the last several years. Which, incidentally, is quite a change from the 33/56 ratio we had in 1996, fifteen years ago. Like it or not, Americans are rapidly turning pro-life, as they find out more about abortion and its effects on women, on children and on society.
51% say abortion is morally wrong, while 39% say it’s morally permissible.
27% say abortion should be legal under any circumstances.
37% say abortion should be legal under most circumstances
61% say that abortion should be legal under no or few circumstances.
Regarding majorities and abortion and why the Republicans have not reversed abortion, you should know better, unless you have not been following this issue. There has never been a vote on the legality of abortion in the United States, either by the people, or by the legislature. Abortion decisions, starting with Roe v. Wade, have been made by APPOINTED judges who were not elected, and who do not represent the will of the American people in any way. When a liberal president appoints a liberal judge, we are stuck with that liberal judge’s decisions for the tenure, regardless of the will of the people or of the legislature. Liberals have found a loophole in the Constitution, by which the will of the people can be circumvented. Glad to have the opportunity to point that out.
Yeah that damned Liberal court we have now sure is making decisions based on the will of the people. Is that thier job? Their job is to interpret the law, or in Clarence thomas’ case sleep through the process while others interpret the law. I only pointed out the near 50/50 tie becasue you decided 51% in a poll on morality was enough to support your argument. Stating that a pre-born child is a life is also not a certainty. It’s not according to the US Constituiton or the bible so where do you get the idea that life starts at conception? What I want is for conservatives to stick to thier supposed values. Keep the government out of the uterus.
Alan, you wrote: “Stating that a pre-born child is a life is also not a certainty….. not according to …..the bible.”
No? Not a certainty, unless you consult moral experts—including most major religions, the Dalai Lama, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Hindus, Islamic leaders, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, Oriental Orthodoxy, Orthodox Judaism, Protestant Churches (all Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Charismatic and other Evangelical denominations), the Southern Baptist Convention, the Roman Catholic Church, and thousands of other moral experts including over 1,000 pro-life groups that are not affiliated with religious denominations, who all oppose abortion on demand. These moral experts are not in vehement opposition to the surgical removal of a mole, but to the termination of a human life.
Also, your claim that a pre-born child may not be a “life” IS addressed in the Bible:
“And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the INFANT leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost”- Luke 1:41
John the Baptist was a second-trimester baby at the time that he is described in the Bible as an “infant.” Christ, to whom John the Baptist was responding, was an embryo, probably a few weeks old. Surely, the Bible’s use of the term “infant,” and the ability of persons to recognize and respond to each other, indicates the existence of “life”?
Throughout our society our laws and language acknowledge the “life” of a pre-born child:
Murderers get charged with TWO counts of murder when they murder pregnant women.
A child only seems to lose human life status when he or she becomes “inconvenient,” and comes under consideration for abortion. Then the language of dehumanization kicks in, to whitewash what is really going on, and to make it more palatable.
Steven (name changed):
Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage
specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”
The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.
Your quotation actually shows that under Mosaic Law a pregnant woman was acknowledged to be carrying a CHILD, and that causing the loss of that child “will surely be punished.”
HOW do you contort that into claiming that Mosaic Law approved abortion? Your quotation actually does the opposite of approving abortion. It acknowledges the human life existing in the woman and specifies punishment for the destruction of that life.
You are really grasping at straws.
You fail to investigate the bible’s definition of life (breath) or its deafening silence on abortion. Moreover, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25, directly following the Ten Commandments, makes it clear that an embryo or fetus is not a human being.
If you are an American christian, you may want to check out these groups:
American Baptist Churches-USA, American Ethical Union, American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Episcopal Church, utheran Women’s Caucus, Moravian Church in America-Northern Province, Presbyterian Church (USA), Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, United Synagogue of America, Women’s Caucus Church of the Brethren, YWCA, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Catholics for Free Choice, Evangelicals for Choice
Of course, the fact that we are having this discussion is because you were not aborted as a child. This unequivocally proves that the developing fetus is a human being, unless I am now debating with just a huge mass of cells.
It is dangerous to interpret a “deafening silence” in your own favor. For example, before Sept 11th, there was a “deafening silence” in the U.S. and in our homeland security policies regarding flying airplanes into buildings. It cannot be inferred from that silence that the U.S. approved of flying airplanes into buildings. It is more reasonable to infer that such a heinous act was never imagined to be possible before Sept 11th.
So it is equally possible, and even more probable, that the relative silence of the Bible ( don’t dismiss my Luke 1:41 example above, which the vast majority of religions interpret as evidence that a preborn child is as human as the rest of us!), that the relative silence of the Bible on abortion was due to:
The violent and destructive nature of abortion, which rendered it an unthinkable act previously –something no one in their right mind would consider, akin to flying airplanes into buildings.
The tremendous medical risks associated with abortion without the assistance of modern technology, which was not available at the time.
Regarding your listing of some Christian Churches which allow abortion– the reason for the historical proliferation of Christian Churches in recent times is the fact that people who wished to justify what was previously considered to be morally wrong split off from the first Church – starting with divorce, now including abortion. Finding a church which approves your favorite transgression of previously accepted morality is not the best way to go, for anyone interested in what is REALLY right or really wrong.
We don’t usually make our own unprofessional conclusions before seeking a doctor, engineer, lawyer, or home inspection expert who agrees with us. We call in the experts, and ask THEM for guidance. So, too, with a church—if you decide for yourself whether abortion is morally right or wrong, then choose a marginal church according to your own conclusion, then you are wasting your time. You might as well call yourself Church and be done with it.
You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of mainstream religions do not approve abortion. You misquote the policies of some churches – for example, the United Methodist Church does NOT condone abortion – “The United Methodist Church upholds the sanctity of human life and is reluctant to affirm abortion as an acceptable practice” – Wikipedia on Christianity and Abortion . Similarly, not all Presbyterian Churches allow abortion. Catholics for a Free Choice are not a church, but a miniscule minority group of dissidents within the Catholic Church, who have been excommunicated. Their membership comprises 0.001 of 1% of Catholics. I have not checked the rest of your list, but you might be wrong on quite a few of them.
The Hippocratic Oath, used by humanity to define the ethics of medicine, included (for over 2 thousand years) the now-abandoned statement: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” (Hippocratic Oath)
Abortion has numerous harmful effects on the mother, including physical risk, psychological damage, and increased breast cancer risk. Abortion also has effects on a woman’s ability to have successful future pregnancies, and on the psychological well-being of other children born to that mother. (AbortionFacts.com)
So HOW is it that the University of Wisconsin continues to show an interest in providing second trimester abortions?
Does UW Madison defy democracy?
Does UW Madison defy the majority’s accepted standards of ethics and morality?
Does UW Madison defy Wisconsin law?
Does UW Madison fail to distinguish between health CARE and killing?
We people of Wisconsin need to make some phone calls and send some emails!
Syte Reitz grew up in Queens, New York, in a family of Lithuanian immigrants who fled Nazi and Soviet domination during World War II. Her education includes a Ph.D. in Biochemistry, and post-doctoral work at Princeton University. Syte left her job as an Assistant Professor at Oakland University, Michigan, to devote herself to raising her children, and ultimately homeschooled them through the end of high school. She is a member of Madison's Cathedral Parish.