Yesterday it was revealed that a Planned Parenthood center in New Jersey gave advice on how to cover up sex trafficking 14 year old girls. Do they actually plan parenthood at this organization? The details are disgusting and oh, by the way, Planned Parenthood receives tax funding for some reason. Here are the details on the sting operation.
The sting operation has the actors looking into testing for sexually transmitted diseases and contraception and birth control for their female underage sex slaves. Planned Parenthood officials say they want to help the pair make their whole operation “look as legit as possible.”
The pro-life student-led organization Live Action released the video footage this morning, which already received national attention when Planned Parenthood officials went public with information concerning their complaints to the FBI abut the undercover activity. The complaints were met with scoffs by those who believe the abortion business was trying to make itself look good after the fact.
If liberals feel so strongly about the importance of Planned Parenthood it’s time for them to start funding it themselves. It’s also a sad indictment of the media that it takes groups like the pro-life student-led organization Live Action to get to the bottom of this issue.
If you give lawmakers enough time they’ll come up with a law for anything. Brooklyn Senator Karl Kruge has decided that people walking and talking on cellphones are a problem. It’s time to ban the practice.
Brooklyn Sen. Karl Kruger is looking to ban things like cell phones and iPods for pedestrians crossing the street.
“We have people who are literally dying in the street,” Kruger said.
Dying, Kruger said, not because they are distracted drivers but because they are distracted walkers. Charles Tabasso, 14, admitted he’s one of them because he listens to his iPod constantly.
Really, stuff like this is beyond parody. People are “literally dying in the street?” When I forwarded this article to Club Soda he responded with an even better idea. How about just banning people? Well, 39 percent of pregnancies in New York City already end in abortion so it appears that some of the population is behind the idea. I doubt Senator Kruger is going to pass a law about the children literally being murdered.
"Tim Tebow is a Christian who actually acts like one. Man, I hate that guy. I don't know why, but I'm sure there's no God." Anonymous
Stigmata: Today’s big news is that a homosexual judge ruled that California’s Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment. Also, according to Judge Vaughn Walker, “Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians.” What stigma is that, you ask? I guess the stigma that the people of the liberal state of California will always be overturned by judges who have an obvious conflict of interest.
Add this to the list of decisions to be eventually made by Supreme Court Justice Kennedy. Personally, this “issue” is getting way too much attention. Maybe the Judge can ban some of the disgusting gay pride parades while he’s at it. That’s more damaging to the homosexual cause than the ban on gay marriages. I wish our liberal friends who are judges would actually strike down some laws that would actually help the average American. They could start with ObamaCare.
So Goes Missouri: The state of Missouri has an anti-health care mandate on ballot and a mere 75.8 percent of voters oppose the mandate. Republicans who are too cowardly to repeal ObamaCare need to get the message.
Stacking the Fed: Two years ago I wrote about how the Democrats were taking the unprecedented measure of blocking Bush’s appointments to the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. The blocking maneuver was a success because now Obama has appointed five out of the seven seats. The Senate panel headed by the corruptocrat Senator Chris Dodd told reporters “the members of the board will clearly have their hands full.” Thanks to Dodd the Board of Governors has faced a fiscal crisis short handed for the past two years. Where’s the press coverage on this?
Undecided: What!?! Brett Favre hasn’t retired? Who could see this coming?
Hating Tebow: I’m not a fan of Tim Tebow. I don’t really have a choice. I’m a Georgia Bulldog fan, which means I spend every bowl season in a gutter with a bottle of gin. Tebow seems like a likable and decent guy, but he played for those annoying jorts-wearing faux Southerners who call themselves Gators. Michelle Olson hates Tim Tebow and the Denver Post tells us why.
Michelle Olson calls herself the anti-Tebow. She is a diehard Broncos fan but has no love in her heart for its limelight-stealing sensation, rookie quarterback and evangelical everyman Tim Tebow.
“He’s a big distraction and has done nothing to prove he’s NFL material,” the 25-year-old Fort Collins woman said Tuesday morning at Broncos training camp in Dove Valley.
It’s Tebow’s eagerness to share his Christian values and beliefs that really irks her.
“That’s why I hate him,” she said. “It’s my personal opinion that if you don’t have a uterus, you don’t have a right to express an opinion about abortion,” Olson snapped.
I’m all for this! Women are more opposed to abortion than men. If this issue were solely up to women it would be illegal. My guess is Olson hasn’t really “thought” about that. I wonder what she thinks about people who give opinions who don’t have brains?
Tweet of the Day: Dennis Miller sums up the New York City mosque issue up perfectly.
That Muslims can build a mosque at the WTC tells you everything about America. That they WILL build it, tells you everything about Islam.
Sounds a lot like Mark Steyn. Steyn, where are you?
For those scoring at home if ObamaCare doesn’t pass it’s because the Democrats in Washington insisted on making taxpayers pay for abortion. That’s right. There’s not one good thing you can say about a party committed to making taxpayers pay for the most divisive issue in the nation since slavery.
The party of “choice” doesn’t believe Americans should have a choice on guns, education or health care. The only real choice the left believes in is letting the State choose what to do with our lives.
There’s no new ground to make on abortion so I’m not going to delve into that topic; however, everyone agrees it’s a passionate subject. The American taxpayer shouldn’t have to pay for the procedure, but the Democrats have other ideas. If ObamaCare passes every Democrat running for election in a non-gerrymandered district is going to answer for this travesty.
According to a poll by Zogby 70% of Americans are against taxpayer-funded abortion. Republicans will be using this in elections for the next four years. What will the Democrats have to show for this partisan bill if they win? Obama has already endorsed infanticide, so I’m sure he’s not concerned, but the prospects for his reelection and his party are getting worse every day.
At some point the far left gave up on the public option and embraced ObamaCare. I guess the reality that the bill could die and Obama’s first year would be a waste is more important than ideology. I’m growing more and more convinced that this outcome of this bill is meaningless. This version of ObamaCare is ultimately going to be repealed.
If the President signs this monstrosity he’s going to be forced to defend it in 2012. Despite the delusion on the left this isn’t going to get more popular as the details come out. Passing this bill could mean that Obama’s a one term president. If Massachusetts elected a Republican Senator because they’re unhappy with the bill how do Democrats in the rest of the country going to survive?
The bill is like a greatest hits of everything everyone hates about Washington. The President bought a vote via appointment. Now the Democrats are adding a student loan bill to ObamaCare. No one will ever will forget the Louisiana Purchase to buy Mary Landrieu’s vote. The Democrats even want taxpayers to fund abortions.
What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”
If true this is an example of pure evil. I don’t see any reason why a Democrat would lie about his own party leaders. This entire debate has been a fraud since the beginning. The President has offered no leadership, no bipartisanship, and he’s lying about what’s in the bill. The Democrats are willing to do anything to strengthen the control of the state.
There’s simply nothing good about this “reform.” There are only “good intentions.” It seems like Democrats are okay with passing bad legislation as long as it’s justified by good intentions. I think I summed this all up a few months ago when I wrote about the Church of Free Health Care.
All you have to do is believe. Believe that once everyone has access to free health care everything will be in its right place. Who will pay for it? Don’t ask tough questions; faith is enough. Why should we ask? Health care is a right. Sure it’s not mentioned in the Constitution, but when has that ever been a problem? It’s all relative anyway, so who cares?
Another way to put this would be that I hate women because I oppose abortion. Plain and simple, “feminism” has radically shifted from an equal rights movement to a special interest lobbying group for the abortion industry. It is especially galling that “feminist” groups like NOW and NARAL oppose any restrictions on abortion, including the horrific procedure known as partial-birth abortion.
In fact, our “above my pay grade” president opposed a law in Illinois that would have protected babies who survive a “botched abortion.” Nice. Do I oppose Obama’s position on abortion because he’s black? You be the judge.
This is less a religious issue than it is a simple human rights issue. Choice is actually something that happens before conception. I shouldn’t need to spell it out, but it should be rather obvious to any sentient being. But “choice” has been turned into a propagandistic euphemism for wholesale slaughter. Does that seem harsh? Sorry, but the “procedure” itself is harsh.
Most people – me included – prefer to close their eyes to what abortion really entails: the dismemberment and destruction of a human being. If you can’t handle seeing what an abortion looks like (go to YouTube and search for “silent scream” if you think you can), then you’re admitting how horrible it really is. I know I can’t watch it, and won’t, but that tells me everything I need to know about where to stand on this issue.
Even the most ardent pro-choicer would rarely refer to their unborn child as a “fetus” or a “clump of tissue”. No. They refer to it as their “baby”. But when it’s someone else’s child, particularly a poor minority woman’s child, it magically transforms itself into something less than human.
But this is no surprise really, since the pro-abortion movement is based in eugenics, which originally sought to sterilize the “unfit” and control the human population as if we were a bunch of rats. But that’s how many leftists see the human race, as a parasite or virus on the earth to be controlled (excepting them, of course). It doesn’t take much imagination to see where this leads if the people who control the government believe that some people are more worthy of life than others.
BTW… As mentioned in my previous post, I’m a Racist, the views above do not necessarily represent the views of its host since this was written by me, Club Soda. Next time, we’ll explore my homophobia.
“Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they’ll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they’ll roar.”
-Gracchus in Gladiator
I absolutely resent the news media’s round-the-clock coverage of Michael Jackson’s death. I was hoping he would continue to fade into obscurity, become less crazy and die of old age at Nevemind Ranch. Why his death matters so much to the media is beyond me, but I also wonder why the media pays attention to what anyone in Hollywood has to say about politics or anything else of importance.
I’ll admit to a certain bias here: I hate Celebrity and the worship of Celebrity in America. Celebrity, not religion, is the opiate of the masses. But I suppose Celebrity is a religion in its own right with its own rites, altars and priesthoods, not to be confused with Jason Priestly, formerly of Beverly Hills 90210 fame.
The rise of Celebrity in America coincides with the willingness of the American people to cede their liberties to the state. Americans believe all kinds of myths because the celebrity culture anesthetizes them to the truth. Celebrity offers easy, pre-packaged answers that require little intellectual effort. Why look into an issue on my own when I’ve got Oprah, George Clooney, Pamela Anderson and Michael J. Fox doing the research for me?
For instance, it has become a truism via the Celebrity culture that embryonic stem cell research, of course funded by the taxpayer, is the only way to cure diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. In reality, the most successful research and actual progress has been made with adult stem cells. But let’s not let facts get in the way when said “facts” have already been cherry-picked for us, and when they happen to coincide with one of Celebrity’s favorite causes, abortion. Yeah for the death of those that are inconvenient to us!
“The science is settled” on any number of topics, according to Celebrity and its minions in Congress. All of the bad weather anywhere in the world is caused by man’s selfish consumption, and must be stopped. Of course, as a Celebrity (or a member of Congress), and because I’m so important, I cannot possibly curb my consumption. “Let them eat cake” has been replaced with, “Let them drive clown cars!”
That is why our spoiled aristocracy – the 21st Century Marie Antoinette – is in favor of the supremacy of the state over the individual. It’s very similar to the feeling a lot of Coloradoans have about their state, best summarized by the bumper sticker fashioned like a Colorado license plate that says, “No Vacancy“. I freely admit to feeling the same way. Now that I’m here, I’d like to fence off the state and not allow another person to darken its borders.
In the same way, celebrities and other hyper-rich, powerful people (such as Avon’s Andrea Jung mentioned in a previous Club Soda post) want to fence off the American Dream and keep the bounty and freedom of America to themselves. It’s a form of arrogance that says they’re individuals while the rest of us are simply numbers in a census (conducted by ACORN, of course).
So, while the media devotes itself to non-stop coverage and posthumous tributes to the King of Pop, Americans are being screwed by another unreadable, voluminous, multi-trillion-dollar bill that will finally defeat climate change and the American economy in one fell swoop.
The media, once again, is asleep at the wheel, celebrating celebrity and accepting at face value the pronouncements of the aristocracy that something “must be done.” Bread and circuses, if you will. When this monstrosity of a bill passes, Denver’s weather better be like San Diego’s year-round, or I’m going to be pissed.
What differentiates a baby from a fetus? Medically, the definition is the period of time between eight weeks after conception and birth. However, people usually disregard the medical terminology in favor of how they prefer to view the fetus/baby, either as an inconvenience that can be discarded like any other medical waste, or as a human being with all the rights given other human beings who happened to have made it outside the womb.
Even pro-choicers carrying their own baby are not likely to refer to their baby as a fetus. A fetus is something other people carry around and can choose whether or not to abort: My baby is fully human, but others are not. Therefore, my baby is not a fetus… or, at least I’m not going to call it a fetus, because the term implies something less than human.
Therein lies the problem with and the hypocrisy of being pro-choice; you have to be willfully ignorant about what abortion truly entails – the painful dismemberment and death of a living thing that is certainly aware that something horrible is being done to it – while applying a different standard to your own children.
Barack Obama articulated this position best when he said it was above his “pay grade”. This is another way of saying, “I’m going to utterly close my eyes to the inhumanity and barbarism of this practice, and refuse to consider the implications of willfully killing what could very likely be considered a human being.” In short, it’s a cop-out.
If abortion is truly above your pay grade, wouldn’t it be far wiser to err on the side of protecting the baby in the womb? But Obama obviously doesn’t really believe the issue is above his pay grade, or anyone else’s pay grade. If he did, he wouldn’t support this wholesale slaughter.
Instead, Obama and anyone who’s pro-choice have decided that a baby still in the womb is less than human, much as slaveholders in early America decided that blacks were less than human. This justified, in the slaveholders’ minds, the inhumane practice of slavery, just as dehumanizing the “fetus” also justifies its killing.
The pro-choice movement is rooted philosophically in eugenics, a “progressive” movement popularized in the early 20th Century by the likes of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger and her ilk believed that inferiority in the human gene pool could be eradicated by sterilization, birth control and abortion.
The obvious problem with this philosophy is who chooses who lives and who dies. Unfortunately, people like Adolph Hitler embraced the philosophy and targeted “inferior” groups for extermination. Once again, these inferior groups were portrayed as less than human; Hitler was doing humanity a favor by eliminating them.
Ultimately, when you take a pro-choice position, you’re playing God. You’re saying, in effect, I am omniscient and can discern exactly when a human being actually becomes a human being. I would argue, on the other hand, that there is not one person on this earth who’s omniscient and thus qualified to render a death sentence on something that may be a human being.
As Sanger put it, “It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge.”
Sounds like Utopia, but in Sanger’s and Planned Parenthood’s Utopian man-directed evolution, Utopia demands the extermination of others. Who those “others” are will be in the eye of the beholder; the beholder being the one who has the power to exterminate them.
Sanger’s philosophy and that of her intellectual progeny stands in utter contradistinction to the founding of America, in which “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” In other words, the founders correctly believed that rights are endowed by the Creator, and not by the whims of man, who has proven to be a very poor arbiter of his fellow man’s rights.
This is an issue that deserves vigorous debate, yet the American people are never given the full story. Perhaps they don’t have the stomach for it. Who can blame them? It’s an extremely ugly practice when you get down to the nuts and bolts of how it works, and it gets uglier as a pregnancy progresses.
We’re told by our betters in the media that the debate should be superficial because it’s so “divisive”. Then we’re told that only the “fringe” – those outside the mainstream – are pro-life, thus the debate is already over. Yet poll after poll shows that abortion truly is a divisive topic that stands at about 50/50, thus it deserves more scrutiny than it gets now, particularly since the debate cuts to the very core of who we are.
The Economist is trying to come to terms with their endorsement of Barack Obama last year. As I’ve written before the fact that the administration is woefully adrift and apparently unprepared should not be shocking. The president wasn’t qualified for the position. He has never served as an executive and has never run anything successfully his entire life. Obama’s struggles the first two months should be expected, and he has plenty of time to grow into the position. Fortunately for Obama the United States isn’t Kentucky basketball. Four years is an eternity in politics. The Economist takes Obama to task on several different fronts, but I think this is the most important area of concern.
If Mr Obama cannot work with the Republicans, he needs to be certain that he controls his own party. Unfortunately, he seems unable to. Put bluntly, the Democrats are messing him around. They are pushing pro-trade-union legislation (notably a measure to get rid of secret ballots) even though he doesn’t want them to do so; they have been roughing up the bankers even though it makes his task of fixing the economy much harder; they have stuffed his stimulus package and his appropriations bill with pork, even though this damages him and his party in the eyes of the electorate. Worst of all, he is letting them get away with it.
The president needs to rein in the leadership of the Congress. Pelosi and Reid are way outside the American mainstream. Obama will appoint leftist anti-property rights judges and the left will be happy. The right to have an abortion and for homosexuals to get married is far more important to liberals that the constitutional property rights and they can’t get these “rights” through the legislature. “Progressives” view the constitution as a living document created by racist white men who not only owned slaves (Tom Harkin), but also believed in God.
There’s nothing like a good abortion protest to bring out the God haters.
The picture above is appropriate. “Progressives” also don’t like to take the constitution literally either. For those scoring at home Bob Avakian is an Atheist and a Communist (i.e. he has a perfect pro-choice record). In order for Obama to successfully serve the “progressives” and the rest of the country he’ll have to stand up to his party in Cogress and throw bones to his base on appointments. Does this sound familiar (See: Bush, See: Clinton)?
Recent Comments