Sunday funny
by Glenn McCoy of Townhall.com…
Also read “Obama’s Roe Problem” in RealClearPolitics.com, May 23.
[HT for cartoon: proofreader Angela]
May.24, 2009 8:37 am |
Cartoons |
Commenting Rules
Do's
- “Criticize ideas, not people.”
- Create one original moniker and stick with it.
- Please use a unique name.
- Be civil and considerate.
- Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
- Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
- No swearing or slandering of others.
- No deliberate inflammatory comments.
- Do not violate another’s privacy.
- Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
- No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
- Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Recycling for the nth time the old “infanticide” lie that failed so miserably last year. Ho Hum.
BO’s ears kind of match the shape of the trophy handles.
How sad for BO to eventually give account to God that abortion was his “greatest achievement” for humanity.
Bystander, recycling for the nth time the lie that Obama didn’t support infanticide. Look to the right of my home page and tell me which is false:
~ that Obama as IL state senator voted against Born Alive 4x
~ that the 4th time Obama voted against Born Alive it was the identically worded bill that passed unanimously in the US Senate and that NARAL went neutral on
~ that Obama was the sole state senator to speak against Born Alive on the senate floor
~ that Obama stated on the senate floor that to call in 2nd doctor to assess an abortion survivor would be a “burden” to the “original decision” of the mother
~ that Obama said on the senate floor that to give premature BORN babies the same status as full-term born babies would lead to the overturn of Roe v. Wade
~ that Born Alive was signed into law 8 months after Obama left the state senate, dispelling his lie that the law wasn’t needed
Which of these is false, By?
Does anybody have any suggestions for the title of the book that pbho is holding?
The title should have some relationship to the visual content of the political cartoon.
yor bro ken
Jill, I realize the “infanticide” lie is your claim to fame, but not everyone buys it. Sorry.
The “infanticide” lie was thoroughly debunked last year by Media Matters and Chicago Tribune articles, which need not be reprinted here.
Anyone who wants to know the truth knows where to look. Anyone who just wants to smear Obama can listen to you. It is up to them.
“Media Matters!” Bystander is using Media Matters as evidence! That’s just too precious.
Bystander is essentially arguing, “Hey, just because Obama is in favor of letting infants die doesn’t mean he’s pro-INFANTICIDE. I mean, JEEZ.”
Jill has presented her case that Obama is against protecting infants many times. Media Matters saying “Nuh-UH!” each time doesn’t qualify as “debunking.”
~ that Born Alive was signed into law 8 months after Obama left the state senate, dispelling his lie that the law wasn’t needed
Which of these is false, By?
Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 24, 2009 9:14 AM
that fact that it was later passed doesn’t prove it was “needed.” And, as we have discussed Jill, how has the law improved the situation since its passage?
great cartoon. The title of the book would be ‘rules for radicals’ by alinsky.
Just a quick question:
I disagreed with Sarah Palin’s stance on hunting wolves, but it does not make sense to me how the media and everyone can say that Governor Palin supports the slaughter of wolves and animals when she, in fact, supports its legality. But President Obama, according to Bystander (who I’m beginning to realize says nothing that the Democratic Party does not approve of first), does not support infanticide just because he thinks that abortion ought to be legal.
That doesn’t make sense to me.
Bm, I referenced thorough and well-researched sources exposing the “infanticide” lie. Since you choose not to read them, you characterize them as two words- nu-huh.
You have an absolute right to remain ignorant, but don’t demand it of others.
Bystander,
Still standing by I see.
There was a fellow who was convinced he was dead and nothing his wife said or did would disabuse him of the self imposed delusion.
So the wife took him to the family doctor and asked him to try and reason with her husband.
The doctor asked the fellow if dead men bleed.
The fellow said of course not.
The doctor then poked the man in the finger with a needled.
When the man saw the blood dripping from his finger he exclaimed, “Dead men do bleed.”
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
Why does Bystander choose to remain willfully ignorant?
She/He does not want to jeopordize his/her bliss.
yor bro ken
If Bystander knows what he’s talking about, then why doesn’t he answer Jill’s simple questions at 9:14 a.m.? Which of her statements is false? The fact is that Jill has done all the research, but Bystander chooses to ignore it.
As for infanticide, I’ve heard Senator Obama’s defense of it in his own words and with his own voice. He still refused to call the abortion survivor a baby, calling it instead the fetus, which it no longer is after it has left the womb alive. Mind you, it’s obvious that he’s trying to pick and choose his language carefully. His “uh”s and “uhm”s show that he’s walking through a verbal minefield.
Bystander,
Are you apathetic or indifferent or some where in between?
yor bro ken
The Quote of the Day fits pro-aborts Like Hal and Bystander and Bystander and Devo to a tee.
They are obsessed with the murder of unborn children and weave all kinds of deceptive lies to justify it.
Here’s a paraphrase of the quote:
“My child, if pro-aborts entice you, turn your back on them!
They may say, “Come and join us. Let’s hide and promote abortion! Let’s attack the innocent! Let’s use any method possible to terminate them. Though these children have just begun their lives, they will go down into the pit of death. And the money we’ll save and better lives we’ll lead, look at that. We’ll get more stuff for ourselves! We’ll have all the toys, the cars, the careers that this life can offer! Come on, become pro-choice; and we’ll share our friendship and benefits with you.”
Don’t go along with them, my child! Stay far away from their paths. They rush to commit crimes. They hurry to commit murder. When a bird sees a trap being set, it stays away. But not these pro-aborts! They set an ambush for themselves; they booby-trap their own lives!
Such is the fate of all who are greedy for gain. It ends up robbing them of life.”
Bystander is essentially arguing, “Hey, just because Obama is in favor of letting infants die doesn’t mean he’s pro-INFANTICIDE. I mean, JEEZ.”
Posted by: bmmg39 at May 24, 2009 10:41 AM
Close, but you don’t quite understand yet. Bystander can give you his/her own view. I’ll give you mind and I’ll type real slow:
Just because Obama didn’t support a particular legislative remedy to a perceived problem with born alive babies does not mean he’s pro infanticide.
He stated that he thought bringing another doctor in (should a baby be born in spite of an abortion attempt) is designed to “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” He wasn’t quibbling with some minor point of the legislation; he was objecting to its premise.
Bystander:
You have once again successfully dodged Jill’s question. Which ones are false? And sorry but a leftist rag like the Chicago Tribune does not count as “debunking.”
The only “debunking” is by pro death people like you who either cannot believe or chose not to believe your hero Barry actually refuses to support legislation to help born babies.
I guess it’s hard for your pro death brain to realize just how heinous and anti life your hero’s beliefs are. Probably a bit more radical than even your own.
After all, even pro aborts Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer supported born alife infants. Your hero as an Illinois state senator stood alone in opposing it.
And Hal you at least acknowledge Barry voted against it. How does that not make him pro infanticide?
After all as Jill pointed out Barry voted against legislation that was identical to what was voted on at the federal level and passed unanimously. And I would hardly call Boxer, Clinton, Kerry, etc peopl who support pro life legislation.
No, Bystander, we read those articles. They were debunked within the hour. In fact, the author of said articles had to come out and say that he had mistated key facts. It’s all in the archives. You’re the one whose head is in the sand.
Obama’s own campaign was forced to say that The One had “misspoke” when he called us “liars” about ILBAIPA. The next day additional facts came to light that proved us 100% right, yet the lie continues.
Dear, Reader of Jills sight little faith with anencephaly has died yesterday. I think everyone who sees this sight should know.Thanks!
Bystander:
If not voting for the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” is not tantamount to supporting infanticide I don’t know what is. And the sources you list as proof that he doesn’t support infanticide are a joke.
As much as you want to twist things, Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president in history.
In fact, for him to have supported “the Born Alive Infant Protection Act” would have made him totally inconsistent with all his other obsessive-compulsive views on abortion and Liberalism in general. He did not support the BAIPA, therefore, he supported the murder of born children. That’s defined as infanticide.
Additionally, the conclusion that he supports infanticide does not require that one even consider the BAIPA. One can simply come to the same conclusion on who Barack Obama is, what he says, i.e., “babies are a punishment from God”, who he married, what she says, what he stands for on other abortion issues such as partial birth abortion, who he selected as cabinet members, etc., etc., etc. So just admit who your guy really is and live with it. And he really didn’t even need to be so pro-abortion to get elected, or do you think he couldn’t get elected otherwise? I think it was, duh, the economy stupid and the false belief that this guy appeared to know what to do, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha.
Oh boy, one thing the Obama election has done is to get all of the vampires to come out into the open to show themselves. They fail to realize that God, who reigns in Heaven, will re-play all you pro-aborts’ actions the the Universe at Judgment Day and there will be no excuse at your eternal condemnation apart from repentance.
And why is it that you can’t admit that this guy supports infanticide? What, can’t handle the murder of a baby, 5 minutes out of the womb? How many breaths have you taken in 5 minutes? What were you thinking exactly, just 5 minutes ago? You think five minutes makes a difference in gestation? What biology book has ever said that full gestation is not 403,195 minutes which is 5 minutes less than 280 days or 40 weeks? There is no difference between a baby that is 403,195 minutes in the womb and 403,200 minutes in the womb. If there is, please send me a sworn affidavit from a licensed obstetrician that states such.
So stop the lies. Or better yet, don’t stop. Because the more you speak, the more fuel you give us to pick apart your illogical and dishonest comments.
Good points HisMan,
By and Hal are to be pitied. It’s amazing how blind they are.
For their sake, I pray their lives become miserable to the point where they cry out to God for His Mercy. It’s their only hope of escaping eternal torment.
That’s why people like Bystander and Obama aren’t pro-choice. Face it. They want death. They are pro-death!
Ken,
As for the book title, how about, “The Audacity of Genocide.” Or perhaps a parody of JFK’s classic, “Profiles in Cowardice – Why Be Strong and Accept Responsiblity for the Precious Innocent Life You’ve Created When They’re So Easy to Murder?”
I believe the word “choice” applies to pro-deathers. Their choice is to avoid anything that would interfere with their lifestyle the way they want it to be. People like this eventually crash and burn.
Explain some of the chants I’ve seen while standing in front of the abortion clinic. “Kill them!” “We love abortion!” Another woman drove by yesterday, honking wildly and weaving while flipping the bird. Whatever happened to “Abortion is a difficult decision”???? It’s not PC anymore. It’s pro-death!
Posted by: Hal at May 24, 2009 12:03 PM
“Just because Obama didn’t support a particular legislative remedy to a
perceived problem with born alive babies
does not mean he’s pro infanticide.”
——————————————————-
HAL,
Please help me here and type really, really slow.
Are born alive babies a ‘problem’?
If so then to whom are they are problem.
Are babies born dead, not a problem?
Or are born alive babies just a ‘perceived’ problem?
If born alive babies are just a ‘perceived’ problem, who’s perception are they.
The ones who want them dead or the ones want them to live?
I do not believe you really believe born alive babies are a ‘perceieved’ problem.
I believe you know they are a real problem to the ones who wish them dead.
Dead babies are a problem to me.
Are live babies a problem to you?
yor bro ken
Posted by: Ed at May 24, 2009 1:03 PM
“As for the book title, how about, “The Audacity of Genocide.” Or perhaps a parody of JFK’s classic, “Profiles in Cowardice – Why Be Strong and Accept Responsiblity for the Precious Innocent Life You’ve Created When They’re So Easy to Murder?”
——————————————————–
Ed,
How about ‘Grim Fairy Tales’ or ‘The Adventures of Barrakman and Rahmbin: Demonic Duo Extraordinaire’. (Leaping lesbians Barrakman, is that a box of Marlboros in your utitility belt, or are you just happy to see me?)
yor bro ken
Hey! Did anyone hear on c-span that america is broke.
Hal said, “Just because Obama didn’t support a particular legislative remedy to a perceived problem with born alive babies does not mean he’s pro-infanticide.”
He gave a reason, Hal. He might have given several reasons, but we know the one that really bothered him: according to him, despite the careful wording, the legislation threatened the Roe-Wade court decision. In other words, Senator Obama was afraid to save born babies because he thought it might interfere with the “right” to kill unborn babies.
Senator Obama sees no real difference between born and unborn babies. That’s why he continued to call the abortion survivor a fetus even though it wasn’t. Remember that Senator Obama was a man who didn’t know at what point a baby gets human rights. Consistent with this ignorance, he was willing to allow murder at any early stage of the process. In other words, infanticide is not a problem if the mother wants it.
And why should it be? As others have said, President Obama is America’s first European president. Europe is becoming accepting of infanticide as part of the “quality of life” system of ethics. I’m not sure that even the mother needs to makes the decision in such cases; the state thinks it can impartially do so.
Posted by: Jon at May 24, 2009 2:27 PM
“Obama sees no real difference between born and unborn babies.
That’s why he continued to call the abortion survivor a fetus even though it wasn’t.
Remember that Senator Obama was a man who didn’t know at what point a baby gets human rights.
Consistent with this
ignorance,
he (Obama) was willing to allow murder at any early stage of the process.
————————————————————
Jon,
You are being too kind to pbho.
What you mistakenly or charitably characterize as ‘ignorance’, is neither.
pbho is employing carefully calculated obfuscation to distort and thereby conceal what he really believes (Assuming he really belives anything.) and who he really is.
yor bro ken
Hey! Did anyone hear on c-span that america is broke.
Posted by: alice at May 24, 2009 2:25 PM
—————————————————
Yes, and america is bankrupt as well.
yor bro ken
Jill, I realize the “infanticide” lie is your claim to fame, but not everyone buys it. Sorry.
Posted by: Bystander at May 24, 2009 9:47 AM
Right, the only people who “buy” it are those that have a brain.
Hey! Did anyone hear on c-span that america is broke.
Posted by: alice at May 24, 2009 2:25 PM
Wow, and it only took Barry and the Death Party 4 months to do it.
I hate to think what Barry will have done by 2013. It’s so scary what has happened in just a few months.
Heather,
That is awful. Very satanically inspired. Of course Satan loves abortion as he loves all death and evil.
Actually, the only people who “buy” the “infanticide” lie are brainwashed members of the Anti-Obama hate cult. That cult meets here every day, and all efforts to deprogram them fail.
Joanne, yep. Indeed these evil people are a dime a dozen. It’s usually a car load of teenagers who shout these wicked things. I sometimes wonder if they even understand the severity of it all!
Actually Bystander there is no question you are the one brainwashed. OBAMA VOTED AGAINST SAVING BABIES WHO SURVIVE BOTCHED ABORTIONS. There is nothing to “debunk.”
When are you going to quit drinking the kool aid?
And for the record it’s liberals who hate.
Liberal heads are exploding over Dick Cheney, a true patriot and man who loves his country. There is no question Cheney is motivated only for his love of country, and he is exposing Barry for the fraud and empty suit that he is.
When faced with irrefutable proof all liberals can do is name call and shoot the messenger.
Case in point this digusting Daily Kos entry:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/05/24/kos-droppings
So quit calling conservatives and those who want to save unborn babies “brainwashed” and “cult members.” You are talking about yourself.
Heather,
If it’s teenagers then my guess is they really don’t have a clue. I sure didn’t at that age (although I was never pro abortion).
And on a slightly different note, new Liberal favorite Colin Powell defends Bush and Cheney. How about that!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/05/24/will-media-notice-how-powell-defended-bush-agreed-cheney
Joanne, indeed he is! It’s still a hate filled assault on Bush, Palin, Cheney…..why? Hasn’t anyone informed them that Obama won? QUIT COMPLAINING! The ball is in his court now. You people who are still blaming Bush are delusional. Didn’t he keep us safe after 911? Your wonderful abortion even remained legal under Bush. What more do you people want?
I can only conclude that Obama hasn’t fixed a thing, and you guys MUST SEE IT! If Obama was the answer, you all wouldn’t still be complaining! Something must still be wrong.
Maher Trashes Liberals: They Object Before They Know What They’re Objecting To (Updated W/Video)
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
May 24, 2009 – 11:56 ET
A rather peculiar thing happened on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” Sunday: Bill Maher trashed liberals.
Speaking with Howard Kurtz about how he always gets booed when he tells an Obama joke, Maher said “we get a very supersensitive liberal audience” on HBO’s “Real Time,” and “it’s always that limousine liberal crowd that just has their finger on the politically correct button…That’s what bugs me the most about liberals is that they just — they object before they even know what they’re objecting to.”
Despite Maher also claiming that “especially on campuses in the last 10 or 15 years, the repression of speech has come more from the left,” one got the feeling the “Real Time” host wasn’t being completely honest about his distaste for liberals when he later complained about Democrats: “We don’t really have a party that represents me or any progressives.”
As you’ll see from the following partial transcripts, Maher’s positions were rather hypocritical (video embedded below the fold, relevant sections at 24:00 and
Joanne, thanks for the link! look what I found about Bill Maher!!!
Posted by: Bystander at May 24, 2009 3:00 PM
“Actually, the only people who “buy” the “infanticide” lie are brainwashed members of the Anti-Obama hate cult. That cult meets here every day, and all efforts to deprogram them fail.”
————————————————–
I once knew a fellow who was a member of a non-traditional christian fellowship.
His parents became so distraught that he was not participating in a ‘normal congregation’ that they contracted with a cult expert to abduct detain and de-program their son.
The ‘cult expert’ after interviewing the subject determined there was nothing he could do, because the subject had NOT been brainwashed.
The subject had a free will and he exercised it freely.
Bystander,
While some of us, yourself included, may be ‘addicted’ to the internet, I do not believe any of us, yourself included’ has been brain washed and is in need of ‘de-programming’.
Your affliction is self induced and self willed ignorance. Logic and reason are your biggest enemies. Objective truth is a foreign concept to your relativistic humanistic world view.
Keep listening for the ‘pop’. We are praying for your liberation from gross darkness into emancipating light.
yor bro ken
Infanticide-the killing of an infant.
Infant- a child in the first year of life.
Premature-: happening, arriving, existing, or performed before the proper, usual, or intended time; especially : born after a gestation period of less than 37 weeks
Premature infant- a child born after a gestation of less than 37 weeks.
Bill trashed liberals? hahaha!
Alice, I got the news about baby Faith about 3 am (had a quiet moment on my shift to check my email). While I was still taking in the news, a parent from the PICU walked up through our station (you have to go in and out of PICU through pediatrics) and made it about as far as our nurse’s station before the news SHE had received about her own child finally became too much for her and she let out a wail of anguish that echoed up and down the corridors of our floor… I’ve heard that sound before… working where I do I know I will hear it again, but even if I didn’t… it is impossible to ever forget the primal anguish scream of a mother losing her child.
I should be sleeping for tonight’s shift right now, but I’m just not able to right now. I’m sure I will soon… but right now my house is too quiet (all the kids and Steve are at Grandma and Grandpa’s house) and I know that that sound must be the sound all heaven makes at the depravity and evil that convinces humans to murder their own babies…
Hugs to all on here.
“Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre (6 May 1758 – 28 July 1794) is one of the best-known and influential figures of the French Revolution.
He largely dominated the Committee of Public Safety and was instrumental in the period of the Revolution commonly known as the
Reign of Terror
that ended with his arrest and execution in 1794.
Robespierre’s desire for revolutionary change was not limited to the political realm.
He sought to instill a spiritual resurgence in the French nation based on his Deist beliefs.
Accordingly, on 7 May 1794 Robespierre had a decree passed by the Convention that established a Supreme Being.
The notion of the Supreme Being was based on ideas that Jean-Jacques Rousseau had outlined in The Social Contract.
In honour of the Supreme Being, a celebration was held on 8 June.
Robespierre, as President of the Convention, walked first in the festival procession and delivered a speech, in which he emphasized that his concept of a Supreme Being, which he termed
a radical Democrat,
was far different from the traditional God of Christianity.”
There you have it. The left’s god is a ‘radical democrat’.
That explains the democrat’s obsession with death.
yor bro ken
“I do not believe you really believe born alive babies are a ‘perceieved’ problem.”
That’s not what is said. The BAIPA was passed in response to a perceived problem that babies were being born and left to die by cold uncaring doctors. Jill claims this has happened once. So we need a law?
Hal, if it happened “once” then why did Christ Hospital decide to make the “comfort care” room?
Why did another nurse testify to what she had seen as well, with other children.
This was not a one-time incident. Jill testified as to the one child she personally held until he died.
And I SO appreciate your sensitivity to the plight of that one, mere little boy with Down’s Syndrome, Hal. Thank you for demonstrating so perfectly the attitude that one life does not matter (at least, not if it is an “unwanted” one).
Really, the comments by the PCers here never cease to amaze me. They just get more and more calloused and hardened. :(
Kel,
“Really, the comments by the PCers here never cease to amaze me.”
Me too. Hal’s a “doubting Thomas”. He’ll have to see it before he’ll believes it.
Okay Kel, if it happened more than once, can you tell me what difference the law has made? Is it happening less now? Are fewer babies being aborted?
This is not a pro life/pro choice dispute. Most pro choice politicians voted FOR it. Obama apparently just thought it was poorly written or unnecessary, or something. Who cares? I’ve heard of sore losers, but this law passed. You guys are sore winners. Just because someone dared to disagree with you…
Hal:
It’s a character issue.
When faced with the exposure of his true stance on abortion, Obama lied about what he said and did and the press gave him a get out of jail free card.
The problem is we now have a president who will LIE to promote his agenda. This should scare everyone including you even though he is your abortion messiah.
I know you are a gross Liberal but why does it have to include allowing one who is without character lead you?
If I was a soldier, I could not trust a commander in chief like Obama. This makes Obama very, very dangerous to ALL of us.
Janet:
Hal’s no doubting Thomas, he’s more of a Jezebel. A person who is bent on denying God based on the actions and choices of a lifestyle.
St. Thomas believed in God, he just didn’t beleive that Jesus was who He said He was. There’s a big, big difference.
Hal,
It’s not just about Barry disagreeing with us. It’s heinous that he voted against something that not most, but ALL pro abortion politicians supported, including the rabid pro abort Boxer who is one of the sponsors of FOCA.
When are you going to wake up to the fact that Barry is pro death to the core?
Heather, regarding Bill Mayer….. I’m no fan of his but I think that is very funny!
“Liberalism is a mental disorder” Michael Savage
If I was a soldier, I could not trust a commander in chief like Obama. This makes Obama very, very dangerous to ALL of us.
Posted by: HisMan at May 24, 2009 7:49 PM
If I was a soldier, I would serve this President proudly.
More proof that Barry is an empty suit that hasn’t got a clue what he is doing:
STEVE SCULLY, C-SPAN: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we’ve made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we’ve seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.
Makes sense to me, Joanne
What flavor of kool aid are you drinking today Hal?
Barry actually admits the government is out of money and so the solution is…… spend more money! The lack of government run health care is the reason for the economic crisis! After all, the government does such a great job of running things. *sarcasm*
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” -Winston Churchill
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”
-Ronald Reagan
By the way, Hal, nice dodge once again on the abortion question. Your hero LIED about BIAPA. It’s as simple as that.
Hal,
Maybe you should ask your OB/GYN/Abortionist if he would have voted for BAIPA.
Heather, regarding Bill Mayer….. I’m no fan of his but I think that is very funny!
“Liberalism is a mental disorder” Michael Savage
Posted by: Joanne at May 24, 2009 8:16 PM
—————————————————–Hey Joanne, I went surfing through some Bill Maher videos. There is no doubt that the guy has got issues when it comes to God. He was born to a Jewish mother and a Catholic father. The truth is that I really studied Bill in some of his videos. He was actually almost buddy buddy with Bill O’Reilly in one of them!!! That was a shock! Maybe Bill is beginning to realize that hanging with a stale and stuffy bunch of libs just isn’t cutting it anymore. The guy looks downright defeated!
Maher made that movie, Religiosity, and he questions people about God. People gave him good answers to his questions. Bill asked one man, “If there is a devil, why hasn’t God killed him yet?” Another man asked Bill “Are YOU God?” Bill sat quietly for a minute and replied “No.” Maybe Maher will get it together after all. He seems to be a bitter man who is really searching. {I’ve never paid to see that movie. Just looked at some clips}
Another thing….Maher did not maintain eye contact with others when God bashing. Might he be having second thoughts?
For those of us interested in unborn rights: good news and bad news:
Bad news: a poor seventeen-year-old girl was murdered in my state. She was thirty-two weeks pregnant. Her father was murdered too. Tragically, the baby’s father was the murderer.
Good news: the murderer will be charged on three counts- the murder of the girl’s father, the girl, and the baby.
This makes me so sad. But at the very least justice is being sought for everyone.
“… I’ve heard that sound before… working where I do I know I will hear it again, but even if I didn’t… it is impossible to ever forget the primal anguish scream of a mother losing her child.”
May God look over that baby and her mother.
Elisabeth, I know what it is like to lose a baby at five months and look at it in the palm of my hand scream and cry.I held him, loved him he died on his own naturaly. He was dead in me for three weeks i didn’t know it until I went and Had a ultrasound. I could of have had d&c but didn’t want too.I felt like i was having abortion.I don’t believe in abortions. I think They should do abortions practices different they are cruel just like partial birth abortions are cruel. I enjoyed reading about little faith and how good she was doing. She will be missed!
If I was a soldier, I would serve this President proudly.
Posted by: Hal at May 24, 2009 9:07 PM
I’m guessing you would help arrest Catholic/Christian doctors who refuse to perform/refer for abortions?
“Okay Kel, if it happened more than once, can you tell me what difference the law has made? Is it happening less now? Are fewer babies being aborted?”
****************************************
Hal, I don’t work in the medical profession, so I have no way of knowing. Do you? What’s your special insight into the situation? The point is, you are defending Obama’s insane position on this issue, and you are trying to make yourself feel better by claiming it only happened “once.” It really is unbelievable to me.
“This is not a pro life/pro choice dispute. Most pro choice politicians voted FOR it. Obama apparently just thought it was poorly written or unnecessary, or something. Who cares?”
***************************************
Apparently every single liberal who voted to pass it. Except Obama. And except for you, Hal. Laws affect real LIVES, Hal, I’m sure you know that. Obama argued against doing everything possible to save these babies, going so far as to continue to refer to BORN children as “fetuses.” But, hey, anything we can say to “protect” the sacred cow of abortion.
“I’ve heard of sore losers, but this law passed. You guys are sore winners. Just because someone dared to disagree with you…”
Posted by: Hal at May 24, 2009 7:42 PM
***************************************
And that man, who argued that calling in another physician to save those born children would “burden” the “original decision” of the woman, is now our President. He’s extreme. And that’s about the kindest word I can think of for him right now, so I’ll leave it at that.
It’s despicable that we had to fight to “win” this law in the first place, Hal.
Hal and by are telling us that the Emperor has clothes, when all the rest of us see a naked man before us. “Who are you gonna believe”, they seem to be asking, “Us or your lying eyes?”
That’s not what is said. The BAIPA was passed in response to a perceived problem that babies were being born and left to die by cold uncaring doctors. Jill claims this has happened once. So we need a law?
Posted by: Hal at May 24, 2009 6:38 PM
—————————————————
HAL,
How many premature infants have to die as a result of willful neglect before the total rises to a number you are NOT comfortable with?
As a an attorney you should know a law can never prevent a prohibited behavior from occurring, but just because some people ‘choose’ to break a just law is no reason not enact or enforce it.
yor bro ken
Quote of the Day
“President Barack Obama sought to dodge racial controversy on Memorial Day, sending wreaths to a monument for Confederate soldiers and other flowers to a memorial honoring more than 200,000 African-Americans who fought for the Union during the Civil War…”
——————————————————-
It is a good thing pbho is not a woman. He would never arrive anywhere on time what with all the faces to which he has to apply make-up.
pbho is neither black nor white, he is both black and white.
pbho is neither an american nor an alien, he is both a natural born US citizen and immigrant.
pbho is neither christian nor an atheist, pbho is both a devout committed christian and a sectarian humanist.
pbho is neither pro-life nor pro-choice, he kills babies with his left hand and protects terrorists with his right hand with no apparent internal conflict from the obvious contradiction in his facile non-limbic brain.
pbho is a self serving weasle who has a incessant compulsion to appear agreeable to all people every where and no matter how it convulses and distorts his public ‘image’ of himself the private reality of who really is never changes.
pbho does not have a story and he is not sticking to it.
yor bro ken
So how many conflicts of interest can you find in this story?
Chris:
And no one lived happily ever after…….
Hal:
Whether or not you realize it we are all soldiers, every one of us.
We are either serving the King or Satan himself.
I think we all know whose side you are on.
And on this subject, ignorance is not bliss, it is deadly.
Ken 9:21am
LOL. How very noble of BO. Avoid racial controversy? Black and Native American troops served in the confederate army!
Black freedmen owned black slaves. Native American tribes owned black slaves. The majority of white Americans are not the descendents of slaveowners. Slavery was never about race but about the powerful of every race preying on the weak of every race.
BTW, Native and African-American troops served honorably in every American war starting with the Revolution up until now.
Ugh I get so tired of this racial claptrap and people who can’t get their history straight!!
Chris, well-written parable, hiding the non-essential and highlighting the truly noteworthy, laying out things as they are. Did you write it? I hope that people will “see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their heart…” (Matt. 13:15b)
Chris:
50,000,000 and counting.
I’m guessing you would help arrest Catholic/Christian doctors who refuse to perform/refer for abortions?
Posted by: angel at May 25, 2009 5:31 AM
Not me. I don’t think you should force a doctor to perform an abortion, or a hospital to offer them. I don’t think you should force a doctor to perform heart surgery either, although many patients certainly could benefit from it. I err on the side of freedom.
And I tell you what, If the Obama administration ever forces a doctor to perform an abortion against his/her will, I will shut up, and donate $10,000 to the crisis center of your choice. I would also do whatever I could to see he lost the next election.
50,000,000 and counting.
Posted by: HisMan at May 25, 2009 11:44 AM
I’m guessing you would help arrest Catholic/Christian doctors who refuse to perform/refer for abortions?
Posted by: angel at May 25, 2009 5:31 AM
Not me. I don’t think you should force a doctor to perform an abortion, or a hospital to offer them. I don’t think you should force a doctor to perform heart surgery either, although many patients certainly could benefit from it. I err on the side of freedom.
And I tell you what, If the Obama administration ever forces a doctor to perform an abortion against his/her will, I will shut up, and donate $10,000 to the crisis center of your choice. I would also do whatever I could to see he lost the next election.
Posted by: Hal at May 25, 2009 12:24 PM
I will save a copy of this post and I KNOW that I will be seeing you donate someday Hal. Because, it is going to happen. Doctors will be forced not only to abort patients but also to euthanize them as well.
It’s only a matter of time.
Hi Hal. I appreciate your 12:24PM comments. Do you feel the same way about not forcing physicians or hospitals to prescribe abortifacients to pregnant women? Just curious.
Posted by: alice at May 24, 2009 11:57 PM
Alice,
May God Bless your heart. You are a women of character.
Alice, God bless!
Hi Hal. I appreciate your 12:24PM comments. Do you feel the same way about not forcing physicians or hospitals to prescribe abortifacients to pregnant women? Just curious.
Posted by: Fed Up at May 25, 2009 4:22 PM
I’ll have to think about that. My first reaction is that the government should not force any physician to prescribe any particular medicine. I think I’m okay with a regulation that said if a hospital is going to take federal money they have to provide certain services, such as the morning after pill. To be honest, I’ll have to give it more thought.
Thanks, Hal, I hope you’ll weigh in on it later.
I think I’m okay with a regulation that said if a hospital is going to take federal money they have to provide certain services, such as the morning after pill.
If you stay with that position after further reflection, can you show me how that isn’t government infringment on religious freedom? I don’t understand how a woman’s “right” to elective services overrides the right to religioius expression.
Money comes with strings attached, to serve (in theory) society’s goals and objectives. If certain medical care is deemed necessary for a healthy community, then the government can say, we’ll fund your program, but only if you don’t exclude certain medicines. The religious institution is free to take the money and accept the strings, or reject the money and do as they feel they must. Don’t see a big infringement on anyone’s rights by that process.
Would anyone have an objection if the funding to Planned Parenthood included a provision that said “if you accept federal dollars, you must offer every patient information on adoption services.”
Probably some would. More would object if the government said “you must also have information available to all patients about crises pregnancy centers.”
Would anyone have an objection if the funding to Planned Parenthood included a provision that said “if you accept federal dollars, you must offer every patient information on adoption services.”
or perhaps more to the point: PP must offer counselling by a certified prolife medical person who will show the woman her baby’s ultrasound, discuss fetal development and in particular the development of her baby at her stage in pregnancy as well as the risks of abortion and pregnancy.
I’m wondering what would happen to PP’s abortion rates if “the rest of the story” were offered!
Who would provide certification for a “certified prolife” medical person.
Hal,
I’m afraid according to your logic the government could require doctors in government-funded hospitals to administer suicide pills in your home state where assisted suicide is legal.
How does receiving federal funding for heart surgery translate into the need for a Catholic hospital to provide abortion services?
I know OB nurses who will not participate in an abortion procedure. They told me, “No way!”
Hi Hal, thanks for your response.
Money comes with strings attached, to serve (in theory) society’s goals and objectives.
I guess you hit the nail on the head right there. Don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds as if you believe the government can mandate society’s goals and objectives.
If an insitution such as the Catholic Church has a hospital which provides services on the premise that all life is to be cared for during the entire lifespan, and the government holds that certain portions of the life span (preborn, elderly, disabled) are entitled to care based on certain criteria, isn’t the government imposing its beliefs onto the Church? Not only the Church, but also society by removing the choice of some of its citizens (by denying their federally funded coverage) to seek services where all life is respected? Can you show me how that isn’t repression of those who dissent from the government’s perspective?
If certain medical care is deemed necessary for a healthy community, then the government can say, we’ll fund your program, but only if you don’t exclude certain medicines.
Again, we’re back to who decides what’s necessary and what a “healthy community” means. Some people may desire certain medications, but that doesn’t make them necessary. A woman may want an abortifacient to kill her unborn child, but that doesn’t mean the medication is medically necessary, only expedient. If expediency becomes synonymous with medical necessity, what’s to stop the suicide lobby from saying that suicide is also necessary? Do we start prescribing suicide kits to every depressed person who experiences suicidal ideation, or do we treat the depression instead? Same for the elderly and the disabled and the euthanasia lobby. Once the government mandates–and bases essential funding sources–on killing on demand for some members of the human family, who decides where it stops? What check and balance is there on the government if dissent of individual health care consumers and faith-based institutions has been silenced by denial of funding?
The religious institution is free to take the money and accept the strings, or reject the money and do as they feel they must. Don’t see a big infringement on anyone’s rights by that process.
I suppose it depends on how that plays out. Take the two big sources of government funding, Medicare and Medicaid. Are Catholic hospitals to be denied funding for treating all Medicare and Medicaid patients? Or only those who present with pregnancy termination issues?
I used this example on another thread but I’ll use it again. Let’s say a 27 year old female with Medicaid presents to a Catholic hospital emergency department with a broken arm. She is treated for her injury. As she is about to leave, she inquires about getting the morning after pill because she had unprotected sex several weeks ago. The physician declines her request. Should the hospital be denied reimbusement for treating her arm?
I’ll be curious to hear your thoughts, Hal.
Fed Up, great post!
Posted by: Hal at May 24, 2009 9:07 PM
“If I was a soldier, I would serve this President proudly.”
—————————————————–
I once wrote the same thing about Ronald Reagan because Ronald Reagan made me feel good about being an American.
Ronald Reagan was never reluctant to speak of the goodness of America. He reminded us constantly of the sacrifices the people of this nation had made to keep freedom’s light burning bright, not only here, but around the world.
Ronald Reagon confronted evil directly. He did not bow to kings nor appease tyrants.
Somehow I have a hard time imagining pbho confronting the evil empire of our day and telling them to ‘tear down this wall’.
pbho has already aplogized for that kind of talk that he considers ‘dismissive, even derisive’.
pbho’s quisling approach to our enemies only elicts derision and scorn from those who hate us and encourages them to take advantage of the naive appeaser who represents us.
yor bro ken
“pbho’s quisling approach to our enemies only elicts derision and scorn from those who hate us and encourages them to take advantage of the naive appeaser who represents us.”
====================================
Couldn’t have said it any better…
STEVE SCULLY, C-SPAN: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we’ve made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we’ve seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.
Posted by: Joanne at May 24, 2009 9:18 PM
Obama’s plan is to get the insurance companies to comply with gov’t regulations on denying service to people. This is a tactic that insurers already use to pay less in claims. However if Obama can get it uniformly enforced, then essentially everyone has no choice and changing from one insurer to another won’t matter because they all have the same rules. Right now there is competitition among insurers. If you have Medicare or Medicaid and they refuse to pay for it, too bad, no real hope for appeal. Media will not report/hype that abuse. However if a private company does it, there is a big outcry. Obama wants everyone on the same page. Doctors, hospitals, insurers and gov’t agencies. So long as everyone plays by his rules they will be protected and the media spin will say that only the “effective” treatments are being used, not the wasteful ones. It won’t say National Healthcare, but it will be controlled by the rationing rules. Anyone who speaks out against it will be castigated as being against good medical judgement or unscientific, etc.
Interestingly more and more scientists are decrying pronouncements by social scientists as being unscientific and even calling some in the social sciences anti science.
There are a many wars just beneath the surface in the sciences. The congress wants more funding for the sciences. More funding= More control. More gov’t control= less real science.
It used to be that gov’t wanted to control religion because that is what people believed in.
Now many, even the religious, believe in science, so logically gov’t wants to control it and claim that it is on the side of science, all the while funding the science that it chooses.
Most people don’t understand science, or even math, for that matter, so the gov’t can just choose the science and scientists that support its positions. Plenty of scientists are becoming alarmed at the corruption in the sciences.
check out this quote from a discussion of how results of research are published:
” There is a short word for this: dishonesty.
Since I first wrote about the progressive, long term decline of truthfulness in science –
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspo…in- science.html –
and the related phenomenon of Zombie science –
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspo…t-lie- down.html –
I have been in contact with several scientists, some extremely eminent, who confirm that dishonesty, hype, spin, selectivity of reporting – in a word *lying* – is endemic in science including/ especially at high levels, and people are finding it increasingly hard to sift the wheat from the chaff.
Mortgages are not the only inflationary bubble – science is another. There is a lot *less* science going-on than appears under that designation in the journals. ”
hippie:
And the lie of evolution is one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on mankind.