Stanek Sunday funny: Obama-approved assassinations
Moderator Carder found the following political cartoon at Draw for Truth, which I think deserves to stand alone this week. Click to enlarge…
May.08, 2011 6:26 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.
Ranking wise, I wonder how far behind Obama is from Reagan and Bush? I suppose they both had 8 years, so have quite a head start.
In fact, looking at the stats – abortion numbers are down quite a bit from 80-88…so even if Obama serves 8 years, he’ll have less abortions under his watch than Reagan. Probably less than GWB as well.
Abortions are down not because of who is in office, but because during 38 years of legalized abortion, much has been done by pro-lifers to curb the rising tide. If you look at Obama’s voting record, you would see that he’s trying to reverse all that’s been done to protect the unborn. If he has his way, I’m sure, we’ll see abortion numbers rise again.
I think the rise of the internet (and the fact that you can now readily google and see what abortion is and does) and the hard work of pro-lifers to open CPC’s and expose dangerous mills and have them closed has done much to stem the tide of abortion.
I agree Rachel and Sydney. Also:
People are using ultrasound images to joyfully announce the development of their children. All over facebook, for example, people I know are posting and sharing those images and congratulating the families. THAT is helping reduce abortions by showing everyone, in a positive way, the humanity of small, developing children.
Brilliant picture. Don’t forget, folks, that Obama is exporting abortion around the world with his policies, too. Abortions under Obama are only increasing.
I agree Ninek and believe that positive affirmation of life whether it’s a pre-born, disabled individual or an elderly individual is how the present culture of death will be stopped.
I believe most of it is economics – if you look at the rates, they took a nice dip in the 90’s – so you either have to attribute it to Clinton, or to economic policies and support in which more pregnant women felt that they would be able to raise a child and afford a child.
Long term, I think the numbers will continue to go down as greater access to insurance will make parenthood more affordable. Mass is a nice model – they increased access to health care (and even access to abortion), and abortion rates decreased – http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=3178
ex-RINO,
If you are going to credit slick willy for the economic boom in the 90’s, then you have to hold b o responsible for the continuing recession during the first two years of his administration, especially if things continue to go south. [Please refer to ‘misery index’ http://www.miseryindex.us/ ]
The president, whomever she/he/it may be, can do very little to improve the economy, but by the very words it/she/he chooses to speak he/it/she can do immediate and enduring harm.
b o got it right once in a row with the decision to terminate obl’s breathing privileges.
[It’s not a like it was difficult to determine what to do. Why did it take b o another 16 hours to choose to do it? I will specullate that based on the presidents dillyiny, dallying and dithering when the Somali pirates was holding an american tanker captain hostage, that as soon as the SEALs had the approval to lift off they made the decisions to power down their comm feed, so that b o would not be able to ‘abort’ the mission. b o has demonstrated a definite ‘abortion’ affinity.]
The resultant bounce in the opinion polls won’t last any longer than the next report of economic indicators.
I am confident that Jimmy Carter is still sleeping easy. There is no realistic threat that b o’s performance will exceed that of the former peanut farmer and despite all the desperate hyperbole by the msm, b o’s chance of a second term will not be enhanced by this bit of bravado and subsequent grandstanding.
The real one to fear is Moochelle.
“You do not want to be between Michelle and a tamale,” joked the president [b o]. “It’s true. It’s true.”
blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/stand-clear-of-michelle-and-a-tamale-obama-says-about-wife.html
[You should also be carefull NOT to stand down wind after the first lady has had her fill.]
Ken the Birther
Thanks for all those various words – I’m sure there was something interesting within it if I would have read it. Maybe something about the Loch Ness Monster, or how we faked the moon landing.
I love this! Yet another demonstration of the ‘lunatic fringe’ propaganda campaigning which raises peoples’ eyebrows with its sheer extremism. It makes you look more closely aligned with the sort of thinking the odd face out in the picture represents. Keep up the good work.
The picture shows an honest depiction that Obama’s favorite assasinations are the babies cause he doesn’t run the risk of them fighting back.
Bullying, I think, is the name we give to picking on people much smaller and/or weaker than oneself.
Everyone, it seems, needs sensitivity training about bullying, except of course the choicers, because, y’know, babies aren’t human unless they say so.
Reality, are you saying that Obama is pro-life and doesn’t condone abortion? Proof, please?
Rachel,you don’t know what you’re talking about. Anti-choicers have done Zilch to lower the abortion rate. They just stupidly protest at abortion facilities try to make laws which would endanger the lives of poor pregnant women by making abortion illegal or restrincting it, and a lot more nonsense and garbage.
Obama doesn NOT want to increase abortion in America, and the claim that he voted to allow babies who survive botched abortions to be kleft to die is absolutely false. He wants to REALLY do more to prevent abortions in America by decreasing poverty and providing more help to poor pregnant women and their families, which the Republicans in Washinton stupidly oppose,while demanding that poor women be forced to give borth to children they will never be able to support decently.
And if the anti-choicers get their way and abortion become illegal again,I guarantee you that abortion will not only not “end” but INCREASE in numbers, and more and more women will die from botched illegal abortions,leaving more and more children they already have without mothers, and just increasing overall poverty and misery in America. Be careful what you ask for,anti-choicers.
Instead of showing pictures of aborted fetuses, most of which are actually carefully doctored photos of miscarriages and stillborns, pro-choicers should show pitiful pictures of desperately poor, malnourished, gaunt, and helpless children who HAVE been born.
JoAnna, are you saying that Obama goes around pointing at the stomachs of pregnant women and saying ‘get the CIA/military/whatever government security agency to kill that fetus’? Because that is what would need to be happening for the term ‘assassination’ to be applicable. Proof please. Like I said, extremism.
Oh, look, it’s Robert. The person who has zero proof for his assertions and ignores the evidence to the contrary. Welcome back.
Robert
My mom cleaned houses for a living. I received 50.00 of support from my dad. We also received food stamps. I’ve never been gaunt. We currently receive food stamps the only time my son was gaunt is when the doctor after being told repeatedly that his thyroid was acting up refused to listen. Once he was properly diagnosed he put weight on quickly. Now he’s about 180 so he’s a far distance from gaunt. Some of what you say I agree with democrats in my opinion do have a better record when it comes to helping people but their stance on abortion is wrong. And proof that it’s going to cost them elections has already begun. Of course greed may be contributing to children who are looking gaunt. I’ve seen evidence of that. But that isn’t the governments fault that’s people who think more of themselves than they do children, born or unborn.
Robert Berger,
1) Who are “anti-Choicers?”
I know pro-lifers, or abortion opponents are not anti choicers, for the pro-lifers/abortion opponents are trying to prevent the slaughter of a segment of the human population, those in their earliers stages of development, those who are slaughtered, butchered by elective abortion.
Pro-lifers opposing abortion are exactly on moral equivalency with people who oppose rape, kidnapping, torture, and murder. By opposing the slaughter of people they are supporting the choice that the people who would otherwise be terminated have during their tme alive, something that abortion choicers refuse to allow new human beings, hence, abortion choicers are anti-life choice.
2) Your reciting of pro-butcher of baby abortion lovers’ talking points is absurd and outdated. Haven’t you read the memo? Pro-lifers do not force people to abort, any more than a person forces a rapist to rape, a murderer to murder, a thief to steal, etc. People who abort do so on their own, and take the risk. It is not pro-lifers, who oppose abortion, who cause people to abort, whether “legal” or “illegal.” So you can drop the faux self righteos indignation and accept the fact that you cannot blame pro-lifers when people who believe in abortion get burned by the abortion. You can blame abortiontionists, blame the people who willingly conspire to slaughter the baby, blame abortion pushers who coerce women to abort against their will, but don’t blame pro-lifers who adamantly oppose abortion. To continue to do so betrays your dishonesty, malevolence, and vindictiveness.
Rachel and William:
Ditto to your remarks.
Ex claims:
”In fact, looking at the stats – abortion numbers are down quite a bit from 80-88…”
A) Now that the majority of people now consider themselves pro-life one would expect abortions to go down.
B) Another factor in the reduction of the number of abortions are the proliferation of women’s clinics over recent years that offer real choices to pregnant women.
C) Thanks to pro-life legislators in many states laws have been passed requiring waiting periods and giving the woman the right to view ultrasounds prior to the “procedure”.
D) Due to the largely pro-abortion MSM media and their fellow travelers in the Democratic Party pro-lifers have had an uphill battle to change minds and hearts but despite those road blocks we have made strides in reducing the number of abortions.
Ex claims:
”Long term, I think the numbers will continue to go down as greater access to insurance will make parenthood more affordable”.
A) The agenda here is a push for socialized medicine. Now we are supposed to pay people to have families by buying insurance for them. Not a problem–just add on to the 3-4 billion dollars per day that we already borrow to pay for Obama’s excesses. Here is a novel idea…people should take responsibility for their own actions.
B) Speaking of providing insurance to “make parenthood more affordable” women in Russia have had socialized medicine and government paid abortions for more than a half century. And yet they have one of the highest abortion rates in the world.
C) Through insurance plans and subsidized health care programs and thousands of community health facilities throughout the country any woman who wants it already has access to birth control. “Greater access” to insurance nine months after the choice to have sex is not a problem that has to do with insurance as much as it is a personal decision that has nothing to do with insurance.
D) Everyone’s definition of “affordable” is different. What is “affordable” usually comes down to what a person holds dear. If a person really wants to have a family or add to the size of the family that is their choice.
E) Thankfully for us our grandparents and great-grandparents who lived through the great depression still made it “affordable” to rear children.
Jerry
Do you see medicaid as socialized medicine? I believe everyone should have access to quality health care. I do see it as right. I think they should pay what they can afford to pay and their should be as little government involvement as is possible but at the same time hospitals should be held to a high degree of accountability without making their job more difficult than it already is. I don’t think it should be socialized because people with control issues already do enough damage but as a nation if we can’t help with health care what does that say about our priorities.
Jerry -
On your last post…correct me if I’m wrong, but many countries in Europe have greater access to insurance and abortions, and have lower rates of abortion.
On the rest of your rambling, I’m not exactly sure your point – I think it is that we’re better off letting some people die through lack of insurance than raise taxes or cut spending so that we can cover more people. You say people should just “take responsibility for their own actions” rather than providing insurance to people – does that mean that if a kid without insurance has a high fever, the parents should just suck it up and figure out how to treat them themselves? I mean, the rhetoric is cute, but what are you actually saying?
Myrtle Miller, government will never provide good healthcare so we should not even go down that route! They already muck up the medical care “they provide” for people through medicaid, medicare etc…
But I agree with you that everyone should have access to good medical care. i don’t know what the solution is honestly. But I like places like St. Jude Hospital for Children. They do a fabulous job and have a great success rate curing kids of cancer but yet will not turn any patient away based on family’s ability to pay. They rely heavily on donations. I know I support them and my extended family also supports them for this very reason.
So, let me get the poor-choicer thing straight: If you outlaw murder, then more people will murder, and murder will increase? ‘Kay. Um, then why don’t we legalize ALL murder because then it will just magically decrease, right?
Bernard Nathanson wrote how the number of illegal abortions were never in the tens of thousands: that was a made up number, a lie. But, as soon as abortion was legal and boyfriends, husbands, employers, grandmothers and grandfathers started pushing abortion as the only option to pregnant women (as in ‘get rid of it or get out!’), and as soon as everyone with a shingle could hang it out and start murdering babies, the abortion rate SKYROCKETED. That’s the fact and even the slimy Guttamacher Institute doesn’t contradict but rather supports the fact.
Poor choicers do more than make poor choices: they allow their brains to atrophy from misuse.
Sydney
Medicaid is I think state funded and I’m just assuming but I would think they recieve federal funds. Medicaid and God is probably why my son’s here so I learned a lot about health care. I don’t believe in socialized medicine either but I do believe that in a country as blessed as ours, that people dying because they do not have access to quality health care is not good. The problem with depending on hospitals like St.Judes as the answer is that if a lot of children had quality health care there health issues would not be as bad. Any disease process that is caught early has a better chance for a cure. LaChip does exist and that’s a good thing. I’m hoping both parties can stop fighting long enough to develop a good health care system that people would have access to and those that wanted to join could but it would not be mandatory. And at the same stay as for away from socialized medicine as possible. The concern I would have with socialized medicine is that people who aren’t health care practioners would want to make decisions there not qualified to make. And if government gets too involved the price of healthcare will skyrocket. That’s why I think it needs to be done so everyone can have access to it. Of course I know that not everyone thinks the same and thats o.k. too.
Sydney – what do you mean by “government will never provide good healthcare”…are you saying that the VA system is bad, or military doctors? Or are you saying that the government doesn’t pay well? Please expand on what you are saying – last I checked, Medicare and Medicaid folks go to regular medical facilities (paid for by the government, but not supplied by the government)…and tricare works much the same.
Ex-Gop
I’m not sure what Sydney is saying about the VA system but what was happening at Walter Reid hospital lets you know the system needed some serious fixing. I had a neighbor he’s passed away and he was a Vet and the way he was treated was just wrong. I think that’s the danger in segrated health care. It’s too easy to label people and get away with it. I also think segrated health care also results in health care provider burnout. It’s just too much for them emotionally to cope with. And with medicaid some health care providers just want accept it because the state doesn’t pay enough and it’s too much paper work. Whatever solution they do find I hope it’s well thought out and is something that is a viable part of the free market system.
Myrtle:
To answer your question: Our health care safety net system should be maintained. We have done a great job in developing this system. However, with Obamacare we have crossed the line into what eventually will become full fledged socialized medicine.
If you care to see where Obamacare will lead us please see this link from today’s WSJ.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576313370527615288.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
Ex:
I will try to make it even simpler. The point is that people do have some responsibility for their actions. You think that you and I have to pay for someone else’s insurance when in fact they may have the means to do so themselves. I reject that.
You may think that is “cute rhetoric” but I just call it common sense.
Jerry
I think it should be more than maintained and that more people should have access too it and be contributors to it. I don’t believe in socialized medicine either but I do believe in fair representation for all taxpayers and I’m hoping they come up with a plan where people receive good health care. I’m sure you really believe that the only reason a person wouldn’t have health coverage is because they choose not to. But the people that are most affected by unequal access to good healthcare are often people who work 40 or 40 plus hours a week. They don’t receive subsidized housing they probably don’t quality for food stamps and at the end of the day what do you tell them. I know you work all the time, you contribute to the tax base, but you just don’t deserve health coverage. People who are serious contributers to our nations prosperity deserve better than that. I believe that people should have a certain degree of accountability but politicians also should have a degree of accountablity. I think in the near future all citizens will have access to quality health care. The challenge in my opinion is that it be done in a manner where it contributes to the economy and where health practioners administers health care and not bureacrats.