61
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
62
3DHS / The left....love of the people? love of "the little guy? Hardly
« on: June 28, 2016, 08:40:40 PM »
One of the common laments of leftist commentators in Europe and America concerning Brexit is that holding referendums is a bad idea.
The most frequently expressed example is the contempt in which the left holds British Prime Minister David Cameron for having suggested the referendum in the first place.
But why would the left hate referendums? Doesn't it claim to represent "the people"? Isn't "power to the people" one of the most popular sayings of the left? Isn't the American left trying to abolish the Electoral College precisely because it isn't directly representative of "the people's" will?
One would imagine, therefore, that if anyone would welcome referendums it would be the left.
So, what gives?
The answers explain a great deal about the left.
First, the left cares about "the people" as much as the Soviet Communist Party cared about the workers. For the left, real people are either political fodder or, when they support the left, useful idiots.
The left loves power, not people.
Repeat: The left loves power, not people.
If that is not understood, the left is not understood.
The European Union is a perfect example. It is a left-wing exercise in controlling people -- in this case, entire nations. That great source of societal damage -- the faceless and nameless bureaucrat, in this instance located in Brussels, Belgium -- seeks to control as much of every individual European's life as possible. There is no limit to the number and extent of rules the EU passes.
To the left nations are archaic constructs, impediments to the left-wing ideal of a world without national identities. This utopia, governed ultimately by a worldwide Brussels -- the United Nations or something like it -- will be run by a secular totalitarian clergy consisting of left-wing parties; left-wing intellectuals in academia and the media; big corporations vying for government subsidies; and big labor, whose leaders embody the love of power. Fellow travelers include environmentalist and feminist organizations and the religious Left (to the extent that organized Western religion will exist in a left-wing-run world).
Since its beginning, the major, if not only interest the left has had in people is to control them.
That is the reason for the left's fear and loathing of referendums. Every referendum gives people who are not yet controlled by the left the exceedingly rare opportunity to exercise power.
That is what the people of California did when they voted to amend their state's constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The left loathed the proposal, characterizing it as "hate." And after it was passed the left did what it always does when it can: used judges to overturn the popular will.
The British nation did last week what the citizens of California had done. They exercised their will independently of the left. Those British whose minds were not yet influenced by the left said that they would rather have Britain stay British and be self-governing than become an identity-free European country governed by Brussels
Thus, the left is now apoplectic. No one should be able to defy the left and get away with it. Just as almost everyone of any prominence who supported California's Proposition 8 was ultimately punished (like the CEO of Mozilla Firefox, who despite his universally acknowledged fair treatment of gays was targeted with furious attacks solely for supporting the notion that marriage should have remain defined as it had always been, a union between the two sexes).
America should have a referendum on whether or not to exit the United Nations, that moral wasteland beloved by the left. In light of Brexit, Republicans should strongly endorse the idea, even if the results aren't binding.
Brexit represents a ray of optimism. But in the long run, even referendums may not matter. As long as the left controls education and the news and entertainment media, brainwashed populations will vote to destroy their nations and Western civilization in general, as is already happening in the institution most controlled by the left: the university.
In the meantime, long live the referendum, the last remaining tool for the non-elites and the non-leftists to express themselves.
The most frequently expressed example is the contempt in which the left holds British Prime Minister David Cameron for having suggested the referendum in the first place.
But why would the left hate referendums? Doesn't it claim to represent "the people"? Isn't "power to the people" one of the most popular sayings of the left? Isn't the American left trying to abolish the Electoral College precisely because it isn't directly representative of "the people's" will?
One would imagine, therefore, that if anyone would welcome referendums it would be the left.
So, what gives?
The answers explain a great deal about the left.
First, the left cares about "the people" as much as the Soviet Communist Party cared about the workers. For the left, real people are either political fodder or, when they support the left, useful idiots.
The left loves power, not people.
Repeat: The left loves power, not people.
If that is not understood, the left is not understood.
The European Union is a perfect example. It is a left-wing exercise in controlling people -- in this case, entire nations. That great source of societal damage -- the faceless and nameless bureaucrat, in this instance located in Brussels, Belgium -- seeks to control as much of every individual European's life as possible. There is no limit to the number and extent of rules the EU passes.
To the left nations are archaic constructs, impediments to the left-wing ideal of a world without national identities. This utopia, governed ultimately by a worldwide Brussels -- the United Nations or something like it -- will be run by a secular totalitarian clergy consisting of left-wing parties; left-wing intellectuals in academia and the media; big corporations vying for government subsidies; and big labor, whose leaders embody the love of power. Fellow travelers include environmentalist and feminist organizations and the religious Left (to the extent that organized Western religion will exist in a left-wing-run world).
Since its beginning, the major, if not only interest the left has had in people is to control them.
That is the reason for the left's fear and loathing of referendums. Every referendum gives people who are not yet controlled by the left the exceedingly rare opportunity to exercise power.
That is what the people of California did when they voted to amend their state's constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The left loathed the proposal, characterizing it as "hate." And after it was passed the left did what it always does when it can: used judges to overturn the popular will.
The British nation did last week what the citizens of California had done. They exercised their will independently of the left. Those British whose minds were not yet influenced by the left said that they would rather have Britain stay British and be self-governing than become an identity-free European country governed by Brussels
Thus, the left is now apoplectic. No one should be able to defy the left and get away with it. Just as almost everyone of any prominence who supported California's Proposition 8 was ultimately punished (like the CEO of Mozilla Firefox, who despite his universally acknowledged fair treatment of gays was targeted with furious attacks solely for supporting the notion that marriage should have remain defined as it had always been, a union between the two sexes).
America should have a referendum on whether or not to exit the United Nations, that moral wasteland beloved by the left. In light of Brexit, Republicans should strongly endorse the idea, even if the results aren't binding.
Brexit represents a ray of optimism. But in the long run, even referendums may not matter. As long as the left controls education and the news and entertainment media, brainwashed populations will vote to destroy their nations and Western civilization in general, as is already happening in the institution most controlled by the left: the university.
In the meantime, long live the referendum, the last remaining tool for the non-elites and the non-leftists to express themselves.
64
3DHS / ahhh...look at all the pouty children
« on: June 22, 2016, 02:14:37 PM »
They didn't get exactly what they demanded so they had to make it appear that they supposedly cared
65
3DHS / Here's why the Republicans are going to lose the Presidential election
« on: June 20, 2016, 04:22:42 PM »
Once there was a time....not too long again, either, where criminal & immoral conduct by public servants & politicians whose salaries we pay for, received bi-partisan condemnation & outrage. So much so, we voted them out of office as soon as we could, if they weren't indicted or resigned 1st
Fast forward to the present, in which with the enabling of the mainstream media, we have an administration, who's Justice Dept openly references the Federal crimes they have no intention of enforcing, Federal guidelines they have no plan on adhering to, while making every effort to scrutinze and make harder who people contibute to or simply want to exercise their 2nd amendment right....the latter being a specific subset of society, conservatives and supporters of the Constitution
The reason the GOP is going to lose is rather than focus on the massive donkey in the room, they're going to bitch and moan about how politically incorrect their own nominee is. Regardless of how much of a twit Trump makes himself out to be, if the GOP were to focus on who their campaigning against, and specifically, the utter contempt the left has for the Constitution & rule of law, they could pull this out
Case in point......we've just learned the AG, at the command of the WH, has released the transcripts of the radicalized Muslim American, who killed 49 people in Orlando, but scrubbed all references to Allah, and what facilitatedfacilitated his rampage. Even replacing Allah with the word God, in some parts. Did you get that?? The WH and our AG, re-wrote what was actually said by the terrorist, which not only whitewashes the radicalized Islamic mindset that pushed this murderer into action, but even infers a connection to God in general, if not the Chrisitian God specifically.
Again, imagine the appropriate bi-partisan outrage, if some white male, claimed in some phone call, that the Chrisitian God made him shoot up a bunch of Abortion clinic doctors & employees, and the WH, released a transcript that removed all references to God, and replaced it with Allah. Heads would roll, resignations would be demanded. But the GOP is so petrified of being called racist or bigoted, thanks in part to how Obama and the Dems, with the coveted assistance of the media, have helped paint the rhetorical landscape. So they're going to dump on Trump, instead.
Fast forward to the present, in which with the enabling of the mainstream media, we have an administration, who's Justice Dept openly references the Federal crimes they have no intention of enforcing, Federal guidelines they have no plan on adhering to, while making every effort to scrutinze and make harder who people contibute to or simply want to exercise their 2nd amendment right....the latter being a specific subset of society, conservatives and supporters of the Constitution
The reason the GOP is going to lose is rather than focus on the massive donkey in the room, they're going to bitch and moan about how politically incorrect their own nominee is. Regardless of how much of a twit Trump makes himself out to be, if the GOP were to focus on who their campaigning against, and specifically, the utter contempt the left has for the Constitution & rule of law, they could pull this out
Case in point......we've just learned the AG, at the command of the WH, has released the transcripts of the radicalized Muslim American, who killed 49 people in Orlando, but scrubbed all references to Allah, and what facilitatedfacilitated his rampage. Even replacing Allah with the word God, in some parts. Did you get that?? The WH and our AG, re-wrote what was actually said by the terrorist, which not only whitewashes the radicalized Islamic mindset that pushed this murderer into action, but even infers a connection to God in general, if not the Chrisitian God specifically.
Again, imagine the appropriate bi-partisan outrage, if some white male, claimed in some phone call, that the Chrisitian God made him shoot up a bunch of Abortion clinic doctors & employees, and the WH, released a transcript that removed all references to God, and replaced it with Allah. Heads would roll, resignations would be demanded. But the GOP is so petrified of being called racist or bigoted, thanks in part to how Obama and the Dems, with the coveted assistance of the media, have helped paint the rhetorical landscape. So they're going to dump on Trump, instead.
66
3DHS / A taste of the deleted
« on: June 11, 2016, 12:19:08 PM »
....and how sweet it is. We've all known how full of AMBE Clinton has been, in declaring how nothing she deleted, then going the extra effort to wipe the server, had anything to do with State Dept business. Nada...and the proof was....well, we just have to take her word for it. So, when she did eventually turn over her computer and private server system (only after being ordered by the court to do so), the squibs at the FBI have apparently been able to unswipe quite a bit, and the latest that's been released is quite the lens into down and dirty political corruption that is sooooo Clintonesque....
It would seem, as an apparent favor to a massive Democrat donor, (not to mention superdelegate, committed to Clinton no less), he was given a posh seat in a super secret State Dept committee. A Committee who's members line the Intelligence & Military community of all stripe....except for this fella....some hedge fund guru, with not a shred of intellegence background. previously deleted e-mails between Clinton's chief of staff Cheryl Mills, confirmed that this appointent was a direct "request" (as in demand) by Clinton, to which the committee reluctantly agreed to. When the e-mails were about to be released, Mills managed to get the report of the e-mails squelched for 24hours, in which time, this Hedge Fund manager, "suddenly" resigned from the committee.....ergo, "what's the problem?"
While this doesn't reach the level of her pathological lying and reckless disregard for the safety of this country, this SOOO stinks of typical DC corruption and quid-pro-quo, and has Clinton's name tattoo-ed all over it
It would seem, as an apparent favor to a massive Democrat donor, (not to mention superdelegate, committed to Clinton no less), he was given a posh seat in a super secret State Dept committee. A Committee who's members line the Intelligence & Military community of all stripe....except for this fella....some hedge fund guru, with not a shred of intellegence background. previously deleted e-mails between Clinton's chief of staff Cheryl Mills, confirmed that this appointent was a direct "request" (as in demand) by Clinton, to which the committee reluctantly agreed to. When the e-mails were about to be released, Mills managed to get the report of the e-mails squelched for 24hours, in which time, this Hedge Fund manager, "suddenly" resigned from the committee.....ergo, "what's the problem?"
While this doesn't reach the level of her pathological lying and reckless disregard for the safety of this country, this SOOO stinks of typical DC corruption and quid-pro-quo, and has Clinton's name tattoo-ed all over it
67
3DHS / New slogan for the country
« on: June 01, 2016, 05:29:10 PM »
As Clinton attempts to come up with yet another reinvention of herself, following the latest IG disaster of a report, we move on from her previous 7 campaign slogan incarnations to perhaps the best one yet:
“Hillary : Because it’s women’s turn to mess up the world.”
“Hillary : Because it’s women’s turn to mess up the world.”
68
3DHS / Hire or Fire?
« on: May 28, 2016, 01:11:02 PM »
Your boss is having an affair with your company's chief legal counsel. They both work in your office environment. The counsel has a tremendous amount of influence both over your boss and the CEO. Your coworkers also know about this affair so you all walk on eggshells.
You’re confident the CEO is unaware of the relationship. But, that's not the biggest problem. The worst part of this matter is that the CEO and your boss are married.
Do you feel this affair is in any way an appropriate relationship in your workplace?
Do you feel it presents any conflict of interest to the mission of the company?
Is there anything positive that can come out of the situation?
Is your boss or the chief legal counsel using good judgment in the workplace?
The CEO nor your boss are equity owners - just employees. You also know that 70% of the Board of Directors are Christian and would not approve of the inappropriate relationships; especially because the chief legal counsel is supposed to be dispensing unbiased advice and directives to the company.
Now, without trying to change any of the parameters, if the Board of Directors discovered these facts, what should they do?
You’re confident the CEO is unaware of the relationship. But, that's not the biggest problem. The worst part of this matter is that the CEO and your boss are married.
Do you feel this affair is in any way an appropriate relationship in your workplace?
Do you feel it presents any conflict of interest to the mission of the company?
Is there anything positive that can come out of the situation?
Is your boss or the chief legal counsel using good judgment in the workplace?
The CEO nor your boss are equity owners - just employees. You also know that 70% of the Board of Directors are Christian and would not approve of the inappropriate relationships; especially because the chief legal counsel is supposed to be dispensing unbiased advice and directives to the company.
Now, without trying to change any of the parameters, if the Board of Directors discovered these facts, what should they do?
69
3DHS / FINALLY....
« on: May 27, 2016, 02:14:08 PM »
It's nice to see, what are generally democrat sychophants and worshippers of anything everything Clinton, finally recognizing the scope of her lying, as highlighed by the lastest State Dept IG Report. Now, her cool-aide drinking aides and supporters will cling to the talking points about how "other SoS did the same thing" (LIE), and how she has been the "most transparent" (LIE), and how she has been "fully cooperative" (LIE), but its nice to see folks, even at MSNBC no longer trying to defend the indefensible, when it comes to her e-mail debacle & reckless disregard of our most sensitive intel & foreign assets
70
3DHS / When it rains.....it's silence.....if you're a Democrat
« on: May 26, 2016, 12:23:37 PM »
and especially if your name is Clinton
The State Dept's official IG report came out, pretty much evicerating everything she's claimed to this point, regarding her personal server, handling everything Government, while she was SoS....including supposedly was completely cooperative, had turned over "everything", that she had been given "permission" by the State Dept and IG's office, that she pushed her aides to completely cooperate.....NONE OF THAT being the case
And cue the media crickets
The State Dept's official IG report came out, pretty much evicerating everything she's claimed to this point, regarding her personal server, handling everything Government, while she was SoS....including supposedly was completely cooperative, had turned over "everything", that she had been given "permission" by the State Dept and IG's office, that she pushed her aides to completely cooperate.....NONE OF THAT being the case
And cue the media crickets
71
3DHS / Clinton: the Game Plan.
« on: May 25, 2016, 02:25:45 PM »
Lie
Lie
Lie
Lie
Lie
and when all else fails, lie some more, and proclaim everything else happened "so long ago"
Lie
Lie
Lie
Lie
and when all else fails, lie some more, and proclaim everything else happened "so long ago"
72
3DHS / So much for that supposed police abuse
« on: May 23, 2016, 01:34:08 PM »
Baltimore officer found not guilty on all charges in Freddie Gray case
A judge in Baltimore Monday found a police officer not guilty on all charges against him in connection with the death of Freddie Gray in police custody, months after another officer's trial ended in a hung jury.
Officer Edward Nero faced second-degree assault, misconduct in office and reckless endangerment charges. Prosecutors said the 30-year-old unlawfully arrested Gray without probable cause and was negligent when he didn't buckle the prisoner into a seat belt.
In a lengthy analysis read from the bench, Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry Williams said Nero's partner, Officer Garrett Miller, detained and arrested Gray himself. Williams said Nero did not act "corruptly" with an intent to commit a crime.
He also said the state failed to prove that Nero was informed and aware of an updated transport policy regarding seat belts.
"Although the criminal case against Officer Edward Nero has come to a close, the internal investigation has not. With that, Officer Nero's status will remain unchanged. He will remain in an administrative capacity while this investigation continues," Baltimore police spokesman T.J. Smith said.
"Officer Nero is relieved that for him, this nightmare is nearing an end. Being falsely charged with a crime, and being prosecuted for reasons that have nothing to do with justice, is a horror that no person should ever have to endure," the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police responded.
As the verdict was read, Nero dropped his head down and his attorney placed a hand on his back. The courtroom was quiet. When the judge said he was not guilty, Nero stood up and hugged his attorney, and appeared to wipe away a tear.
A Montgomery County Police riot team was deployed to Baltimore. Several angry protesters surrounded Nero's brother as he left the courthouse protected by armed security officers, shouting "no justice, no peace."
Officer Edward Nero with Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry Williams. (Sketch artist Betsy Kirk)
"This is our American system of justice and police officers must be afforded the same justice system as every other citizen in this city, state, and country... In the case of any disturbance in the city, we are prepared to respond. We will protect our neighborhoods, our businesses, and the people of our city," Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said.
Nero opted for a bench trial rather than a jury trial. A judge declared a mistrial for Officer William Porter in December.
Gray died April 19, 2015, a week after his neck was broken in the back of a police transport van while he was handcuffed and shackled but left unrestrained by a seat belt.
His death set off more than a week of protests followed by looting, rioting and arson that prompted a citywide curfew. His name became a rallying cry in the growing national conversation about the treatment of black men by police officers.
On the morning of April 12, 2015, Nero, Miller and Lt. Brian Rice were on patrol in Baltimore's high-crime area of the Western District when Rice made eye contact with Gray and he ran away. Rice called for backup, and Miller and Nero responded. According to testimony, Miller, who'd jumped off his bicycle, caught up with Gray and placed him in handcuffs.
Nero's attorney, Marc Zayon, said Nero touched Gray to help him up from the ground after he'd been handcuffed and was asking for an inhaler.
Gray was placed in the back of the transport van, seated on the wagon's bench.
A few blocks away the van stopped, and Rice and Miller took Gray, who police said had been kicking, screaming and shaking the van, out of the wagon, placed him in leg irons and replaced his metal cuffs with plastic ones. The officers, with Nero's help, loaded Gray back into the van, sliding him into the compartment on his belly and head-first.
That was the second and last time Nero touched Gray, his attorney said during the trial.
Prosecutors said the officers should never have arrested Gray without first patting him down to determine whether or not he was armed and dangerous. In failing to do so, the officers violated the rules for a routine stop. Without probable cause, Gray never should have been taken into custody, they said.
The judge disagreed.
Shortly after Gray's death, State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby charged six officers. Three of them are black; Nero and two others are white. The other officers are set to have separate trials over the summer and into the fall.
The assault charge against Nero carried a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and reckless endangerment carried a punishment of up to five years.
Nero's attorney argued his client didn't arrest Gray and that it was the police van driver's responsibility to buckle in detainees. The judge said police training materials dealing with transport safety were clearly aimed at drivers.
The defense also sought to convince the judge that the department's order requiring that all inmates be strapped in was more suggestion than rule because officers were expected to act with discretion based on the circumstances of each situation.
A judge in Baltimore Monday found a police officer not guilty on all charges against him in connection with the death of Freddie Gray in police custody, months after another officer's trial ended in a hung jury.
Officer Edward Nero faced second-degree assault, misconduct in office and reckless endangerment charges. Prosecutors said the 30-year-old unlawfully arrested Gray without probable cause and was negligent when he didn't buckle the prisoner into a seat belt.
In a lengthy analysis read from the bench, Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry Williams said Nero's partner, Officer Garrett Miller, detained and arrested Gray himself. Williams said Nero did not act "corruptly" with an intent to commit a crime.
He also said the state failed to prove that Nero was informed and aware of an updated transport policy regarding seat belts.
"Although the criminal case against Officer Edward Nero has come to a close, the internal investigation has not. With that, Officer Nero's status will remain unchanged. He will remain in an administrative capacity while this investigation continues," Baltimore police spokesman T.J. Smith said.
"Officer Nero is relieved that for him, this nightmare is nearing an end. Being falsely charged with a crime, and being prosecuted for reasons that have nothing to do with justice, is a horror that no person should ever have to endure," the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police responded.
As the verdict was read, Nero dropped his head down and his attorney placed a hand on his back. The courtroom was quiet. When the judge said he was not guilty, Nero stood up and hugged his attorney, and appeared to wipe away a tear.
A Montgomery County Police riot team was deployed to Baltimore. Several angry protesters surrounded Nero's brother as he left the courthouse protected by armed security officers, shouting "no justice, no peace."
Officer Edward Nero with Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry Williams. (Sketch artist Betsy Kirk)
"This is our American system of justice and police officers must be afforded the same justice system as every other citizen in this city, state, and country... In the case of any disturbance in the city, we are prepared to respond. We will protect our neighborhoods, our businesses, and the people of our city," Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said.
Nero opted for a bench trial rather than a jury trial. A judge declared a mistrial for Officer William Porter in December.
Gray died April 19, 2015, a week after his neck was broken in the back of a police transport van while he was handcuffed and shackled but left unrestrained by a seat belt.
His death set off more than a week of protests followed by looting, rioting and arson that prompted a citywide curfew. His name became a rallying cry in the growing national conversation about the treatment of black men by police officers.
On the morning of April 12, 2015, Nero, Miller and Lt. Brian Rice were on patrol in Baltimore's high-crime area of the Western District when Rice made eye contact with Gray and he ran away. Rice called for backup, and Miller and Nero responded. According to testimony, Miller, who'd jumped off his bicycle, caught up with Gray and placed him in handcuffs.
Nero's attorney, Marc Zayon, said Nero touched Gray to help him up from the ground after he'd been handcuffed and was asking for an inhaler.
Gray was placed in the back of the transport van, seated on the wagon's bench.
A few blocks away the van stopped, and Rice and Miller took Gray, who police said had been kicking, screaming and shaking the van, out of the wagon, placed him in leg irons and replaced his metal cuffs with plastic ones. The officers, with Nero's help, loaded Gray back into the van, sliding him into the compartment on his belly and head-first.
That was the second and last time Nero touched Gray, his attorney said during the trial.
Prosecutors said the officers should never have arrested Gray without first patting him down to determine whether or not he was armed and dangerous. In failing to do so, the officers violated the rules for a routine stop. Without probable cause, Gray never should have been taken into custody, they said.
The judge disagreed.
Shortly after Gray's death, State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby charged six officers. Three of them are black; Nero and two others are white. The other officers are set to have separate trials over the summer and into the fall.
The assault charge against Nero carried a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and reckless endangerment carried a punishment of up to five years.
Nero's attorney argued his client didn't arrest Gray and that it was the police van driver's responsibility to buckle in detainees. The judge said police training materials dealing with transport safety were clearly aimed at drivers.
The defense also sought to convince the judge that the department's order requiring that all inmates be strapped in was more suggestion than rule because officers were expected to act with discretion based on the circumstances of each situation.
73
3DHS / WOW....NOW claims killing more babies saves lives
« on: May 19, 2016, 02:59:21 PM »
Babies Wouldn’t Die So Much If We’d Just Kill Them Before They Died
National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill published an editorial on the Huffington Post today entitled, “Abortion, Like Contraception, Is Essential Health Care That Saves Lives."
Let that sink in for a second. A procedure that’s taken over 50 million lives in the U.S. alone since 1973 . . . saves lives.
O’Neill’s “life saving” abortions
How does O’Neill get to the conclusion promised in the title, that “abortion care” saves lives? Easy! She ignores 50% of the people involved in every abortion.
The first place she looks for saved lives from abortion is high infant mortality rates. They’d be so much lower if more of those pesky underprivileged women would just get more abortions. That’s right, her solution to high infant mortality rates is to kill the babies before they get the chance to die!
From the article (emphasis mine):
We have a premature birth crisis in this country that can be directly linked to our failure to provide adequate contraception and abortion care. About half of pregnancies in the U.S. each year are unintended, and for those women who carry their pregnancies to term (more than half do), the prognosis is anything but great. They not only experience higher rates of premature birth, but also are more likely to have inadequate prenatal care, low birth weight and small size infants, maternal depression and anxiety.
From a public health point of view, abortion care, no less than contraception, is an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality . . ..
To avoid the “heartbreak of infant mortality,” we should just kill the infants before anyone starts keeping statistics about them.
Again, from the article (emphasis mine):
. . . as more states like Texas and North Carolina restrict access to abortion care, more women are dying in childbirth or pregnancy, and more infants are not surviving to their first birthday.
They’re not surviving to their first birthday because you didn’t even give them the chance to be born, Terry!
Killing the poor would be an efficient way to reduce poverty, disease, recidivism, and any number of other problems, except that it’s wrong to kill the people who have problems in order to solve problems!
O’Neill mentions maternal mortality, which I won’t address in detail because it’s never right to kill someone in order to solve your problems, and so abortion cannot be a solution to the problem of maternal mortality. But it should be noted that the data actually shows that direct abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life.
The Myth of “Abortion Care”
But, at its heart, O’Neill’s piece is an attempt to make the phrase “abortion care” happen. Planned Parenthood and their ilk have been using the phrase for a while, though apparently not everyone is getting on board with this bit of Newspeak, or O’Neill’s piece would not have been necessary.
“Abortion care” is yet another attempt to shift focus off the human being who’s being killed in every single abortion procedure. Abortion can only be called “care” if you’re not thinking about the person who’s being dismembered.
But controlling the narrative is at least half the battle in a culture war, so it’s imperative that we who recognize the inherent value of the child in the womb combat their twisting of language.
Don’t let the phrase “abortion care” go by unchallenged if it’s used in your presence. All that’s required for a pernicious phrase like “abortion care” to slip into the American lexicon is for you and me to say nothing.
Ask about what care is being provided to the child. Show the images of abortion victims to “abortion care” advocates, and ask what kind of care they would call that. Ask how killing a child so it doesn’t die solves the problem of infant mortality.
But whatever you say, keep the focus on the child in the womb, whose life is an end in itself, not a tool to be used to fix statistics we don’t like.
National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill published an editorial on the Huffington Post today entitled, “Abortion, Like Contraception, Is Essential Health Care That Saves Lives."
Let that sink in for a second. A procedure that’s taken over 50 million lives in the U.S. alone since 1973 . . . saves lives.
O’Neill’s “life saving” abortions
How does O’Neill get to the conclusion promised in the title, that “abortion care” saves lives? Easy! She ignores 50% of the people involved in every abortion.
The first place she looks for saved lives from abortion is high infant mortality rates. They’d be so much lower if more of those pesky underprivileged women would just get more abortions. That’s right, her solution to high infant mortality rates is to kill the babies before they get the chance to die!
From the article (emphasis mine):
We have a premature birth crisis in this country that can be directly linked to our failure to provide adequate contraception and abortion care. About half of pregnancies in the U.S. each year are unintended, and for those women who carry their pregnancies to term (more than half do), the prognosis is anything but great. They not only experience higher rates of premature birth, but also are more likely to have inadequate prenatal care, low birth weight and small size infants, maternal depression and anxiety.
From a public health point of view, abortion care, no less than contraception, is an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality . . ..
To avoid the “heartbreak of infant mortality,” we should just kill the infants before anyone starts keeping statistics about them.
Again, from the article (emphasis mine):
. . . as more states like Texas and North Carolina restrict access to abortion care, more women are dying in childbirth or pregnancy, and more infants are not surviving to their first birthday.
They’re not surviving to their first birthday because you didn’t even give them the chance to be born, Terry!
Killing the poor would be an efficient way to reduce poverty, disease, recidivism, and any number of other problems, except that it’s wrong to kill the people who have problems in order to solve problems!
O’Neill mentions maternal mortality, which I won’t address in detail because it’s never right to kill someone in order to solve your problems, and so abortion cannot be a solution to the problem of maternal mortality. But it should be noted that the data actually shows that direct abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life.
The Myth of “Abortion Care”
But, at its heart, O’Neill’s piece is an attempt to make the phrase “abortion care” happen. Planned Parenthood and their ilk have been using the phrase for a while, though apparently not everyone is getting on board with this bit of Newspeak, or O’Neill’s piece would not have been necessary.
“Abortion care” is yet another attempt to shift focus off the human being who’s being killed in every single abortion procedure. Abortion can only be called “care” if you’re not thinking about the person who’s being dismembered.
But controlling the narrative is at least half the battle in a culture war, so it’s imperative that we who recognize the inherent value of the child in the womb combat their twisting of language.
Don’t let the phrase “abortion care” go by unchallenged if it’s used in your presence. All that’s required for a pernicious phrase like “abortion care” to slip into the American lexicon is for you and me to say nothing.
Ask about what care is being provided to the child. Show the images of abortion victims to “abortion care” advocates, and ask what kind of care they would call that. Ask how killing a child so it doesn’t die solves the problem of infant mortality.
But whatever you say, keep the focus on the child in the womb, whose life is an end in itself, not a tool to be used to fix statistics we don’t like.
74
3DHS / So.....which national polling orgnization isn't a propoganda piece?
« on: May 17, 2016, 04:45:27 PM »
Only the ones that have Clinton and Democrat policies winning?
75
3DHS / The beginning of the end of the Public Education System?
« on: May 13, 2016, 02:13:32 PM »
You've got all manner of politically correct busy bodies trying to bully NC into allowing anyone to go into any bathroom, based on how they feel, followed by our country's AG, initiating a federal lawsuit, at tax payer expense, to compell NC to overturn its law.
Now you have our Dept of Education & Obama, send out a memorandum, dictating that all public schools, thru-out the country, are to adhere to a similar principle.....anyone can go in to any bathroom that they "identify with". What the frell?? Not conversing with anyone from congress, just deciding to pull is emperor card out, and with an executive order, order the DoEd to literally give a green light to any boy that feels compelled to go into any girls' bathroom, on a public campus. Literally, a boy can just follow any girl, into the bathroom, with this order, if they simply better "identify" with that bathroom
The only saving grace is that its merely an executive action, is in, its not a law, that state schools must abide by. But they do risk losing Federal dollars if they don't
Now you have our Dept of Education & Obama, send out a memorandum, dictating that all public schools, thru-out the country, are to adhere to a similar principle.....anyone can go in to any bathroom that they "identify with". What the frell?? Not conversing with anyone from congress, just deciding to pull is emperor card out, and with an executive order, order the DoEd to literally give a green light to any boy that feels compelled to go into any girls' bathroom, on a public campus. Literally, a boy can just follow any girl, into the bathroom, with this order, if they simply better "identify" with that bathroom
The only saving grace is that its merely an executive action, is in, its not a law, that state schools must abide by. But they do risk losing Federal dollars if they don't