I Knew It I Just Knew It

2009 August 5
by MFG

Government funded child murder is a part of Obama’s health bill

Vicious infanticide you can believe

Damn the Democratic Party to hell forever

From Breitbart.com

58 Responses leave one →
  1. 2009 August 5 9:55 am
    [1]
    phineas gage permalink

    This is not a surprise.

    Snuffing the elderly and disabled, snuffing the innocent unborn.

    All paid for by your tax dollars.

    It is evil, pure and simple. If this country is still at heart a good and decent nation, there is about to be an epic conflict the likes of which have not been seen before.

  2. 2009 August 5 10:05 am
    [2]
    mpthompson permalink

    I have the feeling there will be some back peddling on this pretty quickly. They can’t afford to layer the “abortion” divisive issue on the “health care” divisive issue. We’ll see.

    Also, aren’t many of blue dogs against abortion (or at least federal funding)? This would be another issue to hang around their necks as they carry the water for the The One.

  3. 2009 August 5 10:15 am
    [3]
    JustMary permalink

    I’ll bet Planned Parenthood is getting set to make serious bank if this goes through. Why not charge double since it is on the gov’t dime?

    This administration seeks to serve itself, not the people. I’ll bet if abortion were put to a vote, it would be abolished.

  4. 2009 August 5 10:16 am
    [4]
    chekote permalink

    Do private insurance companies cover abortions? Does any one here know?

  5. 2009 August 5 10:19 am
    [5]
    JustMary permalink

    I believe they do to an extent, I will have to check. But even still, you have a choice whether or not you use them for your insurance.

  6. 2009 August 5 10:20 am
    [6]
    mpthompson permalink

    Do private insurance plans tend to cover abortion at this time? I really don’t know. I tend to believe they might as a cold calculation that abortion is much cheaper for an insurance company than bringing a pregnancy to term.

    If a public option does come to be, the worrisome thing is that the government will mandate every private insurance plan offer all public coverage items as a baseline. Then, it isn’t even a choice.

  7. 2009 August 5 10:21 am
    [7]
    mpthompson permalink

    I see we are all asking the same question…

  8. 2009 August 5 10:23 am
    [8]
    JustMary permalink

    With the public paying for abortions, as well as the cost of the child’s healthcare should the mother decide to keep him or her, it isn’t too far a stretch of the imagination that should your baby have a “defect” it would not be in the government’s best interest to allow the baby to live. Not cost effective. 🙁

  9. 2009 August 5 10:28 am
    [9]
    chekote permalink

    I truly don’t know. The reason why I ask is because if the insurance companies currently cover it, then the reason it has to be part of the government plan is obvious. The government plan WILL BE the only option available, therefore it has to cover it to match current private insurance coverage.

    Look Obama said several times that we need it to “reform” healthcare in order to resolve the debt/deficit problem. What is driving up the debt/deficit is the mandatory spending on Social Security and Medicare. The reason healthcare reform will “solve” the budget problems is because they will ration care for seniors. Shorter life expentancy due to denied medical care and BANG! you got you budget problem fixed.

  10. 2009 August 5 10:29 am
    [10]
    chekote permalink

    Back to the grind! Yuck!

  11. 2009 August 5 10:38 am
    [11]
    JustMary permalink

    Shorter life expentancy due to denied medical care and BANG! you got you budget problem fixed

    Anyone see that Planned Grandparenthood thing the People’s Cube did? It was spot on.

  12. 2009 August 5 10:42 am
    [12]
    MFG permalink

    Eons ago I used to sell insurance, life and health, at that time companies specifically excluded abortion in the contracts

    I know Blue Cross and Humana exclude abortion coverage in their individual plans today…

  13. 2009 August 5 10:58 am
    [13]
    beej permalink

    Do private insurance companies cover abortions? Does any one here know?
    ~~~~~~~~~`
    Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield does…but had to have a special bill in congress to get them to cover the ‘Pill.’ Vasectomies were covered before birth control for women. 🙁

  14. 2009 August 5 10:59 am
    [14]
    beej permalink

    My knowledge is about group plans, btw. Don’t know what private plans cover.

  15. 2009 August 5 11:05 am
    [15]
    beej permalink

    Chekote, there are riders that groups can buy, which will make the premiums higher. My group had choices for certain things like lap-band or gastric by-pass, etc. There are certain things that are REQUIRED by law…mental health, for example. But most coverage is what is customary or common for the general population.

    Been working in HR for the last hundred years.

  16. 2009 August 5 11:09 am
    [16]
    justrand permalink

    “Dr.” Emanuel (Obama “medical advisor”) and John Holdren (Science Czar) will ensure that the Government pays for the abortions, sterilizations and euthanasia procedures. Relax.

    as the President in “Independance Day” observes: “We’re being exterminated”

  17. 2009 August 5 11:20 am
    [17]
    mulletover permalink

    These are evil people, and America is moving from the trains to the chambers without resistance.

  18. 2009 August 5 11:28 am
    [18]

    Umm we knew this (public funded abortions in HC bill) like 2 week ago did we not?
    What’s new?

  19. 2009 August 5 11:31 am
    [19]

    “Do private insurance companies cover abortions? Does any one here know?”

    Thankfully I’ve never had the need or desire to check, I think it’s a plan specific, frankly I would think in a ‘general’ standard plan no.

  20. 2009 August 5 11:32 am
    [20]
    justrand permalink

    KnightHawk, for me the only thing that’s “new” is the confirmation that Dr. Josef Mengele has returned from the grave, and is guiding Obama’s medical policy! Seig Heil!!

  21. 2009 August 5 11:57 am
    [21]
    aureliusx permalink

    Only GOP operatives in Brooks-Brothers pinks and limes are claiming to oppose Obamacare.

    Just look at the latest CNN poll! They very appropriately polled >1000 Americans, 20% of whom were African American (that’s about right, isn’t it)? and an overwhelming number of respondents approve “Barack Obama’s plan to reform health care”.

    Unite, fellow workers.

  22. 2009 August 5 12:02 pm
    [22]
    aureliusx permalink

    Well now wait a minute. As I look at the poll again

    http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/08/04/rel11b.pdf

    I see that 45% answered no to that question. And now that I think about it, 20% AA is wildly off for a poll of Americans.

    I’m so confused. Can someone help me understand?

    Yes the protestors are a small cadre of paid agitators, that’s a given. But now it seems that most Americans actually oppose the bill…

    What oh what is going on?

    I am confuse.

  23. 2009 August 5 12:07 pm
    [23]
    janzam permalink

    Aurelius

    That is exactly what the left want to do —> confuse good people like yourself! LOL

  24. 2009 August 5 12:20 pm
    [24]
    MFG permalink

    Just remember Aurelius, dissent is the highest form of patriotism

    Oh, wait, no, that was when W was President

    Now it’s not

    Sorry…

  25. 2009 August 5 12:28 pm
    [25]
    MFG permalink

    My tax dollars at work…

  26. 2009 August 5 12:44 pm
    [26]
    mulletover permalink

    Your tax dollars will vacation on Nantucket later this month.

  27. 2009 August 5 12:45 pm
    [27]
    Havok permalink

    I wonder if I can opt not to pay my tax based on religious reasons that it s going to abortions.

  28. 2009 August 5 1:03 pm
    [28]
    beej permalink

    Your tax dollars will vacation on Nantucket later this month.
    ~~~~~
    With the press following dutifully behind, catching him swimming, playing basketball, holding Michelle’s hand, eating ice cream…gosh, why don’t they just invite him to vacation at Camelot?

    They’ll ask him how he’s doing, and he’ll say ‘fine…I’m much better since cash for clunkers is now such a resounding success, and the economy is turning around, and people are understanding the urgency of getting my universal health care passed in September. Ah, yes, it’s critical to get this taken care of immediately, if not sooner. Don’t listen to the folks behind the curtain…’

  29. 2009 August 5 1:31 pm
    [29]
    chekote permalink

    This is an interesting PSA being put out by a pro-life group:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM&feature=player_embedded

  30. 2009 August 5 2:15 pm
    [30]
    janzam permalink

    Obama doesn’t seem to read his bills nor vet his people, which now includes Mary Robinson. What a sloppy leader he has proven to be!

    Surprise: Mary Robinson wasn’t vetted Link

  31. 2009 August 5 2:21 pm
    [31]
    INC permalink

    Jan, lack of vetting as an excuse is ridiculous. While she isn’t someone you hear about every day, I’d read about her ages ago in the context of some event she cropped up in and read her background. Anyone as steeped in politics as this WH is, knows who she is and what she thinks.

  32. 2009 August 5 2:26 pm
    [32]
    INC permalink

    A commenter at Hot Air mentioned Robinson presiding over the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. I think that’s the event I was thinking of above.

    I don’t believe for a minute that no one in the WH knew that.

  33. 2009 August 5 2:30 pm
    [33]
    janzam permalink

    So, what you’re saying INC is that rather than ignorance, on the part of Obama, this was a deliberate “bad” choice?”

    Actually, either way Obama is proving to be making poor leadership decisions.

    I just read the following article by Jennifer Rubin. It grabbed my attention, because I’ve been thinking that an interesting poll for Rasmussen to do is how many people, who voted for Obama in ’08, would stick with or change their vote. Maybe this wouldn’t be a PC polling question to ask. However, the answer intrigues me as to what percentage would mark another box, now that they know more about who and what Obama is as POTUS. In other words, the “blank slate” is being written on.

    How many Obama voters feel let down?<a href=http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-many-obama-voters-feel-let-down/? PJ Media Link

  34. 2009 August 5 2:31 pm
    [34]
    janzam permalink

    Darn, another messed up link…sorry!

    How many Obama voters feel let down? PJ Media Link

  35. 2009 August 5 2:39 pm
    [35]
    INC permalink

    Yes, I think it was deliberate. If her name rang a warning bell with me, then you know that those people in the WH knew who she was.

    The fumbling in these decisions is in the overreach and the assumption that no one will call him on anything

  36. 2009 August 5 2:48 pm
    [36]
    chekote permalink

    Jan and INC

    I got this info on Mary Robison from the Republican Jewish Coalition. Sorry for the long post.

    RJC: Mary Robinson is not an appropriate recipient for the Presidential Medal of Freedom

    Washington, D.C. (August 4, 2009) — The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) today spoke out strongly against President Obama’s decision to award Mary Robinson the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The President will honor 16 people with the Medal of Freedom on August 12.

    RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, “Mary Robinson, who was one of the people responsible for the 2001 Durban conference against racism descending into an anti-Israel propaganda forum, is not an appropriate recipient for one of our nation’s highest honors. In fact, awarding the Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson does great dishonor to the many outstanding men and women who have received it in the past.”

    RJC responded to the late Friday afternoon statement by the White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, who said, “Mary Robinson has dedicated her career to human rights… As with any public figure, we don’t necessarily agree with every statement she has ever made, but it’s clear that she has been an agent of change and a fighter for good.”

    Yet the late Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), a member of the U.S. delegation to the Durban conference (later withdrawn when the U.S. boycotted the event), described Mary Robinson this way: “To many of us present at the events at Durban, it is clear that much of the responsibility for the debacle rests on the shoulders of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who, in her role as secretary-general of the conference, failed to provide the leadership needed to keep the conference on track.”

    Brooks said, “We’re troubled that the White House chooses to minimize the very real controversy about Mary Robinson. It’s wrong for the United States to honor someone who led a meeting that our nation boycotted. She had the opportunity to fight for good – by resisting the effort to turn the Durban conference into a swamp of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda. She not only failed to resist it, she facilitated it. That President Obama wishes to honor Mary Robinson in this way is profoundly disturbing.”

    Among the past recipients of the Medal of Freedom are people who personify some of America’s greatest ideals. They include men and women who have fought for freedom, such as Aung San Suu Kyi, Natan Sharansky, Rosa Parks, and Jeane Kirkpatrick; advocates of human rights such as Elie Wiesel, Mother Teresa, and Simon Wiesenthal; and foreign leaders whose courage and leadership have contributed to world peace and security, such as John Howard, Tony Blair, Vaclav Havel, and Margaret Thatcher.

    Brooks continued, “The choice of Mary Robinson for this award calls into serious question the White House vetting process, given Robinson’s well-known record, particularly with regard to the 2001 Durban conference. The U.S. boycotted the conference and it was the subject of intense public discussion. If the White House staff passed on Robinson’s name knowing how controversial and troubling the choice would be, that’s wrong in and of itself. If Robinson’s name made it onto the Medal of Freedom list because the White House staff was unaware of how controversial she was, that’s even worse.”

    Background:

    * Mary Robinson served as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and was secretary-general of the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa.

    * The late Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) wrote an extensive article, an insider’s view of the “Durban debacle,” which appeared in the Winter/Spring 2002 issue of the Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, published by the Fletcher School of international affairs at Tufts University. He wrote of Mary Robinson:

    To many of us present at the events at Durban, it is clear that much of the responsibility for the debacle rests on the shoulders of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who, in her role as secretary-general of the conference, failed to provide the leadership needed to keep the conference on track.

    Lantos describes how Robinson allowed the Asian Preparatory meeting for the WCAR to take place in Tehran. Israeli passport holders and Israeli NGOs were initially barred from the meeting, despite requests from the Simon Wiesenthal Center that the meeting be moved:

    She rejected the request, however, maintaining that throughout the fall and winter that the Iranian government understood that all NGOs must be allowed to attend. Although Robinson did successfully negotiate to obtain the visas on the first day of the conference, Jewish NGOs were effectively excluded from participation, as there was no way to arrange transportation to Tehran until the closing of the meeting.

    …At the end of the Tehran Meeting, Commissioner Robinson made no visible effort to confront the breakdown that had occurred in the global dialogue on race that she had done so much to nurture. In fact, in a baffling statement to the press after the conclusion of the conference, she congratulated the Tehran delegates on their degree of “consensus” and urged them to carry on in the fight against racism. She characterized the meeting as a productive dialogue between civilizations. When asked about the inflammatory rhetoric directed at Israel, she stated, “The situation in the Palestinian occupied territories was brought up at the meeting and it is reflected in the final declaration.” These comments represented a pivotal moment in the evolution of the WCAR. By appearing to condone the Asian conference’s efforts to place the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the agenda of the World Conference, she betrayed its intentions and emboldened those intent on using the conference for their own political purposes. From that moment the conference began to take a dangerous trajectory that became ever more difficult to correct.

    As a member of the U.S. delegation, Lantos participated in efforts to keep the Durban conference focused on human rights around the world, rather than on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. He described Robinson as undermining those efforts:

    Secretary Powell’s plan to save the conference was elegant and powerful in its simplicity: make clear that U.S. participation at Durban would depend upon removal of the text attacking Israel, and mount an intensive diplomatic offensive to isolate the hardline OICs states as the obstacle to success.

    … Mrs. Robinson’s intervention with the assembled delegates later in the same day left our delegation deeply shocked and saddened. In her remarks, she advocated precisely the opposite course to the one Secretary Powell and I had urged her to take. Namely, she refused to reject the twisted notion that the wrong done to the Jews in the Holocaust was equivalent to the pain suffered by the Palestinians in the Middle East. Instead, she discussed “the historical wounds of anti-Semitism and of the Holocaust on the one hand, and…the accumulated wounds of displacement and military occupation on the other.”

    Thus, instead of condemning the attempt to usurp the conference, she legitimized it. Instead of insisting that it was inappropriate to discuss a specific political conflict in the context of a World Conference on Racism, she spoke of the “need to resolve protracted conflict and occupation, claims of inequality, violence and terrorism, and a deteriorating situation on the ground.” Robinson was prepared to delve into the arcana of a single territorial conflict at the exclusion of all others and at the expense of the conference’s greater goals.

    Robinson’s intervention broke all momentum that the U.S. had developed.

    …It was clear to me that Mrs. Robinson’s intervention during the Geneva talks represented the coup d’grace on efforts to save the conference from disaster. If the conference was knocked off track in Tehran, it was completely derailed in Geneva.

    …As the U.S. pressed its case, Robinson seemed to be working to stymie our efforts. In her public and private statements, as was the case in Geneva, she insisted that the conference had to recognize the suffering of the Palestinian people.

    http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/26-1pdfs/Lantos9.pdf

    In the end, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Durban conference, noting:

    I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of ‘Zionism equals racism’; or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world, Israel, for censure and abuse.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34754.pdf, page 12, footnote 37.

    * Michael Rubin, writing in National Review in 2002, notes that Robinson’s record after the Durban conference is equally troubling:

    On April 15, Robinson’s commission voted on a decision that condoned suicide bombings as a legitimate means to establish Palestinian statehood (six European Union members voted in favor including, not surprisingly, France and Belgium). The vote came after Robinson initiated a drive to become a fact finder to investigate the now-famous massacre in Jenin (also known as “the massacre that never happened”). Curiously, in the months preceding Israel ‘s incursion into the U.N. refugee camp in Jenin, suicide bombers launched from the camp wearing explosives likely bought with European money killed more than 100 Israeli civilians. However, for Robinson, a massacre is the deaths of seven Palestinian civilians in a war zone (47 Palestinian militants and 23 Israel soldiers also died). The deaths of more than 100 Jewish civilians by suicide bombers is worthy of little more than deafening silence interrupted by an occasional pithy statement of moral equivalence.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-rubin052002.asp

    * When Robinson was appointed to the faculty of Columbia University in 2004, the head of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organization, James Tisch, expressed concern:

    Under Mary Robinson’s leadership the Human Rights Commission was one-sided and extremist. In her tenure at the HRC, she lacked fairness in her approach to the Israeli/Palestinian issue… I am hopeful – for the sake of her students and the reputation of Columbia – that as she enters the world of academia she will demonstrate more balance in her views.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=14336

  37. 2009 August 5 2:58 pm
    [37]
    aureliusx permalink

    Mary Robinson?

    This proves Sarah Palin was unfit for office.

  38. 2009 August 5 2:59 pm
    [38]
    drdog09 permalink

    Well lets have a word game shall we —

    Section XX of the health care bill states — program to eliminate “life unworthy of life” at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Federal Health Ministry.

    A decision on whether to allow the child to live was then made by three medical experts solely on the basis of the questionnaire, without any examination and without reading any medical records.

    Each expert is to place a + mark in red pencil or – mark in blue pencil under the term “treatment” on a special form. A red plus mark means a decision to terminate the child. A blue minus sign meant a decision against termination. Three plus symbols resulted in a warrant being issued and the transfer of the child to a ‘Children’s Specialty Department’.

    The decision is to be unanimous. In cases where the decision is not unanimous the child shall be kept under observation and another attempt would be made to get a unanimous decision.
    —————————————

    Name the section of the HC bill this is provision is contained in.

  39. 2009 August 5 3:09 pm
    [39]
    chekote permalink

    Where is Sarah Palin? What are her plans?

  40. 2009 August 5 3:10 pm
    [40]
    drdog09 permalink

    Do private insurance companies cover abortions? Does any one here know? — Chek

    I bet some do. The choices one has for health coverage in many cases are driven by State mandate. Some States require mental health coverage as part of any overall package. I already know I am a nut, so having coverage for it is a waste of money. But my premiums reflect that boost in service whether I use it or not. One of the dirty little secrets that the Dims have been pulling in many States over the years.

    People wonder by health ins is expensive. Talk to your state commissions and see what is mandatory. You might be surprised.

  41. 2009 August 5 3:18 pm
    [41]
    aureliusx permalink

    chekote– she’s standing RIGHT BEHIND YOU!

  42. 2009 August 5 3:18 pm
    [42]
    INC permalink

    chekote, I think I first read of Robinson in some article about the conference at Durban.

  43. 2009 August 5 3:22 pm
    [43]
    chekote permalink

    INC

    The Jewish community is starting to speak out again Robinson.

    Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel, AIPAC speak out against honoring Mary Robinson

    Washington, D.C. (August 5, 2009) — Democratic Congressman Eliot Engel (NY-17) said yesterday that honoring former UN Human Rights High Commissioner Mary Robinson with the Presidential Medal of Freedom was “a mistake.”

    Engel is the first Democrat to speak out publicly against the President’s decision to give Robinson our country’s highest civilian award.

    In an interview with journalist Jennifer Rubin, Engel said that Robinson “always managed to find a moral equivalence” between Israel’s fight for freedom and the terrorism Israel faces, and that Robinson “epitomizes all that is wrong with the United Nations” and its anti-Israel bias.

    Engel went further in an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, saying that he hoped the administration would rescind the award.

    AIPAC took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the White House, saying:

    AIPAC is deeply disappointed by the Obama administration’s choice to award a Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson. AIPAC respectfully calls on the administration to firmly, fully and publicly repudiate her views on Israel and her long public record of hostility and one-sided bias against the Jewish state.

    Robinson is widely known for the high-profile role she played in leading the deeply flawed U.N. Human Rights Commission and for presiding over the U.N.’s Durban Conference on Racism, which the United States boycotted for its unprecedented hostility to Israel and its final outcome document that equated Zionism with racism.

    …In addition to Robinson’s dishonorable role in the Durban debacle, her tenure on the UNHRC was deeply flawed, and her conduct marred by extreme, one-sided anti-Israel sentiment…

    Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks said:

    Mary Robinson, who was one of the people responsible for the 2001 Durban conference against racism descending into an anti-Israel propaganda forum, is not an appropriate recipient for one of our nation’s highest honors. In fact, awarding the Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson does great dishonor to the many outstanding men and women who have received it in the past.

    So far, the White House has sidestepped the controversy and the National Jewish Democratic Council doesn’t think this question is worth its time. NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman said, “With a major battle to ensure every American has access to health care, delicate negotiations to further the peace process in the Middle East and the battle to deny Iran a nuclear capacity, don’t we as a community have more critical issues to focus on?”

    Robinson bills herself as a defender of human rights, but her work has been deeply flawed by her unmitigated bias against Israel. She has been less an “agent for change” than an agent for the anti-Israel, anti-American ideology that has stymied international efforts to improve the lives of millions of men and women who are denied their human rights. As a growing bipartisan chorus agrees, she is not a worthy recipient of the Presidential Medal of Honor.

  44. 2009 August 5 3:22 pm
    [44]
    drdog09 permalink

    Would you PAY to read FOX News on the internet? —

    Media giant News Corporation Ltd intends to charge for all its news websites in a bid to lift revenues, as the transition towards online media permanently changes the advertising landscape.

    News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch told analysts in a conference call after News Corp released its full year results that the traditional newspaper business model has to change.

    Personally I think Murdoch is everlovin’ mad. But hey their his stock shares to play with….

  45. 2009 August 5 3:25 pm
    [45]
    INC permalink

    What’s with the National Jewish Democratic Council?

    Honestly–nothing seems to make them give up their Leftist ideas.

  46. 2009 August 5 3:28 pm
    [46]
    INC permalink

    Those are chilling words you quoted above, Dr. Dog.

    And, no, I wouldn’t pay to read FOX!

  47. 2009 August 5 3:30 pm
    [47]
    chekote permalink

    This is how misguided Jewish Democrats are:

    The chutzpah of Obama’s Jewish critics

    NO ONE is allowed to criticize Obama.

  48. 2009 August 5 3:37 pm
    [48]
    mpthompson permalink

    Hey, I’m on the hunt for a good fish picture that can be photoshopped into a likeness of The One. I’ll then write the following below it:

    something fishy for
    flag@whitehouse.gov

    Or is that too subtle?

  49. 2009 August 5 3:39 pm
    [49]
    INC permalink

    Misguided doesn’t begin to describe it. They are hypnotized.

  50. 2009 August 5 3:40 pm
    [50]
    INC permalink

    mpt,

    🙂

  51. 2009 August 5 3:44 pm
    [51]
    INC permalink

    That reminds me, RedState has this in the RedHot section:

    Text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    certain presidents, media, and party apparatchiki seem unclear on the details

    Just below that, they also link to a new hashtag for Twitter: #iamthemob

    Lots of politically uncorrect people thumbing their nose.

  52. 2009 August 5 3:51 pm
    [52]
    rightwingyahoo permalink

    Honestly, this should not surprise anyone. The goal of extreme population reduction, (as opposed to mild) is aided by this practice. So naturally, less babies and less elderly fits the wish list of the Communists in several areas.

    Horrible, yes, anti-human, yes, utterly miserable, yes, but not surprising.

  53. 2009 August 5 4:21 pm
    [53]
    drdog09 permalink

    INC,

    I just jiggered the words a little. It comes from the Nazi Aktion T4 program. Link. Scares the hell out of me.

  54. 2009 August 5 4:33 pm
    [54]
    INC permalink

    I’m not surprised. I’ve read that’s how Nazi genocide began–with the little ones and disabled.

    You know, we used to joke that if you bring in the Nazi argument you automatically lose, but not any more. Now it drives home a chilling comparison.

  55. 2009 August 5 4:35 pm
    [55]
    chekote permalink

    We are winning the argument. No need for Nazi analogies. That will self-defeating IMO.

  56. 2009 August 5 4:40 pm
    [56]
    phineas gage permalink

    It is never self-defeating to speak the truth.

    It is high time we damn well did it.

    BTW, Chekote, isn’t it interesting what happens when you elect someone based upon their ability to be a smooth talker?

  57. 2009 August 5 4:57 pm
    [57]
    drdog09 permalink

    Chek — I would have agreed 5 years ago. Not now. The similarities are getting too close. Once the State has control of your health they have control of you. That was/is the first step down a very dark road.

    More death has been delivered by men in white lab coats than ever has been delivered by men in Army Khaki.

    “A very strange game. The only winning move is not to play. …”

  58. 2009 August 5 5:29 pm
    [58]
    rightwingyahoo permalink

    I’m not surprised. I’ve read that’s how Nazi genocide began–with the little ones and disabled.

    That’s exactly how it started. They were called “useless eaters.” In the prison labor trains from the fronts, usually in the east, pregnant women fortunate enough to be sheltered from the elements that gave birth had their newborns flung out the windows….

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.