In Defense Of Life

2012 February 10

Baby At Seven Weeks

Jill Stanek and Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois

Jill Stanek and Barack Obama in the Illinois Legislature

Links to Barack Obama’s votes on IL’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act

The Obama Debate Every American Should See

Robert P. George, October 14, 2008  Obama’s Abortion Extremism

Robert P. George and Yuval Levin, October 16, 2008 Obama and Infanticide


Peter Kirsanow, February 9, 2012
Will the Administration Rescind the HHS Mandate?

During the course of his public life, President Obama has taken the hard-left position on matters falling under the phrase “reproductive rights.” Recall that as a state senator he fought against the Illinois state version of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). BAIPA requires that babies born alive after a botched abortion be given medical care and sustenance as any other infant born alive, rather than be left to die in a hospital utility closet.

Not one senator — neither Boxer, Clinton, nor Kennedy — voted against BAIPA at the federal level. Even NARAL did not oppose it.

Andy McCarthy, February 9, 2012 When Obama Voted For Infanticide

What I personally find most offensive about the HHS mandate is the shock with which it has been met. Why? This is who Barack Obama is. There is no reason to be surprised by this. He is not being pulled to extremes by his base — he is the one doing the pulling. Obama’s abortion extremism is such that, as a state legislator, he opposed protection for — I’ll use his words here — “that fetus, or child — however way you want to say describe it” when, contrary to the wishes of the women involved and their abortionists, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

President Ronald Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, 1983

Whether we are talking about pain suffered by unborn children, or about late-term abortions, or about infanticide, we inevitably focus on the humanity of the unborn child….

Malcolm Muggeridge, the English writer, goes right to the heart of the matter: “Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other.” The sanctity of innocent human life is a principle that Congress should proclaim at every opportunity….

…we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide….

I firmly believe that the decay and destruction we are seeing within our country is in part both a symptom and a judgment on our nation for our wanton destruction of our defenseless little ones. Am I saying I know what God is doing? No, of course not; I am not being so presumptuous. I do know, however, from Scripture that there are times when God does give people up to follow their own rebellious ways, and those ways lead to their destruction. One of my pastors once said, “God has morally underwritten the universe.” Only a society callous to the issues of life and death could elect a man like Barack Obama. Only a society given over to self-interest could elect a Congress peopled with men and women given over to self-interests and party interests over the good interests of a nation. Only a society given over to doing whatever was right in their own eyes could foster rampant corruption and thirst for power within its relationships and structures. Only a society given over to seeking out and valuing ease and perfection could lose the meaning of the sacrifice of love and compassion. A society that fails to defend the unborn child is a society that is destroying itself.

…we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide….

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

UPDATE: Via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air: Obama “accommodation”: Insurers must cover contraception at no cost to … anyone?

The revised Obama mandate will make religious groups contract with insurers to offer birth control and the potentially abortion-causing drugs to women at no cost. The revised mandate will have religious employers refer women to their insurance company for coverage that still violates their moral and religious beliefs. Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide coverage at no cost.

Essentially, religious groups will still be mandated to offer plans that cover both birth control and the ella abortion drug

This is the LifeNews column he quotes: Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women. It has more details, including this:

The new rule will be published as soon as possible and go into effect August 1, 2012 — thus removing the one-year grace period religious employers had previously because it supposedly would not adversely affect them.

Jill Stanek: Contraceptive “compromise” worse than original mandate: Eliminates any exceptions

From a House source:

This “new policy” is a distinction without a difference. The services the religious organization opposes won’t be listed in the contract, but the insurance companies will give it the employees anyway. Insurance companies will justify providing the coverage that the religious charity opposes by swearing that birth control coverage doesn’t actually cost anything because it’s cheaper than pregnancy services, so it’s just a free perk. The administration will argue that people of faith should be fine with this arrangement, because they can tell their conscience that they aren’t really paying for the objectionable coverage and they didn’t really sign up for it anyway.

__________
Baby at Seven Weeks from: Priests For Life,  Images of Fetal Development.
“Happiness” photograph by Sabrina: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

81 Responses leave one →
  1. 2012 February 10 6:10 am
    [1]
    justrand permalink

    INC…thank you for this thread!

    Today, apparently, the Obama Regime will announce an “Accomodation” for religious institutions, in order to placate voters…and that is the SOLE reason they will do anything.

    How long will this “Accomodation” last? Until the polls close in Novermber. Period. If Obama wins…then the “Accomodation” goes away as he launches will renewed fury into his assault on all things America, including religious freedom. If Obama loses…then it won’t matter anyway.

    So today, Obama will attempt to “accomodate” the Catholic Church…I PRAY they are smart enough to know this is a POSTPONEMENT OF SENTENCE…not a “Pardon”.

  2. 2012 February 10 6:20 am
    [2]
    drdog09 permalink

    Infanticide is a self correcting event. Those that believe in it will continue to practice it. Those that do not, will not and pass those moral underpinnings to their children. Like any natural selection, eventually the entire population consists solely of those who do not believe in infanticide. All well and good in the end game. But there is a gruesome blood trail of dead babies along the way that is abhorrent in the interim.

  3. 2012 February 10 6:38 am
    [3]
    justrand permalink

    drdog, except the infantcide fans have decided that rather than birth the little monsters themselves, and go through all the messiness of raising them…they’ll just sub-lease OUR kids!! And thus they infest the Education sector…which is really becoming (or has become) the “Indoctrination Sector”.

  4. 2012 February 10 6:41 am
    [4]
    drdog09 permalink

    from Instapundit — THE BACKPEDALING BEGINS: White House to Announce ‘Accommodation’ for Religious Organizations on Contraception Rule. My advice to the bishops: He’s on the run — don’t settle for his opening bid.

  5. 2012 February 10 6:48 am
    [5]
    justrand permalink

    exactly, drdog…and any “accomodation” will come with a wink to the Planned Infantcide folks. The Catholic Church, and Christians in general, must NOT fall for this. It is a short-term cynical ploy to please all sides.

    The Death Eaters KNOW what he will do if he is re-elected…so they will bluster a bit and then settle down. The media knows it too, but they will trumpet any “accomodation” as the greatest thing since creation!!

  6. 2012 February 10 6:48 am
    [6]
    drdog09 permalink

    JR, 3,

    In the old paradigm that would be true. But I am getting the foggy feeling that in the next 10 years education will not be what it is today. More and more people are homeschooling. There are also serious moves afoot from various private sectors to hyper ventilate homeschooling via the Internet.

    You have thousands of adults sidelined by the economy. Imagine what would happen if BYU started a internet based K-12 program online. Coupled that with a franchising arrangement for providing the infrastructure at key points in the community (aka educational KinderKare). All those sidelined workers now being utilized as TA’s. The students benefiting from instruction from the best suite of teachers in the country. Oh and at rates cheaper than pubblic Skool.

  7. 2012 February 10 7:19 am
    [7]
    bc3b permalink

    Going into the 2008 election we knew that Barack Obama would be the most pro-abortion President in our nation’s history. He has done little, if anything, to disappoint Planned Parenthood and NARAL , beginning with the appointment of strongly pro-abortion “Catholic” Kathleen Sebelius to head up HHS.

    Unfortunately, from 2001 to 2006, when the GOP controlled the Presidency and Congress, it did little to eliminate government funding of Planned Parenthood.

  8. 2012 February 10 7:39 am
    [8]
    MI Conservative permalink

    So how are liberals going to react if Obama changes his ruling?

  9. 2012 February 10 7:40 am
    [9]
    RepublicanPundit permalink

    Why don’t Republicans call the democrat party the “Abortion Party”.

  10. 2012 February 10 7:51 am
    [10]
    justrand permalink

    RP…they should!

    MIC…the Left will pretend to be “outraged”, but they really do KNOW that this is a cynical attempt to get re-relected, and they KNOW is a true believer in abortion…ALL abortion, ANY time!!

  11. 2012 February 10 7:55 am
    [11]
    drdog09 permalink

    JR, 10,

    True. But it also shows how screwed up Obama is. He had to know this would be an barn burner and best to wait for after the election. But he didn’t. He ran this on pure ideology and is now paying the price.

  12. 2012 February 10 7:58 am
    [12]
    mulletover permalink

    I posted this last night, actually it was a link within an article, but it fits here. The original post was about another democrat, Jay Rockefeller, abandoning obama relative to the abortion meds.

    It is significant because it might be the concession announced today. West Virginia and 26 other states have done this or something similar.

    Letter to Sec Sebellius from Jay Rockefeller

    Obama is on the ropes with this one, and concession or not, this can be a favorable wedge for the GOP all the way to November.

    If they have the courage to hammer him with it.

  13. 2012 February 10 7:59 am
    [13]

    The minions of the left will put on a ruse of high dudgeon ,to make it look good, knowing all along that he will flip if reelected. I doubt the catholic bishops will buy that crap.

  14. 2012 February 10 8:08 am
    [14]

    The kenyan fraud is always testing the waters to see how much he can get away with. He sends out probing patrols to test the enemy defenses before launching a full blown assult.

    He is a devious snake in the grass,
    Is this kenyan fraud jackass,
    He will boil the frog slowly if needed,
    Or steamroller us if we’ve conceded,
    It’s time to muzzle this braying ass.

  15. 2012 February 10 8:13 am
    [15]
    drdog09 permalink

  16. 2012 February 10 8:33 am
    [16]
    bc3b permalink

    Mullet –

    My guess is that Obama will work to convince the pro-abortion forces that he tried to get as much for them as he could (much like John Boehner does with conservatives).

  17. 2012 February 10 8:38 am
    [17]

    LIBERALISM SUCKS

  18. 2012 February 10 8:40 am
    [18]

    My guess is that Obama will work to convince the pro-abortion forces that he tried to get as much for them as he could ~~bc3b

    While secretly telling them to wait until he’s re elected to reinstate the same policy.

  19. 2012 February 10 8:49 am
    [19]
    mulletover permalink

    The kenyan’s concession announcement may be another Bart Stupak moment.

  20. 2012 February 10 8:57 am
    [20]

    This whole thing has been orchestrated from day one,to allow the messiah to ride in and save the day. wink wink.

  21. 2012 February 10 8:58 am
    [21]

    Mullet==omega 3.

  22. 2012 February 10 9:16 am
    [22]
    JustMary permalink

    #6 Our co-op had to close registration because we had so many families flooding in that we could not accommodate them. The leadership is considering having 3 separate co-ops now. They would (essentially) find other leaders to take over the branches, or still lead, but have other campuses. It is still being discussed. Homeschool curriculum is superior to what you’d find in public school, and pretty easy to find used, if you are on a budget. Some companies provide free tutoring for their products! My son can call in to them, or I can, and they will walk you through whatever you need help with.

    You can also use a charter school, and THAT is the big thing going in my town right now. New charters are popping up left and right. Your child can stay, or take the work home- they keep attendance and do all the testing. Public charters are not only free, but they pay for music/art lessons, sports, you name it. Some private charters are free as well, but they won’t pay for lessons or sports. I can easily see online classes forming, especially for high schoolers. Our local colleges have programs for high school homeschoolers, and our local Christian college has a full chemistry/science 4 year course for free or discounted.

  23. 2012 February 10 9:18 am
    [23]
    JustMary permalink

    #8 He’ll just tell them that his position is “evolving” just like he did with gay marriage.

  24. 2012 February 10 10:10 am
    [24]
    drdog09 permalink

    This is interesting. Romney behind Obama in Ohio poll. But Obama vs Santorum its a dead heat. — http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_presidential_election — Ohio of course being a battleground state, again.

  25. 2012 February 10 10:16 am
    [25]

    I was going through a few magazines the other day down at the local Mosque.

    I was really enjoying myself.

    Then the rifle jammed.

  26. 2012 February 10 10:18 am
    [26]
    drdog09 permalink

    Its not a bird! Its not a Plane! Its Reeses Man!! — http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/naked-burglar-arrested-129845 — Unfortunately he forgot his cape….

  27. 2012 February 10 10:20 am
    [27]
    drdog09 permalink

    25, ROFLMAO!

  28. 2012 February 10 10:22 am
    [28]
    judyt2012 permalink

    This week the Obama administration told me that I am entitled to FREE birth control. I’ve heard it is one of my Constitutional rights.

    In all of my readings of the Constitution I find that I have several rights as to how I am free to behave and also how the government must behave in its dealings with me.

    In my reading of the Constitution I can find only one right that references an actual “product” and that product is arms (weapons/guns).

    As I see it the government owes me a gun more than it does birth control. When one considers the cost of birth control pills, condoms, or, what the deatheaters really intend, abortions, then buying me a gun is substantially less expensive.

    This entire over reach by the government is insane.

  29. 2012 February 10 10:36 am
    [29]
    MI Conservative permalink

    judy The gun may be cheap but the bullets that ip would go through would cost the govt a trillion more in debt. 🙂

  30. 2012 February 10 10:39 am
    [30]
    MI Conservative permalink

    mullet,

    I am starting Book Two (children’s book) with six new hockey players helping. Scheduled a professionl photo shoot for the covers. The entire team decided to cut their hair into mohawks and mullets this past week end. Going to be an interesting book since the photos are all being taken this next week.

  31. 2012 February 10 10:41 am
    [31]

    I just updated the post. Obama’s accomodation is nothing of the sort. Via Hot Air, this is from LifeNews:

    The revised Obama mandate will make religious groups contract with insurers to offer birth control and the potentially abortion-causing drugs to women at no cost. The revised mandate will have religious employers refer women to their insurance company for coverage that still violates their moral and religious beliefs. Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide coverage at no cost.

  32. 2012 February 10 10:42 am
    [32]
    judyt2012 permalink

    Well I would argue that all I have heard is that women are entitled to FREE birth control. I did not heard anything about men being entitled to free birth control.

    So I am going to assume that only women are entitled to FREE guns.

  33. 2012 February 10 10:45 am
    [33]

    Jill Stanek: Contraceptive “compromise” worse than original mandate: Eliminates any exceptions

    From a House source:

    This “new policy” is a distinction without a difference. The services the religious organization opposes won’t be listed in the contract, but the insurance companies will give it the employees anyway. Insurance companies will justify providing the coverage that the religious charity opposes by swearing that birth control coverage doesn’t actually cost anything because it’s cheaper than pregnancy services, so it’s just a free perk. The administration will argue that people of faith should be fine with this arrangement, because they can tell their conscience that they aren’t really paying for the objectionable coverage and they didn’t really sign up for it anyway.

  34. 2012 February 10 10:51 am
    [34]
    judyt2012 permalink

    INSANITY… how is birth control ever FREE. Someone is always paying a bill and an insurer is calculating the cost of providing something for “free” to one insured into the total cost of a group insurance policy.

    Is this going to be a policy to provide FREE birth control. Okay what is the premium for this policy and who is paying it?

    It can’t be the female employee/insured because she is suppose to receive it for free.

    Who is left? The Insurance Company or the Employer.

    So the government is mandating what an employer must offer to his employees in their insurance coverage.

  35. 2012 February 10 10:51 am
    [35]
    MI Conservative permalink

    Only women with guns. I can’t wait for bc and ip to post all the ladies with guns pics. I would but I’m busy building a fall out shelter.

  36. 2012 February 10 10:51 am
    [36]

    This rule is to go into effect on August 1—no one-year grace period for religious employers “because it supposedly would not adversely affect them.” (LifeNews)

    I have several immediate thoughts on this:

    First, Sarah Palin is giving the final speech at CPAC tomorrow. It should be a barnburner.

  37. 2012 February 10 10:53 am
    [37]
    judyt2012 permalink

    It is wrong to steal from someone but what if we don’t call it stealing then it will be okay.

  38. 2012 February 10 10:54 am
    [38]
    MI Conservative permalink

    judy, interesting question. Remember Obama told us that Obamacare would keep insurance premiums lower. How do you do that when more is covered?

    Oh, that’s right, by denying seniors with certain illnesses no care.

  39. 2012 February 10 10:54 am
    [39]

    Judy, this should enrage insurance companies as well.

  40. 2012 February 10 10:59 am
    [40]

    Second, is Obama trying to trigger an immediate collapse of health insurance?

    Third, this man has chosen to draw a line of evil in the sand. After all his extensions of power with few walk backs, he makes his direct assault on the Constitution by impeding the free exercise of religion.

  41. 2012 February 10 11:03 am
    [41]

    It should enrage the supreme court as well.private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation~~~5th amend

  42. 2012 February 10 11:04 am
    [42]

    Fourth, we’re now going to see what kind of country we are in our reactions to his deeds and in who we choose as president in November.

    Hot Air has numerous headlines I glanced through. Newt seems to be running out of money. WaPo is conjecturing Obama did this to hurt Mitt—which may be true. He also did it because he is an evil man.

  43. 2012 February 10 11:06 am
    [43]

    ip, yeah, I would think so. I read yesterday that there are 3 lawsuits that will be filed.

    There are so many factors coming into play here. Making this effective August 1, is like a dare to me because it’s two months before the election. Does he want to focus the election on this to take it off of the economy?

  44. 2012 February 10 11:07 am
    [44]

    His game plan from day one was to destroy private insurance, so that the only thing left will be a single payer gubmint system, which was his goal all along.

  45. 2012 February 10 11:07 am
    [45]
    drdog09 permalink

    If you think about it, this whole affair is merely a trigger for single payer.

    “See if we had single payer, eg govt, all these pesky concerns about convictions would be eliminated.”

    I can envision that rolling off Pelosi’s lips with a straight face.

  46. 2012 February 10 11:08 am
    [46]

    His messiah complex may have pushed him over a bridge too far.

  47. 2012 February 10 11:09 am
    [47]

    It would take a crowbar and putty knife to straighten her face.

  48. 2012 February 10 11:10 am
    [48]

    Dr. D., that’s one of my thoughts in #40.

  49. 2012 February 10 11:10 am
    [49]
    brucefdb permalink

    He also did it because he is an evil man.

    That really is the point, isn’t it, INC?

  50. 2012 February 10 11:10 am
    [50]
    drdog09 permalink

    true, kinda like when she said “Ya gotta pass the bill to see what is in it….”

  51. 2012 February 10 11:22 am
    [51]

    Bruce, yes, it is.

    As I listed my thoughts I was going from the outside to the core. He is an evil man.

    It’s one reason I included Andy McCarthy’s quote of his horrific words when he was an IL legislator fighting to defeat BAIPA.

    What kind of a person says things like that? What goes on in his heart that he could speak those words?

  52. 2012 February 10 11:26 am
    [52]

    I’ve got to run for a bit.

    Here’s http://twitter.com/#!/philipaklein if you want to follow what’s going on at CPAC.

    Klein has been a long time critic of RomneyCare.

    His take on Santorum’s speech: Santorum to CPAC: “I know you and you know me”

    His take on Romney’s speech: Romney displays checklist conservatism at CPAC

    Newt speaks this afternoon.

  53. 2012 February 10 11:59 am
    [53]

    Let us never forget,the catholic church is not an ally of the GOP.
    The Catholic Church opposed the Iraq War, opposes the death penalty, and supports all manner of global wealth redistribution. In the United States, it is perhaps the most powerful supporter of amnesty for illegal aliens. “~~~~H/T polipundit

  54. 2012 February 10 12:21 pm
    [54]
    drdog09 permalink

    53,

    Then again….

    “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons,” — Churchill

    We are at a case where it is to our advantage to support the Bishops. We can disagree with their other errors later.

  55. 2012 February 10 12:55 pm
    [55]
    brucefdb permalink

    The Catholic church is composed of men, and therefore flawed like any institution. The people in the church that favor wealth redistribution are not following the catechism which makes it clear that governmnet should only be active at the most local level.

    As I said before, Catholics that regularly attend mass voted against Obama.

    I wouldn’t consider Poli the Mittbot as my most reliable source for anything, btw.

  56. 2012 February 10 1:10 pm
    [56]
    judyt2012 permalink

    Hannity has some woman on who brought up that paying for contraception is like paying for the medical bills of the injured drunk driver or the smoker with lung cancer.

    What religious freedom is violated by providing insurance to cancer patients and injured drinking drivers?

    There are insurance policies/programs that will give lower premiums to people who do not drink or smoke.

    I am trying to work my way through this idiot liberal’s analogy.

    Now if I recall from previous employers that my health insurance had subrogation clauses. If my medical expenses were the result of some accident and I sued and recovered medical expenses my insurer was entitled to be reimbursed for their out of pocket expenses.

    I also believe that if I am the drunk driver who causes an accident that my auto insurance company can cancel my insurance.

    I also have some vague memory about having to answer numerous questions about my engaging in a variety of dangerous activities and to also indicate how much alcohol I consumed each month.

    As to the smoker receiving health insurance.

    Now as to the smoker getting lung cancer. Well lung cancer is the health condition that can result from smoking while pregnancy is the health condition that can result from not using birth control while engaging in intercourse.

    So paying for someone to use birth control would be the equivalent of paying someone to not smoke.

    So do the liberal idiots think employers and insurance companies should be required to pay people to not smoke? How about paying people to not drive if they drink or not drink at all?

    BUT..these idiots really don’t get the idea that what they are really want is for the non-smoker/drinking driver to pay for the smoker’s cigarettes and drinkers alcohol.

  57. 2012 February 10 1:21 pm
    [57]

    Judy, those women on Hannity display callousness towards the unborn child and/or total ignorance.

    Smoking/drinking in excess primarily hurts the person, but sometimes an innocent person is harmed or killed (drunk driving). When harm is done to others, the perpetrator incurs some kind of legal penalty. The libs even want second-hand smoke punished, and the nation is now rampant with no smoking zones.

    Abortion kills every time, but the libs have no problem with that.

  58. 2012 February 10 1:27 pm
    [58]
    brucefdb permalink

    Newt is knocking it out of the park at CPAC…..doing what he does best.

  59. 2012 February 10 1:28 pm
    [59]
    brucefdb permalink

    Santorum did well, but this is where Newt shines.

  60. 2012 February 10 1:29 pm
    [60]
    brucefdb permalink

    Mitt said he is a conservative….any questions?

  61. 2012 February 10 1:37 pm
    [61]

    This is from Bryan Preston. Bryan identifies Richard Land as President of the Southern Baptist Convention, but that is incorrect. He has been president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission since 1988.

    DR. LAND: Does he think he can put lipstick on a pig and we’re gonna think it’s anything other than lipstick on a pig? … In the case of Southern Baptists, we have self-funded insurance through GuideStone, which has been around since 1918 and covers over 200,000 missionaries, social workers, pastors, church employees, nurses, doctors, et cetera. And I just talked to the head of Guidestone and he said “We can’t do this. This violates our conscience because we’re the insurance company, and we’re not gonna be forced to pay for that which we find unconscionable.”

    More on who Land is: http://richardlandlive.com/bio/

    BTW, in case you don’t know, the Southern Baptists are the largest Protestant denomination in America. I imagine the conservative PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) is appalled. The liberal PCUSA will probably cheer.

    Watch for the conservative/liberal theological divide.

  62. 2012 February 10 1:40 pm
    [62]

    Bruce/#60, what a joke.

    Erick Erickson already has a critique of his speech up:

    A Severe Conservative Speaks at CPAC

    Mitt Romney got a warm reception at CPAC, standing ovations . . . the works. He did nothing to calm fears that he is not one of us. In fact, he might have made it worse today.

    He ad-libbed one particular portion of his speech that just may give away the game for him with the CPAC crowd. He threw in this line:

    “I fought against long odds in a deep blue state, but I was a severely conservative Republican governor.”

    What the heck is a severe conservative? The man who likes to fire people should probably fire Miriam-Webster, in addition to whoever came up with his strategy for Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado.

  63. 2012 February 10 1:50 pm
    [63]
    brucefdb permalink

    Good for Erick, INC.

    Everyone should listen to all three speeches in their entirety. Santorum’s is already up on Youtube. Mitt’s will be shortly. Newt’s will be there in a couple hours. Dont let others tell you what to think about them, listen for yourself…..

    Newt’s was best, Santorum was very good, Mitt was, well, Mitt.

    I’m still a Santorum guy but I just pray it is not Mitt in the end.

  64. 2012 February 10 1:54 pm
    [64]

    Rush:

    Obama Didn’t Cave on the HHS Mandate; He’s Making an Unprecedented Power Grab

    I’m hoping that people dig a little deeper and figure out what is happening to everyday liberty and freedom and realize who’s responsible for taking it away from you — it’s the Democrat Party and Barack Obama — and vote against them. I’ve always said this program takes place in the reason of ideas. What we want, the way we effect — in my mind — meaningful, lasting, substantive change is an informed electorate voting and changing the course of history.

    This is one of his longer transcripts, but worth reading or skimming as he once again connects the dots for those who don’t yet get it.

  65. 2012 February 10 1:57 pm
    [65]
    justrand permalink

    been working on the house…just re-surfaced, and haven’t read the details Lord Obama’s head-fake…but I guess it sucked!

  66. 2012 February 10 1:59 pm
    [66]

    Bruce, Erick is in a PCA church.

    Bryan Preston is becoming about the only person I can stand to read at PJM. They are in the tank for Mitt, IMHO, and are of the libertarian ilk that can’t stand social conservatives. They have had it in for Santorum.

    I think Mitt’s on the verge of falling apart. His speech doesn’t seem to have closed the deal. Jim Pethokoukis of CNBS has posted two things trouncing him, one is:

    Romney word cloud = ‘President Conservative’

  67. 2012 February 10 2:02 pm
    [67]

    JR: the only thing transparent about BHO is his intent to doubledown. It was immediately recognized for what it was.

  68. 2012 February 10 2:02 pm
    [68]
    justrand permalink

    great article by Michelle Malkin:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2012/02/10/to-stop-the-multiplication-of-the-unfit-to-stop-the-multiplication-of-the-unfit/

    it cannot be said enough: Margaret Sanger was a MONSTER…and the Nazis were indeed her disciples!

  69. 2012 February 10 2:06 pm
    [69]

    I’ve started a new thread on CPAC.

    Bruce, I’m beginning to think that Rick will be the nominee. I don’t see how Newt can get momentum back at this point. I think Romney has had the wind taken out of his sails.

    As I said above, we’re really going to find out who we are as a country.

  70. 2012 February 10 2:07 pm
    [70]
    TLS permalink

    Does he want to focus the election on this to take it off of the economy?

    I was wondering if he did this now to avoid having it come up in Oct just before the election, hoping that people have short memories. I wonder because the main portions of Obamacare go into effect in January and should he be reelected, I would think he will want to get that ball rolling because it will never be unwound once it starts. If this issue came up with lawsuits in January, perhaps Obamacare would receive a stay from the court. Thoughts anyone?

  71. 2012 February 10 2:08 pm
    [71]
    TLS permalink

    Also, I believe SCOTUS is set to rule on the individual mandate around June. So perhaps he sees this as some sort of church and state precedent?

  72. 2012 February 10 2:08 pm
    [72]

    JR, I’m so glad MM did that. She’s widely read and a lot of people still need to learn what PP is.

  73. 2012 February 10 2:11 pm
    [73]

    TLS, if he’s reelected, then I predict people will be going to jail in 2013, not for crimes, but because they adhere to the Constitution.

    I don’t know about the date. August would make it an issue to campaign on. This is an assault on the 1st Amendment. I would hope that’s too important an issue for people to forget.

  74. 2012 February 10 2:13 pm
    [74]
    TLS permalink

    I would hope that’s too important an issue for people to forget.

    Me too, INC. But sadly, my faith in the electorate isn’t what it used to be.

  75. 2012 February 10 2:20 pm
    [75]

    As I said above, we’re really going to find out who we are as a country.

    ~~~INC

    Unfortunately, the jury is already in on that one. We found out Nov. 2008.

  76. 2012 February 10 2:25 pm
    [76]

    Well, ip, I think the poverty of who we are as a people was revealed then.

    Now we’ll see if the last four years and this latest grab have been enough of a kick in the head to wake people up.

  77. 2012 February 10 2:36 pm
    [77]

    Half the population either receive some form of gubmint check,and or pay zero federal taxes. We know how they will vote.

  78. 2012 February 10 2:37 pm
    [78]
    drdog09 permalink

    “They came for the churches and I did nothing ….”

    Extrapolate from there. What Obama has done may have actually do him more irreparable damage than he can imagine. People are seeing through that this is not just an abortion issue. O could lose a whole swath of the independent vote.

  79. 2012 February 10 2:44 pm
    [79]

    Perhaps the obamasiah was viewing the world through his a$$ darkly??

  80. 2012 February 10 2:53 pm
    [80]

    ip, some of it depends on how many would like to get off of those checks. It’s also going to depend on how people respond to their neighbors or relatives in distress. One reason why I’ve thought our problem at root is spiritual. It also depends on who is driven to get out and vote.

    Dr. D., I agree.

    More reaction:

    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/10/heritage-reacts-to-white-house-accommodation-to-religious-liberty/

    http://www.becketfund.org/obama-administration-offers-false-%E2%80%9Ccompromise%E2%80%9D-on-abortion-drug-mandate/

    http://www.americanprinciplesinaction.org/blog/preserving-innocence/religious-liberty/obamas-contraceptives-coverage-mandate-a-first-amendment-violation-unparalleled-in-american-history/

  81. 2012 February 10 3:01 pm
    [81]

    I suppose in the twisted logic of the big brother statists,the right to regulate interstate commerce somehow trumps the 1st amend. It will take the SCOTUS to settle the issue.
    The kenyan fraud may have inadvertently placed his unused cajones upon the anvil of justice.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.