3,400 confidential and totally free groups to call and go to in the U.S...1,400 outside the U.S. . . . 98 of these in Canada.
Free, financial help given to women and families in need.More help given to women, families.
Helping with mortgage payments and more.More help.
The $1,950 need has been met!CPCs help women with groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places.
Help for those whose babies haveDown Syndrome and Other Birth Defects.
CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

Friday, February 12, 2016

"The object of persecution is persecution...The object of power is power”

Imagine if there was a law that applied to Planned Parenthood and all abortion clinics that said,

“You’ve got to give women information about alternatives to abortion even though the reason you exist is to give them abortions.”

Well, there isn't.

Which is why there shouldn't also be a corollary law for pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, as there is now in California, that says, “You’ve got to give women information about abortion even though the reason you exist is to give them alternatives to abortion," and to even provide the phone number to the abortion clinics!

Double-standard, anyone?

Never mind that virtually every single CPC is a non-profit started and run by religious groups of people, so the religious freedom grounds that were upheld in the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case apply here.

The First Amendment defending free speech also applies here.

If Planned Parenthood and all abortion providers have the decades-old right to deny abortion-alternatives information to their clients, then why, pray tell, are CPCs not also allowed that right on the flip-side?

You'll never see or hear of Planned Parenthood giving women the phone number and abortion-alternative details about a CPC!

Level the playing field, California, one way or the other, or you're just proving your duplicity and your abusiveness toward women by depriving them of true knowledge about all their "choices." Abortion clinics don't need any more PR and publicity than they already get. There is no shortage of abortion-access information in this nation. The mainstream media and almost all Democrat politicians see to that.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Bernie Sanders' Single-Payer Health Plan Could Reduce Employment by 11.6 Million Jobs

The [Congressional Budget Office], for instance, has come to the conclusion that the Affordable Care Act’s [aka, "ObamaCare's"] combination of taxes, tax credits, and mandates will reduce full-time equivalent employment (one full-time equivalent employee works 40 hours per week; two part-time workers equal one full-time equivalent) by about 2 million in 2025 [nine years from now].

As it turns out, the ACA’s many taxes are relatively insignificant compared with those in the Sanders plan. Applying the CBO’s approach and assumptions, along with tax data from the National Bureau of Economic Research, to the Sanders plan indicates that the campaign’s assumed taxes would reduce employment by 4.9 million full-time equivalent workers in 2025. Not an insignificant number.

When we take [veteran Emory University health economist Kenneth] Thorpe’s more realistic assumptions and apply the same approach, the fully-implemented [Sanders single-payer health] plan reduces employment by a whopping 11.6 million full-time equivalent workers. Under these assumptions, the average marginal tax rate would grow from around 22 percent to 42 percent, while the average total tax rate would increase from 11 percent to 31 percent. At the upper end of income, total tax rates would be far beyond 50 percent. And none of this factors in state and local taxes [which in Connecticut, adds 3 percent on the first $10,000 of taxable income, and 5 percent on taxable income between $10,001 and $50,000, and if you're lucky, another 5.5 percent on taxable income between $50,001 and $100,000].

Of course, some of drop in employment might be considered “voluntary.” Some would stop working because they no longer needed to be employed to receive health insurance — escaping "job lock," as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi once put it. But others would simply find it meaningless to put in extra hours or look for more lucrative positions when so much of their earnings get sucked away as taxes.

For employers, this would all mean a large increase in hiring costs, too. Sure, as Sanders’ campaign likes to remind us, employers would no longer pay for private health insurance. But economists also recognize that health insurance is a form of compensation. And if you cut health insurance (with or without raising taxes), wages must in turn go up.

- from the article, The Single-Payer Sacrifice: 11.6 Million Jobs, By Yevgeniy Feyman, a fellow and deputy director of health policy with the Manhattan Institute.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Democrat Debate February 11, 2016 - Observations of a Conservative Catholic Post-Abortive Baby-Boomer Woman

Whoever heard of pre-debate warmup?

A local University gospel choir sang a hand-clapping song; "Because I'm Happy!" was its repeating chorus. Wow, really? Are most of the American public that happy? "Clap along if you feel like a room without a roof? Like happiness is the truth?"

Did any of the GOP debates start with such feel-good, room-warm-up entertainment? And a male singer then exhorts the crowd, shouting out ARE YOU ALL FEELING GOOD TONIGHT? before they launch into Song 2, "Tonight's Gonna Be A Good Night." And in between verses, he shouts "Put your hands together!!"

Wow. And this was after Debbie Wasserman Schultz got up and spent 5 minutes trashing the Republican Party and all its candidates in typical extremist, DWS over-the-top histrionics.

Wow, is all I can say. Did Reince Preibus do the same kind of schtick before the GOP debates? Before any of them? I really want to know.

And in the pre-debate warmup camera shots from behind and above the audience, I did see at least three or four empty seats in what appeared to be a rather small auditorium. Couldn't tell if there was a balcony section, never mind if it was filled with people.

9:00pm, and no sound or picture. No debate started yet.

PBS is hosting this debate. The audience is welcoming the moderators, now center-stage, Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff, as though they themselves are candidates.

Clinton says Sanders' plans would increase the size of the federal government by 40%? Is that true? Yikes.

I pretty much could guarantee there will be no questions about the emails and server, or about Benghazi and the denial Clinton just made about telling the families of those killed there that she was "going to get the videographer who was responsible for their deaths."

Ahh, the Madeline Albright "special place in hell" question. Aaand... Hillary doesn't answer it.

Bernie expects a speculation tax on Wall Street firms to pay the $100 billion needed to give everyone free college education and all his freebies? Is that for one year? Or for all time?

Bernie said there was a brilliant idea a hundred years ago, and that was "free education, for grades 1 through 12."

Free? Really? What do you think our state and local taxes are for?

That's what Democrats mean by their "free" stuff: taxes will go up on all of us, and on our grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren, to pay for the trillions of dollars of new free stuff they want to give you.

And Bernie hasn't proven how each family is going to save $5,000 from his plans, even while being taxed an additional $500. How exactly is that going to happen?

Especially when TIME recently wrote:

"In an analysis released [January 28, 2016], the Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy research organization, found that Sanders’ plan would lead to 10.56% lower after-tax income for all taxpayers, and a 17.91% lower after-tax income for the wealthiest Americans. When accounting for reduced GDP, taxpayers would see their after-tax incomes fall by 12.84% on average, the report said."
Let's see. If you're a family breadwinner and you're making, say, $40,000 now and after all your taxes, you currently net $36,000, then under Bernie's plan, you'll net $3,800 to $4,600 LESS each year due to the increase in taxes you'll pay to fund all Bernie's free college, free everything. So how can he say you're going to have an added $5,000 in your pocket when in fact, he's going to take $3,800 to $4,600 away from you in higher federal taxes?

Republicans don't want to cut Social Security, Bernie. That's a flat out, bold-faced lie. You prove you're a demagogue, by insisting on this. As bad as Wasserman-Schultz.

A George-Soros-is-one-of-your-biggest-donors question to Hillary. Interesting. She got her dander up over this one, her voice is rising and getting strident, then didn't really answer it. Want to know who George Soros is? He's the Democrats' Koch Brothers. Go DYOR on it. Don't take my word for it.

Now the two of them are finally slinging mud at each other dropping the loaded phrases like "the gun lobby" and "don't insult the American people, they're not stupid." And Hillary sounds like she's shouting now. She sounds angry, she sounds desperate.

And they're both so busy defending Dodd-Frank, Bernie even saying he wanted it to "do more." Really?

[written in May 2012] Many conservatives correctly identify Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for their part in the mortgage crisis. Unfortunately, many conservatives also erroneously place the majority of blame for the crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act. I feel that it's my duty to set the record straight.

While Frank and Dodd's tinkering with the CRA forced lending institutions to make a quota of bad loans that certainly contributed to the mortgage crisis, the primary cause of crisis was Frank and Dodd's push to reduce mortgage buying standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who provide liquidity to mortgagees by buying the loans they (the mortgagees) make to the public. Before Frank and Dodd were able to pass legislation weakening Fannie and Freddie's buying standards, all mortgages purchased off the primary market by these two Government Sponsored Enterprises adhered to Federal Housing Administration standards, i.e. they were "prime" loans. But Frank, Dodd, and their cohorts "rolled the dice" in regards to subprime lending, and, in effect, drowned Fannie and Freddie with junk mortgage paper. In turn, Fannie and Freddie sold the junk loans to institutional investors, who happily bought them with cheap capital provided by the Fed. Attaching trillions of dollars of derivatives to the junk they bought, these investors (particularly the Big Banks) created a bona fide financial crisis.

Frank and Dodd, who are responsible for much of the economic misery we've been experiencing in this country over the past four years, are still unscathed by the disaster they caused. Dodd is CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, and Frank is set to retire.

The one thing I do agree with Sanders on is that Glass-Steagall should never have been eradicated. It's what kept the financial industries separate and distinct, and kept them at least more honest than they've become since they were all allowed to be every financial business to everyone. I don't know how, exactly, you reinstate Glass-Steagall, but if it was do-able, I'd say go for it.

Regarding terrorist activities, "We need to do a better job of coordinating federal, state and local forces...we have to support the fighters on the ground..." according to Hillary. Why didn't that apply to our Americans in Benghazi in 2012?

And she just accused Trump of insulting Islam. Seriously, Hillary, you've been fact-checked on this before yet you still trot this out? He didn't do anything that uber-liberal Bill Maher hasn't also done and said.

Fifteen minutes left and no mention of the FBI/State email server investigation or of Benghazi. Somehow, I just don't think they're going to squeeze that in at the end. Why am I not surprised.

This is an interesting experience, watching this debate. The lies are amazing, especially about the Republicans, and it's pretty pathetic how people buy this B.S.

Yes, they're on the final question. Not. one. peep. about the emails/server or Benghazi. Contrary to what Democrats may think you know, neither of those issues are past issues "At this point."

And Hillary is doubling down on her flag-waving for Obama. Wonder what she hopes to gain from this allegiance for the current President. Maybe she hopes to exchange this teeth-gritting alliance with him for winning over his cohort of voter blocs. That's about the only thing she really wants from Obama at this point.

The Night of the Softballs is done. What pablum.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Rinse and Repeat: Clinton Denies, Gets Exposed

Last month, Clinton denied a Fox News report that the FBI had expanded its probe to include ties between the foundation and the State Department. She called that report “an unsourced, irresponsible” claim with “no basis.”
And the lede paragraphs from the same Washington Post article today:
Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

Wow. Not one, not two, but three simultaneous jobs, all from being favored by the Clintons? What a lucky employee.

So, tell me, do you think Hillary had not. one. inkling. last fall that the State Department’s Inspector General had subpoenaed her own Foundation for this information? Or is this yet another "that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" moment?

"Ties between the foundation and the State Department" couldn't possibly include foundation projects requiring federal government approval while HRC was Secretary of State, could it? Could it?

Who's lying, and who's telling the truth?

Who's repeating the pattern established decades ago? Why does everyone call it "The Clinton Playbook", or "The Clinton Crisis Playbook" (which Google actually suggested when I began searching for just "Clinton Playbook")?

The Washington Post's readership must be increasing, and I'd wager they're probably seeing that bump whenever they report the truth, for a change. Like this chiming in on the Gawker FOIA expose we just posted about today: "It feels like Gawker is slowly exposing an ugly side of Washington journalism, one email at a time."

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Crony Feminism, Crony Journalism, Crony Ad Nauseaum

Think "Crony Capitalism" is bad? (and it is)

Crony Feminism:

When you say there's a special place in hell if you don't support women, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough railed Monday, "Is it only powerful women? Or are 22-year-old women who are being taken advantage of in the Oval Office not worthy of that same support?"

"Sisterhood is powerful" went the old feminist mantra. I'm not seeing that sisterhood for the other distaff 2016 candidate, Republican Carly Fiorina. Democratic women didn't rush to support sister Sarah Palin when she was the GOP running mate in 2008.

When people like Albright talk about women helping each other, they only mean women like them. Young voters have watched Clinton Democrats use feminism as a handy marketing tool that can be ditched when convenient -- then picked up again in case of emergency.

[my emphasis]

Crony Journalism:

"This Is How Hillary Clinton Gets the Coverage She Wants: "...emails recently obtained by Gawker offer a case study in how her prodigious and sophisticated press operation manipulates reporters into amplifying her desired message—in this case, down to the very word that The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder used to describe an important policy speech.

"The emails in question, which were exchanged by Ambinder, then serving as The Atlantic’s politics editor, and Philippe Reines, Clinton’s notoriously combative spokesman and consigliere, turned up thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request we filed in 2012 (and which we are currently suing the State Department over). The same request previously revealed that Politico’s chief White House correspondent, Mike Allen, promised to deliver positive coverage of Chelsea Clinton, and, in a separate exchange, permitted Reines to ghost-write an item about the State Department for Politico’s Playbook newsletter. Ambinder’s emails with Reines demonstrate the same kind of transactional reporting, albeit to a much more legible degree: In them, you can see Reines “blackmailing” Ambinder into describing a Clinton speech as “muscular” in exchange for early access to the transcript. In other words, Ambinder outsourced his editorial judgment about the speech to a member of Clinton’s own staff."

(Do go read the entire gory details for yourselves.)

Crony Self-Congratulationism

[actually I didn't make that word up!]

"Have You Seen the Missing Workforce?":

"The unemployment rate has rarely so badly masked the slack in the labor market. While the unemployment rate is now staying near its pre-recession levels, the labor force participation rate (either working or looking to work) is down 4 percentage points from the start of the recession, despite ticking up to 62.7 percent in January." [Feb. 5, 2016]

Crony Islamism:

"You Don't Know What Obama Said at the Mosque"

If you seek to understand Barack Obama and his views, the best place to go is his speeches. But you have to read them in their entirety, not rely on hearing them or on the media's summary of them. When you do, you realize how often what Obama says is morally and intellectually confused and even untrue.

The most recent example was his speech last week at a mosque in Baltimore. In addition to reassuring Muslim Americans that they are as American as Americans of every other faith -- President Obama spoke a lot of nonsense, some of it dangerous.

President Obama: "So let's start with this fact: For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam's message of peace. And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam -- peace."

Why did Obama say this? Even Muslim websites acknowledge that "Islam" means "submission" [to Allah], that it comes from the Arabic root "aslama" meaning submission, and that "Islam" is in the command form of that verb.

That's why "Muslim" means "One who submits," not "One who is peaceful."

Obama: "Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Quran."

The reason Jefferson had a copy of the Quran was to try to understand it in light of what the Muslim ambassador from Tripoli had told him and John Adams. When asked why Tripoli pirates were attacking American ships and enslaving Americans, the Muslim ambassador explained that Muslims are commanded to do so by the Quran: "It was written in their Quran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to Paradise."

That's why Jefferson and Adams had Qurans.

Crony Racism:

"Black and Unarmed: Behind the Numbers-- What the Black Lives Matter movement misses about those police shootings:"

(Some background on this source, The Marshall Project, from their founder: they drew inspiration from "[former] NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorney Thurgood Marshall, the future Supreme Court justice, who bravely but largely futilely fought in Florida's courts to spare [the lives of] four African-American males falsely accused of rape in Lake County, Fla. [from] the vigilante violence that ensued...This took place in 1949, before Brown v. Board of Education (a Marshall legal triumph) and before an organized national movement to combat the Jim Crow segregation laws. The national press did not cover the proceedings.")
"For the last year or so, the Washington Post has been gathering data on fatal police shootings of civilians. Its database for 2015 is now complete. Commentators have taken the Post’s data as evidence that the police are gunning down unarmed blacks out of implicit bias. But a close examination of the Post’s findings presents a more complicated picture of policing and casts doubt on the notion that these shootings were driven by race.
The results: As of Jan. 15 [2016], the Post had documented 987 victims of fatal police shootings in 2015, about twice the number historically recorded by federal agencies.
In August of 2015 the Post zeroed in on unarmed black men, who the paper said were seven times more likely than unarmed white men to die by police gunfire. The article noted that 24 of the 60 “unarmed” deaths up to that date — some 40 percent — were of black men...

But the numbers don’t tell the whole story. It is worth looking at the specific cases included in the Post’s unarmed victim classification in some detail, since that category is the most politically explosive. The “unarmed” label is literally accurate, but it frequently fails to convey highly-charged policing situations. In a number of cases, if the victim ended up being unarmed, it was certainly not for lack of trying. At least five black victims had reportedly tried to grab the officer’s gun, or had been beating the cop with his own equipment. Some were shot from an accidental discharge triggered by their own assault on the officer. And two individuals included in the Post’s “unarmed black victims” category were struck by stray bullets aimed at someone else in justified cop shootings. If the victims were not the intended targets, then racism could have played no role in their deaths.
Other unarmed black victims in the Post’s database were so fiercely resisting arrest, judging from press accounts, that the officers involved could reasonably have viewed them as posing a grave danger. In October 2015, a San Diego officer was called to a Holiday Inn in nearby Point Loma, after hotel employees ejected a man causing a disturbance in the lobby. The officer approached a male casing cars in the hotel’s parking lot. The suspect jumped the officer and both fell to the ground. The officer tried to Tase the man, hitting himself as well. The suspect repeatedly tried to wrench the officer’s gun from its holster, according to news reports, and continued assaulting the officer after both had stood up. Fearing for his life, the officer shot the man. It is hard to see how race entered into that encounter. Someone who tries for an officer’s gun must be presumed to have the intention to use it. In 2015, three officers were killed with their own guns, which the suspects had wrestled from them. Similarly, in August, an officer from Prince George’s County, Maryland, pursued a man who had fled from a car crash. The man tried to grab the officer’s gun, and it discharged. The suspect continued to fight with the officer until he was Tased by a second officer and tackled by a third. The shot that was discharged during the struggle ultimately proved fatal to the suspect. In January, a sheriff’s deputy in Strong, Arizona, responded to a pharmacy burglary alarm in the early morning. The burglar inside fought with the deputy for control of the deputy’s gun and it discharged. The suspect fled the store but was caught outside, at which point the deputy noticed the suspect’s gun injury and called an ambulance.
In several cases in the Post’s “unarmed black man” category, the suspect had gained control of other pieces of an officer’s equipment and was putting it to potentially lethal use. In New York City, a robbery suspect apprehended in a narrow stairwell beat two detectives’ faces bloody with a police radio.
In other instances in the Post’s “unarmed black man” category, the suspect’s physical resistance was so violent that it could reasonably have put the officer in fear for his life. A trespasser at a motel in Barstow, California, brought a sheriff’s deputy to the ground and beat him in the face so viciously that he broke numerous bones and caused other injuries. The suspect refused repeated orders to desist and move away. An officer in such a situation can’t know whether he will lose consciousness under the blows to his head; if he does, he is at even greater risk that his gun will be used against him...In Miami, a man crashed a taxi cab in the early morning hours and took off running onto a highway. During the fight, the driver bit the officer’s finger so hard that he nearly severed it; surgery was required to reattach it to the left hand. One can debate the tactics used and the moment when an officer would have been justified in opening fire, but these cases are more complicated and morally ambiguous than a simple “unarmed” classification would lead a reader to believe."

And last but not least,

more on Crony Capitalism:

From the uber-liberal Salon, of all places,
The Atlantic has a provocative piece by Conor Friedersdorf that all Americans should read titled “Hillary Helps a Bank–and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons.” Let’s just say the article gives some insight into why Hillary Clinton is paid millions for speaking engagements. If you haven’t read Friedersdorf’s article, then you won’t know why there’s so much desire to read Clinton’s speech transcripts.
Nothing defines establishment politics better than a Democrat who takes money from the same interest that harm core constituencies of the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton has accepted campaign contributions from two major prison lobbyists, Wall Street, and the oil and gas industry, yet promises progressive stances against all these interests.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Turnout At New Hampshire Primary; Plus Actual Iowa Democrat Voter Numbers

A typically-biased Washington Times headline, "GOP shatters its turnout record; Democrats lag behind", but the now-reported raw numbers in fact don't lie, and give some "actual voter" tallies from the Iowa caucus as well:
Republicans drew nearly 285,000 voters to the polls, which was 15 percent more than in 2012, and just shy of the all-time record of 287,000 voters that Democrats drew in their marquee 2008 battle...Democrats drew slightly more than 250,000 voters in New Hampshire this year...Exit polling found that about 15 percent of voters in each primary said they were first-time voters — and the two iconoclastic candidates, Sen. Bernard Sanders on the Democratic side and businessman Donald Trump on the Republican side, each claimed the biggest share of those first-timers.
The New Hampshire results follow last week’s Iowa caucus turnout, where Republicans easily outdistanced Democrats by more than 50 percent...“In Iowa our two candidates, along with Martin O’Malley, turned out 171,000 caucus-goers, compared to the ELEVEN Republican candidates — who ended up virtually in the same spot at 180,000,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Luis Miranda said in a memo after Tuesday’s voting.
Something's wrong with their "50 percent" math in Iowa, firstly. I think what they meant to write is that the GOP turnout surged 50% over itself from last time, not over the Dems. (Shoddy reporting, Washington Times) That link also states that Democrat Iowa turnout dropped 30 percent from its own turnout in the last caucus in 2012.

And "virtually the same spot?" Since when is 9,000 more voters chump change? (Answer: when it's the Dems on the shortfall side) Actually according to that last source, Iowa GOP turnout was 186,000, and per The New York Times, the GOP Iowa turnout was 185,000, or 14,000 to 15,000 more. That represents 8% more GOP caucusers than Democrat, but I agree with the assessment that it isn't worth crowing about, as the real numbers that matter are only the ones nine months from now.

Popular vote doesn't win all, but if you're keeping score, it's 471,000 GOP, to 421,000 Democrat voters actually going out to make their voices and votes heard, at this point.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

The horse can only be buggy-whipped so long before it collapses and dies

Once The United States of America is diminished, in all ways economic, geopolitical, and civilized, all the free-ride, free-love, free-everything bennies will begin to disappear, or at least stop being free.

Is that what Americans really want?

The horse can only be buggy-whipped so long before it collapses and dies.

I began asking readers yesterday to really, truly, intelligently educate themselves about Hillary Clinton, her roots in radicalism, her faith in Saul Alinsky, her say-anything-to-get-what-I-want politics, and to really think about the future they really want for this country, and for the world.

This isn't where we usually post about politics, that's Abortion Pundit. But bear with me, there is a point to putting this discussion here instead.

Hillary has a great, long, mouth-flowing history, and it would be a good update for those of you recently educated (high school or college), to do yourself a great service to read up on it. You could start with our several sidebar links at Abortion Pundit under the heading "MORE Hillary Backpedals."

After really educating yourself on Hillary's history (and not just from the media that favors her), I'd ask you just one question:

Is it more important that you can claim to have crowned the presumed first woman President, or more important that you are not among those who have helped destroy this nation and its position of resources for its own people and its strength (read, safety) in the world?

Be careful before you answer. Really read up on Hillary's adoration of "Rules for Radicals", her suppressed thesis on it. Did you know Alinsky, in this book, happily tips his hat to Lucifer, acknowledging and commending him for being "the very first radical" and for "rebelling against the effectively that at least he won his own kingdom"?

In interviews, Alinsky considered himself "short on virtue" and said he'd be happiest in Hell.

Satan? He gives credit to satan, and denies and denounces God? Really? Yes, really.

See Hillary falling in love with the book, with Alinsky's thoughts and calling this radicalism the "fulfillment of Revelation." Ask yourself, does she mean this Revelation? And if so, what precisely is she looking forward to in the "end of the age"?

Ask yourself: if she really has changed and does not now adore all that Alinsky stood for, why won't she come out and repudiate it? She won't. Instead, she and her party bury this information so you won't know her real allegiance is not to alleviating poverty or bettering mankind's plight, but to "rebelling against the establishment", perhaps winning her own queendom, perhaps in the footsteps of her and Alinsky's idol.

Contrast Hillary/Alinsky with one of the staunchest Communists who ever lived, who later became one of the staunchest anti-Communists. I'm just starting to read Whittaker Chambers' "Witness", in which he summed up why he stopped being a radical, a Communist. If you only read the introduction written to his children, some twenty pages short, you may begin to see far too close a parallel to what's happening to this nation:

[Communism's promise] is not new. It is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: "Ye shall be as gods."
The Communist vision is the vision of Man without God. It is the vision of man's mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world. It is the vision of man's liberated mind, by the sole force of its rational intelligence, redirecting man's destiny and reorganizing man's life and the world...Communism restores man to his sovereignty by the simple method of denying God.
... without God is just what Communism said he was: the most intelligent of the animals, that man without God is a beast, never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness...Man calls it reason and uses it simply to be more beastly than any beast.
Is the U.S. a Communist nation? No. Is about half (or more) of the country thinking and acting precisely as beastly as Communists are described above as doing? Yes:

It's ok to abort pre-born fetuses if we don't want them, and even newborns who were supposed be disposed of before they were born...It's ok to commit suicide in some states...It's ok to let the national government control what health benefits you can afford and when you can have them, and keep from you better benefits by making them impossible to afford or get approved, and in the process worsen the nation's deficit (predicted to Obama's face, before the ACA passed) which only makes our kids and grandkids suffer under the excess burden...It's ok that a chief architect of ObamaCare and a top medical advisor to the White House thinks 75 is a good age to die and that "society...will be better off" if we do (although one Jewish rabbi thinks it's a "less than Jewish" belief to think that)...It's ok to stir up false racist charges against people defending their very lives, thus wrongfully fomenting a hateful splitting of the citizenry, all while not doing anything to focus our help where it really could do some good, with black-on-black violence...It's ok to take everything that other persons have worked hard to earn, and give it to all the everyone elses unwilling to first work hard in school to educate themselves and then to work hard to earn their own keep and their own respect.

The horse can only be buggy-whipped so long before it collapses and dies.

Chambers continues:

One thing most ex-Communists could agree upon: they broke because they wanted to be free...Freedom is a need of the soul, and nothing else. It is in striving tward God that the soul strives continually after a condition of freedom. God alone is the inciter and guarantor of freedom. He is the only guarantor. External freedom is only an aspect of interior freedom. Political freedom, as the Western world has known it, is only a political reading of the Bible. Religion and freedom are indivisible. Without freedom the soul dies. Without the soul, there is no justification for freedom....Hence every sincere break with Communism is a religious experience, though the Communist fail to identify its true nature...His break is the political expression of the perpetual need of the soul whose first faint stirring he has felt within him, years, months or days, before he breaks. A Communist breaks because he must choose at last between irreconcilable opposites-- God or Man, Soul or Mind, Freedom or Communism.

Communism is what happens when, in the name of Mind, men free themselves from God. But its view of God, its knowledge of God, its experience of God, is what alone gives character to a society or a nation, and meaning to its destiny. Its culture, the voice of its character, is merely that view, knowledge, experience, of God, fixed by its most intense spirits in terms intelligible to the mass of men. There has never been a society or nation without God. But history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations that became indifferent to God, and died.

And why does a radical or a Communist decide he "must choose" between God and Man? Because

" night he heard screams."

Chambers wrote of an embarrassed daughter of an ex-Communist, ashamed that her father had broken:
A child of Reason and the 20th century, she knew that there is a logic of the mind. She did not know that the soul has a logic that may be more compelling than the mind's. She did not know at all that she had swept away the logic of the mind, the logic of history, the logic of politics, the myth of the 20th century, with five annihilating words: one night he heard screams.

What Communist has not heard those screams? They come from husbands torn forever from their wives in midnight arrests. They come, muffled, from the execution cellars of the secret police, from the torture chambers of the Lubianka, from all the citadels of terror now stretching from Berlin to Canton. They come from those freight cars loaded with men, women and children, the enemies of the Communist State, locked in, packed in, left on remote sidings to freeze to death at night in the Russian winter. They come from minds driven mad by the horrors of mass starvation ordered and enforced as a policy of the Communist state. They come from the starved skeletons, worked to death, or flogged to death (as an example to others) in the freezing filth of sub-arctic labor camps. They come from children whose parents are suddenly, inexplicably, taken away from them – parents they will never see again.

What Communists has not heard these screams? Execution, says the Communist code, is the highest measure of social protection. What man can call himself a Communist who has not accepted the fact that Terror is an instrument of policy, right if the vision is right, justified by history, enjoined by the balance of forces in the social wars of this century? Those screams have reached every Communist's mind. Usually they stop there. What judge willingly dwells upon the man the laws compel him to condemn to death – the laws of nations or the laws of history?

But one day the Communist really hears those screams. He is going about his routine party tasks. He is lifting a dripping reel of microfilm from a developing tank. He is justifying to a Communist faction in a trade union an extremely unwelcome directive of the Central Committee. He is receiving from a trusted superior an order to go to another country and, in a designated hour, meet a man whose name he will never know, but who will give him a package whose contents he will never learn. Suddenly, there closes around that Communist a separating silence, and in that silence he hears screams.

He hears them for the first time. For they do not merely reach his mind. They pierce beyond. They pierce to his soul. He says to himself, "Those are not the screams of a man in agony. Those are the screams of a soul in agony." He hears them for the first time because a soul in extremity has communicated with that which alone can hear it – another human soul.

Why does the Communist ever hear them? Because in the end there persists in every man, however he may deny it, a scrap of soul. The Communist who suffers this singular experience then says to himself: "What is happening to me? I must be sick." If he does not instantly stifle that scrap of soul, he is lost. If he admits it for a moment, he has admitted that there is something greater than Reason, greater than the logic of the mind, of politics, of history, of economics, which alone justifies the vision.

The bold emphases are mine, but Chambers is still describing, inadvertently, the America of today.

Don't tell me the Democrat Party isn't taking a page from the Terror policy of Communism when it allows Black Panthers with blackjacks visible in their hands to patrol outside voting places to intimidate folks into not coming in to vote unless it's to vote Democrat.

Don't tell me the Democrats, from Obama and Eric Holder on down, aren't trying to have police officers who defended their own lives locked up and sent to prison or worse, the execution chamber, because their attacker died after trying to wrest the cop's gun from him to shoot him with it.

Don't tell me the Democrat Party isn't using "terror as an instrument of policy" when it terrorizes black folks, telling them through campaign material photographs that a vote for a Republican is akin to lynching Obama. (It is jaw-dropping considering the lynchers, the Ku Klux Klan, began as nothing but "Solid South Democrats" and it was Abraham Lincoln, the first "Republican President, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation [and] a Republican-controlled Congress that voted for the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery.")

Don't tell me the Democrat Party hasn't made itself the Party of sanctioning the silent screams of children being suddenly, inexplicably, taken from their mothers, never to see them, ever.

Don't tell me the Democrat Party and its lapdog mainstream media supporters don't cover it up when Kermit Gosnell is allowed to do what he did, because to stop him would have been to harm legal abortion.

I'm not saying the GOP is perfect. It is far from it. And it has its share of racists. So do the Democrats, on the flip side.

And to be The Party of Death (i.e., the party of abortion) is to have become at least as beastly as those who believed lynching another person was their "right to choose."

And that's what gets us, in the end. All several hundred thousand, maybe millions, of us.

When we women who have aborted our children finally hear our own set of screams, we are driven to our knees and we also suddenly. just. know. how wrong—or how duped—we were. We know now there really is something greater, something more real, than Reason, or the mythical "war on women", or the logic of the mind, or of anything on Earth.

I'm begging the 50% of this nation to stop denying that little scrap of their souls, and to do so before they contribute to the death of this nation.

Whittaker Chambers, an American, knew that this isn't just "being dramatic." He knew it to be the course of history, of life or death, for not just our nation, but each one of us. And he risked his own life, to tell this to us, and to be free himself.

Which of us are willing to really listen?

[republished, on this Ash Wednesday, as the 2016 primaries begin, this was originally posted on AfterAbortion blog on Nov. 6, 2014]

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Tuesday, February 09, 2016

"Sanders is part of the Washington firmament."

Such shenanigans are fairly common in politics. And that’s the point: Sanders portrays himself as an iconoclast, an anti-politician. But he behaves in many ways like a conventional pol.

This isn’t a slur. He is no doubt sincere in his long-held beliefs, which are on the populist far left. But his actions are not those of a revolutionary. Sanders is part of the Washington firmament.

Let the Washington Post count the ways that is so, at least seven instances in which Sanders claimed or made it appear that some heavy hitters were endorsing him--only trouble is, they weren't, and in some cases had already endorsed Hillary!

But wait! There's more!

In Sanders’s 2006 campaign for the Senate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee — heavily funded by Wall Street interests — helped his bid with about $200,000 in contributions and ads, CNN reported over the weekend.

Since he arrived in the Senate in 2007 and continuing through last summer, Sanders has regularly hosted the DSCC’s retreats on Martha’s Vineyard and in Palm Beach, Fla., for wealthy donors (including lobbyists). Sanders also allowed the committee to do a direct-mail piece signed by him, and his campaign has a joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee, just like Clinton’s.

And more typical-politician stuff!
What this does mean is that Sanders and his aides are playing the game and working the system. They are not revolutionaries storming the establishment ramparts.

Iconoclasts do not typically say things such as “I’m the former chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs.” Sanders, who once said that he didn’t prepare for debates and didn’t have a pollster, now does debate prep, has a pollster and boasts about the polls. When he first kicked off his campaign, he said he wouldn’t officially declare himself a Democrat because “I’m an independent.” Then he said he would if necessary for ballot access. Last week he said, “Of course I am a Democrat.”

Maybe, just maybe, you Bernsters out there, have been had?

Like, there's a reason you're not afraid of "Socialism" (but should be):

“Socialism” has never been a dirty word for the current cohort of youth, who either didn’t live through the Cold War or don’t remember it. We are more likely to associate socialism with prosperous, egalitarian, relatively well-functioning Scandinavian states — the kinds of places that produce awesome things like Ikea and “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” — than with autocrats who starve their people.

Many of us also entered the job market just as unbridled capitalism appeared to blow up the world economy.

Perhaps for this reason, millennials actually seem to prefer socialism to capitalism.

And Five-Thirty-Eight writes:
I’m just old enough (38) to have grown up during the Cold War, a time when “socialist” did not just mean “far left” but also implied something vaguely un-American. If you’re older than me, you may have even more acutely negative associations with “socialism” and may see it as a step on the road to communism. If you’re a few years younger than me, however, you may instead associate “socialism” with the social democracies of Northern Europe, which have high taxes and large welfare states. Sweden may not be your cup of tea, but it isn’t scary in the way the USSR was to people a generation ago.
That article also cites research showing that, for about the last 40-45 years, "Young Americans aren't into wealth redistribution" as well.

If you're too young to remember the horrors of true socialist regimes which emerged from their love affair with Marxism, or if you're old enough to remember but are still of the mindset to prefer socialism, please, read Whittaker Chambers autobiography, "Witness."

Read it even if you're not fond of reading, even if you read no other book in your entire lives, ever again.

Read how a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, a believer in socialism, a spy working for Communist Russia, here in our own country, over a period of time, came to renounce that belief, that his entire life and safety and that of his family was built upon, because

" night he heard screams."

From the book itself:
What Communist has not heard those screams? They come from husbands torn forever from their wives in midnight arrests. They come, muffled, from the execution cellars of the secret police, from the torture chambers of the Lubianka, from all the citadels of terror now stretching from Berlin to Canton. They come from those freight cars loaded with men, women and children, the enemies of the Communist State, locked in, packed in, left on remote sidings to freeze to death at night in the Russian winter. They come from minds driven mad by the horrors of mass starvation ordered and enforced as a policy of the Communist state. They come from the starved skeletons, worked to death, or flogged to death (as an example to others) in the freezing filth of sub-arctic labor camps. They come from children whose parents are suddenly, inexplicably, taken away from them – parents they will never see again.

What Communists has not heard these screams? Execution, says the Communist code, is the highest measure of social protection.

Seriously, for all people's love of the Saw torture movies, and the Human Centipede and James Bond and MadMax and Jason Bourne espionage, have you ever stopped to think about how gripping the suspense really is when it's all true and really happening to you and your very life depends on what you say, do, or don't say and do?

This guy lived it, and he very near could have, should have, died for it.

Want a few other historians' opinions on the true underpinnings of Socialism?

According to Richard Pipes, violence was implicit in Marxism itself. He has argued that terror inevitably resulted from what Lenin saw as a Marxist belief that human lives are expendable in the cause of building Communism. He quoted Marx: "The present generation resembles the Jews whom Moses led through the wilderness. It must not only conquer a new world, it must also perish in order to make a room for the people who are fit for a new world".[33][37] In 1848 Marx, commenting on a failed Vienna Uprising, wrote: "there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.".[38] Edvard Radzinsky noted that Joseph Stalin wrote a nota bene: "Terror is the quickest way to new society" aside of the above quote in Kautsky's book, Terrorism and Communism.[3]
Just go read "Witness." It's in your local library too, if you don't want to spring for a copy. And if it's any consolation, it was written before I was even born and I didn't read it until I was middle-aged. Think of it this way, if you read it now, you'll be so much wiser than I was when I was in my 20s, 30s and 40s.

And for why Bernie's single-payer healthcare idea isn't quite all it's cracked up to be, read again, from the Washington Post. Or this article, again at the WaPo, boy they must really not like Bernie, to go into such great detail about his "fiction-filled campaign."

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

"She is furious with her idol...And she blames Hillary Clinton."

“I’m crushed by this,” said Arnesen, who hosts a talk radio show and has not endorsed a candidate in her state’s Democratic primary. “In some ways, Hillary is bringing the worst out of the women I admire, and Gloria Steinem is one of them.”

Former secretary of state Clinton and her allies are making increasingly overt — and clumsy — appeals to feminist solidarity as she struggles with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont in her battle for the Democratic nomination. The reactions of Arnesen and others suggest that it could be backfiring, at least in New Hampshire, a state proud of its tradition of electing women.

“Not everybody views voting as a statement of their identities,” Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg said. Younger women in particular, she said, have “a desire for a transformative figure, and [Clinton] doesn’t embody that.”

That applies to many women who are not so young. Some have mixed feelings, having watched Clinton for the quarter-century that she has been on the national stage. Recent controversies, including one over her use of private email when she was secretary of state, have revived their misgivings about her ethics and management style.

“Hillary Clinton fatigue — that’s part of what I’m feeling,” said Elise deMichael, 67, a Democratic activist from Milford, N.H. “I know she’s smart, and I know she works hard, and I know she’s dedicated, but she’s had to give up little bits of honesty all along the way.”

Separately, in an appearance on “Real Time With Bill Maher,” Steinem speculated that younger women are supporting Sanders because “when you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie.” Steinem has since apologized.

All in the liberal Washington Post.

Apologized? Really? Where are the tar and feathers and rail to be run out of town on, because if a male, Republican anybody had said such a sexist, degrading insult, you know a mere apology would have been sneered at. You know there would have been no settling down until that person had had his life and livelihood smeared and ruined from top to bottom.

Feminists, indeed. Feh.

And as for Madeline Albright, reserve my place in hell, missy. I'll take a window seat, thank you.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Hillary Charged UCLA More For Speech Than Goldman Sachs "Offered"

Goldman Sachs paid a friend, a powerful friend, mostly to leave it alone should Hillary ever find herself in a position to truly upset the apple cart. What she says to get votes, as is the case with most politicians, is irrelevant.

Or course, all of this is unprovable. Clinton is corrupt but not stupid. Presidents can find all manner of reasons to oppose legislation that have nothing to do with the purported purpose of a bill.

The assurance there will be no serious, dogged follow-up questions or investigative reporters dispatched to uncover the content of those speeches is a given.

So we’re left with Hillary receiving a huge sum of money to talk for a short while on topics we’re left to speculate about. One thing I’d like to know is why she charged UCLA $300,000 for a “20- to 30-minute speech.” And when the school asked for “the public university” reduced rate, they were told that was the reduced rate for schools.

So why did she charge UCLA more than Goldman Sachs? Does she care more for investment banks than colleges? Or was it all those campaign contributions?

Maybe it was just the benefits of friendship.

Hillary Clinton has no friends. At least, none that she hasn't bought and paid for.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Why Joe Biden, Secretary of Defense Gates And Most Military Brass Opposed Hillary's Idea To Topple Libya's Qaddafi

"...the decision to overthrow a despotic ruler in a foreign country after he had chosen to turn over his rudimentary nuclear weapons program sent a very clear message to every other despotic ruler in the world: if you have nukes, don’t give them up; and if you don’t have them, get some...If this is 'smart power at its best,' as [Hillary] Clinton says, I would hate to see it at its worst.
"If the object was to save innocent lives, however, then one must certainly account for the many thousands who have been killed in the Libyan civil war raging, off and on, since Qaddafi’s overthrow.
"If Clinton is willing to point to Libya as a 'signature moment in her four-year tenure' as secretary of state, as the story says, then her resume is breathtakingly shallow."
And you seriously think she's capable of being in charge as Commander-in-Chief??

Why does that past history matter at all?

Do you want "another Iraq?" Because that's what you'll get, no matter who's in the White House next, it seems:

A new war in Libya could have an effect on the Democratic nominating process: this was Hillary’s war as much as anybody’s, and the less said about it the better from her point of view.
Has somebody made another inflammatory video? Because the action in Libya is heating up.

When it was just desolation and mayhem for Libyans, the Obama administration was content to let the country stew in the ruins of the “humanitarian war” unleashed by some people [see above quotes] who hadn’t bothered to study the lessons of Iraq but still wanted to look like humanitarian heroes. But now that ISIS is making huge strides, the chaos and misery isn’t just a local problem anymore, and Western governments, including the U.S., seem to be looking at another military intervention of some kind.
It’s fascinating how the “junior varsity” of ISIS that we didn’t have to worry about and the “smart foreign policy” “success” of the Libyan intervention have combined to create a crisis so serious that another war may be needed.

But perhaps the worst thing about all this is that Libya always was and still is a distraction from the real crisis in the region, one that in both humanitarian and strategic terms is rapidly becoming one of the greatest disasters of modern times: the implosion of Syria and parts of Iraq into an increasingly vicious war in the heart of the Arab world. The Administration is, sadly, right, that the mess in Libya is becoming so great that some kind of action is increasingly hard to avoid. The future, however, will condemn the blindness and folly of the gratuitous creation of anarchy in Libya and the failure to develop any meaningful policy at all where a strong U.S. hand might really have made a difference.

In any case, the next president is going to inherit an even bigger Middle East mess from President Obama than President Obama inherited from President Bush.

So don't forget, folks, even if you vote in Hillary or Bernie, this ugly mess was already brought to you by none other than the vaudeville team of your present President and his bungling former Secretary of State. Heroes, indeed.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

18 Emails Between Obama And Hillary Involved "Sensitive Issues of Policy"

Eighteen e-mails between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama have been identified, and the government is refusing to disclose them. The administration’s rationale is remarkable: Releasing them, the White House and State Department say, would compromise “the president’s ability to receive unvarnished advice and counsel” from top government officials. Think about what this means. Not only is it obvious that President Obama knew Mrs. Clinton was conducting government business over her private e-mail account, the exchanges the president engaged in with his secretary of state over this unsecured system clearly involved sensitive issues of policy. Clinton was being asked for “advice and counsel” — not about her recommendations for the best country clubs in Martha’s Vineyard, but about matters that the White House judges too sensitive to reveal.
Now you know why Obama says "there isn't any there, there"!
That explanation got me to thinking about General David Petraeus. Recall that the Obama Justice Department prosecuted Petraeus for mishandling classified information. His offense involved conduct narrower in scope than Mrs. Clinton’s systematic transmission and storage of classified information on her private system.
... bears emphasizing that General Petraeus’s journals were not marked classified either. That did not alter the obvious fact that the information they contained was classified — a fact well known to any high government official who routinely handles national-defense secrets, let alone one who directly advises the president.
And how could a Democrat-appointed attorney general, especially one who hopes to remain on in the job if HRC is elected President, how could that AG ever be impartial about all this, when doing so would mean taking down the First-Would-Be-WannaBe-Woman-POTUS and the First-Black-President, by association?
If Clinton becomes the next president, however, [Attorney General Loretta] Lynch may be asked to stay on, at least for a short time. As such, she may have a little bit of skin in the game.
That Hillary's "top aides" might be in more trouble than Hillary herself is questionable at best, when it wasn't the top aides' idea to put in a homebrew server for Hillary, and it wasn't the top aides who are supposed to know whether or not the content of a message contains classified information or not.

Gee, I wonder who would be responsible for those ideas, that knowledge?

The wolves are in charge of the hen house.

So much for "The Buck Stops Here." For HRC, it's more like "The Buck Stops On Whoever/Whatever I Can Pin It On."

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

"The Pot Calls The Kettle Black"

And no, this isn't a racist comment.

Bill Clinton: Hillary Victim to "Vicious Trolling" and "Sexist" Attacks From Sanders Supporters

Vicious? Trolling? Really, Bill? Are you that dotty now that you just had to go there?

Where, oh, where, was Bill Clinton when his wife's supporters in 2008 strewed profanity-laced comments all over the Internet against anyone who didn't support HRC then? You didn't seem to mind it then.

Only if you were a Republican then, would you have been the online victim of those "profanity-laced" and "sexist" attacks.

[Actually, I stand corrected about that last sentence!]

I don't have screenshot after screenshot of the vitriol from that time to "prove" it to you, but we at AfterAbortion blog sure lived through it personally. And here's an unofficial tallying of the levels of profanity used by liberals and conservatives, as assessed in mid-2008.

But isn't it ironic that, now that the further-leftists are smearing Hillary supporters in the same fashion, it's a baaaaaaad thing, oh yes, Bill, stamp your widdle foot down only now, about it.


I think I'm going to start calling him "BooHoo Bill" from now on.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Traducir todo esto en español, o cualquier otro idioma, copiar las palabras, y luego ir aquí y pegarlo en el cuadro en el lado izquierdo de la página, a continuación, haga clic en el idioma que desee en el lado derecho de la página y haga clic en el derecha botón azul para traducir.

NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom

NATIONAL REVIEW Online's The Corner ~ Kathryn Jean Lopez links to Ap blog, 1/22/07

Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle: Banno On Boxer and the Illegal Abortion Deaths Urban Legend

San Diego Union Tribune: more Boxer Urban-Legend-Debunk coverage

Ellen Goodman retraction impetus: Aa blog initiates The Straight Dope coverage...and is listed in National Review Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru's book The Party of Death, p. 255, Chap. 3 Endnote #11,   4/2006

NY Daily News: "Atheist's Site Is All The Rave

"After Abortion, by Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, two women who had abortions in the 1970s, ...tries to avoid the political tug-of-war that tends to come with this turf. They concentrate instead on discussing the troubling personal effects of abortion on the mothers." ~ Eric Scheske, Godspy contributing editor, in NC Register's "Signs of Life in the Blogosphere", 2/2006

"Godbloggers could, in the best of worlds, become the new apologists...[including] laymen with day jobs: Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, for instance, at the blog After Abortion..."~ Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard online editor, in First Things's "God on the Internet", 12/2005

Amy Welborn, at BeliefNet, links to AfterAbortion blog's Crime & Abortion Series

Catholic News Service: Silent counterprotest at the March For Choice

COMMENTING   Also see Harris Protocol. Correspondence is bloggable unless requested otherwise.
E-mail                Joy

Who We Are        Hiatus Interruptus
NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom

4,800 confidential groups helping now.

We are too. Here are folks who can help:

Feeling Really Bad?: Call
1-800-SUICIDE (784-2433)
& a friend, right now.

Suicide Hope Lines: U.S.A. (by state) or call 1-800-Suicide (784-2433)

Suicide Help - Canada: "If you can't find a crisis centre near you, any of the 24-hour tollfree numbers in your province will be able to help."

UK, ROI: 08457 90 90 90 ,

Suicide Helplines in over 40 other countries

George & Linda Zallie, Stacy's parents, "assisting women who made the difficult choice of ending their pregnancy in finding nonjudgmental help" for suicidal feelings.

For immediate help, call tollfree, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: national, confidential, post-abortion-recovery hotlines:
1-877-HOPE-4-ME or
1-866-482-5433 or

...more help below...

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion...[many are] aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and [do] not doubt that it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace...You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child..."

Hope after Abortion
Ideas for Healing
Rachel's Vineyard Retreats
(non-Christians, even non-religious do attend; they also have interdenominational retreats designed expressly for people of any religion or no religion)
Abortion Recovery
"Entering Canaan" - a ministry of reverence for women and men who suffer following an abortion
Lumina - Hope & Healing After Abortion
Option Line
Books that help
(includes non-religious Post Abortion recovery books)
In Our Midst
For MEN - Resources List
     ** UPDATED 2015 **

Message boards, chat rooms &
   e-groups ** UPDATED 2015 **

Regional & local resources
         ** UPDATED 2015 **

Silent No More Awareness Campaign
After Abortion
Welcome! Our sidebar continues at great length, just below the "MORE HILLARY BACKPEDALS" section, with many links to helpful, respect-life folks of all shapes, sizes, minds & creeds, science, research, stories & just.plain.stuff. Just text-search or browse. But grab a cup of Joe first.

FULL-SEARCH AbortionPundit:

Powered by


Why NOT Hillary?

  1. Abortion Rhetoric Backpedal
  2. Chicago Tribune: "Our hero: Hillary Clinton, the last truth bender"
  3. Rapper Timbaland's $800K and "Ho's" lyrics
  4. Criminal "fugitive", media-ignored Hsu
  5. $5K per Kid
  6. Criminal Berger
  7. "I remember landing under sniper fire...we just ran with our heads down."...
  8. ...and other false claims on her Foreign Policy "chops"

The sidebar continues...

(Below, 320-Links Sidebar Reorg In Progress: Thank You For Your Patience)



Obama On Abortion: A Summary 1990-2009

1) Obama Is 2nd-Highest-Paid Politician by Fannie Mae, Taking $126,346 in only 4 years as Senator; Now Derides GOP/Bush for Allowing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac To Do Business, When It Was Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton & Jimmy Carter Who Passed The Law Requiring Fannie & Freddie To Give Out Bad Subprime Loans To Those Who Couldn't Afford Them, Which Caused The Entire Financial Meltdown … 2) Jim Johnson (Obama VEEP vetter and former Fannie Mae executive who made millions there) Backpedal … 3) Obama's hiring, connection, support of ACORN, which supported that very law and whose staff have been involved in voter fraud … 4) Rezko's Favor A "Boneheaded" Mistake … 5) Jeremiah Wright Backpedal … 6) Fr. Michael Fleger Backpedal … 7) NAFTA Backpedal … 8) Campaign Financing Backpedal … 9) Mr. "Negotiates-With-Terrorist-States" … 10) Bittergate … 11) Hamas' Chief Political Adviser Hopes BO Will Win Election … 12) Banning Handguns Backpedal … 13) Who Exactly Are "The Rich" He's Going to Sock it to? … 14) Flag Pin Backpedal … 15) Once Open to School Vouchers That Work, Now Deadset Against … 16) Now OK with residual force in Iraq...up to 50,000 troops. … 17) First voted against a law protecting babies who survive an abortion procedure, then lied saying he didn't, then finally forced to admit that he did vote to deny such born babies protection. 18) … "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." ~ MO

Region-specific blogs of note: Washington, Midwest, California, Connecticut, Canada (adding as we get the time)


Atom Site Feed

Powered by Blogger

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS NOTICES: From its inception in 2005 forward, the postings on this site are the co-bloggers' own personal opinions, observations and research, do not reflect or represent the views of any employer(s), past, present or future, nor do/will they relate in any manner to said employer(s) or their businesses at any point in time. The writings expressed herein are protected expression by virtue of the First Amendment of the United States of America and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Articles 18 and 19, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948:

1) The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons."

2) Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948, states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

3) Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of the physical, emotional, social and spiritual negative effects of abortion on women, men and families, and to provide resources for help and information to anyone experiencing these effects or trying to help those who are. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

"COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This weblog is Copyright © 2005 - 2016 - Annie Banno - All Rights Reserved. "Skews" Reporting ™ is a trademark of Annie Banno Copyright © 2004 - 2016. All Rights Reserved. All original content by the weblog author(s) is protected by copyright(s). This includes writings, artwork, photographs, and other forms of authorship protected by current U.S. Copyright Law, especially as described in Sections 102(a) and 103. PERMISSION GRANTED FOR UNLIMITED BUT NON-COMMERCIAL AND ONLY RESPECTING-ALL-HUMAN-LIFE USE. CREDIT REQUIRED. No rights in any copyrighted material, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, may be transferred in the absence of a written agreement that is the product of the parties' negotiations, fully approved by independent counsel retained by the author(s) and formally executed with manual signatures by all parties to the agreement pursuant to the statutory requirements of Section 204(a) of current U.S. Copyright Law, Federal Copyright Act of 1976, appendices and provisions."

Since 6/13/2005