Nancy Pelosi: Lousy Catholic, Lousy Congresswoman

The Archbishop of San Francisco takes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to task, and says that as a member of the Catholic Faith, she should start practicing what the church preaches.

I’m not a practicing Catholic, (although I am far from being an atheist) and I have to admit that what Archbishop Niederauer says are tenets anyone would do well to follow.

Ms. Pelosi however, like most liberals, doesn’t let the rules of her religion influence her actions.
After all, there are times when she’s right, and God is wrong.
Such as the issue of abortion.

In a recent interview with Eleanor Clift in Newsweek magazine (Dec. 21, 2009), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked about her disagreements with the United States Catholic bishops concerning Church teaching. Speaker Pelosi replied, in part: “I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have the opportunity to exercise their free will.”

Embodied in that statement are some fundamental misconceptions about Catholic teaching on human freedom. These misconceptions are widespread both within the Catholic community and beyond. For this reason I believe it is important for me as Archbishop of San Francisco to make clear what the Catholic Church teaches about free will, conscience, and moral choice.

Catholic teaching on free will recognizes that God has given men and women the capacity to choose good or evil in their lives. The bishops at the Second Vatican Council declared that the human person, endowed with freedom, is “an outstanding manifestation of the divine image.” (Gaudium et Spes, No. 17) As the parable of the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov, makes so beautifully clear, God did not want humanity to be mere automatons, but to have the dignity of freedom, even recognizing that with that freedom comes the cost of many evil choices.

Read the rest of this entry

Activists See Threat To Roe Precedent

Could this be an early signal of the overturning of Roe v Wade?

Why Did God Do This To Liberals?

There is a reason why many liberals don’t believe in God.

It’s because he has been unfair to them.

He gave something to the rest of us that liberals don’t have.

It’s the only conclusion I can come to.

In thinking over some basic liberal beliefs, the only logical conclusion is that liberals are missing a few brain cells, mainly the ones that give the rest of us common sense and prevent us from being hypocrites.

Otherwise, how can they believe the following?:

That Al Gore is a hero for speaking out against global warming.
As he leaves his home, which has the highest energy consumption in the state, boards a private jet, and then takes a limo to wherever he is promoting his dogma.

Liberals applaud the ACLU for fighting for the rights of the average American.
While they overlook the fact that the ACLU wages war against such traditions as the Boy Scouts of America, the NRA, Christmas, and numerous other decent and moral things.
The fact that the ACLU lobbies for the “rights” of terrorists and provides legal representation to such groups as the North American Man-Boy Love Association doesn’t bother a liberal in the least.

Liberals support abortion on demand.
And they oppose the death penalty.

Liberals feel that it is fine for such experts as Danny Glover, Sean Penn, George Clooney and the like to air their views on American political policies.
But when Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck share their thoughts, they should be restricted by a “Fairness” Doctrine.

Liberals openly support gay rights parades.
Yet feel that Christmas Nativity scenes should be illegal.

That “racial profiling” of Muslims is wrong.
But that returning war vets are “potential domestic terrorists.”

That it’s fine for a kid to bring a book about Adolph Hitler or Karl Marx to school.
Yet that a kid carrying a Bible should be expelled.

That Fox News is nothing more that an offshoot of the Republican Party.
And that Keith Olbermann, Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, etc. simply report the news without any personal bias.

Liberals will cite the U.S. Constitution when they speak about the “separation of church and state.
Despite the fact that that phrase is not included in the Constitution.

Liberals believe that Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.
In spite of the fact that he has done nothing to earn it, and he was only in office for a month or two when he was nominated.

They believe Obama and Pelosi when they say that universal health care will lead to a reduction in the federal deficit.
They never ask how insuring the (supposedly) 45 million Americans without health insurance will make money.

Liberals will repeatedly bash Judaism and Christianity.
But they become angry if they hear anyone say anything bad about Islam.

So the next time you hear a liberal spouting off with some stupid statement, try and keep in mind that it’s not entirely their fault.

Gay Sex Is Morally Good

Those are the words of Chai Felblum, Barack Obama’s nominee to serve as a director the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Talk about taking affirmative action to a whole new level.

You may ask what qualifes Feldblum for this position.

Glad you asked.

She is a professor of law at Georgetown University.

She is an advocate for polygamy.

She is co-director of Workplace Flexibility 2010, a homosexual rights group that, again in her words, aims to “Revolutionize the American workplace and the country’s social mores.”

She formerly worked for the ACLU.

As well as the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign Fund.

She served as a law clerk for former supreme Court Justice Harry Blackburn, the author of the Roe v Wade decision legalizing abortion.

She is an advocate for advancing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LBGT) rights.

And I’m sure that she holds many other fine qualifications.

You may be asking why I have a problem with her.

Again, glad you asked.

Alright, let’s take a look at a few things.

President Obama, who is constantly praised by the mainstream media, has nominated a person who supports polygamy.

Hmm.

Is that the same mainstream media that launched a vicious smear campaign against Mitt Romney just last year, falsely accusing him of being an advocate for the same thing?

Yet in the miniscule amount of coverage the press has given to Feldblum’s nomination, that issue has yet to be raised.

No, there’s no double standard there.

As far as Roe v Wade, don’t even get me started.

How could I not have a have a problem with someone who once served as a legal council for the ACLU, an organization that, among dozens of other despicable actions, filed a lawsuit against the Boy Scouts of America for their refusal to allow gay scoutmasters?

As the father of an Eagle Scout, that is pushing the gay rights agenda just a bit too far.

She wants to “revolutionize the country’s social mores.”

I always thought that the job of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was to prohibit workplace discrimination.

Not to change the religious and moral beliefs of America.

Let’s continue to take a look at this workplace discrimination issue.

Feldblum feels that the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered override other considerations:

“As a general matter, once a religious person or institution enters the stream of commerce by operating an enterprise such as a doctor’s office, hospital, bookstore, hotel, treatment center and so on, I believe the enterprise must adhere to a norm of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

“Must adhere to a norm of nondiscrimination…”

OK.

So if I own a bookstore that sells religious materials, I have to hire a a woman with piercings, tattoos and a crewcut to be a clerk.

If I own a bar where the primary patrons are truck drivers and construction workers, do I have to employ an openly-gay man who has had the operation Rush Limbaugh calls a “Take a dick from me” to tend bar?

According to Obama’s nominee I would.

Oh well.

New President, new way of doing things.

After all, Barack Obama did promise us that he would “fundamentally change America.”

And by supporting such out of touch with the rest of America people as Feldblum,Cass Sunstein, Kevin Jennings ect., at least that is one campaign promise he is trying to keep.

Abortions? Who Needs Abortions, We Have Obama’s Science Czar!

The battle between the pro-life and pro-choice forces has been raging for decades.

Thanks to Barack Obama, that battle is about to enter a new phase.

With the appointment of John Holdren as Science Czar, the President has added a entirely new dimension to the question of a woman’s right to choose vs. the rights of the unborn.

If Holdren has his way, these decisions will no longer be made by pregnant women, instead they will be made by the government.

Take a look at some direct quotes from a book Holdren co-authored entitled Ecoscience:

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

In other words, if the government decides that it is in the best interests of society that you have an abortion, then you will, by law, be requires to have one.

Howver, not if you can’t become pregnant:

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.
Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems.
No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development.
To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Once again, a member of the Obama administration proves to be a visionary.
Who needs to worry about abortions if a woman is unable to become pregnant in the first place?
As far as pets, if there are too many cats, we’ll let the SPCA worry about that.

Of course, some of you radicals may object to such drastic measures.
If that is the case, Holdren proposed an alternative plan:

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. 
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

See how simple that is?
If you want to have a baby, all you have to do is get permission from the government!

Of course, as with everything the government does, there will be some conditions:

If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

So if there is something about you or your family background that some government bureacrat deems undesirable, maybe you can get a voucher for a free puppy.
Rememer, Holdren doesn’t want to sterilize pets, only people.

Let’s say that, despite Holdrens’ apparent wishes, you do manage to procreate.
What happens when your offspring reaches school age?

Don’t worry about it.
The Obama administration has you covered.
Keep in mind that he has appointed Kevin Jennings as “Safe Schools” Czar, a top position in our nation’s educational system.

Again, some of you real radicals may have a problem with a school’s cirriculum being overseen by a man who ignored the homosexual statutory rape of a fifteen year old boy.

Just quit your complaining, after all, the government gave you permission to have a child, what more do you want?

 

 

Pelosi Says Health Care Bill WILL NOT Pass The House!

Nancy Pelosi is not happy.

And she’s letting the President know about it in no uncertain terms.

In spite of the fact that President Obama is considering a health care reform bill without a public option, Pelosi is insisting it be part of the package.

In a recent statement,Pelosi made the following claim:

“A bill without a strong public option will not pass the House.”
“Any real change requires the inclusion of a strong public option to promote competition and bring down costs.  If a vigorous public option is not included, it would be a major victory for the health insurance industry.”

She then went on to say that the month of August has brought distortions from people who want “to try to kill this historic legislation.”

And on that last part she is right on the money.

I haven’t seen such a public uproar since the days of the anti Vietnam War protestors.

There is one thing she is overlooking.

The reason people are speaking out to kill this “historic” piece of legislation is because it is a historically poorly written piece of legislation.

There are numerous versions of the same basic bill floating around the House, and there are significant differences between them.

So how can the White House possibly expect the American public to embrace health care reform when the members of his own party aren’t even in agreement?

Or when the Speaker Of The House is basically telling the President “Hey, if I don’t get what I want, you don’t have a snowballs chance in hell of getting what you want.

And they still can’t figure out that opposition to this proposal is not coming only from Republicans?

Until such time as they can stop arguing with each other, and present the American public with a rational alternative to the current system,opposition will continue to grow.

And even if they manage to do that, they still have to overcome the public’s deeply held belief that anything the government touches, it screws up.

That will prove to be an even bigger battle.

If The Health Care Reform Bill Doesn’t Kill You, IMAC Will

You have to give Barack Obama credit, he is going to get rid of those pesky old sick people come hell or high water.

Now that there has been such an uproar of his health care reform “death panel”, and that some of the terms of the Quality Adjusted Remaing Years (QARY) provision are being exposed, old swifty Barack has pulled another rabbit out of his hat.

IMAC, the Independent Medicare Advisory Council, which would give the government the power to determine “reasonable and (cost) effective” methods of medical treatment.

IMAC would place no restrictions on the government’s ability to “mandate coverage, reimbursment, cost-effectiveness”, etc. to any public or private payer.

Now, I don’t expect that any members of the Kool-Aid Brigade seeing this can be bothered by a dose of reality, but for the rest of you, click here to see the IMAC legislation now before Congress

Better start working the phones and fax machines people, if this thing passes it’s provisions go into effect within 30 days.

Otherwise, the next time you hear and old person say “I’m dying”, the next voice you hear will be:

“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help!”

Health Care Plan Denies Chemotherapy Treatments

President Obama and his fellow end-of-lifers in Congress continue to deny that their health care reform bill contains “assisted suicide” provisions.

They make this claim in spite of the bill containing QARY terminology.

QARY is an angel of death acronym for Quality Adjusted Remaining Years.

And what it boils down to is that how much money will be spent on an elder or disabled person’s medical treatment is going to be determined, not by that person’s doctor, but by a government panel which will determine if spending the money for treatment is justified based on an estimate of how many years of life that person has left.

I recently heard one member of the Kool-Aid Brigade make the statement that Congress would never allow such a thing to happen in the United States of America.

So how do all of these Josef Mengele death squad wannabes explain how the case of Barbara Wagner, who was told that the state would not provide funding for her chemotherapy, but would put up the funding for assisted suicide?

How would all of you Kool-Aid drinkers feel if this was your mother?

And how many of you are really stupid enough to believe that such a thing won’t happen under Obama’s plan?

How many of you supporting this boondoggle of a “reform” bill are really sure that you won’t watch a family member be denied treatment if it passes?

Are you sure enough to bet a loved ones life on it?

Barack And Michelle Disagree On Health Care Reform

The following is an update to an article we did a while ago, before the debate about health care reform started to heat up.
The “free everything for everybody” propaganda that Barack Obama is spouting is a far different scenario than the plan Michelle Obama and David Axelrod put into place at the University of Chicago Medical Center.
Yes, this is the same David Axelrod who sent out all those “fishy” e-mails to folks who had never contacted the White House.
The same ones that Major Garrett of Fox News asked Robert “I’m a know-nothing blithering idiot” Gibbs about.

 

Michelle Obama  is on unpaid leave from her $317,000 a year job as a vice-president of the University Of Chicago Medical Center.

She was making a mere $122,000 a year just before her husband got elected to the Senate.
Before she went on leave, Mrs. Obama was instrumental in having the hospital adopt a program known as the Urban Health Initiative.

The purpose of the plan is to steer people who don’t have adequate health insurance to other care facilities.
Opinion polls taken among Chicago area medical professionals at the time the plan was put into effect were highly critical, calling the plan a break with the medical center’s commitment to the community.

Many doctors also noted that the treatment the people turned away would receive would be inadequate, stating that the level of care at local medical clinics left much to be desired.

Barack Obama’s top political strategist, David Axelrod, co-owns the firm, ASK Public Strategies, who, after some urging from Michelle Obama, was hired by the hospital to try and sell the plan to the community as a better alternative.
Another Obama adviser and close friend, Dr. Eric Whitaker, took over the Urban Health Initiative when he was hired by the hospital.

So the man who is going to see to it that we all have access to top-notch health care is married to a woman who advocated a plan for the hospital she worked at to deny first-class health care to those who need it the most.

Can someone reading this please explain this to me?
Who will judge what level of health care someone receives?

Doctors, Barack Obama, government bureaucrats, Michelle Obama, David Axelrod, Nancy “you’re a bunch of Nazis” Pelosi, who??

And which combination of their third-rate medical plans will we end up with?

Don’t Be Fooled By Obamacare 2.0

There is an old trick that suggests that if you want something, to ask for something totally outrageous first.
When you are told the thing you are asking for is absolutely out of the question, you simply scale back or re-name your request, and chances are you will get what you are asking for.

The White House has put that tactic to good use over the last few days.

Under mounting public opposition to the health care reform bill now before Congress, Barack Obama has backed off on both the “end of life counseling” provision as well as changing his tune on the “public option” section of the bill.

And if the American public falls for this ploy, it will prove to be a disaster.

No matter what phrasing Obama cares to use, this bill as it is written will STILL leave the government and federal bureaucrats in charge of overseeing the quality of health care that you receive.

Your health care will still be rationed, as there is simply no realistic way to provide medical coverage to upwards of 50 million people who are not covered now (many of them non-taxpaying illegal immigrants) without cutting back on services.

By cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare reimbursement spending, doctors and hospitals will simply perform less procedures such as EKG testing, MRI’s, etc.

And it only stands to reason that once the government sees that it is spending less on Medicare treatment, this policy will trickle down to all aspects of health care, regardless of a person’s age.

And if cutting Medicare spending doesn’t work, Obama still has a plan in place to help Grandma and Grandpa shuffle off of this earth a little sooner.

Under the Quality-Adjusted-Remaining-Years provision, the elderly, the disabled and the mentally challenged will still die a little sooner, but the method of bumping them off will seem to be more charitable.

QARY will analyze the cost of a procedure and weigh that cost against the possible “quality remaning years of life” expected out of the person who needs the procedure.

So when doctors have to make a choice between open-heart surgery for a man in his 30’s and chemotherapy for a cancer patient in her 60’s, take a guess as to who moves to the front of the line.

And as far as someone who is disabled, don’t even bother to ask.

As Ezekiel “Doctor Death” Emanuel says, why waste resources on people who have little chance of becoming productive citizens?

The White House is manuvering to dress up one of the worst pieces of legislation in American history in new clothes so that we all want to take it out to dinner.

President Obama, you said it yourself and you should keep it in mind:

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

Next Page »