Thursday, March 15, 2012

Obama takes on Rutherford B. Hayes

who writes this stuff for Obama?... today, Obama has repeated the equivilent of an urban legend, and he thinks it's true!... he attempts to get a cheap-shot at Republican President Hayes, but it turns out to be false... worse, his insinuation is that Hayes was backwards on issues and on progress... turns out, again, Hayes was more forward thinking than any Democrat president of the last twenty-five years!

One of my predecessors, President Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone: 'It’s a great invention but who would ever want to use one?' That's why he's not on Mt. Rushmore.

He's looking backwards, he's not looking forward. He's explaining why we can't do something instead of why we can do something. The point is there will always be cynics and naysayers.
- President Obama

yeah... Hayes sure was a backwards-looking president... or was he?

let's look at some fact (for a change):

After a year of study in a Columbus law office, he entered Harvard Law School and received his degree in 1845. He began his law practice in Lower Sandusky. Not finding many opportunities there, he left in 1849 for Cincinnati, where he became a successful lawyer. His opposition to slavery drew him into the Republican Party.

In 1864, while still in the army, he was elected to Congress (despite his refusal to campaign). He was reelected in 1866. The following year Ohio voters elected him governor. After winning a third term in 1875, the Republican Party chose Hayes as its presidential candidate.

His sound money policies helped make business and industry stronger. He initiated civil service reform, aimed at ending patronage, and appointed men with sound qualifications to government positions. He also signed a bill that, for the first time, allowed women attorneys to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Honoring his commitment not to accept a second term, Hayes retired.

Hayes was the first president to have a telephone in the White House.

Hayes was the first president to have a typewriter in the White House.
- The Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center

President Obama, you just can't help yourself, can you?... every time you open your mouth, something stupider than the last comes flowing out.

why don't you just take the higher, moral road that President Hayes took... retire after one term.

Obama knocks Rutherford B. Hayes - By BYRON TAU | 3/15/12 11:41 AM EDT

The Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center

Monday, March 12, 2012

abort your teenager

Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.
yes... we used to call those people Nazi's... ever visit the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C.?
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.
which "properties" are these?... supposedly, they can't ascribe a "basic value" to their own life, therefore cannot be a "loss" should that life be deprived... i believe that even a fetus recognizes a "basic value", or why else would there be a pain response?
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.
so, what are they saying?... we can ascribe rights as we see fit?... well, what if i say we grant personhood at age 18?... can i abort my teenager?
"I brought you into this world; I can take you out!"
However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.
nice trick, that... redefine the term harm into something that agrees with your argument... how many times have we seen this tactic?
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.
so... if, as a parent, my child becomes a burden (or a punishment, as President Obama calls them), such that i believe the social, psychological, or economic cost is too great, then i have the right to dispose of them?... this will change my kid's Christmas lists, dramatically!

to all the Pro-Choice people... is this what you wanted?... because this is the natural course for the ethics you support... if such a basic right as life can be granted on such a subjective basis, what right do you have to say someone can't abort a child when it becomes a burden to the parent?

follow this thought down the rabbit-hole, and humans only have the right to life as those around them see fit... cancer patients are a burden to healthcare... elderly have outlived their useful life... children are not persons, but property... the mentally retarded have less rights than "normal" people... if someone is in an accident and gets brain damaged, should we just kill them outright before they inconvenience anyone?

how far do you let this go?

Australian Ethicists Argue the Right to Kill Babies After They’re Born - Liberty Counsel March 2, 2012

JME Online First, published on March 2, 2012 as 10.1136/medethics-2011-100411

oh, Burt... you so crazy!

I wasn’t too crazy about Obama’s “Hope and Change” slogan in 2008 and I’m not overly fond of his new one, “Winning the Future.” Still, there’s something to be said for its initials. WTF, indeed!
- Burt Prelutsky

A FEW MORE REASONS TO SEND OBAMA PACKING by Burt Prelutsky - Monday, March 12, 2012

Monday, March 5, 2012

a rush to judgement - Re-blog

Condemnation of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh driven by the left-wing media was swift and feverish. Outrageous is how they described one of Mr. Limbaugh’s signature humorous observations about left-wing absurdity, for which he has since apologized.

Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks were prompted by the appearance of 30-year old Georgetown University law student and liberal political activist Sandra Fluke as a witness before an unofficial hearing convened by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Ms. Fluke complained that the student health program of Roman Catholic Georgetown University did not provide contraception for her, forcing her to pay $1,000 per year for contraception.

Considering that birth control pills cost as little as $9 per month ($108 per year) from pharmacies at Target stores, Mr. Limbaugh surmised that the only way Ms. Fluke could spend $1,000 per year was to buy condoms, which costs around 55 cents each, and purchase enough to use five condoms each day of the year (365 X 5 = 1,825). To illustrate the absurdity of Ms. Fluke’s claims, Mr. Limbaugh humorously observed that the only women who are having sex five times a day, 365 days per year typically were called either prostitutes or sluts.

Notably, poor people get birth control through Medicaid from the federal government. An additional $300 million is spent by the federal government to provide contraceptives to low-income and uninsured people who can’t qualify for Medicaid. This spending to help poor women was supported even when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.

The above facts about the ready availability of inexpensive contraceptives show clearly that Ms. Fluke’s testimony was based on falsehoods. Plus, her record as a reproductive rights activist demonstrates that, instead of being promiscuous, she is in reality waging a war against Roman Catholic Georgetown University in particular and religion in general.

An even more amazing observation is the fact that Ms. Fluke’s appeal for government help runs counter to the mantra that women want the government to stay out of private decisions about their bodies.

Lost in the media-generated brouhaha ginned up by Democrats and their media allies to paint Republicans as engaging in a “war on women” are the two real issues.

One concern is whether President Barack Obama can violate the First Amendment to our Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion and force religious organizations to pay for something that violates their moral conscience.

The other issue is whether Mr. Obama can force private insurance companies to cover certain procedures or medications. If the answer to either or both of these questions is yes, then we no longer live in a country governed for the people by our elected representatives. Instead, our nation has been changed into a socialist dictatorship and we are living under the tyranny of Mr. Obama who governing by executive fiat, not restrained by our Constitution, the law of our land.

In their rush (pun intended) to discredit Mr. Limbaugh, liberal journalists either fail to mention or downplay the above two important Constitutional issues, but are quick to display rank hypocrisy with their righteous indignation over name-calling.

There was the sound of silence from the left-wing press when a black Republican woman and congressional candidate, Charlotte Bergmann, was called a “token negro”, "stupid" and a "curly-haired nigga" to her face by Democrat liberal talk show host and DJ Thaddeus Matthews while Ms. Bergmann was a guest on his show. If ever there was a show of wanton vulgarity and cruelty, this was it. The article “Outrage subdued after DJ goes on racially charged rant on GOP congressional candidate” by Judson Berger can be found on the Internet.

A video of the actual trashing of Ms. Bergmann by Mr. Matthews can be seen on YouTube.

An article with further evidence of how Democrats conduct a “war on black Republicans”, using vile and reprehensible personal attacks because we do not toe the liberal agenda line, calling us “sellouts”, “Uncle Toms” and “House Negroes” is posted on the NBRA website.

One of those racist cartoons demeaning Dr. Condoleezza Rice was published in The Washington Post. Will the editorial board of the Washington Post ever apologize in the name of civility and for the good of our American political culture?

Will the liberal press demand that Democrats in Congress denounce Mr. Thaddeus and repudiate the racist attack on a citizen who is seeking to become an elected representative of the people? Will President Obama make a supportive call to Ms. Bergmann?

President Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Senate Leader Harry Reid and others Democratic Party leaders need to say without equivocation that such gutter rhetoric uttered by Mr. Matthews and other Democrats against black Republicans has no place in their party or in our American political discourse.

Further, when will the Democratic Party issue the long overdue apology to black Americans for that party’s nearly 200 years of racism? Not one liberal journalist bothered to give press coverage to the historic occasion when Rev. Wayne Perryman sued the Democratic Party, requesting such an apology, but the Democratic Party hired an army of lawyers to defend their racist past; thereby, avoiding doing the right thing and issuing an apology. An article about the lawsuit can be found on the Internet.

As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. In his book, “Dreams From My Father”, President Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as “plantation politics”. Details are contained in our NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter that is posted on our website.

In spite of Mr. Limbaugh’s apology, seven of his sponsors have withdrawn their advertisements, playing into the blacklisting game of the far left, the same strategy that liberals used to get Mr. Ronald Reagan removed by CBS as the host of the “General Electric Theater” in 1962 because he criticized President John F. Kennedy. In his article ”Rally for Rush” Jeffrey Lord exposes how the seven companies who pulled their ads from Mr. Limbaugh’s program are connected to far left-wing groups funded by George Soros, including, America Coming Together and Democracy for America.

Lord wrote: “They exploit race and gender to try and destroy First Amendment protections. People who support a philosophy long on record as supporting every racial gambit from slavery, segregation, lynching and the Ku Klux Klan right on through to the violation of voting rights by the Black Panthers, racial quotas and illegal immigration have no scruples.”

The supposed desire for civility expressed by the liberal media would be credible if journalists placed as much emphasis on holding Democrats accountable for their overt racism toward black Republicans. Also, our country would be saved from being turned into a failed socialist nation by President Obama if the liberal press devoted as much time trying to stop him from shredding our Constitution as they spend trying to silence a talk show host who has no power to deny Americans anything, Constitutional or otherwise.

Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted on the Internet at:

Outrage For White Woman Fluke But Not For Black Republicans
by National Black Republican Association NBRA on Monday, March 5, 2012 at 12:12pm
By Frances Rice

Friday, March 2, 2012

Andrew Breitbart: 1969-2012

It’s stressful to be hated. It goes against our instincts. We want to be loved. But Andrew Breitbart was different. He relished his enemies and laughed when they threatened him. He wasn’t scared of conflict. He thought it was fun. He was, as Greg Gutfeld put it, “The bravest person I ever met.”

When I was on Greg’s show Red Eye with Breitbart we were asked what we thought of Trump sponsoring a GOP debate. Greg and I had the knee-jerk reaction of scoffing at the whole thing. When Breitbart asked us what was so funny we said, “Well, it’s obviously just some rich guy showboating.” Then he taught me a word I never really paid attention to before: “So?”

What a word. It’s only two letters but it shows the PC left they’ve never thought past the silly hysteria that surrounds their accusations. Oil companies have had record profits this year. So? That’s what they’re supposed to do.

Thomas Paine once wrote, “He who dares not offend cannot be honest” and as far as I’m concerned, that’s what Andrew Breitbart was all about. When a journalist accused him of carefully editing an NAACP speech to make a black woman look racist, Andrew relentlessly hammered the guy and proved it was the media who had cherry-picked the quote. When the liberal media was hemming and hawing about rape accusations at OWS, Breitbart ran up to the protestors and screamed, “STOP RAPING PEOPLE” in their faces. You don’t forget a guy like that.

Andrew Breitbart: 1969-2012 - Taki's Magazine by Gavin McInnes - March 01, 2012