The Left’s War On Women Starts In The Womb

The Democrats have ginned up an alleged war on women being waged by Republicans and they have gone after people like Rush Limbaugh for comments he made to substantiate their claims. The liberals are also playing up the contrived disparity in pay as a Republican war on women though, interestingly, many Democrats pay their female staffers far less than their male staffers. Even Barack Obama pays his female workers less money than his male workers.

The war on women meme is in full bloom as Katie Couric, one of the left’s cheerleaders, gave a commencement address where she discussed how she had been cheated by sexists. I guess the millions of dollars they pay her for her lack of talent is not enough compensation, or should I say, Love?

The reality is that the left has been waging a war on women for a long time. Whether it is the aforementioned pay disparity among the staff of Democrat politicians or the push for affirmative action programs for women (programs that by design mean Democrats think women can’t make it on a level playing field) it is obvious that the war being waged is by the left.

The war is even more pronounced when one considers that Democrats are waging war on unborn females through sex selective abortion.

A pro-life group called Live Action has videos showing that Planned Parenthood allows and supports women who want to abort their babies because they are girls rather than boys. The videos show that the abortion mill in America is in favor of sex selective abortions. So now, not only is Planned Parenthood working to wipe out the black population, it is also working to wipe out the female population.

Abortion is a predominantly Democrat/liberal/progressive entity. Liberals will defend to their last breath the “right” of a woman to murder her unborn child and that means that the war on unborn females is being waged by the left.

Democrats cannot run on their records and Barack Obama cannot tout his effectiveness because he has made a mess of things. He has failed to reach the lofty goals he set for himself when he asked for the job he currently holds (he did not inherit anything, he asked for it) so he knows he cannot run on his record. Instead, he is hiding his record by distracting people with phony claims like a Republican war on women.

Obama and the rest of the liberals are the ones waging this war and while the Obama regime condemns Syria for murdering children it does the very same thing through abortion.

Particularly to female children.

We need to put an end to Planned Parenthood and we need to put an end to the Obama regime come November.

Let us make it the end of an error…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Liberals Are Pro Choice

Except when they are not…

Liberals will fight tooth and nail to support abortion on demand. It, according to their twisted view, is a Constitutionally protected “right.” that must be protected at all costs. It is such a sacrament of the left that it is a major line of questioning when a conservative is nominated to the Supreme Court.

We have heard the arguments. It is a woman’s right to choose. It is her body and it is her decision and no one has a right to interfere with her right to choose. Liberals believe this right exists above the right of the unborn child to live. Yes, liberals even believe this right is more important than the murder of an unborn child who cries in agony as it is aborted.

It is all about the right to choose and liberals believe strongly in that.

Except when they don’t.

Liberals do not believe that people have a right to eat or drink what they want. The FDA went after an Amish farmer who was selling raw milk (unpasteurized) to people. The FDA spent two years investigating the Amish farmer and even set up fake buys in order to catch him. The government is concerned because raw milk can cause disease. This is true but it is also true that it is the right of the people to choose whether or not they want to take that risk. Abortion is allowed even though it almost always results in murder but people cannot choose to drink raw milk that might result in illness.

The FDA and the judge who ruled invoked interstate commerce to enforce the ruling but make no mistake about it, that was just the means to enforce the true issue and that was to deny people the right to drink whatever kind of milk they wanted. The Amish are free to sell the milk to people in Pennsylvania and the FDA can’t stop that but it can use interstate commerce to force people to stop doing something the government thinks is unsafe.

It boils down to the fact that government, particularly liberals (the FDA is inherently liberal), does not like people being free to do things that government finds wrong. Abortion, no problem because liberals bow to the gods of pro choice organizations but freedom to eat or drink what you want, not so much. One only needs to look at Nanny Bloomberg in New York to see that. No salt, no trans fats, no anything that Bloomberg thinks is unhealthy.

And that is not all. Liberals do not believe in our right to choose to keep and bear arms. Of these issues, the right to keep and bear arms is the only one in the US Constitution and liberals ignore it completely. Barack Obama is hell bent on removing our right and stripping the Second Amendment from the Constitution. He and his liberal pals do not believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual one even though our Founders explicitly stated that it was and the SCOTUS has ruled that it is (except some Justices on the court. The LIBERAL ones, of course). You have no free choice when it comes to owning and carrying a firearm.

Why is it that liberals think there is no choice in what we can eat or drink and think there is no choice in owing an carrying a firearm but the right to choose an abortion is undeniable?

It is because liberals only believe in things that destroy freedom and destroy life. They are more than happy to sanction murder as an absolute right but are loathe to allow rights that involve freedom.

Liberalism is the ideology of destruction. You might say it is the culture of destruction.

Look for it to get worse as more freedoms are violated and more life destroying “rights” are created out of thin air.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Abortion Is Safer Than Birth, For Whom?

A new study shows, according to those who researched it, that women are 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth than they are from complications of an abortion. Dr. Anne Davis tells us that both procedures are safe but they are trying to let women who have reproductive issues know that abortion is not as dangerous as the anti abortion forces claim.

There is no doubt that childbirth is very stressful for women. A lot of stress is placed on the body and sometimes there are complications that lead to death.

However, while a woman giving birth might be 14 times more likely to die than if she had an abortion, the unborn children are nearly 100% more likely to die from an abortion than from child birth. I say nearly 100% because some infants die during child birth and some survive an abortion attempt (until Obama lets them be murdered) but they are much more likely to survive childbirth than abortion.

The study only takes into account the women involved and does not mention the unborn children. The fact remains that if women never died during childbirth or abortion, the unborn child almost always dies during abortion and almost always lives after childbirth.

These studies are designed to make abortion more acceptable and to attempt to discredit those opposed to the procedure. Abortions are safe, don’t worry about it. My God, you are 14 times more likely to die giving birth than you are having an abortion. Get the abortion, it helps you, it protects you, and it lines the pockets of Planned Parenthood.

How long will it be before the federal government requires the abortion murder clinics to tell women they are safer having an abortion than having a child?

Imagine if doctors told women that they are relatively safe either way but that their unborn children are nearly 100% assured of dying a horrible death if they have the abortion.

I know liberals. It is a woman’s body and her right to do what she wants with it. My question is, if it is her body then why are they tearing the arms and legs off her unborn infant. Whose body is it that gets aborted?

Pesky little kids, thank goodness we have abortions so that girls are not punished with pregnancy and they can have the same chances as boys in our society.

And it is safer than giving birth.

Really, tell that to the unborn children who thought they were being protected by their mothers…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Is It Part Of The Romney Pattern?

During last night’s debate Governor Perry attacked former Masachusetts Governor Romney for a change in his position on Massachusetts’ health care as it would apply to the nation. Perry pointed out that a line was changed when Romney’s book was published in paperback.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said during the Florida debate that Romney took out the single line that suggested the Massachusetts health reform law could be applied to the country. The line that is removed in the paperback version reads, “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.”

Romney denied there was a change but after the debate one of his people noted that there was a change and indicated that this was a common practice when books are printed in paperback and new information is available.

The problem is that the new information available, Obamacare, did not necessitate the change in the book except that Obamacare is widely disliked and Romney wants to be president.

If this were the only thing that Romney had changed one could argue that he had time to evaluate what took place in Massachusetts and what took place in the country and came to a different conclusion. The problem is, Romney has a history of changing positions. It appears as if Romney will change his positions depending on political winds.

There is no doubt that Romney has the economic and business experience but he has changed positions on abortion and the Second Amendment, to name a few, and those changes smack of political expediency.

Will a president Romney change positions or compromise his principles should he be faced with a Congress in control of the other party? We already have a guy occupying the White House who was one thing during the campaign and is totally different now that he is in office and he, of course, is not the only one. We need leadership that is principled and a leader who will not change positions on core values and beliefs for political expediency.

Make no mistake about it, Romney would be a better leader than Obama as would anyone who was on the stage last night. But we do not need someone who is, at best, better than Obama. We need a principled leader who will follow his beliefs and do what he said he would do.

All candidates from all parties have their faults. They are human beings and there are problems with all of them (though Obama supporters think differently of their messiah) but a problem with consistency is an issue that deserves a closer look.

Source:
WLS 890

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]

We Need To Find A Generic Republican

In recent polls for the 2012 presidential contest, a contest that is a year and a half away, Barack Obama beats or ties most of the announced or potential Republican candidates. Romney has traded places atop the polls but for the most part, Obama is ahead of the pack.

The polling that asks about the generic Republican shows that Obama loses. Obama loses to an unnamed, unknown generic Republican but beats the current field. This shows two things. America is generally tired of Obama and wants a change in leadership and that the current crop (thus far) is not the change in leadership that they want.

This could change over time as right now allegiances are spread across a wide Republican field but as it stands right now, Obama beats them when he can’t beat the generic candidate.

Unless someone jumps out of the pack of Republicans and espouses what those polled see in the “generic” candidate, Republicans need to find that generic candidate somewhere else.

The population is looking for a conservative with a proven record of financial experience who has not wavered on core principles. The current pack has few of those in it. Romney gave us Obamacare light and has changed his positions on several issues. He is a smart money man but to many, Obamacare light is a deal breaker.

People have a right to change positions over time based on experience and knowledge but too often positions change based on politics and that is not the mark of a principled person. Plenty of politicians opposed abortion (or federal funding of it) but changed over time for political gain. Look at how many have no problem with federal funding of abortion under Obamacare. Al Gore changed his position completely when being pro life was not to his political advantage.

These are not principled positions. The Republicans need that person who has a solid record of conservative values and have been principled in the approach to these sensitive issues.

Who will that generic person be?

Right now it is hard to say if one of the current contenders is the one or if a new person will have to emerge.

But one thing is certain, whomever it is, the left and its media wing will wage a full scale assault on that person. Power is a strong incentive to many people who have less than honorable intentions.

The Rasmussen poll linked above shows that voters are likely to vote for whomever the Republicans nominate and that is the generic Republican. This is misleading when one considers that the individuals currently in the race lose when polled head to head against Obama (except Romney who trades places depending upon the poll). If current economic conditions persist it is possible for Obama to lose to any candidate but if they improve the Republicans will need a strong, principled candidate in order to win.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]