The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “Nancy Pelosi”

Nancy Pelosi: The Iron-ing Lady Part 3 – Playing Chicken With Homosexuality

Since Chick-fil-A founder and president Dan Cathy “came out” and publicly opposed gay marriage, liberals, predictably, have been denouncing him and every conservative under the sun for what is unfairly, but routinely, referred to as bigotry, homophobia and hatred of an entire people.  Nancy Pelosi, our own Iron-ing Lady has clucked into the conversation as well.  And in case you ever wondered where she acquired her greasy fingers, she has provided us with that answer in her paltry attempt at sneering her nose at Chick-fl-A, and conservatives, while endearing herself to those gays and lesbians who are just weak-minded enough to overlook her condescension towards them.  Pelosi has stated she prefers Kentucky Fried Chicken over Chick-fil-A.

We know that in real life Pelosi could care less about KFC or Chick-fil-A.  But our Iron-ing Lady needed to make some type of statement to her homosexual and liberal base to acknowledge her “disgust” with Cathy for his stance on tradition marriage, no matter how blatantly irrational and obviously false.  This is what liberals do, after-all.  They merely blow with the wind, in whatever direction that wind happens to be blowing on that particular day.  Pelosi thought she could use a “controversy” (which what Cathy stated is not) and make conservatives look weak and foolish, hateful and bigoted, while at the same time propping herself up as a model of endearing tolerance and acceptance.  Pelosi has merely shown herself to be the fool.

Conservatism has come a long way since the 1940’s  and 50’s when there was virtually universal agreement among conservatives that homosexuality was an absolute abomination, and that included going so far as to regulate what gays and lesbians did in the privacy of their own homes.  That type of mentality no longer exists in modern conservatism.  Most conservatives, today, while they may oppose gay marriage, and may oppose homosexuality itself, have absolutely no desire to regulate or control or punish the act of homosexuality.  Certainly not to the extent of our parents and grandparents generation.  And we neither are interested in regulating what gays and lesbians do in the privacy of their own homes any more than we desire to regulate what they do in public – within the realm of reasonable and polite conduct, which also goes for heterosexuals.

While tolerance for homosexuality has dramatically increased within conservative circles, that doesn’t mean we regard homosexuality as either a civil or Constitutional right.  And we certainly do not support judges making up laws based on their own personal opinions.  We, conservatives, (most conservatives at any rate) are not interested in punishing someone for being gay or lesbian.  We certainly do not want laws on the books that ban homosexuals from participating in, and alongside of, society.  Nor do we desire to push them out of society.  In fact, most conservatives today openly welcome gays and lesbians into society, as we do with anyone who acts in a responsible, dignified and proper manner in public.

Most homosexuals who are liberal (for we know there are many conservative gays and lesbians as well) are hell-bent on pushing themselves and their marriage equality agenda on our entire nation, with total and absolute disregard for what the will of the people want.  That is sheer arrogance and a recipe for a devastating set-back for homosexuals in America.  And as America moves back to its conservative roots, while it accepts homosexuality to a greater degree than in decades past, if gays and lesbians agitate and aggravate conservatives too much, that support will begin to diminish and homosexuals will be back to pre-Stonewall times.  This ought to frustrate the hell out of conservative gays and lesbians who know the games that liberals are playing with them, at their expensive.  And conservative gays and lesbians ought to know that liberals who play these games with their sexual orientation only do so because they feel it will score them political points, not because they, like our Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, really cares about you or whether your rights, and your entire lifestyle, are being trampled on by a restaurant owner.

If gay marriage is ever going to come to fruition in America, it can only do so when a majority of American people favor such a redefining of marriage, and show that support in the voting booths.  Gay marriage, indeed, homosexuality itself, will make no inroads so long as it continues to force itself on the America people and make absurd and improper demands on us such as to either accept them or be labeled and branded as bigots and homophobes.

We, conservatives, are much stronger, and more resolved, than weak-minded buffoons like our Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi.  Not only is she playing chicken with homosexuality, she is chicken.  So are all liberals who have come out in opposition to Cathy and his American right to have and to voice his opinion.  Freedom of speech is not only for liberals.  But every time a conservative speaks up on behalf of an issue liberals reject, said liberals try to silence conservatives.  Cathy said nothing improper, nothing bigoted, nothing hateful.

Pelosi, on the other hand, is far more hateful, far more bigoted, and far more a hypocrite for her pathetic response to Cathy than is Cathy towards gays and lesbians.  Why?  Cathy is sincere in his stance against gay marriage, which has nothing to do with homosexuality in of itself.  How sincere is Pelosi, really, towards homosexuality, or any issue that she supports, which she only supports because she has been told by strategists such support will equate into more votes for her?  Try as Pelosi might, this Iron-ing Lady cannot smooth out the wrinkles of her convoluted absurdity.

In fact, the fabric of liberalism, on which these wrinkles reside, have so distorted, and so faded, the original facade of this outfit that at this point it is best to just throw it out and buy something new.  (Some might consider this to be an insult against Pelosi herself.  It is more of an insult against liberalism, than any one liberal.  But, and although Pelosi is old and is showing her age, and as a politician is indeed worn, faded and wrinkled, it could also be taken to mean it is time to replace Pelosi with a fresh face in congress that is not so set, as stone, in their ways.)

It’s up to all gays and lesbians to decide how far they want to take the issue of gay marriage, and in which direction they wish to take it.  America is in fact becoming more conservative, little by little.  Either they can reject liberals like Pelosi, who only pander to them, and embrace conservative who, although may not support gay marriage, certainly do not support outlawing and punishing homosexuality or homosexual behavior – and would accept, in principle, homosexual marriage if that is what a majority of Americans also supported.  Or – gays and lesbians can fall and collapse back into themselves and lose everything they have fought so hard to attain for so many decades.  It is all a matter of priority, and what is most important to gays and lesbians.  Fighting a losing battle, or accepting that gay marriage is not realistic right now, but may be, and would have a better chance of being real, in the future if they were more patient.

Nancy Pelosi, the Iron-ing Lady, is willing to push back the gains made by gays and lesbians for her own personal agenda.  How is that working for homosexuals, and improving upon the homosexual cause, in America?

Nancy Pelosi: The “Mind Numbingly Stupid” Iron-ing Lady, Part 2 (What Does Eric Holder, Voter ID and Racism Have To Do With It?)

Nancy Peloist ismind numbingly stupid“, and that is putting it mildly.  And Eric Holder has committed grave and serious actions against the best interests of America with regards to Fast and Furious.  For Pelosi to complain that all the attention the GOP is giving Holder, including demanding his resignation (Holder can keep his head, it is worthless to science for study, or any other field), that this ballyhooing among Republicans is nothing more than retribution for Holder’s involvement in the several voter ID lawsuits pending is beyond mind numbingly stupid.  It is yet another act of extreme desperation by Pelosi and the Democrat Party who continue to unravel and expose themselves for the literal know-nothing party they truly are.

Fast and Furious was a gun smuggling operation, coordinated during, and by, the Barack Obama Administration.  George Bush had nothing to do with it – he was well out of office after this monstrous, miscalculated scheme was carried out.  The idea was to sell guns with tracking capability to Mexican drug cartels, thereby learning where these cartels were located.  This plan flopped miserably and as a result, untold thousands of Mexicans have lost their lives in this seemingly endless drug war going on in Mexico, and a border agent, Brian Terry, has lost his life.  And leave it to one indignant Democrat strategist, Tamara Holder (who is white and of no relation to Eric Holder, who is black), to completely forget his name.  Imagine a Republican forgetting the name of Martin Luther King, and calling him “that guy” with the “Dream” speech”.  Yeah, that would go over well.

Eric Holder, again at the boot heel of Barack Obama, is engaged in a war, of sorts, with several states that have passed stringent voter ID laws.  How stringent?  How draconian?  These states, which include Florida and Arizona, have decreed, by law, that when a voter shows up to vote at any given poll they actually present identification before they are given a ballot.  Why?  That is the question Democrats and liberals ask, which is more proof they, and not Republicans and conservatives, are the real threat to American sovereignty.

Why, indeed!  Democrats are doing everything they can to make a mockery of America, American sovereignty and the entire voting process in America by their devil-may-care attitude to ensure, and make sure, anyone can vote (precluding those who are voting are voting Democrat), including enlisting the dead, the family pet, (remember Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler in the Wisconsin recall against Governor Scott Walker?), and in particular illegal aliens who are more apt to vote Democrat because Democrats are so desperately in need of every illegal vote in order to win elections.  And this is the real reason Obama is trying, un-Constitutionally, to usurp power for the express purpose of granting hundreds of thousands of young illegal aliens work permits.

It is also true that a disproportionate number of black Americans still do not have voter ID’s.  Despite the fact that most states offer these cards for free, there is still the contempt emanating from this group, egged on by race hustling garbage like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, about a poll tax, racism and intentional voter suppression.  All of which the Democrat Party, including the Iron-ing Lady herself, Nancy Pelosi, is taking full advantage of.

Says Pelosi, about the GOP’s attack on Holder’s credibility:

“I’m telling you, this is connected,” Pelosi said during a news conference Thursday. “It is no accident. It is a decision and it is as clear as can be. It’s not only to monopolize his time, it’s to undermine his name … as he goes forward to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The “connected” part Pelosi is referring to is the increased criticism coming from the GOP over Holder’s unwarranted involvement in the voter ID lawsuits.  The “protect and defend” part Pelosi alludes to is over Holder’s, Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s willingness to defend and protect their voting blocks, whether those voting blocks are legitimate or not.  There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the right to vote to illegal aliens, or anyone who cannot identify who they are.  It is the right of every state to ensure the voting process is not tainted with corruption.  Democrats, and Pelosi, are standing in the way of justice, both in the Fast and Furious scandal and in every state’s right to enact voter ID laws.  Democrats and liberals seem to be mind numbingly immune to this reality.

With Eric Holder, and his head buried deep in the Fast and Furious scandal, Barack Obama and his head buried deep in fanciful cloud formations high above reality, and Nancy Pelosi with her head buried deep within her own self, (and we can take that to also mean her self-absorbed lifestyle, her haughtiness, and the fact that she seems to have attained some metaphysical high breathing in the rancid and putrid fumes of her own arrogance and conceit for so many years – for that is the fanciful way of putting it), and the fact that regardless of who the Democrat strategist is, they will always take the side of Democrats no matter just how mind numbingly stupid they behave, just what vision does the Democrat Party have in mind for America and the future of America?

Nancy Pelosi’s vision of America, based off the lucid images formed from those same fumes she has been inhaling for so long, is an America that has no border’s, no sovereignty and no voting restrictions, just so long as she, and Democrats in general, keep getting reelected and allowed to make and to pass the laws they need in order to pander to the people they need to, for the votes they need to get reelected, so forth and so on, ad infinitum.

That may indeed be good for Democrats and the preservation of the Democrat Party, but – how exactly does that benefit America, the preservation of America as a sovereign nation; and just how long can Democrats keep this charade up before the entire American Experiment falls apart and one or more rogue nations comes in to claim America for itself?  Or does anyone really think it is the wide expanse of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans that protect America and keep America safe from hostile enemies?  How mind numbingly wrongheaded, and dangerous, is that!

Rick Santorum’s Theology Trumps Barack Obama’s

President Obama does not miss an opportunity to proclaim his “Christianity” and use that as a basis for why taxes ought to be raised.  And while the Left is comfortable with that, they wither into blithering idiots and truly sick and disgusting sycophants, like Obama, when someone with real values, and real Christian values, like Rick Santorum, dares to use that as a basis for his theology and how he would shape policy and legislation in Washington.

The Arianna Nation calls Santorum’s “religious superiority complex” a “new low”.  Santorum, who is pro-life and who opposes the Obama contraception mandate against Catholic hospitals and institutions, uses his Christianity as the explanation for being pro-life and his conservatism for opposing government intrusion on religion.

Said Santorum:

“He [Obama] is imposing his values on the Christian church. He can categorize those values anyway he wants. I’m not going to.”

Obama forcing Catholic institutions to provide services that go against their moral and religious conviction; Obama using, and abusing, religion, to further his socialist agenda is, to the Arianna Nation, to all liberals and Leftists, somehow a “progressive” position, but Santorum – extolling his Christian values – has reached a “new low”.  How does that make sense?

Said Obama, in a speech at a the National Prayer Breakfast:

“But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”  It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.”

Phony, counterfeit Christians, like Obama, because he is a liberal and a socialist, always get away with invoking religion and their particular religious values.  And they always get a pass from the MSM.  But when religious frauds, like Obama, invoke religion, it is always done to advance their socialist, and ironically, anti-religious agenda on the American people.  In other words, liberals have no objection with pro-abortion “Christian” politicians – take the Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, for example – using religion to justify why contraception ought to be mandated a right by government.  But when Santorum, and others, profess their religion, and their conservative religious values, openly, as the basis for why religious institutions ought to be exempt and protected from government intrusion, they are roundly mocked, viciously satirized and ridiculed, called “ring-wing aggressors” and anti-women.

Of Santorum’s position, The Arianna Nation quotes Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt:

“This is just the latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, and searing pessimism and negativity – a stark contrast with the President who is focused everyday on creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class.”

Don’t buy into his garbage.  The Left hates, despises and loathes religion with a passion, which is why they ridicule Santorum and anyone with conservative religious values, and why they give a pass to counterfeit Christians, like Obama, who use religion in ways that water it down and make it more salable but less meaningful.

There is nothing Christian, or religious, about being pro-abortion.  There is nothing in the Christian Bible, in any Bible, that supports the killing of unborn life.  Neither is there anything religious, Christian or Biblical based about forcing religious institutions to provide contraception and abortion services to anyone against their moral and religious beliefs – and to do so is also unconstitutional.  Nor is there anything in the Christian Bible that supports taxes, and raising taxes on the rich, at such high levels and percentages as Obama and the “Demon-cratic” Party have fought so hard for.  Other than a 10% tithing, to one’s church, or charity, and certainly no more than that amount to government itself, what Obama is professing is not only a lie, but slander against the Bible and Christianity itself.

Why is it that those liberals who profess themselves to be Christian, who despise anyone else invoking their religious values on the American people – especially in the public square –  routinely forget to follow their own rules and freely talk about their religious values and background?  If the Left is that uncomfortable with religion in the public square, and hearing politicians and their election officials talking about religion, why don’t they do more to dissuade and to persecute Obama, and any of their own ilk, who do freely and openly talk about religion, and their so-called religious values?

Whether the Left supports or rejects religion, Rick Santorum not only has a right to discuss, openly and freely, his Christian values, but to, freely and openly, challenge Obama’s “Christian” values.  If the Left has a problem with that, if Obama himself has a problem with that, they and Obama can meet Santorum head on in open debate where they can both lay out their religious differences and defend their brand of Christianity.

But Santorum has nothing to worry about.  His Christianity does trump Obama’s.  Or – does life, and unborn life, really have no meaning and value?  Is enslaving taxpayers to their government by raising taxes sixty, seventy, eighty percent sound, rational Christian teaching?  Is forcing religious institutions to help in the killing of unborn children, or in aiding and abetting sexual immorality, one of the tenets of Christianity, or any religion?

Is Christianity merely a prop politicians use to sway more religious Americans to elect them?  And even if both Obama and Santorum are using Christianity to further their political careers, regardless of that – whose religious values make more sense?

Nancy Pelosi: The Iron-ing Lady

Well, it didn’t take long for Nancy Pelosi to take her foot out of her mouth and say something else incredibly stupid (and dangerous) about contraception, the Catholic Church and religious conscience exemptions.  And it proves that if there is a wrinkle in any socialist driven bill, no matter how nasty or stubborn a wrinkle it is, or unconstitutional, Nancy Pelosi will be there to iron it out.

The issue of self insured institutions was the spotlight of controversy on Thursday, and in particular, self insured religious institutions.  The Obama Administration had earlier reached a “compromise” with regards to forcing religious institutions to provide contraception, including abortifacients.  The compromise?  Putting the onus of paying for the contraception on insurance companies instead of religious institutions.  However, a snag developed which was brought to the attention of the Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi.  Some insurance providers are themselves religious institutions.  Now what?

Said Pelosi:

“Yes, I think that all institutions who cover, who give, health insurance should cover the full range of health insurance issues for women.”

In other words, that “compromise” is as meaningless as it is a sham.  Democrats have been both insistence and unabashedly vocal about forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception (including pregnancy ending pills and medication) against their religious and moral convictions.  This push for more access, and “free” access, comes under the disguise of “women’s health” to safeguard the “reproductive rights” of all women.  In fact, it is being done at the behest of, and merely to please and pleasure, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations and keep them in business with taxpayer dollars.

Pelosi’s anti-Catholic rhetoric is long-standing.

The Democrats have, from the beginning, demanded more access to contraception and birth control for women.  But how to get around the cost factor was always the main issue, the big “wrinkle” in the fabric of this monstrous agenda.  Obama’s contraception mandate is the icing on the “reproductive rights” cake.  Not only does this mandate provide women with that access, but “free” contraception paid for by insurance companies, which will have that passed down to us, the taxpayers through higher premiums, loss of benefits, etc, and whatever cost the government picks up.

The “slight hitch” in the mandate is what the Iron-ing Lady is trying to smooth over.  Not so much with Catholic and religious institutions – she has already burnt a hole clear through in that endeavor.  But with her pro-abortion friends who have long been fighting to get more money from government for their struggling and floundering abortion business, and who are worried about any “conscience clause”, any opt out for religious institutions, like Catholic hospitals, that might make it more difficult for them in their pro-abortion agenda.

The contraception mandate, for now, seems to be their golden ticket.  However, Catholic Bishops, Catholics themselves, and Americans of every religious and conservative, and moral persuasion, are gearing up for a fight to counter what is, and has become, an attack on the constitution itself and the constitutional right of religious freedom.  Undoubtedly this fight will find its way to the U.S Supreme Court where it, depending on who the nine Justices are when the case comes before them – which may very well depend on who our next President will be – will be settled.

In-between that time, the Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, will continue her attempt to smooth over any and all wrinkles in this, and any, future socialist driven agendas.  However, the more she must “smooth over” the wrinkles, the more she inadvertently is wearing down the fabric of the agenda she is trying to iron out.  The good news for us – conservatives – is that because Democrats always produce and manufacture cheap and shoddy legislation, there will always be wrinkles for our Iron-ing Lady to smooth out.

This contraception mandate, and how to both force religious institutions, and exempt them, at the same time, from having to provide services they find morally objectionable, will be one tough wrinkle for the Iron-ing Lady to smooth over and may well prove to be too exhausting for her in the long run.

Perhaps Pelosi ought to just leave the iron burning on the mandate, let it burn a hole through and try to mend the hole she has already made with the Catholic Church.   Or – perhaps she ought to just put her foot back in her mouth and keep it there.

How To Challenge Obama, All Pro-Abortion Politicians, Expose Their Hypocrisy – And Ruin Their Political Careers

Pro-abortion supporters are hypocrites and we can easily expose their blatant hypocrisy and bring to an end this barbaric practice so coveted by liberals and so heavily protected by the MSM with their silence.  We can topple Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and all pro-abortion organizations.  We can crush politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, and Kirsten Gillibrand, who had this to say about abortion and the “importance of electing pro-choice women to congress in 2012″.  We can redden their faces, shame and embarrass them, and thoroughly destroy their political careers forever.  And we can even ruin Barack Obama’s aspirations for a second term in office.  We can – just by asking the right questions, demanding an answer and not letting them off the hook.

For example…

Question:  As you (insert political candidate’s name – let’s say Nancy Pelosi) are pro-choice and support abortion on demand, you would naturally support, without question, the right of a woman who has become pregnant during a one night stand to abort her unborn child, correct?  The man, by the way, whom she had intercourse with was black, she white, and she has just found out the baby will be born black, and that is her reason for wanting the abortion.

What on Earth is Nancy Pelosi going to say to that?  How can any self admitted pro-abortion politician answer that question without either offending the entire abortion rights movement or an entire race?  Especially if they are on a stage, in a debate, where people are watching, film is rolling, they are on the spot and time is ticking down.

They might try squirming their way out of the issue with a juvenile, sophomoric response like, “Well, I support a woman’s right to privacy, and what she does with her own body, in privacy, is none of my business.”  But this still doesn’t end the fact that an unborn child is being killed in the womb because it is black.  This is the challenge for, and the dilemma which must be forced upon, those who are pro-abortion to answer.

And the follow-up question then must be:  So, if a white woman wants to exercise her “right to privacy” and abort her unborn child because she has found out it will be born black, as long as you, Nancy Pelosi, are unaware that is why she is aborting her unborn child, you would be comfortable in supporting her right to choose abortion based on race?

Now what can she say?  Either Nancy Pelosi, any pro-abortion supporter, is going to support a white woman’s right to abort a child who would be born black, or she, any pro-abortion supporter, is a hypocrite.  In other words, one cannot support abortion on demand, and then, in an open forum, become uncomfortable with absolutely supporting an abortion procedure to remove an unwanted, unborn child because a white woman does not want to give birth to a black child.

Granted, some politicians run unopposed and never have to stand at a podium and debate in public.  We still need to force an answer out of them, even if it is on the fly, even if it means cornering them on the steps of the Capital, or as they are walking from point A to point B in a public space.  And if they refuse to answer?  If they simply scoff at the question and walk away?  It’s not so immoral, so unethical to answer the question for them.

For example…

As a reporter, professional or amateur, you have just cornered Nancy Pelosi in a public venue and have only moments to ask her the above question.  You calmly ask it to her, and, as expected, she walks away without a response, or with an indignant sigh.  She has gotten the better of you – or has she?

When faced with this, answer the question for her and make her, Nancy Pelosi, defend herself with an opposing answer.  Report and/ or write as if Nancy Pelosi has actually answered your question in either this manner:

Well, from what can be gathered by her response, or lack of response, it is absolutely certain that Nancy Pelosi supports a woman’s right to abort an unborn black child on the basis of race.  And as she supports raced based abortions, obviously she, Nancy Pelosi, also supports, must support, abortion in cases where it is known the child will be born a girl or gay.  And we have to wonder how long Nancy Pelosi has held these racist, bigoted, homophobic, sexist views and whether black Americans, gays and lesbians and any woman could support her any longer politically.

Or in this manner:

Well, from what can be gathered by her response, or lack of response, it is absolutely certain that Nancy Pelosi, while she supports abortion on demand, and supports a woman’s “right to privacy”, and while she would never detract from that, Nancy Pelosi would indeed support the right of government to ban race based abortion.  And we have to wonder what other types of abortion bans Nancy Pelosi would support, how that will play with women’s rights advocates, whether or not she will lose their support and how Nancy Pelosi can legitimately continue to call herself pro-choice. 

Having done this, make Nancy Pelosi try to make you retract what you have said/written about her.  Make her threaten to sue you.   And then call her bluff.  Because either she is going to sue you, in which case she will then be compelled to answer your question, whether she wants to or not, in a court of law, under oath, which will be made public – or, she won’t sue you.  If, after having threatened to sue you, Nancy Pelosi doesn’t sue you, she is admitting she is the hypocrite we all know she is, but hoping you are too unimportant for anyone to have noticed has just destroyed her credibility on abortion.  Don’t let her off the hook.

Don’t let any so-called “pro-choice” or “women’s rights” advocates of the hook.  Keep the pressure on them, make them mad as hell and watch them become flustered, irritated and unstable; watch them lose their concentration and their train of thought; watch as they stutter and try to back track their way out of having to answer a most uncomfortable question indeed, knowing that no matter how they answer it, it will put their political careers in severe jeopardy.

We can end abortion in America, and everywhere in the world the procedure is used by exposing their own hypocrisy and their own double standards simply by asking them the politically incorrect questions they are so fearful of being asked or would never be asked by anyone in the MSM.

Or, is it possible to support abortion on demand and a woman’s “right to privacy”, which must include the right of a woman to abort a black child, a girl child, a gay child, without being racist, sexist, bigoted or homophobic at the same time?  Who is really being convoluted here?

Welfare Recipients, Members of Congress All Ought To “Pee In A Cup”

Is it really too much to ask (demand) from welfare recipients that before they be illegible to collect any government money they first must be able to show they don’t have a drug addiction?

Millions of Americans are on welfare, and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are being siphoned away from working Americans to feed the laziness and sloth, and drug addictions, of many men and women who do collect welfare checks.  Requiring them “to pee in a cup” to prove they are clean, and therefore not likely to abuse the generosity of the American taxpayer is a very small price to bear.

The idea was sponsored by Republicans in Georgia, but ought to be revisited by Republican members of the U.S House of Representatives.  Forcing someone to submit a urine sample to prove they are clean and sober before they are handed over a taxpayer subsidy is not in the least bit controversial, nor ought any member of state or federal congress be so snobbish as to cringe at the idea.  In many businesses, job applicants must do the same thing before they are considered worth hiring.  Why should it be any different for someone collecting a welfare check; money which originally belonged to working Americans?

There is already enormous waste and fraud within welfare.  One of the ways to clean up this program and organize it into a more efficient means in which to actually help those Americans who truly need assistance, and who will not take advantage of it, is to throw out those worthless blights on society whose only purpose in collecting a welfare check is to turn around and “redistribute” that money back into the hands of their local street corner drug dealer – who does not pay taxes, by the way.

A hard thing to make happen.  Democrats and liberals are overly eager to dispense taxpayer dollars to anyone they feel is likely to help keep them in power, so naturally providing someone on welfare, even a junkie who would use that welfare check to buy drugs with our tax dollars, does not pose a problem to them, so long as Democrats can be certain that individual drug user will aid them in their reelection.  Which is exactly why Democrats scoffed at the idea of having welfare recipients “pee in a cup”, and why they refuse to consider such a measure.  And why Democrat sympathizers and puppets like John Stewart of The Daily Show ridicule the idea.

Assistant Minority Leader Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) called the Republican drug test scheme unfair and insulting.

He is not the lone Democrat find the idea of submitting a urine sample “unfair and insulting”.  The reason exposes his own racism, and the racism of all liberals and the Democrat party.  In other words, Democrats, knowing that despite the fact that the majority of people on welfare are white, there are still millions of blacks on welfare.  Isn’t it obvious Democrats like Clyburn have the preconceived notion that a sizable population of blacks on welfare are themselves drug users, and forcing them to submit a urine sample would, by proving it, throw them out of the welfare system?  That would endanger the survival of the Democrat party, wouldn’t it?  So it is Clyburn himself, all Democrats opposed to welfare recipients “peeing in a cup”, who only oppose the measure not because they find it “unfair and insulting”.  Rather, the idea scares the hell out of them, because they fear losing support and voters.  This is what their opposition is really all about, plain and simple.

Republicans must have the courage to keep this issue at the forefront of any legislation dealing with welfare, where billions of dollars every year are misappropriated, mishandled and misplaced.  Republicans ought to demand from Democrats, who would oppose welfare recipients submitting a urine sample, how they can justify handing over taxpayer money to someone, anyone without any checks or balances.  In other words, how does this help the person and the family who really is in desperate need of government assistance?  If more money could be provided to help those in real need, isn’t it logical to remove the scum and vermin from the welfare roll which would only use the taxpayer subsidy for illegal and illicit purposes?

Or are we, those of us who work for a living, and work hard for a living, only to see our earnings ripped away from us by government, supposed to remain silence, obliged by our government to accept that some people on welfare are going to use our tax dollars in ways the welfare system was never intended or designed for?  Who the hell do Democrats think we are, that we would just shrug our shoulders and brush off the abuse and mishandling of the welfare system?

The arrogance of Democrats and liberals would have us believe that welfare abuse is no big deal; that so long as those in need are getting help, so what if “some” recipients are taking advantage of the system.  Deal with it, so Democrats say – those who reject legislation compelling welfare recipients to “pee in a cup”.

Because so long as government allows taxpayer money to be funneled into the hands of greedy, irresponsible and immoral welfare recipients, the rest of the people on welfare who are not so despicable, not so corruptible, not so easily tempted to misuse the money they are provided with are getting, and will remain, screwed, along with every single American taxpayer who has seen their earnings liberally dipped into and confiscated by our own government.

Yes, absolutely, force all members of congress to “pee in a cup” as well.  What’s wrong with that?  Make them provide a urine sample every two weeks before they can collect their taxpayer funded salaries, and make them continue to provide a urine sample after they have retired and begin collecting their lucrative pensions, also taxpayer provided.

And wouldn’t it be nice to make air heads like Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Nancy Pelosi “pee in a cup”?  Wouldn’t we all like to know what they have been smoking?

Extending Job Benefits Helps No One, But…

There are just too many Americans who want to be lazy.  This is the crux of Nancy Pelosi’s plea for an extension of unemployment benefits.  What does extending job benefits always do?  It extends the amount of time an individual is unemployed, precisely because there is not that urgency in finding a job.  The longer a person is able to stay unemployed, the longer they will ultimately remain unemployed.  Let’s face it, we all hate real work.  When we only had 26 weeks of state funded unemployment – what happened?  We found work, either within that 26 week time frame, or damn near too it.  So, what is the logical end result of extending unemployment benefits going to be?

Said Pelosi:

“Christmas is 10 days away.  The president and Democrats in Congress have been very clear.  We’re not going home without enacting a payroll tax cut for America’s working families and extending unemployment insurance for millions of Americans.”

How many millions of unemployed Americans are simply milking their time off, collecting however much in unemployment they are “entitled” to, just kicking back, relaxing, waiting?  Now, Nancy Pelosi wants to extend the vacation time for America’s lazy.  Granted, there are unemployed Americans who are seriously looking for work, and while unemployment benefits, in of themselves, are not bad, if we are ever going to get out of this economic mess, this recession we are in – is keeping more Americans artificially unemployed going to kick start the economy?

Pelosi continued:

“The unemployment insurance extension is not only good for individuals. It has a macroeconomic impact. As macroeconomic advisers have stated, it would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy.”

How does keeping Americans unemployed “make a difference”?  We need job creation and job growth.  Our government is engaged in stagnation.  Our government is unwittingly – or perhaps purposely, preventing our economy from recovering by extending unemployment benefits.  Maybe that is what Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party have had planned all along.  Extending unemployment benefits means more government dependence.  More government dependence always helps the Democrats.

If we are ever going to lift America out of this recession, we need less people on unemployment and more people working.  If extending unemployment benefits is an obstacle to passing legislation that would help pull America out of this recession, this is a perfect opportunity for Republicans to make a grand deal with Democrats.  In other words, let the Democrats have their extension, but make damn sure included in the bill is real cuts in taxes and tax rates.  For example, put a five year moratorium on both capital gains and capital gains taxes, after which bring them both back at a competitive 9%.

Do something that benefits business, as well as those who are currently unemployed.  Do something positive that would put millions of Americans back to work, making a real wage or salary that doesn’t cut into business profits, rather than compel the unemployed to remain unemployed, and stay unemployed indefinitely.  Do something that puts real money and substantial savings into the hands of American business, money that can use right now to grow their business and allow them to compete, hire new employees, provide raises, bonuses and other benefits for all their employees.

Nancy Pelosi clearly just doesn’t get it.  She says:

“Again this is important because this is about the safety net not just for these individuals, but for our economic system that, in times of unemployment, we have a safety net and that is important.”

The only “safety net” she is concerned with is that voting block which the Democrat Party can hold on to to ensure their reelection.   No economy benefits with more people unemployed, and remaining unemployed for longer and longer periods.  No economy can sustain millions of its workforce remaining out of work, idle, and subsidized perpetually by government.

Millions of Americans enjoy being unemployed, and relish collecting a government check.  Obviously, there are still those millions of American that desperately want work, and are earnestly searching for employment.  For the sake of the millions of Americans who truly want work, for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our country – don’t pass any type of legislation that simply allows the imbalance of unemployed versus employed to get any worse that it already is.

Any legislation, even if it includes an extension of unemployment benefits, must also provide tax relief for businesses so they can begin creating the jobs America, and Americans need, to put our economy back on the road to recovery.

And for those Americans who truly are lazy, who truly don’t want to work, who truly just want to sit back and collect a government check?

If politicians do the right thing, if they pass real legislation, the people who have no real desire to go back to work are only screwing themselves.

However – if we pass an extension in unemployment benefits, and nothing else – everyone is screwed.

Why do we want to put ourselves in that situation?

Of Nancy Pelosi, The Catholic Church And That “Conscience Thing”

Want a truly disgusting image implanted in your mind?  If not – read no further.  If so – continue below.  (At your own risk!)

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, is so uncomfortable with the idea of the “conscience”, it is enough to send shocks and sparks up her spine intense enough to make her feel the coldness of her own soul, to induce what “original” skin she has left to ebb and flow like the evening tide, to crawl and ripple with the consistency and texture of tapioca pudding, (tapioca pudding by itself, of course, is plenty disgusting an image), and enough to convulse and shiver with such a tremendous force as to compel her to squirm and ooze out of the decades worth of botox and plastic she has had injected into her 71 year old body, exposing her true self and her true conscience.

That wasn’t too bad, was it?

And yet, even Pelosi has a conscience, a “thing” with which no amount of botox injected into her can mask or hide, or cover over with any number of layers.  A “thing” which guides every one of us into making or rejecting every single decision presented to us, every single second of every single minute of every single day.  In other words – a “thing” not to be taken as lightly and as cavalierly as Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, liberal and feminist, so casually does, especially when it comes to abortion and the killing of unborn children.

Pelosi is comfortable with partial birth abortion, but becomes queasy and lightheaded with the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Church involving itself in “private” affairs.

Says Pelosi:

[Those who disagree] may not like the language, but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it . . . but they have this conscience thing [that puts women at risk.]”

That Pelosi is nervous about the “conscience” of the Catholic Church because it, and scores of millions of followers, (“those who disagree”) oppose a procedure – abortion – which puts the lives of every unborn child at risk, shows how “devoutly” un-Catholic, and unconscionable she is.  Exactly how is she “honoring” a faith that has consistently condemned abortion since its founding nearly two thousand years ago?

From Hot Air:

Nancy Pelosi is upset that the U.S. Catholic bishops wouldn’t approve if the Obama administration did, in fact, decide to force insurance companies to cover birth control, contraception and drugs that could cause abortions. The bishops say that, under such a decision, some religious groups might have to provide the insurance against their moral and religious views.

Why would Nancy Pelosi for a moment even think the U.S. Catholic Bishops would “approve”, condone, accept, or keep quiet over the idea of the Obama Administration forcing insurance companies to cover the cost of abortions and for Catholic hospitals, and its staff (real “devout” and religious Catholics) to be legally compelled to perform abortions against their religious convictions?

Forcing, by law, a Catholic hospital to perform abortions is like forcing a radical, pro-abortion feminist like Pelosi to take a good long look at herself, and her conscience, in the mirror, (and it probably would kill Pelosi if she ever did see her conscience), or forcing Planned Parenthood, and other abortion providers, by law, to show ultrasound and sonogram images to women seeking abortions, which Pelosi opposes.  (The ultrasound images, not abortion)

This all harkens back to Pelosi’s “women will die on the floor” speech when she denounced Republicans for a bill which protected taxpayers from having to fund abortions and hospitals from have to perform them.  Hard pressed to find a conscience within the Catholic Church, Catholic hospitals, U.S. Bishops or the Republican Party, apparently Nancy Pelosi thinks she would have an easier time finding a conscience within the likes of Planned Parenthood.  “Women will die” without getting an abortion, worries Pelosi more than the fact that virtually every baby aborted does die.

Abortion itself, according to Pelosi, is more conscionable than giving birth.  Forcing all of us who oppose abortion on religious and moral grounds to pay for it is more conscionable, to Pelosi, than forcing a woman to look at an image of the baby she is about to have killed.

What does that say about the people of San Fransisco who consistently, overwhelmingly, vote her back into office time and again?  Then again, Nancy Pelosi’s conscience is a reflection of the conscience of San Fransisco.  They don’t seem uncomfortable with her behavior on the floor of congress.  They don’t disapprove of her “bashing” the Catholic Church.  They don’t condemn her for supporting abortion on demand, or for wanting to force taxpayers to pay for abortions even if it conflicts with our religious or moral convictions.  What of their conscience?

And about the conscience of Nancy Pelosi:  Look hard and deep within Nancy Pelosi and try to find her conscience.  But looking under a rock has about the same results.  Either way you will probably find scum.

After-all, if you had a conscience like Pelosi, wouldn’t you endeavor to cover it with layers and layers of botox, plastic, anything, to mask it, to conceal it, to hide the shame of it?

NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, et. al. “Want People To Die” (Over 50 Million Already Have)

Who really wants who to “die on the floor”?

When Nancy Pelosi, Democrat CA, former Speaker of the House, disgraced and embarrassed herself on the floor of that House the other day, stating that Republicans who backed a bill (which has since passed) that would block taxpayers from having to fund abortions, and hospitals from having to perform those abortions against their religious/moral beliefs, she remarked that those Republicans who supported the bill “wanted women to die on the floor”.

Over 50 million lives have been lost since 1973 directly by the hands of Planned Parenthood and other so called “women’s rights” groups, and thanks in large part to the generous votes of “Corruptocrats” in congress like Nancy Pelosi who, through their votes, have allowed the killing to go on.

The Queen of Flamboyancy and drama aside, (Nancy Pelosi, not Barney Frank) who really wants who to “die on the floor”?

The pro-life conservative fighting for the rights of the unborn to live?   Or the pro-abortion liberal fighting for the rights of women to indiscriminately kill that life?

Every time a pro-abortion protester or group, like NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, etc., promotes an abortion; every time a woman goes into an abortion clinic to have an abortion; every time an abortionist performs an abortion – someone dies.  Every time!  Except for those rare occasions where the abortionist botches the killing to the point where it strays over the line of legally killing the unborn child to becoming an act legally defined as murder, and where the botched abortion has been documented or otherwise cannot be covered up.  Because abortion, which is celebrated as a victory of, and for, women’s rights, is nonetheless, morally, understood to be murder.  Some victory.

When Nancy Pelosi stood before the House and condemned Republicans as heartless and “wanting women to die on the floor”, what she was really promoting, by pandering to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, is for women to have the right to let their unborn child “die on the floor” of an abortion clinic room.  And unless the mother’s life is legitimately threatened because of her pregnancy (and only a handful of crackpots oppose abortion even in this instance) what reason is there for her having the right to let her unborn child “die on the floor”?

When Planned Parenthood helps a woman plan the killing of her unborn child, and ultimately helps her carry out the killing to the fullest, who is it who is letting who “die on the floor”?

When politicians vote in favor of forcing tax payers to fund abortion, and for hospitals to perform those abortions in strict conflict to their own religious beliefs; when politicians vote in favor of more liberal abortion rights in general, who is it who is condemning life to “die on the floor”?

When pro-abortion women, and men, gather to protest for abortion rights, for easy access to those abortions, for abortions at any time and for any reason, who is it who is protesting whom to “die on the floor”?

When pro-life women, and men, and organizations fight and protest to protect the lives of the unborn from being indiscriminately aborted, and when they are successful in changing a pregnant woman’s mind, when they are able to avert an abortion from taking place inside an abortion clinic, who “dies on the floor”?

Through the demonstrative arrogance of Nancy Pelosi, and liberal politicians like her; the demoniacal, deconstructive and despicable actions of Planned Parenthood and anti-life groups like them, they continue to spread the lie that abortion is nothing more than a simple medical procedure, no more significant, or less, than getting one’s ears pierced or getting a tattoo, which all women ought to have easy and affordable (taxpayer funded) access to at any time, for any reason, without question.  Despite the fact that abortion, in the vast majority of instances is not simple, nor is it even as necessary as getting a piercing or a tattoo, which is hardly a necessary undertaking in of itself.  And abortion still leaves one dead life “on the floor”.

How can Nancy Pelosi say conservatives want “women to die on the floor” by blocking tax payer funded abortions where the life of the mother is not at risk, or anywhere near in danger, and the woman is not going to die by that abortion being prevented?  In other words, if the woman is not going to die (and there already is federal coverage for abortion for low income women who must have an abortion because her pregnancy is causing real danger to her life) why must tax payers be forced against their religious and moral beliefs/convictions, and hospitals as well, to see that abortion carried out?

Obviously Nancy Pelosi was using the bill as a diversionary tactic because she knows that by blocking taxpayers from funding certain abortions, and by blocking hospitals from being forced against their religious/moral beliefs to perform those abortions, it makes it that much more difficult for an indiscriminate abortion to happen.  And it is for the indiscriminate abortion, the abortion “for any reason” which is at the heart of the pro-abortion movement.  Remember, nobody except those few crackpots contests an abortion where the mother’s life is legitimately at risk.

It is for the indiscriminate abortion which Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, Nancy Pelosi, et. al., fight to protect and fight to keep legally intact.  It is for this same type of abortion which pro-life organizations fight to make illegal.

So, the question remains on the table:  When politicians breathe life into, and pass, pro-abortion bills, sponsored and promoted by Planned Parenthood, et. al., on the House Floor, who is it who really wants who to “die on the floor”?

Abortion Is Murder; Abortionists are Murderers: Women Who Have Abortions Are Accessories To Murder – Plain And Simple

(Well, technically, from a legal standpoint, it’s only “killing”, not murder.  So, for those of you who are pro-abortion, yes indeed – abortion is just “killing”; abortionists are just “killers”, and women who have abortions are really nothing more than accessories to that “killing”.  From a “legal” stand point, anyway.  Is that more comforting?)

What is it with liberal Democrats always going around accusing conservative Republicans of wanting to kill everyone?  You’ve got Allen Grayson, Democrat, from Florida, giving his “Die Quickly”, speech, screaming that Republicans who opposed Obamacare wanted to kill Americans.

Now comes Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, from Planet California, on the House floor decrying and denouncing Republicans, who she believes are letting Women ‘Die on the Floor’ Without Medical Care because they are trying to pass a bill that would prevent American taxpayers from funding abortion, which would otherwise force religious hospitals to perform those abortions, and the legal “killing” (not murder) of an unborn child, and for which millions of Americans (those that value human life) find offense in supporting with their taxes.

Despite Pelosi’s incoherent blather, the bill passed in the House today.

There seems to always be a double standard with liberals in that while they demand all taxpayers be forced to contribute money which would be used to abort – kill an – unborn child, when Republicans try to pass another bill that has “choice” in it, a bill that instead of killing children is an attempt to help place them in a better education environment, like a school vouchers bill, those same liberals are dead set against that type of choice.  The reason?  Passing such a school vouchers bill would “conflict” with those Americans that are “uncomfortable” with their taxes going to religious schools.  But using tax dollars to kill an unborn child seems to not pose any moral “uncomfortableness”.

It’s a fact.  Conservatives value human life.  Liberals don’t.

Ladies and gentlemen – there are no Republicans, there are no hospitals in America, that would “let a woman die on the floor” of a hospital if her life was indeed, and legitimately – and really – in serious danger.  And if her life was in serious danger from complications due to a pregnancy, and the only way to save her life was to abort the fetus, than that clearly, in the minds of the vast, vast majority of all Americans (including fundamentalist Christians) is moral and proper and understandable.  With the exception of a very few crazies and crackpots, there is no one who would force, by law, or by any other means, a women to give birth to a child if that meant it would end her own life in the process.  Some women do this of there own free will, and that is a bravery to honor and to be commended.

What Nancy Pelosi is doing, which is what every other pro abortion organization does as well, by condemning Republicans who support and value human life, by throwing out phrases like “Republicans want to kill women” amounts to slander.  Nobody is suing, however.  It’s all political theater.  And not very entertaining.

The issue at hand is whether Americans ought to be forced to see their tax dollars go towards funding abortion, and whether religious hospitals ought to be forced to provide those abortion services against their religious beliefs, including non life threatening, abortions, and the reasons that compel a woman to seek an abortion rather than carry the child to term, give birth, then give it up for adoption if she really cannot psychologically or financially cope with raising the child herself.

Nobody condemns a woman for giving up her child, and nobody (except the very few crackpots) condemns the woman who has the abortion.  It is abortion, the act itself, which we condemn.  And we certainly condemn those pro abortion organizations which behave, and act, in irresponsible ways when it comes to disseminating information to women about their unborn child; that are quick to rush a woman to an abortion clinic to kill that child rather than find alternative solutions which allow for the child to at least be born; that put financial motives and gains ahead of everything else, especially the emotional needs and concerns of the woman being told to have the abortion.

In other words, what Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and the gang are doing to women is an absolute act of betrayal to them.

Yes, abortion legally is just “killing”.  But morally and ethically it will always be murder.  And regardless of what one calls abortion, it still takes away a human life that might have had an opportunity to live.  That is what we in the pro-life movement are fighting for, and will continue to fight for.  Life!  And the high value we place on life.

What is the “high value” pro abortion groups place on abortion, and having an abortion?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: