War Of Words

Don’t you laugh at how the left plays with words? They are pretty good at it. They use women’s healthcare to refer to abortion. They call it choice and “reproductive justice.”

When have you heard of a child that was a product of the reproductive justice program?

But occasionally in their rush to get their propaganda out of their mouths, they slip and inadvertently expose the truth. Unbeknownst to them most of the time.

Take the latest laws passed to preserve and protect human life. You know, in Georgia and Alabama. Now one in Missouri too. The left is outraged. But they weren’t disgusted by the late-term, infanticide pushing. pro=abortion bills. Those got kudos.

So activists go out to the media and complain, armed with the talking point that this law will disproportionately hurt women of color the most. Whatever could that mean? That was the main pro-abortion agenda.

If that is the case, does that mean the Left fully supports abortion particularly for women of color? Let them pitch a fit about those words. Go ahead.

I thought of a better way we could say it on the right :
This should not be partisan. It is a pro-life bill — designed to preserve and protect life — that will save many lives, especially for women of color. Is that a partisan problem?

Right Ring | Bullright

Choose Words Wisely

If it is one thing that Governor Infanticide and even Kamala Harris have learned is you should choose words wisely. But neither are willing to change.

It is funny that the party that traffics in verbal assaults, or assassinations, and useful inflammatory rhetoric have now reached the intersection where apparently words still matter to the rest of us, as well as actions.

Such was the case when Northam described the infanticide process advocated by the legislature in Virginia. And it only lost by one vote. Turns out that Virginia is not just for lovers anymore. They demonstrated what their priorities really are on life issues.

What more do we need to know? Now the Left has come out in favor of late-term, partial-birth abortions and even infanticide — albeit in a slightly cagey way. But the only problem they have with it is the words and images used to describe the horrors of it.

They find those factoids and truth bombs about it offensive, not what they are doing nor their death agenda. Just the descriptors of it. That is where words come in. At least until now, Democrats have gone to extremes to assure tight, controlled messages on talking points. They all say the same thing verbatim like trained drones, repeating them over and over to saturate the airwaves. The MSM cranks up the volume.

But that gets harder on live breaking news. And it takes immediate rapid response in addressing them. So when Northam’s comments came out they ran to their corners. All the trained seals said they had not heard the comments, displaying their complete ignorance.

Then, within days of Democrats trying desperately to provide non-answer rebuttals to infanticide, the story of Northam’s college yearbook photos of blackface surfaced.

Voila, finally Democrats and their media entourage had something they could talk about and fiercely condemn. They hadn’t run out to condemn Northam’s infanticide comments. But this blackface stuff they could pounce on in lockstep, along with the media machine.

The infanticide issue seemed like dead wood to the left. The only response was that Roe V Wade is under assault and that Republicans want to take abortion rights away. Never mind this expansion of abortion blowing right on through the delivery day.

But where is the condemnation from the Left or their media partners on the infanticide? Hint: the answer here is not Donald Trump. Silence on infanticide speaks volumes.

Or was the Blackface issue Democrats’ real answer to the infanticide problem?

Right Ring | Bullright

Have you no decency left?

Sorry, I had to ask. That question should not have to come up. And there is no easy way to ask it. Everyone must now know what NY’s legislature and Gov Cuomo passed into law.

Let not the sacred stand in their way.

Looking at what NY did for abortion should have broken any outrage meter still remaining in this country. But even that, as hard as it is to believe, is not even registering on the MSM dashboard. It’s not a blip on their radar screen. Well, full swat raids on Roger Stone don’t even raise leftists’ eyebrows.

Folks, this no longer is that slippery slope we all feared for years. it is a full scale avalanche. But what exactly did they do you ask? Well, basically they legitimized and legalized what Kermit Gosnell was doing, and went to prison for. They wrote infanticide into a bill.

The New York Assembly voted Tuesday night to pass a landmark bill to expand abortion rights in the state, about 90 minutes after the bill cleared the Democratic-controlled Senate by a vote of 38-24.

The Reproductive Health Act moved to the desk of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who immediately signed the bill into law Tuesday night. – Syracuse.com

They timed it on the Roe V. Wade decision anniversary. Building evil upon evil.

But let’s dispense with the usual BS about it. Snopes already has a fact check piece claiming it is not what it appears to be and what we say. Supposedly it just protects the health of the mother, they claim. Come on, because it is dressed up under some guise of a healthcare right does not change what it actually does. Legalizes late term abortion and infanticide.

So infanticide, or whatever name you want to give this, was passed by a Democrat majority in the state senate and gleefully signed into law immediately. That’s right, I said gleefully. Instead of sneers and hisses, with moral outrage, it is actually being celebrated.

Cuomo announced it under the banner of “Reproductive Justice” with “no time to wait.”

That’s right, at one time people would instinctively run to try to save lives, but in this case Democrats scrambled to legalize killing lives. This is not a culture war, this is annihilation of culture. Of life itself in the most vulnerable form. Is even life not sacred now? Even if you don’t believe life begins at conception, which science seems to confirm, then you must accept that life begins at some other point. But by any measure, this exceeds that and then some. This is killing human beings and no one can or should deny it. Justice?

Never mind the worry about what Russia did, what is happening in the Middle East, North Korea, or Venezuela; look instead at what a state in this country is doing. Then they celebrate over it and dance in the streets. Is this America or is someone fooling us?

The very same people lecture us on the Statue of Liberty caption for immigration. New version: “Give me….your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” and we’ll kill them.

How long will a nation that cannot protect its most vulnerable last? Here is where I take issue with some popular notions. Many people complain how bad things are that hardly anything surprises them anymore. Very true. I see it a little differently. Sure, culturally things are bad. But, despite all the evil going on for all to see, I believe there is a huge dam holding back a tidal wave of evil not yet seen or calculated. There are now some fractures in that dam, and structural fissures are mounting.

So while we all complain about the bad and evil we see, there is a greater threat looming over us worse than we even imagined. Dare our opponents or critics on the other side, politically, complain about climate change and destruction of our environment on the horizon, while this type of thing passes as an accomplishment to cheers.

There are evils ahead on the heels of this we cannot fathom. It is the way evil works. It is difficult to even talk about or write, much less conceive it. And then doing it in the name of some good or noble things is just an added bonus. Pretty soon we may dispense with that notion entirely. Why invent a clever name for it? People at some point may just demand evil in its plain, raw form. Who cares what anyone thinks; it is what they want.

Then, to hell with excuses or arguments to assuage, just do it because. So it is nice that while leftists lecture us on humanitarian wrongs and rights, the same people could come to a moment when they can drop all that moral posturing – or otherwise. Who needs pretense and a premise? Not them. Until now, the need for illogical arguments to convince us was all that stood in their way. But what is the point if that is no longer a problem?

And when things we have been worried about and warning of for decades start to happen with more regular frequency, at a faster pace than even we could have predicted, will the people stand for it? It turns out that does not matter if there is no longer much opposition. They will just do it because they can then damn you for trying to undo it — if even possible. Does this seem to surpass even Orwell’s predictions? I’d say so.

Democrats already have schemes to do away with the Hyde Amendment. The prohibition of Government funds directly paying for abortions. Not that Planned Parenthoods do not already get enough taxpayer funds. Plus, removing that burdensome restriction will likely be a key part of any new Democrat healthcare bill, especially a single-payer one.

My fear is very justified and real. The dam withholding that evil — vastly worse than any of these singular things — is looming large over us. And if it were to open, the torrent of evil unleashed would make the status quo so far look like a kindergarten recess. Somehow I see those stalwart Leftisits just hoping and plotting to blow that dam wide open. They’ll even use the euphemisms of freedom , greater good or protections to do it. They have no clue what it would do. But then they don’t care.

Late term and partial birth abortion seem to be the final solution but it is not the final evil, I assure you. It may be only a foretaste of far worse to come.

Right Ring | Bullright

Who’s Sorry Now?

What an abortionist had to say about deciding to stop after doing them for years.

Live Action (read here)

Besides her pro-abortion philosophy, Aultman gives two other reasons why she became an abortionist:

“I also could make a lot more money doing abortions than I could make working in an emergency room. I enjoyed the technical challenges of the procedure and prided myself on being really good at what I did.”

More: https://www.liveaction.org/news/planned-parenthood-abortionist-ted-bundy/

So give her some credit for changing and stopping. But she did make a lot of money doing it and probably provided her a nice and comfortable lifestyle, until she did.

Then add this:

“I probably murdered more people than Ted Bundy or any of the mass murderers if you consider all the abortions that I did,” she says.

Consider that the abortionist and woman having an abortion may have the same economical motivations for their actions. I just never heard it put in such direct terms before. Well, I find it awfully hard not to make some deductions about that.

This opens a Pandora’s box in philosophical terms. You go to school to study medicine for the purposes of using it to fix people and save lives. Then you go to work using the same knowledge and talent to extinguish lives. How does the latter justify the former?

Should it take three scenarios to sound warning bells that something is wrong with this?

I’m not sure what to think of it all. Chew on that.

Leave it to Chelsea and Planned Parenthood

Really leave it to Chelsea to make a case for the economics of Roe, well, if economics is not really your thing anyway.

Chelsea Clinton has some thoughts about the economic consequences of Roe v. Wade:

By Charles C. W. Cooke | National Review

“Whether you fundamentally care about reproductive rights and access right, because these are not the same thing, if you care about social justice or economic justice, agency — you have to care about this.

“It is not a disconnected fact — to address this t-shirt of 1973 — that American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy. Right?

“The net, new entrance of women — that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973.”

“So, I think, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think that you can connect to this issue.
Comments

“Of course, I would hope that they would care about our equal rights and dignity to make our own choices – but, if that is not sufficiently persuasive, hopefully, come some of these other arguments that you’ve expressed so beautifully, will be.”

The problem with this argument, obviously, is that it is entirely unresponsive to the debate over abortion, which is not economic in nature, but moral. If unborn children are not living human beings — and if, therefore, it doesn’t matter if they are aborted — then obviously one will be in favor of abortion, especially if it leads to salutary economic news. If, by contrast, unborn children are living human beings — and if, therefore, aborting them is tantamount to murder — then the utilitarian argument is flatly irrelevant. Saying “but look at the effects of killing unborn children on GDP!” to a person who believes that unborn children are living human beings is futile. In no moral universe are they going to make that trade.

And nor, for that matter, would the person making the case. Presumably Chelsea Clinton believes it is wrong to murder human beings ex utero. If so, she knows how she’d react to someone saying, “Whether you fundamentally care about murder or not, you should be able to connect with the fact that killing one in ten Los Angelenos will ease the traffic and reduce the Medicaid rolls.” And if Clinton doesn’t know that — if, in other words, she holds the hyper-utilitarian view that abortion is murder but it’s worth it for an additional three-and-a-half trillion dollars — well, then she’s a monster.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/chelsea-clinton-makes-a-terrible-argument-for-abortion/

She’s a monster, trust me on this one!

Frankly, I don’t see the need to even argue with her economics, vacuous as they are. What we have been saying for a long time is this is their type of economics — merging morality with failed economic policies, in the wrong way. They called Reagan era voodoo economics? This is actually what they have tried to drive the Roe debate on since concocting it. Yes, it was stood up on a right pulled from thin air, but they have tried to feature it as an economic need. So that does not surprise me. Stay tuned here though.

Every little twisted lie Leftists try to sell is under a guise of economics. Not so much to the other side, but to their own base. They don’t like economics really, but they do have an affinity for faulty economic arguments. And leftists believe those are bulletproof. (as can be anyway) After all, they have been selling class warfare, surf and turf socialism, and wage issues for how long? Illegal immigration too. There is usually an economic tie and lie somewhere. Redistribution abuses economics, it doesn’t use them.

If economics were really a winning combination with Roe’s success, then it doesn’t add up or should not follow that their party would be on the verge of insolvency, and the socialist schemes would be in the sewer, having murdered 60.65 million babies since Roe’s inception. You’d think it would be sunshine, lollipops and rainbows if it were winning economics. It would be paying dividends to Democrats in spades, no? Funny how the party enshrined in supporting abortion on demand would be flirting with bankruptcy, in more than the fiscal way. Sort of dark irony in that. But they will use any means available to cloud or ignore the morality of it. When swearing on the alter of abortion became the litmus test, there was no visible conscience left. What else was left but economics?

But maybe I could be off target somewhere.

Fetus abuse again by PP

In an attempt to out gross itself. Planned Parenthood pulls a new low, even for them.

Life News

Sadly, the United States Supreme Court severely limits what pro-life laws can be enacted at the state and federal level. This is due to the Court’s ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which holds that judges can strike down laws if they constitute an “undue burden” to women seeking an abortion. However, that hasn’t stopped us from trying several different approaches to promote a culture of life in Texas. One important legislative issue we have been working on in response to the CMP videos has been to require the humane disposition of aborted babies.

In Texas, the remains of aborted babies may be disposed of by interment, cremation, incineration followed by interment, steam disinfection followed by interment, grinding fetal remains and flushing them in the sewer system or discarding them in landfills. In 2016, the Department of State Health Services proposed a rule change, and then last legislative session, the Texas Legislature passed a law, SB 8, removing the options of grinding fetal remains and flushing them in the sewer system or discarding them in landfills.

Read more http://www.lifenews.com/2018/03/01/abortion-clinics-grind-up-remains-of-aborted-babies-and-flush-them-in-the-sewer/#.WpjkIg6CjD0.wordpress

Instead of getting better, it always gets worse with Planned Parenthood. Or grosser and grosser. What else would you expect from PP, but to fight ethics and dignity?

PP-Hood’s leader to resign

On the pro-death front, Planned Parenthood’s CEO to resign.

Washington Times reports:

By Bradford Richardson – Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Cecile Richards is stepping down as president of the Planned Parenthood after more than a decade at the head of the nation’s largest abortion provider.

BuzzFeed News first reported the story, citing two sources familiar with the matter.

In a statement, Planned Parenthood said Ms. Richards, 60, “plans to discuss 2018 and the next steps for Planned Parenthood’s future at the upcoming board meeting” next week.

Pro-life activists reacting to the news said Ms. Richards‘ legacy will be one of “death and destruction.”

I suppose she wants to discuss 2018 in view of the mid-term elections and future of Planned Parenthood. Why is it such a political player?

Really Stupid News Report

RSNR is news you only wish was fake. But, sadly, it is not.

The prodigy of obnoxious spew, Lena Dunham , now says she never had an abortion but wishes she had, apparently so she could talk about it. She really did say that.
Fox News

Lena Dunham said on the latest episode of her podcast that she wishes she’d had an abortion to fight the “stigma around this issue.”

“Something I’ve thought about a lot is the fact that there is stigma around abortion,” Dunham said on her podcast “Women of the Hour” December 14.

The “Girls” creator recounted visiting a Planned Parenthood in Texas several years ago where a young girl asked her to join a project where women share their stories of abortion.

“I sort of jumped,” Dunham said. “‘I haven’t had an abortion,’ I told her. I wanted to make it really clear to her that as much as I was going out and fighting for other women’s options, I myself had never had an abortion.”

It was then, Dunham said, she realized “Even I, the woman who cares as much as anybody about a woman’s right to choose, felt it was important that people know I was unblemished in this department.”

She added, “Now I can say that I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had.”

Read http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/12/20/lena-dunham-says-never-had-abortion-but-wish-had.html

Whoa…Someone in left of stupidville, please top that. I’ll be here waiting.

But then I would never refer to Lena Dunham as “unblemished” in any way.

I think she is proof that evolution has now reversed course.

Hillary, apology wanted in isle #1

Ahead of Al Smith Dinner, Cardinal Dolan says Hillary owes Catholics an apology

Lisa Bourne | Life Site News

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado, October 19, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan called for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to disassociate herself from anti-Catholic statements made by her campaign chairman and said the remarks were “extraordinarily patronizing and insulting to Catholics.”

Asked about the anti-Catholic comments after speaking at The Bishop’s Respect Life Dinner on Monday night for the Diocese of Colorado Springs, Cardinal Dolan suggested that had other faith traditions been the target of the prejudiced remarks, there would have been a swift apology and absolute disavowal of them.

But as far as an apology from Clinton for the remarks demeaning Catholics, “Hasn’t happened yet,” Cardinal Dolan said.

Emails released last week by WikiLeaks showed Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta and Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri, both Catholics, in conversations with activists from two left-wing organizations. In the emails, Catholics were debased, with their beliefs being called “severely backwards.” Conservative Catholics also were accused of “an amazing bastardization of the faith,” and Rupert Murdoch was mocked for baptizing his children as Catholics in the River Jordan.

The U.S. Church’s bishops were slammed in the emails as well, referred to as “a middle ages dictatorship.”

Palmieri said in one of the emails she thought conservatives that had come to Catholicism did so because “they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion,” and that “their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.”

Podesta admitted to helping launch a “progressive” infiltration of the Church in another email, and he took an active role in attempting to incite a liberal Catholic revolt against the U.S. bishops.

“We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this,” Podesta wrote. “But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”

The “Catholic Spring” Podesta referred to had been broached in the email by Center for Progress President Sandy Newman, who had pondered, how one would “plant the seeds of the revolution,” or “who would plant them.”

Newman wrote Podesta:

Hi John. This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking … There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.

The statements “are just extraordinarily patronizing and insulting to Catholics,” Cardinal Dolan told ABC affiliate News Channel 13 on Monday.

“If it had been said about the Jewish community, if it had been said about the Islamic community, within 10 minutes there would have been an apology and a complete distancing from those remarks,” he continued.

“Hasn’t happened yet,” he stated.

The cardinal, who is chair of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, then said he’d like to see the Democratic candidate disassociate herself from the offending comments.

“I’m hoping that she’s going to distance herself from these very insulting remarks by her chief of staff,” Cardinal Dolan said.

He also told the news station that he trusts people to be guided by their moral convictions, and he expects people to be “acquainted with the issues.”

The Clinton campaign has not acknowledged the anti-Catholic emails, though they have been played down by at least one Democratic operative and Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine, also a Catholic.

Catholics, some of who have also called for Podesta’s firing, have roundly criticized the email comments.

Original article https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-dolan-clinton-owes-catholics-an-apology

Ordinarily, these should be defining comments of controversy. But the media yawns, even at the talk of organizing and supporting a revolution within the RCC. Those remarks should send tidal waves through both the Catholic Church and political circles.

Think it matters to people? It certainly doesn’t seem to matter one bit to Lamestream media. For Camp Hillary, it is just one more thing to deny and ignore. But people should be outraged at this by a presidential campaign.

Another controversial issue arose at the debate, where Trump mentioned the brutal late-term abortion process. Well, media and pundits were abhorred at that language and how Trump talked about it. Oh, one needs to be careful with language but careless with life? These are the times. Hillary’s rebuttal was as bad. But there is no defense for the indefensible…. and that is the problem.

No apology even for their comments endorsing a RCC revolution. Yet they call us out for how we describe partial-birth or late-term abortion that Hillary supports in lockstep with Planned Parenthood.

Hillary’s response to Trump was:

Well, that is not what happens in these cases and using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate.

“Scare rhetoric?” — Or as Leftists often call abortion “reproductive autonomy,” and a “health care decision”. Most of us call it killing babies and the business thereof. But credit Trump with broaching the subject at the debate.