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

On the Oath of Litmus Tests

April 16, 2016

Something happened on the way to 2016. It became a lesson in contradictions.

For years the Democrats have turned Roe into a litmus test for nominees, particularly for the Supreme Court. By now that is just a sigh to Americans. So they force people to swear on the ‘altar of abortion,’ or Roe v Wade. There are no exceptions for Leftists.

Then the Republicans have allowed and went along with the absurd Roe litmus test, and accepted it as the way it is. The new inhumane “normal.” Over the years, it has been the central tenant in Liberals’ nomination orthodoxy. Roe is “settled law” – litmus that.

Now there is a new litmus test. In Democrats’ NY debate, Hillary announced that she would only consider a SCOTUS nominee if he/she supported abortion as settled law, and that he/she believes in overturning Citizens United. Note the contradiction in those. At any rate, they have yet another litmus test — debate is over, opposition is irrelevant.

So now, reading between the lines, they have set up another mythical litmus test.(the authority on litmus) But now one must swear that Citizens United is not “settled law.” Another sacred altar has been errected. Ignore the contradiction. On one hand, the settled law is what SCOTUS said. On the other, how wrong the High Court’s decision is. We now have a litmus test against the Court’s decision, rendering it anything but “settled law.”

I have to hand it to Hillary for making this all crystal clear. She once declared, even on the anniversary of Roe, which liberals celebrate as sacred tradition, that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Gasp, it was the last part that caused tremors through liberaldom. How could she dare say something so offensively outrageous as “rare”?

Now we find out how unsettled law really is in Liberaldom. It must depend on the meaning of is. Even worse is how unsettled liberals seem to be on a SCOTUS decision, when it doesn’t suit their agenda. Many have become squeamish about Citizens United, but the alternative is limiting free speech. Some are more comfortable with the latter.

Hypersensitivities are reserved for Citizens United, not Roe. Liberals have the same visceral reaction to the Heller decision. Roe remains sacred orthodoxy — the golden calf, worshiped in perpetuity and sacrificed to nothing – while others are expendable.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama honors sacrifices at Selma

Obama gave a speech at the 50th anniversary of Selma’s “Bloody Sunday” march. He quoted the phrase “We shall overcome”. Some of us wish we would overcome, him.

But what about the 57 million fetuses and babies struck down in abortion since 1973?
What about their sacrifices in America, paying with their lives, blood and treasure?

  • Deprived of Life liberty and pursuit of happiness
  • Deprived of due process.
  • Deprived of their inevitable right to vote.
  • Deprived of their rights of speech, religion, and assembly.
  • Deprived of the opportunity to make change, to the culture and perception.

Obama’s Selma speech was hailed as historic and a mile-marker of time, to recognize a cause: from racism to voter rights. Yet just days before, Benjamin Netanyahu gave an important joint session speech while Obama, Biden and many of their fellow travelers could not even attend. However, Obama rushed out to say that there was nothing new in it.

So his speech at Selma was nothing new that we didn’t already know. And political.

Obama will boldly take executive action for amnesty for illegals and he unilaterally, unconstitutionally rewrites law under the guise of helping victims. But he would never take any simple action to save the unborn. In fact, he offers Planned Parenthood more money. He is the biggest friend and ally of the nation’s largest abortion provider. He swears on the altar of a decision of Roe v Wade. Now 17.3 million black babies aborted since 1973.

On this great anniversary of Selma, and Dr King, he allies himself with the downtrodden and victims, preaching social change and rights. The purpose of government is to secure our inalienable rights — not the other way around.

A couple of the quotes from his speech were: (3 excerpts from the transcript)

-“We secure our rights and responsibilities through a system of self-government, of and by and for the people.”

-“That’s what America is. Not stock photos or airbrushed history or feeble attempts to define some of us as more American as others. We respect the past, but we don’t pine for it.”

-“Because Selma shows us that America is not the project of any one person.

Because the single most powerful word in our democracy is the word “We.” We The People. We Shall Overcome. Yes We Can. It is owned by no one. It belongs to everyone. Oh, what a glorious task we are given, to continually try to improve this great nation of ours.”

“We” is a powerful word, no doubt about it. But he co-opted that into a cheap campaign slogan of “yes we can” to propel his own political agenda. And he still extorts the people for his own political ends. He offers no consolation or concessions to those that disagree with his agenda. Then he closed by saying: (emphasis mine)

“We honor those who walked so we could run. We must run so our children soar. And we will not grow weary. For we believe in the power of an awesome God, and we believe in this country’s sacred promise.

May He bless those warriors of justice no longer with us, and bless the United States of America.”

We honor their sacrifices, do we? Does he honor the combined sacrificed blood of 57 million abortions? Well, only if honor means swimming in the blood of 57 million aborted babies, who were denied their right to life and due process, who weren’t even granted second-class human being status, but aborted. No amnesty or Executive action for them.

But this guy can rally people lecturing them to use their God-given rights, extorting the Selma anniversary for political purposes. Yet he just condemned Netanyahu for giving a national security speech for percieved “political” reasons calling it a distraction. Democrats poo-pooed it as political theatrics. The urgency of an emergent nuclear holocaust means as much to him as the human genocide of abortion right here in the USA. In fact, he defends the latter as a right. So how far will he go to appease Iran’s nuclear aspirations?

We shall overcome“… Oh Lord, I pray it be so!

DNC plumbing the depths with PP

Democrats, DNC or DCCC have some election ads calling Republicans and conservatives extremists and radicals for being anti-Planned Parenthood.

Imagine, in 2014 it is considered “radical” and extremist for a candidate to oppose an institutional baby-killing agenda. So being pro-life is now radical.

Here is just one of many ads from Dems and the DNC with a common message .


Script:

Nan Hayworth:
“I am proud to be a radical.” — [speech to Sons of Liberty in 2010 ]
Narrator:
Tea Party millionaire Nan Hayworth.  She calls herself a radical.
But what does that mean for you?
Hayworth opposed a woman’s right to choose.
And voted to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood.
And on Social Security, Hayworth wants to risk seniors’ benefits on Wall Street.
So now, when Nan Hayworth says:
Nan Hayworth:
“I am proud to be a radical.”
Narrator
We know exactly what she means.
The DCCC is responsible for the content of this advertising.

We know exactly what Dems mean. It leaves little doubts. A war on babies has been transformed into some Republican “war on women”.

In another ad, a Democat is praised as an “advocate” for Planned Parenthood. Yet the same candidate claims to stand against special interests — “reducing the influence of special interests”.

Being considered radical or extreme for pro-life positions is how far, or low, we’ve come.
War on humanity anyone? What if the 50 million plus cast their votes?
What’s your definition of radical?

RightRing | Bullright

Cuomo seeks to lift late-term abortion restrictions

NY Governor Cuomo wants to do all he can to restrict the rights of gun owners in his empirical state, though he wants to expand the right of women to kill their babies.

 

In my mind’s eye, I think therefore I am. 

And he is willing to rewrite laws in order to expand killing babies, as something worthy of defending and preserving — sort of like what he is supposed to be sworn to do for the Constitution. He apparently is sworn to protect killing babies.

On his other hand, Cuomo is out for every restriction and ban he can get to infringe on the second amendment rights of people. Can’t get enough of that, fast enough.

Here is NYT covering his latest abortion “protection” maneuvers. (excerpts)

“ALBANY — Bucking a trend in which states have been seeking to restrict abortion, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is putting the finishing touches on legislation that would guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions when their health is in danger or the fetus is not viable.

Mr. Cuomo’s proposal, which has not yet been made public, would also clarify that licensed health care practitioners, and not only physicians, can perform abortions. It would remove abortion from the state’s penal law and regulate it through the state’s public health law.

New York legalized abortion in 1970, three years before it was legalized nationally by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Mr. Cuomo’s proposal would update the state law so that it could stand alone if the broader federal standard set by Roe were to be undone.

“Why are we doing this? The Supreme Court could change,” said a senior Cuomo administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the governor had not formally introduced his proposal.

But opponents of abortion rights, already upset at the high rate of abortions in New York State, worry that rewriting the abortion law would encourage an even greater number of abortions. For example, they suggest that the provision to allow abortions late in a woman’s pregnancy for health reasons could be used as a loophole to allow unchecked late-term abortions.

I am hard pressed to think of a piece of legislation that is less needed or more harmful than this one,” the archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, wrote in a letter to Mr. Cuomo last month. Referring to Albany lawmakers in a subsequent column, he added, “It’s as though, in their minds, our state motto, ‘Excelsior’ (‘Ever Upward’), applies to the abortion rate.”

National abortion rights groups have sought for years to persuade state legislatures to adopt laws guaranteeing abortion rights as a backup to Roe. But they have had limited success: Only seven states have such measures in place, including California, Connecticut and Maryland; the most recent state to adopt such a law is Hawaii, which did so in 2006.  “

Read more at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/nyregion/cuomo-bucks-tide-with-bill-to-lift-abortion-limits.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Swampland @ Time.com explains:

New York is one of the latter, with few abortion restrictions and greater access to the procedure than nearly any other state. Gov. Andrew Cuomo reportedly wants to widen access even further and has proposed rewriting a state law that now limits abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy to women whose lives are in danger. Cuomo’s proposal, as reported by the New York Times, would also allow abortions after 24 weeks to protect a woman’s health. According to the New York Times, Cuomo wants to ensure wide access to abortion in New York state is on the books in case the Supreme Court ever overturns Roe v. Wade.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/19/what-andrew-cuomos-abortion-proposal-says-about-access-in-2013/#ixzz2PWPVco2w

So he is willing to go to lengths, and prepare for any eventuality to “protect” abortion, just in case killing babies falls out of favor with SCOTUS. And he wants to make sure that late-term abortion is protected, even expanded. This is the reasoning of a Liberal mind. Preserving Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness apparently means protecting killing babies. Yea, and that is worth preserving. Enumerated rights, not so much.

Protest looming

Filmmaker asks bishop to excommunicate Cuomo

WND – A faithful Catholic [Jason Jones] who is a human-rights activist and filmmaker has written a letter to the Catholic bishop in Albany, N.Y., asking him to excommunicate Gov. Andrew Cuomo for his support for abortion, which conflicts with church law.

The issue of pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic has arisen several times lately, including when both Vice President Joseph Biden and U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., accepted Catholic communion during their visit to the Vatican for the installation of Pope Francis.

From his letter:

Governor Andrew Cuomo, as the New York Times reports, proposes to repeal any protection granted third-trimester fetuses in New York. His “reform” is supported by a wide array of public figures and powerful institutions, including the organizations that perform many of the abortions in your own diocese. The New York Times article notes that Cuomo is “bucking a trend in which states have been seeking to restrict abortion,” balancing the fight with “legislation that would guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions….” Through his bully pulpit, Governor Cuomo is spreading a falsehood every bit as toxic as the racism once shouted through bullhorns in 1962 New Orleans.

And in doing so, Cuomo is positioning himself to promote these ideas across the nation. The Washington Post calls Cuomo’s legislation a move with “big implications for Cuomo’s political future” when considered “in the context of his potential presidential ambitions.” In other words, a self-proclaimed Catholic in your diocese stands on the verge of becoming a national champion of policies utterly incompatible with Christian values. And you, Bishop Hubbard, are in the happy position of being able to do something about it.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/filmmaker-asks-bishop-to-excommunicate-cuomo/#DhiGJTyxvw8QyyPr.99

But he can’t get enough of grabbing gun rights. Those rights need to be squelched, restricted, stomped on, and undone if possible. Just don’ try to restrict late-term abortions.

The right to Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Nah, but what Americans want is an unalienable right to abortion — that’s what they care about.

H/T to Pepp for the information, WND.

Related:
    https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/ny-cuomo-and-gun-con-trol/

    https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/cuomos-gun-snitch-program-under-fire/