#Obamacare: at last, CNN finds someone thrilled with it!

November 2, 2013

At long last, we’ve found people genuinely excited by our new, state-run healthcare system: strippers, escorts, dominatrices and other sex-workers!

Only in California, my friends, and only in San Francisco:

A burlesque dancer dressed as a nurse taunts her co-performer with a toy syringe, dangling the medicine seductively in an act that’s meant to reflect the cat-and-mouse game of U.S. healthcare. They shimmy and eventually end up topless.

The risqué performance was part of an Obamacare registration drive last week in San Francisco, dubbed the “Healthy Ho’s Party.”

Organized by “Siouxsie Q,” a Bay Area sex worker, the event was meant to encourage other sex workers to enroll in the new insurance exchanges. It was a rousing success: Nearly 40 men and women attended and almost all of them filed enrollment paperwork.

In the all-cash, off-the-books sex industry, workers can be particularly high risk and insurance is often out of reach. Many sex workers — a broad term that can refer to a number of services, including sexual massage, prostitution, and escort and dominatrix work — consider themselves self-employed entrepreneurs who can’t afford to purchase healthcare. But that could all change with the Affordable Care Act.

The article then continues with the usual pro-Obamacare tale: insurance for “Siouxsie” and her partner was too big a chunk of their income, plus, given the risks of their “professions,” coverage was more expensive or often unobtainable altogether. With guaranteed coverage and publicly funded subsidies, plans become affordable. Yay!

Well, not so fast. First, as the article notes, subsidies kick in for incomes under $46,000. Many of these women have “regular jobs” — the sex trade is extra income. The article strongly implies that this latter income isn’t being reported. So, there’s a strong possibility of one degree or another of fraud here. But, hey, Obama doesn’t care; they’re not verifying income, anyway.

Second, before jumping with joy, these ladies and gentlemen would be well-advised to check into co-pays, deductibles, and just who is included in their new network, since all of these are already being recognized as problems. (And, to be clear, Obamacare critics have been warning of this for years.) It’s not for nothing that one person described the low-cost plans as “garbage.”

Remember, if something seems too good to be true, it usually is.

Finally, I need to deal with one truly egregious statement that’s indicative of much that’s wrong these days:

“I really do think access to healthcare should be a human right, and I’ve been so brainwashed to think it’s such a privilege,” a sex worker and activist known as “Maxine Holloway” said.

Sorry, Maxine, but healthcare is neither a right nor a privilege: it is a commodity, the fruits of the labor of other people (doctors who have to pay to attend medical school, companies that make the medical instruments, &c.) that is traded for the fruits of still other people’s labor — the money they earn.

Nothing you pay money for is an inherent, natural right. To declare health care a “right” everyone is entitled to, you have to take from someone else, if need be by force, their property, whether it is their time and labor, or the products they produce. Force them to sell something for less than what it is worth or to provide it “free,” and you are effectively stealing from them, even enslaving them. For the government to demand that taxpayers pay far more than they need to for insurance in order to subsidize your medical procedures is no different than a medieval lord taking a farmer’s grain crop and giving it to his favorites.

Look at it from another point of view: assume that one day sex is declared a human right, and that you, as a sex-worker are required to provide it at less than what you think your services are worth, which is analogous to what happens to a doctor under Medicare. (1) Would you be happy with that, Maxine? Would you think it right? Or would you feel oppressed and used?

Put it this way: What the government gives you, it can easily take. Or force you to provide.

PS: For the record, I have nothing against the “sex trade,” as long as all participants are adults engaging in it of their own free will. I suppose this is one place where the “libertarian” part of my self-description as a “conservative with libertarian leanings” comes into play — individualism, liberty of contract, free enterprise and entrepreneurialism, &c. Or, put another way, within broad bounds, it’s none of government’s (or my) business. In fact, I suspect that Siouxsie and Maxine and their friends are far more honest about what they do than the Obama and his team have ever been about their intentions. Given my choice of people to hang around with…

via ST

Footnote:
(1) This is a mistaken analogy on my part, for practices aren’t required to take Medicare and Medicaid patients. Doing so is voluntary on their part, much like pro bono work by attorneys. For a Democrat proposal that would change this, though, see this…

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) Liberal racism in action: The Black NRA

September 16, 2013

Like AlfonZo Rachel and his friends say in the video below, comedienne Sarah Silverman and her friends may have had good intentions in mind with their “Funny or Die!” piece, but the message, when you think about it, is pretty danged racist.

In that patronizing, condescending way that progressives do so well.

Watch, and see if you agree:

Pretty amazing, no? And I bet none of those “enlightened, socially aware” people in Silverman’s video will ever get why.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Detroit goes to the dogs. Literally.

August 22, 2013

Is this how it was for Constantinople in the 15th century, just before the fall? A once-great city rotting behind its walls, large swathes abandoned, shrunken in on itself? A place where dog packs now rule?

As many as 50,000 stray dogs roam the streets and vacant homes of bankrupt Detroit, replacing residents, menacing humans who remain and overwhelming the city’s ability to find them homes or peaceful deaths.

Dens of as many as 20 canines have been found in boarded-up homes in the community of about 700,000 that once pulsed with 1.8 million people. One officer in the Police Department’s skeleton animal-control unit recalled a pack splashing away in a basement that flooded when thieves ripped out water pipes.

“The dogs were having a pool party,” said Lapez Moore, 30. “We went in and fished them out.”

Poverty roils the Motor City and many dogs have been left to fend for themselves, abandoned by owners who are financially stressed or unaware of proper care. Strays have killed pets, bitten mail carriers and clogged the animal shelter, where more than 70 percent are euthanized.

“With these large open expanses with vacant homes, it’s as if you designed a situation that causes dog problems,” said Harry Ward, head of animal control.

The number of strays signals a humanitarian crisis, said Amanda Arrington of the Humane Society of the United States, based in Washington. She heads a program that donated $50,000 each to organizations in Detroit and nine other U.S cities to get pets vaccinated, fed, spayed and neutered.

Arrington said when she visited Detroit in October, “It was almost post-apocalyptic, where there are no businesses, nothing except people in houses and dogs running around.”

“The suffering of animals goes hand in hand with the suffering of people.”

Except I feel more sorry for the dogs than I do for most of the people; the people largely brought this on themselves through their shortsightedness and their tolerance for the corruption of their leaders. The dogs… Well, they’re just doing what they do instinctively, to survive.

The city can no longer afford a decent animal control service, and so some residents actually live in fear of dog packs roaming their neighborhoods. Of course. There are union dues to be paid, after all, and someone has to maintain the UAW’s private golf course.

Welcome to the liberal post-Apocalypse.

via ST’s Hot Headlines

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


QotD: In which I urge Democrats to cling bitterly to the Nancy Pelosi – Wendy Davis line

August 5, 2013

A little background: a few days ago, when pressed about late term abortion restrictions in the wake of Gosnell clinic horrors, Nancy Pelosi refused to consider any changes  in abortion law, calling it “sacred ground.” The irony of this supposedly devout Catholic grandmother calling for the unrestricted right to kill unborn humans was lost on her. But, I digress.

Meanwhile, just yesterday, Texas State Senator Wendy Davis (D), who came to national fame for her filibuster in opposition to any reasonable reform of Texas’ abortion laws, decided to plant her flag next to La Pelosi’s. Via Hot Air:

During a speech and press conference today, pro-abortion Texas lawmaker Wendy Davis said she would consider running for governor. The abortion activist also pulled a page from Nancy Pelosi’s playbook by calling defending late-term abortions “sacred ground.”

“I’ll seek common ground – we all must – but sometimes you have to take a stand on sacred ground,” Davis said during her press conference — referring to her filibuster to stop a bill to ban abortions after five months.

Reporters asked Davis if she supported any limits on abortions and she responded that she did not — saying she supports current federal law.

Memo to Democrats: Do it!! Follow Nancy, stand with Wendy. Between now and November, you should be out, loud, and proud in your determination to defend sacred ground: the unquestioned right to terminate at any unborn boy or girl at any point before birth. Remember, this is sacred ground. SACRED. GROUND. And I want you out there proclaiming this to the American people, with all its implications of sanctity and holiness. Let them know that the killing of an unborn child on demand is so important to you that, yes, it is like a religious sacrament. I guarantee that, if you screw your courage to the sticking place and hew to the Pelosi-Davis strategy, you will make a strong impression on the rest of America.

And I also guarantee that you will have an election night to remember.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The “corruption and irrelevance” of the civil rights establishment

July 22, 2013

There’s a great article by Shelby Steele in the Wall St. Journal on the decline and decay of the American civil rights movement, a fall made almost inevitable by its very success.  And, on the so-called leaders of today’s movement, Steele nails the real reasons they went after George Zimmerman: to pretend they’re still relevant and to keep their power over society.

The civil-rights leadership rallied to Trayvon’s cause (and not to the cause of those hundreds of black kids slain in America’s inner cities this very year) to keep alive a certain cultural “truth” that is the sole source of the leadership’s dwindling power. Put bluntly, this leadership rather easily tolerates black kids killing other black kids. But it cannot abide a white person (and Mr. Zimmerman, with his Hispanic background, was pushed into a white identity by the media over his objections) getting away with killing a black person without undermining the leadership’s very reason for being.

The purpose of today’s civil-rights establishment is not to seek justice, but to seek power for blacks in American life based on the presumption that they are still, in a thousand subtle ways, victimized by white racism. This idea of victimization is an example of what I call a “poetic truth.” Like poetic license, it bends the actual truth in order to put forward a larger and more essential truth—one that, of course, serves one’s cause. Poetic truths succeed by casting themselves as perfectly obvious: “America is a racist nation”; “the immigration debate is driven by racism”; “Zimmerman racially stereotyped Trayvon.” And we say, “Yes, of course,” lest we seem to be racist. Poetic truths work by moral intimidation, not reason.

If these “leaders” truly cared about the condition of Blacks in America more than they do about their next appearance in front of the cameras, they’d start doing something about the devastation of the Black family, in which, as Steele points out, 73% of all Black children are born without fathers married to their mothers.

But they don’t. They’re wedded to an outdated vision of America and the power exploiting that vision gives them.

PS: Steel expounds on this theme of the decay of the civil rights movement and the exploitation of victimization in his “White Guilt,” which I highly recommend.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


And yet these people claim to be our intellectual and moral betters?

July 12, 2013

Like I said on Twitter: I’ve tried, I really have, but I fail to understand how bringing used tampons and jars filled with urine and feces to your state legislature can be considered a winning argument when you want to influence pending legislation.

Guess I’m just not as smart and politically sophisticated as I thought.


(Video) Afterburner: civility

June 22, 2013

There’s an old saying that “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” That is, people are more likely to do what you want (or at least not do what you don’t want) when you use kind words, rather than cross ones.

Bill Whittle takes two examples –being stopped for speeding by LAPD and his recent experience at  local Chick-fil-A–  to make a larger point about being treated civilly and with respect by the government:

And he’s right, though I think his opening about civility in daily life stands on its own, too. It’s simple common courtesy, the kinds that makes the treadmill of life a bit easier for everyone involved: when you cut through a line, say “pardon me,” don’t just barrel through. When you’re on a cell call in the grocery line and your turn comes at the register, tell the person on the other end you’ll get back to them, hang up, and pay attention to the human in front of you. You don’t have to be fawning ; just treat the other person with a little respect and consideration, and you may be surprised at how much easier and better your day is.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


January 25, 2013

And if you don’t believe it can happen here, click the link, read, and get angry.

International Liberty

The welfare state creates some amazingly pathetic and disgusting individuals.

But I’ve never found a match for Olga, a Greek woman who thinks it is government’s job to take care of her from cradle to grave.

At least not until now. I’m excited to announce that Olga has a soulmate named Natalija. She’s from Lithuania, but she now lives in England, and she doubtlessly will inspire Olga on how to live off the state.

UK Welfare Horror StoryHere’s some of what The Sun reported about this very successful moocher.

Natalija Belova…

View original post 859 more words


Another reason to like Tim Scott

December 18, 2012

Aside from the fact that the current representative and senator-designate from South Carolina has a good character, the right politics, and a clear-eyed view of our real problem, he worries all the right people:

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People isn’t too excited about the appointment of Rep. Tim Scott to South Carolina’s soon-to-be-vacated U.S. Senate seat.

(…)

Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy at the NAACP, told The Daily Caller Monday afternoon that the group welcomed diversity in the Senate, but expects the new senator to work against the NAACP’s agenda.

“It is important that we have more integration in the U.S. Senate,” said Shelton in a phone interview. “It’s good to see that diversity.”

“Mr. Scott certainly comes from a modest background, experience, and so forth, and should be sensitive to those issues,” he said, referring to Scott’s impoverished single-parent upbringing in Charleston, SC.

“Unfortunately, his voting record in the U.S. House of Representatives raises major concerns,” Shelton said.

Shelton explained that the NAACP platform is crafted through an annual voting process which engages grassroots-level delegates who vote on the group’s national agenda. That agenda calls for an expansive role for federal government spending in black communities.

Because federal intervention has done such a bang-up job for Blacks. Just ask any beneficiary of the Great Society’s urban policies. And that War on Poverty? We fought it, and poverty won.

While Ms. Shelton does have some nice things to say about Congressman Scott, it’s clear her views are trapped within the statist, dependent, and identity-group paradigm that dominates the Democratic party. And yet Blacks are far worse off under Obama, who is pursuing those very policies the way an alcoholic chases a beer wagon.  But, to be honest, the NAACP stopped being an organization seeking the best interests of African Americans at the same time they entered into a monogamous relationship with the Democratic party. (Helpful tip: if you’re an interest group and you give yourself wholly and forever to one political party — they no longer have to take you seriously, because they know they have your votes no matter what they do.)

Meanwhile, here’s hoping that Mr. Scott has a long and fruitful career in the Senate and that, rather than coming round to the NAACP line, he encourages NAACP members to realize there’s another, better way to help Black Americans prosper.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


In Obama’s America, you’re better off on welfare

November 29, 2012

Oh, I know. I know. I’m RAAAAACIST!!! for even suggesting that. But numbers, while subject to interpretation, don’t lie. And in this case, they’re pretty hard to read any other way. From Zero Hedge:

Exactly two years ago, some of the more politically biased progressive media outlets (who are quite adept at creating and taking down their own strawmen arguments, if not quite as adept at using an abacus, let alone a calculator) took offense at our article “In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year.” In it we merely explained what has become the painful reality in America: for increasingly more it is now more lucrative – in the form of actual disposable income – to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, “the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.

And here’s the chart that illustrates the point:

(Click for a larger view)

Talk about perverse incentives. As structured now, a rational individual would look at this and conclude that he’s better off collecting rents from the rest of us, than working to better himself.

Be sure to read the rest. There’s much more — and it’s scary.

Not that we’ll have to worry for long, though, since the economy will simply shut down in 2027.

via Power Line

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Dissolve Detroit?

November 29, 2012

The city that’s been the butt of “urban wasteland” jokes for as long as I can recall may finally be reaching the end, as a state senator proposes disincorporation:

It would no doubt be controversial, but the idea of dissolving the fiscally struggling city of Detroit and absorbing it into Wayne County is being tossed around in Lansing.

WWJ Lansing Bureau Chief Tim Skubick reports some state Republicans are talking about giving the city the option to vote itself into bankruptcy. And mid-Michigan Senator Rick Jones said all options should be considered — including dissolving the city.

Thus we see the fruits of 50-60 years of unrestrained liberal governance –Walter Mead’s “Blue Model”— and the failure to adapt to changing economic environments: collapsing essential services and abandonment.

One wonders if, on hearing the news, someone in the Wayne County government asked “What did we ever do to you??”

via Moe Lane

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


And if that last chart didn’t convince you…

October 17, 2012

Here’s another, this time of the growth in food-stamp recipients under Barack Obama:

(Click the image for a larger version)

There are now nearly 20 million more Americans on food stamps now that there were when Obama took office. Gee, do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that, since Obama’s inauguration, ten times as many people gave up looking for work as those who found jobs?

This is disgraceful, and yet the Obama administration’s Department of Agriculture celebrates and encourages people to get on food stamps, and rewards states for signing up more. I have no problem with a small welfare state that helps the truly needy; it’s a mark of our compassion as a society. But I have a big problem with government policies that a) have the net effect of encouraging people not to look for work; b) encourages them to become long term dependents on welfare (no matter how they brand it, the dole is what it is); and c) acts as if this is a good thing.

It isn’t. In fact, it’s a record the Democrats should be ashamed of (rather than suggesting people hold parties), and it is an outstanding reason to vote Obama out of office. Depending on welfare is nothing that should ever be praised — it should be a mark of shame and embarrassment for those on it; shame is a healthy emotion that pushes us to correct what’s wrong, such as by looking for work as much as one is able to do, trying to be productive and a net contributor.

But the biggest shame is the government’s, for encouraging freeborn, productive citizens to become infantilized, dependent clients — and then acting as if that’s a good thing.

Come to think of it, to the Progressives it is a good thing.

This chart, and the one in the preceding post, represent an assault and danger to the character of the American people by Leftists obsessed with redistribution. On Election Day, we need to redistribute them out of power.

via Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Video proof: What really happened yesterday at Chick-fil-A

August 2, 2012

Yesterday was a “national day of appreciation”  for Chick-fil-A, a national chicken sandwich (and other stuff) chain, which had come under fire from the reactionary, ignorant, and nigh-Fascist Left, which had called for boycotts and even threatened to deny business licenses, all because President and COO Dan Cathy said in an interview that he held to the Biblical definition of marriage, that it is between one man and one woman. The company in no way discriminates in their service or employment, but, well, that wasn’t good enough for the Defenders of True Tolerance. Chick-fil-A had to be punished for one man’s Wrong Thought.

Boy did they get a surprise, yesterday.

But pictures don’t tell the whole story, so intrepid reporters Ben Howe and Bruce Carroll made a videolog of their trip to a local Chick-fil-A.

What they found was shocking:

Now, that’s what I call “Gaydar!”

Seriously, the reaction of the Left and of Liberal Fascists such as Mayors Rahm Emanuel, Tom Menino, and Ed Lee has been beyond all reason. Don’t like the owner’s personal opinion? Don’t shop at his store. Tell your friends. But don’t invoke the power of the State to destroy his business, his employee’s jobs, and the businesses of his franchisees, who may not even share his opinion. If guys like Dan Cathy get punished for a private opinion, if they don’t have freedom of conscience, none of us do.

And the proper way to deal with the reactionary Left is what we saw yesterday and in the above video: support and mockery. Show your support by buying some of the attacked person’s products and make fun of the Left. They can’t handle being mocked, and their reactions are amusing.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


And speaking of “freedom of conscience”

August 1, 2012

ObamaCare’s contraceptive and abortifacient mandates took effect today:

As of July 31, 2012 a business owner who objects to abortion had the freedom of conscience to make sure that her company’s insurance policies did not pay to facilitate the practice. But as of today, August 1, she no longer has that freedom. The ObamaCare contraceptive and abortifacient mandates take effect today, hailed by the Obama regime as a great and wonderful thing.

According to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, “President Obama is moving our country forward by giving women control over their health care. This law puts women and their doctors, not insurance companies or the government, in charge of health care decisions.”

What about pro-life women? Do they not exist?

Not in the eyes of Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, or the Left, they don’t.

Be sure to read the rest.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


July 13, 2012

And, in fact, just today we learn the Obama Admin. has gutted the Clinton-era welfare reform, giving people even more incentive to stay dependent.

International Liberty

I wrote last year about the way in which welfare programs lead to very high implicit marginal tax rates on low-income people. More specifically, they lose handouts when they earn income. As such, it is not very advantageous for them to climb the economic ladder because hard work is comparatively unrewarding.

Thanks to the American Enterprise Institute, we now have a much more detailed picture showing the impact of redistribution programs on the incentive to earn more money.

It’s not a perfect analogy since people presumably prefer cash to in-kind handouts, but the vertical bars basically represent living standards for any given level of income that is earned (on the horizontal axis).

Needless to say, there’s not much reason to earn more income when living standards don’t improve. May as well stay home and goof off rather than work hard and produce.

This is why income redistribution is…

View original post 72 more words


#PPact issues ridiculous statement in response sex selective abortion exposé video

May 29, 2012

**** Written by Sister Toldjah ****

First, in case you haven’t heard:

Live Action says Planned Parenthood and other U.S. abortion providers are willing to assist in the termination of baby girls for pregnant women who choose abortion because they want to have baby boys. And the pro-life abortion watchdog says its video series and a new website will expose it all.

“This was a multi-state, national investigation demonstrating that this is a widespread problem across our country,” Live Action president Lila Rose told The Daily Caller in an interview Monday.

“First of all, the statistics and studies indicate that we are adding to the growing problem across the world of sex-selective targeting of unborn girls for abortion. We are going to be demonstrating — starting with this video from Texas — that the abortion industry in the United States is aiding and abetting this horrific problem.”

The first in what Live Action says is a series of videotaped incidents exposing American abortion facilities’  willingness to assist in sex-selection abortions took place at a South Austin, Texas Planned Parenthood clinic. In the footage, a Planned Parenthood counselor appears to readily assist and advise a Live Action actor who said she was trying to obtain an abortion if her baby is female.

Here’s the video:

In case you don’t have time to watch the full video, here’s the YouTube description (bolded emphasis added by me):

AUSTIN, May 29 — Today, Live Action released a new undercover video showing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin, TX encouraging a woman to obtain a late-term abortion because she was purportedly carrying a girl and wanted to have a boy. The video is first in a new series titled “Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America,” exposing the practice of sex-selective abortion in the United States and how Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry facilitate the selective elimination of baby girls in the womb.

“I see that you’re saying that you want to terminate if it’s a girl, so are you just wanting to continue the pregnancy in the meantime?” a counselor named “Rebecca” offers the woman, who is purportedly still in her first trimester and cannot be certain about the gender. “The abortion covers you up until 23 weeks,” explains Rebecca, “and usually at 5 months is usually (sic) when they detect, you know, whether or not it’s a boy or a girl.” Doctors agree that the later in term a doctor performs an abortion, the greater the risk of complications.

The Planned Parenthood staffer suggests that the woman get on Medicaid in order to pay for an ultrasound to determine the gender of her baby, even though she plans to use the knowledge for an elective abortion. She also tells the woman to “just continue and try again” for the desired gender after aborting a girl, and adds, “Good luck, and I hope that you do get your boy.”

Life News’ Steven Ertelt has excerpts of the two Planned Parenthood statements released today. The second one will result in a commencing of eyerolls, my dear readers:

“Six weeks ago a former staff member serving in an entry-level position did not follow our protocol for providing information and guidance when presented with a highly unusual patient scenario. Planned Parenthood insists on the highest quality patient care, and if we ever become aware of a staff member not meeting these high standards, we take swift action. Within three days of this patient interaction, the staff member’s employment was ended and all staff members at this affiliate were immediately scheduled for retraining in managing unusual patient encounters. Today opponents of Planned Parenthood are promoting an edited video of that hoax patient encounter.”

“Recently, opponents of Planned Parenthood conducted hoax patient visits with hidden video cameras and are now using edited videotapes to promote false claims about our organization and patient services. In highly unusual and scripted scenarios, hoax patients sought services related to sex selection.”

[…]

Planned Parenthood condemns gender bias but refuses to condemn sex-selection abortions or say their centers will deny them.

“Gender bias is contrary to everything our organization works for daily in communities across the country. Planned Parenthood opposes racism and sexism in all forms, and we work to advance equity and human rights in the delivery of health care. Planned Parenthood condemns sex selection motivated by gender bias, and urges leaders to challenge the underlying conditions that lead to these beliefs and practices, including addressing the social, legal, economic, and political conditions that promote gender bias and lead some to value one gender over the other.”

[…]

“The world’s leading women’s health and rights organizations, including the World Health Organization, do not believe that curtailing access to abortion services is a legitimate means of addressing sex selection, and have made clear that gender bias can only be resolved by addressing the underlying conditions that lead to it. And we agree. We support efforts that ensure girls and women have access to economic opportunity, including fair wages, basic health care, political participation, education, and a life free of violence and discrimination. Planned Parenthood works to ensure women and their families have access to high-quality nonjudgmental health services free of coercion, supported by information and counseling.”

In other words, sex-selection abortions are fine as long as other efforts are undertaken to try to stamp out gender bias.

Yep. Isn’t it disgusting the way so-called “pro-women” forces on the left engage in dangerous, warped pretzel logic in order to “condemn” sex-selective abortions on the basis that they “discriminate against women” yet in the same breath they’ll tell you a woman shouldn’t be prevented from having elective abortions for any reason whatsoever?

I have written many times on the deeply disturbing practice of sex-selective abortions and the “feminist” movement’s disgusting hypocrisy/immorality on the matter. My comments in this June 11 post are fitting in response to today’s Live Action reveal:

As I’ve asked before, what’s the big deal to pro-aborts when it comes to aborting a baby on the basis of its sex? If it shouldn’t be an issue to abort an unborn child because it will “interfere” with your social life or college education, why should we be concerned about the boy baby bias in countries like China and India? Sure, it equates to blatant discrimination against women, but what’s the more important “right”? The right to not be discriminated against on the basis of your sex, or the “right” to choose whether or not you want to terminate your unborn child?

The pro-abortion group Center for Reproductive Rights came out years ago in support of China’s ban on sex-selective abortions, on the basis of being against discrimination of women. I guess their rationale is the more women we have in the world, the more opportunities we have for indoctrinating them to support … a woman’s right to choose, for whatever reason she sees fit. While the writer of the above piece does not support anti-sex-selective abortion legislation, the “we need more women in the world” mindset is one she appears to take. In a nutshell, she supports changing the pro-boy “cultures” in China and India so as to get them to “respect” women more so they won’t interfere in any “private” decision relating to having an abortion – even if it means having an abortion for whatever reason she wants to give, including on the basis of the baby’s sex.

I swear, you simply cannot make this stuff up.

Oh, and yes – sex-selective abortions do happen here in the US. Read more on that here.

But, shhhh! Don’t tell the likes of the feministas at “progressive feminist” blogs like Jezebel, etc. We wouldn’t want them to get hurt straddling that “pro-choice/pro-woman/anti-sex-selective abortion” fence or anything.

Cross-posted from the Sister Toldjah blog.


Behold! Our first Gay president!

May 13, 2012

Well, I guess he couldn’t be our first Black president, since Billy Jeff already has that title. So Obama will have to settle for being our first Gay president (1), as annointed by Newsweek:

And do note the required religious symbolism (gag!), proclaiming our Lightworker (2) chief executive as not just our first Gay president, but some sort of rainbow saint. This, of course, comes from the news magazine Obama marketing rag whose editor once proclaimed Obama “like a god.”

Funny, that god-like saint apparently tried back in 2008 to bribe his racist ex-pastor, in whose church he sat for over 20 years without ever noticing he was a flaming bigot, to shut up. Through intermediaries and with full deniability, of course.

Hardly what one would expected from such an enlightened, sensitive being. Except one from Chicago.

LINKS: More from Politico.

Footnotes:
(1) Does this mean he’ll finally speak out for all the gays tortured and murdered under Islamic regimes? Nah. They don’t vote here.
(2) I’m never going to let you live this down Morford. It’s fawning toadies like you who feed cults of personality.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) Chuck Woolery solves the illegal immigration crisis

April 11, 2012

And, the Occupy movement, too:

I tell you, the man is a genius. Woolery 2012!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


One picture is worth a thousand words on Critical Race Theory

March 20, 2012

This is the fruit of the intellectual handiwork done  by President Obama’s Harvard mentor, Derrick Bell:

And here’s the explanation:

The nation’s premiere voting rights museum—the National Voting Rights Museum—now sits at the foot of the bridge [in Selma, Alabama]. The museum is an inadvertent monument to the civil rights movement’s degeneration. Its outlook is neatly captured in ten words that begin its timeline display of the civil rights movement. There, we find a replica of John Trumball’s iconic depiction of the signing of the Declaration of Independence with the caption, “1776. The Declaration of Independence signed by wealthy white men.”

The original civil rights giants would never have tolerated this historically false assertion. They were patriots, driven by love for their fellow countrymen and a burning desire to make America a better place for all its citizens. They repeatedly and vehemently rejected hatred. But the nasty caption captures the bitter spirit of much of the civil rights movement today and of numerous race-based activist groups around the country.

According to Bell’s Critical Race Theory, which not only the president, but several members of his administration and the Supreme Court and the media admire, the structure and philosophy of the United States is inherently, irrevocably racist. Hence, the caption to Trumball’s famous painting.

It’s hard for me to describe how offensive I find that, let alone dead wrong.

So I’ll let you discuss it.

RELATED: What is the Pacific Educational Group?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The ethics of infanticide: not just vile, but evil

March 6, 2012

In a recent issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics, two former Oxford ethicists argue that killing a newborn babe is no different from aborting a fetus, because the infant isn’t really a person yet:

[The authors] argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Hey, if the infant isn’t a person because they can’t attribute value to their own existence and feel loss if that existence is deprived, why stop there? How about the elderly suffering from senile dementia or Alzheimer’s? Surely they’ve lost the capability of attributing value to their existence, so they’re not people by these standards, right? Might as well let their relatives (or the State) snuff them when they become an “unbearable burden.” And what about severely disabled adults, too? I mean, gee, we’d save society all that money in Medicaid support for group homes. After all, they’re not really people.

Anyone else getting a “Wannsee Conference” vibe (1), or wonder if the authors’ offices didn’t contain idols to Moloch?

Call me “old-fashioned” and “unenlightened,” ignorant of sophisticated ethics, but I have this crazy belief that the right to live is a natural right preexisting Human laws and ethics. It is only to be taken away under the most restricted circumstances, such as in a “just war” or by law after a fair trial as the only way to enact justice after a horrible crime.

Not simply because you might regard the baby as a “burden.”

And what kind of sociopathic lack of empathy does it imply to go through such intellectual gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion that the infant is no longer a person? When does it become a person? When it first smiles? Its first steps? Its first words, when it finally has a chance to say “please don’t kill me?”

“Ethics.” Yeah, these really are some ethics, aren’t they? They’re the fascist ethics of a state that denies the inherent worth of the individual and, when that individual becomes a “burden,” can decide he or she is no longer “really a person” and can thus be disposed of at will.

Like rubbish.

I’m with Walter Russell Mead: while I firmly believe as a federalist that the abortion question in America should be decided on a state-by-state basis until a consensus is reached, if this idea ever gains currency in the US, sign me up for a right-to-life amendment to the US Constitution.

RELATED: This isn’t the first time the ugly idea of “post-natal abortion” has arisen. Read about the Groningen Protocol, which was a recent proposal to allow doctors in the Netherlands to “terminate” the life of a severely disabled child up to the age of 12, with the final decision resting with the doctors, not the parents. And killing your non-person infant after birth is really just one step past aborting fetuses on the basis of gender. Both Hot Air and Power Line were outraged at the JME article. I’m surprised it didn’t get more coverage in the blogosphere.

PS: The linked Telegraph article mentioned that the authors of the JME piece had received death threats for their article. This is as wrong and as vile as their argument itself, as well as being criminal. It is an affront to free speech and academic liberty. The way to fight evil ideas is with counter-argument, not with intimidation and threats of physical harm.

Footnote:
(1) Yeah, at the risk of being accused of “Godwinning,” I went there. These kind of depersonalizing ethics aren’t all that far from the Final Solution.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)