Pelosi Aborts Stupak Negotiations

Is it too simplistic to say that if a woman wants an abortion she has to pay for a policy covering it herself? Keeping in line with what the Hyde amendment has done for years?

The whole issue of abortion has become a canard to me. If you’re so caught up in preserving life, surely you should be more interested in pregnancy prevention than in what to do when the cat is already out of the bag.

Lines have been drawn in the sand on both sides- Common sense has left the building

I don’t mean to be overly sensitive, but that is a pretty inappropriate headline. I just find the tongue-in-cheek use of the term “aborts” to be unnecessarily charged. It is particularly inflammatory given that Congresswoman Pelosi is a pro-choice woman, and a lightening rod for anti-abortion groups.

I do love the wordsmithing.

Pelosi is pro-abortion woman and a lightening rod for pro-life groups.

I guess it depends on your point of view

to nflfoghorn

Your comment sure makes sense to me….

Having no dog in this specific part of this fight, other than it doesn’t seem right to require that some citizens must contribute to cover a procedure that they are completely against because of religious or other strongly held beliefs. It is still America (or at least used to be).

Incidentally, this whole mess (National Health Care) seems to be about as unconstitutional as anything Washington has ever attempted.

You can only stretch the General Welfare provision so far…..

As per Thomas Jefferson:
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

What part of that is not understood by anyone who is rational and concerned with law? (Notwithstanding a million other excesses our federal government has foisted upon us over the years).

Seventy five plus percent (75+%) of our country is against the whole idea of this boondoggle. There is need for some repair of our system of health insurance, but this doesn’t seem to be it.

@freeinpa:

you seem to ignore my concern in order to focus on the semantics.

Pelosi supports an individual choice with regard to reproduction, and is opposed to government legislation that would prohibit or criminalize abortion. She is a source of criticism for people who are opposed to abortion, and support government legislation that would prohibit or criminalize the procedure.

Happy?

Now. Back to my point – the headline is needlessly charged.

So tired of all these various religious groups actively lobbying for or against legislation. Do they have a right to? Of course. But if they are going to step out of their religious sphere and delve into the secular then tax them already!

As evidenced by your terse response the subject is necessarily charged. No matter how much polish you put on it, abortion takes the life of the weakest among us.

Many in the pro-life movement, myself included, believe that if a woman “chooses” to have an abortion, federal, state or local taxpayer money should not be used.

They have as much right to lobby as any non-profit group does whether it is Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Catholic Theological Society of America or ACORN or SEIU or NEA.

It might have been more useful to post

That’s an argument David Gibson at Politics Daily has also made in a brilliant and incredibly useful analysis of what the Senate abortion provisions would–and, importantly, would not–do.

and link to the letter from the religios.
.
And my usual link to help all of you with such concerns about the unborn – someone who is already born you can help.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/86795747.html

@freeinpa

You are still ignoring the point of my post, which is that the headline was needless antagonistic and incendiary.

I am not trying to, nor do I want to, have a debate about the merits of abortion or government’s role in the issue. I respect your views, but frankly have no interest in debating the point.

So, yet again, I say: the headline that Pelosi “aborts” negotiations is unfair and unnecessary. Feel free to agree or disagree. If you do not care one way or the other about the headline, then there is no point in this dialogue with you.

Obama and his Social Democrat Party’s plan to include federal takeover of the student loan program takeover is far too gutless and unimaginative.

Our Social Democrat Party should take it’s entire socialist agenda – yes, all of it – and cram it into an omnibus bill to be pushed through the reconciliation process with the health takeover bill. Include the entire social democrat agenda:

1) raise taxes on everyone to the 100% rate of their dreams. Have all income wired directly to the federal government. After all, under their ideology, government ALREADY owns ALL of the income of everyone in America, why fool around with the unnecessary expense and avoidance of tax collection?

2) go straight to single payer health care and federalize all medical operations. The private sector simply lacks the compassion of the glorious socialist state. If they’re going to destroy the legislative process, they should go big and get something worth the ignominy.

3) Legalize all of our illegal aliens. Oh, what the hell, legalize everyone in the entire world. True equality can only be achieved through dragging us all to a third world standard of living anyway. Entitled rentseekers of the world unite.

4) Force all of us onto public transportation by outlawing private transportation directly. Why fool around with half measures like Cap & Tax? Again, think big, replace heartless capitalism with the innate benevolence of socialism.

5) … I don’t need to fill in all of details of the their agenda. Our Social Democrats know them well enough, but they musn’t forget to outlaw elections or November could prove as big a disappointment as the Massachusetts Massacre.

Don’t bother with discussion, public airing, or debate. In their infinite wisdom and caring, our Social Democrat Party already knows what’s best for all Americans and are entitled to rule us all.

it doesn’t seem right to require that some citizens must contribute to cover a procedure that they are completely against because of religious or other strongly held beliefs.
.
I quite agree. I have a strongly held belief against war. Where can I go to see that my personal taxes don’t pay for killing soldiers?

Agreed.I just think the religious groups should pay taxes.

As brilliant as I keep hearing the left is I would have thought you would have been able to figure that I thought the headline was a play on words with little “unfairness” involved. Amazing how sensitive the left can be aonn certain issue and completely tone deaf on others.

Even though your comment makes no sense because of something called the Hyde Amendment, I just have to ask a few questions:
I am against the Iraq War. Should I be let out of paying taxes for the time we are in Iraq? Should we get a checklist with our taxes ever year that lists everything the government does and whether or not we want our money going to it.

At what point are you going to realize that the trolls around here aren’t into substantive debate? Mucking up the threads with a running back and forth trying to change that doesn’t do anything for anyone.

So taking away government handouts from the student loan firms is a Socialist takeover? Can you explain how that makes sense?
_
True or False: If a lender still wants to make student loans they will be able to do so, they just won’t get a gigantic subsidy for doing it?

Then so should the SEIU, ACORN et al Otherwise it is just religious prosecution

pafro

Other than taking business out of the private sector and putting ointo the public sector? Which I believe is part of the socialist system. The rest of the rant is from one of your own, I can’t decifer

pafro

What is substantive about whining over the title of an article?

The left genuflects at the altar of abortion, they just run form the term and what it actually is. That is the substance.

Let’s see…I don’t have any kids in school (no dog in that fight), I would give up a car in protest of energy and infrastructure costs and use a bicycle, my neighborhood doesn’t call the police that much, I only supported the initial taliban invasion not the rest that followed, I can dig a well in my backyard for water and build an outhouse for bodily waste…I’m in for some real tax savings based on your logic. I’ll ride my bicycle to Walmart and buy some Chinese junk with my newfound fortune.

free, I’ll sign on as long as all churches and religious groups are included. Non-profit tax exemption, especially of religious groups, serves me no benefit. Let’s just allow government to be tax exempt.

Leaving aside for a moment that you seem to be confusing Social Democrats (European-style welfare state and powerful private industry) with Democratic Socialists (socialism via the ballot box), how do you know that Obama is a Social Democrat?
.
Why isn’t it more likely that he is a New Democrat, i.e. a Third Way follower?
.
What evidence do you have that the Democratic party’s agenda even coincides with Social Democrats’?
.
Also, why weirdly rant non sequiturs like “Entitled rentseekers of the world unite“? Why not provide some kind of evidence that the Democratic party’s agenda includes such items as “outlawing private transportation directly“?
.
In the absence of any evidence of such things, you seem to be making things up that you think would be bad policy, and then just attributing those things to Democrats, as if there were somehow a connection in reality.
.
Why not go the whole distance, and accuse Democrats like Max Baucus of favoring Maoist reeducation camps, while you’re at it?
.
More importantly, why does it satisfy you to repeat fabrications and lies? What kind of person gets off on that?

sz, I too was intrigued by the social democrat reference although I have seen the tea baggers throw around a confused hodge-podge of ideologies at Obama. This one I guess is a nazi reference, as opposed to the Marxist references also common.
.
You ask: “More importantly, why does it satisfy you to repeat fabrications and lies? What kind of person gets off on that?” I would say it is the kind of person who is informed by the pop tea bag movement as well as the Fox News electronic reeducation camp.

“I do love the wordsmithing.

“Pelosi is pro-abortion woman and a lightening rod for pro-life groups.

“I guess it depends on your point of view”
.
I guess it does because the synonymn of “Pro-Choice” isn’t “Pro-Abortion” whereas the synonymn of “Pro-Life” is indeed “Anti-Abortion.” No one in the “Pro-Choice” camp is saying women should run out and have abortions; they’re just saying that it’s not up to the government to decide whether or not a woman have this medical procedure. Speaking for myself personally, I’m not sure I’d want a loved one having an abortion, but I’m not going to stand outside of a clinic and make someone who has made that decision feel like sh*t because they are; I don’t think it’s my business and it’s that woman’s body and decision. Thus, that makes me “Pro-Choice.”
.
Meanwhile, the “Pro-Life” camp has made it quite clear that they want abortions for no one. That, by definition, is “anti-abortion.” The word game being played here is with the “Pro-Life” group because it’s hard to market a negative (re: “anti” something), and it makes your opponent look like they’re for something horrible (“Pro-Death).

To pafro and stuartzechman:

Denial of Obama’s socialist roots and ambitions may make political sense, particularly in light of the Massachusetts Massacre, but isn’t worth entering a quibbling match over definitions of terms.

American social democracy is the compromise of freedom with socialism FDR determined “necessary” and which the Social Democrat Party has been pursuing ever since.

It is also gutless in it’s realization that it can only survive as a leech on it’s arch enemy, capitalism, while also using it as the “enemy” all politicians need to cover up their own failures and the failures of their policies.

It is disingenuous of you to quibble. Own up to your gutless ideology.

“The whole issue of abortion has become a canard to me.”

It’s always been just another calculated, invented outrage to rally the authoritarian-following rubes to act against their own self-interests:
.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/11/where-does-antichoice-extremism-come-from

So much awesome.
_
You are my favorite new troll. Actually, I bet this is some some web-Bot (the Malkin-bot?) stuffed full of scary words and sent around the web arranging the scary words in random orders.
_
In other words, good for a laugh, but not so good at answering true or false questions.

Sorry jim, but given the three responses above, you’re required to own up to the analogy.

Put up or shut up, as it were.

Elective procedures on healthy people should NEVER be paid for with taxpayer dollars. It is so simple. Most abortions are elective procedures performed on healthy women.

A pregnant women is NOT sick or ill 99.9% of the time. So, just as plastic surgery or hair implants are not covered, abortions performed on healthy women should NEVER be paid for with taxpayer dollars.

Abortion should be legal of course, but it should be financed by the taxpayer only on conditions where the mother’s life is truly in jeopardy. Again, this is only true for a minor fraction of abortions performed.

Yes, I can see how the left does not want everyone reminded they are Pro-death. So matter how you slice it Pro-death, pro-abortion is still a marketing nightmare to Pro-life or anti-abortion

But hey that just may be a warm-up for our health care system.

LOL!

Denial of Obama’s socialist roots and ambitions

That’s an interesting argument to make!

David Joel Horowitz (born January 10, 1939) is an American conservative writer and policy advocate. Horowitz was a member of the New Left in the late 1960s before moving to the right in the 1970s.
.
He is a founder and the president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, edits the conservative website FrontPage Magazine, and writes for Christopher Ruddy’s conservative website NewsMax.[2] Horowitz founded the right-leaning activist group Students for Academic Freedom.

According to your kind of logic, nobody who aligns or advocates for a movement they later abandon can ever intellectually escape their previous ideas!
.
I mean, the neo-rightist Horowitz was far more radical than Obama’s dalliances, for more than a decade!

In the late 1960s, Horowitz was in London working for the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation[12] where he studied under Ralph Miliband and Isaac Deutscher. In 1971, Horowitz wrote a biography of Deutscher.[13][14][15]
.
Horowitz then wrote The Free World Colossus: A Critique of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War and, in the early 1970s, became an editor at the New Left magazine, Ramparts.
.
Horowitz was a supporter of Huey P. Newton, and raised money for the Black Panther Party.

So, according to your calculations, David Horowitz, notorious paller-arounder with Black Nationalists/Separatists, and consorter with Maoists, is a secret revolutionary, working from within movement conservatism to subvert it into the unwitting tool of neo-Bolshevism?
.
Or are you just trying to smear your political enemies using your old, McCarthyite rightists’ tricks?
.
That’s uproariously funny, thanks for making that argument.

isn’t worth entering a quibbling match over definitions of terms

Well, when somebody refuses to acknowledge the difference between terms like “apple” or “orange” or “hand grenade”, it’s probably worth figuring out what those things mean in reality, instead of running away from a fruit basket as if it were going to explode at any second.

American social democracy is the compromise of freedom with socialism FDR determined “necessary” and which the Social Democrat Party has been pursuing ever since.

Actually, the worldwide collapse during the first half of the twentieth century of unaccountable, free market fundamentalist, robber-baron capitalism demonstrated to all reasonable people the necessity for curbing the “freedom” of the privileged dunce-captains of industry and finance to f*ck everyone else by catastrophically failing and then just shrugging their shoulders.
.
But why do you insist on calling the Democratic party the “Social Democratic party,” as if Robert Byrd were a minister in the German Bundestag, or something?
.
Do you understand that I’m not going to stupidly retaliate by referring to the Republican party as “The National Socialist Workers Republican Party”?

It is also gutless in it’s realization that it can only survive as a leech on it’s arch enemy, capitalism

Look, aren’t you just confused, or something?
.
Shouldn’t you look these things up, before you come here where intelligent people are commenting, and appear to be a complete fool?
.
Liberals are completely in favor of capitalism, especially for the individual entrepreneur and small business. That’s why we want the government to step in to stop gigantic, multinational industry and finance from controlling the market for their own benefit, and shutting the little guy out.
.
We’re so committed to capitalism that we actually want the state to properly regulate it, so that it doesn’t crumble into a quivering heap every time that Third Way cretins and market fundamentalist ideologues get their hands on the system.
.
Without liberals, there is no capitalism, because we’re the ones that clean up the idiot rightists’ messes that threaten to flush free enterprise down the toilet every few years.

Own up to your gutless ideology.

You know what’s really gutless?
.
Making up some Tinker-Bell commie threat with which to scare your fellow Americans, because you can’t own up to the fact that your stupid, Ayn Rand romance-novel policies nearly ruined our beautiful country not only in one American century, but now in two.
.
Why don’t you try arguing your policies against a real liberal, instead of some fake, bullsh*t, red menace Charlie McCarthy dummy sitting on your own lap, tough guy?

Well that would include unions, colleges, school systems, and any other 501 tax exempt type entities. Good luck with that.

“”More importantly, why does it satisfy you to repeat fabrications and lies”

That is a good question for the douchbag movement (the liberal left). Obama continues it daily and then is supported by the looney left in the deceit.

What is more interesting is this rather tiresome pursuit by the left “what proof” do you have that Obama is a Socialist? If you look at who he has hung out with, folks he has appointed to various positions and his continuous attempt to either dictate terms or take control of various industries one cannot be taken seriously when a question of proof is posed.

Why don’t you try arguing your policies against a real liberal, instead of some fake, bullsh*t, red menace Charlie McCarthy dummy sitting on your own lap, tough guy?
.
Because everything he knows about liberals has been spoonfed to him from conservatives.

“Yes, I can see how the left does not want everyone reminded they are Pro-death.”
.
So I see you didn’t actually read what I wrote. Ah well…can’t say I didn’t try.

I read it. I just didn’t think much of it

freeinpa:
.
You can’t be serious when you say “[Obama's] continuous attempt to either dictate terms or take control of various industries.”
.
“Dictate terms?” You think TARP was about Treasury and the Fed telling CitiGroup and Goldman Sachs what to do?
.
“take control of various industries?” Are you talking about when the car companies begged and threatened the government to bail them out?
.
Or are you talking about the Health Care Reform bill, in which the government forces people to be customers of an industry they hate? That kind of “taking control”?
.
I’m not trying to convince you that Obama’s been honest, of course not. But saying “There’s a case to be made that Obama hasn’t been exactly truthful about his positions.” is a completely different argument than saying “Obama is a secret Maoist.“.
.
You’ve got to be able to differentiate the criticism of “less than completely honest” from “Manchurian Candidate.”
.
Why don’t you guys just say he’s a liar –there’s plenty of evidence for that– instead of screeching that he’s been bitten by a zombie from Night of the Living Dead?

I’m sure a lot of the “rape/incest” victims would be quite healthy by your definition.
.
Are they just, by your definition, SOL?

I generally ignore the posts of the Ann Coulter Charm School graduates. If the post starts out with insults then It’s usually pointless to engage in conversation with them because the discussion seldom leads to anything but more insults.
.
However, SZ’s brilliant point-by-point smackdown of the post by rukidding0 is thoroughly entertaining. Kudos!

So far the only thing I hear in regards to Obama or democrats being socialists is that Obama knew someone (association by guilt, so if someone knew a spanker they’re spankers) and that they bailed out companies.

These are the factual stuff – meaning Obama did know people – some who seemed to have some kind of ‘nefarious’ S word hanging around in the closet and Obama along with GOP and the democrats bailed out companies.

What people fail to connect however is that in socialism the people, workers own production and share the wealth – but in these bailouts workers got the shaft and the leadership of the finance industry along with the car industry kept their jobs (for most parts) and made out handsomly.

That’s corporate wellfare – not socialism.

As for the rest of the garbage – if we have universal healthcare and such we slide into the ocean and depravity of communism; in that case the rest of the world with similar system would too. They don’t. Russia didn’t revolt so they could have universal healthcare. They revolted to get rid of conservative despotism. And replaced it with Tyrrany.

Countries like Sweden fought for workers right and elected socialistic governments after the conservative governments fought tooth and nail to subdue those rights. The result wasn’t universal healtcare or communism, the result was that some of the sectors in the countries fell under Government while other flourished privately.

I don’t want socialism in any form in this country. Healthcare reform won’t do it. What will do it is regressive corporate policy when we put more power in corporations, strip and reduce workers rights. Those are the conditions that lead to situation like socialism and communism; massive unequality.

The only thing that can save a democratic system and capitalism isn’t less workers rights – it’s to strip corporate and interest groups influence over our elected representatives. Simple as that.

Last – this healthcare reform isn’t reform in the slightest. It’s corporate wellfare. Somehow the righties have gotten into their heads that it leads to ‘socialism’, but instead it leads to corporatism. Given the ruling where corporations can spend as much as they want now on political advertising it’s not a step in the direction of socialism. It’s more like the turn of last century where factories owned more or less the worker and own grocery stores and housing and most of the workers money went to buy factory owned groceries and rent. It was a vicious circle of being owned, kept undereducated and never have the chance to work yourself out of your situation.

But I digress – it’s not as simple as calling something ‘socialism’ to gin up fear.

bobcn1:
.
18 and over, entertainment purposes only.
.
(Actually, there are many good reasons to engage rightists this way…)
.
Thanks for reading and for the compliment.

Thank you so much for this excellent commentary.

Righteous indignation FTW. Kudos, Stewart.

What pafro said.

SZ:

I have called him a liar. He started his campaign that way and continues to this day. For all the bile and bilge water wasted on this site about Palin, Beck and Fox News, they are no worse than Obama. In fact he is worst because he destroys liberties, confiscates wealth and is trying to place mandates where the federal government has no business.

==

As far as TARP dictates, yes. Several banks paid in full the TARP money and he continues to try ans dictate compensation while pouring good money after bad in Fannie and Freddie leveraging taxpayers to ridiculous levels while paying enormousness bonuses to political allies who committed fraud.

==
Auto bailout. Yes, in the way he handed out equity to the detriment of bondholders.
==
Yes the health care reform that mandates everyone join or pay a tax while creating legislation that will force the death of the health insurance industry. But please spare me the charade that it will make everything more competitive. Obama will re-write the rules as they see fit. If HC companies or employers don’t comply they will not be able to keep the health care coverage they have. (One of the many lies repeated by Obama).
==
Let’s not forget crap and trade and his desire to eliminate the coal industry or now the desire to control fishing in oceans, lakes and streams.
==
He has in the past, in the campaign and since called for and argued for wealth re-distribution.

The argument that he is not honest and not a socialist is specious at best. You do not surround yourself with announced socialist, communists and folks who have been taped as saying we must destroy the US economic system as we know it if you do not believe that and with the power of the Presidency try to implement.You also don’t have more meetings with heads of unions then with your heads of military if you are not getting advice on how to best accomplishment socialist movements into the economy.
==
It seems that your argument is trying to split the tiniest of hairs in the hope nobody notices untils after its done. Remember Obama’s campaign rhetoric “we are days away from fundamentally changing this country” (I paraphrase) but the intent was clear.

‘Actually, there are many good reasons to engage rightists this way…’
.
You’re right. I’ve reached a point in my life where I just don’t feel like dealing with the name callers, the insulting, and the rude. I just don’t have the patience for it. I’m glad you do.

What pafro said.
kbanginmotown

Twiddle-dee and twiddly dumb the wonder dummies without a single coherent thought.

“workers own production and share the wealth – but in these bailouts workers got the shaft and the leadership of the finance industry along with the car industry kept their jobs (for most parts) and made out handsomly.”

That is just factually incorrect. If the workers go tthe shaft it is the fault of the UAW who held more sway i nthe discussions than either the auto execs or the bondholders.
==
“I don’t want socialism in any form in this country”

That is just being dishonest with yourself. You argue of the evils of the capitalism and for workers of the world unite and governemnt take over of the health care industry while trying to frame it in different terms.

Similar to yours and th eleft argument about Obama and socialism. If we call it something else and we don’t actually say the words it can be socialism. The left keeps talking about truth and yet they keep lying to themselves.

ABORTION 4EVA!!!!1!! EAT IT, SULLIVAN, EAT IT. NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM.

Hey, look over there! It’s–it’s–Bart Stupak, a-and he’s tied up or something. And oh man, check it out, it’s Nancy Pelosi, with some kind of bucket or something, it looks like–it is! ABORTION! Oh no, she’s just force-feeding Bart Stupak a bucket of ABORTION! And Bart’s just like,

NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM.

[wash it down]

a-NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM.

The democrats are writing their own obituary by pushing ahead with the senate version of the bill.

Their trust in the Senate to fix the bill afterwards will be misplaced. The Senate will have zero incentive to abide by the promises. In fact, the senate would be smart to let the issue gather dust in the corner until people forget about it once the House approves their version of the bill.

If it ever comes time to pass the modifications they will be left with a no-win situation. Either they break their promise, thus costing them their House majority as the electorate holds their representatives accountable for a bill they hate, or they keep it, thus forcing senators to slap their pro-choice base in the face with a vote against abortion access.

The only way to win is to start over. Would they rather Obama saves face and deny the Republicans a small victory now, or would they rather cede the House to the Republicans in November? I’m betting the leadership looks out for themselves and the party is hung out to dry in a few months time.

The only way to win is to start over.
.
Thanks for playing Republican Talking Points™.

jim: I find the death penalty abhorent and immoral. My state taxes pay for the fulfillment of that state law. What would you suggest I do?

ruk: You have run head long into the stuart we know and love. Give it up.

“I read it. I just didn’t think much of it”
.
If you say so. Although the rambling response I got from you sure didn’t indicate as much.

Here’s a little primer on the way things work. We, as individuals, do not get to decide what our tax money is used for. The people we elect make that decision. If enough of us decide that we don’t like the choices our representatives make regarding our tax money, we vote them out and hope the next representative makes us happy with their votes.

It’s just a little bit on the ridiculous side to think that we could withhold that portion of our taxes that we think may be funding something we don’t agree with. We elect these bozos and have to live with them and their decisions that are supposedly made on our behalf. Class dismissed.

If you agree that life is conceived at conception, than you must agree abortion is ending life. If that’s okay with you than you probably support abortion as a woman’s right. If you believe it’s murder of an unborn child, than you probably support the defense of life. Which I do. I stand with Bart Stupak 100% and even if they circumvent the constitution by buying off votes and pass the bill through some shady loophole non-voting scheme – I will be forever appreciative to Bart for his moral character and conviction. He’s a refreshing breathe of fresh air in an otherwise putridly stinky Congress.

Many of the “religious” leaders signing that piece of ridiculous Obamacare propaganda are funded by GEORGE SOROS, the anti-Christian, pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-drugs U.S. enemy.

George Soros has invested billions to destroy the U.S. One of his strategies is to create and fund anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, ani-Jewish groups that PRETEND to be Catholic, Christian, Jewish, etc. but are used to undermine their respective religions and to destroy the U.S.

Soros funds, for example, the Catholic Left, Catholics for Choice, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Catholics United and who knows how many other anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish groups.

Thinking Americans undertand, however, that manipulation and lies do not change Obama’s pro-abortion and pro-infanticide (late-term abortion) stand, nor the aberrant stands of Obama’s Health Care Czar Ezekiel Emanuel and Science Czar John Holdren.

Lies do not change the FACT that we are broke and Obamacare will further destroy our economy, our future and the future of our children and grandchildren.

Lies do not change the FACT that Obamacare is another scam to enslave us.

We expect our churches and our representatives to defend us from the whole Obamacare scam, not just the abortion part of the scam.

thank you admin nice postmp3 dinlespeaks only Dutchmp3 indirhard to trust anythingdizi izle