Posts Tagged 'gingrich'

Selfishness of the Pro-Abortion Movement

Does the government have the right to tell religious institutions to buy birth control and morning after abortion pills for their employees?  Is it enough to have a religious exemption for institutions whose sole goal is to spread their faith?  If you have been asking yourself these questions lately, you are asking yourself the wrong questions.

First, let’s briefly address the exemption for religious organizations who solely exist to share their faith. Those organizations are few and far between.  Very few religious organizations seek to share their faith without also offering humanitarian aid, social work with teenagers, child services, food and training for the poor.  Aid to the poor is one of the largest purposes for the church and for Christians.

The question we should be asking when it comes to the religious exemption, is what about private business owners who object to birth control and morning after pills based on religious principle?  Why don’t they get an exemption?

Here is what this debate really comes down to.  I am a Protestant Christian and we use birth control.  We oppose morning after pills.  Every month we shell out $9 for our birth control pills, and I guess we forgo a date for two to McDonalds to do it.  I would never ask anyone else to pay that $9 for me.  I especially would never ask someone who objected to birth control on religious grounds to pay for it for me.  That is the epitome of selfishness.

I guess there are people out there who can’t afford $9 a month and can’t keep it in their pants.  Don’t ask religious people to give you that birth control or morning after pill.  Don’t ask the government to violate our 1st amendment rights and force us to provide that.

As far as the pro-abortion movement, if you truly believe that “they are just going to do it anyway”, sex among 13 and 14 year olds is a free expression of love, babies are a disease that kill dreams, or whatever, then set up a foundation that collects donations and pays for birth control and morning after pills.   You could form the organization after a charitable model like Toys for Tots and deliver a year’s supply of birth control to needy teenagers every Christmas.  You could call it Kontraception for Kids.  Or how about Planned Parenthood.

Some people mistakenly think this year’s election has anything to do with banning contraception on the federal level.  No, it has to do with whether everyone will be forced to pay for each others contraception.  It has to do with whether the liberals are going to force people to go against their religious objections and pay for something they find morally reprehensible in violation of their 1st amendment rights.  Does the constitution still matter?  That is the question in this debate.  Nobody is threatening to ban birth control.

If you are on Obama’s side and think Christians, Muslims and Jews should be forced to pay for your contraception, stop and think about how selfish that request is.


Shut it down

Memories of 1995 haunt GOP as shutdown talks grow. At least that’s the headline.  But why should the 1995 shutdown haunt the GOP?  Republicans shut down the government in order to force liberal Democrat President Bill Clinton to take a sharp turn to the right and balance the budget.  Clinton has been taking credit for it ever since as though somehow balancing the budget was his idea.  You still hear people (who haven’t read my blog) tout the “Clinton surplus”.  Of course, if you read my blog, you know there never was a surplus.

But Republicans did cause Clinton to drastically drop spending and usher in a period of pretty good economic growth for our country.  It started with a government shut down.

Why should a shutdown haunt the GOP?  Democrat senators in Wisconsin seem to think a government shut down is a pretty good idea.  Maybe if the Senate in DC won’t pass the House’s budget, Senate GOP members should go hide in Illinois with the Wisconsin Democrats.

We are about to head into our third deficit in excess of $1 trillion in a row.  In fact, this one is a brand new record of $1.65 trillion.  Someone needs to put the brakes on.  Especially since Obama’s idea of putting on the breaks is to have one deficit as low as $607 billion over the next ten years.  Bush held the previous deficit record at $458 billion for one of his 8 years in office.  Obama has dwarfed Bush’s entire deficit twice already and is on track to do it again.

Obama doesn’t even have a stimulus bill or healthcare law as an excuse this year.  This deficit is simply government spending beyond its means.

Republicans trimmed a tame $61 billion out of the budget, and Dems have labeled them as oppressive, murdering extortionists.  If the GOP doesn’t take drastic measures, by the time Obama leaves office it would take one year of every American paying 100% of every dollar they make in taxes just to cover his deficits.

Clinton managed to take credit for the results of the 1995 government shut down while demonizing Republicans for it.  The grass roots conservative movements who sent the GOP back in 2010 are ready for a shut down.  the question is if Republicans can speak louder than Obama and the media make sure credit is given where credit is due when it works.

Have you heard the one about Obama’s budget?

Democrats are saying Obama’s budget is strategic genius.  It avoids recommending any unpopular choices or dealing with any difficult topics so that Republicans will have to take those up and be hated by the masses for doing so.  That is the excuse for Obama skipping over any sort of entitlement reform.  Others are saying he is “establishing credibility with the voters” by writing some unpopular budget cuts into his plan so that he can negotiate with Republicans.

So now the President’s responsibility is reduced to a subtle way of taking partisan jabs at his political enemies?

It doesn’t seem that way to me.  It seems to me that Obama’s budget is much more like a bad joke or embarrassing bodily noise that one tries to avoid making in public.

Obama has come out now saying that his budget cuts the deficit and that we “can’t run up the credit card” anymore.  This is an odd claim since Obama’s budget actually runs up an additional $250 billion on the card this year, setting his deficit at a new record of $1.65 trillion.  And he doesn’t even have a stimulus bill to show for it.

The real joke is that Obama’s budget reduces the deficit to $607 billion after ten years.  Of course, Presidential budget projections ten years out are as on target as a superbowl prediction ten years out.  But even if Obama does cut the deficit to $607 billion it will still be over $100 billion higher than Bush’s worst deficit in 2008.

Don’t worry, Obama’s deficit doesn’t have a chance at getting as low as $607 billion.  Obama’s “tough choices” on budget cuts circumvent entitlements altogether, but he does have cuts to education funding and heating for the poor.  That’ll pass.

Obama also includes tax hikes that his own party wouldn’t pass.  This must be part of his genius strategy where he somehow hangs his deficit around the Republican’s neck.  Obama’s spending cuts and tax hikes will never pass.

A liberal friend of mine informed me that the President’s budget really doesn’t matter, what counts is what Congress does.  Apparently he was trying to make me feel better about the President’s embarrassing budget.  I’m fine with that.  Bush was crucified for his last two years in office for high budget deficits.  Nevermind that Obama dwarfed those deficits his first year in office (and again his second and now third year), does this mean we can now blame Pelosi/Reid for Bush’s budget deficits?  The last time Republicans controlled Congress they had a $248 billion deficit.  That is less than the increase in Obama’s $1.65 trillion deficit this year.

Obama is betting on his skills of manipulation and a willfully ignorant voting public.  He has offered a sham budget with hopes that Republicans will do his job for him so that he can blame them for failure or take credit himself for success.  Clinton did the same thing when Gingrich and co. shut down the government and balanced the budget.

Obama’s budget is a shameful joke.  Liberals love him for it because they see his partisan agenda.  Hopefully the majority of voters see it for what it is: a waste of Obama’s time and our tax dollars.

Gringrich and the Two Party Problem

Most know that I have the highest respect for Newt Gingrich.  In fact, if I had my way he would be President right now.  He is without a doubt a fellow Conservative Constitutionalist.  But I have a bone to pick with Newt.  Yesterday morning on C-Span, Newt reiterated the grand ole’ party’s new big tent strategy.  Specifically, he spoke about Republican Deidre Scozzafava in a special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district.

The issue is that Deidre makes most Democrats look conservative.  As Newt points out, she is an NRA member who has promised to vote against tax increases.  She has also promised to support John Boehner over Nancy Pelosi as House leader.  Phew, what a relief!

On the other hand, Deidre falls socially in line with John Kerry and Barack Obama, has ties to ACORN, and has been endorsed by the leftist Working Families Party.  She supports Obamacare and generally is similar in ideology to the Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins brand of the Republican Party.  In other words, she is a RINO.

So why would Newt support her over her conservative opponent Doug Hoffman?  Because Newt lives in a two party world.  In Newt’s world, it’s Republicans versus Democrats, not conservatives versus liberals.

You would think that as Newt recounted stories of Republican betrayal, he might begin to recognize a pattern.  He spoke about how he had raised a lot of money to get Arlen Specter re-elected, and then Specter switched parties.  Newt recognized that Democrats didn’t win in 2006 and 2008 on new ideas, Republicans were fired for not championing the conservative principles they were elected for.  Yet Newt still chooses to endorse the idea that you have to accept people who endorse infanticide, unconstitutional programs, and out of control spending as long as they have an (R) after their name.

This partisan understanding is how politics have been run for decades.  But what Newt and older Republicans don’t understand is that the up and coming generations identify themselves as conservative, liberal, progressive, moderate, centrist, constitutionalist, and socialist.  Most young voters identify with a party because it is closest to their unique ideology, or because it was the party of their parents.

Joe Lieberman should be a great lesson to conservatives.  Lieberman ran against a fellow Democrat and won because he represented the principles of the majority of people in Connecticut.  Because of it, he was able to keep Connecticut blue and keep Democrats in charge, but at the same time he was able to prevent the radical code pink wing of the party from claiming a major victory and setting the agenda.

Four years ago, I would not be writing this post.  We had seen Ross Perot rob Republicans twice in a row against Bill Clinton.  Most conservatives figured it would be better to have a liberal Republican in office than a liberal Democrat.  But when liberal Republicans began getting more liberal than Conservative Democrats, that theory went out the window. What we discovered was that the majority of conservatives could not vote for a pro-abortion, pro-big government, anti-constitution Republican.

When Republicans started acting like Democrats, conservative voters stopped voting.  When they moved the big tent to the left, it left the right out in the cold.  Newt thinks that conservatives will remain the minority so long as conservatives refuse to bite the bullet and vote for liberals with (R)’s after their name.  The fact is, as long as Republicans keep acting like Democrats, no one will be fooled by their party affiliation.

There is No Bill: Another Talking Point Identified

When the majority in Congress were preparing to market Cap and Trade, Newt Gingrich intercepted a Democrat marketing memo with specific talking points on how to beat the Right when it comes to passing Cap and Trade.  These points included accusing Republicans of wanting the status quo, going with the phrase “energy reform” over “Cap and Trade” and saying Cap and Trade will be the same as the price of a postage stamp a day.  One of my favorite quotes from the memo was this:

“While we will need quantitative data to
determine with precision whether offering
an alternative figure actually works to
combat the $3,000 (a year per family) number, it would be
useful if the entire progressive community agreed
on a cost figure—a unified message here would make it more credible.”

Democrats have their talking points when it comes to “insurance reform” as well.  They have recycled the “status quo” point, in conjunction with this idea that Republicans are the “party of ‘No'”; and Republicans apparently are selfish and want poor people to die without healthcare.  We are number 37 in the ranking of developed nations according to the now debunked World Health Organization study, and Democrats have milked that for all it is worth no matter how misleading.  Republicans only oppose health reform because Obama is black and conservatives are all racists.  Nevermind the Kenneth Gladney incident, or that the man who showed up to an Obama rally with an AR15 slung over his shoulder was also black.

The Right is spreading misinformation.  Obama doesn’t want to put abortion funding in the bill.  Nevermind that every amendment that prohibits it has been voted down on party lines.  The Right is organized by Rush Limbaugh and paid by insurance companies.  Nevermind that the only people being paid to show up at rallies are Democrats.

Well, there is a new talking point to be aware of.  As Obamacare continues to fail on its merits when presented to the American people, today on Meet the Press New York Democrat Chuck Schumer said that there is no bill.  Newly converted Democrat Arlen Specter said the same thing on Foxnews Sunday while trying to defend the Democrat health plan.  There is no bill yet.  It is the new standard response to any criticism.

Nevermind HR3200.  That is just one of three potential House bills, according to Corrine Brown who came out of hiding to take phone calls at the WOKV studio in Jacksonville, FL last week.  She used the exact same line when defending HR3200.  It appears that in order to save healthcare, Democrats need to get it back out of the public eye and find a way to somehow invalidate the scrutiny.  Democrats plan to use “reconciliation”, a new rule designed to quickly pass measures that will fix the budget and reduce deficit spending, to sneak this bill through.  But even this slight of hand will be easily noticed without deflection.

So when they say there is no bill, does that mean we should calm down and wait for them to produce one?  Is it really true that we have jumped the gun in our protests?  The issue is not the one bill.  The issue is the policy.  Democrats have shown through their speeches, their votes, and their actions what they desire.  If it takes earmarks, piecemeal bills, 300 page additions to unrelated bills at midnight the day before a vote, or the reconciliation process, we know what they want our health system to look like.  They want a public option, they want near impossible regulation on private industry that will lead to single-payer, they want public funding for abortion, by necessity they need rationing, they need behavior modifying taxes such as the soda tax, and they need higher income taxes across the board.  They have also made it clear that they will pass Obamacare with our without Republicans, even if it means bending the rules to pass it with just 51 votes in the Senate.

Don’t be fooled by this new talking point.  They may not have a piece of paper with Pelosi, Reid and Obama’s signatures on it yet, but we have no doubts as to what will be on that paper when they do if we are not vigilant.

Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share