Counterculture Con HQ

July 21, 2010

Broken Promises: Obama Administration OKs First Tax-Funded Abortions Under Health Care Law

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new “high-risk” insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.  It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

“The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we’ve discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.Johnson told LifeNews.com: “This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama’s assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion — but it will not be the last.”

“President Obama successfully opposed including language in the bill to prevent federal subsidies for abortions, and now the Administration is quietly advancing its abortion-expanding agenda through administrative decisions such as this, which they hope will escape broad public attention,” Johnson said.

The abortion funding comes despite language in the bill that some pro-abortion Democrats and Obama himself claimed would prevent abortion funding and despite a controversial executive order Obama signed supposedly stopping abortion funding.

The pro-life community strongly opposed the executive order and said Rep. Bart Stupak and other House Democrats who voted for the pro-abortion health care bill in exchange for it were selling out their pro-life principles. This first case of forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions under the new law appears to prove them right that the bill language and executive order were ineffective.

The proposal specifies coverage “includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of” several specific statutes, the most pertinent of which is 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204, which says abortion is legal in Pennsylvania. The statute essentially says all abortions except those to determine the sex of the baby are legal.”Under the Rendell-Sebelius plan, federal funds will subsidize coverage of abortion performed for any reason, except sex selection,” said NRLC’s Johnson. “The Pennsylvania proposal conspicuously lacks language that would prevent funding of abortions performed as a method of birth control or for any other reason, except sex selection — and the Obama Administration has now approved this.”

Source

May 4, 2010

Mayor Bloomberg: Times Square Terrorist Possibly a Teabagger

New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, implies the failed Times Square car bomber may be someone with a “political agenda”… Possibly a [gulp] Teabagger!

“If I had to guess, twenty five cents, this would be exactly that,” Bloomberg said. “Homegrown maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.”…

In just over a year since Obama won the election, dissent has gone from patriotic, to racist, to downright terroristic.

Notice how quick they are to “jump to conclusions” and demonize a whole group of people when those conclusions and demonization might be politically convenient to them. Which makes you wonder: why is jumping to conclusions about Islamic terrorism so politically INconvenient to the Left?  Hmmm.  The answer, in short, is the Left’s multicultural project.  It must be protected at all costs.

Meanwhile, the SUV in which the bomb was rigged has been traced to a naturalized American from Pakistan.

The person is a naturalized American citizen who was in Pakistan for several months and returned to the United States recently, investigative sources told Fox News, though the person’s identity has not been made public.   The latest developments come as a senior administration official confirmed earlier to Fox News that investigators have begun to suspect the failed attack was the work of an international plot.

[…]

March 25, 2010

Democrats Report Threats of Violence

This very well may be true, and there’s virtually no chance of proving it’s not, so there’s no use waiting on it.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is warning that some of his Democratic colleagues are being threatened with violence when they go back to their districts — and he wants Republicans to stand up and condemn the threats.

The Maryland Democrat said more than 10 House Democrats have reported incidents of threats or other forms of harassment about their support of the highly divisive health insurance overhaul vote. Hoyer emphasized that he didn’t have a specific number of threats and that was just an estimate.

Hoyer hinted that Republicans should do more to condemn these threats of violence.

“I would hope that we would join together jointly and make it very clear that none of us condone this kind of activity,” Hoyer told reporters. “And when we see it, we speak out strongly in opposition to it. And I would hope that we would do that going forward.”

But Minority Leader John Boehner already has condemned threats of violence — and sought to explain why people are so angry.

“I know many Americans are angry over this health care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren’t listening,” Boehner said. “But, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard — but let’s do it the right way.”

A Republican aide also pointed out that over the years Republican members of Congress received their fair share of death threats during volatile times. Newt Gingrich after the 1994 Republican revolution and the late Henry Hyde during the Clinton impeachment in 1998 both received numerous death threats. And just last month, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) received death threats after his filibuster of unemployment benefits, according to a report in Roll Call.

[…]

We still have free elections in this country, and until the day that is no longer true, even the threat of violence is simply inexcusable.  Knock it off you freakin morons.  You’re pathetic.

Having said that, gentle readers, don’t buy into their “violent Right” meme.  They do this too.  It’s just not going to get as much media play.  Not by a long shot.

December 31, 2009

APOSTATES

Nobody is hated more than an apostate to the Faith.  Someone who turns their back on his old way of thinking and walks away.  Because nobody has a keener insight on the inner workings of the machine against which they have turned, and few are more effective spokespersons against it.  That is what makes an apostate so dangerous, and so hated.

If you’ve ever wondered why the Left singles out conservative women and minorities for such ferocious attack, it’s because they too are considered a type of apostate from the Liberal faith that claims to represent them.  Women and people of color of this type are feared and despised by the Left because they threaten the Left’s monopoloy on this demographic, without which they would cease to exist as a political force.  Without this solid monopoly, particularly of people of color, the Left goes the way of the Dodo.  So they guard it jealously.  As a person of color, and an ex-Liberal, I am the Left’s worst nightmare.  I am an apostate twice over.  Personally, I can’t tell you how delightful it is to be able to say the things on my mind without fear of some insipid white Liberal telling me what speech codes I’ve just violated or thought crimes I’ve committed.  Because as a “person of color,” I am not afflicted by that disease known as “white guilt.”  It’s why the Left hates folks like me so much.  They can’t control me because I am immune to the virus of white guilt that so many of you are infected with–that mental virus they use to control you.

David Horowitz, a former communist, and Pat Caddell, whom I still consider an old school Democrat, are also despised by the far Left as apostates; here spilling the beans on the inside workings of the machine:

Thank You: Vlad Tepes

December 22, 2009

Reason #358 Why Never to Vote Democrat Again

And now a word from the “non-partisan” Rock The Vote:

Sometimes the lameness actually makes you feel embarrassed for them.

Another quick peak into the secular progressive mind, gentle readers. These are golden.

December 5, 2009

Capitalism is Ammoral

No, not immoral. Capitalism, like money, like a hammer or a car, is ammoral. It has no morality, neither good, nor bad.  It’s a tool, nothing more.  And like any tool, it can be used for good, or not so much good.

Human beings are by nature driven primarily by self-interest.  Even greed.  That’s a fact of life.  An immutable rule.  If this were not the case, our holy scriptures and religious texts would not preoccupy themselves so much with condemning greed, and teaching selflessness.  We struggle to overcome greed and self-interest, but it will always be part of our genetic code.

And although capitalism has no morality, it works.  And it works precisely because it harnesses our inherent self-interest and greed, and produces a benefit out of it.  A great benefit.  As in ‘prosperity the likes of which has never been seen in human history’ benefit.  And that is certainly true in the case of our healthcare system.

I have been reluctant to insert myself into this debate because I see the pros and cons to both arguments, and I’m too ignorant on the specifics.  I always tilt towards capitalism and away from statism, but I am also concerned about the uninsured.  Yet Jon Stossel is just too good to ignore here.  He’s always amazing.

Now, as good judeo-christians, we are ever mindful of those who go without.  And we do want to help cover those currently without healthcare.  But is the DESTRUCTION of our current healthcare system the way to do it?  Or does it call for REFORM.  There is a difference.