But the Heritage Foundation came up with a better life for “Julia” where she does not have to be dependant upon the gov’t her entire life: A Better Life for Julia
President Obama’s team introduced the “Life of Julia,” a portrayal of a liberal vision of life for one woman. Our version shows how conservative policies, like the ones outlined in Heritage’s Saving the American Dream plan, can empower Julia and all Americans without government interference at every stage of life.
Sean Penn had a bad case of verbal diarrhea recently. Zo parses through Sean Penn’s meandering musings and tells you why Penn is not only wrong, but intolerant. Hear more.
find out Where in your City on March 23rd There will be a Rally
Public Has 90 Days to Comment on Mandate for Abortion-Causing Drugs
by Karla Dial
The Obama administration on Friday released an advance notice of the public rule requiring all employers to provide insurance that covers drugs that could cause early abortions, inviting public comment for the next 90 days.
But according to experts who’ve analyzed the fine print, the administration only seems to be asking for help in balancing its priority — free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacient drugs for all women — with the religious freedoms of employers.
The 32-page notice asks the public for input on which, if any, organizations should be exempt from the mandate. “What entities should be eligible for the new accommodation (that is, what is a ‘religious organization’)?” it asks.
Moreover, should religious employers be allowed to object to providing some forms of “contraception,” but not others?
“This is an administration that pushed through ObamaCare despite the fact that there was overwhelming disapproval of the bill, said Sabrina Schaeffer, executive director of the Independent Women’s Forum. “This appears in some ways to be some backpedaling. It’s unclear whether it’s their way of appeasing people or demonstrating they’re listening, when they have no intention of making any changes — which is my perception of the way this administration actually works.”
Friday’s notice refers several times to free “contraceptives” — some of which cost as little as $9 a month — but that’s not all employers or insurance companies will be forced to provide for “free” once the mandate takes effect. Sterilization surgeries also would be provided — and according to Planned Parenthood, those can run anywhere from $1,500 to $6,000 apiece.
“Benefits like this cost a tremendous amount,” Schaeffer said. “They will cost women and their families. And then there are all the moral objections people have. It’s frustrating because (the administration keeps) coming back to this ‘many women use birth control’ argument. But the contraception mandate is as much about birth control as the American Revolution was about tea. This is about the basic separation of church and state, and that’s sadly being overlooked in all this.”
What the notice really indicates, said Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, is that by suggesting alternative ways to pay for the mandate, the administration is quietly admitting its idea has failed.
“But the religious organizations would still be required to make sure all of their employees have access to the offending coverage,” she wrote in National Review Online on Saturday. “So nothing has changed.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Read an open letter to the Obama administration, signed by more than 20,000 women.
This spring 39 young women, each signifying a year marked by Roe v. Wade will walk over 250 miles from the nations largest abortion clinic in Houston, Texas back to the Dallas court house where it all began to call our nation Back to Life.
Let me ask you a question: what if your President, your Senator and your Congressman knew it was coming? What if they knew when it was going to happen, why it was going to happen and more importantly, what if they knew what they needed to do to stop it from happening and they had the time to stop it? But they chose to do nothing about it, because it wasn’t good politics?
What would you think of that person? It would be immoral.
Budget Crisis Rhetoric By Thomas Sowell
Government budget crises can be painful, but the political rhetoric accompanying these crises can also be fascinating and revealing. Perhaps the most famous American budget crisis was New York City’s, back during the 1970s. When President Gerald Ford was unwilling to bail them out, the famous headline in the New York Daily News read, “Ford to City: Drop Dead.”
President Ford caved and bailed them out, after all.
The rhetoric worked. That is why so many other cities and states– not to mention the federal government– have continued on with irresponsible spending, and are now facing new budget crises, with no end in sight.
What would have happened if President Ford had stuck to his guns and not set the dangerous precedent of bailing out local irresponsibility with the taxpayers’ money?
New York would have gone bankrupt. But millions of individuals and organizations go bankrupt without dropping dead.
Bankruptcy conveys the plain facts that political rhetoric tries to conceal. It tells people who depended on the bankrupt government that they can no longer depend on that bankrupt government. It tells the voters who elected that bankrupt government, with its big spending promises, that they made a bad mistake that they would be wise to avoid making again in the future.
Legally, bankruptcy wipes out commitments made to public sector unions, whose extravagant pay and pension contracts are bleeding municipal and state governments dry.
Is putting an end to political irresponsibility and legalized union racketeering dropping dead?
Politics being what it is, we are sure to hear all sorts of doomsday rhetoric at the thought of cutbacks in government spending. The poor will be starving in the streets, to hear the politicians and the media tell it.
But the amount of money it would take to keep the poor from starving in the streets is chump change compared to how much it would take to keep on feeding unions, subsidized businesses and other special interests who are robbing the taxpayers blind.
Letting armies of government employees retire in their fifties, to live for decades on pensions larger than they were making when they were working, costs a lot more than keeping the poor from starving in the streets.
Pouring the taxpayers’ money down a thousand bottomless pits of public and private boondoggles costs a lot more than keeping the poor from starving in the streets.
Bankruptcy says: “We just don’t have the money.” End of discussion. Bailouts say: “Give the taxpayers a little rhetoric, and a little smoke and mirrors with the book-keeping, and we can keep the party rolling.”
One of the political games that is played during a budget crisis is to cut back on essential services like police departments and fire departments, in order to blackmail the public into accepting higher tax rates. Often, a lot more money could be saved by getting rid of runaway pension contracts with public sector unions.
Bankruptcy can do that. Bailouts cannot.
What the public needs are current policemen and current firemen, not retired policemen and retired firemen, much less bureaucrats retired on inflated pensions.
The political temptation to create extravagant pensions is always there, not only at state and local levels, or at the federal level, but in countries around the world. Why? Because pensions are benefits that can be promised for the future, without raising the money to pay for them.
Politicians get the votes of those to whom pensions are promised, without losing the votes of taxpayers– and they leave it up to future government officials to figure out what to do when the money is just not there. It is a sure-fire guarantee of political irresponsibility.
All of this works politically only so long as the voting public accepts budget crisis rhetoric at face value, without bothering to stop and think about what it means and implies.
I think they should change their name to Planned STD or Planned Infanticide as they certainly are not preparing people to be parents.
The following video contains graphic photos, drawings and video and may not be appropriate for many audiences. In other words DO NOT LET KIDS WATCH THIS!
“Planned Parenthood shows this smut to children and is awarded with more taxpayer money and the ability to determine the efficacy of its sex indoctrination, so it can get even more taxpayer money,” Hichborn argues. “It is time to stop this madness!”
Contrast the above with the beauty of healthy marriage and all we want to teach our children about purity and sex out of love and you have to wonder A) how Christians vote democrat (since they are planned parenthoods supporters) and B) How people in general can bash conservatives so.
Support the Frederick Douglass Foundation today and help protect our children!
http://www.fdfny.org
Attend the 4th Annual Leadership Summit and find out how to be more effective. For 2 days you will experience workshops, network and fellowship with like minded folks. You will be Equipped Encouraged and Empowered to make changes in your State, City and neighborhoods
2012 Contest: WIN FREE TAXES – Good in all 50 States!
Tom’s Tax Express is giving US Residence a chance to have their Taxes done for free or other prizes. All you have to do is create a 30-second commercial about Tom’s Tax Express. The most creative entries will win various discounts & prizes with one GRAND PRIZE WINNER who will receive their Taxes done for FREE for one year and the next year receive 50% off our Tax Prep fees. http://www.tomstax.com/info_center.html
”The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest
Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.” — Cicero , 55 BC
___________________________________________________________
Romney Reverses Position on Iraq
By Jonathan Chait
Facebook
Twitter
ShareThis Counter
Email
You people don’t care about Iraq any more, do you? Didn’t think so.
In an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd today,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/45750840#45750840 Mitt Romney asserts that “of course” invading Iraq was a bad idea now that we know Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. (“If we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction, if somehow we had been given that information, obviously we would not have gone in.”) Four years ago, Romney said just the opposite. (“It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported it at the time; I support it now.”)
I can’t think of any important substantive facts that have changed between now and then that would lead Romney to alter his opinion. Indeed, Iraq is probably more stable than it was, and it’s now easier to justify invading on non-WMD grounds than it was before.
What’s changed is that Iraq is no longer so central to the Republican id. Four years ago, a Republican had to defend the Iraq war in order to defend George W. Bush. To conclude that the invasion was a mistake would be to indict Bush of a massive blunder, to subvert the commander of the War on Terror, to give in to the liberals. The importance of the issue has now receded to the point where Romney can casually take the completely opposite position without antagonizing any significant part of his coalition.
The thing I’ve always found endearing and (to some degree) comforting about Mitt Romney is that his flip-flops betray pure contempt for the Republican base. He treats them like angry children, and their pet issues as emotionally driven symbols of cultural division rather than as serious positions. Four years ago, conservatives were enraged that liberals would question Bush’s handling of foreign policy, so Romney was defending the decision to go to war and promising to “double Guantanamo.” (It made zero sense as a policy position and could be understood only as an expression of culture-war solidarity.) Likewise, conservatives are now outraged over Obamacare, so Romney promises to repeal Obamacare.
Nothing about Romney’s attempts to ingratiate himself with the right hint even slightly of genuine conversion. It is patronizing appeasement. Of course, none of this tells us the really crucial thing, which is what promises Romney would actually keep if elected. But at least it offers the modest comfort that Romney knows better.
