Obama as Hitler

[chefdennis]

Obama as Hitler

Kevin McCullough
Sunday, March 01, 2009
http://townhall.com/columnists/Kevin...bama_as_hitler

This week in a bold move the President broke a barrier that his supporters should be quite concerned about. For in doing so he has broken a barrier that should always be seen as sacred. However, this will likely be marginalized by the leftist media that offers it’s blind support regardless of any mastery of facts.

Case and point... Rachel Maddow.

She is MSNBC's less funny and perhaps more butch version of Keith Olbermann. And on this past Friday night she did an entire "bit" on anyone who would compare Obama's policies to socialism as "not very serious people." Of course people seeing the “bit” were a good deal uncertain of Maddow as she herself kept interchanging the terms socialist and communist. But liberals often are confused by facts and frequently either do not understand what they are discussing, or discuss it purposefully with deception. Whatever the case Maddow thought herself witty.

We're supposed to believe her because... ...well... ...she said it. It does not matter to Maddow if President Obama’s policies are in substance moving us towards centralized control where the Government becomes the caretaker/nanny and the individual is lulled into mind-numbing moronic infancy suckling off the government's “all-sufficient” teet.

But if she got that worked up over a few people calling Obama’s socialist policies by name, imagine what she will say about the title of this column?
And yet simply because Maddow, and others who defend their loyalty to Obama in irrational ways, still contend that he produces nothing but rainbows, ponies, and butterflies, doesn't mean we shouldn't compare what Obama is doing with others in history who have already tried those policies.

Which brings us to this point: This week President Obama exercised for the first time a policy decision that shares a trait held in common with Adolf Hitler.

The headline was leaked late in the Friday afternoon news cycle so that as few people as possible would pay attention, but here's the crux of a very real problem: President Obama is moving policy on public health into the direction of doctors being forced to act against their conscience. (For liberals educated in public schools, a conscience is that little voice inside you that used to inform you as to what was right or wrong.)

President Obama wants them performing abortions, whether they believe it to be an immoral thing or not. And while the comparisons to Hitler are made either on eugenist or racist grounds--but you cannot escape the impact.

In the 1930's and 40's as Hitler wished to use his captive “lesser-humans” for "experiments" in his final solution. He too forced doctors to do things they did not wish to do. Everything from injecting living humans with horrible chemicals to see the effect, to trying differing grades of poisonous gases in what eventually became death chambers. These doctors, who were purveyors of those things that helped save lives, were suddenly forced to use the medical knowledge they had of death--to end them.

In today’s scenario Obama wants doctors to exterminate “lesser humans” for the purpose of immediate solutions to his social experiment. And he wishes them to do so regardless of whether or not they are compelled by the higher call of morality on an individual basis.

Put another way Obama's policy shift would be the equivalent of forcing those who believed slavery to be immoral and never even owned slaves, to begin purchasing them, beating them, raping them, and exploiting them.

This policy shift that Obama has attempted to slide under the radar screen is grossly immoral, and doctors should disobey it and run a medical mutiny against the administration if it becomes law.

The President did this, as he has done most things since coming to power as a pure, pragmatic, political move to pay off the campaign favors of those special interest groups he railed against during his campaign. In this case the abortion industry which is increasingly under attack from the next generation who understand the taking of innocent life to be horrific.

As to all the comparisons that the left made in 8 years of the previous administration, they never once had such a clear comparison that so vividly laid out the exact parallel between the dictator who thought it moral to gas people in chambers, and now a President who believes that live babies should be left to starve in soiled utility closets of hospitals, even if it violates the voice of God telling the doctor to do otherwise.

This stroke of the policy pen, moves the administration into its first conflict with the first amendment right of religious belief and expression, and he should be penalized for it quickly.

Friday, Ms. Maddow, President Obama took a demonstrable step in the shoes, actions, and example of Adolf Hitler.

What have you to say about that?

 

[layoutshooter]

This is just the beginning of this stuff. Hitler was real big on gun control too. Those of us who do not believe in killing un-born babies are going to be given the choice of paying for them or jail. Freedom at it's best. You get what you pay for, you hired a disgusting man you got him!!! Don't blame me for this. Any of you Obama Bums started turning in your neighbors for owning guns yet or that bad bad doctor that really believes in the words cause no harm? It is only a matter of time until the snitching starts. Layoutshooter

 

[Jack_Berry]

don't be an a,s,s!

hitler was responsible for the death camps and 6 million dead jews. you demean yourself when you re-print ravings like this one.

your candidate of choice lost. give it up.

 

[chefdennis]

don't be an A.s.s? Obama is removing a law that protects Doctors and nurse from not performing procedures that are against their religious and moral beliefs, just as hitler did.. so as the original author stated it, "doesn't mean we shouldn't compare what Obama is doing with others in history"

In this case, the historical comparison seems right on. Hilter Forced doctors to do things they objected to, Barry will now do the same thing....

As for my "candidate of choice" losing, ahhh my candidate wasn't on the ballot, i wrote him in, it was a forgone conclusion that he wasn't going to win.....but i vote for the person i felt best represented how this country is suppose to be governed, not the popular thing to do and what the Welfare entitlement group would ever do.....

 

[mjolnir131]

don't be an a,s,s!

hitler was responsible for the death camps and 6 million dead jews. you demean yourself when you re-print ravings like this one.

your candidate of choice lost. give it up.

Instead of jumping to the extrema comparison of the final solution why not look at the small incremental steps that lead to Hitler being able to do that.That is how I read the OP as stop and look, is it starting to happen again?just like the world vowed they would not let happen again? That is the OP's original summation not the killing off of millions of people, yet anyways.

 

[Turtle]

don't be an A.s.s? Obama is removing a law that protects Doctors and nurse from not performing procedures that are against their religious and moral beliefs, just as hitler did

And you believe that load of crap? Wow.

Show me the link to the law that he's changed, or to the Executive Order where it removes the law that forces doctors and nurses to perform procedures that are against their religious and moral beliefs. You can't, and I know you can't, because there isn't one.

Health care workers, and others, have had their religious and moral beliefs protected through Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 since, well, 1964. Duh.

This is all about a last-minute Bush Executive Order that he signed in his last days in office. It's not some long-standing law that requires people to just go nuts about the prospect of having it overturned. This is an Executive Order that was immediately challenged in court by several states, insurance and medical organizations. Bush's Order was badly written and was an attempt to complicate the simple. Basically, it says that recipients of federal money are prevented from discriminating against health care workers who refuse to perform or assist in abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” That's all well and good, particularly since the Civil Rights Act says the same exact thing.

The problem is, that's all of Bush's Order that people read, or talk about, but it's far more than that. His order extended blanket protections to some institutions that didn't accept federal funds, but it also included anyone in the entire chain of medicine, including allowing a retail clerk to refuse to sell condoms or fill prescriptions for other contraceptives, not to mention it instantly voided many state laws that required insurance plans to cover contraceptives and requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims it the victim requested it. And there's a lot more to Bush's Executive Order, like institutions having to prove, on a regular basis by a certification process, that they comply with the rules that allow workers to follow their moral conscience, before they can get federal assistance.

The above article is one of the finest example of a gross baѕtardίzatίon of literary license that I've ever seen. Mostly it's just a buch of going off the deep end over shίt that he's making up as he goes along. Hitler, slavery? Puhleeze.

The only thing that was "leaked" during the late Friday afternoon newsflow was that Obama was reviewing the Executive Order. That's it. He's reviewing it. But in the above article it miraculously went from a review to the stroke of a pen, and somehow went through eugenics and slavery all in one whack. That's some kind of impressive literary license. Of course, it helps when you're writing on a Blog and don't have to answer to an editor about pesky things like facts and stuff.

One stoke of the pen? Nope. Nothing's beeen changed. It will be announced later this week, and then opened up for the customary 30 day comment period.

Forcing doctors to perform abortions? Nope. Like I said, federal law has for a long time protected health care workers against being forced to perform any procedure that is in conflict with their religious or moral beliefs.

Congrats, you've once again been mentally manipulated. Duped into believing pure fiction.

(What Bush's Executive Order should have said is that no one can receive federal funds if they are to be used in any way, shape or form, either directly or indirectly, for abortions, but that's another issue.)

 

[chefdennis]

You are exactly right, Barry is REVIEWING the bushes EXC order, and if you think Barry won't force this on these professionals I think you need to take a bigger look at Barrys abortion stance, he is all for killing even those that live through an abortion by simply just letting them lay in a heap and die, because savung them would be against the mothers original intent, to bad...and here is another article on the matter.

Obama ‘Review’ Likely to Reverse Bush ‘Conscience’ Protections for Doctors, Health Workers

Friday, February 27, 2009
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor
CNSNews.com - Obama ?Review? Likely to Reverse Bush ?Conscience? Protections for Doctors, Health Workers


The Obama administration announced Friday that it is “reviewing” the conscience clause that was implemented in the last months of the Bush administration – the first step toward rescinding the rule altogether.

The Health and Human Services regulation reinforces the right of health care workers to refuse to provide abortion and contraception if it violates their conscience or moral precepts.

The new administration’s move came at the request of several groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which last fall called on Obama to rescind the regulation when he took office. The ACOG did not speak to CNSNews.com before press time.

But at the time the rule was announced, the organization said: “This HHS regulation places patients' rights directly behind the rights of ideologically driven physicians and anyone else directly or indirectly involved in their health care.”

Judie Brown, president of the pro-life American Life League, said the move was outrageous.

“It’s frightening, and it should be frightening to people of all stripes.” Brown said.

But both pro-lifers and abortion rights groups knew it was just a matter of time until Obama came through on his promises to the pro-abortion movement.

“It’s not surprising to anybody who is familiar with Obama’s basic philosophy,” Brown told CNSNews.com. He doesn’t want anything to stand in the way of child-killing, including a person’s right under the law to say, ‘No, I will not do that because it is unethical.’”

The new president, she said, has already rescinded the Mexico City Policy, which had kept federal taxpayers from subsidizing abortions internationally.

“Therefore, he will do this, in an effort to force people, especially Christians, into the untenable position of either having to provide an abortion, or get out of their profession,” Brown said. “This is just the next step. “

Susan Muskett, senior legislative counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, agreed the move was expected.

“This is just the next step in the expansive Obama abortion agenda we had foreseen coming down the road,” Muskett told CNSNews.com.

But Muskett said that the Department of Health and Human Services is being disingenuous by saying that there is a 30-day public comment period before the provision is scrapped.

“Last fall, the federal government spent four months gathering comments in its rule-making to protect the conscience rights of doctors and health care providers,” she told CNSNews.com. “It’s just a pretext for the administration now to assert that more comments need to be gathered with regard to this rule making.”

Jonathan Imbody of the Christian Medical and Dental Association told CNSNews.com that 40 percent of his group’s doctors have been pressured to compromise their ethical stands – and without conscience-protection, face the loss of professional certification if they don’t provide referrals to abortion-providers – or face being pressured out of the profession.

One OB/GYN, Dr. Vicki L. Duncan, who testified last fall, said she was pressured by her insurance provider to provide artificial insemination for a lesbian couple, or lose her coverage.

"I contacted my malpractice carrier for legal advice, and was told that if I refused for them, but did so for a married, heterosexual couple, I would likely be sued, and they would not provide coverage. It also extended to a non-married couple. That was when I decided to no longer perform intrauterine inseminations,” Duncan said.

Brown is calling on pro-life lawmakers to take a stand.

“One would hope that the so-called pro-life members of Congress would stand up and find this totally unacceptable, and take whatever action is necessary to propose a new law that is veto proof, but that’s not going to happen, because we don’t have that kind of strength – or courage – in the Congress at this time,” Brown said.

“Just based on logic and with a right-thinking mind, even pro-abortion people should be horrified because, what’s next? Are they doing to say there is no conscience protection for those wanting to object to going to war?”

 

[chefdennis]

And from the Washington Post a more MSM for you :

Health Workers' 'Conscience' Rule Set to Be Voided

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 28, 2009; Page A01
washingtonpost.com

The Obama administration's move to rescind broad new job protections for health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable triggered an immediate political storm yesterday, underscoring the difficulties the president faces in his effort to find common ground on anything related to the explosive issue of abortion.

The administration's plans, revealed quietly with a terse posting on a federal Web site, unleashed a flood of heated reaction, with supporters praising the proposal as a crucial victory for women's health and reproductive rights, and opponents condemning it as a devastating setback for freedom of religion.

Perhaps most tellingly, the move drew deep disappointment from some conservatives who have been hopeful about working with the administration to try to defuse the debate on abortion, long one of the most divisive political issues.

"This is going to be a political hit for the administration," said Joel Hunter, senior pastor of the Northland Church in Longwood, Fla., whom Obama recently named to his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. "This will be one of those things that kind of says, 'I knew it. They talk about common ground, but really what they want is their own way.' "

Administration officials stressed that the proposal will be subject to 30 days of public comment, which could result in a compromise. They said they remain committed to seeking a middle ground but acknowledged that will not always be possible.

"We recognize we are not going to be able to agree on every issue," said an administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the process has just begun. "But there remains a substantive area of common ground, and we continue to believe we can make progress and will make progress."

The announcement capped a week when anger among conservatives was already running high because of the ambitious progressive agenda outlined in the administration's proposed $3.6 trillion budget.


The debate centers on a Bush administration regulation, enacted in December, that cuts off federal funding for thousands of state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities if they do not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

The rule was sought by conservative groups that argued that workers were increasingly being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways for trying to exercise their "right of conscience."

Women's health advocates, family-planning proponents, abortion rights activists and others condemned the regulation, saying it created a major obstacle to providing many health services, including family planning and infertility treatment, and possibly a wide range of scientific research. After reviewing the regulation, newly appointed officials at the Health and Human Services Department agreed.

"We've been concerned that the way the Bush rule is written, it could make it harder for women to get the care they need," said an HHS official who spoke on the condition of anonymity for the same reason. "It is worded so vaguely that some have argued it could limit family-planning counseling and even potentially blood transfusions and end-of-life care."

An array of family-planning groups and others praised the move.

"The Obama administration is taking the right step forward to rescind this misguided rule," said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who has introduced legislation to overturn the regulation.

But the Family Research Council, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and others condemned it.

"It is open season to again discriminate against health-care professionals," said David Stevens, head of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. "Our Founding Fathers, who bled and died to guarantee our religious freedom, are turning over in their graves."

The announcement -- which follows an administration decision to lift restrictions on federal funding of international family-planning groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information -- was also disappointing to some who have been working more closely with the administration on reducing the number of abortions.

"I think what was in place was as good as one could find in terms of seeking and securing common ground," said the Rev. Frank Page, the immediate past president of the Southern Baptist Convention and another member of Obama's faith council. "It's a matter of respect. I felt like what was in place was that middle ground of common respect."

Administration officials stressed that the president remains committed to protecting the rights of health-care workers who do not want to participate in abortions; such rights have been guaranteed for decades by several federal laws.

"We recognize and understand that some providers have objections to providing abortions. We want to ensure that current law protects them," the HHS official said. "But the Bush rule goes beyond current law and seems to have upset the balance."

The administration is open to a new rule that would be more focused on abortion, the official said, adding, "We believe that this is a complex issue that requires a thoughtful process where all voices are heard."

Some predicted that the administration will produce a narrower regulation that protects workers who object to abortion but ensures access to other types of care.

"If the president kept in place the conscience clause in regard to abortion but reversed it in regard to birth control, most Americans would agree that's common ground," said Rachel Laser of the group Third Way, which is working to find compromise approaches to a number of contentious issues.


But Page noted that some health-care workers consider certain forms of birth control, such as the morning-after emergency contraception pill, to be the moral equivalent of abortion.

"If they choose not to be part of the distribution of that, that should be their conscience and their right," Page said.

While some family-planning groups acknowledged privately that they might consider a compromise, others said they are doubtful that any regulation is needed.

"Our general feeling is this was an area that does not cry out for further clarification," said Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center. "I would be skeptical."

 

[chefdennis]

Obama Set to Undo ‘Conscience’ Rule for Health Workers

DAVID STOUT
Published: February 27, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/politics/28web-abort.html?_r=1&hp

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration moved on Friday to undo a last-minute Bush administration rule granting broad protections to health workers who refuse to take part in abortions or provide other health care that goes against their consciences.

Skip to next paragraph
Blog

The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

More Politics News
The Department of Health and Human Services served notice on Friday, through a message to the White House Office of Management and Budget, that it intends to rescind the regulation, which was originally announced on Dec. 19, 2008, and took effect on the day President Obama took office.

When the administration publishes official notice of its intent, probably next week, a 30-day period for public comment will begin, after which the regulation can be repealed or modified.

It has been known for weeks that President Obama intended to review the rule and other last-minute regulatory actions once he took office, so the notice on Friday beginning the process was not a surprise. Even so, considerable emotion surrounds the issue, as illustrated by the shorthand used to describe the Dec. 19 rule. Its supporters called it the “provider conscience regulation,” while the Planned Parenthood Federation of America disdained it as a “midnight regulation.”

The rule prohibits recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or assist in abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” Its supporters included the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.

In praising the Bush administration last fall, Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, said that in recent years “we have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations.”

But opponents of the regulation, including the American Medical Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and Planned Parenthood, said it could have voided state laws requiring insurance plans to cover contraceptives and requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims. It could also allow drugstore employees to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, critics of the regulation have said.

Moreover, opponents of the regulation have said, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already offers broad protection against discrimination based on religion, spelling out that an employer must make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s practices and beliefs.

“Today’s action by the Obama administration demonstrates that this president is not going to stand by and let women’s health be placed in jeopardy,” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, said on Friday.

Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and several states filed legal challenges against the Dec. 19 regulation. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who sued in federal court on behalf of his state and several others, issued a statement on Friday saying that his suit would remain in effect until the rule is “finally and safely stopped.”

“Dismantling this dangerous rule is a historic step toward preserving profoundly significant health care rights for women, and vital constitutional rights for all,” Mr. Blumenthal said.

Reaction to the move on Friday made it clear that the issue remains an emotional one. “We are encouraged by the Obama administration’s recent effort towards ensuring that patients have the ability to access necessary, widely used and accepted medical services,” said Mary Jane Gallagher, president and chief executive of the National Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

But Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican minority leader in the House, said, “This is the third action taken by Washington Democrats in the past 38 days to weaken American rules that are meant to safeguard the sanctity of human life.”

I can post a few more also, but I guess these people and those quoted in these articles are just idiots and have no clue, only the Turtle knows what this is about ... the rest are just stupid.

As far as the 30 day "comment period", lol thats joke and as for Barry saying he underestands that some doctors have an issue with performomg abotions and he respects that, yea just like he respected the Repblicans when he told them, "I won"...... as was said in that article, this is just one more step towards his abortion agenda......

 

[Turtle]

I can post a few more also, but I guess these people and those quoted in these articles are just idiots and have no clue, only the Turtle knows what this is about ... the rest are just stupid.

Correct.

They all have an agenda, I don't. And, incidentally, I've read each of those articles, and a few others, long before you posted them (although, a simple link would have been fine).

Rather than let others tell me what to think and what things mean, I'll go and actually read things like executive orders and find out what they really mean, instead of letting someone with an agenda summarize and distill it for me. Bush's Order was a last minute, badly written attempt at decreasing the abortion rate, which is a good thing, but it was wrapped up in unintended consequences. For the Pro Lifers, that's just the way it goes, they don't care, whatever they can get that is anti-abortion, they'll take, dаmn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

When articles state, "The rule prohibits recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or assist in abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions,” that's the hot button issue, that's what gets people all worked up and frothy, that's what sells advertising space. But that's not the full deal. Federal law already prohibits discrimination against health care workers for the same things.

Do you even understand what that means? It means that with or without Bush's silly Executive Order, health care workers can refuse to perform procedures that are against their religious or moral beliefs. They could refuse to do so before Bush signed the Order, they can now, and they will still be able to if Obama rescinds the Order.

But the Pro Lifers don't care about that. They care about their cause, and they're using this as an opportunity. They're using it as an opportunity to try and make sure that no laws get made that might erode what little power they already have to tell other people what to do, and if possible, to get new laws made so they can have more power to do the same.

 

[chefdennis]

turtle wrote:

But the Pro Lifers don't care about that. They care about their cause, and they're using this as an opportunity. They're using it as an opportunity to try and make sure that no laws get made that might erode what little power they already have to tell other people what to do, and if possible, to get new laws made so they can have more power to do the same.

BINGO!!! Get the man a cigar!! Hell yes they are using it to ther advantage and more power to them!! givent the opportunity, I'll donate cah to their cause, just to show Barry in the light he really is in, a pro abortion extremist, you know te opposite of what you call these people that are using this info for their benefit to attcak him and his policies... Anything to discredit him works for me.

And I also read the articles earlier in the week, and yes I know exactly what is going on, but you see, i happen to disagree with abortion on demand and for federal funding of abortion and also for the fed funding foreign organizations that provide abortion info and perform abortions.......

PS: I do want to thank you Turtle, without you, it would have just died a peaceful death, but when you start on any of my post, it just keeps them alive and even if it puts just a tiny bit of doubt in someones mind about Barry and his policies, thats all i do it for. So thanks for keeping it alive!!

 

[cheri1122]

Not one single article contradicts what Turtle said: that Obama is to review Bush's order. But that isn't going to stop you from posting more of the pieces that are slanted to appear to confirm what you believe, is it? Because apparently, you either fail to read the entire article, or understand the difference between the facts & conjecture. (That Obama is planning to review the order is fact - what he'll do after that, is conjecture.)
When it comes to what Obama has done, is doing, or will do, you have ZERO credibility, IMO.
And I think it's a shame that in the short time you've been an EO member, you have taken over the Soapbox with your anti-Obama viewpoint. When Turtle tires of correcting your misinformation, (because he's the only one with the patience to do it) you will have the whole field to yourself - and the rest of us will be poorer for it.

 

[chefdennis]

Ah I said that Turtle was exactly right when he said Barry was "Reviewing" the Issue.

As for me taking over the Soapbox, post away, I do! As of this moment, i have not had any comments for a Mod or any Admin that i am out of line, so until I have broken the rules, I'll just conti ue posting...And you certainly are as you always have been, welcome to post all you'd like. I am sure Lawence would enjoy the thread count going up. And yes, i will continue to post about Barry, as he continues to destroy this country....

Oh and as far as my crediablity, i don't write the articles, i just provide them for the reading pleasure, and i really don't care about my credibity here, the fact is I am real sure that I won't be inviting too many of you to my place for dinner nor would i be expecting to be invited to too many of yours...the people from here that have met me in person, and have PM'd me and called me on the phone or sat in a T/S parking lot talking know me for what i am, and thats all that matters.

 

[Turtle]

"Ah I said that Turtle was exactly right when he said Barry was "Reviewing" the Issue."

I was right about everything else, too.

Incidentally, just because you aren't breaking the rules by farting out all of these articles doesn't mean you aren't making an aѕѕ out of yourself.

BINGO!!! Get the man a cigar!! Hell yes they are using it to ther advantage and more power to them!! givent the opportunity, I'll donate cah to their cause,

You say that now, but what happens when they have the power to tell you what you can and can't do, and you don't agree with them?

just to show Barry in the light he really is in, a pro abortion extremist,

There's no evidence of that. None. Only baseless accusations from people with a cause to promote. But there is absolutely zero evidence that he's any kind of abortion extremist. We've been over that one before, so please don't post the same drivel again. It's already here in the Forums.

Anything to discredit him works for me.

That's the problem, you'll accept a lie if it somehow discredits him. It doesn't matter to you. That's an issue of integrity, by the way.

And I also read the articles earlier in the week, and yes I know exactly what is going on, but you see, i happen to disagree with abortion on demand

I disagree with someone else telling others what to do. If a woman is pregnant, it's nobody's business but hers, with the possible exception of whoever got her pregnant.

...and for federal funding of abortion...

I'm right there with ya on that one. If someone wants an abortion, that's their business, but don't ask me to pay for it.

and also for the fed funding foreign organizations that provide abortion info and perform abortions.......

So, you're against the US government's funding of the United Arabic Muslim Family Planning Center and Abortion Clinic in Bagdhad?

PS: I do want to thank you Turtle, without you, it would have just died a peaceful death, but when you start on any of my post, it just keeps them alive and even if it puts just a tiny bit of doubt in someones mind about Barry and his policies, thats all i do it for. So thanks for keeping it alive!!

You really think that's what it does, that it plants doubt about him and his policies? Wow. The only minds that will be molded to what you believe are others with likewise malleable, moldable, pliable, and impressionable minds who want to believe it already, and who will latch on to anything that supports their beliefs, regardless of whether or not its true.


A fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact - delusional

 

[Moot]

Congrats, you've once again been mentally manipulated. Duped into believing pure fiction.

Kinda reminds me of that anti-Zionist guy and his relentless posting of one sided blogs to bolster his non-position. Too blinded by hate to see straight.

 

[chefdennis]

You say that now, but what happens when they have the power to tell you what you can and can't do, and you don't agree with them?

LOL, that time is coming, and it will be dealt with when it does, and not just by a few, as Mr. jefferson said, "with the blood of patriots and tyrants........."

That's the problem, you'll accept a lie if it somehow discredits him. It doesn't matter to you. That's an issue of integrity, by the way.

Prove that anything in the articles posted are lies.....

I disagree with someone else telling others what to do. If a woman is pregnant, it's nobody's business but hers, with the possible exception of whoever got her pregnant.

And I disagree , so what.......

So, you're against the US government's funding of the United Arabic Muslim Family Planning Center and Abortion Clinic in Bagdhad?

Yeap, there is no reason at all for the use American tax dollars for this , but I do see where you are going with the muslum clinic, now if they were collecting private funds to get rid of them, that is another thing all together...

PS: I do want to thank you Turtle, without you, it would have just died a peaceful death, but when you start on any of my post, it just keeps them alive and even if it puts just a tiny bit of doubt in someones mind about Barry and his policies, thats all i do it for. So thanks for keeping it alive!!

You really think that's what it does, that it plants doubt about him and his policies? Wow. The only minds that will be molded to what you believe are others with likewise malleable, moldable, pliable, and impressionable minds who want to believe it already, and who will latch on to anything that supports their beliefs, regardless of whether or not its true.

The key word in what i said was "IF" , nit that it would, or could or might, just "IF" no where did i say it would, and thats all it is about...

As for me making an *** out of myself, as I said, i don't plan on having you over for dinner or being invited to your place, so it is totally irrelavent, and I don't care at all what you or alot of others think, as i said, those that have met me, know enough to form their opinions.. and i still hear from them..

As for integrity , lol we are talkin politics...

And Moot, i don't hate the man, I just have no use for his policies, and his destruction of this country and its Constitution, I also had very little use for bushes abuse of the Constitution also.....

 

[layoutshooter]

The current resident of the White House is trashing the Constitution of these United States. I have no use for him what so ever. In any way shape or form. Even Byrd from W.V. , a extreme liberal in his own right, is concered about Obama's abuse of and expandtion of the Power of the Executive Branch. This is a Republic, not an ologarcy.(sp)
WE control the government. Only the PEOPLE have rights, the government only has duties. The Bill of Rights spell out those Rights. The federal government has NO LEGAL authority to usurp those Rights. They are out of control. I do believe that Hitler, Stalin and the rest of the bunch would be very proud of Obama. They have NO RIGHT to force me into National Health, carbon taxes or any other of the garbage they are doing. As I said before, anymore "stuff" from these "Donkeys" and my tax paying pen is out of ink. Layoutshooter

 

[Turtle]

"Prove that anything in the articles posted are lies....."

I did that already with my initial reply. But I'll do it again right here:
"Which brings us to this point: This week President Obama exercised for the first time a policy decision that shares a trait held in common with Adolf Hitler."

That's a lie. Obama didn't exercise any decisions this week that shared, even remotely, with any traits of Hitler regarding this issue, much less the issue of "lesser humans" as the author draws the correlation with.

"President Obama is moving policy on public health into the direction of doctors being forced to act against their conscience."

That's another lie. Even if he decides to rescind the law, doctors still won't be forced into anything against their conscience.


"In today’s scenario Obama wants doctors to exterminate “lesser humans” for the purpose of immediate solutions to his social experiment. And he wishes them to do so regardless of whether or not they are compelled by the higher call of morality on an individual basis."

That's pure fiction, pure conjecture, not based in fact. Not even close.

"As to all the comparisons that the left made in 8 years of the previous administration, they never once had such a clear comparison that so vividly laid out the exact parallel between the dictator who thought it moral to gas people in chambers, and now a President who believes that live babies should be left to starve in soiled utility closets of hospitals, even if it violates the voice of God telling the doctor to do otherwise."

That's a lie. Obama has never stated that he believes that. It was put here for emotional impact, and is pure fiction.


"This stroke of the policy pen, moves the administration into its first conflict with the first amendment right of religious belief and expression, and he should be penalized for it quickly."

That's a lie. There was no stroke of the pen. And there's not conflict with the religious beliefs, since that's already covered in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"Put another way Obama's policy shift would be the equivalent of forcing those who believed slavery to be immoral and never even owned slaves, to begin purchasing them, beating them, raping them, and exploiting them."

That's another lie, or at least a disingenuous analogy. When slavery was legal, no one was forced to own slaves, just the same as no one was forced to perform procedures against their religious convictions before the Bush Executive Order. Rescinding the Order won't force them to now start doing it, any more than the Civil Rights Act started forcing blacks to begin purchasing, beating, raping and exploiting white people.

"Friday, Ms. Maddow, President Obama took a demonstrable step in the shoes, actions, and example of Adolf Hitler. "

Obama didn't do a thing. He didn't even release the news to the Press, the Department of Health and Human Services did. I suppose that there were a few days here and there where Hitler also did nothing, so it's a stretch, but yeah, I'll give in here, Obama was just like Hitler on Friday.

 

[layoutshooter]

OH YEA?? LOL, I still think he sucks!!! I don't have to like him, speak well of him or support that "Jack" at all. THAT my friend Turtle, is the truth. LOL. Obama has no respect for my way of life or my beliefs. That is what I believe, that is my right. He could change it by backing off the marxism, but he won't. SO, he can go suck an egg. I respect him as much as he respects me. The difference is, I don't work for him. All he can do is kill me. So be it. I believe he will take to killing American's in the streets. No proof of it, that is just what I feel. Just based on the history of the left in this world. He is part of that. He will rise to the occasion, of that I have little doubt. Layoutshooter

 

[aristotle]

There is no possible way unwilling doctors and nurses could be forced to perform abortions. Only those already in the abortion industry, and those willing to be trained, will be performing abortions.

This issue is an emotional powderkeg and no minds are likely to be changed through argument. Both camps just dig in their heels and resort to unpleasantries.

It's sort of like arguing religion. It doesn't lend itself to rational debate.