Wednesday, January 30, 2013

o'bamacide - 1 baby every 94 seconds killed by PP

Planned Parenthood Reveals Aborting 1 Baby Every 94 Seconds; [PP] Grateful for [your] Taxpayer Support

linked from http://visiontoamerica.com/13555/planned-parenthood-reveals-aborting-1-baby-every-94-seconds-grateful-for-taxpayer-support/

original source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/planned-parenthoods-new-annual-report-we-did-333964-abortions-1-every-94-seconds

Planned Parenthood's New Annual Report: We Did 333,964 Abortions; 1 Every 94 Seconds

(CNSNews.com) – Planned Parenthood Federation of America's latest annual report for 2011-2012 says that its affiliated clinics performed 333,964 abortions in

fiscal 2011.
That works out to an average of one abortion every 94 seconds. [by PP alone!]
The 333,964 abortion Planned Parenthood did in fiscal 2011 is an increase of 4,519 from the 329,445 abortions it did in 2010, according to a fact sheet that Planned Parenthood published last year.
Over two years, Planned Parenthood says, it has aborted 663,409.
The 2011-2012 report states that Planned Parenthood received $542.4 million in "government health services grants and reimbursements," which it states includes "payments from Medicaid managed care plans."
The report also shows that Planned Parenthood's total assets top $1 billion dollars, specifically $1,244.7 billion.
"We are so proud of the year's many successes, and deeply grateful for all the partners, sponsors, volunteers, staff and friends who helped make them possible," states the report's introductory letter, signed by PPFA president Cecile Richards and Cecelia Boone, chairwoman of the organization.

bcc'd: "red diaper babies", fellow travelers, appeasers, quislings, o'commiecrats, and RINOs

Thursday, January 24, 2013

o'asleep at the switch - What difference does it make?!

From: Scott Taylor, OPSEC Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 Subject: What difference does it make?!

     What difference does it make?!
     Yesterday [We.23Jan13], Secretary of State Hillary Clinton answered questions before committees in both the House and Senate regarding the horrific terrorist attack that killed a U.S. Ambassador and heroic SEALs in Libya.
     The problem is that Secretary Clinton actually answered nothing. When asked a pointed question about why the administration failed to identify it was a terrorist attack -- and subsequently lied about it -- Clinton shouted: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
     Here's the difference it makes -- no one has been held accountable and no one can explain why the American public was deceived for weeks about the cause of the attack! The Obama Administration still has not told the truth about what happened in Benghazi and Secretary Clinton continues to avoid revealing who knew what, who refused to help, and why the administration repeatedly lied to the American people.

Secretary Clinton confirmed a disturbing truth: The election is over but the Benghazi cover up continues. President Obama took credit when our military killed bin Laden and highly classified secrets were leaked, endangering real heroes and their families. But when terrorists killed The US Ambassador, SEALs, and a diplomat in Libya, this administration failed to tell the truth about what happened.

OPSEC exists because issues like the Benghazi attacks are critical to the safety and future of our nation. We must continue to aggressively expose leaks and dangerous practices that unnecessarily and substantially increase the risks to Special Operations and intelligence personnel.
Sincerely, Scott Taylor, Former SEAL, USN, Chairman, OPSEC

PS: Secretary Clinton may ask "What difference does it make?" but OPSEC knows that getting down to the truth on Benghazi makes all the difference.

Paid for by Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, Inc. - Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, Inc. is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. Please make an immediate contribution of right now and help OPSEC expose the national security failings and leaks that are jeopardizing our Special Operations Forces and making America less secure. Contributions are not tax deductible.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

o'mmaculation 20Jan05 (photo) **

The Trash Was Historic, Too -
Washington Post (www.washingtonpost.com) › Metro
Jan 22, 2009 – 'Washington trash trucks hauled away at least 130 tons of garbage after ... National Park Service workers picked up almost 100 tons on the Mall and near the ... "They left behind Obama hats, Obama bags, Obama socks," said ...'
The mess on the National Mall after the Inauguration of Barack Obama

The mess on the National Mall after the Inauguration of Barack Obama

Left: JANUARY 20, 2009: Spectators sit in trash and debris along the National Mall after the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States of America January 20, 2009 in Washington, DC. Obama became the first African-American to be sworn in as president in the history of the United States. (Photo by Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images)
(link source: http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2013/01/should-transit-on-inauguration-day-be.html)

- Click here for links to indepth exposure of 20Jan05 o'trash
- Barackalyptic Wasteland (41sec video)
An '09 comment:

by mgilless 4 years ago

I'm confused. How can nearly 2,000,000 blacks get into Washington DC in sub zero temps, in one day, when 200,000 couldn't get out of New Orleans at 85 degrees with four days notice?

Listen to "16 Tons" by Tennessee Ernie Ford

audio and lyrics source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2tWwHOXMhI

Some people say a man is made outta mud
A poor man's made outta muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bones
A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal
And the straw boss said "Well, a-bless my soul"

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

I was born one mornin', it was drizzlin' rain
Fightin' and trouble are my middle name
I was raised in the canebrake by an ol' mama lion
Cain't no-a high-toned woman make me walk the line

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

If you see me comin', better step aside
A lotta men didn't, a lotta men died
One fist of iron, the other of steel
If the right one don't a-get you then the left one will

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go

I owe my soul to the company store.

Song audio uploaded to Youtube by

vinyhilist

You reap what you vote.

You get what you voted for.

-- o'get thee to a punnery

** a dichotomy: o'macculation v immaculation's o'triculation

Friday, January 18, 2013

o'Five oh - White House Taxpayers' Money

rfh - I have read that the president's dog handler and his 'movie theater' operator both make a lot more than I could dream of!

Total Cost of All White House Elements, for fiscal year 2008: $1,592,875,254
(This total does not include classified expenses or donations)
$1.5 billion is a lot of money. $4,364,041/day, to be precise.

Here are some of the base costs of the Obama White House in 2011 according to the Congressional Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act:
- Operating expenses: $13,536,000. That's about $1 million more than it was during 2008. Just slightly higher than inflation.
- The Executive Residence—repair and restoration: $990,000. Slightly less than in 2008.
- Compensation for the President: $450,000 (the same)
- Expenses for the Vice President's Residence: $307,000 (about the same)
- President's unanticipated needs: $988,000 (about the same)

(source: http://theintrepid.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-much-does-it-cost-to-operate-white.html)

Taxpayers Spent $1.4 Billion On Obama Family Last Year, Perks Questioned In New Book -- Daily Caller

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.

(source: http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-much-does-it-cost-to-maintain-us.html) Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he [used] Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.
(source: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpayers-spent-1-4-billion-on-obama-family-last-year-perks-questioned-in-new-book/)

Taxpayer Bill for Obama’s Hawaii Vacations: $20 Million
by Keith Koffler on January 4, 2013

Michelle Obama recently revealed that she and President Obama don’t give Christmas gifts to each other. They merely say, “We’re in Hawaii,” and that’s Christmas gift enough.
But actually the present is from taxpayers, and it’s an expensive one.
The total cost to taxpayers of Obama’s vacations to Hawaii since becoming president is likely in excess of $20 million, and possibly much, much more. During a time of budget deficits that threaten the nation’s security and its future, the Obamas have chosen to maintain a “family tradition” and vacation halfway around the world instead of finding far cheaper alternatives closer to home.
The $20 million figure is based on estimates of the cost of the four Hawaii vacations the Obamas have taken during Christmastime 2009-2012. According to a detailed breakdown by the Hawaii Reporter, the annual excursions in 2009, 2010, and 2011 cost about $4 million, much of it attributable to the expense of taking Air Force One, at an hour rate of about $180,000, on an eighteen-hour roundtrip journey to Honolulu and back.
But $4 million almost certainly underestimates the true tally, as it does not include many miscellaneous items like the cost of flying advance teams out to Hawaii and separate flights Michelle Obama took in 2010 and 2011, when she left ahead of her husband, who was forced to stay in Washington to finish up work with Congress.

New Year's Day, 2012

This year, Obama returned from Hawaii to complete a deal on the Fiscal Cliff and then jetted back to Honolulu, where he is now engaged in Part 2 of his vacation. The second roundtrip flight added about $3.24 million to the tab this time, bringing the cost of the 2012-1013 vacation to well over $7 million.
If we assume the estimates are probably quite low, then it’s likely to the bill for the combined vacations is more than $20 million.
Given that much of the cost involves transporting the First Family and its retinue, the Obamas could have saved taxpayers millions by doing what the vast majority of Americans do: taking either one trip a year, or none.
The Obamas get plenty of vacation. They have sojourned every summer in Martha’s Vineyard except for last year, when campaigning and pre-election concern about appearances got in the way. They often take a side trip somewhere else during the year, and Michelle goes skiing annually out West.
At the very least, they could spend their Christmas holidays at Camp David or at one of the many fine resorts outside of Washington, which would require only the use of the presidential helicopter to get them there.
If they must find a warm haven, a rental home on the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic shore of Florida, or even Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands could easily be arranged at a fraction of the price of getting to Hawaii.
Some argue that Obama is justified in returning to Hawaii because that is where he spent his formative years. But how many of us get to go visit our roots for a two week vacation every year?
The Obamas probably also feel they must go to Hawaii because they are creatures of habit. While there, they do the same things and visit the same places every year. But their allegiance to routine is costing the taxpayers – including those in the middle class Obama claims to care so much about – millions of dollars.
Which brings us to OBAMA 5-0.

(source: http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/04/taxpayer-bill-obamas-hawaii-vacations-20-million/)

As the federal government’s activities varied and broad, the first section of the Federal Budget we are focusing on is the Total Cost of the Whole White House. This is a tiny portion of the federal budget, but it's an important symbolic starting point. In a democracy, accountability should include everyone – even the president.
This includes 23 different categories:
_{(These categories are based
on the research of the Bush White House by long time White house administrator
and scholar Bradley Patterson. Read more about his work)}

(source: http://www.taxpayertreasurehunt.com/index.php/Main_Page)

Obama re-election team to form group to support second-term agenda, source says

Obama re-election team to form group to support second-term [anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment] agenda, source says
FOX NEWS POLITICS | JANUARY 17, 2013
In an unprecedented move, President Barack Obama's vaunted political organization is being turned into a nonprofit group -- funded in part by corporate...
source: http://pulse.me

Thursday, January 17, 2013

2nd Amendment - Constitutional Battle: Limit the Second Amendment

New gun controls set up constitutional battle over limits to 2nd Amendment

By Dave Boyer, The Washington Times, We.16Jan13

article source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/16/new-gun-controls-set-battle-limits-2nd-amendment/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

In proposing sweeping gun regulations Wednesday, President Obama said there are limits to gun owners' constitutional rights when the health and safety of the public are threatened.
"I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms," Mr. Obama said. But he added, "along with our freedom to live our lives as we will comes an obligation to allow others to do the same. We are responsible for each other."
The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms can't be violated by state or local governments, in decisions from a 2008 case involving the District of Columbia and in a 2010 Chicago case.
But the justices haven't spelled out what kinds of gun restrictions would violate the Second Amendment. Mr. Obama is testing that legal boundary, said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.
"He's trying to strike a balance between the Second Amendment and other rights that he finds in the Constitution, or the 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' that's found in the Declaration of Independence," Mr. Tobias said. "Whether he struck it appropriately, we'll see."
After a series of mass shootings in the United States in the past 15 years, Mr. Obama said he thinks the legal landscape has tilted too much in favor of the Second Amendment. A former law professor, Mr. Obama said other parts of the Bill of Rights, such as the right to worship freely and assemble peaceably, should be equally important.
"The right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wis.," Mr. Obama said. "The right to assemble peaceably, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Ore., and moviegoers in Aurora, Colo. That most fundamental set of rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness — fundamental rights that were denied to college students at Virginia Tech, and high school students at Columbine, and elementary school students in Newtown, and kids on street corners in Chicago on too frequent a basis to tolerate, and all the families who've never imagined that they'd lose a loved one to a bullet — those rights are at stake. We're responsible."
Civil liberties advocates say the president's proposals could have unintended consequences. The White House proposal to put armed "resource officers" — essentially police — in schools, for example, has drawn scrutiny. The American Civil Liberties Union wrote to Vice President Joseph R. Biden last week to warn that minority students often end up receiving disproportionate punishment when law enforcement officers are posted in schools.
"Teachers and administrators should have the ability to teach and to retain primary control over the punishment of students," said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office. "Despite the president's best intentions, funding more police officers in schools will turn sanctuaries for education into armed fortresses."
The ACLU said President Clinton dramatically increased funding for police in schools after the Columbine, Colo., massacre in 1999, and three school districts in the Hartford, Conn., area — just an hour from Newtown — participated in the program. The state ACLU conducted a review and found that in all three districts, there were harmful impacts on students.
"Very young students were being arrested at school, including numerous children in grade three and below," the ACLU said. "Among them, students of color were arrested at rates clearly disproportionate to their representation in the student population, and in some cases were even arrested for infractions when white peers were not."
Having more police in schools, and more arrests, put more students on the path to incarceration, the group said.
"Any proposals that would bring more police, school resource officers, or even the National Guard, as some current legislative proposals suggest, must be rejected," it said.
Even the push to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill has raised privacy concerns. For example, if a person is deemed after a background check to be too unstable to own a gun, civil liberties groups say, such information must not be shared for any other purpose. Mental health advocates say a national database that would track people who receive treatment for mental illness could stigmatize them and deter them from seeking help.

NASA - Asteroid Arrives Feb 15th!

From: Trib Bulletins Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 Subject: NASA, Huge Asteroid to Arrive Feb 15th!

According to NASA

Asteroid NEA 2012 DA 14 is headed for our satellite belt with an approximate arrival date of February 15th! NEA 2012 DA 14 is a very serious space rock, it weighs in at an estimated 130.000 metric tons and measures approximatly 150 feet in diameter.

The trajectory and the arrival date are in question. According to multiple prophetic warnings

this very large space rock may arrive sooner than expected and it may enter the atmosphere and impact the Atlantic Ocean. Mega tidal waves may be created in all directions depending upon the speed at which it enters the atmosphere. Read the warnings linked above to learn how the velocity of the asteroid may be changed by a gravity pocket. The 'burning mountain' prophesied in Rev 8 is 'cast' into the earth. There is also mention in the warnings of fragments from the asteroid landing in many different locations.

Copy and paste into your browser markbrander.blog.com to read the warnings if the above link fails.

On February 15, 2013, an asteroid will come close enough to Earth to knock satellites out of orbit

Posted on January 9, 2013 by The Extinction Protocol

January 9, 2013 – SPACE - Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) 2012 DA14 has its annual flyby of the earth on February 15, 2013. Its projected orbit, according to NASA, will bring it well within the orbits of geosynchronous satellites currently orbiting our planet. NASA has indicated that there is no danger of this asteroid impacting our planet, however they have not ruled out our gravity changing the asteroids orbital pattern. NEA 2012 DA 14 was discovered on February 23, 2012 by the Observatorio Astronómico de Mallorca (OAM), near the Spanish city of La Sagra. According to NASA's Near Earth Object Program, NEO, the asteroid will pass the earth at a distance of 21,000 miles, putting the asteroid's trajectory in between the earth and the satellites orbiting our planet. Geosynchronous satellites orbiting our planet orbit at a distance of roughly 26,200 miles above the earth. Geostationary orbiting objects orbit at a distance of roughly 22,236 miles above the Earth's equator. These objects are considered to be in High Earth Orbit (HEO). Any object in space considered to be in a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is approximately 1250 miles above the equator. The term Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) refers to an orbiting object approximately 12,500 miles above the Earth's equator, in between objects in an LEO and a HEO, geosynchronous orbit.

With Near Earth Asteroid 2012 DA 14′s flyby falling somewhere in between geosynchronous satellite orbit, and objects orbiting in a Medium Earth Orbit pattern, the potential for this NEO impacting other objects orbiting our planet appears to be almost guaranteed. Could one of these objects be impacted by the asteroid and then be propelled back into our atmosphere? The chance of this happening is low, and NASA has not indicated if this potential happenstance will occur. Asteroid 2012 DA 14 has an estimated diameter of about 45 meters, and a mass of roughly 130,000 metric tons, making it a medium-sized asteroid. If Asteroid DA 14 were to impact the Earth, it would do so with the energy of 2.4 Megatons. Additionally NASA estimates the closest it can get to the earth will be 17,000 miles above the equator. NASA continually tracks these asteroids, through their Near Earth Object Program (NEO) in association with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer program (WISE) searches the skies of our solar system making observations in an effort

to assess Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHA) orbiting close to our planet. Potentially hazardous asteroids are a smaller subset of the larger group called the Near Earth Asteroids (NEA) that have close orbits to the Earth's and are big enough to survive passing through our atmosphere and causing damage of great proportions. The asteroid hunting portion of the WISE program is called NEOWISE. "The NEOWISE analysis shows us we've made a good start at finding those objects that truly represent an impact hazard to earth," said Lindley Johnson, program executive for the Near Earth Object Observation Program at NASA. "But we've many more to find, and it will take a concerted effort during the next couple of decades to find all of them that could do serious damage or being mission destination in the future. NASA's NEOWISE project, which wasn't originally planned as part of WISE, has turned out to be a huge bonus," said Amy Mainzer, NEOWISE principal investigator, at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena California.

"Everything we can learn about these projects helps us understand their origins and fate. Our team was surprised to find the over abundance of low inclination PHA's. Because they will tend to make more close approaches to earth, these targets can provide the best opportunities for the next generation of human and robotic exploration." Pres. Obama has called for NASA to access an asteroid in orbit for the purposes of exploring ways to divert its orbit away from the earth in the event of a potential impact. A new project, initiated by scientists at California's Institute for Space Studies, would put an asteroid into orbit around the Earth's moon, giving us the ability to study it from a closer distance then the asteroids standard orbit. The majority of asteroids orbiting in our solar system do so in the main asteroid belt, between the planets Mars and Jupiter. – Guardian

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Leading U.S. Death Cause?

Margaret Sanger, live interview video: 1 of 3, - 2 of 3, - 3 of 3

Equating abortion with genocide is well founded. Many are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Sanger's "Negro Project," "the eugenic plan to limit — or exterminate — the black race and others "unfit to reproduce."

[..to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation [in camps] to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." [..by force if necessary.] "..during 1933 in Sanger's The Birth Control Review (immediate predecessor to the Planned Parenthood Review) an article by Ernst Rudin (1874-1952) was published entitled, "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need." Rudin was Adolph Hitler's director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene

. (Various references in Grand Illusions) History documents that Sanger supported the Nazi Party philosophies." [Planned Parenthood's Nazi roots]

; and -eugenical race-purification by prevention of births to parents from 'inferior' blood stocks ('birth control societies'). "Before the Auschwitz death camp became a household word, these British-American-European groups called openly for the elimination of the 'unfit' by [any] means including force and violence."

(excerpt from http://773.harrold.org)

From: jj Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 Subject: Saw this today

click here to hear o'bamacide's promise movie or video

bcc'd: "red diaper babies", fellow travelers, appeasers, quislings, o'commiecrats, and RINOs

Auschwitz in America

"The followers of Malthus believed that if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be eliminated." The question was how?"
Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus b.1766-d.1834

related, America's Holocaust: http://773.harrold.org

article source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamacide.html

"Obamacide"

Obamacide - By J. Matt Barber, August 23, 2008

How does one properly describe another who would -- for purely selfish political reasons and with deliberation -- intentionally refuse a thirsty child water or a hungry child food?

More specifically, what does one call a lawmaker who would condemn to death the child survivor of a botched abortion by permitting doctors to refuse that child, once born alive, potentially life-saving medical treatment and nutrition?

A number of things come to mind. Mr. President isn't one of them.

Based on National Journal's vote ratings -- an objectively tallied assessment of congressional voting records -- Barack Obama has properly earned the dubious distinction as the single most liberal Senator in Congress during his brief, albeit overstayed, tenure. But a cursory review of his words, deeds and associations reveals that this ivory-towered Harvard boy is no run-of-the-mill lefty. He's an extremist among extremists.

Put aside for a moment some of the highly suspect (even criminal) characters within Obama's circle of friends, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and Tony Resko. Forget the many anti-American sentiments to which prospective first lady Michelle Obama has given voice. And ignore, for now, the socialist, peacenik, MoveOn.org positions Obama holds on a host of fiscal, social and national security-related issues. Instead, for the sake of brevity, take a look at Obama's demonstrably radical stance on just one issue: abortion.

Last year the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart the federal ban on the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. Congress overwhelmingly passed the ban in 2003. Even some of the most liberal members of Congress experienced unexplained fits of common sense, voting for the ban in the face of angry demands from mouth-foaming feminists.

Although the American Medical Association has determined that partial-birth abortion is never necessary under any circumstances, Obama threw a hissy, nonetheless, after the opinion came down. While deriding the Court for its ruling, he whined, "For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors."

So what, exactly, did the ban ban? What "hard-won right" -- as he later called partial-birth abortion -- was Obama so steadfast to preserve?

During a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a fully developed, fully "viable" child - often kicking and thrashing -- feet first from her mother's womb, leaving only the top of her head in the birth canal. He then stabs her through the skull with scissors or some other sharp object, piercing her brain until her kicking and moving about suddenly and violently jerk to a halt. Her brains are then sucked out -- collapsing her skull -- and her now limp and lifeless body is tossed aside like so much garbage.

Again, medical science has determined that this horrific practice, which is nothing short of infanticide, is never necessary. But Barack Obama -- the man who would be President -- doesn't see it that way. He called the partial-birth abortion ban, "a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women."

Although Obama's love affair with partial-birth abortion has served to chip away at his finely polished veneer, his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) has revealed to the world that backward extremism permeates his marrow.

BAIPA very simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion - when she is "born alive" - further attempts to kill her must immediately cease, and steps must be taken to ensure her health and well-being.

Makes sense, right?

Not to Barack Obama. While serving in the Illinois state senate, he led the fight against a state version of Born Alive that was substantively identical to the federal BAIPA. In 2002, BAIPA passed the U.S. Senate with unanimous, bipartisan support; yet, Obama vehemently opposed its Illinois twin. This places him on the furthest fringe of pro-abortion extremes. The man's devotion to the pro-abortion industry is so fixed that he would rather allow the murder of newborn babies than give an inch to the sanctity of human life.

When called on the carpet in 2004 for his complicity in facilitating infanticide, Obama began an extensive cover-up, accusing those who exposed the scandal of lying. But in recent days, based on documentary evidence unearthed by the National Right to Life Committee, the Obama campaign has been forced to admit that it was Obama, in fact, who had been lying all along. He not only led the charge to allow the continued practice of infanticide in Illinois, he carried the flag.

During his recent "not-ready-for-primetime" appearance at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback forum, Obama was asked at what point "a baby gets human rights." His answer was shocking: "Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade," said Obama.

What?! Above my pay grade? And this man wants to be the leader of the free world? Even the most ardent pro-abortion wactivist would have likely said that a baby gets human rights as soon as it's born, right? But Obama couldn't say that. His opposition to Born Alive proves he doesn't believe it. And if he had said it, he'd have been called on it.

Well, I'm calling him on it anyway.

So, we now add a new word with a dual definition to our modern political lexicon: Obamacide. It means, 1) Killing the newborn survivor of a botched abortion through a deliberate act of omission; and, 2) That which a nation commits upon itself by electing one who would allow such a thing.

Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. (This information is provided for identification purposes only and views expressed are that of the author alone.)

on "Obamacide"

Monday, January 14, 2013

2nd Amendment - IVRPA: Flyer/Poster 'Intercity Trap Shoot', Sa.9Feb13

Interclub

Trap Shoot

Sponsored by the

Imperial Valley Rifle and Pistol Association (IVRPA)

Web Site: http://IVRPA.net

Location: IVRPA Gun Range

Map to: http://ivrpa.net/map_to_IVRPA_range.html

GPS Coordinates: 32º 52' .738" N-115º 44' .438" W
[32.87892,-115.741739]

When: Saturday, February 9, 2013

Sign-In Time: 8:00 A.M.

Start Time: 9:00 A.M.

Cost: $25.00 per shooter (includes targets & lunch)

Contact: Darr Wilson

email Darr Wilson (darrwilson at yahoo dot com)

area code 760 number 556-8182

Driving: http://ivrpa.net/ivrpa_range_directions.htm

113 miles east of San Diego, California
- Take Interstate 8 East;
- Exit I-8 at Dunaway Road, head north for 2 miles;
- Turn right on to County Highway 80 (Evan Hughes Road), continue east for 4 miles;
- Turn left (north) at Huff Road, continue north on Huff Road for 6.4 miles;
- At the intersection of Huff Road & Wheeler Road (left side), turn left (west) on to Wheeler Road.
- Continue (west) until the paved section of the road ends becoming dirt.
- You are at the main entrance & you can see the range off on the right (north side of the road.)

Thursday, January 10, 2013

o'commie's friends sent this: "The NRA has no clothes"

From: Garlin Gilchrist II, MoveOn.org Civic Action Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 Subject: The NRA has no clothes

Are we finally ready to take on the National Rifle Association?

The NRA's power has long been an explanation—and an excuse—for why we can't pass serious gun violence prevention laws in America.

But in the wake of Sandy Hook, something has shifted. Maybe it's the polls showing a 18-point jump in support for stronger laws.¹ Or the fact that most gun owners and NRA members disagree with the NRA's policy agenda.² Or the bizarre press conference by Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's CEO, where he called for more guns in schools.³

Whatever the reason, it's suddenly clear that the NRA ISN'T all-powerful. Yes, they spend a boatload of money on lobbying and elections—but so did Big Tobacco, and laws limiting smoking are now commonplace. Public opinion matters. The NRA can't block an idea whose time has come.

The Obama Administration and state-level elected officials around the country are debating how ambitious their reforms can be. We urgently need to keep the NRA on its heels—to prevent them from regaining the upper hand in setting the agenda. So we're putting together an emergency campaign to do exactly that. Can you chip in $5?

Here's what we're doing.

1) Catalyzing a huge wave of local organizing to counter the NRA's network. A broad range of folks need to come together—parents, law enforcement officials, health experts, gun owners, community leaders, religious leaders, and more—on the local level to act as a political counterweight to the NRA's boots-on-the-ground network. And the good news is, there's already a ton happening: MoveOn members have started over 100 local Community Committees Against Gun Violence, on the heels of over 700 vigils just after Sandy Hook.

And there's much more energy out there—but people need support to get organized. We need to pay for organizers, and for local advertising—from online ads to billboards—so that folks know what's happening in their town and can get connected. And then we need more resources for flyers, yard signs, meetingspace rentals, and more.

2) Launching hard-hitting actions highlighting the NRA's extremism at the national level. We need to pay for ads and organizers that support in-person volunteer-led events in New York and Washington, DC to draw the national media's attention to the NRA's political extremism.

Here's just one example: a coalition of gun groups have called for a "gun appreciation day" just before President Obama's inauguration. They're asking people to go to local gun stores and gun shows "with your Constitution, American flags and your 'Hands Off My Guns' sign."

MoveOn member and gun violence prevention activist Maria Roach started a petition against this "Gun Appreciation Day," and it already has over 20,000 signers. With support, she can pull off a high-profile event to deliver these signatures directly to the NRA headquarters in Washington, driving media attention and putting the NRA on the spot—does it really want to support something like this in the wake of the brutal murders of 26 people in Newtown?

There are hundreds of other member-led campaigns bubbling up that we want to similarly support—since any of them could be the thing that breaks through and captures the attention of the national media.

We have a brief window to take all the people who are moved to act, give them the help they need to organize, and knit them together into a national campaign that can't be ignored—to cement the emerging conventional wisdom that the NRA is a retrograde, out-of-touch, industry-funded interest group that can't stop needed progress.

We CAN pass strong laws at the federal, state, and local level to prevent gun violence—if the NRA stays on the defense. And MoveOn members are already organizing to make that happen.

Thanks for all you do.

–Garlin, Lenore, Anna, Bobby, and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. "Poll: Support for stricter gun control at a 10-year high," CBS News, December 17, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=286155&id=60681-9247257-GYphpgx&t=4

2. "5 Issues That Divide Gun Owners and NRA Leadership," Alternet, July 22, 2012 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=286156&id=60681-9247257-GYphpgx&t=5

3. "Wayne LaPierre's Speech Was a Total Public Relations Disaster, Say PR Experts," Huffington Post, December 21, 2012 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=286002&id=60681-9247257-GYphpgx&t=6

This email was sent to robert harrold on January 10, 2013.