Stand Up Comedy on Healthcare, Immigration, Abortion & Obama.

The left ridicules but the right has comedy.  Here's a short that addresses some of the political hot buttons today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_mQPvKXw3U&feature=player_embedded

The Pro-Choice Public Education Project Holds That There Should Be More Abortions.

With the Clintons, the position was:  Make abortions safe, legal and rare.  With Obama it became make abortion legal but try to reduce the need for it by addressing the causes of abortion.  (On the side, though sounding humanitarian and compassionate, these positions are still immoral.  And I think those were just words in Obama's case.)

Yesterday, we read in a liberal website, that abortion should be more not less and is actually good for the health of the woman.  Aimée Thorne-Thomsen of  Pro-Choice Public Education Project writes,  "On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low. If that’s the case, then what is an appropriate response? How do we best support women and their reproductive health? Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for women’s health, but also moral and just?"

Read the rest at: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/04/26/safe-legal-rare-another-perspective

It is hard to understand how some people can be so blinded about the personhood of an unborn child.  I guess if one has been stunted into being a perpetual child, then one's capacity to see others outside oneself is equally impaired.  And I thought women had a maternal instinct.

Video: Personally Against Abortion but Think It Should Stay Legal?

Ana Benderas of Live Action addresses those who are personally against abortion but believe that others should be able to take the life on unborn children. Learn more about Live Action at: http://LiveAction.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWDHpx2Edvk&feature=player_embedded#!


H/T http://kaiserfam.com/kyrieeleison/2010/04/29/believe-abortion-is-wrong-but-should-be-legal/

Voting your conscience is not always right.

In short, conscience may not always be right. And one is not obliged to follow a sick or erroneous conscience. So the advice to follow one's conscience is deficient. It needs to be a well-formed and healthy conscience.

Examples of sick consciences are scrupulosity and laxity. The first feels guilt where there is no sin, the latter feels no guilt despite the sin. And if one has a sick conscience, then one needs to see a spiritual director for "treatment".

If one's conscience is healthy, then there is still a need to inform or educate it. The bishops issued guidelines in a document entitled "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States" where it was stated:

34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s
opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

42. As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

These and others would have made it clear to any conscientious Catholic that a vote for Obama was immoral. However, others did not see it that way because they were mislead by fake Catholic groups who misrepresented the Catholic standards and by the politicians themselves who misrepresented their positions. Because of this, one has the duty to get down to the truth by looking at the candidate's voting records and past activities to confirm the veracity of his claims.

References:
1. http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/conscien.txt
2. http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/

Video: Young Americans for Liberty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofx-Qjp3cjs

Policy wordings hamstring analysis; POTUS' word meaningless, no credibility

I create software for a living. In the olden days, programs are ordered to do stuff via commands. Those commands are defined in a lexicon. So, one cannot type anything and expect the program to do it. If it is not in the lexicon, the program will simply throw it in the garbage condition and stare back at you with a blinking cursor. Then you turn into a cursor yourself as you articulate expletives. ( If you do that over and over again, that become recursive - but I am getting too technical. So back to my point. ) If a direction or a concept is not in the dictionary or the lexicon, then it does not exist.

Because of this I am glad my analysis and programming work is related to the financial and not the defense industry. I have read that the analysts there cannot use terms that refer to Islamic fanaticism or Muslim extremism anymore. So, related concepts like jihad (holy war) and fatwa (teachings) are also out. When you purge these out then how can you do analysis of terrorism incidents or threats that are caused by these elements. Do you mask it with a generic label? It would be really difficult to do a bang up job without those words - if at all. It seems like those who gave those orders wanted it that way.

So that is the impact of removing terms from policies and reports. Now let's look at redefining terms like promises, commitments and the like. The Germans have a saying, "Ein Mann, ein Wort" literally "One Man, one word" meaning "A Promise is a promise." And if that is not happening, then there is no integrity or oneness. As the Indians would say, "You speak with a forked tongue." When that applies to Obama, it is no longer surprising. What is appalling though is the lack of remorse over his lies.

This morning, Obama said he would not ask the debt commission to abide by his campaign promise when it produces its recommendations. In his words, "Of course this means that all of you, our friends in the media, will ask me and others once a week, or once a day, about what we are willing to rule out or rule in when it comes to the recommendations of the commission. That’s an old Washington game…so I wanted to deliver this message today: we’re not playing that game. I’m not gonna say what’s in, I’m not gonna say what’s out".

So, his promises to the voters have no binding effect when the rubber meets the road. And holding him accountable to those is a game. I wonder how Michelle feels about his wedding vow now. And we know that the promissory note that he gave Bart Stupak to preclude tax dollars from funding abortion is toilet paper. We have a president who cannot be taken at his word anymore. That's why I change the channel whenever he comes up, though I sometimes listen to sense how crap sounds. But the serious part is, this man is running the country. All I can do is vote him out later.

( H/T http://agangershome.blogspot.com/2010/04/bo-shows-his-true-colors.html
http://troglopundit.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/obamotivator_todd_jedimindtrick.jpg
)

Why the private sector can't still create jobs.

"Red tape isn’t the only thing hamstringing American business. The Obama administration has sent plenty of price signals on taxes and burdensome regulation that will keep investors and businesses from betting on expansion. As long as the administration pursues those policies, it will keep the engine of American economic growth bound and gagged." (1)

What's worse is that we should have recovered by now.  Based on business cycles, jobs return around a year at the latest.  It's 2 years and half and there is still 10% unemployment and more  underemployment.  What extended the recession is the government intervention that intended to curb it.  Could an administration favoring businesses enacted better policies?  You bectha.

1.    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/27/ramirez-on-job-creation/