President who hates babies says they should all have a chance at happiness

I swear you cannot make this stuff up. On Tuesday, Obama said this at a Planned Parenthood gala with apparently no hint of irony (emphasis mine):

“In the United States of America, every child should have every chance in life, every chance at happiness, and every chance at success,”

Yeah, every chance as long as the child has exited the womb. This man, whose support for abortion at any time during pregnancy, has the audacity to say this with a straight face? First of all, he is the first sitting president to address this group of mass murderers, second, he touts planned parenthood’s record of giving every child a chance at life! Oh the iroonneeee.

Keep in mind that in March 2003, then-Illinois’ State Senator Obama chaired the committee that considered the Born-Alive Infants Protection bill (SB 1082), which he voted to kill. And according to the National Right to Life Committee, the state legislation that Obama voted against is almost identical to the federal legislation that protects children who survive an abortion that became law in 2002.

According to Planned Parenthood’s latest report for fiscal year 2012-2013, women who aborted their unborn children at a Planned Parenthood-affiliated clinic totaled 327,166.

Well almost every child has a chance in life except of course for the over 50 million who have been aborted since Roe v. Wade that is.

How liberals can square this circle is beyond me. In the past, at least pro-abortion politicians had the sense to shy away from the issue by saying nonsense like keeping it legal, safe and rare. Now, Obama is openly cheering for the destruction of our children. Good work champ, good work indeed.

They are going to run out of virgins

This just warms my heart. What do the Brits consider a weapon of mass destruction"? One talented soldier and ONE bullet!

Say Allah, who ordered these 432 virgins?

Oh, she of the angry perm - the greatest gift to bloggers.

I love how exacerbated she is at just how unreasonable she sees the Republicans at the 27 second mark.

Oh, so now DWS wants to get with the Republicans and come to some sort of compromise? You know, like she did when she helped rammed this the pile of horse excrement down the throats of Americans, where the Republicans were actually barred from any discussion when the bill was written.

Good luck with that one sister. You guys passed it, now you have to face the consequences come November.

What difference does it make Madam Secretary?

 

Only the difference between trusting that your elected officials are honest versus how instead they will spin events to help them in an election. 18 months after the events unfolded in Benghazi, a CIA officer confirmed that there were no protests before misleading Benghazi account given by the administration. This from the Washington Times (emphasis mine):

Before the Obama administration gave an (false) inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred, documents and interviews with current and former intelligence officials show.

The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell in an email dated Sept. 15, 2012 — a full day before the White House sent Susan E. Rice to several Sunday talk shows to disseminate talking points claiming that the Benghazi attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.

Oopsy. Oh, and the good news? Guess who is scheduled to appear before the House Intelligence Committee tomorrow? That’s right, CIA Director Michael Morell who the station chief sent his e-mail to. This should be fun.

But here is what ticks me off. The American public is just finding out about this. The jaw-dropping incuriosity of the mainstream media continues to blow my mind. Think about it. On MSNBC, they have devoted no less than a gazillion hours to bridgegate (where as it turns out nobody died) and about three and a half minutes to the atrocious pre-election cover up the administration perpetrated following the Benghazi disaster, where, by the way, four Americans were actually murdered by terrorists.

In a just world Rice, Clinton and even the president would feel some level of shame for this atrocity, but since our electorate has the attention span of a clever garden slug my guess is that no one will pay a price.

The Liberal Way Ends in Detroit

To survive, Liberalism,  is wholly dependent upon a vast number of people who are entrenched in government dependency. Moreover, through generations of liberal manipulation, these people are now not capable of supporting themselves. But for liberalism to survive going forward, they have to come up with more and more victims to increase their numbers. Don’t believe me? Just look at each election cycle and how the liberals keep producing more and more “wars” on various people to rally more and more ‘victims’ to come into the fold. By wars, I mean the war on women, war on babies, war on gays, war on illegal immigrants, war on Gia, etc. Each cycle produces yet another cause where only the federal can solve the manufactured problem.

This leads to the real problem with liberalism. They have no principles, only the love of power. Do you think for one moment that Nancy Pelosi actually gives a rosy red fart for any of those so-called victims? Short answer is of course no. Her only reason to be is to bend the public to her will. To create the utopia that only she, and her ilk, are smart enough to envision.

As an example I give you Obamacare. I’ve said in the past, Obamacare is not about helping anyone, only about centralizing federal power. Remember the promise? Insure the uninsured, bend the cost care down, keep your doctor, and keep your plan yadda yadda yadda. Peolsi knew this horrible piece of legislation wouldn’t do any of those things. The real reason for Obamacare was to put even more Americans on the government dole, thus giving the centralized Feds even more power over the electorate.

Liberal’s very existence depends on there being a pool of serfs desperate for handouts distributed by Democrat overlords. If 90% of Americans were self-sufficient and refused to trade their dignity for a few scraps in the form of various welfare payouts, there would be no modern Democrat Party.

But here’s the rub folks. With each block of victims increasingly becoming dependent upon the government, it will put more and more pressure on the ever-decreasing tax base. And as the tax base dwindles the feds will have to borrow more and more to keep up with the ever increasing clamor for handouts. And that’s when we change the name of the country from The United States of America to simply Detroit.

I leave you with this quote from Alexis de Tocqueville:

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Truer words where never spoken.