Planned Parenthood, so hip, with it and cool, exposes itself

It’s not pretty, either.

Check out this ad campaign running in New England:

We’re your quickie? We’re your afternoon delight? Friend with benefits?

Take everything disgusting about the sexual revolution and roll it into one ad campaign. This is it. Flexible, in the mood, convenient, no strings attached. How quaint.

Jill Stanek posted Dr. Gerard Nadal’s counter-campaign. Snazzy and truthful:

We’re Your Breast Cancer

Our pills will increase your risk of the worst form of BC 540% if you start before age 18. (See the scientific reference in even smaller print.)

We’re Your HPV and Herpes Infection

According to the FDA: “Genital ulcer diseases and HPV infections can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered.”

We’re Your Premature Birth

Abortions often damage the cervix, leading to inability to hold babies in for a full term in future pregnancies.

We’re Your Sterility

Abortions often badly scar the uterus, leading to future sterility.

We’re Your PID

Performing gynecologic surgery on women with untreated Chlamydia infection leads to Pelvic Inflammatory Disease in up to 25% of these women within a month. Hey, ask us if we test you for Chlamydia before aborting your baby!

We’re Your Ectopic Pregnancy

Progestin-only contraceptive use is associated with a five-fold increase in ectopic pregnancies among progestin-only users.

I’ll add one of my own for good measure:

We’re Your Polluter of the Water Supply

For all the eco-consciousness of pill-takers everywhere, they pee estrogen causing deformities in delicate ecosystems. To say nothing of the residual hormones left in our municipal water supplies (which cannot be removed). Save a frog, use Natural Family Planning!

Read the rest at Stanek’s.

UPDATE: linked by Pundette as a Recommended Read. Thanks!

Advertisement

“To Hell With Catholics”

Well, it’s not like Obama never telegraphed his abortion views loud and clear before the election.

Remember, the majority of Catholics voted for BO.

While I’d like to think that those are all the Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden types, the truth of the matter remains: Catholics voted for the man.

So will those Catholics–the ones who don’t give a rat’s rear end about abortion or contraceptive culture–be so aghast that their religious liberties are being trampled? Probably not.

But I am.

The Bishop of Pittsburg wrote a scathing response to the new ruling from the Obama administration that Catholic institutions will not receive a waiver from the new mandate from Health and Human Services forcing all employers to provide insurance to cover abortions and contraception. I’m rather saddened that we didn’t hear something similar at Mass this morning:

It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, “To Hell with you!” There is no other way to put it.

In early August, the Department for Health and Human Services in the Obama administration released guidelines as part of the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The guidelines mandated that by Summer 2012 all individual and group health insurance plans, including self-insured plans, cover all FDA-approved contraception, sterilization procedures and pharmaceuticals that even result in abortion.

A million things are wrong with this: equating pregnancy with disease;  mandating that every employer pay for contraception procedures including alleged contraceptives that are actually abortion-inducing drugs; forcing American citizens to chose between violating their consciences or providing health care services; mandating such coverage on every individual woman without allowing her to even choose not to have it; forcing every person to pay for that coverage no matter the dictates of their conscience.
Let’s be blunt. This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself.  In this instance, the mandate declares pregnancy a disease, forces a culture of contraception and abortion on society, all while completely bypassing the legislative process.

This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone – not only Catholics; not only people of all religion.  At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but even across-the-board with all citizens. It forces every employer to subsidize an ideology or pay a penalty while searching for alternatives to heath care coverage. It undermines the whole concept and hope for health care reform by inextricably linking it to the zealotry of pro-abortion bureaucrats.

Read the rest. The likely result: if the Catholic Church really goes to war over this, then it will dump the health care coverage for thousands of employees and pay the penalty for doing so.

Will those folks realize that Obama stripped them of their health care coverage? Or will they blame the Church?

A reader wrote  in to PJ Tatler to share what her parish added to the body of the Mass: the Prayer to St. Michael, patron of warriors:

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

This means war.

UPDATE: Linked by Pundette. Many thanks!

Caucus?

I just received my caucus registration reminder. Caucus? For Whom? I’m a conservative.

As if I am willing to get a babysitter to be there by 7 and stand up for any of the boobs left.

No thanks. I think I’d rather watch a movie at this point.

Pundette wonders when Newt fatigue will set in.

How about primary fatigue? I’m sick of ’em all and don’t think any of the boobs left have a snowball’s chance in hell.

Shoot, that’s not primary fatigue. That’s resignation.

Back to my pinterest, thankyouverymuch.

 

The 33%

Turns out I’m one of many. Who would’ve thought a third of GOP voters would be so disgusted with our supposed choices in the primary that we’d pine for another hat tossed in the ring?

I’ve found refuge from politics in Pinterest and crafting. Obsessive cleaning. Anything but Newt, Mitt or the wrong Rick.

You?

Oh my.

Family business kept me from posting for the last few days. In the time since, my man Perry dropped out and endorsed Newt, who went on to wallop Mitt in the South Carolina primary. As a transplanted southerner, I’ve been awed by the commentary following Newt’s win (those stupid hicks!). Now he’s managed to reverse a sizable lead Mitt held in Florida.

And oh, the inevitable one somehow now isn’t. He didn’t win in Iowa, either.

On one hand, I watch with awe to see this terrible race get (could it?) worse.

I cannot support Santorum. He has no experience. The experience he does doesn’t bode well for conservativsm save his real devotion to pro-life causes.

I cannot support Mitt. He cannot articulate conservatism because he’s never been one. Or, as Mark Steyn put it, Mitt can’t even hire someone to articulate conservatism for him:

Can’t any of his highly paid honchos write him a campaign slogan that’s his own and doesn’t sound in his mouth so cheesily anodyne, as if some guy ran a focus-group and this phrase came up with the lowest negatives?

And that leaves me with Newt. Oh my. I know folks are spoiling for a fight with Obama, and that they see Newt as the only one who would actually bloody BO with a sharp uppercut to the jaw, rendering the ‘prompter unnecessary. I do understand that. But I also understand why Newt drowns in his own negatives. He’s odious. I can’t imagine kicking Barry O out in order to, well, replace him with someone else entirely unsuitable for the Presidency.

Pundette with bit of brilliance for what might have been this morning:

As for the might-have-runs who chose not to offer themselves as candidates this time around, none of them had the complete  Rick Perry package: genuine conservative principles, a long record of successful  leadership, and a temperament suited to the office. And none of them was without his own negatives. To name a few: Mitch Daniels: “truce,” bald, family problems; Bobby Jindal: dull; Chris  Christie: too fat, RINO-esque, arrogant; even Paul Ryan: inexperienced. And who  knows how the fickle at-home viewers would have rated their debate  performances? Perry’s notorious oops (and the resultant disproportionate, magnifying spin) was the biggest factor in his failure to attract support. Amid all the attention, little serious discussion was given to  what kind of president he was likely to have been, based on his extensive record. His flop was an enormous win for Obama.

Now we’re looking at  a couple of guys with towering negatives, some of which may constitute deal-breakers for some conservative voters. Come November and  beyond, when this American Idol-esque nomination process has borne its strange  fruit, Perry’s “oops” may look very tiny in comparison to the one uttered by the rest of us.

Indeed.

Brokered convention, anyone? Althouse points to Bill Kristol wishing the same thing while dropping the hint with runmitchrun.com, where a whopping 2,714 folks have signed the petition in 48 hours. Not entirely convincing, eh?

Oh my.

UPDATE: linked by Pundette as a “Recommended Read.” Many thanks!

Rick Moranis: “How much of this country’s economy am I personally destroying by my consumption preferences?”

He’s thrifty, like me, and wonders if he’s destroying the economy as a result. A snippet from the WSJ:

This morning, while I was grinding my blend of French, Colombian and Italian coffee beans, it occurred to me that I could be doing harm to the coffee shop and diner businesses in my neighborhood by making my own coffee at home. Might I have a responsibility and obligation to consume their product, either within their premises or brought right to my door by one of their speedy, undocumented-alien delivery men?

I also wondered whether still using my old, reliable German-brand coffee grinder, manufactured in China, might be an unpatriotic betrayal of American kitchen-appliance makers by choosing not to buy their Chinese-made grinder.

As I poured some house-brand almond milk into my homemade granola, I thought about the depressed demand and earnings on the higher-priced product manufacturers that I wasn’t patronizing, their resulting order and production declines, and the backlogged inventories and possible layoffs at their factories.

How much of this country’s economy am I personally destroying by my consumption preferences? I honestly never intended to do so much harm.

I ran a hot iron quickly over the front of a previously worn shirt, saddened at the thought of the jolly staff at my local dry cleaner who will suffer because of my thrifty initiative and tolerance for rumpled, mildly aromatic haberdashery.

Heh. I needed that this morning after wading through hundreds of rental houses online.

Moranis jokingly points out a simple truth, though: how much consumption is necessary to support the economy? Or could his thriftiness in some ways–homemade granola and coffee at home–lead to greater consumption in others, i.e. stock purchases? That’s my line and I’m sticking to it. We’ve forgotten how to save money because of the endless lines of credit available. Don’t have the money for those great jeans? Get a store credit card with a low introductory rate of 22%! Buy it anyway, even though you don’t really own it and will pay much more for it. Can’t pay for college? Go get that useless degree at the highly expensive liberal arts college best known for it’s marijuana reputation and finance the entire bit so that you’re never able to overcome the debt in your lifetime! It’s such a contrast from the attitude of my immigrant grandparents, who didn’t buy a thing they couldn’t pay for in cash, including cars.

 

 

Perry’s last stand

A few things this morning to assuage my angst over the Bronco’s beating last night and Perry’s ballot fight loss in Virginia.

Perry’s ticking up in the polls, from 5 to 9 percent, in South Carolina. Hardest hit: Rick Santorum, the big-government faux-conservative who has plummeted from 24% to 7, below Perry. Evangelicals decided to coalesce behind the wrong Rick yesterday because they feel he has a better chance despite the fact that he’s never run a damn thing. Rubes. Executive experience? Obama didn’t have any, either! Look how well that’s worked out for ya.

Sigh.

 

Newtrick Peringrinchum runs away with the race; Mitt gives multiple answers as to how he’s feeling

I come to a different conclusion than Jim Geraghty does upon adding the “conservative” support against Mitt, but here are the numbers:

Looking at some polls out today and yesterday though the lens of “Newtrick Perigrinchum,” a figure who would unify all of the supporters of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry:

Rasmussen’s latest in Florida: Romney 41, Newtrick Perigrinchum 36.

Insider Advantage, South Carolina: Romney 23, Newtrick Perigrinchum 40.

Gallup tracking, national: Romney 31, Newtrick Perigrinchum 37.

I’m not the only conservative on the planet who sees Newt and Perry’s line of attack against Mitt as justified. There’s a difference between “capitalism” and forcing taxpayers to bail out pension funds for laid-off workers after you’ve gutted a company for all it’s worth. Just sayin’. It tickled me this morning to see Sarah Palin asking for proof of Mitt’s claims to have created 100,000 jobs. Much like his tax returns, we’ll never see proof of anything.

More on those 100,000 jobs:

Rick Tyler, former Gingrich aide and head of Newt Gingrich’s Super PAC, has already accused Romney of having created those 100,000 jobs in Asia and Mexico. Earlier this week, Big Government pointed out that Romney’s claim to have created 100,000 jobs contrasts with claims he made during his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, when he claimed to have created10,000 jobs at Bain. Romney retired from Bain Capital in 1999.

Heh. Why shouldn’t it be surprising that Multiple-Choice Mitt has, um, added a zero?

(Is it just me, or is nominating liberal’s idea of a dream candidate the craziest thing evah? The grandfather of Obamacare? Sure he’ll repeal it! Open candidate, unlike The One who continues to hide his own personal papers? Surely he’ll open his tax records! Give me a break!)

(And yes, for the first time in my adult life I wonder if I’ll be able to hold my nose long enough to vote for the anointed non-Republican. I never dreamed this would happen in all the Tea Party rallies I attended with my then-newborn baby. How incredibly sad that even supposed Tea supporters have blinders on to the reality of what an Obama-Romney match up would look like let alone the damage a RINO like Romney–who appointed liberal activist judges, who tells Planned Parenthood hacks that pro-lifers are rubes, who created the architecture for Obamacare. A clue: bloodbath.).

Meanwhile, why is Rick Santorum still garnering any support? Via RedState, Santorum’s own words. He’s a redistributionist at home with the best of the the liberals:

I suspect some will dismiss my ideas as just an extended version of ‘compassionate conservatism.’ Some will reject what I have said as a kind of ‘Big Government Conservatism.’ Some will say that what I’ve tried to argue isn’t conservatism at all. But I believe what I’ve been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good.

-Conclusion, p. 421; audio here

It’s better for everyone to spread the wealth! The Founders would’ve agreed! How inspiring.

What a great ad that would be.

I’m growing more cynical about this race by the day, and it pains me.

 

In a nutshell, the two Ricks

Via Erick Erickson who reminds us that even after tomorrow’s New Hampshire primary, the candidate field will have completed 1.80% of the primary process. Less than 2%. In other words, it ain’t over despite what all the Romneybots think. Even after South Carolina in 2 weeks, less than 3% of the delegates will be allocated.

Truth be told, I still don’t understand the Santorum surge. After GW–whom I adored, yes–nearly destroyed conservatism with that “compassionate” tag of ever-increasing government expansion in the name of … expansion–we don’t need another Republican who believes the answers lie in more government. I’m not an Ann Coulter fan, but this made me laugh because it’s true (H/t: Legal Insurrection):

Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative, which means he’s good on 60 percent of the issues, but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God.

Professor Jacobson calls it a smear against another not-Romney, but there’s truth in the statement.

Meanwhile, we have a choice as outlined by Rick Perry. He identifies what this election is about and is still the only small-government conservative running. He’s also the longest-serving governor in the country of that giant state. The one that dominates job creation.

Almost universally, Republicans hold in contempt the real-life “ends” of the Obama administration’s policies, though admittedly there are those self-described conservatives who have favored (and even authored) Obamacare-like approaches to health care and policies like cap-and-trade. To us, those ends look decidedly liberal and reminiscent of European social democracies, and out of step with our vision for America.

Yet some conservatives, while rejecting the “ends” have not yet fully rejected the means, despite the fact that many Americans—and not just conservatives or libertarians— have reached the conclusion that the federal government has just become too big and has its fingers in too many pies, with the predictable negative real-world consequences for the rest of us.

They argue that a big intrusive government is fine, desirable even, so long as it pursues “conservative” goals, which frequently when scrutinized are neither conservative nor worthy. Earmarks are okay, as long as they are directed by “conservatives.” Expansions of government like Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind were acceptable because they represented “Republican” policy. Congress spending all its time in Washington, DC, and legislating madly is fine, so long as the congressmen are Republicans and they are pursuing something that the Washington, DC, establishment has deemed “conservative.” It’s okay to have a government so big, so unaccountable and playing with so much money that serving Members of Congress can get rich while on the job, and once off the job, they can get even richer by becoming high-powered corporate consultants before skipping over to K Street itself, to try to grow government and spend even more of your money.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, we have reached a critical juncture at which government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.

Do we really need the Rick who has no executive experience, who supported Arlen Specter at the expense of a real conservative, and whose record in the Senate consistently betrays conservative principles?

Not really.

 

Obama to hack at military as best he can in the next year to fire up that liberal base!

This is unreal. I can’t wait for the full announcement.

Via Hot Air, Obama to cut “tens of thousands of ground troops” from military. 

It’s a “more realistic” vision of the military.

What strikes me as odd given the talk of cutting the number of active carriers in the Navy AND the new fighter jet program, is this use of “well, we’ll cut the ground pounders so we can have a bigger Navy and Air Force.”

It’s all smoke and mirrors. He’s going to inflict as much damage as possible. His everlasting present to liberals. I’m just surprised he’s not going full-on Kucinich and not abolishing the Department of Defense.

Curiouser:

On Wednesday, Boeing announced that it will shutter a factory in Wichita that produces military airplanes for refueling, an early casualty of what is expected to be a wave of closings among defense contractors.

But wait, wouldn’t you need more tankers and refuelers if you’re cutting ground troops to spare the Navy and the Air Force?

Ed Morissey points to more holes in logic, as if there were any to begin with:

This is a curious direction to take while our troops are still in Afghanistan.  Obama increased the commitment there by “tens of thousands,” a good call, but an escalation that isn’t due to reverse until two years from now.  One would expect that the US would want to make clear that we retain the ability to maintain those troop levels and could extend our commitment at any time if we so choose, so as not to embolden our enemies and make them think that our ability to wage war has been degraded.

It’s also curious because of the complaint often heard from Democrats during the Bush administration of overextending troop deployments through stop-loss, and the overuse of National Guard forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The reason for both was that the current level of funding for troops was not high enough to support two extended, small-to-medium sized conflicts at the same time while keeping our security commitments around the world.  That’s not even the “win-win,” two-major-simultaneous-wars paradigm that “dominated Pentagon funding decisions” during the Cold War, but ended during Bill Clinton’s presidency.  The rapid redeployment schedules used in the last decade showed that we may not be prepared to fight one major ground war, let alone two, for an extended period of time.

We need a President and Commander-in-Chief who understands that you don’t gut the military to save entitlement spending, especially when the entitlement spending is the lion’s share of the problema.

Go Rick Perry, go. Fight. Win.