What About the Baby?

In commemoration of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, President Obama said the following yesterday. 

"Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision's guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.  We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman's access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom.  And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.  Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Something is missing. Did you catch it?

What about the baby’s choices about his/her body?

What about the baby’s access to safe, affordable health care?

What about the baby’s constitutional right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

What about the baby’s right to be born?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

When you read between the lines, what you see is a very sick and twisted perspective on life:

“We resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies”

By killing all unwanted babies?

                                                    

We will “build safe and healthy communities”

By killing off millions of babies and instilling a sense of irresponsibility on the part of sexually active men and woman?

“This is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams”

Unless you are an unborn baby in the womb of a women who does not want you!

The fact that these obvious omissions are not even called out in a mainstream manner, says more about the decline of morals in America than anything I can imagine short of executing undesirables – i.e. Nazy Germany.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/obama-we-recommit-ourselves-roe-v-wades-guiding-principle

House of Lies

Obamacare passed because the Democratic Party sold the country out in pursuit of the progressives' unconstitutional dream of taking over the country's healthcare system. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans opposed the law, they passed it anyway without a single vote by the Republicans and without a single legislator reading the bill.

Below is a list of the Top 10 lies stated by Obama in order to pass this monstrosity. Don't forget to check the record of your favorite Democrat who is up for reelection in 2014. What did they have to say in the months leading up to the vote. I bet you can find several instances where they uttered one or more of the following:

Promise #1: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”[2]

Reality: Millions of Americans have lost and will lose their coverage due to Obamacare.

Promise #2: “[T]hat means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.”[6]

Reality:  Many Americans might not be able to keep their current doctor without paying extra.

Promise #3: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.”[9]

Reality: Premiums for people purchasing coverage in the individual market have significantly increased in a majority of states.

Promise #4: “[F]or the 85 and 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, this thing’s already happened. And their only impact is that their insurance is stronger, better and more secure than it was before. Full stop. That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything else.”[12]

Reality: Obamacare imposes certain new benefit mandates on those with employer-sponsored coverage—a majority of Americans.

Promise #5: “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”[15]

Reality: Obamacare contains 18 separate tax hikes, fees, and penalties, many of which heavily impact the middle class.

Promise #6: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future.”[18]

Reality: Obamacare’s new spending is unsustainable.

Promise #7: “[W]hatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.”[21]

Reality:  Health spending is still rising and is projected to grow at an average rate of 5.8 percent from 2012 to 2022.[22]

Promise #8: “I will protect Medicare.”[24]

Reality:  Obamacare cuts Medicare spending.

Promise #9: “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American.”[27]

Reality:  Millions of Americans will remain uninsured.

Promise #10: “So this law means more choice, more competition, lower costs for millions of  Americans.” [29]

Reality: Obamacare has not increased insurer competition or consumer choice.

Interested in reading the entire report with references? Click on the link below:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/12/10-broken-obamacare-promises?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

What Can We Learn from Ted Cruz's Homecoming Reception

Senator Ted Cruz's recently received a hero's welcome when he returned home to Texas following his efforts to defund Obamacare. For weeks he has been roundly criticized by Democrats, the mainstream media, and many establishment Republicans. Despite the mounting pressure and criticism, he has repeatedly stated that one of the reasons the people in Texas elected him was to defund Obamacare. That is exactly what he is going to try to accomplish.

Put Cruz's position in perspective: Under Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, two senators from each state were elected by the legislature of each state. Under this scenario, senators represented the states essentially as ambassadors to the federal government while members of the House represented the local voters in their district. In 1913, Progressives called for the election of senators by voters in each state; thus the Seventeenth Amendment was born!

Why was this a watershed moment in our country's history? Because what Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution accomplished was to provide state governments with a means to influence congressional lawmaking without taking away the federal government's enumerated powers. The states appointment of senators was another check and balance against the centralized federal government. Instead of our senators conferring with their respective legislatures for guidance and advice on potential votes, they are beholden to Washington lobbyists, consultants, donors and advocacy groups. Simply put, United States Senators are not concerned with the sovereignty of states from which they come because "the states" have very little influence over them. Consider the Obamacare vote: how many Democrat Senators would have voted for this monstrosity if their state legislature could recall them at any time?

Fast-forward to today and ask yourself what means of influence the states currently have over the federal government? The answer is "very little if any" as Washington controls the purse-strings - gasoline tax for highway improvements runs through D.C., Washington distributes money to the states for education spending and welfare programs. Most states are beholden to the federal government for their economic existence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ted-cruz-returns-to-texas-as-a-hero-who-is-reshaping-the-state-republican-party/2013/10/23/449c5a76-3b6a-11e3-a94f-b58017bfee6c_story.html

Slippery Slope

The history of gun control in Britain:

1689: King William of Orange guarantees his subjects (except Catholics) the right to bear arms for self-defense in a new Bill of Rights.

1819: A temporary Seizure of Arms Act is passed allowing constables to search for, and confiscate, arms for people who are “dangerous to the public peace.” Set to expire in two years.

1870: A license is required to carry a firearm outside of your home.

1903: The Pistol Act is introduced. No guns for drunks or the mentally insane, and licenses required for handgun purchases.

1920: The Firearms Act ushers in the first registration system. Gives police power to deny a license to anyone “unfitted to be trusted with a firearm.” Gun ownership became a privilege, not a right.

1937: Update to the Firearms Act raising minimum age to buy a gun, gives police more power to regulate licenses, and bans most fully automatic weapons. The home secretary alson rules that self-defense is no longer a valid reason to be granted a gun certificate. (See 1689).

1967: The Criminal Justice Act expands licensing to shotguns.

1968: Applicants for a license must show good reason for carrying a gun and ammunition.

1988: After the Hungerford Massacre, an amendment to the Firearms Act is passed banning several types of guns altogether.

1997: After the Dunblane Massacre, another Firearms Act amendment is passed essentially banning all handguns.

2006: The Violent Crime Reduction Act is passed making it a crime to make or sell imitation guns and further restricting “air weapons.”

From Control by Glenn Beck

The Truth About Minimum Wage

In the wake of today’s nationwide strike of fast-food workers demanding a wage of $15 an hour, anyone paying attention to the news can’t help but be exposed to the usual inane calls for “compassion” and a “living wage”.

Take a step back and consider what $15 an hour paid to a McDonald’s worker would mean:

#1 – The costs to run the business skyrocket.

#2 – In order to cover the skyrocketing costs, the business owners will have to raise prices or go out of business.

#3 – Raising the price of a Big Mac from $3.50 to $6.00 will lower demand. With fewer Big Macs being sold at the higher price, the business owners can only hope to maintain revenue at previous levels, however that rarely happens because consumers either search for substitutes for the now more expensive product or they forgo purchasing the product all together.

#4 – With lower revenue and higher expenses, owners are forced to lay-off workers.

#5 – If an owner ever does begin hiring again, they can no longer consider teenagers and other low-skilled workers for these entry-level roles. After all, who in their right mind would pay a 17-year old or a high school drop-out $15 an hour to sweep floors, flip burgers, or take orders?

The result is higher unemployment for low-skilled, younger workers and, to make matters worse, the minority communities are always hit hardest in these scenarios.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-fast-food-protests-20130829,0,5191267.story