Smelling victory

The Komen Foundation caving in to Planned Parenthood is easy to undo. People who donate to Komen should find another cancer charity that does NOT give money to Planned Parenthood:

You Should Find the Anti-Komen Backlash Disgusting, Even If You’re Pro-Choice
By Daniel Foster
February 3, 2012 11:33 A.M.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...usting-even-if-youre-pro-choice-daniel-foster

Unfortunately, it not so easy to stop tax dollars from paying for Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills. The law and the SCOTUS could not stop abortion funding. In all probabilities paying for abortions with tax dollars will continue for as far as the eye can see.

In addition to funding abortions the Administration is punishing Catholic institutions that refuse to do abortions:

Catholic Hospitals Fight to Stay Pro-life
Written by Dave Bohon Monday, 27 December 2010 14:30

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/5643-catholic-hospitals-fight-to-stay-pro-life

Clearly, the infanticide crowd smells total victory.

The Komen Foundation disgrace coupled with the government’s attempt to force Catholics to perform abortions reminded me of Pat Buchanan’s latest book Suicide of a Superpower. This excerpt does not mention abortion:

“[W]hite America is an endangered species. By 2020, whites over 65 will out-number those 17 and under. Deaths will exceed births. The white population will begin to shrink and, should present birth rates persist, slowly disappear.”​

http://themoderatevoice.com/125522/...of-rights-for-blacks-led-to-socialist-utopia/

I’ve not yet read Pat’s book; so I can’t say how he addresses abortion. Abortion in relation to population numbers must be considered since Caucasians are the minority race to begin with.

Others will fight Planned Parenthood’s tax dollar abortions and the attack on Catholic beliefs. I want to look at populations in a general sense.

Why is it that the Caucasian population is decreasing while every other racial group is increasing in size? The folks living in Western democracies are the wealthiest and healthiest of people; they enjoy the highest standard of living, yet it is the Third World poor who are breeding like rabbits. One would think that those who are well-off would have more kids because they can afford to care for them. Obviously, it isn't working out that way; so I have to ask why? More questions come to mind because politics might very well be a contributing factor in racial population declines and increases.

Will the descendants of those non-Caucasians who are being allowed to migrate to the Western democracies in large numbers stop producing children once their standard of living has risen to respectable levels?

Is coerced miscegenation in contemporary democracies the reason so many Caucasians have chosen not to bring children into the world? I only ask this question because I accept the fact that racial hatred is deeply rooted in every race —— not only Caucasians here in the US. I suspect that the percentage of black, brown, and Oriental racists is the same percentage as Caucasians. One thing cannot be denied. Racism pays off in real money for those who know how to profit from it.

What effect does nudity, which is so prevalent in Western democracies, have on the desire to procreate?

In addition to topless bars, porno movies, etc., airbrushed photogenic images of naked, or scantily clad, women are readily available in the West, yet the population is decreasing.

The question that arises is this one: "Is all of that nudity having a negative effect on sex for procreation purposes?" I’m guessing that live nudity and two dimensional images of the naked female form does not encourage the male Caucasian's desire to procreate.

Live nudity and images of naked men are also available to women; so the same question can be approached from that direction. Incidentally, during the Victorian Era when women covered themselves from neck to toe large families were common. Life expectancy was shorter during those years as well. I'm not certain if either of those conditions are important in understanding birth rates.

Then there is the morality that is certainly attached to procreation sex to consider. However, personal observation has taught me that morality is most often ignored before the fact when it comes to sex. Abortion is immorality after the fact. Some Americans demand the Right to kill their own so they can devote all of their love to the Third World poor. That being the case, it's just not fair for anyone to blame the Third World poor for wanting to come here so they can soak up all of that love at the source.

Also, there is a lot of talk about controlling the global birth rate through government intervention. That is ridiculous since no one seems to understand why population explosions happen in one place while the opposite takes place on the other side of the world. A whole lot of theories abound, but nobody really knows for certain. In some cases it appears obvious. For example: Many Americans stopped having kids during the Great Depression. That seems understandable considering the times, except that now many Caucasian Americans are reasonably affluent, but they have not returned to creating large families. Rich, poor, or in-between, doesn't seem to matter once a group collectively decides to stop breeding, yet a perception of the world and where a homeland is headed must surely be a part of such a decision.

The most powerful type of collective decision the individual members of any society can make is when millions and millions of men and women arrive at the same conclusion without receiving directions from Big Brother. Freedom in the United States led to the exact same collective decisions that were made during the Great Depression, and again at some point after the Great Society turned out to be not so great.

A similar collective decision was also made in the former Soviet Union. No one can blame the Russians for significantly reducing the Russian birth rate under socialism/communism, but Russians have not made a horny dash towards having more kids now that they have a shot at enjoying individual liberties. It's still too soon to tell which way the Russians will go, but Caucasian Russians themselves are very much concerned with their diminishing numbers in their own country. If Russia gets its act together, and the standard of living goes up along with some other good things happening, will the Russian people go romantic and start breeding a bunch of little czars and czarinas? Or will Russian men and women do what Americans did once things got better? Only time will tell which way Russia will go.

Looking at the declining birth rate in the US, Russia, and throughout Europe, one might conclude that the growth of socialism definitely puts a damper on Caucasian procreation; whereas, in China the Chicom government has to enforce abortion on Chinese women who might decide to drop a baker's dozen if given the choice. Of course, this could only mean the communist/socialist government feels compelled to step in because Oriental men and women enjoying whacking away at it more than do Caucasians.

Then there is the all-important matter of the work involved in raising a houseful of gumps; assuming the husband is earning enough for his wife to stay at home. In most cases an American wife and mother has to hold down a job. American women in that situation are not at fault for rebelling against having large families. The problem here is that working American men and women are busting their butts to pay taxes that go towards raising and educating someone else's kids, while the vast majority of American mothers are too tired to have more than one kid of their own and still go out and work in order for their own families to enjoy a decent lifestyle.

While this is happening throughout working class America, television and magazines repeatedly tell us what a wonderful mother a me-me hairdo earning millions a year is because she hires a platoon of helpers to do the actual work. To no one's surprise that kind always adores the U.N. They simply can't understand why anyone would be against paying even more taxes in order to fund yet another government program that takes care of kids in Third World countries —— not to mention taking care of every illegal immigrant family that arrives in the US looking to collect on an I.O.U. written by Socialist parasites expecting everyone else to pickup the marker.

WWII put American women to work outside the home. They are being kept there in order to fund socialism. Let's say that every married American woman stopped working outside the home. For the present level of socialism to be funded in that situation every husband would have to work two jobs, or approximately 90 hours a week just for the government to stay where it's at now. Obviously, it would not take long before working men said "To hell with this noise." By dividing socialism's upkeep between husbands and wives Socialists can continue to feed at the public trough unnoticed by most. Sacrificing the private sector American family is a small price to pay for the eventual creation of a well-fed, well-educated, global village population out-humping the Caucasian race into oblivion.

 

It is the media and basic human greed that is driving the lower birth rate...

Young girls are being raised to believe that their purpose in life is to have sex with no consequences, that all that matters is what they want. Boys are being taught that girls SHOULD be easy and that sex is a recreational sport.

Our media promotes that girls should look a certain way, that a girl's worth is in not only in how she looks but how willing she is to be 'modern' and 'progressive'...and the way to be hip and modern? Learning? Developing skills? of course not...the ONLY thing that is encouraged is for young girls to be promiscious.

In developing countries, you see whole families...families with fathers...look at the 'modern' world and you will see a huge percentage of children do not live with their biological fathers, you can not discount how much that affects kids.

 

To injest: I agree with one slight elaboration. Hollywood movies and television tells boys their duty is to please girls. You can see it in all of those “Women-finding-themselves” movies and TV shows.

Parenthetically, when I was a kid in the 1940s every girl in the neighborhood was waiting for Clark Gable. That is the lesson they absorbed from a relatively young movie industry. It went far beyond girlish daydreams —— they were certain Clark was their due. Having observed the evolution of a fantasy over the past six decades, I concluded it is the CG fantasy that became the foundation for much of the frustration and disappointment so many men and women in society are experiencing today. Too many women are insatiable leaving both men and women unsatisfied.

Politically speaking, striving for the reality that lies somewhere between the Clark Gable fantasy and the way women are mistreated in so much of the world is the way to improve the lives of women everywhere. The harm American feminists do is seen in the sugarcoated venom they spew on the Third World. Telling Third World women they, too, should accept nothing less than complete satisfaction in everything —— then blame society when they don’t get it —— does more harm than good. It’s akin to a rich woman telling a poor woman “Be like me.” That’s a lot to ask of women who have no expectations whatsoever.

American women would do well to take a closer look at the feminazis who promote abortion and population controls. Such women don’t run away from absolute political power —— they flock to it. They are obsessed with political power more than any other form of domination. Once absolute power is in their hands every abuse becomes possible; especially the degradation and abuse of women they claim they want to save.

Long before the first bra-burner ever lit a match American women were the envy of their sisters the world over. American women always had more avenues open to self-sufficiency them than did the women of any other country in the world. Those avenues will be closed by any form of totalitarian government. Examine how most women have been, and are, treated under modern totalitarian governments available for examination. Only the worst of women, and men for that matter, seek absolute government control because they, and they alone, benefit from it.

Before buying abortion and population controls women everywhere should ask themselves who did the most to prevent girl babies from being thrown into the river throughout Asia and Africa long before feminazis reared their ugly heads in the halls of power? Was it the men and women who devoted their lives to missionary societies? Or was it the type of feminist who is drawn to totalitarian government?

 

George Will is too polite to call American liberals a pack of liars:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/05/g...erican-liberalisms-defense-of-abortion-video/

I’m not so polite. Liberals lie about everything, but never more than when they lie about abortion.

 

You are so right!!!!

 

Well, well, who’d thunk it? Certainly not the folks who defend funding abortion with tax dollars by claiming it is against the law. Some defense! It’s the same as a wife beater saying beating your wife is against the law —— while he is pounding her senseless. It turns out AmeriCorps has been funding Planned Parenthood even though it is against the law.

The only way the news reported in the following piece could be any better is if AmeriCorps was shutdown permanently:

AmeriCorps watchdog faces $3.7 million budget cut
By Gregory Korte, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – The beleaguered watchdog of the AmeriCorps national service program will take another hit next month, as budget cuts by Congress will force it to lay off nearly three quarters of its staff.

Acting Inspector General Kenneth Bach has told Congress he has curtailed open investigations, and may not be able to look into allegations of wrongdoing in the $1 billion Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS).

At least 19 investigators, auditors and support staff will be laid off March 17.

"The impact is profound. Come that date, our oversight — which has already slipped — will be over," said William Hillburg, a spokesman for the inspector general who will lose his job.

The investigations have sometimes been politically charged. The office is looking into allegations that AmeriCorps volunteers improperly engaged in advocacy work for Planned Parenthood, and previous reports have questioned volunteer programs run by politically connected mayors.

Bach says the $3.7 million cut came as a surprise, and it's unclear who in Congress inserted the provision. Three Republican senators called on Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds national service, to restore the cut. Harkin, while calling the cuts "unfortunate," pointed the finger at House Republicans, who voted to eliminate AmeriCorps and its inspector general entirely as part of the annual appropriation bill.

President Obama's 2013 budget includes $5.4 million for the inspector general — a $1.4 million increase from 2012 but still a cut from $7.7 million in 2011.

The office has been without a permanent head since 2009, when Obama fired inspector general Gerald Walpin. His firing came after he criticized a Justice Department settlement with Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who had been accused by Walpin's investigators of using AmeriCorps volunteers as chauffeurs, personal assistants and political operatives. Johnson, a Democrat, campaigned for Obama.

Members of Congress from both parties decried the firing, but the White House said Walpin had been acting erratically.

Bach, the acting inspector general, has complained to Congress that the Justice Department often won't prosecute volunteer fraud because the cases "lack jury appeal" or fail to meet a dollar threshold. He now says he's worried his independence will be diminished.

"Independence is almost a moot point with cuts of this magnitude," said Jake Weins, an investigator with the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group. "The office is essentially going to have to go into hibernation for a year."

Last year, auditors criticized what they called "undue influence" by former CNCS vice chairman Stephen Goldsmith in the awarding of 200 volunteers through the New York City mayor's office after previous applications had been rejected. Goldsmith, a Republican, intervened in favor of the city and later became the city's deputy mayor. The city's lawyers said the audit report relied on "unsupported innuendo."

Two senators, Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, have asked the inspector general to investigate the corporation's grants to Planned Parenthood. TheWall Street Journal reported last year that AmeriCorps-supported volunteers in New York were being used to train "reproductive health activists" in violation of federal law. The corporation also told congressional committee staffers that an AmeriCorps volunteer in Tacoma, Wash., served as an abortion clinic escort.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...corps-inspector-general-budget-cut/53158092/1