May All Your Wishes and Dreams Come True!
24
Nov
And..the attacks on Christmas begin!
Posted by: The BoBo // Category: Anti-Christian, Christian, Holiday, advertiseGiven that only 3% of the population consider themselves as atheist or non-religious – why the hell is this small minority allowed to dictate how the rest of the country celebrates the religious holidays? Thanksgiving is a religious-based holiday – it is a day when we give thanks to God for the bounties that He has given us. Christmas is a religious holiday in that this is the day we celebrate the birth of Jesus.
Sure, I get the fact that our religious holidays have been commercialized – however – the fact remains these are indeed religious holidays and many of us celebrate these holidays as such. What prompted this post? This idiotic article:
Ho, Ho,…Whoa! Secularists Get The Holiday Spirit
This is a VERY misleading headline. It is a story about how “secularists” are attempting to get in to the “Christmas spirit” by placing ads all over the place with the following slogan “No God?…No Problem!” While the article attempts to make this look like something good – again – this is a veiled threat and attempt to take God out of our religious holidays. Here is the ad:
Here’s what it says in the article:
The AHA is billing the ad campaign as “a new kind of holiday tradition” and says the ads will run on trains and buses in Washington, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco. The “Godless Holiday” pitch kicks off in Washington over the Thanksgiving weekend with banners inside 200 buses and on the outside of 20 more, and in 50 metro cars. It will then ramp up in early December, along with the rest of the holiday rush.
I highlighted that section up there. The idea is still to take God out of the holidays. It is not an attempt to try to get along as they seem to be trying to say. They think they’re being smart and that we won’t see what their real agenda is. The fact of the matter is this is still an attack against Christianity no matter how you put it. Don’t let them fool you – they still hate you for being a Christian and they think the Constitution says Freedom FROM religion.
Read the whole article yourselves and leave me your thoughts on this.
UPDATE – this is not related to the main topic – but – it is related to propaganda – check this out from Stunatra’s blog – talk about sinking to new lows in this healthcare debate.
20
Oct
Yes, the new health care bill DOES cover abortions.
Posted by: The BoBo // Category: Christian, Congress, Constitution, P-BO, Politics, Religion, Taxes, government, health careDespite what P-BO and the rest of the liberal Dems have been saying – the fact remains that taxpayer funded abortions are covered under this monstrosity.
Health Care Issues: Paying for Abortions
Before I get in to some of the details – I will put it on record that I am anti-abortion – as if some of you hadn’t already figured that out. I believe that all life is sacred – and especially the unborn that don’t have a voice.
HOWEVER – it is not my responsibility to tell another individual they can’t have an abortion. My anti-abortion position comes from my religious and moral belief. To me, abortion is outright murder. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has legalized this form of murder. But, God is the real judge. Those who have abortions and kill their unborn children will have to confront Him one day to plea their case.
Having said that – let’s move on – from the link above:
A look at key issues in the health care debate:
THE ISSUE: Would new health care legislation allow abortions to be funded with tax money?
THE POLITICS: Abortion opponents say proposed government-sponsored health insurance plans would change federal policy by paying for abortions in many cases. For years, a restriction in the law that governs Medicaid — health insurance for the poor — has barred federal funding of abortions except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother’s life. The proposed legislation would permit government-sponsored health plans, open to non-Medicaid patients, to cover abortions. In seeking a political compromise, a House version would require publicly sponsored plans to pay for abortions with private funds from customers’ premiums, not tax dollars. Critics call the requirement meaningless. They say public and private sources of insurance funding would essentially go into, and come out of, one big pot.
WHAT IT MEANS: Women with private insurance plans that cover abortion might be able to switch to a less-expensive public plan without losing that coverage. Anti-abortion activists would feel they’ve lost an important battle, as taxpayer funds mingle with some insurance plans that, one way or another, pay for abortions.
So – here’s the deal-i-o, this bill has no way of keeping private money from taxpayer money – as stated above – ergo – we taxpayers will be funding abortions. For the 92% of us in this country that are religious – regardless of religious belief – we have a first amendment right to our belief. I know that Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism all believe that abortion is immoral (I can’t say for the others, however, these alone represent a little more than 80% of the population – full breakdown is here). As such, it would be a violation of our first amendment rights for our taxpayer dollars to fund these abortions.
I said earlier that it is not my place to tell someone they can’t have an abortion. However, when MY tax dollars may potentially be funding those abortions – HELL YES I have a right and it is my place to tell you HELL NO you can’t have that abortion. You made the mistake – you either pay for it yourself or you have the child. I won’t pay for it.
Before you libbers jump all over me for that last statement – let’s look at the statistics – of the approximately 1.5 million abortions performed annually in the United States – only 7.2% of those are due to risk to maternal health (2.8%); risk to fetal health (3.3%), or other (includes incest and rape – 2.1%). The remaining 92.8% are mistakes and the woman is using abortion as a form of birth control:
Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5% Wants no (more) children: 7.9% Cannot afford a baby: 21.3% Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
I’m sorry – but these are not legitimate excuses for having an abortion. In every one of those cases those babies could have been put up for adoption to other families that so frightfully want children but are unable to. Abortions are selfish – and – I’m not going to pay for it. These provisions need to be stripped from any bill that even attempts to reform our health care system.
09
Oct
Is this Freaky Friday or something? Expanded Hate Crimes Bill?
Posted by: The BoBo // Category: A Nation at Risk, America, Christian, Civil Rights, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, LiberalsGood lord, people. Did I wake up this morning in an alternate universe? I just read that those idiots in Congress expanded the hate crimes law (The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill) by attaching it to our defense budget for 2010.
Congress Acts to Extend Hate Crimes to Cover Gays
Seriously? What the fuck people? This has got to be another joke. It has already been proven that the death of Matthew Shepard was a drug related. His killers just wanted his money so they could buy drugs.
This is despicable. This bill couldn’t pass on it’s own – so – they piggyback it with the needs of our military. This bill is EXTREMELY dangerous in that it makes religious speech (a First Amendment Right) a federal crime if you oppose homosexuals. Not only that, but it protects pedophiles.
This bill is completely unnecessary since there are already state laws in place for this (other than providing federal protection for pedophiles). This is just more of those idiot liberals in D.C. pushing an agenda that the majority of America oppose.
I hope there is someone in D.C. with the balls to challenge this bill and bring it before SCOTUS. Last time I heard there are supposed to be checks and balances in our government to prevent unconstitutional laws like this from passing.
I can’t wait for November 2010 to get here!
11
Jul
ACLU trying to tear down a WWI Memorial
Posted by: The BoBo // Category: ACLU, America, Anti-Christian, Christian, Freedom, Soldiers, veteransh/t to Jan – This is a must see video. If you don’t pass on the video – please – at least pass on the story. The ACLU is currently in the process of trying to have this WWI Veteran Memorial torn down and removed from the Mojave Desert in California. Why would they do this? To appease one man who lives in Oregon that has never even driven by or seen the memorial. He wants it removed just because he “might” see it one day. This is atrocious and an egregious act not only against our military – but – it is also an attack against Christianity as well. Please take the time out to view this video and let others know. We can’t allow them to remove this memorial to our service members. Show your support, go to Don’t Tear Me Down and sign their petition. If you’re a blogger – add their widget – you can see mine on the side there. You can also follow them on Twitter, and Facebook.
Please use the “share this” button below and share it with everyone you know through whatever services you have. Stumble, Digg, Propeller, etc – this is an important story and needs to get out there. Take the video and put it up on your blogs too.
Other Bloggers who have posted about this issue:
CMBlak6 – What the fuck is wrong with these “people”?
Mike Buffington – ACLU suing to remove WW1 Memorial
30
Jun
White House taking on abortion issue.
Posted by: The BoBo // Category: America, Christian, Conservative, Democrats, Family, Liberals, Obama, Politics, President, Religion, Republicans, governmentFunny, maybe not, this seems to have slipped past the regular media – AGAIN
As White House Readies Abortion Plan, Packaging Emerges as Major Issue
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
As the White House readies its plan for finding “common ground” on reproductive health
issues and reducing the need for abortion, a major debate has emerged over how to package the plan’s two major components: preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion.
Many abortion rights advocates and some Democrats who want to dial down the culture wars want the White House to package the two parts of the plan together, as a single piece of legislation. The plan would seek to reduce unwanted pregnancies by funding comprehensive sex education and contraception and to reduce the need for abortion by bolstering federal support for pregnant women. Supporters of the approach say it would force senators and members of Congress on both sides of the abortion battle to compromise their traditional positions, creating true common ground that mirrors what President Obama has called for.
But more conservative religious groups working with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships say they would be forced to oppose such a plan—even though they support the abortion reduction part—because they oppose federal dollars for contraception and comprehensive sex education. This camp, which includes such formidable organizations as the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, is pressuring the White House to decouple the two parts of the plan into separate bills. One bill would focus entirely on preventing unwanted pregnancy, while the other would focus on supporting pregnant women.
The libertarian in me says – this is a social issue and the government needs to stay out of it completely. However, I have to actually say I am in full support of anything that would reduce the number of abortions in this country. Those idiot “conservative religious groups” need to get off their freakin’ high horses on this one. Deny contraception and sex education? Why? So that we can have more abortions or unwed teen pregnancies? You guys are way off on this one! And then, further down in this article – we have this:
Some abortion rights groups have already come out against the Pregnant Women Support Act, the model for advocates of splitting pregnancy prevention and support for pregnant women into separate bills. “For the pro-choice community, that bill has lots of incendiary language and coercive policy,” says Rachel Laser, who directs the culture program at the Democratic-leaning think tank Third Way and is pressing the White House to take a comprehensive approach on its reproductive health plan.
Hey, Rachel – chill out! This proposal does not reverse Roe v. Wade and it does nothing to stop abortions. The idea, bonehead, is to reduce the number of abortions through education and contraception. Why are you so hell bent on making sure there are unwanted pregnancies out there requiring the aborting of a human life?
I can’t believe I’m actually siding with the Obama administration. But, this just goes to show – you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. Personally, I think this is a great option for reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. While I am still a very strong advocate of limited government, the Public Health scholar in me says this is one to get behind.
But supporters of the all-in-one approach say that passing a support-only plan is unrealistic in Democratic-controlled Washington. “There would be a strong reluctance in the pro-choice community to trust that if Congress moved support-only, that a prevention-only package would also pass,” says Laser. “There’s also a fear that support-only would be defined as the new common ground. For the pro-choice side, the most important part of common ground is pregnancy prevention.”
Laser and some prominent abortion rights supporters are pushing the White House to support the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, which is expected to be reintroduced by Democratic Reps. Rosa DeLauro and Tim Ryan in coming weeks. The bill attempts to reduce unintended pregnancies by providing low-income women with better access to contraception and to reduce the need for abortion by giving women who ask for it information about alternatives to abortion, among other things.
For the White House, the decision about which tack to take is largely a question of whom it feels more comfortable alienating: religious groups like the Catholic bishops, which it has been trying hard to win over, or abortion rights groups, a key part of the Democratic base that it doesn’t want to lose.
C’mon people! Really? Who the hell cares if you alienate the religious groups and the pro-abortion groups? This is a comprehensive package that addresses both sides of this issue. There is common ground, “For the pro-choice side, the most important part of common ground is pregnancy prevention.” Isn’t this also what the pro-lifers want? Isn’t this what everyone wants? How can you not be on the side of this plan? Me, I’m just waiting to see the implementation plans and the overall costs.
