Thanks, But No Thanks

Texas state Senator Wendy Davis and her advisers have begun informing influential Democrats that she intends to run for governor in 2014.

Davis made a national splash last June when she mounted an unsuccessful filibuster against new proposed abortion clinic regulations.

Texas state Senator Wendy Davis

The bill banned abortions after 20 weeks - or five months - and required clinics to meet the same standards that hospital surgical centers do, and mandated that a doctor who performs abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Except for the twenty week ban, the bill requires vastly increased protection for females seeking to terminate their pregnancy. It requires that the "doctor" performing the abortion actually be a doctor. It requires that the "clinic" used meet accepted hospital standards for - among other things - cleanliness, safety and sterilization of equipment.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.  So what did Wendy Davis object to in the new regulations?

Late-term abortions(abortions after five months) and live birth abortions(after actual birth of a living baby) are now banned. Apparently, this is unacceptable to Ms. Davis, who is a highly vocal and visible supporter of a woman's "right" to terminate her potential children. 

Ms. Davis has received many awards during her political career. Among them:

"Bold Woman Award" from girls, Inc.
"Champion for Children Award" from the Equity Center.

Now that's confusing. A woman who has become the State's new champion for pro-choice received an award declaring her a "Champion for Children". A "Champion for Children" ought to be fighting for their "right" to life, rather than filibustering for their termination. Perhaps an award declaring her a "Champion for Motherless Sex" would have been closer to the mark.

The United States Bill of Rights guarantees all of us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The issue when it comes to Rights is: When does an developing embryo become of of "us"? That's a never-ending  concept for us all to squabble over, argue for or against, maybe even go to war over..

So what's the real issue here? Today's modern woman wants to enjoy sex without consequence.

Abortions because of rape, incest and medical problems seem reasonable to many people. I - for one - would not be wanting to raise the offspring of some 80 IQ savage, and I definitely would not need to wait 5 months to have the pregnancy terminated. 

I have no dog in this fight other than perhaps the long term survival of our species. It seems to me we should have some sort of safeguards in place to prevent unborn children from being slaughtered by women to whom motherhood would be an inconvenience or burden to their lifestyle..

There are plenty of women who want to be mothers. Let the rest of them get sterilized if they so choose.

So, if I have no dog in this abortion thing, why do I say "no thanks" to Wendy?

Anybody who believes that the termination of developing life should be acceptable for no other reason than personal choice or convenience will easily buy into the notion that terminating life that has been around too long is acceptable also. You know, old people.

That sort of person I don't want making the rules.

The Debt Ceiling

President Obama just stated that raising our debt ceiling does not raise the debt.

Absolutely true. The man has spoken truth.

The debt ceiling is an arbitrary limit on deficit spending as determined by Congress. It is supposed to prevent the federal government from spending us into ruin.

What raises the national debt is the federal government spending money we don't have. And history has proved that the federal government will spend any money it can get its hands on. Always.

When Congress raises the debt ceiling,  the federal government will spend it's way to it quickly.

And  Congress has - over 100 times - raised the debt ceiling, allowing more and more deficit spending. That's why we are in debt almost 18 trillion dollars*.

So, the president - by not explaining the entire situation but only commenting about a small - but correct - part of it, once again sounds presidential and knowledgeable. But only to the non-thinking.

To those who can see beyond the endless 30-second sound bites, President Obama has once again demonstrated his skill at using a smidgen of truth to make himself seem the adult in the room, the fearless leader, the wise mentor.

But he is none of those. The sad part of it all is that Congress will continue to allow him to play his wholly destructive game of transformation.

A very willing Congress, I might add.

*America will never manage to pay off this incredible debt.  National bankruptcy is the only course left.

9-11

Federal government protection from terrorist attacks.

Works well, does it not?

I have a tendency to look at things differently.

Every time I see another re-run of ex-president Bush on TV telling us all how he was going to protect us Americans from terrorism, I see the destroyed towers with their thousands of dead and can only conclude that Bush and the government failed miserably and totally to save anybody on 9-11, even with all the billions and billions that had already spent by our government and its supposed legions of agents here and around the world tasked with America's security.

Nobody in our massive government saw  9-11. coming.

Nobody.

Nobody in our massive government saw any danger with Major Hidal Malik Hassan at Fort Hood.

Nobody in our massive government saw a problem with the Boston brothers - the pressure cooker bombers -  even with all manner of warning signs

Nobody in our massive government saw Benghazi as a threat, even with all manner of warnings.

Seems nobody in our massive government sees or hears anything that could result in stopping actual terrorist attacks, although they claim to have stopped dozens and dozens of attacks,  which they can't tell us about... security reasons don't you know.

Based on the government's track record on real terrorist attacks, I tend to laugh at the claims they make on all the ones they can't talk about. If they can't protect us from the big, well organized and well planned attacks like 9-11, tell me how we can believe them about any other attacks.

But everybody in our massive government is sure good at keeping a close watch on us American citizens, most of whom couldn't manage to make a firecracker bomb.

Apparently, our massive government is not afraid of terrorists.

So perhaps this terrorist threat so endlessly drummed on by our massive government is not at all what they claim.

Am I Supposed To Laugh, Or Cry?

 

 

Or maybe get mad, feel insulted?

Here we are, preparing for WWIII, and I'm comparing first ladies.