The NFRW, the Jayson Blair Times, and Obamacare

A couple of days ago, I spoke to the National Federation of Republican Women in Oklahoma City. After one day of rest, today at lunch I speak to the Westchester Republican Women near LAX airport. Then in the evening I address the Culver City chapter of American Congress for Truth, Bridgette Gabriel’s group that focuses on combating Radical Islam.

While I had planned to spend more time this week on events in Oklahoma City, that will have to wait. Today is the battle over health care reform.

While this is a major issue, I have repeatedly refused to cover every nuance. All health care all the time is not my focus. I would cover an actual bill becoming law. However, a column in the Jayson Blair Times spurred me into action.

Before getting to the worst of society, that being the JBT, the best of society is fighting tooth and nail to defeat Obamacare. The NFRW has a link to every critical member of congress. Flood them with how you feel so this bill can be defeated.

While I am opposed to this bill, I am aware that supporters of the bill will be calling their representatives and telling them to vote yes. This is democracy. If the people want this bill, and heaven help them if they do, then this bill will pass. All I ask is that whether for it or against it, liberal or conservatives, people conduct themselves honorably. Principles can be liberal or conservative, but people should at least have principles in some form.

This brings me to the Jayson Blair Times, run by people who have none.

Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger is human garbage. He is a vicious, left-wing bully who is willing to help drive his own country and his own newspaper into the ground in order to advance liberalism by any means necessary.

Despite repeatedly being cited for fraud, plagiarism, and overall shoddy journalism, the JBT finally today decided that we would all be better off if every human being lowered themselves to the pathetic gutter standards of the JBT.

A column on RealClearPolitics linking to the JBT said it all.

“Anti-Abortion Dems must cave for the good of reform.”

Are you kidding me?

For the umpteenth time, I am totally neutral on the abortion issue. I respect the fact that people have deeply held diametrically opposed views on this issue. If you feel that all pro-choicers are baby murderers or that all pro-lifers are intolerant religious zealots, shut up and get away from me. I prefer reasonable discourse.

Abortion is an issue that splits Democrats internally and Republicans internally. The health care bill the Democrats are trying to pass has been held up because Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer have a very different abortion position than Bart Stupak. Those ladies are pro-choice and Stupak is pro-life.

The Stupak Amendment continues the ban on government funding for abortion in health care. Right now abortion is an “elective” procedure, as is laser eye surgery, liposuction, and rhinoplasty. Making abortion an elective does not ban it. It just prevents taxpayers from paying for it. After all, taxpayers are not paying for lip rolls. Critics of this current law say it discriminates against poor women.

Again, I have not taken sides. However, if the goal is to pass a bill, a fight over abortion gets in the way. Therefore, if Democrat had an ounce of sense, they would remove the issue from the table and fight the abortion war later. This has to be done through status quo. Whatever the current law is now, leave it alone. If currently abortions were funded by taxpayers, continue that. Right now they are not, so the Stupak Amendment preserves the status quo.

It is Boxer, Pelosi, and her ilk that are getting greedy by trying to ram pro-choice provisions into a bill that is controversial enough without those provisions. Even many pro-choicers feel that if a woman wants an abortion, she should pay for it. In most cases, pregnancy is preventable.

Yet despite the fact that abortion is the policy fight, the JBT article is not about abortion. It is about a toxic lack of integrity.

Why the heck should pro-lifers cave for a “greater good?” Why should they abandon their principals just for a bill? What about pro-choicers caving? Why is it the pro-lifers that must cave? The JBT answers that.

“We strongly support a woman’s right to choose…”

That’s it. The JBT supports it, so everybody else should just shut up and drop their objections.

This is how liberals work.

When a liberal tells a conservative to “be bipartisan,” the liberal is really telling the conservative to “shut up and agree with me.” Liberals are noble and virtuous, while conservatives are either evil or imbeciles.

Who the heck am I to tell Barbara Boxer to stop being pro-choice? Who am I to tell her to just give up her deeply held belief that a woman has a right to choose?

Well who the heck are the left-wing human garbage at the JBT that have the right to tell Bart Stupak to stop being pro-life?

This man has a deeply held principle. He is fighting for what he believes in his heart is morally right based on his religious beliefs and convictions. This is what politicians are supposed to do.

There are plenty of self-serving politicians in existence. There are plenty of politicians willing to sell out their constituents in a heartbeat. Bart Stupak is acting on principle.

Only in a morally (and in their case, financially as well) bankrupt institution as the JBT should politicians be told to sacrifice their deepest principles to get a bill done just because the JBT supports it.

Anti-Abortion Democrats are told that for “All Americans,” they need to “show statesmanship.”

Liberals have not compromised an inch on this bill. Oh, sure, they have surrendered like Frenchmen when faced with the threat of being fired. Governing would sure be easier if those d@ng constituents would just shut up. That is not the same as coming to the table and truly wanting to be bipartisan.

Barack Obama wants to remake the entire health care system. For some on the far left that is not far enough. Adding an abortion provision is a poison pill, but these liberals are poison themselves.

Sure, some can say that Stupak is offering the poison pill because it is his amendment, but again that argument fails because Stupak is trying to preserve the status quo. Boxer and Pelosi are the agents of “change.”

Again, I oppose this bill. Yet I oppose it on principle, and those principles have nothing to do with abortion. The bill is a financial time bomb.

This is America. We can disagree, but we cannot and should not ever just betray who we are for the sake of expediency. If we do that we are nothing but empty shells.

I will not attack the patriotism of those favoring Obamacare. I believe they are wrong but well-intentioned.

I have only scorn for the Jayson Blair Times.

If the Obamacare bill funds euthanasia, then the Gray Lady should be the first one put to death like Old Yeller.

To hell with the JBT. Whether pro-choice or pro-life, liberal or conservative, don’t be like the JBT. Follow your principles.


One Response to “The NFRW, the Jayson Blair Times, and Obamacare”

  1. “Despite repeatedly being cited for fraud, plagiarism, and overall shoddy journalism…”

    These ad hominem attacks on the New York Times, one of the few quality newspapers left in America, have really gotten out of hand. The Times is a big paper. It has a lot of content. When you have that much daily content, there’s bound to be errors, mistakes, and the occasional bad egg. From everything I’ve ever read on the subject, the Times is no more or less subject to errors than any other paper, let alone being cited for “fraud” or “plagiarism.” As for “shoddy journalism,” the Times is shoulders above most papers in quality and content. It’s a sign of poor taste to deplore the Times quality of journalism.

    If you don’t read the Times, at least once in while, then you are not very well informed.

    “Whatever the current law is now, leave it alone. If currently abortions were funded by taxpayers, continue that. Right now they are not, so the Stupak Amendment preserves the status quo.”

    Well, that defeats an important aspect of the bill. Here’s the problem: For people who cannot entirely afford private insurance, this bill would provide assistance for those people to purchase it. In many states, private insurance also covers abortion. In some states, insurance companies must cover for abortion with certain types of policies. Stupak’s amendment would not allow for that assistance to be used for policies that also cover abortion. Just the same, insurance companies pool from their entire customer base, so the government would be indirectly funding abortion either way. Stupak’s amendment creates some problems, making if difficult for some people in some states to purchase insurance and creating a regulatory headache for insurance companies who receive the assistance money but also have abortion coverage in other policies they offer.

    The Stupak amendment does not secure the status quo. The Hyde Amendment, as it stands now, does. The Stupak amendment creates a new environment. And as I said, if the government offers assistance to purchase private insurance, then in many states we’ll be indirectly funding abortion with or without it. The fear here is that if the Stupak language is later litigated, the ability of women to get insurance for abortion could be severly limited. So it is Stupak, not Boxer and Pelosi, who is shoving his sleazy, stupid, backwards, misogynistic, retarded “principle” on everyone else. Not the other way around.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.