Hardline Republicans: Arrogance, Greed & Disregard for Human Life


Hardline Republicans: Arrogance, Greed & Disregard for Human Life

by

russianabortionposter

Russian Abortion Poster

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The post below: “Perish if you wish; I’m safe” (Jean-Jacques Rousseau) is an antique.  However, it has not lost its relevance.  I am deeply shocked by extremist Republicans who are making pronouncements as though they were experts.

Birth control and abortions are questions for a woman to discuss with her doctor.  There are times when a responsible doctor will not think it advisable for a patient to carry a child.  Moreover, choosing whether or not to carry a child is a woman’s right.

Recently, while researching human rights, I discovered that to force a woman to carry child is a violation of human rights.  I was looking for information on a different subject and cannot remember what the subject was.  It may have been the use of chemical weapons.  At any rate, I will search again.

But, when I look at my mother’s life, I grieve.  Her first children were relatively healthy, but she lost a very large a number of children to a congenital blood disease.  Every year she bore a child who did not stand a chance of surviving.  The parish priest would not allow her to skip a year.  She would have been refused communion.

As for her doctors, every dead child was a corpse they could study in their attempts to cure my father and one sister who were victims of this disease.  We buried a child every year.  Given such circumstances, one reaches the “age of reason” prematurely and feels considerable compassion for those who suffer.

Narrow-minded Republicans should remember that too many people have died because insurance companies considered their illness a pre-existing condition.  That was greed, but it was also disregard of human life.  Americans have a right to affordable health care.

And now, extremist Republicans are concocting a possible global economic recession because they oppose Affordable Health Care.  How were these individuals elected into office?

However, there’s progress.  This is the latest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24510273

Obama Fights Against a GOP Determined to Regress America


E.J. Dionne: Obama fights GOP determined to bring back Gilded Age
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post

The 2012 campaign began on Aug. 2, 2011, when President Barack Obama signed the deal ending the debt-ceiling fiasco. At that moment, the president relinquished his last illusions that the current, radical version of the Republican Party could be dealt with as a governing partner. From then on, Obama was determined to fight – and to win.

It was the right choice, the only alternative to capitulation. A Republican majority both inspired and intimidated by the tea party was demanding that Obama renounce every principle dear to him about the role of government in 21st century America.

And so he set out to defeat those who threatened to bring back the economic policies of the 1890s.

Now, it’s up to the voters.

Obama took the oath of office before a vast and euphoric crowd, but as he raised his hand, he was inheriting an economy worsening by the day. And he was about to confront a Republican Party that took its setback as an imperative to radicalize.

In the wake of the failures of George W. Bush’s presidency, Republicans would ascribe their party’s problems to Bush as a big-spender, ignoring the major culprits in the country’s fiscal troubles: a downturn that began on their watch, and their own support for two tax cuts at a time of two wars. They would block, obstruct, stall and denounce all of Obama’s initiatives, and abuse the rules of the Senate to demand that every bill would need 60 votes.

And then came the tea party. It was, all at once, a rebirth of the old far right from John Birch Society days, a partisan movement seeded by right-wing billionaires, and a cry of anguish from older, middle-class Americans fearful over the speed of social change. The GOP establishment rode the tea party tiger to power in 2010, and then ended up inside it. Republicans who dared to deal or compromise risked humiliation in primaries at the hands of a far right certain that the president of the United States was a subversive figure.

Nonetheless, Obama kept trying to work with them. His plans and proposals were geared not toward his progressive base but toward moderates in both parties: no public option in the health care law, plenty of tax cuts in a stimulus whose size was held down, a very temperate reform of a dysfunctional financial system.

Obama’s aides are unanimous in saying that the breaking point came when Republicans, filled with tea party zeal, were willing to endanger the nation’s financial standing to achieve steep budget cuts during the debt-ceiling fight. When House Speaker John Boehner walked away from a deal that conservatives of another era would have hailed as a great victory, Obama realized that a grand bargain would be a chimera until he could win the battle about first principles.

Everything you needed to know about Obama’s argument was laid out Dec. 6, 2011, at a high school in Osawatomie, Kan., the place where Theodore Roosevelt had laid out the core themes of American progressivism a century earlier.

“Just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time,” Obama declared, “there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. ‘The market will take care of everything,’ they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger. … even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty. Now, it’s a simple theory. … But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked.”

In Mitt Romney, Obama was blessed with an opponent who embraced that theory, not only in his move far to the right to secure the Republican nomination but also in his own career as a private equity capitalist. Romney may have flipped and flopped and flipped again on issues he didn’t care about, but his view of American capitalism and American government never wavered. If Teddy Roosevelt fought against the policies of the Gilded Age, Obama is fighting a Republican Party determined to bring the Gilded Age back and undo the achievements of a century.

And so, beneath the attacks, the counterattacks, and the billions invested by small numbers of the very rich to sway the undecided, we face a choice on Tuesday that is worthy of a great democracy. My hunch is that the country will not go backward, because that’s not what Americans do.

Toxic Cannibal Newt Gingrich Manages to Find Obama’s Trayvon Comments ‘Disgraceful’


Toxic Cannibal Newt Gingrich Manages to Find Obama’s Trayvon Comments ‘Disgraceful’

by Rebecca Schoenkopf

The horror
Well, guess we got one more post in us this evening, huh? Here we were, drinking wine, sitting on the couch, and braiding Kirsten Boyd Johnson’s hair, and this little bit of happiness and rainbows and unicorns and magic flitted across our (somewhat impaired) field of vision: Newt Gingrich, Great White Hope, has turned his attention from protecting the honor of white ladies from Robert DeNiro’s terribly offensive (not at all offensive) jokes, and focused instead on the honor of everyone in this great nation of ours who had the misfortune to not be born black. See, the President noted, somberly and steadily, that Trayvon Martin looked like he could have been his son. Even the Daily Caller, try though it did, wasn’t able to find anything wrong with Obama’s statement itself, only that it had clearly been made at the behest of the Black Panthers, because duh of course it was. But you, Newton, are a special fellow. Open that pretty piehole, show us what you’re working with: “What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful.” Because the president is racist? Yes.

“It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background.

“Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn’t look like him. That’s just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot. It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian American of if he’d been a Native American. At some point, we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American, it is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.”

So what Newt Gingrich is “working with” then is “unallayed fucking sociopathic evil.” What did we say this morning? Yes, here it is, ctrl-c/ctrl-v:

But how can a black man be in charge of the Executive Branch when the Justice Department is investigating a possible hate crime against a black boy? That would be like a black man pointing out that it’s stupid for a cop to arrest a black man in his own home for suspecting him of being an intruder, or a gay judge being in charge of a case about gayness. Unpossible! Racism! Bias!

Right. Haha, remember, like 9 hours ago, when that was funny? (Eh, it was never that funny.) So how many hours did that take you, Newty, to decide to let it all go, that last shred of humanity that might have been hiding in there, the speck that knew you were doing wrong before you did it anyway? When did you decide, for your ambitions, to go full-Colonel Kurtz and let all your homicidal tendencies run free? Newt Gingrich, destroyer of souls, ruiner of humanity, really not-good-looking manthing! It’s got a good beat! You could dance to it! Anyhoo, sure hope you at last manage to peel off a few voters from Santorum, otherwise that just wasn’t a very good deal you got for what was left of your soul. [National Journal]

Crazy Newt Gingrich Not Crazy Enough for the GOP


In a perfect demonstration of the extremism that now defines the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich was savaged by the other candidates in last night’s debate for not hating immigrants enough.

Ascendant Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich delivered an unapologetic defense of his views on immigration Tuesday night, declaring in a foreign policy debate that the GOP should not adopt a platform on immigration that “destroys families that have been here a quarter-century.”

Gingrich came under fire from multiple opponents for declining to say that he would turn out all of the country’s illegal immigrants in a forum hosted by CNN, The Heritage Foundation and The American Enterprise Institute.

The other “pro-family” candidates were all enthusiastically in favor of destroying immigrant families.

Don’t worry, though — Gingrich has more than enough craziness in the rest of his absolutist positions. He’s just smart enough to realize that alienating Latino immigrants might not be a good political move.

Via http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39486_Gingrich_Not_Crazy_Enough_for_the_GOP

Even John McCain Very Disappointed by GOP Clown Debate


John McCain ‘Very Disappointed’ by GOP Debate

“Waterboarding is torture”

Unfortunately, it’s no longer shocking to hear Republican presidential candidates enthusiastically endorse the use of torture to gain information from terror suspects. At Saturday’s debate, the audience erupted in applause each time a candidate promised to waterboard the hell out of Al Qaeda.

After that spectacle, Sen. John McCain was moved to tweet:

Very disappointed by statements at SC GOP debate supporting waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture.

President Obama also criticized this rush to embrace torture:

Obama also criticised the Republicans candidates on Monday.

“They’re wrong. Waterboarding is torture. It’s contrary to America’s traditions. It’s contrary to our ideals,” the president said.

“If we want to lead around the world, part of our leadership is setting a good example. Anybody who has actually read about and understands the practice of waterboarding would say that that is torture. That’s not something we do.”