Lindy’s Blog: Where Mom is Always Right

July 21, 2009

Obama: lies, lies, and damn lies, UDATED!!

Filed under: health care,politics — by lindyborer @ 8:24 am
Tags: , , , , ,

Barack Obama and the Democrats:  “If you like your health plan, you can keep it, the only thing that will change is that you’ll pay less.”

Um, no.  You will lose your insurance under Obamacare.  Unless you pay through the nose for private coverage, which will eventually be forced into oblivion.  Then it will be health care rationing for all.  Not to mention over a trillion dollar price tag.

And need I say that this won’t be a good thing for the economy?

Take it from someone who’s actually read the bill.  Betsy McCaughey has gone through it and reveals for you and I–with page numbers–just what we can expect. 

Please call your Senators and ask them if they, too, will go on the Obamacare plan should it pass.  And don’t let them hem and haw their way out of an answer.  Persist until you get a yes or a no, and then proceed to ask them a follow-up on why they won’t be on it.  (Oh, come on.  You actually think they’ll say yes?)

And Jim DeMint (R-SC) continued to put Obama’s rear-end over the fire with his statement:

The last time the President made grand promises and demanded passage of a bill before it could be reviewed, we ended up with the colossal stimulus failure and unemployment near 10 percent,” said Senator DeMint.

“Now the President wants Americans to trust him again, but he can’t back up the utopian promises he’s making about a government takeover of health care. He insists his health care plan won’t add to our nation’s deficit despite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office saying exactly the opposite. And today we learn that the President is refusing to release a critical report on the state of our economy, which contains facts essential to this debate. What is he hiding?

“If the actual legislation came close to matching the President’s rhetoric, he would have no problem passing this bill with huge Democrat majorities in both chambers. But Americans aren’t being fooled and are discovering the truth about his plan which includes rationed care, trillions in new costs, high taxes and penalties that will destroy jobs, and even government-funded abortions.

“Let’s be clear, there is no one in this debate advocating that we do nothing despite the President’s constant straw man arguments. Republicans have offered comprehensive health care reform solutions that cover millions of the uninsured without exploding costs, raising taxes, or rationing care. We can give every American access to a health plan they can own, afford and keep without a government takeover.”

Thanks, Mr. DeMint.

And, finally, a clip from O’Reilly, who warns, “If we continue to go in this direction, the country will be bankrupt perhaps by the end of this year”:


Unbe-FREAKING-lievable:  “You know, I have to say I’m not familiar with the provision you are talking about.”

One may only conclude two things, then, Mr. Obama.  1) You’re LYING about people being able to keep their private insurance or 2)  You’re such a moron that you are pushing to pass a bill that YOU HAVE NOT EVEN READ.

July 15, 2009

Who you gonna believe–the Obama Adm. or your lying eyes?

Dear God, help us. 

A follow-up post to yesterday’s, in which I talked about Obama’s newly appointed Science Czar, John Holdren.

Michelle Malkin has gone in-depth on this guy and his population-control centered views, countering claims by the White House that he does not still ascribe to those views (which are his life’s work):  Study in Contrast:  Christian scientist vs. eco-mad scientist 

Please, someone, prove to me without a doubt that it’s not true.  Please.  The link is positively frightening. 

Beware this man, beware the man who appointed him, and beware the looming specter of Obamacare with people like this in charge.   

And keep in mind the close relationship between eco-zealotism and population control policies.  The two go hand-in-hand.  As do eco-zealotism, population control policies, and authoritarianism.  Obama has consistently sided with authoritarian regimes since his inauguration.  Don’t dismiss that.

A screenshot (courtesy of Zombie) of some of Mr. Holdren’s book, Ecoscience, which he still lists on his curriculum vitae:



Note the last sentence.  I give you the man in charge of “Science” in the United States.

July 14, 2009

Abortion and Eugenics

Elections have consequences.

As do Supreme Court nominations. 

Supreme court justice--and one handsome lady--Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Supreme court justice--and one handsome lady--Ruth Bader Ginsburg

As empathy-queen Sotomayor sits in the hot seat, we’re reminded by this–er–savory bit from current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just why these grilling sessions are necessary; if only we could have weeded this out of Ginsburg before she was approved for the SCOTUS.

In an interview last week with NY Times Magazine’s Emily Brazelton, Justice Ginsburg offered this revealing comment regarding the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Huh, interesting.  And what populations would those be, Ms. Ginsburg?  Do tell.  Amazingly, hardly anyone has followed up and pressed her on this statement.  She went on to bemoan the fact that a 1980 Supreme Court decision didn’t require Medicaid to cover abortions.  In Ginsburg’s mind, it’s apparently the poor segments of the population we “don’t want too many of” and therefore taxpayers should foot the bill to eliminate their unwanted get.  Nice. 

And yes, folks, this philosophy has a name:  Eugenics.  And apparently Ginsburg ascribes to the eugenics philosphy.

There’s simply no other way to conclude otherwise. 

But this is in no way a stretch; research Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s views on population control and abortion’s role in it.  I’ve always maintained that radical, liberal pro-choicers, at heart, ascribe in one degree or another to a eugenics philosophy, otherwise we’d actually make some progress with the Planned Parenthoods in the nation when it comes to other options to abortion, like adoption.  When you look at the statistics of PP clinics who have actually referred a woman toward an adoption clinic, they’re barely there.  Yes, money has a lot to do with it; killing babies is very lucrative.  But there’s this ugly little mindset that the left has rightly pushed beneath the surface, but it’s there nonetheless.

Jonah Goldberg briefly looks at Ginsburg’s comments, here.   

And lest we think that this phenomenon is going away, please note Barack Obama’s latest pick for “Science Czar,” John Holden, whose own opinions closely reflect that of Ginsburg’s.  In a book he authored, he wrote:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

I don’t need to detail why each and every idea here is abhorrent.  But if you want some more sordid details on the person now in charge of Science in the United States, read this link.

Well, Ginsburg should be a little less disturbed should Obamacare pass, as it would cover abortions for all–especially those in “unwanted” populations. 

Lord, help us.

July 9, 2009

The truth about Palin’s resignation

Filed under: Uncategorized — by lindyborer @ 6:26 pm
Tags: , , , ,

And it’s not difficult to understand; except, that is, for the media. 

All would do well to read it (re: Benito).

The Truth About Sarah Palin’s Resignation

An excerpt, but read the whole thing:

This will evidently come as a complete shock to nearly every member of the media elite, but not everyone in public life is a manipulative and cynical liar, and not every person who has a shot at being President must live their lives to pursue that end no matter the costs to the public good, their family and their personal sanity. The Sarah Palin I know is at least one person in that position who is sufficiently well-grounded and secure enough in themselves and their values to not succumb to this illness of hyper-ambition. She is more than capable of putting something else above her own selfish, short-term political self-interest. You would think that a just society might reward that kind of person and not crucify them, but it has been long since clear that we don’t live in that kind of place.  

The bottom line is that Sarah Palin resigned simply because she was no longer allowed to do her job in a way that benefited her state and family. She saw that if she stayed on as Governor it would cost the state millions of dollars in wasted time and resources and doom it to gridlock. She knew that it would also continue to cost her family hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend against false and maliciously filed ethics complaints. And she had simply had enough of her children being fodder for inappropriate public attacks. 

A note to conservative elites who mindlessly joined in the bogus narrative regarding Palin:  Shut your pieholes.  You’re part of the problem.

As for all the blathering by the lefties (who hate her guts anyway) about her quitting, I seem to recall another person who did the same exact thing, who actually now sits in the White House.  So until you can get your sh*t straight, I’d suggest turning off your mouth and turning on your brain, if you, in fact, possess the grey matter in the first place.

Some more interesting stats, just to sate your appetite for all things Palin:  Palin Damaged Among Anti-Palin Republicans (and Liberals)–and this is a surprise how?

July 8, 2009

Palin’s resignation: What does it all mean?

Okay, my take on Sarah Palin’s resignation.   Definitely a prime illustration of why more good people don’t go into politics, especially if you happen to be a conservative woman.  From what she said, it would seem that this woman, for all her tenacity and drive, is doing the right thing at the moment for her family–she’s a good mom.  Let’s take stock:  Here we have the liberal media and liberal blogs completely dedicated to destroying her, mainly by attacking her children.  Here we have bloggers at the Huffington Post repeatedly calling her baby with Down Syndrome, Trig, a “retard.”  Here we have Letterman making inappropriate sex/prostitution jokes about her 14 year old daughter, Willow.  Here we have the pathetic treatment of Bristol for being an unwed mother. 

Can you imagine the outcry if even ONE person dared to say a thing about the Obama girls?

I don’t think I need to go into what most women would feel if their children were being subjected to these vicious and outrageous attacks by the Left.  It’s sad and sickening, and it makes her actions completely understandable, if this is her main reason for bowing out.  From the Campaign Spot on NRO: 

The lesson that the ruthless corners of the political world will take from the rise, fall, and departure of Sarah Palin is that if you attack a politician’s children nastily enough and relentlessly enough, you can get anybody to quit.

Liberals should be quite satisfied with themselves.

However, is Sarah Palin out of the picture?  Not on your life.  She’s got something in mind, and I hope she continues to scare the organic-weave hemp pants off of liberals everywhere.  Which she does.  The Left is terrified of this woman, because she’s charismatic, has experience, and isn’t afraid of saying what she thinks.  Moreover, she connects with average Americans.

I thought these two theories very interesting on why the Left–and especially many women–have such vitriol for SP.

The first, from NRO:

Liberals believe that their ideas, philosophy, worldview, and policies liberate believers, and that the conservative equivalents limit people. Liberals see themselves as rejecting outdated beliefs and obsolete ideas, overturning established orders, and discarding traditions established by superstitious and ignorant forebears who weren’t as enlightened as we are. Conservatives, in their minds, are runaway cultural superegos, always wagging their fingers about individual responsibility, dismissing excuses, reminding people that they can’t always do what they want because of the consequences to themselves and to others.

Conservatism, they suspect, will leave you in a marriage that doesn’t satisfy you, burden you with children you don’t want, repress your passions, and trap you in a empty, boring, and unfulfilled life, with no hand of government able to help.

Today almost everyone faces some sort of challenge in balancing work and family; I don’t know too many people who believe there are sufficient hours in a day. And then along comes this woman who’s made all of these “conservative” choices and now has an amazing career, a supportive husband, a beautiful family, and great health and appearance, and she bears it all, including the inevitable hard times, with pluck and a smile, as far as we can tell. (For all we know, perhaps behind closed doors, Sarah Palin screams into a pillow when it all gets to be too much. But what we know about her suggests she relieves her stress by shooting moose.)

In her opponents’ minds, Palin’s made all the wrong choices, and cannot, they insist, be very bright. Yet she’s happy and successful. She is an anomaly that invalidates their worldview, and for that, they attempt to immiserate her — regardless of whether she wishes to run for national office again.

Really, I think there’s a lot in that analysis that is accurate. 

The second theory, from Why Mommy is a Republican, Lisa Graas:

More than one in five pregnancies end in abortion.  35% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they’re 45 years old.  90% of babies found to have Down Syndrome are aborted.  With these statistics in mind, consider what Graas is saying:

The exploitation of Trig Palin compels me now, at long last, to be open about my view on the source of the hatred. I believe that many women attacking Sarah Palin do so because they had an abortion themselves, or multiple abortions, and Palin’s story which touches many so deeply in a positive way actually brings them personal shame. With shame comes pain…..and when someone causes us pain, we sometimes lash out. This lashing out is particularly more likely if we haven’t come to terms with the reality about it.

According to the statistics above:

It means that Sarah Palin is a personal threat to 35% of women of child-bearing age in America. Of course they are going to try to label her as a hypocrite. Of course they are going to file complaints pertaining to the subject of ethics. Of course they’re going to respond positively to the mocking of Trig Palin.

Interesting theories.  And I definitely think there’s something to the theory that PAS (post-abortion syndrome) can lead at least some women to PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome.)

Sarah Palin is not out of the picture, though.  If anything, she’s mobilizing herself to be better able to make a difference in the political world.  The timing may seem off, but she’s not finished.

July 1, 2009

Just say no to Obamacare–your child’s life may depend on it

Don’t let looming Obamacare distract you from the more immediate “pile of s**t” bill known as cap and trade–the most massive energy tax ever undertaken in the history of our nation.  Contact your senator and let him know his ass is on the line should this pass.

But there are starting to be some good opposition videos emerging involving Obama’s quest to take over the private health industry, exposing the utter nightmare that will ensue should he get his way.  I must include them here.  See below.

Also, I saw this story last week about the Canadian preemie who was sent to the US for care due to a lack of beds in Canada.  Besides pointing out the obvious–Canada, whose socialized medicine cannot meet the demands of her sick and injured–it makes me wonder where these little babies will go once the US begins rationing healthcare should Obama get his way.   Here’s a great article exploring this as well:  What will happen to Canada’s preemies?

Create a free website or blog at