Denver Post: Aborting Our Children Will Save the Planet

For decades, the term “family planning” has been a euphemism for “abortion” to abortion proponents. Echoing Humpty-Dumpty, when the left “uses a word, it means just what [they] choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

So, with twists in language, “homosexual behavior” is called “gay lifestyle,” “sex outside marriage” is termed “freedom,” and “killing babies” is called “family planning.” Often, it seems, in an effort to add weight to the pro-abortion mantra, the left couples “family planning” with other leftist causes like “carbon footprint” or “saving the planet.”

A recent op-ed in the Denver Post informed readers that “population [is] one of the major contributors to climate change and other environmental crises.” And if population is the problem, what did the editorial writer think the solution is? You guessed it: kill more babies…I mean, do more “family planning.” Therefore, the title of the op-ed in the Post was “Family planning is a gift to planet.”

Written by Dottie Lamm, former first lady of Colorado and a member of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, the op-ed sounds as though it was torn directly from eugenicist Margaret Sanger’s playbook, bemoaning the fact that some women continue to have more than two children apiece. (Lamm writes highly of the fact that women in China average only 1.5 childbirths, although she does not explicitly endorse the forced abortion policy Chinese women endure.)

According to Lamm, the prediction that the world’s current population of 7 billion will reach 9 billion by 2045 is of staggering consequence. She warns readers that “the pressures that an expanding population [will] put on global warming are enormous” — her argument being that adding that many people to the planet is equivalent to adding a carbon footprint equal to “two more United States.”

Lamm quotes a population/climate change researcher who argues that if we cut the population gain to 8 billion instead of 9 billion by mid-century, we “could account for 16 to 19 percent of the emissions reductions thought necessary to keep global temperatures from causing serious impacts.”

In all fairness to Lamm, she’s not alone in her views that all things — even the lives of children — should be sacrificed in homage to planet earth. For example, in England, David and Victoria Beckham are currently being described as “selfish” for welcoming their fourth child into the world. There, Simon Ross, “chief executive of the Optimum Population Trust, an organization that campaigns for the ‘gradual decrease of the population to sustainable levels,’ said, ‘The Beckhams…are very bad role models with their large families.'”

So, apparently, the groups that are cajoling the Beckhams would be praising them if they’d only availed themselves of “family planning” and killed their child in the womb. That’s how twisted things get when people exchange worshiping the Creator with worshiping the creation instead.

Gun Groups to Fight New Obama Regulations in Court

Gun rights advocates said yesterday that they would file lawsuits to block implementation of President Obama’s new firearm regulations. But the Department of Justice has circled the wagons in defense of the restrictions, as Attorney General Holder vowed to “vigorously oppose” efforts to overturn them in court.

A month ago, we at the Blaze told you about Obama’s upcoming executive orders here. Today, Fox News is reporting that those gun restrictions face legal challenges from the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

These two groups are funding separate lawsuits being brought by two Arizona gun stores.They intend to petition a federal judge to block ATF implementation of the gun regulations. According to an advance copy of the industry group’s lawsuit, gun rights advocates will claim that:

“Congress has conferred only limited authority on ATF to require federally-licensed firearms dealers to submit information regarding firearms sales. In this case, ATF’s demand exceeds its authority and is prohibited under federal law.”

The Department of Justice disagrees, citing existing requirements to keep track of firearms sales. DOJ says its enhancements of the existing laws are within executive authority.

Read more here.

The economy? It sucks – and getting suckier

Former presidential economic advisor Larry Summers says that the United States may well be heading back into recession. He gives a double-dip recession a one-in-three chance. So … we’re starting off with good news today, right?

But wait! There’s more! If you call within the next 12 minutes we have operators standing who are eager to tell you that just as soon as Dear Ruler signed the debt limit increase the United States started borrowing again … and within our days the national debt shot up to $238 billion. That means that we owe more than the total value of goods and services produced in this country over the course of a year. Amazing. And you know who is going to pay this back, don’t you? Your children.

Hope and change in 2012

Transport yourself back to 2008 when Barack Obama was elected president. Did you ever think, at that time, that there would be anything that could topple this sort-of-a-God who had to “step down” in order to become our president?

Remember what he said in Chicago in is victory speech? Yeah … “Change has come to America.” And what kind of change has Chicago seen? Mitt Romney is running an excellent ad detailing all of Obama’s wonderful change. The unemployment rate in Chicago has gone up by 48%. Chicago businesses are announcing even more layoffs. But still .. you can count on Chicagoans to vote for this hideous president again next year. Apparently the feeling is that too many of them are still working while they could just as easily be wards of the state.

Fast-forward to 2011, and it seems as though the Obama charm has worn off as his promises were not able to match the realities of his failed policies. Just take a look at the list of stories that has been piling up in recent weeks …

Obama Loses Ground in 2012 Reelection Bid

Poll: Pessimism hits 15-year high

Under Obama, Millennials Move Toward GOP

Obama Losing Support Over Jobs Record Among Liberal And Black Voters

The Left Turns on Obama

As Obama loses independent voters, liberals, blacks and the youth vote … who does he really have left? Well he will always have the ObamaMedia, who are too proud to admit that they slobbered and genuflected at the feet of a Marxist failure. He will have the ignorant, particularly thanks to government education, who simply don’t know any better. And he will have the moochers. This is the vote that he is particularly vying for in 2012. Playing up the wealth envy angle absolves him of having to create jobs and economic producers – people who achieve things and earn wealth – and can instead focus on those who would rather take things from the producers and redistribute it: the moochers. The campaign to rally the moochers has already begun, and Congressional Democrats will be right there to support him.

MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, Guest: Tea Party Like ‘Psychotic’ Drug Addicts, Norway Killer

Just when you thought the bias couldn’t get any more egregious over at MSNBC, Martin Bashir topped himself yet again when he encouraged one of his recent guests to psychologically analyze Tea Party members. And Stanton Peele, the psychologist and addiction “expert” being interviewed, certainly didn’t disappoint Bashir, delivering his rather patronizing “professional” opinion in a segment affectionately titled the “Mind of the Tea Party.”

The diagnosis? It’s pretty grim. Tea Party members are apparently suffering “psychosis.” What’s more, according to the good psychologist, they are also the equivalent of drug addicts seeking a euphoric high, who will stop at nothing to achieve that high, and who will lash out like Anders Breivik did in Norway if they fail to attain that high. Peele follows up his grave prognostication with the assertion that what the Tea Party wants is unattainable, hence, they will (you guessed it) lash out like the killer did in Norway.

“It reminds us of addiction because addicts are seeking something that they can’t have,” Peele said. “They [Tea Party members] want a state of happiness or nirvana that can’t be achieved except through an artificial substance and reminds us of the Norway situation, when people are thwarted at obtaining something they can’t, have they often strike out and Norway is one kind of example to one kind of reaction to that kind of a frustration.”

Relishing the moment, Bashir then asked, “so you’re saying that they are delusional about the past and adamant about the future?”

Read more here.

Oprah: ‘Happy to Be of Service’ to Obama in 2012

Oprah Winfrey‘s daytime talk show is over, but her adulation for President Obama is far from it.

Winfrey is “happy to be of service” for Obama’s reelection campaign, she said in a statement Wednesday. “I supported Barack Obama in 2008 because I believed then as I do now that he is the right man for the job,” she said.

Back in ‘08, Winfrey’s backing of Obama helped him bring down the most well-known well-oiled campaign machine: Bill and Hillary Clinton. When she first interviewed Obama in a 2004 issue of her magazine “O,” the queen of daytime said, “[W]hen I decided to talk with you (Obama), people around me were like, ‘What’s happened to you?’ I said, ‘I think this is beyond and above politics.’ It feels like something new.”

This time, Winfrey will have to acknowledge more than “something new;” she‘ll have to talk about Obama’s record. And with unemployment teetering around 9 percent and the president’s approval rating hitting new lows, energizing voters (white working-class women in particular) will likely be a bigger struggle than it was in ‘08.

Fairness!

If somebody paid the federal government $1 every time a Prog uses the word “fair” between now and the election, we could probably make a sizable dent in our debt. The fact is that Democrats, particularly Barack Obama, now have one objective in mind: convince the American people that we have to raise taxes on the filthy rich, all in the name of fairness. It’s been two days since we’ve passed this debt ceiling deal, and already we are seeing a focus on fairness and shared sacrifice.

* Barack Obama just after Congress signed the debt deal: ‘Everybody is going to have to chip in. It’s only fair.’

* Barack Obama again: ‘It means reforming our tax code so that the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share.”

* Harry Reid speaking about the committee established by the debt deal: ‘The only way we can arrive at a fair arrangement for the American people with this joint committee is to have equal sharing.

* DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “Hopefully now with this compromise on the debt ceiling behind us, with the opportunity, with the economic to sit down and focus on longer-term deficit reduction that will have some balance and ask some sacrifice for our most fortunate.”

What will be the ultimate victory in the battle for “fairness” and “shared sacrifice” for the Progs? Tax increases, of course — tax increases on the very people we need to get our economy growing again. Look for a collective leftist political orgasm when the hated Bush tax cuts finally expire. So how much are we talking if we only focus on taxes for the evil rich? Congress could impose a 100% tax on all earnings above $250,000 per year, and the government would get $1.4 trillion. That’s assuming zero changes in behavior. At our current rate of spending, which despite this debt deal will continue to grow over the next ten years, that would last our government just 141 days. For the rest of the 224 days over the next ten years, how do you justify this “fairness”? You’ve already taken 100% of the earnings above $250,000 … where do you turn to next? This is where Obama and the Progs are fundamentally flawed. Taxing the rich will only get us so far … growing the economy is the only way. But Obama doesn’t seem to be too skilled at growing our economy, does he?

The Obama economy

Dear Ruler says that now that the debt deal is done, he is going to re-focus on jobs and the economy. Wow. Can’t say that has me all that confident that things are going to turn around. Why? Well let’s take a look at how things are going in the Obama Economy, which is now officially the weakest two-year recovery since WWII.

* First quarter growth for this year was revised down from 1.9% to just 0.4%.

* Second quarter growth limped in at a whopping 1.3% GDP growth.

* In June, Americans cut their spending for the first time in nearly two years.

* In July, manufacturers had their weakest growth in two years.

* Planned job cuts rose 60% in July: private-sector downsizing pushed the number of announced job cuts by U.S. employers to a 16-month high.

A growing trend among the ObamaMedia in the wake of the debt deal is to question whether these budget cuts will hurt our economic recovery. Seriously? Our economy is barely limping along at 1.3% GDP growth … there’s not much more that we could do at this point to hurt our economic growth other than to continue to grow the size of government and increase regulations and taxes. I have it under good authority to assume that Obama and the Democrats would be OK with all of these things. Cutting spending is one thing that we haven’t yet tried. Even so, is the ObamaMedia even aware of what these budget cuts look like? For FY 2012, we are look at a measly $21 billion cut in discretionary spending. That’s less than 1% of our almost $4 trillion budget, and that doesn’t take into account the fact that Obama has increased spending by 25% since coming into office! And the ObamaMedia is worried that this cut of less than 1% of next year’s budget is going to hurt our economic recovery??