Nancy Pelosi said that birth control will help the economy. Fewer people means fewer benefits, means less energy used.

I kid you not.

When I think of reducing budget deficits, it would never occur to me to think about eliminating people. But this takes it to a whole new level.

Nancy Pelosi: Contraception is Stimulus.

Funds for family planning, which is abortion all over the world, this is an executive order of Obama’s that he is reversing from the Bush administration. We refused to fund all these abortion groups worldwide. Obama is now doing it in his mad dash to get as far to the left as quickly as possible with executive orders.

Stephanopoulos said to her,

“We also heard from Congressman Boehner coming out of the meeting today that, again, a lot of that spending doesn’t even meet the same test that you just talked about right now, hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?”

PELOSI:

Well, the family planning services reduced costs, it reduced costs. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crisis now, and — and part of it, what we do for children’s health, education, and some of those elements that are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those — one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, is — will reduce cost to the state, and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS:

So no apologies for that?

PELOSI:

No apologies, no. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Do you understand what you just heard here? Contraception does what? Contraception produces fewer human beings. Nancy Pelosi is suggesting that fewer human beings is an economic stimulus.

Now, this is different than saying what Paul Ehrlich said, that we’ve got a population problem. He was dead wrong about it, by the way, but all the left-wing environmentalist are suggesting that we’ve got an overpopulation problem, too many people that can’t be fed. That’s not the problem.

The problem is the unequal distribution of capitalism around the world. It is a majority distribution of communism and socialism that starves people in more ways than just food. But this is even more sinister, ’cause it’s related to the stimulus plan.

Nancy Pelosi says “family planning” is now economic stimulus.

SIMPLE TRUTH: “Family planning” equals abortion.

Abortion is economic stimulus. Abortion reduces costs to the states, which are in terrible budget crises now. We will have fewer children to worry about their health, their education. We just have more abortion, and this reinstitution of worldwide funding of abortion groups that Obama has made is being promoted and sold by Nancy Pelosi as good for the economic stimulus bill.

Now many of us tried to point out the extreme abortion views of Barack Obama during the campaign. And, of course, we cited the facts of his support for an extreme piece of legislation in Illinois — and the federal legislation, by the way — which would not save the life of a baby that survived an abortion.

Because the original intent of the mother was to abort the baby, we wouldn’t embarrass the doctor. So no resuscitation for babies which survived abortion, and Obama voted for it purposely twice. They tried to cover for him on it.

Now Nancy Pelosi is suggesting that abortion can help our nation’s economic recovery. Not by creating jobs, but by creating fewer people that the government has to pay benefits to! The strange thing about this is that it really makes no sense from the Democrat perspective. We have too many unsold cars on the lots. We have too many unsold houses on the market. We have aborted a million potential customers for these houses and cars per year since 1973. The average number is 1.2 million abortions a year. Most of those are Democrats that are having these abortions.

What we need right now is customers. What the Democrats would love more than anything right now is more voters. Nancy Pelosi has just said that human beings harm the economy. Human beings harm the environment.

This is more than just liberal ignorance, folks. We need to abort and “contracept,” in Nancy’s view, because too many of the poor are totally dependent on the state and federal governments? Isn’t she admitting in the process…?

Yeah, you say, why not expand the programs then? “We’re outta money! We’re running a trillion dollar deficit.” She’s admitting we cannot expand any more federal programs. We don’t have the money. We need fewer people.

This is astounding. This is outrageous.

Stephanopoulos, he didn’t get it. He said,

“There were no Republican votes in the Appropriations Committee, no Republican votes in the Ways and Means Committee. Is the bipartisan effort that President Obama has called for, is it there?”

PELOSI:

Well, the — because the Republicans didn’t vote for it doesn’t mean they didn’t have an opportunity to. President-elect Obama at that time on January 5th had our first bipartisan meeting — House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans — and some ideas that were put on the table by the Republicans at that time were contained in the mark — the bill that we wrote. And now, uh, this morning, they had some more suggestions, which we will review, and see if they create jobs, ah, uh, er, ah — and turn the economy around, and do so in a cost-effective way.

I’ll tell you, this woman is… IGNORANT. There’s just no brain there. There just is not a brain there, and here again, you see how she defines bipartisan…

Well, the Republicans were in the meeting. Republicans were in the meeting, and if they have any ideas, we’ll… — They’re not going to listen to any Republican ideas!

Bipartisanship is when Republicans cave to Democrat ideas.

Been a bit busy.

Returning to Blog again, full speed.

Sorry about the delay on many stories. I promise progress on all.

Finally getting main computer back. This backup system has be hell.

Phantom Lady

This is former Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich during a House Democrat Steering and Policy committee meeting back on January 7th.

The racism in this country, the looking at people as members of groups and assigning them as such exists solely on the left.

REICH:

I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skill people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well, and therefore, in my remarks, I have suggested to you, and I’m certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be — criteria can be set so that the money does go to others, the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high skilled professionals.

Talking about the money we’re going to spend on the infrastructure plan — roads, bridges, all that stuff — but he doesn’t want it to go to white construction workers, he wants it to go to inexperienced minorities and single women.

He’s got nothing against white construction workers but, but, but, but.

The money needs to go to others.

These people are crazy! If I heard myself talk like this, I would be so embarrassed.

So then Chuck Rangel stepped in and said they have to have a plan to make formulas to ensure that the jobs go to the right people.

RANGEL:

We’re going to have to find some way to establish formulas to expedite this where governors are going to be forced to find some formula to find out how can we get the money where the hemorrhages are. Whether Harlem is going to compete, whether Newark, is not nearly as important if at the end of the day we know where the joblessness are, where the fears are, and that we can get the federal formulas to target the relief to these communities once they meet that criteria.

January 7th, as they sat around, the Democrats figuring out how to spend some of the stimulus bailout money, including that going to infrastructure.

Hang on tight people, it’s going to be a wild ride…

Juan Williams, who is at the Fox News Channel and has a terrific piece in the Wall Street Journal today.

The headline and the subheadline of the piece are this:

“Judge Obama on Performance Alone — Let’s Not Celebrate More Ordinary Speeches.”

He, too, was one who thought that yesterday’s speech was somewhat ordinary. There are a lot of people who have that view.

Others have a completely different view, of course, but it was unremarkable in a number of ways. But I want you to read a portion of Mr. Williams’ column here.

He’s black — and that, of course, in our culture will give him a little bit more credibility than say if he were white writing this.

About, oh, 25% of the way through, he asks this question:

“But now that this moment has arrived,” <Obama’s inauguration>

“there is a question: How shall we judge our new leader? If his presidency is to represent the full power of the idea that black Americans are just like everyone else — fully human and fully capable of intellect, courage and patriotism — then Barack Obama has to be subject to the same rough and tumble of political criticism experienced by [other presidents]. To treat the first black president as if he is a fragile flower is certain to hobble him. It is also to waste a tremendous opportunity for improving race relations by doing away with stereotypes and seeing the potential in all Americans. Yet there is fear, especially among black people, that criticism of him or any of his failures might be twisted into evidence that people of color cannot effectively lead. That amounts to wasting time and energy reacting to hateful stereotypes.”

“It also leads to treating all criticism of Mr. Obama, whether legitimate, wrong-headed or even mean-spirited, as racist. This is patronizing.”

“Worse, it carries an implicit presumption of inferiority.”

I want to stop there, because I don’t know that Mr. Williams knows how profound what he wrote is.

To not criticize Obama as a president — forget that he’s black, forget that he’s a man — to not criticize him because he’s black is “patronizing” and “it carries an implicit presumption of inferiority.”

That is profound.

Because I maintain to you that the Democrat Party and the American left indeed view African-Americans as inferior, incapable of success without the help of the Democrat Party, without the help of government programs like quotas and affirmative action.

Now, in truth liberals look at all people with contempt. They look at all average Americans with contempt, think that they’re stupid and incapable of handling the rigors of life on their own.

But with African-Americans it’s even more pervasive. They feel sorry for them. The American left feels sorry, be it because of the original sin of slavery or what have you.

The real racists in this society are our friends in the Democrat Party and on the left, and now we’ve gotten to the point here where Obama is too big to fail.

He’s too big to fail. Why? ‘Cause he’s too historic.

Why? What’s historic about it? The color of his skin.

That’s the typical way liberals look at people, the typical way the way the Media looks at people: skin color. Yes, and “we’ve been so mean to these people in the past that we can’t be critical now.” You see it. You see it in the hero worship, the idolatry of the media.

It’s sickening and dangerous as well, and Juan Williams understands it.

“[I]t carries an implicit presumption of inferiority” to not criticize Obama. “Every American president must be held to the highest standard. No president of any color should be given a free pass for screw-ups, lies or failure to keep a promise. During the Democrats’ primaries and caucuses, candidate Obama often got affectionate if not fawning treatment from the American media. Editors, news anchors, columnists and commentators, both white and black but especially those on the political left, too often acted as if they were in a hurry to claim their role in history as supporters of the first black president.”

He is exactly right. They, the Media, considered their role in this to be historic. They wanted to be the ones to put him over the top. They wanted to be central players and figures in this moment of history.

“For example, Mr. Obama was forced to give a speech on race as a result of revelations that he’d long attended a church led by a demagogue. It was an ordinary speech. At best it was successful at minimizing a political problem. Yet some in the media equated it to the Gettysburg Address. The importance of a proud, adversarial press speaking truth about a powerful politician and offering impartial accounts of his actions was frequently and embarrassingly lost. When Mr. Obama’s opponents, such as the Clintons, challenged his lack of experience, or pointed out that he was not in the US Senate when he expressed early opposition to the war in Iraq, they were depicted as petty.”

–the Clintons were.

“Bill Clinton got hit hard when he called Mr. Obama’s claims to be a long-standing opponent of the Iraq war ‘the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.’ The former president accurately said that there was no difference in actual Senate votes on the war between his wife and Mr. Obama. But his comments were not treated by the press as legitimate, hard-ball political fighting. They were cast as possibly racist.”

This is what caused Clinton to say they played the race card on him.

“This led to Saturday Night Live’s mocking skit — where the debate moderator was busy hammering the other Democratic nominees with tough questions while inquiring if Mr. Obama was comfortable and needed more water. When fellow Democrats contending for the nomination rightly pointed to Mr. Obama’s thin proposals for dealing with terrorism and extricating the US from Iraq, they were drowned out by loud if often vacuous shouts for change.

“Yet in the general election campaign and during the transition period, Mr. Obama steadily moved to his former opponents’ positions. In fact, he approached Bush-Cheney stands on immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperate in warrantless surveillance. There is a dangerous trap being set here.writes Juan Williams.

“The same media people invested in boosting a black man to the White House as a matter of history have set very high expectations for him. When he disappoints, as presidents and other human beings inevitably do, the backlash may be extreme.”

“Several seasons ago, when Philadelphia Eagle’s black quarterback Donovan McNabb was struggling, radio commentator Rush Limbaugh said the media wanted a black quarterback to do well and gave Mr. McNabb ‘a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve.’ Mr. Limbaugh’s sin was saying out loud what others had said privately. There is a lot more at stake now, and to allow criticism of Mr. Obama only behind closed doors does no honor to the dreams and prayers of generations past: that race be put aside, and all people be judged honestly, openly, and on the basis of their performance,” …

–which is what Dr. King wanted.

Juan Williams fears we’ll not get that with Obama. We won’t get a judgment based on honesty, openness, and the basis of his performance, but rather, that his criticism will only be behind closed doors. The Brokaws of the world might criticize him, but they’ll never do so publicly because he’s black.

“President Obama deserves no less” than the standard of other presidents in treatment by the press, writes Juan Williams.

Link:

Judge Obama on Performance Alone

The prayer by the Reverend Joseph Lowery, was far more memorable than the inaugural address by President Obama. It just was.

I mean, if you want to etch — if you want to chisel — some words in stone,

“The brown can stick around when yellow will be mellow; when the red man can get ahead, get ahead, man; and when white would embrace what is right.”

These are memorable lines.

I think what happened with Obama is he tried to say too much. He made too many references to history, too many attempts at memorable lines, and there are no memorable lines from the speech now.

It was not a great speech and everybody knows it.

However, that will not be the consensus opinion. The consensus opinion will be that it was a fabulous speech, that it was far reaching and very lofty.

I thought it was clunky.

The audience didn’t know when to applaud. It was a combination. It was contradictory, too.

There were parts of that speech I really loved where I thought he was talking about Ronald Reagan, or sounding like Ronald Reagan — and then, of course, it ended up with the usual campaign rhetoric.

And the speech was, I think, while it tried to be uplifting and inspiring, it sounded somewhat hopeless like we got big problems and it’s going to be a long time before we fix them.

I know what’s going on with that.

It is the downplaying of expectations so that when the recovery does happen, and it doesn’t get as bad as everybody is telling us it’s going to get, then they can say that they arrested the recession before it got really bad and give themselves some credit for it. It is politics, which is often public relations.