Tag Archives: Henry Waxman

LotsoFluck if Sandra Fluke Goes to Congress

imagesOriginally posted at American Thinker

After 40 years and 20 terms, 74-year-old “ferocious liberal” and unique-looking individual Henry Waxman, one of the key architects of the disastrous Obamacare healthcare reform bill, announced he’s packing it in because of Tea Party extremism.

Speaking of packing it in and extremism, one name being bandied about as a possible replacement for Henry the Waxman’s congressional seat is none other than Sandra Fluke (appropriately pronounced F-Luck).

Announcing his retirement, Henry had this to say:

After 40 years in Congress, it’s time for someone else to have the chance to make his or her mark, ideally someone who is young enough to make the long-term commitment that’s required for real legislative success.

Could that “young enough…someone else” actually be Sandra Fluke? Because if über liberalism is the primary criteria, Fluke certainly qualifies to occupy Henry Waxman’s vacated seat.

Speaking to a California radio station, Sandra, who once placed birth control on an equal par with blood transfusions and represented Emerge California’s class of 2014, a training program for Democratic women who want to run for public office, sounded surprised by the suggestion that she should seek public office, saying this:

I’m flattered that I’m being discussed as a potential candidate. A number of folks I respect very deeply have reached out today and encouraged me to run. I am strongly considering running.

As luck would have it, Sandra is engaged to Adam Mutterperl, son of a big-time Democrat Party donor. So it would be fair to assume that future Dad-in-Law was “the folks I respect very deeply… [who’ve]…encouraged me to run,” that wannabe congressperson Sandra referred to in her radio interview.

Ms. Fluke made a name for herself with Democrats by demanding free contraceptives, and likes to come off as poised and soft-spoken.  But don’t be fooled by the pearl earrings; Sandy’s just as rabid a left-wing partisan tool as Henry Waxman.

Sandra Fluke is the women’s rights activist who brought national attention to a female sex hormone scourge called polycystic ovary disease, inspiring Rush Limbaugh to provide a colloquial description of what a girl publicly admitting that she uses $3,000 worth of birth control a year is actually admitting she is.

As a result of the outrage that followed, Sandra got a personal telephone call from Barack Obama.  The president took the time to commend her for her bravery and implied that having a daughter willing to reveal her prolific sexual activity in front of the whole country while soliciting free contraceptives, is enough to make any parent proud.

After her House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee appearance, rising star Sandra moved up to speak at the Democratic Convention, and after introducing Barack Obama at a campaign rally in Denver took to the road on behalf of the president’s re-election, which, in liberal circles, is all that was necessary to prepare Sandy to take a seat in the House of Representatives.

However, despite possessing the political ambition, Henry Waxman-level liberal endorsements, and Barack Obama’s soon-to-come blessing, serious concerns remain.  If Sandra Fluke’s claim to fame is that she can’t come up with a budget that includes a year’s worth of birth control, what is it exactly that qualifies her to manage the fiscal responsibilities of the nation as a Member of Congress?

UPDATE:  Sandra changed her mind forgoes her bid for Congress and  is running for state senate.

Pelosi Warns: Protect Life and Women Die

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

It seems that whenever the subject of government-subsidized abortion is broached, prominent Democrats notoriously change the subject. The ploy is to appeal to the emotions of those who refuse to monetarily participate in an unending killing spree by insisting that without tax dollars to fund infanticide, women will die.

What the left fails to mention is that since the enactment of Roe v. Wade, millions upon millions of female fetuses have been routinely executed because of the self-centered choices of mothers who care more about their own lives than the lives of their children.

Statistically, since 1973, 60 million fetuses have died, but as of 2008, only 362 (or 0.0006%) of the 60 million women submitting themselves willingly to a legal abortion have died.

Therein resides the dichotomy of liberalism.  The left attempts to defend unbridled insanity by appealing to selfish emotion that, if analyzed, defies logic and reason. Thus Democrats, headed up by the most pro-abortion president in the history of America, remain determined to force Americans who disagree with slaughtering the unborn to pay for something they morally and spiritually repudiate.

With that in mind, the President is anxious to display his unwavering commitment to abortion rights.   Apparently, Obama is planning to veto the Protect Life Act, calling it “a divisive, politically motivated piece of legislation that unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that women and their families have today.” In other words, Obama heartily approves of abortion and believes no law should be passed that allows people who disapprove of the barbarism to be excused from paying for it.

Despite predictable Democratic scare tactics, the Republican bill merely attempts to close the door Obamacare opened that would allow government to finance abortion, something the Hyde Amendment has prevented for decades.

Detractors of the Protect Life Act argue that the bill threatens the rights of women and prevents them from getting a healthcare policy that covers killing the unborn even on the rare occasions when an abortion is medically necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

Echoing the president, liberal California congressman Henry Waxman described the bill as “an assault on women’s reproductive health and their constitutional rights to choose when to bear children.”  Clearly, Waxman is convinced that pro-life Americans should be coerced into being accomplices to murder by bankrolling women who would rather make the “healthy” reproductive choice to dispose of the child growing within their womb.

Predictably, Nancy Pelosi takes it a step further and employs the ultimate in liberal illogical logic.  According to Mrs. Pelosi, Republicans who support a bill that merely says women should pay for their own abortions “will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene.”

Nancy’s words are reminiscent of what actually does happen to infants born alive in botched abortions. Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Act because he believes that providing warmth, oxygen and hydration for a child who refuses to cooperate and die “burdens the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”

Unlike Obama voting against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, doctors attest that the Protect Life Bill “does not change or alter the practice of medicine or the responsibility of physicians in any way.” However, in order to convince the hesitant to reject the bill, Pelosi clings to the twisted argument that if the funding of killing stops, women die.

According to the histrionic words of Nancy Pelosi, if Americans don’t agree to fund the butchery of unborn human beings who are the ones being tossed into red biohazard bags on the floor, the lives of the mothers who choose to place them there are at risk.

Thus, the logic of liberals continues to defy the reasoning of thinking, feeling human beings.  Democrats like Obama, Pelosi and Waxman are convinced that financing the death of the innocent is a valiant endeavor because by using everyone’s tax dollars to finance abortion, Americans are doing the moral thing and saving the lives of the selfish.

%d bloggers like this: