Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘abortion’ Category

>Maybe We Should Ship These 150,000 American Abortion Lovers To Haiti


So What If 150,000 Americans Believe In Abortion!
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
A renewed – and heated – debate about abortion is underway one month into a congressional session that largely has devoted its energy to tackling economic issues.

At the core of the discussion this week are two House Republican proposals that would expand restrictions on federal abortion funding.
One, H.R. 3 – also known as the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” – would eliminate tax breaks for abortions and permanently prohibit taxpayer funding for abortions in all federal programs by codifying the Hyde Amendment, which typically is renewed annually. It also would reinstate a ban on abortion funding in the District, a move that some have contended would infringe on the city’s right to self-government. The measure was sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.).
The other, H.R. 358 – known as the “Protect Life Act” – would prohibit federal funding for abortions under the new national health-care law and also would prevent funding from being withheld from institutions that are opposed to providing abortions. It is sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.).

Abortion rights advocates contend that the proposals would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortions in cases where the woman’s life is threatened. They also argue that the bills go too far in prohibiting women from using their own money to obtain insurance that covers a range of reproductive care.

In addition, the Smith bill sparked controversy through its use of the term “forcible rape,” which women’s rights groups charged was an attempt to change the definition of rape. The term was dropped from the bill last week.
The heated emotions surrounding the abortion debate were on display Tuesday as lawmakers sparred ahead of – and during – a hearing on the bill by the House Judiciary Committee’s Constitution subcommittee.
As the subcommittee hearing began, about a dozen activists from the organization DC Vote staged a silent protest against the reinstatement of the ban on D.C. abortion funding. Wearing red bandanas over their mouths, the protesters stood among the 70 or so people in the packed committee room for several minutes until they were silently escorted from the room by Capitol Police officers.
Testifying at Tuesday’s subcommittee hearing were Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; Sara Rosenbaum, professor of health law and policy and chairman of the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Services; and Family Research Council senior fellow Cathy Ruse.
Kellie Fiedorek, a staff attorney for the antiabortion organization Americans United for Life, was among those attending Tuesday’s hearing. She said that she believes the current debate over abortion funding is in tune with the debate over jobs and the economy.
“I think it’s completely in line with the desire to focus on jobs, because we are in a financial crisis, so this ensures that federal taxpayer funds are going to things that are important to the American people and not to something like abortion,” Fiedorek said.
Just before the hearing, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee and representatives from several abortion rights groups held a news conference at which they denounced the Smith bill as an “unacceptable attack on a woman’s right to choose and a distraction from the economic relief that Americans expect from Congress.”
About a dozen activists from attended the event and presented a petition that they said contains more than 150,000 signatures from Americans opposed to the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.”
At a separate news conference before the hearing, Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Frank R. Lautenberg (N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) and other Senate Democrats took aim at the GOP proposals as “extreme” and charged that they are a distraction from Congress’s top priority of kick-starting the economy.
Lautenberg said the Smith bill “sounds like a Third World country that’s requiring women to wear head shawls, cover their faces, even if they don’t want to do it.”
On Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health is slated to hold a hearing on the “Protect Life Act.”
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters Tuesday that, so far, neither measure has been scheduled for a vote in the House, but that both “are obviously very important in terms of the priorities we set out initially in our Pledge to America.
“These are bills which have to do with the expenditure of government funds, taxpayer dollars for abortion, something that most Americans feel we should do without,” Cantor said.


>Napolitan: Don’t You Dare X-Ray American Streets


December 31,2010
I Thought Janet Napolitano Was Our Homeland Security Leader?
If so, what’s she doing traveling to Afghanistan? And why does she need a week there? After one week is up, she travels to – of all places – the tiny nation of Qatar for one day then on to Israel for three days and Belgium for three days.
If she comes back and orders three thousand of those massive white trucks that the U.S. Army has over there that can X-ray you and everything in sight, I’ll be upset. Those cost millions and millions. And you can count it – that she and Barak will spend billions on this new initiative “to keep us safe.” When in the backs of their minds it will be to rub us out and to put us down. X-ray machines can sterilize people and shorten life. Think about it. That is one of Obama’s chief prerogatives – to reduce population.
He’s doing it in Health Care, wars, death panels, doing away with life saving drugs (Avistan, for example that breast cancer victims must have to save their lives), and in many other areas. The entire Green Movement is to reduce population. Bill Gate’s government-program (supported by U.S. taxes) is one of sterilizing farm seeds and it goes hand in hand with that idea. If farmers have to buy sterilized seeds that don’t leave seeds to grow plants the following season from Gates and his conglomerate (which includes the U.S. government0 then the and we can’t survive. Africans are already feeling the economically debilitating effect of this. You should read my latest book, a novel packed with plenty of educational things, called Murder By Executive Order or, on the blog, “Government Kills.” Here’s a link to a small part of the novel:
American taxes pay for abortions abroad. We are responsible – not you and I, but our insane government – for killing millions of unborn or partial birth babies – and that has to stop!
Yes, we can learn something from her Israel visit. Has the administration finally awakened to the fact that this small country of Israel is doing a much better job guarding their borders than we are at our borders? But, remember, life in Israel is a whole lot different than in America where we still enjoy – or enjoyed – certain freedoms and the Israelis apparently don’t.
Then how much of these things is she going to implement? Will she make the U.S. an unarmed country where we can’t own guns? Will she get in Mr. Obama’s ear and suggest we hire the HLS director of Israel? I doubt it, but that might not be a bad idea considering the lackluster job she has done here in America. 
The following was printed in POLITICO PLAYBOOK this morning:
BREAKING – “SECRETARY NAPOLITANO ARRIVES IN AFGHANISTAN: Weeklong Trip Will Include Stops in Qatar, Israel and Belgium” – Homeland Security release: “Secretary Janet Napolitano arrived in Kabul, Afghanistan today at approximately 7:42 a.m. AFT along with six additional DHS customs and border security officials who will join DHS personnel already deployed in the region to provide civilian assistance to local security officials. … Following her departure from Afghanistan, Secretary Napolitano will continue to Qatar on Jan. 2; Israel on Jan. 3-5; and Belgium on Jan. 5-6 to meet with her counterparts and discuss international efforts to ensure the security of our global aviation and supply chain systems against threats of terrorism and transnational crime.” 

–Photo by Sean Smith: Secretary Napolitano, boarding a helicopter at Torkham Forwarding Operating Base, to view the Torkham border crossing across from the Khyber Pass in Pakistan: ‘DHS has nearly two dozen customs and border officials advising the Afghans as part of America’s commitment to helping Afghanistan build their civilian governance capacity.’ 

It isn’t bad to communicate with your counterparts in other areas of the world. But we ought to have someone more successful than Janet Napolitano to offer to the world. And why such an extensive trip?

Something else that disturbs me: Feds shut down 82 websites selling Chinese-made counterfeit goodsupdated November 29, 2010

Federal agents highlighted Cyber Monday, a peak day for online shopping, by seizing 82 websites selling Chinese-made counterfeit products in a crackdown designed to severely sting criminals in the pocketbook.
I’m not for the Chinese counterfeiting goods. I am against shutting down websites. Let’s follow this one awhile and see where it goes. If it means more shutdowns of websites, then it is a major problem for America. Because we know Obama will use any pretext to close out Republican and conservative web sites and radio and TV talk show-hosted programs.
For Napolitano it smacks of setting up homeland security worldwide. Worldwide is Obama’s middle name. He wants to be a world leader of a One World political system. This is just another step in that direction, it isn’t about security.
How can Janet N. possibly be a good, positive source of successful security when she can’t even keep her own country safe without turning it into a police state – which we are bordering on becoming here in the United States. She doesn’t even enforce border laws – like between Arizona and Mexico – that are already on the books. Oh, but I forgot. Obama and company don’t care about laws. They circumvent them all the time. That’s why all of the executive orders. That’s why they sneak around during Congressional Recess appointng new czars and making new regulations. The new assistant named a few days ago to help Eric Holder couldn’t get approved by Congress – even a Democrat Congress. No problemo, we’ll just wait until people go home and aren’t looking and appoint him anyway.
When she stops the inflow of crime, drugs, and undocumented, unwanted, and illegal aliens from Mexico I would say send her to the Moon if you want. But make her accountable here at home before you send her all over the world as a shinning light, a beacon of perfection in homeland security.
Let there be no doubt. The current leaders in Washington don’t want to keep us safe, they want to complicate our lives and make us subservient to computer norms, electronic scanners – you know those massive trucks they have in Afghanistan driving down the street that can X-ray and contaminate everything in sight. Yes, soon we will all be X-rayed the moment we drive our cars out of the garage – frisking by heavy-handed men and women at the airport, and wire tapping our phone call sessions. This isn’t America anymore, it smacks of communist Russia. Well, I do believe Barak Obama admires communism more than liberty and now it’s time we – and especially the new Tea Party Congress – reign him in.
Don White

>Margaret Sanger: Sinner or Saint?


Donald M.White

I was watching Glenn Beck. They showed a clip of Hillary Clinton praising Margaret Sanger as her inspiration. I immediately didn’t like Sanger, though I knew little about her – just because Clinton said she admired Sanger and inferred she was a saint. After further study, Sanger is really one of the world’s biggest sinners – definitely not a saint.

Sanger is credited with saying black people should he eliminated because they are an inferior race. I know – if you confront Hillary, the progressive, she would deny this, but its true, just read the books about her. This statement, of course, isn’t recorded in Sanger’s own autobiography.

What jumps out when I read Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, is that she was in the forefront of setting up female abortion clinics. If you’re a progressive, she was a great savior of women and a leading women’s rights advocate. That means supporting women who kill their babies for reasons other than health of the mother.

Before Sanger’s time in America it was illegal for a woman to have an abortion, except to preserve her health. That determination was made by a doctor. Today, with the wave of female abortion-rights advocates living on the planet – in fact running our government in Washington D.C. – abortions are performed on a regular basis with our tax dollars.

Killing babies offends God. The Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, among others, are on the forefront in opposition to abortion on demand, a practice for which Sanger worked hard to get U.S. government approval and funding and people like Barak Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and others champion. Why do they support killing babies? Because they do not believe in God or in the Bible, plain and simple, though Obama and the Clintons call themselves Christians when in fact they are really atheists.

Whose church did Obama attend for twenty years from which he states he learned nothing about the “liberation” philosophy that the Rev. Jeramiah Wright regularly spewed using caustic, fatuous, anti-American rhetoric, relying on a bombastic scream and and a faux-evangelic demeanor of ranting and arm waving gesticulation and accusation that he cried in the highest volume possible, ‘ Not God bless America, God damn America…”. Whether he likes it or not, Barak Obama is married to the likes of Jeramiah Wright and Margart Sanger and their causes, though their aims regarding black people seem counter to one another.

Is all of this just my opinion? No, listen to Sanger, herself:
   “The Senate hearings on the hill, introduced by our old friend Daniel O. Hastings of Delaware, did not come until March (1932). We presented our advocates, among them a miner’s wife from West Virginia, the native state of two members of the committee, Hatfield and Neely. She was a perfect illustration of the type that both needed birth control. When she finished a Catholic woman asked her.” which of your nine children would you rather see dead?”
   Sanger said that “the woman’s reply was just right; it could not have been better”
   “Oh, I don’t want to see any of them dead. I love them all; but I don’t love those I haven’t had.”

The above illustrates a lack Biblical understanding and a love for Christ’s doctrine. For those like the Mormons and Catholics and many other Bible-reading people who believe that each of us lived as spirit children of God before we came to earth, it represented a short-sighted and unenlightened view of life. It represents lack of faith in God and in Biblical teachings. To abortionists, life as they know it begins only when the fetus is fully delivered and the umbilical cord is detached from the mother’s womb – thus their excuse that when they kill a partially delivered child they are not killing a live person. Balderdash! But that’s only part of the story. If you believe the Bible, life doesn’t begin at conception.

Job 38: 7 (1-7)

  7 When the morning stars asang together, and all the bsons of God shouted for cjoy?
The above scripture tells of the preexistence. It was a time when we were presented with a choice – either we follow Satan who said all would be saved by him, the honor going to Satan not God, without even living a good life or showing adherence to God’s laws. The second was Jesus Christ who said he would take upon himself the sins of mankind and all would be resurrected, making possible the resurrection of all mankind, but that we each had an obligation to repent of our sins to gain God’s approbation. All the glory would go to God. God was angry at Lucifer or Satan and chose Christ’s plan while he cast out of heaven Satan and one-third of the hosts of heaven, those spirits who chose to follow that rebellious one. Their spirits exist today without a physical body and under Satan’s tutelage they tempt and torment mankind, hoping that people will fall away from God, thus joining the bands of defeated spirits 
Jesus lived a perfect life, and we too are admonished by him to become perfect and to serve him by serving others. Life on earth is a preparation time to determine who will be patriotic and faithful to Jesus Christ and his commandments which we can read about in the Bible and elsewhere. Mormons also turn to Abraham, where the Bible says he was chosen as one of the great ones before this world was. 

Margaret Sanger and her gang do not believe in the sanctity of  human life. Our God, through Jesus Christ, who created all things – this earth and all therein and the universe and other planets and creations so innumerable that we can’t count them all – controls his feelings and teaches that retribution for harming one of these innocent ones will be his and in his own due time. But since Obama, Clinton, and Sanger were and are not God-fearing people, they are not exactly quaking with fear because their hearts are so far removed from spiritual things.

God also had a hand in inspiring our Founding Fathers to create a free country, the United States of America. All 56 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were inspired of God. But today there are those who believe the Constitution they produced is antiquated. These folks look to France, China, Russia, Arabia and other countries for their inspiration and have abrogated the great freedom-inspired documents our Founders, with God’s help, placed here for us – necessary documents that acknowledge our inalienable rights of agency, freedom to congregate and to worship, to hold opinions and to express them without government intimidation and interference; freedoms given to us by God of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It made Americans uniquely free from abusive government. These sacred documents and freedoms allowed free enterprise and capitalism to thrive and for America to grow into the most exceptional and giving country on the face of the planet. Yet today the government in Washington is systematically erasing these freedoms in a Satan-like effort to bail us out, stimulate our economy, or make poor enterprises work by hook or crook.

We all lived long before as spirits. Before we were born our spirits united with the physical body creating the soul of the child. The exact moment when the spirt and body unite is not known, but it may coincide with the heartbeat of the fetus or when life is felt by the mother; certainly when it tosses from side to side in the uterus or well in advance of birth when the mother can feel the fetuses vibrations and movements and when many enlightened women today start speaking to their child through the walls of the body into the uterus where there is evidence that such a child – whether spoken to verbally or given music to hear – knows and understands such teachings even before birth.

Progressives like Sanger have no knowledge or belief in a life after death or a life before earth life. It is taught in the New and Old Testaments. All of the prophets foretold of Jesus Christ who would die for the sins of man and make resurrection possible and life eternal a reality. If you don’t start by believing in the vehicle that will take you into the eternities – God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the prophets – it is not possible to believe in the hereafter or that there is anything except this life. What a sad existence this life would be if we had no promise of eternity with our family members and life everlasting of which Jesus Christ testified. To me and to millions like me, life without the Savior’s teaching would be like driving a car down a culdesac and when you reach the end there is no more. What a miserable reality that would be. But we know better.

Sanger’s book doesn’t mention words like God, Jesus Christ, the creation, and the creator. They aren’t in her lexicon. Instead she believes the purpose of life is to “pass on the torch of life” to those who follow us and this, Sanger said, the birth control movement is doing.

“Build thou beyond thyself,” she quotes Nietzsche, the philosopher who proclaimed God was dead. Friedrich Nietzsche was a so-called learned writer who placed himself on the intellectual level of Jesus Christ. “All peoples will in the future have greater regard for the quality of their bodies and for their brains,” Sanger said, and “must be equipped for the task of building the future civilization; birth control will be the cornerstone of that great structure.”

The above is why birth control advocates – the likes of Margaret Sanger, FDR, Adolph Hitler, and Woodrow Wilson – believed that only the fit should survive. With their dogma, if a baby had even a small defect it must be eliminated. After all, we must pass on only the superior people to help perfect this utopia which they all envisioned -and which Hitler saw as only white, blue-eyed people. But when you look into his heredity, you find that he had both black and Jewish ancestors as well as blue-eyed Germanic genealogy.

God forbid. No rational person wants to live in such a world. We celebrates the diversity of mankind, not a monolithic sameness.

>The advent of the Abortion Pills

>The Food and Drug Administration is now allowing 17-year-olds to buy birth control pills without parental approval. We are told the pills are effective and are called abortion pills by pro-life advocates.

This action came about as a result of a Federal court ruling that minors can buy “abortion” pills.

>Obama Quick To Aid Abortionist Doctors


AP Source: Obama to rescind Bush abortion rule

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama plans to repeal a Bush administration rule that has become a flash point in the debate over a doctor’s right not to participate in abortions. The regulation, instituted in the last days of the Bush administration, strengthened job protections for doctors and nurses who refuse to provide a medical service because of moral qualms.
A Health and Human Services official said Friday the administration will publish notice of its intentions early next week, opening a 30-day comment period for advocates on both sides, medical groups and the public.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the notice has not been completed.
The Bush administration rule was quickly challenged in federal court by several states and medical organizations. As a candidate, President Barack Obama criticized the regulation and campaign aides promised that if elected, he would review it. Read more.

>Obama Is Trying To Abolish Debate

>Obama’s Reichstag Fire and The Coming Enabling Act
Don White

The Republican National Party has called the Democrats’ $787B “stimulus” plan rushed through Congress last week and signed by the president four days later “Barak Obama’s Reichstag Fire.”

Obama and his gang are students of history. Historians point to the Reichstag Fire that gutted the German Parliament house in Berlin on February 27, 1933 as the turning point for the Nazis in gaining enough power to pass what was called an “Enabling Act” or the power to suspend parliament.

The Enabling Act allowed for the establishment of Nazi Germany. When will things be bad enough for Obama to get his enabling act to suspend our freedoms?

Have you noticed that Obama hasn’t smiled much since coming to power? It’s all a ploy. He has done his best to make the financial crisis look insoluble by normal means. His purpose is to, first, spend as much money as possible to pay back campaign promises. That’s where the “bums rush” $787B is going.

He doesn’t want the problem to get solved too soon because a recovering country would spoil everything – his chance to enslave American taxpayers and generations to come. Have you noticed, he has held back a real stimulus bill – one Treasury Secretary Timoth Gaithner promises is still to come? There will be a second – and maybe a third — so called “stimulus” bill of trillion-dollar proportions. That will be the real bill that should have been passed first, because only then will it address the core problems of getting America back on its feet.

When you have a hostage congress, like the Democrat congress, you may not need “an enabling act” to pass freedom-stifling bills.

But Obama wants to serve more than two terms. He wants three or four or five, and that will take an enabling act, because right now we have term limits for presidents. His next act has to be to eliminate term limits. That will come when terrorists are at our door, after they fire some missiles at Washington or other American cities.

So it isn’t in Obama’s interest to fight terrorism like Bush did. He wants porous borders with Mexico, despite the fact that Mexico is near a state of total political collapse, with the drug cartel about to take over. When that happens, as it surely will, how do you keep drug cartel terrorists out of our country? You don’t, not with the cavalier way Obama, has reacted to our border emergency. Expect the Democrats to ask for an additional trillion dollars to bail out Mexico’s drug cartel government.

Whether the Reichstag fire was caused by the Nazis themselves or by the Communist Party which at that time had 17% of the German vote is unimportant for this discussion. But history repeats itself. Just as Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Omanuel called the financial meltdown an opportunity to do things not otherwise possible, Hitler’s words echo the same sentiments in 1933. Hitler called the fire a “sign from heaven”, and claimed the fire was a Fanal (signal) meant to mark the beginning of a Communist Putsch (coup).
Hitler was the Chancellor. His aim was first to acquire a National Socialist majority in order to secure his position and eliminate Communist opposition. Obama’s aim today is to create a one-party system in America and to remove the Republican Party opposition. Hitler hoped to abolish democracy in a more or less legal fashion by passing the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act was a special law which gave the Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree without the involvement of the Reichstag
The fire was used as evidence by the Nazis that the Communists were beginning a ‘plot’ against the German government. Historians disagree as to whether van der Lubbe acted alone or if the Nazis were involved. The responsibility for the Reichstag Fire remains an ongoing topic of debate and research.
Governments love to declare their countries in a “state of national emergency.” That, alone, eliminates much political opposition. But the money the U.S. is spending on the first of Obama’s rescues is meant to cement support for his re-election. The only way to get a two-thirds majority to declare a national emergency is to have 60 Senate votes. This time Obama bought off three vulnerable and very liberal Republicans, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow from Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Specter got what he wanted out of the deal, $6 Billion for stem cell research, which conservatives and others oppose. Once again, our Constitutional rights of debate in chambers were circumvented.
Watch out, more funny business is coming. Soon, Obama will find a way to get around the Constitutional provisions making us a free people, including freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. Our voting rights have been severely jeopardized with the $3 billion going to ACORN for more Democrat style ”community organizing.” Owning guns will be next, and that will be where citizens stand in large numbers openly rebel.
The day after the fire, Hitler asked for and received from President Hindenburg the Reichstag Fire Decree, signed into law by Hindenburg using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany and was used by the Nazis to ban publications not considered “friendly” to the Nazi cause. Obama has said he will not invoke the so-called :”fairness doctrine”, but don’t believe him. He won’t initiate it, but you can believe the Democrat Congress will and he will make it look like they forced him to administer this law against his will. Watch out, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity, Glenn Beck, Michael Medved, Neal Boortz, and Bill O’Reilly. It’s coming.

>Republicans Are The Party of "Getting America Right," Not The Liberal Left-Wing Democrats

>Barak Obama has his sights set on reversing all of George Bush’s moderate and conservative actions, changes so startling and aggressive it is as if he were taking a knife to the white man’s throat, “setting thing right”

You can sense the pent-up Democrat frustration now focused on making those who support conservative measures bend their knees as never before, and it is about these liberal, self-defeating actions by the Democrats that conservatives think of their mission in life as “Getting America Right” after Obama has ruined it, and, hopefully, no later than 2012.

A team of four dozen advisers worked for months in virtual solitude, consulting with liberal advocacy groups, identifying regulatory and policy changes Obama is now implementing.

Transition advisers compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that are being swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats.

“The kind of regulations they are looking at” are those imposed by Bush for “overtly political” reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration’s Office of Management and Budget.

Here are some of the actions the black president is taking to put down the hated white man. Such hatred should be reserved for terrorists, not a president who kept us safe for eight years:

1. Abortion — Funding for abortion literature and help to abortion clinics. Remember, this is the same Barak Obama who told the Pope recently that he was against abortion. The man cannot be trusted. When he’s in Israel he assures Olmert that he is on their side. When he is visiting with Plalastinian Muslim and the Hamas he assures them he is not their enemy. Whose side is he on, anyway? Probably neither, which is a dangerous foreign policy position.

The new president has lifted a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion.

2. Repeal the Ronald Reagan Star Wars Defense System. This is an insanely dangerous move, but it will also likely be followed up by an announcement that Obama will not carry out Bush’s plans to ring Eastern Europe with defensive missiles. That would be a foolish mistake, a sure sign of weakness that could invite Vladimir Putin to attack more Baltic States to gain back lost Russian territory. And how can The Ukraine, Finland and Poland feel good about that kind of misdirection which will be interpreted as weakness in the Kremlin?

3. Bush’s controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research — controversial only in liberal views and accepted broadly in America where 90 percent of the people say they believe in God– a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson’s. Since anti-God people are in the minority in the U.S., Obama’s views on this and other issues is the one that may be viewed as the most highly controversial.

4. Environmental control. The “Green” movement.

As late as a month ago a spokeswoman said that “Before he (Obama) made any decisions on potential executive or legislative actions, he would confer with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as interested groups.” The bipartisanship on which Obama ran has already been breached. Republican congressman John Bahner of Michigan said much of the Rupublican House opposition to the $825B bailout bill is because Democrats in the House did not consult with Republicans and allow them to offer counter proposals in the spirit of bipartisanship, but forged ahead alone, drafting a bill that they hoped to stuff down the throats of Republicans and “blue dog” Democrats.

Blue Dog Democratic Coalition is a group of 47 moderate and conservative Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives.[1] The Blue Dogs promote, among other things, fiscal conservatism and accountability. Many members come from conservative districts, where liberal Democrats comprise a decided minority of the general population.[citation needed] In 2006, Blue Dog candidates such as Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth were elected in conservative-leaning districts, ending years of Republican dominance in these districts.

The Blue Dogs are the political descendants of a now defunct Southern Democratic group known as the Boll Weevils, who played a critical role in the early 1980s by supporting President Ronald Reagan‘s tax cut plan. The Boll weevils, in turn, may be considered the descendants of the “states’ rights” Democrats of the 1940’s through 60’s.

The Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1994 during the 104th Congress to give more conservative members from the Democratic party a unified voice. The Blue Dogs are viewed by some as a continuation of the socially conservative wing of the Democratic party prominent during the presidency of Harry S Truman. But the only stated policy position of the Blue Dogs is fiscal conservatism, and many of the members of the coalition hold liberal views on social issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, and gay rights.

Bush’s August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in Abortion.

Obama is trying to walk both sides of the moral issue street, having had the first openly gay Episcopal bishop offer a prayer at the Lincoln Memorial at an inaugural event, for example. This choice was likely a political response to criticism of Obama for selecting anti-gay marriage pastor Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at his January 20 inauguration, according to Western blog.

Warren backed the ban on same-sex marriage that passed in his home state of California on the November ballot, said Newsmax. In trying to keep social conservatives and social liberals happy simultaneously, Obama will likely come to look weak and indecisive.

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. This is part of the “real change” promised by Obama during the election.

While Obama maintains that his top priority is to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies, including some — such as the embrace of new environmental safeguards — that Obama has said will have long-term, beneficial impacts on the economy.

The president has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration’s decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. “Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer,” Obama said in January.

California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California’s rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation’s automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country. However, Detroit has already signaled difficulties coming in maintaining their auto production while trying to produce more gas efficient and less polluting cars.

“An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.

Robert Sussman, who was the EPA’s deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and directed EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding, but that doesn’t make it true. Others have written opposite position papers. It as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with his brand of scientific advice.

Some related reforms embraced by Obama’s transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled “Change for America,” published by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, recommends, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.

The center’s influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff was swept into planning for Obama’s first 100 days in office.

The National Energy Council would be a counterpart to the White House National Economic Council that Clinton created in a 1993 executive order.

“It would make sure all the oars are rowing in the right direction” — actually the direction would be due left — “and ensure that climate change policy “gets lots of attention inside the White House,” said Daniel J. Weiss, a former Sierra Club official and senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The center’s new book urges Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama’s transition team have already embraced the idea.

Other early Obama initiatives may address the need for improved food and drug regulation and chart a new course for immigration enforcement, some Obama advisers say. But they add that only a portion of his early efforts will be aimed at undoing Bush initiatives.

Despite enormous pent-up Democratic frustration, Obama and his team realize they must strike a balance between undoing Bush actions and setting their own course, said Winnie Stachelberg, the center’s senior vice president for external affairs.

A large part of the Democrats’ frustration is their self-imposed hatred for George Bush and the conservative Republican agenda. They have told themselves for so long that Bush was doing a bad job that they have started to believe it. Unfortunately, some Republicans bought onto that line also, and apparently, like sheep, voted for Obama, which is unfortunate.

“It took eight years to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out of it,” Stachelbergerg said. But not as long as they think, especially if Obama continues on the torrid pace he has set in turning over conservative policy.