Medical Double Standard - Women "Control" Their Bodies ... Except When the State Knows Best

Yes, there is a Double Standard in Medicine

Women of any age (including minors) have the right to an abortion because they have a privacy right that protects their control of their bodies ... but a 17 year old girl in Connecticut doesn't have the right to pursue an alternative to state-mandated chemotherapy in treating her cancer.  Double standard?  You bet!

Since 1973, when Roe v. Wade became the “constitutional” law of the land, women have been deemed to have absolute control of their bodies.  This includes girls as young as 13 or 14 – if they choose to have an abortion, they not only have that absolute right, but their parents don’t even have the right to know about this procedure.  Every attempt to strip or limit this right to an abortion for minor children has been blocked by the courts.

I think this is pure insanity.  First, because there is no “right to privacy” in the Constitution – that was made up by the court.  Second, even if there is a right to privacy, in all other regards, minors are under parental control until they achieve their majority – only in abortion matters do these minors have rights which trump those of the parents.  Finally, I also thing abortion is immoral and wrong – but that’s really beside the point here.

However, the issue here is a medical double standard.  Young girls have the “right” to kill a not-yet-born baby inside their womb but, as the state of Connecticut now asserts, those same young girls do not have the right to eschew medical intervention (in this case, chemotherapy) that is forced upon them against their will.  In this case, the young girl is 17 – old enough to drive, old enough to give consent to engage in sexual activities, old enough to have an abortion no matter what anybody else says.  Yet she doesn’t have the right to refuse chemotherapy.   

Hypocrisy? You bet.

She (and her parents), who all very much want her to live, and elected to pursue an alternative therapy.  However, the nanny state, which cares not at all about 12 year olds killing their unborn babies, have stepped in to force this young girl to have chemo. 

I bring this up because the same liberals who champion abortion-on-demand, regardless of age, also champion the state forcing this girl to undergo the horrors of chemotherapy against her will.

What’s next?  It can only be egregious.

The Anti-Semitic Met's Exercise in Goebbel-esqe Propaganda Masquerading as Art

In the mid-1980s, Palestinian terrorists swarmed aboard the cruise ship Achille Lauro in the central Mediterranean and, after terrorizing passengers and crew, executed wheelchair-bound Jewish retiree Leon Klinghoffer (in front of his family).  President Reagan staged an anti-terror strike that captured the terrorists, forcing the airliner they were fleeing in to land in Italy - only to see the soft-on-terror Italian courts release them (but that's another story). 

A few years later, this incident was turned into a virulently anti-Semitic opera, "The Death of Klinghoffer," which was a piece of performance-art propaganda that Joseph Goebbels would have been proud to claim as his own.

Given all of that, I am outraged that the Metropolitan Opera of New York City is moving ahead with plans to perform "The Death of Klinghoffer." 

This pro-terrorist piece of operatic "Big Lie" propaganda - a work of a "Big Lie" masquerading as art - is offensive not just to Jews, but to all who care about slapping down terrorists instead of glorifying them.  A number of Jewish and Christian organizations have condemned the Met, which is nonetheless proceeding with the performance.

Were I a member of the Met, I'd not only very publicly cancel my membership, but I'd also very publicly boycott the Met until they repudiate this egregious act of corporate anti-Semitism.  Since I'm not a member, I can't cancel, but Lynn and I have been talking about taking a vacation (some day) to NYC, where she used to live (out on Long Island) and the Met had been on our to-do list ... until now.

If you care anything at all about anti-Semitism or fair play for Jews and Israel, I encourage you to boycott the Met ... and ask your friends to do the same

Why Republicans Have Standards - and Why Democrats Can't Spell "Standards"

 Ned Barnett - Capitol Curmudgeon

For a long time now, I have noticed that any truly conservative Republican with the slightest tarnish or blemish is hounded out of politics by the left-wing media, while other conservative Republicans stand by and let it happen.

To that I say BRAVO!  We are SUPPOSED to have standards - higher standards of integrity, probity and honesty - after all, we are the good guys.

However, it had troubled me that Democrats and Liberals were not held to any standards, by anybody.  Then, when this Benghazi thing blew up, I realized something.  Not only do Liberals not have standards ... but nobody expects them to. Not the media.  Not their supporters. Not even the public (well, we do, but it just frustrates us).  So any Democrat or Liberal can do anything - Clinton with his rapes and sexual assaults (proven in court in the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky matters - even the Supreme Court agreed).  AND NOBODY CARES ... not only don't they have standards, but their supporters, the media and the public are just fine with that.

Frustrating?  You bet.

I put this together when a friend up in Northern Idaho sent me all sorts of stuff about Benghazi and asked my opinion of it.  Read down for my in-depth analysis of the Liberals' lack of standards (and why we should just "let it go," because nobody else will care, and it will not move even one vote).  Then, if you must, read about the sleaze that triggered the inquiry.

Ned, the Capitol Curmudgeon ... 

Jim – this seems valid – hard to pick it apart, since so much of what I read here depends on whether the source is honest or if this is all a photo-shop job.  Can’t really tell.

However, I can tell you this – the Republicans are pissing up a rope.  Consider.  Even if Americans didn’t know what  Obama really was before the 2008 election, they sure as hell did in 2012 – and he did better the second time around.  To put it bluntly, nobody who supports Obama cares. Period.

The ones who distrust him always will – this story won’t change things.  The ones who believe in him always will – they won’t believe this story (but if they did, they wouldn’t care).

People in America don’t care about what Democrats do, or who they really are.  Everybody knew that Clinton all but raped women who worked for him, and did rape at least two women who tried to spurn him.  Yet he left office with a huge approval rating.  No Republican alive would have survived what Clinton just shrugged off. He remains hugely popular, and nobody blames Hillary for being a blatant opportunist, either.

Obama called for the use of abortion as birth control, using his daughters as an example (they shouldn’t be “punished with a child” – his own grandchild).  Nobody cared.

He bowed to every potentate he could find.  Nobody cared.

According to the Muslim faith (which is patriarchal), he’s either a Muslim because his father was/is a Muslim, or he’s an apostate.  Nobody cares.

Reverend Wright.  Nobody cares.

Putin.  Nobody cares.

If he dug up Lady Di’s corpse and raped it repeatedly in the Washington Mall, people might care.  But he’s not that stupid.  Anything short of this, nobody cares.

Republicans have to toe the line – and thank God for that.  Last thing we need are Republicans with the moral stature of Democrats. But we must never forget that America has long-since accepted that Democrats do NOT have standards. They don’t expect Democrats to HAVE standards.  They Do Not Care.

So, if we can prosecute some people, fine. Let’s throw their asses in Club Fed.  But if we can’t, then maybe what we need are season tickets to the local baseball team. At least people care about who wins – and get upset if someone cheats to win.  Ask Pete Rose.

Seriously, NOBODY (except us) CARES, and there aren’t enough of us who care to make a difference.

Ned

All My Best

Ned

Ned Barnett, APR

Marketing & PR Fellow, American Hospital Association

Barnett Marketing Communications

420 N. Nellis Blvd., A3-276 - Las Vegas NV 89110

702-561-1167 - cell/text

www.barnettmarcom.com - twitter @nedbarnett

http://pr-marketing2point0.blogspot.com/

From: Jim 
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 7:29 PM
To: Ned Barnett
Subject: FW: Benghazi Bombshell: "Smoking Gun" Email Distributed to Muslim Brotherhood Agent Mehdi K. Alhassani

Ned,

What is your opinion of the validity of this?

Jim

From: Tony B
Subject: Benghazi Bombshell: "Smoking Gun" Email Distributed to Muslim Brotherhood Agent Mehdi K. Alhassani

Benghazi Bombshell: “Smoking Gun” Email Distributed to Muslim Brotherhood Agent Mehdi K. Alhassani

Dean Garrison 14 hours ago

Why would a copy of the now infamous "smoking gun" Benghazi email have been sent to an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood? Well, because that agent works for the Obama Administration of course.

The Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the Obama Administration has been widely documented. Now, it appears another member slipped through without detection.

We have just received our latest clue that the Benghazi cover up goes way deeper than many seem to suggest.

Shoebat.com reports:

The 'smoking gun' email that reveals who instructed Susan Rice to blame the Benghazi attack on a video also exposes a recipient named Mehdi K. Alhassani. Alhassani was the leader of the Muslim Student Association (MSA), a Muslim Brotherhood front group and attended the sister mosque of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC) mosque attended by the Boston Marathon bombers. It is a mystery how Alhassani slipped through the cracks to become a Special Assistant to the Office of the Chief of Staff, National Security Council Staff, and Executive Office of the President. It is unknown why a few hours before the Benghazi attack, Alhassani met in the White House with Samir Mayekar, a George Soros 'fellow' for an unscheduled visit.

Very interesting. Could Alhassani be another liaison between the White House and the Muslim Brotherhood?

There have been numerous documents and reports in the foreign press that would suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood played a huge role in the Benghazi attack.

For instance, there is a leaked Libyan intelligence document that never quite made it to the mainstream media. This document places responsibility squarely at the feet of the Brotherhood.

Image of the Libyan intelligence document

Here are some brief comments from Raymond Ibrahim about the document:

On Wednesday, June 26, several Arabic websites, including Veto Gate, quoted the intelligence report, which apparently was first leaked to the Kuwaiti paper, Al Ra'i. Prepared by Mahmoud Ibrahim Sharif, Director of National Security for Libya, the report is addressed to the nation's Minister of Interior.

It discusses the preliminary findings of the investigation, specifically concerning an "Egyptian cell" which was involved in the consulate attack. "Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene" six people, "all of them Egyptians" from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia ("Supporters of Islamic Law), were arrested.

According to the report, during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members "confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi; preacher Safwat Hegazi; Saudi businessman Mansour Kadasa, owner of the satellite station, Al-Nas; Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Hassan; former presidential candidate, Hazim Salih Abu Isma'il…"

Also back in June, Egyptian journalist Cynthia Farahat dropped another bombshell that you probably didn't read about on Fox News:

Cynthia Farahat is an Egyptian journalist who came upon a video which she translated to English. The video was of the terrorists who attacked the diplomatic mission and they were quoted by her as saying:

"Don't shoot, don't shoot, Dr. Morsi sent us."

Farahat also went so far as to surmise that the dialect of Arabic being spoken was not indigenous to Libya. Her claim is that the men were speaking in Egyptian dialect.

At the time, I was unaware because I had only started blogging in late 2012, but Pamela Geller had already pounced on this story long before Farahat. So it seems that at least two translations have implicated Morsi in this matter.

As if that wasn't enough, another startling accusation was made in September when Al Jazeera brought the claims of an Egyptian newspaper to light. The claim is that Barack Obama is a full member of the Muslim Brotherhood:

There has been a lot of focus lately on the arms dealings that were going on at the CIA annex in Benghazi. Though that is certainly part of the story, I think it is very narrow minded to think that it stops there. There has been too much evidence in the foreign media that has never made it to the living rooms of America. This story is far bigger than most Americans know.

It is not simply about dishonesty and incompetence. There is a very good chance that Ambassador Stevens was offered as a sacrificial lamb and that your government was complicit in these actions. Let me spell it out… There is a distinct possibility that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were involved in the planning of the 9-11-12 Benghazi Attack. If you want to read more about the Muslim Brotherhood connection in Benghazi, you can go here.

Is there a specific reason that Mehdi Alhassani was in the loop on that email? With his obvious ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the possibilities are endless.

Regardless of guilt or innocence, one cannot deny the fact that Barack Obama has been making a conscious effort to surround himself with Muslim Brotherhood members in the White House, and this is no different.

What do you think?

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/benghazi-bombshell-smoking-gun-email-distributed-muslim-brotherhood-agent-mehdi-k-alhassani/#7mTD61z0EvFxBX5L.99

Burn, Baby, Burn

By Ned Barnett

It's just been reported that two American soldiers died, and four more have been injured - shot, apparently, by uniformed Afghan soldiers - in the aftermath of the burning of copies of the Koran - books already defiled by terrorists (a fact the media and the Afghanistani government and our own government all seem eager to ignore).

I can't imagine anyone with any position of authority intentionally wanting to burn a copy of the Koran. That would be an egregious insult, pointless and unworthy. But I have no problem seeing how someone might choose to destroy a collection of books and other printed material that captured terrorists were using to share radical, subversive messages with other captured terrorists. And that, apparently, is what happened.

First, captured Taliban and al Quaeda terrorists in NATO custody in Afghanistan were using the West's foolish weakness (we give them writing material and facilitated this material's distribution) to spread messages of radical encouragement with fellow terrorists. It was the terrorists who chose to defile their so-called holy book, turning sacred scripture into radical propaganda.

Next, when the materials were finally discovered by NATO prison guards, the once-holy (now defiled) texts were withdrawn from circulation, a totally appropriate move.

Finally, instead of formally presenting these defiled texts to legitimate Islamic clerics who could take care of them respectfully (the way a US flag might be "taken care of" respectfully after it had been defiled), the Korans and other defiled books were just burnt. That was culturally insensitive (read, "stupid"), since anyone bright enough to fog a mirror knows how radical Muslims would react.

That being the case, the response of officials in Afghanistan says everything we need to know about our so-called Allies. It also says everything we need to have said about what we really ought to be doing in the Islamic world.

We are not dealing with people (forget the extremists - I'm talking about the officials) who are rational as we in the West define rational. Which gives us two choices. We either use our strength to impose our will on those who oppose us (including our so-called allies who have done nothing but pour gasoline on the fires of radical irrationality), or we get out. Now. Quickly. Before any more Americans die in a cause that was lost from Day One.

In World War II, we chose to impose our will on our enemies. Nearly 70 years later, what has happened to those enemies? Italy, Germany, Japan - they are all among our most staunch allies. However, in the war on terror, we have chosen to see our enemies as people and regimes we could "deal with" and turn into allies. But this response to the unintentional burning of the Koran shows that these people - our so-called allies - are not people we can deal with or turn into real allies. We are pouring bazillions of mega-bucks - and precious lives - down a rat-hole.

We never intended to impose our will there, and as a result, we are not going to build rational democracies (the way we did in Italy, Germany and Japan after WW-II) in the Muslim world. It's time to get out - not because we were wrong to be there, but because we never had the political and moral will to truly win, and in doing so, to impose our will upon our vanquished enemies. They are not going to join us as rational players in an International alliance of equals who share reasonable values.

Romney's Trifecta Loss and the Nevada Mormon Connection

Ned Barnett

Mitt Romney scored big in Nevada, and - especially in light of his trifecta loss in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado - it is perhaps important to look at the Nevada Mormon Connection. In Nevada's caucus, according to exit polls, roughly 70 percent of Romney's voters were Mormons. That was commented on, but largely ignored by the media - which may be gun-shy about mentioning religious affiliation as a factor in voting - instead, the media focused on how Romney dominated the votes of "very conservative" and "Tea Party" Nevadans.

Now here’s something that’s REALLY overlooked - Mormons in Nevada are, by and large, Very Conservative, and a great many of Nevada's Tea Party members are also Mormons. In 2010, I served both the Clark County (Las Vegas) Republican Party and the Nevada Republican Party as Communications Director, and also counted as my client two Nevada-based subsidiaries of the Tea Party Express - and in those roles, I was able to see that a significant portion of the "very conservative" and "Tea Party" Nevadans were also Mormons. There being nothing unusual in being a Mormon in Nevada, this was not kept hidden or swept under the table.

However, the national political media is - as noted - either gun-shy about focusing on the religious preference of voters (especially members of a controversial religion, such as the LDS), or they just didn't make the connection. But the connection is there. The research firms who conducted the exit polls know this, but chose not to share the second-tier correlations between religious affiliation and their status as "very conservative" or "Tea Party." But the information is there for anyone who cares to look into it.

Absent the exit polling data, we can look to the Tea Party revolt of 2010 that forced out "mainstream conservative" Republican Senator Bob Bennett in a hotly-contested primary. He was pushed out by Tea Party/Very Conservative Utah Republicans ... and this being Utah, there was no way that this movement could NOT have been constituted of Mormon Tea Party/Very Conservative voters.

The exit pollers have the background numbers and could easily run the cross-correlations, but since they’re not looking for a “Mormon” story, they didn’t say that X percent of the voters were Mormon, and Y percent of the Mormons were Very Conservative, and Z percent of the Mormons were Tea Partiers - and they also didn't say that these Mormons voted for Romney the way African Americans voted for Obama in 2008.

Nevada's Very Conservative/Tea Party Mormons are not to be confused with Borg drones - they can and do think for themselves, but having lived their lives as a member of a minority religion, when it comes to supporting their own, they tend to vote in a very lock-step fashion.

Which all goes to explain why Romney did so well in the Middle-American Nevada on Saturday, then lost big in three other Middle-American/Flyover states, none of which has an electorally-significant Mormon population. At 6 percent - Romney's loss in Colorado was the closest to a win - and as Fox News pointed out in its late-night coverage of Colorado's caucus, Colorado has a far higher Mormon population - as a percentage of the total electorate - than does Minnesota or Missouri. Which, I believe, is a hidden-but-important factor in understanding why Nevada didn't effectively predict other states with otherwise similar electorates.