President Obama spoke yesterday on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling. It was kind of an “I have a dream” speech, except that to make this “dream” come true, the lives of over a million babies per year in the US have to be terminated:

“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters,” Obama said. “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.

“While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue — no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption,” Obama said.

“And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

Hey, what girl doesn’t dream of growing up to get an abortion? Call me crazy, but I’m leery of people in positions of power who believe that the right to extinguish innocent, defenseless lives is an essential element in creating a utopian society.

And Barack Obama saying “government should not intrude on private family matters” is simply hilarious. Government shouldn’t intrude on private family matters — unless it has something to do with their health care, what kind of light bulbs they use or what they eat, drink, drive, smoke, how much they exercise…..

Update: “Study” of the day: Abortion safer than giving birth

Safer for whom?


45 Responses to “Obama: Thanks to Roe v. Wade, Our Daughters Can Pursue Their Dreams”

  1. Misscheryl on January 24th, 2012 5:10 pm

    Proof positive Obama hates women.

  2. clu seatoe on January 24th, 2012 5:33 pm

    It’s too bad Loser’s mother didn’t feel that way and he just confessed that he is the reason his mother couldn’t pursue her dream or the reason FLOTUS couldn’t pursue hers and stay in Chicago.

  3. Marshall_Will on January 24th, 2012 5:59 pm

    "unless it has something to do with their health care, what kind of light bulbs they use or what they eat, drink, drive, smoke, how much they exercise….."

    Hardly seems to matter any more. Who can afford all that these days anyway? And since when has O'Bumbler cared about Constitutional Rights?

  4. joyannaadams on January 24th, 2012 6:41 pm

    Well said Mr. Powers. He wants the women to pursue their careers? What careers will they have when there are no jobs?

    It's all about the money. More women working, more tax money for Obama to spread around. They want the state to get hold of that "baby" at birth if possible. So Hillary proclaimed in her "It Takes a Village".

  5. Marshall_Will on January 24th, 2012 6:45 pm

    Actually Joyanna, that reminds me, I'm supposed to check w/ the SS office and see where my Going Galt tally is tallying?

    The minute a child is born, SS sees a new taxpayer and issues a 'credit' to the system. Honestly. Oh and DO guest-blog for us in Doug's absence? TIA


  6. Truesoldier on January 24th, 2012 6:50 pm

    No surprise. Remember, Obama had already said he would not want his daughters burdened with an unwanted pregnancy.

  7. Marshall_Will on January 24th, 2012 6:58 pm

    OT but important:

    If you haven't rec'd a snail mail copy of your SS Benefits letter lately? I'm told budgetary 'constraints' dictate hard copies will no longer be sent! Just more self-sevice from our full service gov. Even a vid w/ Patty Duke showing elders how to apply online! ( Try to remember at one time she was an actress? )

  8. Granny55 on January 24th, 2012 7:03 pm

    I believe his exact words were "punished" by having a baby.

  9. Truesoldier on January 24th, 2012 7:07 pm

    OT but ridiculous:

    On Nov. 1, Waddell, a 25-year-old executive officer with 3rd Battallion, 7th Marine Corps Regiment, was monitoring a surveillance camera in Sangin, Afghanistan, when he spotted a man who had been identified as a bomb maker working with area insurgents. Two days earlier, a sergeant from India Company had lost both legs and a hand when a bomb detonated in their area of operation. The man spotted on the camera was believed to be responsible.

    After receiving permission from his battalion commanders, Waddell ordered Marine snipers to open fire on the man, and he was hit. A group of Afghans rushed to the man, put him on a tractor and attempted to flee. Waddell ordered the snipers to hit the engine block of the tractor, disabling it so the man believed to be a bomb maker would not escape. The tractor was hit but no civilians were injured.

    Then, about three weeks later, the civilians who helped remove the wounded man from the area were found to be teenagers.

  10. Truesoldier on January 24th, 2012 7:08 pm


    As a result, Waddell was demoted from executive officer, and the battalion commander, Lt. Col. Seth Folsom, determined he had violated rules of engagement that governed when Marines could fire, and at whom. Folsom said Wadell "is not recommended for promotion" and "in violation of [combat rules] during an engagement." The report stated that "noncombatant local nationals" were in the area of direct fire and that "the engagement resulted in a damaged local national vehicle."

  11. Marshall_Will on January 24th, 2012 7:23 pm

    ***After receiving permission from his battalion commanders***

    So apparently the CoC ( Culture of Corruption DOES mean something ) and the Chain of Command does NOT. Got it.

    Truesoldier, not pickin' on the Fed employees but not sending out seniors SS statements then hiding behind "budget constraints" is a real disservice to elders. Many will now go for years… without having rec'd a statement and contesting things ex post facto will become nigh on imppossible!

    Might want to have that talk w/ mom & dad folks. IMHO

  12. backwoodsconsr on January 24th, 2012 7:26 pm


    Whoever made those rules of engagement should be put before a firing squad.

  13. Marshall_Will on January 24th, 2012 7:41 pm


    I believe TS's point was Senior Officers are structuring the Chain so they never actually have to take any heat. Regardless. By fluffing off every field expedient to "local discretion" they can always take credit, or just wash their hands.

  14. Truesoldier on January 24th, 2012 7:47 pm

    Totally agree on the SS statements. It should be an option to opt out of paper if you don't want it, but for many it is what they are used to. Hell, my wife's Grandmother still gets the local paper delivered even though she could get all the same info online. My wife asked her why she does that seeing that getting the news online is cheaper (as she already pays for the internet). Grandma responded that she just feels right to sit and hold an actual paper in her hand and read it. It is all preference.

    Maybe if the Obama administration had not spent billions of taxpayer $'s on green pork boondoggles then we would have the money within the budget for paper….then again, when has the lack of money ever stopped the Obama administration from spending.

  15. backwoodsconsr on January 24th, 2012 8:03 pm

    CYA in action.

    Nevertheless, reading this gave me a flashback to the old TV series "Police Story," which was loosely based on actual events. I read somewhere that the writers often got their ideas from cops coming in to chat with them.

  16. backwoodsconsr on January 24th, 2012 8:04 pm


    One episode was about a young cop who was involved in several shootings. In each it was determined that he had acted properly and the shootings were justified. Even so, his superiors were uneasy about one cop being involved in so many shootings, so they transferred him to a quieter precinct where he was less likely to run into trouble. He soon found himself in a situation where a crook was behind his parner in an alley and had the drop on him. The crook kept telling the cop to drop his gun, but the cop told him he couldn't do that. The young cop was behind the crook with his gun drawn and aimed. But because of all the flak he had taken over the shootings he been involved in, he couldn't bring himself to pull the trigger. His partner finally whirled around and took out the crook himself, and then yelled at the young cop, "What's the matter with you? I could have been killed!" I worry about overly restrictive rules of engagement causing similar problems on the battlefield.

  17. Jimbo on January 24th, 2012 8:11 pm

    Especially unborn ones. Only born women can have dreams. To hell with your dreams and future if you are a small and defenseless infant female. But, if you somehow manage to get born, go right ahead and crawl across a whole pile of your dead children for your self-fulfillment.

  18. SignPainterGuy on January 24th, 2012 8:17 pm

    Just cause for worry, bwc ! PC is getting our people hurt and killed ! We need adults with common sense and a firm grasp on reality in positions of authority / command !

  19. backwoodsconsr on January 24th, 2012 8:19 pm

    I can understand Grandma's sentiments. I still like having an actual newspaper and prefer reading actual books so much that Kindle doesn't have a prayer with me.

  20. Truesoldier on January 24th, 2012 8:20 pm

    Part of the point was the CYA by the chain of command, the other half was the tying the hands of our troops. It is not a fun situtation for our troops to have to wonder each time they pull the trigger if some JAG lawyer with a political agenda is going to try to prosecute your or not.

    When I was deployed in Iraq in 2004 we had a stupid deal come down from JAG (towards the end of the deployment). Someone at the pentagon had come up with an equation to determine if you used excessive force in firefight. Basically, they took the estimated number of enemy combantants, the length of the firefight, and the amount of friendly forces involved in the firefight to determine the maximum number of rounds of ammo you should have fired. If you exceeded that number of rounds then you might just find yourself being investigated for using excessive force.

    The big poblem I saw from my time in the military is the morons coming up with the ROE are "textbook warriors" who have spent their entire career at the Pentagon after being commitioned.

  21. backwoodsconsr on January 24th, 2012 8:56 pm

    I recall reading somewhere that ground troops in combat in WWII sometimes never fired their weapons in combat. It seems they were waiting until they were sure of seeing a target before firing. This concerned whomever it was remarking on that (may have been Patton, I don't remember) because they felt that firing the weapons in the direction of the enemy positions had an intimidating effect whether anything was hit or not. One of the purposes of overwhelming firepower is to rob the enemy of his will to fight.

  22. Granny55 on January 24th, 2012 9:38 pm

    Well, with all the namby pampy limp wrists in Congress running our war on terror – what the hell did you expect. Terrorists don't wear uniforms as in past wars. Anything or anyone around the corner can take you out. Rules of engagement no longer apply. But the PC azzwipes that want to micromanage the war of terror have tied the hands of our soldiers and basically muzzled their firearms – all so the enemy "will like us" and perhaps want to negotiate. I say blast away and let them get what's coming to them. If they want a fair fight put on a damn uniform and pledge your allegiance to your local war lord and let the chips fall where they may.

  23. Granny55 on January 24th, 2012 9:43 pm

    Hey Doug – any chance we are playing SOTU drinking games tonight? Every time Oblamer says fair shake, fair share, fairness, fair anything or millionairs and billionairs or 1% – we get to down a shot. We should all be falling down drunk within 10 minutes!!! Bottoms up all my Doug Power's friends!

  24. Truesoldier on January 24th, 2012 10:10 pm

    If we were to play that game the only time we would get to stop drinking is when Obama takes one of his "dramatic pauses" before going on.

  25. backwoodsconsr on January 24th, 2012 10:12 pm

    I'll be staying away from my TV tonight.

  26. maladroit on January 24th, 2012 10:20 pm

    New Obama vid. Make it go viral, folks!

  27. Marshall_Will on January 24th, 2012 10:50 pm

    There's limits to everything. One of my favorite war movie scenes is the Marine troops firing randomly at the side of an abandoned building in Full Metal Jacket.

    It's fairly ridiculous. Cowboy orders a cease fire! But one more sniper round and they light off w/ everything they've got. I think it was Kubrick's way of showing the chaos that went on during the Tet Offensive.

    I think we've learned a little 'since' then. No qualms w/ some think tank turd trying to quantify what is appropriate engagement, and what is overkill, but ruining careers or worse, bringing home good men in body bags!?

  28. swede on January 24th, 2012 11:02 pm

    "…Obama said. “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right."

    Then there's the truth… Reagan, 1983, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation"

    Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right We cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.

  29. Pasadena Phil on January 24th, 2012 11:45 pm

    Speaking of the government intruding into our lives, I've found no reporting outside of one conservative LA station about this:

    Why isn't this a big deal? The US military practicing coordinated tactics in downtown LA? Hello? Since when is this not a cause for concern? Our country was founded with a built-in distrust of a standing army. Now we stage practice exercises for how to takeover a major city in a major US city and it doesn't cause even a ripple? What country am I in anyway? Where is everybody? They are showing us exactly how they plan to shut us up permanently!

  30. SignPainterGuy on January 25th, 2012 12:09 am

    Since there are numerous military bases with more than adequate space and facilities for such "practice", doing it in a major city inside the U.S. is great cause for concern. I also have to wonder why it`s getting so little reporting !

  31. backwoodsconsr on January 25th, 2012 12:45 am

    One of the most memorable scenes I saw on M*A*S*H was a drunken Col. Potter and Hawkeye pinned down by enemy fire. Potter whipped out his .45 and emptied a clip at the enemy. He then handed it to Hawkeye and ordered him to fire it. What followed was hilarity.

  32. Hyperfobea on January 25th, 2012 9:45 am

    The enemy will like us a lot more if we get out of there. It would be refreshing if used our military resources to protect our own borders. Nation building is imperialism. Didn't we learning anything from Britian insofar as what not to become? The USA is a republic, not an empire.

  33. Hyperfobea on January 25th, 2012 10:07 am

    It's encouraging to read what appears to be revulsion from both the author and the commentors regarding abortion on demand.

    But something needs to be added here—something that is conveniently left out of the equation. And here is where "pro life" becomes as relative as the constitutional penumbra that created the right to murder as a matter of privacy: surgical abortion is without a doubt the taking of human life; but chemical contraception, all abortifacients, is no different.

    So inasmuch as our president is a hypocrite, so too are the pro-lifers who decry surgical abortion while supporting chemical contraception. (Aside: the very word "contracept" is certainly not from "pro life", for how can one possibly be pro life if they want to prevent it?)

  34. Truesoldier on January 25th, 2012 1:36 pm

    We have learned a bit and when we were in Iraq we understood that preserving your ammo could mean the difference between your life and death. Some of the firefights over there were lasting for hours on end and randomly firing at nothing was a great way run ought of ammo and get you killed.

    In the case I was talking about it wasn't about discipline it was purely a case of lawyers and bureacrats trying to run a war. Nothing ever good comes out of it when those two groups trump common sense. When they start prosecuting soldiers (or threatening to do so) solely on the idea that you fired too many rounds at the enemy then we have a problem.

  35. Truesoldier on January 25th, 2012 1:44 pm

    Perhaps the military just wants to go to Disneyland after the exercise…..

    Seriously though, it does make you wonder what the purpose of this is. We have many MOUT (Military Operation in Urbanized Terrain) training sites all over the country and many basses now have Virtual Reality training scenarios in giant warehouse like buildings.

    The only reason I can think of that would be a plausible "good" reason. The idea is by training in areas of higer crime rates creates a presence of authority in the area that causes the criminal element to become less active. It was tried during the Clinton years on the border with Mexico. By training in known smuggling routes the presence of troops were supposed to discourage drug smuggling. The reality of it was that the smugglers soon discovered that the troops had no rounds and no authority to stop the smugglers and that the border patrol and DEA were elesewhere, so they used those routes even more and waved at the soldiers as they drove by.

  36. Pasadena Phil on January 25th, 2012 1:55 pm

    The report describes "joint military training exercises". No mention of whether these are UN joint forces or joint operations involving only the American Army, Marines, Navy and LAPD.

    In my mind, this is a test run for showing power to US citizens and is exactly what I would expect from a government that has gotten used to the "temporary" waiving of government checks and balances known as the Patriot Act. It's like many of us who opposed the Patriot Act when it was passed said, Once you surrender your rights in exchange for "security", how do you get them back? We are trusting the government to tell us when it is safe. I would rather take my chances with the terrorists and be free than surrender without a fight to the infrastructure of tyranny that is becoming installed all around us.

  37. Truesoldier on January 25th, 2012 2:57 pm

    Totally understand why you would worry about that happening. Between the current and former administration we have seen more and more liberties taken away in the name of national security. The only reason I do not fear the final nail in that coffin (at least not yet) is I know where most of the military stands on these issues and do not believe that if push came to shove they would ever obey those orders if given. I believe that Obama realizes this as well and is why he was talking about a civilian defense force equiped and trained as well as the military.

  38. Pasadena Phil on January 25th, 2012 3:06 pm

    I share that opinion, for now. One of my shooting buddies is an active Marine Colonel (recently deployed to parts undisclosed) and we've had this discussion. I happen to believe that there are plenty of generals who would sell out but would almost surely run into a wall of colonels refusing to obey an illegal order. Colonels are the top of the meritocracy. It's mostly politics after that.

    But there are ways to erode that integrity. The Fort Hood shooting is an example of how political correctness can erode the esprit de corps of the military. When the government no longer honors its constitutional primary duty of protecting our constitutional rights, it's only a matter of time for the rest to follow. Cynicism is the big destroyer.

  39. ChapBix on April 14th, 2012 1:34 pm

    "also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters"

    So it is not intruding on family matters when a twelve year old is taken to an abortion clinic to kill the baby she carries within without the parents knowledge?

  40. ChapBix on April 14th, 2012 1:36 pm

    The pro-aborts aided and abetted Dr. Tiller in KS who performed a late term abortion on a twelve year old. They wrote and passed laws that permitted that to happen. They looked the other way when it happened and did not prosecute Dr. Tiller. So, tell me how the government did not intrude on a family matter?

  41. ChapBix on April 14th, 2012 1:52 pm

    Mr. Obama should consult women, particularly young women, who have had abortions and suffered major depression and other personal problems afterward if their dreams were fulfilled.

  42. blogc2011 on December 6th, 2012 6:56 am

    “While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue — no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption,” Obama said. ????

  43. Galaxy S3 flip cover on February 9th, 2013 8:50 am

    Interesting info, do you know where I can find similar information?This is a great inspiring article.I am pretty much pleased with your good work.You put really very helpful information. Keep it up.

    Galaxy S3 flip cover

  44. websiteguy on February 25th, 2013 1:03 pm

    I really inspired these photos.I constantly come across something new & different right here. Your website is greatly appreciated.

    how I got rid of acne stories

  45. imoforpcs on May 2nd, 2017 3:36 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.