President Obama knew that Planned Parenthood doesn't offer mammograms

H/T Breitbart.

The official statement from Live Action President Lila Rose, following the second presidential debate last night:

"President Obama continues mislead Americans in his defense of the abortion giant Planned Parenthood. Live Action conducted an investigation last year that demonstrated that Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms. The Department of Health and Human Services confirmed in June, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, that not a single Planned Parenthood in the nation has mammography equipment. Planned Parenthood is spending millions to preserve its place at the taxpayer trough and re-elect the president. It's no wonder that the president used the debate as a promotion vehicle for Planned Parenthood's lies."



How could Obama not know this after HHS confirmed it last year? It's all part of the narrative. Mitt Romney kills women with breast cancer and Planned Parenthood saves women from breast cancer.

Michelle Obama Claps for Tinkerbell

Michelle Obama believes. Ergo she claps.

You see, the reason Obama is losing the debates and will lose the election is that not enough people believe in fairies. Here's the anti-fairy rule as written:

The rule: Article 9, Section A, Subsection 7: "All members of the debate audience will be instructed by the moderator before the debate goes on the air and by the moderator after the debate goes on the air not to applaud, speak, or otherwise participate in the debate by any means other than by silent observation, except as provided by the agreed upon rules of the October 16 town hall debate."

But Michelle Obama is going to clap for Tinkerbell to bring the campaign back to life.

Marching toward victory

Stanley K on debate #2. Excerpt:

The core dynamic here is that Romney has proven himself to be a perfectly acceptable alternative to Obama. The silly portrayal of Romney in all those negative ads has been exploded. Obama’s inevitability is gone. The underlying state of the country, which is not at all good, has become the issue. All of that is bad for Obama and very good for Romney.>

That was a great debate!

Caption contest, or something.

Wonder why they wouldn't publish it?

I'm intrigued. I just got this email back from the intellectuals Urban Dictionary informing me that they decided not to publish my alternate definition for concerned parent. Here's the content of the letter:

Subject: Urban Dictionary - concerned parent was not published

Thanks for your definition of concerned parent!

Editors reviewed your entry and have decided to not publish it.

To get a better idea of what editors publish and reject, sign up as an Urban Dictionary Editor here: http://editor.urbandictionary.com/

Urban Dictionary

-----

concerned parent

The person who just killed one of your friends for messing with his/her kids. Don't worry; it was most likely painless. Parents don't have a lot of extra time to enjoy this sort of work.

concerned parent: That was for f*cking with my kids. Think you'll try that again?
dead person: (no reply)

You don't think it's too violent? If so, how do you explain this, or this? (Warning: very, very offensive material.)

I think I'm just going to keep submitting this from time to time. Their "editors" probably die from AIDS and drug overdoses a lot, so maybe someone will indulge my specific mode of parental sarcasm.

Good advice to those intent on defining their opponents

And it may be especially useful to apply this advice to weblog publishing in the age of instant gratification. Think about it before you hit that post button. From Edwin Tait via Shawn McElhinney:

We always make our opponents out to be more radical than they are, so that we can position ourselves as part of the mainstream. But in times of great social tension this polarizing game can become an extremely dangerous form of self-fulfilling prophecy. We use the alleged radicalism of our opponents as an excuse to become radical ourselves, and thus prompt our opponents to follow suit, turning them into the monsters we thought they were all along (and so justifying further extremism on our part).

This is really good! D'Souza vs. Hitch on that whole Christianity thing

Thanks, Kathleen, for emailing us this link to a debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens. I haven't watched all of it yet, it's in 10 parts which will all be available on the YouTube page afetr going to the link. I have noticed that it gets kind of like Kung Fu theater at parts, i.e., visual and audio are a bit off, so it may be best to just listen to it.