posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:43 PM
Nothing to see here, folks. Just another massive fail hiding under far-right hucksterism.
OP, if (for argument's sake) you consider your source OK to promote as the basis for your claim, wouldn't you maybe have been inquisitive enough to
delve further into your source's source and their veracity, or -- further -- even the original document in question?
I posit you didn't go that far because, if you had taken your partisan blinders off for a bit, perhaps you would have seen that this is *nothing* of
the sort of thing as you couched it in your thread title and comments.
At it's original source, the White House memo is instructing tour directors and those in congress relevant to people seeking tickets to visit the
White House _in advance_ to notify them if there is a pregnant woman involved in the tour (i.e., someone who may give birth to a 'third person' prior
to taking the tour _at a future date_*). And if the unborn's sex isn't known at the time of the application for the ticket to the tour, to simply
guess at the sex and amend the application upon arrival for the tour or in advance of arriving for the tour.
Wow! This is some far-reaching stuff by the right-wing nutjobs.
I live in the mountains, and I've got a lot of molehills in my yard (all true); I've learned over the years that you can't kill the moles with
Kool-Aid, but you sure can use it to stimulate both the moles, the trolls, and the enfeebled imaginations of a bunch of 'ignant' folk.
* And, for the record, I am a man who has children. And who has dealt with a pregnant wife. And who has both a tourist's and a local familiarity with
D.C. I cannot imagine taking any tours in D.C. at any time of year with a pregnant wife, nor with a newborn in tow. I did a 7-day cruise with my wife
when she was 5 months pregnant with my first-born son sailing from out of New Orleans, and that first night coming out the delta when the ship's
stabilizers were cut off... I thought that was gonna do her in for the duration of the cruise.
edit on 15-5-2012 by Forrest because: (no reason