Blog Archives

Is Obama a lame-duck President?

Is Barack Obama a lame-duck president? Of course not; he’s merely lame.

But lame doesn’t mean the President and his handlers aren’t completely tone deaf, since they decided to cancel his keynote speaking engagement for Abort America! headquarters a Planned Parenthood fundraiser.

White House spokesman Jay Carney-Wurkur, in easily understood code, explained to the gathered media that the President instead decided the optics of his gala pro-abortion speech were less favorable than the opportunity to appear with the distraught families of the devastating fertilizer plant disaster in Waco, Texas.

Instead, Carney-Wurkur said the President will speak at a pro-abortion brunch now tentatively scheduled for Mother’s Day.

Idiotic abortion statements of the day

They come from Jezebel. Yeah, go figure.

But his business [that of notorious and now on-trial abortionist Kermit Gosnell] was able to thrive because of limited access to reproductive choice, not because of reproductive choice itself.

[Snip]

But this case is all about the difference between supporting and blocking reproductive choice.

[Snip]

Abortion, done right, is a safe medical procedure…

Limited accessreproductive choicesafe… except for the unborn.

Why are lefties against capitalism, for homosexuality, and for abortion?

How is it that so many on the left are against capitalism, for homosexuality, and for abortion?

After all, don’t many lefties worship at the altar of Darwin? And yet…

… if Darwin’s theory of evolution were true, “there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners…

Wouldn’t this make capitalism, which the left views as a ruthless competition, a natural extension of our Darwinistic nature? You know, “We’re born this way,” and all that?

And speaking of being born this way, given Darwin, why would we have homosexuals? The much used “I was born this way” argument would seem to be at odds with Darwinism (in addition to the wonderment of how such genetic information could be passed along to begin with). So, contra Darwin, it would seem that being a homosexual would tend…

…to shorten our lives, or to lessen the number of children we have, or both.

The same—lessening the number of children we have—would also be said of abortion. In fact, there’s a Darwinistic argument against gun control baked-in here as well: Go out and kill yourselves; that’s just more for me!

Perhaps this is it: the left has a secret Darwinistic conspiracy—a part of their disinformation program—whereas they pretend to be against capitalism, for homosexuality, and for abortion in order to minimize the number of competitors who might otherwise seek to go forth and multiply.

And yet a simpler explanation would be this: for reasons not well understood, lefty Darwinists are creatures who can wholly deceive themselves.

While there seems to be no obvious Darwinistic benefit to self-deception, the left has harvested a substantial benefit by deceiving others.

Legal scenario of the day

Scenario: a woman in Chicago is headed to an Abort America! franchise for a late-term abortion. (In this woman’s case, she has an Obamacare-loyalty card whereby you abort three unborn children and the fourth is free.)

As she’s en route to the Abort America! clinic, she becomes caught in a firefight between two rival gangs. During the course of the firefight, the woman’s unborn child is shot and dies before she can have her abortion. The gang members are apprehended and the woman’s injuries heal quickly and uneventfully.

Question: since she intended to abort her child, murder is not one of the crimes that the gang members can be charged with. But what if she didn’t intend to abort her child?

Discuss.

Send lawyers, knives, and money

The Obama Administration’s thinking is muddled on myriad topics, including the following (the listing is merely representative and is far from inclusive):

They think the Second Amendment is a malleable speed bump that can be obliterated by Executive Order while entitlements are a series of iron-clad, lock-box promises that are inviolate, even if they bankrupt the country and thus can’t be paid.

They’re for abortion but against the death penalty (death by drones excepted, see below). With abortion, no crime is committed and yet a child dies. With the death penalty, heinous crimes have been committed and one or more victims lie dead, an exhaustive judicial and appeals process has been followed, and the murderer won’t receive his/her penalty for twenty to thirty years (except by natural causes), if ever.

Note: There are two reasons the death penalty is despised, first has to do with a distrust of “the system,” and the second is the liberal mindset of few/no absolutes, also known as “who are we to judge?” And the Administration coherency falls apart quickly because “the system” is itself a part of government (of which, you’ll recall, more is always better) but yet if we can’t trust “the system” (that is, government) on things of great import, why should we trust it on anything else? Beyond that, if no one is to judge and there are no absolutes, why should we submit to the ideas of the President or any other “authorities”?

The Obama Administration is against money in politics, unless its their money in politics. If it’s their money, the Administration favors the permanent campaign (which benefits the incumbent, no matter how inept he or she may be).

They are obsessed with father-free “families” like Julia (and should ponder Obama’s own daddy issues) while being remarkably incurious and silent on the differences fathers make in their children’s lives with regard to poverty, crime, drug use, adding value to society, etc. The Administration favors the oxymoron known as “homosexual marriage” and is down with being married to big government, but fails to enforce on-the-books law like the Defense of Marriage Act the President and his minions don’t like. But if a man can father ten children with ten women, why can’t he instead have ten wives with one child each, especially if the state (that is, the taxpayers and/or their borrowing) ends up paying the bills?

The Administration want an educated populace but only if those doing the educating fall under the purview of the teaching unions. The fact that additional federal spending on education doesn’t improve student outcomes can be ignored. Alternatives to public education like home schooling, charter schools, and private schools are evil (or at minimum,  violate the Constitution, which in this case, must be observed).

They want America to be bully-free unless they are doing the bullying through their “free press” (as long as it’s free to and for Obama). The Administration wants freedom of expression for Americans unless it hurts anyone’s feelings and then it must be suppressed. The idea that one man’s debater might be another man’s bully works in one direction, one that favors the Administration.

Free markets are good and important and helped make America great. Government control of these same markets will make things even better. The lessons of history can be ignored because this time it’ll be different.

There is no such thing as waste in government unless it’s in disfavored sectors like national security (not to be confused with Homeland Security, which is a very favored sector). All other government spending is “investment” whether in people (the children, the poor, students, illegal aliens, teachers, the elderly, etc.) or programs or the ever-popular and undefined topic of “infrastructure.”

Waterboarding three people is an evil analogous to the Holocaust yet ending around 3000 lives via the President’s license-to-kill drones is not subject to discussion.

Leaking national secrets is a crime of treason and treachery unless the Administration does it in a pre-election attempt to burnish their security bona fides with voters.

The President thinks raising the federal debt ceiling is irresponsible when a Republican is in the White House and thinks failure to do so is irresponsible when he’s in the White House.

There’s more of course, but why is it so difficult for the media to challenge the Administration of their many intellectual disconnects? Because they’re liberals and live in a bubble of liberalness; because they’re Obama fanboys and fangirls; because they were the victims of liberal (versus classical) education.

In the end, Dear Reader would like us to quietly submit to his authority and this Administration is about one thing: control. And remember, submission is for your own good.

War on women or war on unborn females?

Well, this is a bit embarrassing for the left: the non-existent war on women has taken another turn. An on its head turn.

How will they be able to crawl out of this political wreckage?

Groups opposed to abortion rights are turning charges of a GOP “war on women” against Democrats who are opposed to legislation meant to ban sex-selective abortions.

Democrats hoping to grow a gender gap among female voters tilted toward their party have repeatedly hammered Republicans for engaging in a war on women over issues such as contraception rights. 

Now opponents of abortion rights are using the phrase ahead of a House vote Thursday imposing fines or imprisonment on doctors who perform abortions they know are motivated in part by the fetus’s gender. The bill would also require medical professionals to tell law enforcement if they suspect an abortion has been performed for that reason. 

In a letter Wednesday, Americans United for Life (AUL) urged House members to “stop a real war on women — sex selection abortions” by supporting the legislation from Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).

The left’s bogus war on women strategy isn’t getting any traction.

Will opposition to abortions (based on the unborn being females) help or hurt their cause?

Religious Rick’s Fantastic Fanaticism

By Moronica Dowd

(If you must, read the original here)

Rick Santorum has been called a latter-day Savonarola.

Note: Savonarola is some sort of obscure reference from the 1400s. My editor suggested we use it with the idea it would increase my intellectual gravitas. It was a good call. Originally, I had called Santorum a latter-day Nazi.

Why do I call Santorum any name at all or for that matter, even give him the time of day? Isn’t it obvious? With the Romney and Gingrich fades, Santorum is now a credible threat to my President’s re-election and I must therefore perform my ad hominem duties. For what it’s worth, my editor also pointed out that because of these ridiculous reductio ad hitlerum rules, I instead need to call Santorum a small-town mullah. It’ll have to do.

With that out of the way, Rick Santorum is a small-town mullah.

“Obama has his sights on the United States of America,” the conservative presidential candidate warned in 2008. “Obama is attacking the great institutions of America, using those vices of envy, government power, slothfulness, vanity, and even sensuality to attack the American tradition.”

When did sensuality become a vice? Next he’ll be banning one of the leading men from my childhood, Rudolph Valentino.

Santorum is not merely engaged in a culture war, but “a spiritual war,” as he called it four years ago. “Obama has his sights on what you would think he would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country — the United States of America,” he told students at Ave Maria University in Florida. He added that mainline Protestantism in this country “is in shambles. It is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

The “Obama phenomenon” hit, one Democratic campaigner told me, when there are “soul wounds” in America like Bush-fatigue or even more so, with someone like John McCain leading the Republican ticket. Santorum, who is considered “mondo Catholic” has even obliquely and unfavorably compared President Obama to Hitler (didn’t he get the reductio ad hitlerum memo?) and accused him (Obama, not Hitler) of having “bogus theology.”

Santorum didn’t go as far as evangelist Franklin Graham, who having observed the President for three full years, doubted the president’s Christianity on “My Mourning Joe.”

Mullah Rick (yes, we checked. Muslim references are still OK) even told ABC News’s Jake Tapper that he disagreed with some Supreme Court decisions. And, in October, he said that contraception “has become a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” Oh, behave!

Senator Sanitarium, as he was dubbed by the culturally-significant “The Simpsons,” sometimes tries to temper his retrogressive sermons so as not to drive away women who don’t automatically vote Democrat (and therefore deserve to serve out their days hand-scrubbing crumbling linoleum floors, barefoot and with child on hip, and wearing 70s era clothes). He shockingly told The Washington Post that, while he doesn’t want to fund contraception through the Abort America! franchises, he wouldn’t ban it: “The idea that I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case.”

That doesn’t comfort me because as I mentioned, Santorum has become a threat to my President and action, more action, must be taken. I’ve spent a career (note how I deftly made the emphasis on my career versus my lifetime?) watching candidates deny they would do things to interns including the patron saints of male control–in a good way in these cases–Bill Clinton and JFK. What did they do? They went on to fulfill their personal desires (but hey, they’re Democrats… it isn’t that big a deal. Hypocrisy only works one way. Let it go, Republicans, let it go).

The AOL/Huffington Post–an excellent and highly recommended source for all your information needs, should the Times fold, fail to achieve a bailout, and I find myself in the need for work–reports that Santorum told Philadelphia Magazine in 1995 that he “was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress.” Then, he said, he read the “scientific literature.”

It simply isn’t possible that anyone could believe such pap, so Santorum must have cynically decided electoral gold lies in the ruthless exploitation of social and cultural wedge issues (and unlike anyone who embraces the opposing side of these issues, all that is good and right). Unlike the Bushes, who are to blame for all wrong in the world, Santorum has no hit squad; instead, he confronts things himself.

Why is it that Republicans don’t want government involved when it comes to the economy (opposing the auto bailouts) but they also want government to quit telling people how to live their lives by having freedom, the law as king, and free markets? It’s a mystery to me.

Can’t Santorum instead become hooah for men like Obama, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter who heroically helped create dependency, unemployment, inflation, the fatherless European welfare state, and massive government debt? Santorum, it seems, has become successful simply because he’s not ashamed to admit that he wants to take the country backward (of course, he defines “backward” as “not Obama, LBJ, or Carter”).

A potential threat to my Vice President is Virginia’s governor, Bob McDonnell, touted as a Republican vice presidential prospect. This week, pro-abortion forces made the Virginia Legislature pause on its way to passing a bill forcing women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound. Abortion favoring Democratic Delegate Latrell Sprewell hotly argued that the bill might “reduce abortions among women and people of color,” adding “I cannot believe that you would disrespect unborn children… I mean fetuses, in a manner reminiscent of a TSA screening,” he chided colleagues. “This legislation is simply mean-spirited, and it is bullying, bullying quite unlike the President’s decision to force Catholic institutions to fund abortions against their beliefs.”

In the meantime, the Democratic-controlled Maryland House of Delegates just passed a bill that would allow homosexual marriage, state-sanctioned incest, polygamy, and bestiality. Conversely, the Republican-controlled Virginia Legislature passed a bill allowing private adoption agencies to keep these heroic homosexuals, it’s-all-in-the-family types, way-open marriages, and “Here, Rover” folks from lovingly share their homes with full-term fetuses… I mean, children.

The Potomac River of my mind seems to become more divided every day.

Religious Concerns Should Be Waved Away

(Note: if you must, read the original here)

By Eugenics Robinson

WASHINGTON — At ease, secular soldiers: the “war on religion” and the assault on the Catholic Church are no big deal. After all, a faith that has endured for a couple of thousand years should be able to survive the current administration, right?

And speaking of religion, it never occurred to me to evaluate the Grammy Awards on its theology (which is, as I like to say, their worship of the almighty dollar), so I’m amused at the not-really-that-over-the-top “exorcism” Minaj performed Sunday night. The hip-hop artist–like the guys at Subway are sandwich artists–writhed and cavorted like a copperhead on a charcoal grill while mocking Christian iconography. She is unfairly accused of anti-Catholic bigotry and is now seen as a combatant in the escalating “war on religion” being waged by “secular progressives” and “atheists,” which have become synonyms for “Democrats.” (To the progressive reader: please note my use of multiple sneer/scare quotes in the last paragraph. Good, eh?)

I think folks like Minaj are just like me after four highballs: lacking a coherent point to make, we tend to end up with full fledged idiocy or sometimes, shock value. Or, maybe both.

Among the loudest voices complaining are those despicable Republican presidential candidates who want to poison your food supply, your air, and your drinking water. But guess who they blame for the attack on all God-fearing Americans? Hint: his initials are Barack Obama and he almost got in trouble four years ago as a presidential candidate despite being a regular church-goer (they said it was his Looney Tunes preacher, a charge never really well proven).

But so what if President Obama is indeed waging a war on religion? It could be worse: we could have a President Mitt Romney who claimed last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference that he would rescind every Obama regulation that attacks religious liberty.

Or Newt Gingrich, who said at CPAC that Obama plans to “wage abortion” on the Catholic Church if he is re-elected and that those who don’t see this coming are not familiar with the President’s real character. Apparently, the real Obama, like Punxsutawney Phil, is about to come out of hiding any day now but say what you will, he is a man of principle and will never make women unhealthy by keeping them from their abortions.

But I think it is Rick Santorum who takes the cake by saying that secular humanists and atheists are attempting to take “faith and crushing it.” That is of course, absurd. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Environmentalists are all welcome in the Obama White House. Consider, more specifically, what Santorum went on to say:

“When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is… a government that gives you rights. What’s left are no unalienable rights. What’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it… Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.”

Wow. No one I know would vote for this man, so how is it that he’s even a viable candidate?

Just how has Obama’s “hostility to faith in America” manifested itself? Obama issued a rule requiring church-owned and church-run institutions to cover abortions and contraceptives which are not accepted by Catholic doctrine. Obama, in a display of bipartisan (that is, secularists and atheists) leadership marginally altered the rule in an attempt to placate a bunch of Catholic bishops who wear funny hats who then responded by declaring themselves implacable on issues of Catholic doctrine. Their arrogance is simply stunning.

In his speech at the annual National Prayer Breakfast, Obama attempted to please his audience by reading New Testament scripture from his teleprompter in an attempt to argue for economic and social justice. Conservatives blasted him for misrepresenting the Bible and ignoring its context (while conceding that his reading skills are often exemplary).

So is Obama fighting a war against Christianity? Of course not: I am sure he will want at least some of their votes.

Romney and Gingrich, however, are just cynically pandering to religious conservatives, something the President would never do. Santorum, may be sincere in his beliefs, but I doubt it. Still, I don’t think a Christian worldview is an appropriate philosophy for a U.S. presidential candidate to espouse, much less a winning platform to run on.

The Founders decided to institutionalize freedom of religion and the President has more wisely seen fit to have the church fall under the purview of the state. And all those references to God, the Creator, and Divine Providence in the Declaration of Independence? Simply typographical errors according to the White House Press Office.

Within our governmental framework, religion has thrived, so more needs to be done to increase secular strength. No other large industrialized nation has nearly so many regular churchgoers as does the United States, a shame the administration is trying to change. Even though faith survives Nicki Minaj’s burlesque at the Grammys, we people most fair and objective, the media, will try and do our share to ridicule any attempts by Republicans to bring attention to the so-called “war on religion.”