Tag Archives: Abortion

Dear Leftists: An Abortion Registry Could Reduce Animal Cruelty And Warn About Potential Serial Killers

Originally posted at Clash Daily

The trait of torturing and killing animals is dominant in most serial killers. The Boston Strangler, Albert DeSalvo, abused animals, as did the DC Sniper, Lee Boyd Malvo. Killer of eight women, one of whom was his mother, mass murderer Edmund Emil Kemper slaughtered neighborhood cats and displayed their heads on poles. Before binding up, torturing, and exterminating his female victims, the BTK Killer, Dennis Rader, practiced on, you guessed it, animals.

According to psychologists, animal abuse is one of the first signs of severe emotional turmoil that often escalates into far worse. Notable butchers Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and the Son of Sam — all joined animal abuse fan club, which prepared them to up-the-game to strangulation, cannibalism and mass murder.

That’s why, after finding out that the Parkland, Florida shooter, Nikolas Cruz had a history of animal abuse, no one was surprised. And now, to prevent animal abuse and red flag potential offenders of violent crimes, eleven states, including New York, are considering instituting animal abuse registries.

What’s interesting about the abuse/murder connection is that child, and animal abuse is inextricably linked. The data indicate that those who eventually murder humans often start out hurting animals.

Now here’s where the connections get interesting.

Abortion advocates maintain that the procedure reduces the occurrence of child abuse and infanticide. However, what studies have shown is that, rather than prevent child abuse, abortion contributes to the problem.

Based on the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, and the National Institutes of Health, in a 1979 article by Dr. Philip Ney entitled: “Relationship between Abortion and Child Abuse”, “an increasing rate of abortion will lead to an increasing rate of abuse.” And since 1979, those findings have undoubtedly been proven correct, as child abuse has gotten worse, not better.

In a 2005 Bowling Green State University study researchers found that women who had a previous abortion were 144% more likely to abuse children that followed. Those statistics explain why, over the years, dead babies are consistently found in playground trashcans, in Walmart garbage bins, in bags while being carried by mom on shopping excursions to Victoria’s Secret, stuffed into suitcases and thrown into ditches, or laying in backyards with umbilical cords still wrapped around their tiny necks.

So, here’s a suggestion for the animal abuse registry advocates, how about, as a way to ward off future serial killers, let’s forget the animal abuse hotline and institute an abortion abuse registry instead?

After all, if a woman has had an abortion and chooses not to perform a post-birth abortion on any of the children who miraculously survive her womb, there’s a chance that, in some cases, if blatant disregard for human life still exists it will be passed along to other offspring.

That hypothesis is not conjecture because, based on the data, children of mothers who’ve had abortions are at a higher risk to be abused and, as a result, abused children tend to harm animals. Not only that but as the pile of dead bodies attests to, after poking out the eyes of kittens and setting the tails of puppies on fire, some of those mistreated youngsters do go on to become real live serial killers.

If the studies are correct, scheduled checks on the siblings of aborted children will go a long way in saving the lives of tiny animals, which, in the long run, might cut down on impending school shootings, serial killers, and befuddled pundits and politicians inquiring: “Why?”

And so, after yet another school massacre, as the nation searches for answers, instead of blaming the NRA, maybe America should focus on the ultimate child abusers, Planned Parenthood, whose saline, suction and scalpel are the tools used to sculpt and shape the mothers of mass murderers.

Is Joy Behar sure that hearing God’s voice means you’re crazy?

Originally posted at American Thinker

It’s beginning to be glaringly apparent that those on the left cannot recognize the absurd double standard that exists in almost everything they say.  On one day, a specific kind of logic applies to one scenario.  Then, the next day, those same people mock the logic that was offered as gospel the day before.

Take for instance the liberal notion that stricter gun laws prevent mass shootings.  If that’s true, then why do the same individuals who demand restrictions on gun ownership also claim that if access to abortion is limited, women looking to terminate a pregnancy will find a way to kill babies in back alleys?

Liberals refute themselves when discussing people, too.  Those on the left will vilify a political figure they disagree with for behavior that one month prior they celebrated in one of their own.

A recent example of this kind of hypocrisy took place on The View, when one of the president’s most vocal critics decided that Mike Pence is “mentally ill.”  It happened during a “hot topics” segment, when a tape of disgruntled ex-Trump White House staffer and former Apprentice star Omarosa Manigault Newman aired dirty laundry in the company of her Celebrity Big Brother competitors.

A supposed lover of Jesus, Omarosa counseled the group:

As bad as you think Trump is, you would be worried about Pence.  Everyone that is wishing for impeachment might want to reconsider their life.  I am Christian, I love Jesus, but [Pence] thinks Jesus tells him to say things.

In the clip, Ms. Newman referred to Pence as “extreme,” which, ironically, is the kind of disciple Scripture demands.

Nevertheless, upon hearing Omarosa’s critical remarks, The View crew, who regularly pan Trump, responded to Omarosa’s fodder like a pack of salivating wolves.

Co-host and self-described “faithful … Catholic” Sunny Hostin expressed negative feelings about Pence because, Hostin said, when the vice president was governor of Indiana, he was a “hated figure” who tended to put a “religious veneer” on things.  No one knows whether Mr. Pence ever claimed to speak in tongues, but that didn’t stop Hostin from pontificating, “I don’t know that I want my vice president, you know, speaking in tongues and having Jesus speak to him.”

Although Hillary Clinton regularly “communed” with Eleanor Roosevelt, the female panel agreed that having a leader who thinks he hears Jesus’s voice is a problem.  Apparently, that consensus didn’t go far enough; Joy Behar had to take things a step farther when she offered up a psychiatric diagnosis based on Pence hearing Jesus’s voice, which Behar said is synonymous with “mental illness.”

The View co-host told the other ladies, “It’s one thing to talk to Jesus.  It’s another thing when Jesus talks to you.  That’s called mental illness if I’m not correct, hearing voices.”

Behar couldn’t leave it at that.  Instead, she continued by making a sarcastic reference to the wisdom Pence exercises concerning male-female relationships in the age of #MeToo.  Joy, who was photographed once grabbing the late Robin Williams’s crotch, continued by asking, “My question is, can he talk to Mary Magdalene without his wife in the room?”

Joy Behar’s remark was not only discriminatory, but perplexing, especially coming from a Muslim apologist.

Why?  Because in November of 2017, after writing the book The Great Gasbag: An A-to-Z Guide to Surviving Trump World, while appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Behar said she penned the survival guide “Because [she was] being told by God to save this country.”

In other words, just three months before calling Mike Pence “mentally ill,” Joy Behar admitted that God spoke to her and that she wrote a book in response to conversation she had with the Almighty.  Behar might not have realized it, but by calling Pence “mentally ill,” she tacitly admitted that her book about the “Great Gasbag” was inspired by a questionable psychological state.

Then again, let’s remember that based on the political expediency of what is said, liberals do tend to vacillate between condemnation and adoration.  Leftist shills like Joy Behar practice political pragmatism at its finest.

Nevertheless, by labeling Pence psychologically unfit, Behar may have talked herself into apolitical corner, especially if The View airs the clip of Oprah’s 60 Minutes Overtime interview on CBS’s This Morning.

In that conversation, Oprah, a woman Joy Behar feels is capable of beating the “Great Gasbag,” is asked by CBS senior producer Ann Silvio if the rumors of a presidential bid are true.  During the sit-down, Oprah revealed that after the Cecil B. de Mille Award speech she gave at the 75th Annual Golden Globe Awards, “wealthy men began calling to tell her to run and that they’d raise $1-billion to help her campaign.”

Winfrey told the curious correspondent, “I think that when you have that many people whose opinions you value coming at you, it’s worthy of thinking about.”

Then the billionaire mogul uttered something Joy Behar needs to think about before reaffirming her desire to have the Big O “run the world.”  Oprah clarified that despite all the offers from affluent men, “[she’s] never looked outside for other people to tell [her] when [she] should be making a move.”

Unsure whether a run for the White House is the direction she should take, Winfrey matter-of-factly asked Silvio, “If God actually wanted me to run, wouldn’t God kind of tell me?”  Then the former talk show host announced, “And I haven’t heard that.”

Not to burst the “Oprah-4-President” bubble, but based on Joy’s assessment of Pence, doesn’t the great black hope for foolproof victory over Donald Trump measure up to Behar’s “mentally ill” yardstick?

With that in mind, Jesus is probably still whispering political directives into the View co-host’s ear.  The dutiful follower that she is, Joy obeys, and “saves this country,” by continuing to embody the liberal mindset, whose inconsistent statements ensure that the “Great Gasbag” and his “mentally ill” vice president will run America for another seven years.

Grandma Pelosi Uses Wannabe Guatemalan Grandson To Push Her DACA Agenda

Originally posted at CLASH Daily

In 2015, while attempting to promote same-sex marriage, Nancy Pelosi told MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts that bringing her grandchildren to a Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund award ceremony was necessary because “it’s really important [for them] to see what the practice of our faith is.” Talk about a stretch.

In that interview, Pelosi went so far as to say her grandchildren were exposed to same-sex marriage “their whole life…because they [attend] Catholic school” and implied that the Baltimore Catechism teaching respect for all people is verification that Catholicism supports gay marriage.

Despite Pope Francis saying, “Marriage can only be between a man and a woman,” Nancy’s obedience to ecclesiastical authority seems solely determined on whether or not canonical law agrees with her liberal ideology.

For example, in addition to marriage equity for gays and lesbians, Pelosi also advocates for abortion on demand. Yet, like most liberals, Nancy fails to recognize the moral dilemma of telling an MSNBC host that same-sex marriage “is consistent with the dignity and worth [Catholics] attribute to every person.”

In a March of 2017 speech delivered to the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC House Minority Leader Pelosi did it again. This time her grandchildren morphed from Catholics into Jews. While steadying herself on the podium, Nancy referred to Palestine as “Palenstine” and said, “The modern state of Israel…is the dream of millennials” instead of “millennia.” Then, in attempt to demonstrate familiarity with her Jewish audience, and sounding like she was talking about money not family, Nancy announced she had Jewish grandchildren when she said, “I think I have the most of anyone in Congress, I’m not quite sure, but they’re adorable…Let’s hear it for my grandchildren.”

No one is entirely sure whether the AIPAC grandchildren are from the same faction as those who learned the positive aspects of abortion and gay rights from the Catholic Church.

Either way, Pelosi touted Catholic grandchildren who are same-sex marriage advocates and a gaggle of “adorable” Jewish grandchildren who may or may not be millennials who have embraced “… two states for two peoples” for millennia, because she’s an opportunist and doing so is politically expedient.

Nancy Pelosi’s remarks were almost as uncomfortable as when “Yankee fan” Hillary Clinton attempted to relate to New York voters by claiming her daughter Chelsea was jogging right near the World Trade Center on 9-11. In fact, Pelosi implying her grandchildren are Catholic LBGT advocates and Jewish agents of peace in the Middle East and citing being the mother of five and grandmother to nine while refusing to answer a question about aborting a baby with a beating heart was not only awkward – it was shameless.

But then again, Nancy is a 77-year-old nana who stood for 9-hours in 4-inch heels droning on and on about DACA recipients. In fact, the old lady’s sore feet may be why she decided to wrap up the DREAMer marathon with a tall tale about a grandson who yearns to be a Guatemalan.

First, the grandmother of the Hispanic wannabe shared a touching story about a “dark-skinned…undocumented” girl who felt she didn’t fit in with her American friends, not because her presence was unlawful, but because her skin was brown.

Nancy should have stopped there, but instead, she added that the undocumented girl reminded her of her grandson. Things got quiet because after sitting at grandma’s knee for so many years the lad could have said he wished he was an “undocumented girl”, or that he wanted to join Hezbollah, or that he was sorry he missed the opportunity to be aborted – instead mini-Pelosi announced he suffers from Hispanic-envy.

Unable to keep nationalities, religions and “whatever” straight, Pelosi shared: “He’s Irish, English, whatever, whatever, and Italian.” Then she said, “And when he had his sixth birthday, he had a very close friend whose name is Antonio, he’s from Guatemala, and he has beautiful tan skin and beautiful brown eyes and the rest.”

What’s “the rest”? He’s a short Mexican, wears colorful mismatched clothes and secretly has no problem with human sacrifice?

“This was such a proud day for me,” Pelosi went on, “because when my grandson blew out the candles on his cake, they said, ‘did you make a wish’? And he said, ‘I wish I had brown skin and brown eyes like Antonio’.”

Thankfully, Antonio is not named Manuel Orrego-Savala the drunk-driving, illegal Guatemalan, without a driver’s license, who killed Indianapolis Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson three days prior to Nancy’s nine-hour pro-illegal immigrant speech.

Still, Pelosi’s pandering Hispanic-grandson story made Hillary “I don’t feel no ways tired” Clinton seem unpretentious when she impersonated “Black Voice” at a Baptist Church in Selma, Alabama.

Pelosi concluded her Guatemalan grandson illustration by saying, “So beautiful, so beautiful. The beauty is in the mix — the face of the future for our country is all American and that has many versions” – which is sort of the way Nancy approaches Catholicism.

Anyway, when all is said and done, if prior to the day he was born, Nancy’s unborn grandson “wished” to be born a full term baby instead of a brown-skinned Hispanic, but was aborted instead, Grandma Mimi would have probably shared that story too.

ACCIDENTALLY HONEST: Nancy Peolosi’s Addled Brain Makes Unintentional TRUE Statement About Gun Rights

Originally posted at CLASH Daily

For pro-choice Catholic Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) the extent of her confusion used to only be saying really dumb stuff about Obamacare, abortion, and American history.

Take, for instance, the time Nancy told an adopted woman — to her face — at a CNN town hall meeting that her birth mother deserved the choice to abort her.

Then, while out shilling for Obamacare, Nancy once said that besides 3,000 abortions a day that she heartily condones, Republicans stopping Obamacare abortion funding would result in “women dying on the floor.”

On behalf of her beloved ACA, Nancy also celebrated the notion that the Founders had the “entrepreneurialAffordable Care Act in mind for people who, in lieu of working full-time, would one day want to do other things like learn to play a musical instrument, or spend leisurely afternoons water coloring.

What’s scary is that this sub-standard level of American history expertise came from a woman who, despite confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, spent four years sitting just two heartbeats from the Oval Office.

Over the years, it’s been easy to blame Ms. Pelosi’s deer-in-the-headlight faux pas’ on things like way too many face lifts, having San Francisco roots or too much hair dye seeping into her smaller-than-normal brain.

In fairness though, Nancy’s ill-fitting dentures could be what makes her upper lip curl under when she speaks, which would distract the former Speaker mid-sentence. If her upper level is not the culprit, it could be those $10,000 Tahitian pearls she wears cutting the oxygen supply to her brain.

But now, at 77-years-old, and based on some of the outlandish things the almost-octogenarian has been saying lately, one can’t help but wonder whether the aging liberal is suffering mini-strokes, may be stricken with dementia, or perhaps clunked herself in the head with that huge gavel she swung around when she was Speaker of the House.

In February, during an appearance before Families USA, an activist group fighting the repeal of Obamacare, a mumbling Pelosi kept repeating herself, she instructed the audience to clap at her “applause line”, and called Republican John Kasich, the former governor of Ohio, the governor of Illinois.

Okay, so, just like U.S. history, maybe stand up comedy and geography aren’t Nancy’s forte either.

After those embarrassing moments, Pelosi went on to confuse Medicare with Medicaid, Martin Luther King Jr. with his long lost Asian relative “Martin Luther Sing”, and congratulated Families USA for her work.

Also in February, at a press conference, the House Minority diva mistakenly referred to President Trump as President Bush. Nancy, the spokesperson for the Democrat Party said: “While it’s only been a couple of weeks since the inauguration, we’ve seen nothing that I can work with President Bush on.”

Fortunately, Nancy didn’t complicate matters by referring to G.W. as Trump’s open-mic accomplice “Billy Bush”.

Nonetheless, in April, on ABC’s This Week, while discussing Democrats working with the White House Nancy did it yet again. Not known for having a wry sense of humor or comedic timing, to correct her Bush/Trump mix up, Nancy quickly said: “I’m so sorry, President Bush. I never thought I would pray for the day that you were president again.”

Blame it on poor eyesight; just a few weeks after the second G.W. Bush gaffe, at a California Democrat Convention, Nancy got so caught up in the excitement of the moment, she plopped her derriere into a seat marked “Reserved” for a wheelchair.

Clearly, based on this conduct the aging politician has no handle on American history, founding principles, or the resolve and work ethic of our Founding Fathers. Moreover, Nana Pelosi also has limited knowledge of where our nation’s governors hail from, can’t tell the difference between our 43rd and 45th presidents, and judging from her choice of seating, may even have an issue with ableism.

Yet despite all those examples, the Pelosi-is-very-puzzled pièce de résistance took place during remarks she made at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation’s 2017 Fiscal Summit.

It was at the summit that the shining star of San Francisco politics confused the gun rights activist group, the National Rifle Association (NRA), with the Department of Defense’s National Security Agency (NSA). While being interviewed, Pelosi was straining to suggest that that the president she confused with Bush – twice – conspired with the Russians and then obstructed justice.

Pelosi told CNN’s, Dana Bash:

To have a president say, if he did, to the director of the FBI, or the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, or the NRA person that—um, uh, that they should not go forward, it raises questions that need to be answered in a facts and law way, and not hearsay.

One would think that Nancy, who just last year suggested that a gun control vote could “save 90 lives”, would remember her suggestion to Congress to “protect and defend” the U.S. Constitution by enacting harsher gun control measures.

Instead, what is ironic, is that Nancy confused the group that advocates for the Constitutional right to “keep and bear Arms” with a government agency that Democrats like Pelosi typically think is all that is necessary to keep Americans safe.

The NRA would disagree, but, either way, what is clear is that something’s up with Nancy Pelosi.

And so, notwithstanding Nancy misplacing the simplest thoughts, when the current Minority Leader mistakenly connected those who safeguard national security with the protectors of the Second Amendment – she didn’t mean to — but she actually got something right.

Liberals should ‘own every preventable death’

Originally posted at American Thinker

Once again, Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez’s inconsistent statements confound both reason and sanity.  Take for instance the topic of giving shelter to illegal aliens.  Perez strongly believes in sanctuary cities making sovereign decisions.  But in the next breath, Perez says he also strongly believes “[t]hat [abortion rights are] not negotiable and should not change city-by-city or state-by-state.”

So, based on those contrasting statements, according to Tom, city or state decisions are either “negotiable” or non-negotiable, based solely on which agenda is being advanced.

Then, recently, at a May Day rally held in front of the White House, speaking Spanglish, Tom told the boisterous crowd, “No human being is illegal.  We must treat everyone with dignity.”

Again, it appears as if abortion activist/illegal apologist Tom Perez has mixed things up when he says that because they are human, illegals can’t be deported.  Yet, at the same time, unborn humans can be aborted.  In other words, in the mind of Tom Perez illegal + human = not illegal, while unborn + human = not human.

Stunning illogicalities of this sort don’t stop with Perez just conferring dignity on one group of humans while denying life to another.  As a matter of fact, recently, right ahead of the House vote to repeal Obamacare, Perez, who clearly doesn’t think about how incongruous his declarations sound, said that if Obamacare is repealed:

Trump and Republicans will own every preventable death, every untreated illness and every bankruptcy that American families will be forced to bear if this bill becomes law and millions lose access to affordable care. The 24 million that lose access to healthcare is not just a number.

Notwithstanding Tom’s stunning assertions, the DNC chair did aptly reconfirm for those he seeks to condemn that the sixty million lives lost to abortion, and the thousands who’ve died at the hands of illegal immigrants, are “not just a number.”

Nonetheless, similar to Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who, with oversized gavel in hand, once accused Republicans of wanting “women [to] die on the floor” for voting against funding abortion in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the DNC chair is quick to accuse but slow to self-evaluate.

Tom personifies the mindset of liberal women on social media who now are saying that repealing Obamacare is tantamount to Trump forcing women who’ve been raped to pay for their own abortions.

Apparently, lefties like Perez and the pink pussy-hat brigade don’t realize that sentiments such as those implicitly equate American citizens with Islamist extremists who punish women who’ve been raped by stoning them to death.  Furthermore, maybe if Americans denouncing “preventable death” want to be taken seriously, they shouldn’t champion the slaughter of 3,000 unborn babies a day, or sanction the influx of those responsible for the daily demise of numerous fellow citizens.

Either way, Perez did go on to say that the American Health Care Act (AHCA) bill “represents fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers and even newborn babies with heart diseases or cancers that are too costly to treat without affordable insurance.”

Based on the left’s cadaverous track record, and although purely speculation, the outcry coming from the left over repealing Obamacare is probably rooted in an unspoken concern that less carnage may result, not more.  That’s why liberals should just own up to the truth and admit that besides wounded pride, their disappointment over the defeat of Obamacare has more to do with losing the power over life and death than concern for Americans dying.

Besides, after supporting the murder and selling of baby body parts, late-term abortion-loving liberals defending Obamacare by lamenting newborns dying from fatal diseases is sort of like cannibals grieving over those they never got to boil and eat.

In the end, by promising that Trump will “own every preventable death,” once again, Tom Perez has made a proclamation that, rather than place the onus on the Republicans, actually convicts the Democrats.  Therefore, if thwarting death is really Perez’s objective, maybe he can give credibility to his convictions by denouncing abortion and supporting closed borders.

CONTRADICTORY VIEWS: The Democratic Party’s Policy On Abortion Doesn’t Fit With…

Originally posted at CLASH Daily

If it concerns illegal immigrants, Democratic National Committee Chairman, Tom Perez, strongly believes in sanctuary cities making sovereign decisions. On the other hand, Perez also strongly believes “That [abortion rights are] not negotiable and should not change city-by-city or state-by-state.”

Judging from their 55-page, pro-abortion manifesto, the Democratic Party platform officially thinks that the right to kill the unborn takes precedent over human rights. That’s why, henceforth and in perpetuity, every candidate who runs as a Democrat must now stand on the side of abortion because, according to Tom Perez, “every woman should be able to make her own health choices. Period.”

As the titular head of the most progressive pro-death political party in American history, DNC chairperson Perez also demands from party members “absolute ideological purity.” Thus, pro-life Democrats (which is sort of an oxymoron) are not welcome in the party. This sentiment comes from a guy who criticizes Trump for alleged dictatorial tendencies.

Nevertheless, if given the opportunity, litmus-test Perez would likely argue that besides feeling that the unborn are not human life, abortion is “settled law” and settled law should not be superseded by emotional, personal, or religious belief. In other words, there is zero room in the Democratic Party to discuss the rights of the unborn, scientific evidence, or what ultimately constitutes God-ordained humanity.

Yet when it comes to justifying the presence of illegal aliens, Perez diametrically opposes the argument he uses to defend killing human babies in the womb.

For instance, the Democratic Party rationalizes abortion on demand by stressing that baby killing is a Constitutional right that must be protected. If they really believe that, why do those on the left likewise fight to help break immigration law?

Tom Perez stresses that abortion rights are “not negotiable and should not change city-by-city or state-by-state,” but then changes that opinion if a city or state harbors illegal felons. All in all, if a city or a state decides to defy the law and shelter illegals, a non-negotiable Tom Perez and the Democrat Party encourage them to do just that.

Recently, at a May/Labor Day rally outside of the White House, Mr. Perez, who sees Trump and the Republican Party as a threat to having carte blanche to cart 3,000 dead fetuses to the incinerator every day, told illegal immigrants and hordes of labor party representatives that “The Democratic party will always be here, fighting for you.

Perez emphasized that “our nation’s diversity is our greatest strength,” which means both he, and the party he represents, do not view “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” our nation’s greatest strength.

Shouting to the crowd in Spanish, Perez spurred the gathering to new heights by reminding them that the Democratic Party and the illegal community share the value of diversity. Not for nothing (as they say in Brooklyn), but judging from the news of late, some of the other assorted values Democrats and illegal felons share are fraudulence, thievery, law flouting, and, on occasion, rape and murder.

Moreover, if this dispute were truly about furthering diversity, why would the Democratic Party help illegal alien women gain full access to abortions that extinguish the lives of those Perez claims, if born, would add to the shared cultural mixture he so highly touts?

Besides not mentioning Trump by name, and before broaching the topic of big labor, bi-lingual Perez had a poignant message that epitomizes the hypocrisy that resides within the Democrat Party and this is what he said, “No human being is illegal, we must treat everyone with dignity.”

That’s right, according to the head of the Democrat Party, guilty humans cannot be illegal and despite breaking the law still deserve dignity. Meanwhile, according to the same Democrat Party head, although fully human, innocent, unborn beings do not even deserve the right to life.

Preventing ‘Back Alley’ Suicides in San Francisco

Originally posted at American Thinker

Once again, the confused logic of liberals is almost impossible to comprehend.  Take, for instance, the multi-million dollar steel suicide barrier about to be constructed in San Francisco.  After 1,600 people, tragically died since 1937 by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, an obstacle to suicide will soon run the 9,000-ft. length of the bridge.

What’s perplexing is that this compassionate enterprise is taking place in a liberal state where assisted suicide is legal, and where, in 2011, out of 802,400 pregnancies, 184,552, or 23%, ended in abortion.

San Francisco is a city whose majority likely endorses the 3,000 abortions performed every day in America.  Yet Bagdad-by-the-Bay plans to spend 211 million in taxpayer dollars to deny one person, every two weeks, the right to choose to do what California law otherwise maintains should hinge solely on personal choice.

In other words, by erecting suicide barriers on the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco liberals, who, for the unborn denounce the right to life, and, for the sick and dying support the right to die, want to inflict life on those who prefer death.

Even still, liberal Californians would probably argue that jumping off a bridge is different because, according to state law, to qualify for death with dignity one must be succumbing to physical, not mental, illness.

Sorry to have to be the one to say it, but, especially in a liberal bastion like San Francisco telling one group, they have a right to die while refusing another that same right smacks of the sort of discrimination liberals usually pride themselves on avoiding.

Nonetheless, if the rationale behind the Golden Gate Bridge safety net were to thwart ‘back alley suicides,’ maybe a better idea would be to gather up distraught bridge jumpers and shuttle them to a clinic where the downcast could be administered the legal End of Life Option drug secobarbital.   After all, ending one’s life in a less public place would be tidier, would shield the iconic reputation of the bridge, would spare the U.S. Coast Guard having to spend hot afternoons fishing bloated corpses out of the celebrated city bay, and, most importantly, would safeguard the left’s highly-prized right to choose.

Either way, except for when it comes to limiting things like guns and junk food, liberals typically insist that deterrents fail to work. As a matter of fact, it was San Francisco’s Nancy Pelosi who once said that if the GOP denied funding ‘safe and legal’ abortion, via Obamacare, women would have to resort to rusty hangers and, in turn, “die on the floor.”

So, if banning abortion doesn’t keep women out of back alley clinics, how does Nancy explain her contention that curtailing the legal Second Amendment will save “90 lives a day?” Or, more germane to the Golden Gate Bridge conversation, how does steel suspended from a bridge keep those desperate enough to end it all from finding another bridge?

Notwithstanding the belief that gun control and suicide nets impede fatalities, when it comes to building a wall on the border, liberals like Pelosi argue that physical restrictions do nothing to prevent dangerous immigrants from entering the US illegally.  Meanwhile, in 2015, a woman named Kate Steinle died on a San Francisco pier after she was shot to death by an illegal felon named Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez who, despite being deported five times, repeatedly snuck back across the southern border.

The stunning contradiction here is that this tragedy took place in a Sanctuary City where liberals who claim that walls do not stop illegal felons are now stringing up a steel barrier to stop suicides.

That’s why, even though San Francisco has strict gun laws, and thanks to their backing of open borders, a bullet from a .40-caliber handgun, stolen from a U.S. Bureau of Land Management ranger, ricocheted off a sidewalk, entered Steinle’s back, and severed the 32-year-old’s aorta.

Recently, at the Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Deterrent Commemoration Ceremony, Democratic Leader, Catholic-abortion-supporter, and open-borders-advocate Nancy Pelosi had this to say about the steel suicide barrier:

What a bittersweet day. The joy of the prospect of saving lives, the sadness of those we’ve lost. The Golden Gate Bridge is a source of immense pride in the Bay Area, but for far too many families it has also been a place of pain. We are honoring a deep moral responsibility to save lives whenever and wherever we can.

Likewise, for those yet to be born, Nancy Pelosi also ‘honors a deep moral responsibility’ to ensure pre-born bridge jumpers never make it out of the womb alive.

Under the banner of choice, when not hindering suicide, San Francisco continues to feverishly abort human beings and dispense legal euthanasia drugs and does so while refusing to enforce laws necessary to protect the likes of those who, if given the choice, would have chosen to live.

Hillary Clinton’s Abortion Quagmire

196334_5_Originally posted at American Thinker

It’s hard to believe but ‘for the first time in her adult life,’ when Hillary Clinton referred to a preborn human being as an “unborn person” or “child,” the woman who’s made prevarication a lifestyle choice actually spoke the truth.  The problem for Sir Edmund Hillary’s purported namesake is that truth telling is something she usually dodges like sniper bullets in Bosnia because of the potential that facts have to get her in trouble.

And trouble is exactly what followed when Hillary attempted to counter Donald Trump by trying to portray herself as the champion of abortion rights.

While being interviewed on NBC’s Meet the Press, Hillary responded to Chuck Todd’s question about the constitutional rights of the unborn by saying that “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”  The problem with the former first lady’s answer was that while trying to deny unborn personhood she inadvertently assigned personhood to an entity the pro-choice movement views as a nonviable clump of cells.

And so, it seems that while straddling the abortion fence, Mrs. Clinton got her designer pants leg stuck on a big old rusty nail.  Of all people, Hillary should know by now that in pro-choice circles admitting preborn humanity portrays the slaughter of 3,000 babies a day in a distasteful light.

Then, Mrs. Clinton, who, when not getting $600 haircuts spends time rustling up votes by rubbing her pregnant daughter Chelsea’s belly like it was Aladdin’s lamp, went on to talk about the constitutional rights of “unborn persons” whose mothers opt not to abort:

Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.

So, after saying that an “unborn person” has no right to life or protection under the Constitution, Hillary awkwardly attempted to reassure women who choose to allow offspring to breathe outside the womb that the “unborn person” she just said had no protection will be protected under the law.

Talk about a quagmire.

Nonetheless, Hillary wants America to know that if she ends up in charge, and if a mother chooses not to exercise the right to legally murder her offspring, the law that Hillary claims doesn’t protect an “unborn person’s” life, will be enforced to protect the “unborn person’s” life.

Then, with Chelsea’s swollen third-trimester belly as her muse, Hillary burrowed herself in deeper when she said, “there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions” in the third trimester of pregnancy.

What? The woman who heartily supports partial birth abortion blurted out, clearly without thinking, that, on occasion, it might be better to not insert scissors into the base of the skull of a living baby who is halfway out of the womb?

Huma really should have reminded Secretary Clinton beforehand that in baby extermination circles, even implying the word “restriction,” undermines the cause for abortion rights. That’s why, Diana Arellano, manager of community engagement for Planned Parenthood Illinois Action, quickly responded to Mrs. Clinton’s comments.

Diana probably didn’t like it either when the Planned Parenthood baby body part chop shop was called a baby body part chop shop, because Hillary labeling “unborn persons” as  “unborn persons” really got under the manager of community engagement’s skin.

Arellano tweeted this about Hillary Clinton: “she calls a fetus an ‘unborn child’ & calls for later term restrictions,” which, according to the Illinois Baby Chop Shop representative, “further stigmatizes #abortion.”

According to Arellano, butchering and then selling preborn infant liver doesn’t stigmatize abortion. In Diana’s opinion, what stigmatizes abortion is Hillary losing lip control and calling a child a child and then suggesting that murdering viable human beings should be restricted.

Now either unborn babies are non-persons and thus have no constitutional rights, or pre-birth existence does not negate personhood.  If the latter is true, that means Hillary Clinton and the whole pro-choice movement have put all our lives in danger by eroding a constitutional right that was established to protect all life.

In the meantime, Mrs. Clinton has really got to figure out how to talk her way out of the abortion chaos she’s gotten herself into. Maybe Mrs. Clinton should follow Donald Trump’s example and just make it up as she goes along.

Hillary can start by clarifying what choice is all about and explain that what she really meant to say was that women who decide to terminate a pregnancy have the right to choose whether the “unborn persons” they’re planning to destroy are “persons” or not.

In fact, this may be a real opportunity for Hillary to turn a faux pas into an excuse to break new ground on behalf of the right to choose crowd.  Mrs. Clinton can explain that if a woman chooses an abortion, only then is an “unborn person” considered a non-person.  But, if a woman chooses to carry to term and give birth, an otherwise non-person is then mysteriously granted “unborn person” status and is, hence, constitutionally protected.

Either way, this is the kind of misunderstanding that results when Hillary Clinton loses her bearings and the truth manages to slip out.  That’s why if the presidential hopeful wants to retain her faithful constituency, it might be best for her to continue to do what she does best, which is to keep lying.

The devaluing of human life: Texas mom burns toddler in oven

12039220_1102090806489555_4876132172556440421_n-700x525Originally posted at Live Action News

Currently, America is a society that continues make the case for abortion by insisting that some lives have less value than others. The relentless effort to devalue life could explain why a 35-year-old single mother in Somervell County Texas thought she had the right to choose to place her little 2-year-old baby girl in the family oven.

No one knows for sure what Tasha Shontell Hatcher was thinking, or what her motivation was for burning her baby in the stove. Thankfully, as the child was being roasted alive, for some reason, Hatcher confessed to witnesses who quickly called the authorities.

As a result, shortly before midnight on St. Patrick’s Day, the Sheriff’s Department rescued the little girl who was immediately taken by air ambulance to Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas to be treated for second and third-degree burns. From there, the child was airlifted to a regional burn center at Parkland Hospital in Dallas where she remains sedated.

For burning a baby a stove, Miss Hatcher is being held in Somervell County Jail after being charged with inflicting “serious bodily harm to a child,” which is a first-degree felony. After being arraigned on Saturday, Hatcher is being held on a $300,000 bond.

Meanwhile, Somervell deputies, Texas Rangers, and Child Protective Services are investigating the case.  A spokeswoman from CPS said that when the severely burned child is discharged from the hospital she would be placed in foster care.

Burning children alive is nothing new. It started in Old Testament days with the sacrificing of infants to the fire-god Molech.

Today, there are mothers who chose to forgo the saline infusion abortion (which burns preborn children both inside and out) and then, somewhere along the line, apparently change their minds and decide it’s acceptable to cook children alive outside of the womb.

Last December, 34-year-old Ka Yang was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of her one-month-old daughter Mirabelle Thao-Lo. According to prosecutors, in 2011, Mirabelle was placed along with her pacifier into the microwave by her mother for the sin of being “irritable and fussy and holding [mom] back from work” at an architectural firm.

And so, if the thought of a mother committing the crime of burning her baby alive horrifies America, it’s probably because it’s happening right before our eyes.

Meanwhile, behind closed doors, all across America, society largely accepts 3,000 babies a day losing their lives during an equally horrifying act called abortion.

CHELSEA CLINTON: How She’s Carrying the ‘Right-Wing Conspiracy’ Torch for Mom

GettyImages-455973972-e1455153565692Originally posted at CLASH Daily

Lest we forget, Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky is the daughter of a presidential candidate who, while cheering women toward the abortion clinic, simultaneously claims to also be a devout Christian. Unlike her life-long Methodist mother, Chelsea, who is pregnant with her second child, claims she left the Baptist Church at the tender age of six because of the church’s anti-abortion stance.

If you believe that one, how about two free tickets to a Matrimonial Faithfulness seminar featuring Bill Clinton as the keynote speaker?

Either way, based on the six-year-old abortion activist story and some of the other tall tales Chelsea has come out with lately, it’s undeniably clear that the Clinton daughter has inherited her parent’s lying gene.

Now, on behalf of Sir Edmund Hillary’s namesake, Chelsea is exercising that genetic propensity by picking up the “right-wing conspiracy” torch her mother lit when dad got caught using cigar tubes for something other then storing cigars.

While Donald Trump was somewhere in America speaking to a crowd of thousands, and after netting $600,000 (equal pay for equal work) as an entry-level salary at NBC, the Hillary campaign asked Mrs. Mezvinsky to speak to a rousing crowd of 75 toadies.

On the campaign trail mom, Hillary, denounces Republicans by mentioning things like immigrants being dragged from their homes in the dead of night and deported. The woman in the “Orange is the New Black” pantsuit also implies the opposition party does nothing about minority children being shot because of the color of their skin. All that, and much more, happens when the woman who points to non-existent people in the audience isn’t emphatically stating that the GOP is responsible for LGBT couples being fired from their jobs “because of who they are and who they love.”

None of which, by the way, is true.

Now, before throwing red meat to the ravenous mini-crowd of mostly senior citizen women, Chelsea, following in Mommy’s footsteps, reminded Hillary fans at the pre-caucus gathering in Minnesota that this election is the most important one of her lifetime – which is what Chelsea also said in 2008.

From there, the former first daughter downshifted into the type of “vast right-wing conspiracy” rhetoric that would make her hyper-partisan mother proud. After claiming at another campaign stop that she was an abortion activist at the age of six, Chelsea had zero trouble accusing Republicans of bigotry, homophobia, and chauvinism.

On behalf of mom, Chelsea said this:

While it’s important to have a president who knows when to stand her ground and give no purchase to the racist, homophobic, sexist rhetoric and policy ideas that are coming out of the Republican side, it’s also important to have a president who knows how to find common ground.

With that in mind, here are three questions for Chelsea:

First of all, we already know mom can’t, but can you provide examples of Republican “racist, homophobic, [and/or] sexist rhetoric”?

As for “common ground”, is that what you sought at the age of six when your Sunday School teacher pointed out to you that slaughtering unborn babies in the womb contradicts the Bible?

And, finally, what kind of far fetched story will you and your mother come up with when America “gives no purchase” to Hillary’s unrelenting pursuit to become America’s first female president?

%d bloggers like this: