Tag Archives: liberals

Jihadi John is Smarter than the Average Liberal

Jihadi-JohnOriginally posted at American Thinker

Who would have thought that the notorious ISIS remover of heads, the man behind the ski mask, Jihadi John, would prove to be smarter than the average liberal?

Remember John?  He’s the guy who struck fear in the hearts of the world when he was pictured on video carving off the heads of ISIS prisoners/journalists and aid workers like James Foley and Steven Sotloff, David Haines, Alan Henning, and Peter Kassig.

Clad entirely in black from head to toe, Mohammed Emwazi, aka Jihadi John, would stand in the hot desert sun beside kneeling victims dressed in outfits similar to Hillary Clinton’s infamous Home Depot orange pants suit. Head cocked to the side, knife in hand gesturing and pointing at the camera, Jihadi John would calmly speak perfect English with a distinct British accent and then would patiently wait until his victims were done spewing a forced propaganda spiel. Then, with the cameras rolling, John would saw off their heads.

Now, British and American Special Forces are searching for and want Jihadi John dead or alive.

It seems the ISIS executioner, who enthusiastically participated in beheading prisoners of the Islamic state, worries his own head will be removed and he is running for his life. Apparently the publicity he’s gotten has made Jihadi John quake in his Ninja boots, fearful that the militant ISIS murderers are done with him and will kill him and bury his headless body in a mass grave.

Sounds like liberalism: use up supporters and then visit upon those useful idiots the very terrorism they endorsed.

Prior to mastering Butchery 101, Mr. Emwazi was a student at the University of Westminster studying information systems and business management. Then Emwazi was radicalized and became the masked face of ISIS terror. Now, to avoid suffering a fate similar to the ones he inflicted on others, Jihadi John is somewhere in Syria hiding from both the good and bad guys both of whom are searching for him across the Middle East.

So why is Jihadi John smarter than the average liberal?

As a group, liberals believe that their support for progressive policies such as ObamaCare, climate change, the right to choose and so on somehow exempts them from the blight liberalism creates when those policies are implemented.

Liberals rally around high taxes but hate paying them; they applaud ObamaCare, but will be the first ones to whine when they’re denied health care services or evaluated by a death panel.  Liberals love Obama’s plan to forcibly integrate neighborhoods, as long as it’s not theirs; they’ll march on behalf of illegal immigration until someone they love is killed by a drunk illegal driving without a license, and they will champion an Iran deal until Iran gets the bomb, at which point they’ll be found quaking and quivering in a renovated bomb shelter somewhere.

In other words, like Jihadi John, liberals can dish it out but they can’t take it.

Never realizing that the end result will involve the devaluing and maybe even the loss of their own life, liberals decry the so-called racial profiling of potential terrorists, defend the right to choose abortion and, of late, even justify selling the organs of aborted babies. Then when terrorism threatens their life, or in the future an Obama organ collector suggests that to promote fairness liberals should volunteer a spare kidney to one who has none, the liberals who rallied for organ sharing will be the first to protest.

Somewhere inside their hollow, empty souls, liberals like to inflict, but hate to be inflicted upon.

Those on the left like to force others to give, never thinking that the implication of compulsory giving will also affect their own lives. Liberals are ardent supporters of government, but seem to think supporting the government edicts being imposed on the masses somehow exempts them from the negative impact of what they’re helping to promote.

In other words, liberals are the Jihadi Johns of a government version of ISIS: they believe they can support what progressivism imposes on America and never become a victim of those oppressive policies themselves.

Liberals believe they can lop off heads and keep their own — but they’re wrong, and the real Jihadi John was wise enough to recognize it. That’s why he’s smarter than the average liberal: Jihadi John hightailed it into the desert and is currently on the run somewhere trying desperately to keep his head.

EPIC FAIL: A “Sketchy” Dose of Reality for Liberals With New “SketchFactor” App

sketch-300x180Originally posted at The Clash Daily

Nothing is more exhilarating, at least for me, than when liberals are victimized by their own foolhardiness.  That’s what happened when a news crew from local station WUSA9 went to Petworth in Northwest Washington DC to do a story on a new app that warns people in the nation’s capital of “sketchy” neighborhoods.

The app is called SketchFactor.  The idea behind SketchFactor is “to pinpoint the relative sketchiness of an area via first-hand reports from … users and publicly available data.”  In other words, the application cautions people to steer clear of less-than-safe neighborhoods based on reports and data citing muggings, harassment, and racial profiling.

The app even advises users as to how poorly, or well-lit, an area might be.

Predictably, the application’s co-founder and CEO, Allison McQuire, and her partner, Daniel Herrington, are now the subjects of harsh criticism because in liberal circles, just like suggesting that a black kid robbing a convenience store is in fact robbing a convenience store, even suggesting that a “sketchy” neighborhood is “sketchy” is considered racist.

In the app’s defense, the founders are marketing SketchFactor as a “community tool.”

New York City-based blog Gawker doesn’t agree.  In an article entitled Smiling Young White People Make an App for Avoiding Black Neighborhoods written by tech watchdog Sam Biddle, posted on Gawker-affiliated website ValleyWag and filed under racism, sarcastically had this to say about the new app:

“SketchFactor [is] a racist app made for avoiding ‘sketchy’ neighborhoods, which is the term young white people use to describe places where they don’t feel safe because they watched all five seasons of The Wire.”

The “city-centric” news blog Gothamist agrees, saying, “Might the residents of a so-called ‘sketchy’ neighborhood find this useful new technology offensive? Sure! Are the crowdsourced interpretations of ‘sketchy’ going to get racist as f**k? Yes, with haste.”

Amid the racist clamor, the story has taken an interestingly ironic turn.

Washington, DC’s WUSA9 News crew, headed up by reporter Mola Lenghi, decided to venture into one of those “sketchy areas” (wink, wink) to conduct interviews with some of those “sketchy” people that the “smiling young white people” who invented SketchFactor deem “sketchy.”

After choosing a neighborhood that the application identified as “sketchy,” the crew parked the van on the street. God knows why, but they then locked the vehicle.  When the threesome returned with the goods to take down the bigoted SketchFactor, they found that lock on the van had been jimmied from the door and all of the crew’s personal belongings and expensive gear was gone.

Photojournalist James Hash lost 15 years’ worth of camera and electronic equipment and Lenghi lost his backpack full of electronics and a laptop.  Intern Taylor Bisciotti lost her purse and her iPhone with the cracked face, which thankfully was equipped with the non-racist app, “Find my iPhone.”

After filing a police report about their “sketchy” experience in ‘perfectly-safe Petworth’, the trio tracked the cracked iPhone to a dumpster in another “sketchy” neighborhood where, according to Mola, “stolen goods are dumped.”

Clearly, the news crew’s intent was to prove that “sketchy” neighborhoods are safe and secure, because after being robbed of “many, many, many thousands of dollars worth of stuff,” Mola Lenghi still was tentative about calling the area where he was robbed “sketchy.”

The moral of the story is this:  Liberals don’t get it until they become the victims of the weird fantasy world in which they live and relentlessly insist on imposing on everyone else.

What happened to Mola, James, and Taylor is just a taste of the harsh wakeup call liberals are going to get when they realize that they are not exempt from the ugliness that really does exist in this world.  Liberals may not believe it, but terrorists are just as willing to lop off the head of a clueless peacenik extending an olive branch as they are the head of an Iraqi Christian clutching a cross.

In due time, the naive among us will find themselves packed into hot, dirty clinics along with people coughing and spewing Third-World diseases into the air, as well as sitting beside the ones who tried in vain to warn idealistic Obamacare supporters about the dangers of government involvement in healthcare.

As for the open-borders advocates, maybe when their own children are infected by a deadly contagion like Ebola or someone they love is murdered, raped, or run over by a criminal illegal immigrant, those on the left will come to understand the error of their ways.

When ISIS, who may have already infiltrated the homeland, descends on an elementary school in an un-sketchy neighborhood, maybe then left-wing ideologues will finally comprehend the magnitude of the deception.

As for the pro-choice crowd, only when the day comes – and it is coming – when government, after determining that inconvenience and dependency translate into useless and disposable, justifies exercising the right to choose on those outside of the womb will they realize the gravity of the pro-choice delusion they’ve embraced.

On that day, liberals will be about as shocked as the news crew robbed in an unsafe neighborhood while trying desperately to portray truth-tellers as racists by portraying a “sketchy” neighborhood as not sketchy.

As for the reporters who got a shock while out trying to prove a fantasy, their night ended with rummaging around with the rats and raccoons in a dumpster searching for most of their belongings, which were never found.  But with any luck, what the news crew hoping to expose a racist app did find in that dumpster was some common sense and a dose of reality.

H/T Donald Joy

Liberals Love to Get Liquored Up

Liberals

Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Rumor has it that Liberal First Lady Michelle Obama loves “top shelf” vodka.

As for hubby, who comes from a long line of Uncle Omar-style alcoholics, well, he’s has been known to pound down…I mean sip… a martini or two with friends, raise a glass of champagne now and then, and chug-a-lug a frosty cold one.

Then there’s ultra-liberal Hillary Clinton.  Mrs. Clinton likes to tear up the dance floor with a nice Columbian-brewed Aguila in hand. Napa Valley vineyard owner Nancy Pelosi enjoys in-flight liquor (which may explain the slurred speech).

Even Max Baucus, the democrat senator from Montana, allegedly does not let inebriation prevent him from sharing deep thoughts on the House floor.

On the Republican side, John Boehner had almost succeeded in convincing America that drinking wine while mowing the lawn was a bipartisin pastime. But a new study, published by the Journal of Wine Economics, reveals that “alcohol consumption in American states rises as the population’s politics becomes more liberal.”

Pavel Yakovlev and Walter P. Guessford, of Duquesne University in Pennsylvania, ran a study whose findings show a direct correlation between liberal beliefs and alcohol use. The data show that people in states with liberal representatives tend to consume up to three times more alcohol per person than politically conservative states.

In other words, by getting all liquored up, lefties evade the sorrows they create.

The study concluded that “[e]ven after controlling for economic, demographic, and geographic differences across states…liberal ideology has a statistically significant positive association with the consumption of alcohol in the United States.” Yakovlev and Guessford offer two possible theories to explain why there’s such variance in liberal and conservative alcohol consumption.

As verified by Choom gang member/cocaine user Barry Soetoro, who, unlike white powder-nosed, cigar-smoking Bill Clinton, actually did admit to inhaling, one theory is that liberals tend to be more “open to new experiences, such as the consumption of alcohol or drugs.”

The other theory Yakovlev and Guessford put forth to explain liberals’ liberal libation habits is their reliance on government health care and social welfare to come to the rescue.

And while all those notions are plausible, if I may be so bold, there are a few additional theories the authors of the survey failed to include.

Is it possible that alcohol consumption and debauchery rise in relation to godlessness and lack of patriotism. Remember, there is a marked increase in alcohol abuse in communist or statist regimes, which are notorious for heavy drinking.

Liberals support socialism. Then, as freedom wanes, they manufacture artificial freedom by living in an intoxicated state.

Here in America alcoholism is a problem in neighborhoods where liberal policies cultivate despair. Folks stuck in the urban ghettos would rather drink Thunderbird concealed in a brown paper bag than face the harsh reality resulting from policies they voted for.

How about those ‘drunk with power’ like the Obamas, the Clintons, the late Ted Kennedy, and whoever else is running up liquor bills for taxpayers to cover?

For those Lefties (aka Socialists) cocktail parties come in handy to drown the guilt over things like late term abortion, lying incessantly to the American people, and systematically dismantling the Constitution.

Makes perfect sense: rather than face the dreadful consequences of their failed policies, Liberals prefer to “become comfortably numb.”

Helping Illegals Earn Their Keep

illegals-300x157Originally posted at The Blacksphere

The manicurists could readily comprehend the word ‘tip,’ but wouldn’t you know, beyond that were unable to speak a word of English!

One male salon worker, while painting American flags on the toenails of a plus-sized woman, proudly passed around an IPhone with pictures of his smiling illegal family members who recently arrived en masse from communist China.

Since Barack Obama became the official defender of all things illegal, the people we’ve been told live furtively in the shadows have burst out into broad daylight. At least where I live, it’s those shadow people who are meting out all the Mesclun salad at local bistros.

Moreover, thanks to the extreme change in demographics, most people are unable to ignore the landscapers perched on riding mowers driving down the middle of many of America’s suburban streets.

There are also many, many ‘hard-working’ restaurant busboys and van loads of Latino types standing around every morning at Home Depot begging to be chosen as $100-a-day laborers.

Our public school classrooms are full of ESL students, many of whom wear burqas. In our supermarkets the majority of produce workers manhandling the cantaloupes respond by saying “no hablo Inglés” when asked where the Café Bustelo is.

While not every foreigner in our midst is illegal, too many are.  If there weren’t, why would liberals be pushing so hard to grant amnesty to anywhere from 11 to 30 million illegals?

And here Americans thought hiring or harboring an illegal alien was against the law. Remember “Nannygate?” How about Linda Chavez withdrawing from consideration for the position of President G.W. Bush’s secretary of labor after it was revealed that she granted safe haven to an illegal immigrant from Guatemala?

Even still, except for a few examples on the right, the real culprits that have assisted in the unlawful invasion are liberals who notoriously flout the 1999 law that prohibits “knowingly assist[ing] illegal aliens due to personal convictions.” After all, isn’t it liberal personal conviction that drives all left-leaning policies, especially the DREAMers-are-good/Americans-are-nasty-xenophobes movement that’s currently afoot in America?

Liberal touchy-feely personal conviction is why Americans living in an English-speaking country are the ones who have to “press one for English.” Lefty bleeding hearts are why the  President is more concerned about people being unfairly asked for ID in Arizona ice cream parlors than he is about drug dealers and terrorists infiltrating our nation’s borders.

The argument from the left is that in addition to being cruel and inhumane, other than driving them to the polls, it is impossible to round up millions of illegals and send them back from whence they came. More importantly, the contention is that deporting illegals would grossly impact the American economy in a negative direction, which proves to the naysayers that illegals are working.

With that in mind, and seeing how it’s still illegal for Americans to hire illegals, but just fine for illegals to live and oftentimes work in America illegally, maybe to ease the pain of being choked by gatecrashers, Americans should come up with a workable plan.

How about this?

If Americans continue to be forced to shoulder the expense of illegal immigration, then maybe it would help quell America’s anger if the intruders earned their keep.

How about illegals reimburse American taxpayers by polishing nails, washing dishes, and cutting our lawns for free?

 

Cult of Liberalism: Political Jonestown Has Come to America

cult

Originally posted at Clash Daily

Liberals are always the first ones to deride and mock people of faith. To those on the left, all religions are equivalent to a cult. Yet, secular or not, liberals themselves are the most cult-like of all Americans.

For example, modern-day progressives would never admit that Jim Jones of Jonestown fame adhered to the same socialist utopian ideologies as their esteemed leader Barack Obama.

Moving from California to Guyana in the late 1970s with the express purpose of setting up a religious utopia, Peoples Temple leader Jim Jones established a communal agricultural project.

Jones preached about the virtues of establishing and furthering a social gospel. What Jim Jones forgot to mention was that the “Apostolic Socialism” gospel he preached was really communism.

Sounding a lot like Karl Marx, Jones taught that, “Those who remained drugged with the opiate of religion had to be brought to enlightenment — socialism.”

Jones extolled a version of a gospel that sounds a lot like what Americans have been hearing from another social justice promoter named Barack Obama. “If you’re born in capitalist America, racist America, fascist America, then you’re born in sin,” said Jones, “but if you’re born in socialism, you’re not born in sin.”

“Level the playing field,” anyone? How about “sharing the wealth?”

To his credit, Jim Jones never covered up crucifixes when speaking in Christian venues, nor did he accuse his followers of clinging to guns and religion while quoting Scripture out of context every chance he got. Instead, Jim Jones derided Christianity openly. Jim Jones insisted that patriarchal religious institutions and the Bible were tools used to subjugate both women and non-whites. Sound familiar?

Jones built Jonestown and called it the “Peoples Temple Agricultural Project.” Jonestown was promoted as a means to create both a “socialist paradise” and a “sanctuary” from the media scrutiny in San Francisco.

The primary purpose of Jonestown was to establish an altruistic communist society disguised as a religious community. According to Jones, “I believe we’re the purest communists there are.”

Jones openly admitted: “I’m so purely socialistic and some of my family is so purely socialistic, some of the members of this glorious Temple are so purely socialistic, that you’d be glad to work to see that everyone had the same kind of house, the same kind of cars … People are so afraid of socialism. They’re so terrified. They say, ‘What’ll it do to us?’ Why, you poor people.”

At first, Jim Jones attracted people, many of whom were black, to the Peoples Temple through speeches disguised as religious sermons that focused on tolerance, social responsibility, and community.

Preying on the broken, hurting, and homeless, “Alternate Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple,” sponsored by the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, writes: “Jim Jones appeared to be a great person, and he convinced so many people that he was doing great things in the community. He united the races, and combated the racist attitude, which may have lingered within members. He supported the poor and elderly people in the community.”

As Jim Jones’ following grew, his sermons on fairness and acceptance were disproven by his own hypocrisy, evidenced by his increasing demands for cult-like devotion and unquestioning compliance. Members were confined to the compound, overworked, and increasingly indoctrinated.

Jones’ grip on his followers was so strong that, in 1978, after murdering California Congressman Leo Ryan, three members of the media, and one defector of the compound, 900 or so of his followers, including 300 children, joined him in mass suicide, which was the largest deliberate single-event death toll in American history, until September 11th 2001.

Now, in the political realm, the past is repeating itself. Liberal devotees are exhibiting a religious zeal they themselves would normally mock in others.

For five years the left has evangelized poor minorities into believing one man is able to deliver the Nirvana they seek and are told they have been wrongly denied. There is talk of fairness, accusations of racism, an anti-capitalistic sentiment, calls for community commitment, and persecution directed at traditional organized religion. All that’s missing is the South American jungle.

Even more disturbing is that, with an eerie similarity to Jonestown’s cult-like enthusiasm, anti-religion liberals are eagerly lining up to partake of a cyanide-laced socialistic healthcare plan being fed to them by a charismatic leader named Barack Obama. And while Obama is certainly not encouraging mass suicide, in essence, the end result will be larger and more devastating.

An illegal ‘by any other name’

44328_a53bce140d7d13960b174fe3e64ab459_0b294a0f46d0e92aea99db1e7fb3b960

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Liberals love to rename things, and as the immigration debate intensifies the left is assisting Barack Obama in his battle to grant amnesty to illegals by portraying the word “illegal” as offensive. If all goes according to plan, if and when the word “illegal” accompanies the word “immigrant,” the hope is that the expression will get the same reaction as the “N” word.

Up on Capitol Hill, the consistently über-liberal and controversial John Conyers Jr. is the politician putting himself in charge of policing the word “illegal.”  Congressman Conyers is the 84-year-old 48-year Michigan congressman whom the Detroit News aptly coined “part showman, part junkyard dog, part evangelist.”

At the opening hearing of the new Congress, on the topic of immigration, Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House of Representatives and former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, cautioned those in attendance against calling illegal immigrants “illegal immigrants.”

In an attempt to rehabilitate lawlessness by renaming it, and speaking on behalf of the amnesty-minded, John said “I hope no one uses the term illegal immigrants here today. Our citizens are not – the people in this country are not illegal. They are out of status. They are new Americans that are immigrants.”

As a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, John Conyers Jr. is a champion for those he perceives as the underdog. Conyers pushed for reparations for the descendants of slaves, prematurely called for Nixon’s impeachment over the Vietnam War, and censured Bush and Cheney for justifying the Iraqi invasion.

With a mindset that liberal, it would stand to reason that John would concur with immigrant-rights supporters who abhor the words “illegal” and “alien” because of the negative connotations associated with being exactly that – “illegal” and an “alien.”

According to John Conyers, instead of being labeled border-crashing intruders, individuals who unlawfully infiltrate a sovereign nation should be referred to with the usual type of gobbledygook liberals are known for.  The left’s tried-and-true strategy is to come up with words that romanticize wrongdoing in order to legitimize what Americans largely reject.

Renaming things and declaring certain words offensive is a ploy that has been wildly successful for liberals like John Conyers.  Murdering the unborn is called “choice,” stealing from hardworking Americans is “raising revenue,” and shooting a bullet through the heart of the Second Amendment is “school safety.”

If remediating the reputation of illegal immigrants is the goal, the Michigan congressman could ease America into it if he just begins referring to things like kidnapping as “babysitting” and car theft as “automobile reallocation.”

John Conyers is proving to be such a pro at agitating the status quo that during his wife Monica’s 2010 trial and subsequent conviction it must have been very difficult for the congressman to resist asking the judge to refer to bribery and conspiracy as something other than bribery and conspiracy.  Mrs. Conyers, the former president of the Detroit City Council, is now serving a 37-month sentence in federal prison after pleading guilty to – you guessed it – bribery and conspiracy.

Still, liberals like John Conyers have so skillfully managed to warp Americans’ thinking that otherwise perfectly sane people are actually convinced that 150 million guns can be tracked and registered, but the 11 million illegal aliens dwelling among us should be pardoned because they would be impossible to find.

In our public schools, what Conyers calls “new American” or “out of status” children are allowed to occupy seats unimpeded, but an American child playing with a toy gun on a school bus is expelled, or worse yet, thrown into a juvenile detention center.

In the end, as Barack Obama prepares to circumvent the law by granting amnesty to 11 million intruders, John Conyers is right there with him attempting to make what is illegitimate legitimate by calling illegal immigrants something other than what they are.  And not only is Conyers making it more criminal to oppose illegal immigration than it is to be an illegal immigrant, he’s also attempting to intimidate the Judiciary Committee into following suit.

Clearly, with the help of John Conyers, the groundwork is being laid to deal with impudent politicians who insist on using the “i” word, i.e. “illegal immigrant.” The left can then demand a public apology and issue a demand for the wrongdoer to step down, further convincing Americans to avoid voicing opposition to liberals’ nakedly self-serving proposals

A Murder Worth Committing?

marybeth-williams-for-excerpt1Originally posted at Live Action News

Prolific columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams describes herself as a “writer, consultant, and radio commentator with about a thousand years experience, give or take a century.” The sassy Mary Elizabeth, author of the memoir Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream, is also a staff writer at Salon.com. Almost daily, Mary, or MEW for short, churns out an opinion piece or two where she rants on about whatever is current in Hollywood, politics, breaking news, and religion.

Although Williams describes herself as a “practicing Catholic,” she recently wrote a piece with the provocative tag line: “I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice.” The article that followed was entitled “So what if abortion ends life?”

Based on the subject of that article, and judging from her Catholic-school name of Mary Elizabeth, there’s a good chance that although the columnist rejects the Roman Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of life, she still believes that there is merit in going to confession.

On the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Ms. Mary managed to do what pro-choice people have simply refused to do, and that is to admit that abortion is killing. Not only that, but Ms. Williams also had the chutzpah to admit that executing a pre-born child on a whim is a perfectly acceptable option.

In the article, it seems that Williams’s goal was to defuse what she sees as a pro-life ploy. Mary E. maintains that the reason why pro-life advocates try to convince pro-choicers that a baby is alive from the moment of conception is to prove that having an abortion takes a life. MEW thinks pro-lifers believe that once the “life” aspect is acknowledged, that realization has the power to morally sway those who devalue life to rethink the pro-choice position.

Mary suggests that pro-choicers intrinsically know but won’t admit that a fetus is a living being because they believe that if they did, they’d “flub it for the cause.” Therefore, Williams takes it upon herself to exhort pro-choice America to go ahead and admit that a fetus is alive, and then admit that the knowledge that a fetus is living in no way impacts their decision to have an abortion.  Williams contends that by admitting to those beliefs, the word “life” is thereby neutralized and the “anti-choice lobby” disarmed.

Amazingly, it took Catholic-girl honesty to explain to the abortion-happy left that the 40-year-old “fetus is not a life” argument has been “illogically contradictory.” Mary brings up the irrational inconsistency often exhibited in liberal women when their wanting a child is what magically transforms material for a red bio-hazard bag into a precious cuddly baby. Williams also points out, and rightly so, that “[f]etuses aren’t selective[.] … They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.”

In her column, Ms. Williams also chides the death-culture faithful for allowing “archconservatives [to] browbeat” them with the concept of life and use “scare tactics” and “indefensible violation[s]” such as “forced ultrasound[s].” To Mary Elizabeth, it matters not if the ultrasound shows a dimpled baby hiccuping or sucking its thumb. So what if the screen proves that the child is alive, feels pain, and winces? In Williams’s opinion, it’s time for those Americans who believe in “unrestrictive reproductive freedom” to stop hiding behind words like “choice” and “reproductive rights” and buck up and admit that to them, slaughtering 60 million defenseless babies is really no big deal.

Liberal Mary Elizabeth confesses that her philosophy comes from her conviction that “[a]ll life is not equal.” Therefore, a human being growing inside a woman’s womb, based on location alone, is at its mother’s mercy, and well it should be. According to Williams, “[Mom’s] the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”

To further underscore the “a life worth sacrificing” argument, Mary Elizabeth Williams plays the moral equivalency card. According to the Salon.com writer, Americans kill people all the time, or what she clinically calls making “choices about life.”

Williams contends that Americans make “choices about life” concerning “men and women in other countries” when we bomb them; “we make them about prisoners in our penal system” when we execute convicted murderers; and “we make them about patients with terminal illnesses and accident victims” by ending their lives when we accidentally trip over the cord to Granny’s respirator and unplug it from the wall. Therefore, killing a baby shouldn’t be viewed as much different.

Despite her macabre argument, Mary Elizabeth Williams herself is sick with Stage 4 distant metastatic melanoma that has spread over her body by spreading from her scalp to her lungs and bloodstream.

Ironically, the woman advocating for taking the lives of the helpless is desperately trying to save her own life; she is currently at the mercy of an experimental Phase 1 immunotherapy trial at Sloan-Kettering in New York City. If doctors were to consider Mary’s life “a life worth sacrificing,” she’d probably already be dead (we hope she recovers). Yet even now, if she learned she was with child, Mary would still say, “You bet your ass I’d have an abortion. I’d have the World’s Greatest Abortion.”

Abortion or no abortion, the motivating factor for MEW writing the coldly candid abortion-rights advice column might be that as cancer stalks her mid-life years, being a penitent Catholic/“non-extreme Christian” and all, she may have felt moved to come clean and admit that abortion is indeed ending a life. And as shocking as that admission is, kudos to Mary Elizabeth Williams for stepping forward on behalf of pro-choice Americans and confirming that for some, butchering the unborn, partially born, or a baby born alive during a botched abortion is a murder she and they consider well worth committing.

True Liberal Across the Water

Elton John is turning out to be quite a freethinking firebrand.  First, he performs at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding and then defies world opinion by playing a rock concert in an unpopular place like the nation of Israel.

Could it be that Elton John is actually intelligent enough to understand Rush’s tongue-in-cheek sarcastic humor? Moreover, could the rock icon be so observant that, despite the flamboyant eyewear, Elton John is able to discern the true culprit instigating the crisis in the Middle East?

John doesn’t seem to be the type of a man who is easily swayed by liberal opinion, which may be why he has managed to avoid being crowned gay trophy child by the left.

As a homosexual, Elton John seems sensitive to stereotyping and uncalled for bullying.  The rocker’s Israel concert was John standing with the right to self-defense after Israeli soldiers were “mobbed and clubbed” on ships carrying “aid and activists to the Gaza strip.”

Fresh from a recent performance at a likeminded Obama White House ignoramus rock star Elvis Costello “cited Israeli government policies” as the reason for cancelling concerts in the Jewish state.

In a round about way, Elton John criticized performers like the Pixies for politicizing music and taking sides by saying, “We do not cherry-pick our consciences.”

Donning “blue-tinted sunglasses,” Elton reassured the audience of 50,000 enthusiastic fans at Tel Aviv stadium, “those cancellations ‘ain’t gonna stop me from playing here, baby’.”

It is nice to see that although Israel is subject to an ever “growing sense of isolation,” at least one rock star is not defending Palestinian rock throwers.  Playing a huge concert in Tel Aviv was Elton John’s way of refusing to participate in the incessant bombardment of hatred and condemnation presently being hurled toward Israel from every corner of the globe.

Lest we forget, “liberal” is defined as “broadmindedness” in both thought and political stance.  A liberal is someone supposedly “tolerant of opponent’s opinions.” Elton John has been liberal in the attitude he repeatedly demonstrates. Although accused of being a closet conservative, Elton’s treatment of both Rush Limbaugh and Israel proves he “can see very well.”  A guy who many view as a Madman Across the Water, may turn out to be the only true liberal alive today.

Dictatorial Droogs

clockwork_orange_xl_03--film-B

Listening to Barack Obama speak about the nation he leads, one would think Alex DeLarge had been wreaking havoc in the world for the last 200-years, raping the global economy, beating the hell out of the underprivileged and pillaging world peace. Who is Alex you ask?  Why, Alex was the main character in the violent, socio-economic, political horror movie Clockwork Orange.

Every chance Obama gets he “…fulfills his campaign vow to show the nations of the world that a new American leadership stands ready to atone for the transgressions of the old. ” Both here and abroad, Obama apologizes for perceived thuggery as if America were guilty of Alex DeLarge-style global mayhem.

In the movie Clockwork Orange, Alex and his bawdy band of droogs, plunder through a dystopian world with full abandon sans regret, compunction or remorse.  Now, a diffident Obama offers the hand of peace to hateful dictators by acquiescing as if he were the self-effacing parent of Alex DeLarge. Hell, Obama has a vision for utopia and if it wasn’t for the nightmare America has created he might actually be able to transform the planet into a socialist Shangri-La.

Alex and the droogs epitomize ignorance and brutality.  On the global stage liberals represent traditional America as nothing more than a droog, a utopia spoiling, intellectually dumb warmonger, whose lack of knowledge and aggression historically discourages solidarity with the global vision for negotiable world peace.

Five minutes into Clockwork Orange it’s obvious to the viewer that the dichotomous Alex DeLarge is not a “force for good.” Although he loves classical music he dons a mask, bowler hat and white overalls before fusing beating with indiscriminate forced sexual assault. Listening to Obama express worldwide lament for our nation you’d think an imperialistic/capitalist America prowled the globe like the profane Alex, “…whose principal interests are rape, ultra-violence and Beethoven.”

Liberals, led by Obama, believe symbolic goodness is something that can be mandated, legislated and implemented through transformative left wing policy. If America wants “freedom,” in the Obama sense of the word, the only answer is behavioral revision managed by leaders whose inspiration for egalitarianism, harmony and social justice is birthed in repressive control.  And for that, there could be no better adaptive model to emulate then the one found in Clockwork Orange.

Midway through the sardonic film, Alex DeLarge goes to prison for 14-years for murdering an elderly woman.  As a precursor, he is forced to undergo a body cavity search similar to the one America is presently enduring. Like Alex’s prison enforced rules, collectivism focused America, now forbids crossing lines drawn by dogmatic, politically correct policies and the threat exists that liberated people are about to be reduced to faceless, nameless numbers.

Trapped in a facsimile of H.M. Prison Parkmoor, America’s is having its psyche pulverized into submission as if we are deviant, rowdy, and renegade like Alex DeLarge.  However, in our case the goal of serum No 114-propaganda drug is to make America resistant to the concept of freedom, capitalism and Constitutional fidelity.  If our nation can be made to retch when presented with what she once held dear, Obama’s political experimentation will be a smashing success.

In Clockwork Orange, classical conditioning transformed Alex DeLarge from an insurgent into a pacifist.  Similarly, Obama is bent on amending American society through systematic administration of rewards and punishments in hopes of shifting belief systems, patriotic spirit and conduct. Obama’s definitive goal is the destruction of American dystopia in hopes of replacing it with international utopia. Yet, even the prison Chaplain in Clockwork Orange warned deviant Alex, that change isn’t gained that way, “When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man.”

Regardless, a self-righteous President believes he has a better way for America.  Moreover, Obama has commissioned a Clockwork Orange-style, Ludovico Technique be administered on the nation with full knowledge of what a few hours of “shovel ready job” indoctrination can do to unite the workers of the world. Obama’s attendants in American aversion therapy are media pupil lubricators and a cadre of white-jacketed politicians, whose occupation is to monitor a social experiment of associating pain of retribution for actions alien to Obama’s utopian view.  Reprimands, which include discouraging war by leaving the military to die without reinforcements. Small businesses, private industry and corporate America taxed and regulated into capitulation and the demoting of Judeo Christian influence.

Every time Obama steps up to a podium he injects rhetoric with a hypodermic full of shame, lies, and remorse in hopes of distorting reality and fiction in American minds. The President’s despotic modus operandi includes, half-truths and repetitive encoding, coupled with punishment directed at capitalism, condemnation of Constitutional principles, castigating free enterprise and the systematic undermining of national security.

Like Alex, on Election Day a naïve America willingly submitted to being straitjacketed with inescapable limitations beyond imagination. As a result, we are presently experiencing a near death experience.  We are captive to autocratic tendencies and victimized by misinformation. Our eyelids have been clamped open and our head wired with electrodes in a tortured position where the national gaze is fixed on only what those in control dictate politically acceptable.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k6CZYUxc0M[/youtube]

The illicit Alex was robbed of his individually and intrinsic humanity, tamped down into innocuous compliance and, in turn, made a “free man.” It was only then that he could be sent, “…out with confidence into the world again.” Obama, attempting to alter national identity, personality and foundational principles, does so to wrest control of the natural impulse of a free, democratic nation. His hope is to present a subjugated America to the world as a neutered, mind-numbed, docile Alex DeLarge–though independent at heart, “queer as clockwork orange,” bizarre internally, while appearing natural, human, and normal on the surface.

If the President gets his way, government will have the clout to exert power over American distinctiveness and exceptionalism.  In turn, the dream of authoritarian utopia will be established upon a foundation of domineering restraint, indoctrination and political propaganda.  Its time Americans inform our self-aggrandizing leader, Dr. Brodsky-Obama, that the United States is no Alex DeLarge.  Instead, he and the liberal, left wing band of social propagandists he leads are the “queer as clockwork orange” droogs in need of reprogramming…not us.

%d bloggers like this: