Tag Archives: NARAL

Barack Obama’s Daughters Won’t be ‘Punished’ with a Tattoo

MH900064903Liberals are amazingly hypocritical. Take Barack Obama, please…I mean, for example. This is the man who publicly declared that he supports abortion because if one of his 14- and 11-year-old daughters “made a mistake,” he wouldn’t want them “punished with a baby.” Yet, when it comes to getting a tattoo, the president told NBC’s Today show that both he and Michelle really discourage Sasha and Malia from doing so. That’s surprising not because the president disapproves of permanent skin art, but because one would think Obama would like to have his wife and daughters emblazon his historic visage somewhere on their person.

Guess that isn’t the case, because the president and first lady warned the two girls that while abortions are more than acceptable, tattoos are not. Obama threatened Sasha and Malia by telling them that if they ever decide to get a “tattoo then “mommy and me” will get the same tattoo in the same place on their bodies and show it off on YouTube as a “family tattoo”.” Please note: the president did not include Grandma Marion Robinson in that particular ‘”family tattoo” threat.

With or without Grandma being in on the tattoo action, it’s clear that the president is convinced that millions would breathlessly tune into YouTube to catch a gander of the Obama family tattoo. And while it’s improbable that a close-up of Obama’s tattoo would go viral, what’s highly probable is that Barack has not thought this tattoo thing all the way through.

Take for instance a scenario where Sasha and Malia are fans of Rihanna and want a reproduction of her “under boob” tattoo. Although some think their father is a boob, in that particular case, unless there’s something we don’t know, he couldn’t be the fourth party to that particular YouTube posting. Moreover, based on his non-affinity for Jesus – on or off the cross – matching crucifixes, or worse yet, a red, white, and blue GOP elephant tattoo, might cause Obama to renege on the warning.

Jokes about tattoos aside, for those who abhor both abortion and voluntary bodily desecration, if given a choice between destroying human life, putting a ring through an ear lobe, or adorning a shoulder with a Celtic cross, permanent ink and body piercing wins out. The real issue here is not whether Barack Obama approves of his daughters getting tattoos or not, it’s about abortion advocates balking at tattoos and pierced ears on their own children while promoting, funding, and arguing on behalf of abortions on ours.

This type of absurd emphasis on forbidding the relatively innocuous for their children while promoting the life-threatening for ours is not exclusive to Mr. Obama. NARAL 100-percenter Hillary Clinton voted “No” on “prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion,” and then wouldn’t give Chelsea permission to pierce her ears for her 13th birthday. In other words, if somebody else’s 13-year-old daughter wanted an abortion, Hillary supported allowing a doctor to probe a girl with saline, suction, or a scalpel without parental knowledge. But, if someone had dared to put a piercing gun near Chelsea’s ear at age 13 there would have been hill, I mean hell, to pay.

If Barack Obama and his liberal cohorts refuse to let their own daughters get tattooed or pierced, maybe they should keep their right-to-choose paws off of our daughters.

Furthermore, the president should just forget about embarrassing Sasha and Malia with some phantom “family tattoo” YouTube video threat. Instead, if he really wants to mortify Sasha and Malia, he should show them the clip of himself cynically using them as an example in that famous “punished with a baby” statement he made in 2008 in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.

Barack Obama’s Excellent Israeli Adventure

Obama-Israel-holocaust-muse-horizontalOriginally posted at American Thinker

It’s Passover, and although Barack Hussein Obama’s lineage is far removed from that of Abraham, the man should at least put a little of the emergency transfusion blood that they bring along in the president’s motorcade over the lintels of his door.

Mr. Obama’s first trip to Israel as president was similar to his Jakarta jaunt in 2010 and his “Return to Moneygall” tour in 2011.  In Indonesia, the trip was cut short when Java’s Mount Merapi began spewing ash in Air Force One’s direction.  In Ireland, while revisiting his roots, Obama’s limo got hung up on a bump as it left the U.S. embassy.

In Israel, the trouble started when someone filled the engine of the president’s $1.5-million armored limo with gasoline instead of diesel fuel.  Then the vehicle biblically dubbed “The Beast” had to be towed like a busted parade float through the streets of Tel Aviv on a flatbed truck.

It’s unlikely that Obama recognized the parallel, but filling up a diesel-powered car with gasoline is a perfect analogy for what he has done to America.  A clueless Obama insists on filling the nation’s tank with the wrong energy, and now America is broken, in need of repair, and praying to God that an alternate vehicle comes along to save us.

Nonetheless, after “The Beast” was demoted, Barack Obama, who everyone knows is perfect, was overheard apologizing to Bibi Netanyhu for his 600-person back-up team, saying, “It’s embarrassing, our entourage.  My wife, Michelle, teases me mercilessly.”

Instead of blaming the help, Obama should have apologized for the conversation he had with Nicolas Sarkozy at the 2011 G20 summit that was picked up on an open microphone.  It was there that Sarkozy said of Netanyahu, “I cannot bear Netanyahu; he’s a liar,” to which Obama responded, “You’re fed up, but I have to deal with him every day.”  As Air Force One touched down at Ben Gurion Airport, an observant Israelinews commentator concisely summed up the Bibi/Barack relationship: “To tell the truth, they can’t stand one another.

Rising above the rancor and deciding to let bygones be bygones, Obama greeted Netanyahu, saying, “Good to see you…and it’s good to get away from Congress.” The president’s best effort at mending fences was to tell Bibi Netanyahu, who knows full well that Obama despises him, that there’s actually an entity he despises even more.

Immediately following those cordialities, there was a state reception with Israeli President Shimon Peres, whom Obama called “brother,” and Mr. Netanyahu, whom Obama did not call “brother,” after which the president inspected the Iron Dome battery and met with Israeli Defense Forces.

From there Obama flew to Jerusalem for another reception at Peres’s home.  That was where the Teleprompter Thespian put on his best Talmudic storyteller face and quoted from Honi and the Carob Tree.

Barack Obama, who’s so adept at planting seeds of dissension and division here at home, left his mark in Israel by planting symbolic “seeds of progress … security … [and] peace.”  Calling to mind Jesus’s words — “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots” — the Israeli government plans to inspect the Jackson magnolia Obama planted in the Holy Land.  If the sapling fails the inspection, the newest addition to Peres’s presidential garden will be uprooted.

After the tree ceremony, Obama visited Israel’s Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem.  Disregarding the 55 million humans tragically slaughtered since 1973, it was at Yad Vashem that the man who supports another holocaust called abortion emphatically declared that “[a] holocaust will never happen again.”

Donning a yarmulke, Obama relit an “eternal flame next to a stone slab above ashes recovered from extermination camps after World War Two.”  While there, President Pro-Choice said, “We have a choice to acquiesce to evil or make real our solemn vow — never again.”

Obama pointed out that “we could come here 1,000 times, and each time your heart would break.”  If the patron saint of NARAL really wants to comprehend heartbreak, he should check out abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell’s murder trial up in New Black Panther poll-watching territory.

After Yad Vashem, Obama visited Mt. Hertzel and the graves of the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl and slain Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.  From there it was off to Netanyahu’s residence to discuss Iran, Syria, and the fate of Israeli spy/U.S. citizen Jonathan Pollard, currently serving life in a maximum-security prison in Illinois.  Then a press conference and a dinner unlike the dinner Obama didn’t invite Mr. Netanyahu to when he left the Israeli prime minister sitting alone in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.

At Binyamei Ha’uma, the president addressed a group of Arab and Israeli students that understandably excluded those irritated with Obama for inflicting himself on Jerusalem during the wind-up to Passover.  Obama dined with Peres, went sightseeing, and breakfasted with Netanyahu at the lavish King David Hotel, where he and his crew took up 233 rooms, and did it all before scurrying off to spend time with King Abdullah in Jordan.

It’s common knowledge that the president has a history of attracting fliesratslightning, and volcanic ash.  Therefore, it was standard fare when a fierce sandstorm grounded Obama’s helicopter, forcing him to travel instead by car to Palestine-controlled Bethlehem in a slow-moving motorcade, where he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.

Not counting car repairs and travel costs, the excursion totaled $500 million in unblocked aid to the Palestinians, $200 million to the Jordanians, and a tow truck full of meaningless platitudes to Israel.

And so, at the end of Obama’s Israeli vacation, the broken-down Beast and the backup blood were loaded back onto a cargo plane for the flight home.  Barry and his souvenir kippah departed the Holy Land possibly liking Netanyahu a teeny bit more than Congress.  Left behind were angry Israelis and Palestinians, a still-pending Jackson magnolia, a wreath at Yad Vashem, remnants of an Exodus-like sandstorm, and visions of Barack’s big, butch, 18-foot-long armored limo being castrated by a tank of gas.

Obama Defiles Reagan Stagecraft


Originally posted at American Thinker

In 2011 in Time Magazine, while President Obama’s job approval was dropping like a rock, Ronald Reagan’s daughter and faithful Obama supporter Patti Davis wrote an article entitled “Perception and Reality: What Obama Really Needs Right Now.”

Davis addressed Barack Obama’s poor public image and did so by pointing out that Mike Deaver, White House Chief of Staff under President Reagan, helped shape America’spositive impression of her father by crafting patriotic theatre that enhanced the public’s perception of the former president.

Romesh Ratnesar, author of the book Tear Down This Wall, agreed with the premise that Mike Deaver’s “true talent was stagecraft,” and that he was the “most powerful force in the molding of President Reagan’s public image.”

In her “perception and reality” article it was easy for Davis to stir up memories of the “windy promontory called Pointe du Hoc and the soft light over the English Channel as [her] father honored the 40th anniversary of D-Day,” and resurrect images of Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate challenging, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

Two decades later, the current president’s idea of a Brandenburg Gate moment is to have a group of mind-numbed acolytes clap uncontrollably when he announces that he’ll be punishing the rich for being successful.

Despite the potential for a public relations disaster, Barack Obama even golfed during an oil disaster and vacationed with the “family at exactly the same time that Japan was suffering through a nuclear disaster, Libya had been bombed, and there was a threat of a government shutdown.” Also seared into America’s mind’s eye are images of Barack Obama body surfing in Hawaii as the nation teetered dangerously close to the edge of the fiscal cliff. Then, after very public, very heated negotiations concerning the ominous economic future of the country, Obama brazenly spent $7 million just flying back and forth to Hawaii for vacation.

Over the last four years Barack Obama has shown that indeed he is a theatrical phenom, proving Patti Davis’s impression to be far afield. After all, what other president consistently dispatched a message of defiance to his detractors, smiled while giving the middle finger to his critics, and did it all while further enamoring his sycophants? That’s a level of proficiency even Reagan lacked.

The difference between Reagan and Obama is that instead of doing what the Gipper did, which was to impart a measure of his own patriotic optimism to the country, Obama openly exposes his resentment by dragging around the disgruntled and downtrodden as props to help convey a message that divides rather than unifies the nation.

Case in point — recently, White House pool boy/press secretary Jay Carney announced that Obama would be unveiling a “concrete package” sure to give the U.S. Constitution the Jimmy Hoffa treatment.

The $500 million gun violence ‘package’ included 23 executive actions addressing “gun control proposals including assault weapons bans, high capacity ammunition magazine bans, and closing loopholes on background checks.” In other words, the same guy who claims he can’t find millions of illegal aliens has miraculously found a way to track down and register 300 million guns.

In pseudo-Reaganesque mode, the president’s anti-Second Amendment effort was made public while armed Secret Service agents stood in the wings ensuring his personal safety. In place of a huge American flag billowing in the breeze, a stalwart Vice President Joe Biden, overseer of Obama’s commission on gun violence, was also in attendance to provide moron — oops — moral support.

To set the tone, the absolutely shameless Barack Obama misused small “children from around the country” who, after the Newtown shootings, supposedly wrote to him expressing concerns about “gun violence and school safety.” Accompanying the kids were their clueless parents, all of whom most assuredly supported Obama in 2012.

The only thing missing from the anti-gun violence show were a few of the kids openly weeping in the background as Obama stressed the nation’s moral duty to spare the little ones from fear and harm.

Weeping or not, President Obama lost all credibility when he decided to use children as props. Again, despite the melodrama, this man does not care one iota about child safety. Barack Obama believes in partial birth abortion and gladly provides unlimited government funding to terminate as many unborn children as Planned Parenthood can possibly snuff out.

Yet, while unveiling his executive actions the president said, “This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged.” If NARAL darling Barack Obama were to be judged honestly on his child safety record, then living, breathing youngsters would not have graced the White House ceremony.

That is why, when it comes to utilizing the power of acting, clearly, Ronald Reagan’s daughter Patti Davis misjudged Time Magazine’s Person of the Year’s ability to compete with her father. Hence, Obama’s well thought-out attempt to fortify his gun control argument by having young children flock around a man who would have unblinkingly aborted them is just another attempt to woo America into viewing him as something he is not.

Even so, Obama seems unfazed by the paradox he projects. After all, why should he be? Despite his horrendous first term, lethal tendencies, and blatant Constitutional breaches, he managed to manipulate the public into granting him another four years. Therefore, transparent theatrics being used as a substitute for conviction and character is an apropos reward for an electorate who’ve willingly forfeited truth for Obama-orchestrated displays of propaganda.

And so, surrounded by giggling children, as Barack Obama censured Congress and with a pen as his weapon of choice aborted the Second Amendment, the image he successfully conveyed was that nothing and no one can prevent him from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” into a vision Ronald Reagan would have demanded he tear down.

Are the lives of children the ‘price of our freedom?’

NewtownThe other night Barack Obama came to Newtown, Connecticut to attend the Sandy Hook Prayer Vigil.  He was there to offer condolences to the grieving and to honor the memory to the individuals killed in the massacre, whom he described as “twenty beautiful children and six remarkable adults.”

Of the six women who died, Obama conceded that “[t]hey responded as we all hope we might respond in such terrifying circumstances — with courage and with love, giving their lives to protect the children in their care.” Right from the start, women being praised for laying down their lives for a child provided a stark contrast to the Sandra Fluke culture Obama usually promotes, where selfishness trumps the sanctity of life.

Nonetheless, the man who warned against tying politics to tragedy segued smoothly from grief and prayerfulness into using a catastrophe for his own political purposes.

Oblivious to the contradiction posed when a person who believes that a fetus is not a human and that medical care should not be given to infants born alive in botched abortions speaks touchingly of newborn babes, Obama said “With their very first cry, this most precious, vital part of ourselves — our child — is suddenly exposed to the world, to possible mishap or malice.”

The President, who in the past has likened unwanted pregnancy to punishment, then shared that “[e]very parent knows there is nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm.”

After discussing parents protecting their children, Obama entered African proverb “it takes a village to raise a child” territory. The President suggested that parents are shocked when they realize that “loving your children isn’t enough to keep them safe.” According to Obama, “teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community” – and most importantly, “with the help of a nation,” otherwise known as a liberal-ideology-pushing entity called the U.S. government.

The Collectivist-in-Chief then proceeded to shepherd America’s children into the village with the following pronouncement: “And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.”

Then, he said “This is our first task — caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.” Amen to that one Mr. President, because right about now it’s good to know that caring for all our children is what could stem the tide of judgment.

From there, the Planned Parenthood cheerleader with the 100% NARAL voting record asked a question that he should pose to himself:

And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm? Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?

America’s most famous feticide and infanticide crusader, answered himself correctly when he then stated, “[i]f we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no… And we will have to change.”

He then recounted the grim fact that “Since [he’s] been President, this is the fourth time [America] came together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by a mass shooting.” What Obama failed, or chose not to point out, was that since 1966 there have been 16 mass shootings in America, eight of which – 50 percent – took place on his watch.

In response to a 953% increase in the annual mass-shooting rate in the last four years as compared to the previous 42 years, what did the President propose?  More change, of course!

Therefore, in anticipation of the forthcoming arguments that are bound to arise in response to the sort of ‘change’ he plans to implement, the President took preliminary steps to defuse predictable resistance. Obama’s vigil visit lay the groundwork for the “meaningful action” he promised on the night of the shootings, by jumping in front of the debate.

The President argued that “We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true.”  However, in anticipation of enacting new laws, he then said “No single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.” Using that kind reasoning, the truth should not be an “excuse for inaction.”

From the sound of things, it seems America’s most ardent advocate for choice is about to circumvent the opposition to address gun laws, because “what other choice do we have” besides his choice?  During a prayer service, America’s Executive Power addict inappropriately flexed his sovereign muscle when he said that “in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this” he would, once again, use “whatever power this office holds.”

Liberals believe 60 million dead babies and counting is a price worth paying for the right to choose. Now it sounds like the Second Amendment might be the price America is about to pay to ensure the safety of the same children who, were they inside a womb instead of a classroom, Obama would have zero problem aborting.

Signaling that freedom is about to be targeted and after expressing unwillingness to “accept events like this as routine,” Obama then posed an unsettling question: “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?”

Let’s remember – for community organizer types, random carnage is not only a crisis, it’s an opportunity that cries out for a remedy, especially when the death of innocent children provide the motivation to guilt the resistant into submission.  Therefore, the tone and direction of the President’s remarks seemed to suggest that disagreeable Constitutionalists had better get out of the way.

Then, exploiting a grieving community, the President probed further, “Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?” That statement should incite terror in every American who cherishes liberty.

And so Barack Obama offered Sandy Hook his presidential condolences, tearless weeping, and poignant personal anecdotes on parenting. However, after the statement that indicated he plans to place the unpredictable security of a few above the established freedom of many, “the price of our freedom” was truly a chilling choice of words.

America’s Throwaway Children

newtown-victim-400It is heartbreaking to think about the horror that ensued in that small Connecticut town where 28 innocent people were gunned down, eighteen of whom were the most innocent of innocents – wide-eyed, angelic first graders – and one of whom was the shooter’s own mother.

Babies – little munchkins who came to school to learn to count, read and sit cross-legged on the floor during story hour – these were the victims of a terror too unspeakable to comprehend.

Nonetheless, while America takes in and tries to process the sights, sounds and anguish of a tragedy of this magnitude, it’s hard for those who are committed to the sanctity of life to ignore the hypocrisy currently afoot in the aftermath surrounding the ordeal.

Some may argue that it is highly inappropriate and insensitive, while 20 first-graders are being prepared for burial, to tie human suffering to the topic of abortion.  But since liberals “never want to let a serious crisis to go to waste,” why not follow that lead by using this tragedy as a “teachable moment?”

For starters, it’s important to recognize that some do not understand that for most conservatives it’s the babies that drive our politics.  A problem arises whenever little ones are hurt and liberals respond by condemning violence against children. Instantly, the prolife community is criticized for recognizing the absurd paradox and pointing out the left’s hypocrisy.

As pint-sized bodies are shuttled away from the Connecticut crime scene, it’s important to remember that our nation legalized the slaughter of innocents more than 40 years ago.  Then, recently we put our approbation on continuing the carnage by reelecting the most radical advocate for abortion rights in our nation’s history. Five weeks later, in broad daylight, when slaughter and carnage come out of hiding we wonder why?

The brutality of senseless violence is hard to comprehend, especially when a high-powered rifle mows down precious little ones. But daily, Americans ignore the fact that weaponry like scalpels, saline, and suction exterminate far many more children than those who die in classrooms.

In essence, what happened in Newtown merely pulled back the curtain and revealed the spirit behind the everyday viciousness perpetrated against America’s children.  The difference is that normally the bloody massacre is hidden from the public’s eye.

As for those on the left who now weep for the lost, nice try, but not convincing.  Prochoice advocates shedding tears for the loss of the pure and the blameless just doesn’t fly. Neither does hearing partial birth abortion backers pontificate about preserving and protecting life. Doing so is comparable to the world’s most famous butcher, Dario Cecchini, lending his face to a PETA ad.

And while no one can, or should, judge the heart of a man, it is also quite perplexing to see infanticide supporter Barack Obama crying over the demise of small children when, if they were 6½ months in utero versus 6½ years old in a classroom, he’d be defending an individual’s right to terminate their lives.

Furthermore, after earning a 100% voting record score from NARAL, it’s also mindboggling at best to hear President Obama utter the following words about a select group of children: “The majority of those who died today were children — beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.”

The only difference between the dead Obama wept for on national television and those that Planned Parenthood deprives daily of “birthdays, graduations, weddings [and] kids of their own” is that the latter are victims of the kind of violence the President approves of.

Nonetheless, in response to the tragedy Obama is now talking about “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”  What he’s really talking about is taking “meaningful action” to institute more stringent gun control laws that will restrict law-abiding gun owners

Someone should remind Planned Parenthood’s presidential cheerleader that on the same day children were sprayed with bullets in a Connecticut elementary school, 3,500 innocent babies died at the hands of abortionists – and not one gun was involved in those murders.

Moreover, the words “regardless of politics,” are being used to support the gun control argument. Yet, while claiming to omit politics from the ‘violence against children’ issue, Obama is predictably using politics to retain his prochoice political base by conveniently disregarding the fact that in America every 10 days, 35,000 viable infants are victims of feticide.

As America deals with the horror in Connecticut, it’s clear to some that what happened in Newtown, Connecticut is the heartbreaking symptom of a national disease where to some the life of a child is nothing more than a disposable throwaway.

The sad truth is that the small and defenseless die horrific deaths everyday in America – some huddled under a desk and others under cold florescent lights in an abortion clinic.  Either way, the formula is the same: violence and the intent to kill which, regardless of the method, both deliver the same result – dead babies.  In a first grade classroom there are 20; in a clinic across town there could be 220.

What’s stunning is that this truth has not deterred the disingenuous from campaigning for the right to kill the unborn on Monday and then publicly quoting Scripture, weeping, and lighting memorial candles for murdered children on Friday.

And so, as usual, liberals try to have it both ways. Yet, for those who recognize hypocrisy it will be painful to watch as a nation in mourning accepts the feigning of grief from those who, under different circumstances, would heartily support killing the children they now weep for.

No uncredentialed children on the Democratic convention floor

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Liberal women are funny.  Not in a weird way; in a funny ha-ha way.  Why? Because the Democratic National Committee is sponsoring a convention in Charlotte, N.C. and the same females who applaud the Democrat stand on abortion are now up in arms because organizers are banning children from the pro-choice festivities.

The Charlotte Observer reports that “children will not be allowed access on the floor of the Democratic National Convention,” and that “daycare will not be provided for delegates who bring their kids.”

Do liberal women need to be reminded that the Democratic Party isn’t exactly a child-friendly entity? This is a group of people whose greatest success over the last three decades is managing to promote and assist in the destruction in 60 million tiny human beings.

Hearing pro-choice women’s rights activist Gloria Steinem and a handful of abortion-loving NOW chapters accuse the DNC of “discrimination against mothers with young children” is downright confusing.

Gloria Steinem is the woman who coined the term “reproductive freedom.” Now she’s saying that “Women are the key to a Democratic victory, and sometimes, children are the key to women.” In order to maintain her “reproductive freedom” credibility, Ms. Steinem was careful to insert the word “sometimes.”

Nevertheless, the question that needs to be answered at this late date is: Why is Gloria Steinem suggesting that something besides free contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion is the key to wooing women and ensuring a Democrat victory?

Whatever the answer, Gloria believes “It’s both right and smart for the Democratic Convention to behave as if children exist.”  Lest we forget, this is the woman that insisted that the right to abortion is a bigger health issue than breast cancer. Now she’s asking for an arena full of liberals to “behave as if children exist?”

Delegate Susie Shannon, who likely supports the Democrat pro-choice platform, feels the “DNC is putting her in a tough position because she is bringing her 4-year-old along.”

Shannon said “The Democratic Party shouldn’t put you in a position where you have to choose between your child and participating in a political convention.”  Why not?  Hasn’t the Democratic Party, above all, earned the right to exercise choice?  Think of it this way, the Democrats are aborting children from the convention.

Furthermore, it could be that the DNC, in conjunction with Planned Parenthood, may think that refusing to supply childcare and making delegates “choose between [a] child and participating in a political convention,” might contribute to an uptick in business for the abortion provider prior to September 2016.

A Democrat Convention spokeswoman reminded perturbed delegates that there is a “list of private child care providers on an official vendor directory,” and that “facilities are being provided for nursing mothers.” For those upset about the “anti-mom” amenities, apparently nursing mothers’ accommodations aren’t woman-friendly enough.

Reminiscent of back-alley abortion rhetoric, Zoe Nicholson, president of the Pacific Shore NOW chapter, called for the DNC to end the “outdated practice” of not providing for unaborted youngsters.  That’s a stretch – demanding of a political party whose policy is to dispose of inconvenient babies that they accommodate uninvited children.

Zoe accused Democrats of discrimination, saying, “We believe this practice of discrimination needs to end in 2012.  This is the year for the Democratic leadership to demonstrate comprehensive support of women, ending this outdated practice and to state publicly that it supports true family values.”

Sorry Zoe, but asking the Democratic Party to support family values is like asking a vegan to dig into a juicy steak.

Maybe Steinem and NOW should consider the possibility that having little kiddies merrily running around or tiny cherubs wailing for a bottle, all burping, smiling and waving to convention goers, might make some of the women uneasy.

Let’s face it, listening to NARAL president Nancy Keenan militantly extol the virtues of abortion on demand while infants nap curled up in their mother’s arms would introduce an awkward dynamic into an otherwise festive atmosphere.

It’s bad enough that when Roe v. Wade is celebrated, it may be hard to distract delegates 38-years-old or younger that those born after 1973 stood a chance of missing out on an opportunity in 2012 to nominate a man who would have heartily supported a mother’s decision to abort them.

With that in mind, in lieu of welcoming in the children, a more appropriate idea might be to accommodate the needs of female convention goers by parking a pink Planned Parenthood mobile clinic on the curb outside the Time Warner Cable Arena.


Proud to share blog space with the wonderful Ethel Fenig

Corndogs and a Disgraced Weiner

Originally posted at BIG Government

Finally, Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) did the honorable thing: he folded up his towel and handed in his pass to the House Members Gym in the basement of the Rayburn House Office Building. Weiner must have “heed[ed] calls from President Barack Obama,” who said that if he found himself in a similar position, “he’d resign.”

Besides the president, calls for Weiner to capitulate came from both sides of the aisle: House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) as well as a woman who, under different circumstances, would normally celebrate such a colorful display of sexual expression, San Francisco liberal House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). This time, however, both John and Nancy agreed it would be in the country’s best interest if Weiner headed back to Queens and remained there permanently.

Anthony Weiner’s long overdue submission to pressure ended nearly “three weeks of tumultuous political controversy,” which included “sexting,” lying, and lewd pictures.  Besides “a photo of a man’s crotch posted publicly on his Twitter account…and a tear-filled press conference,” also trickling out into the public were racy photos “including one of his naked genitals and others of him posing in the House gym.”

In addition, the nation was also subjected to an ongoing parade of women stepping forward and accusing Weiner of inappropriately communicating with them via the Internet.   Thus far the bevy of beauties included a black jack dealer, an aspiring nurse, a 21-year-old student, and a cheerleading coach, as well as a Pink Pony pole dancer/porn actress named Ginger Lee, who just so happens to be the very truthful client of feminist lawyer/opportunist Gloria Allred.

Before making any final decisions about leaving Congress, “Weiner had said he would wait until his wife Huma Abedin returned” from navigating the African continent for a week with boss and graduate of the School for Political Wives of Philandering Husbands, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Seems after his wife’s return the congressman made up his mind to resign pretty quickly, which means Obama, Boehner, and Pelosi had nothing to do with the decision and Weiner throwing in the gym towel had everything to do with his bride of one year, Huma, who was nowhere to be found during the congressman’s circus-like resignation press conference.

In spite of his belief that his New York constituents would forgive salacious indiscretions in return for a representative with a 100% NARAL rating, it appears that the mother of Weiner’s unborn child did not agree with cocky Anthony stubbornly subjecting her, Weiner Jr., or the Democrat party to additional humiliation.

Either way, it didn’t matter because supposedly even before Weiner’s decision to step down was made official, House Democrats were “set to strip [no pun intended] Weiner of his committee assignments.” Before publicly thanking his lawyer father and New York City public school teacher mother (which explains a lot) for having “instilled in [him] the values that have carried [him] this far,” Weiner called and informed Democratic Congressional Committee chairperson Steve Israel, “who had also called for his resignation,” to inform him he planned to cede his congressional seat.

Ironically, when Israel got the call from Weiner both he and Pelosi were enjoying ‘corn dogs’ and ‘chicken in a basket’ at the annual White House South Lawn picnic.

Prior to Weiner’s resignation, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told reporters he was unaware of the congressman’s plans to quit, which was hard to believe because apparently John threw caution to the wind and in between handfuls of kettle corn actually smoked what could be viewed as a celebratory cigarette in plain sight of revelers at the White House annual picnic.

Verbose chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), who also encouraged Weiner’s departure, had no further comment about Weiner’s extracurricular antics and claimed she got all her updates directly from a Blackberry similar to the one used by Weiner to snap pictures of his naked manhood.

It’s hard to fathom, but Missouri Representative Lacy Clay (D-MO), after hearing about Weiner’s decision to resign, lauded the NY congressman as a “die-hard member of our caucus,” but apparently, that’s exactly what he said. Clay also said he hoped Weiner gets “needed help” and referred to the entire situation as “sad.”

Nevertheless, all is not lost! If Weiner’s post-sex-therapy political rehabilitation/national book tour doesn’t work out, the legislator can always go back to pursuing his lifelong dream of becoming a weatherman.

And so another Democrat “weapon of war…perishes,” turns in his government-issued perks and the keys to his Congressional office. As a shamed Weiner heads back to Forest Hills in Queens to try to repair what little is left of his marriage, reputation and life, a poignant line of Scripture comes to mind from the Old Testament book of 2nd Samuel, Chapter 1 verse 27: “Oh how the mighty have fallen!”

Gabby proves there’s still hope for America

Gabrielle Giffords from Arizona’s 8th congressional district is “a book lover…motorcycle rider; pro-choice and pro-gun…former registered Republican-turned-Blue Dog Democrat.” Tragically, on January 8, 2011 Ms. Giffords was viciously cut down by a bullet that pierced the left side of her head.  The congresswoman was shot by a madman named Jared Loughner at a meet-and-greet in what turned out to be a not-so-safe Safeway parking lot in Tucson, Arizona. Gabrielle was one of 19 people shot that day; she was one of 13 who miraculously survived.

Although Gabrielle is a moderate Democrat, her 100% NARAL rating has been a huge disappointment to many on the right who otherwise admire her politics. Yet, Gabby being pro-choice has not prevented even her most ardent political adversaries from wishing her well and praying God grant her a full recovery.

Until the photos of Gabby were released, it was impossible to really know the full extent and toll those devastating wounds took on the slender smiling woman with the welcoming way. The photos tell only part of the story.

Gabby’s long blonde hair is no longer there; what remains is a short, dark, uneven pixie cut and although the media, trying to be kind, are saying there are “…but few other telling signs of the gunshot wound to the head,” their assessment isn’t entirely truthful.

Gabby’s spirit certainly shines through.  However, her warm smile and direct gaze into the camera don’t distract from the lifesaving tracheotomy scar clearly visible in the center of her throat.  Also impossible to ignore is the side of Gabby’s head which, without a word, tells the tragic tale of grave and unnecessary harm.

It’s been just a month since “doctors repaired Giffords’ skull, finally freeing her from a cumbersome protective helmet that her staff members say she hated.”  Congresswoman Giffords went from wearing a stunning houndstooth jacket on Capitol Hill to wearing a protective helmet while receiving rehabilitation at TIRR Memorial Hermann hospital in Houston.

Although Gabby Giffords appears to be healing and her recovery has supposedly “impressed doctors,” the hard truth is that an insane stalker’s bullet cruelly cut down an innocent person in the prime of her life and it remains to be seen whether the future will see her vitality and potential restored.

Sadly, the once articulate Giffords now has “difficulty stringing together sentences.” In order to communicate and express herself, Gabby is forced to rely “heavily on gestures and facial expressions.”

Giffords’ doctors do say that “With Gabby, what we’ve been able to infer and what we believe is that her comprehension is very good…close to normal, if not normal.” Regardless of the hopeful prognosis, so far thanks to Jared Loughner the gentlewoman from Arizona will not be beckoned to the House floor anytime soon to read the First Amendment.

All the same, what the two Giffords photos purport to show is “how far [Gabrielle] has come since she was wounded in the left side of her forehead.”  Her spokeswoman, Pia Carusone, warned that regardless of how she appears in the pictures, “Ms. Giffords still has a long way to go,” and shared the shockingly sad reality that lovely Gabrielle “remains [but] a shadow of her former self.”

The pictures of Gabby Giffords are bittersweet, arousing both optimism and a sense of melancholy in light of the unjust nature and almost guaranteed permanency of her situation. Looking at her face, images of yet another tragedy are unexpectedly stirred and rise to the surface.

America too, like the Arizona congresswoman, has been critically wounded.  Not by a bullet meted out by a lunatic, but by a President and a political party that have inflicted chaos and ruin upon an entire nation. Thanks to an inexperienced, socialist-leaning, liberal politician who was convinced he knew a better way, in what seems like mere seconds a nation that believed his empty rhetoric has subsequently been reduced to a mere “shadow of [our] former self.”

For Giffords, hope prevails. Gabby’s “release from the hospital [will] mark an important step in her recovery.” For America, the year 2012 holds the potential to deliver national healing. After the next presidential election, America too will require months or even years of post-Obama economic, social and political rehabilitation to recover from a close call with death and destruction.

Nevertheless, despite the shameful politicization of her shooting, witnessing the extraordinary occur in Gabby Giffords’ life should impart renewed hope to a land and a people struggling to surmount a near-lethal political experience.

The injured congresswoman offers America an opportunity to seize upon the spirit of a survivor and to remember that although our nation is critically wounded, we will likewise be restored to the freedom and prosperity enjoyed prior to the ill-fated election of Barack Obama.

%d bloggers like this: