Tag Archives: Partial birth abortion

Dianne Feinstein, Friend of Terrorists

6a00d8341c730253ef01910260efff970cOriginally posted at American Thinker

If you close your eyes and listen, you’ll probably hear the sound of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), moral, upstanding person that she is, wringing her hands.  Thanks to Dianne and her insistence that a report exposing the CIA’s overseas handling of 119 terrorists be released, America is getting a good dose of absurd liberal reasoning.

Dianne Feinstein is among those who have the audacity to point the finger of accusation at CIA operatives for splashing water in the face of the confessed architect of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but have no problem with the paper-thin skin of an unborn baby being peeled away from its fragile bones while still in the womb.

Neither is she, nor many of her Executive Amnesty cohorts who are sympathetic to fiends like Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who helped plan the bombing of the USS Cole, killing 17 Americans and injuring 39, worried about the helpless infants and small children being exposed to deadly Third World diseases.

Instead, the woman who said it was “morally correct” to force pro-life taxpayers to fund abortion took to the Senate floor to bemoan CIA operatives causing discomfort to terrorists who view American and Jewish lives much like pro-abortion women view preborn humans: worthless.

Leaving aside Dianne’s personal gripe with the Central Intelligence Agency, isn’t it a tad hypocritical for a person who has no problem burning fetuses with saline, dismembering them with suction apparatus, and using a scalpel to remove the brain of a partially born human being to lecture anyone about the inhumanity of subjecting terrorists to sleep deprivation and loud music?

Suddenly, the woman who voted “No” on banning partial-birth abortion is concerned about the “fundamental principles of right and wrong?” What is Dianne, with her 100%-NARAL-rating, saying?  That if unborn babies were “tummy-slapped” or waterboarded to death she would oppose the “ugly, visceral” procedure called abortion?

Moreover, if exposing rogue government agencies is what Ms. Feinstein is so passionate about, maybe she should encourage her colleagues in the Democratic Party to investigate the political torture visited upon innocent US citizens by the government agency known as the IRS.

Or better yet, how about exploring Obama’s possible connection to supplying Mexican cartels with the guns that killed Border Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata?

In her pious comments pertaining to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” the senator from California lamented the treatment of high-ranking al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah at the hands of an agency that worked tirelessly to shield the American people from another 9/11.

According to the report, Abu Zubaydah was “stripped naked and diapered, physically struck, and put in various painful stress positions for long periods of time” which, by comparison, was probably an experience far less terrifying than choking on jet fuel while being burned alive.

The 6,700 page study on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program revealed that Mr. Zubaydah, as well as other fiendish terrorist types, was “deprived of sleep for days” and forced, the poor dears, to stand in “stress positions… with their hands tied together over their heads, chained to the ceiling.”

As uncomfortable and humiliating as that might be for an extremist used to having the upper hand in most situations, the sleepless-in-Guantanamo/chained-to-the-ceiling routine is probably a discomfort that murdered Americans would have happily endured if given a choice between that and being crushed by millions of pounds of concrete and steel.

Still, Dianne Feinstein is very distressed that interrogators and guards employed “rough takedowns,” where a terrorist was hooded, stripped naked, and “dragged up and down a dirt hallway while being slapped and punched.”

Maybe über-tenderhearted Feinstein should spend a couple of hours with a fetus born alive in a botched abortion when, in the name of the kind of choice she and President Obama support, a helpless newborn is forced to endure the anguish of being denied oxygen, hydration, and warmth.

Quite frankly, instead of the liberal belief that enhanced interrogation is sadistic, Feinstein’s sentiment about “fac[ing] an ugly truth and say[ing] ‘never again’” would serve humanity a whole lot better if she were exposing the sadistic procedure called abortion.

Mrs. Feinstein also seemed to be disgusted by the notion that several detainees were led to believe “they would …leave in a coffin-shaped box.” Maybe someone should remind the senator that most of those who died on 9/11 did not have the luxury of being laid to rest in a coffin.  Instead, of the 2,800 victims, fewer than 300 whole bodies were recovered.  The other 2,500 were blown apart, incinerated, or pulverized.

Attempting to head off the bloodshed that is sure to follow the release of a report former Vice President Dick Cheney said was “full of crap,” as well as making an effort to soften the impending blowback, Feinstein predicted terrorists will “try to use [the report] to justify evil actions or to incite more violence.”

Come what may, I hope that Dianne Feinstein feels better about herself after confessing to the world that the CIA placed mass murderers in confined spaces with scary caterpillars.

Whether the sanctimonious senator feels vindicated or not matters little, because despite getting a reprieve from “rectal rehydration,” radical Islamic terrorists will continue to search for ways to smuggle a dirty bomb into an American city where, when it goes off, hundreds of thousands of people will die excruciating deaths.

In the end, the best America can hope for is that ISIS will be impressed by America’s commitment to treating terrorists humanely.  Then, as a reciprocal gesture toward the Senate Intelligence Committee, the next time Jihadi John beheads an American maybe he’ll ditch the rusty kitchen knife and switch to an ax.

The Bitter Fruit of Caylee’s Death

Originally posted at American Thinker

The entire time Casey Anthony was on trial, the voices in the media pontificating about justice for the victim didn’t seem to notice the hypocrisy of a group that gives its approbation for the slaughter of thousands every day demanding justice for the wrong suffered by two-year-old Caylee Anthony.

Even still, few would argue that the senseless death of a helpless tot isn’t heartrending.  However, the larger heartbreak is that in a nation that has faithfully sown the culture of death; the idea of a mother wanting to be free from responsibility by taking the life of her offspring is not all that far-fetched.

Whether America believes Casey Anthony is guilty or not is not the issue.  The issue is that no one is totally convinced she didn’t.  Most believe Casey dumped the body of her dead child in a swamp and then for 31 days partied and treated herself to a ‘Beautiful Life’ tattoo while her tiny daughter was decomposing inside a plastic bag.

A mother doing such a thing shouldn’t be surprising, because under the auspices of a woman’s right to ‘privacy’ in 1973, with the passage of Roe v. Wade, child murder officially became legal in America.  Over the next three decades, developing fetuses were reduced to less than human and women were convinced that disposing of unwanted offspring is a commendable goal.

Lest we forget, the value of life in America has been reduced to this motto: “Every child a wanted child.” Clearly, Caylee was unwanted by someone and if Casey took her daughter’s life, she’s no different from women who justify a similar decision as being nothing more than an exercise in ‘reproductive rights.’

For almost 40 years, in sterile environments and with the approbation of the United States legal system, millions of little Caylees have lost their lives.  The only difference between 60 million aborted babies and a little girl with brown curls from Orlando, Florida is that for at least a couple of years Caylee got the chance to color, wear a baseball cap, and swim with Grandma in the family pool.

If Casey Anthony actually did kill her daughter, she joined the ranks of 98% of the women who choose to abort their unborn children for the sake of convenience.  If guilty of the crime for which she was acquitted, single party girl Casey did nothing more than take a little longer to make up her mind about how and when to buy personal freedom in exchange for the life of her child.

Twenty-four months after Casey missed the chance to submit her baby to a partial-birth abortion, the young woman may have decided that it wasn’t too late to take the situation into her own hands. For an immature, narcissistic person like Casey Anthony it’s easy to see how the lines may have become blurred. It’s possible that Casey rationalized that when a woman decides to dispose of a child, what’s a couple of months in either direction.  Six months in utero, 2-½ years’ post-partum, either way it doesn’t make much of a difference.

Furthermore, Ms. Anthony may have been personally persuaded that as long as a heart sticker was over the duct tape that suffocated her daughter, she could party hearty with a clear conscience. It could be that Casey agreed with popular opinion that human life is only fully ‘human’ if a person can survive without depending on another. As a pre-verbal toddler, Caylee certainly couldn’t survive without her mother, and ironically, like so many others before and after her, Caylee very well may have perished because of her mother.

Since Roe v. Wade was decided, the march toward infanticide has been ongoing.  It began with a first trimester cutoff for an abortion; within a few years, women and their doctors became the arbiters of whether or not fully developed children should be granted life or tossed into an incinerator.

The next step was inevitable:  partial-birth abortion became an option to get rid of fully developed, viable human beings. The brutal procedure desensitized the public to pro-choice politicians who vote against giving medical assistance and comfort to dying infants, born alive in botched abortions, to avoid “burdening the original decision” to kill a child.

Therefore, in American society the value of life has eroded to the point where women now give birth in restrooms and dispose of newborns in toilets and sewers, or place lifeless infants like garbage into plastic bags and hide them under beds.  Many of these murdering mothers are then acquitted, much like Casey Anthony, which is indicative of a chilling truth that a mother murdering her own child is not nearly as offensive anymore as a child being murdered by a stranger.

Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder, but her freedom doesn’t erase the fact that Caylee is dead. Regardless of who killed Caylee Anthony, her death was caused by a person who lacked respect for human life. If it was her mother, kudos go to pro-choice America, whose indoctrination has been unrelenting in its effort to convince women that mothers come before children; a woman’s life takes precedence over her offspring; and the right to choose is an honorable objective.

In the end, a two-year-old child was murdered and a mother who appeared guilty was ultimately acquitted.  Also acquitted was a pro-death society largely responsible for not taking into consideration that when life is cheapened we’re all potential victims of someone’s justifiable reason for disposing of us. The sad truth is that in America a seed of death has taken root, and the murder of Caylee Anthony is just one of the many fruits produced on that bitter vine.


Thank you to David N. Bass of American Spectator for sourcing this article in his post today.

Michelle Touts Mother’s Milk

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

In conjunction with the IRS, and in the name of “choice,” the First Lady of the United States is presently “throwing the spotlight on nursing as a way to reduce childhood obesity.” Thanks to Michelle Obama and her “Let’s Moo-ve” campaign, the whir of a breast pump can now put tax rebates in the pocket of women who, in lieu of aborting offspring, choose instead to breastfeed.

The Obamas have managed to wriggle their way into America’s pocketbooks, healthcare, and grocery carts, and now, as soon as a newborn is placed in its mother’s arms, while IRS agents are out tracking nursing bras and tubes of lanolin Michelle will be right there dictating the benefits of mother’s milk.

Maybe Michelle can avoid spreading herself too thin by mandating that soon-to-be-government-run hospitals replace overhead delivery room mirrors with public service announcements instructing women on the delivery table to promptly begin nursing.

It’s surprising that Mrs. Obama is suddenly concerned with the well being of newborns. In a 2004 fundraising letter, Michelle warned supporters of the “rise of conservatism in this country, especially as it relates to women.”  At the time, conservatives were trying to ban partial-birth abortion. Michelle’s big fear was that women wouldn’t be able to kill a full-term baby and that the right to privacy would be violated by the “Justice Department’s request for hospitals to turn over the private medical records of dozens of patients.”

The abortion/breastfeeding advocate spouse of a President who wants to put medical records online while simultaneously demanding access to an Internet kill switch was adamant about “the right to choose … privacy rights…pay equity… ending domestic violence, promoting health care around the world, and letting doctors decide treatment options, not federal judges.”

Six years later, with Barack in charge, revisions to that list include the deletion of “letting doctors decide treatment options” and penciled in are the benefits of breast milk.

Just as she became an authority on food choices by denying dessert to her own children, Mrs. Obama has “spoken in public about nursing her youngest daughter, Sasha,” which obviously qualifies her to assume the role of the government’s chief lactation specialist.

One thing’s for sure — Michelle is a self-appointed authority on everything from where to find the best barbeque to executing perfect Indian dance steps, which makes it difficult for her to “tread carefully in what might be a sensitive area for some women — and not use her bully pulpit to directly ask more women to breast feed.”

Instead, Michelle has decided to “nudge” mothers toward choosing government-issued breast pumps. Kristina Schake, Mrs. Obama’s communications chief, said “Breastfeeding is a very personal choice for every woman.” Thus, “we,” as in mammary management teams, “are trying to make it easier” for those who choose to nurse to do so by passing federal legislation that compels businesses to provide accommodations for working women to pump breast milk or nurse at work.

Moreover, Michelle is deeply troubled that “only 3 percent of births occur at U.S. hospitals with a ‘Baby Friendly’ designation.”  To address the inequity, Mrs. Obama is teaming up with other pro-choice organizations like UNICEF to “push more hospitals” who, when not administering government-funded abortions in one room, will oversee certified pro-breastfeeding/”Baby Friendly” zones across the hall.

Michelle Obama apparently believes government intervention is needed to foster maternal/newborn bonding.  Coming from anyone else, parenting advice might be minimally appreciated, but having the wife of a president who opposed the Born Alive Act counseling women on newborn care is a tad hypocritical.  Is infant nourishment suddenly a concern for woman whose husband voted to deny medical care, warmth, and hydration to babies who would otherwise thrive after surviving a failed abortion?

Killing babies in the womb or, if necessary, with their heads sticking halfway out of the womb, is a right Michelle believes should be constitutionally upheld.  If the baby happens to make it out alive, the First Lady converts to Mommy mode and laments the tragedy that “especially in the black community — 40 percent of [the] babies never get breastfed at all, even in the first weeks of life.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “breastfeeding rates are low among African-American mothers compared to other racial and ethnic groups.”

Michelle should consider the fact that Barack’s pro-choice policies prevent millions of black babies from being born, let alone nursed.

In New York City alone, 60% of all African-American never-to-be-nursed babies are systematically aborted. Maybe the Dilettante of Data, while out saving lives by way of breastfeeding, could address the dire statistic that abortion is the leading killer of African-Americans in New York City and that since 1973 “black women’s share of abortions has consistently been at least twice their share of live births.”

Nevertheless, as long as “touch points in a child’s life” do not include any of the time from conception to birth, Mrs. Obama strongly supports informing the public that when it comes to breastfeeding and preventing childhood issues such as obesity, “early intervention is key” – just ask Planned Parenthood.

So as Michelle Obama continues to address the welfare of America’s children, what could be better than a First Lady who is able to balance infanticide and breastfeeding in perfect tandem? By deploying IRS agents to monitor prolactin levels and wet nurses to attend to babies whose mothers have a low milk supply, Michelle Obama will not only be addressing childhood obesity, she’ll be singlehandedly creating jobs.

Consequently, the Obama big-government teat will be jammed even further down the throats of American businesses, who will be forced to accommodate nursing mothers by a federal bureaucracy represented by a First Lady who, when not advocating for partial-birth abortion, spends time teaching the motherly art of latching on.

The Pro-Choice President is a Christian by Choice

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

During the “Gin Up the Democrats Mid-term Election Tour,” itinerant preacher Barack Obama shared the account of his adult conversion to Christianity.

Although Barack believes “America is no longer a Christian nation,” requests that the “IHS” symbol for Jesus’ name be draped when speaking at Catholic Universities, and hosts annual Ramadan dinners, the President also claims his life is fashioned after Jesus Christ.

In the run-up to the election, public opinion polls indicate 18% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Suddenly, a few weeks after making a rare appearance at St. John’s Episcopal on a day when a pro-Palestinian was coincidentally a featured guest speaker, another question about Obama’s Christian faith arises.

During a meeting between Obama and Albuquerque, New Mexico residents, the President “fielded questions on a variety of topics, including education, immigration, energy, and housing policy.” The President extended Jesus-like comfort to a man who burst into tears over health care.  Obama told the distraught gentleman that he “viewed the government’s obligation to caring for veterans as a ‘sacred trust,’” a perfect segue into religious faith discussion.

Responding to a question from the group, the President addressed faith, abortion and chili peppers. According to Obama, his inspiring Christian journey unfolded in the following way:

I’m a Christian by choice. My family…weren’t folks who went to church every week. My mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew but she didn’t raise me in the church, so I came to my Christian faith later in life and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead. Being my brothers and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”

In Barack’s designer-Christian world, the words “Christian” and “choice” are somehow reconciled.  Obama claims, “The precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to [him] in terms of the kind of life that [he] would want to lead – being my brothers and sisters’ keeper.” Yet America’s most ardent pro-choice politician supports, funds, and advocates for the destruction of millions of preborn “brothers and sisters.”

Wasn’t it Jesus, son of an woman unwed when He was conceived, who warned, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me?” (Matthew 25:45)  Scripturally, there isn’t anyone more “least of these” than a defenseless, innocent “fruit of the womb,” whose “fearfully and wonderfully made” existence was “ordained” by God before the foundation of the world.  Yet Obama, Christian by choice, manages to justify not protecting God-intended life.

Obama responded to the abortion question by reiterating a “safe, legal and rare” platform, which includes partial birth abortion and condoning denying medical care to babies born alive after botched abortions, all of which are specific to an Obama-styled Gospel.

While discussing deep faith and Christ’s precepts, and before accepting a gift of garden-grown chili peppers and drinking sweet tea with the folks, Obama should have expounded on Jesus’ command to “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these” (Mark 10:14 and 16).

Or maybe an Obama-tinged exegetical teaching on Jesus’ healing and resurrecting children from the dead.  Or, maybe more pointedly, the President’s view on what Jesus meant when He predicted terrible times, when “Brother will deliver brother over to death, and father his child,” (Mark 13:12).

Jesus never once made an exception for killing children, whether “safe, legal [or] rare,” which is thankfully why true and righteous “government rests upon Jesus’ shoulders,” not Barack Obama’s.


It  is never my intention to offend anyone so I felt it necessary to clarify the words, “Jesus, Son of an unwed mother.”

Few consider it offensive to call Mary an “unwed” mother because  the ancient world perceived pregnancy before consummation of a marriage a disgrace. Mary was “betrothed” to Joseph, but the marriage was not yet consummated when Jesus’ mother was divinely impregnated with the Son of God. Thus, Mary was, indeed, what modern society would call, or perceive as, an “unwed” mother, at least for a time.

The beauty of Mary’s sacrifice included  willingness to be a vessel of God including   selfless acceptance of  public  scorn and disgrace. If Mary were alive today, Obama and his minions would have put approbation on, financed and even encouraged young Mary dispose of Jesus, which was the sole point of the reference and how it was said.

Joseph struggled with Mary’s pregnancy knowing he was not the child’s father. Yet Joseph “married” Mary because he was a “just” and “righteous” man, called of God to be Mary’s husband and to raise Jesus.

Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, being a just man, and unwilling to put her on public display, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home on account it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. “ Matthew 1:18-21

%d bloggers like this: