Tag Archives: Planned Parenthood

Bullets over Bubbles

Originally posted at American Thinker

The media is buzzing because for the first time in modern history a journalist actually demanded an answer from a liberal to a logical question.  Following the Navy SEAL hit on Osama bin Laden, Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, interviewed Tom Donilon, President Obama’s National Security Adviser, and broached the obvious inconsistency in the administration’s argument that water boarding is “over the line,” but “shooting an unarmed man in the face [is] legal and proper.”

Although Wallace’s audacious interview skills are commendable, it’s obvious that Mike Wallace’s son requires 60 minutes’ worth of a refresher course in basic liberal logic – which, by the way, is an oxymoron.

Nevertheless, Chris asked Mr. Donilon a valid question which could be paraphrased in the following way: “Why is putting a couple of bullets into the head of an unarmed man acceptable, but pouring water over an enemy combatant’s face ‘over the line?’”

The underlying principle on the left is that putting a wet cloth over someone’s face is cruel and unusual treatment but holding a head underwater until the bubbles stop is permissible, encouraged and, if successful, even applauded.

Tom, who at first glance seems like a sane man, spoke on behalf of the Obama White House, which is on par with speaking for every liberal on the planet, and said, “Because, well, our judgment is that [water boarding] is not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary in terms of getting the kind of intelligence that we need.”

According to Tom, obtaining intelligence through unacceptable means like facial holding, muscle fatigue, and being confined with a caterpillar in a small space is less tolerable than blowing a hole through the face of a person who nonetheless deserved it.  Life-saving intelligence-gathering deemed illegal and achieved through the cruel and inhuman practice of feigned drowning is, according to liberals, better left not attempted, even if the potential interrogation “victim” is planning to murder a few thousand Americans.

To normal people, i.e., those who think clearly, Donilon’s explanation is a bit peculiar, but to anyone who understands the skewed and illogical manner in which liberals think, the National Security Adviser’s response makes perfect sense.

For liberals, killing is an acceptable route, but discomfort on any level is never “consistent” with liberal values. If the prevention of uneasiness ends in death, then so be it.

Case in point: Abortion.  Think about it – for some women, carrying a child to term can be as uncomfortable as water boarding.  Just ask Planned Parenthood. Unplanned pregnancy is scary and problematic, not unlike enhanced interrogation.  However, if “gutsy” liberals are in charge, terminating a pregnancy is, more times than not, the preferred solution.

Donilon confirmed that liberal judgment dictates that the finality of violent death is consistent with liberal values, while inconvenience, irritation, and minimal emotional pain are objectionable to liberal sensibilities.  A suspected terrorist gasping for air for a few seconds is unconscionable, but a fetus bleeding out from a purposely inflicted mortal head wound is perfectly acceptable.

One thing is for sure: It’s a good thing Osama bin Laden met Allah instantly, because had he survived a botched attempt to jettison him into eternity the al-Qaeda leader would find out that giving medical attention to those who survive a murder attempt is also inconsistent with liberal values.  Obama would likely agree that to lend a hand to a dying terrorist would have “burdened the original decision” to deliver up a dead bin Laden.

In reality, Chris Wallace’s probing question was a scratch-your-head inquiry and an honest attempt to understand an illogical way of thinking. The Fox News Sunday host acknowledged that most would agree that shooting Osama dead was justifiable.  However, Wallace, as well as most right-thinking people, just couldn’t grasp the dichotomy between the unbridled elation associated with blowing a hole through the skull of a vicious murderer and the endless moral indignation expressed over holding the head of an equally monstrous beast under water for 35 seconds.

Wallace pressed on: “What I am second-guessing is, if that’s OK, why can’t you do water boarding?” In other words – what’s the rationale behind evading distress in favor of death?

Hey Chris, the answer is simple.  There is none.

Why wasn’t the relatively benign enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “who was just as bad an operator” as the now-deceased Osama bin Laden, acceptable? It’s because death is always embraced by the left as ethically superior to placing an individual in a painful situation. If the opportunity presents itself, the benefit gained through character-building coercive means will always take a back seat to offing someone. If the revered right-to-choose is presented, the left will almost always side with sacrificing a life over depriving comfort.

If Chris Wallace needs to better understand the rationale behind crazy liberal policies, maybe someone should remind him that the same group who decries water boarding lobbies for, funds, and defends the killing of unborn babies. All the cable news network Sunday morning talk show host needs to do is revisit abortion statistics which show that 98% of all abortions, a procedure liberals heartily endorse, are for the sake of convenience, and done almost exclusively to circumvent the anxiety associated with accepting moral and physical responsibility for one’s own personal actions.

Abortion over adoption – a shot to the skull over enhanced interrogation – for liberals, the loss of abortion rights would be like subjecting America to an ongoing water boarding session.  To liberals, abortion on demand is similar to shooting bin Laden in the head: necessary, better than the alternative, and lauded on the left as “gutsy” and worthy of rationalization.

So when Chris Wallace attempts to make sense out of what seems senseless and asks reasoned, well thought-out questions, the left’s response exposes the foundational liberal principle that when given a choice, killing is preferred over avoidable discomfort and at all times will be vigorously justified by an ideology rooted in irrational absurdity.

Indiana Leans Towards Life

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Pro-lifers are notorious for stirring up trouble.  In an effort to save unborn babies, anti-abortion activists are always looking for new and inventive ways to upset unsuspecting women just trying to exercise a guilt/worry-free Constitutional right to choose.

Take for example the Senate Health Committee in the Hoosier State of Indiana.  Legislators had the audacity to vote 6-2 in favor of a pro-life bill that the state House of Representatives approved by a 72-23 vote in March.  The bill requires abortion practitioners to tell women considering abortion that “the baby” (did they say baby?) is a viable, living being.  Ouch!

Those merciless life-zealots didn’t stop there. The bill also mandates that women seeking to flush a fetus from their womb be told that the life of “the baby they could otherwise give birth to begins at conception and that scientific evidence reveals the unborn child will likely experience significant pain during the abortion at or before 20 weeks of pregnancy.”

What a way to throw a wrench into a casual outing to the local Planned Parenthood clinic.

What gives Indiana legislators the right to bring up “life,” “scientific evidence,” and “significant pain?”  Aren’t pro-life buzzwords better left unsaid? Especially when women seeking abortions would rather concentrate on things like: “nonviable blobs of tissue,” sipping juice out of “Super Uterus” mugs, and receiving “There’s no life without freedom and no freedom without choice” complimentary T-shirts.

The bill bans abortion after 20 weeks, “compared with the current state law allowing abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy,” when babies can feel pain, smile, hiccup, and suck perfectly formed thumbs.

So that the trip to the abortion mill won’t be a total downer, “lawmakers removed … a requirement that abortion practitioners tell women about the risk of breast cancer.” Besides dead babies, induced abortion “has been proven to be linked” to breast cancer.  Therefore, destruction of preborn infants brings with it the potential for cancer to rear its ugly head down the road, grimly reminding Mom of an innocent life extinguished before its time.

On the upside, besides the mention of malignancy being eliminated from the bill, the Senate Health Committee “also removed language that would have allowed Indiana to opt out of paying for abortions under the Obamacare health care law.” This means that when health care reform is enacted, Indiana cannot opt out of paying for and causing the excruciating death of defenseless babies.  Thankfully, abortion and end-of-life counseling will still be available in Indiana for women determined to expose themselves to abortion-induced breast cancer.

The legislation also requires that abortionists retain “admitting privileges at nearby hospitals,” because besides tumors, abortions frequently “pose medical problems for women and sometimes result in life-threatening injuries that would require them to be transported immediately to a legitimate medical center that can properly treat them.”

Indiana’s pro-life community sure has a lot of nerve. First, they insist on upsetting women by telling them that the child they are about to exterminate would live if not subjected to saline, suction or scalpel. After that, if a woman’s conscience is so immune that she goes through with the procedure anyway, and if she isn’t rushed to a nearby hospital hemorrhaging and on life support, heartless pro-life radicals insist that poor women pay for cancer-causing executions of the unborn with money better spent elsewhere.

All-in-all, Indiana’s unrelenting pro-life activists, together with meddling legislators, have been successful in forcing carefree abortion-bound Hoosiers to acknowledge that when it comes to expense, anguish, and untimely death, unborn children are certainly not the only victims of abortion.

 

Pelosi Proves Palin’s Point

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

When the health care debate was raging, one of arguments from the opposition was that an eventual shortage of government monies would result in lost lives.  Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was mocked and disparaged as a fool for warning Americans that Obamacare would usher in “death panels” where, due to budgetary restrictions, the aged and chronically ill would be denied care.

Even President Barack Obama joined smarmy liberal comedians like Bill Maher to publicly scoff at the idea of “death panels.” The left condemned what they called outlandish scare tactics employed by conservatives attempting to stop a policy that would provide coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans, but in effect would put the government in control of life and death issues.

Fast-forward to 2011 and the very people who condemned Sarah Palin and the Republicans for being over-the-top on the anxiety chart became the harbingers of imminent death panels, only this time the fatalities would be driven by budget cuts.

Take for example Nancy Pelosi saying that the budget bill would starve six million seniors to death and that impoverished children would be jettisoned out of the Head Start program. Worse than that, Nancy said that Republicans, led by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), were declaring an all-out “war on women.”

When speaking to CNN, Washington’s newest Death Panel Diva left no stone unturned, especially when it came to describing the detrimental effect of Republican policies on the fairer sex:

If you are talking about jobs, their pay in the work place, health care, making — no longer is being a woman a pre-existing medical condition. They want to change all of that. So in every aspect – whether it is employment, whether it is education, whether it is health care, whether it is retirement, whether it is collective bargaining which affects women as well women have a lot to lose with the ideological old style agenda of the Republicans.

According to Nancy, even modest spending cuts would result in a nation of unemployed, underpaid, uneducated, penniless, sick females unable to retire.  Pelosi predicted American women would be destined to roam the streets like zombies, riddled with cancer and missing womanly parts of their anatomy, all victims of “the ideological old style agenda of the Republicans.”

This is the woman who “called out former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) for having made the ‘lie of the year’ for claiming the healthcare bill would set up ‘death panels.’”

According to the former Speaker of the House, cutting $38 billion, give or take a billion – which is about what it takes to run the US government for four days at $10.46 billion per day – American women would fast become the bane of planet Earth. Yet, ask a Democrat whether it will cost lives if a nation with a $14.3 trillion deficit ever had trouble coming up with $1.2 trillion for health care reform, and the answer is always a resounding “No!”

Nevertheless, when it comes to Democrat budgetary doom and gloom, Pelosi is not alone.  In response to Republicans demanding funding be cut to abortion provider Planned Parenthood, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took a huge leap from those on the right not wanting to pay for dilation and curettage to accusing Republicans of wanting women to die of cancer.

On the Senate floor Reid said: “Republicans want to shut down the government because they think there’s nothing more important than keeping women from getting cancer screenings. This is indefensible and everyone should be outraged.”

Isn’t this is the same group who mocked Palin for suggesting that government run health care would end in death panels?

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi attempted to win a budget battle by implying that Planned Parenthood being denied $349.6 million dollars a year in funding could ultimately impact the well-being of 91.4 million adult women, which is quite a stretch. Such an absurd claim greatly differs from Sarah Palin coming to the logical conclusion that a shortage of health care money could equal denial of care. Reid, on the other hand, is alleging secret motives of an entire political party amounting to purposeful murder.

Lest we forget, this whole the death panel discussion was resurrected because the government’s inefficiency has placed America in an economic quandary. And this is the same government that swears there will always be ample funds to ensure that even an 85 year-old grandparent will never be denied care and sent home to die.

During the Obamacare debate, Sarah Palin was merely pointing out that a virtually bankrupt government could never cover the high cost of caring for an aging population. It took Harry and Nancy carping about denial of funds to Planned Parenthood to confirm that Sarah was right.

In an attempt to smear Republicans, Harry and Nancy probably didn’t realize it, but they proved Sarah Palin’s original point that health care reform policy poses a threat.  If the left’s argument is correct that modest budget cuts have the potential to starve old people to death and threaten lives, what will happen when the entire nation is at the mercy of a government that finds it impossible to maintain the solvency needed to keep 300 million people alive?

Pelosi’s Planned Parenthood War

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

For peaceniks, Democrats sure have no trouble throwing the word “war” around. Jesse Jackson compared the budget impasse to the civil war and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi believes her colleagues across the aisle have declared “war on women.”

House Speaker John Boehner promised religious leaders he would “win the war not just win a battle” over Planned Parenthood and abortion. After all, someone has to have the temerity to step forward, pull the plug on the death camps and discontinue funding organizations that pretend to care for women in one room while killing offspring in another.

Scripture quoter and crusader for the aged and reproductive rights, Nancy Pelosi sees the Republicans’ fight to defund Planned Parenthood as a “war,” and to defend abortion she seems more than willing to lace up her combat boots.

At the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Women, Money and Power Summit, Nancy Pelosi clarified the dispute: “Abortion is one issue, but contraception and family planning and birth control are opposed by this crowd too. We have a big fight on our hands, in terms of respect for women, and … what is right for our country in terms of our family decisions, in terms of Medicaid and Medicare. We have to create a drumbeat across America.”

Kindly old Grandmother Nancy Pelosi believes “respect for women…and…what is right for our country” is why Americans should be forced to bankroll an organization that destroys the lives of future Americans.  Majorette Nancy proposes the creation of “a drumbeat across America” on behalf of fetal genocide.  Well if ever there was a quintessentially American cause, Grandma, apple pie and funding Planned Parenthood is certainly it!

According to Nancy, the supposed war on postnatal women began earlier this year when Mike Pence (R-IN) audaciously proposed a bill in the House to cut off 40 years of funding to Planned Parenthood.  The Congress made it clear that Republicans were done coercing moral people to pay for ethically repugnant abortion procedures that cost taxpayers $363 million a year and in 2009 ended the lives of 332,278 Americans.

Thus far John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said that in the budget fight his caucus has not backed “down from [their] efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.” However, Boehner admitted abortion is “a major sticking point in budget negotiations between the House GOP” and a pro-choice White House.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Barack continue to use abortion as protective armor to preserve a radical voting base, and do so with the approving applause of a political party more than willing to go to war for the right to fund America’s most celebrated abortion mill.

In the interim, Nancy apparently felt moved to officially anoint herself St. Nancy de Abortion Rights. Pelosi is speaking out and has rallied a brigade of warmongering females ready to follow her into battle. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) declared that refusing to fund Planned Parenthood is “the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians.”

The Republican budget rider that prevents DC from spending money on abortion for poor women was met by an “absolutely outraged” Norton, who also said it’s time DC told the “Congress to go straight to hell.”

Holmes said: “If …Republicans insist that, if they don’t get the whole pie they’ll take the whole country down with them…then we have got to make them pay the price.” Whoa Ellie!

There you have it – on behalf of the abortion “pie,” Nancy and company are more than willing to subject Americans to “paying the price” and the “hell” of a protracted political war, if winning makes certain that Planned Parenthood funding continues.

Government Mandated: Bebé Glotón

Call me cynical, but am I the only person who finds it a tad coincidental that one month after Michelle Obama promised tax breaks for nursing mothers a baby doll hits the market that simulates breastfeeding? Infant doll Bebé Glotón is marketed by toy maker Berjuan, located in Onil, Spain, which happens to be just a hop, skip and a jump from where Michelle vacationed last summer.

If raising a generation of svelte children to spurn junk food and embrace breastfeeding is the goal, Bebé Glotón could be a toy that assists America’s First Lactation Specialist in her quest to get breastfeeding to latch on…I mean catch on.

Looking ahead to what she will do in the second year of “Let’s Move,” Mrs. Obama said: “We also want to focus on the important touch points in a child’s life. And what we’re learning now is that early intervention is key. Breastfeeding. Kids who are breastfed longer have a lower tendency to be obese.

Apparently, the goal of Michelle’s anti-Similac® initiative is to put the “spotlight on nursing as a way to reduce childhood obesity.” Few would argue that Bebé Glotón could be an early childhood indoctrination “touch point” tool.  However, if slim children are the ultimate goal, maybe the English language version should be named something other than Baby Glutton.

One avenue the First Lady chooses in order to address the sensitive issue of breastfeeding is by pushing for “more flexible workplace rules” for nursing women.  The typically private Michelle is so dedicated to the cause she took America on an intimate journey back in time into the warmth of the Obama baby nursery and spoke in “public about nursing her youngest daughter, Sasha” who, by the way, would be a perfect candidate to test-drive her very own Bebé Glotón.

Bebé Glotón comes with a halter-top adorned with pasty daisies that are “play nipples.” When make believe letdown occurs, the daisies “come undone just as easily as the flaps of a nursing bra.” The tiny plastic gourmand actually “makes sucking noises as it feeds.” Bebé Glotón cries when she wants more milk, burps and makes a sound similar to Wisconsin union workers whining while suckling insatiably at the teat of the American taxpayer.

It appears the end plan is to gently coax new mothers to choose lanolin over bottle liners by dangling tax breaks as a reward for purchasing nursing supplies. As well as being a prospective tax write-off, Bebé Glotón also possesses the latent power to impact both race and social issues.

In fact, former nursing mother and keynote speaker Michelle Obama took the black breastfeeding issue to last year’s 40th annual Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Foundation Legislative Conference. The First Lady lectured the health-minded caucus saying: “Because it’s important to prevent obesity early, we’re also working to promote breastfeeding, especially in the black community — where 40 percent of our babies never get breastfed at all, even in the first weeks of life, and we know that babies that are breastfed are less likely to be obese as children.”

Someone should inform pro-choice breastfeeding advocate Michelle, as well as the sycophants at the CBC, that fostering conditions that encourage black women to kill the unborn does nothing to cultivate a nurturing attitude among women confronted with strategically-placed abortion clinics on every corner of minority neighborhoods across America.

Nevertheless, for the small percentage of black children that actually make it out of the womb, toy maker Berjuan is sensitive to diversity and markets a Black Bebé Glotón for little girls of color.  If minority children don’t get the Planned Parenthood doll first, playing with Bebé could help teach breastfeeding, and as an added benefit could save the government money by convincing the innately maternal of the future to forgo taxpayer-funded induced abortions.

Dr. Manny Alvarez, managing health editor of FOXNews.com, said although he supports the idea of breastfeeding, he sees how his own daughter plays with dolls and wonders if Bebé Glotón might speed up maternal urges in the little girls who play it.

Which raises yet another issue – what happens when little Sally wants a doll that simulates how Bebé Glotón got out of Mommy’s tummy?  What will that doll be named – Bertha the Birthing doll?  Worse yet, what if the awkward question arises as to how Bebé Glotón got into Mommy’s tummy? Will that inspire a Connie the Conception doll?

Let’s not forget thede  diversity-sensitive Heather Has Two Mommies child; she would demand an inclusive Leslie the Lesbian doll.  Leslie wouldn’t come with a nipple halter, but at least the baby-making accessories could assist Mommy in serving up a succulent bird on Thanksgiving.

It appears that, even if only in small increments, Michelle is moving forward in her plan to get the government to put baby formula in the same category as junk food. Recently, a “Let’s Move” policy report cited, “one of the problems mothers may have with breastfeeding starts in the hospital where after birth… many babies are unnecessarily given formula and separated from their mothers, making it harder to start and practice breastfeeding.”

So no matter how and when Bebé Glotón gets here, her calling is clear. Little Bebé can work in conjunction with the First Lady’s pro-breastfeeding initiative, giving diminutive grade school girls the means to rehearse breastfeeding years prior to childbearing age so that when the time comes, the nation’s mammary glands are all practiced up.

 

The ‘Good Work’ of Planned Parenthood

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Fresh off professing his faith at the National Prayer Breakfast, Barack Obama is taking a stand for the “good work” Planned Parenthood does.  Despite undercover exposés of Planned Parenthood workers supporting everything from prostitution to underage sex trafficking, the President of the United States believes the clinic on the corner deserves American taxpayer support.

Much to Obama’s dismay, the US House of Representatives recently voted to “completely de-fund Planned Parenthood,” which receives about 1/3 of its $1 billion dollar annual budget from government grants.

With the money of hard-working Americans, including those morally opposed to abortion, at 820 locations across America Planned Parenthood pays the salaries of clinic workers who are so committed to providing confidential health services that they’re willing to overlook pimps exploiting underage girls in the sex trade.  Then, if a pubescent girl should happen to conceive, Planned Parenthood is also willing to maintain secrecy and, if need be, administer an abortion on a 13 year-old child.

In fairness, the “Good Workers” at Planned Parenthood, ever concerned for the well being of all their clientele, do speak on behalf of teenage sex workers by cautioning undercover pimps that to avoid infection after an abortion, little girls should spend time healing before returning to work.

Apparently Republicans with a conscience felt it was time to stop acting irresponsibly and discontinue being a party, through funding, to an organization unconcerned about illegal sex trafficking, statutory rape, prostitution, and abortion.  Barack Obama disagrees.

“Pro-life politicians have often gone after the abortion provider, while pro-choice politicians like President Obama have rushed to [the] defense” of an organization that claims to keep children safe despite failing to report tragic incidents like the rape of an 11-year-old girl.

In a recent NBC12 interview, committed Christian/Planned Parenthood supporter Barack Obama was asked whether the most recent video by the conservative activist group LiveAction, exposing a “clinical supervisor” counseling a pimp on how to provide reproductive health services to 7th graders, “warranted a review of Planned Parenthood’s funding?”

In the interview, when confronted with the damning evidence against Planned Parenthood, the President deflected the impact of the video sting.  In an effort to “move the country forward,” an “unyielding” Obama, America’s most ardent abortion advocate, defended the organization by saying “I think sometimes these issues get manufactured.”

Is Barack Obama willing to risk children’s lives based on what he “thinks?”  Doesn’t “sometimes” mean only sometimes accusations are manufactured?  What about the times they are not?

During the interview, master of redirection, Barack skillfully turned the focus to what he considers the real threat to America:  the blogosphere.  Obama’s response to “allegedly damning” videotape proof of a Planned Parenthood supervisor vowing to cover up a crime was: “They get a lot of attention in the blogosphere.”

Is the threat of the malicious blogosphere that vital a concern?  Because evidently, children infected with STDs, being sold into sex slavery, being raped and impregnated and put under the knife in an abortion mill is not that big of a deal to Barack.

Focused like a laser and determined to not get “distracted with these issues” Barack Obama is encouraging America to concentrate on more pressing topics like saving jobs, including those of Planned Parenthood workers who may, on occasion, employ a rogue worker who offers helpful advice to sex traffickers.

Obama’s defense of Planned Parenthood reveals a mindset that the President of the United States believes the organization should continue to be funded even though, on more than one occasion, clinicians have been caught doing the “good work” of assisting pimps in the exploitation of underage girls.


Hanoi Jane and Jared

Originally posted at American Thinker

Fresh off promoting her Fit and Strong exercise video, without even one iota of evidence, Jane Fonda took to Twitter to blame the tragic shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the cold-blooded murder of six innocent individuals, including a nine-year-old girl, on Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party.

Jane is more focused on condemning uninvolved conservatives than she is on the maniacal murderer who slaughtered half a dozen people in cold blood in a parking lot.  Given the fact that the shooter is an alleged flag-burning mental case, one would think that with her treasonous history, Jane Fonda would applaud Jared Lee Loughner’s America-hating extracurricular activities.

Granted, Jane Fonda has never exhibited an exceptional intellect.  The woman was photographed sitting on an anti-aircraft gun yukking it up with Communist North Vietnamese soldiers with a pot on her head wearing a Vietnamese-made ao-dai pantaloon/wedding dress.  So the idea of Fonda shooting off her mouth without the benefit of verifiable facts, let alone thinking through the hypocrisy of her statements, is not surprising.

Couple Fonda’s inappropriate placing of blame with the liberal media endlessly expressing outrage over the loss of life in Arizona while continuing to shill for abortion rights, and you have another prime example of the politicization of misfortune.

What CNN and Jane Fonda have failed to mention is that, à la Bill Ayers, an obviously disturbed Jared desecrated an American flag on YouTube and cited his favorite reading material as Hitler’s manifesto on the control of government, industry, and health care, Mein Kampf, and Karl Marx’s collectivism handbook,The Communist Manifesto.  Caitlin Parker, Jared’s high school friend, claims that the Tucson shooter leans left.  If that’s true, then the deaths of six are certainly a drop in the bucket when compared to the millions of deaths advocated for since the inception of Roe v. Wade by others who lean left.

Even Jane Fonda now admits that her decision to “encourage” North Vietnamese troops was a “betrayal.”  Suddenly, a woman whose behavior contributed to the deaths of American soldiers is expressing public indignation over the injustice of premature death.  Thus, there is no more qualified a representative than Jane Fonda to stand for liberal absurdity.  Jane epitomizes the hypocrisy of the left, because a left-winger expressing shock over loss of innocent life is like Osama bin Laden voicing opposition to terrorism, or Hanoi Jane herself mourning at a military funeral.

Few would argue that Jared Loughner isn’t disturbed.  However, the reaction is more about hypocrisy and liberal exploitation of tragedy than psychotic injury inflicted by a sick man.  Shamelessly, the day after Blue Dog Democrat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot through the brain, Jane Fonda blamed Sarah Palin, tweeting, “Progressive Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords is shot. In her ads, Sarah Palin had her targeted in a gun site [sic]. Inciting to violence.”

Fonda, devoid of proof, blamed Palin, Beck, and the Tea Party for a crime that is just another in a long list of examples of what befalls a culture that devalues life.  Discussing the anti-Vietnam War “Winter Soldier” hearings, staged with John Kerry in 1971, Jane might as well have been describing Loughner when apologizing for the American military, saying, “When you put young people into an atrocity-producing situation where enemy and civilian are commingled, where the ‘other side’ is dehumanized, we cannot be surprised.”

Rather than condemnation, pro-choice Fonda, who has personally contributed to the dehumanization of life, should extend thoughtful consideration as to how “commingling enemies and civilians” at a Tucson Safeway political rally could easily result in the loss of life when a deranged madman is added to the mix.  Instead, culpable parties like Jane Fonda look for someone else to blame and tweet hypocritical blather to suppress their own consciences with statements like “@glenbeck guilty too. Shame. It must stop!”

The aged activist ended the flurry of condemning tweets by saying, “@SarahPalin USA holds responsibility. As does the violence-provoking rhetoric of the Tea Party.”

Actress Jane Fonda has dedicated a large portion of her adult life to defining a human being as someone who has the choice to kill another human being, and now she has the nerve to blame pro-life Tea Party activists Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck for violence in Arizona?  It is not surprising that Fonda continues to do what liberals do — stir dissension in the name of peace while refusing to acknowledge her own contribution to the societal sickness that threatens all our lives, from abortion clinics to impending death panels.

Apparently, Fonda is so busy blaming conservatives she forgets that celebrity has the power to prod toward bloodshed.  In fact, in 2008, as prestigious keynote speaker Fonda visited the state of Arizona to address a Planned Parenthood Annual Founder’s Celebration.  While there, anti-violence peacenik Fonda spoke on behalf of an organization responsible for the unfettered massacre of thousands of unborn children.

Sorry, Jane — your indignation over the deaths of six people, although noble, seems a tad insincere, especially given your speech in Arizona two years ago, where you proudly supported the Arizona/2008 extermination of 10,296 nameless, faceless human beings.

There is no denying that the heartbreak in Tucson calls for a sobering acknowledgment that America’s culture of death has saturated our society and, even in the most innocuous of situations, threatens all our lives.  Even so, the last people who possess the credibility to lecture or blame anyone for cruelty or carnage are liberals, like Jane Fonda, who denounce the appalling death and injury of a small group of victims murdered by a madman after spending the last 38 years heartily applauding the slaughter of 1.3 million helpless babies a year.

%d bloggers like this: