Tag Archives: sanctity of life

Is Tashfeen Malik Any Different Than a Pro-Choice Woman?

Originally posted at American Thinker

ht_malik_farook_airport_BUGGED_BG_lf_151206_4x3_992156901047.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-largeRecently, Barack Obama mocked Republicans when he said that those opposing his refugee resettlement plans are “scared of widows and orphans.” The president’s comment was in response to GOP presidential hopefuls who, out of fear of ISIS infiltration, expressed concern in the last debate about Obama’s reckless plans to transport busloads of Syrian refugees into America.

The implication of the president’s  ‘widows and orphans’ comment was that the female gender is less likely to exploit the refugee crisis on behalf of ISIS.

Then, just when deranged hermit Robert Lewis Dear had effectively diverted America’s attention from the women of Planned Parenthood who were dismembering and marketing baby body parts, along comes female Pakistani soldier of the Caliphate, Tashfeen Malik.

Described by family lawyers as a “90-pound… soft-spoken… caring… housewife,” one would expect Tashfeen, whose name means ‘sympathetic’ in Arabic, to exude “sugar and spice and everything nice.” Sadly, she was anything but nice. Although a member of the “fairer sex,” Tashfeen built IEDs in her garage.

Together with her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, the radicalized mommy had amassed things like Sippy Cups, diapers, and 5,000 rounds of ammunition inside her home. Furthermore, leaving aside more traditional hobbies for women such as macramé and quilting, judging from the stockpile of weapons, it appears as if Tashfeen expended most of her spare time training to inflict “unspeakable carnage” on infidels.

And here, all along, most people thought women fainted at the sight of blood.

After pledging her allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook and erasing her family’s digital footprint, the jihadi bride dropped off her 6-month-old baby girl with her mother-in-law, and then hurried off to help her husband murder his coworkers.

For the sin of standing around a buffet table eating Christmas cookies at a center for people with developmental disabilities, the radicalized extremists killed fourteen people, and wounded twenty-one more. Soon after the attack, the duo led the police on a high-speed chase with Malik behind the wheel that ended with the couple dying in a hail of bullets.

In a December 5, 2015 article in the Washington Times author Kellan Howell points out that according to a report from George Washington University’s Program on Extremism: “Ten of the 71 recruits for the Islamic State arrested in the U.S. since 2014 have been women… [and that]… women in the militant group’s ranks [are] increasing.”

So much for Barack Obama’s ‘don’t be worried about the widows and orphans’ theory.

Even still, despite public disbelief, the most astounding thing about the rabid killer Malik hanging her body armor in the closet next to her party burka is that some people are surprised a woman would do such despicable things.

Female stereotypes like to portray women as loving, gentle, selfless, and peaceful. Yet the truth is, many are hateful, vicious, and self-centered.

Think about it; if the feminine segment of American society were really what some falsely perceive them to be, 60 million additional human beings — 86% of whom were aborted for convenience — might still be alive today.

Sorry to have to be the bearer of bad tidings, but Tashfeen’s behavior is not the exception to the rule. In fact, this jihadi bride’s blatant disregard for human life only confirms the type of wanton terror some women are capable of.

Tasheen travelled to the U.S. on a K1 fiancée visa.  Once here, the young woman’s sole intent was not to marry, settle down, and raise her baby girl, but to build pipe bombs, amass a cache of weapons, and then use them to ambush and kill as many vulnerable people as possible. The Mommy Terrorist’s life’s goal was jihad and false convictions took precedence over raising her child.

Sound familiar? After funding Planned Parenthood to the tune of $500 million per year, Americans should not be surprised that a diminutive woman, driven by a perverted ideology, blew 14 people away.

Now, the obvious question that needs to be answered is whether Tashfeen’s murderous tirade is any different than the evil exhibited every day by 4,000 self-absorbed women who, rather than head toward a Christmas party with an AK-47, seek out an abortion clinic with the sole intent of ambushing a vulnerable child in the womb?

After witnessing the religious zealotry of those who support full access to abortion, and after hearing the “fairer sex” defend carving up and selling baby parts while calling it a “war on women,” Americans should not be surprised that someone like Tashfeen is capable of doing such a brutally horrific thing.

That’s why; rather than be appalled at the jihadi bride, Americans should recognize that women can be more vicious then men.

In this case, the only difference between pro-choice and ISIS womenfolk is that the latter dress up in vastly different attire. In addition, unlike the more reservedright-to-choose crowd, womanly soldiers to the Caliphate take their directives from a revered manual, and prefer executing their victims in a more public setting.

Either way, whether a jihadi bride or not, women who murder their babies are just as devoted to the slaughter of the defenseless as was Tashfeen Malik.

Do ‘Very Different Views’ Threaten the Sanctity of Life?

cecileOriginally posted at The Clash Daily

The current excuse for justifying illegal immigration is that amnesty benefits our nation’s fiscal health. The thinking is that the economic strength gained by legalizing those who’ve defied America’s rules of entry far outweighs any moral or ethical benefits of upholding the rule of law. Supposedly, that’s why the millions of illegals infiltrating the borders of our sovereign nation are being advocated for by the current administration.

What’s disturbing about that mentality is that if the health of the economy dictates the direction of policy decisions, then the elderly and the infirm have potentially joined the ranks of the unborn, whose lives are already at risk.

Unlike young illegals, older and chronically ill Americans do not contribute to fiscal solvency. While the argument is that amnesty will foster economic strength, it seems that not far behind is the argument that the ailing and the aged add to economic weakness.
Here’s the problem: In America, for 40+ years personal opinion, political leaning, and economic convenience have justified 60+ million Americans not making it out of 60+ million wombs alive.

For four decades, the life of every baby conceived has been at the mercy of one person’s choice. Now, with a political party in power that has wrested the reins of control over healthcare decisions from the individual as well as the free market, older, dependent Americans are potentially also on the precipice of being at the mercy of a renegade government’s “choice.”

Think about it – isn’t “Am I still allowed to do this, or am I still allowed to say that” the question that once-free people are asking themselves more and more lately, especially since government has positioned itself to be as integral to sustaining life as an umbilical cord is to the life of a fetus?

That’s why, as the authority of those whose fundamental agenda is toxic to the sanctity of life continues to grow, in the minds of alert, intelligent people the next question that should arise is: “What happens to those who burden the economy?”

Add to that scenario an imperial president who, with the stroke of a pen, is actively whittling away the right to “life,” – underscore “life” – “liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Recently, the danger of putting the economy before a principled ethos, be it in the form of a mother over child, or potentially the government over whole segments of society, took center stage when the daughter of the late Governor Ann Richards of Texas, Cecile Richards – proud President of Planned Parenthood – gave America a free tour of the “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” mindset.

Speaking to Jorge Ramos of the new ABC/Disney/Univision Fusion network, Richards revealed an attitude that should send shivers up the spine of every involuntary recipient of government largesse.

Ramos asked Richards a question reminiscent of the “above my pay grade” human-rights question that Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren asked Barack Obama prior to the 2008 election. Ramos to Richards: “So for you, when does life start? When does a human being become a human being?”

Clad appropriately in blood-red, Richards punted to the centuries-old debate/moral relevancy corner when she basically refused to answer, saying, “This is a question, I think, that will be debated through the centuries, and people come down to very different views on that.”

Alarmingly, in liberal circles “very different views” are the new standards that determine ethical verdicts, which are then either sanctioned or deemed illegal by dictatorial rule.

Ramos pressed on: “Why would it be so controversial for you to say when you think life starts?” Attempting to skirt the issue Cecile said, “I don’t know that it’s controversial. I don’t know that it’s really relevant to the conversation.”

The old and sickly especially should take note of Richards’ unwillingness to answer Ramos’ question, because for organizations that receive government support to snuff out human life, the point of viability is apparently not relevant in discussions about life-and-death.

Remember that America is currently being governed by a president who defines “healthcare” as something that includes the right to terminate life. Worse yet, behind closed doors Obama has consistently elevated his “very different views” above the safeguards of the U.S. Constitution.

Richards went on to say that (just like the liberal view that the illegality of sneaking over the border should not be part of the amnesty conversation) fetal life is not really relevant to the abortion conversation.

Translation: Purposeful deprivation of life isn’t the issue, because according to Ms. Richards, for her three children who miraculously made it out of her womb alive, her “very different view” is that “life began when I delivered them.”

The question then becomes: How long before the government’s “very different view” is that, along with economy-boosting illegals being granted legal amnesty, undue economic stressors should be legally eliminated?

With that in mind, it’s not hard to imagine that one day, when asked if it is ethical to terminate or grant life based solely on economic standards, the answer from people like Barack Obama could be, “That is not something government feels really should be part of this conversation.”

 Roe-v-Wade-1

%d bloggers like this: