Tag Archives: the right to choose.

The Dog Daze of Obama

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Before saying anything about dogs, or making an issue over Mitt Romney transporting his Irish Setter Seamus on the roof of the family car, it seems someone in the Obama campaign should have known that in the second chapter of the President’s best-selling autobiography,  Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, he described his childhood in Indonesia in the following way:

With [stepfather] Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chili peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.

Taking on the “powers of whatever he ate” certainly explains the President’s dogged determination, slithering political style and grasshopper agility when it comes avoiding blame.  That aside, the Barack Obama “eats dog” controversy not only reveals a primitive side to the President’s Indonesian upbringing, but it’s also a prime example of the dichotomy that exists within the ideology of liberalism in America today.

Condemning the transportation of a dog in a pet crate on a car roof while supporting a President with a history of eating dog is indicative of the imperious elitism the left often promotes. In due time, it is usually revealed that outspoken liberals either participated in worse behavior then the one they vehemently denounce or walk a fine line between support and denunciation based on political expediency.

For instance, the left has a habit of displaying self-righteous resolve when defending abortion rights. Then, if a child happens to fully emerge from the birth canal, in a matter of seconds, it all changes. The liberal determination to slaughter the unborn switches to concern over what right-to-choose mommies pack in Junior’s lunch bag.

That tendency is why, while Mrs. Obama is out spearheading a breastfeeding initiative and preaching the benefits of organic baby food, the President has no problem defending the merits of government funding for Planned Parenthood. Proving once again that either liberals have defective reasoning skills, or consider whatever they do, regardless of how illogical or contradictory, to be beyond criticism.

Championing opposing causes like abortion and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) seems disjointed at best. What are we doing here – killing or curing the kids, grilling or walking the dog?

Chaotic instability from the left isn’t surprising, because selective kindness is what liberals are about: some children live, while in the interest of convenience others die. Certain pets become stars on the White House website while, in days gone by, others were served up on a pup-pup platter.

Dog jokes aside, if the President were truly concerned about dogs’ well-being, he would still to this day be sickened at the thought of the lunch his stepfather Lolo served him 40+ years ago.  Therefore, when signing the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act, Obama could have redeemed himself by citing his personal exposure to animal cruelty as a child in Indonesia.  The fact that Obama never mentioned eating dog meat is an illustration of how liberals excuse their own past offenses and feel justified standing up for contradictory arguments, even if that defense is accomplished by merely failing to expose past wrongdoing.

Think about it. Who else, knowing full well that at some point in his life he dined on Rover for lunch, would allow his campaign to express disapproval for the sin of letting a dog ride in a crate on the top of a car?  Who, other than liberals, would dare to condemn the treatment of a family pet being taken on vacation, however the dog arrived there, after the candidate they support nonchalantly described snake meat as a little tougher than a mutt burger?

Nonetheless, living in America where dining on dog meat is unthinkable may explain why a man who’s actually eaten it ‘feeds’ off PetSmart photo ops, gets a bellyful of campaign cash through “Throw Bo a Bone” fundraising, and offers up the family pet on a platter as a politically correct poster child for Presidential Doggy Love – not to be confused with Reggie Love.

Exploitation aside, the larger problem arises when the guy who put bunny ears on his Portuguese water dog and who, just to be polite, would probably sample canine cutlet Parmigiana, then allows his chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, to portray Mitt Romney as an animal abuser.

That is the type of distorted reasoning that would disparage the decision to let Seamus Romney ride on the roof of the family car while failing to mention the fact that little Barry Soetoro once snacked on butchered dog.

In the end, if one tries to comprehend the rationale behind supporting a dog-eater while protesting cruelty to animals, the only justification can be that America’s polymathic president is excused because his life experience includes a sincere reverence for an ancient animist tradition.

Therefore, in lieu of the tiger meat Lolo promised but never delivered, if Bo ‘Diddley’ Obama manages to avoid being featured on the White House lunch menu, it must be because the President believes the liberal “every child [should be] a wanted child” standard should also apply to dogs.

Feminists Looking for Handouts Now Define ‘Working’

Liberals have no problem taking money from hardworking people and handing it over to those who won’t work. Unless of course you’re a self-made millionaire and the person you’re supporting happens to be the mother of your children; then the left feels justified in mocking women who choose to be stay-at-home moms.

In another stunning example of the right-to-choosers ridiculing a woman if her choice doesn’t include abortion or female careerism, DNC adviser Hilary Rosen – a woman who, like Hillary Clinton, obviously would never lower herself to “have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas” – discussed Ann Romney’s lack of working experience on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360.

Working-woman advocate and liberal shill Hilary Rosen sat down with Anderson to bandy about the subject of the alleged Republican War on Women, a battle in which liberal feminists with high-paying career aspirations fight for taxpayer-funded contraceptives. During the conversation, Rosen lobbed a gender-denigrating grenade in Mrs. Romney’s direction, saying “Guess what, [Romney’s] wife has actually never worked a day in her life.”

Democrats want to be viewed as distinct individuals yet they invariably categorize people by race, gender, age, and sexual orientation. Now, according to a unique set of liberal standards, they have also assumed the role of deciding what does and does not constitute “work.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the rise of women in the workplace the direct result of the economic need for two salaries? Are liberals officially taking the position that the mothers in families who do not require two salaries choosing to have children and dedicate their lives to responsibly raising those children are not working?

In an article for the Huffington Post entitled “Ann Romney and Working Moms,” Rosen responded to the firestorm that erupted in response to her ‘Ann Romney never worked’ comment expressed on AC360.  Judgmental and disparaging, Hilary defended the remark by saying “Spare me the faux anger from the right who view the issue of women’s rights and advancement as a way to score political points.” Now that’s a stunning comment in itself, especially coming from someone whose political party uses anything available to score political points.

Nevertheless, if given the choice of either raising their children or dropping them off at a daycare center/Petri dish, wouldn’t most women, if they were honest, choose to marry someone whose income allows them to stay home with their babies, at least until they’re of school age?

Truth be told, nowadays most women aren’t fortunate enough to have the option Ann Romney enjoyed, possibly including Hilary Rosen. In a vulnerable moment, Rosen admitted that if given the choice, when raising her adopted twins Jacob and Anna with former partner Elizabeth Birch, she’d have preferred Ann’s lifestyle to her own.

Now let’s be clear on one thing. I have no judgments about women who work outside the home vs. women who work in the home raising a family. I admire women who can stay home and raise their kids full-time. I even envy them sometimes. It is a wonderful luxury to have the choice. But let’s stipulate that it is NOT a choice that most women have in America today.

So there you have it – according to the choice crowd, the right to choose excludes any choice the Hilary Rosen types disagree with. Rosen, and women like her, pretend to abhor gender discrimination and then they discriminate against women who make choices that deliver rewards that do not include guest spots on CNN and whose compensation far exceeds both title and money.

As far as the “work” aspect of the debate, in a Salary.com article entitled “Mom Deserves a Raise in 2007,” it was estimated that if paid a salary, a stay-at-home Mom would earn $138,095 a year.

Facts like these matter little to Democrats as they attempt to portray Mitt Romney as an ostentatious square with his family automatically guilty by association.  The objective is to render Romney out of touch with the common folk President Obama identifies with while attending $40,000-a-plate Democrat fundraisers.

Kudos to Ann Romney; she promptly addressed the pandering idiocy of a woman proving to be yet another in a long list of self-righteous liberal feminists. After hearing Rosen’s remarks, Mrs. Romney defended the choice to raise her children at home, which was thanks to a husband who, rather than bilk the government, worked hard to provide for his growing family.

By way of @AnnDRomney at Twitter, Mrs. Romney, mother of five and grandmother to 16, informed Ms. Rosen when she said “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

Ann’s tweet came just as “Mitt wrapped up a second day of campaigning that all but entirely focused on the ‘war against women.’”  At events packed with “female business leaders,” Romney accused the Obama administration of economic policies that “hurt women” – which they do.

Reluctantly, many mothers are forced to work outside the home to pay for gasoline and taxes and to support husbands who, thanks to Barack Obama, remain chronically unemployed.

Yet, despite Democrats that include campaign strategist and close Obama advisor David Axelrod’s and Obama 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina’s criticism of Rosen’s inappropriate comments, if Hilary really cared about women she would discuss those who are denied the choice to raise their own children because of the economic catastrophe Obama has foisted upon American families.

Maybe the next time Ms. Rosen appears on AC360, after she discusses the crime of Mitt Romney providing for his family, she can also expound upon how liberals can defend hardworking Americans, be they male or female, supporting those who refuse to work.

And then after frequent White House visitor  Hilary Rosen discusses how American taxpayers should help pay for contraceptives for supposedly self-sufficient women who are cash-strapped because of exorbitant daycare bills, maybe she can cap off the segment by reviewing Michelle Obama’s largely taxpayer-funded vacation schedule and explain how hosting state dinners, modeling haute couture, and dancing exuberantly on Nickelodeon’s iCarley constitutes “working.”

Tebow, Palin, and the Pain of Remorse

Originally posted at American Thinker

Tim Tebow is really annoying to certain people in a Sarah Palin sort of way.  Whenever Tim or Sarah shows up, an uncomfortable feeling accompanies him or her, and it’s called conviction.  One definition for “convict” is “to impress with a sense of guilt.”  That is precisely what Tim Tebow and Sarah Palin are guilty of: impressing shame and remorse upon America that it would prefer to avoid.

The Palin family has been mocked and derided for many reasons, including baby boy Trig, born with Down Syndrome.  This past spring, after former Gov. Palin posted a birthday tribute to her son, former Wonkette writer Jack Stuef called Trig a “magic intellectually disabled baby prop.”  Stuef questioned “Trig’s parentage, implying he was conceived in incest, and used the R word.”  Stuef has since apologized and said he regretted using the word “retarded,” but he stands by his criticism of Palin.

By approving of and promoting policies that destroy innocent human life, the left is hateful enough.  However, when a conservative public figure “chooses” life, what emanates from hate-spewing liberals amounts to a new level of vitriol.

That rage is evidenced by liberal reactions to Sarah Palin, who celebrates the life of a child whom some liberals would deem a disposable burden on society.  Palin said it so well in a 2011 Thanksgiving tribute to Trig when she shared:

Through Trig, I see firsthand that there is man’s standard of perfection, and then there is God’s.  Man’s standard is flawed, temporary, and shallow.  God’s standard lasts an eternity.  At the end of the day, His is what matters.

And what about that pesky Tim Tebow?  In 1987, Tim’s mother Pam chose to grant her son the gift of life.  Pregnant and suffering from a life-threatening infection, Pam Tebow, a missionary with her husband Robert to the Philippines, was told that her and Robert’s child would be stillborn.  Rather than take the advice of her doctor and abort, Pam Tebow chose to trust God.

Both mother and baby survived, and today, much like Sarah and Trig Palin, Pam and Tim Tebow both pose a problematic contradiction to one of the strongest arguments abortion advocates use when arguing to justify disposing of the unborn.

To this day, 24 years after proving the doctor wrong, starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos Tim Tebow remains downright annoying.  Every time he makes an appearance on the football field, without opening his mouth, the abortion survivor takes all the fun out of the sport.  Why?  Because pro-choice America is forced to look into the face of a strapping miracle child whose mother put his life ahead of her own.

To make matters worse, not only did the Tebow family allow the child to be born, but they then did the unthinkable and raised him to be a devout Christian.

Now, as a football star, Tebow is open about that faith and his relationship to Christ, and that bold testimony has become a center of controversy.  Mike McCarthy of USA Today says that when he “tunes in to watch sports[,] he deserves to just get sports,” and sort of resents Tim thanking and praising God.

Former Denver Bronco quarterback Jake Plummer agrees.  Plummer extended kudos to Tebow’s accomplishments as a football player but tempered his enthusiasm by saying:

Tebow, regardless of whether I wish he’d just shut up after a game and go hug his teammates, I think he’s a winner and I respect that about him. I think that when he accepts the fact that we know that he loves Jesus Christ then I think I’ll like him a little better. I don’t hate him because of that, I just would rather not have to hear that every single time he takes a good snap or makes a good handoff.

Unbowed, Tim graciously responded to the criticism by attesting that his relationship with Jesus Christ is the most important thing in his life.  Tebow said, “So any time I get an opportunity to tell Him that I love Him or given an opportunity to shout Him out on national TV, I’m gonna take that opportunity.”

What Jake Plummer doesn’t realize is that even if Tim Tebow never says another word about Jesus, forgoes writing John 3:16 in his eye black, decides to relinquish his virginity before marriage, and never again teams up with Focus on the Family to sponsor pro-life ads during the Super Bowl, his mere presence on the planet speaks volumes to a secular society driven by heartless liberal policies.

Not only does abortion survivor Tim Tebow live, but as a staunch follower of Jesus Christ, he is a source of double-conviction in a godless world where devotion to sports often supersedes commitment to God.

Based on the left’s reaction, seems Trig Palin and Tim Tebow are huge thorns in the side of pro-choice America.  So are their mothers, who, if they’d only exercised the right to choose, would have made life a lot more comfortable for those who would rather avoid dredging up past mistakes.

Instead, every time Trig or Tim shows up, those who would rather look away are forced to stare into a looking glass that reflects dedication to heroes who are no heroes at all, images associated with the sorrow of abortion, and the senseless self-interest of a nation’s ungodly attachment to a level of futility that, in the end, delivers nothing but a lifetime of regret.

Chimps Choose Life

In the relentless quest to prove Darwin was right” another article claims to have discovered “chimpanzees appear to mourn their dead infants like humans.”

If Homo sapiens really developed over time from a lesser primate: Why then when it comes to maternal protection for the young, are gorillas and chimpanzees eons ahead of human beings?

Recently an article entitled: “A mother’s grief: The startling images which show how chimpanzees mourn their dead just like humans,” examined the similarities of how humans and chimpanzees deal with the death of a child. Yet one wonders whether chimpanzees are like humans or are human mothers like chimpanzees, because in the primate kingdom humans are the ones who are known for  destroying offspring prior to birth.

In a zoo in Germany, a baby gorilla named Claudio died in mama Gana’s arms. “For hours the distraught mother gently shook and stroked the child, vainly seeking to restore movement to his lolling head and limp arms… Gana continually prodded and caressed the dead child, to no effect.” Like most gorillas, Gana “exhibit[ed] both care for the dead and sadness … keeping the body close until it begin decomposing.”

Chimpanzee mothers also “establish close physical relationships” with offspring. Chimps are so attentive to newborns no one besides the mother can “touch or hold the infant.” In fact, the young are nursed until the age human babies start kindergarten. Most striking however is that unlike some human babies, after conception pan troglodyte infants only leave the womb naturally.

Calling it “evidence” to “just how similar chimps and other great apes are to humans,” recently in Zambia, scientists filmed one chimpanzee mother grieving over the premature death of an infant. “Watching [the] chimpanzee mother “tenderly lay a dead 16-month-old baby chimp on the ground” illustrates the power of natural instinct untainted by aberrant societal norms.

The chimp carried the cadaver for a day refusing to leave the dead infant’s side. Then she milled around for another day touching the dead infant’s neck and face hoping the baby would revive. Appearing to be unable to process the loss, the grieving mother stood on a nearby grass bank and watched over the small body.

Refusing to give up, the corpse of the baby was taken for a second opinion. A group of chimpanzees checked the infant as the mother stood by hoping for a miracle. Finally, after two days, the mama chimp “abandoned the body.”

The larger story here is not how similar humans are to lesser primates, but how much human maternal behavior differs from chimpanzees. Surely, chimps have seen death before, but the mother chimp seemed stunned by the unnatural sight of a dead infant.

Contrary to pro-Darwinian opinion, chimpanzee and human DNA is quite different and it shows, especially when studying chimpanzees in an effort to reinforce the theory of evolution.  Observing a grieving chimpanzee’s behavior toward dead offspring proves the purposeful destruction of progeny insults nature. Observing a non-human female primate proves a level of innate maternal instinct clearly missing in many human mothers.

A mourning chimpanzee may indicate similarities with humans when a mother cares enough to mourn a child.  However, the two differ greatly because unborn chimpanzees, without exception, are granted the right-to-life.

If verifying evolution is at the crux of the American Journal of Primatology’s grieving-chimpanzee report, there’s a glaring glitch. Those pushing the Homo Sapiens-are-just-like-chimps theory should ask a more pertinent question: If humans are higher on evolutionary chain than other primates, how come from conception to birth human mothers don’t behave more like chimps?

%d bloggers like this: