Behind the mask of “pro-choice”

I have long-held that the term pro-choice is BS, a concocted phrase meant to paint abortion rights supporters as champions of choice, and for the right of women to control their bodies. Pro-choice fits in nicely with other pro-abortion, yes, you heard me, catch phrases like “my body my choice”. Yes, right, because the Left are big fans of women or anyone else controlling their own bodies. Sure they are, that is why thy so strongly support universal health care where ultimately the government decides who gets care and what sort of care they get. And pro-choice? Try to think of anything besides killing an unborn baby the Left wants us to have any type of choice in? Owning guns? No. Whether or not to join a union? No. How about school choice? Again no. How about a woman seeing an ultrasound BEFORE having an abortion? NOPE! Keeping more of our money so we can choose how to spend it? Hell no! How about Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, or women getting to choose which political party they support without being personally attacked? Yeah, right! The Left is about as anti-choice as it gets. But, the Left is all about saying one thing, while doing the complete opposite, in short, they are liars, they have to be. When most people see what Leftism really is, they run like Hell away from it.

Every now and again though, the Left or at least individual members of the Left allow the ask to slip. They let the truth emerge. Over at Salon, I read it so you don’t have to, Mary Elizabeth Williams does not just let her pro-choice mask slip, she rips it off with infanticidal glee.

Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.

There we are, she KNOWS, as most pro-choice abortion supporters KNOW what abortion is, How could any person not know. Medical science has proven that for years, yet it is hard to find many abortion advocates who will admit that they accept this science. they know the science is real, they just want to convince you it is not settled science. This is why they almost exclusively use emotionalistic arguments about a woman’s body, and choice, and  why they scream things like “keep the government out of my uterus”! Those are emotionally charged words. And as it is with the gun control debate emotionally overloaded Americans are more easily swayed into buying the lies the Left pedals. But Williams is not playing the lying game any more. She is loud, proud and screaming at the top of her lungs that all people are not equal

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

See, the great lie the Left spews daily is that they believe in equality. And, I suppose they do, as long as we realize they mean that all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. How very Orwellian of them. And understand this, by saying that all human life is NOT equal Williams lays bare the ugly truth about the Left. They loath individualism, they loathe assigning individuals with unalienable rights. Your rights, according to the Left last only so long as the “common good” does not require you to lose them.How very totalitarian of them. Think me throwing the term totalitarian in is too much? Ask yourself this. Who always suffers the most under any type of totalitarian regime?  The inconvenient do, and who is seen as an inconvenience by the Left? Who is considered a drain on the Collective? Clearly the unborn child is just too inconvenient to possess the same rights as others. I wonder what other groups Williams would deem as unworthy of equality?

Go read all of this piece. the cold-heartedness of this evil woman sickens me, and likely will you as well, but, we need to see what depths of depravity the Left is willing to sink to. Here is one more small glimpse into the demented mind of “pro-choice”

I can say anecdotally that I’m a mom who loved the lives she incubated from the moment she peed on those sticks, and is also now well over 40 and in an experimental drug trial. If by some random fluke I learned today I was pregnant, you bet your ass I’d have an abortion. I’d have the World’s Greatest Abortion.

My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless. We can’t have it if those of us who believe that human life exists in utero are afraid we’re somehow going to flub it for the cause. In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

Again, that is the face of Leftism, laid bare.

Yet another Liberal Malady diagnosed by your humble host

 

Those who follow this blog know that I have been diagnosing the maladies that haunt Liberals. Offendeditis, Selective Outrage Syndrome, Selective Sensitivity Syndrome, Truth Deficit Disorder, GODitis, Perpetual Bitternes Syndrome, and Bitter Face Disorder, are just a few I have discovered over the last 16 years (I first started diagnosing these when I wrote op-ed columns for several on-line publications). But just today, after reading that once more we have an “unexpected” rise in jobless numbers, it hit me. These poor Liberals are not just naive, nor are they just trying to prop up President Pathetic. No, they are afflicted with a new Liberal Malady, Unexpecteditis. This disorder causes the sufferer, usually a media employee, to delude themselves into not expecting Obama’s awful economics policies to cause greater and greater damage too job growth.

 

One of the great lies of the Left is that they love freedom of speech

And this story, via The Right Scoop, illustrates this truth perfectly!

A 15 year-old student was ask to write an op-ed on the topic of gay adoption. He wrote in opposition to the topic using the Bible as his primary source for the basis of his argument. A gay parent saw the op-ed and complained and thus the student was bullied by the superintendent and threatened with suspension because of his ‘offense’.

Lefty intolerance on display. Here’s the article from Todd Starnes at Fox News

[Brandon] Wegner, a student at Shawano High School, was asked to write an op-ed for the school newspaper about whether gays should be allowed to adopt. Wegner, who is a Christian, wrote in opposition. Another student wrote in favor of allowing gays to adopt.

Wegner used Bible passages to defend his argument, including Scripture that called homosexuality a sin.

After the op-ed was published, a gay couple whose child attend s the high school, complained.

The school immediately issued an apology – stating Wegner’s opinion was a “form of bullying and disrespect.”

An apology? For what exactly? Because one Gay couple too offense? Tell me where does the Left come with this absurd notion that there is some inherent right NOT to be offended? Why did the school simply say “look, we asked two students with differing views to write op-eds, and they did so” Note the double standard here.

“Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District,” the statement read. “We sincerely apologize to anyone we may have offended and are taking steps to prevent items of this nature from happening in the future.”

No apology was given for anyone offended by the other students op-ed. Why not? If the Left truly believes in a right not to be offended, doesn’t that “right” belong to all people? And what is this BS about bullying? Is expressing your opinion now equal to intimidating or threatening behavior? If so, AGAIN< why were both students not accused of bullying?

But Staver said what the school system did next was absolutely outrageous. He said the 15-year-old was ordered to the superintendent’s office where he was subjected to hours of meetings and was accused of violating the school’s bullying policy.

“The superintendent called him ignorant and said he had the power to suspend him,” Staver said. “He’s using his position to bully this student. This is absolutely the epitome of intolerance.”

Staver said the boy’s parents were never notified.

At one point, Staver said the superintendent gave him a chance to say he regretted writing the column.

“When Mr. Wegner stated that he did not regret writing it, and that he stood behind his beliefs, Superintendent Carlson told him that he ‘had got to be one of the most ignorant kids to try to argue with him about this topic,’” Staver said.

So, like any good Statist, the Superintendent tried to bully and belittle the student for expressing a view that offended him. A view, I remind you, that the school ASKED the student to write in the first place!

At that point, Staver said the superintendent told the boy that “we have the power to suspend you if we want to.”

The superintendent allegedly told Wegner that he was personally offended by Wegner’s column.

Again, the Left loathes freedom of speech, unless it is pre-approved by them of course! I am sure Lennin would be proud.

Mark Steyn: No Bargaining With Barack Obluffer

No Bargaining With Barack Obluffer – Mark Steyn

There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called “debt ceiling” negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.

Actually, it’s more accurate to call them two groups of spenders. On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening.

………………………

On the other side are the Republicans, who are the closest anybody gets to representing, albeit somewhat tentatively and less than fullthroatedly, the actual borrowers – that’s to say, you and your children and grandchildren. But in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. It’s like you and your missus announcing you’ve set your new credit limit at $1.3 million, and then telling the bank to send demands for repayment to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s kindergartner next door.

Nothing good is going to come from these ludicrously protracted negotiations over laughably meaningless accounting sleights-of-hand scheduled to kick in circa 2020. All the charade does is confirm to prudent analysts around the world that the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to.

When the 44th president took office, he made a decision that it was time for the already unsustainable levels of government spending finally to break the bounds of reality and frolic and gambol in the magical fairy kingdom of Spendaholica: This year, the federal government borrows 43 cents of every dollar it spends, a ratio that is unprecedented. Barack Obama would like this to be, as they say, “the new normal” – at least until that 43 cents creeps up a nickel or so, and the United States Government is spending twice as much it takes in, year in, year out, now and forever. If the Republicans refuse to go along with that, well, then the negotiations will collapse and, as he told Scott Pelley on CBS the other night, Gran’ma gets it. That monthly Social Security check? Fuhgeddabouddit. “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue,” declared the president. “Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

But hang on. I thought the Social Security checks came out of the famous “Social Security trust fund,” whose “trustees” assure us there’s currently $2.6 trillion in there. Which should be enough for the Aug. 3 check run, shouldn’t it? Golly, to listen to the president, you’d almost get the impression that, by the time you saw the padlock off the old Social Security lockbox, there’s nothing in there but a yellowing IOU and a couple of moths. Indeed, to listen to Obama, one might easily conclude that the whole rotten stinking edifice of federal government is an accounting trick. And that can’t possibly be so, can it?

For the Most Gifted Orator in Human History, the president these days speaks largely in clichés, most of which he doesn’t seem to be quite on top of. “Eric, don’t call my bluff,” he sternly reprimanded the GOP’s Eric Cantor. Usually, if you’re bluffing, the trick is not to announce it upfront. But, in fact, in his threat to have Granny eating dog food by Labor Day, Obama was calling his own bluff. The giant bluff against the future that is government spending.

How many of “the wealthy” do you require to cover a one-and-a-half trillion-dollar shortfall every single year? When you need this big a fix, there aren’t enough people to stick it to. “We are not broke,” insists Van Jones, Obama’s former “green jobs” czar and bespoke communist. “We were robbed, we were robbed. And somebody has our money!”

The somebody who has our money is the government. They waste it on self-aggrandizing ideologue nitwits like Van Jones and his “green jobs” racket. How’s the “green jobs” scene in your town? Going gangbusters, is it? Every day these guys burn through so much that they can never bridge the gap. By that, I don’t mean that an American government that raises two trillion but spends four trillion has outspent America, but that it’s outspent the planet. In my soon-to-be-imminently-forthcoming book, I discuss a study published last year by John Kitchen of the U.S. Treasury and Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin. Its very title is testament to where we’re headed:

“Financing U.S. Debt: Is There Enough Money In The World – And At What Cost?”

The authors’ answer is yes, technically, there is enough money in the world – in the sense that, on current projections, by 2020 all it will take to finance the Government of the United States is for the rest of the planet to be willing to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. Which Kitchen and Chinn say is technically doable. Yeah. In the same sense that me dating Scarlett Johannson is technically doable.

Unfortunately, neither Scarlett nor the rest of the planet is willing to do it. It’s not 2020, and we’re not yet asking the rest of the planet for a fifth of its GDP. But already the world is imposing its own debt ceiling. Most of the debt issued by the Treasury so far this year has been borrowed from the Federal Reserve. That adds another absurd wrinkle to the D.C. charade: Washington is negotiating with itself over how much money to lend itself.

Meanwhile, the World’s Greatest Orator bemoans the “intransigence” of Republicans. OK, what’s your plan? Give us one actual program you’re willing to cut, right now. Oh, don’t worry, says Barack Obluffer. To demonstrate how serious he is, he’s offered to put on the table for fiscal year 2012 spending cuts of (stand well back now) $2 billion. That would be a lot in, say, Iceland or even Australia. Once upon a time it would have been a lot even in Washington. But today $2 billion is what the Brokest Nation in History borrows every 10 hours. In other words, in less time than he spends sitting across the table negotiating his $2 billion cut, he’s already borrowed it all back. A negotiation with Obama is literally not worth the time.

In order to fund Obamacare and the other opiates of Big Government dependency, the feds need to take 25 percent of GDP, now and forever: The “new normal.” It can’t be done. Look around you. The new normal’s already here: flat-line jobs market, negative equity, the dead parrot economy. What comes next will be profoundly abnormal. His name was Obamandias, King of Kings. Look upon his works, ye mighty, and despair. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away.

Do they still teach Shelley in high school? Or just the “diversity manual” about “social justice” the Omaha Public Schools paid for with $130,000 of “stimulus” funding?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

FINALLY! Obama calls for tougher enforcement of border laws!!!

Oh, wait, I read that headline wrong, go figure!

WASHINGTON (AP) – Two months after the shooting of a U.S. congresswoman, President Barack Obama called Sunday for more stringent enforcement of existing gun laws, citing the “awful consequences” of gun violence in American society. In an op-ed essay in The Arizona Daily Star, Obama says legislation to bolster criminal background checks for gun buyers hasn’t been properly implemented, with too many states providing “incomplete and inadequate” information.

He suggested rewarding states that provide the most comprehensive information to the criminal background database.

“We should make the system faster and nimbler,” the president added. “We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can’t escape it.”

Interesting that the Arizona shooter was never ruled mentally ill by a judge and was never committed to an institution. So, how would, these “instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks” have helped prevent the Arizona shootings exactly?

Parents please remember what you name your child matters.

For instance, if your last name is Caplan, and you foolishly choose to name your child Lincoln, well, you are cursing him to a life as a moron. Over at Washington Rebel, TL Davis takes one such poorly named doofus to the intellectual woodshed. Intentional Idiot indeed!

A strong H/T to Sipsey Street Irregulars for drawing my attention to this idiot who wrote an Op-ed for the New York Times. This is so obtuse as to be intentional idiocy, or outright lack of a quality education. Does the NYTimes just lift the rugs when they want some cockroach to write an Op-ed, or what?

Maybe I can help to clarify what seems to mystify this bozo about the Constitution. Here he writes:

John Boehner, the next House speaker, expresses the message of constitutional conservatism in calling  for every bill to identify the part of the Constitution it rests on. Sarah Palin used the phrase to campaign for limited government. Tea Party members call themselves constitutional conservatives. It is the new mantle in which Republican politicians are wrapping themselves.

The challenge lies in understanding what, if anything, it actually means.

The phrase is used mainly in opposition: against health care reform; against the General Motors bailout; against President Obama’s policies.

Okay, one at a time. “John Boehner, the next House speaker, expresses the message of constitutional conservatism in callin gfor every bill to identify the part of the Constitution it rests on.”

Well, Lincoln, that pretty much means that should one decide to raise taxes they should refer to Article 1, Section 8 “…The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…” A power, I might ad, that it would seem only logical to conclude rests with only funding those other powers listed in Article 1, Section 8. In simpler words for Lincoln, if it isn’t in Article 1, Section 8, the government doesn’t have the right to raise taxes to pay for it.

Folks read the whole thing, as TL does not stop smacking Lincoln, the mental midget around. How anyone could write something so incredibly inane, as Caplan did, is beyond me. Has he ever read the Constitution? Does he possess an ounce of reason? of common sense? Good grief! I think the latest Marxist Moron has been found, and his name is Lincoln Caplan.