Lefty Begone

Sorry, guys, had to post this :3

Sat, 18 May 2013 18:10:13 -0400

Sorry, guys, had to post this :3

Choice for Its Own Sake Leads to Another Gosnell

Sat, 18 May 2013 14:01:00 -0400

Let not Kermit Gosnell be the sole face of the horror that is abortion. Gosnell is one man out of an unknown number in a horde who are, no more and no less, killers of babies born and unborn. A majority of these savages will never face punishment for the crimes against humanity they are guilty of, much less be charged. Gosnell is one exception against whom justice was served. Douglas Karpen will hopefully be the next.

No claim can be made that a right-wing conspiracy is in the works against Karpen. Just as happened in the case of Gosnell, Karpen has been accused by his own former employees—no right-wing pro-lifers are they. These four women allege that the practice of delivering live babies and then snipping the spinal cords in their neck was not a unique fetish of Gosnell, but a practice which Karpen did regularly as well.

But that is not the limit of his barbarism. “Sometimes he couldn’t get the fetus out…[and] he would yank pieces, piece by piece, when they were oversize,” said Deborah Edge, one of Karpens accusers.

This is called “choice.”

Karpen also—if you have weak stomachs, skip this paragraph—“twist[ed] their heads off their necks with his own bare hands.”

Choice.

Edge also said that she and Karpen’s other assistants “used to look at each other and sometimes our tears would come out with the other assistants. We would always think, ‘He’s so greedy.’”

Greed is the least of what is the matter with Karpen and his fellow pro-choicers. It is often said that, at the core of its ideology, the pro-choice movement seeps with a disrespect for life. We can see this exemplified when Karpen’s assistant refer to human babies with the dehumanizing pronoun “it.” “When he did an abortion,” said Edge, “…most of the time the fetus would come completely out before he either cut the spinal cord or he introduced one of the instruments into the soft spot of the fetus in order to kill it” (emphasis my own). If a fetus comes “completely out,” there is no justification for calling him an “it.” “It” is a newborn human baby.

Disrespect for life may have been fundamental to the pro-choice movement’s establishment, and while it certainly still is, it has devolved into an outright disdain for life. This is why we don’t see pro-choice activists encouraging women to choose to give birth, but instead to visit Planned Parenthood to have them inform the mothers-to-be of the rates for different abortion packages. (Exterminate one twin, snuff the second for half-price.)

The encouragement of choice independent of moral considerations over the encouragement of the ethical, righteous choice has contributed to this hatred of life. When choice for its own sake is portrayed as a virtue, it necessarily categorizes the opposite point of view—the anti-choice but pro-human point of view—as an evil.

Thus are born all the Gosnells and the Karpens and the other, everyday pro-choicers.

Global Warming from a Christian Perspective

Fri, 17 May 2013 14:01:24 -0400

“While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” So proclaimed God in the Book of Genesis, but what does He know? He hasn’t got anything on Gaia.

Of course you can’t use biblical arguments when trying to persuade those of a different theological bent. A non-Christian will not listen when his opponent begins the debate with “The Bible says,” just as a Christian will not listen when his opponent begins the debate with “The Hadith say.” And that’s fine.

But using Bible-based arguments when debating with those who both subscribe to the alarmism of modern-day environmentalism and profess Christianity is a valid tactic. Pay attention, Gaians:

The Bible does say we should not be cruel to animals and that humans are to take care of the Earth, but not to such an idolatrous extent that you environmentalists would like us to. The earth is not God and must never be the object of our love.

As I mentioned at the top, the Bible also says that the seasons will always exist and that heat and cold will always be a part of them. There will be decades-long cycles during which the average temperatures around the world are slightly warmer than previously, and there will be decades-long cycles during which those temperatures are slightly cooler than previously. But this see-sawing of warmth and coldness will always exist; there will never be a time in which, say, the 20-degree winters of Virginia are exchanged for 70-degree winters. If you believe in the Bible, you must believe in good environmental stewardship, yes, but you must not believe in any sort of permanent global warming.

To those liberal “Christians” who pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe—that Paul hated both women and homosexuals and therefore his writings are not to be considered valid, for instance—you’re fools. Where did you hear about Christianity in the first place? Ultimately, from the Bible, of course. If Jesus were not mentioned in the Bible, you would have no basis for following His teachings. You follow His teachings because they’re in the Bible. So too you must accept all the other words of the Bible, and that includes those of the eighth chapter and twenty-second verse of Genesis at the top of this piece.

And finally, to those atheist environmentalists, I say this: You are not atheists; your religion is Ecology, your god, Earth. Carbon credits are no different from the Catholic Church’s selling of indulgences in the Middle Ages. “You may sin [against Gaia] if you pay us [the Government, the Prophet of Ecology].” Those “My other car is a hybrid” bumper stickers are receipts for the indulgence of owning a sinful, non-hybrid vehicle. Your fellow Ecologists may admire you for owning a hybrid that you own simply for the pride it gives you, and for the alleviation of your guilt, but to the rest of us, that bumper sticker might as well read, “I’ve been had.”

Choice <3

Fri, 17 May 2013 12:43:19 -0400

Choice <3

Photo

Fri, 17 May 2013 12:21:58 -0400

Photo

Thu, 16 May 2013 17:20:02 -0400

IRS, DOJ, Benghazi: Squirm, Barry, Squirm

Thu, 16 May 2013 15:50:26 -0400

In light of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s indications that President Obama is completely aloof about everything that goes on in his government (“He doesn’t know anything about Benghazi,” “He knew nothing about collecting the phone records of AP journalists,” “He knew nothing about the IRS intimidating conservative and Catholic groups”), I feel it’s time to ask Obama voters, Where’s your god now?

Either Obama is a man whose competence and benevolence rival only that of Abraham Lincoln, or he’s a bumbling, out-of-touch screw-up with no control over his own administration, the goings-on of which he is completely ignorant.

The realization that it must be one or the other might be what is driving some Democrats to actually begin criticizing these scandals, as opposed to their usual habit of criticizing the whistleblowers of the scandals; they would rather Obama be looked upon as ineffectual than a Nixonian crook. “Obama didn’t know anything about anything, but he does need to fire some people” seems to be the general consensus among Democrats.

There’s a large part of me that hopes we don’t anytime soon get to the bottom of these three scandals, however; I get so much entertainment from watching the different members of this administration squirm and flounder uncomfortably now that some in the media have begun doing their primary function of asking questions.

The denials, deliciously pathetic, reveal an arrogance the level of which we haven’t yet witnessed in Obama, which is saying something. Of course, the press is to blame for Obama’s over-confidence in his ability to get away with corruption, but now that one of their own has been the target of spying by the Justice Department—Obama’s Justice Department—some journalists are dusting off their journalism degrees and finally putting them to use, the temerity of which resulted in White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeating ad nauseum, in an effort to sound convincing, the uncomfortably disingenuous statement that Obama is a “firm believer in the need for the press to be unfettered.”

But of course Obama knew about the IRS and the Justice Department; what transpired there was classic Chicago politics. Obama is from Chicago; he knows how to play politics, as he has proudly stated in the past. And it was Obama, Commander in Chief, who (fine, “allegedly”) told American troops stationed just outside Benghazi to stand down and not to try to help the four diplomats being tortured and killed by Islamic savages, a non-story in Obama’s eyes (“There’s no ‘there’ there,” he said).

The head of the IRS may have been appointed by President George W. Bush, but, like Bush, he is obviously no conservative. The IRS has already admitted that they did exactly what they are being accused of having done, but Obama still felt confident to deny this reality, calling it outrageous only “if” it were true. (If it’s true that the IRS engaged in the criminal activity they already admitted they engaged in….)

If Obama is comfortable living in that reality, can we please let him live there just a little while longer, if only for the enjoyment of seeing him twist and turn? It lends legitimacy to mascot of the Democratic Party.

Obama is apparently 45 minutes late to the Press Conference he asked for...

Thu, 16 May 2013 13:25:44 -0400

talkstraight:

…either he’s being a chicken that’s afraid to answer questions or he’s reminding the media that he’s the boss and they’ll dance only when he says they will.

Obama’s always late for these things. Always. So disrespectful.

76-Year-Old on Medicare Is Denied Monthly Shot because of Obamacare Costs

Thu, 16 May 2013 13:04:21 -0400

Today, I went to the Doctor for my monthly B12 shot that I have been getting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got the needle filled and ready to go, then looked at the computer and got very quiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no, that my insurance takes care of it. She said that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my doctor about it. Fifteen minutes later she came back and said she was sorry, but they had tried everything they could and Medicare is beginning to turn away many things for seniors because of the projected Obamacare costs coming in.

Photo

Wed, 15 May 2013 16:37:32 -0400

Liberal Priorities: Outrage over "Makeover" for Disney Princess

Wed, 15 May 2013 14:01:30 -0400

Because liberals are usually feelers instead of thinkers, they more easily than conservatives get caught up in the romantic, brainless crap called popular culture. A recalibration of their priorities is in order, especially in light of a recent outrage of theirs: a makeover of the Disney-Pixar character Merida, the heroine of last summer’s Brave.

Before being officially inducted into the Disney Princess family, Disney is giving Merida an ever-so subtle character redesign that entails a tangled and wiry mess of fire-orange hair becoming slightly less tangled and wiry, and her already tiny waist becoming a pinch thinner.

This prompted a liberal to create a petition on the website (a liberal one, as indicated by the feel-good domain name) Change.org. The petition reads, in part:

The redesign of Merida in advance of her official induction to the Disney Princess collection does a tremendous disservice to the millions of children for whom Merida is an empowering role model who speaks to girls’ capacity to be change agents in the world rather than just trophies to be admired.

I hate (love) to be the one to break it to you morons, but Merida doesn’t exist. She isn’t real. How about this: don’t seek fictional cartoon characters to be role models for your children, yeah? Your kids can never strive to be a female warrior who battles with bears and performs physics-defying somersaults. And if you insist on your kids’ role models being fictional, why can’t you create your own?

You know who was a “change agent,” and certainly no visual “trophy”? Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, whose recent death liberals celebrated with utmost jubilance. And the added benefit of her being a role model for kids is that, you know, she’s real; she isn’t the product of some filmmakers’ imaginations.

The petition continues:

Moreover, by making her skinnier, sexier and more mature in appearance, you are sending a message to girls that the original, realistic, teenage-appearing version of Merida is inferior; that for girls and women to have value—to be recognized as true princesses—they must conform to a narrow definition of beauty.

You mean the narrow, feminist definition of beauty that says you must be homely to be taken seriously? Are all the smokin’-hot babes out there with naturally unblemished skin and silky hair not “real”? Are they unworthy of being looked up to just because they’re sexy, no matter how great their personal character is?

The character of Merida will still have the same character traits in any future portrayals of her. The only difference will be that oversensitive feminists will strain their eyes to pick out the few subtle differences in her appearance; kids won’t notice a darn thing because they won’t have been corrupted to only focus on people’s appearances and judge them thereby, as these petitioning feminists do.

But it’s good to get on record what incites liberals to impassioned action. Not a denial of a request for security that ultimately killed four Americans; not fascist intimidation by the government through the IRS in order to silence peaceful dissenters; but the character design of a Disney princess.

Photo

Tue, 14 May 2013 20:31:27 -0400

"This country has had it with war-talk, and I don’t, uh, view this as to be viewed overnight by a, I..."

Tue, 14 May 2013 20:18:45 -0400

“This country has had it with war-talk, and I don’t, uh, view this as to be viewed overnight by a, I guess, with the intensity of maybe, uh, an invasion, the draw-down is always much less dramatic, no question about it.”

- MSNBC’s token bumpkin, Ed Schultz. They gave this guy his own show.

I Dare You to Run for President, Hillary

Tue, 14 May 2013 14:01:15 -0400

Like most pragmatic conservatives, I have been dreading a 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential run. She, and her supporters, would slaughter her opponent with the most slanderous accusations and political ads since, well, since President Obama took the crown for Most Negative Campaigner during the 2012 elections. Clinton has had the highest favorability rating among all other potential 2016 candidates, and has been more popular in Obama’s second term than even Obama was this past Election Day.

Since the second election of Obama, it has been “Hillary’s turn” in Democrats’ eyes. Their illusions about Obama have been, if not shattered, cracked. They want a redo. Clinton will be the savior that Obama failed to be. Instead of learning from Obama that liberalism doesn’t work, leftists feel that Obama just didn’t do it right. But liberal voters have been born again and found the faith that Clinton will do what Obama could not.

I no longer fear, but actually hope, that Clinton does have the gall to run in 2016. To the extent that the press and the President currently talk about Benghazi at all, it is only to dismiss it as nothing more than a conspiracy to corrupt the legacy of our benevolent leader. They have not reported the simple fact that Hillary Clinton’s signature is scrawled on the denial of a request for security that she told Congress she never received, which denial resulted in four American diplomats’ death.

The media doesn’t report this because they don’t have to. But during the campaign heat of 2016, whoever Clinton’s opponent is will surely talk about Benghazi during the presidential debates, which are watched by tens of millions of Americans, who right now probably think that “Ben Gauzy” is some crazy Republican congressman whom Democrats like to make fun of. Once they hear the truth and the details, the idea of a President Clinton will be unpalatable.

Benghazi was a topic only briefly touched upon in only one of the presidential debates between Obama and challenger Mitt Romney last year. Romney dropped the ball on that one a bit, but, in his defense, the details of Benghazi were still shamefully unclear at that time. Moreover, Clinton’s lies were not proven, as they are now. In 2016, the media will be unable to keep Benghazi from the public, who will be devouring the debates in which Benghazi will be a persistent topic.

And Benghazi will not be the only story discrediting to Clinton. There is also the issue of Watergate, the media’s favorite scandal that they can never really seem to quite explain their disproportionate outrage over. “Some people broke into somebody’s office and listened to some conversations when they weren’t supposed to, or…something? Anyway, President Nixon committed an atrocious crime against humanity and why he never served the rest of his life in prison is beyond us.” So villainous has Nixon been portrayed for the past forty years, one would think his signature had been found on a denial of a request for security that he had told Congress he had never received, which denial resulted in four American diplomats’ deaths.

So how does Hillary Clinton fit into Watergate? I’ll allow this excerpt from an article at Digital Journal to explain that:

“A lifelong Democrat, Mr. [Jerry] Zeifman supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee [investigating the Watergate scandal]. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation—one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.”

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview….“She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Basically, Hillary Clinton was as corrupt in the ’70s as she is today.

So I dare Clinton to run for president. And if the public doesn’t care about Benghazi or myriad other cases of Clinton corruption and they vote her into the Oval Office, it will not be for lack of being informed, but for America’s utter abandonment of integrity, good judgment, and morality. We can weep for the country if that time ever comes.

conservatronic: Swarthmore Spinning Out of Control Here, in a...

Mon, 13 May 2013 16:16:37 -0400

conservatronic:

Swarthmore Spinning Out of Control

Here, in a two-minute video, is the story of Swarthmore today: feckless administrators abandoning the principles of classic liberalism – and the conservative students those principles protect – to hand the campus over to a bullying minority of leftist protesters. Would that this were an isolated incident.

Campus left-wing fascism at its finest

“When another conservative student leaps to her defense, the protesters begin to clap in unison at an ever-quickening pace until Charette and her defenders are drowned out.”

Effing liberal fascist scum.

“He gave no respect for those fetuses. He was only...

Mon, 13 May 2013 15:54:00 -0400

“He gave no respect for those fetuses. He was only supposed to destroy them and grind up their remains in an industrial garbage disposal, like a normal abortion clinic.”

You realize a born fetus is not a fetus, right? The moment it passes the threshold of the vagina, magic happens and the fetus turns into a baby.

You know who else didn’t “respect” their “fetuses”? The mothers.

[EDIT: Some conservatives didn’t realize my sarcasm, so let me explain: I was being sarcastic with the “magical” remark. Liberals think that it’s only a baby AFTER birth, which would mean that some form of magic happens at the moment of birth. I was being sarcastic.]

Have you guys seen this data yet?

Mon, 13 May 2013 15:37:01 -0400

communismkills:

http://www.economist.com/node/21576996

But, go on, please tell me about these people are “fringe extremists”.

BREAKING: Gosnell Verdict: Guilty

Mon, 13 May 2013 15:23:00 -0400

#Gosnell guilty of murder doing what Obama voted for to be legal several times as state senator. #DeathPenalty

— Liars Never Win (@liars_never_win)

May 13, 2013

Photo

Mon, 13 May 2013 14:29:31 -0400

Pro-Gay-Adoption Is Now a Conservative Position

Mon, 13 May 2013 14:01:25 -0400

At least apparently. I accidentally discovered this when I negatively remarked on my website that Rep. Paul Ryan now supports gay couples being allowed to adopt children. It amazed me how many conservatives came to Ryan’s defense. And not just that, but how many did not even try to hide behind the illusion of mere excuse-making for Ryan, but expressed openly their explicit agreement with him.

One of the arguments made—again, these are conservatives—was that if you are pro-life, you must absolutely support gays adopting (“[A]nyone who is pro-life had better be pro-adoption [source]”; “[I]f you’re pro-life, you need to be pro-adoption [source]”). (Note the sleight-of-hand: being pro-gay-adoption has now become simply “pro-adoption.” Again, these are conservatives.)

Since abortion helps the pro-life cause, they argue, we should support anybody’s desire to adopt. Using this very same argument, it is not hard to arrive at the position that since “anybody” includes everybody, pro-lifers should support adoption even by ex-convicts and the criminally insane. Somehow, to be anti-adoption for certain people is to be anti-life for all.

These conservative backers of homosexual adoption are hypocrites. They’re young, mostly, and have been tainted by the pervasive liberalism in everyday culture, but that does not excuse their lack of consistency. If gay adoption is good for the pro-life cause, then so is gay “marriage.” Households led by married couples generally raise much more emotionally stable children than those led by unmarried couples. To remain intellectually consistent, these conservatives who back gay adoption must also back gay “marriage.”

And surely these conservative gay-adoption supporters believe birth control should be taxpayer-funded. After all, wouldn’t they rather a woman not get pregnant if she doesn’t want to, rather than the woman becoming a mother and then terminating the life of her unborn baby?

Another argument I’ve been given: “[P]ro-life people should support babies being adopted by those who can provide loving and stable homes, and gay couples certainly fall into that category [source].”

Gays can be loving, certainly, and most of them do lead financially stable lives, being that many earn a high income, but there is nothing stable emotionally in a gay household. Gays are gay because of a mental instability that they themselves have or had at one point. The default emotional state in a gay household is that of instability. This is not to dehumanize gays or to say they are all bad people, but to state a general fact.

And we do not have to rely only on logic to conclude that a father and a mother, or more precisely a mom and a dad, can more ably and consistently rear well-balanced children, for this can be observed in the natural world. Or do we believe that it was only happenstance that God (or Nature, if you prefer) ordained that children may be born only from a male-female couple?

A study published in the journal Social Science Research found that “When compared with outcomes for children raised by an ‘intact biological family’ (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures. (The only exceptions: children of ‘gay fathers’ were more likely to vote; children of lesbians used alcohol less frequently; and children of ‘gay fathers’ used alcohol at the same rate as those in intact biological families.”

Among the study’s other findings:

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents…, children of homosexual parents…:

Are much more likely to have received welfare…

Have lower educational attainment

Report less safety and security in their family of origin

Report more ongoing “negative impact” from their family of origin

Are more likely to suffer from depression

Have been arrested more often

If they are female, have had more sexual partners—both male and female

Furthermore,

[C]hildren of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship….Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents.

And, most disturbingly,

Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver” (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%).

One of my readers noted that Paul Ryan’s support of gay adoption puts him in closer alignment with the general public. This is true. Our society, as all others of the past, is ever drifting leftward. It’s just disheartening to know that my fellow young conservatives are drifting with it.