Lest you think I’m “lowering the discourse,” some name explanations

You may notice my selective use of names for certain politicians which I dislike. Well, I must say there is usually some significance behind them other than pure invective. Essentially I try to make their titles an amalgam on many of their qualities.

The Fatman (pr: [quickly] The Fatmun): This is Teddy Kennedy. Note that this is two words, not three. While it is true that Senator Kennedy is portly, the primary reason for this naming is his many parallels to Wilson Fisk (better known as the Kingpin of Spider-Man lore). If you think of a big boss in the Democratic Party, Ted Kennedy immediately comes to mind. Few bellow with the ferocity and vigor of Ted Kennedy. He is in every way likened to a sort of crime boss of the Democratic Party.

Lurch: Popular in many circles, many recognize Lurch as John Kerry. Not only does he have the physical likeness of this Frankenstein monster, he is just as difficult to comprehend. Lurch is also what he inspires many to do when he does speak.

Swinestein: Admittedly less inventive than the others but appropriate.

The Specter: Arlen Specter, RINO extraordinaire. This ghoul tends to show up taking orders from The Fatman whenever possible.

Lord Grahamnesty: Not only matching with Lindsey Graham’s initials, it also depicts the noble way in which he condemns all who oppose amnesty and bigots and xenophobes.

Dingy Harry and Dick Turbin are not my creations, they are simply in vogue. Were I to give them names of my own, I would probably name Harry Reid “Grim,” for his cadaver-like appearance and incessant need to bring death and negativity to everything he touches. Turbin hasn’t really been in the forefront, he’s more of a lemming than a leader.

I haven’t thought of a special name for Pelosi yet. Pelousy doesn’t cut it, she’s worse than lousy. Palomino would imply she is actually successful in some way, forcing us to surrender to her will and beg her to stop. The Bay Queen is better but still somehow inadequate. Penthouse Barbie also hits some points but doesn’t quite cut it.

Barack is just Barry O. For whatever reason, whenever Obama speaks I don’t get that sort of nutrootsian edge I get from the other lefties. Barack is the only Democratic candidate I think I could spend an evening with just shooting the breeze in a restaurant. I wouldn’t vote for him, but I could tolerate conversing with him for a couple hours. Barry O’s worst traits are that he’s a whiner and seemingly naïve. I don’t really detect any coldness or malevolence from him. It almost feels like he’s just going to the Uber left because that’s what is popular in Dem primaries.

The Glacier seems fitting for Hillary Clinton, although that terminology has been around for a while. It works and sounds better than Clintonbot. Edwards has had multiple names from Silky Pony to Breck Girl, but I would call him The Joker. The guy is about as sociopathic and passive-aggressive as you can get. Two-Face doesn’t fit because that villains primary problem was indecision. Edwards is so disturbing he even made Lurch cringe.

If Al Gore decides to enter, I’ll have to choose between The Goracle, Gorebot 3.0, or The Dozer. The Goracle is a bit too one-issue to use on Gore’s presidential campaign, Gorebot 3.0 (now with more global warming) would be Al-Gores new reinvented self, as opposed to VP Gore and Gore 2000. The Dozer is based off of his hollyweird cult possibly allowing him to mow down all other candidates, especially Obama by stealing his cult, and its also the fact listening to Gorebot 3.0 induces sleep.

I usually only reserve names for people I dislike, so I don’t have any for the Republican candidates. Maybe Virtua Fighter for Ron Paul since his real-world polls are far inferior to his online ones. McBane is for McCain, based on the fairly dimwitted Simpsons character and the fact that he’s the bane of many conservatives.

 Shamnesty Update: Cloture failed, Dems still the Minority Majority

Plaise Allah, Shamnesty failed today a whopping 46-53 Yeas-Nays. That didn’t stop the rhetoric coming from the open borders folks.

Here’s some background.

Shamnesty supporters got 50 minutes to bloviate about voting for shamnesty. Shamnesty opponents got 10 minutes. To put this in perspective, Harry Reid got more time to tell his fanciful stories and attack talk radio than the entirety of the anti-shamnesty contingent got to make all of their arguments (he was aided by Barry O who was presiding, giving Reid extra time because “the speaker is allowed leeway”). Fairness doctrine? Not a chance.

A basic roundup:

Pro-Shamnesty:

The Fatman (Kennedy) invoked the civil rights movement and likened opposition to amnesty to support of the Gestapo.

The Specter complained about no-one offering alternatives (aka complete BS) and later told us he asked his country club buddies and they agree with him. Further still, he complained that Senators always get more negative e-mails than positive ones, but brushed it off. Apparently, even if the naysayers crash the entire communications capabilities of the US Senate trying to voice their opposition, they can still be ignored.

Swinestein talked about “doing the right thing” –by supporting amnesty.

Jon Kyl talked about doing what “the majority” wants, by which he means the majority of amnesty-supporting Senators, not the American people who tied up all the phone and fax lines and crashed the Senate e-mail system.

Lord Grahamnesty implored us to recognize there are Democrats and Republicans and not everyone gets what they want in his standard whiny fashion. He even invoked 9/11 and talked about how important security was.

Salazar (along with most of the others) talked about hatred and venom coming from the right, ignoring of course that they called anyone who opposed them bigots.

Dick Turbin pulled the race card as well, and said that the 80% of Americans that don’t want the bill to pass don’t know American values.

Mel Martinez of Florida shared the sentiment of many amnesty supporters: “passing any bill is better than passing no bill.” He also got a chance to play the “ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY!” card as an immigrant.

Harry Reid was easily the worst though: blathering on for about 12 minutes, telling us story of his immigrant buddy who only needs the bill to pass before he “comes forward and does the right thing.” Reid took the time to attack talk radio, called opponents bigots and racists, and was essentially an amalgam of all the other shamnesty shills. Then Reid, after overstaying his time (unnoticed by Barry O) was called out by Sessions, who was told not to interrupt Reid.

Anti-Shamnesty:

The Anti-shamnesty senators only got 10 minutes between them, so they had to be succinct. They still rocked the house.

Elizabeth Dole: The people don’t want to be given promises, not proof.

Corker was commonsense. No money quotes but he did a great job dissecting Specters “nobody put anything forward” BS.

Jim Demint: There is a crisis of confidence, the American people don’t have confidence in their government. “Isn’t that how it always goes.” Finally: “What part of NO don’t we understand?”

Vitter: Pointed out in public what I already stated. Pro-Shamnesty got 40-50 minutes, the American people only got 10.

You probably would have been able to figure out Shamnesty opponents got far less than Shamnesty supporters on your own, but the contrast is stark, isn’t it?

In the Aftermath, Nancy Pelosi blamed Republicans for “failing the American people,” despite the massive unpopularity of the shamnesty bill. This is just more proof that Nancy and Reid still want to whine like they are in the minority. Any failings belong to the other side. You can bet if this shamnesty passed Pelosi would be hailing a Democratic victory despite the bigots/fascists/ideologues of the right. It is more proof that Pelosi only cares about what her open borders sycophants think and doesn’t actually care about being the people’s speaker. You already know my opinion of Pelosi: she’s an irrelevant, weak, ethically challenged left-wing tool.

Impossibly Stupid Attention Whore Gets Worse

Wow, I don’t know who to blame for this. I don’t usually cover Hollyweird losers, rich spoiled brats, or attention whores, but this just crosses the line. Seriously, Mommy and Daddy Hilton should put a leash on their daughter (or better yet, cut her out of her inheritance and give it to a poor black guy with a knack for hotel management).

I didn’t care that Paris was thrown in jail, good riddance to a mindless leech whose only contribution to society was keeping Neiman Marcus successful. Supposedly she found God in prison, but I’m not buying that for a second. Using racial epithets is new for her though. How low can Daddy’s little princess go before she finally suffers consequences for her behavior? How could they let their own daughter become a mindless, materialistic lowlife? Paris Hilton could have made something of herself, she could have actually put contributed to society with all that money, fame, and endless educational opportunity. Instead she became a vulgar prostitute know for being an airhead more than an heiress. What a waste. If I were Daddy Hilton, I’d cut Paris’ allowance and axe her from my will, in the process giving the rights to my business to someone who won’t make my business go under as soon as I do. Paris can’t run a chain of hotels; the little twit can’t even get her own life in order.

This will be my one and only post on Paris Hilton. She has all of the qualities which I vehemently despise in human beings. She could do anything she wanted with her life and she chose to be a mooching bum. She could have been a decent and proper representative of her family but chose to make a reputation as a whore and an airhead. She appreciates nothing. She knows the value of nothing. She doesn’t apply herself to anything other than living for Paris Hilton. She has never had to suffer in her entire life. She is an arrogant narcissist insulated from the reality the rest of us face every day. The only reason anybody gives a damn about her is because she’s Daddy Hilton’s little girl.

If only our media valued standards more than money. The only coverage we should have had was the following: “Paris Hilton went to jail today. She was a professional narcissist with nothing to offer civilized society. She’ll be out in 25 days after a load of irreverent whining on her part. Good riddance, Paris, just don’t make another tape in prison.”

That’s all I have to say, and this is the nice version.

Yet More Scary Humans-as-Consumer-Commodity Theory Craft

This is just another in a flurry of artificial sperm articles that have been coming out from the halls of science. The article itself discusses the subject fairly well, but there are a few problems I have with this whole topic. Human expendability is not a joke, whether it is men, women, or the unborn.

That’s the problem with this kind of research; you have more than a few bioethicists who, while I don’t think the lack basic ethical values, they place more value in the end benefits of a scientific discovery than concern for the means to get to that end. Their opinions aren’t limited just to this type of research, there are other things like as of yet fruitless embryonic stem cell research that have their supporters, but the thought is there. Scientists aren’t the only problem, though. There’s a particularly twisted version of feminism called lesbian feminism, whose originators are noted for the phrase “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” a saying I try to parody as often as possible when referring to the intellectual merit of those misandrists. These miserable folks dream of something out of Wonder Woman’s Amazon Island as a utopia, so naturally these political tools love to cheer at research like this.

The ultimate problem posed by research like this is one of my most focused-upon issues, the devaluation of human life. Abortion, cloning, embryonic stem-cell research, test tube babies, in-vitro fertilization, and now this sperm creation tech all make the idea that we will one day treat fellow human beings as consumer commodities plausible. Don’t like how your baby is shaping? Abort them until you get the one you want. It gets to the point where we say that if anyone dies that we can just “make another one.” Science fiction is coming ever closer to science fact, so don’t dismiss this out of hand, the foundation is already laid. The only solution is to be vigilant and remember that every human life is valuable and unique.

 Proof that Many of My Contemporaries are Misinformed.

If I haven’t said it before I’ll say it now: compared to most townhallers, I’m a spring chicken. I’m young enough to be the son or grandson of many of our fine conservative bloggers (This isn’t hard, my parents just turned 50). This article, found through a Hotair.com headline, points out some political leanings of my peers.

“Young Americans are more likely than the general public to favor a government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage, according to a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll. The poll also found that they are more likely to say the war in Iraq is heading to a successful conclusion.

[…]

Their views on abortion mirror that of the public at large: 24 percent said it should not be permitted it all, while 38 percent said it should be made available, but with greater restrictions. Thirty-seven percent said it should be generally available.”

The article itself has the exact statistics, but that’s the gist of it.

The explanation for these phenomena isn’t really difficult. Most of my contemporaries grew up in public schools, and thus have no understanding of what a government run health-care system can do to society. They’ve probably been exposed to countries that have them in social studies class, but probably didn’t learn of the crushing tax burden that comes along with them. Not that myself or anyone in my age group has any grasp on the full weight of taxes to begin with. Most of that view can be attributed to the fact they don’t realize that the government doesn’t provide the service for free; they take a deep cut out of your pockets to pay for it.

As to open-borders, the reasoning behind that is probably more malevolent in origin. Their own education is probably lagging behind because an illegal alien is in their class under the table that doesn’t know English, but the teachers don’t really care because it allows them to do less work. They still get paid the same. There are still some good teacher’s left, but many of them do nothing but complain there isn’t enough gravy.

For gay marriage, one needs only look at Massachusetts. Anywhere the pervert lobby gets their foot in the door they immediately begin their propaganda machine. I imagine their most effective tool is the Gay-Strait Alliance student clubs. These organizations make excuses for and encourage perversion, so it’s no surprise anyone who has been in a school with a prominent club of this nature supports gay marriage. The saddest part is, you can’t really blame the kids who have been force-fed the “gay is OK” line; it is the teachers and other willy-nilly PC sycophants that have condemned these kids to a life of unhappiness and sexual confusion. Schoolchildren shouldn’t even be learning about sexuality, much less being told any perverted deviations are simply morally neutral alternatives.

As for leaning more pro-life than ever before? It’s pretty easy to do when pro-choicers have culled off 40 million+ of their offspring over 30 years. Regarding Iraq, at least optimism is still a quality my generation possesses, probably because a lot of us are rebelling against the rebels. It’s pretty hard to try moral rectitude on your children when you were a lowlife of the worst variety in the 60’s and 70’s. If having children didn’t change your views, then your children are probably rebelling against your flowerchild free spirit with another, fortunately more wholesome alternative. Sometimes not being a “*&^%-Up” like your parents is a good thing.

So there is some good and bad in this article. The saddest part for me is that my generation identifies more with Democrats than Republicans, but I believe Churchill had a rather apt phrase for that. “If you’re not liberal when you’re young you have no heart, if you’re not conservative when you’re old you have no brain.” Or something to that effect.

Republicans seem to me to be the Stupid Party (The Democrats are the Evil Party). They just don’t perform effective outreach to the groups that aren’t naturally inclined to conservatism. They have so much to offer young people, poor people, and minorities, but they never get the message to sound right. I suppose its difficult to do so without citing some sort of grievance, since grievance-mongering has worked so well for the Democrats. It truly is sad sometimes, when I think how the Republican Party has sold us all down the river in the past few years, especially today with that shamnesty. I can’t very well join the Evil Party, so what’s a young conservative to do?

 Justice Kennedy Only Humane When He Sides with Liberals

I found this idiocy by Robyn Blumner from a Hot Air headline: It’s from The Columbus Dispatch. She basically says the conservatives on the court are meanies!

Excerpt:

“The addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the heartless duo of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas has cemented a plurality for cruelty. If there's a choice between casting a lot for the little guy or putting a foot on his throat, it's a safe bet that these four will put on their jackboots.”

Godwin’s Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazi’s or Hitler reaches one. Violation occurred: Paragraph 2. I also like “the heartless duo.” To the Hatemobile Alito! We’ve got puppies to blend!

She goes on to complain the conservative side of the court wrote a dissent stating a prison guard who gave a prisoner a split lip and loosened teeth did not constitute cruel treatment. Boo Freaking Hoo! Chances are the prisoner started the fight and probably got worse from the other inmates. Otherwise it’s the same liberal hullabaloo. Everything is discrimination and therefore statutes of limitation don’t exist, the death penalty is wrong, and more bloviating from someone who has no understanding of how the legal system works. Most ironic is when she talks about the death penalty. She says the conservatives vote for death, when, thanks to a liberal court in Roe v. Wade, more children get aborted every single day than criminals have been executed by the death penalty in American history.

Here’s your sign:

“On the rare occasion that Kennedy finds his inner humanity, he joins the more liberal justices on court, leaving the four reactionaries to smolder in anger.”

Same thing we’ve all heard before. This is just the first time we’ve been called “meanies.” This is what passes for intellectual thought in liberal la-la land. Agree with me or you’re a fascist/reactionary/meanie!

Barack: Right-wing Christians have hijacked Christianity – and that’s divisive!

Hat tip: Hot Air

I’m a little late to the party; I meant to cover this yesterday. Anyway, isn’t it interesting how it is always Democrats talking about divisiveness? John Edwards’ whole campaign is about the “two Americas.” Now Barack has piped in, claiming it is the evil right wing dividing us over Christianity. “Divisive” seems to be Barry O’s favorite word. He used it in the Democratic debate over English as a national language, and now he’s used it in regard to Christianity. The only thing this tells me is that Barack would make the perfect president, just as long as no divisive issues ever came before him.

Liberals are always quick to call out the right, especially Evangelical Christians, for dividing the nation. Whenever the left decides it doesn’t like church doctrine, they just break off another sect and make it in the liberal image. The right is divisive, yet the Episcopalian church was A-OK’ing openly gay priests. The right is divisive, yet liberals consistently holler “who would Jesus deport?” or “who would Jesus bomb?” The right is divisive, yet liberals always tell us “Jesus was a liberal.” The right is divisive, yet liberals are always touting “judge not lest you be judged,” usually out of context, like it is the only thing Jesus ever said. The right is divisive, yet liberals (and some conservative atheists) always talk about how Christians are a load of idiots who mindlessly buy what their minister or pastor tell them.

The right hasn’t hijacked Christianity, the left has abandoned it. It is the Democratic Party leaders that are lamenting the thought of “injecting” religion into their platform, as if Christians are going to like them more if they liken faith to a booster shot. These charlatans think that faith is a means to a political end, not a set of strongly held principles and beliefs.

Perhaps if the left realized that Jesus wasn’t a tolerant wilting pansy, they might win some support back. When liberals recognize Jesus is the man who made a ministry out of taking on religious hypocrites they might get it. When they recognize Jesus went into the temple with a vine whip and drove the money-changers out they might get it. When they recognize Jesus was the man who said “go and sin no more” immediately after “let he who has not sinned cast the first stone,” they might get it. Until they realize that Jesus is not just a useful foil for gay acceptance, open-borders, anti-war causes, and diversity, they won’t be considered credible among practicing Christians, no matter how much they “inject” faith into their rhetoric. A pig in lipstick still isn’t kosher.

The World through Race-Colored Glasses

“Barack - the Magic Negro – lives in D.C. The L.A. Times, they called him that, cause he’s not authentic like me.” This is the beginning of a parody by Paul Shanklin that Rush Limbaugh aired on his show in March. It has only received attention because CBS 13 in Sacramento decided to do what dinosaur liberal networks are wont to do: pin conservatives with charges of racism. The song is performed in Paul Shanklin’s Al Sharpton impersonation; it addresses the lunacy of “authentic” blackness litmus tests by race lords like Sharpton and Jackson.

You see, Barack’s mother is white and his father is Kenyan. He’s part African, he’s definitely American, but he’s not “African-American.” Therefore, because he hasn’t grown up “in da hood” and does not owe any dues to Sharpton/Jackson Race War Unlimited, Inc. the authenticity of his blackness is considered questionable. What do I see when I look at Obama? An authentic left-wing socialist. Identity politics nauseate me and have no place in a presidential election, although I do prefer having the race/class/gender war confined to the Democratic primary instead of the general election. Not even the greatest spinsters can make a claim in the general that a vote against Obama is a vote for racism, especially after both Hillary and Edwards have slugged it out with him for various identity blocs.

The cause of all this brouhaha is seeing the world through the prism of race. For some people - mostly liberals and grievance mongers – anything that anyone does is colored (no pun intended) by their racial outlook and identity. Police pull you over? It’s cause you’re black. Hurricane levels your city? It’s cause Bush hates black people. Even a cashier taking an emergency call while you’re at the counter can be blamed on your perception of their perception of race. The lowest common denominator here is blame-shifting. Every man, woman, and child knows and abhors the evils of racism. Most people are consciously aware of their actions and try to treat everyone equally. The problem arises when a customer or employee, displeased by what could simply be absent-mindedness or generic rudeness, calls you a racist for not living up to the demands of a black person and by extension the black community.

One dynamic I have never understood is bowing before race lords Sharpton and Jackson and issuing an apology to “the black community.” Sharpton is among the biggest race-baiters and grievance-mongers to ever walk the earth. While he puts up a respectable front, when he’s speaking at closed engagements he talks about white interlopers and uses certain racial epithets that I refuse to repeat. You need only look at his actions regarding the Duke Lacrosse “Rape” Case. Mike Nifong (white guy) got all of Durham riled up in a race/class/gender war in order to get himself re-elected and all the left-wing dupes in Durham bought it, including 88 Duke Professors that have nothing but my disdain. But Sharpton and Co. say “Look Away! Look at the Larger Problem! Seek the Larger Truth!” as three hardly saintly but certainly innocent college students were nearly railroaded into jail. My surprise comes only from the fact Sharpton and Co. haven’t gone after Nifong for making the black population of Durham look like fools. I suppose since Nifong and Sharpton do the same thing in promoting “racial justice” regardless of cost, Nifong can be excused for his outright lies and gross miscarriage of actual justice.

Nifong has since been disbarred and hopefully more punishment awaits him from personal lawsuits. (H/T: Michelle Malkin) Jesse Jackson has fallen so low he was arrested outside a gun shop for protesting the death of a black youth, probably by a black gang. Jackson of course, assumes the gang kids bought their guns legitimately at the shop. The Race pimps are slowly being shunted into irrelevance, apparently there haven’t been enough stupid statements for them to continue the race gravy train, so they are resorting to low-level protests.

Ultimately, viewing everything through race-colored glasses is detrimental to society. It breeds hatred, it breeds conspiracy theory, it breeds distrust. It is difficult to fulfill Martin Luther King’s dream of judging a man by the content of his character instead of the color of his skin when race is all some people, black and white, can ever see. There is a new order of segregationists: Those who would deny justice in the name of an agenda. Those who live and breathe off the generation of racial tension and hatred. Those who would question the authenticity of those with too few loyalties to “the cause” and too much neutrality to “the enemy.” Sharpton and Jackson are just two outspoken examples of this new order, but others exist and pervade society. Duke has 2,518 professors, including adjunct and others. 3.5% of them were willing to condemn their own students publicly. How many more were silent, thinking the same way but not acting on it? I do not know and cannot read into the hearts of men, but this new order of segregationists must be exposed and defeated if true racial equality and harmony is to be achieved.

From the UK: Invertebrates are people too!

According to a Daily Mail article, there are some ridiculous animal welfare plans being considered in the UK.

“People could be prosecuted for being cruel to pet spiders, octopuses and restaurant lobsters under animal welfare plans being considered by the Government.”

I’ve eaten lobster a few times in my life, and this kind of stupidity is going to put a big damper on tourism spending by the wealthy. Nothing is more satisfying than cracking the shell open and sucking out the meat. It is truly a delicacy. I’m sure I just caused a few insane animal rights groups to vomit and prepare their red paint cans and “meat is murder” signs. Yeah, I know if ‘m staring at a slab of meat, something died. It’s called “being a predator.”

It isn’t really vegetarians or vegans I have a problem with. They are free to eat whatever they like and reject whatever they don’t. What I have a problem with is when their no-meat preference becomes an anti-meat campaign, complete with the idiocy in the Daily Mail article. I can understand the provision to protect pets; punishing cruelty to pets is a pretty commonsense thing. However, the rest of it works in effect to a ban on lobsters and octopi in restaurants.

This is because PETA and groups like them view animals as if they were humans and humans as if they were animals. They think it is equally wrong to boil a lobster as it is to boil a human alive. The difference is a lobster won’t go to waste; it is being boiled for the sake of consumption, not because people have a fetish with killing lobsters for sport. As to cows and chickens, they serve no other function other than providing food. The only reason there are so many is because most of them are bred for consumption anyway. The only thing a loose cow is good for is causing traffic accidents or feeding coyotes. A loose chicken’s fate is decided by whichever comes first: oncoming traffic, wild dogs, or a bird of prey.

Our society was built on the backs of meat-eaters. The people who created refrigeration, worldwide shipping, and supermarkets that weren’t afraid to shoot a deer or catch a fish in order to provide where they would otherwise starve are the only reason latte-sipping elitist vegetarians can eat a diet that won’t cause them to die of malnutrition. In Britain you couldn’t live on just corn and potatoes, you had to have meat if you wanted to be healthy. Eating a balanced vegetarian diet is hard work, and only came about after the selection was there. Vegetarianism was a form of slow suicide for most of history.

All I have to say is that I respect your decision to eat or not eat whatever you want. Please respect my decision to do the same.

 
Abortion causes another death, Planned Parenthood comment-less.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

Ah, my favorite people, Planned Parenthood. Not satisfied with decrying first amendment rights for pro-lifers in “Superhero for Choice,” nor with “I had an abortion” t-shirts, nor with covering for pedophiles, Planned Parenthood has once again committed an atrocity in the name of “choice.”

The victim: 21 year old Edrica Goode, killed by dilators that spread an infection from her cervix to the rest of her body. These dilators are used overnight before performing second-trimester abortions. Planned Parenthood’s reasoning is that she didn’t come back soon enough to have the dilators removed.

Maybe Planned Parenthood has sufficiently covered their rears by giving Ms. Goode instructions on when and how to return. If they didn’t, it wouldn’t really surprise me. Every single day they snuff thousands of lives out, what is one more stupid girl to them? They got their money and they’re happy. No comment, and forward all questions to their lawyers.

Michelle points out that this is the third such death in four years. Considering nothing in the links I posted in the first paragraph received any MSM coverage that wasn’t explicitly brought on air by Michelle and other pro-lifers, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to learn that many more incidents like this happen. Perhaps they don’t happen daily, but once a month or so somewhere in America. With 1.3 million abortions annually, this is bound to come up more than once.

Maybe the receptionists and the janitors of Planned Parenthood don’t have hearts of stone, but the organization leaders and lobbyists are little more than black-hearted murderers. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a thoroughly racist and elitist eugenicist. She would approve of the fact abortions have culled about 25% of the black population’s numbers, she would be happy the poor and minorities kill their children in disproportionate numbers to the rich and powerful. The only abortion she might have taken issue with is Amy Richards’ selective reduction because she would have been culling the offspring of a successful, mid30-something white socialite, not a black or a retard.

Never forget the past. Margaret Sanger is the effective godhead of the pro-choice movement. Arguments with many pro-choicers are futile. They only care about “women’s choices,” they never delve into the specifics of what that choice is. They don’t care. To them, the unborn are not worth less than the women who carry them, they are worthless period. Moral calculations and metrics are just ways to try and “prove” the inferiority of the unborn. If you’re a utilitarian, just say it; don’t get into some overcomplicated justification for it. Utilitarianism has a place in some moral calculi, such as during WWII when the British had cracked German codes. They knew a bombing was planned on a major city, but if they reacted too strongly they could lose knowledge of the code because the Germans would figure out the British knew it. There is no possible application for utilitarianism in the abortion discussion. You are weighing the life of two beings against the convenience of one. Only a scoundrel would argue the latter is more beneficial than the former.

Here is the ultimate goal of the pro-abortion lobby: remove the stigma of abortion and have multiple abortion packages, each more cryptic that the last. (Options include: a $250 Discount Package where you get tossed in and out, a $5000 “spiritual journey,” the ironically named “family package,” and the heart-warming “Abortions anonymous,” which is just like today: no reporting, no records, no nothing.)

Remember: Never Forget. Never give up. Never stop fighting against those who devalue life. First it’s the unborn. Then it’s the retards. Then it’s the minorities. Then it’s YOU.

Is Zombie Reagan The Only Man Conservatives Would Agree On?

I’m sure I’ll be accused of ignorance or blasphemy, but I really don’t see how setting the benchmark of any conservative candidate as the next Reagan is productive. Even the GOP debates were seen through the prism of Reaganism. I don’t remember Reagan, I was born while he was President, and the only active presidents I have any memory of hearing are H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Dubya himself.

Reagan, God rest his soul, has passed from this earth and he isn’t coming back. There is no one else who could be anything but either Reagan-lite by trying to follow him or Reagan-esque by using Reagan’s principles. Bush seems to be an example of Reagan-lite. He does recognize the enemy, he is willing to call them evil, and he is willing to pursue them. Unfortunately, Bush also seems to think passing an amnesty is also his destiny, the only difference being that Reagan called it as it was: an amnesty. Reagan was a great man and a great President, Bush will be remembered more for his bull-headedness than his better qualities, and he’s more like the late communicator, not the great communicator.

Most of the conservative candidates seem to be trying for Reagan-esque. Fred Thompson has the most parallels to Reagan, which would explain a lot of his support, but Fred isn’t Reagan. Anyone fantasizing that Fred will have a “tear down this wall, Mr. Ahmadinijad” is deluding themselves. Islamofascists aren’t Soviets. There’s an adage that says that Russians don’t take a crap without making a plan. No such adage exists for the fanatical suicide cult of radical Islam. The Soviets were reserved and fairly predictable. Islamofascists are scattered fanatical cells with a hive mind. Both groups had a bloodlust for power, but unlike the Soviets, Islamofascists don’t care if their soldiers get blown up, nuked, or shot.

What we need is not another Reagan. We need a different leader for a different time. It certainly wouldn’t hurt to have some of Reagan’s better qualities and solid conservatism, but ultimately we’re not looking for Reaganaut 2.0.

Which leads me to the thrust of this posting: there is a lot of bickering over the GOP contenders. Each one wasted a large portion of their time sucking up to a man who doesn’t need to be sucked up to. Everyone knows about the greatness of Reagan. We want to know what the greatness of Romney will be, or the greatness of Giuliani, or the greatness of Fred Thompson. We attack each other over who is the “real” conservative and who is a “flip-flopper.” While consistency in position and trustworthiness are valid concerns, attacking a candidate because they aren’t a reincarnation of Reagan-style conservatism is ridiculous. Zombie Reagan isn’t running, so choose a candidate that best fits your view of conservatism and defend that candidate. We’ll see who wins at the primary.

Wednesday Wit: The Amnesty Song

(Tune: The Proclaimers: 500 Miles)

When I go vote, well you know I’m gonna vote

I’m gonna vote the amnesty that will hurt you.

When I go talk, well you know I’m gonna talk

I’m gonna speak about how amnesty helps you.

If I go wrong, well it don’t matter to me

I’ll get re-elected and there’s nothing you can do

When I finish, yeah I know it will be done

I’ll be done when amnesty is shoveled through.

Well I would block 500 miles

And I would block 500 more

Just to be the one who blocked 1,000 miles

Of borders not secured.

When I sell it, I won’t say its amnesty

It’s “comprehensive,” really, yes, because that’s true.

When I push it, I ignore constituency

Cause I want that cheap labor to flow right through.

If you call me, I’ll deny its amnesty

I’ll deny it cause I don’t care about you.

If you call me, my staff will be haughty

Cause they only care about amnesty too.

Well I would block 500 miles

And I would block 500 more

Just to be the one who blocked 1,000 miles

Of borders not secured.

Ha ha ha ha ha (Ha ha ha ha ha)

Ha ha ha ha ha (Ha ha ha ha ha)

Ha ha ha Dun Diddle Un Diddle Un Diddle Uh Ha

Ha ha ha ha ha (Ha ha ha ha ha)

Ha ha ha ha ha (Ha ha ha ha ha)

Ha ha ha Dun Diddle Un Diddle Un Diddle Uh Ha

My name’s Graham, I support this amnesty.

Unions, Radio hate Catholics and Jews

My name’s Teddy, I support this amnesty.

It must be four times that I have done this to you.

My name’s Dubya, I support this amnesty

And I’ll destroy the base to make this bill go through

My name’s Johnny, I support this amnesty

And my campaign is in the crapper just like you.

Well I would block 500 miles

And I would block 500 more

Just to be the one who blocked 1,000 miles

Of borders not secured.

Ha ha ha ha ha (Ha ha ha ha ha)

Ha ha ha ha ha (Ha ha ha ha ha)

Ha ha ha Dun Diddle Un Diddle Un Diddle Uh Ha

Ha ha ha ha ha (Ha ha ha ha ha)

Ha ha ha ha ha (Ha ha ha ha ha)

Ha ha ha Dun Diddle Un Diddle Un Diddle Uh Ha

Ha ha ha ha ha (Ha ha ha ha ha)

Ha ha ha ha ha (Ha ha ha ha ha)

Ha ha ha Dun Diddle Un Diddle Un Diddle Uh Ha

Ha ha ha ha ha (Ha ha ha ha ha)

Ha ha ha ha ha (Ha ha ha ha ha)

Ha ha ha Dun Diddle Un Diddle Un Diddle Uh Ha

Well I would block 500 miles

And I would block 500 more

Just to be the one who blocked 1,000 miles

Of borders not secured.



As a note: I really do like all the songs I use as a base for satire. I use them because they aren't that horribly hard to fit other words to, although this doesn't translate nearly as smoothly as Reid's song, due to the erratic nature of word inflection.

Ron Paul: The ONLY Man Who Can Save America

My candidate update post pretty much summed up my thoughts on Ron Paul: libertarian crank, internet bark worse than his real-world bite, and hasn’t a shot in hell of winning the general election. His supporters disagree, however. They even disagree that he is a libertarian, despite his long-standing connections to Libertarian groups such as the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Witness this rant on rxpaul.townhall.com. Now, I’m all for reasoned opposition to any Townhall columnist’s ideas you don’t agree with. More than a few people criticized Linda Chavez when she made the insinuation that amnesty opponents are racists. Rxpaul’s modus operandi is not reasoned, however. The entire blog can be described as either a sainting of Ron Paul (it admits as much) or a hit-piece on any criticizer of Ron Paul or any other candidate. I’ve posted my response there; I don’t feel a need to repeat it here.

Lest you think I’m just piling on this one blog, I’m not. All of Ron Paul’s supporters believe he is the ONLY man who can save America. In straw polls that follow the favorable/unfavorable/first choice model, Ron Paul supporters put Paul as the only acceptable candidate, the first choice, and all other candidates as unfavorable, as seen here. Ron Paul does have a tendency to win internet polls and ONLY Internet polls. In any primary poll he hovers around 3%. Ron Paul is to internet polls what Fred Thompson is to all other polls.

Fred also has too much of a cult following for a guy who hasn’t even declared yet, but the worst offense Fredheads have is the idiotic exclamation point they put after his name. Unlike Paul, who I know is a libertarian crank and indistinguishable from Blame America Firsters save his opposition to open-borders, Fred can still win me over if he declares his candidacy officially. Fred really has no control over his fan base, the money just flowedeth into his campaign. It remains to be seen if he can use it wisely and perform in debates.

The point is, Ron Paul is not the messiah, and his supporters are the proof. Ron Paul reminds me of a liberal: they hate labels unless they are the ones giving them. Ron Paul and his supporters want to call themselves conservatives when it is clear they are internet-savvy libertarians. I had a libertarian friend at Bryant, and unlike Paul or his supporters, he never slinked away from what he was. (He did, however, quip that if you can get two libertarians to agree on anything, one of them is just being polite.) Apparently, Ron Paul is the only thing two (or more) libertarians can agree on.

Graham: Union Halls, Talk Radio Hate Catholics, Jews, Irish.

Hat tip: Hot Air

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-Amnesty) continues to articulate that opposition for this travesty of an immigration bill is tantamount to a willingness to do nothing at best or the preferences of racists and bigots at worst. His plea to pass anything rather than nothing quickly devolves into a fear we’ll start banning Hispanics from businesses. This coming from the man who spoke in front of La Raza (The Race), a group of Mexican racists who believe most of the southwest was stolen from them.

Conservatives do not oppose an immigration bill; they oppose an amnesty-granting bill. Remember last year, Senator Graham? You promised us a border fence. El Gringo de Mexico cut the funding, and as a result we have 2 miles of a 700 mile long fence built. Now you ask us to bend over again and take another? The Senate killed Tancredo’s bill to de-fund emergency funds to sanctuary cities, they have come up with highly questionable “point systems” for granting citizenship, and while they have promised a fence, you guys didn’t deliver the last one, so why should we expect you to this time?

Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us.

A Father’s Day Warning: Accept No Substitutes.

Father’s Day is one of the most important and underrated holidays in America today. It is pretty sad that I had to title this post what I did, but unfortunately we have a broken society, and only fathers can fix it. Not “strong women,” not “father figures,” I mean real, in the flesh, son-of-my-loins or foster parent, 24/7 Dads. As the adage goes, anyone can be a father; it takes a real man to be a dad.

“Father figures,” unless they are a foster dad totally dedicated to their child, are Dad-lite. You might admire them and look to them for guidance, but ultimately they are not responsible for your welfare and are not beholden to listen to all your problems. The other feminist lie is that father figures are “good enough.” “Good enough” doesn’t cut it, a figure is not a father; it’s a role model, like Curt Schilling. A role model is not a father replacement, it is a temporary crutch. A father figure will not feel as let down if they fail you as a real father will. A father figure is far less likely to be a stable presence. A single mother whose child has a father figure, not a father, is still being shortchanged.

Friday I posted about the “For Mother on Father’s Day” card. The “strong woman” as a replacement for dad is the most heinous of substitutes, and also the most popularly supported. Man-hating feminists love to hold up the “strong woman” as a suitable replacement for a father. It falls directly in line with their unspoken rhetoric: Men and women are the same, but women are better. Never will a feminist proclaim that an “effeminate man” can do the same job as a mother. “Strong man” isn’t in the feminist vocabulary, or if it is, it is always in the form of “a strong man isn’t afraid of a strong woman.” When I here a woman proclaim herself a “strong woman,” the first thought that comes to my mind is “feminist b*&%^,” if someone else calls their mother, aunt, grandmother, or sister strong, I view it as a term of endearment. I refuse to use the term “strong woman,” all of my female family members are hard-working and dedicated, calling them “strong” would be an insult to them; it doesn’t do them justice.

The fact is, no matter how strong the woman, a single mother is always worse off than a married one. For anyone thinking “what about child abuse,” stay your tongue. Child abuse is rare, women cause most of it, and single mothers are not exempt from abusing their children. One could even argue that single mothers who have driven off their man with paternity fraud or some other self-serving, psychotic measure are abusing their children. Women are not substitutes for men, and especially not fathers. The strong woman will still lift her children into her bosom while scolding them, unlike a dad who attacks them for shirking their duty and abandoning their honor. Mothers and fathers instill different values in their children.

I suppose it might help if I gave an analogy. Mothers are like The Red Cross. They heal the wounded, they have compassion for victims, they give care and understanding, and they try to protect people from injuring themselves further. They keep supplies well stocked for any emergencies that come up, and they worry intensely about their wards. Fathers are like The Marines. They instill the concepts of duty and honor and pledge to defend others. When you’re in the Marines, you might get knocked on your rear and you’ll suffer the consequences, but it’s up to you to get back up and build yourself up again. If a man falls down but can’t help themselves back up, it’s up to you to take them back for care. You still care about your fellow men deeply, but you leave the nurturing and healing to others because you still have a mission to accomplish.

Both of these organizations love, care for, and support their members, but they do so in different ways. It is important to learn compassion, sympathy, and empathy for others and to be able to heal them when they need it. It is also important to have a sense of duty and conviction, and to protect those around you even at the cost of your own life. The reality isn’t as dichotomous as this example, but the basic fact remains: women fall mostly in The Red Cross camp, and men fall mostly in The Marines.

Accept no substitutes for a real dad. “Strong women” and “Father figures” don’t cut it. They aren’t the same, they never will be, and anyone telling you different is an agenda-driven lackey for radical feminism. Fathers cannot be replaced anymore than mothers can, and it’s about damn time we started saying it.