Quote of the Day

In 1996, the Senate debated outlawing partial-birth abortion, whereby a baby is delivered feet first until only the top of the skull remains in the birth canal, then the skull is punctured and its contents emptied. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) asked two pro-choice senators, Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), this: If the baby slips entirely out of the birth canal before it can be killed, should killing it still be a permissible choice? Neither senator would say no. In a 1999 debate, Santorum asked Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) whether she agreed that “once the child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed.” Boxer said: “I think that when you bring your baby home . . .”


Planned Parenthood, which receives more than $500 million in government subsidies, is branching out, expanding its mission beyond the provision of abortions to the defense of consumers’ rights: If you pay for an abortion, you are owed a dead baby.

George Will

Unlimited Abortion Marches On, Dictated By Imperial Judgeship

A Federal judge has dictated that the Plan B abortion drug be sold over-the-counter to any female regardless of age. The drug does several "emergency" interventions, including preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus wall, so that the fertilized egg cannot progress toward fruition: i.e. the fertilized egg is aborted. Obama apparently approved the previous age wall set at the age of 17, but now approves of no age limit at all. This is in line with the Left's idea that no parental oversight is required for young girls to have an abortion.

The privacy of the family and the dominance of parental rights over government dictates are no issues for the Left, who approve of human Rights only as they, the elite Leftists, deign to dole them out.

Obama was known to advocate positive rights as early as a year before his first election. Positive Rights are those rights which are positively approved by the government, and no other rights exist - direct contradiction to the constitution and Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment, freedom of speech, is cherished by Left (but only for themselves, and freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion), while the Left hates the Second Amendment and takes every opportunity to attempt to eliminate it, step by step.

Rape of the Female Fetus: Profit From Abortion

Not only is abortion a good and and moral blessing according to its fans, it also is a resource for human parts. The debate now turns to the taking of eggs (ovary follicles actually) from dead female preborns. The issue of ethics is no barrier here, it appears. Why? The dead preborn human follicles have the capability of 7 million eggs, reduced to 250,000 at puberty. If researchers can harvest all 7 million, think of the cash (always follow the money - and the presumptive power it gives).

It has been claimed that requiring ultrasounds before an abortion is tantamount to raping the woman with a medical procedure. This hysterical claim is hardly radical compared to what is really happening.

Like a true rape, the surgeon would violate the human female, now dead at the hands of the surgeon of course, open up her sex organs and take her egg-producing follicles - for profit, no doubt (the AtheoLeft enjoys captitalism differentially). This is reported in the Daily Mail

Of course the reasoning is shrouded with moral overtones to cover the actual macabre post-abortion corpse rape. There is a shortage of human eggs in the world; this is a crisis of course, because there are women who must wait to get eggs.

Somehow, a crisis must be created, if one does not already exist to cover for the assault on human rights and dignity by the AtheoLeft. A waiting list justifies the plundering of human parts.

Those on the AtheoLeft who claim indignantly that there is no slippery slope are not just wrong, they are liars. This is the standard Leftist use of the Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach to eugenics and to all Leftist totalitarian power. In the Atheist VOID there is no moral compunction available to either guide or restrict the faux-ethic which the Atheist will derive for himself.

Yet they still cannot understand why they cannot be and are not trusted; it's because they are not deserving of it.

PS: As Avey pointed out, this fully exposes the lie that the fetus is not human: what other entity in the universe has human reproductive faculties?

Senator Obama on Protection of the Victim of Abortion

Obama has said that he wants abortion to be availble to his daughters; this video shows that his grandchidren don't garner his concern. His concern is for... the abortionist and the abortion, only.

If there is any question about Leftist ideology vs empathy, this should answer it. Also answered is whether Obama is Christian or Muslim: he is neither; he is a narcissist - Leftist.

The job of an abortionist is to relieve the woman of an unwanted progeny. If the progeny is alive after the abortion, then the woman still has that progeny, that infant which whe wanted dead and forgotten, and thus the abortion has failed.

Moreover, the objective of the abortionist is to complete that case with one live human and one dead human. There is no impetus for an abortionist to admit to failure of meeting the goals for the woman, nor to leave the human which is now erroneously living, alive, and not meeting the objective of the abortionist, himself.

The idea of a second physician, one who advocates for the erroneously living infant, is completely foreign to the killing culture. The abortionist's objective is defeated if the victim lives.

Always remember that the vaunted Tiller killed the 9 month (term) human by injecting its heart with toxins to kill it, making certain that it was dead before chopping it up. Empathy? Not so much.

And remember that abortion is big business; very big business. It must meet its objectives for itself and its customers: One live human and one dead human.

Atheist Knowledge of Religion

There is a common saying amongst Atheists that if you want to know something about religion, ask an Atheist. This is because Atheists think they know an awful lot about religion because they have “thought about it”, or they read the accusative biblical passages that are on most Atheist web pages.

The New York Times brings this into focus with their complete failure to comprehend the concept which makes Easter a celebration for Christians. The NYT had to issue a correction to its description of the fundamentals of Easter:

"Easter is the celebration of the resurrection into heaven of Jesus, three days after he was crucified, the premise for the Christian belief in an everlasting life. In urging peace, Francis called on Jesus to ''change hatred into love, vengeance into forgiveness, war into peace.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction:April 1, 2013

An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the Christian holiday of Easter. It is the celebration of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead, not his resurrection into heaven."

Of course the revision is still wrong: Jesus was not "resurrected" into heaven; he ascended.

These points are fundamental and when they are misunderstood it shows the depth of understanding which Atheists actually have of the religion which they despise.

Killing Babies

In case there ever was any actual doubt, Planned Parenthood endorses killing babies. The babies in question are those which survive an abortion, and are alive externally to, and independent of, the mother after the botched abortion. So the term “baby” is correct, and cannot be assailed by AtheoLeftists under any attempt to redefine the argument.

In the last week, a Planned Parenthood representative addressed a Florida State legislature hearing on abortion, and declared that life or death of any baby which survives an abortion can be decided by the mother and/or the physician.

"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Further, the Planned Parenthood representative claimed that taking the infant to a hospital for professional healthcare was problematic, due to “logistical” issues.

Previously, Planned Parenthood has been found to perform sex-selective abortions.

The Left is extending their devaluation of humans to include the categories "accidentally alive" and the "wrong sex". This is on top of the previous category of "any unborn human", which is the category used by Tiller and other induced-death abortionists, who inject toxin into the beating heart of a full term but yet unborn human, thereby requiring the abortive procedure to remove the new carcass which they create.

The total lack of compassion and empathy in Planned Parenthood is highly illuminated by declining to provide care for the living BABY due to logistical issues.

Yet the AtheoLeft continues to wonder why they are not trusted.

Pro-Choice Liberalism

From NYM

LGBT’s vs. Saint Patrick

Several major cities including New York City, Boston, and Cincinnati hosted St. Patrick’s Day parades without allowing LGBT participants to advertise while marching. In NYC, Christine Quinn, lesbian activist and candidate for mayor, sat out the parade while claiming,

”… she's both saddened and mystified that the parade continues to bar marchers from displaying any gay-pride messages, a policy that has spurred protests and litigation going back to the 1990s. It has even prompted the launch of an alternative, gay-friendly St. Patrick's parade.

"I've marched in Dublin (in its St. Patrick's Day parade) with visibly identifiable stickers and buttons that made clear we were both Irish and LGBT," she said this week, using an acronym for lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual. "If you can do that in Dublin, in God's name, why can't you do it on Fifth Avenue?"

Organizers say signs or buttons celebrating being gay would detract from the parade's focus on honoring Irish heritage. But gay people do march in the parade and are welcome, said Hilary Beirne, the parade's executive secretary.”

Let’s back up. She won’t march in a parade devoted to an evangelical religious icon because they won’t let her advertise the Brilliant Goodness of Lesbianism while marching? Surely she is not actually mystified by this; her mystification is disingenuous. She knows exactly why.

What she wants, and what all the LGBT activists want, is readily apparent: it is to demonstrate that they have conquered religion. Their banners would declare victory over the Saint which is being honored. It would be a victory of amorality over a specific moral code, a step toward the final paganization toward which the AtheoLeft so assiduously is driven; a victory of the VOID over actual principled behavior.

To be sure, the parade has morphed into more of an “Irish Pride” sort of event. And maybe it should be called just that: Irish Pride Day, rather than St. Patrick’s Day. But it is not. It is still St. Patrick’s Day.

I doubt that St. Patrick would have allowed Quinn to corrupt his efforts, or that he would appreciate LGBT advertisements to be used in his name.

On the other hand, I also doubt that there will be any stopping the AtheoLeft/LGBT irrational attacks, and that the descent into cultural tolerance of any and all abomination can be slowed, much less halted. It is pimped daily on the screens dominated by networks and Hollywood. And the only remaining illegal action is to object to it: that is an act of hate.

Dawkins Pigs Out.

Richard Dawkins is lacking attention, apparently. He seems desperate to pimp his new book. He has decided to make outrageously stupid statements to help him garner the attention he is lacking. Consider his latest tweet:

"With respect to those meanings of "human" that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig".

Now, now, Richard, your desperation is truly pitiful.

This is a conclusion without any premises. It is not an argument it is a papal encyclical. It is a declaration of belief without any evidence, without any empirical support much less any rational, deductive syllogistic argumentation. In short, it is blind belief type of religious nonsense.

Let’s count the ways:

1. Adult pigs are not in possession of human DNA.

2. Adult pigs (nor pigs at any stage of development) will ever, ever, ever, ever turn into humans at any stage of human development.

3. Although female Atheists might consider Dawkins a Male Chauvinist Pig, that designation is purely in honor of his porcine resemblance in attitude and not in genetics.

4. His statement is a dictum of degradation and devaluation from a position of arrogance and presumed elitist superiority to all other humans, whom he is at liberty to compare to other animals, lower life forms, or minerals as he declares them available for elimination as is convenient.

5. This is the same Dawkins who could find no moral basis for declaring that “Hitler was wrong”.

6. This is the same Dawkins who very cowardly protected his own life by “…not knowing much about the God of Islam” when pressed for a position on Al Jazeera. He always has courageous positions about Christianity, of course. Abortion of himself is not as issue, since he didn’t have his own skull scissor-stabbed and crushed, and his arms ripped off to ease the abortion.

7. This is the same Dawkins who considers himself to be a biologist and evolutionary expert/hero; so he probably knows that a pig is not more human than “any fetus”, since a pig is not human under any interpretation, even the loose interpretations of evolution. So he is declaring rather that a fetus is in no manner a human, regardless of the fact that it is alive and growing; it is a fully defined individual human with its unique human DNA; all humans (1) are unique and go through the stages from fertilized egg through developmental transitions to birth, and onward.

Richard Dawkins has stepped on himself, but it likely will be hardly noticed amongst his aficionados. Logic is not their bag. Conclusions without premises is what works for them.

(1) Split cell twins, etc. excepted, of course.

ADDENDUM:

In a subsequent tweet, Dawkins clarifies his criteria for being human vs. non-human:

“Human” features relevant to the morality of abortion include ability to feel pain, fear etc & to be mourned by others.

Dawkins has added one incredibly revealing feature: "to be mourned by others". The fact that Dawkins adds this indicates that he actually believes that the loss of certain classes of preborn humans cannot be mourned. Cannot be. His presumptuousness is massively arrogant. He knows no such thing. And I personally know differently; all it takes is observation of living things (an empirical approach apparently not familiar to evolutionists). (1) This criterion is too absurd to be considered a rational statement. What it reveals is the callousness and the total lack of empathy which Dawkins has, not just for the preborn human, but also for the adult humans who lose preborns. Let's repeat: total lack of empathy. And let's add this: total ignorance of the psychology surrounding the death of preborns, including mourning.

These criteria, of course, can be applied to postnatal humans too, under certain circumstances. For instance, anyone who is under sedation. (2) And Trotsky likely never felt anything when the icepick ended his human existence.

The abortion lovers will continue to word-shop around for terminology which they think suffices to allow them to devalue humans. The fact is that they are engaged in devaluing living, unique, growing human individuals at necessary and therefore legitimate stages of human development. They do this using false intellectualism and false moral declarations, the exact tactics of totalitarians.

The specious arguments made by the abortionistas illuminates how desperate they are to preserve eugenics and their right to devalue humans to enable their killing. They are passionate in their defense of eugenics to the point of demonstrating fully that their passion completely destroys their remnants of rationality.

(1) I had a cow that miscarried twins at a very early stage of development. She was hysterical, and went berserk when I tried to remove them. So I left them there for a while for her to mourn. She licked them and licked them, and hours later she was still at it.

(2) which is transparently why Dawkins added the absurd “mourning” requirement, while neglecting the unintended consequences of adding that criterion, which in turn demonstrates that it is ideology and not biological science.

You Are Here: The State of State Control

A graphical representation of our position in history is given at Zero Hedge. The relative positioning is related to the books, "1984", by George Orwell, and "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. These books were not required reading in school back when they came out, yet everyone I knew read them and discussed them along with Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies amongst many others. I don't know if the subsequent generations of maleducated and low information Americans have read them, or have even heard of them. I doubt they are on youtube or are mentioned by the comics from which the Left gets their information to live by. These books are not about rainbows and tolerance of absolutely everything but criticism. Well, they sort of are, actually, except for rainbows.

On a semirelated note, Bill Mahr is threatening to bolt from California due to taxes... But Bill, taxes are the blood flow of the Left; you gotta love taxes! Wait, I get it. Taxes are for other people: for the masses.