The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “war on women”

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 11: Her Support of “Women’s Automony” Means Death To Millions Of Unborn Girls

They call it “gendercide”.  The deliberate killing of an unborn child based on its gender.  In the vast majority of cases that gender is female.  The House of Representatives tried, but failed, to pass a law that would have outlawed this type of abortion.  However, Democrats, virtually all of whom are pro-abortion on demand, blocked passage of the law.  Naturally, all pro-abortion liberal feminists are giddy with sadistic delight over this, including Michelle Goldberg who writes:

Sex-selective abortion is odious. Banning it means allowing the government to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate a pregnancy.”

In other words, so far as “woman’s autonomy” goes, and just how far Michelle Goldberg and all her liberal, pro-abortion feminist ilk are willing to go to preserve that “autonomy, Goldberg, like all pro-abortion liberal feminists, believes the killing of an unborn girl “constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate her pregnancy”.  Goldberg believes abortion on demand, for any reason a woman might dream up, during any time she is pregnant, including up until the very due date, the very moment the baby is about to pop its head out, (crowning) is acceptable enough time to still kill the child before it is legally and technically born.

Goldberg uses an excuse to deflect attention away from this heinous and despicable type of abortion by reminding us that most “gendercide” abortions occur in Asia, in China and India, and are not that common in America.

Reporting on sex-selective abortion in India, where feminists campaign against kanya bhronn hatya—literally, “the killing of young girls”—and patriarchs angrily assert their right to plan their families, I sometimes felt like I’d stepped through a looking glass. Clearly, the American anti-abortion movement would be happy to frame the debate in similar terms.”

We only frame the debate on abortion in one term – the killing of innocent life.  While Goldberg works to protect “woman’s autonomy” over her body by fighting for greater legal protections for woman and girls of all ages to have guaranteed rights to abortion whenever they want, we who are pro-life fight for greater legal protections for the unborn from those women and girls who would seek to end their pregnancies based upon the viscous lies of Michelle Goldberg, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, Cecile Richards, Terri O’Neill and Nancy Keenan, and all liberal pro-abortion feminists.  Their lies have caused the deaths of scores of millions of unborn children over the decades, and over 100 millions unborn girls.

These same undeniably callous and passionately misguided women who dare to claim there is a war on women being waged by the GOP and conservatives are the real terrorists waging a war on women by intentionally deceiving and misleading women and girls into believing that abortion is not the killing of an unborn child but just the removal of a blob of tissue, a “zygote”, a few cells, etc.  They would look us in the eyes and demand we yield to their insanity.  We dare to look back into their eyes and stand tall, stand proud, stand resolute in our courage and conviction that abortion takes the life of an unborn child and we will not back down.

Writes Goldberg:

It’s not surprising that anti-abortion activists see sex-selective abortion as their trump card. The issue puts feminists in a particularly difficult spot, turning reproductive choice into a tool of misogyny.”

Difficult spot?  Where is there a liberal pro-abortion feminist that has come out in support of banning “gendercide”?  If it was a “difficult spot”, if there was any amount of “difficulty” that put feminists in a “spot” that “difficulty” would have derived straight from their own conscience and every single feminist knows it.  In other words, the only way Michelle Goldberg or any liberal pro-abortion feminist could be put in a “difficult spot” is if their own conscience turned against their liberal feminist mindset.

Misogyny?  Michelle Goldberg supports the killing of unborn girls.  the GOP and conservatives support protecting unborn girls from being killed in the womb because they are girls in the womb.  Who is the real misogynist?

Of course, the real “difficult spot” Michelle Goldberg and her ilk have been put in is that they are forced by their own narrow-mindedness to support the killing of unborn girls because if just that one type of abortion is wrong, and they accept that it is wrong, such a move opens up the very real possibility of ending other types of specific abortion like abortion based on race and sexual orientation.

That Michelle Goldberg supports the killing of unborn girls in the womb without reserve, also means she supports the killing of blacks in the womb because they are black, and the killing of gays in the womb because they will be born gay.  And there in lies the rub.  She must support killing blacks and gays in the womb, just as vehemently as she must support the killing of girls in the womb.  Any hesitation, no matter how slight, is indication that abortion, for even one specific reason, may be wrong and immoral when done for other specific reasons.

Can there be any doubt that Michelle Goldberg cringes over the thought of one girl being killed in the womb because of its gender?  Either she cringes, perhaps even weeps, or she has no heart, no conscience, at all.  And yet, Michelle Goldberg must go along with “gendercide”, supporting it and being unapologetic in her pursuit of abortion on demand, deflecting the issue as anti-woman, a war on women and misogynist.

For now, with the failure to pass “gendercide” in the House, a “woman’s autonomy” remains intact.  However, the war on unborn girls continues to be waged, taking a heavy toll and untold casualties all in the name of “pro-choice”.  Does the right to choose to kill an unborn girl in the womb. because it is a girl, in any way really preserve a “woman’s autonomy”?

Concludes Goldberg:

The lesson is clear. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about sex-selective abortion should be working to fight sexism, its underlying cause. Laws that seek to limit women’s autonomy and confine them to traditional roles have it precisely backward. Unless, of course, limiting women’s autonomy and confining them to traditional roles has been the goal all along.”

Fighting sexism by supporting abortion, and supporting the killing of unborn girls in the womb, is counterproductive.  Sexism, in itself, is why unborn girls are being killed in the womb in the first place.  For Goldberg to insinuate, to insist, that sexism will end when women have the right, and so long as they maintain that right, to kill their unborn girls in the womb without government interference would be laughable but for its tragic consequences.  Goldberg wants us to believe that sexism will end when women have the right to abortion, and the right to kill their unborn child for any reason at any time during her pregnancy – on demand, in privacy, without anyone trying to prevent her from going through with it.  Goldberg is deluding herself if she thinks we are that gullible.

We who are pro-life will continue to find ways to ban abortion, at the same time we work to educate woman and girls about the realities of abortion.  Michelle Goldberg expounds the lies of Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, NOW and Terry O’Neill and NARAL and Nancy Keenan.  These women support the killing of girls in the womb, blacks in the womb, gays in the womb any unborn child in the womb.  Either that is moral or that is immoral.  Either that is evil or that is benevolent.  Either that is right or that is wrong.  Either we – who are pro-life – have the courage to continue fighting to save the lives of unborn children or we stand aside and allow the slaughter to go on without stop.  We know where Michelle Goldberg is on this.  Where are we on this?

About these ads

Meet The Anti “War On Women” Women

Foolish liberal feminists who wrongly and irrationally complain about a war on women ought to be prepared to meet their betters.  One group of conservatives is going to make it awful difficult for them to be taken as anything other than the joke that they are.  What makes this group of conservatives so special and unique?  They are all women.  Yes, that’s right.  Women!  Women standing up for conservative principles amidst the fog of war that is in actuality no war at all, but in the lurid, corrupt and feckle-encrusted minds of liberal feminists like Sandra Fluke, the National Organization of Women, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the entire Democrat Party, all of whom are the real traitors to, and of, women.  Women will be represented in congress, and women will be a driving force in shaping policy.  But it will be conservative women, not mushy, emotional, nonsensical, wishy-washy feminists who demand the killing of unborn children be legally sanctioned by government and paid for by taxpayers.

Does that sound erratic and scatter-brained to you?  These conservative women are proof that the war on women is, and has been, a canard all along.  Nobody is being fooled by this charade but these feminists themselves who still think they have made any case at all against conservatism and so-called misogynists who oppose taxpayer-funded contraception and forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control, including that birth control used specifically in the act of sexual irresponsibility.

The National Organization of Women, which is the equivalent of an empty, discarded shell not even a crustacean would inhabit tried, and failed, to shut down Rush Limbaugh, has been telling American women for decades that men, and conservative men in particular, are anti-woman.  Yet, for all their pooh-poohing, there are more women (Rush Babes, as they are known) who support Limbaugh than support NOW.  If American women really felt there was a war on women, wouldn’t that be reversed?

The reality is, as it has always been, that women are far more pro-life and pro-family than liberal feminists give them credit for being.  But that doesn’t translate into the “barefoot and pregnant” definition liberal feminists have ascribed to being pro-life and pro-family.  It’s interesting to note that while conservative men are not at all fearful of a conservative women with an intelligent, independent mind of her own, liberal feminists are.  A woman’s mind that cannot be controlled, influenced and shaped by liberal feminist dogma is a mind that any liberal feminist fears.

Every other group in America is “coming out”.  Now it is time for conservative women to come out.  There are many millions of them, whose numbers are being underrepresented in the MSM.  Conservative men, who are secure in both their politics and their manhood, are looking for more conservative women to come out of the shadows and help them win back America from the grips of liberalism and to beat back those feminists who insist to be pro-life is to be a misogynist.

The values and morals held by conservative women are worth taking seriously.  The values and morals held by liberal women are worth taking out with the trash, seriously, including their biography of “Julia“.  But when you do take them out to the trash, don’t mix them in with the recycling.  Or – do you see anything in liberal feminism worth reusing?

Psychopath Sandra Fluke; Her Spoiled Little Brat Syndrome

Being 30 years old has not stopped Sandra Fluke from acting a lot like a spoiled little brat.  You know, the child that doesn’t get her way so she throws a tantrum until she does get her way; the child who always points her finger to another person and lays blame on them for an accident she committed herself; the child who will lie and lie and lie until she gets her way.  That’s Sandra Fluke!

Sandra Fluke enrolled into Georgetown University for one reason, by her own admission, solely to make her case as to why the religious university ought to provide contraception to its students, and why it ought to be provided for free.  Sandra was smart enough (psychopaths generally have a high intelligence level) to know that Georgetown would rebuke, rebuff and flat-out deny her “request”.

Enter the contraception mandate and Obamacare.  An opportunity came along for Sandra to put Georgetown’s thumbs to the screws, so to speak, by engrossing herself in a public forum to humiliate and embarrass the university in front of congress, in a way she believed would cause Georgetown to fold and buckle under an immense pressure from the students of Georgetown, from congress and from the American public.  This flagrant display was intended to be her masterpiece.  Why then, did it not go as planned?

What Sandra hadn’t counted on was the fact that conservatives in America are far more powerful, far more influential, far more organized than she ever gave us credit.  She also did not factor in that a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, which includes the contraception mandate and forcing religious institutions to provide services and procedures that go against their moral and religious convictions.  (Psychopaths, while highly intelligent, are also exceedingly arrogant and full of themselves.  Too conceited to pay attention to, or look beyond, their own ego.)

This miscalculation, which has been a major backlash against Sandra, against Obamacare, against liberalism, has caused Sandra to become even more outspoken, and deeply entrenched in her own lie – that she is merely fighting for contraception for students who need it for health and medical issues like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis”, which she reiterated at an event at Georgetown University.

But we are not talking about contraception for  “a lot of medical issues.”  That has never been the debate, and that has never been what Sandra herself has been fighting to achieve for female students at Georgetown.  Sandra has always been fighting for free contraception for use in promiscuous sex, which, sadly, many people engage in.  And while conservatives are not about to enter into a debate as to whether consenting adults, or even teenagers, ought to be prohibited by law from engaging in promiscuous sex (it’s futile and we recognize American citizens have the right have sex with whom they choose), we, as conservatives, are very willing to make certain that those men and women who do engage in sex, for the sake of sex, do so on their own dime and accept the consequences of that decision.

Sandra Fluke, among other liberals, opposes that.  She demands that, while consenting Americans of all ages have a fundamental right to have sex with whom they choose, they ought to have those choices subsidized by American taxpayers and institutions that provide healthcare and health related services, including religious institutions.  As conservatives, we obviously strongly and absolutely disagree with that.  In doing so, however, we are by no means attempting to say that women with health issues, clearly and specifically diagnosed by a professional and competent doctor, ought to unduly suffer because she cannot afford the cost of the medication she needs to help offset the pain and suffering.

But – is that really why these students/women are using contraception?  To offset enduring and persistence pain and suffering?  And, could there be some other medication they could take, other than contraception or birth control that helps alleviate and end the pain?

Here is the problem with that.  Sandra specifically targeted Georgetown University.  She enrolled in it, and paid the cost of tuition and all expenses included, which was over $40,000/year.  Why did she have to enroll and spend that much money simply to shed light on a compelling issue that affects not only female students at Georgetown, but millions of American women?  And – why Georgetown?  In other words, if all Sandra was trying to do was find a solution to how women with otherwise less of an economical means could pay for contraception and birth control and have it provided for them for legitimate and specific health issues – why the elaborate scheme of enrolling in Georgetown?  Why the long-about rouse of thinking she had to be a student of Georgetown in order to be heard?

Obviously Sandra had an ulterior motive.  It had to be a religious college, for one; and it had to be a prestigious one so that when it caved under public pressure (per Sandra’s plan) the smaller, less prestigious, less noteworthy religious colleges would feel compelled to cave as well.  And not only religious colleges, but all religious institutions that provide healthcare.  Sandra delved into this complex strategy to discredit religion itself.  What else makes sense?  That part of her plan failed.

And what do psychopaths usually do when a part of their plan fails?  They dig in deeper.  Sandra is no exception.  That is why she is back at Georgetown still insisting the college needs to provide contraception and birth control to students because:

Most students don’t realize that contraception coverage will not be on their insurance when they arrive at Georgetown.  We’re used to having contraception readily available.”

This is an another incredible statement coming from Sandra.  What she is saying is that “most students” are not researching Georgetown University as thoroughly as they ought to before they decide to send in an application for enrollment.  Is that really true?  Also puzzling, and damnably so, is the fact that if a student can afford the high cost of enrollment, why then could they not afford the small pittance of the price for birth control and contraception without having to beg for it to be subsidized by the university?  And why, if Sandra is only urging for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” is she not insisting, publicly, that she would accept Georgetown University’s prohibition on these when used only for sex?

Sandra is demanding Georgetown provide birth control and contraception, free of charge to all students, regardless of why they actually want it.  How does that make sense?  And who picks up the cost if Georgetown is forced to acquiesce?  Wouldn’t that have to be passed on to all Georgetown students in the form of higher tuition and other costs associated with being  a student as Georgetown?

Said Fluke:

“Prevention of pregnancy is a public health need.  When we’re talking about public policy, we need to look at reality, rather than [Church] ideology.”

In other words, Sandra is not really advocating for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” at all.  That is a cover story for her real intentions.  Sandra really is, and always has been, advocating for women to engage in promiscuous sex (all part of the women’s liberation movement and liberal feminism) and for “prevention of pregnancy” that often results in that sex, i.e. – abortion.  And she is demanding the cost for the “prevention of pregnancy” be picked up by Georgetown, which she has known long before she actually enrolled, opposed such a policy.  Sandra knew, long before she enrolled at Georgetown, that it is a religious college with a strong commitment to its religion.  Sandra sought to break that strong bond.  She is still trying.

Sandra has never once denounced the use of birth control and contraception for non “medical issues”.  If she was challenged directly to take a position; if Sandra was challenged to assert whether or not she is merely in favor of Georgetown University having a better health plan and coverage for those students who actually and legitimately are suffering from real “medical issues” like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis” – would Sandra be willing to concede Georgetown’s right in prohibiting birth control and contraception for all other “issues”, like promiscuous sex and to end an unwanted pregnancy?  Knowing that, is where we can begin to unravel the mystery that is the psychopath, Sandra Fluke.  But only if we press her to answer the right questions.

A “War On Women”? Then Let It Be An Armageddon! And Let These Women Feel Our Intense Wrath Reign Hellfire And Damnation Down Upon Them…

Sharpen your wits and your tongues – liberals insist there is a war on women.  On the one hand it’s absurd, but the more we (conservatives) attest to its absurdity, the louder liberals cry “war on women”.  They own the MSM and so have the ability, through their puppet stations and wide variety of media outlets, to drown out the opposition – which is us.  (That market, by the way, has been diminishing for many years.)  On the other hand, liberals are emphatic in their insistence that a “war on women” truly exists, and is being waged on women, by conservatives, specifically.  Who are we, then, to quibble over trivialities?

Liberals have defined this “war on women” as a war intentionally designed to either remove by degrees and increments, by huge chunks or eliminate altogether in one fell swoop, the legal right women now have with regards to, as liberals call it, reproductive health decisions.  (Conservatives understand the myriad code words, phrases and lingo liberals use.)

What liberals are really saying when they claim a “war on women” exists is that conservatives are trying, and often succeeding at unprecedented levels liberals never thought could be possible, to make illegal what is now legal, and has been legal since 1973.  Namely, the legal right to have an abortion.  Abortion – also known as the killing of unborn children.  That is what all this hub-bub and hullabaloo is all about.  Women – liberal women – want to retain the right to kill unborn children at will and in privacy.  And damn anyone that tells them they can’t do that!

Abortion is only a legal right, and only intact as long as there is a majority support for it in legislatures which, and by legislators who, are elected to pass and abolish laws.  But no law is set in stone, even liberals know that.  And it’s interesting to note that liberals, with the exception of abortion, reject the notion any law is “set in stone”, including, and especially pertaining to, our Constitution.  Nothing is untouchable, so far as liberals are concerned, except abortion.  “Separate but equal” was set law for many decades, longer than Roe vs. Wade has been around.  That was overturned, rightly, of course.  But Roe vs. Wade, of which liberals and feminists just celebrated the 39th anniversary, contest is set in stone.  Can anyone name any other law liberals attest is also set in stone?

Now, we – those of us who are pro-life – have but two options:

One – we can acquiesce to liberals; we can accept that abortion is set law, well established, well grounded, stare decisis; we can remove our vocal and physical presence and simply walk away; we can tie our hands behind our backs and turn a blind eye; we can ignore what we know is happening behind closed doors in privacy, roughly one million times a year across America; we can abandon morality, ethics, common decency and common sense and sensibility; we can make all the pretend excuses we want for our silence, to replace and to fill the vast void, the nothingness left from our absence.  Liberals would love that.

Two – we can grow some courage, stand up and fight.  We can meet liberals on the battlefield and make war with them, crush them, annihilate them, bury them underneath the weight of their own fallacies, their own hyperbole, their own arrogance, their own hubris!

We are not at war with women to take away their right to:  vote, work, get an education, read and write, walk in public without a male escort; marry whom they choose.  We are not at war with women to make them:  less equal to men in any sense of Constitutional law, the dominion of men in any sense of the definition, “barefoot and pregnant”, homemakers and housewives, miserable.

But we are at “war with women” if, and because, liberals have defined this “war on women” as a war against abortion, and to end abortion in America.  In that sense – liberals are absolutely right, damn right, about there being a “war on women”.  Who are we, pro-lifers, to deny that war does not exist?  Who are we to reject that “war on women”?  Hold your head high and embrace it!  Revel in it!  Relish it!  Embroil yourself in it!  Fight!

Homosexuals Attacked By Bigoted Arianna Nation (HuffPost); Uses Lesbian Hilary Rosen To Attack Conservatives

The Arianna Nation is brushing off the Hilary Rosen “war on women” remarks as nothing, while at the same time accusing conservatives of attacking Rosen because she is a lesbian.  Which is it?  The Arianna Nation is trying to have it both ways, saying that Rosen’s remarks were not worth the time everyone has invested talking about it.  But because Rosen is a lesbian, the Arianna Nation has found something it could latch onto it could not – it would not – have if Rosen was not a lesbian.  In other words, the Arianna Nation is using Rosen, and her being  a lesbian, as a weapon to attack conservatives.  How does that make gays and lesbians feel?

Barely anywhere is anyone talking about Rosen’s homosexuality, so why invoke it?  Conservatives are outraged that Rosen has insulted both Ann Romney and all women who make the decision to stay at home and raise a family.  We could care less that Rosen is a lesbian.  This is how the Arianna Nation really feels about homosexuals – using them, degrading them, putting them in the middle of the so-called “war on women”.  Gays and lesbians are being used as props in the Arianna Nation’s war on conservatives and Republicans.  It is the Arianna Nation which is willing throw gays and lesbians under the bus to further their own liberal agenda, and somehow gays and lesbians are supposed to feel proud of supporting this online publication?

Planned Parenthood Is Praying, Literally, For The Death Of Unborn Children

It’s apparently hard times for Planned Parenthood, and they are hurting, financially, as more women choose life for their unborn children rather than the sought after death that pro-abortion supporters have been fighting decades to increase.  In response to this,  Planned Parenthood has taken a new and unusual approach.  Although one can hardly call Planned Parenthood religious, they hasn’t stopped them from turning to God in prayer – praying for more business. They are literally praying for women to come into abortion clinics and end their pregnancies.  And, as it turns out, they have some help from an unexpected source.  Christians, usually an arch-enemy of abortion advocates, have come to the aid of Planned Parenthood.  And Planned Parenthood, needing all the help it can get, is not turning a blind eye on these “religious” fanatics.  Is there any new low Planned Parenthood is not willing to go?

Religions do not differ on the life issue – all major religions are pro-life and oppose abortion, which is the killing of unborn children.  However, individuals with warped minds, and a false sense of what religion is and what it represents, have managed to infiltrate these religions with pro-abortion, pro-liberal, pro-Leftist propaganda and have begun to warp and twist religion, bend, weaken and tweak it in order to make religion irrelevant.  Because, right now religion, and the conservative elements of Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, even Mormonism, are what is holding together the fabric, the sanctity, the value of human life.

What happens, then, when liberal, pro-abortion organizations find ways to infiltrate what has always been a safe haven for life?  What happens when more “religious” people turn their backs on life and embrace death?  And what exactly is the reason why anyone would embrace death for unborn children, rather than life?  Obviously, there is nothing in the deal for the unborn children that are aborted.  What is in it for the women who have the abortions?  For that matter, what is in it for those “religious Christians” that have sided with Planned Parenthood?  We know full well what Planned Parenthood has to gain from abortion, and more abortions, right?

Woman Your Battlestations! There Is A War On Women!

Apparently American women are being attacked and maligned after-all.  We had all thought this “war on women” was phony and doctored-up by the Democrat Party in a vain attempt to distract voters from the dismal and pathetic record of Barack Obama.  We thought this whole “war on women” spiel was nothing more than a gimmick to damage Republicans and help elect more Democrats.  ladies and gentlemen – it has now been confirmed, and it is now been made official – there really is a war on women being waged right here in America.  A vicious, savage, despicable, hateful war.  Women really are in serious danger, right here in America.  But, as it turns out, women have nothing whatsoever to fear from Republicans.  Rather, women have everything to fear from – Democrats.  Democrats have declared a war on women, and the values that women still hold dear in America, despite the Left’s brutal attempts over the decades to paint women, conservative women, as traitors, and belittle those women who value family, and raising their children over selfishly throwing their kids under the bus for a career of their own.  Mind you, it is still a phony “war on women”, but who could have really expected it was actually the Democrats, all along, who have been waging and coordinating this “war on women”?

This is the video that started the “War On Women”…

So, according to Hilary Rosen, women are “old fashioned” who make the decision to stay at home and raise their children, instead of leaving them in the care of a “nanny” or babysitter while they pursue a working career.  While it is more true than false that Democrat and liberal women value a career more than they value family and raising children, because America as a whole does not yet see it that way, there is still a level of damage control needed to be done by Obama’s campaign staff.  This is why David Axelrod took to Twitter and issued this response:

Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.

In other words, Axelrod, and others in Obama’s circle are beginning a mini war on Hilary Rosen herself.  Remember, Obama is not above throwing anyone in his camp under the bus that might cause him or his reelection campaign damage or create a negative influence on his faux prestige.

And recall that Hilary Rosen was not the only women to complain and criticize about stay at home moms:

It is a long established fact that liberal women hate family, hate the idea of raising their own children, hate the idea of being a stay at home mom and hate the idea of being labeled as a “homemaker”.  Liberal women are the real instigators of the “war on women”, going back all the way to the early 1900’s.  Margaret Sanger might very well have been the woman who started the “war on women”.  In any event, if we are to conclude that a real “war on women” is being waged in America, who do we rightfully put the blame on for having started it?  Conservatives and conservative women, as Hilary Rosen, Hillary Clinton and all liberal women suggest, and for which the Democrat Party, including its cheer-leader, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, have been propagandizing?

Not all women have bought into this phony war.  In fact, most American women are perfectly satisfied with committing more energy to their family, and raising their children. than Democrats have ever given them credit for.

And it is a sure bet liberal women, and Democrats, male and female alike, will lose even more support now as their anti-women, anti-family position becomes clearer to the American public.  Obama has no choice but to throw Rosen under the bus to help save face, and to help save his reelection bid.  Even Obama knows that “homemakers” far out number, and are far more powerful a voting block than women who have abandoned their families for their own selfish and self-interest gains.  But, is it too late for Obama to rectify and reposition himself as a “family-friendly” President?  Has Obama ever been a “family-friendly” President to begin with?  Has Obama ever been a “woman-friendly” President?

Liberal Women Paint The Killing Of Unborn Children With “Flowery” Buzzwords

Abortion, in America, is nearing its bloody end.  A bold statement perhaps, but liberals, and liberal feminists, are all too aware of what is going on in America, the political climate circulating around abortion and their inability to get around the fact that abortion is, always has been, and always will be – the killing of  an unborn child.  But that does not stop them from trying.

Abortion won’t end tomorrow, nor will it end immediately after Romney is sworn in as President.  But Americans are more pro-life (a term dreaded and despised by liberals) than they have ever been, and that trend will continue to grow.  To counter this shift, to delay it, to turn it back to the pro-abortion side, a new marketing scheme is underway to make you think that abortion is really all about “women’s health planning”.

Arianna Nation SS contributors, Vicky Kuperman and Erica Grossman write:

It’s [abortion] all about political “framing,” a term that is familiar to anyone who has even occasionally channel-surfed through C-SPAN. In the case of women’s rights, conservatives have historically excelled at cloaking their various agendas — primarily, their fierce opposition to abortion — in either sunny, feel-good terms (“pro-life” as opposed to “anti-abortion,” for example) or in graphic and shocking terms (“partial-birth abortion” as opposed to “late-term abortion”). In the end, these emotionalized buzzwords have enabled them to perfect a kind of moral hijacking, hitting their base in the gut, and rallying them through anger and fear.

Why would pro-abortion advocates have to go to such lengths to disguise abortion if a majority in America are pro-abortion?  We can clearly see how much Vicky and Erica disdain life in their mockery of the term “pro-life”, and how much they are in denial over the definition of “partial-birth abortion”.  Partial birth abortion is an exact term.  In other words, it describes exactly what is happening – the child is partially born (removed from the womb), but because its head is too large to fit comfortably through the birth canal, the doctor plunges a long, sharp probe into its skull and begins sucking out the brain and fluids, which deflates the head and makes for an easier passage.  That is what Vicky, Erica and every other damned, contemptible supporter of this procedure don’t want you to actually know or understand.  Hence, they “flower” the term and make it smell better to the unwary, the uneducated, the unknowing and unsuspecting people they have been able to brainwash.  “Late term abortion” they dub it.  Because most people who support abortion don’t actually know what abortion is, calling partial birth abortion simply a “late-term abortion” will not register with these people.

Liberals will indeed need a better marketing strategy if they want to continue brainwashing people into support the killing of unborn children.  What is ironic is, the more they attempt to distract and disguise what abortion really is with “flowery” rhetoric, speech, and buzzwords, the more they actually expose themselves and their agenda and how shady, how corrupt, how disingenuous they, and abortion, really is.

And if they think they can mask the killing of unborn children by calling it “women’s health planning”, this will be another surefire disaster for them.  They – liberals and liberal pro-abortion feminists – are engaged in a cover-up.  They are guilty of doing to, and for, abortion exactly what was being done for decades by the Catholic hierarchy with their pedophile priests in that each of the two realities – abortion and pedophilia  – were covered-up and disguised.  And just as abortion was re-branded and re-marketed, so too were the priests, who were moved from one parish to another, thereby creating a new and “clean” slate.  But the truth still lurked underneath the “flowery” revision of priest pedophilia just as much as the truth still lurks underneath the “flowery” renaming of abortion as “women’s health planning”.  A pedophile priest is still a pedophile priest; that he has been moved to another parish does not change that.  Abortion is still abortion; that it is called something else does not change that.

Of “women’s health planning”, Vicky and Erica say:

These words not only have the benefit of sounding neutral and caring, but they also checkmate conservatives from mounting a counterattack. After all, it’s hard to imagine Mitt Romney railing against a woman’s health and walking away from the podium intact.

Of course they could not be more deluded and more blinded by reality.  The “counterattack” has already been “mounted”, their agenda has been exposed as shallow and hollow, and they have been shown to be the frauds they are.  Conservatives can very easily promote women’s health without promoting the killing of unborn children.

Or – do Vicky and Erica, do all liberals, and pro-abortion liberal feminists, really believe that abortion, and having an abortion, promotes women’s health, and makes women healthier for having had one?  If they do, why aren’t they advocating that every woman have at least one abortion in their lifetime?   Mitt Romney is advocating against abortion in his Presidential bid.  Why isn’t Obama advocating for abortion in his reelection bid?

The “War On Women” Is Very Deadly Business, Literally…

Women are suffering terribly, unjustly, alone; made to feel pain beyond any stretch of the imagination under the ruthless watch of proud men, ever stubborn in their desire for domination and control.  To make of them an example, these women are forcibly taken from their homes against their will as their families watch on – they can do nothing, they can say nothing, they can offer nothing; they can only hang their heads in shame and hope the gesture will be thought of as sincere – sincere enough so they too might escape punishment, reprisal, retribution, severe and steep penalties.  They know the women of their families taken in this manner, don’t always come back.

This is the real “war on women”.  And the women who are the recipients of this bloodthirsty vengeance – literally – are not afforded a trial, a hearing or even allowed to speak on their own behalf.  Their crime speaks for itself.  No, rather, like animals after a hunt, after a kill, these women are dragged to their doom, to their place of doom, thrust upon an altar and in all consciousness there they are tortured; their blood is spilled, their bodies horribly ripped open, mangled, twisted; the very life within them taken without consequence, without remorse, without pity or reflection, or any thought to humanity; death and dying for these women is all too common; not a fast and peaceful death, but slow, deliberate, excruciating, exacting; not solemn, but indignant; not remembered, but discarded and forgotten – and unmentioned.

And at that moment, when life itself is sacrificed – not to a God, not to anything of a holy, or remotely religious, nature, but to an idea, and a singular idea forged deep within the diseased and fractured minds of corrupt men who already have, but lust evermore for, absolute power – at that precious moment when the sacrifice is made, when it is complete, when it is over, all in an instance, not but one single tear is dare shed.

Millions of women have been the subject of this cult-like mania.  Many thousands of women must endure this humiliation, this barbarism annually.  Many more women will follow their predecessors into those torture chambers.  It will continue, unabated.  There is little with which to stir the courage needed to end it.  Oh, there is perhaps the deep sigh of regret among family members and close friends.  But once they exhale, that is the extent, the reach, of their outrage, and whatever courage escapes along with that long, reflective breath and wafts into obscurity.

But you, living in America, may take some comfort, some easy breaths of your own, and fear not.  This “war on women” is not happening in America.  Nor is it happening in Europe.  This “war on women” – a real war on women, not the manufactured hype from liberal feminists with just as deeply disturbed an agenda, is happening in China.  And it is happening to women who are pregnant with a second child.  It’s happening to women in China because of China’s one child per family policy.  It’s all the result of forced abortion – and the Chinese government shows no mercy to its victims as it hunts these pregnant women down for sport like wild, untamed, ferocious beasts of the forest.

Here – be it for your amusement or abiding curiosity – is a real “war on women“.

Here is the video:

Look at it, examine it, reflect upon it, then have the audacity to say there is a “war on women” here in America.  How does anything happening to these women in China compare to what is being called a “war on women” here in America?

Here – another brainwashed little girl, writing for the Arianna Nation Youth Movement, makes use of the “war on women” mantra.

How can the two be the same?  How can the two be the same, after you have examined what each “war on women” really represents?

Abortion: Making It Mandatory For Women To Watch It (And The Meaning Of “Respect”)

At least one Arizona GOP legislator has stated that all women seeking abortion ought to first witness an abortion before they have the procedure done to them.  Terri Proud (R-Tuscon) has stated in an email:

“Personally I’d like to make a law that mandates a woman watch an abortion being performed prior to having a “surgical procedure”. If it’s not a life it shouldn’t matter, if it doesn’t harm a woman then she shouldn’t care, and don’t we want more transparency and education in the medical profession anyway? We demand it everywhere else.

Until the dead child can tell me that she/he does not feel any pain – I have no intentions of clearing the conscience of the living – I will be voting YES.”

Consequently, the Left is in an uproar over this.  Why?  Because most abortions that are performed behind closed doors, in abortion clinics, occur sometime after the fetus has grown too large to be “safely” removed via an abortion inducing drug.  It must be “removed” manually.  At this point in its development, the fetus has taken on enough human characteristics to actually be recognized as a human being.

The idea of having a woman watch as a fetus – clearly and visibly human – is “removed” from its mother’s womb is not the kind of marketing abortion providers want advertised on their brochures.  In fact, there is not a single abortion provider, or advocate, who would support such a move.  Expect, perhaps, this one.  Abortion, as far as the rest are concerned, must remain secretive.  Doesn’t this mysteriousness bother anyone; make you the least amount suspicious, intrigued, curious as to why, as Terri Proud stated in her email,  “If it’s not a life it shouldn’t matter, if it doesn’t harm a woman then she shouldn’t care”.  Why, indeed, all the secrecy?  Or is it we are afraid of having confirmed what we already know to be true?

Women deserve better than the lies and misinformation that are being told to them by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, etc.  These self-serving, indignant organizations have long been at war with both womanhood and motherhood of which nearly 60 million unborn children have been the casualties.  Women also deserve better from men – those men who would only lust over them rather than love them.  But at the same time, women also deserve better from other women, and that includes themselves.  When men respect women, and when women respect themselves, they both avoid those unintended consequences which often finds women sitting and waiting in an abortion clinic.

But before women can demand respect from men, they need to first respect themselves, and their bodies.  And women who do not respect their bodies enough to keep men out of them can’t expect men to show them the respect they feel they deserve.  Men will respect women more who push them away.  And for those men who can’t, or won’t, take “no” for an answer – did they ever have any respect for women to begin with?  So why would women waste their time with such men?  And where did these men learn to treat women with such disrespect?  A disrespect, remember, with consequences that often finds the woman sitting and waiting in an abortion clinic.

We can look to the public schools for that answer.  When schools teach “safe” sex education, they are really teaching kids that waiting to have sex has no value, no merit, no worth, no logical or ration point.  Through “safe” sex education, kids are being taught and encouraged early on to have sex, rather than postpone it until marriage.   “Safe” sex education leads teenagers to believe their bodies are not worth respecting enough to hold off.  So, consequently, they don’t.  This often leads to the same unintended consequences that finds women sitting and waiting in an abortion clinic, and for which pro-abortion advocates, like Planned Parenthood, would endorse for teenage girls, with or without their parents knowledge or consent.  Once again, this disrespect for women finds women, and even teenage girls, sitting and waiting in an abortion clinic.

And it finds those of us who are pro-life – which is very much pro-woman – perplexed, frustrated and stumped.  Here we are trying to save the lives of unborn children – which ultrasounds clearly prove are actual human beings and for which there is a wealth of photos anyone can view on the internet that clearly shows what a fetus looks like throughout its development – and we are being challenged every step of the way.  We expect that from Planned Parenthood, and ultra-liberal feminists who have abandoned all notion of respect for women for their own selfish goals.  We ought not expect that from anyone else.

So, when a pro-life Republican – a woman –  writes in an email that women ought to watch an abortion first, before they undergo the procedure themselves, although her words may be more poetic than literal, what might actually happen to those women who do view an abortion as it happens?  And why would anyone object to having women watch an abortion so they can see for themselves what an abortion really is, what it looks like, and what is ultimately “removed” at the end of the procedure?

Women demand men show them respect – a respect they feel they deserve and for which men ought accept women deserve.  But what does the definition of “respect” mean to those women who cheapen themselves by flaunting themselves, by giving into the wiles of the very men they accuse of being disrespectful to them?  And why should the definition of “respect” for women include accepting whatever corrections a woman chooses to make to regain her “independence”?

Perhaps when more men respect women, and when more women respect themselves, all that extra respect for one another will do more in keeping women out of abortion clinics, sitting and waiting to have something done to them, to their bodies, they might feel too ashamed and too uncomfortable with actually knowing anything about.  But if you do want to know about it – Terri Proud has the solution for you.  So why pretend to be outraged?

The “War On Women” Is All About Abortion (The Daily Kos Proves It)

The Daily Kos links to an article at tennessean.com with “war on women” as its highlighted title link regarding a bill being pushed through in Tennessee that would put the names of doctors who performed abortions in a publication listed online, as well as provide more information about those abortionists.

Here is how it looks on The Daily Kos:

•  The War on Women continues, this week in Tennessee, where Republicans aren’t concerned about the privacy of women or the safety of doctors:

Doctors who perform abortions in Tennessee could see their names listed online, and women who undergo the procedures could be unintentionally identified under a bill pending in the state legislature.

So we have myriad liberal feminists decrying a “war on women” all over the fact – and it is now fact because it is on The Daily Kos, and they never lie about anything – that conservative lawmakers are working endlessly to save the lives of unborn children from the women who would abort them, who would want the right to abort them, who would want taxpayers to pay for the abortions.  We can argue about whether or not putting the mother’s name on the list is going too far.  Her name ought not be there, but as for the bill itself, if abortionists are that ashamed and embarrassed to have their names associated with the abortions they perform – what does that tell you about the doctors themselves and the overall practice of abortion itself?

And as for the “war on women”?  Women and young girls all over the Muslim world are being systematically beaten, tortured and murdered every single day.  In fact, while you are reading this, a woman or young girl is being beaten by a Muslim man who wants to control and dominate her.  Another woman or young girl has just been sold off to pay a “humiliation” debt – where the girl humiliated her family by being raped.  And yet another woman or young girl has been murdered.

But here in America, where the real “war on women” is raging, conservatives are sending women back into the Dark Ages according to whacked out feminists like Angelica Huston all over the right to kill an unborn child.  Someone needs to snap these delusional feminists out of there loony, tripped-up trance and point them back to reality.

Conservatives are waging a war to save lives – unborn lives.  If that justifies calling it a  “war on women” than words no longer have any meaning.  And what does that tell you about liberal feminists who put more value on words than they do on the unborn?

And – how many beatings and murders of women and young girls have there been just in the time it took you to read this?

With The Mark Of McCain On His Hands

John McCain wants Republicans to stop the “war on women”, and he wants to stop an Arizona bill from moving ahead which would allow employers in his state to:

Restrict health insurance coverage of contraception to only those cases when a woman can prove a need for it because of a medical reason, such as endometriosis or an ovarian cyst.

Says McCain:

In my view, I think we ought to respect the right of women to make choices in their lives and make that clear and to get back onto what the American people really care about — jobs and the economy.”

Here is where McCain makes his blunder, and why conservatives are beyond fed up with his nonsense, and why so many of us wish he would just shut up more often than not rather than keep insisting conservatives – which he is supposed to be – are conducting a full-scale “war on women”.

First of all, there is no actual “war on women” going on anywhere in the United States.  That is a liberal and feminist canard that won’t go away until conservatives have properly exposed what is really going on.  Secondly, conservatives do not have an issue with women making choices, and women having rights, including the right to control their own bodies.  Nor do we, conservatives, have an issue with women purchasing and using birth control and contraception.

What we do have a problem with, and what we have absolutely no “respect” with, is when women – exercising those “choices” McCain says we ought to leave alone – make the decision to end a child’s life in the womb with birth control and/or contraception.  And we also have an issue with federal taxes going to pay women to exercise those “choices”.

The “war on women” that McCain has bought into is a clear and cut case of pettiness and selfishness among liberal feminists who want to “control” their bodies in such a way as to kill an unborn child they do not want to give birth to.  Because we fight to end abortion; because we fight to pass whatever legislation we can to prevent abortion from occurring unnecessarily; because we fight for the lives of the unborn to live and to be born we, conservatives, have been branded by liberal feminists as sexist and misogynist.

Can anyone explain what is so sexist and misogynist about respecting life?  And can someone explain to John McCain that we, conservatives, will not “get off of that issue”?  McCain has stained himself.  The mark of McCain will not stain our hands nor will it stain conservatism and conservative values.

What does a real “war on women look like?  Look here.  And then come back and whine about how conservatives are sending women back into the Dark Ages, as Angelica Huston bemoans.

The Sperm And The Egg By Themselves Are More Intelligent Than Jennifer Granholm

What do you get when you cross a sperm with – nothing else?  Or – everything else but a woman’s egg?  Not human life, anyway.  But ask feminist, Jennifer Granholm, what you do get when you cross a sperm and an egg, and be certain to notice the confused look on her face that develops when she tries to answer the question.  And don’t be surprised if she simply tries to evade the question altogether.

Jennifer Granholm, a former Governor no less, and not very importantly, classically lays out the living proof that men, liberal, conservative or otherwise, are not needed to demonstrate just how inane feminists are.  Granholm compares sperm, which she dubs “pre-life”, with a fetus, which is in fact life, and human life to be exact.  She furthers states that forcing a woman to submit to an ultrasound is no different from making men who want a vasectomy submit to an ultrasound on their testicles to show them all the sperm, the “pre-life” , they are about to “kill”.  She emotionally writes that “Women are facing sexual McCarthyism“.

That’s very dramatic coming from someone who is essentially an airhead.  She goes on to make her point, as feminists are wont to do over and over again, that conservatives (men in particular) are conducting  a “war on women” by increasing the amount of anti-abortion legislation, including the now infamous “rape” bill passed in Virginia which does the unspeakable to women – but which we will speak of anyway –  forcing women to view an ultrasound image of the child in her womb she is about to kill.

The “war on women” can be measured, in one sense, by the volume of demeaning and physically violating measures that not only force women to undergo procedures against their will, but force doctors to perform procedures that are medically unnecessary.”

Conservatives, Granholm insists, have turned the abortion debate into a “witch hunt” (i.e. an unnecessary hysteria) for which we have made countless women unduly suffer by compelling them to look at the baby in their womb they are about to destroy. What can be “hysterical” about wanting women to have all the information at their disposal before they commit their unborn child to a death it need not experience?

She uses a prescription for Viagra to compare that with the “intrusion” of an ultrasound (presumably the trans-vaginal kind).  She is not the only one who has used Viagra and the “wand” in a vain attempt to capture the “insanity” – the feminists point of view – of “forcing” women to have an ultrasound before they have the abortion.  Liberals, remember, reject that a fetus is in fact alive, let alone a human life, and make no distinction whatsoever between a fetus and sperm.  This is exactly the concept Granholm utilizes in her YouTube speech.  (Link provided in her “Women are facing sexual McCarthyism” piece.)

Virginia may have backed away from the invasive transvaginal ultrasound law, but requiring a standard ultrasound runs contrary to the guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Nine states now mandate this “overreach” of government into a very personal and private decision between a woman and her doctor.”

This way of reasoning, by the way, passes for feminist insight and intellectuality, which is why feminists, who flock together, never see the absurdity in their arguments.  If anything, Granholm ought to show us all that the real “war on women” is being waged by women, like Granholm, and that the “war on women”, if there is any legitimacy to it, is a war on women’s intelligence and rationality.  Conservative women are smarter than this, and that is why they side with conservative men, lovingly called misogynists by shocked feminists who feel betrayed by these courageous women.  And by having women, of which there are many millions, disavowing the feminist doggerel it also makes clear that this fight is not in any way anti-woman.

Ladies and gentleman – how does having an abortion make a woman independent?  Or – how does the U.S. Constitution in any way restrict women from being as independent as men and as equal to men?  Is having sex with whomever you want, damning the consequences, and then experiencing those consequences via pregnancy and then going in for the abortion to be “free” once again – to do it all over again – how women really want to view, how they want us to view, their independence?  That seems to be how liberal feminists like Jennifer Granholm view the situation.

Why do we support “subjecting” women seeking an abortion to an ultrasound?  In other words, do we, as conservatives, really hate women that much, or fear their being too independent, we must find whatever ways we can to control and dominate them, to belittle them and subject them to whatever “demeaning, degrading, humiliating tests and procedures” we can devise?  Is that why we really support an ultrasound before the abortion?

Look, it’s obvious that abortion is the most sensitive of public policy issues. Women deeply understand the wrenching trade-offs they must make in weighing such a personal decision. So, in addition to legislatively forced physical procedures, it should come as no surprise that women are angered by patronizing bills mandating waiting periods or forced “reflection” on images or on text written by legislators — bills that assume women are empty-headed children.

The answer to why we oppose abortion, and why we support “subjecting” women who are seeking abortion to having an ultrasound performed is simple – conservatives love and respect life.  That liberals may not legitimately understand our answer, that they may truly not be aware a fetus is in fact a living human being, is absolutely no excuse to condemn unborn children to death by women who are ignorant of the actual facts concerning their unborn child.  In other words, ignorance itself is not justification for approving why a woman would have an abortion.  Or, should there be an intelligence test performed on women seeking an abortion, and those with the lowest IQ’s can go ahead with the abortion because they are legitimacy ignorant of what they are doing?  And for the women who do have high IQ’s, because they know they are killing their unborn child, they are just too smart for their own good and must be punished for being intelligent?  The “punishment” being having to go through with the pregnancy and birth.

The ultrasound is intended to prove to the woman seeking the abortion that she is not removing a blob of tissue or a collection of cells.  It is liberal feminists, like Granholm, who would seek to prevent this information, which Granholm says is “unnecessary” from being disseminated to women.  It is Granholm who supports purposely restricting this information.

Conservatives realize and accept that women are not “empty-headed children”.  But what about Granholm?  What about all liberals who insist women ought not be given the information about their unborn child they need in order to make an informed decision?  Some women will opt out of the abortion when they see the image of their unborn child?  Why does this bother Jennifer Granholm so much?

All “Fluked” Up: Who Wants To Silence Women?

Now, if Sandra Fluke (pronounced “fluck”) was a Middle East Muslim woman, and tried to speak up about anything, in any Middle East, Islamic controlled country, she might be stoned to death for her efforts.  However, as an American, Sandra Fluke has a Constitutional right to speak in America, as do all women.  And like all women, Sandra has a Constitutional right to make a jackass of herself in public and flaunt her arrogance.  Conservatives have no desire to take that right away from her, or any woman.  So, why Sandra is all flustered and steamed over Rush Limbaugh and his comments is interesting, because it has been liberal feminists like Sandra Fluke, and all liberals across America, who have been trying to silence the voice conservatives and of conservatism for years.  That includes, by the way, the millions of women who themselves are conservatives.  It is hard not to laugh at Fluke, so don’t hold back.

Sandra has stated that “slurs” will not silence liberal women, hers included.  Well, “slurs” have never silenced conservative women like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, etc.  In fact, “slurs” against conservative women, which are an everyday occurrence in the MSM have not belittled, but rather inspirited, emboldened, encourage, inspired and driven conservative women to new triumphs, while simply driving liberal women into terrible and unstable fits of madness.  Nonetheless, “slurs” against conservative women have not ended, nor will they.

Sandra has had her say with regards to birth control and contraception.  It is Sandra Fluke herself who is trying to silence those of us, including conservative women, who take issue with the idea that it ought to be “free”.  As we all know, nothing is “free”, and the question of who is going to pay for Sandra’s, for all women’s, birth control and contraception if they are not paying for it themselves is still unanswered.  Also unanswered is the question as to whether or not Sandra supports the type of birth control and contraception which is solely intended to allow women to engage in irresponsible sex, and then end a pregnancy should an “accident” result.

Mind you, conservatives are not debating whether or not American law ought to prevent women from being promiscuous, nor are we arguing that birth control and contraception ought to be illegal.  That is just plain ridiculous.  Indeed, women take birth control for the purported health reasons also, and we, as conservatives, do not intend to oppress women and keep them from accessing medication and pills which help relief and offset undesirable side effects of womanhood.  We do have Title X, and for those women who do not qualify to enroll in this government-funded family planning program, that means their income is above the qualification cut-off line.  In other words, they make enough money to afford the cost of birth control and contraception themselves without the further aid of government and the taxpayers, or from their place of business and their health insurance provider.

So just who does Sandra Fluke think is trying to silence her?  Conservatives have not attempted to stifle her speech.  On the contrary, we love it when liberals, men and women, open their mouths in public and make complete buffoons of themselves, showing how conceited, arrogant, shallow and hypocritical they are.  We love it when liberals rant about nonsense, like a “war on women” because we will not accept what it is they are really after – free access to abortion inducing drugs and procedures – with their whole spiel on birth control and contraception.

Sandra has done a lot of explaining as to why women ought to gain free access to birth control and contraception for health reasons.  But she still supports that access so women can engage in irresponsible and promiscuous sex and to be able to kill any child created in womb if the birth control fails.  At least, Sandra has yet to come out and say she opposes free access to birth control and contraception if it is meant to be improperly used, or used to kill a child in the womb.

And whatever the cost of birth control and contraception, it won’t bring down gas prices at the pump; won’t create jobs; won’t put food on the table; won’t lower taxes on the poor and middle class and won’t reduce the federal deficit or the national debt.  But what this whole “war on women” debate has done, to a degree, is deflect from these real issues facing our nation right now, which is probably what it was intended to do all along.  If that was Sandra’s, and the democrat party’s intent, it has backfired.  Conservatives know enough about the issues dogging America, and how to correct and solve the economic issues while at the same time spending time on the social issues.

Liberals, on the contrary, don’t understand economic issues any more than they know how to solve them.  They prove that everyday with calls for higher taxes on the rich and rich corporations; rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline; more government dependence as the solution; less freedom for Americans and less sovereignty for America, etc.  Taxes are, right now, higher on the rich, and all of us, than they would be if a Republican was in the White House; gas is more expensive at the pump because Obama rejected the Keystone pipeline, and because he has put a halt to all new oil exploration and digging on American territory; Americans have less freedoms, and freedom of mobility, than they did before Obama took office; Obama would attempt to revoke as much American sovereignty as he can, and hand it over to the U.N.; and more Americans are dependent on government that before Obama took office.

More of Obama is not the solution to the problems that plague America.  Obama is the problem.  Sandra Fluke has managed to temporarily distract the nation from that.  However, conservatives have not let down their guard as liberals would have wanted.  And they can scream “war on women” all they want, and use Sandra and whatever other puppets they want, whatever non-issues they want to further distract Americans from the real issues in America.

And if Sandra Fluke, if Barack Obama and the Democrat party, if liberals think using the “war on women” mantra is a winning battle cry, we – conservatives – will not try to silence them.  Why should we, when we know we can bury them with it?

To The Foolish Women Who See No Difference Between Viagra And Birth Control

All Viagra does, or is intended to do, is help men, who otherwise can’t, get an erection.  Birth control, on the other hand is either intended to prevent a pregnancy or end it after it occurs.  Liberal women, mostly feminists, who proclaim there is a “war on women“, because men (and not to mention many millions of women too) are working feverishly to enact laws which seek to restrict some forms of birth control and contraception – for specific and well qualified reasons – cannot rationally compare the two.

Because of this, some silly, childish women, who happen also to be politicians, like Nina Turner, (Democrat, Ohio) thinking they can use Viagra as a comparison with birth control and contraception, have introduced a bill to make men “jump through hoops” to get it.  It is merely diversionary and solely intended to illustrate, from the liberal point of view, how “ridiculous it is to stop women from accessing birth control and contraception”.  Of course, since that is not what conservatives are trying to do, liberals only make that much more fools of themselves.

First of all, we have already deduced that there is no comparison between Viagra and birth control/contraception.

Secondly, if, at any time, politicians want to remove Viagra from the list of government-funded drugs, medications, health services, etc. do it.  Viagra is not such a necessity that taxpayers need, or ought, to fund it.  And while we are at it, we can eliminate a host of other “health” related services which taxpayers ought not be covering.  In other words, trying to use Viagra as a scare tactic is futile and useless.

Thirdly, and back to this “war on women” nonsense liberals have concocted, and other liberal women perpetuate, like Gretchen Whitmer – conservatives do not want to ban birth control or contraception.  We simply do not want to pay for it.  In other words, if women are provided with free birth control and contraception, there are a whole lot of people who need to get paid for having manufactured it, distributed it, stocked it on shelves and sold it to consumers.  Since everyone involved in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of  birth control and contraception are in fact being paid, (or is it literally slave labor) who is paying them, if not the women buying it from them?

We can say that the cost is covered either through government health programs and assistance or health insurance companies through the place of business where a woman works.  However, whether through government health programs – which is subsidized directly by taxpayers, or the place of business – which does not eat the extra cost but passes that cost downward onto its consumers, as well as onto its employees in the form of lower wages/lower or deferred raises, reduced benefits, etc. – someone is paying women for their birth control and contraception.  And if there is no co-pay, then the entire cost is passed along to us all.

Fourthly – and most importantly – conservatives neither support paying for or keeping legal, those birth control and contraception pills and devices which are intended to end a pregnancy.  That is, to kill a child in the womb that has already been created.  As conservatives we find that to be morally repugnant.  As conservatives we value life, and we are willing to fight for the sanctity of life, even in the womb.  Abortion, or medication which induces an abortion and destroys a human life is unacceptable.  For those women who do seek abortion, or abortion inducing pills, we absolutely are (pro-life men and women alike) working to pass laws, and overturn others, which allow women to legally terminate the life of their unborn child.  This is by no means a “war on women”.  It is, actually, a war on abortion itself.

Women, and men, who want to engage in sex will not be hindered from doing so through any laws.  And conservatives are not desirous in passing any laws which restrict, prohibit or make illegal such acts.  What we are attempting to restrict, prohibit and absolutely make illegal is abortion.  (All abortion except where the life of the mother is legitimately threatened by her pregnancy, and where the only action which can save the mother’s life is abortion.)  For that, liberal women have labeled us anti-women and misogynists.  So petty and jejune of these women.  But look at these women closely who do cry “war on women” and you will see they themselves are also petty and jejune, and have an ulterior motive.  Namely, while they want the “freedom” to engage in sex, they don’t want to deal with the consequences that often arise – like pregnancy.  So, they want birth control, contraception and abortion on demand readily and fully available.  They also want it for free, either through the government (which would be subsidized through taxpayers) or their insurance companies (which the get through their place of business).  They may get it for free, but someone inevitably is paying for it.

Why should we, the taxpayers, be the ones who ultimately do pay for it?  And why are conservatives labeled anti-woman and misogynists for rejecting the premise that we must pay for it?  And why do liberal women, and men, feel there is a “war on women” because we value human life?

If all liberal women can come up with to make conservatives look foolish for valuing human life is to make it harder for men to obtain Viagra, who is really the fool?

Abortion Is An Emotional Choice Not A Rational Choice

In America, most irrational behavior, to a degree, is Constitutionally protected.  It is when that behavior begins to threaten people, and threaten their lives that government, and legal agencies, have a Constitutional right to step in and put a stop to whatever irrational behavior is being exhibited.  Abortion, because it is the taking, and killing, of a human life (although it is “unborn”) is a threat to the very life of a child in the womb.  Therefore, that threat to life constitutes irrational behavior which is not Constitutionally protected.  As a result, government, and legal agencies, have a Constitutional right, a duty, and a moral obligation and responsibility to step in to protect and prevent the unborn child from being killed in the womb via abortion.

Women who would seek an abortion, rather than carrying the child to full term and giving birth, have been told for decades now that they have a Constitutional right to abortion.  And while the law recognizes a “woman’s right to choose”, there is, however, nothing in the Constitution itself that guarantees a woman with that much liberty.  Roe vs. Wade was decided on emotions rather than rationality.  It was also decided on both misinformation and a lack of information at the time.  The Supreme Court, then, was very adamant, in making its decision, that if ever there was any evidence to prove conclusively that a living human being was being aborted – not a “collection of cells” or a “blob of tissue” – that the abortion should not legally proceed.

In 1973, there were no ultrasounds or sonograms, or any type of cameras or other technologies in use, that could pierce through and see inside the womb and snap pictures of a fetus.  Well, we have that now, and have had that technology for quite some time.  Science has since proven that life does begin at conception.  In other words, at the very moment the male sperm meets and fertilizes the female egg there is a tremendous and instantaneous burst of activity.  Until fertilization, the egg merely waits, and millions of sperm die en route to the egg.

Now that this information exists, it is imperative Roe vs. Wade be revisited and subsequently overturned.   And while Roe vs. Wade will eventually be overturned, obviously the only reason why it hasn’t yet is the result of pro-abortion advocates pleading their support based on emotions rather than rationality.  That, and the fact their organizations, NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc. are incredibly well funded, financed and organized, and are able to elect politicians and judges who will vote to keep Roe vs. Wade intact.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade by no means abolishes abortion or even makes it illegal.  It will merely revert the decision-making back to the states, who will then have more freedom to legislate abortion according to their own dictates.  It will then be the states, directly, which can make broad and sweeping changes to abortion law.  Some states will naturally have greater restrictions on abortion than others.  Of course, any restrictions on abortion outrage those who support abortion.  But if you look at the people who support abortion on demand (abortion for any reason, at any time during pregnancy) it is inherent that they are arguing from an emotional standpoint rather than a rational one.

Whatever slogan they happen to use, the whole “It’s our bodies, it’s our choice”, “right to privacy”, “women’s rights”, “women’s heath”, freedom of choice”, mantra all amounts to an emotional outcry, and one that stems from a bygone era that saw many women dying from complicated pregnancies.  Obviously no one, with a rational mind, wants to see, or compel, women to undergo such risky pregnancies by law, and to put their lives in danger, by law, in order to deliver a baby.

But, how is abortion justified when there are no “health” risks to the mother?  How is abortion justified in cases where the mother simply feels she is not ready to give birth; where she feels she cannot adequately or financially care for the child after it has been born; where she has the impression and fear that after the child is born it might experience “neglect, abuse and hatred” by its parents?

These are all emotional outbursts, not rational or clear thinking.  Very few women in America die due to pregnancy any longer.  And where there is a legitimate life threatening issue that cannot be corrected without the abortion, there is no law in America, and there is virtually no one in America that would support such a law, which mandates a woman must sacrifice her own life for her unborn child.  Likewise, if there is a legitimate and specific “health” issue, which is known, which has a name, and research to go along with it; which is documented to be a threat to the woman’s life, and where abortion is yet the only alternative to save the health, and therefore the life, of the woman – no such a law in America now exists, or would ever exist, which would put the life of the unborn child ahead and above that of the woman.  Conservatives support life, and that includes the life of the mother.  We are not so callous, not so irrational in our own thinking that we would intentionally and knowingly put a woman’s life at risk, even if that meant the unborn child would have to be sacrificed.

Rather, it is the rabidly pro-abortion supporters who put emotions ahead and above life itself, and support the destruction of unborn life for any reason a woman would give as validation for having the abortion.  Hence the “right to privacy” and “freedom of choice” mantra, and the nonsense about the “war on women” and men dominating and controlling women and their bodies.  There is no war on women being waged in America with regards to “domination” and “control” of women.  This is simply irrational and emotionally charged doggerel.  The war being waged is a war for life, and the sanctity of life.

Since there are virtually no deaths that occur with pregnancy, even from complications of pregnancy, in modern-day America, what valid reason – not emotional – is there for killing  an unborn child, and why do certain women still demand a right to legally kill and unborn child and fight fiercely to have that right protected?  And why do these pro-abortion women, when there are many millions of women who are just as adamant in their pro-life position, remain staunchly opposed to allowing women seeking an abortion to have as much information about their unborn child as is possible?  Why do pro-abortion women so vehemently condemn ultrasounds when an ultrasound can prove there is indeed an unborn child in the womb?  Invasive?  “Rape”, they claim.  Even if it is a trans-vaginal ultrasound, the “instrument” used is far less menacing than is the instrument used to “remove” the unborn child from the womb.

It can only be gathered that pro-abortion women have one or more ulterior motives compelling them to keep a woman seeking an abortion from knowing the truth.  Again, emotions over rationality.  If a woman is shown a picture of her child as it is in her womb, even the slightest indication of humanity in that woman’s heart, which then would lead to a change of heart, is worrisome to pro-abortion supporters, in particular liberal feminists who despise childbirth and motherhood which they feel represents living in the “Stone Age”.  Is that rationality or emotions?

Ought we to allow abortion, which we know to be the killing of an unborn life, an innocent human being, based off of any number of emotional responses a woman might be going through?  Ought we allow ourselves to give into the irrationality and emotions pro-abortion advocates use to sway us, to lull us, to silence those of us who are pro-life, who value life, who fight for life?

If we do, aren’t we just as culpable, just as guilty, just as reckless as they are that support abortion on demand through emotions rather than rationality?  Where is the rationality in that?

Feminists Complaining About The “War On Women” Ought To Keep Their Mouths Shut

The so-called “war on women” supposedly being waged by men (conservative men) like Rush Limbaugh is baseless, without merit, and extremely shallow, self-centered and just plain BS, and just as low and calculated as what Sandra Fluke is trying to do to Georgetown University by demanding it provide free contraception.  If these pathetic worthless feminists want to see a real war on women – look here!  Some American women, it seems, are just too spoiled, and have been so, rottenly, all theirs lives, to see how tremendously well off they are living in America, being Americans – and not living elsewhere, and being something other than Americans, like subjugated, dominated, repressed and oppressed, and controlled by men in a real war on women.

What is going on in Afghanistan against women, by its own government is a true war on women that even conservatives would be, and are, appalled at.  Real men, and certainly American men, do not treat women like they do in Afghanistan or anywhere else in Islamic controlled societies.  And an American government, even run by staunch conservatives, would never uphold the vulgar, demeaning anti-women rules and laws that President Karzai has just agreed to.  What Karzai has accepted, solely in order to appease the Taliban, which is gaining renewed strength in Afghanistan, is 100% unconstitutional in America.

The “code of conduct” issued Friday by the Ulema Council as part of a longer statement on national political issues is cast as a set of guidelines that religious women should obey voluntarily, but activists are concerned it will herald a reversal of the trend in Afghanistan since 2001 to pass laws aimed at expanding women’s rights.

Among the rules: Women should not travel without a male guardian and women should not mingle with strange men in places like schools, markets or offices. Beating one’s wife is prohibited only if there is no “Shariah-compliant reason,” it said, referring to the principles of Islamic law.

In America, the war conservatives are waging is a war to regain the respect both for women and for life itself.  One would never know that listening to the MSM, or any liberal outlet like the Arianna Nation, The Daily Kos or even The Daily Beast.  Conservatives do not support any laws that allow husbands to beat their wives, keep their daughters out of school and illiterate, marry them off to the highest bidder or to settle a family disgrace.  They do that to women and girls in Afghanistan and most everywhere else in Muslin dominated societies.  Sharia law allows for that – which is another reason to fight to keep such barbarism as Sharia law out of American courts, and out of America itself.

Sharia law allows for, condones and sanctions the legal mistreatment of women and girls.  Where in the American Constitution does it allow for that?  Where in American law are women not equal to men?

When liberal feminists cry “war on women”, what they are really crying about is any restrictions on the right to kill an unborn child in the womb, which, if it is allowed to live, dooms a woman to motherhood, and keeps her out of the work force.  Compare the so-called “war on women” in America to the real war on women in Afghanistan and elsewhere where Islam reigns.  The paltriness, the feeble-mindedness, the gall these liberal feminists have in calling conservatives anti-woman because we are pro-life.  It’s all to distract from their own culture of death, anti-male agenda.  The “war on women” liberal feminists purport exists, if it is anything, is a cultural war against trashiness, sleaziness and decadence itself, not a “war on women”.

Conservatives fight to ban abortion in most cases, except to save the life of the mother.  How is that anti-woman?  We also fight to ensure religious institutions are not forced to dispense services that go against their religious objections.  How is that anti-woman?  We fight to remove “safe” sex education in public schools because to teach anything other than abstinence only is a complete act of betrayal between the teacher/adult and the student/child.  How is that anti-woman?  And yet, for that, liberal feminists call us sexist, anti-woman and misogynist – all because we care about the lives of unborn children, and the lives of impressionable teenagers (both male and female) and we don’t want to see them led down a path of moral destruction – which liberal feminism, and its dogmatic mantra does.

Women and girls are being brutally beaten, tortured and killed all over the world under Islam in a real war on women, and garbage like Terry O’Neill, Cecile Richards, Nancy Pelosi and all your usual liberal feminist suspects feel as though they are second class citizens living in a past age where they have no rights, no voice, no control over their bodies because conservatives fight to ban abortion.  Women like that, who hold those views, exceeding arrogance as they are, ought to keep their mouths shut and look at what is going on in the rest of the world.  The Taliban and radical Muslims aren’t the only ones waging a war on women.  Disgusting, despicable, repulsive liberal feminists are the ones waging a war on women, and what it means to be a woman.

And whatever “war on women” liberal feminists have manufactured and created out of the nothingness that has replaced the area that once held their brains, pales in comparison to the war being waged against women and girls in Afghanistan.  In Afghanistan women and girls do not have any rights at all, except the right to be beaten, tortured, raped, sold and killed by their husbands and other male family members.  What conservative advocates for anything remotely similar to that for women in America?

War on women in America?  What war?

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: