Tongue in cheek or something else? UPDATED!


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

While sitting here at work I often search the tawdry parts of the blogosphere to see what the lewd fellows of the baser sort are up to. I’m rarely disappointed when searching for cheesy examples of the liberal mind-set.  Liberals do make some extraordinary attempts at witty, clever, yet completely un-related to topic commentary. For example, yesterday I posted The left’s war on women. In that post there are numerous statistics pointing out the dangers to women’s health that accompany abortion. One was this:

Women have a 65% higher risk of clinical depression following abortion vs. childbirth.

I stumbled across some pro-abortion, far-left extremist’s attempt at humor, referring to the above sentence. The attempt at humor in re-writing the above went something like this:

“Women who find themselves married to radical right wing extremist men probably can be shown to suffer some form of clinical depression as a result of their life mate choices.”

The guy/gal (not sure which) referred to the re-write as “tongue in cheek”. I think it’s more like ”head in ass” … but I don’t want to be rude … well, maybe I do.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

These are the same people who are chomping at the bit, crying and howling (hey!) to murder an unborn child who is being protected by Texas law. The mother of said unborn child is brain-dead and on life support until the child is born. Now it’s being said by liberal news sites (referring only to the ones the criers and howlers linked to) that the child has some possible deformities. So these folks, placing themselves in the position of god, have determined this child must be killed, because the child doesn’t meet the requirement for a chance at life in the minds of these “gods”. The child is not good enough for your typical liberal. The child doesn’t deserve the same opportunity at life as everyone else according to the liberal.

Here is a piece that explains the above situation in Texas.  The Liberal justification for murdering unborn / new-born children … Better to kill them than take a chance they’ll be poor.

I have to add something here. I was just in my truck listening to the radio. It seems the decision to keep this child alive or kill it will be made in a matter of minutes. The reports of the child being “deformed” are false. There have been no … none … nada … tests done on the child beyond the one that determined there is a heart-beat. The father of the child, who is fighting to kill his own child is desperate to get it done before the first week of February which is when further tests will be done to test the viability of the child. I’ll let you know of the decision by the judge. Oh, by the way, this is taking place in Tarrant County, Texas which is where I work.

UPDATE: Okay, typical of liberals who proclaim America is a “nation of laws” the judge in the above case has ordered JPS (John-Peter Smith Hospital) to pull the plug on the woman, naturally resulting in the death of the child. The Tarrant County district attorney has until Monday to appeal. The law in Texas protects an unborn child until it’s viable outside the womb from being killed in situations like the above. The judge overruled the law. I don’t know, the murder of an innocent child is horrific yet cause for celebration for most liberals. The claim that it’s better to kill children rather than take a chance of them being born poor is a sick justification. I was listening to the radio and there were many folks calling in more than willing to adopt the child … but that’s not good enough … gotta kill it.  It’s disgusting, but at least the child won’t grow up with the knowledge that his father was relentless in trying to kill him just before he was born.

I guess that’s enough of picking on liberals for now. But know of a certainty I’m not through comforting the feeble-minded.

Original Post:  Cry and Howl


The left’s war on women


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

We’ve heard for years the asinine claim that Republicans and conservatives have been leading a “war on women” … or a “war on women’s rights”.  Pro-abortion folks as well as liberals have the propensity to deflect or misdirect attention from abortion, always referring to “women’s health” or “women’s reproductive rights” or “women’s right to choose”.  None of those terms apply to abortion. In truth the pro-abortion crowd and liberals have been waging a genuine war on women and a war on children. With each abortion a death takes place. The pro-abortion crowd vehemently resist educating women so they can make an informed decision when considering having an abortion. Even when abortion on demand became legal 41 years ago, that wasn’t good enough for the purveyors of death. They demand others to pay for their “choices”.

Let’s see, does a woman have a choice as to whether or not to participate in the act which causes pregnancy?  I believe the answer to that is “yes”.  Hmmmm … no infringement on “choice” there. And no one is stopping a woman from seeing the doctor of her choice. So it seems like no one is infringing on a woman’s right to health care. Just by those few sentences we can determine the liberal, pro-abortion argument is ludicrous.ftsthst

I contend the pro-abortion folks are the ones waging a war on women. You see there are very real women’s health issues associated with having an abortion, of which liberals and the pro-abortion crowd never reveal to women. The health issues are very negative and very real yet are hidden from women.


Eight Facts Most People Don’t Know About How Abortion Hurts Women

1. 31% of women having abortions report suffering physical health complications (1)

2. 10% of women having abortions suffer immediate, potentially life-threatening complications (2, 3, 4)

3. Women have a 65% higher risk of clinical depression following abortion vs. childbirth (5)

4. 65% of women suffer symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after abortion (1)

5. Women’s death rates from various causes after abortion are 3.5 times higher than after giving birth  (6, 7)

6. Many women describe their experience as ‘a nightmare’, which can hardly equated with ‘choice’. 60% of women surveyed after abortion responded that: ’Part of me died’ (1)

7. Suicide rates among women who have abortions are six times higher than those who give birth (7, 8)

8. Abortion increases a woman’s risk of future miscarriages by 60% (9)


Original Post:  Cry and Howl


Socialism Is Expensive. So, Useless People Need To Die! The Elites Understand That


The progressive socialists of the world are all about caring, right? They care about women’s rights and the rights of gays, and the rights of ethnic groups, and the rights of the poor. The fact that those are important voting blocks has nothing to do with their caring attitude, does it? So, they want everyone to believe that they care about people as opposed to we knuckle-dragging conservative/libertarians who believe people should take responsibility for themselves. They believe in the collective good and we believe in the good of each individual. They believe in government control of the people and we believe that the people should control the government.

Maybe the best kept secret ever is about those a the head of the progressive socialist food change. The real puppet masters who run organizations like the Trilateral Commission and The Club of Rome and The Council on Foreign Relations with names like Rockefeller and Rothschild and Soros and etc. These are the people using their fortunes to promote “Democratic Socialism” on the world. And, guess what? They don’t give a damn about women’s rights or the rights of gays or of ethnic groups and they damn sure don’t care about the poor. The only thing they care about is themselves. In their opinion, the biggest single threat they see to their desire to have and control even more of the world’s wealth is that there are far too many people on this planet consuming more of its wealth than they are producing. Their number one goal for a long time has been to reduce the world’s population. Of course, to keep the rabble from turning on them they needed to be discreet.

Their first target was the most vulnerable of the human race, the unborn babies. They used their money and influence to promote abortion rights. Not because they care one whit about a woman’s right to control her body; but to reduce the world’s population growth rate. Their plan has met with substantial success. The birth rates in the developed world are plummeting.

After the unborn babies, the most vulnerable group are the elderly. We old folks have more health issues than the young and, therefore, we consume a disproportionate share of the finite medical services that are available. The elites at the top of the progressive socialist food change first installed government controlled health care with its rationing boards (death panels) in Europe and it’s America’s turn to get on board. The goal has nothing to do with providing citizens with better health care or providing health care to the poor. It’s just another tool for reducing the world’s population. America’s elderly will get their first taste of what government health care has in mind for them on January 1; just a few days from now. Doug Ross@Journal says Obamacare has a shocking surprise awaiting our senior on New Years Day. He explains it in comic book fashion:

ObamaCare Death Panel

For a more in-depth discussion, you will find an excellent post on the subject over at Bunkerville.

But…but…but say our progressive socialist friends; what about our support of homosexuals? That shows we really care. Of course, the elites want to promote the homosexual life styles. Teaching young children that being gay is cool fits nicely in their plan. Homosexuals don’t reproduce, do they?

I can hear a liberal troll saying: “Hang on there Mr. humble observer of the asylum we all have to live in, we progressive socialists are the ones supporting extended unemployment benefits, welfare programs, and amnesty for illegal immigrants. You knucle-dragging Duck Dynasty types would turn your backs on all of these people. We are the people who care!”

Well, my progressive socialist friends, you may think you are caring; but what have all your “caring” programs done but keep people poor and separated into tribes? Do you really think those puppet masters care about the poor? Be patient. For now as a voting block thy are needed. But, once they have the government so completely to their liking, once they are sure they have total control, they will turn on the poor, the non-productive, the weak with a vengeance. And, they will turn on all of you useful idiots too.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post: Asylum Watch


Colorado Democrat Tells Women That Gun Control is More Important Than their Safety


What happens when a Democrat is asked about women using guns to protect against rape?  Well, Redstate has the video of what one Colorado Democrat said…

Um, are we going to tell women that they have to submit to rapists for the good of the gun control narrative?  And, notice the silence from the Tammies?


Not only are they being thrown under the bus (AGAIN), but they stay silent when real women stand to be hurt in real situations.  I guess they are standing by their their regressive man.  Or, are they kneeling in front of him?


Battle Ready Betty


Battle Ready BettyIn the latest bit of reality-bending psychopathy imposed by Barack Obama and the socialists of the Jackass Party, the ban upon sending women into direct combat has been lifted.  The braying donkeys who claim for the public good the right to confiscate your salt, your sugar, your firearms, and your fossil fuels will now, in order to ensure a ‘fairness’ that never has and never will exist,  send your wives and daughters into hell –  one which, of course, most of them managed to successfully avoid:

[…] Combat is no place for a woman. Every grunt knows that. So do most women. Only generals are confused…

You’ll notice that soldiers are no longer called soldiers, or Marines Marines. They’re “service members” now, as if they were waiters, filling-station attendants or bedpan orderlies. You wouldn’t expect to find the likes of Stonewall Jackson, John J. Pershing or George S. Patton Jr. at the Pentagon, but there are plenty of generals and admirals lined up to get their tickets punched and promoted to the next rank. The only shots many of them have ever confronted were shots of Jack Daniel’s at the Officers Club…

What kind of man sends a woman to do the fighting work of men?

We’ve got a different kind of man in Washington now, a man who may well reflect the attitudes, assumptions and prejudices of the people who sent him here. Sen. Carl M. Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, likes sending a woman to fight for him because “it reflects the reality of 21st century military operations.” He couldn’t bear to call “war” by its rightful name. Mr. Levin had to miss the war of his generation; he was at Harvard learning to be a lawyer. But he made up for missing the Vietnam War with duty on the Senate Armed Services Committee… (The Craven Retreat Of The Generals | Pruden & Politics)

Ban Democrats, not guns.  You’ll save more lives.  Maybe even your own.


Fighting Words


Despite what some of my less than tolerant liberal acquaintances may believe, my military experience does not date back to the era of hardtack and beans — soldiers in the field in my day supped on such culinary catastrophes as ham and chopped eggs delivered in an olive-drab tin can laboriously broached (especially when the icy January winds that regularly blast through the Fulda Gap have demobilized your every digit) by the ubiquitous P38P-38 (OPENER, CAN, HAND, FOLDING, TYPE I).  The quality of these antique military victuals may be adduced by the fact that everyone’s favorite item in a case of C-rations was generally the finely grained sandpaper that passed for toilet tissue. Fortunately, the old C-rat has gone the way of the musket and the cavalry horse. Not all modern martial transformations are as equally beneficial:

Oblivious to important differences between men and women, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the Department of Defense to lift all combat exemptions for women. Not putting women into combat deprives them of their constitutional rights, the ACLU is arguing on behalf of four servicewomen in a complaint filed Tuesday in a federal court in San Francisco.

[…] The military has kept women out of direct ground combat for a moral reason: Deliberately putting women in harm’s way is not right; and for practical reasons: Women are not as physically strong, and they have an impact on the men around them. In a civilized society, men are raised to protect women. Now some of America’s elite warrior units train men to be indifferent to women’s screams. That’s what passes for “progress” in a “progressive” military. (viaKNIGHT: Deceitful debate over women in combat – Washington Times)

Women In Combat

The argument posed by the left-wing lawyers nesting inside the ACLU that the fair sex possess a Constitutional right to engage in battle is as pernicious as all the other “progressive” legal speculations which inculcate the rot that currently threatens our culture and our national security.  Besides, any woman who really wants to experience combat doesn’t need to join an infantry outfit — all she need do is get married.

[…] The Marine Corps has opened Infantry Officers Course for a pilot program to study how well women could perform in combat roles. The first two females, and only two entered, both quickly flopped; one on the first day, the other within a week. No female marines have yet opted for the next session.

Women aren’t lining up for these positions; it’s mostly activist intellectuals trying to shoehorn pretenses into reality. The Marine Corps began this study at the behest of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). The Obama administration meddles to fix what isn’t broken …

… There was a study done of women marines during my service. It revealed alarming numbers of WMs who lacked the strength to pull the slide back on a service pistol, an inability to throw hand grenades far enough to refrain from blowing themselves up and little capacity to carry wounded comrades to safety. (Memo To The ACLU: Don’t Put Women Into Combat | Forbes)

Such a study should surprise no one, not even a poisonous leftist like our current president, a man who will routinely place the life and limb of anyone (except himself) at risk in the service of his ideological delusions. But take it from an ex-GI whose training experience includes having had one dropped at his feet one fine Southern afternoon by a fumble-fingered recruit from the Bronx (thank God for long fuses and alert drill instructors) — when it comes to hand delivered explosive devices, a strong and reliable arm is the only thing that’sever politically correct.

Original Post: Be Sure You’re Right, Then Go Ahead


Women and Issues


“In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the work place, specifically regarding females making only 72% of what their male counterparts earned?”

The response from both candidates amounted to pathetic pandering and nothing about the future.  When asked about what NEW ways they would rectify the inequalities, Obama responded with something he did in the first month of his presidency.  Romney responded with his now infamous “binders full of women” response.

Now let’s consider that this was a foreign policy debate and that this 72% number is likely as substantiated as Donald Trumps hairline.  Attempt to do a good research on what the number actually is and you’re going to spin into a mess.  Interestingly, almost all of the places I found numbers showed that when Obama took office women made about 74-80% of what men make.  So much for that Ledbetter Act working out eh?

Specifics in debates are about as rare as soap in an Occupy crowd.  In fact, the candidates are trained not to give specifics if they can help it.  Even when they do give specific answers, they are usually lies or competing with fishing stories for the degree of embellishment.  There is a way to judge between the two on any given subject without looking at the specifics – it’s to look at the underlying content.  In other words, what message is the candidate trying to get across?

So let me wrap up the two longwinded answers for you.

Romney – I tried to hire women, I hired a bunch of women, I gave them flexible hours so that they could go home and take care of their families.

Obama – I signed a law, Romney didn’t, I am for abortion and free contraceptives, Romney is not.  (Oh, and you can get free mammograms at Planned Parenthood).

The left first went nuts with their faux anger over the “binders” comment because, after all, having such a binder is offensive…right?  After the meme nuts decided they had done enough to justify their existence in the world the left needed to show women that they were still angry – so they went back to his comments about giving women flexible hours.

“I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible.”

AHA!  Did you see it?  He said “if”!  This can only mean that he reluctantly accepts that some women get into the work place (unlike the slave of a wife he keeps at home) and therefore employers have to be flexible so that they can get home and do the job that God intended for them to have.   Women should be cooking, cleaning, taking care of children, and having large families.  After all, that is the Mormon stereotype the “always accepting” left is singing isn’t it?

I wonder, though, how many women who are in the work place wouldn’t appreciate this exact stance if it was their employer making it.  Most working women also tend to be mothers and most of them care about their children and families.  Heaven forbid we condone facilitating that part of their responsibilities!  Mitt’s statement didn’t negate the same sort of flexibility for men, but the implication will be forever made by rabid lefties.

There’s still a contrast to be made though – and that goes to Obama’s statement.  Why is it horrible to imply that many women in the work place also feel a great responsibility at home, but totally hip to imply that what women sex-crazed individuals who want to irresponsibly have sex and have others pay for their contraceptives?  Is this the big defining issue for women?

The great irony is that feminism spent decades attempting to redefine women as something more than just a portion of the human race that can reproduce.  I can agree with that much; that women aren’t just uteruses.  But democrats seem to think that’s all they are – people that have organs that we must control.  Even in an argument about equal pay the left still managed to steer it back to “girl parts”.

Perhaps the endometrium has become the new dermis of the democrats. For decades they have re-enslaved black men and women with free housing, food, and medical care for the steady harvest of votes.  What has it done for the black community?

The answer to both “women’s issues” and “racial issues” is simplistic; that all men are created equally.  No woman should make less, but no woman should be given more for simply being a woman.  No black man should be treated differently in any circumstance: positive or negative.  So Mitt shouldn’t have had binders and black people shouldn’t have appropriations.  We are brothers and sisters of the same Creator.

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal


“Woman of Courage,” Maria Bashir, Touted by Michelle Obama Sends Other Women to Jail for Adultery


What happens when Michelle Obama and Hilary Clinton hails, Maria Bashir,  as a  champion of women’s rights, and it turns out that this woman throws other women in jail for adultery?

Delicious irony, that’s what!   The Daily Mail has more…

Last year she was hailed as one of the most influential people in the world – a defender of women’s rights as Afghanistan’s only female head prosecutor.

Ms Bashir has been lauded by both Michelle Obama and Hilary Clinton – and she was one of ten women to receive a ‘Women of Courage’ Award in Washington last year.

But Maria Bashir’s reputation is now in doubt after the Times revealed that Ms Bashir is also the most prolific prosecutor of women for Afghanistan’s so-called ‘moral’ crimes, such as adultery.

While Ms Bashir campaigns against abuse husbands, more than half of the 172 women jailed in Afghanistan for sex outside of marriage (known as ‘zina’) have come from her province.

Now, here is what Obama and Clinton said of Bashir…

When she received her award, the two presidential wives said: ‘Ms Bashir has waged a determined campaign against crime and corruption.

‘She stands out as a champion of judicial transparency and women’s rights, and exemplifies the resilience of Afghan women.’

Now, this administration can force Catholics to fund abortions.  They can criticism people that cling to their “guns and religion.”  But, they will honor a woman that send women to prison for cheating on their husbands?  Where are the Tammies?  Will they send seven women to protest this, and claim that there were 50,000?  Will Sandra Fluke flop again, or will the feminists just crawl back under the bus where they belong?

H/T:  Jammie Wearing Fools