Archive for the ‘Pro-Choice’ Category

Lena Dunham Apology Unacceptable

December 22, 2016

After receiving much criticism for saying “Now I can say that I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had” in a podcast, Lena Dunham offered an apology: “My words were spoken from a sort of ‘delusional girl’ persona I often inhabit”. Remove the word “often” from that statement and it nails Dunham well.

Recognizing that many do not like anything she says, she added: “…this apology is for the women who have placed their trust in me”. This, too, is delusional since it is doubtful many women really place much “trust” in her. She is, after all, just another celebrity pontificating on political issues and only extremely ardent fans are gullible enough to treat a celebrity as being infallible.

Far too often the adulation celebrities receive from fans convinces them that everything they do or say is exceptional. Dunham is fully engaged with taking herself too seriously, believing everyone holds her in as high esteem as she holds herself. She has become “elite”. Because she speaks before thinking far too often, her apology for this latest distasteful and offensive comment lacks credibility and, therefore, is unacceptable.

Dunham is a hardcore feminist who proudly takes her feminism to foolishly unacceptable levels, often with man-hating and racist comments. She then finds it expedient to apologize afterwards but that has become very stale. There was no regard for the emotional upheaval abortion can cause or for the life that is snuffed out in her comment. There was only anger, insensitivity, and self-righteousness.

Until Dunham learns to contain her feminist-based anger and think before speaking, her apologies will remain meaningless. So, too, will much of what she spews.

David J. Hentosh

Advertisements

Labels Matter

June 18, 2016

Obama scoffed at critics wanting to know why he will not use the label “radical Islamists” when speaking about terrorism. In a speech filled with ridicule, a standard leftist tactic, Obama asked: “…what exactly using this label would accomplish and what will it change”? This is as disingenuous as it is hypocritical.

What about illegal immigrants labeled as “undocumented workers”? How about “pro-choice” for killing the unborn? What about the “war on women” that is no war? How about the “Party of no” for the GOP? What about the “Affordable Care Act” that continues to increase rather than decrease health care costs? What about the most-used label of all, “racist”, for anyone who disagrees?

Obama and liberal progressives constantly use labels that accomplish masking reality and making an unrealistic agenda more palatable to the masses. Let’s not forget that Obama, who ran for office under the label “The One”, infamously labeled ISIS as the “JV team”. He has even used the vulgar label “tea baggers” in reference to the Tea Party.

It is necessary to identify an enemy in order to defeat it and Obama’s refusal to acknowledge radical Islamists as the enemy has his entire administration and the military concentrating on being politically correct and not offending anyone. The Homeland Security Advisory Council just released a report instructing the DHS not to use any language that might be “disrespectful” to Muslims, including (but not limited to) the words “jihad” and “sharia”, so it seems that labels DO matter as long as they advance the Obama agenda.

Because supporters have labeled him “supremely intelligent”, president Obama arrogantly spews whatever he wishes, expecting everyone to accept his spin as gospel. He has been pissing in our ears and telling us it’s raining for almost eight years, using sarcasm and ridicule to dismiss criticism. As a result, our enemy has been encouraged to escalate its war against us while our efforts have been spent trying not to offend them.

That deserves to be labeled “failure”.

 

David J. Hentosh

A Nation of Pretense

August 26, 2015

We are being driven by a media willfully manipulating public opinion to accept an agenda that is increasingly at odds with reality. Political correctness has become more powerful than the law and unrealistic dreams are a basis for national policy decisions. Everybody pretends it isn’t so.

Hillary Clinton continues to pretend that a right wing conspiracy is responsible for her self-induced e-mail problems even as that ruse unravels further each day. President Obama and his band of incompetent negotiators are pretending that Iran is a legitimate nation acting in good faith even though it is clear to all that Iran cannot be trusted. Black community self-appointed “leaders” pretend there is across-the-board, systematic racism in the entire country’s police force that is resulting in the targeting of innocent black men.

The Pro-choice lobby pretends that a fetus is only a living being if a mother chooses to allow it to be one, a decision that can be made even after it is out of the womb. Until that decision is made, they pretend the fetus is little more than a blob to be cut up and sold for parts.

Celebrities pretend they are political pundits; The wealthy pretend they are not; The poor pretend they have a right to wealth; Liberals pretend to be tolerant; Progressives pretend to be social engineers; Environmentalists pretend alternate energy sources are efficient and economical; The Pope pretends to be a climatologist; Journalists pretend to be objective; open-border lobbyists pretend we don’t need borders; Democrats pretend Obamacare works; and Congress pretends it is competently working for the people.

Donald Trump became a top GOP presidential candidate simply because he does not pretend to be someone he is not. However, he pretends that details of his simple solutions, if they exist, are irrelevant to voters.

In 2016, too many voters will pretend they understand the issues and elect someone who will pretend to understand what needs to be done. We are a nation of pretense.

David J. Hentosh

Angry Voters

October 28, 2014

A recent CNN poll found “nearly 7 in 10 Americans are angry at the direction the country is headed and 53% of Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance”. Angry voters should direct their anger at themselves for having elected Obama – twice – after ignoring evidence of the direction Obama intended all along.

Details of Obama’s “transformation of America” were there between the lines of his campaign rhetoric but the mainstream media was intent on “making history” and pushing their own idealistic agenda, so they kept details hidden. Those trying to reveal the truth were labeled racists or right-wing radicals and were ridiculed. Far too many voters allowed themselves to be duped.

The black community overwhelmingly and blindly voted for Obama solely because he was black, willfully ignoring his radical background, inexperience, and intent. They certainly should be angry at themselves for allowing emotions and unrealistic expectations to overcome common sense. Obama’s policies, especially on immigration, have done more harm than good for the black community.

A majority of women, too, voted for Obama – twice. His administration’s politically manufactured “GOP war on women” is as insulting as treating women as if they are only concerned with birth control and abortion. Women should be angry at themselves for allowing such political manipulation to continue unchallenged.

Unfortunately, too many young voters have been indoctrinated by the liberal, progressive academia to know they should be angry. They have little personal experience of America’s greatness to understand the damage caused by Obama. They have been conditioned (brainwashed?) to government handouts and America-bashing and do not realize how demeaning that is. Someday, they may, but their votes are needed now, before it’s too late.

There are many valid reasons for voter anger, but action is needed rather than anger. It would be disastrous to allow voter anger to become voter apathy. The time to turn this around is now. Vote angry and vote wisely.

David J. Hentosh

Myth Busting

October 2, 2014

Many believe progressive left-wingers hate Ann Coulter because she is an outspoken conservative, but the real reason is because she uses facts to disprove religious-like beliefs they blindly follow. Her latest column will once again cause outrage because she shows a few more “beliefs” to be nothing more than myths.

Coulter rips apart a meme based on a study saying “the purchase of a handgun was associated with 2.4 times the risk of being murdered and 6.8 times the risk of suicide”. No, it is not true and neither is the belief that emergency room admissions for domestic violence spike on Super Bowl Sundays, an oft-heard feminist mantra. Coulter shows these to be nothing more than convenient falsehoods used to help advance an agenda.

Another myth currently making the rounds due to the recent White House crasher is that Obama gets more threats than any other president (because he is black). Coulter uses facts to disprove that, too, adding the inconvenient and politically incorrect truth that those “most likely to assassinate a president are leftists, socialists, communists, Palestinian activists, crazed environmentalists and communitarians”.

Those upset with Coulter because of this column will undoubtedly use insults and demeaning names to ridicule her. They will not counter with facts because there are none backing up these “beliefs”. Name-calling is their standard retort.

The progressive left’s agenda is filled with myths: Democrats freed the slaves; there is a war on women; Republicans are racist and have no compassion; liberals are tolerant; the rich hate the poor; man-made global warming is a fact; voter ID means voter suppression; a fetus is not a living being; pro-life is anti-women; all religions are the same; the economy is doing well; Obama has superior intelligence; etc. etc.

It seems much of the left’s progressive agenda is based on what they believe “should be” and reality just gets in the way. Ann Coulter excels at delivering reality – and rubbing their noses in it.

Give ‘em hell, Ann.

David J. Hentosh

Screamers Are Winning

May 28, 2014

Aided by the media, the progressive left has re-defined comprehensive immigration reform as amnesty, but there is nothing comprehensive about it at all. Illegal immigrants are only one aspect of the immigration issue but have now become the sole purpose behind “reform” for both sides of the aisle.

The GOP originally pushed for real reform which, rationally, called for securing the border before dealing with other immigration issues. This idea was beaten down with the race card as if securing the border was a hateful thing to do. Convinced by the media that this was popular opinion and fearing a loss of votes, the GOP caved and has sheepishly allowed the entire issue to be framed as amnesty.

Obamacare became law in much the same way. It was conceived as a way to provide health insurance to the uninsured, less than 10% of the population, and that remained the driving factor. Details were thrown together hastily in order to get the health care law passed by a Congress favorable to Obama. Now, 90% of the population suffers the consequences of allowing our health care system to be idealistically framed and “reformed”.

Abortion has been framed as “pro-choice”; traditional marriage has been framed as “discriminatory”; religious belief has been framed as “offensive”; opposition to Obama policies has been framed as “racist”; skepticism of man-made global warming has been framed as “denial”; and self-indulgent, morally bankrupt social trends have been framed as “progressive”.

This is the means by which the country is being dismantled brick by brick for “fundamental transformation”. The screamers are re-framing issues to advance their agenda while the silent majority, tired of being called names, being shouted down, and being labeled racists, allow it to happen.

Immigration reform could be the last brick dismantled to achieve total “transformation”. Those given amnesty will show appreciation with votes as will those entering the country through a porous border. American traditions will be trashed, a one-party political system will emerge, wealth will be re-distributed until the economy collapses, and a new third-world country will emerge to replace the leader of the free world – all because the silent majority allowed the screamers to win.

David J. Hentosh

Fear of Benghazi

May 22, 2014

The more liberals try to sell the Benghazi fiasco as a non-issue, the more evident it is that they fear it. Efforts to convince all that there is no scandal surrounding Benghazi are becoming desperately frantic and weak.

When asked about lack of Benghazi coverage, CNN president Jeff Zucker retorted that CNN would not be “shamed” into covering something that has no real news value. The real shame is that CNN and other liberal news outlets are only interested in reporting what they want the public to know. Anything negative about the Obama administration or Hillary Clinton is not considered news. Benghazi hurts both.

Barbara “Call me Senator” Boxer is belittling investigations into Benghazi, where four Americans were killed, as nothing more than the GOP’s fear of Hillary’s presidential candidacy. This comes straight from Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’ where rule number five states: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”. It is the left’s favorite tactic and it fits well with their elitism.

The Daily Beast’s Eleanor Clift assures us that Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation and was not murdered at Benghazi. This semantic hair splitting is a pathetic attempt to lessen the seriousness of the event. She says she is just taking issue with the glib use of the word “murdered”, but the glib use of “pro-choice” for those approving the killing of a fetus has never been a concern for her.

President Obama knew Benghazi was a terrorist act and, at the very least, allowed a video to be blamed for days afterwards in an attempt to mislead the public. There are smoking-gun e-mails showing this video ruse was deliberate. The president’s credibility was at stake because he claimed that al Qaeda was decimated and on the run. His re-election was endangered by this façade crumbling only weeks before voters went to the polls. Yes, there is scandal here.

To quote Shakespeare: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks“.

David J. Hentosh

Doom is Evident

May 1, 2014

Recent events make it clear that this country is doomed. We are closer to total demise than anyone wants to admit and it may be far too late to reverse course. Our government is no longer functioning in our best interests and Congress is polarized into inaction and powerless to curb a runaway administration.

The conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, obtained e-mails about Benghazi that an impotent Congress repeatedly asked for and never received. These e-mails make it clear that Obama administration officials deliberately attributed the Benghazi terrorist attack (where four Americans were killed) to an internet video so it would not be considered a failure of Obama’s policy. It was a White House cover up for political purposes.

The mainstream press which once forced President Nixon to resign over a much less serious cover up does not see this as an important story. Instead, it is obsessed with an NBA team owner’s racist remark made in a private conversation that was secretly taped. Abuse of power and invasion of privacy, such as the NSA and IRS scandals, are of little concern for the press since Obama took office. In this “post racial” era, race trumps all.

The American public is deliberately being misinformed and kept in the dark. News stories are being cherry-picked by ideologues whose intent is to mold public opinion rather than report news. We can no longer believe what is reported and things we should know are being withheld. The watchdog is dead and our government agencies are taking advantage of it.

Our very language has been distorted to obfuscate the truth. “Pro-choice” defines killing a fetus. “Access” to health care, which always existed, means “free” health care. The “Affordable” Care Act is not very affordable. “Diversity” means conform to minority wishes or be punished. “Fair share” means someone wants what you worked for. “Tolerance” means my way or no way. “Climate change” is man-made global warming. The list is endless.

Our children are indoctrinated (brainwashed?) by an education system long overtaken by those more interested in social engineering than education. They are not prepared to recognize, let alone repair, the problems they will inherit. We seem incapable and/or unwilling to do it; therefore, doom is imminent.

David J. Hentosh

Liberal Retorts

March 10, 2014

Commentator Mike Barnicle, appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, proudly commented: “…what does it say about a group, CPAC, where the most popular speaker they had, the one who received the most rousing reception is a moron, Sarah Palin?”

Derisive name-calling is the standard retort of the left. Criticism and differences are viciously attacked rather than rationally debated because much of their agenda is based on “belief” rather than reality. Calling Sarah Palin a moron has become a standard of the left and many who are clueless about Palin repeat this proudly as if it is an original thought, but it is pure ignorance.

Often, we find hypocrisy accompanying ignorance such as this because these elite and superior intelligent “believers” never look at themselves and never question what they are fed. Thus, Barnicle scoffs and sneers at Palin’s reception from CPAC, conveniently forgetting that Sandra Fluke, an unaccomplished college student, spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2012 and was their star speaker, treated as a hero – just for whining about having to pay for her own birth control.

Chris Matthews, a perfect example of blind belief, called the CPAC a “whole tapestry of weirdness”, a “crazy right-wing economic agenda” attended by a “crazy car”. How’s that for unbiased, informative reporting? Of course, Matthews has long ago lost credibility, becoming a caricature of himself while turning “Hardball” into “Screwball” on a nightly basis.

Routinely, we hear liberals echo the talking point that Fox News lies or, more specifically, that Bill O’Reilly lies. Yet, there are never examples given and most will proudly reveal that they never, ever watch O’Reilly. This discrepancy is a “nuance” overlooked by liberals who get serious talking points from comedians Bill Maher and Jon Stewart.

If you mention these things, you’ll just be called stupid, ending any chance at rational debate. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is also stale and very tiring.

David J. Hentosh

The Fallacy of Fairness

February 18, 2014

Like children, progressive liberals often scream “unfair” when something doesn’t go their way. In fact, their entire agenda is built around the unrealistic assumption that life must be “fair” in all things and the government must make it so. This has produced a ‘tail wagging the dog’ situation in society, shredding the idea of a “common good” and producing a culture obsessed with victimhood.

Obamacare shattered our health care system and burdened everyone for the sake of 10% of the population that was uninsured. Our borders continue to be unsafely protected for the sake of amnesty for an estimated 18 million illegal immigrants. The institution of marriage is being re-defined to the detriment of the traditional family unit in order to appease less than 5% of the population. Abortion, utilized by less than 3% of the population, is being subsidized by all through taxes, ignoring all moral or religious objections.

While it is admirable to consider fairness for all, it is unreasonable to always expect it and the pursuit of fairness for “victims” often produces unfairness elsewhere. The current push for a redistribution of wealth only considers those without, ignoring any fairness for those who worked hard to achieve their wealth.

To be truly “fair”, those with wealth who pay most of the nation’s taxes should have their vote count more than those who pay no taxes. They have more skin in the game and should receive more representation because of it, especially since those without will always vote to get “assistance” from tax revenues. There are reasonable arguments for this type of higher representation, but those with wealth are never deemed “victims” and, therefore, do not deserve fairness.

Parents teach children that life is not always fair, but it seems that is too often forgotten by adults. The tail wagging the dog will one day find the dog torn away by so much wagging. What will be considered “fair” when that happens?

David J. Hentosh