Ideological Agreement - Sort Of

People on either side of the political spectrum are voicing outrage over the disclosure made by Irene Vilar in her new book “Impossible Motherhood: Confessions of an Abortion Addict” in which she confesses to committing 15 abortions in a 17 year span – almost one per year, almost every year of her adult life. She tried to get pregnant just so she could get abortions!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1220095/American-abortion-addict-15-terminations-17-years-publishes-memoir.html
Here are a couple of the statements of outrage:

“What a stupid selfish woman. I am pro-choice yes, but this takes the mick. Abortion is not birth control and it shouldn't be used as such.” - Rachel, Plymouth.

“I'm not against abortions, but this is just messed up. Who in their right mind would purposely get pregnant just to abort the child and then have the nerve to write a book about it!?”- Dee, Cardiff

I for one am glad that both sides, excepting the most rabidly fanatical leftists of course, have been so vocal in their disgust, so glad in fact, that it is very difficult for me to risk trampling on that bi-ideological spirit by saying what follows. But then again, I am only stating the obvious.

The leftists who have expressed outrage still appear to be confused. On the one hand, as you have seen from their comments, they are disgusted by the actions of Irene Vilar, yet they all proclaim their support of the “freedom to choose.”

This is a clearly disingenuous position that the liberals accept and promote because they have divorced the rhetorical description – “freedom to choose” - from the specific action of “abortion.” One must really wonder if liberals really believe in the “freedom to choose” because, generally speaking, they work to block choice on almost every other issue, such as voucher programs that give parents the ability to choose their children’s schools, curriculum, teachers and text books.
Choice in healthcare – that is, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines – is blocked by the very same liberals and their special interests that work so hard to suppress school choice.
One hallmark of liberalism is that concepts leftists promote, such as “choice,” or “fairness,” or “liberty,” are very often not at all what they clamor for. What choice does an unborn child have? Is it fair to use the weight of the federal government to plunder from (tax) an earner, ostensibly to spread the wealth around to those who haven’t earned it? Is emancipation from all moral restraint really the kind of liberty we should be championing?

Here’s a question: Why are these liberals who support a “woman’s right to choose,” upset with Irene Vilar? Her actions represent the logical conclusion of the abortion mentality and, mark my words; she will not be the only one. She was only exercising a so-called “right” that they still admittedly support!
What is it that they find so disgusting? I’ll tell you. They know in their twisted heart-of-hearts what abortion is. The “freedom to choose…(wait for it!)… to abort unborn children” is not the same thing as choosing to have a tumor removed. There’s a unique and innocent human being involved who doesn’t get to have a say in the matter. They are outraged because they know the action itself is reprehensible. Liberalism is the salve for the conscience that permits them to judge whether or not the unborn are indeed human beings based upon the desire, or lack thereof, to give birth, and not upon scientific facts. The question I would pose to all of my liberal friends is: What difference does it make to you if it’s 1 or 2 abortions, or 15?

The Faces of Conservatism ~ Smartuckus Fends Off Race-Card Attack...AGAIN

Racial tension is nothing new, but based upon the goings-on in the media - namely the hysteria coming from the left – it appears as though such tension is getting worse since the election of the first black President. Conservatives rightly point out the Left’s obsession with race and the absurdity of the accusations of racism levied against conservatives whose only "crime" is to disagree with the Obama administration. Liberal black leaders go so far as to say that using the term “socialist” to describe Obama’s policies is tantamount to using the “N” word.

On September 11th of this year I wrote about Gertrude Baines, one of Obama’s supporters who had passed away from old age. She admitted to voting for Obama because of race, and the article I referenced mentioned her favorite foods: fried chicken, bacon, and ice cream.
Earlier today a liberal (who I must call "anonymous liberal" because he/she lacked the courage to provide a name) expressed offense, suggesting that my blog post was “racist and inflammatory,” apparently due to the old racial stereotype concerning fried chicken and watermelon. The poster indicated that such racism was “typical” of conservatives. (See for yourself: http://smartuckus.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-loses-another-supporter.html#comments).

The only thing typical was the liberal’s lack of integrity and propensity to play the race card. Obviously the moron took my remarks out of their proper context. And to that moron I would like to say: I’ll bet you wish you would have read the article, don’t you!? Well, you can’t have it back now. Everyone gets to see that you are an idiot. And as I pointed out in my response, he (or she) was not the first person to accuse me of racism over that particular blog, and for the very same reason. But the first anonymous comment was so profanity-laden it was unsuitable for publication.

Conservatism is not racism. Allow me to illustrate. Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat, West Virginia) was a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan. Liberals support him to this day. Senator Albert Gore Senior (Democrat, Tennessee) voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He gets a free pass in the annuls of time because his son is the pontiff of the eco-religionists. Neither of these men are (were) conservative.
On the flip side, here are the faces of a few conservatives:

Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice, and one of my personal heroes.

James Golden, Producer and call-screener for the Rush Limbaugh radio show - yes, the RUSH LIMBAUGH radio show. He goes by the name Bo Snerdley.









Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican Party

Michelle Malkin, conservative author and TV personality.

Walter Williams, Professor Emeritus George Mason University, author, and radio personality.



Are these the fces of some "good-'ol-white-boy" political party? I think not. And there are many more: J.C. Watts, Harry Alford, Michael Medved, Mark Levin, Mona Charen, and Alan Keyes just to name a few. Conservatism, contrary to how it is portrayed by hateful and small-minded liberals, embodies a set of principles that are common to the most diverse group of people. Conservatism is focused on the merits of a person's actions, and not the color of his skin.

Whoever you are "anonymous liberal," put that in your sock!

And The Award Goes Tooooo...!!!

A friend of mine asked me, sarcastically, about the “big announcement” today. You know, that Barack Hussein Obama (Mmmm mmm mmm!) had won the Nobel Peace Prize? He went on and on about how it was ridiculous for this reason and for that reason; his halted speech - an indication that he expected me to jump in and commiserate with him - became animated and perplexed by my silent and widening grin.
“You have it all wrong,” I told him. This is a remarkable accomplishment – one that no other human being could have pulled off.
When I think of esteemed past winners of the Nobel Peace Prize I am reminded of great people like Jimmy Carter, who may yet (current president not withstanding) go down in the annuls of time as the worst United States President ever), Al Gore, the “Global warming kook” – see Hillman, I really can spell the word kook! - Yasser Arafat, a Palestinian terrorist, and a host of other liberals who have spent a lot of time and hard work on symbolic (and virtually meaningless) gestures.
True to his (self-imposed?) messianic image, Barack Hussein Obama (Mmm mmm mmm!) won the award without having done anything! That’s right! He has been awarded for accomplishing nothing! He was nominated for the award in early February after a whole eleven days in office. At the time, the biggest news story was that Rush Limbaugh had stated he wanted Obama to fail.
Perhaps I am not giving credit where credit is due. After all, Obama did work from early November ’08 until January 20th in his capacity as “President-Elect.” He even stimulated the economy by having some sign making company make him a sign that read, “The Office of the President-Elect.” Is it possible that he was awarded the prize for his having accomplished absolutely nothing during that whole phase of his career? Maybe.
All-in-all it’s not a bad start for Obama. He’s won the U.S. Presidential election and the Nobel Peace Prize, (not to mention an honorary degree from the University of Notre Dame) within the same calendar year, and I for one think that his performance thus far – not as President of course – makes him a shoe in for an Academy Award!! He is far more convincing in his role than either George Burns or Morgan Freeman.

The good news for conservatives is that this new anointing could not come at a worse time for the Obama administration. They know that he has done nothing to deserve the award – although most people think the award is meaningless nowadays given the list recent winners. Mark my words; the White House is reeling over the embarrassment. You can bet that Obama’s own staff (not the Kool-Aid drinking sycophants) is starting to snicker behind his back.