Has abortion become the glue that holds liberals together? What is it about this horrific act that never ceases to energize the progressive left?
Texas State Senator Wendy Davis, who’s now the Democratic candidate for governor, became a darling of the left with her filibuster on a bill that sought to ban abortion twenty weeks into a pregnancy.
Now, we have the Democratic candidate for Nevada Lieutenant Governor Lucy Flores being described as “the left’s new hero,” according to left-wing site Salon. What did she do to garner such praise from liberals and feminists? Well, she had an abortion because she decided she was too young to be a mother (Via MSNBC):
“I had six other sisters … all of them became pregnant in their teens – all of them,” Flores said. “One of them was 14 years old when she got pregnant with twins.”She was sixteen. I get it, teenagers make mistakes; we’ve all been at this juncture in our lives. But, that doesn’t mean that liberals should be celebrating those mistakes, either.
Then, with a nervous laugh, Flores told her colleagues something she had never admitted to anyone.
“Since I’m sharing so much this session, I might as well keep going,” she said. “I always said that I was the only one who didn’t have kids in their teenage years. That’s because at 16, I got an abortion.”
Her eyes welled up and her voice caught as she described how she had convinced her father to pay the $200 cost for the procedure. She didn’t want to end up like her sisters, Flores told him.
“I don’t regret it,” she said. “I don’t regret it because I am here making a difference, at least in my mind, for many other young ladies and letting them know that there are options and they can do things to not be in the situation I was in, but to prevent.”
Katie McDonough of Salon added:
When any woman shares her abortion story, she creates space for others to do the same. That in and of itself is a tremendously powerful and generous act. And when women like Flores — or California Rep. Jackie Speier, who disclosed her own abortion experience in 2011 — share stories publicly and in the very places that policies governing reproductive healthcare are crafted and voted on, they change the political landscape. They humanize the issue, and position themselves as experts on the policies that have personally impacted their lives — and the lives of millions of other women. There’s real power in that.
Abortion should be humanized? This is coming from the same site that posted a piece called "so what if abortion ends life," which was a haphazard defense of abortion and putting life on a graduated scale.
And, it’s not just people who are pro-life that are troubled by this trend. Some members of the media, namely ABC News’ Cokie Roberts, were troubled by how “over the top” the 2012 Democratic National Convention was on the issue of abortion.
I think this Democratic convention was really over the top in terms of abortion…every single speaker talked about abortion — and, you know, at some point, you start to alienate people. Thirty percent of Democrats are pro-life.As for laws banning abortion twenty weeks into a pregnancy, almost everyone supports that, including 60% of women.
It’s doubtful that Ms. Flores admission to an abortion during her high school days will have a detrimental impact. It was in high school, and even conservatives know that digging up dirt from those days is a bit of an overreach. They’ve also been the targets of such hijinks. Does anyone remember the Washington Post’s story alleging that Mitt Romney cut some hair off a gay kid in high school?
Shouldn’t it be disturbing that one of the benchmarks in becoming a hero to the American left is having an abortion, or promoting policies that emphatically support it?
I’ll just leave it to Katie Pavlich, who explains how liberals manipulate this issue in her new book.
In one of the more unusual sports stories of the day, a video from 1992 depicts various members of the Washington Redskins and the Buffalo Bills discussing the evils of abortion was unearthed today and published on the sports site SBNation.
While this video is more than 20 years old, the message conveyed is still the same today. Abortion is the taking of a human life that cannot be undone. Kudos to these athletes for speaking out about a cause they believe in.
By now, I'm sure you've seen photos of President Obama playing pool and drinking beer in Denver last night. Understandably, they give off the distinct impression that he doesn’t care -- or at least doesn't mind giving off the impression that he doesn’t care -- about the rapidly deteriorating situation at the US southern border. How else to explain photos such as these?
Democrats, meanwhile, are lamenting the president’s absence and blithe indifference to this crisis as much as anyone. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), for example, has already been admonished by the White House to tone down his criticisms of the president over immigration-related and border security issues. But apparently such warnings are -- and will continue to go -- unheeded. The photos were a bridge too far.
That’s why in an interview today on MSNBC he blasted the president for saying he’s “too busy” to visit the border when, of course, everybody knows that’s a bald-faced lie:
Calls will only grow louder for President Obama to pay Border Patrol agents and humanitarian workers alike a visit. And, while it may be politically expedient for him not to, he may no longer have a choice.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the July issue of Townhall Magazine.
Rep. John Kline (R-MN) once had the responsibility of flying presidents to their destinations as a pilot for Marine One. Now, this aviator-turned-congressman is guiding constituents in a different capacity. He tells Townhall Magazine how he went from navigating the skies to drafting legislation:
“I was going to college, in 1965, when the Vietnam War was cranking out. I was intent on serving at some point and I also was intent on graduating college. So, I combined my intention to serve and my intention to go to college by joining the naval ROTC program at Rice University.”
While Kline was a student at Rice, the Navy had a program called Flight Indoctrination Program. It paid for him to go to a local flight school and get a local private pilot’s license.
“I did that and found out I liked to fly. So, it wasn’t too difficult to make the decision to go into the Marines once I was commissioned.”
His passion for aviation led him to join Marine Helicopter Squadron One, most known for being the home of Marine One.
“It was a great experience. I was one of about 50 pilots in that squadron. It was a great adventure. I got to travel to places in the world like Panama and Egypt, providing Marine One service for Jimmy Carter. It was a big responsibility, but really fun, flying with a lot of really good pilots.”
While he was in the squadron, he was head of an office called White House Liaison Office, working with the White House on providing Marine One wherever the president was needed and coordinating trips. He joined the squadron as captain and left it as a major. Soon, his credentials led him to another honorable post, working as a personal military aide to Presidents Carter and Reagan.
“It’s not something I expected to do when I completed my four years with Marine One. I thought it was time to get back to day-to-day flying, Marine Corps missions and living in tents and things like that, but it was suggested to me that the White House needed another military aide. ... The aide obviously travels with the president everywhere he goes, carrying the football. Jimmy Carter lost, Ronald Reagan won. Reagan’s transition team asked me to stay on. I stayed there until the summer of 1982 so I had the great honor.”
Kline considers it a breach of trust to reveal personal anecdotes about the First Family. One thing he was not coy about, however, was who he believes left the country in better shape.
“I think Reagan was the best president. Carter was very immersed in details, a very smart man, read a lot, knew the particulars of a lot of policy, but he didn’t have the ability President Reagan had to look ahead and keep the ship of state on the course. President Reagan knew what the long term goal was: it was to bring back a healthy economy, take on all the issues that had driven our economy into the tank, high inflation and all those things, and defeat the Evil Empire.”
Just like his dive into aviation, Kline’s advocacy for education was an unexpected but welcome career move. He ran for Congress, he says, out of concern for what was happening to the Armed Forces. He fulfilled that duty, becoming a member of the Armed Forces committee. But, he soon took on another role.
“I got to Congress and was put on the education committee. I got involved in a couple of big issues: pension protection act, modernizing system and became fairly knowledgeable about some issues. There was an opening to be the ranking member five years ago. I looked at the makeup of the committee and thought I could do a good job.”
His peers agreed, selecting him as ranking member, and then as chairman. In this role, he introduced the Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act, a bill he is “very excited” about.
“We want to give parents more options, choices, so that their kids have a chance to succeed, in a climate where traditional public schools just aren’t doing the job,” Kline explains. “We want those good schools to be able to be replicated and to expand. That’s at the heart of what our bill does.”
Like Reagan, Kline may not like to accept credit, but for strengthening our military and providing families with better education options, he certainly deserves some. •
Townhall News Editor Katie Pavlich’s new book “Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women,” is already rising through the ranks on the Amazon bestseller list (get your copy now!) I asked my colleague a few questions about her research process for her latest project and how it’s actually Democrats, not Republicans, who are hurting women with their baseless rhetoric and backward policies.
1. Is there a “war on women?” If so, who’s waging it?
There certainly is a war on women and it’s being waged by the left, and I’m not talking about contraception or abortion. For decades far left policies have made women more dependent on government rather than independent and empowered, ultimately limiting economic opportunity. Liberals have a bad habit of accusing their opponents of what they are actually doing and the war on women is no exception.
2. How did you choose the title?
The definition of flattering is “excessive and insincere praise, especially that given to further one's own interests.” That’s the Democratic Party’s approach to women every campaign cycle. It’s the perfect word to describe their tactics. They offer up compliments and promises that are only broken as soon as the polling booths close. I chose assault in reference to the many literal assaults from liberal men against women. Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are just two of them, there are many of them detailed in my book.
3. Democrats claim Republicans are waging a war on women, but isn’t this hypocritical considering how poorly Democrats treat Republican women?
It’s extraordinarily hypocritical, which is a big part of why I wrote the book. Democrats claim to support all women, but in reality they crucify, vilify and destroy women who dare offer a different point of view. Democrats want women to fall in line and when they don’t, there’s no sign of chivalry or basic respect.
4. You bravely attended the NOW convention last year while doing research for Assault and Flattery. Was anything revealed about the liberal feminist movement that you didn’t know before? Can you share a few of the most egregious things you heard?
When I attended the NOW conference in Chicago I was shocked not by what the women were saying, but by the materials I found for sale and being promoted at the conference. They were selling Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, Education for Socialists and a whole slew of other Marx based material. It was eye opening and gave me a substantial amount of research, information and new insights for the book.
5. What is the irony of referring to President Barack Obama as the most pro-woman president in history?
If Barack Obama is the most pro-woman president in history, then why does he seek to make women completely dependent on the government? Obama propagated one of the left’s most damaging and egregious offenses against women by promoting the false idea that reliance on government is empowering. He repeatedly lied to women about bogus contraception bans in order to get reelected.
6. Is Hobby Lobby v. Burwell an ideal example of the Democrats’ trying to control and define the “women’s rights” debate?
Absolutely, but they’re doing it dishonestly which isn’t surprising. The so-called “women’s rights” advocates who are trying to destroy Hobby Lobby are interested in one thing and that’s government control. Before Obamacare and before the Supreme Court ruled on Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, Hobby Lobby offered its employees 16 different forms of contraception and will continue to do so after the ruling. Listening to the women of NOW you’d think contraception is banned forever and that bosses are taking it away from women in boardrooms everywhere. They aren’t and never will.
7. What is the most empowering message for women in regards to self-defense? How does the Democratic Party get this message wrong?
Before women had the right to vote, they had the right to own a firearm. There is nothing that puts men and women on an equal playing field like the ability for women to defend themselves with a firearm. It’s an atrocity that Democrats continue to push for more gun control laws that only put women into more vulnerable, more dependent and more dangerous situations against violent attackers by limiting their Second Amendment rights and options for self-defense.
8. How can Republicans debunk the misconceptions that they’re harming “women’s rights” and convince women they belong to the wrong political party?
Republicans have lost on this issue because they’ve failed to address the issue quickly and forcefully. When Hillary Clinton goes on television to claim bosses can take away contraception, it’s the job of Republicans to call her a liar and to set the record straight. It’s also important for Republicans to remind women of who fought for their right to vote and who fought against it. Republicans were supporters of the women’s suffrage movement. Democrats were not.
9. Why is it important that men read this book as well?
Although this is a book about women, it’s a book for women, men, dads, husbands, brothers and boyfriends. If you really believe women should be independent, including independent of government, this book serves as a tool to help influence, debate and set the record straight about the Democratic Party.
10. What do you hope to accomplish with this book?
There are a number of things I hope to accomplish with the book on a range of different topics that are outlined in my chapters. The bottom line is, Democrats have controlled the debate on this issue for far too long. My goal with this book is to expose liberal lies in hopes women will realize that Democrats may tell them they have their best interests at heart, but in the end they’re just skilled in flattery.
Texas Tech student and aspiring TV host Kendall Jones has been under fire as of late for her posts on Facebook with various big game animals she has hunted. Facebook removed those photos yesterday, claiming that they violated the site's community standards. Something apparently does not violate those community standards, however, is a page advocating for the murder of Kendall Jones.
Jones legally hunted all of the animals she is pictured with--she is not a poacher.
It's fine to have an opinion that hunting is bad or cruel, but it certainly is not okay to advocate for the murder of another human being. Facebook's policy is hypocritical. One of the images on the "Kill Kendall Jones" page is a cartoon of a lion standing over Jones' dead body--if that's not "glorifying violence," then what is?
Typically people think about the National Organization for Women as a women's rights group. It isn't. NOW is a front group for the promotion of socialist and Marxist policies in America and I have proof.
Last year I attended the annual NOW National Conference in Chicago (didn't go to this year's conference, I probably would have been kicked out anyway). Here's a sampling of the material I found while I was there and a short excerpt from my new book Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women.
Marxist teaching is not a tiny fringe part of the modern, militant feminists' agenda. It is its centerpiece.
From the time of Karl Marx through the 1960s and up until today, the progressive women's rights movement has hardly been about women's rights at all but instead about a transformation of American society and the transfer of wealth through government force. Women's rights have simply acted as a veil to distract away from the true intentions of progressive activists.
Socialist literature sold at the annual NOW conference declares the family system as the origin of female oppression and lays out half a dozen fundamental "errors" of the family.
"Closely intertwined with the origins and character of women's oppression is the question of the family. The resolution reaffirms that the family system is an indispensable pillar of class rule. It is the historical mechanism for institutionalizing the social inequality that accompanies the rise of private property and perpetuating class divisions from one generation to the next," the Education for Socialists says. "Because the family system is indispensable to the structuring of social inequality, the economic dependence of women and their oppression within the family system is likewise indispensable to class rule."
Further, this material states Marxists are "the only ones who have answers to the very fundamental questions posed by the feminist movement," and that the answers must be perpetuated through women's liberation literature.
1. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
2. Education for Socialists: Women's Liberation and the Line March of the Working Class and the Communist Continuity and the Fight for Women's Liberation
3. On the 100th Anniversary of the First General Strike in the U.S.: Marx and the First International
4. Marx & Freedom by Raya Dunayevskaya
5. Rosa Luxemburg, Women's Liberation, and Marx Philosophy of Revolution by Raya Dunayevskaya
These were just the five books I decided to purchase (strangely enough they weren't free, people actually wanted money for them, which I found ironic), there were many more with the same Marxist theme available. To learn about my full experience at NOW and to see what else I found, you'll have to head over to Amazon to purchase the full story.
The Supreme Court had spoken. Hobby Lobby could keep its religious freedom. But, now Senate Democrats are trying to reverse this ruling with a new act that would override an employer exemption from the controversial HHS mandate. LifeNews explains what this could mean for Christian companies:
Now, Senate Democrats want to change the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act in a way that would force companies to pay for birth control, contraception and those abortion-causing drugs.
Senators Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), both abortion advocates, are behind the new legislation and they said, “The Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act would ban employers from refusing to provide health coverage — including contraceptive coverage — guaranteed to their employees and dependents under federal law.”
It’s no surprise who’s already lending her support to the bill:
"With this bill, Congress can begin to fix the damage done by the Supreme Court's decision to allow for-profit corporations to deny their employees birth control coverage. The Supreme Court last week opened the door to a wide range of discrimination and denial of services. This bill would help close the door for denying contraception before more corporations can walk through it," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
Planned Parenthood seems to ignore the fact that a majority of Americans agreed with the Court’s decision last week. 51 percent of respondents in a Rasmussen Reports survey said employers should not be required to provide insurance with this type of coverage.
But, that’s not going to stop these Democratic senators, who are determined to override the Hobby Lobby decision in the name of “women’s rights.”
Anyone who puts their name to this legislation doesn’t deserve to keep their seat this fall. Hopefully voters will err on the side of religious freedom.
President Obama will be in Texas today for a series of fundraisers but, despite warnings from fellow Democrats that he can't ignore the issue, he will not visit the Mexican border where a humanitarian crisis of his own making is unfolding.
Obama's reluctance to visit the border is completely understandable. The flood of migrants coming from Central America are only responding to the incentives created by Obama's selective enforcement of immigration laws. There is no misinformation campaign. The rumors are true.
Families who come to the border from countries other than Mexico are being helped across the border by U.S. immigration officials and then released, sometimes even transported, deep into the United States. Once they have been released with a piece of paper asking them to show up in court at a later date (a piece of paper the migrants are calling a permiso) these migrants are free to disappear without any threat of future deportation. It is the Obama administration's written policy not to track down non-violent illegal immigrants.
"If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero — it's just highly unlikely to happen," John Sandweg, Obama's former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, recently told The Los Angeles Times.
Amnesty activists are thrilled with this outcome. Obama's selective enforcement of immigration law has created a de facto open border.
The only problem for amnesty activists is that Obama is not processing the migrant wave fast enough. Hence the $3.7 billion Obama asked for yesterday to address the crisis. Almost half of this amount, $1.8 billion, will go not to stopping migrants from coming to the United States, but will go instead to the Department of Health and Human Services to help care for the migrants in the United States. Another $116 million of Obama's request will go to transporting migrants further into the United States. And while $879 million will go to "
None of the money asked for by Obama would in anyway stop the migrant wave. Giving Obama $3.7 billion for immigration "enforcement" would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. This is a policy problem not a resources problem. And Obama's base won't let him fix the policy problem.
When Obama first floated the idea of extra funds for the current migrant crisis, he also asked Congress to change a 2008 law that directs immigration officials turn over migrants from countries over than Mexico to HHS for human trafficking processing.
Now Obama is completely beholden to the amnesty activists that helped elect him. After Obama failed to pass immigration reform with a Democratic House in his first year in office, as he promised to do, Obama knew he needed to do something by himself. Hence his 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program which unilaterally changed immigration law to match DREAM Act legislation which never passed Congress.
Obama has defended DACA as a completely legal extension of his inherent executive enforcement powers. But if DACA is legal, if Obama can create a brand new program out of thin air that grants work permits and drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, then he can also completely ignore all other immigration laws.
Amnesty activists know this. They know that once Obama announced DACA, the only limit to Obama's immigration powers are political. And they believe Americans are ready for open borders. Politico reports this morning (hat tip Greg Sargent):
Adding to the elevated hopes about what Obama will do is the feeling among Democratic strategists that immigration reform is a clear political winner: The people who will be opposed to reform or to the president taking action on his own are already likely prime Republican base voters. But voters whom Obama might be able to activate, both among immigrant communities and progressives overall who see this issue as a touchstone, are exactly the ones that Democrats are hoping will be there to counter a midterm year in which the map and historical trends favor GOP turnout.
In many competitive House districts and several of the Senate races that Democrats need to hold onto to have a chance of retaining the majority — Colorado and Iowa, and to a lesser extent, North Carolina and Arkansas — immigrant communities make up a significant bloc of votes. Done in a way that energizes Latinos and Asians, Obama’s taking the lead on immigration could prove a margin-making move for the midterms.
It is not clear, however, if Obama believes open borders will be the same hit with the American people that amnesty activists think it will be. Up till now Americans have voiced support for granting amnesty to those already in the country, but keeping out further waves if illegal immigrants.
But the current migrant crisis has exploded the amnesty lie. Americans are seeing first hand that amnesties only beget more amnesties. The only way for Obama to end the crisis is to start treating all migrants the way Mexican migrants are treated: by turning them away from the border.
But Obama's base won't let him do that.
So the crisis on the border will continue, more migrants will come to the United States, and Obama will continue to facilitate their entry into the country. Until there is a strong signal that Americans will not tolerate this politically, the status quo will not change.
No doubt we saw this coming, but now it’s official: Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) will not appear at a campaign fundraiser back home headlined by the president today, according to the Associated Press. Duty calls, guys:
President Barack Obama on Wednesday will headline his first fundraiser for a Senate Democrat in danger of losing this fall — but the candidate, Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, won't be by his side.
In a last minute switch, Udall's campaign says the senator plans to stay in Washington to vote on Obama's nominee to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The decision is likely to spark new questions about the political risks for vulnerable Democrats in being linked with an increasingly unpopular president.
"Mark is grateful for the president's support, and had hoped to welcome him to Colorado in person, but his responsibilities to serve Colorado in the Senate come first," spokesman Chris Harris said.
His responsibilities as a United States Senator must take precedence, he affirms. But even before he decided to stay in Washington to fulfil his constitutional obligations as an elected official, he took calculated steps to ensure that he and the president wouldn’t be seen chumming it up together. The AP explains:
Udall had already been planning to limit his appearances with the president. The fundraiser is off limits to news cameras. And Udall's campaign announced earlier in the week that the senator would not attend the president's economic speech in Denver Wednesday morning, ensuring that there would be no photos of the two men together.
Meanwhile, his opponent, Cory Gardner, has been anticipating the fundraiser for quite some time, and using it to score political points. For example, the Gardner campaign released this statement two days ago about the president's impending visit:
Just months after Senator Udall refused to answer on national television whether or not he would campaign with President Obama (four times!), the president is headed to Denver. This morning, the White House announced that in addition to raising money for Senator Udall, President Obama will be giving a speech on the economy, though members of the public are prohibited from attending.
“Senator Udall has spent his entire campaign dividing Coloradans — he speaks nonstop about divisive social issues, spreading lies about his opponent in hopes that voters will forget about his failed record on the economy and healthcare,” said campaign spokesman Alex Siciliano. “News that President Obama will be speaking about the economy on Wednesday in Denver must have hit Senator Udall hard. He is now going to have to answer for his votes for the failed healthcare bill, higher taxes, and increased government spending. Senator Udall has been in elected office nearly two decades, but he still can’t explain to Coloradans what he’s accomplished for our state, why the economy is struggling, and his plan to create jobs.”
Polls show the race is exceedingly tight and expected to get even tighter. This explains why Udall doesn’t want to be seen with the president -- who, according to a freshly-released Quinnipiac University poll, only boasts a 38 percent approval rating in the Centennial State. However, in fairness to Sen. Udall, he’s not the only one avoiding the president when he visits. Other vulnerable Senate Democrats are doing the exact same thing:
Alaska Sen. Mark Begich has said he is "not really interested" in campaigning with Obama, and he reminds reporters that he won in 2008 while Obama was losing the state by 21 percentage points.
In North Carolina, a spokeswoman for Sen. Kay Hagan said no presidential visits were scheduled but added that "President Obama is welcome to come to North Carolina any time, including for our campaign." However, Hagan was absent when Obama visited Raleigh in January.
Obama has had occasional contact with vulnerable Democrats in their home states, but not for campaign purposes. In May, he spent several hours with Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor touring damage from a tornado that devastated swaths of the state. And in November, Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu got a ride from Washington to New Orleans with Obama on Air Force One, then skipped the event he had scheduled in her hometown.
At any rate, collecting donations from a fundraiser you won't attend seems like a pretty sweet gig, no? Hence why I wouldn't be surprised if other Senate Democrats soon begin adopting this strategy as well.
Preparations for Assaults on Iranian Dissidents in Iraq by Iran’s Forces and Proxies | Raymond Tanter