Leatherneck Blogger

Archive for May 2016

The Agony of the Pre-Persons: Philip K. Dick’s Attack on Abortion

leave a comment »

By Bruce W. Davidson
American Thinker
August 15, 2015

Philip K. Dick’s science fiction novels and short stories have provided bountiful material for TV and film adaption, including Blade Runner and the Total Recall movies.  More recently Amazon’s TV adaption of his alternate-history novel The Man in the High Castle has attracted a lot of attention.  Since he often confronts serious religious and ethical issues, his tales sometimes make for discomfiting reading.  One example is his short story “The Pre-Persons,” first published in 1974, only one year after the Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling.  Though by no means politically conservative or religiously Judeo-Christian, Dick had more insight into the ethical sophistry used to justify abortion on demand than the Court.  He also foresaw its brutalizing impact on society and personality.

Predictably, this anti-abortion story made him the target of hostility from advocates of abortion.  By Dick’s own account, he received an especially vituperative reaction from “Joanna Russ, who wrote me the nastiest letter I’ve ever received,” threatening him with physical violence, along with “unsigned hate mail, some of it not from individuals but from organizations promoting abortion on demand.”  Dick’s response: “For the pre-person’s sake I am not sorry.”  Furthermore, in his defense he quoted the famous words of Martin Luther, “Here I stand. I can do no other.” In the story Dick acknowledged appreciatively the role of Christianity in opposing abortion throughout history, even though he himself was not a believer.  The entire story and some of Dick’s comments about it can be read here.

The story’s dystopian future world extrapolates from Roe v Wade to a society in which children under twelve also face extermination when their parents decide to do away with them.  Initially it focuses on a boy named Walter, cowering in the bushes while an abortion truck cruises his suburban neighborhood looking for kids whose parents have consigned them to elimination or who lack the requisite identification proving they are wanted by their parents.  If the driver apprehends such kids on the street, they are taken to a facility compared to a “dog pound,” where their biological parents or new adoptive parents have thirty days to claim them before they meet their end.

Contemplating the spectacle of women enjoying the right to get rid of their own offspring, one man muses, “Where did the motherly virtues go to…  when mothers especially protected what was small and weak and helpless?”  He sees this as a possible harbinger of the extinction of the whole human race.  Another man’s son is actually picked up for missing the necessary ID, so his father decides to join his son and the group of children in the back of the abortion truck.  He claims that he can no longer do higher math and so should also be eliminated (Personhood in this society is established by one’s ability to comprehend higher math).  He says, “Either they ought to kill all of us or none of us.  But not divide along these bureaucratic arbitrary lines.”

Other brilliant and believable details flesh out the story: the bureaucratic peace officer charged with the task of apprehending stray kids, who spouts regulations and demands proper IDs from bewildered small children; the terrified but violently angry children fantasizing about blowing up the abortion truck; the antagonism between adults embittered by conflict over abortion and infanticide.   Dick vividly envisions what a morally desensitized world might do to the souls of its members.  Eventually one man’s decision to join the children in the abortion truck creates something of a short-lived mass media fracas.  In that regard Dick does not appear as prescient, since he did not reckon on the mass media putting greater effort into suppressing and whitewashing such incidents than into reporting them.

“The Pre-Persons” may prove to be as prophetic as the hedonists contemptuous of parenthood depicted in Huxley’s novel Brave New World.  Philip K. Dick grasped very well the logic of abortion and could not turn his eyes away from the artificiality of drawing a line of demarcation for meaningful human life at the moment of birth.  A society that treats the lives of the unborn as worthless aside from their market value may very well decide one day to broaden the category of those who do not merit protection.  Probably Dick would not have been very surprised by the Planned Parenthood scandal, since he understood very well the dehumanizing effects of abortion on demand long before the ramifications had clearly materialized.

Most impressive of all, in showing the terror and despair of children facing elimination, Dick gave a voice to the unborn who cannot express any audible horror at their own demise.  One character in his story considers their plight: “How could they defend themselves? Who would speak for them?”  Dick himself managed to do just that.

Continue reading on American Thinker

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

May 31, 2016 at 06:00

The Fraud In “Gungate” Is Real, And Should End Katie Couric’s Career

with one comment

By Bob Owens
Bearing Arms
May 25, 2016

On September 8, 2004, CBS New anchor Dan Rather presented blatantly forged documents in an attempt to derail the reelection of President George W. Bush, just two months away. Within hours bloggers debunked the documents, noting that the documents purporting to have been authored on a typewriter in 1972-73 were in fact created in Microsoft Word on a computer in 2004. CBS News producer Mary Mapes was fired for failing to authenticate the documents, several CBS News executives were for forced to resign, and Dan Rather’s credibility as a news anchor was utterly destroyed.

We’re currently in the middle of a much darker scandal, revolving around the gun control “documentary” Under the Gun, produced by Yahoo! News anchor Katie Couric.


As we noted yesterday, a gun rights group, Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), agreed to sit down with a member of Couric’s film team for more than two hours of interviews. Most of the footage ended up on the cutting room floor, but the real scandal was when Couric’s team was caught red-handed swapping out the actual answer for one of the questions they asked VCDL with footage of them staring at the floor, making it appear that they didn’t have an answer to her question.

That is not what happened.

Stephen Gutowski and his team at the Free Beaconisolated the actual uncut audio footage as part of their coverage of the story, and it proves without a doubt that the VCDL members did have an immediate and detailed response to question.

Ladies and gentlemen, Dan Rather had a certain degree of deniability when his producers failed to do their due diligence and vet the so-called “Killian documents” for authenticity. It was a mistake, but still cost four people their jobs at CBS News and tarnished Rather’s lengthy and up until then, respected career.

Yahoo! News anchor and Under the Gun executive producer and narrator Katie Couric cannot off up any plausible deniability at all for her team’s decision to commit what is nothing more or less than fraud.

This project was Couric’s “baby,” and she was responsible for every aspect of the final cut of a heavily-biased documentary which now appears to contain blatant and intentional fraud designed to make the VCDL appear as if they didn’t have an answer to the interviewers questions, when they did indeed have an immediate, detailed, and rational response from three members of the group which went to so far as to cite law and Supreme Court decisions on prior restraint, pointing out the sort of “pre-crime” laws championed by gun control supporters is both Orwellian and blatantly unconstitutional.

“Rathergate,” as the Killian documents controversy came to be known, eventually ended Dan Rather’s career for a mistake.

Katie Couric’s “Gungate” was intentional, willful, and malicious fraud, and should in Couric’s immediate termination and her being treated as a pariah for the rest of her life.

Continue reading on Bearing Arms

Islamic State Executes its Own Commanders With Attack Dogs

with 2 comments

The Clarion Project
May 23, 2016

ISIS is using this and other brutal tactics on its own fighters to instill fear and command obedience.

The Islamic State executed several of its leaders using attack dogs, according to the Ahlul Bayt News Agency (ABNA).

ISIS found several of its leaders guilty of failing to carry out their duties, so they tied them to trees and set dogs on them. The dogs mauled them to death.

Hasan Khala Hasan, a Peshmerga commander on the front line, reported the news. ISIS uses a variety of ultraviolent tactics to intimidate its soldiers into obedience.

“IS uses any members who are thought to be of no use, for the organization to frighten other members,” Dler Ahmed, a Kurdish sociologist told ABNA.

The group has upped the level of its savagery as it loses territory to Kurdish and Iraqi government forces. Earlier this month, ISIS declared a “state of emergency” in its capital Raqqa.

At the time of writing, the Iraqi army was preparing an offensive on the strategic town of Fallujah in Iraq.

For more information on the Islamic State, see Clarion Project’s Special Report: The Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL)

Continue reading on The Clairon Project

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

May 29, 2016 at 06:00

AFA Pass Along Sheet

leave a comment »

Make copies of this sheet and pass along to your family and friends.

BOYCOTT! Target allows men in women’s dressing and bath rooms

Target says it allows men to use the women’s restrooms and dressing rooms in their stores.

This means a man can simply say “I feel like a woman today” and enter the women’s restroom…even if young girls or women are already in there.

Target’s policy is exactly how sexual predators get easy access to their victims.

We think the average Target customer is willing to pledge to boycott Target stores until they make protecting women and children a priority.

Join over 1.2 MILLION others and…

Sign the Target Boycott Pledge at www.afa.net/target.


Target’s policy places women and children in danger. Here are some actual news headlines:

  • Peeping tom caught filming women in Target dressing rooms (KMOV, St. Louis, MO)
  • Police arrest man exposing himself in Target bathroom (KVUE, Cedar Park, TX)
  • Florida woman chases ‘Video Voyeur’ out of Target store (Good Morning America)
  • ‘Peeping Tom’ took pics of people in Target bathroom (WAVE, Louisville, KY)

Read a full report on Target at www.afa.net/target

The AFA-called boycott of Target has been promoted by Franklin Graham, Ray Comfort, Sean Hannity, Todd Starnes, and covered by many major newspapers and television networks in America.


  1. If you have not done so, sign the Boycott Pledge at www.afa.net/target.
  2. Print the paper petition at http://www.afa.net/target and distribute it at Sunday school and church.
  3. Make copies of this Pass Along Sheet and give a copy to all your friends and family.

American Family Association – Tupelo, MS 38803 – www.afa.net

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

May 28, 2016 at 06:00

Posted in Conservative, Liberal, Politics

Tagged with

Jihadists in White Coats

with 2 comments

By Eileen F. Toplansky
American Thinker
May 13, 2016

In his 2008 book Jihad and American Medicine, Dr. Adam Frederic Dorin considers what “thinking like a terrorist” would entail in terms of attacks on our healthcare system. According to the blurb “Dr. Dorin’s unique book offers the first in-depth exposé and loud alert to the risks and gaping weak spots in our healthcare system.” Dr. Dorin asks “[i]sn’t it odd that in our post-9/11 world we should choose to ignore facts that implicate the extremely lax degree of security in American medical institutions? Do we really believe that our suppression of reality — and our state of indifference — will protect us from attack against relatively helpless victims in hospitals, surgery centers, and other health care facilities?” Dr. Dorin asserts that the title of his book was “chosen carefully, because the battle waged by extremists (who would like nothing better than to lay ruin to our freedoms) is moving our way. It is only a matter of time before our homeland is struck again; it is only a matter of time before American medical facilities are targeted.”

Dorin cites examples of suspicious incidents involving unknown individuals who were found in protected and restricted areas of hospitals. Yet, very little information was ascertained about these intruders. Dorin applauds the University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center that planned to implement a perimeter security system around the medical campus to provide a layered approach to security protocols and limiting access to public entrances. But how many other medical facilities have done this?

In their 2013 article titled “The Infiltration of Terrorist Organizations into the Pharmaceutical Industry: Hezbollah as a Case Study” authors Boaz Ganor and Miri Halperin Wernli discuss how terrorist organizations have long been involved in “extensive international ties, which they exploit for fundraising and money laundering, weapons and goods smuggling, and the transportation of activists.” In fact, Hizb’allah members have “been found to be engaged in the production and sale of counterfeit medications in Lebanon and elsewhere” as a source of income.

Distribution of such medications is worldwide. Crime groups already cooperate with terrorists in drug trafficking and punishment is minimal for making and distributing counterfeit medications. But consider if terrorists, as part of the global jihad, were to taint the medications as a means to kill infidel users.

According to Ganor and Wernli, “Hezbollah members were arrested and indicted for smuggling and distributing counterfeit Viaga and pseudoephedrine (used to treat nasal and sinus congestion) in the United States.” In fact, Hizb’allah had been “smuggling counterfeit medications into Canada, and from there selling them directly to American consumers who sought inexpensive medications.”

Certainly one motivation of “terrorist organizations to infiltrate the pharmaceuticals industry is the use they can make of counterfeit medications in their attacks — that is, terrorist-motivated adulteration of medications (TEMA).” Thus, “…a terrorist organization may choose to use counterfeit medications to physically harm the people who take them by adding poisonous ingredients, removing active therapeutic ingredients, or intentional improperly storing, handling, or transporting them, which will result in the medication being ineffective or deliberately harmful. Use of adulterated medications can lead to death, thereby meeting a root goal of the modern terrorist organization: to spread fear and anxiety among large target populations and to destroy the confidence in the whole health care system.”

Consequently, the “increasing involvement in the manufacture, smuggling, and sale of counterfeit medications is a ‘wake-up call,’ a warning sign that terrorist attacks may yet be perpetrated using counterfeit and purposely adulterated medications. Those terrorist organizations that are already involved in manufacturing and distributing counterfeit medications are liable to use their production centers, international smuggling and distribution networks, and ties to international crime syndicates to insert deadly adulterated drugs into the pharmaceuticals market.”

Continue reading on American Thinker

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

May 27, 2016 at 06:00

The Shameful Irony Of Obama Demanding Gun Control At George Mason University

leave a comment »

The Federalist
January 8, 2016

President Obama appeared last night (January 7, 2016) at a nationally televised CNN town hall meeting on gun control. Despite the folksy “town hall” terminology, participants attended by invitation only. The White House advertised the meeting as a chance for the president to “have a conversation with those who don’t agree,” but this CNN headline is more honest: “Obama to make case on guns at CNN town hall.”

This type of public relations theater from the White House is unsurprising. However, the choice of venue for the event adds insult to injury: the president made the case for his executive actions on gun control at none other than Virginia’s George Mason University.

Personally, I was rooting for the ghost of George Mason to appear uninvited, Shakespearean-style, and defend his name from being associated with all of this.

Meet George Mason, Self-Defense Lover

George Mason, born in Fairfax County, Virginia, was the most influential Founding Father you’ve never heard of. He was both a stalwart defender of individual rights—including the right to bear arms—and a fierce critic of government’s propensity to exceed its authority. In other words, he’d not only be against what the president did this week; he’d be even more firmly opposed to how he did it.

Continue reading on The Federalist

Why Abortion Supporters Try To Silence Men

with one comment

By Kira Nelson
The Federalist
May 20, 2016

Apparently, sexual anatomy does not matter for picking a bathroom, but biological sex can devalue one’s opinions in an intellectual discussion.

That is, except when it comes to the abortion debate. For many pro-choicers, if you are a pro-life male, you are not welcome to discuss or even listen to a discussion about abortion.

Several weeks ago, I attended a lunch talk at Harvard Law School sponsored by Law Students for Life. The talk was extremely well-attended. A good attendance for a Tuesday lunch talk is about 50 people. By noon, 115 people had squeezed into a lecture hall that sits about 80. Around 70 percent of the attendants were male.

Pro-Lifer Thoughtfully Engages His Opponents

Renowned ethicist and professor Robert George gave the talk. His remarks were titled, “Are Human Embryos Human Beings? Are They Persons?” During his remarks, George systemically presented two arguments: first, that embryos are scientifically human beings in their most immature state, and second, that all human beings possess innate human worth beyond what they can provide to society.

His arguments were thorough and highly thought-provoking. Each time George made an argument, he fairly presented the opposing argument and carefully refuted it. The event was a delightful display of intellectual engagement in a minority view in the elite institutions.

However, the response on campus was anything but intellectual or engaging. Instead of discussing the arguments presented, pro-choice advocates on campus hid behind identity politics. The most prominent rebuttal of George’s presentation had nothing to do with the content of his reasoning or the quality of his scholarship; it had to do with the sex of the attendees at the event.

Shortly after the talk, this post appeared on Facebook.

Continue reading on The Federalist


Written by Leatherneck Blogger

May 25, 2016 at 06:00

Federal Judge Strikes Down ‘Good Reason’ Provision Of DC Concealed Carry Law As Likely Unconstitutional

with one comment

By Matt Vespa
May 17, 2016

The fight over Second Amendment rights in the nation’s capital has entered a new phase. A federal judge has ruled that the city’s “good reason” provision within their concealed carry law is likely unconstitutional, as stated in the injunction order issued on Tuesday (via WaPo):

A federal judge has ruled that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is likely unconstitutional, ordering D.C. police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.In imposing a preliminary injunction pending further litigation, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon reignited a running battle over the Second Amendment in the District and its courts where three different judges have now weighed in with varying conclusions.

“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” Leon wrote in a 46-page opinion, quoting a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2008 in another District case that established a constitutional right to keep firearms in one’s home.


Leon’s ruling came in a lawsuit filed last year by a District gun-owner, Matthew Grace, and gun-rights group Pink Pistols. The plaintiffs alleged that the D.C. gun law violates the core Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense, including protecting themselves from non-specific threats and threats that arise unexpectedly.

David Thompson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said Leon got it right in finding that the Constitution includes a right to carry firearms. “The District of Columbia cannot parcel out Constitutional rights to a select few of its choosing,” Thompson said. “That’s not how the Constitution works in this country.”

Judge Leon is not amused by D.C. attorneys’ suggestion that 2nd Amendment “has no intrinsic value.”

In 2014, Judge Frederick Scullin of the New York District Court ruled inPalmer v. DC that the District of Columbia’s ban on carrying firearms outside of the home was unconstitutional. For a very brief period, the city honored constitutional carry per the order of DC Police Chief Lanier until new legislation could be drafted to accommodate the ruling. The Palmer decision was handed down on July 27, 2014. At the time, Katie wrote that a 90-day stay was handed down two days later, with the defendants filing a partially unopposed motion in support of the judgment, along with agreeing to the 90-day timeframe.

District of Columbia’s total ban on the carrying of handguns in public was unconstitutional; and, therefore, the Court permanently enjoined Defendants from enforcing D.C. Code §§ 7-2502(a)(4) and 22-4504(a). On July 28, 2014, Defendants filed a partially unopposed motion to stay pending appeal or, in the alternative, for 180 days and for immediate administrative stay.In support of this motion, Defendants’ counsel advised the Court that he had conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel, “who indicated that [P]laintiffs do not oppose a 90-day stay starting immediately ‘pending the city council enacting remedial legislation that complies with constitutional standards.’

The new concealed carry law went into effect on October 22, 2014; the day the stay would expire. Yet, there were still stringent standards that many would view as unconstitutional, especially the “good reason” provision, wherein the applicant must tell the city why they must have a carry permit. The city could arbitrarily reject them, as D.C. has a “may issue” carry law. To give some clarity on how absurd may issue carry states operate, just look at Fox Business’ John Stossel’s odyssey to obtain a carry permit in New York. It took him eight and a half months, and a $430 processing fee, for his application process to end with a letter of rejection from the New York City Police Department

Continue reading on Townhall

What Does Islam Teach About: Homosexuality

with one comment


What is Islam’s position on the treatment of homosexuals?

Islam goes beyond merely disapproving of homosexuality. Sharia teaches that homosexuality is a vile form of fornication, punishable by death.

Beneath the surface, however, there are implied references to homosexual behavior in paradise, and it has been a historical part of Arab and Muslim culture.


Quran (7:80-84)“…For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds…. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)” – An account that is borrowed from the Biblical story of Sodom. Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the “rain of stones” on the town as meaning that homosexuals should be stoned, since no other reason is given for the people’s destruction. (The story is also repeated in suras 27 and29).

Quran (7:81)“Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?” This verse is part of the previous text and it establishes that homosexuality as different from (and much worse than) adultery or other sexual sin. According to the Arabic grammar, homosexuality is called the worst sin, while references elsewhere describe other forms of non-marital sex as being “among great sins.”

Quran (26:165-166)“Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, “And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing”

Quran (4:16)“If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone” This is the Yusuf Ali translation. The original Arabic does not use the word “men” and simply says “two from among you.” Yusuf Ali may have added the word “men” because the verse seems to refer to a different set than referred to in the prior verse (explicitly denoted as “your women”). In other words, since 4:15 refers to “your women”, 4:16 is presumably written to and refers to men.

Interestingly, the same rules don’t seem to apply in paradise, where martyrs for the cause of Allah enjoy an orgy of virgins and “perpetual youth” Quran (56:17) (otherwise known as “boys”Quran (52:24)). Quran (76:19) bluntly states, “And immortal boys will circulate among them, when you see them you will count them as scattered pearls.” Technically, the mere presence of boys doesn’t necessarily mean sex, however it is strongly implied from the particular emphasis on the effeminacy, handsomeness and “freshness” of the boys. The female virgins of paradise are also compared to pearls (56:23).

[Editor’s note: We are not implying a link between homosexuality and pedophilia here anymore than we are implying one between heterosexuality and pedophilia when recounting that Muhammad’s preferred wife was a 9-year-old girl.]

Hadith and Sira

There are several lesser hadith stating, “if a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers,” “If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses,” “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,” and “Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.”

Abu Dawud (4462) The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”.

Abu Dawud (4448) – “If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.” (Note the implicit approval of sodomizing one’s wife).

Bukhari (72:774)“The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, ‘Turn them out of your houses .’ The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and ‘Umar turned out such-and-such woman.”

al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – [Muhammad said] “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver.

Reliance of the Traveller, p17.2“May Allah curse him who does what Lot’s people did.” This is also repeated in three other places.


Homosexuals are beheaded, hung and stoned in modern Saudi Arabia and Iran, where Muhammad’s laws are applied most strictly.  Five other Muslim countries also have the death penalty on their books for homosexual behavior.  In the past, gays were burned.

As one cleric recently put it, the only point of theological debate is not whether the homosexual should be killed, but how it should be done.

In 2016, an educated imam in Tunisia explained that while it may seem harsh, there is not ambiguity about this in Islam:

God is very straightforward about this — not we Muslims, not subjective, the Sharia is very clear about it, the punishment for homosexuality, bestiality or anything like that is death. We don’t make any excuses about that, it’s not our law — it’s the Quran

There are several places in the Quran where the story of Sodom is repeated, with emphasis placed on the destruction of the town for homosexual lewdness. Also, according to Serge Trifkovic:

Mohammed’s first successor Abu Bakr reportedly had a homosexual burned at the stake. The fourth caliph, Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, ordered a sodomite thrown from the minaret of a mosque. Others he ordered to be stoned. One of the earliest and most authoritative commentators on the Koran, Ibn ‘Abbas (died 687) blended both approaches into a two-step execution in which “the sodomite should be thrown from the highest building in the town and then stoned. (source)

Ayatollah Abdollah Javadi-Amoli of Iran said, in April of 2012, that homosexuals are inferior to dogs and pigs, since these animals (presumably) do not engage in such acts. In November of that year, a cleric on British television stated, “What should be done to those who practice homosexuality? Torture them; punish them; beat them and give them mental torture.”

A 2014 fatwa from the mainstream OnIslam.net proclaimed that homosexuality is “abnormal” and abhorrent” and confirmed that gays should be killed: “The punishment for men or women who are unwilling to give up homosexuality and therefore are rejecting the guidance of Allah Most High is in fact death according to Islam.”  An imam invited to speak at a Florida mosque in 2016 said that killing gays was an “act of compassion”.

Since the resurrection of the caliphate in 2014 (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) dozens of homosexuals have been thrown from rooftops.  Other have been stoned to death.  Interestingly, the caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, allegedly issued a fatwa in 2015 permitting Mujahideen to “enjoy” young boys if women were not available.

Although some Muslim political leaders in the West join with social liberals in alliances that sometimes include peripheral support for gay rights and civil unions, this appears to be more a matter of expediency than genuine concern. There has never been any noticeable effort on the part of Muslim leaders in the West to relieve the plight of homosexuals in Islamic countriesoverseas – where their influence would surely carry more weight than that of their secular allies.

(As a side note, in 2012, a cleric issues a fatwa endorsing sodomy as a means of widening the anus in order to pack it with enough explosives to kill bystanders in a suicide bombing. As Sheikh Abu al-Dema al-Qasab put it, “Jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it.”

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

May 23, 2016 at 06:00

Hillary Clinton’s Abortion Quagmire

with one comment

By Jeannie DeAngelis
American Thinker
April 5, 2016

It’s hard to believe but ‘for the first time in her adult life,’ when Hillary Clinton referred to a preborn human being as an “unborn person” or “child,” the woman who’s made prevarication a lifestyle choice actually spoke the truth.  The problem for Sir Edmund Hillary’s purported namesake is that truth telling is something she usually dodges like sniper bullets in Bosnia because of the potential that facts have to get her in trouble.

And trouble is exactly what followed when Hillary attempted to counter Donald Trump by trying to portray herself as the champion of abortion rights.

While being interviewed on NBC’s Meet the Press, Hillary responded to Chuck Todd’s question about the constitutional rights of the unborn by saying that “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”  The problem with the former first lady’s answer was that while trying to deny unborn personhood she inadvertently assigned personhood to an entity the pro-choice movement views as a nonviable clump of cells.

And so, it seems that while straddling the abortion fence, Mrs. Clinton got her designer pants leg stuck on a big old rusty nail.  Of all people, Hillary should know by now that in pro-choice circles admitting preborn humanity portrays the slaughter of 3,000 babies a day in a distasteful light.

Then, Mrs. Clinton, who, when not getting $600 haircuts spends time rustling up votes by rubbing her pregnant daughter Chelsea’s belly like it was Aladdin’s lamp, went on to talk about the constitutional rights of “unborn persons” whose mothers opt not to abort:

Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.

So, after saying that an “unborn person” has no right to life or protection under the Constitution, Hillary awkwardly attempted to reassure women who choose to allow offspring to breathe outside the womb that the “unborn person” she just said had no protection will be protected under the law.

Talk about a quagmire.

Continue reading on American Thinker

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

May 22, 2016 at 06:00

%d bloggers like this: