#WarOnWomen Tweet of the Day: “GOP makes Sharia law kind of look mild!”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Epic FAIL:


Ummmm … HELL NO.

Sadly, the talking point about the GOP being “worse than sharia law” is gaining ground, if the #WarOnWomen hashtag at Twitter is any indication. I’d invite any of the “enlightened liberal feminists” displaying such outright stupidity to move to any country that enforces barbaric laws against women – and stay there for a lengthy period of time, trying to exercise the rights and freedoms you enjoy in THIS country, and see how far you get. Hopefully when you make it home, you’ll have awakened and seen the vast differences. That is – IF you made it home and weren’t raped to within an inch of your life, stoned to death, or buried alive first ….

I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of Obama … huh??

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Jeez, and I thought the Creepy Kids’ Choirs were carrying the cult of personality too far:

(Photo Credit: Fox News.)

A Florida Democratic Party outpost has taken down an American flag depicting an image of President Obama after a group of veterans complained that the flag had been desecrated.

The flag was flying underneath an American flag outside the Lake County Democratic Party headquarters. Instead of stars, the blue field featured an image of President Obama’s face.

That infuriated local veterans like Jim Bradford, the office manager at the Veterans Memorial at Fountain Park in nearby Leesburg.

“I couldn’t believe that anybody in their right mind would desecrate the American flag that way,” he told Fox News. “It was disrespectful.”

“It’s a cult of personality to show his face, like Stalin or Mao,” said former Marine John Masterjohn in an interview with the Orlando Sentinel. “It’s despicable. They don’t realize how sick they are.”

Nancy Hurlbert, the chairwoman of the local Democratic Party, removed the flag after a group of veterans staged a protest outside her office.

“We’re proud of our president and we didn’t realize it was in violation,” she told the Orlando Sentinel. “I am the chair and I will take responsibility for this.”

You know what? I believe Ms. Hurlbert when she says she didn’t know this likely constituted desecration.

What bothers me though, is that she didn’t see anything wrong with, in essence, promoting veneration of The Leader. In America, we hold dear the ideas and ideals of our Founding; we respect the offices and the people who hold them, but the officeholders are subordinate to the ideas. We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States, to what it symbolizes — individual liberty, constitutional government, the rule of law — not to the man or woman who holds the office. When someone joins the military, they swear this oath:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

They don’t swear to defend George Washington, FDR, George W. Bush, nor even Barack Obama.

That an official of a major American political party can’t see the real problem is kind of scary.

via The Jawa Report

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Anti-democratic Democrats, Jan Schakowsky edition

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

I’ve written before about the Administration’s shameful interference in the 2009 constitutional crisis in Honduras. Strangely quiet during revolts by people demanding fair elections in Iran, they were Johnny-on-the-spot with protests against the removal of a man who wanted to be another Hugo Chavez.

Well, there they go again. Not the White House or State, this time, but in the person of Representative “Red” Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the House Progressive caucus and (as of 2009) a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Schakowsky is continuing her efforts in support of the ousted would-be dictator, Manuel Zelaya, and ignoring his blatant Jew-baiting:

Schakowsky has circulated a letter among Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives (a similar letter exists in the Senate) that asks the state department to suspend aid to the Honduran military and police because of alleged human rights abuses.

(…)

In the wake of his removal, Zelaya incited a wave of anti-Jewish violence in Honduras by claiming that “Israeli mercenaries” had been trying to poison him. Schakowsky visited and embraced Zelaya as he hid in the Brazilian embassy. Her congressional office notes that she “raised serious concerns about the widespread human rights abuses,” yet she failed to say anything about Zelaya’s own abuses or his anti-Semitism. She also co-sponsored of H. Res. 630, calling for Zelaya’s reinstatement as president of Honduras.

Of course, Leftists will answer with the ever-popular “You did it, too!”, pointing out US support for dictatorial regimes in the decades after World War II, such as in Greece, Chile, and South Korea. In that case, though, those were unpleasant choices made in the context of a global struggle (1) with the Soviet Union and Communist China, choices made for a perceived greater good. (2) And they were bipartisan, supported by both Republican and Democratic presidents. I’ve no doubt that some wrong choices were made, that America’s interests in spreading liberty and liberal democracy were sometimes unduly sacrificed on the altar of “realism,” but those decisions can’t be understood without acknowledging the context.

So, let me ask this: When Obama, Clinton, Schakowsky and others among our Progressive Betters (all bow) coddle leftist, anti-American and antisemitic dictators; when they stay silent while oppressed people in other lands fight for democracy and women for basic human rights; and when they coddle and apologize to their oppressors while slapping our allies, what is the context? What is the global struggle that justifies these choices? If there is one, I’m not seeing it.

Unless, of course, it’s the struggle against liberty and democracy, and for American decline.

Nah. Couldn’t be.

Footnotes:
(1) Cold or not, it really was a war.
(2) Just as with the US/UK “deal with the Devil” alliance with the USSR to defeat Hitler.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)