Leftism has defined itself as an opposition to Middle-class morality.

What does it do when there is no Middle-class morality anymore?


//Progressives have found a rallying cry in their opposition to Donald Trump’s presidency. Whether in the New York Times, on the John Oliver Show, or in protests in the nations’ streets, they are insisting that Trump is “not normal.” News media and elected officials not considered critical enough of Trump are criticized for normalizing him and his ideas. Suddenly progressives, of all people, are deeply concerned about our culture’s long-held norms and traditions.

The irony in all of this is crystal clear. These are the same people who over the past few years have insisted that five-year-old boys becoming five-year-old girls is normal. They tell us that a guaranteed basic income and running for president as a Socialist is normal. Forcing Catholic hospitals to offer birth control, undocumented immigrants voting in our elections, and abolishing the police: normal, normal, and normal.


In Donald Trump, with his admittedly dangerous, devil-may-care attitude, progressives have stumbled upon the value of conserving norms and traditions. A president just doesn’t say these awful things about his opponents and the media. A president doesn’t tweet attacks at enemies late at night. A President doesn’t put a controversial figure like Steve Bannon a few doors down from the Oval Office.

But here’s the thing: it’s too late. We are way past that now. The Left let its freak flag fly. We all saw it. No normal is the new normal and there is no clear way back from that.//

This is why they lost.

Their public face often looks like a pagan death cult.

//Ironically, by comparing the celebration of Christmas to pro-abortion ideology, Goldberg was trying to open the eyes of liberals, to get them to understand just how important religion and religious expressions really are to their fellow Americans.

But in attempting to do this, the actress and show host actually insulted Christmas and Christians in a horrifying way. To compare the life-giving celebration of Christmas to the life-destroying practice of abortion is not just insulting. It debases one of the most holy moments in history, which is so important because Mary did not choose abortion.//


I am speaking from my reading of biographies of Heinrich Himmler when I say that what Whoopi said on The View could just as easily have been said by the guy who operated the Death Camps.

Because, obviously, a timeless God in his position of eternity didn't know that Mary would give her consent.

The Left seems to live in a perpetual state of hate for anything that doesn't fit its narrow vision of perfection.


//The impregnation process may be a “ravishing” or seduction or some kind of titillating but nonsexual procreative penetration. The story may come from an Eastern or Western religious tradition, pagan or Christian. But these encounters between beautiful young women and gods have one thing in common. None of them has freely given female consent as a part of the narrative. (Luke’s Mary assents after being not asked but told by a powerful supernatural being what is going to happen to her, “Behold the bond slave of the Lord: be it done to me . . .”)//

It would be wrong to say that the people in Seattle who did this are "self-hating."

Seattle changes "Columbus Day" to "Indigenous Peoples Day.

They don't hate themselves, at all.

They hate you and me and the rest of normal America.

Yay! Social Mobility!!!

The left has been trying to get rid of middle class values for 100 years.

Obviously, getting rid of the middle class is the best way to do that.

The decline has less to do with the power of the “one percent” per se than with the drying up of opportunity amid what is seen on Wall Street and in the White House as a sustained recovery. Despite President Obama’s rhetorical devotion to reducing inequality, it has widened significantly under his watch. Not only did the income of the middle 60% of households drop between 2010 and 2012 while that of the top 20% rose, the income of the middle 60% declined by a greater percentage than the poorest quintile. The middle 60% of earners’ share of the national pie has fallen from 53% in 1970 to 45% in 2012.

This group, what I call the yeoman class — the small business owners, the suburban homeowners , the family farmers or skilled construction tradespeople– is increasingly endangered. Once the dominant class in America, it is clearly shrinking: In the four decades since 1971 the percentage of Americans earning between two-thirds and twice the national median income has dropped from 61% to 51% of the population, according to Pew.

Roughly one in three people born into middle class-households , those between the 30th and 70th percentiles of income, now fall out of that status as adults.

You just know who the media is going to describe as the freak."

Christian Grammy nominee walks out on freakshow Grammy show.

Next the high-powered billionaire, Jay-Z ,and his bodacious bride left little to imagination about what goes on in their boudoir when nobody’s looking.

From there, Natalie got to see pop star Katy Perry, who used to sing about Jesus. However, since crossing over into showbiz stardom she’s been circling the vortex of hellish behavior for years. Katy, wearing an illuminated Knights Templar cross on her chest, pushed the envelope beyond ‘kissing a girl’ in what even the secular media described as a Satanic Ritual, or at best, witchcraft.

Right about that time Natalie and Bernie were probably starting to feel out of place among people winning awards for being “Up all night to ‘Get lucky.’”

It’s unclear which debauched performance prompted Natalie Grant and Bernie Helms to call it a night.

Hopefully, they were already gone and missed the church-like mockery that was overseen by Reverend Latifah. Wedding music was compliments of a menopausal Madonna on behalf of 34 same- and mixed-sex couples who tied the knot on what’s supposed to be a music awards show.

Refusing to pass judgment on the debacle, after she left Natalie had this to say on her Facebook page, which in a few words said so much:

We left the Grammy’s early. I’ve many thoughts about the show tonight, most of which are probably better left inside my head. But I’ll say this: I’ve never been more honored to sing about Jesus and for Jesus. And I’ve never been more sure of the path I’ve chosen.

Liberal Racism.

MSNBC mocks Mitt Romney's adopted black grandchild.

What is it about liberals and mocking infants?

For some people, it seems that their first thought when they see a child with Down's Syndrome is: "Why was that child allowed to live and spoil our perfect diner at Appleby's?

Check out this story:

A waiter at a restaurant near downtown took a stand for a special needs child. Now, support is flowing in from all over, thanking the waiter and the restaurant, Laurenzo's on Washington. The waiter has been working at the restaurant for about two years, and the family members at the heart of the story have been regular customers about the same length of time. But it's what took place two days ago that has a lot of people talking.

Michael Garcia loves serving his customers. On Wednesday night he greeted two groups of regulars -- Kim Castillo and her family, and another group who sat in the adjacent booth.

"So we were sitting there and all of a sudden I noticed that the family across from us got up and moved to the back of the restaurant," Castillo said. "I thought, I wonder if they're moving because of us?"

The Castillo group included five-year-old Milo, who has Down syndrome. But neither Milo's mom Kim nor Garcia could have imagined why the other family moved.
Garcia recalled, "I didn't think much of it until I heard him say, 'Special needs children need to be special somewhere else.'"

After hearing that, Garcia just reacted.

"It was very disturbing," he said. "My personal feelings just took over and I told this man, 'I'm sorry, I can't serve you.'"

That family quickly left. But it wasn't until later in the evening that the Castillo family found out that their waiter had stood up for their son.

Kim Castillo said, "What went through my mind was that I was just so impressed and felt so good that somebody would stand up for another human being."

Garcia said, "It upset me because he's a five-year-old little boy. He's an angel. He's precious!"

Since then support has poured in, from the Internet and from regular customers.
Customer Bill Baker said, "I think he did the right thing -- there's the door."
And most of all, he earned the thanks of a grateful Castillo family.

Kim said, "He's good in our book!"

Garcia says if the other customers return, he will serve them just like anyone else. As for the Castillo family, they plan to remain loyal customers.
 

It's nice of the waiter to stand up for the family with the Downs Syndrome Child, but the reaction of the other family fascinates me. Is it the case in our Brave New World - where those with chromosomal abnormalities like Down's Syndrome are routinely aborted - that a societal expectation is developing that such children do not/should not be permitted to exist? Or is it that people simply don't get the exposure to these children, such that they haven't developed the habit of charity and empathy?

This kind of attitude slipped the leash in the past several years - here is an example and here is another one and another one - but those were in situations where people felt "entitled" because they were assaulting a much hated public figure.

And, yet, there is the ugliness of the Wonkette post which underscores that Trig Palin is "life unworthy of life": 

Little baby Trig must be so glad he wasn’t aborted for this, his first Halloween, because his parents dressed him up like a political party symbol to be carried around at snarling political events. Aww. Isn’t life just grand?
 

For some people, it seems that their first thought when they see a child with Down's Syndrome is: "Why was that child allowed to live and spoil our perfect diner at Appleby's?"

Another instalment of the Left's "War on the Normal."

MSNBC criticizes Romney for Red Cross donations.

Instapundit observes:

“HANNAH ARENDT HAD IT RIGHT,” Pat Moynihan once said. “She said one of the great advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive.”

From "the War against the Normal" files - the left hates babies...

...because babies are inconvenient for narcissists.

I just finished off this article in Grist which is chock-a-block full of graphs showing the polarization of American public life - and which concludes - surprise! - that it is all the conservatives fault based on quotes harvested from the Washington Post - when I ran into this other Grist article celebrating some cheeky, transgressive, feminist Brit comedienne who has an "amusing" bit that says women shouldn't have babies because babies will KILL THE PLANET!!!!

Particularly First World babies, with their ferocious consumption of oil and forest and water, and endless burping-out of carbon emissions and landfill. First World babies are eating this planet like termites. If we had any real perspective on fertile Western women, we’d be jumping on them in the streets, screaming, “JESUS! CORK UP YOUR NETHERS! IMMUNIZE YOURSELF AGAINST SPERM!” …

Because it’s not simply that a baby puts a whole person-ful of problems into the world. It takes a useful person out of the world as well. Minimum. Often two. When you have young children, you are useless to the forces of revolution and righteousness for years. Before I had my kids I may have mooched about a lot but I was politically informed, signing petitions, and recycling everything down to watch batteries. It was compost heap here, dinner from scratch there, public transport everywhere. … I was smugly, bustingly, low-level good.

Six weeks into being poleaxed by a newborn colicky baby, however, and I would have happily shot the world’s last panda in the face if it made the baby cry for 60 seconds less. The cloth diapers … were dumped for disposables; we lived on ready meals. Nothing got recycled … Union dues and widow’s mites were cancelled — we needed the money for the disposables and the ready meals. …

Let’s face it, most women will continue to have babies, the planet isn’t going to run out of new people, so it’s of no real use to the world for you to have a child. Quite the opposite, in fact. That shouldn’t stop you having one if you want one, of course …

But it’s also worth remembering it’s not of vital use to you as a woman, either. … I don’t think there’s a single lesson that motherhood has to offer that couldn’t be learned elsewhere. …

Every woman who chooses — joyfully, thoughtfully, calmly, of her own free will and desire — not to have a child does womankind a massive favor in the long term. We need more women who are allowed to prove their worth as people, rather than being assessed merely for their potential to create new people. …

Humor, it seems to me, arises from our shared experience with the absurdities of human existence. We do things because we have to, because they are convenient, because they are necessary, and, then, we look back and realize that - from a certain angle - the things we are so solemn about are really absurd, from that angle. We all share the experience; we all have that moment of realization; we all laugh.

This is the opposite of humor. We don't all share the experience of feeling bitter about giving up our "potential" to raise children. We all don't see that experience as "absurd." We probably see as absurd the childish idea that we are so special that the world is just waiting for us to bestow our special gifts on it. We all probably see as absurd the idea that signing petitions was more important than taking care of a crying child - our crying child.

That seems to be the shared human experience - growing up by taking care of our helpless children.

People like this feminist comic are absurd.

They are the joke.

Who remembers that scene in Soylent Green where Edward G. Robinson is shown a beautiful scenes of nature...

...and then the state kills him.



Ann Althouse is spotting a move toward the Soylent Green future:

Trend watch: Segregated hospital emergency rooms.

Because there's a class of persons who need different treatment.

There were no beeping machines or blinking lights or scurrying medical residents. A volunteer circulated among the patients like a flight attendant, making soothing conversation and offering reading glasses, Sudoku puzzles and hearing aids. Above them, an artificial sun shined through a skylight imprinted with a photographic rendering of a robin’s-egg-blue sky, puffy clouds and leafy trees.

Ms. Spielberger, who is in her 80s, was even getting into the spirit of the place, despite her unnerving condition. “It’s beautiful,” she said. “Everything here is wonderful.”

If you think that's beautiful, you should see the afterlife.

Or am I taking this the wrong way? The NYT is acting like this is sort of posh. But one look at the headline — "For the Elderly, Emergency Rooms of Their Own" — and my "Death Panels!" red flag went up. Let's make them very comfortable, let's palliate, but let's not save them. The heroic treatments are in that other emergency room, the one for the people who are still useful.

Soylent Green and Lord of the World are looking more prophetic every year that the left is calling the shots.

The War on the Normal.

James Taranto writes about the feminist "war on fertility":

But in any case, why does it so bother Miller that the Romneys, Santorums and Pauls (and also the Palins, whom she mentions in another paragraph) made the choice to have large families? If she cared about choice, she would recognize it's none of her business. But contemporary feminism does not actually value choice, except as a means to an ideological end, which is the obliteration of differences between the sexes. The biggest such difference consists in the distinct and disparate demands that reproduction makes on women. Thus in order to equalize the sexes, it is necessary to discourage fertility. Implicit in contemporary feminism is a normative judgment that having children is bad.

If this were made explicit, of course, the whole project would fall apart. Feminism is politically unviable without the support of at least a substantial minority of women, and women (or at least most women) do have a maternal instinct. So feminism has to wage its war against fertility covertly, rationalizing it in terms of other goals. A revealing example comes from a CNSNews.com report on testimony that Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, gave to a House subcommittee the other day:

Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.

"The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception," Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is "down not up."

We're skeptical that this prediction will pan out, because it assumes that the ObamaCare mandate will lead to a substantial increase in contraceptive use and thus a reduction in pregnancies and childbirths. But Sebelius's logic, as far as it goes, is unassailable: The pill is a hell of a lot cheaper than the medical costs (never mind the nonmedical ones) of prenatal care, childbirth, pediatric care and adult care until 26, the ObamaCare age of majority.

Taranto also points out the idiotic assumption built into this calculation:

Perhaps you have spotted the flaw in the Sebelius logic. Yes, in the short term, contraception is cheaper than fertility. In the long term, however, a war on fertility is an act of cultural and economic suicide. Today's low fertility is tomorrow's shortage of productive citizens--of the taxpayers who would have to pay for the ever-expanding entitlement state.

The continuing collapse of European welfare statism is as much a crisis of demographics as of sclerotic government. Even communist China, which somewhat ironically lacks a Western-style welfare state, is having to reckon with the unintended long-term consequences of its one-child policy.

America has some hope for the future, though. Its fertility rate has not declined as sharply as in other Western nations, in part thanks to families like the Romneys, Santorums, Pauls and Palins. The polarization of American politics gives reason for hope about America's political future, too. As we posited years ago in "The Roe Effect," the left's war on fertility is likely to have its greatest success in reducing the fertility of left-leaning women, thereby ensuring that future generations are more conservative.

Add a cow to the economy and that is considered an added value to the national wealth.

Add a human - who can work and contribute to the economy and who might just find a cure for cancer - and that is considered an added cost to the national wealth.

That's nuts.

To anyone other than modern "Death Worshippers."

The War against the Normal can be seen in the Left's hooting about the death of Andrew Breitbart.

This only makes sense insofar as the Left has staked its claim to existence on the "virtue" of "authenticity" as well as on challenging the authority of tradition.

Acting civilized is a learned habit. It's not "authentic" and it is inculcated in people only on the basis of tradition.

The authentic reaction of uncivilized people who have not happened to have been distorted, or transformed, by the conventions of civilization is to hoot and jeer and exult when we learn that people who are outside our tribe have suffered an untimely death. It takes an inauthentic suppression of that reflex to utter the socially conventional expressions of sympathy to people outside the tribe who are grieving.

And that takes an ability to see that people outside the tribe are fellow children of God and entitled to respect.

A case in point, when Christopher Hitchens died - and assumed what he repeatedly described as a meaningless return to room temperature in other people - Christians uniformly uttered sincere expressions of sympathy and regret.

On the other hand when a conservative like Andrew Breitbart passes away at 43, leaving a wife and four young children, leftists put on their warpaint and whoop and holler around the tribal campfire. As Mark Shea points out:

Proving that few people can be as disgusting as the self-righteous lefty, here are the paladins of love and tolerance on the Left celebrating the death of Andrew Breitbart.

Slate’s Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias), who tweeted: “Conventions around dead people are ridiculous. The world outlook is slightly improved with @AndrewBrietbart dead.”

AlmightyBob ‏ @AlmightyBoob : @AndrewBreitbart haha youre dead and in hell being a gay with hitler

Jeff Glasse ‏ @jeffglasse : Andrew Breitbart now enjoying afternoon tea with Hitler #goodriddanceyouhack

Kellie Allen @thirtyseven : Breitbart helped destroy the career of someone I know. Good riddance, scumraker.

Scott On Da Rox @ridinchillwaves : RT GOOD RIDDANCE..fascist prick @Gawker: Andrew Breitbart Dead? gawker.com/5889586/

Josh M ‏ @TheSocialest : Good riddance Breitbart. Hopefully they put James O’Keefe in your casket

There’s a lot more where that came from. There’s a peculiar sort of hatred and rejoicing at the death of ideological enemies on the Left (think of Christopher Hitchens habit of kicking corpses) that, for whatever reason, seems to me less common on the Right. Oh sure, the Right will delectate over the corpse of a bin Laden. But as a general rule, I don’t see outpourings of glee when, say, a Christopher Hitchens dies. You have the normal period of prayers, respectful words and “do not speak ill of the dead” that is part of the culture. But on the Left, the white hot gust of hatred hits you in the face. It’s not a healthy sign. When you regard death as simply the most effective way to get rid of political enemies, it’s just a matter of time before you start deploying it as a tool.

Why does the Left mock the disabled and people who have lost a very, very young child.

James Taranto offers the obvious thought -

Our surmise is that pro-abortion extremism is at the very root of the mockery. Under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a woman 20 weeks pregnant has a pretty much unlimited legal right to abort her child. That it should be so is an almost unquestionable tenet of contemporary liberalism.

To remain comfortable while adhering to this position, it is necessary to dehumanize such children--even to devalue them totally, treating them as having less moral standing than a pet. The reason "some" mock the Santorums' mourning of their very young child is to conceal from themselves the monstrousness of their own convictions.

- Best of the Web.

The "Politics of Personal Destruction" against a kid with Down's Syndrome.

You just have to wonder what the heck is going on in the minds of lefties who make up the audience base - and writing staff - of trendy, hip, liberal/progressive/left blog sites where making fun of retarded children in order to demean the child's mother is considered "funny." 

A case in point is a "Wonkette" post:

Know what doesn't go over well with advertisers? Making fun of disabled children.


On April 18, political blog Wonkette published a post titled "Greatest Living American: A Children's Treasury of Trig Crap On His Birthday" (none of which we will quote here). Trig, for those who don't remember, is Sarah Palin's youngest son, who has Down Syndrome. The initial response to this "celebration" of Trig's birthday was limited to comments getting in on the action, contributing the sort of jokes that would make Gilbert Gottfried proud.

Fortunately, not all of America has lost its mind.  Wonkette paid a price in lost advertisers which forced it to do a "walk-back." Eventually, Wonkette ended up with this bit of stench:

A post on this page satirizing Sarah Palin using her baby as a political prop was very badly done and sounded like the author was mocking the child and not just Sarah Palin/Sarah Palin’s followers.


The writer, Jack Stuef, has apologized for it. And we have decided to remove the post as requested by some people who have nothing to do with Sarah Palin, but who do have an interest in the cause of special needs children. We apologize for the poor comedic judgment.

Poor comedic judgment?  Very badly done?

How about a complete lack of human decency?

Because making a joke about a kid with Down's Syndrome would have been "hunky-dory" if people had laughed?  Wouldn't that have been - you know - worse!

Mark Shea nails it with this typically Chestertonian common-sense observation:

One of the many marks of a culture in radical decline is when the comics stop doing their job of making fun of the powerful and begin to make fun of the weak instead. As is always the case with human beings in the grip of evil, such cowardice always attempts to portray itself as courage ("Look at me! I'm edgy!"). The fitting rejoinder to such comics is, of course, other comics who still remember what their job is (NSFW):

To get some balance from this foulness at the heart of this post, vent along with Steven Crowder.


And don't ever forget that for these people it's about "choice," not about killing people who they consider life unworthy of life.

The War on the Normal, Continued.

Troops boo Kathy Griffin for mean Bristol Palin joke.




Vox Day nails the problem that the Left has in these mean-spirited attacks on the Palin clan - the more the left attacks Palin and members of the Palin family - and the meaner and more personal the attack - the more that "average people" rally around Sarah Palin:

I never cease to find it amusing watching one clueless, shallow, and ignorant individual castigate others for their clueless and shallow ignorance. While Blow is correct and the attacks from the Left and the elite moderates of the Republican party only add to Palin's already formidable popular appeal, it's far too late to declare a moratorium on discussing her. No one cares if she's hollow, (she's a POLITICIAN, after all, and is therefore hollow by definition), no one of any political sophistication believes she's any more dim than the average politician, and she's demonstrably far less mean than her critics.

The Left's War against the Normal.

Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator declares Rush Limbaugh the winner of the election, particularly in  light of the Obama Administrations, and its fellow travelers, decision to target Limbaugh as the "face of the opposition."  Lord points out that the Obama tactic scared off a lot of "sunshine conservatives," who turned on Limbaugh in their desire to "welcome their new insect overlords."  Limbaugh, though, had a Reagan-like ability to believe in principles, and that made the difference:

In the drive to target Rush Limbaugh, millions of Americans -- from fellow talk radio stars to Fox News to the vast audience of average Americans -- listened and watched these White House-directed anti-Limbaugh screeds first with amazement, then a growing incredulity which finally gave way to outrage.


Why?

Because all knew at the end of the day that as sure as God made little green apples what began with Rush would end with everyday Americans. You. Your friends. Your neighbors. The barber, the housewife, the independent, the Catholic, Protestant, or Jew and, yes, the law-abiding everyday Muslim. The college student, the entrepreneur, the doctor, the plumber. Americans all -- every one dreaming dreams that somebody in Washington from the President on down was scheming to control, to limit, to regulate, to tax -- and ultimately control to the point of ruin. And sure enough, like clockwork, as the Tea Party burst into existence these average Americans were targeted just as was Rush. Now it wasn't just Rush who was being smeared, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid/liberal media attack machine had turned against these everyday Americans, savaging them as nothing more than a collection of racists, Nazis, and "teabaggers," for resisting their obsession with controlling Americans' every last movement in life while spending the country into trillions of debt as far as the next several generations could see. Americans who had heard Rush predict that the Obama-era would bring an all-out assault on American values realized just short of the nick-of-time not only that he was right, but that it was up to them to stop this assault in its tracks.

How perverse is Hollywood...

...when Patrick Warburton's mild criticism of the Family Guy episode that mocked Sarah Palin and people with Down Syndrome is newsworthy.  It seems that Warburton is the only person in Hollywood with enough class to say what every normal person in America already knows - the Family Guy episode was tasteless, classless and cruel, albeit even Warburton has to say it in the most congenial "it bothered me" format.

So, kudos to Warburton, and file this under "War of the Normal."

Holding Paper

Pro-life activist Jim Pouillon was murdered because the killer was offended by Pouillon's pro-life message.

The murderer sounds like a kook. He apparently killed a businessman because of some perceived grievance and had plans to kill another person before he was arrested.

Nonetheless, if the shoe was on the other foot - well, it has been on the other foot - we would be hearing a week's worth of retrospectives on the victim and listening to musings about the danger of the pro-life movement as a whole.

Speaking of invidious social pathologies, Creative Minority Report did the service of scouring the fever swamp left for its take on the Pouillon murder and came back with the following from Huffington Post:

If somebody is constantly harassing people and the law can do nothing about it, maybe this was the only option.



it fascinates me how these old a** men are so fixation on abortion rights- they probably haven't even had sex in 30 years.



It's sad that he lost his life...That being said, this is a little OT. but has anyone noticed how many of these anti abortion protesters are old men? This guy was 61 years old, why is he worried about what is going on inside the uterus of a woman of child bearing age?


When anti-abortionist are allowed to protest in front of a school; but the President of the United States is censored for fear of indoctrinating children, the rest of the population better pay attention - the right has lost its collective mind and have moved beyond obstructionist to anarchist. They believe in violence and have guns a plenty, they talk of revolt and succussion and show no regard for human life or any one or anything that does not fit into their narrow view of the world.


if he was in jail he would not have been on the wrong end of a bullet!!!!


There's mention in two thousand year old Sanskrit literature of abortions being performed. Abortions are most definitely not some new-fangled 'lefty' innovation, as the lunatic right would have you believe.



Have you seen the horrible graphic posters these sociopaths display? It's not free speech, it's terrorism.

[Via The American Catholic.]

The War on the Normal continues

Wonkette and her fans take time out of their busy schedule to ridicule Trig Palin again:

Little baby Trig must be so glad he wasn’t aborted for this, his first Halloween, because his parents dressed him up like a political party symbol to be carried around at snarling political events. Aww. Isn’t life just grand? [HuffPo]

The picture shows Bristol holding Trig, so one commenter writes:

Such a cute picture of the proud mom…sister…whatever.

Compassion, folks, it's all about compassions. They're just better people than we are and if Obama is elected its going to be like this 24/7.

Sheesh.