Skip to main content

Doing what I never thought I'd do - defend Tomi Lahren

As ardent readers of mine should know by now, I'm no fan of conservative talking head Tomi Lahren, which can be seen in this previous blog post of mine - http://thekind-heartedsmartaleck.blogspot.com/2015/07/final-thoughts-on-tomi-lahrens-rant.html. However, having said that, I think it's utterly ridiculous and anti-American of The Blaze to suspend her show for speaking in favor of abortion rights.

On her Friday appearance on The View, Lahren said she supported abortion rights, adding, "As someone who supports limited government, it would be hypocritical of me to believe the government should decide what women should do with their bodies."

This did not go over well in conservative circles, especially with fellow members of The Blaze, as Glenn Beck responded to the matter by saying, "The preamble of the Constitution speaks of securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Well, who are our posterity, if not our unborn children and grandchildren and great grandchildren?"

Dana Loesch, another host on the network, added, "Conserving the individual is the basis of conservatism. It is classical de Tocqueville liberalism. And if anybody knows anything about politics 101, if they know this, this should not be a surprise to them." Ironically enough, Ms. Loesch is also a national spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association.

What Beck seems to forget in his rant is that liberty should apply to women. Often times when women use contraception, conservatives like Beck refer to them as sluts. When they're sexually assaulted, questions abound from conservatives, like, "What was she wearing?" and "Did she lead him on any?" When they're impregnated via incest or rape or have major health complications due to said pregnancy, these same individuals will then say, "But why punish the baby?" So while Glenn Beck can claim he supports liberty for all as much as he'd like, he'll have a hard time getting me to believe it until he includes women. Otherwise, as is typical, he'll appear inconsistent, which makes his point moot.

As far as Loesch is concerned, I find it ironically hilarious that she has the gall to say conservatives are about "conserving the individual" when she's a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association. Conservatives can shout to the world that they're the pro-life party all they'd like, but their actions run contrary to that label. What are known ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and with that, abortions? Comprehensive sex education, contraception, Planned Parenthood. Who's advocating for abstinence-only education, against contraception coverage, and trying to defund Planned Parenthood? Conservatives. Who's trying to decrease the health insurance pool by over 20 million? Conservatives. Who's trying to weaken gun laws? Conservatives. Who's trying to loosen environmental regulations? Conservatives. So, I'm sorry, Ms. Loesch, but to say modern-day conservatives care about conserving lives would be like a serial philanderer telling the world he's pro-monogamy.

While I don't agree Tomi Lahren on much of anything, I support her right to believe whatever she so chooses, and think it's the antithesis of American principles and values for The Blaze to suspend her because her views on women's reproductive rights run contrary to most self-described conservatives. I guess to the heads of that network, freedom of speech simply means freedom to repeat what we believe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/21/tomi-lahrens-nightly-show-pulled-for-a-week-after-her-abortion-comments/?utm_term=.17e7a5eafcfc

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"