A Bleeding Heart's 'Supreme' Sacrifice

All of me – Why not take all of me

Can't you see I'm no good without you

Take my lips I want to loose them

Take my arms I'll never use them

Your goodbye left me with eyes that cry

How can I go on dear without you...

From the movie theme of “All of Me” (1984)

Given the generally unhinged and hysterical state of today's vanquished progressives, it's singularly appropriate that a dark interpretation of the title song from a 1984 movie would suddenly come to bear. With President Trump's Supreme Court nomination of the eminently qualified Neil Gorsuch, 49, their squirrelly thoughts shift wildly to the future loss of crone Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 83. Compare the above stanza with the following disjointed rant exemplified by The Washington Post's Rachel Manteuffel:

“I’ve found myself thinking about you lately, and how things are going with you, and I just wanted you to know that I ... have some tokens of my esteem that you might enjoy. Such as blood. If you have any need for blood, you can have the eight or so units of A-positive that are right here in my body. There’s also a gently used liver in here, lobes of it just lying around if you need them.... Do you like platelets? I have excellent platelets. I have had all my shots. ... My kidneys function well. I have two. Either one is yours for the taking. Both, if need be. … I have scads of nerves that you can have. Just take them. My skin would graft onto you beautifully. Bones, stem cells, a whole eyeball I don’t need, feet of intestines, feet. Just a ridiculous amount of health, way more than should rightly belong to someone with my standing in the world.”

Ms. Manteuffel also specifies her large heart to be trimmed to fit Justice Ginsburg's diminutive size. This frankly gory element brings to mind another 'body parts' film, “The Silence of the Lambs” (1991) (released synchronistically on Valentine's Day). Specifically, how is one not graphically reminded of Jame Gumb's basement lair of kidnapped and skinned women, or Hannibal Lecter, when Manteuffel suggests:

“If you need to keep me on life support in your house, just in case, while you slice off any bits that appeal to you, that is totally fine and my loved ones will understand. … We have discussed it. ”

Ah, what would Dr. Lecter say about that conversation? In any case, notice the conspicuous absence from the rambling list of human anatomy: this scribbler's brain. Is that because Manteuffel knows Ms. Ginsburg has no use for such an inferior organ? Or does this Post employee use her gray matter so infrequently that it never occurs to her to offer it? Indeed, her opinion piece is so bizarre she should be known henceforth as Macabre Manteuffel!

“MM” would greatly benefit from reading “On Death and Dying” (1969) by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Within, the five stages of grief resulting from an unexpected loss (read: the 2016 presidential election) are detailed. Philosophically, Manteuffel is stuck at stage three, known as bargaining. Still, the ultimate goal of any grieving process is acceptance. That means intensive therapy, though not with “Hannibal the Cannibal”. This deluded ideologue will need to keep all of her body parts to get there.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Hillary Channels Margaret Sanger

Whenever I write about Democrats and their politics, I feel very much like Alice (on an acid trip) down the rabbit hole in an Orwellian parallel universe that puts Louis Carroll’s dystopian “Wonderland” to shame.  She who will be the Democratic nominee (and statistically is even money to become the next POTUS) – awarded Plan Parenthood’s highest honor in 2009; named after its founder, outspoken racist and eugenics advocate Margaret Sanger – claims that “black lives matter” but publicly defends an institution whose executives were caught on hidden camera video selling aborted fetal organs?  As secretary of state, under America’s first black president, no less, Mrs. Clinton said in her acceptance speech, “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously – her courage, her tenacity, her vision.”  She further affirmed, “I am really in awe of her.”

Let’s see what Mrs. Clinton finds so laudable about the well-known Margaret Sanger: a leading voice of eugenics, defined as a belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits.  This selfsame philosophy (and its disproven pseudo-science) informed Nazi Germany’s racial policies and extermination of Jews and so-called “life not fit for life.”  Essentially, Mrs. Sanger’s view was the creation of a (white) “master race” by determining or otherwise controlling who has children.  Specifically, in a 1925 essay called “The Need of Birth Control in America,” Mrs. Sanger wrote: “Such human weeds [defined by her in published writings alternately as morons/defectives, delinquents/misfits/the maladjusted, and dependents/the poor] clog up the path, drain up the energies and the resources of this little earth. We must clear the way for a better world, we must cultivate our garden.”  Her radical solution: to segregate and/or neuter those she deemed racially or socially undesirable.  To this end, she influenced state legislatures and local jurisdictions to sterilize “unfit” young people.  That was the underlying purpose of Planned Parenthood, started by “trailblazer” Sanger in 1916.

So why would Mrs. Clinton proudly accept such a dubious honor named for such a nefarious character (especially in light of the history, of which it is reasonable to assume she is aware) and further defend that organization today with the exposure of business practices that would have given Adolf Hitler pause?  Indeed, how can she claim to be a supporter of minority lives and not publicly condemn Planned Parenthood for their profiteering and lack of respect for human dignity?  How in her twisted little mind is the bartering of baby body parts by the powers-that-be at Planned Parenthood – which targets minorities and the poor, underwritten by 500 million taxpayer dollars each year (self-reporting only 3 percent abortive services, or 327,166 [per 10/1/11-9/30/12 figures]) – equate to an “attack on a woman's right to choose”?  Certainly, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t want to address certain truths, so instead she makes an absurd straw-man argument à la Obama by changing the subject.  Indeed, a woman’s right to control her body (which is irrelevant to this situation) has nothing to do with how fetal tissue is scientifically treated or sold in the marketplace.  If the last six years have taught the American people anything, it is that someone who cannot deal with realities on their face has no business being president in 2016, especially when her only qualification – besides a failed record – is the fact that she is a woman who feels some elitist entitlement to the post. 

Mrs. Clinton needs to send back her prized Planned Parenthood Lucite block that bear her and Margaret Sanger’s names – an award that symbolically promotes racial misogyny and abortion.  Until she does, it remains a hypocritical memento to a person – like her amoral former U.S. president husband – who in true Clintonian fashion stands for nothing but her own self-promotion.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976