Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Obama’s Vanishing Lead with Women Voters

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

The Democratic party likes to portray itself as seeing women as equal to men.  Yet it’s the Democrats who think they can woo female voters by dangling free contraceptives in front of them like a carrot luring a donkey.

For months America has been hearing how it’s President Barack Obama who has the estrogen vote sewn up. Now, according to a recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, America comes to find out that Mitt Romney is currently leading Barry the Birth Control President in the top battleground states, and the women he thought were willing to sell the country down the river for an IUD are driving that lead.

In 2008, a large contribution to Barack Obama’s 13-point margin of victory came from women swept up in the euphoria of a wave of Oprah Winfrey flag-waving hysteria.  In 2012 it appears that Winfrey and her tear-soaked eyelashes are sitting this one out, and so are all the women who followed her lead.

According to a recent article in USA TODAY entitled Swing States poll: Women push Romney into lead, Susan Page writes

“As the presidential campaign heads into its final weeks, the survey of voters in 12 crucial swing states finds female voters much more engaged in the election and increasingly concerned about the deficit and debt issues that favor Romney.”

Much to the chagrin of the mainstream media, feminist activist Sandra Fluke, and Obama shills like ingénue Scarlett Johansson and Eva ‘Border Security Expert’ Longoria, “the Republican nominee now ties the president among women who are likely voters, 48%-48% while he leads by 12 points among men.”

According to USA TODAY/Gallup Romney now leads among likely voters in the swing states Obama thought he had in the can a few weeks ago. If this keeps up, it looks like Barack Obama is going to have to give away free weed whackers to the fellas just to stay in the running.

These more recent polls are consistent with a national Pew Poll taken after the first presidential debate that showed Barack Obama’s 18-point lead among women had dissolved; leaving him tied 47%-47% with Romney among likely female voters. In addition, married women, who tend to vote Republican, are more enthusiastic this election cycle than unmarried women, who tend to vote Democratic.

Whatever the reason, Democratic pollster Celinda Lake admitted that since his strong performance in the first debate, “In every poll, we’ve seen a major surge among women in favorability for Romney.”  According to Ms. Lake, “Women went into the debate actively disliking Romney… came out thinking he might understand their lives and might be able to get something done for them.” Presidential prospects for Mitt Romney have only continued to improve after the second and third debates.

Why? Because as a rule, the fairer sex is generally more discerning and Mitt Romney just doesn’t display the demeanor of guy who would leave a woman “dying on the floor” as Nancy Pelosi predicted he would if he’s elected – quite the contrary.  On the other hand, without those Styrofoam Greek columns, during the first debate in Denver Barack Obama looked too weak and disinterested to aid a woman even if she was “dying on the floor.”

Romney pollster Neil Newhouse also maintains that “The first debate had a significant impact on these voters as they watched it and Governor Romney appeared nothing like the candidate that was essentially a caricature in the advertising by the Obama campaign. It’s these voters who began to realize that the picture being painted of him was not reality.” In the 2012 campaign season, misconceptions about the two candidates are being revealed, especially the hyped-up impression of Barack Obama, who’s turning out to be the world’s emptiest suit.

Suffice it to also say that working women are not impressed by a man who touts signing an equal pay bill while paying his own female staff roughly 18% less than his male staff. Moreover, despite the fact that our “abortion extremist” President is convinced that the way to a girl’s heart is promising free contraceptives and abortion on demand, the truth is that what impresses most women is a confident air of leadership that displays the character traits of strength, stability and security.

Hence, when compared to President Obama’s three debate performances, Mitt Romney’s poised but assertive, polite, take-charge steadiness makes him look like a knight in shining armor to female voters who are clearly paying attention.

In the end, as shocking as it may seem to Barack Obama, it’s the competence and ability to turn the economy around, create jobs, and reestablish national security that mean much more to American women than being outfitted by the White House for a lifetime of sex without consequence.

Binder Bimbos or Benghazi?

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

A newly-formed band of Binder Bimbos is working diligently to convince America that Mitt Romney demeaned women during the second debate when he described how he, as governor of Massachusetts, went about balancing his male-dominated Cabinet with women.  Responding to a question on pay equity, Romney said, “I had the chance to pull together a Cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks?’ and they brought us whole binders full of women.”

Like salivating wolves waiting to pounce on prey, liberal women have spent lots of time lying in wait for Mitt Romney to utter anything at all that could be misconstrued to prove he’s a woman-hating troglodyte. Thus far, the best they’ve come up with is “binders.”

Erica Payne, progressive public policy expert, commentator, author, and founder of the Agenda Project, appeared on the Bill O’Reilly show where she stretched the Binder Bimbo idiocy so far that she likened Romney’s debate comment to an Arab sheikh flipping the pages of a binder looking for women to stock his harem. After she said it, even Erica looked a bit embarrassed for proposing such a ridiculous analogy.

Meanwhile, the Binder Bimbos are in full attack mode.  Yet oddly enough, they have not condemned the women’s groups who delivered the “binders full of women” to the Massachusetts governor. Worse yet, while out trawling for GOP offensive words and actions, these same women seem to have zero problems with Barack Obama calling the brutal slaughter of four Americans “not optimal.” But then again, these are the same soulless individuals who protest “binders full of women” and applaud bio-hazard bins full of aborted babies.

Barack Obama’s now infamous “not optimal” comment was made recently during a Jon Stewart interview.  Stewart posed a question that began, “I would say and even you would admit it was not the optimal response,” about the Obama administration’s muddled communication after the deadly attack in Benghazi, to which the president coldly retorted with what he no doubt thought was a clever twist on Jon’s use of the word “optimal” by saying, “If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.”

Anyway, to Barack Obama’s detriment, his emotionless response has now married the carelessly thought-out words “not optimal” with dead Americans in much the same way Romney-hating women are now associating themselves with three-ring binders.

Yet, amid all the binder blather is a broken-hearted woman named Pat Smith who lost her son.  Pat is the mother of Sean Smith, one of four diplomats that included former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and Ambassador Christopher Stevens, all of whom were killed during the raid on the consulate in Benghazi.

Mrs. Smith welcomed her son home in a coffin at Dover Air Force Base and continues to maintain that the truth about what really happened to her child is painfully slow in coming.

Speaking from her home in California, Mrs. Smith, 72, who actually has something more serious than binders to be upset about, described herself as being in “pure hell” since she lost Sean. Expounding upon Obama’s “not optimal” comment, Pat said “It was a disrespectful thing to say and I don’t think it’s right. How can you say somebody being killed is not very optimal? I don’t think the President has the right idea of the English language.”

Pat Smith may be too respectful to admit it, but Barack Obama lacks the right idea about a lot more than the English language. However, what Mrs. Smith did do was take the President to task by saying, “It’s insensitive to say my son is not very optimal – he is also very dead.” Then the distraught mother admitted that “I’ve not been ‘optimal’ since he died and the past few weeks have been pure hell.”

Sean Smith’s mother concluded her comments by offering a candid assessment of Barack Obama’s Comedy Central interview when she said “There’s a lot of stupid things that have been said about my son and what happened and this is another one of them.”

In light of Obama’s callousness, a question needs to be posed to indignant Binder Bimbos everywhere: In the scheme of poorly chosen words, which is worse, “binders full of women,” or the Commander-in-Chief describing the death of four men in service to America as “not optimal?”

The answer to the question is clear. Instead of pointing out the ongoing insensitivity being shown toward a San Diego mother mourning her dead son, on Joe Scarborough’s MSNBC “Morning Joe” talk show Binder Bimbo Mika Brzezinski chose to blast Mitt Romney for the “binders full of women” statement. Brzezinski, who is likely planning to vote “like [her] lady parts depend on it,” fumed at Romney about his attempts to recruit female cabinet members in Massachusetts. Mika told a disagreeing Joe that “It just happens to be a little bit insulting that he had to make up a story about trying to help women because he couldn’t find one on his own,” she said. “That’s kind of a problem.”

No – Mika, if you and the rest of the Binder Bimbos are so desperate to find a problem, how about focusing on a dishonest president who, for political expediency, told a made-up story to cover up a terrorist attack in Libya on 9/11?  Now, as a result of that deceitfulness, Barack Obama’s once optimal prospects for reelection have been downgraded to “not optimal.”

The Obama-Crowley Transcript Charade

Many people are asking the question:  Did something seem rotten in Hempstead? In preparation for the second debate, moderator par excellence Candy Crowley was the one who picked the debate questions, including the hot-button query on the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, Libya.

That Libya question was presented to Barack Obama by Kerry Ladka in the following way:

 LADKA: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

Predictably, President Obama gave a non-answer:

 PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren’t just representatives of the United States; they’re my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm’s way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody’s more concerned about their safety and security than I am.

Now, Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening.

In his reply Obama focused on goading Romney by accusing him of “trying to make political points” by attempting to “turn national security into a political issue.”  Obama went on to say that the next day in the Rose Garden he called the Benghazi attack “an act of terror,” which he knew would get Romney’s attention.

When Mitt Romney challenged the President’s claim to have admitted that it was an “act of terror” the next day, a relaxed Obama smiled haughtily, balanced himself on his stool and said, “Please proceed…please proceed Governor” as if to say “Go ahead and make a fool of yourself.”

Obama then signaled to Crowley to “Get the transcript.”  Wonder of wonders, Candy just happened to have Obama’s Rose Garden comments right in her hand. Crowley, who obviously didn’t read the transcript, proceeded to agree with Obama by informing Romney that the President did indeed say that it was an “act of terrorism.”   A smirking Obama then delighted the audience when he smarmily yelled out, “Could you say that a little louder” honey, I mean Candy?

Was Mitt set up?  It appears that Obama purposely instigated the Benghazi controversy.  If not, then why would tag team Obama/Crowley just so happen to have the Rose Garden transcript handy?  Obama called for a reading from the record and was supported by the supposedly neutral debate moderator with an interpretational stretch that endeavored to make Mitt Romney look clueless and as if he was trying to score political points.

By the next day, besides admitting she was wrong on the facts, Candy Crowley also revealed that she was wearing a Peter Popoff-style earpiece, which she claimed “played no part in the Benghazi/terror exchange.”

The question is, did Candy Crowley have any other transcripts in her debate brush-up pile?  And if not, why not?

There is no way to know for sure whether the Obama/Crowley crew attempted, albeit poorly, to purposely ensnare Mitt Romney, but based on what happened at Hofstra University, an orchestrated liberal assault is certainly something that doesn’t seem out of the question.


‘Eye Candy’ Lies, and Candy Swears to It

Originally posted at American Thinker

In the run-up to the second debate, feminists have been moaning about how Candy Crowley, unlike Jim Lehrer, was reduced to a “Vanna White … holding a microphone.”  Advocating for equal debate clout, Crowley has been speaking out on her own behalf and told Mark Halperin of TIME magazine that during the debate, “[o]nce the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?'”

In other words, Candy made it known prior to the event that she had no intention of keeping to the rules and that she in no way would she remain a “voiceless moderator,” fielding questions from the undecided audience and keeping close watch on the clock.  Going rogue, Ms. Crowley succeeded in her objective and in the process managed to weaken the credibility of women as debate moderators.

The guidelines in the memorandum of understanding that was agreed upon by the debate commission, as well as both campaigns, stated:

The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.

Those restrictions did not sit well with feminist groups, who’ve managed to make even a presidential debate about women’s issues.

So, on behalf of the sisterhood, Candy Crowley took to the town hall podium and proceeded to defy the rules and run the debate her own way.  The result was dreadful — not only for Candy’s reputation as a journalist, but also for a weak incumbent who looked like he needed a woman to protect him from being verbally spanked.  Moreover, her performance did nothing to convince the debate commission that female moderators should be granted more freedom in the future.

The reason why?  Candy Crowley cut off Mitt Romney 28 times, including when he was making a point about Barack Obama’s gunrunning debacle, “Fast and Furious.”  According to CNN’s own count, Candy allowed Obama to speak for a total of 44 minutes and 4 seconds and ordered Romney back to his stool by cutting him off and bringing his time down to 40 minutes and 50 seconds.

The CNN anchor showed obvious deference to the president.  Every time he spoke, her eyes widened in admiration and she exhibited an odd mix of what looked like coaxing and agreeing.  While claiming to be an unbiased moderator, Candy Crowley adjudicated on the president’s behalf when he stretched the truth on the subject of Libya.

Most would agree that Candy’s foot-in-mouth moment came when Mitt Romney accused Obama of not calling the attack in Benghazi an act of terror for two weeks and flying to Las Vegas and Colorado for a fundraiser the day after four Americans died. Crowley, like a mother hen protecting her chick, interrupted Romney and said: “It — it — it — he did in fact, sir.  So let me — let me call it an act of terror.”

In response, lily-livered Obama smirked, hid behind mama’s apron strings, and then asked her to restate the falsehood on his behalf, saying, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”  Candy gladly complied.  Stuttering, stammering, and tripping over herself to rush to Junior’s defense, Candy added: “He — he did call it an act of terror.  It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.  You are correct about that.”

If hard-hitting girl power representative Candy Crowley was really looking to bolster female credibility, she should have gone according to the original script and asked Obama, “Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”  If Crowley were really mixing it up with the boys, she could have demanded an answer from Barack Obama as to why it took fourteen days to acknowledge an al-Qaeda terrorist attack that left four Americans dead in the streets of Benghazi.

After the fact, Candy Crowley is now being forced to admit that Romney, who insisted that Obama did not call the incident a terrorist attack for weeks, was right — “in the main” — on Benghazi.

Rather than conceding that Obama picked the wrong way to go about handling the murder of an American ambassador, Ms. Crowley instead chooses to say that Romney “picked the wrong way to go about talking about it.”  Attempting to explain her unmitigated favoritism, Candy underscored that her second “two week” point favored Romney and generated applause much like her first point, which generated applause from one half of the audience led by an unrestrained Michelle Obama.

Prior to the Hofstra debate, America was forced to endure listening to Crowley whine about a woman’s rightful role as a debate moderator.  Then, during the actual debate, the nation witnessed the hot mess Candy made while shilling for Obama.

Suffice it to say that Candy proved that the “memorandum of understanding” was correct in its attempt to limit her role, because by the end of the debate, every headline should have read: “Eye Candy” Lies, and Candy Swears to It.

So, after all the fuss, Candy Crowley’s behavior and inappropriate intrusion did nothing to advance the feminist cause.  But wait, there’s still time!  How about if Crowley’s cheerleaders — NOW, The New Agenda, and former news anchor Carol Simpson — recommend that for the upcoming foreign policy debate, Lara Logan replace Robert Schieffer?

A million muppets to participate in ‘Puppet Power’ march

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

For those Million Worker Marchers now receiving their Barack Obama entitlements, marching for jobs is no longer necessary. But for the “million” black men who marched for “atonement, unity and brotherhood” in 1995 and the “million” moms who demonstrated for stricter gun laws, some stiff competition is heading their way.

In fact, when the curtain on a “puppet power” rally on Washington’s National Mall rises on November 3rd, it promises to stand head-and-shoulders above its predecessors, especially since legions of 8-foot Big Birds are expected to join the demonstration.

The idea for the “Million Muppet/Puppet Power” march was birthed when Mitt Romney dared to suggest that reining in the nation’s indebtedness should take priority over Placido Flamingo and Curly Bear.

During the first Presidential Debate in Denver, the Republican presidential candidate submitted to America that subsidizing Big Bird with $445 million in federal budget disbursements that public television received in 2012 is not worth borrowing money from Communist China.

While Mitt Romney’s iconoclastic views were shocking, he did balance his statements by professing a personal affection for Big Bird.  Romney then intimated to Jim Lehrer and Barack Obama that he would allow neither sentimentality nor a love of the Sesame Street theme song to stand in the way of ending government subsidies to a children’s program PBS has sponsored for close to half a century.

Meanwhile, on the night of the debate, as fate would have it, two 40-something Big Bird activists – one an animation executive from California and the other a student from Boise, Idaho – crossed paths in cyberspace.  In response to Willard Romney’s blatant disrespect for educational television programming for children, the duo quickly teamed up like Bert and Ernie and established a website called “Million Muppet March” to voice opposition to Mitt Romney’s PBS-cutting proposals.

The men chose not to make the Muppet March what Michael Bellavia, president of the animation studio Animax Entertainment, called just “a virtual show of support.”  The LA animation executive shared that “because it seemed like there was already a growing interest in it,” he and Chris Mecham, his Big Bird cohort from Boise, decided: Why not take the opportunity and make it an “active, participatory event?”

On his Facebook page, Chris Mecham identifies his political view as “social liberalism” and says he is a writer interested in healthcare policy and currently studying political science at Boise State University.

Chris shared that on the night of the debate, while Romney was “still talking [he] was thinking of ways [he] could express [his] frustration at [Romney’s Big Bird] argument. Before the debates were over [Chris] had put up the Million Muppet March Facebook page.”

Mr. Bellavia and Mr. Mecham, who had a post on his Facebook profile page he later took down calling Romney a “c*&ksucker” [sic] – which in certain circles would definitely be considered an expression of love – both agree that the while the event may not draw in “a million Muppet-loving people,” the puppet-minded civic crusaders “hope to create … a ‘love fest’ featuring skits and musical performances with Muppets.”

Sorry people, but that scary scenario sounds a lot more like what goes on at a reefer-smoking Million Marijuana March.  The only thing worse would be Abdullah the Puppet being designated to march side-by-side with Miss Piggy in the puppet parade.

Nevertheless, the organizers of the event do feel like the November 3rd rally may “get close to the biggest ever assemblage of puppets in one place…and probably the most ever puppets marching on Washington.”  Not quite – let’s not forget Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009, where an estimated 1.5 million puppets braved the frigid weather to attend that historic event.

Regardless of who does or doesn’t choose to show up on the National Mall, there’s still a few glaring contradictions at play here.  For starters, why isn’t Chris ‘share the wealth’ Mecham equally frustrated over former Sesame Workshop 1% CEO Gary Knell receiving $988,456 in total compensation in 2010?  Or new Sesame CEO H. Melvin Ming, who before stepping into the CEO role in Knell’s place was the second-highest compensated employee that same year?

Then there’s the absurdity of big-government liberal types like Bellavia and Mecham marching on Big Bird’s behalf, asking for continued funding for educational programming for the children who, on a different day, other liberal groups would be demanding government funding to abort.

Maybe someone should tell marchers Mike and Chris that if ever there was a reason to descend on Washington D.C, it’s to protest the Obama administration’s cover-up of what really happened in Benghazi to Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other murdered Americans on September 11th 2012, not to demand continued funding for Oscar the Grouch.

So there you have it – liberal zombies marching for Muppets, which is proving to be just an organized group of dummies marching for dummies.

‘Deadly Earnest’ Joe Campaigns for Mitt

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

The reason Joe Robinette Biden is sort of endearing is because whenever he tries too hard to relate to the little people, he always tells the unvarnished truth. One Biden supporter, described Joe Biden this way “He’s honest, he’s forthright and he says what’s on his mind.”  That’s for sure.

It was at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina where Joe Biden warned voters that if elected, out-of-touch Mitt Richie Rich Romney would raise taxes on the middle class.  Biden’s reference to tax cuts for the rich drew jeers from the crowd, but in classic Joe Biden style, the Vice President told the hecklers to “stop all the malarkey.”

Then “deadly earnest” Joe explained how higher taxes would be devastating for the middle class after being “buried” for four years under Barack Obama’s economy.

The logic behind that astonishing statement goes something like this:  Obama has “buried” the middle class for four years. So, vote for Barack Obama a second time because being “buried” for eight years is a whole lot better than fixing the economy and putting America back to work.

Prior to making his main point, an animated Joe, pleading man-to-man, emphasized the seriousness of the situation when he said, “This is deadly earnest, man. This is deadly earnest.”

Capturing the attention of 1,000 supporters, Biden, who seems to love saying everything twice or more, asked: “How they can justify, how they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that has been buried the last four years – how in Lord’s name can they justify raising their taxes with these tax cuts?”

Even if it were true that Romney planned to raise taxes, which it is not, after being buried by Mount Vesuvius it’s highly unlikely the citizens of Pompeii would grumble about a tax hike.

Therefore, a better question for Joe to have had asked would have been:  “Hey man, the largest tax increase in history is about to knock out what’s left of the middle-class, why in ‘Lord’s name’ was I sent out here to criticize Mitt Romney?”

Kirsten Kukowski, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, and Romney/Ryan campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg were quick to agree with Mr. Biden’s unabashed truthfulness.  Amanda said:

Vice President Biden made a stunning admission today and we couldn’t agree more: the middle class has been ‘buried’ under the last four years of this President’s policies. Under President Obama, the middle class has suffered from crushing unemployment, rising prices and falling incomes. They can’t afford to be ‘buried’ for four more years.

In response, a Biden spokesperson was immediately sent out to translate JoeSpeak into English.  The aide explained that what the Vice President was really trying to convey was that regular Americans suffered because of – you guessed it – President George W. Bush’s failed economic policies.

Yet, despite another in a long list of gaffes, there is one redeeming factor for Joe in all of this — a “queasy stomach.” Biden’s plane aborted an attempted landing in North Carolina and nausea may turn out to be the perfect excuse for Mr. Biden’s forthright rectitude.

In the end, what Gotta’ Love Him Joe apparently didn’t realize was that his “the middle class has been buried the last four years” comment provided priceless debate ammunition for Romney.  Therefore, if Obama chooses to relegate “deadly earnest” Biden to a long overdue timeout, maybe Republicans can convince Joe to spend that down time starring in an upcoming Romney/Ryan campaign ad.

Liberals’ Illegitimate War on Women

Originally posted at American Thinker

Willingness or unwillingness to prevent or terminate a pregnancy appears to be the sole criterion upon which liberal women judge how well they’re being treated.  It’s stunning that the left actually embraces the idea that taking a stand for life instantly translates into hostility toward, or contention with, the female gender.

The right to abort the unborn is so precious to left-leaning women that they are even willing to overlook the fact that 50% of the fetuses losing their lives in abortion clinics are of the gender they believe Republicans are currently waging war against.  The truth is that it’s pro-choice women who discriminate; they’re fine with liberal men being womanizers, perverts, and adulterers, and if women like Juanita Broderick consider what Bill Clinton did to her a “legitimate rape,” then the men they admire can even be alleged rapists.

But if the offender is a Republican, liberal women react quite differently.  Take for instance the beleaguered Republican congressman from Missouri, Todd Akin, who messed up big time when he attempted to explain his pro-life position by saying that it’s never right to abort a child conceived as a result of a rape.

When asked to explain, Akin fumbled and, in the process, suggested that oftentimes pregnancy does not result from rape.  Asked to elaborate, Akins explained his flawed logic: “It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

As a result, the same liberals who refuse to acknowledge the racial undertones in Joe Biden’s “they gon’ put y’all back in chains” remark immediately interpreted “legitimate rape” to mean that Republicans don’t take rape seriously and that the right is truly at war with women.

It’s certainly perplexing how pro-death liberals, all of whom choose to believe the lie that an infant growing in its mother’s womb isn’t a living human being, are now attempting to reinforce the case for their fictional Republican war on women based on one man assuming that the trauma of violent rape could prevent pregnancy.

Scientific verification or not, there’s nothing that gets liberal ire up more than perceived disrespect for the sacrosanct right to choose.  That’s when abortion-loving leftists like Barbara Boxer sprout horns and breathe fire.

Therefore, it wasn’t surprising that at a Planned Parenthood event in California, radical abortion advocate Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) referenced Akin’s “legitimate rape” statement and used it as gotcha fodder to stir up the abortion-obsessed women in attendance, saying, “There is a war against women, and Romney and Ryan — if they are elected — would become its top generals.”

Boxer linking Akin’s poorly thought-out comment to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is as ridiculous as Republicans claiming Joe Biden’s “chains” rant implies that Southern Democrats want to reinstate slavery.

Absurdity doesn’t matter, because even logic couldn’t stop Babs from exploiting Todd Akin’s faux pas and using his misstatement to whip up the girls’ outrage by calling the remark a “direct outgrowth” of the “extreme positions on abortion held by Republicans.”

In Barbara Boxer’s irrational pro-choice world, wanting to save the lives of the innocent is “extreme,” and the desire to add to the 60 million human beings who have already been aborted since 1973 is considered measured “moderation.”

Warming up the crowd in anticipation of the big pro-abortion celebration due to take place in Charlotte, NC, Barbara inserted snarkiness into the discussion when she said, “There is a sickness out there in the Republican Party, and I’m not kidding.”  Barbara Boxer is correct; the extreme “sickness” she’s referring to is called respect for the sanctity of life.

Senator Boxer finished up her down-with-Republicans comments by asking: “Where’s the outrage by Mitt Romney?”  Democrats may not be aware that Republicans are outraged, all right, and have been for decades.  The difference is that, unlike liberals, most Americans disgusted with the ubiquity of violence don’t differentiate, and are just as outraged over the vicious horror of rape as they are the unnecessary savagery of abortion.

Feminists Looking for Handouts Now Define ‘Working’

Liberals have no problem taking money from hardworking people and handing it over to those who won’t work. Unless of course you’re a self-made millionaire and the person you’re supporting happens to be the mother of your children; then the left feels justified in mocking women who choose to be stay-at-home moms.

In another stunning example of the right-to-choosers ridiculing a woman if her choice doesn’t include abortion or female careerism, DNC adviser Hilary Rosen – a woman who, like Hillary Clinton, obviously would never lower herself to “have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas” – discussed Ann Romney’s lack of working experience on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360.

Working-woman advocate and liberal shill Hilary Rosen sat down with Anderson to bandy about the subject of the alleged Republican War on Women, a battle in which liberal feminists with high-paying career aspirations fight for taxpayer-funded contraceptives. During the conversation, Rosen lobbed a gender-denigrating grenade in Mrs. Romney’s direction, saying “Guess what, [Romney’s] wife has actually never worked a day in her life.”

Democrats want to be viewed as distinct individuals yet they invariably categorize people by race, gender, age, and sexual orientation. Now, according to a unique set of liberal standards, they have also assumed the role of deciding what does and does not constitute “work.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the rise of women in the workplace the direct result of the economic need for two salaries? Are liberals officially taking the position that the mothers in families who do not require two salaries choosing to have children and dedicate their lives to responsibly raising those children are not working?

In an article for the Huffington Post entitled “Ann Romney and Working Moms,” Rosen responded to the firestorm that erupted in response to her ‘Ann Romney never worked’ comment expressed on AC360.  Judgmental and disparaging, Hilary defended the remark by saying “Spare me the faux anger from the right who view the issue of women’s rights and advancement as a way to score political points.” Now that’s a stunning comment in itself, especially coming from someone whose political party uses anything available to score political points.

Nevertheless, if given the choice of either raising their children or dropping them off at a daycare center/Petri dish, wouldn’t most women, if they were honest, choose to marry someone whose income allows them to stay home with their babies, at least until they’re of school age?

Truth be told, nowadays most women aren’t fortunate enough to have the option Ann Romney enjoyed, possibly including Hilary Rosen. In a vulnerable moment, Rosen admitted that if given the choice, when raising her adopted twins Jacob and Anna with former partner Elizabeth Birch, she’d have preferred Ann’s lifestyle to her own.

Now let’s be clear on one thing. I have no judgments about women who work outside the home vs. women who work in the home raising a family. I admire women who can stay home and raise their kids full-time. I even envy them sometimes. It is a wonderful luxury to have the choice. But let’s stipulate that it is NOT a choice that most women have in America today.

So there you have it – according to the choice crowd, the right to choose excludes any choice the Hilary Rosen types disagree with. Rosen, and women like her, pretend to abhor gender discrimination and then they discriminate against women who make choices that deliver rewards that do not include guest spots on CNN and whose compensation far exceeds both title and money.

As far as the “work” aspect of the debate, in a Salary.com article entitled “Mom Deserves a Raise in 2007,” it was estimated that if paid a salary, a stay-at-home Mom would earn $138,095 a year.

Facts like these matter little to Democrats as they attempt to portray Mitt Romney as an ostentatious square with his family automatically guilty by association.  The objective is to render Romney out of touch with the common folk President Obama identifies with while attending $40,000-a-plate Democrat fundraisers.

Kudos to Ann Romney; she promptly addressed the pandering idiocy of a woman proving to be yet another in a long list of self-righteous liberal feminists. After hearing Rosen’s remarks, Mrs. Romney defended the choice to raise her children at home, which was thanks to a husband who, rather than bilk the government, worked hard to provide for his growing family.

By way of @AnnDRomney at Twitter, Mrs. Romney, mother of five and grandmother to 16, informed Ms. Rosen when she said “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

Ann’s tweet came just as “Mitt wrapped up a second day of campaigning that all but entirely focused on the ‘war against women.’”  At events packed with “female business leaders,” Romney accused the Obama administration of economic policies that “hurt women” – which they do.

Reluctantly, many mothers are forced to work outside the home to pay for gasoline and taxes and to support husbands who, thanks to Barack Obama, remain chronically unemployed.

Yet, despite Democrats that include campaign strategist and close Obama advisor David Axelrod’s and Obama 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina’s criticism of Rosen’s inappropriate comments, if Hilary really cared about women she would discuss those who are denied the choice to raise their own children because of the economic catastrophe Obama has foisted upon American families.

Maybe the next time Ms. Rosen appears on AC360, after she discusses the crime of Mitt Romney providing for his family, she can also expound upon how liberals can defend hardworking Americans, be they male or female, supporting those who refuse to work.

And then after frequent White House visitor  Hilary Rosen discusses how American taxpayers should help pay for contraceptives for supposedly self-sufficient women who are cash-strapped because of exorbitant daycare bills, maybe she can cap off the segment by reviewing Michelle Obama’s largely taxpayer-funded vacation schedule and explain how hosting state dinners, modeling haute couture, and dancing exuberantly on Nickelodeon’s iCarley constitutes “working.”

Smaller Government’s Newest Politician: Barack Obama

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Seems Barack Obama has slipped on his Mitt Romney mask.   The President hosted a White House smaller-government event complete with a bubble graph slide show and CEOs.  One difference: Obama is proposing lessening the grip of government on jobs and the economy by asking Congress to transfer more power to him.  Obama asking for more power to curtail government could be likened to quitting marijuana by shooting heroin.

Come on now, is America supposed take seriously that a government-loving liberal who’s promoted big budget-busting bureaucracy as the catalyst to job creation for the last three years, is suddenly into saving money and jobs by consolidating government?

By now, when Americans hear the name Barack Obama they instantly think: great teeth, questionable golf skills and a wife who shops at Target.

However, to many, the name Obama also calls to mind things like: union thuggery, socialized health care, unelected and unaccountable czars, demonization of the rich, punishing businesses, widespread unemployment, limiting Constitutional liberties, borrowing $6.2 trillion in one term, maligning conservativism, and thinking government should fund everything from education for illegals to abortion on demand.

Now, nine months prior to the next election, with less than stellar approval numbers and the unemployment rate still unacceptable, supposedly in an effort to save “$3 billion and 1,000 to 2,000 jobs over ten years,” Obama suddenly wants to streamline federal trade policy by requesting the “power to consolidate agencies that promote U.S. exports.” The plan is to close down the Commerce Department and merge together the “small Business Administration, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade and Development Agency.”

Sorry, but giving Obama more power over business doesn’t accomplish the goal of less government. It just puts governmental-style control into the hands of one person, which feels a tad uncomfortable — control over which companies get government help in trade issues.  Doesn’t this smell of crony capitalism in the hands of a veteran of pay-to-play in Chicago?

During remarks at the White House and without informing Congress, Obama said:

Today, I’m calling on Congress to reinstate the authority that past presidents have had to streamline and reform the executive branch. This is the same sort of authority that every business owner has to make sure that his or her company keeps pace with the times. And let me be clear: I will only use this authority for reforms that result in more efficiency, better service and a leaner government.

If the same Congress that Obama said he’s planning on working without gives him the “green light,” he would gain “fast-track authority — that is, the ability to bypass a Senate filibuster — for any number of government consolidation proposals.”  All that’s required is that he present his bids as being “aimed at saving taxpayer dollars and boosting efficiency,” which three years of economic disaster has proven, with Obama in charge, probably isn’t the case.

Let’s remember that thus far, although he’s asking for greater authority, Obama hasn’t earned it.  He’s been neither efficient, adept at saving taxpayers money, nor a man fond of “leaner government.”  If Congress agrees, “The House and Senate would have to hold an up-or-down vote within 90 days of receiving such a proposal.”

It’s not surprising that the usual RINO suspects like Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee support Obama’s efforts.

However, what is surprising is the normally tough Obama administration skeptic Darrell Issa (R-California), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, being positive about giving the President more clout.  Issa wants to prevent Eric Holder’s “Fast and Furious[ly]”-tainted Department of Justice from having the power to police the Internet through the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), yet he’s optimistic about Obama’s Gimme More Power proposal?

Thankfully, other Republican politicians are more cautious. Seasoned Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is wary of the normally disingenuous anti-Congress Obama sincerely “calling on Congress,” and is skeptical that Big Government Barry wants to reform government at all.

Hatch raises a great point. After finding the time to bus CEOs to the White House and set up alongside the trusty Teleprompter a slide show as slick as anything at Bain Capital, couldn’t Obama also find time to consult with Congress before making his big announcement? Especially since the President forcefully requested that Congress reinstate the type of powers last exercised by Ronald Reagan, a leader everyone knew consistently promoted small government.

Taken aback, Hatch said:

What’s disconcerting is that the president has again chosen not to work with Congress — even after I specifically asked the Obama administration to fully brief Congress if it chose to reorganize our trade agencies. As the lead Republican on the Finance Committee, I will discuss this matter with my colleagues and will expect a fullaccounting by the administration in short order.

The Utah Senator better hurry, because if he asked the Obama administration to follow a certain protocol and they refused, it’s questionable whether the President (checks and balances be damned) can be trusted to handle increased autonomy.

While cynical, it appears that crafty Obama may be luring Republicans into a ‘smaller-government/more power for me’ Catch-22.  If lawmakers refuse to comply, the President can then say, “See, even when I do what they say they want, they refuse to work with me.  That’s why I must work around them.”

That sort of slick ploy could garner the additional power Obama seeks, reaffirm his anti-Congress contention and deliver a few more “We can’t wait” campaign slogans for 2012.

For astute politicians, Barack Obama promoting less government in a venue that would exclude Congress should send up a red flag. Vowing that he would “only use” the authority in a certain way shouldn’t fool anyone. It seems as if Obama’s real plan may be to expand presidential power by tickling the ears of hopelessly naïve Republicans while simultaneously fashioning a platform of accusation upon which to condemn Congress.  Hedging his bets, President Obama is probably convinced that either way – he’ll win.


‘Hermaneutics’ Cain-Style

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Herman Cain winning the Florida straw poll is encouraging.  It means an honest, straight-talking non-politician can cut through the flowery rhetoric and be taken seriously.  While all eyes are on Rick and Romney, Herman is busy transforming “grass-roots popularity into strong showings in national polls.”

In the end, it’s more than a long shot that the ‘Hermanator,’ a Baptist minister who enjoys singing the occasional Gospel hymn and whose favorite dish is the “Godfather’s combo with extra cheese, sausage, ham, onions and peppers, [washed down] with an icy Coke,” would actually have a chance to win the Republican nomination.

Still, if one were to fantasize about such a scenario, many pleasant ideas come to mind which, if they were to materialize, could inject some humor into a nation that Mr. Cain says needs to “lighten up” and have a few laughs.

Right out of the gate, the first thing that would be striking about a Herman Cain vs. Barack Obama presidential race would be the comparison between Barry dragging out and setting up two Teleprompters to answer a few questions and Herman standing next to him, hands in his pockets, pithy retort at the ready.

On jobs, the President’s usual approach is to attempt to razzle-dazzle with flowery rhetorical proposals that sound good on the campaign trail but, in practice, don’t work.  Herman’s method is to listen to his opponents, look at the crowd, smile, and off-the-cuff respond to half-baked ideas with: “It’s time to get real, folks. Hope and change ain’t working. Hope and change is not a solution. Hope and change is not a job.”

After watching Bobble Head Barack turn from right to left reading what someone tells him he believes off a scrolling Teleprompter, oh, to be able to watch Herman Cain lean over a debate podium and hear him say, “We need a leader, not a reader.”

A “Yes We Cain” versus a “We thought we could, but then we didn’t” run-off for the White House between the man from Georgia and the man from God-knows-where would certainly create mass liberal confusion, because instantaneously the race card would have to be moved to the bottom of the deck.

Oh, but wait! Obama had better not remove the race card too fast. Herman identifies with racists in a way, because as a black man he knows the racism issue isn’t about skin color.  On the left, racism is defined as: “People who oppose Obama,” and in the past Mr. Cain has in fact admitted, “I guess I’m a racist.”

The confusion surrounding having two black candidates for president would make for interesting theatre.  Take for instance Black Panther poll watchers standing guard for racial equality.  How would they know whom to wave their clubs at on Election Day?  Do the Panthers intimidate whites voting for Obama or blacks voting for Cain? How would they figure out who is voting for who?  What a quandary.

Prior to winning the Florida CPAC straw poll, Mr. Cain articulated his intent to replace the tax code with a 999-tax plan where, across the board, he would implement “9 percent tax on businesses, personal income and sales.” If, in the aforementioned fantasy, Herman and Barry get to debate taxes, when it’s the President’s turn to articulate his views on taxes Herman could hold a “999” poster board upside down in front of the camera and America will instantly know where and from whom Barack’s tax philosophy gathers its inspiration.

A perfect retort to Obama touting, blaming and refusing to accept responsibility for failed policies would be for Cain to pose a question to America: “How’s this guy workin’ out for you?”

Who can forget the first lady opining on Obama’s ‘share the wealth’ view of the world, saying, “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

Oh, what sweet irony it would be to watch Obama grapple with Godfather’s Pizza’s successful CEO who saw pie as a symbol of success, not an emblem of imposed sacrificial socialism. A person who, since leaving what he calls “that Democrat plantation” a long time ago, found out that if an individual refuses to adopt the usual liberal victim status, miraculously there’s more than enough for everyone to have a whole pie – if a person is willing to work for it.

Sweeter still would be to hear how cancer survivor Herman Cain would respond to Barack laying on the Obamacare user-friendly insurance language, heartstring-manipulation banter about 32 million+ uninsured, talk of $980 billion in 10-year costs, mandates, and everything else included in Obama’s gargantuan government power grab.

At a recent Republican debate, the potential presidential nominee succinctly boiled down all the healthcare drivel to one concise and grateful sentence when he said: “If Obamacare had been fully implemented when I caught cancer, I’d be dead.”

Mr. Cain has repeatedly proven that when truth is in the mix there is no need for theatrics, or Hermanator hysterics. Cain’s legendary “I’d be dead” comment not only applies to himself as a cancer survivor, but regrettably also predicts America’s future if Barack Obama manages to somehow slickly speechify himself into a second term.

Herman Cain may not be the perfect candidate but, then again, who is? Moreover, Mr. Cain getting the Republican nomination, unfortunately, is doubtful.

However, reality does not diminish the fact that this patriotic man is the master of a unique style of political “Hermaneutics.” In few words, Herman Cain clearly articulates the extent of death, doom and destruction a second term would impose on a nation already reeling from three years of Barack Obama’s perverted brand of “Hope and Change.”

%d bloggers like this: