In 1996 future Minnesota Senator Al Franken (aka Stuart Smalley) wrote a book entitled “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and other Observations.”
Chris Matthews of MSNBC said that conservative talk show host Limbaugh reminded him more of the “guy from Deliverance.”
Liberals feel contempt for Rush Limbaugh, which is why they mock him and corporately celebrate his personal struggles every chance they get. Yet, for the joke that the left portrays Maha-Rushi to be, when they need a scapegoat, it’s Limbaugh that influential politicians accuse of affecting their lives and agendas for the worse.
Prior to the 2012 election, after the fiasco that was his first term, Barack Obama blamed the Republicans for all his failures. Obama said that if Republicans weren’t worried about what the “big fat idiot” everyone laughs at would say on the radio, Republicans would have gladly helped advance his impeccable “Hope and Change” policy agenda.
Recently the guy behind the Golden EIB Microphone was blamed again for undermining the man trying desperately but failing miserably to be an effective leader, and for causing the Republican base to constrain otherwise cooperative politicians from supporting his current political agenda.
Not only that, but according to Obama, Rush singlehandedly had the influence to transform the president’s sterling image into a cartoonish “caricature.”
And then there was the woman whose claim to fame is standing in pink sneakers for 11 hours on behalf of late-term abortion.
In order to win over low-information observers, Texas state senator Wendy Davis couldn’t resist employing the liberal tactic of promoting herself in a way that has nothing to do with the truth. Then, when she got nabbed for embellishing her single-mother-trailer-park story for political purposes, rather than fessing up she blamed…you guessed it – Rush Limbaugh.
In a desperate effort to rectify Davis’s use of the “typical dirty tricks we’re all tired of,” which included lying in her bio, an email was sent to supporters with the subject line “They’re getting desperate.” In it, Karin Johanson, Davis’s “desperate” campaign manager, accused “Abortion Barbie’s” detractors of trying to bring the Texas state senator down by “try[ing] anything, including the typical dirty tricks we’re all tired of.”
After the self-aggrandizing Davis proved she couldn’t salvage her damaged reputation, Johanson ended the email by referencing an old standby when she said, “I guess Rush Limbaugh just couldn’t help himself.”
Rush Limbaugh? What does Rush Limbaugh have to do with Wendy Davis using Barack Obama’s fake background ploy and trying to pass herself off as something she isn’t?
So it has to be one or the other. Either the man they call the “Big Fat Idiot” is big and fat in the power department and can sway the fortunes of the President of the United States and a woman supposedly on the brink of what Obama called “something special happening” …
Or it’s not Rush Limbaugh who’s the “Big Fat Idiot.”
Originally posted at American Thinker blog
The White House releases tons of pictures of Obama family dog Bo; pictures of Michelle Obama gardening and hula-hooping; there are even photos of President Obama teaching the Resolute Desk how to do double duty as an ottoman. What there aren’t a lot of photographs of are America’s top general in the “war on women,” Barack Obama, and his underrepresented high-ranking female advisers. Why? Because besides the president’s Senior Advisor and admitted ‘main man’ Valerie Jarrett, there simply aren’t very many women around.
So what does this say about Barack Obama and the left’s contrived “war on women?” Well, given the fact that high-level women are a scarcity at the White House and Obama pays his female staffers about 18% less than his male staffers, the definition of the “war on women” obviously has nothing to do with political or economic equal rights. Instead, if Sandra Fluke and her Polycystic Ovary Syndrome sisters are the chosen poster girls for female oppression, then apparently outfitting women for carefree sex is how liberals plan to win the gender conflict.
After all, didn’t Democrats haul Sandra Fluke out in front of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on women’s health and contraception to expound upon American women’s need for free birth control? That right there should have insulted liberated ladies who for years have tried to separate sex from significance. But then again, if Obama consistently pays his female staffers $11K less than the males, it’s understandable that the president might feel that working women could be a little pressed for cash to purchase the necessary protection for after-work dalliances.
Georgetown University Law School graduate Sandra Fluke became a media star when Rush Limbaugh connected the dots for America. Rush merely pointed out that demanding health insurance provide free birth control in order to facilitate consequence-free sex presents an opportunity for women to employ government entitlements as a means to earn extra cash.
The left was apoplectic that Limbaugh dared to suggest that Sandra Fluke may actually be what she herself had intimated she might be – so much so that the President took the time to call Sandy F. to “express his disappointment that she has been the subject of inappropriate personal attacks.” As a parent, Obama mentioned that Sandra’s parents, Richard and Betty should be proud of their daughter’s willingness to “exercise her rights as a citizen to speak out on an issue of public policy.”
Let’s remember that when casually discussing birth control, abortion, and his own twisted sense of morality, it was the president who mentioned that Sasha and Malia should not be “punished” with a baby. That bizarre comment coming from a father of two young girls indicates that career choices and potential income are not the first and foremost opportunities Obama anticipates will face his daughters.
Nevertheless, it was during Obama’s reelection campaign that Ms. Fluke’s dog-and-filly show took to the road. The “democrat darling” traveled the nation representing victimized womenfolk and portrayed Republicans as Neanderthals trying to deprive the fairer sex of the necessary accoutrements for a healthy sex life. But the accolades didn’t stop there; Sandra also earned a slot as a featured speaker at the Democratic National Convention and TIME Magazine even considered Her Flukeness for Person of the Year.
Meanwhile, as Sandra was busily helping secure Obama’s reelection with the hyper-dependent Julias of the world, female employees working on Obama’s reelection campaign were earning an “average of $6,872…compared with an average of $7,235 for male employees. That is a difference of $363, or 5.3 percent.”
Then, recently, a White House Flicker photo was released of a meeting of Barack Obama’s top advisers. The picture was void of even one female representative, so either the president’s top-level ladies were busy using those free contraceptives, or women are not welcome in the president’s innermost circle.
Couple the missing female Obama advisers with the president’s female staffers and campaign employees being paid considerably less than males and there’s a clear indication that the liberal “war on women” fiction involves something besides addressing traditional feminist issues.
Therefore, based on the lack of female representation and continued salary inequity in the Obama administration, as well as the emphasis in the “war on women” being on the “right” to a paternalistic birth control entitlement, it appears liberals believe women are reliant on men to protect their right to be ready for sex at a moment’s notice. It also explains why, on behalf of American women, liberal men like Barack Obama will keep fighting the good fight against conservatives who continue to insist that honoring a woman isn’t about equipping her for worry-free sex at taxpayer expense.
Originally posted at American Thinker blog
Based on the dismal state of the union and after four years of doing exactly what Rush Limbaugh said he hoped that he would do, by any thinking person’s standards President Barack Obama has indeed “failed.” Yet, despite the catastrophe, on Election Day the American people inexplicably invited the President to spend the next four years beating the dead horse that he killed during his first term.
The next day, after being MIA for months, Speaker of the House John Boehner crawled out of the tanning bed long enough to publicly assure the President that House Republicans plan to work with him on his sole first-term accomplishment – the looming “fiscal cliff.”
Wait a minute, wasn’t it way back in 2008 that Barack Obama told America that “this is the moment” when good jobs would be provided for the jobless, the rise of the oceans would slow, and the planet would begin to heal? Why then, as America drowns in an ocean of debt and sinks in a sea of unemployment, would the Speaker of the House tell Obama “This is your moment…we want you to succeed?”
Reminiscent of candidate Obama exalting himself while on the campaign trail in 2008, Boehner said:
Mr. President, this is your moment. We’re ready to be led not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. We want you to lead not as a liberal or a conservative, but as the president of the United States of America. We want you to succeed. Let’s challenge ourselves to find the common ground that has eluded us.
In addition to those comments, did the Speaker of the House really say that “If there’s a mandate in … [the election] results it’s a mandate for us to find a way to work together on the solutions to the challenges that we all face as a nation?”
Well, what Boehner may not have anticipated is that come January working together on solutions will likely include figuring out how to prevent the President’s ardent supporters from melting down when they realize that voting for him did not exempt them from the middle class tax increase that’s due to hit hard when the Bush-era tax cuts expire.
Nonetheless, one way Republicans can still embrace our intrepid leader is by supporting automatic cuts in defense spending. After all, as a Russian nuclear submarine trawls the waters off the east coast of the US, cutting defense spending will help Barack Obama deliver the flexibility he promised comrade Vladimir Putin.
Moreover, if “reaching across the aisle” is the Speaker’s genuine objective, maybe as an inaugural gift congressional Republicans can hand the Biggest Big Spender in American history a no-limit charge card by agreeing to increase the debt ceiling.
John Boehner did claim that the post-election plan is to help Barack Obama move the country FORWARD. But, by the Speaker continuing to insist that raising the top tax rate in a bad economy would hurt small businesses he threatens the elusive “common ground” that he seeks.
However, if Boehner believes that this is truly Barack Obama’s “moment,” why not just let the President do whatever he wants? Republicans in Congress should politely step aside and allow Obama to finish what he started. In so doing, they will inoculate themselves against any ensuing liability as well as avoid becoming the object of Obama’s notorious blame game.
And so, as conciliatory bipartisanship is cultivated and John Boehner encourages Barack Obama to forge ahead, one can only hope that the newfound collegiality in Washington DC includes Republicans helping our determined liberal leader to aim that big ole’ policy gun he has pointed at America’s head downward toward his own foot.
Originally posted at American Thinker blog
Sandra Fluke was a third-year student at Georgetown Law and past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ) when, on behalf of women with ovarian cysts, she showed up at an unofficial hearing before House Democrats. Fluke appeared before America to demand that the Jesuit-run university offer health insurance to students that covered contraception and abortion. As a result, Ms. Fluke is now a general in a contrived war on women – a battle that started when Democrats attempted to invade the Catholic Church with liberal policy.
Ms. Fluke became infamous when radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh satirically called her a “slut,” which instantly thrust her into the role of spokeswoman for consequence-free sex. In the course of the hysterical backlash, President Barack Obama called her to soothe her hurt feelings and congratulate her parents for having such a heroic daughter. Eventually, Rush did apologize to Sandra for suggesting that a single woman begging the entire country for free birth control was a bit slutty.
But it didn’t end there. Sandra’s meteoric rise to fame continued when she shared her wisdom at the DNC Convention. Now, on behalf of Barack Obama, just weeks prior to the 2012 election, Fluke is taking her reproductive justice spiel to cities all across America.
Sandra Fluke’s Traveling War on Women Show is one part of an effort by Democrats to drive voters to the polls to vote early. Recently, at a “Sak ‘N Save” in Reno, Nevada, Sandra spoke to a group of 10 who were either eager to hear what she had to say, thought she might be handing out free samples, or quite possibly were looking for an opportunity to pack Ms. Fluke’s groceries.
Seemingly overwhelmed by her own celebrity, Sandra told the crowd hanging on her every word that 2012 has turned out to be not quite what she expected.
The newly-minted law school grad probably thought the Catholic Church would roll over and provide the insurance and that she and her free contraceptives could fade into obscurity, but so far the poor girl has been subjected to just the opposite. Instead, sort of how Halle Berry became the face of Revlon, the Georgetown Law graduate has become the fresh face of free contraceptives.
Addressing those 10 people in Reno, Fluke said “A lot of women come to me and tell me stories individually about their lives about what access to healthcare has meant to them; what the Affordable Care Act is going to mean to them.”
Sandra inspired the rapt Reno ten when she claimed “A lot of young people tell me how important it was to stay on their parents’ plan until they were 26.” For those eager to realize the American Dream, there’s nothing like being 26, living in Mom and Dad’s musty basement, and having open access to all the birth control one could ever desire.
And if those contraceptives should fail, not to worry, Sandra shared that “Folks tell [her] what a difference it made to be able to rely on Planned Parenthood when they needed it and what it would mean if Mr. Romney gets his way to defund Planned Parenthood.”
What Sandra failed to warn her audience about was that most Planned Parenthood clinics do not provide the mammograms Barack Obama claims is the reason for funding the abortion provider. Moreover, Sandra also forgot to mention that, just like Sesame Street, Planned Parenthood would do just fine without federal funding, which means liberals have created yet another straw man for their endless parade of female dupes to drag around.
Nonetheless, as Ms. Fluke takes her show on the road, she’s gathering quite a fan base. In Reno, a gentleman named Leo Horishny was among those who battled the multitudes to get a chance to see Fluke. Horishny said he wanted to see the person whom members of the media had used “intimidating rhetoric against as a political tactic.”
Horishny believes that “intimidating rhetoric” is “a scary trend today?” No Leo, what’s really frightening is Sandra Fluke taking her free contraceptive pitch so seriously that she’s willing to compete with the weekly sales circular for the attention of 10 people at a place called “Sak ‘N Save.”
Once again the left has inadvertently vindicated Rush Limbaugh. On the Facebook page “Planned Parenthood Info for Teens,” there is a link to a Planned Parenthood site with a page called “Info for Teens.” In the “Ask the Expert” section, our tax dollars are used to school kiddies on after-school activities like masturbation, oral sex, and “blue waffles” (more commonly known as sexually transmitted diseases). For visual learners, there are also links to colorful roadmap-type “diagrams” of male and female genitalia.
One Facebook post asks the question: “Why are girls who have sex with a lot of guys called sluts and guys called players?” In response, the unofficial guide to Savage U, MTV Extras Sextra Credit teacher Francisco Ramirez, obliges truth-seeking high school students by providing answers to questions on the fine art of sluttery. Francisco reminds confused teens that “there is a little bit of slut in all of us,” so why not just embrace our inner sluttiness?
Speaking of Sandra Fluke, instead of attending Class 6 — “The Reproduction Right” — in the Statutory Rights of Copyright Owners fall series at Georgetown Law School, the reproductive rights advocate should have played hooky and joined the kids in Sextra Credit w/ Francisco. If only the War on Women’s Joan of Arc had done what the Facebook teaser suggests and occupied “a seat in the class and let Francisco school [her] with his lecture on slutty slander!,” the entire Rush Limbaugh slut imbroglio could have been avoided.
For the record, the sexpert/provost of Savage U is Dan Savage, the gay activist who, at an anti-bullying speech, told students in the audience to “learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people.” Savage then bullied the offended Christian students who walked out by calling them “pansy-asses.” Sandra Fluke, who took on the pansy-assed Catholic hierarchy on abortion and contraception, would likely accept as gospel Dan Savage’s faculty member Francisco’s evolved definition of the true meaning of the word “slut.”
In Ramirez’s S.L.U.T. class, the sexpert stresses that “people who feel judged, isolated and weird about their bodies and about sex” are usually the ones who interpret being called a slut in a negative way. If Ms. Fluke felt “vilified by Limbaugh’s” comments, it could mean that Sandra’s view of her own sexuality is in dire need of positive reinforcement.
During his slut class, Mr. Ramirez says that calling girls who have a lot of sex sluts “makes zero sense” and lacks “fairness,” and that sluts everywhere should “stand up for equality [and] stop the slut-shaming.” Francisco also provides context by teaching a chapter on the history of sluts. If Ms. Fluke had been up to date on her slut history, the feminist would have known that “400 years ago [slut] was an affectionate term for a housemaid.”
Considering all this new information on sluts, it could be that Sandra Fluke and the whole “war on women” contingency misunderstood what Rush Limbaugh actually meant. It may be that Limbaugh’s reaction to Sandra’s demand for truckloads of free contraceptives wasn’t an insult at all, but rather a complimentary acknowledgement of Fluke’s healthy proclivity for playful promiscuity. Wasn’t it Ramirez who pointed out that “[c]alling someone a slut is good”?.
Furthermore, even President Obama could tone down his “slut-shaming” a bit. After Rush Limbaugh insulted Fluke, Obama took time out of his busy day to call the law school grad. The president praised Ms. Fluke on her commitment to citizenship and mentioned to her that her parents should be proud their daughter demanded free contraceptives on national TV.
If only America’s most ardent Planned Parenthood president had attended Francisco Ramirez’s class prior to making that call, maybe he would have shared how proud he would be to have his own young daughters referred to in similar terms. And for reasons other than “speaking out about the concerns of American women,” he could have congratulated the Fluke family on having a daughter associated with a word some liberals apparently feel “should only be used for good.”
And so, after a nationwide hullabaloo over calling Sandra Fluke a slut, we come to find out that the insightful conservative radio talk show host may have actually complimented the Georgetown coed — which leaves Rush once again being vindicated by the very progressives who consider him their arch-nemesis.
If Planned Parenthood, Barack Obama’s beloved abortion provider, approves of the word “slut” being used as a tribute to sexually liberated women, it’s Rush Limbaugh who deserves the public apology, not Sandra Fluke.
Originally posted at American Thinker blog
When President Obama disagrees with something, it doesn’t take long for him to impulsively express his disapproval in a public forum, especially when he believes doing so will further his policy goals or bolster his waning popularity. But while what he does say sends a strong message, what he chooses not to say can send an even stronger one.
On the issue of gay marriage, the President has verbally identified himself as being in the process of “evolving” from anti- to pro- same-sex matrimony. When Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head and innocent people were killed in Tucson, the President very publicly insinuated that conservative incivility contributed to a violent climate, and then goaded the nation toward mutual respect.
Barack Obama has even been brazen enough to verbally try to “intimidate” the Supreme Court “by wrongly suggesting that a ruling against the health care overhaul would be ‘judicial activism,'” as well as promote policies that restrict the Catholic Church’s right to adhere to its core religious convictions.
Above all, the President has never been reluctant to articulate his support for abortion on demand, and free contraceptives for everyone, nor has he hesitated to speak out against bullying gay teenagers, rebuke radio talk show hosts calling female college students derogatory names, or respond to criticism over his family taking extravagant vacations.
Yet with such strong opinions on these and many other issues, when those on the left do to conservatives exactly what the President has expressed indignation over when criticism is directed toward him, his policies, or liberals in general, Barack Obama’s deafening silence signals that his outrage is quite selective. With President Obama, his silence oftentimes speaks louder than his words.
A prime example of that tendency was exhibited by his speaking out in the Sandra Fluke/Rush Limbaugh incident and failing thus far to do likewise in the Dan Savage/Christian kid-bashing incident.
After Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke took to the national stage to advocate for Catholic institutions to provide insurance that covers free birth control and abortion, Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut” and a “prostitute,” two comments for which he later apologized.
In defense of Sandra Fluke, Barack Obama jumped into the fray when he called the third-year law student to express his support for her brave stance. At the first press conference of 2012, Obama, who Jay Carney had already explained felt Limbaugh’s comments were “inappropriate,” revealed his motives for picking up the phone and dialing up Ms. Fluke.
The President said he did so because “he was thinking about his own two daughters,” saying:
One of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about…I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.
I wanted Sandra to know that I thought her parents should be proud of her, and that we want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a democracy involves arguments and disagreements and debate.
Those sentiments, although noble to some, are proving to be exclusive and only expressed when Barack Obama defends the left.
Recently an incident took place where “inappropriate” remarks were directed by a gay activist toward children who were also “engaging in issues they care about.” Yet thus far there has been no comment from the President who, on behalf of a left-wing feminist, had tripped over himself rushing to her defense.
Dan Savage, ‘It Gets Better’ founder/”Savage Love” sex advice columnist/gay activist/White House reception guest of Barack Obama, was supposed to be sharing an anti-bullying message at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association (JEA ) and the National Scholastic Press Association. Instead, Savage used the opportunity to exercise his civic duty and bully the kids who came to the conference from Christian schools in the area.
At one point, Savage described for the teenagers how “good his male partner looked in a Speedo” and told them, “I hope you’re all using birth control.” After Savage, “Evolve Already ” promoter of marriage equality for gays attempted to savage the book of Leviticus, the Apostle Paul, and his letter to the Romans, 100 offended high school students quietly stood up and filed out of the auditorium.
Feeling bullied by the students refusing to listen to his vulgar tirade, the anti-bullying speaker then “began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant ‘pansy assed.'”
Continuing on with a level of mistreatment that far surpassed Limbaugh’s two-word insult, Savage told a room full of high school students that “there are people using the Bible as an excuse for gay bullying, because it …being gay is wrong,” and encouraged them all to “ignore all the (expletive deleted) in the Bible.”
Based on how quickly Barack Obama raced out to the microphones to address what he felt were demeaning comments directed toward the frail Ms. Fluke, is Obama planning on doing likewise and officially distancing himself from Dan Savage by publicly addressing his “inappropriate,” anti-Christian remarks?
When he’s finished straightening out Mr. Savage, will the President then be phoning the children who were called ‘pansy asses’ by his abusive White House guest, as he did Sandra Fluke ? Will he tell the kiddies their parents should be proud of them for the dignified way they respectfully dismissed themselves from the awkward confrontation?
Afterwards, at his next press conference, will Obama share that he thought about how terribly his Christian daughters Sasha and Malia would have felt being singled out and insulted in such a public way, just for going to a high school journalism conference?
Will Barack Obama condemn verbal and religious abuse of any kind and remind America “The remarks that were made don’t have any place in the public discourse.” Or will Mr. Obama send a strong but silent message of agreement to the anti-bullying bully Dan Savage by choosing to say absolutely nothing at all?
Originally posted at Breitbart’s BIG Government
There was a time when liberals fancied themselves the keepers of civility. Who can forget when, after the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy, the President spoke at a memorial in Tucson where he exhorted the nation to more courteous conversation by insinuating that right-wing hate speech had fueled the brutal attack on the Arizona congresswoman?
After the shooting, in one of his typical lectures to America, Barack “Together we Thrive” Obama maintained that “at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”
More recently, after the controversial shooting death of black Florida teen Trayvon Martin one can’t help but wonder if Barack Obama truly meant those words.
Based on his reaction to the racially-tinged incident in Sanford, Florida, it seems the President’s exhortation applies exclusively to political adversaries, because lately we’ve come to find out that if dissension should crop up anywhere besides Arizona, ‘pausing for a moment’ is apparently not something Barack Obama advocates.
The truth is, when comparing the hoodie-wearing congressmen, bounty-placing New Black Panthers, terror-tweeting Hollywood directors, and a President who has lots to say about conservatives’ conduct but remains mum when out-of-control liberals behave badly, indignant hypocrites on the left have succeeded in making Rush Limbaugh’s recent improper innuendos seem relatively benign.
After the shooting in Tucson that killed six people and injured 12, the President implored a stunned nation to embrace civility, saying, “For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.”
Yet, after uttering such cogent words, Obama has chosen to remain relatively silent as George Zimmerman, the man who claims that he shot a black teen in self-defense, is pursued by an outraged lynch mob chanting “No justice, no peace.”
Even more disturbing is the fact that those shunning the assistance of law enforcement are some of Obama’s closest friends. The group attempting to avenge a death deemed by some to be the result of racial profiling that turned into a cold-blooded execution includes the New Black Panthers, Democrat ultra-liberals like Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Al Sharpton, and Hollywood progressives like Roseanne Barr.
Famous African-American “40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks” director Spike Lee even chose not to “do the right thing.” Jumping into the fray and hoping to direct an angry mob to George Zimmerman’s doorstep to accomplish God knows what, Lee tweeted out a home address he thought belonged to the perpetrator. Spike might as well have strung a noose on a tree outside the man’s house.
The house number Lee tweeted was incorrect, but his communiqué resulted in Elaine and David McClain being driven from their home fearing for their lives. Spike Lee, a $1.6 million fundraiser for Obama’s bid for reelection, finally apologized and reached a financial settlement with the elderly couple. But thus far, the Tucson Healer has yet to utter one word about the shameful incident.
After mentally disturbed Jared Lee Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the head, Barack Obama made a concerted effort to temper the violence by promising justice, and did so while encouraging everyone to exercise measured restraint. Now, in response to Trayvon’s death, a posse with the Twitter handle @Kill Zimmerman is advertising that, without an investigation or trial, an American citizen should “be shot dead in the street the same way Trayvon was.”
Yet, the President who once challenged the nation with the words “We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future” has been eerily silent about the growing unrest surrounding the teen’s shooting. Obama has spoken once, only to mention that if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.
Whatever happened to President Obama advising Americans to use a violent situation such as this “to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and to remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together?”
If we were listening to each other, exercising empathy and reminding ourselves we are bound together, then Attorney General Eric Holder and his Justice Department would have reacted appropriately to the New Black Panthers trying to take the law into their own hands by placing a bounty on a Zimmerman’s head and circulating “Wanted Dead or Alive” posters.
Moreover, why is President Obama, who in Tucson warned that we should never use “tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another,” stoking aggression by purposely ignoring the growing animosity toward a man who is supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty?”
At the Tucson Memorial, Barack Obama quoted Scripture and discouraged the nation from “pointing fingers and assigning blame.” Now, with an election just months away, the Keeper of Civility, desperate to renew his base, has found a racial issue to exploit and has aligned his 2012 reelection campaign with a hooded uniform that symbolizes a slain teen whose culpability in his own death has yet to be determined.
And so, not only has the President proven that his recent righteous indignation toward so-called right-wing “hate speech” is a reaction directed exclusively toward political foes, and while contributing to growing tension in a nation he’s supposed to be leading, Obama has once again managed to expose his own duplicity.
The Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case has left a young man dead, an accused shooter hiding from an angry mob of bloodthirsty vigilantes, and has caused the nation to be sharply divided again by racial tension. But above all, what the Trayvon Martin tragedy has done is reveal to America that every word uttered by Barack Obama at that Tucson Memorial was nothing more than politically-motivated empty rhetoric.
Originally posted at AmericanThinker blog
Radical feminist Gloria Steinhem once said, “Any woman who chooses to behave like a full human being should be warned that the armies of the status quo will treat her as something of a dirty joke. That’s their natural and first weapon. She will need her sisterhood.”
Gloria’s words are coming to pass. Presently, the sisterhood is doing battle with Rush Limbaugh, the conservative leader of the army of “the status quo.” The reason? Limbaugh dared call “full human being” Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” after the brazen Georgetown University law school student sat before a contrived dog-and-pony show disguised as a Congressional panel and declared that a Catholic university should provide insurance to cover her three-year birth control bill of $3,000.
In response to Limbaugh’s comments, posses of angry females are now frothing with anticipation, demanding Rush Limbaugh be legally prosecuted and “silenced by the FCC.” Women whom Rush has jokingly called “Femi-Nazis” want the radio talk show host’s head on a spike. With Sandra Fluke as their patron saint, shrill feminists are determined to make a public spectacle of Limbaugh for the sin of exposing how Democrat-controlled estrogen has manipulated the gender discussion for years.
The ladies’ goal is to prosecute Limbaugh on behalf of offended women everywhere, and, if possible, silencing his voice by way of a media lynching.
So far, we’ve heard from the woman who does turtlenecks proud — feminist lawyer Gloria Allred who dug deep into the annals of puritanical 19th century Florida law. Ms. Allred managed to unearth an 1883 statute that makes it a crime to question a woman’s decency.
Prosecutable pro-choice feminists should take heed before going Victorian on us, because in the mid-1800s abortion was illegal.
Nevertheless, the law Allred dusted off says that “Whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.”
That’s a stretch, because although he lacked decorum when describing Ms. Fluke, Rush merely acknowledged, albeit more coarsely, what the law student had already admitted. Truth be damned, publicity whore Gloria Allred rushed to Fluke’s defense, saying “[Rush] has personally targeted her and vilified her, and he should have to bear the consequences of his extremely outrageous, tasteless and damaging conduct.”
Joining Gloria’s ranks are other prominent feminist types. The newest recruits include the founders of the Women’s Media Center; Hanoi Jane Fonda, the woman who made a North Korean rice pot a fashion statement; women’s liberation movement icon and aficionado of aviator glasses, abortion and animal rights, Gloria Steinem; and militant “man-hating” poet, Ms. Magazine editor, Robin Morgan, the cofounder of globalsister.org and author of “Fighting Words: A Toolkit for Fighting the Religious Right.”
The Women’s Media Center prides itself on being “an organization that works to amplify the voices of women in the media through advocacy, media and leadership training, and the creation of original content.” That credo holds true only as long as the voice isn’t conservative and the “creation of original content” doesn’t include anything liberal women might disagree with. Which explains why, despite Limbaugh already apologizing for his comments – not once, but twice -Jane, Robin and the two Glorias are still out for blood.
Thus far, the only thing Gloria Steinem has ever apologized for was to Canada for American conservative radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s stance against homosexuality. Robin Morgan did apologize for two things: being white and having a passport, both marks of “insufferable privilege.”
Jane Fonda embraced the North Vietnamese, straddled an enemy anti-aircraft cannon and shot her big mouth off, making radio broadcasts urging the US military to cease bombing North Vietnam. Sixteen years later, the rabid abortion advocate went on ABC’s 20-20 and apologized to Vietnam veterans and their families, saying, “I was trying to help end the killing.” About the 1972 incident, Fonda told Barbara Walters, “[t]here were times I was thoughtless and careless about it and I’m … very sorry that I hurt [US soldiers].”
When Rush Limbaugh sought forgiveness he said, “I’m the one who had the failing on this, and for that I genuinely apologize for using those words to describe Ms. Fluke.”
Based on an article posted on the Women’s Media website entitled “Limbaugh’s Half-Hearted Apology Isn’t Enough,” it’s clear the ‘sisterhood’ rejects his admission of guilt. Which may be why remorseful radio broadcaster Fonda, together with apologetic co-founders Steinem and Morgan, felt compelled to post an editorial on CNN.com advising listeners to pressure the FCC to “silence [the] controversial conservative.”
The op-ed maintains Rush Limbaugh demeans women, hides behind the First Amendment and downplays vitriol by calling it humorous entertainment. According to the threesome the outrage is not about Limbaugh’s political views, it’s about “toxic hate speech.”
Apparently, the “it’s not about politics” standard applies only when a conservative transmits unforgivable “toxic hate speech” over the airwaves, but if delivered by a liberal comedian on CBS, or HBO it’s acceptable. If that weren’t true, why would Fonda and Steinem willingly appear on potty-mouthed misogynist Bill Maher’s HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher?
Either way, inspired by an activist law student who believes she is constitutionally entitled have her birth control paid for with the people’s money, the trio stress that although Rush is “indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions…he is not constitutionally entitled to the people’s airwaves.”
Issuing a “Towanda the Avenger” rallying cry, the editorial encouraged the “public to take back our broadcast resources,” saying Limbaugh has had “decades to fix his show. Now it’s up to us.”
And so a group of women he once nicknamed the “All American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion” are presently seeking to end Rush Limbaugh’s radio career. The only difference is, rather than being comprised of hormonal females with synchronized menstrual cycles, these are angry post-menopausal pro-choice feminists. Women who’ve have spent the last 20 years anticipating a day when they could subject Rush Limbaugh to a media-administered late-term abortion.
The truth is finally out – when not apologizing to radical Muslims, Barack Obama spends some of his down time making telephone calls to sexually promiscuous females. Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student at Jesuit Georgetown University and past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, due to time constraints was initially denied the opportunity to address Congress regarding her concerns about religious institutions denying women free contraceptives.
Ms. Fluke’s voice was finally heard. Appearing before a Democratic Steering and Policy Committee event, Fluke expounded on the benefits of forcing Catholic institutions, under duress, to provide coverage to sexually active students who would rather not shell out a summer’s salary to accommodate their reproductive rights.
Sexually active spokesperson Sandra F. is apparently so committed to having her extracurricular activities subsidized by the American taxpayer that she admitted to spending $3,000 on birth control in three years. After such a bold admission, how could Barack Obama not make it his personal mission to compel this patriotic nation to assist him in his efforts to provide Ms. Fluke with the proper accoutrements for worry-free coitus all year long?
Fluke’s testimony was so revealing that it even inspired conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to assign Sandra a colorful description with a word so shocking it prompted the President of the United States to drop his golf club and phone up the target of Limbaugh’s attack.
It should warm the cockles of America’s heart to know our President is so concerned about America’s sex life that he took time out of his busy schedule to reach out, touch, “encourage…support and thank” the extraordinary Ms. Fluke for enduring the attack of a puritanical conservative for merely “speaking out about the concerns of American women.”
Time and again, Barack Obama has proven he’s concerned about providing for the educational needs of America’s students. It could be that in addition to re-habbing Sandra’s Rush-tainted reputation, the President may have called to reassure the outspoken reproductive activist that his administration is doubling down on its efforts to make sure Catholic institutions across America make free contraceptives available so that hardworking students can still afford a Starbucks Grande Caramel Macchiato to keep alert during late-night cram sessions.
After the call, Fluke said that Obama “did express his concern for me and wanted to make sure that I was ok. I am. I’m ok.”
Come on people, you gotta hand it to her – any girl who can participate in $3,000 worth of recreational sex in three years and still graduate law school has earned a personal phone call from the leader of the free world inquiring as to whether or not she’s “okay.”
Liberals from MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell to Barack Obama have lauded the law student’s articulate ability to advocate for government-funded contraception while blowing off the First Amendment with forthright insistence that Catholic doctrine, teaching, and conscience be publicly crushed under the bureaucratic boot heel of Birth-Control Barack, Provider of Prophylactics.
Discussing the historic call from President Obama, Sandra said that “what was really personal…was that [Obama] said to tell my parents that they should be proud. And that meant a lot because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me. So I just appreciated that very much.”
During their telephone tête-à-tête, Obama attempted to alleviate the wounded feelings of both Sandra and Sandra’s mom and dad, who Rush Limbaugh dared to suggest should be humiliated by their daughter’s public discussion of her busy sex life, and for taking up the fight that the Catholic church should assist in making sure she’s not “punished with a baby” if she should happen to make a “mistake.
Instead of mentioning Sandra’s apparent appetite for habitual fornication, Obama reassured Ms. Fluke that despite Rush Limbaugh’s rude and crude insinuations, any parent would be proud of a daughter having the boldness to confront stodgy papists by boasting before a Congressional panel about the high cost of unbridled debauchery.
In a press briefing following the phone call, immediately after clarifying that Fluke is properly pronounced “Fluck,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said the President “[e]xpressed his disappointment that she has been the subject of inappropriate personal attacks and thanked her for exercising her rights as a citizen to speak out on an issue of public policy… with a great deal of poise.” What Carney conveniently left out is that the public policy in question denies the right of others to exercise freedom of religion.
When testifying, Sandra did Barry proud by rattling off a litany of typical liberal sob stories. Laid at the feet of religious institutions refusing to provide birth control was responsibility for a married student who had to “stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer” and the distressing plight of “women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage,” women who can’t afford 75 cents for a condom or $1.50 per day for birth control pills. What’s a girl to do?
Piling on the guilt, Sandra’s testimony also included references to endometriosis and unreported rape, along with an anecdote about a lesbian friend with polycystic ovarian syndrome whose treatment required birth control pills; without which her friend developed a massive cyst the size of a “tennis ball,” leading to a partial hysterectomy with resulting menopausal symptoms and infertility – implying that all those conditions resulted, in one way or another, thanks to Jesuit priests who refuse to distribute free birth control.
One thing was clear, Fluke the feisty feminist’s testimony didn’t disappoint. Continuing one, she declared, “As one student put it, ‘this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’ These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.”
That’s for damned sure – the male students at Georgetown apparently aren’t burdened in the least, and thanks to the efforts of one Sandra Fluke, are probably all quite relaxed.
If Georgetown University should insist upon applying the Jesuit cura personalis creed Sandra Fluke cited, then with the exception of complimentary birth control and abortion, it appears that her telephone buddy Barack is ready to regulate the Church into submission, and through government mandates assure that her recreational sex needs be given priority over the infallible teachings of the church.
In the end, Rush apologized. However, Rush Limbaugh’s initial remarks about Sandra Fluke along with the President’s personal phone call may have accidentally furthered world peace. After all was said and done and thanks to the testimony of Sandra Fluke, at least now Israeli Prime Minister Bebe Netanyahu knows exactly what it takes to get Barack Obama to talk to him again on the phone.
Originally posted at BIG Hollywood
In an effort to further promote the message of love, peace and the type of compassion intrinsic to all dedicated liberals, Alec Baldwin, a paunchy comedian with anger issues, called attention to what he feels is Michele Bachmann’s inability to articulate by inarticulately spewing obscenities in the Minnesota congresswoman’s direction by way of Twitter.
Within seconds of Michele announcing she’d decided to launch a bid for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, it became clear that not one iota of liberal negativity toward conservatives has abated.
Over the past few days, the rock world has joined the fun by publicly stepping forward in an effort to send a message to the latest object of targeted political ridicule, Michele Bachmann. The goal is to drive home the point that liberal rock musicians disapprove of both Bachmann’s politics and audacity in thinking she actually has a chance to send honorary rock star Barack Obama back to Chicago.
Following Alec Baldwin’s Twitter tirade, Tom Petty, a Mad Hatter in sunglasses, decided it was his turn to deny Bachmann, without explanation, the use of one of his hit songs. Petty is so anti-GOP he forbade Michele Bachmann from playing “American Girl” as a musical backdrop to her announcement to run for president.
Apparently, the last thing Tom Petty wants to be associated with is writing the signature anthem that could accompany a female Republican candidate on the trip from Minnesota to the White House. So, to prevent that from happening, the rocker sent a three-word message to Michele: “Cease and desist.”
It’s doubtful that Tom Petty would decline $275 per person ticket proceeds based on who concertgoers supported in the last election. Yet, rock musicians who refuse, due to partisan politics, to let conservative candidates use songs for campaign backdrops forget that many of their fans are conservatives.
It’s no secret; Tom Petty isn’t a fan of the Right. When George W. Bush ran for governor of Texas, the genial GW pulled a Michele Bachmann and complimented the songwriter by using “I Won’t Back Down” as a campaign song. The unappreciative Petty had his publisher warn the campaign that using the ballad could send a false impression (Heaven forbid) that Petty endorsed Bush, and ordered the gubernatorial team to pull the song.
Tom Petty is one of a large herd of liberal singers and songwriters who sell their wares like capitalists on steroids to anyone and everyone, but when a conservative candidate identifies with one of their songs, out of fear of being perceived as leaning to the right hawkers of concert T-shirts and tacky glassware suddenly become all partisan and possessive.
Yet when Democrats like Black Socks Spitzer of New York and John ‘My-Wife-Has-Cancer-While-I’m-Having-an-Affair’ Edwards used Heartbreaker music as campaign anthems, Tom the Perpetually Petty fully endorsed both Lotharios using the extremely apropos “Won’t Back Down” ditty.
The “You Can Call Me Al” and “Don’t Stop” crews are proud to have signature songs associated with Al ‘Crazed Sex Poodle’ Gore and impeached adulterer Bill Clinton, but Sarah Palin shaking hands and hugging babies in time to “Barracuda” irked female rock group Heart so much the duo threatened a lawsuit if Sarah didn’t pick another tune.
Truth is, in the world of rock and roll, the liberal malady is endemic. In the 1980’s Bruce Springsteen took on the Gipper over Reagan’s use of the song “Born in the USA.” During the 2004 presidential election, in an effort to save the USA from a second Bush term, Bruce partnered with über-liberal left-wing group MoveOn.org to headline a star-studded caravan of whiners in a Vote for Change Tour.
The 2004 MoveOn.org/rock-and-roll effort failed and Bush won reelection, which proves there are more Republican voters than liberals realize. If, as a group, conservatives boycotted downloading music from iTunes and stopped buying concert tickets, many artists who feel comfortable insulting Republicans for sport would definitely take a hit in the pocketbook.
Then again, one has to wonder if someone like Bruce Springsteen even comprehends the concept that the people he slurs with his political invectives have the monetary power to affect The Boss’s bottom line. After all, didn’t Springsteen say Obama “speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years?”
Even still, the liberal Step Away From the Song list goes on and on: Pretty boy Jon Bon Jovi told Sarah Palin not to use “Who Says You Can’t Go Home.” The Foo Fighters and Van Halen dissed John McCain; Bruce Hornsby felt Sean Hannity’s use of his song “The Way it Is” shouldn’t be the way it is; and rock group Rush informed Rand Paul he’s no “Tom Sawyer.”
By now, Republicans should know better than to provide ammunition for the left by failing to stringently follow copyright laws and respect property ownership rights. Yet, a politically partisan situation still presents an opportunity to learn a profound lesson for those on both sides of the political aisle.
Liberal musicians should understand that having a fan base largely made up of those without the ability to pay $1.99 to download a song or lay out close to three bills for a concert ticket isn’t going to ensure their rock star lifestyle for very long.
For those heartbroken by Petty Heartbreaker, conservatives must take their eyes off the “Yes We Can” free-for-all where liberal politicians sway and wave in time to music amidst showers of balloons filled to capacity with Democrat hot air. It’s time to realize the same standard does not and will never apply to Grand Ole or Tea Party candidates. Just because liberal musicians become gazillionaires with the help of Republican fans doesn’t mean those same rich rock stars will show appreciation by treating conservative candidates with respect.
For those on the right, the salient point is this: liberal politicians are never denied rights to artists’ theme songs; quite the contrary, they are encouraged to use them. Conservatives politicians should not be so naïve as to assume similar rules apply to the likes of Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann.
With that in mind, Bachmann and Harley-riding Barracuda Palin should rethink forgoing the mud wrestling fight Michele claims the media is itching for and hit the ring to work out which lady will seek permission to claim Carrie Underwood’s “All-American Girl” and whose anthem will ultimately be conservative rocker Kid Rock’s “Born Free.”