Tag Archives: Sandra Fluke

Joe Biden, ‘Practicing Catholic’

Originally posted at American Thinker

Amid all the smirking, chortling, and “give me a break, kid” sniggering that ill-mannered Joe Biden exhibited at the 2012 vice presidential debate, when he piously explained his stance on abortion, he exposed in totality the hypocrisy of liberal thinking.

Toward the end of the debate, Biden’s friend and one time houseguest, moderator Martha Raddatz, posed the following question to the candidates: “We have two Catholic candidates … [a]nd I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion[.]”

After Paul Ryan expressed how personal faith impacts his pro-life views, Joe Biden sobered up for a second and said, “My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life.”

Like many liberals, whether it’s a game of constitutional Twister or flexible religious creed, Joe fashions his faith to accommodate his personal beliefs.  Therefore, the vice president and the enthusiastically pro-abortion Barack Obama both feel comfortable calling themselves Christian.

Mr. Biden identifies with Roman Catholicism but doesn’t let that identity get in the way of his support of policy that directly contradicts church teaching on the sanctity of life.  Joe may believe he’s been “practicing” Catholicism his whole life, but he’d better keep those training wheels on his theological bicycle.

Echoing fellow Catholic Nancy Pelosi, Joe told Martha that except when it comes to the legally sanctioned death of innocent human beings, Catholicism has “particularly informed [his] social doctrine.”

According to Joe, “[t]he Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who-who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help,” which Biden agrees with except when he’s approving of brutally dismantling helpless innocents “who can’t take care of themselves.”

But isn’t that what liberals do?  Quote Scripture and fund Planned Parenthood?  Talk about caring for the “least of these” and then lobby for dilation and curettage?  Receive communion and vote “yea” for partial-birth abortion?

After attempting to convince America of his firm commitment to the largest Christian church in the world, Joe Biden repeated twice that, “with regard to abortion,” the church’s position that “life begins at conception” is de fide, or “belonging to the essentials of the faith, by virtue of a papal ruling.”  Happy-go-lucky Joe said he accepts “divinely revealed teaching,” but only in his “personal life.”

In other words, Joe Biden’s liberal form of religion says that in the political realm he can grant himself dispensation to approve of, fund, and justify the murder of the unborn, all of which he claims he shuns when he’s at home or attending Mass.  Sorry, Joe, but Pontius Pilate found out that personal disapproval doesn’t erase the stain of innocent blood from guilty hands.

Biden further extended Christian charity to Raddatz, Ryan, and the Sandra Flukes of the world, as well as to “equally devout Christians, Muslims, and Jews,” whom Joe believes also condone abortion on demand.  Joe Biden explained that as a Christian, he cannot impose his unwavering devotion to Catholic doctrine on others.  However, he is perfectly comfortable with imposing an agonizing death on those whom, if he’d walk in the faith he professes, he could save.

For the entirety of the debate, Joe hid his Roman Catholic “light under a barrel,” especially when, referring to Paul Ryan, he said that “unlike my friend here, the-the congressman, I-I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body.”

Winding down his touching soliloquy on faith, Joe stressed that when it comes to abortion, “[i]t’s a decision between them and their doctor.  In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that[.]”  And Joe Biden is certainly not going to let God or the Catholic Church sway or interfere with that opinion.

In light of Biden’s lopsided philosophy, one can’t help but wonder whether the form of trendy religiosity he professes also believes that Jesus had no right to tell the adulterous woman to go “and sin no more.”  After all, she was a woman, and it was her body.

In the end, Joe Biden can smirk, sneer, and disparage Paul Ryan and his stance on abortion that marries truth, core conviction, and selflessness with personal faith all he wants.  For those who had ears to hear, Biden’s apostate theological view concerning abortion confirmed during the debate that, as Peter said in 2 Peter 3:3, “in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.”  And those scoffers occupy the pews of the liberal Democratic Party, right alongside “practicing Catholics” like Joe Biden.

Joe Biden Peddles Free Colonoscopies

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Talking up Barack Obama’s commitment to Medicare in Florida, Joe Biden delivered a promise to seniors that he must believe will sew up the Sunshine State for Obama: free colonoscopies.

Although free contraceptives would normally be tantalizing bait for the bridge/billiards/ bingo set, what Sandra Fluke deems important might not cut it for the residents of the Century Village Clubhouse in Boca Raton.  So, remaining in the same anatomical vicinity and speaking from a general area of expertise, Joe reassured seniors that doctors could embark on a tour of their lower intestines for a zero co-pay.

In addition to promising free colonoscopies, full-of-it Joe also offered a “firm testimonial for the president when it comes to his stewardship of the US relationship with Israel.”

Adapting his stump speech to appeal to the religious persuasion of some of his audience, Biden said “Although I was raised by a righteous Christian, my dad, I was raised by an awful lot of folks back home politically who taught me early on, along with my pop, that we have certain special obligations around the world. One of those, one of those, is Israel.”

After mentioning Israel, Joe said, “I’m not going to talk about Israel today.” Then the Vice President, sounding like he might be the one suffering from senile dementia himself, said “I just want to say one thing. I just want to tell you how proud I am, how proud I am to stand shoulder to shoulder with a guy who has done more for Israel’s physical security than any president of the eight I’ve served with.”

Joe should have first asked for a show of hands from those in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease prior to declaring: “Everyone knows, everyone in this room knows that President Obama has increased the benefits available to people on Medicare by the action he took.”

Although Obama gutted Medicare to keep Obamacare “deficit neutral,” Mr. Biden stressed that seniors are “[n]ow able to go get a wellness exam.”  What Joe didn’t elaborate on was what Obamacare covers if that wellness exam found them…er, not so well.  Vice President Biden also neglected to explain the President’s view on end-of-life care and whether those exhibiting a “joy of life” would be more likely to get the pacemaker or the pain killer.

Then, the Vice President explained:  “and guys, if you conclude you need a colonoscopy because of the feeling you had or you need a breast health examination, you don’t have to pay a co-pay for that.” The 69-year-old Vice President implying personal knowledge of a “feeling” many seniors have concerning colon health probably introduced a dose of relatable familiarity into an already thrilling event.

Biden went on to hammer Romney/Ryan’s credibility when it comes to issues of Social Security and Medicare and warn how seniors would be negatively affected if the Republican team was elected.

Joe Biden implored: “A lot of you who are my age, you know one of the things we learn is, it’s not just what you say, it’s what you’ve done. And ladies and gentlemen, I’d just ask you, who is likely to be telling you the truth? Someone who’s spent 40 years of his life defending Medicare… or these folks who’ve already demonstrated what they’re prepared to do?”

Bingo Joe! But what about President Obama?  Hasn’t he proven to Americans of all ages that whether it’s healthcare, Medicare cuts, or his dismissive and sometimes contemptuous treatment of the nation of Israel, “it’s not just what you say, it’s what you’ve done?” Therefore, despite a “righteous Christian” like Joe Biden promising free colonoscopies, hopefully, clear-thinking senior citizens already know that what Barack Obama has both said and done is the surest indicator of “who is likely to be telling the truth.”

Sextra Credit and the Rehabilitation of Sluts

Originally posted at American Thinker

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.

Liberal Women Speak with a Whole New Voice

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

As a group, Democrats provide tons of fodder for humor. But by far the most ridiculous thing liberal women have done to date is dress up like female genitalia to make a statement at the RNC.

When attending political events, conservatives usually don stars and stripes — the symbol of patriotism. On the other hand, Code Pink arriving in Tampa dressed like giant vaginas says a lot about how they perceive themselves.  Rest assured, the women wearing pink genital suits are the same ones who, under different circumstances, would be offended if men viewed them as, well, walking vaginas.

Nevertheless, Code Pink is most recognizable as the liberal group of anti-war protesters headed up by former economist/nutritionist Medea Benjamin — not to be confused with Tyler Perry’s Madea, star of Madea’s Big Happy Family.

Besides encouraging women to dress in odd-looking pink costumes, Code Pink’s Medea spends most of her time fighting for peace and social justice and handcuffing herself to the gates of the White House.  Ms. Benjamin is so dedicated an activist that in 2005 she was one of “1000 women collectively nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.”

This year, convention-buster Medea and her band of oversized vaginas descended on Tampa with a specific goal.  Besides being there to arrest Condoleezza Rice for war crimes, the peace-loving V-Girls are also combining their efforts to send a message to Mitt the millionaire and to hold up flamingo pink “Celebrate Life End the War” banners in protest of the GOP’s “attack” on abortion rights.

A troupe of  “dancing vaginas” had plans to dance it up at Marco Rubio’s Cuban event, pop in on NRA Second Amendment events, and raise eyebrows at a faith-centered gathering held by feminist enemy #1 Ralph Reed and his evangelical Faith and Freedom coalition.

When asked why the RNC protest crowds were so small this year, head vajay-jay Medea came up with excuses that ranged from protestors’ disgust with the two-party system to the inclement weather to implying that Occupy Wall Street didn’t show because the anti-Semitic class warriors living in tents while toting around iPhones and MacBooks, tend to be “very poor people” that can’t afford airfare.

Although the police were pleasant, Medea said that the girls felt like vaginas stuck in a war zone. Speaking on behalf of the pink polyester-clad group, Ms. Benjamin said the “barricades and fences” made all the ladies “feel sort of like terrorists.”

The Code Pink spokes-vagina expressed the opinion that she felt the police presence was “overkill,” because only “a handful of …black bloc kids were smashing a window or two.”  Evidently, Medea doesn’t have a problem with vandals smashing windows because “insurance companies pay the businesses to replace the windows.”

Besides making a statement in protest of Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment, above all the vaginas’ main objective was to address Paul Ryan’s budget, which all the ladies (plus one man secure enough in his manhood to dress up like a vagina) fear will slash “essential services to poor women” and cut funding to highly-esteemed abortion provider Planned Parenthood.

So this time it’s happening in Tampa, Florida – left-wing protestors have clothed themselves in the sort of attire that allows liberal women – who often accuse men of thinking with their genitals for lack of a normal brain – to show America that their intelligence resides in that same region.

Moreover, while it’s unlikely that contraceptive queen Sandra Fluke will don a vagina suit for her star turn at the DNC podium, based on the source of her below-the-belt emphasis wearing one could sum up the entire point of her message without her ever having to utter a single word.

Liberal Comics Free to Use Rape, Abortion Gags Without Fear of P.C. Police

Originally posted at BIG Hollywood

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood and NARAL/Pro-Choice America’s president Nancy Keenan, together with Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University flunky Barack Obama drags around to help legitimize the contraceptive mandate, are all slated to be guest speakers at the DNC pro-abortion jamboree in Charlotte, North Carolina.  The thrust of the message will be that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan dislike all women, including their “mothers and first wives,” even though both men love their mothers and both have had only one wife.

In the run-up to the convention, liberal women have been motivated to portray Republicans as Neanderthals who reference rape in a lackadaisical manner and want to deprive women of their right to choose. The goal is to prove to America that those on the right do not take rape seriously and are hostile toward the issues that plague womenfolk.

Yet, a contradiction exists, because if a Democrat comedienne or politician uses violence against women as fodder for laughs, the perpetually offended either say nothing or chuckle right along with the rest of them.

Take for instance shock comedienne Sarah Silverman. In 2008, Silverman worked overelderly Jews, urging them to move to Florida to ensure that then-candidate Barack Obama would secure the Sunshine State and win the election. Silverman is so tight with the President that when the duo met face-to-face and he asked her what was next for her, she told him “I’m going to be naked in a movie!” To which the highly intrigued Obama responded, “You’ll have to send me that.

Besides being paid good money to exploit her full frontal nudity in an indie film, Silverman regularly mocks the seriousness of abortion and if need be, to up the ante, will even weave rape jokes into her outrageous comedy routine. The bawdy comedienne actually attempts to get laughs at the expense of rape survivors and aborted babies by making victims of violence the butt of jokes.

One time Silverman tweeted out a before-and-after-abortion picture of her bloated and then flat stomach on Twitter. In some circles, maintaining a lighthearted view of abortion could be considered very 21st century, but one can’t help but wonder whether Obama thought her tweet was informative or amusing. After all, the President did stress that besieged Missouri Congressman Todd Akin’s view on a woman’s right to choose “represented a ‘desire to go backwards instead of forwards’ … to fight fights that were settled 20 or 30 years ago.”

Utilizing social media to promote abortion on demand is something Richards and Keenan would likely applaud for its creativity. Therefore, it’s highly doubtful that contraception doyen Sandra Fluke will be taking Silverman to task during the DNC Convention.

In the movie “The Aristocrats, “a documentary that challenged 100 comedians to offend its audience as ingeniously as possible,” Silverman did just that when she said that 79-year-old iconic radio and TV personality Joe Franklin raped her. In response to being welcomed to the stage at the Hollywood Improv while Mötley Crüe’s “Girls, Girls, Girls” played in the background she reminisced, saying, “This song brings me back … I was brutally raped to this song.” Playing off the stereotypical Jewish-girl fantasy of marrying a doctor, Silverman shared that her doctor raped her and called it “bittersweet.”

In the ever-fluctuating liberal rule book, joking about rape is generally only acceptable if you’re a female; men might need to adhere to a different set of standards.

Oh, but then again there’s that “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me” Democrat Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken. Before gracing the state of Minnesota with his well-honed political skills, Al Franken, aka Stuart Smalley, was a comedy writer for “Saturday Night Live.”

In 1995, a New York magazine reporter wrote that Franken, a man who is currently out there campaigning with Vice President Joe Biden and has joined forces with other liberals to expose the Republican “war on women,” joked about raping CBS veteran reporter Lesley Stahl.

Franken’s comedic genius was revealed when he said, “And, ‘I give the pills to Lesley Stahl. Then, when Lesley’s passed out, I take her to the closet and rape her.’ Or, ‘That’s why you never see Lesley until February.’ Or, ‘When she passes out, I put her in various positions and take pictures of her.’”

In liberal circles, a comment interpreted as minimizing the horror of rape is the perfect vehicle to further a radical feminist platform – assuming it’s a conservative male making the remarks. If a liberal, pro-abortion advocate makes similar or worse jokes about abortion or the horror of rape, liberals view it as benign and say nothing.

What is surprising here is not that the left is castigating pro-life Republican leaders for what they call a war on women, but their willingness to overlook jokes about rape if the remark comes from one of their own.

So there it is – once again duplicitous liberals get to make up us-versus-them rules. It’s right there in the official War on Women Rulebook. As the left defines the rubric, they also determine when the rules change and who can and cannot change them. If the likes of Silverman, Sen. Franken, and even million-dollar Obama contributor/misogynist Bill Maher make vile offensive jokes about women, rest assured, double-dealing pro-choice liberals will gladly absolve them.

Barack Obama’s Idea of Staying in the Word and Living Like Jesus

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Prior to the election in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama showed up in Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California.  It was there that Warren asked Barack Obama what Christianity meant to him and this is how he answered:

As a starting point, it means I believe in – that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. Yes, I know that I don’t walk alone. And I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis, hopefully will be washed away.

But what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words, but through deeds, the expectations, I think, that God has for us. And that means thinking about the least of these.

Despite his “above my pay grade” answer to Rick Warren’s controversial “when does life begin” question, Barack Obama went on to win the election. Over the last four years the President has not let his “sense of obligation” toward Jesus stand in the way of his continued support for abortion on demand as well as all manner of liberal social policy whose precepts are denounced, not extolled, by the God Obama claims to worship.

For instance, with all that “thinking about the least of these” Barack Obama claims he does, he sure hasn’t given the helpless and defenseless unborn so much as a second thought. If the President’s true goal is to “carry out in some small way what [Jesus] intends” surely he can’t believe that it’s the Lord’s will for His followers to support or promote the destruction of God-ordained human life?

Now it’s less than three months until the next election and the President is again publicly espousing a deep commitment to his Christian faith.  Barack Obama, together with his opponent Mitt Romney, agreed to a faith-based interview, this time with Washington National Cathedral magazine.

President Obama must think the American people will overlook his request that the Jesuit priests at Georgetown University cover up the IHS monogram before he would speak there, or that he mocked Christians as being people who exhibit “antipathy” toward others while clinging to guns and religion.

Could it be that in Barack’s skewed understanding of Christianity, revoking the conscience clause for his Christian brethren who work in the medical field is how he “carries out in some small way” what he perceives to be what God intends?

In the “words and deeds” department, a Christian omitting the phrase “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence doesn’t exactly jibe with Jesus’ words: “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.”

The truth is, the president has not vacillated in the slightest in his support of the anti-biblical policy of government-funded abortion, and recently “evolved” to a place where he now has a favorable opinion of same-sex marriage too.

Nonetheless, in the interview, Obama, who faithfully upholds the premise that women should be in control over life and death, shared that he believes “at the end of the day, God is in control.” God is either in control or He isn’t – it can’t be both ways.

The President also shared that “I have a job to do as president, and that does not involve convincing folks that my faith in Jesus is legitimate and real.” When Jesus walked the earth He made it quite clear that there is no need for convincing, because Jesus said, “a tree is known by its own fruit.”  So if persuasion is necessary maybe it’s because the fruit is, shall we say, questionable.

The problem is that in other ways Obama does plenty of “convincing.”  The President’s public profession of faith while approving and promoting blatant rebellion leads the impressionable to falsely believe a Christian is someone who quotes Scripture, supports Planned Parenthood, and officiates over same-sex marriage ceremonies.

And although he ignores his own flesh-and-blood brother George, who lives in a slum in Nairobi, the President expressed that his faith in God is directly tied to his belief in a compassionate role for government, saying, “From slavery to the suffrage movement to civil rights, faith – and the moral obligations that derive from our faith – have always helped us to navigate some of our greatest moral challenges with a recognition that there’s something bigger than ourselves: we have obligations that extend beyond our own self-interest.”

Does Obama grasp that “extending beyond our own self-interest” doesn’t quite fit with the right-to-choose paradigm he so ardently defends and that “extending beyond our own self-interest” probably has more do with helping his impoverished brother George than providing free contraceptives to the likes of Democrat Convention speaker Sandra Fluke?

That aside, in the Washington Cathedral interview the President made what is likely to be the most astounding declaration about his faith thus far when he said, “I do my best to live out my faith, and to stay in the Word, and to make my life look more like His.”

On the President’s part, spiritual goals are always commendable. Unfortunately, his self-created walk of faith often leads him and those he influences into extremely dark places.  Moreover, the President accepts and rejects Scripture according to personal moral preferences.  He dissects God’s Word and picks and chooses according to which verses he can use and manipulate to uphold reprobate liberal ideology.

This election year, maybe true people of faith should consider that regardless of how he perceives his walk with the Lord, Barack Obama is notorious for rejecting the hard sayings of the One he claims he wants his life to emulate.  As for the Scripture he says he’s “staying in,” according to the “Word made flesh,” not accepting that Word in its entirety is synonymous with rejecting the Christ the President claims to follow.

Obama Dazzles Denver Dames

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

The Obama 2012 campaign, featuring Sandra Fluke, the “eloquent advocate for women’s health” and Georgetown University Law School graduate whose claim to fame is complaining that for lack of free contraceptives a friend with polycystic ovary disease lost an ovary, converged on Denver, Colorado.

The thrust of yesterday’s truth-stretching stump speech was to convince 4,000 swooning women that Mitt Romney is Ward Cleaver.  Primarily, the President was there to persuade the ladies that electing him for a second term would ensure that women’s issues would continue to take precedence over lesser concerns such as Afghanistan, the economy, the housing crisis, national security, illegal immigration, unemployment and anything else Obama has royally messed up.

To officially kick off the day, Obama referenced the Aurora and Oak Creek, Wisconsin shootings, promising that “This is going to have to stop. And as an American family — as one American family — we’re going to have to come together and look at all the approaches that we can take to try to bring an end to it.”

Shifting away from hinting at curtailing Second Amendment rights, the President then appealed to a full palette of women in the crowd.  The group included moms, grand moms, and those who exercised the right to choose not to be moms.

Obama told his female fans that not electing him for a second term would have “a direct impact — not just on your lives but on the lives of your children and the lives of your grandchildren.” What he failed to elaborate on was that the “direct impact” of not electing him for a second term would be a positive one.

Nevertheless, in the same way Obama stresses that accomplished individuals shouldn’t take credit for their successes, in like manner he took no credit for his failures and passed blame to G.W. Bush for the policies he said “got us into this mess” — policies that, Lord have mercy, he’s “spent… three and a half years trying to recover from.”

Alluding to the sacred rite of abortion, Obama referred to it as women making their “own health care choices.” He told the crowd that they deserved a president who would fight to uphold that care and that Mitt Romney would “take us back to the policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century.”

Then, Obama chronicled a litany of 1950’s-type things that will happen if Romney is elected president, some of which included: “going broke just because one of your loved ones gets sick,” being denied “coverage based on a preexisting condition, like breast cancer, or cervical cancer,” being charged  “more for care just because you’re a woman,” having “bosses” make health care decisions for women and, without free contraception, facing a future full of “ovarian and other cancers.”

And of course he broached the fate of female students having to “choose between textbooks or the preventive care” — like a spur-of-the-moment “preventive care” visit to Planned Parenthood.

The President accused Mitt Romney of disagreeing with him and Ms. Fluke when Obama said that Romney, rather than retaining the right to kill unborn children dead, would take the Affordable Care Act and “kill it dead.” Then, he said Romney would do the unimaginable and “get rid of” Planned Parenthood.

While in Denver, Obama also took credit for saving people sentenced to die from cancer and dragged his dead mother into the conversation who, like the late Ranae Soptic Romney-killed-her lie, the President claims might have lived if she had “spent less time focusing on how she was going to pay her bills and more time on getting well.”

Barry talked about his late mother Stanley Ann “being in a better place,” mentioned how an Obama Presidency 2.0 is the only thing standing between Sasha and Malia living in an America where they’d have “fewer choices than anybody’s boys do,” and encouraged illegal Dreamers when he vowed that he’d keep “building an economy where no matter what you look like or where you come from, you can make it here if you try.”

But despite shirking responsibility for the abysmal state of the nation and attempting to scare the bejeezus out of American women, probably the most stunning statement had to do with Barack Obama discussing equal pay.

Clearly, Barack Obama must have forgotten that his own female staffers are paid on average $11,000 less than the men employed by the White House, because he said “Think about what it means when a woman is the main breadwinner for her family, but she’s taking less pay home, doing the same work as a man, just because she’s a woman. That’s not right.”

Barack ‘Lilly Ledbetter’ Obama might have confused himself with Mitt Romney when he claimed that when the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign “was asked if he’d fight to guarantee an equal day’s pay for an equal day’s work, you know what the campaign said? They said, ‘We’ll get back to you on that.'”

After failing to “get back to” the underpaid women on his own staff, the President then went on to share that he wants his “partner” in the “journey of life,” Michelle — the woman attempting to control the diet of the entire nation — to have “control over her health care choices.”  Obama wants to make sure that “when [Michelle’s] working, she is getting paid the same as men.”

Then, Barack Obama actually spoke these words: “I’ve got to say, first ladies right now don’t — [get paid] — even though that’s a tough job.”

So there it is! In Denver with Sandra Fluke, in addition to healthcare pledges and dire Romney warnings, on behalf of women being properly compensated Obama may have been hinting that if he’s reelected, while Michelle’s enjoying yet another 10 million dollars’ worth of taxpayer-funded vacations, she’ll also earn a paycheck.

Barack Obama’s Silence Speaks Louder than His Words

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?

‘Savage Love’ and the Anti-Bullying Bully

Prior to hearing anti-bullying ‘It Gets Better’ founder/“Savage Love” sex advice columnist/gay activist/guest of Barack Obama Dan Savage ridicule Christian students and demean the Bible, I had no idea that bullying is perfectly acceptable as long as you’re bullying Christian kids.

Guest speaker Dan Savage 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, he used the opportunity to exercise his civic duty and bully the kids who came to the conference from Christian schools in the area.

Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School, said “I thought this would be about anti-bullying.”  Well, that it was! In this case harassment fits the criteria for “anti-bullying,” because according to Mr. Savage, the God of the Bible is one big bully and He and His ignorant followers need to be exposed. Therefore, it was only natural and fitting that a high school journalism conference would turn “into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alXxsKLVofM[/youtube]

After Savage, Bible scholar and “Evolve Already” promoter of marriage equality for gays, attempted to savage Leviticus, Romans and the Apostle Paul, 100 offended high school students stood up and slowly filed out of the conference.

As a result, feeling bullied by students turning their back on him and refusing to listen to his biased tirade, the anti-bullying speaker “began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy assed.”

In other words, for lack of a coliseum filled with hungry lions, the sensitive, accepting, anti-bullying advocate Dan the savage all but attempted to drag100 kids out onto the schoolyard, clobber them with a baseball bat and then, when they raised their hands to thwart the attack, to further the cause of acceptance and love he called them “pansy asses.”

Rick Tuttle described the incident this way: “It became hostile. It felt hostile as we were sitting in the audience – especially towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on.” According to the journalism advisor, the ‘anti-bullying’ speech was “laced with vulgarities and ‘sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.’”

At one point, Tuttle said, Savage described for the teenagers about how “good his male partner looked in a Speedo.” No problem! Every anti-bullying advocate is well aware that shocking and making kids squirm awkwardly in their seats is key when addressing the issue of bullying.

Moreover, one can’t help but wonder if Savage shared with others his appreciation for his ‘husband’s’ physique in swimming attire when he and his spouse Terry Miller were part of the festivities at President Obama’s 2011 LGBT Pride Month reception.

According to one 17-year-old girl in attendance, some of “Savage Love’s” journalism advice included telling the kiddies that “I hope you’re all using birth control…[that]… there are people using the Bible as an excuse for gay bullying, because it says in Leviticus and Romans that being gay is wrong,” and that they can “ignore all the (expletive deleted) in the Bible.”

Without personally knowing any of the children who excused themselves, apparently Savage felt justified berating them as non-bullying students in attendance “hollered and cheered” in approval.  Smarmily and sarcastically, after he was done “beating up the Bible” and beating up Bible-believing kids, he said:

You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible. It’s funny as someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansy-assed people react when you push back.

Reverting back to compassionate liberalism as most liberals do, Savage did eventually say he was sorry “if [he] hurt anyone’s feelings.” Obviously feeling threatened in a room full of teenagers, after apologizing Savage did justify his actions by pointing out that “I have a right to defend myself and to point out the hypocrisy of people who justify anti-gay bigotry by pointing to the Bible and insisting we must live by the code of Leviticus on this one issue and no other.”

What was the National Scholastic Press Association’s (NSPA) response to Savage singling out Christianity, the Bible, and Christian children who thought they were going to a journalism conference?

We appreciate the level of thoughtfulness and deliberation regarding Dan Savage’s keynote address.  Some audience members who felt hurt by his words and tone decided to leave in the middle of his speech, and to this, we want to make our point very clear: While as a journalist it’s important to be able to listen to speech that offends you, these students and advisers had simply reached their tolerance level for what they were willing to hear.

How open-minded of the NSPA.  Maybe next year, in the interest of fairness, they can have a Christian journalist come to the conference and single out a few gay students. With strict instructions to rebuke them freely but only to increase “their tolerance for what they are willing to hear,” he or she can then seat them in the front of the auditorium and force them to have Scripture “thoughtfully and deliberately” read to them from the book of Leviticus and Paul’s letter to the Romans.

In the end, this was yet just another example of liberal hypocrisy and bias, and above all a perfect illustration of jugular-vein justice by those who deem themselves accepting and intelligent.

Nonetheless, one question does come to mind here: Will Mr. Obama be phoning the children who were called “pansy-asses” by his White House guest a la Sandra Fluke, and then mention later at a press conference how terribly his Christian daughters Sasha and Malia would feel being singled out and insulted in such a public way?

Feminists Attempt to Abort Rush Limbaugh’s Broadcast

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.

 

%d bloggers like this: