Posts Tagged ‘Democrats are hypocrites’

The War On Women And The Demon-Possessed Dishonesty Of The Democrat Party

February 28, 2014

There really is a war on women in the world.  But is there any justifiable reason to demonize the Republican Party for it?

Absolutely NOT.

Let’s see if there’s a war on women going on in one the most leftist and most socialist places on earth – the People’s Republic of China.  And you’ll find that holy crap, that George Bush is EVERYWHERE:

China’s women begin to confront blatant workplace bias
Chinese women tired of men-only wanted ads and workplace abuses push regulators and courts to act. A recent case ends with a historic win.
By Julie Makinen
February 28, 2014, 4:00 a.m.

BEIJING— Fresh out of college and facing a mountain of debt, the 21-year-old woman was searching online for jobs when she hit upon a listing that sounded perfect: administrative assistant at a tutoring school in Beijing. She sent in her resume, then reread the ad and noticed that only men were asked to apply for the position.

“I got no response, so I called and asked: If I’m qualified but I’m not male, will I still be considered? The woman who answered said if the ad says men only, it’s men only,” she recalled.

“I really wanted the job. It was already July, past the peak job-finding season, and I had loans to pay.”

Through a nonprofit social justice and public health group, she connected with a lawyer and, after a battle lasting more than a year and a half, won China’s first gender employment discrimination case.

In December, Juren Academy’s principal apologized in court for the men-only ad, and the school agreed to pay about $5,000 in compensation to the woman, who adopted the pseudonym Cao Ju during the high-profile proceedings to shield herself from possible negative fallout.

China’s constitution says all citizens are equal, and the country has laws barring employment discrimination on the basis of gender. In practice, though, regulations are often flouted, enforcement by regulators is lax, and until now courts have been unwilling to take up workplace gender bias cases.

But Cao, her attorney and many other young women like them have started pushing back, challenging blatant discrimination and demanding action from companies, government officials and courts. They are increasingly organizing through nonprofits, professional associations and educational networks; Beijing recently even got its own chapter of the Lean In organization, inspired by Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg.

“A lot of women are now taking a tougher stand; they are no longer willing to tolerate routine abuses and discrimination that have been going on for decades in the workplace,” said Geoffrey Crothall of China Labour Bulletin, a Hong Kong-based advocacy group. “Increasingly, they’re backed by civil society organizations … not only to file legal proceedings but to do publicity and use social media and traditional media to publicize the individual cases and the wider issues they address.”

Beijing’s Working Committee on Women and Children, a government panel, reported in a 2011 study that more than 61% of women said they suffered discrimination in the job search process.

Hurdles faced by women in China’s employment market, even for government jobs, might come as a surprise to foreigners. Female applicants are often asked whether they have a boyfriend or plan to have a baby soon. Female university graduates taking the nation’s civil service exam are questioned about the details of their menstrual cycles, including the age when they got their first period.

“What does it have to do with work?” one woman complained in an interview with the state-run publication China Youth Daily. “Do they think someone whose period starts on the first is more capable for this job than someone whose period starts on the 10th?”

A 2012 study on gender discrimination in employment ads in China looked at more than 1 million online postings and found that more than 10% expressed a preference for male or female applicants. Ads seeking men were more likely to request older, experienced workers, and ads seeking women frequently specified tall, attractive applicants no older than 25, researchers Peter Kuhn of UC Santa Barbara and Kailing Shen of Xiamen University said.

Last winter, a group of women in eight cities complained about such sex-specific ads posted by 267 employers on a popular job website called Zhaopin. The website quickly removed all the postings.

Many women still feel uncomfortable raising their voices individually about discrimination and say they don’t know where to turn for support. In a survey last fall of more than 400 women, Lean In Beijing found that 44% had experienced gender discrimination on the job and that 91% had never heard of an organization devoted to women’s professional development.

The Sunflower Women Workers Center, a nonprofit in the southern city of Guangzhou, found in a fall survey of female factory employees that 70% of respondents said they had been sexually harassed at work and that more than 15% had quit jobs because of harassment. None had sought help from a trade union or women’s group.

[….]

White men rule the world.  Especially in communist China, it seems.  At least if you are morally stupid enough to believe the Democrat Party’s vile propaganda campaign.

One of the worst sexual predators in American history was a white man, all right.  But unfortunately for the Democrat Party lie machine, he was not only a Democrat, but the co-founder of the Progressive Caucus along with Nancy Pelosi.  And of course the most egregious case of sexual predation in the White House in the entirety of American history turns out to be none other than Slick Willie Clinton, DEMOCRAT.  And yeah, for that reason and many others, every single decent American is ashamed of the Clinton presidency.

Hillary Clinton had to be a truly and rabidly vicious shrew to protect her husband’s predation on women in order to protect her own truly selfish interests.  So she had an enemies list, just as ALL Stalinists have.  And on that list was none other than fellow Democrat Claire McCaskill for pointing out that “I don’t want my daughter near him [Bill Clinton].”

What, you say?  That’s ancient history?  Oh, I understand: when you brought up the fact that Mitt Romney may have bullied a kid when he was like nine years old, THAT wasn’t ancient.  When you teed off on George W. Bush with bogus phony documents purporting to make him a draft dodger (ahem, Bill Clinton REALLY IS a draft dodger!!!) back in the Vietnam War THAT wasn’t ancient.  But being true hypocrites without any shame or any decency, the facts surrounding the Clintons are somehow just old and stale and irrelevant.  Because to be a Democrat is to be a lying weasel.

But let’s get more recent.  Let’s talk about Barack Obama.

Right away, a few, a very few, noted that Barack Obama’s cabinet was “shaping up to be a boys’ club.”  He rekindled the truth in that story after publicly commenting on the hotness of a female attorney general.  And then we have a book come out that really just blew the lid off of the fact that Barack Obama had his own personal war on women – with the very few women Obama allowed in his women haters’ club acknowledging how “excluded and ignored” Obama had made them feel:

In an excerpt obtained by The Post, a female senior aide to President Obama called the White House a hostile environment for women.

“This place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” former White House communications director Anita Dunn is quoted as saying. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

Now, are there Republicans who’ve done this crap?  Of course there are.  But if you are saying that Republicans are worse at this than Democrats, you can be described in one word: DISHONEST.

Jesus said, “Let the one among you who has never sinned cast the first stone,” but as we know Democrats literally PISS on Jesus.  And that’s a fact they STILL celebrate.  Barack Obama is a horrible human being who couldn’t care LESS than about either the truth or about not blaming his enemies for what HE HIMSELF IS DOING.

It’s frankly rather stunningly amazing.  The Democrat Party – the epicenter to any actual “war on women” – actually had the chutzpah to claim that Republicans had a war on women because they were against murdering little [GIRL] babies.

But that’s just they did.  Because they are demon-possessed evil.

As anyone who isn’t a fool (i.e., anyone who isn’t a Democrat) knows, sex-selective abortions are only too grave of a problem in abortion.  If I have the right to abort my baby, I have the right to abort my FEMALE baby.  And that is happening so many times on this planet and even in America that we are actually “fundamentally transforming” the healthy ratio between males and females.  There are at least 100 million “missing females” because of this barbaric practice called abortion.

Oh, by the way, you can learn about “sex-selective abortion” and at the very top of the list are those damn leftist socialist in the People’s Republic of China again.

Who wants to stop it?  Republicans.  Who wants to keep murdering girl babies?  Democrats who want to protect a “woman’s right to choose” to kill her baby for ANY reason under the sun.

But because we want to stop the immoral killing of girls, we have a “war on women” according to demon-possessed cockroaches.

The other thing is, I know quite a few pro-lifers.  And the very most ARDENT of them are invariably female.  Especially those who have had children and simply cannot fathom the view that their babies could ever have been considered as non-human goop that could have been callously killed and tossed away like garbage (as Democrats of course believe).

We’ve got Planned Parenthood – as Democrat Party of an organization as there is – exposed as being FINE with sex-selective abortions targeting female babies as well as the ugliest kind of racism.  And yes, the Democrats at Planned Parenthood were documented to be all to willing to help the sexual exploitation of girls industry by helping pimps get their brothels.  Democrats are truly awful and vile human beings in public; how much MORE are they as depraved and wicked as depraved and wicked can get in private.

And of course we have Democrats convicted of murder for their depraved abortion “treatment.”  Let’s call it the Democrat Party “horror show.”

Right now, as we speak, Democrats in Massachusetts are being so awful to a girl and her family it is beyond monstrous.  Liberals literally stole a girl from her parents.  A liberal judge issued a gag order forbidding the parents from having any right to speak out against the crimes that were being committed against their daughter.  This 14-year old girl was FINE until the liberal fascist State took her away.  Now she is so sick she is in a wheelchair and if that isn’t insane enough she has been denied two-years’ of education as your Democrats never allowed her to have a teacher.  Or a pastor or priest, in violation of her religious freedoms.

That is what ObamaCare looks like.  Just wait for it to hit you and your family.

When I say that Democrats are evil, I’m not just providing my opinion, I’m telling you a FACT.

But it doesn’t matter.  To be a Democrat is to be the very worst kind of hypocrite that there has ever been.

So the GOP is the Party of “war on women” because unlike Democrats we think that not only babies, but FEMALE babies, have a right to live.

And is spite of all their documented crimes against women, the Democrat Party gets to be the one who makes this charge against the Party of life.  Because the mainstream media is if anything even MORE evil than the Democrat Party they protect.

That’s how you can know that the beast is coming.  Because truth simply has no place for our “modern society.”  We have become a people who are more exposed to lies and more deeply imbibe lies than any people who ever lived.

Obama Wants To Force You To Surrender ‘Money You Don’t Need’

July 15, 2011

At the center of his tiny, shriveled little cockroach soul, Barack Obama is a Marxist.

Allow me to recite the central tenet of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  And please, PLEASE someone explain to me how Barack Obama and the modern Democrat Party are NOT Marxist given that they believe the SAME garbage.  Liberals constantly huff at the suggestion that they are socialists as though it is the silliest damn thing they have ever heard.  The thing is that they don’t want their ideology identified with socialism merely because it is a bad word.  BUT “IT” IS A BAD WORD FOR A REASON, AND “IT” IS IN FACT PRECISELY WHAT THEY ARE.

The shoe fits, and Obama and his socialist Democrats need to wear it.

Obama Aims for the Money You Don’t “Need”
Mike Brownfield
July 13, 2011 at 9:55 am

Over the past several weeks, America has seen on grand display in Washington a singular mindset emanating from the White House: We must raise taxes so that we can keep on spending. This week, though, America was treated to something different—a glimpse inside President Barack Obama’s mind, a roadmap of his economic worldview. And what was revealed was a philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with America’s job creators.

That insight came during the President’s press conference on Monday in which he broached the subject of raising taxes as part of the debt limit deal:

“And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

If you read between the lines, which doesn’t take much decoding, President Obama effectively believes that any income you have which you don’t “need” belongs to the government, as writer John Steele Gordon explains in Commentary. And, Gordon writes, Obama’s statement “demonstrates an astonishing economic illiteracy”:

To be sure, someone earning a great deal of money has an income greater than what he spends. . . But, unlike Scrooge McDuck, the rich do not put the excess in a vast money bin and frolic about in it. They invest it. What a concept! Where does Obama think new capital comes from, the tooth fairy?

How much income is too much? It’s hard to say, and the President doesn’t put a number on it. But that high-tax policy is so important to the President that he is willing to personalize the issue, offering up the fact that he has made a boatload selling books and can afford to pay taxes on it, as he did in his Twitter town hall when he remarked:

“But what I’ve also said is people like me who have been incredibly fortunate, mainly because a lot of folks bought my book . . . for me to be able to go back to the tax rate that existed under Bill Clinton, to pay a couple of extra percentage points so that I can make sure that seniors still have Medicare or kids still have Head Start, that makes sense to me.”

On top of personalizing the issue, the President is pulling out all the stops in a take-no-prisoners demagoguery campaign, ranging from the subtle to the explicit. His criticisms of tax loopholes for corporate jets and oil and gas companies are legion, his calls for millionaires and billionaires to “pay a little bit more” are anything but subtle, and his threats over the failure to reach a tax-soaked debt limit deal are frightening.

The President’s “your money is the government’s money” mindset is having an impact on the mind’s of America’s job creators. A new survey of small business owners and executives prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows how the U.S. political environment has impacted the business environment, and the insights are troubling.

According to the survey, a vast majority of small business owners (84 percent) say the U.S. economy is on the wrong track. Tellingly, the threat of regulation and taxes are the two issues in Washington posing the greatest threat to their business, while economic uncertainty, America’s growing debt and deficit and Obamacare are top challenges as well. And when asked whether they’d like Washington to lend a hand or get out of they, 79 percent choose the latter.

And therein lies the difference. When President Obama sees successful businesses, he sees green. And when they look back, they see red. The President wants to take more so he can spend more and do more, whereas those who are the engine of America’s economy just want the government to do less so they can thrive. Unfortunately, a meeting of the minds seems a long way off.

Democrats are at their hearts Marxists and fascists who believe that you and everything you produce belongs to the government – and that the government should belong entirely to THEM so that they have the power to decide who wins and who loses.  I’ve written about this fact at length before.  Again, this is a central tenet of Marxism and socialism, but for some reason we’re not supposed to be able to call these people what they clearly are.

Mind you, this disgraceful little turd Barry Hussein is a HYPOCRITE Marxist, as the following evidence of what a stingy, selfish, greedy little swine Obama was with his own money just a few short years ago when he was a rich liberal who didn’t think anyone was watching.  Amazingly, the facts show that Obama didn’t seem to think there was such a thing as “money he didn’t need” then:

Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

Obama seemed to “need” every penny of his money when he was selfishly refusing to give basically ANYTHING to the poor that he now so hypocritically and self-righteously claims he cares about.  And that is a FACT.  So when this vile little hypocrite weasel self-righteously lectures us on how much we should be willing to give more in taxes to Big Brother, just realize it is coming from the very worst kind of demagogue and liar.

Then there’s the fact that if these rich liberals want to give more money, THEN THEY CAN AND SHOULD GIVE MORE MONEY.  They can give to charity; they can give to a government fund that uses the money to pay down the debt when they do their taxes.  They keep talking about how generous they should be but they never seem to be generous with their own money.

Let me go on quoting from the same article on liberals and “paying their fair share”:

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And don’t forget the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These people just make me want to lose my lunch into a bucket.  That’s something I wouldn’t mind donating to the government.

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?”  It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function.  Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands.  Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups.  It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity.  James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”  In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state.  They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful.  And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter.  He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government.  He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling.  Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger.  And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor.  And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact.  Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

But let me be even more specific and address Obama directly.  Obama says rich people – who already pay a massive share of the income taxes in America – should have more of their money seized so it can be redistributed in the form of student loans.  What is interesting is that this massively subsidizes the university system that has been almost entirely hijacked by the ideological left.  The more money becomes available in student loans, the more these supposedly “caring” liberals increase the cost of college tuition (the price of which has inflated FAR more than the price of ANY OTHER good or service).  So what happens?  Obama takes money OUT of the private economy, and OUT of the hands of the people who actually create jobs, and puts it into the pockets of liberals in universities who then turn around and raise the cost of tuition to screw college students.  And this “progressive” boondoggle has been going on for YEARS.

THAT’S what liberal compassion looks like: it bascially looks just like the hypocritical, self-righteous face of Barack Obama.