Posts Tagged ‘women’

Do You Want To See The True Ugly Form Of Liberal Progressivism? Just Take A Glance Into Harvey Weinstein’s Shower.

October 12, 2017

Let’s just first understand that Harvey Weinsten, liberal progressive Hollywood gazillionaire, is one of the foremost contributors to everything liberal and everything Democratic Party.

What Weinstein was doing in his shower and in his bedroom and pretty much everywhere else was INFAMOUS in the circle of the Hollywood hypocrite circle.  But the same people who huffed and puffed in horror at every allegation of conservative or Republican scandal refused to lift a finger to actually take any kind of courageous stand for what they dishonestly and hypocritically profess to stand for.  For examples, hard-core leftist celebrities such as Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Russel Crowe did everything they could to cover up for Weinstein, even killing a reporter’s story back in 2004.

Let’s just call this what it is and always HAS been: “stunning hypocrisy.”  But oh, no, the truth is being reported by Faux News, so let’s put on our tinfoil hats and keep believing the leftist lies instead.  “Faux News'” rivals exposed themselves a long time ago: I still remember watching MSNBC and then CNN and hearing the panel on both stations reporting that the U.S. economy was going to tank into oblivion the night Trump was elected.  I just wanted to see some liberal butthurt and I saw it in spades.  And these same liars keep making up fake”news” at a pace that makes your head spin.

This police recording made back in March of 2015 ought to make anyone with a functioning moral conscience puke.  But before I get to that, let’s consider that the same mainstream media people who ILLEGALLY released the audio of the off-camera conversation between Donald Trump and an Access Hollywood reporter somehow managed to hold on to the Weinstein story that revealed far more disgusting behavior from a liberal for YEARS.  It is simply a fact that the media is so rabidly biased it is beyond unreal.  And let’s stop and reflect a moment on how this media machine works: every single time anyone who ever did or ever stood for anything scandalous (e.g. how they connected David Duke To Donald Trump in spite of the fact that the latter had never even HEARD of him) who can be even remotely connected to the Republican Party or the “right” (and the media that has jumped on the term to create an arbitrary false equivalence between this “alt right” and conservative Republicans) every single Republican or conservative has a hundred microphones thrust in their faces and they are forced to comment on and denounce this individual and his or her hate.  They do it all the damn time.  But it is ALWAYS one-sided.  And so even though Hillary took tens of thousands of dollars from Harvey Weinstein, even though Obama took tens of thousands of dollars from Harvey Weinstein, even though he was a mega-giant donor to liberal and leftist causes, the same “reporters” who “report” hit pieces tainting the right and the conservatives and the Republicans with a broad brush every single chance they get won’t do the same with Weinstein and the left that he supported.

NYU Professors – you know, the SAME NYU that shouts down Republicans routinely warned female students not to intern with Weinstein’s company.  This wasn’t something that was only known about at the highest and most inner circles.  This was common knowledge that Weinstein was a thug rapist and a living, breathing, showering PROOF that liberalism equals hypocrisy.  I mean, how about this one: Weinstein had pledged the USC School of Cinematic Arts $5 million to fund an endowment for liberal filmmakers!  So he could have more women to rape, I guess.  But somehow no reporter was up to sniffing out the story???  So somehow the same mainstream media that has missed literally hundreds of cases of leftwing fascist hatred for the 1st Amendment free speech guaranteed by our Constitution also managed to repeatedly just miss doing a story on the decades of abuse and even RAPE committed by a liberal against women and especially women of color.

It wasn’t that they didn’t know.  It was that the didn’t CARE.  And it was that they didn’t WANT to know.  Because he was one of them and not very different from them.  The theme of “the casting couch” is as old as Hollywood, and every single Hollywood  rat bastard liberal plays this rat bastard game and it is common damn knowledge.  And that is because these rat bastards donate money to liberal causes the way the Catholic Church used to accept money to pay for “indulgences” for the forgiveness of sins.  As if God would forgive sins if the sinner paid a bribe to a corrupt priest.  And so caught in his own disgusting scandal, Weinstein promised he would support gun control and go after our 2nd Amendment.  Because that had always worked for him before.

Listen to Weinstein work what I have a feeling he thought was his magic:

Here is the full transcript of the exchange between Harvey Weinstein and Ambra Battilana Gutierrez that took place on March 27, 2015 (and hmmm, that name sounds like not only a woman but a MINORITY woman and yet somehow I’m not hearing anything about the disgusting, despicable treatment from liberals toward minorities):
Weinstein: I’m telling you right now, get in here.
Gutierrez: What do we have to do here?
Weinstein: Nothing. I’m going to take a shower, you sit there and have a drink.
Gutierrez: I don’t drink.
Weinstein: Then have a glass of water.
Gutierrez: Can I stay on the bar?
Weinstein: No. You must come here now.
Gutierrez: No …
Weinstein: Please?
Gutierrez: No, I don’t want to.
Weinstein: I’m not doing anything with you, I promise. Now you’re embarrassing me.
Gutierrez: I know, I don’t want to. I’m sorry, I cannot.
Weinstein: No, come in here.
Gutierrez: No, yesterday was kind of aggressive for me.
Weinstein: I know —
Gutierrez: I need to know a person to be touched.
Weinstein: I won’t do a thing.
Gutierrez: I don’t want to be touched.
Weinstein: I won’t do a thing, please. I swear I won’t. Just sit with me. Don’t embarrass me in the hotel. I’m here all the time. Sit with me, I promise —
Gutierrez: I know, but I don’t want to.
Weinstein: Please sit there. Please. One minute, I ask you.
Gutierrez: No, I can’t.
Weinstein: Go to the bathroom.
Gutierrez: Please, I don’t want to do something I don’t want to.
Weinstein: Go to the bathroom — Hey, come here. Listen to me —
Gutierrez: I want to go downstairs.
Weinstein: I won’t do anything and you’ll never see me again after this. OK? That’s it. If you don’t – if you embarrass me in this hotel where I’m staying —
Gutierrez: I’m not embarrassing you —
Weinstein: Just walk —
Gutierrez: It’s just that I don’t feel comfortable.
Weinstein: Honey, don’t have a fight with me in the hallway.
Gutierrez: It’s not nothing, it’s —
Weinstein: Please. I’m not gonna do anything. I swear on my children. Please come in. On everything. I’m a famous guy.
Gutierrez: I’m, I’m feeling very uncomfortable right now.
Weinstein: Please come in. And one minute. And if you wanna leave when the guy comes with my jacket, you can go.
Gutierrez: Why yesterday you touch my breast?
Weinstein: Oh, please. I’m sorry. Just come on in. I’m used to that.
Gutierrez: You’re used to that?
Weinstein: Yes, come in.
Gutierrez: No, but I’m not used to that.
Weinstein: I won’t do it again. Come on, sit here. Sit here for a minute, please?
Gutierrez: No, I don’t want to.
Weinstein: If you do this now you will [unintelligible]. Now go. Bye. Never call me again. OK? I’m sorry, nice to have — I promise you I won’t do anything.
Gutierrez: I know, but yesterday was too much for me.
Weinstein: The guy is coming. I will never do another thing to you. Five minutes. Don’t ruin your friendship with me for five minutes.
Gutierrez: I know — but, it’s kind of, like, it’s too much for me. I can’t.
Weinstein: Please, you’re making a big scene here. Please.
Gutierrez: No, but I wanna leave.
Weinstein: OK, bye. Thank you.

What I most marvel about, I suppose, is how this turd actually turns everything around on Ambra.  SHE’S the one “embarrassing” HIM.  SHE’S the one making “a big scene.”

Re-read the transcript this way, with the understanding that Ambra Battilana Gutierrez was the villain of Harvey Weinstein’s narrative.  He was the reasonable one and she was the one embarrassing him, making a big scene when she should have just submitted to his morally superior agenda.

That is the ugliest part of the liberal shower.  Because like Harvey Weinstein, these are the ugliest human beings of all, mass baby murderers and degenerate sexual perverts surrounded by armed bodyguards and living in palatial estates, every single one of them, and yet just like what they did to Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, these vile hypocrites use the same rhetorical tactics to make decent, hard-working Christians and conservatives the villains of their narratives.

Harvey actually believes that he’s still a “good guy” and after all, “we all make mistakes” and we deserve “second chances”:

“Guys, I’m not doing OK, but I’m trying. I gotta get help guys. You know what we all make mistakes, second chance I hope,” he said in a video obtained by TMZ before climbing into his SUV.

“I’ve always been loyal to you guys,” he continued, addressing photographers. “Not like those f—ing pricks who treat you like s–t. I’ve been a good guy.”

And he IS a good guy.

For a liberal, anyway.

The left is everything the Pharisees of Jesus’ time and the Catholic Church of the Crusades and the Inquisition were.  They are the self-righteous purists, the ones who judge and condemn everyone who fails to see things their way.  They are so righteous and so pure, of course, that their sanctimonious ears cannot tolerate anything evil, and so they violently beat and scream down anyone who has any different message from them.

Can you be a horrible Christian?  Of COURSE you can.  But what does it mean to be a lousy atheist?  A lousy secular humanist?  I mean, are they violating God’s laws when they do what they do?  Nope; they mock God because they are fools.  As a Christian, I have the Word of God to judge my conduct by and others can judge my conduct by the same divine measure.  But all the left has for their moral foundations are constantly evolving opinions from the worst class of arrogant, sanctimonious, preening liberal hypocrites.

Like I said, I stand on the Word of a holy God and I am judged according to how I measure to that divine standard.  As a Christian, I acknowledge that I am a sinner and that sin matters and that I will burn in hell for my sins unless I fall on my knees and confess my sins and lay them on the cross of the divine Son of God who took my place and paid for them.  And the Word of God assures me that when I do that, I become a new creature in Christ and the Holy Spirit comes into my life and helps me to live up to what God calls upon me to become.  And so the message of the cross is that sin is very real and part of the nature of every single human being, that forgiveness is possible, and that we can be transformed into new creatures.

What is the moral message of the left?  What is their foundation?  Upon what solid, timeless rock do they stand other than their own opinions???

Liberalism stands for nothing but greed and power while pretending that they care about the women and the blacks and the Hispanics and all the other people they trample over.

The Dishonesty And Hypocrisy Of The Establishment Coming Out In Rabid Rage Against Trump While Whitewashing Clinton Machine

October 9, 2016

Let’s get a few things out of the way: do I support Donald Trump?  Have I EVER supported Donald Trump?  Hell no.  I literally cried when it was obvious he was going to win in a horribly divided GOP primary where none of the field was able to truly gel any real support and Trump was able to win by process of division.  And I don’t have time to link to it, but you can see what I had to say way, WAY back when Trump said his despicable remark about John McCain as a POW and mocked his heroism and sacrifice of those who suffered more than any other servicemen for being American warriors.

It’s Donald Turd versus Hellbound Clinton.  And the question before the voters is “Who is the least worst?” and even more importantly, “Who has the less vile and destructive vision for America?”

So that said, am I voting for this turd?  Yeah.  I have never been more politically miserable in my entire life, but yeah.  Things are getting really bad in America, and only the worst fools don’t realize it; last election we had a choice between a man who, as a Mormon, believes that Jesus Christ is the spirit brother of Lucifer and a man who actually IS the spirit brother of Lucifer.  That was awful enough.  This race now is a race to the very bottom of the cesspool and the one who comes in second to the bottom of the sewer will be your next president.  And as bad, as awful as Donald Trump is and frankly always has been, Hillary Clinton is utterly evil.  She is corrupt, she has sold out America.  She is literally a traitor in giving away with utter contempt and disregard our national security.  And what she did she did under color of authority.

So we have this “leak” of a tape of Donald Trump that is eleven years old but somehow just came out.  It was owned by NBC, which hired Donald Trump and profited off of him for ELEVEN YEARS.  NBC aggressively promoted Donald Trump on all their programs for YEARS.  But as always in liberalism what is wrong is right until it becomes convenient for it to be wrong again.  That is how these loathsome hypocrites ALWAYS operate.  And when Donald Trump was their money machine and they very clearly didn’t believe he had done anything wrong when he was their money machine.  If you don’t think that’s fair, let me just ask you this: why didn’t NBC bring this to light over a decade ago?  Why did they just suspend the NBC-affiliated employee who was in the video with Trump now?  Why the hell is this only unacceptable NOW???

NBC and ALL of the media culture SWIM in the vile depiction of women.  But it is only an awful thing when a Republican can be slimed for it.

Hillary Clinton has built her entire political career deriving her success from her husband’s political success.  It was always, “When WE were in the White House…”

Well, if you get to take credit for the good, you get to take credit for the bad, Hillary.  If you get to take credit for Bill’s economy, you get to take credit for Bill’s lustful and degenerate appetites and his contempt for women that you spent your life whitewashing and enabling.

And so when WE were in the White House WE were manipulating young female interns to get on their knees and give US oral sex.  When WE were governor of Arkansas WE were sexually harassing a number of women, including Paula Jones.  And then WE called women like her “trailer trash” and WORSE.  WE created a “bimbo eruption squad” to destroy these women personally.  When WE were attorney general of Arkansas, WE were rapists.

WE had our law license taken away for the worst kind of dishonesty.  WE paid an $850,000 fine for our lies and our slander and our actions.  Altogether, Bill paid out about a million bucks for his vile immoral behavior toward multiple women.

Even the left now acknowledges that Juanita Broaddricks rape allegations against Bill Clinton are credible.  Before telling us that the woman who got off other rapists and “stood by her rapist” while taking credit for everything people think he did that were good somehow means we should put a rapist in the White House by proxy through his wife.

Because Bill the rapist WILL be in the White House and WILL be in charge over the most important thing in America, according to Hillary herself.

As you demonize Donald Trump for his vile “locker room” remarks, consider it’s not even CLOSE to what the Clintons did – especially when you also realize that Hillary decided to represent a rapist of a young girl whom she KNEW was guilty of rape, got him off on a trivial technicality, and laughed about it and mocked the girl who was raped after going after that child on the grounds that hey, she got herself raped – what a SLUT that little girl had to be.

Bill and Hillary are rapists together.  One rapes, one gets off rapists.  And booth will rape America every chance they get.

Trump is a horrible man now.  But I remember when Bill was dealing with all this stuff and somehow none of it mattered.  So why does it matter now, other than the fact that to be a liberal is to be a hypocrite???  Because people like me understand that it doesn’t matter WHO gets in the White House, WE WILL HAVE A HORRIBLE HUMAN BEING IN THE WHITE HOUSE.  Unless Hillary gets elected; then we will have A MATCHING SET OF HORRIBLE HUMAN BEINGS.

The left always comes out with, “They’re just coming out with these allegations because of politics.  Well, this is NOTHING more than politics.

And when the Clintons point a finger about sexual garbage, there are three fingers pointing right back at them.  But the media ignores that.

No one is paying attention to the other revelation that came out on the same day: when it was revealed that Hillary Clinton is for open borders and Hillary Clinton gleefully told her Wall Street pals that she has one position for the public and a completely different position that she’s actually going to pursue behind closed doors.  Hillary Clinton literally told her Wall Street buddies who gave her a quarter of a billion dollars that she wants all these horrible trade deals so they can get rich bankrupting the middle class.

Rudy Guliani claimed that Hillary was for open borders, and Politifact said it was a pants on fire lie.  But now we know that Politifact is the real pants on fire lie.  We’ve got the biased media and we’ve got the biased media fact-checkers backing up the lies of the biased media.  That’s what we’ve got today.

But don’t look at that; no, instead look at the egregious behavior of Donald Trump – and forget that you were told to ignore far, FAR worse from Bill Clinton when he was a rapist, a serial sexual harasser, a serial predator of young women.

This race has really ALWAYS been about which candidate will pick which Supreme Court Justices, whether America believes that socialism and regulation and taxation will make American businesses more prosperous and hire more American workers or whether it will continue to destroy entrepreneurship in this country which under Obama is the worst in the history of that statistic.

I’m holding my nose as I’ve never held it before.  And I’m voting for the lesser or two very evil evils.


Liberals Don’t CARE About The Poor And Disadvantaged They Cynically Exploit

August 25, 2015

How do liberals hate and despise you, poor people?  Let me count the ways (in no particular order):

First, there is illegal immigration.  What does it do?  Does opening the floodgate of illegal immigration to pour over the United States help legal immigrants?  Absolutely NOT.  It suppresses wages for legal poor minorities.  This is simply something called a “fact.”  “Illegal immigration has tended to increase the supply of low-skilled, low-wage labor available.”  There is something called THE LAW of supply and demand: the greater the supply of something, the less the demand for that thing and the more the value of it goes down as a result.  This is literally again A LAW that will ALWAYS happen in ANY economic situation with no exceptions.  You cannot continue to increase the supply of something and have that thing continue to go up in economic value: the exact OPPOSITE will happen.  And so, for U.S. blacks, for example, we find that “six in 10 adult black males have a high school diploma or less, and are disproportionately employed in the low-skilled labor market in likely competition with immigrants.”  Again, the impact of illegal immigration on the wages and job opportunities for legal poor immigrants and minorities is simply a FACT.

It simply boils down to this question: how – and I defy a liberal to explain this to me – does bringing in more poor people to compete with the poor people already here for a limited number of jobs – do anything other than undermine the poor people who are already here???

Liberals tell us about migrant field laborers and how nobody else will do those jobs.  This argument is contingent upon your being stupid enough to believe that every single illegal immigrant is out in the fields picking our crops and no illegal immigrants have any other kind of job.  They idiotically overlook the fact that most agricultural zones are considerable distances from the urban population centers – so there is simply no one reasonably close enough to take those jobs.  And the migrant laborers largely live in deplorable conditions and, yes, MIGRATE to the various fields to do the jobs.  And they send a great deal of the money they earn back home to their families in other countries such as Mexico.  That’s one thing.  But another thing is that it is simply a categorical fact today that MOST, IF NOT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY, OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT IN THE FIELDS.  THEY ARE WORKING JOBS THAT AMERICAN POOR PEOPLE DO WANT TO WORK.  My church has a Hispanic congregation.  Many of them are not here legally.  I know many of these people.  I know what many of them do for a living.  Very FEW of them EVER work in ANY field around these parts.  No, they are home care assistants, they are tree trimmers, they are construction workers, they are contractors, they cut our hair.  And they are in stores and businesses working in jobs that YES LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND POOR MINORITIES WOULD HAVE TAKEN.

So I ask the question again: how do Democrats do ANYTHING other than undermine and hurt the poor when they demand that more poor people be allowed to keep flowing in to compete for the scarce jobs here???

Why did liberals open the floodgate of illegal immigration?  Why do they stupidly refuse to see the obvious and crystal-clear distinction between “legal” immigrants and “ILLEGAL” immigrants?  Because there is absolutely ZERO question that the Democrat Party politically and incredibly cynically benefits from a violation of the law that undermines the nation as a whole.  And Democrats are nothing if they are not political cockroaches who crawl to any and every dung pile that feeds them.  It is a simple fact that Hispanics as a whole overwhelmingly vote Democrat, so therefore the more illegal immigrants – especially given the fact that Democrats have made it IMPOSSIBLE to prevent people from registering to vote and from voting illegally – the better for Democrats.  And Democrats couldn’t give less of a DAMN if what they are doing hurts the people who they are keeping ignorant enough to keep voting for them.  Democrats count on ignorance and they count on their ability to keep ignorant people on their plantation through propaganda that has ALWAYS been the tool for abusive governments to control their people.

So Democrats actively pursue political strategies that suppress wages for poor people.  This is a FACT.  And what do they DO about the crisis they created?  Why create ANOTHER crisis, of course.

So second, there is the outcry to forcibly raise minimum wages as the left exploits one crisis it created in order to create another crisis.  We therefore have the movement to artificially and forcibly raise wages by government fiat.  But does that create more jobs and therefore more opportunity or does it do what common sense ought to tell you it does and do the precise OPPOSITE:

In a National Bureau of Economic Research paper published last December, University of California-San Diego professors Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither, found that increases in the minimum wage were responsible for 14% of the decline in the percent of the working-age population employed between 2006 and 2012. Minimum wage increases significantly reduced the probability of low-skill workers reaching the middle class.

This is simply a fact validated by study after study.  Employers – faced with paying artificially high wages, will either go to higher-skilled and therefore more productive labor or they will switch to machines to do jobs that used to be cost-effective for low-skilled workers to do before liberals destroyed those jobs with their stupid demagogic policies.

Aside from the fact that forcing employers to pay more money than they can afford or that the job they would otherwise offer is worth to them, you have another giant dilemma of unintended consequences: artificially imposing higher labor costs ipso facto means imposing higher prices for products and services that poor people have to pay:

… it’s a safe bet that virtually all of the cost of this minimum wage hike will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. You might think that, well, this isn’t a huge deal if it’s rich people who are paying these higher prices.

But of course it will often be poor people who pay them…  This makes poor consumers worse off in a direct sense, in that they can purchase less with their earnings. And if consumers are at all sensitive to prices, at least some of them will choose to spend less on labor-intensive goods and services now that they are more expensive. That could reduce the number of minimum wage jobs available.”

Another term for that is “vicious cycle.”  We artificially impose higher wages which artificially increases prices, which makes goods and services artificially more expensive to pay those higher wages, which reduces consumers’ ability to purchase those goods and services, which reduces the amount of goods and services purchased, which undermines the job market further.  And further.

It’s an easy bogus case to make for demagogues: we’ll force other people to pay you more money.  Nothing could be easier.  The sad fact – “sad” because liberals hate and despise facts – is this: the BEST way to have a good, well-paying job is to start out in a lousy, sucky-paying job and work your way UP as you demonstrate and document a good work ethic and develop more experience.  But when there are fewer and fewer jobs available because fewer and fewer employers can afford to pay for more workers, well, so much for hard work and experience.

And so we have a THIRD way Democrats hatefully hurt the poor: income inequality.

Income inequality, you say?  Isn’t that a Democrat issue?  Aren’t Democrats campaigning to end this hateful disparity of income and wealth that Republicans want to maintain?  Why yes, at least, if you are a truly stupid, ignorant, propaganda-fed sheep.  In fact, income inequality has EXPLODED under Barack Obama’s liberal economic policies.  It is a FACT that Barack Obama has taken America back to Great Depression-levels of income inequality.  Yes, I said FACT: under Obama and because of Obama, income inequality is the WORST since 1928.  Why is this?  Well, we can go to Obama’s supermassive debtDeficit spending necessarily ultimately forces internal devaluation, which deflates worker wages.  Wealthier people can invest and stave off this debt-inflation which eats the poor alive.  We can go back to illegal immigration again: “illegal immigration exacerbates income inequality by adding mostly low-wage earners and thereby, depressing wages for those workers. This is especially harmful to minorities — often immigrants themselves — that have larger shares of their populations living in poverty.”

Here’s another nuance of this vicious income inequality for you: poor people tend to try to save toward a better life; wealthy people tend to invest their wealth.  Barack Obama and the Democrat Party machine have created a giant debt apparatus that sucks savings.  What interest do you get when you put your money in the bank?  You get ZERO.  Poor people cannot afford to invest and make money the only way the Obama-Democrat-debt machine have built for someone to make money off his or her money.  They have created a system – and keep in mind that Wall Street overwhelmingly supported Obama in both of his elections – where the Fed keeps pumping money into the system and the banks lend it at low rates to the big businesses.  But if you are poor, if you are on a fixed income, Obama has left you high and dry.

Democrats are simply vile, venal people: they create godawful pain, they literally take a 2X4 and viciously whack somebody on the back of the head, and then they blame the nearest Republican knowing that their ideological counterparts in the mainstream media will duly report the “fact” that Republicans are responsible for the crimes perpetuated over and over and over again by Democrats.  It’s called propaganda, and it’s the one and only thing the left has always excelled in.

Poverty and homelessness has skyrocketed under the cancer of the Obama presidency.  Poverty has smashed a fifty year record under ObamaHomelessness is skyrocketing. And you should stop wondering why.  But whose fault is it?  Well, gosh, we can’t blame Bush anymore, so it’s got to be the Republican Congress’ fault, doesn’t it?  I mean, yes, we blamed Bush for the economic meltdown even though Democrats were in lock-step control of both the House and the Senate because the president is responsible.  Unless of course the president is a demagogic Democrat and then Congress is responsible even when it held only one branch of government.

And so fourth, let’s talk about how incredibly cynical and depraved Democrats are in regards to homelessness.  There’s a New York Post story with a picture of a man urinating right in the middle of a public street.  The title says it all: “20 Years of Cleaning Up New York City Pissed Away.”  It is absolutely pathetic and despicable what Democrats have done to piss away progress and decency.  Back when Mayor Rudy Giuliani led New York, for example, the police took an active and proactive role in dealing with homelessness.  They would show up with a social worker and not only get that person off the streets, but also HELP that person.  But liberals, being hateful, said, no, no, no, these people have a right to be here, blah-blah-blah.  The didn’t view them as human beings who needed real help, but as ideological abstractions and as pawns in a leftwing propaganda war.

Here’s an article that perfectly illustrates what I’m talking about:

Team Obama’s fight to keep the homeless living on the streets
By Betsy McCaughey
August 18, 2015 | 8:07pm

America’s homeless are lawyering up to fight for a “right” to live on the street — your neighborhood and personal safety be damned.

From Fort Lauderdale to Los Angeles, cities are struggling with a surge in people living in cardboard boxes and doorways. Local lawmakers are trying to ban “camping out” in public, and ordering police to clear the fetid encampments.

But lawyers for the homeless are pushing back. They’re demanding that “sleeping rough” be legally protected. In Denver, where living on the street is outlawed, lawyers for the homeless want to guarantee vagrants “the right to use and move freely in public spaces without discrimination.”

Outrageously, the Obama administration is siding with vagrants against local governments. Obama’s Justice Department is trying to block Boise, Idaho’s ban on sleeping in public. Cities around the country are worried their own laws may be next.

Not New York, of course. In our city, lawyers for the homeless already run City Hall. One of Mayor De Blasio’s top advisers is Steven Banks, a lawyer who spent three decades at the Legal Aid Society and has sued the city numerous times on behalf of the homeless.

Under de Blasio’s tenure, 311 calls complaining about the homeless are up nearly 60 percent. The mayor dismisses that as “hysteria,” insisting the vast majority of homeless “don’t bother anybody.”

Los Angeles — the homeless capital of the nation — is trying to halt the spread of cardboard shanties: Obamavilles. But the city has lost a string of lawsuits, as judges ruled the homeless have constitutional rights to sleep in cars and store their possessions on the sidewalk. […]

The reason the left wants all the crazy people to be walking around free is because otherwise there would be no one to vote DEMOCRAT.

Depravity and chaos and slum is taking over.  You’ve got Obama to ENSURE it.  The modern Democrat Party wants it, welcomes it, YEARNS for it.  They THRIVE on the chaos and the bitterness they create.  They incite it and exploit it to keep pushing for more and more and more and worse and worse and worse.  They are “progressives” who are progressing America right off the cliff and into hell.

And there’s a consistent pattern if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Fifth, there is the terrible, despicable evil that Democrats perpetuated decades over regarding mental illness.   Liberals called the horror they imposed in the name of their progressive moral stupidity a broad-based movement called “deinstitutionalization.”  So-called “compassionate” liberals came up with the “humane” plan to move patients from long-term commitment in state mental hospitals into community-based mental health treatment.  There was the progressive religious faith in science: the Kennedy Administration optimistically described how the days of long-term treatment were now gone forever because newly-developed drugs such as chlorpromazine meant that two-thirds of the mentally ill “could be treated and released within 6 months.”  I am accurately quoting Kennedy from his message on mental illness given on February 5, 1963.  A liberal can argue that Ronald Reagan signed something – passed by Democrat majorities in both houses of the legislature – along these lines.  But Ronald Reagan ALSO signed a bill that same year legalizing abortion in California.  Which is to say that in 1967 he wasn’t very conservative by any modern standard.  And there is simply no question that the national trend toward deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill was dominated by progressive liberals.  At about the same time, two more ideas came to the forefront of American progressive thinking that continue to haunt society today: 1) that there was a right to mental health treatment, and 2) that there was a right to a more substantive form of due process for those who were to be committed to a mental hospital. If there was a right to mental health treatment, then liberal activist judges could use the threat of releasing patients as a way to force reluctant legislatures to increase funding for treatment.  ACLU attorneys such as Bruce J. Ennis successfully claimed before moral idiot liberal judges that less than 5 percent of mental hospital patients “are dangerous to themselves or to others” and that the rest were improperly locked up “because they are useless, unproductive, ‘odd,’ or ‘different.’”  But these progressive ideas backfired terribly.  These two new “rights” imposed by leftists (the “right” to treatment plus the “right” to impose impossible legal burdens on the system) had the horrifying and hateful result of suddenly making hundreds of thousands of seriously mentally ill people homeless and helpless.  And it was all done in the name of the same progressivism that we see in Obama and Hillary Clinton today.  Because again, the left doesn’t actually give a flying damn about these people; they are like “fetuses,” non-human abstractions that can be destroyed for the sake of some greater leftist cause.  Mentally ill people fell through the cracks, living shorter, more miserable lives, and often greatly degrading the quality of urban life for everyone else.  And liberals moved on to their next project of collapsing and imploding America.

We USED to get these crazy people of the streets and put them in mental institutions.  We used to protect both the mentally ill and society as a whole.  But the left said, no, no, no, you can’t do that, you can’t lock these people up against their will.  Well, they’re wandering around out in the streets now.  They’ve been wandering the streets for decades, ignored by Democrats, because Democrats dishonestly and slanderously use the heinous crimes that the mentally ill commit with the freedom that liberals gave them to decry guns.  As if a gun picked itself up and started shooting versus a Democrat releasing a psychopath onto the streets who picked up a gun and started shooting.  And so now they’re shooting up movie theaters, etc. etc. and whose fault is the consequences?  Republicans for allowing law-abiding citizens to maintain their God-given and constitutionally guaranteed right to defend themselves, their homes and their property from all the whackjobs and criminals liberals have running around on the streets.

Sixth, Black Lives Matter.  Well, NO THEY DON’T.  Not to liberals, anyway.  Do you know how we’ve just had riot after riot because black lives matter so much whenever a black person gets killed by a white cop?  Well, that’s the ONLY time “black lives matter” to these horrible political demagogues – and the fact of the matter is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of way under one percent of all black lives are killed by white cops.  We just had a nine-year old girl murdered by black thugs while she was on her mother’s bed doing her homework; she died in her grandmother’s arms, and her life didn’t matter AT ALL to anyone in the “Black Lives Matter” bowel movement.  Because they don’t give a flying DAMN about “black lives,” save as how they can cynically exploit a tragedy for the sake of their rabid and venal political ideology.  THAT’S all that actually matters to them.  The truth is that police kill far more whites than blacks, but Black Lives Matter is about NOTHING but ginning up outrage and bitterness and hate for the sake of their precious political screed.

More than sixty percent of all black lives are snuffed out by liberals in the abortion mills that were literally established by a racist eugenicist to encourage black people to engage in self-genocide.  This racist Nazi sympathizer is today Hillary Clinton’s hero.  But nobody cares about such depravity.  Black lives don’t matter to the damn left.  324,000 black lives have been snuffed out by other blacks in just the past 38 years – and NONE of those lives matter to the leftist Black Lives Matter movement.  93 percent of all black lives snuffed out are snuffed out by other blacks – but those lives don’t matter one damn bit to the left.

The left is trying to manufacture a “distinction” to explain why they don’t give a damn for the vast majority of all the black lives callously ended by their own that they don’t give a damn about.  They claim that they’re decrying the “state-sponsored murders” of black men.  Bullcrap.  Unless the black mayor of Baltimore ordered the black states attorney to order the black police chief in Baltimore to gun down black men, THERE ARE NO STATE-SPONSORED KILLINGS.  There are rather individual tragedies as some black men are legitimately killed because they tried to face down armed policemen, while others are illegitimately killed in unfortunate accidents as individual untrained or scared cops lost their professional composure in one tragic moment.

A black woman named Peggy Hubbard had enough and showed what real decency looks like as she took down this bowel movement by exposing it for the abject disgrace it truly is.

And Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson had an article that just documents that “Black Lives Matter” is marching in the completely wrong direction as he exposes the REAL tragedies facing the black community that the leftist black leadership doesn’t want anyone to notice about the godforsaken place they’ve brought their people.

And just to further expose “Black Lives Matter” for the lie that it is, we now find that it is led by a white man masquerading as black.  Because being black means being a VICTIM to the left, and being a VICTIM is the most coveted status by the left.  And until black people truly decide they want to be VICTORS rather than VICTIMS, they will live in a sordid condition.

Seventh, consider the hatred generated by the left against law enforcement by the above Black Lives Matter organization as well as pretty much the entire damn left.  I mean, holy crap, the murder and violent crime rates are SKYROCKETING.  This “sudden spike” has been entirely the creation of leftists who have racially agitated every single instance – regardless of how entirely justified most of those instances have been – in which a white police officer has killed a black suspect.  In the uber-leftist city of Baltimore, we are watching an aftermath that would make you think Boko Haram had just been there.  And it is going on in liberal city after city – Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Ferguson, St. Louis, Dallas, Atlanta, Milwaukie – as the liberal policies in which “we gave them space to destroy” have utterly failed.  And who is suffering the most?  The very poor and minorities that the left is shrieking in the name of!  Black lives don’t matter to the left – that’s just another cynical political lie; Democrats MURDER more than SIXTY PERCENT OF ALL BLACKS in the abortion mills.  And Pro-Democrat blacks are doing 99.999% of all the gunning down of other blacks.  Police are pulling OUT of poor minority communities because they are now terrified of being prosecuted for trying to do their jobs.  A cop literally ought to be more terrified of a damned Democrat politician than he is of a gangbanging murderer pointing a gun in his face.  And it is the poor who the liberals really hate who are suffering the most as a result.

They used to call it “white flight” in the mainstream media “reporting,” which of course meant it was obvious somehow racist.  I mean, how DARE that white family – seeing criminality and thuggery overtake their neighborhood – just up and move out and find a better neighborhood for their kids?  But now sane, decent people understand that it never had anything to DO with racism; black people and Hispanic people, et al do it to: if you want to be a decent person and raise a decent family and you see low-brow, criminal elements moving in, you either have a community that deals with the scourge or your decent families get the hell out of that budding hellhole.  And so we have whole cities that have been dominated by liberalism for a hundred damn years looking like World-War-II-Europe after the heavy bombers leveled them.

Like I said, there is a CONSISTENCY and a PATTERN to what Democrats are doing as they seek the destruction and collapse of the United States of America.

Eighth, consider college tuition.  Can’t get a damn job because the Obama economy has crushed the American Dream into the Marxist Utopia hellhole?  Well, why not be a college student the rest of your life?  I mean, ultimately you’ll be crushed with mindboggling debt because the more liberals drone on – whether that be in a classroom or in the Oval Office – the more it’s gonna cost you in debt you can never possibly hope to ever repay.  Don’t ever think for one nanosecond that conservatives have anything to do with the massive cost of college: liberals dominate; conservatives are shown the door because liberals are rabidly intolerant fascists.  But now the liberals who made college so astronomically expensive are saying they’ll fix the disaster the created by creating, yes, ANOTHER disaster that will be even MORE expensive.  I hear Bernie Saunders and Hillary Clinton trying to outdo each other making college more “free.”  But college tuition has skyrocketed under Obama.  As colleges and universities have become more and more dominated by liberal-progressive socialism, it has – surprise, surprise – gotten more and more expensive.  Now, liberals say it should be FREE for college students.  Okay, poor dude who never had a chance to go to college: YOU GET TO PAY FOR ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO GOT TO GET WHAT YOU DON’T GET TO HAVE.

Even other committed liberals who actually understand money realize that Hillary Clinton’s plan is a stupid demagogic political stunt that won’t do a damn thing to lower the skyrocketing cost of tuition.  Billionaire Mark Cuban said, “[Hillary’s plan] stands a better chance of increasing the amount of money students owe than decreasing it.”

The fact of the matter is that college and universities are dominated by liberalism whether it is in the faculty lounges or in the administration buildings.  Liberals are by definition people who constantly whine for more money for themselves in the name of some greater cause.  And so there is a one-to-one correlation between how much federal money gets poured into colleges and universities (and ipso facto into liberals’ pockets) and how much tuition keeps going up.  The more you allow students to borrow, the higher the tuition price you can suddenly afford.

It’s what’s known as a vicious cycle.  Because liberals are vicious.

Ninth, I’m going to talk about women and how the “War on Women” narrative is a despicable charge by the left that is waging the actual war on women in our society.  And I’ll end with a discussion of how anyone who actually wanted HEALTH CARE rather than some “insurance card” with a tiny network and sky-high deductibles is a victim of the left.  I’ll finish up when I get back from some meetings.

Democrat Women Who Don’t Demand To Be Forced To Register For The Draft As Front-Line Meat Are Hypocrites And Cowards

February 1, 2013

Another “I told you so” is in order.

I wrote an article in which I stated that if women had a right to serve in combat, then they therefore had the same duty to serve in front-line combat as every man who has been forced to register for selective service (a.k.a. the draft) has borne.

Well, line up, bitches.  Sacrifice the hiney and shut up the whiny.  Because real men don’t whine.  Strap on that hundred pound combat load and stumble as fast as your little hiney will carry you into that machine gun fire way over there in the yonder distance.  And keed doing it day after day and every damn bit as well as all the men around you, because if you fall short your fellow troops are going to die because you were too damn weak to be there.  And you clearly think you’re just as man as the rest of we the testicled ones or you wouldn’t be there.

All young men have an obligation to sign up for front-line combat if they’re called to serve.  Now all women do, too.

You want equal opportunity, do you?  Well, here it is.  Not that liberal women have the integrity to actually ASK for actual equality.  Because liberal women DON’T want “equality”; they want “entitlement” masquerading as “equality.”

And that is because the core defining essence of every liberal is abject moral hypocrisy.  Liberalism means picking out only the most self-serving elements of “equality” and leaving the rest for those who don’t vote for Obama.  Women get to choose to kill their children; men are compelled by force of law to stand by helplessly while his kid is tortured and murdered.  And if a woman chooses to keep a baby which was by definition not a “baby” the last time the sperm donor that used to be called a “father” had anything to do with the pregnancy process, men are forced to support a child they had no choice to have until that kid is over 18.  Women get to “choose” to enter whatever part of the military they want and have a RIGHT to it; men get to be forcibly compelled to serve in the most brutal combat duty whether they want to or not in time of the draft that every man in America must forcibly register to participate in.

Why such a massive and self-referentially dishonest and hypocritical double-standard?  Because women overwhelmingly vote Democrat and men overwhelmingly vote Republican.  And Democrats are just that cynical and evil.  Period.

You voted for it, girls.  You voted for Obama and Obama issued his imperial order as pharaoh over all the land via his proxy.  Now man up and put your lives on the line, honeys.  The least you can do is for once in your whiny life quit thinking “entitlement” and start thinking “duty.”  Because if you should have a right to fight on the front lines, then you damn well have the same duty as the men you so stupidly and wickedly think you are.

It’s really quite funny.  Now the same liberals who most supported allowing women with “the right to choose to serve in combat” are saying the selective service registration requirement is outdated and ought to be thrown out.  Lest women realize that Obama’s “right” just viciously screwed them right up the whazoo and start voting for the party that actually represents women and families.

But they sure as hell weren’t saying that when they were introducing bills just a few years ago when Bush was president to not just bolster selective service, but to literally reinstitute the damn DRAFT:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.

The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and “to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices.”

“I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that’s involved, the sacrifice that’s involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility,” Rangel said.

“Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country,” Rangel said. “For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance.”

Now, liberal, you can agree with me that liberals are so cynical and so depraved that they would literally exploit one of the most sacred obligations ever imposed on Americans to rise up for the good of their nation and fight for it in time of war and if necessary DIE for it as a device to hurt or embarrass George W. Bush.  Hundreds of thousands of the most honored Americans literally left their dead and broken bodies on battlefields across the globe so that Democrats could one day use their sacrifice as a cynical partisan political attempt to demagogically attack Republicans.  Or you can agree with me that women be immediately required to register for front-line combat duty to befit the new status of “right” that Obama just bequeathed you.  Until that “right” is taken away and replaced by common sense.

Do you know which president was the last one to try to call for a forced draft?

Jimmy Carter, Democrat:

Americans have not always been against reinstituting the draft, which was stopped in 1973. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter discussed the possibility of resurrecting the draft and reinstituted the Selective Service registration requirement for young men following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. At that time, a majority of Americans favored reinstituting the draft. Support had dropped below the majority level by the summer of 1981, after Ronald Reagan had defeated Carter in his re-election bid.

You not only get to see that Jimmy Carter openly called for resurrecting the draft and forcing young men to serve, but he was the very man who reinstituted the Selective Service requirement that Democrats are now poo-pooing.

Because to be a Democrat is to be the lowest form of hypocrite.  And “Democrat” actually stands for “Demonic Bureaucrat.”

Now, I’m not actually dumb enough to believe that Democrats will show integrity for the first time in their parasitic leech lives and actually be consistent.  They won’t require women to register for Selective Service because, again, women would turn on them in droves the next election and vote for a party and a president who decries this moral idiocy as the evil that it is.

Instead, let me tell you what WILL happen.  Right now, today, in granting this “right,” Democrats are assuring us that of course, we won’t reduce our physical standards to accommodate female infantry recruits.

That’s what Canada said, too.

Back when I was serving, I read an article in the Army Times about Canada opening up infantry service to women.  All they had to do was go through the same boot camp that men had to go through.

Do you know what happened?  No woman could make it through the training.  Female Olympic athletes tried to make it through the training.  And not one could pass muster.

Because they aren’t the one thing they needed to be: MEN.

But it turns out that Canadian liberals are every bit as dishonest as American liberals.  Because you want to see what became of that promise from Canadian liberals?

Military drops fitness test for new recruits Last Updated: Thursday, October 26, 2006 | 9:03 AM ET CBC News

Canada’s military has dropped its physical fitness requirement for new recruits, saying it will take responsibility for whipping prospective soldiers into shape.

A notice posted on the Canadian Forces recruitment website says that effective Oct. 1, 2006, the physical fitness test is eliminated from the selection process.

“The Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School will be responsible for assessing physical fitness and will implement a program to assist new enrollees to reach an acceptable level of physical fitness prior to commencing basic training,” says the notice.

To meet basic minimum requirements, people wanting to join the forces must have Canadian citizenship, be at least 17 years old and have completed Grade 10.

The change comes amid confusion surrounding suggestions that members of the Air Force or Navy could be called on to serve in combat roles on the ground in Afghanistan, where Canadian troops will be until 2009. Rotating deployments of roughly 2,000 have been in the country for the past four years.

Democrats have loathed the military ever since they voted for the president who stated that he personally was “loathing the military” when he was writing a letter to weasel out of HIS Selective Service requirement.  To whatever extent that we can’t say that they want to actively want to destroy the American military, they don’t give one damn about its quality or its capability.  It is nothing more than a social engineering ground for them.  And shame on them for it.

That’s how you know that in the not very distant future, we will be waiving our physical fitness requirement.  Because our military ultimately shouldn’t be one iota stronger than the very weakest woman who wants to exercise her “right to choose.”

It is a costly, time-intensive job to train infantry recruits.  We can’t afford to let thousands of women fail and flail away to the tune of millions of dollars.  Especially after Obama has gutted military funding past the breaking point as it is.

We’re going to dumb-down our requirements so that morally stupid women can ruin the American military.

That’s what’s actually going to happen.

If a man doesn’t register for Selective Service at age 18, he spends the rest of his life suffering for his “choice.”  He will not be able to participate in any federal benefit, including student loans or home mortgages, as a result.  And men can never go back and retroactively register.  They continue to bear that burden for the rest of their lives and there is nothing they can do to undo their failure to register.

I hereby demand, in this age of Obama, that all women be forcibly required to register for Selective Service with the same possibility of front-line combat that men have had to endure.

After all, you have a “right.”  And you should have a right to die horribly as a result.

And by the way, welcome to God damn America, ladies.  Except you hypocrite Democrat women who won’t join with me in calling that girls should have the same duty to die on a battlefield that the men all around you have had since this nation was formed.

You need to understand this, women: liberal feminists have opened the floodgates of front-line combat service to you.  And in doing so, they have exposed you to the same DUTY that men have held throughout history.

And it is hypocritical in the extreme for women to say that they should get all the “rights” of this front-line combat as individual women but none of the duties incumbent upon women as a class.

Yesterday I wrote an article that basically asks the question, “How did it come to this?”  How did America so wildly fail and what caused it to collapse?

This is part of that answer.  We collapsed because there was a group of despicable liberals who literally hamstrung our military so that we could not fight.  First they gutted the military such that it lost the capability of fighting two wars simultaneously that it had held since World War II.  And then it first imposed homosexuality and then imposed physically comparatively weak women into direct combat roles that only a true fool would send them into.

Another factoid is that under Obama, the debt that he demonized Bush for accumulating is so-out-of-control that it is simply beyond unreal.

But day-by-day in this age of God damn America, we are seeing our national demise and the demise of Western civilization clearly spelled out for us.

Katie Petronio, a female Marine captain, nailed it in her article, “Get Over It!”  She points out that it is NOT female Marines – either officer or enlisted – who demanded this “right” to serve in front-line infantry combat.  This agenda is being foisted upon them largely by radical feminists who aren’t serving and frankly have no intention of EVER serving.  Captain Petronio points out that she scored a 292 out of 300 on the Marine Physical Fitness Test for females.  If there is a woman who can “do anything a man can do,” Captain Petronio is that woman.  But in fact what happened was that she testifies that she was unable to perform like a man: her body broke down and she suffered severe muscular deterioration because her body didn’t produce the male hormones that enabled men to keep coming back at the job day after day after day; she would stumble and fall frequently; her lack of comparative agility and mobility put her and her unit in jeopardy.  She pointed out that her inability to perform as a man would have been able to perform affected her unit’s response time and overall capability.  She points out that as a result of her marked physical deterioration which was far more than the men experienced, she suffered polycistic ovarian syndrome which rendered her permanently infertile.  And she said that – quote – “there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement.”

Again, we the testicled ones don’t have this happen to us.  It’s part of having testicles.  It’s not that women aren’t as brave, etc.  It is that they simply don’t have the physical package that God equipped men with.

And liberal feminists HATE God for that.

You need to understand this: liberals do not give one flying damn about women and they don’t give one flying damn about the military.  Their ideology, their worldview, leaves liberals hostile to reality or to the Truth and incapable of understanding how insane or dangerous their “solutions” in fact are.

Just as I was saying from my own perspective.

For convenience sake, here’s the article I wrote back in December before Obama fundamentally transformed America again with his latest outrage of giving women the right to fight if they wanted to in addition to their being given the right to murder their own child if they wanted to:

When Liberals Demand That Women Be Allowed Into Combat, They Are Actually Demanding That Women Ultimately Be Drafted As Machine Gun-Fodder

If I lived my life with the philosophy, “Whatever the Los Angeles Times says, I’ll believe the exact opposite,” I would live a good and wise life.

From the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times:

Women in combat — it’s time U.S. servicewomen are already serving in war zones. Pentagon policy needs to catch up. December 3, 2012

When politicians pay tribute to members of the U.S. armed forces, they almost always refer to our “brave men and women,” a recognition of the fact that women now constitute 14.5% of the nation’s 1.4 million active-duty military personnel. But even though women are permitted to serve, the nature of their service is limited because Defense Department regulations exclude them from most combat positions, a policy that primarily affects the Army and Marine Corps.

That would change if four servicewomen who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan are successful in challenging the Pentagon policy. Their lawsuit, filed last week in federal court in San Francisco, persuasively argues that regulations barring women from combat violate their constitutional rights. The current version of the policy, with minor changes, dates to a memorandum in 1994 from then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin that barred women from units whose primary mission was to engage in “direct combat on the ground.” The directive also allowed for the exclusion of women from assignments “where job-related physical requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women service members.”

Women seeking to rise in the ranks of the military find themselves in a paradoxical position. On the one hand, they are excluded from an array of combat positions that can be crucial to advancement. On the other, they find themselves in danger anyway because the military engages in legal fictions such as saying that a female soldier is “attached” but not “assigned” to a ground combat unit.

For example, one of the plaintiffs, Capt. Zoe Bedell, graduated at the top of her Marine Corps officer candidates class. In Afghanistan, she oversaw “female engagement teams” that accompanied male infantry units into the field. “My Marines supported infantry units,” said Bedell, who is now a reservist. “They patrolled every day. They wore the same gear. They carried the same rifles. And when my Marines were attacked, they fought back.”

In asking the courts to strike down the Pentagon regulations, the plaintiffs aren’t proposing that the military compromise its physical requirements for service in combat or sacrifice readiness on the altar of sexual equality. They are not arguing that women shouldn’t meet the same standards as men. But today’s blanket exclusion makes it impossible for a woman to demonstrate that she possesses the necessary skills.

One argument that has been made against allowing women in combat is that they supposedly don’t have the necessary strength and mental toughness to serve. Another is that the presence of women in a combat operation might undermine “unit cohesion.” (The same argument was made about gays in the military.) During this year’s Republican presidential primary campaign, former Sen. Rick Santorum said that if women were to take part in combat, their male comrades might neglect the mission because of “the natural instinct to protect someone that’s a female.” It also has been argued that integrating combat units poses logistical difficulties such as the need for separate bathrooms; yet such concerns haven’t prevented women from being placed in the thick of combat operations as part of female engagement teams.

Given the flimsiness of these arguments, the plaintiffs are on solid ground in contending that the exclusion policy fails the Supreme Court’s requirement that laws treating the sexes differently must have an “exceedingly persuasive justification” substantially related to “important governmental objectives.” That test was laid out by the court in a 1996 ruling in which it ordered the Virginia Military Institute to admit women. Less encouraging for the plaintiffs is a 1981 decision in which the court upheld the constitutionality of a law authorizing a male-only standby military draft. But in that case the provision to which the court extended deference was an act of Congress, not a policy of the executive branch.

Even if it is ultimately successful, the servicewomen’s lawsuit could take years to change the status of women in the military. A swifter and surer way to end the injustice they complain of is for the Pentagon or Congress to repeal the current policy. Women are serving — and dying — in war zones. It’s time the rules caught up to that reality.

U.S. servicewomen are already serving in war zones. Pentagon policy needs to catch up,” we’re told.  Of course, women are already being raped, too.  So let’s apply the identical logic and make rape the law of the land.  That is about all I have to say in direct comment on this idiotic article.  Because that is basically their argument: since there have been women who have ended up in combat, we should open the floodgates to women in combat.  Again, don’t do with rape what liberals want to do with women getting blown apart on a battlefield.

This is what is being decided in some court with some idiot judge dictating I mean presiding: are women the numeric identical of men such that whatever a man is able to do a woman ought to be able to do?  And liberals say of course.  Which means all women should pee into a urinal (they DO use less water, after all!) standing up.

If women should have the right to serve in front-line combat, women ought to be COMPELLED to serve in front line combat.  Because we are a nation that has never legally banned the draft and that method of filling the ranks in time of war is still available.  It’s called “selective service” and somehow only young men are able to sign up so they can be called up to run into some future meatgrinder.  And as we look back into our draft history and realize that men were forcibly compelled to join the military, get their heads shaved, and then wear a hundred pound ruck into battle while going over the top to charge machine guns, we come to a grisly question: why not women, too?

Because women can do anything a man can do.  Including get blown to bits.

It doesn’t matter if women can’t physically carry that damn ruck, I suppose.  Details like that simply don’t matter to liberals.

Liberal women can bench press more than the 1,070 lbs of a man just because they believe in the rightness of their ideology.

When I was serving in the army, I heard that Canada did it right.  They had liberals demanding women in the infantry in those days; so what they did was issue a regulation that ANY woman who could pass men’s boot camp could serve in the infantry.  And not one woman ever passed that bar in spite of the fact that female Olympic athletes tried repeatedly to do it.

Liberals are a truly and astonishingly stupid breed: they say that women can do anything a man can do as long as women are never actually EVER required to so much as TRY to do what men have to do.

There was an infamous episode in which male firefighters secretly recorded female firefighter candidates comically trying to raise a ladder.  The outrage wasn’t that female firefighters can’t raise a damn ladder and they most definitely can’t carry somebody out of a high-rise apartment to save a life; no, the outrage was how dare these awful men show up women?  And the male firefighters were reprimanded for revealing the TRUTH and the truth was deemed irrelevant.

Now they have requirements that are 30% of what they used to be for firefighter applicants.  So women can be firefighters, too.  And who cares if the best people don’t get to do the job, or that people die because females simply aren’t physically strong enough to carry an unconscious victim to safety?  Who cares if they can’t break the door down and that therefore you and your family will burn to death or die by smoke inhalation?

It doesn’t matter if it’s a giant government boondoggle that sucks up massive taxpayer dollars.  Liberals eat government waste up like the pigs they are.

My primary care doctor is a woman and she is one of the best doctors I’ve ever had.  But that lady has no damn business rushing machine gun nests.

Men and women are different.  Anybody but a fool knows that.  Which is why liberals don’t know it.

Again, liberal feminists are right now fighting for the right for future mothers and daughters to be forcibly compelled to hurl their bodies into the path of machine guns.  Because if they CAN fight, why is it that only men should be drafted and forced to fight?  If this ruling goes the way the left wants it to, why shouldn’t women be forcibly drafted just like men have been the next time we need a draft???

If this lawsuit carries and women are allowed to serve in combat, then women ought to be COMPELLED to serve in combat.  ALL women should register for selective service (“the draft”) just like all healthy men are required to register.  That’s what is at stake here.

There are things that women do every bit as well as men.  Fighting isn’t one of them.  Which is why when you see the mixed martial arts on TV, you don’t see women on top pounding the crap out of some helpless man.  I’ve been in courtrooms as a juror where some lowlife a-hole pile of slime scumbag beat up a woman with the “it was a fair fight” argument.  No it wasn’t, you roach; you were a poor miserable excuse of a man beating the crap out of a woman who didn’t have the strength to fight you.  But again, reality doesn’t matter to the left; political correctness trumps reality a thousand times out of a thousand.

What is going on is another giant step down “God damn America.”  Because it is a fundamental perversion of the God-created and God-ordained difference between males and females.

Men and women are NOT exchangeable or interchangeable.  And the liberal perversion of the roles of men and women is at the heart of what St. Paul was talking about when he described a society going down the moral dregs.

Canada and other secular humanist nations have embraced women in combat with severely dumbed-down standards to accommodate this “fundamental transformation” of the entire history of warfare.

Here’s the thing: the freedom-loving world doesn’t depend on Canada to secure the peace of the world the way it depends on America.

But now that America is merely one nation among many others, I suppose it doesn’t matter if we hamstring ourselves to our very lowest common denominator for the sake of political correctness.

Many historians credit King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans as having saved Western Civilization at the Battle of Thermopylae so that some day we could emerge as democratic republics.  They fought to the death to give the Greeks a few vital days to prepare for an army of some one million Persians who were bent on annihilating Western Civilization for good.  You’ve kind of got to wonder what would have happened had his “300” been a bunch of women.

As Obama allows the descendants of those same Persians nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile to deliver them, I guess we’ll ultimately get to find out.

Update, April 2, 2013: I had an excellent idea in honor of the fact that men and women are completely equal and interchangeable (apparently especially as spouses, given the adoration of homosexual marriage): let’s just say that women ARE equal to men and actually put it into practice.

For the record, marriage USED to be the ultimate symbol of equality: one man and one woman united in the bond of marriage and becoming one flesh.  That is, until liberals shot marriage in the head by “fundamentally transforming it” into an institution of sanctified sodomy.

Title IX?  We don’t need that any more.  In fact, we don’t need “men’s” or “women’s” sports at ALL!  Let’s just – from high school on up (and you can start earlier if you’d like) – integrate boys and girls and men and women in the SAME sports.  If women can’t hack playing with men, they don’t deserve to play at all, given that women are men’s equal in every way and all.  And the same is true, of course, for professional sports.  We don’t need a “WNBA” for basketball or a “LPGA” for golf or a “WTA” for tennis.  Women shouldn’t have their own league to play soccer or softball or anything else.  They should compete fairly and squarely with the big boys.

It’s actually funny, when you stop and think about it: the only reason women are able to play sports is because it has been officially acknowledged that not only are women not the same as men, but that they are nowhere NEAR the same.  And it would be insane to suggest otherwise.   I think I saw that only seven women in college basketball have EVER slam dunked a basketball during a game; and only one woman has dunked a ball twice in a single game.  That’s probably just as true for men, right?

If we’re going to dictate that women are as good as men in something as life-or-death important as war and combat, we ought to let women put their money where their mouths are in sports, shouldn’t we?

The reason you can have “women in combat” and “women’s sports” is because liberals are hypocrites to the cores of their shriveled little holes where their souls should have been.


Who Starred In That Movie ‘The Shining’? Was It Jack Nicholson Or Was It Joe Biden From His Debate?

October 15, 2012

I lifted this from a previous recent post that had a slightly different point:

Joe Biden mocked a lot of things in his debate Thursday night.  He mocked Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, of course.  But he also began to grin like the village idiot pretty much every time Paul Ryan began an answer, as if to point out that the world’s most intolerant lunatics can’t emotionally handle a different opinion in any way, shape or form.

Psychologist and brilliant political commentator Charles Krauthammer said that Joe Biden’s debate preparation clearly consisted in watching the movie “The Shining”:

And it’s a classic comparison: I don’t know how Jack Torrance (Nicholson’s character in the movie) would have debated any differently than Biden if he wasn’t allowed to take his axe to the debate.  In fact, I’ll bet Jack Torrance would have been slightly more polite than Joe Biden, and refrained from interrupting Paul Ryan 85 times the way Biden did.

CNN (which for the record declared Ryan the winner in their polling by a 48 percent to 44 percent margin) had an interesting find that was somewhat surprising: it said that women thought that Paul Ryan had won the debate by a larger measure than men did – which is exactly the opposite that one would expect given that women are considerably more likely to vote Democrat than men.

I have a feeling that many women put themselves in Paul Ryan’s shoes and saw Joe Biden as an overbearing, domineering, patronizing rat bastard who would mock them and denigrate them and smirk while a woman was talking so that everybody would know he thought she was an idiot.  And they didn’t like it.  And that debate performance may hurt Obama more than a lot of people realize right now for the very reason that it emotionally turned off the very women voters that Obama is most counting upon.

A female Republican pollster on Huckabee’s program pointed out that Obama and Biden actually depicted the two kinds of men women most loathe: Obama as the passive, uncaring, uninvolved man who couldn’t even generate the emotional energy to manufacture a little bit of eye contact; and Biden as the overbearing, loutish, patronizing, dismissive blowhard.

Personally I’d rather see Jack Nicholson’s face mocking me from the side of the door he’d just smashed in with his axe.  I mean, yes, Jack Nicholson in character would try to kill me; but Joe Biden in character would try to destroy me, my entire family, my way of life and my entire nation.

Some Democrat apologist said that she appreciated Biden’s performance because Joe interrupted Ryan every time Ryan stretched the truth.  You know what I would have done if I’d been on that panel?  I would have interrupted that idiot woman every time she spoke and said she was stretching the truth so I could interrupt her.  Pretty soon, after being cut off – oh, I don’t know, for the eighty-fifth TIME – she would hopefully realize how vile the tactic that she applauded Biden for truly was.  Because you know what?  BOTH sides think the other side is lying – and if I act like Democrat Nazis and decide that I have a right to interrupt a liberal every single time I think they’re saying something that isn’t true, well, guess what: that Democrat will NEVER get to complete a damn sentence.

Morally intelligent people – and yes, I know, that excludes the entire universe of Democrats – understand that the purpose of a debate is for both sides to present their views, and for the AUDIENCE to get to decide who is lying and who is telling the damn truth.  And that would have happened Wednesday night if liberalism didn’t equal fascism.

(Women Are That Stupid Alert): Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Says ‘Women Are Not Really Concerned About What’s Happened Over The Last Four Years’

September 26, 2012

I thought the piece on Michelle Malkin’s blog spiked this laugher best:

Stephanie Cutter: Women aren’t concerned what’s happened over the last 4 years, only what’s going to happen in the next 4 years
By Doug Powers  •  September 24, 2012 10:32 PM

Guys, test the theory of Obama’s deputy campaign manager this week. Come home at three o’clock in the morning, broke and looking rough after being gone for a full day, and when your wife asks what you’ve been up to in the last 24 hours, reply “you’re not concerned about that honey — you only want to know what’s going to happen in the next 24 hours.” Good luck.

Transcript from Real Clear Politics (audio below):

“We’ll continue doing what we have been doing, trying to get the president’s message out on the ground. Whether it’s in the suburban areas of Northern Virginia, or Denver, Ohio, to talk about what the president wants to do in the future. That’s the other thing that you find most often with women. They’re not really concerned about what’s happened over the last four years, they really want to know what’s going to happen in the next four years,” Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said to guest host Susan Page on the Diane Rehm Show today.

Cutter has gone out of her way to prove her point that women aren’t worried about the recent past, especially as it concerns remembering what happened on conference calls:

(h/t Freedom’s Lighthouse)

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Obama thinks women are that idiotic.  Women can’t comprehend things like “history” and “cause and effect.”  They’re just not intelligent enough to be able to consider that the last four years of Obama might somehow inform them on the next four years of Obama.

The thing is, many women ARE this stupid.  As the example provided by Doug Powers indicates, there are a plenty of single women out there who float from abusive cheating loser to abusive cheating loser because they simply cannot understand that if you ignore the lessons of history you are doomed to repeat them.

And the polls are very clearly showing that it is precisely those women who are supporting Obama: the single psycho women with dysfunctional lives who constantly look to find somebody or something to parasitically leech off of.

Middle class women don’t vote for Obama, the polls show; married women don’t vote for Obama, the polls show.

It’s the psycho dysfunctional idiotic bimbos who vote for Obama because they can’t fathom this whole “last four years” thing.

“Women” aren’t stupid; only liberal women are stupid.  But that said, liberal women are the truly stupidest people of all.

Remember How Democrats Cheered What They Called ‘The Arab Spring’ And Cheered Obama For Creating It? Well, Obama’s ‘Arab Spring’ = ‘Mass Rapes’ Now

June 12, 2012

The Democrat Party has exported its war on women (and see here and here) to Egypt:

In ‘new Egypt’, mobs sexually assault women with impunity
Reports of assaults on women in Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the uprising that forced Hosni Mubarak to step down last year, have been on the rise
updated 6/7/2012 4:28:02 AM ET

CAIRO — Her screams were not drowned out by the clamor of the crazed mob of nearly 200 men around her. An endless number of hands reached toward the woman in the red shirt in an assault scene that lasted less than 15 minutes but felt more like an hour.

She was pushed by the sea of men for about a block into a side street from Tahrir Square. Many of the men were trying to break up the frenzy, but it was impossible to tell who was helping and who was assaulting. Pushed against the wall, the unknown woman’s head finally disappeared. Her screams grew fainter, then stopped. Her slender tall frame had clearly given way. She apparently had passed out.

The helping hands finally splashed the attackers with bottles of water to chase them away.

The assault late Tuesday was witnessed by an Associated Press reporter who was almost overwhelmed by the crowd herself and had to be pulled to safety by men who ferried her out of the melee in an open Jeep.

Reports of assaults on women in Tahrir, the epicenter of the uprising that forced Hosni Mubarak to step down last year, have been on the rise with a new round of mass protests to denounce a mixed verdict against the ousted leader and his sons in a trial last week.

The late Tuesday assault was the last straw for many. Protesters and activists met Wednesday to organize a campaign to prevent sexual harassment in the square. They recognize it is part of a bigger social problem that has largely gone unpunished in Egypt. But the phenomenon is trampling on their dream of creating in Tahrir a micro-model of a state that respects civil liberties and civic responsibility, which they had hoped would emerge after Mubarak’s ouster.

‘It shouldn’t be happening’
“Enough is enough,” said Abdel-Fatah Mahmoud, a 22-year-old engineering student, who met Wednesday with friends to organize patrols of the square in an effort to deter attacks against women. “It has gone overboard. No matter what is behind this, it is unacceptable. It shouldn’t be happening on our streets let alone Tahrir.”

No official numbers exist for attacks on women in the square because police do not go near the area, and women rarely report such incidents. But activists and protesters have reported a number of particularly violent assaults on women in the past week. Many suspect such assaults are organized by opponents of the protests to weaken the spirit of the protesters and drive people away.

Mahmoud said two of his female friends were cornered Monday and pushed into a small passageway by a group of men in the same area where the woman in the red shirt was assaulted. One was groped while the other was seriously assaulted, Mahmoud said, refusing to divulge specifics other than to insist she wasn’t raped.

Mona Seif, a well-known activist who has been trying to promote awareness about the problem, said Wednesday she was told about three different incidents in the past five days, including two that were violent. In one incident, the attackers ripped the woman’s clothes off and trampled on her companions, she said.

Let’s not forget that Barack Obama took complete credit for the Arab Spring and the Mubarak exit by rushing out to put himself right in the middle of it.  The left cheered Obama for his messianic leadership:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You know, gentlemen, I’m a little bit jubilant right now, a little bit frisky so I’ll say something that will bother people. But if you have, a lot of the people in this country think the President of the United States is Muslim, which he’s not, he’s Christian. They think he’s foreign born, which he’s not, he’s American born. But they have this attitude about him, the people on the right a lot of them, right? And here he is, and he comes into office, and this jubilant situation in Eqypt, with the first time in our lives we get to see people from the Arab world in a very positive democratic setting. Not as terrorists or not as people fighting Israel, or whatever. Not mouthing epithets against the West, but people like us.

DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Right, celebrating.

MATTHEWS: In a way it’s like it took Obama to have this happen, or it’s just so serendipitous.

“It took Obama to have this happen.”  Praise him!  Worship him!  Our blessed messiah!  Of course, a lot of people – like Israelis – were arguing from the outset that “this” actually wasn’t a good thing.  At all.  Conservatives like Sean Hannity predicted from the very outset that the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamists were going to take control of Egypt – just as they did.

But who cares about reality?  Praise Obama!  Praise him!  Worship him!

 Is “serendipitous” a good adjective to describe rape?  I’m sorry, I don’t have my liberal-to-English dictionary with me.

Obama also erroneously massively downplayed the role that the Muslim Brotherhood would come to have (you know, unlike Sean Hannity and a lot of other conservatives who were RIGHT):

Mr. Obama downplayed concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could take power and install a government hostile to U.S. interests.

“I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don’t have majority support in Egypt but they are well organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti U.S., there is no doubt about it,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Obama said he wanted a representative government in Egypt that reflected the country’s broader civil society.

The fool was wrong, wrong, WRONG about that:

Though the current upheavals in the Middle East were not initiated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist parties in Egypt, as in Tunisia and Libya, have been the chief beneficiaries of the collapse of long-standing authoritarian repressive regimes across North Africa.

In Egypt itself, the two largest Islamist groups, the Brotherhood and the Salafists, won about three-quarters of the ballots in the second round of legislative elections held in December 2011, while the secular and the liberal forces took a battering.

The Brotherhood, an organization founded by Egyptian schoolteacher Hassan el Banna back in 1928, has never deviated from its founder’s central axiom:

“Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Koran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

It is this radical vision, which animates all those in the region who seek a fully Islamic society and way of life.

The Muslim Brotherhood has always been deeply anti-Western, viscerally hostile to Israel and openly anti-Semitic — points usually downplayed in Western commentary on the “Arab Spring.”

In spite of the fact that Obama was actually giving aid to the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama demanded that America give a billion dollars in aid to EgyptYou know, to the country that is now using RAPE in its war on women.

And now the same fool is making the same mistakes in Syria.

First of all, do you remember the justifications for going to war over Libya, which also aint working out that great?  We were told that “Barack Obama’s war in Libya bears the intellectual imprint of Samantha Power.”  And what was that “intellectual imprint”?  This:

“She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.”

That’s just GREAT.  So Obama went to war with Libya to remove a dictator who threatened to kill his own people but has refused to go to war with a dictator who has ACTUALLY murdered over fourteen thousand of his own people.  But apparently radical liberal Obama is on the same page as doctrinaire liberal Barbara Walters – because they’re both helping this vicious dictator.

Libya has not worked out very well.  At all.  Aside from the fact that Libya has descended into complete anarchy, there is the fact that terrorists have used that anarchy to turn Libya into another Afghanistan/Yemen-style haven.

Oh, and Obama also supported and trained Egyptian activists to undermine and overthrow Mubarak.  Just to complete the picture of who supported all these rapes that are now going on.

Both Democrats and radical Muslims have the same cherished goal: to keep women ignorant and in line with their agenda no matter how obviously anti-woman it is.

Former CNN Anchor BLASTS Obama For ‘War On Women’ And ‘Julia’ Campaigns And Says STOP CONDESCENDING TO WOMEN

May 22, 2012

Way to say it, Campbell – and for that matter (and believe me I never thought I’d say this) my hat is off to the New York Times for publishing this:

Obama: Stop Condescending to Women
Published: May 19, 2012

WHEN I listen to President Obama speak to and about women, he sometimes sounds too paternalistic for my taste. In numerous appearances over the years — most recently at the Barnard graduation — he has made reference to how women are smarter than men. It’s all so tired, the kind of fake praise showered upon those one views as easy to impress. As I listen, I am always bracing for the old go-to cliché: “Behind every great man is a great woman.”

Some women are smarter than men and some aren’t. But to suggest to women that they deserve dominance instead of equality is at best a cheap applause line.

My bigger concern is that in courting women, Mr. Obama’s campaign so far has seemed maddeningly off point. His message to the Barnard graduates was that they should fight for a “seat at the table” — the head seat, he made sure to add. He conceded that it’s a tough economy, but he told the grads, “I am convinced you are tougher” and “things will get better — they always do.”

Hardly reassuring words when you look at the reality. According to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, about 53.6 percent of men and women under the age of 25 who hold bachelor’s degrees were jobless or underemployed last year, the most in at least 11 years. According to the Pew Research Center, if we broaden the age group to 18- to 29-year-olds, an estimated 37 percent are unemployed or out of the work force, the highest share in more than three decades.

The human faces shouldn’t get lost amid the statistics. I spent last weekend with a friend who attended excellent private schools and graduated from Tufts University two years ago. She’s intelligent, impressive and still looking for a full-time job.

The women I know who are struggling in this economy couldn’t be further from the fictional character of Julia, presented in Mr. Obama’s Web ad, “The Life of Julia,” a silly and embarrassing caricature based on the assumption that women look to government at every meaningful phase of their lives for help.

My cousin in Louisiana started a small company with a little savings, renovating houses. A single mom, she saved enough to buy a home and provide child care for her son. When the economy went belly up, so did her company. She was forced to sell her home and move in with her parents. She has found another job, but doesn’t make enough to move out. Family, not government, has been everything to her at this time of crisis. She, and they, wouldn’t have it any other way.

Another member of my family left her job at an adoption agency just before the economy crashed. Also a single mother, she has been looking for a way back to a full-time job ever since. She has been selling things on eBay to make ends meet. Friends and family, not government, have been there at the dire moments when she has asked them to be. Again, she, and they, wouldn’t have it any other way.

This is not to say that government doesn’t play a role in their lives. It does and it should. But it isn’t a dominant one, and certainly not an overwhelming factor in their daily existence.

It’s obvious why the president is doing a full-court press for the vote of college-educated women in particular. The Republican primaries probably did turn some women away. Rick Santorum did his party no favors when he spoke about women in combat (“I think that can be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission, because of other types of emotions that are involved”); when he described the birth of a child from rape as “a gift in a very broken way”; and how, if he was president, he would make the case for the damage caused by contraception.

But Mitt Romney will never be confused with Rick Santorum on these issues, and many women understand that. (I should disclose here that my husband is an adviser to Mr. Romney; I have no involvement with any campaign, and have been an independent journalist throughout my career.) The struggling women in my life all laughed when I asked them if contraception or abortion rights would be a major factor in their decision about this election. For them, and for most other women, the economy overwhelms everything else.

Another recent Pew Research Center survey found that voters, when thinking about whom to vote for in the fall, are most concerned about the economy (86 percent) and jobs (84 percent). Near the bottom of the list were some of the hot-button social issues.

Tiffany Dufu, who heads the White House Project, a nonpartisan group aimed at training young women for careers in politics and business, got a similar response when she informally polled young women in her organization. “The issues that have been defined as all women care about are way off — young women feel it has put them further in a box they don’t necessarily want to be in,” she told me. “Independence is what is so important to these women.”

I have always admired President Obama and I agree with him on some issues, like abortion rights. But the promise of his campaign four years ago has given way to something else — a failure to connect with tens of millions of Americans, many of them women, who feel economic opportunity is gone and are losing hope. In an effort to win them back, Mr. Obama is trying too hard. He’s employing a tone that can come across as grating and even condescending. He really ought to drop it. Most women don’t want to be patted on the head or treated as wards of the state. They simply want to be given a chance to succeed based on their talent and skills. To borrow a phrase from our president’s favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, they want “an open field and a fair chance.”

In the second decade of the 21st century, that isn’t asking too much.

Campbell Brown is a former news anchor for CNN and NBC.

Campbell Brown joins a few incredibly courageous liberal women such as Kirsten Powers who were rightly saw the abject hypocritical double-standard (and see also here) that was just getting replayed over and over again.  And we may finally be reaching that watershed moment in which feminist women who actually give a damn about WOMEN rather than political ideology have come to realize that nothing meaningful will EVER be done to advance women when the side claiming the women’s mantle are abject hypocrites with constant double standards.

I applaud this courage from women who almost certainly vote Democrat because the only way to ANY true reform of ANYTHING is to take on your own side’s hypocrisy.  Take two former Republicans who now live in infamy: Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon.  Both went down in flames when their OWN REPUBLICAN PARTY turned on them and said, “You’ve gone too far.  We’re done with you.”

In the case of Richard Nixon in particular – six of the Judiciary Committees’ seventeen Republicans sided with the Democrats in voting for impeachment – if Republicans had rigidly stuck by Nixon for the sake of political party or ideology (which is exactly what happened when ZERO Democrats supported impeachment for Bill Clinton who had engaged in such gross behavior and dishonesty that he was disbarred as a lawyer for his absence of ethics) Republicans could have “won” by doing the same thing Democrats would later do.  Instead a half dozen Republicans finally said, “This is simply too much.  He’s gone too far.”

Here we are at a moment in history in which Obama has clearly gone too far.  And Obama has actually done it again and again on issue after issue.

As just one example that ties in with the “war on women” myth, as a result of Obama’s radical “health care” agenda Catholic universities are beginning to drop their health coverage for all students rather than forfeit their religious freedom to practice a theology that they have held for 1,500 years.  Is that helping women???

Ave Maria University, one of the Catholic universities that is dropping health coverage for ALL students as a result of Obama’s rabid policies, also pointed out that because of ObamaCare their policies were going to increase between 65 and as much as 82 percent.  How in the hell is that helping women???

At some point Democrats are simply going to have to say, “STOP!!!  You’ve gone too far!!!”  Because otherwise this nation is doomed.  And women and the children they love will be hurt more than anybody.

And this ties in to a greater threat that we see in the helpless government-dependent-for-life Julia that Obama has fabricated.  I would argue that Catholic universities getting out of providing assistance and the greater issue of all Christian churches and parachurch organizations being driven out of providing services for the poor is exactly what Obama wants in his “fundamental transformation” of America.  He wants them out because he dreams of an America in which government is the ONLY provider of help and the ONLY savior.  Will that help women???

A few courageous liberal feminists are recognizing that the Democrat Party under Barack Obama is a rhetoric machine that relies exclusively on demonization of the “other side” rather than doing anything whatsoever to build any kind of consensus for genuine reform of anything.  And the Democrat Party and liberal mantra from “feminists” has been to support abject liberal misogyny to advance political ideology for the sake of political ideology in some faint hope that the same hypocrites will change things for women.  And they won’t because it’s all built on lies and words rather than substance.

I’ve never met a Republican yet who didn’t have a mother.  I’ve never personally ever met a Republican husband who didn’t have a wife.  A whopping load of Republican families include daughters.  And basically have of all Republicans including half of the staunchest of Republicans are WOMEN.  This whole “war on women” argument is so blatantly dishonest and deceitful it is simply unreal.

I call on Democrat women to vote Obama out in November for their own sakes.  Because he’s gone too damn far.

Obama ‘Boy’s Club’ White House A Hostile Work Place Against Women (Obama Pays Women SIGNIFICANTLY Less Than Men)

April 12, 2012

Anita Dunn, Obama’s former White House communications director who got in trouble after she revealed that Chairman Mao was one of her heroes, said that Obama’s White House met all the requirements of a “hostile workplace”:

A new book claims the Obama White House is a “hostile workplace” for women and a “boys’ club.”

“Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President” by Pulitzer Prize winner Ron Suskind discusses pervasive infighting within the administration, and quotes former White House communications director Anita Dunn as saying, “this place would be in court for a hostile workplace.”

“It actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women,” Dunn said.

You remember all the hell George Bush got when one of his communications people turned against him???  The media was ALL OVER THAT.

But of course a woman saying that Obama’s White House was a hostile workplace against women didn’t blame Bush.  So who cared in the mainstream media???  You know, even though it was TRUE.

Hostile Workplace
Obama White House pays women less than men, records show
BY: Andrew Stiles – April 11, 2012 2:52 pm

Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.

The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.

President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House.

“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”

It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act.

The president and his Democratic allies have accused Republicans of waging a “war on women,” and have touted themselves as champions of female equality. Obama’s rhetoric, however, has not always been supported by his actions.

White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters last week that Obama believes it is “long past the time” for women to be admitted to the traditionally all-male Augusta National Golf Club, site of the Masters golf tournament.

But the president has demonstrated a strong preference for all-male foursomes in his frequent golf outings, a bias that extends well beyond the putting green and into the Oval Office.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers told the New York Times.

In a 2011 article titled “The White House Boys’ Club: President Obama Has a Woman Problem,” TIME magazine’s Amy Sullivan detailed the president’s fondness for male-dominated environments.

“There’s a looseness to Obama when he’s hanging out with the boys club that doesn’t appear in co-ed gatherings,” she wrote. “The president blows off steam on the golf course with male colleagues and friends. He takes to the White House basketball court with NBA stars, men’s college players, and male cabinet members and members of Congress.”

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama was criticized for paying the women on his campaign staff less than the men, and far less than GOP opponent John McCain paid his female staffers.

Obama is such a hypocrite it is utterly unreal.  But he doesn’t have to worry about being exposed; he’s got the most hypocritical media propaganda since Joseph Goebbels was running Hitler’s press to take care of him.

Hillary Clinton’s Solemn Oath To Afghan Women: ‘We Will NOT Abandon You’ (Until Obama Cuts And Runs And Abandons You)

April 10, 2012

Another Obama promise bites the dust.  We can add the lie below to Obama’s “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal“; we can add that lie to Obama’s very first executive order swearing that he would close Gitmo within one year (psst: it’s still open); we can add that lie to Obama’s promise to accept matching campaign funds (until he broke that promise) and Obama’s promise that he would not accept super pac money (until he broke that promise); we can add that lie to a long list of Obama flat-out lies (see also here).

Sorry, women of Afghanistan.  I know this will be an incredibly painful lesson as Barack Obama returns you to the state of abject slavery that George Bush delivered you from.  Just remember from now on NEVER to trust Democrats; they will promise you the world only to completely abandon you the moment it becomes politically expedient for them to do so.

Status of Afghan women threatens Hillary Clinton’s legacy
The secretary of State has devoted herself to the issue, but gains made may be reversed as Afghanistan’s conservatives become more powerful in the West’s wake.
By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times
April 8, 2012, 6:05 p.m.

WASHINGTON — In the final months of her tenure as secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton is fighting a long retreat on a cause close to her heart, and to her legacy — the status of Afghan women.

Clinton embraced the cause long before the first U.S. troops landed in the country, and as secretary of State she has brought Afghan women worldwide attention, political power and unbending promises of American support.

“We will not abandon you,” she pledged.

But now, with U.S. officials laying plans to remove most troops in two years, the Afghan government and other institutions appear to be adjusting their positions on women’s rights to accommodate conservative factions. Restrictions on women have made a comeback.

“Most of women’s important achievements over the last decade are likely to be reversed,” predicted a bleak report issued last month by the Afghan Human Rights and Democracy Organization, a nonprofit in Kabul funded by Western governments and private groups.

This puts Clinton in a tough spot. Among senior U.S. officials, none is more closely associated with women’s rights: When prominent Afghan women are alarmed by developments at home, they often fire off emails to Clinton’s staff.

“She has been a very strong conscience of the world on this issue,” said Wazhma Frogh, director of the Research Institute for Women, Peace and Security in the Afghan capital, Kabul. “We have leaned on her help in the past, and we are looking to her help for our future.”

Clinton insists that the United States views women’s rights as a nonnegotiable “red line.” At a recent meeting of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council, she insisted that “any peace that is attempted to be made by excluding more than half the population is no peace at all. It is a figment that will not last…. We will not waver on this point.”

Yet administration officials also acknowledge sharp limits to what America can do. Even future U.S. funding to help women is uncertain.

Melanne Verveer, U.S. ambassador at large for women and a longtime Clinton aide, said that American officials remain influential and will do all they can.

“But this is going to be in the end an Afghan-led process,” she said. “Ultimately, it is going to be the Afghans who are in the driver’s seat. We can’t see the future. This is a work in progress — we don’t know — we hope it will be progress.”

Senior U.S. officials see Afghanistan as an intractable foreign policy mess that will only get worse as long as large numbers of U.S. troops remain in the country. Winding down the U.S. commitment has become an overriding priority.

As America’s chief diplomat, Clinton has won praise not only from liberals, but also from conservatives. Gallup polls have found she is the nation’s most admired woman for each of the last 10 years.

Clinton has signaled that she will step down as top U.S. diplomat early next year, and the fate of Afghan women may not be clear until long after her departure. Even so, a reversal on women’s rights would be a blow to Clinton’s legacy.

“People will identify her with whatever happens,” said Shamila Chaudhary, who was National Security Council advisor on Afghanistan and Pakistan until late last year and is now with the Eurasia Group research firm in Washington. “There’s a huge reputational risk in this for her.”

Clinton’s advocacy for women in Afghanistan goes back to her time in the Senate before the Sept . 11 attacks, when the world was horrified to see how the Taliban regime had marginalized women.

Clinton pushed for guaranteed seats for women in the Afghan parliament and other government bodies and has made sure that the United States has amply funded programs to support women’s health and education, businesses, legal clinics and shelters. Clinton was among the Western officials who lobbied the Afghan government to set up a women’s ministry and enact a tough law barring violence against women.

Her efforts have contributed to Afghan women’s gains. Over the last decade, women’s life expectancy there has increased from 42 to 64 years, and the number of girls in school has gone from 10,000 to 2.5 million.

But two months ago, the country’s top religious body, the Ulema Council, issued an edict that men are “fundamental” and women “secondary,” and barred women from mingling with men in schools or the workplace. Afghan President Hamid Karzai appeared to embrace the ruling, setting off an international outcry.

When Clinton called Karzai on March 8 to demand an explanation, Karzai said the ruling was only “advisory” and insisted that he stood by the Afghan Constitution’s guarantees of equality for women.

Yet the incident was widely seen as proof that Karzai and other Afghan institutions have started to position themselves for the more conservative era they see ahead.

Karzai “has a lot to lose if he can’t find a way to reach an accommodation with the Taliban,” said Heather Barr of Human Rights Watch in Kabul. “The consequences for him of moving against women’s rights are probably a lot less serious.”

Clinton’s pressure helped gain women nine seats in the High Peace Council, a body appointed to help direct the negotiations with the Taliban. But so far, Afghan women have been largely shut out of the preliminary talks, former First Lady Laura Bush, another advocate for the women’s cause, said during the meeting of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council.

There are other trouble signs. Dozens of mixed-gender and girls schools have been destroyed by insurgents in recent years, including 74 in 2010 alone, Amnesty International says. Prominent female politicians have been killed and others face growing threats of violence, Amnesty says.

U.S. spending for Afghan women, like other aid, has begun to decline, women’s advocates say. Although the administration is committed to long-term development aid to Afghanistan, Verveer acknowledged that decisions on such appropriations “will be a negotiation between the administration and the Congress.”

Although Clinton has remained focused on women’s rights, others in the Obama administration have concentrated most on security goals, starting with winning Taliban commitments to break off ties with Al Qaeda, say current and former U.S. officials.

If the negotiators are able to work out an agreement on security and other key issues, “the final deal won’t be held up by a disagreement over women’s rights,” Chaudhary predicted. “No way.”

You can go back to what Democrats did to Bush on Iraq to see that Democrats are 100 percent reliable – to abandon their own words and instead cut and run when their allies need them the most:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda

George Bush won his war in Iraq that Barack Obama demonized.  Vice President Joe Biden literally tried to claim credit for Iraq, claiming, “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”  Barack Obama proceeded to piss that victory away by not bothering for three years to get any kind of agreement to keep US forces in as peacekeepers whatsoever.  And now we find that Barack Obama is very obviously losing his war in Afghanistan.

And proving that anybody who trusts a Democrat might as well put a “kick-me” sign over their face.