Friday, March 30, 2012

The Trayvon Martin Shooting Strongly Indicates that President Obama Is a Racist

In the Trayvon Martin shooting saga, there’s still a lot of confusion about exactly what happened.

Some sources say that George Zimmerman was bloodied and bruised when he shot his teenaged assailant. Others claim that Martin was innocently walking along until Zimmerman gunned him down.

Obviously the two stories can’t both be true, and more details need to be fleshed out before a final verdict is made. But thanks to these unfortunate circumstances, one thing is once again pretty darn clear: The growing evidence that President Obama is probably a racist.

Offensive and/or shocking though that observation might be, it’s difficult to come to any other conclusion at this point. From his election bid all the way up to the present, America has gotten clue after clue that Barack Hussein Obama (mmm… mmm… mmm…) judges people by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character.

Need a list? Here’s one right off of the top of my head… no research required:
  1. During the 2008 presidential elections, it came out that then-Senator Obama had a very close relationship with one Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a man who officiated at Obama’s wedding and baptized his children. The President also attended Wright’s Black Liberation Theology-centered church for a decent decade or two, where the Reverend preached how “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” the Sunday after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and urged his congregation to say “God damn America” essentially because white people are rotten. (For further proof of Wright’s racism, click here.)
  2. In July 2009, another one of Obama’s dubious friends, Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates, was arrested after he was caught trying to break into his own home. It should have been an easily explainable situation. But when the police arrived on the scene, Gates screamed racism with such belligerent vehemence that he got himself arrested. Hearing about the situation, Obama’s immediate response was: “I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that [Gates case], before launching into a commentary on how race is still synonymous with oppression in America. He later had to drink his words in a “Beer Summit” after all the facts finally surfaced.
  3. 3. In February 2012, he launched “African Americans for Obama,” a reelection campaign strategy aimed solely at only one of the nation’s racial component, heavily implying throughout it that only a black man such as himself could enforce equality.
And then most recently, his unnecessary attention to Trayvon Martin, an African-American teen taken by violence in a giant country that sees crimes committed every day. Yes, the accusation is that the killing was racially motivated. But what about the international incident last year, where an African-American teen murdered two British tourists, both Caucasian? Apparently, neither President Obama nor any members of his staff sent even the barest form of condolences to those families, even though it would have made more sense considering the delicacy of international relationships.

Yet when it comes to a media-described “white” Hispanic shooting a black teen, President Obama is all about stepping out to say something singularly stupid like, “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” essentially declaring that all black people look alike.

I mean really, how racist can you get?

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Mocks the 2,700 Page Obamacare

Right now, the media is obsessed with the ongoing Supreme Court case over the constitutionality of Obamacare. Look hard enough – or not at all – and you can find a blow-by-blow for the justices’ every comment, question and eye twitch… all with matching commentary on how it all foreshadows their final opinions.

In some cases, it’s an easy argument to make of course. When Justice Elena Kagan practically coaches Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. – who is charged with defending Obamacare before the Supreme Court – in what argument he should be making, that’s fairly indicative of her personal ruling.

The same goes for when Justice Antonin Scalia criticizes Verrilli for grossly underestimating the American people, or mocks the very idea of reading through the ridiculously lengthy document.

Addressing Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, Scalia asked: “What happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?... Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”

All jokes aside, the Justice has a point. And not just that reading through Obamacare is cruel and unusual punishment. Or that only a true Satanist could come up with legislation that long.

His sarcasm only skims the surface of the issue at hand when, really, there is no good reason why any legal proposition should take up 2,700 pages. In fact, there’s no reason why it should take up 1,000, 500, or even 100 pages.

Even the most hoity-toity novels or hard-core textbooks aren’t 2,700 pages long. And they’re meant for entertainment or education, two exceedingly different classes of writing than lawmaking.

Here’s the bottom line when it comes to the acceptable length of a bill: Legislators should be able to actually read through it before they vote on it. Read through it, mind you, not pay a bunch of law student aides to read it for them.

While Obamacare is doubtlessly the most severe example of Congressional arrogance in this regard, it highlights a practice that has been going on for decades now, where elected representatives vote on hundred-plus page bills filled more with pet pork projects to buy votes than any overarching goals to better the United States of America.

With U.S. citizens passively allowing that kind of behavior in Washington for decades now, it’s no wonder President Obama was able to force Obamacare down our throats in the first place.

It’s only a wonder that we noticed at all.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Health Insurance Should Be a Choice Not a Mandate: Why Obamacare Needs to Go

The U.S. Supreme Court might be willing to take time to decide the constitutionality of Obamacare. But I am not.

It’s difficult for me to give something a chance when it was forced on me in the first place, with no regard for my intellect or individuality.

For example, the Obama administration and its lackeys assured the American people – myself included – that Obamacare would lower both individual and national health insurance costs… despite the utter lack of proof that it could possibly do any such thing.

Completely forgetting how much money every other government program has cost and is costing us, the idea that an already badly indebted nation could actually fiscally come out ahead by promising to pay for its citizens’ health insurance is ludicrous at best.

Then there’s the fact that I am one of the uninsured the President pretended to champion during the prolonged Obamacare debates. Unlike the desperately and unfairly impoverished picture he liked to paint back during those days, I don’t have health insurance because I choose not to have it, not because I’m too poor to afford it.

It’s. My. Choice. And government has no business taking it away from me.

I have my reasons for waiving health insurance too: I’m a fairly healthy adult in my late 20s and can’t remember the last time I went to the doctor’s office. I take my vitamins every day, work out on a regular basis, and put money into a savings account every month in case an emergency does occur.

Knowing all of that and considering the tiny chances that I’ll break a bone or develop some insidious disease before I’m 35, why would I want to spend my money on health insurance? I’m a grown woman making a logical decision based on my personal set of circumstances.

As Justice Antonin Scalia bluntly put it during opening oral arguments yesterday, “These people are not stupid. They’re going to buy insurance later. They’re young and need the money now.”

But even if I was making an illogical decision, the government shouldn’t be telling me what to do with my money and my body. (Yeah, let’s throw in a little feminist propaganda, which incidentally works better here than it does for the abortion argument since there’s only one body involved.)

It should be my right to live and learn according to my personal values and even inclinations, just as long as I’m not stepping on somebody else’s rights in the process. And in the case of health insurance, I’m not hurting anybody else, regardless of whether I purchase it or not.

The last time I checked, America was supposed to be a free country. So let freedom ring… and get government’s hands off of my health choices.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

The Tragic Shooting of Trayvon Martin Might Not Have Been So Undeserved

The continuing saga of neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman shooting Florida teen Trayvon Martin reminds me of a song released by Truth in the early 90s. The chorus went:

“What if we’ve fallen to the bottom of a well thinking we’ve risen to the top of a mountain? What if we’re knocking at the gates of hell thinking we’re heaven bound? What if we spend our lives thinking of ourselves when we should have been thinking of each other? What if we reach up and touch the ground to find we’re living life upside down?”

The media has been all over this story for a decent week or so now, lionizing the deceased Martin, who was African-American, and condemning his Hispanic and allegedly racist shooter. In response, individuals and larger groups have taken to wearing hoodies, like the kind Martin was wearing his last night on earth, to show support for the boy and protest against racism.

Far-left racist groups have even put a bounty on Zimmerman’s head and apparently consumers can now buy t-shirts featuring his photo in between the words: “Pussy Ass Cracker,” which just goes to show how ignorant the people championing this issue have really become.

Can a Hispanic really be a cracker?

Silly little white girl that I am, I always thought only Caucasians could be called that particular derogatory term. Clearly, I wasn’t being nearly inclusive enough. Go figure.

But while I might be just another ill-informed Republican, the joke seems to be steadily falling on the other side. Yet again. Not that they’ll acknowledge it in a million years.

As more information comes out, it seems like all the outrage over Martin’s shooting might very well be severely misplaced. New evidence seems to suggest that the teenager was actually a thug and Zimmerman was actually defending himself.

And if that’s true, then we might still have a case of racism on our hands.

Not that it should matter. Either way. Not in a legal sense and not in a moral sense.

Life shouldn’t be valued based on skin color, which is exactly what too many Americans have been doing ever since the news broke. After all, would Reverend Al Sharpton, the Black Panthers or the Miami Heat have made such a fuss over a black man shooting a Hispanic boy?

Probably not. And probably even less for a white boy.

That kind of blatant hypocrisy and even downright hatred wrapped in the righteous robes of civility, morality and compassion indicates that we really are “living life upside down.”

And we don’t seem to care to change it. Just as long as we can convince ourselves that we feel good in the end, we don’t really mind who gets hurt in the process.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Why I Love Capitalism and “The Hunger Games” too

Last night, relaxing on my couch, I decided to check my bank account since I made some large purchases recently and wanted to make sure I could still pay off my credit card bill in a few days. I had, of course, fully considered my current financial state before buying a new bed set and a trip to Ireland, but I’m slightly OCD about certain things, so I like to double check.

Upon opening my various statements, I was pleasantly surprised to see that I had planned it all out even better than I originally thought, which made me realize all over again just how much I love capitalism.

Now before anybody thinks it a brilliant idea to go hunting down my bank account information to drain me dry, let me set the record straight…

I make less than $40,000 a year (pre-tax) working at a job I would love to quit (right after telling my boss why I consider him on ethical par with a cockroach). I also live on the second story of a cheaply remade two-story house above neighbors who play their TV all day long at a respectable volume that I can still hear in my living room and sometimes even in my bedroom at night.

So clearly, I am not in the 1%. I have to budget, I have to save, and I have to say “no.” A lot.

And I still love capitalism. A lot.

Capitalism gives me the opportunity to earn what I own (even if I don’t always appreciate the earning part). It allows me to choose between that tricked-out smartphone and putting money into savings every month to watch it grow little by little into something I can be proud of.

Occupy Wall Street Foolishly Embraces “The Hunger Games”

This past weekend, the Hollywood Reporter published a piece called “The Politics of ‘The Hunger Games,’” where it explained how “Occupy-Wall-Street liberals” are claiming “the story of a dystopian future where reality TV pits children against each other in a competition to the death” as something they can somehow relate to.

They apparently love “the way the film portrays an extraordinary gap between the rich and poor as simply an innate evil. It’s a black-and-white view in which there’s no allowance that the rich might have earned their wealth – they’re portrayed simply as lazy and overly indulged oppressors. The poor are shown as the industrious ones.”

Take it from somebody who read all three books and plans on watching the movie next weekend: Occupy Wall Street is about as delusional on this one as they are on everything else. Regardless of what seriously messed-up author Suzanne Collins (just read the third book to know what I mean) intended, the series clearly portrays a communist regime where the government rules all, dictating everybody’s lives right down to their deaths when they see fit.

And while my capitalistic musings yesterday show that we’re clearly not there yet, we’re definitely on an accelerated path towards government-domination under the elitist theology liberals espouse, which sets the government as god and everybody else as mindless minions.

So think about the not-so-insane possibility of federal officials killing kids off for entertainment if you’re planning on checking out “The Hunger Games” anytime soon. History has shown too many equally evil stories playing out in the past and present to take the idea of an all-powerful government lightly.

Really, if we value our current ability to personally make personal decisions at all (i.e. capitalism), we could use a lesson or two from heroine Katniss and remember that just because the government says to have a Happy Hunger Games, we don’t have to play along.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Everything You Need to Know about the Keystone Pipeline and Obama’s Newest Claims on His Energy Failures… all Thanks to Fox News’ Chris Stirewalt

It’s sad when the leader of the (Still. Barely but still) most powerful nation in the world has the debating skills of a bratty middle schooler.

His maturity level, meanwhile, is decidedly lower.

If Obama has established a singular theme to his presidency, it’s that he can do anything… unless he can’t. Whenever he wants to pass something, it’s because he can change the world single-handedly. Whenever something goes wrong with what he whined and bullied and manipulated through an almost-as-pathetic Congress, it wasn’t his fault.

That stance is kinda funny though, considering how EVERYTHING was Bush’s fault back in 2008. The wars in the Middle East, the national deficit, a supposedly deplorable economy, high gas prices…

But now that he's president,  Obama refuses to take responsibility for any of it, unless of course he’s taking credit for the delusional recovery he alternately tries to convince us all we’re in the middle of. That recovery, he says, is the reason why gas prices are as high as they are right now. Or it’s due to speculators’ concerns over the Middle East. Or it’s because oil is such a finite resource that the world is barely eking anything out anymore.

But it’s DEFINITELY not his fault. Duh-duh-definitely, uuuhhh, not. No, he inherited this problem from Bush. And the reason why he blocked the Keystone Pipeline deal with Canada – which would have just about instantly created thousands of new jobs for Americans and probably appeased oil speculators to some degree or another – is because Republicans were irresponsibly rushing him.

Bad Republicans! Bad!

The thing is though, Obama isn’t nearly as stupid as he wants us all to be, so he knows that he’s not actually convincing too many Americans these days, not when so many of us are suffering from the ravages of record-high gasoline prices (for this time of year) and subsequent inflation. That’s why he’s so busy these days spinning one story after another, hoping that something will stick.

Yesterday, Fox News’ Chris Stirewalt wrote a brilliant commentary on the President’s current energy soap box, entitled “Obama tries to spread blame on Solyndra, Keystone.” It’s so good, in fact, that I couldn’t just pick a single paragraph out to highlight, and it even took a lot to limit myself to a mere fifth of the article.

You can read the whole piece here or my (multiple) favorite excerpts below:

“Obama, who is a long-time crusader against global warming, has suffered politically for his opposition to the pipeline. Global warming has faded as a concern for voters amid a lengthy economic disruption and with new doubts about the most alarming claims made by carbon hawks. With gasoline prices more than twice as high as they were when Obama took office, consumers are far less indulgent of Obama's environmental policies.

“The president's point in Cushing [Oklahoma, the world’s pipeline capital, where the President spoke at the other day] is that while he won't allow the top of the [Keystone] pipeline to go where the oil is, he has chosen not to block pipeline expansions at the southern end. This, of course, makes folks in the energy business furious. To have the president demanding credit for not blocking domestic pipeline upgrades is galling to them. They need executive blessing to cross the international border with Canada, but for domestic jobs they mostly just need Obama not to interfere and allow the permitting process to work as in the past.”

A bit further down, Stirewalt continues…

“While making his push for solar, Obama explained to a reporter for National Public Radio that the blame for Solyndra was bipartisan and not the fault of the Obama Democrats ‘per se.’

“‘Congress, Democrats and Republicans, put together a loan guarantee program because they understood historically that when you get new industries, it's easy to get money for new startups,’ Obama said. ‘But if you want to take them to scale, often there is a lot of risk involved and what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to help start-up companies get to scale.’

“The 2009 stimulus package that provided the funding for a loan of $527 million for Solyndra, which subsequently defaulted, got zero Republican votes in the House and three Republican votes in the Senate -- Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, who switched parties two months after the vote. There was no Republican input on the structuring of the energy loan program and the specific loan to Solyndra was a Democratic job from start to finish.

“It's true that there has been bipartisan support for the Federal Financing Bank since before its founding in 1973. Republicans have increasingly come to dislike the idea of giving the government power to loan money to private enterprises – ‘picking winners and losers’ – because of a growing opposition to crony capitalism and how it perverts politics and the marketplace. But crony capitalism was once very, very popular among moderate Republicans who cherished ‘public-private partnerships’ and other hidey-holes for public funds.

“But to suggest that Solyndra, the pet project of a major Obama backer, George Kaiser, was somehow a bipartisan failure because Rockefeller Republicans like the idea of using other people's money to start businesses is a little far-fetched. That would be like the driver at fault in a car crash arguing that roads enjoy widespread public support and crashes are inevitable: ‘While my car may have collided with yours, surely we can all agree that infrastructure is vital to America.’”

“A little far-fetched” it definitely is. But at this point, President Obama, who started out with nothing but lies, has nothing but lies to stand on.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Muslim Extremist Mohammad Merah Wasted His Life

Mohammad Merah is dead.

After killing three children and a teacher at a Jewish school in France, the Muslim extremist proceeded to hole up in his apartment for 32 hours while police surrounded him and tried to cajole or bully him out in turn. In the end though, Merah chose to “burst out of his flat’s bathroom ‘shooting insanely’ with a cache of weapons at police before leaping to his death from a window,” according to the UK’s MailOnline.

Merah chose to deliberately hurt people for no good reason. He choose deranged and inexcusable hatred instead of common decency. He chose to believe in a disgustingly perverted set of religious ideals, ones that preached hatred and violence and racism and sexism.

And so he wasted his life.

There’s really not much else to say on the matter.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Sometimes the News Gets Hideously Boring

Sometimes the news gets hideously boring.

It isn’t always the actual stories’ fault though; sometimes it’s the way they’re told, like something fairly obvious is supposed to be shocking or something mind-numbingly dull is supposed to be interesting.

In other words, it’s oftentimes the reporters’ and writers’ fault.

For example, a man guns down three young children at a Jewish school in France, recording the whole thing as he does, and we’re supposed to be surprised when the main suspect is a Muslim?

Oh, we’re supposed to say, it could have been anybody!

Except that common sense seemed to indicate otherwise.

Now if the crime scene was a shopping mall or a corporate building, Muslim extremists shouldn’t be at the automatic top of the suspect list. But a Jewish school? You don’t need to be a world-class criminal profiler to form a logical theory right from the get go.

Then there’s the completely unrelated and yet still eye-roll-inducing brouhaha over Robert De Niro’s scheduled appearance at an Obama fundraiser, which featured First Lady Michelle Obama. Before the President’s wife took the stage, De Niro allegedly asked the gathered group if they really thought “our country is ready for a white first lady? Too soon, right?”

While Newt Gingrich jumped all over that, I frankly can’t say that I care much. Hollywood is filled with mindless nitwits who say completely inappropriate and inane things all the time. Why is this particular instance newsworthy, and why should I waste my time caring about any of the thoughtless and grotesquely uninformed opinions that come out of celebrities’ mouths on a regular basis?

The same rather goes for those people in the national press and abortion industry pretending outrage at what Idaho State Senator Chuck Winder, a Republican, said during closing testimony for a bill requiring ultrasounds before abortions.

“Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this. I would hope that when a woman goes into a physician with a rape issue, that that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage, or was it truly caused by a rape.”

Yes, his verbal grammar is rather annoying. And yes, he probably could have found a better way to phrase it. But the pro-abortion crowd has long played the rape/incest card to condone free and open baby-killing procedures for all, so his larger point is valid.

So considering the way the mainstream media isn’t point that out, it makes the news, once again, worth little more than a yawn.

Monday, March 19, 2012

The TSA Strikes Again, This Time with a Three-Year-Old Boy with a Broken Leg

The all-American TSA has evoked so many complaints by this point that it’s decided to implement a new program where airlines can invite certain passengers to sidestep the possibility of pat downs and long lines.

This privilege comes with cushy perks like the right to leave shoes on, laptops in their cases, and liquids loose. All for just $100.

It almost seems that the TSA is interested in becoming an exclusive, for-profit business even though it’s fully funded with taxpayer dollars.

Since this is all being implemented under the Obama administration, it’s logical to wonder whatever happened to the President’s constant ballyhooing about evening out American income levels in the name of fairness. What’s fair about this program when handpicked people who have $100 to throw around can bypass federal rules and regulations that are forced on everybody else?

But since they’re a government-mandated monopoly, flyers have to pay up or put up and shut up. Either that or stay grounded.

Those unwilling to pay an extra $100 have to risk subjecting themselves or their children to unmerited, invasive search procedures.

It doesn’t matter if the suspected perp is a frightened three-year-old boy in a wheelchair with a cast on his broken leg. He still has to not only be fully examined, but also swabbed for explosive residue while his parents are forced to stand off to the side, not even allowed to hold his hand.

Somewhere, there’s a terrorist laughing. And no wonder when the TSA is such an anti-American joke.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Excusing Our Candidates' Bad Actions Brings Conservatives Down to Liberals’ Level

Yesterday, I got into a conversation with a female friend about the continuing Republican primary. As we were discussing the various candidates, we naturally touched on Newt Gingrich, with both of us agreeing that we don’t like him, largely because of his multiple marriages and at least one affair.

I have my political reasons for objecting to Gingrich’s presidential run as well, but I have to say that his lack of faithfulness really bothers me, as it does my friend.

It also really bothers me when I hear conservatives, who were more than willing to bash Bill Clinton for his lackadaisical views on marriage, turn around and defend Newt Gingrich for the same charge.

“Oh, it’s different,” they say. And to some degree, I suppose they can make a case that Newt Gingrich was never accused of rape and probably is an abysmal amateur in the infidelity category compared to Clinton.

But regardless of whether he batted in the big leagues or the minors, he still played ball. It’s the same game, and pretending that it isn’t makes conservatives look ignorant. It also makes us sound a heck of a lot like the liberals we complain about so much.

Liberals like President Obama’s Senior Advisor David Axelrod, who went on CNN’s “Out Front with Erin Burnett” to blather on about how Rush Limbaugh is an unusual breed of cretin compared to Bill Maher:

“Understand these words that uh uh Maher has used in his stand-up act uuuhhh are a lit bit different than uh – not excusable in any way – but uh different than a guy uh with 23 million radio listeners using his broadcast platform to malign a young woman for speaking uh her mind in the most uh in the most inappropriate, grotesque uh ways and uh and nor does Bill Maher play the role in the uh in the uh in the uh Democratic party that Rush Limbaugh plays in the Republican party, where he’s really the defacto boss of the party. Everybody responds to him.”

As with the Gingrich-Clinton comparison, there are differences. In fact, I’d argue that there are some very significant differences.

After all, Limbaugh didn’t use the level of “inappropriate, grotesque” words that Maher not infrequently resorts to. The conservative talk show host called Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute.” And then he apologized for his inappropriate language.

The “stand-up” comedian, meanwhile, called Sarah Palin the C-word, which is a heck of a lot more demeaning than “slut.” And Maher still hasn’t retracted the vile, gender-based vilification.

The problem is that Axelrod, as a standard liberal, isn’t willing to either admit or care about those distinctions. As conservatives, we should be adhering to a higher standard. Support Gingrich if you want; just don’t excuse his bad behavior as something less than it was.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Are Women Really Liberated These Days or Do We Just Like to Say We Are?

I’ll admit that I sometimes read those idiot articles that Yahoo!’s homepage features. Today’s moment of weakness was “What Men Think of Your Lipstick Color.”

Yeah, I know. I’m not exactly proud of myself, especially when it’s an obvious waste of my time when I have no inclination to change my style just to impress random men, and I’m also far too cheap and lazy to wear makeup anyway.

Even so, every once in a while, I come across one of those featured articles that unwittingly provides me with food for actual thought. Like Yahoo!’s coverage of E.L. James’ phenomena, Fifty Shades of Grey.

According to the site, that first book of a three-part series is about a “kinky anti-hero, billionaire Christian Grey [who] turns his good girl paramour Anastasia Steele into a submissive sex slave.” So not surprisingly, it’s unabashedly BDSM (bondage domination sadism masochism) material.

Written by a woman, it’s also huge hit with women, who apparently want to act out the scenes with their significant others… which leads to uncomfortable conclusions all on its own.

But I'll also confess to watching a third of “America’s Next Top Model: British Invasion” this morning (again, not proud of it). And between that, checking out the ridiculous lipstick review and learning about Fifty Shades of Grey, I really have to step back and take stock of my gender.

As women, we like talking about the women’s movement, the sexual revolution and gender equality. But judging by today’s booming porn industry – which largely caters to men – the oftentimes downright unhealthy fashion industry (Half of the heels I see women walking around in CAN NOT be comfortable, much less conducive to long-term happy feet!), and the Hollywood obsession with perceived feminine perfection, it seems that we women aren’t any more liberated than they we were a hundred and fifty years ago.

In fact, in some ways, we’re worse off. And worse yet, a decent half of the time, we’re just as guilty of propagating the perception of women as mere sexual objects.

What else can you call Tyra Banks and a bunch of 20-something American and British girls discussing their supermodel “superpowers” while prancing around in ridiculous capes like a bunch of five year olds?

How else can you explain the way the media overtly and underhandedly advises women how to conduct themselves to snag the opposite sex?

Is there another conclusion to come to when women have sent a book that subjugates its female character to willing sexual slavery straight to the top of the New York Times best seller list?

Judging by our actual actions, we’re just giving lip service to feminism. The actual meaning of the word has been dead for a long time. And we’re doing nothing to revive it.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Obamaland: A Basketball Slug-out, a $10,000 Dinner and Higher Taxes on Oil Companies

Last Wednesday, 37-year-old Shelly S. Miller’s daughter got into a fight with another player on her school basketball team, and so the assistant coach, Jeffrey Yackus, had both girls run laps around the inside of the gym.

But that wasn’t the big drama of the night.

That award goes to Miller, who thought the punishment so unjustified that he went and pummeled Yackus into unconsciousness. It seems safe to say that Miller doesn’t believe in teaching his daughter about actions and consequences, at least not when they apply to her.

I’d venture another good guess and say that Miller probably voted for Obama, who shares his belief that fairness and punishment are concepts entirely subjective to his whims.

Take his Vice President, Joe Biden, who spoke at an Obama fundraiser where guests had to pay a minimum of $10,000-per-couple to join. While the 87 attendees were dining on grass-fed New York strip steaks and white truffle mashed potatoes, the buffoonish Biden accused Republicans of lacking “a sense of the average folks out there. They don’t know what it means to be middle class.”

Oh yes he did. A classic case of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do.

It’s also a great example of being completely out of touch with reality, something that the Obama administration is familiar with as well. Just recently, Heather Zichal, deputy assistant to the President for energy and climate change, was asked whether punishing oil companies with higher taxes would lower the price of gas or not.

Her reply: “From our perspective, it’s a fairness issue.”

In other words, Americans will continue suffering indefinitely, taking what comfort we can from the idea that “the rich” are getting hurt too. How nice.

Thanks for that Obama. You’re so thoughtful. I’m sure I can utilize your “fairness” philosophy where it counts: At the voting booths.

See you in November!

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Somehow I doubt Hillary Clintons Foreign Policy Plan Will Do That Much for Women

In her own words, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has “made women a cornerstone of American foreign policy.”

Considering the disgusting levels of abuse so many women take around the world, her message seems like a noble idea. And she certainly sounds good talking about “helping women in the Central African Republic access legal and economic services. We’re improving the collection of medical evidence for the prosecution of gender-based violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. And… from Iraq and Afghanistan to Sudan to the new transitional democracies in the Middle East and North Africa, we’re expecting our embassies to develop local strategies to empower women politically, economically, and socially.”

But like so many liberal notions, it’s more than likely not going to work out, either in the short-term or the long run. That’s because, just off the top of my head, there are some very big problems with her thinking:

1. Those efforts are going to take money, which the U.S. doesn’t have. This nation is in the middle of a debt crisis that is only getting worse due in large part to short-sighted plan like this one.

2. Depending on how that money is doled out, it could actually end up financing continued violence against women through corrupts regimes and corrupt individuals, both men and women. Much of the foreign aid the U.S. doles out to countries ends up lining despotic bureaucrat’s pockets rather than positively influencing the poor and destitute.

3. These efforts are being spearheaded by a woman who stayed with her husband despite his repeated affairs, multiple instances of sexual harassment against other women, and even an alleged case of rape. So this rather seems like a case of the blind leading the blind, with one major caveat, since the visually-deficient leader willfully impaired herself in the first place.

With that all said, I’m not saying America shouldn’t help out the poor, the destitute and the needy. I’m just saying that government assistance isn’t always the best way to go about it, even when it seems like the easiest way.

There are plenty of worthwhile private enterprises such as International Justice Missions, which works hard to combat the global sex trade, that Americans can donate their time, efforts and money to without sending the nation further into debt.

It’s all well and good that the U.S. wants (or says it wants) to save the world. But if it can’t get itself in order, and soon, it’s not going to be able to save anything, including itself.

Monday, March 12, 2012

U.S. Soldier Allegedly Massacres 16 Afghan Civilians, Including Women and Children

On Sunday, March 11, somebody snuck into two villages in the Panjwai district of southern Kandahar, Afghanistan, opening fire and killing a total of 16 people, including nine children.

Allegedly, that somebody was a U.S. soldier going AWOL .

If that is true, than that is horrible and the perpetrator needs to be brought to justice. And regardless of who did it, my condolences and prayers go out to the families who lost loved ones yesterday morning. I can’t imagine what they are going through and I hope that they are granted peace, comfort and justice.

Concerning the U.S. soldier’s involvement, however, there are some rather odd details being circulated, including his age and level of experience…

38-years-old, he’s a married father of two who already concluded three tours in Iraq before accepting his current assignment in Afghanistan. And, according to Yahoo, he left his base in the wee hours of the morning, entered a Taliban-heavy area, shot up a few homes and returned to the base of his own volition, where he “calmly turned himself in” and “lawyered up.”

That all begs about a million versions of the question “Why?”

Among them: Why did a tried and true soldier suddenly buck all of the military regulations and chain of command he’d submitted to for years? Why did he kill mostly children? Why did he do something so horrific on his own, then turn himself in all on his own and lawyer up right away?

Those last details make his actions sound very pre-calculated and the alleged perpetrator himself very reasonable (as in the in-his-right-mind kind of reasonable , not the respecting-the-sanctity-of-human-life variety)… which once again begs the profiler’s question of “Why?”

There are two natural conclusions to come to, one of them being that the unnamed suspect caught a particularly violent case of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). But if so, why did he only snap now instead of during his first, second or third tour?

Presuming he’s guilty, the other logical assumption is that he was avenging the murders of his fellow U.S. soldiers, who were murdered by Afghanis in the name of Islam’s injured honor after several copies of the Quran were found burned in a military institution’s garbage heap. While that hardly justifies the slaughter and certainly doesn’t comfort the victims’ surviving family members, that theory does at least explain the soldier’s actions to some degree.

Unless, of course, he’s the scapegoat in a major cover-up, whether an operation gone wrong or a Taliban attack made to look like something else. Regardless, there’s something very strange about this latest international incident between the U.S. and Afghanistan, and it’s doubtful that the mainstream media will report on it anytime soon, if ever.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Study Says Listening to Rock Music Makes White People Racist

Does listening to rock music make white people racist?

The answer is a resounding yes, at least according to one group of researchers who subjected 138 students to different genres and then asked them to distribute hypothetical funds to a variety of ethnically similar groups in need.

According to the UK’s Daily Mail, the young adults “were told they were taking part in a study of how funds should be distributed in college [and]… After listening to Bruce Springsteen and the White Stripes, the students handed most of the money to white people.”

But Top 40 pop stars such as Gwen Stefani, Akon and Fergie inspired a more even distribution.

“Rock music is generally associated with white Americans, so we believe it cues white listeners to think about their positive association with their own in-group,” Heather LaMarre, an assistant professor of journalism and mass communication at the University of Minnesota, said. “That was enough for them to show more support for a student group representing mostly whites.”

This all makes me conclude that LaMarre and people who conducted the story are so stupid that it works in their favor. There are quite simply so many flaws with the idea that it’s bewildering.

But here… Let me take a deep breath and try to compose myself... And try again...

Problem Set 1: Why would anybody be wondering this question in the first place? Isn’t the assumption that white people listening to white-dominated genres itself racist, since it tries to – negatively! – categorize a whole group of people by the color of their skin? And regardless, shouldn’t they perform another study on themselves to determine what kind of music they’re listening to in order to automatically connect “white” music with something like racism?

Problem Set 2: Did they do a study on the effects of “black” music, (i.e. rap) on black people? Or white people, for that matter? If any kind of music was going to make white people racist, wouldn’t it be hearing the N-word repeated over, and over, and over again? Just sayin’.

Problem Set 3: Gwen Stefanie, Akon and Fergie make people less racist? Really? First off, two of them are white people. According to the sophomoric conjectures and conclusions of this study, shouldn’t that factor into listeners’ thought processes? Also, as much as I find much of these three artists’ music catchy, they’re also out-and-out self-made pointless bimbos, Akon included. Shouldn’t the researchers also checked to see if listeners lost some IQ points?

Problem Set 4: Gwen Stefanie, Akon and Fergie are also not shy about portraying women as easily obtained objects of male fantasyland, through their innuendo-laden lyrics and racy music videos. So a study judging transferred sexism would make a heck of a lot more sense.

In conclusion, does listening to rock music make white people racist? Only in liberal land, where anything makes sense if a liberal says it does.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

The Media Shrugs off ABC’s “Good Christian Bitches” but They Get Mad at Rush Limbaugh for Saying “Slut?”

Since the whole Limbaugh-calling-Sandra-Fluke-a-slut-and-a-prostitute backlash is still going on, let’s talk about misogyny, offensiveness and degradation.

And let’s actually get real when we do.

Last year, right around this time actually, ABC announced it was adding a new series to its line-up based off of Kim Gatlin’s novel, “Good Christian Bitches.”

At the time, the larger media didn’t care. There was no censure from Obama, no day’s-long criticism from CNN, and no demands from big-name feminists to boot it before it went public.

The show has since debuted – though under the abbreviation “GCB,” as if that’s somehow less offensive – and, again, there really wasn’t a peep of protest outside of conservative circles. But we’re still getting on Limbaugh for calling a woman (singular) a “slut” and a “prostitute?”

Seriously? Seriously?

At least sluts and prostitutes are still categorically human beings. Not so much with bitches, which are nasty animals quite literally asking for “it.” Also, Rush Limbaugh made a pretty decent case, if I do say so myself, for why Sandra Fluke (singular) was not exactly the crème de la crème. And he has repeatedly attacked masculine examples of sexual impropriety as well, exposing (Pun intended. Groan. Groan.) Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, et al, in their turn.

What excuse does ABC have when it doesn’t directly address the self-righteous, hypocritical, unlikable and downright mean women – and men – outside of the Christian faith?

But GCB star and self-proclaimed Christian Kristin Choweth says the show doesn’t need an excuse, since it isn’t offensive in the first place. “The Bible tells us that we’re not supposed to judge,” she told ABCNews.com, “and people shouldn’t judge before seeing the show.”

By her logic, then, common sense and common courtesy are completely unnecessary tools. By her logic, it’s ok to run a program starring a woman of different religious affiliation on a show titled “Good Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist Bitches.” And by her logic, liberals shouldn’t judge Limbaugh until they actually tune in to hear his program.

Of course, that last point actually makes sense, since there is nothing automatically offensive in Rush Limbaugh’s show title or general message, as anyone who actually listened would know.

It’s really difficult to say the same for a show titled “Good Christian Bitches” – abbreviated or not – that features catty women quoting the Bible and Christian slogans to excuse their nasty behavior.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich Would All Be Such an Improvement over Barack Obama

During yesterday’s “Super Tuesday” primary elections – which left Mitt Romney in the lead, Rick Santorum still hanging on and Newt Gingrich with a single win – President Obama had a message for the American people.

Politico reports:

“… Obama railed against Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Without ever naming them, he denounced their collective claim that he’s been a weakling on Iran, willing to sell out Israel for a few months of pre-election tranquility.”

Except that he has “been a weakling on Iran” and “willing to sell out Israel for a few months of pre-election tranquility.” But moving on…

“‘[T]hose folks don’t have a lot of responsibilities. They’re not commander in chief,’ said Obama, in the cramped confines of the White House briefing room.”


Considering all of the golfing trips and vacations Obama has gone on in the last three years, it would seem that he doesn’t have that many responsibilities either. Or at least he doesn’t think the ones he has are all that weighty.

“Obama’s none-too-subtle suggestion was that they never, ever should be commanders in chief, a sentiment he expressed repeatedly during an hour of election-year politics that might have appeared, to a midday national TV audience, to be a mostly sober discussion of war, peace and diplomacy.”

But what President Obama hopes the general public won’t be aware of is how he’s spouting these words of personal and national strength at the same time he’s considering sharing classified U.S. data with Russia.

His administration is currently stressing that past presidents, including George W. Bush, have acted similarly in order to get various jobs done. Which is probably more than partially true.

Problem is though, Obama’s ridiculous bow-or-concede foreign policy up to date all but ensures America will lose out heavily in the end, especially considering Russia’s exceptionally naughty behavior with Iran and other hostile nations over the past few years.

That’s why, while I definitely have my favorite among Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, I would gladly take any of them over Barack Obama. Because really, there’s not much worse we can get than what we have now.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Three Words on Rush Limbaugh Calling Sanra Fluke a “Prostitute:” Get Over It

So this whole thing over Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute”

I’m really finding it hard to take offense or even care, for that matter.

Now, I am a die-hard Limbaugh fan. But I’m also a die-hard woman. I love and respect what I am as a woman, and I expect other people to respect it to, Limbaugh included.

I just can’t identify with Sandra Fluke at all, who seems more than willing to trash her feminine – and human! – dignity for her unrealistic liberal demands.

Maybe I should be outraged with Limbaugh, despite his seemingly sincere apology over the weekend, which he reiterated at length on Monday on his talk show program. Maybe I should be calling for him to be censored and booed off the airwaves.

And maybe I’m not because I’m desensitized. By the left’s treatment of women.

After all, the left is filled with oinkers of all shapes and sizes, such as:
  • Kanye West, who performed at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and frequently calls women “hos” and “bitches” in his songs, not to mention his “Monster” music video, which depicts white women as “eroticized, mutilated and dead” and black women as “animalistic, savage demons,” as feministfrequency puts it, all against lyrics about rape and forceful oral sex
  • Bill Maher, who donated $1 million to Obama’s re-election campaign, and who isn’t shy about throwing around the C-word and other negative female-oriented terms about conservative women, predominantly Sarah Palin
  • The general liberally leaning entertainment and advertising media, which regularly depicts women as objects, like they did last year in a photo shoot featuring Glee’s Heather Morris (a.k.a. Brittany), with a black eye and tied up in an iron cord
It’s also difficult to care that much about the Sandra Fluke situation when liberal women follow right along, calling themselves strong and independent while physically conforming to men’s stereotypes of what they should be, which is little but hot, on display and sexually available (and in ditzy, blond Brittany’s case, apparently restrained and beaten as well).

Why else would there be an outbreak of young girls posting videos of themselves on YouTube asking for public approval of their image with the question “Am I Pretty?” They do that because their lefty role models like Katy Perry, Beyonce and Rhianna display themselves as “sluts” and “prostitutes” to the general public, convincing women of all ages that those titles are their highest possible calling.

So with all of that sexism, misogyny, hypocrisy and downright stupidity going on in the Democrat party and its ranks, can you really blame me for not caring all that much when they get a bit of their own medicine?

Monday, March 5, 2012

General Motors Suspends Chevrolet Volt Production until April

Who knew that socialism could fail?

Apparently not President Obama and his union-driven devotee, General Motors. They cut classes anytime their teachers were covering such wide-ranging topics as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and modern-day North Korea… all of which tried socialism on for size and failed or are currently failing miserably.

The all-but-government-owned car company had originally projected sales of 45,000 Chevrolet Volts in 2012, despite its severely low showing in 2011. But so far this year, it’s only sold 1,626.

At that rate, it won’t even make 25% of its goal come December, a poor showing so stark that even a socialist scheme like General Motors can do the math, proving that there is hope for them after all.

(Only a very smidgen of hope, admittedly, but hope nonetheless.)

Of course, just because they’re acknowledging blatantly obvious, in-your-face facts doesn’t mean they’re not casting the blame for those facts elsewhere. So, according to them, it isn’t anything to do with how their technology isn’t very practical or that they badly misread public demand.

To quote Alice in Wonderland’s Mad Hatter as he slathered condiments into a broken pocket watch, “Don’t let’s be silly.”

Instead, it’s CLEARLY the media’s fault for exaggerating reports of the car’s fire hazards, and the federal government’s fault for then looking into the matter. They’re to blame for the poor sales figures and therefore for the 1,300 “temporary” layoffs Chevrolet had to enact to cover the costs.

Oh right, and for the fact that General Motors is suspending production of the Volt entirely until April 23rd, when the 1,000-plus employees will supposedly be put back on the payroll.

As evidenced by the colossal and costly failure of a single car company and its attempted rebirth, America can’t even manage a partial attempt at socialism. If our politicians had any sense whatsoever, they’d recognize the whole mess for what it is and try to steer the country in a different direction.

Unfortunately, President Obama skipped Logic 101 right along with his history classes, so that happy thought has about the same short-term chance as another 43,374 people stepping up to waste their money on a Chevrolet Volt this year.

Knowing that, here’s looking forward to November 2012… and then January 2013!

Friday, March 2, 2012

Legalized Abortion and Its Aftermath Proves Nazi Germany Wasn’t That Unique

Less than a century ago, Nazi Germany was busy implementing its ethnic cleansings. And contrary to popular thought, it wasn’t just Jews who were deemed sub-human.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website states:

“The Nazi persecution of persons with disabilities in Germany was one component of radical public health policies aimed at excluding hereditarily ‘unfit’ Germans from the national community. These strategies began with forced sterilization and escalated toward mass murder. The most extreme measure, the Euthanasia Program, was in itself a rehearsal for Nazi Germany’s broader genocidal policies.”

It goes on to detail how, after passing the “Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases” in 1933, which “called for the sterilization of all persons who suffered from diseases considered hereditary, including mental illness, learning disabilities, physical deformity, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, and severe alcoholism,” the government “stepped up its propaganda against the disabled, regularly labeling them ‘life unworthy of life’ or ‘useless eaters’ and highlighting their burden upon society.”

This escalated until August 18, 1939, when an order was sent out to all medical personnel to permanently dispatch infants and toddlers “who showed signs of severe mental or physical disability.” All minors were eventually included in that mandate.

That progression leads a literal hell of a lot of credibility to the slippery slope argument, which places the West well down the hill towards extraordinary levels of depravity.

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are prime examples of how much the supposedly civilized world has in common with Nazi Germany. In a piece published by the Journal of Medical Ethics, the two argue for legalized “after-birth abortion,” since “the moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

They argue: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

That’s all a very sterile way of justifying murder for the sake of convenience. Rather like the Nazi’s ruling that certain lives aren’t really lives if they “interfere” with societal “good,” Giubilini, Minerva – and, let’s face it, abortion supporters – are establishing themselves as superior, and other human beings as inferior, based on their personal perception of value.

Between abortion’s legality and this kind of disgusting argument published in a professional journal, it’s high time we face the stark similarities between what we’re doing today and what we condemn Nazi Germany for doing less than a century ago.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Another Deadly Shooting Incident in Afghanistan Further Proves President Obama to Be Dangerously Delusional

Dictionary.com defines the word “Delusional” as:

     de•lu•sion•al [dih-loo-zhuh-nl]
     adjective
     1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Senators who think they will get agreement on
     a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.
     2. Psychiatry . maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of
     mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against
     him.

Either way you look at it, President Obama easily fits the description, especially in light of his overarching foreign policy, which sounded delusional – i.e. “maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts” – from the start but has now been proven as such after more than three years of unwavering commitment to failure.

It should be pretty clear by now that bowing down, literally and figuratively, to hostile foreign leaders who blatantly disrespect us has not made the world a better place. The only thing it has led to – and doubtlessly will continue leading to – is increasingly dangerous levels of contempt.

Take Afganistan, where some copies of the Quran ended up incinerated as garbage at a U.S. military base. When Muslims found out what had happened, they expressed their anger by rioting, holding President Obama up in effigy (complete with racial slurs), chanting “Death to America” and even shooting two U.S. military men.

So what does Obama do? Apologize.

Because that’s worked out so well in the past.

Yet he steadfastly maintains that his slavish approach is working. Just yesterday, he publicly stated that his apology “calmed things down.” But he apparently spoke far too soon and with far less intelligence than the President of the United States should have (or simply with far less concern), because two more American soldiers in Afghanistan were just killed today in retaliation for the Quran incident.

Obama’s particular delusions would be dangerous enough if he was just an individual responsible only for his individual actions. But as evidenced by the title he liberally throws around every time Republicans get in his way, he’s the President of the United States and therefore carries far greater responsibility.

When he kneels down to other nations, exposing himself as weak and subservient, he puts his entire country at risk. The four military men who have already died over the Quran incident are only the most obvious and immediate signs of how America is suffering for his delusional state of mind.