The Left’s War On Women Starts In The Womb
May 29, 2012 Political
The Democrats have ginned up an alleged war on women being waged by Republicans and they have gone after people like Rush Limbaugh for comments he made to substantiate their claims. The liberals are also playing up the contrived disparity in pay as a Republican war on women though, interestingly, many Democrats pay their female staffers far less than their male staffers. Even Barack Obama pays his female workers less money than his male workers.
The war on women meme is in full bloom as Katie Couric, one of the left’s cheerleaders, gave a commencement address where she discussed how she had been cheated by sexists. I guess the millions of dollars they pay her for her lack of talent is not enough compensation, or should I say, Love?
The reality is that the left has been waging a war on women for a long time. Whether it is the aforementioned pay disparity among the staff of Democrat politicians or the push for affirmative action programs for women (programs that by design mean Democrats think women can’t make it on a level playing field) it is obvious that the war being waged is by the left.
The war is even more pronounced when one considers that Democrats are waging war on unborn females through sex selective abortion.
A pro-life group called Live Action has videos showing that Planned Parenthood allows and supports women who want to abort their babies because they are girls rather than boys. The videos show that the abortion mill in America is in favor of sex selective abortions. So now, not only is Planned Parenthood working to wipe out the black population, it is also working to wipe out the female population.
Abortion is a predominantly Democrat/liberal/progressive entity. Liberals will defend to their last breath the “right” of a woman to murder her unborn child and that means that the war on unborn females is being waged by the left.
Democrats cannot run on their records and Barack Obama cannot tout his effectiveness because he has made a mess of things. He has failed to reach the lofty goals he set for himself when he asked for the job he currently holds (he did not inherit anything, he asked for it) so he knows he cannot run on his record. Instead, he is hiding his record by distracting people with phony claims like a Republican war on women.
Obama and the rest of the liberals are the ones waging this war and while the Obama regime condemns Syria for murdering children it does the very same thing through abortion.
Particularly to female children.
We need to put an end to Planned Parenthood and we need to put an end to the Obama regime come November.
Let us make it the end of an error…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: abortion, katie couric, liberals, lies, Limbaugh, Obama, war on women
Obama; Wrong Then and Befuddled Now
Jul 23, 2008 Political
Barack Hussein Obama absolutely opposed the surge of troops into Iraq. This is an undeniable truth and his own words on the subject depict not only a man who opposed the surge but told us that he believed it would have the opposite effect. He said it would cause more violence, not less. Doug Ross documents Obama’s position on the surge:
- Barack Obama, Jan. 2007: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraqis going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
- Democrat Barack Obama, Jan 2007: “I don’t think the president’s [surge] strategy is going to work.”
- Democrat Barack Obama, Jul. 2007: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked.”
- Democrat Barack Obama, Oct. 2007: “[The surge is a] complete failure… Iraq’s leaders are not reconciling. They are not achieving political benchmarks.”
There is no doubt that Obama opposed the surge, thought it would not work and declared it a failure. So what does the presumptive Democratic nominee do when confronted with the fact that the surge has been a success despite the defeatist attitude of him and his fellow Democrats? He refuses to admit he was wrong and then says that, knowing what he knows now, he still would not have supported it. Then, just to show how really out of touch he is, he advocates for a surge in Afghanistan. In other words, he wants us to do in Afghanistan what worked in Iraq but which he opposed and would still oppose were it presented today. Or would he since he is supporting it now but in another country? Confused yet?
We should have seen this coming since Obama told us six months ago that success was based on Democrats being elected to the majority:
What we have to do is to begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there in perpetuity. Now, it will — we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi’as. We should start negotiating now. That’s how you change behavior.
And that’s why I will send a clear signal to the Iraqi government. They will have ample time to get their act together, to actually pass an oil law, which has been — they’ve been talking about now for years. [emphasis added] Flopping Aces
So, which is it Senator? Were the troops the reason for the decreased violence or was this brought about because Democrats were elected to the majority? Why do you want to put more troops in Afghanistan (to emulate the strategy in Iraq) if you opposed it as wrong then and still would not support it today?
Obama is busy trying to appease everyone in order to get elected. He needs to appeal to the left wing moonbats who oppose any military action and want an immediate withdraw. He needs to appeal to people who want victory as the exit strategy so he can pick up those votes and he needs to appear as if he knew what he was talking about all along so that people will not think he is inexperienced or a flip-flopper.
If he admits he was wrong about the surge then his base will think he abandoned them. He will suffer a reverse of Hillary’s fate. She refused to admit her vote for the war was wrong and she lost support. If he admits that the surge was the right thing to do he will lose support as well.
The problem is, he was wrong. He was wrong about it all and now he is being called on it. The Gateway Pundit has video of an interview with Katie Couric of CBS and Obama comes off as smug and uninformed. Obama’s position is that the surge worked but it was bad strategy. In the interview, he makes a weak attempt at deflecting to how money could have been used to do other things. It is quite pathetic.
Here is an idea. Pick a position and stick with it. If you are wrong then have the testicular fortitude to say that your initial assessment was wrong and move on from there.
The problem is, Obama is trying to be everything to everyone and in the end it will be his undoing. As the next 15 weeks move on more Americans will see that Obama really lacks the experience to lead us in these perilous times.
Obama had better get it right because if he is elected and then takes actions that cause us to lose the war it will alienate a lot of this country. Americans, all real Americans, can’t stand the thought of losing. Obama’s plan is to lose and if we had followed his desires we would be doing just that.
I just wish that the Democrats had as much desire for our country to win the war as they do to win elections.
Others:
Stop the ACLU | Hot Air | Marc Ambinder | Jake Trapper | Commentary Magazine | Brutally Honest
Tags: defeat, inexperience, katie couric, McCain, Obama, surge, triumph, war
Hillary’s Writers Go On Strike
Nov 28, 2007 Political
The DNC has canceled the the last of its fall debates because of a pending writer’s strike at CBS. The Writers Guild and the network have been without a strike for about two years so the union decided that this would be a good time to disrupt things. Queen Hillary had already indicated that she would not cross the picket line and the DNC, beholden to the unions to supply votes and thugs for events, decided not to show some courage and decide that they should not allow the union to disrupt things.
However, this is a good thing for Hillary Clinton since she has been dropping in the polls and did not need another melt down so close to the primaries. She would melt down because the writers would not be there to write for her and CBS might pick someone who did not have a planted question to ask.
Lost in all this is the effect on poor Katie Couric who was set to moderate this debate. I know she was just looking for an opportunity to bat her eyes at Clinton in admiration and then ask questions that would make Wolf Blitzer look like Stalin.
In the words of Dr. Evil: Boo-frickity-hoo
Source:
The Politico
Tags: dnc, dr evil, Hillary Clinton, katie couric, politico, primaries, queen hillary, stalin, wolf blitzer