If Women Believe "War on Motherhood" They Are Fools

Patton: Dems War on Motherhood a Surefire Loser

By Doug Patton April 17, 2012 6:57 am

          

Text Size: A A A

Rush Limbaugh made one provocative remark about a woman whom Nancy Pelosi had used as a prop to spread propaganda in favor of "free" contraceptives, and the press immediately lapped up the DNC line that the conservative talk show host’s comments somehow reflected the view of the entire Republican Party. This, along with Catholic clerics attempting to defend the First Amendment, was supposedly the opening salvo of a "war on women."

But liberal misogynist Bill Maher, who personally has contributed a cool $1 million toward Barack Obama's reelection, can say any vile thing he wants about conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann and it is dismissed as "comedy." Send back the million? You must be kidding. And the reaction to Maher’s obscene rants from Democrats and their sycophants in the media? Imagine the sound of crickets on a still summer night.

Last week, Hilary Rosen, a lesbian activist and advisor to the Democratic National Committee, announced smugly on television that Mitt Romney's wife of 43 years, Ann, "has never worked a day in her life." As most Americans know by now, Ann Romney raised five sons while battling cancer and Multiple Sclerosis, but apparently in Hilary Rosen’s liberal world, that doesn’t qualify as work.

The White House response? Sensing the political quicksand in which they were suddenly standing, the president and his posse proceeded to throw Rosen under the bus, basically denying that they even knew who she was. White House mouthpiece Jay Carney claimed at the next daily press briefing that he personally knows at least three different women named Hilary Rosen and therefore couldn’t possibly be expected to know which one uttered this particular comment. Right.

Obama campaign hack David Axelrod issued a statement aimed at CNN, where Rosen is also a pundit (no conflict of interest there). "She's your employee, not ours," Axelrod said. Never mind that she has visited the White House 35 times, five of them to meet with Obama personally.

And then there is the president himself, who dismissed Rosen as, "Somebody on TV." Kind of like his friend, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers was "just a guy in the neighborhood."

Anyone who has read my opinions during the course of this Republican primary season knows that Mitt Romney was not my first, second or even third choice to win the GOP nomination. However, I will gladly vote for him against Barack Obama, especially if he picks a solid conservative as his running mate. So it warms my heart to see Obama’s approval ratings among women — especially stay-at-home-moms — plummeting in the wake of this current Democrat display of arrogance. It seems that a phony war on women has backfired on the supercilious left and become their own genuine war on motherhood — never a wise battle.

Don’t think for a moment that the attitudes expressed by Hilary Rosen and the other surrogates for this president are not the views of this administration. Any president as radical as Obama will have no more compassion for motherhood than he does for the elderly, who will surely die in droves under the death panels Sarah Palin correctly identified in Obamacare. He simply does not care as long it advances his agenda.

It has become obvious that Obama has no intention of campaigning on the economic issues. He can’t, because he has nothing but a record of failure on which to run. Hope and change has become frighten, deceive and obfuscate. That is what the phony "war on women" was all about. No thinking person actually believes that anyone in Washington really wants to deny women contraception. However, there are many who understand the truth about Barack Obama’s multi-front war on the unborn, the elderly, and now on motherhood.

If Romney is an Elitist, what is Obama?

And Obama Calls Romney an Elitist?

By GOPUSA Staff April 19, 2012 12:20 pm

          

Text Size: A A A

As you would guess, Barack Obama and his team are going after Mitt Romney for being successful (as if that is somehow a crime in America). But Romney is punching back, focusing on Obama's record-setting golf outings and frivilous travel. In reference to Obama's 90+ rounds of golf, Romney said, "I would think you could kind of suck it up for four years, particularly when the American people are out of work."

Republican challenger Mitt Romney on Wednesday suggested President Obama is not taking his job seriously enough and accused him of spending too much time golfing and traveling the world while the economy struggles to rebound.

"I must say I scratch my head at the capacity of the president to take four hours off on such a regular basis to go golfing," Romney said during an interview with conservative radio host Bill Cunningham, who asked Romney about Obama's more than 90 rounds of golf since becoming president. Romney added, "I would think you could kind of suck it up for four years, particularly when the American people are out of work."

Citing the rise in unemployment numbers and decline in both median incomes and housing values, Romney said the president should put down the clubs and "focus his energy on getting people back to work."

Peoria bishop compares Obama's actions to Stalin, Hitler

By NBCChicago.com

The Anti-Defamation League wants an apology from Peoria's bishop following a recent homily comparing President Barack Obama's policies to those of despots Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

During the message at St. Mary's Cathedral in Peoria, Roman Catholic Bishop Daniel Jenky contended social services for Catholics could be eliminated if Obama's directive to include contraceptives in health insurance continues. Jenky went on to compare the actions to past cultural wars against the Catholic Church.

---

“Remember that in past history other governments have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches like the first disciples locked up in the Upper Room,” Jenky said.

ed to Otto von Bismarck's "culture war against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany."

“Clemenceau, nicknamed ‘the priest eater,’ tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century," Jenky said. "Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services and health care."

"In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama, with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path,” he said.

Chicago’s Anti-Defamation League calls the comments "outrageous." League Regional Director Lonnie Nasatir told the Chicago Tribune Jenky "needs a history lesson."

Nasatir said the bishop's homily trivialized the deaths of six million Jews and others during the Holocaust. He said there are few if any historic parallels to "the religious intolerance and anti-Semitism fostered in society by Stalin, and especially Hitler."

Citizens Are Smarter Than Pols Again

Immigration is one of the topics that many people will agree to disagree especially if they are in Washington.  However, it seems as if the voters are on a different track from their "leaders."  In the following post by Scott Rasmussen, he explains the difference.  

Conservative Tom

Rasmussen: Voters Understand the Immigration Debate; Politicians Don't

By Scott Rasmussen April 28, 2012 6:57 am

          

Text Size: A A A

As the U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with the Obama administration's challenge of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigration, the overall issue of immigration remains misunderstood by both political parties in Washington.

Many Washington Republicans confuse voter opposition to illegal immigration with opposition to all immigration. Their remarks often contain an ugly tone toward those who want to come to America.

Many Washington Democrats confuse public respect for hardworking immigrants with a belief that borders and immigration laws don't matter. Their remarks often contain an ugly tone toward those who believe the nation's immigration laws should be enforced.

On the issues before the court, most voters tend to side with the state of Arizona rather than the federal government. Fifty-nine percent of voters nationwide, for example, agree with one of the law's most controversial provisions, that police officers should routinely check the immigration status of those they pull over for other violations. Most voters would like to have a law like Arizona's in their own state.

But that says more about voter respect for the law than it does about the immigration issue. Voters figure if there's a law on the books, the government should enforce it.

That's why, among voters who are angry about the immigration issue, 83 percent are angry at the federal government rather than the illegal immigrants themselves. It's also why two-thirds of voters think those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants are a bigger problem than the people they employ. Simply put, most Americans are angry at those who would entice others to break the law. They're not angry at people who are willing to work hard to provide for their families.

It's a little bit like the public desire to go after drug pushers rather than occasional users of illegal drugs.

Still, there's another reason for the disconnect between official Washington and the American people on immigration.

In Washington, the entire focus of the immigration debate is on how to deal with those already living here illegally. For voters, this is a secondary concern. The bigger concern is how to secure the border so future immigrants enter the county according to the rules. Routinely, in surveys for years, 60 percent or more of voters say securing the borders is a higher priority than legalizing the status of the illegal immigrants who are here now.

Once voters are convinced that illegal immigration is a thing of the past, it will be easier to address the status of those in the country already.

But voters don't believe the federal government has any interest in securing the border. In fact, most believe the policies of the federal government are designed to encourage illegal immigration. This offends voters who want to respect the rule of law. If immigration laws -- or any laws -- are routinely ignored, then the government loses credibility.

If the laws are enforced, 61 percent of voters favor a welcoming policy that lets anybody come to America except national security threats, criminals and those who would live off the U.S. welfare system. All who would like to work hard and pursue the American Dream are welcome.

The bottom line is that voters remember what many in Washington often forget: America is a nation of immigrants -- and of laws. The American people want both traditions to be honored.

Israelis Under Another Threat

Abduct Israelis to free prisoners, Gaza leaders say

REUTERS - The Jerusalem Post, April 27th, 2012

GAZA – Islamic leaders in the Gaza Strip called on Friday for militants to kidnap Israelis and use them as bargaining chips to secure the freedom of thousands of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.
Human rights groups say up to 2,000 prisoners have joined an open-ended hunger strike to protest against jail conditions and thousands of Palestinians staged a rally in the Gaza Strip to support their cause.
“We should work hard to get (Israeli) prisoners in our hands in order to secure the freedom of our prisoners,” Khaled Al-Batsh, a senior member of the Islamic Jihad, told the crowd.
“I say to all armed factions, the way to free the prisoners is through swaps … An arrest for an arrest, and freedom for freedom. This is the way,” he said.
Israel last year freed some 1,000 Palestinians in return for the release of Gilad Schalit, a soldier seized in 2006 and held by the Islamist group Hamas in secret captivity for five years.
Human Rights groups say at least 4,700 Palestinians remain in Israeli jails, many of them convicted for violent crimes. Palestinian leaders say they should be treated as prisoners of war, something Israel rejects.
Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader in Gaza, said Palestinian militant factions would “never abandon” the prisoners.
“The swap deal was a message to the (Israeli) occupation that the resistance and the Palestinian people will pursue every difficult avenue to break the chains of these heroes,” he said.
“We are in a battle for the prisoners, and we will either win, or we will win,” he added.
Friday's rally saw participants waving both the green and black flags of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad – a sign of growing ties between the two groups, which share the same Islamist ideology and advocate the destruction of the state of Israel.
Prisoners are seen as heroes in their communities and the mass hunger strike is putting pressure on the leadership to respond. Israel struck deals with two prisoners earlier this year to end their hunger strikes, but is resisting demands for further concessions.
At least two prisoners have been refusing food for more than eight weeks. A mass hunger strike by at least 1,200 was launched on April 17 and the Addameer prisoners' association has said a further 800 have since joined the movement.

Sowell: Who Is Racist

After you read the attached essay by Thomas Sowell and still think that George Zimmerman should not get a trial--then you are the racist, not Zimmerman. Mr. Sowell, does a great job of laying the blame at those who should be more cautious by throwing around that very derogatory term!

Conservative Tom

Sowell: Who Is 'Racist?'

By Thomas Sowell April 24, 2012 6:49 am

          

Text Size: A A A

Whatever the ultimate outcome of the case against George Zimmerman for his shooting of Trayvon Martin, what has happened already is enough to turn the stomach of anyone who believes in either truth or justice.

An amazing proportion of the media has given us a painful demonstration of the thinking -- and lack of thinking -- that prevailed back in the days of the old Jim Crow South, where complexion counted more than facts in determining how people were treated.

One of the first things presented in the media was a transcript of a conversation between George Zimmerman and a police dispatcher. The last line in most of the transcripts shown on TV was that of the police dispatcher telling Zimmerman not to continue following Trayvon Martin.

That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for continuing to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that conversation on the Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman's reply to the police dispatcher: "O.K."

That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin. At this point, neither I nor the people who assumed that he continued to follow the teenager have any basis in fact for believing that he did or didn't.

Why was that reply edited out by so many in the media? Because too many people in the media see their role as filtering and slanting the news to fit their own vision of the world. The issue is not one of being "fair" to "both sides" but, more fundamentally, of being honest with their audience.

NBC News carried the editing even further, removing one of the police dispatcher's questions, to which Zimmerman was responding, in order to feed the vision of Zimmerman as a racist.

In the same vein were the repeated references to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic." Zimmerman is half-white. So is Barack Obama. But does anyone refer to Obama as a "white African"?

All these verbal games grow out of the notion that complexion tells you who is to be blamed and who is not. It is a dangerous game because race is no game. If the tragic history of the old Jim Crow South in this country is not enough to show that, the history of racial and ethnic tragedies is written in blood in countries around the world. Millions have lost their lives because they looked different, talked differently or belonged to a different religion.

In the midst of the Florida tragedy, there was a book published with the unwieldy title, "No Matter What ... They'll Call This Book Racist." Obviously it was written well before the shooting in Florida, but its message -- that there is rampant hypocrisy and irrationality in public discussions of race -- could not have been better timed.

Author Harry Stein, a self-described "reformed white liberal," raised by parents who were even further left, exposes the illogic and outright fraudulence that lies behind so much of what is said about race in the media, in politics and in our educational institutions.

He asks a very fundamental question: "Why, even after the Duke University rape fiasco, does the media continue to give credence to every charge of racism?"

Harry Stein credits Shelby Steele's book "White Guilt" with opening his eyes to one of the sources of many counterproductive things said and done about race today -- namely, guilt about what was done to blacks and other minorities in the past.

Let us talk sense, like adults. Nothing that is done to George Zimmerman -- justly or unjustly -- will unlynch a single black man who was tortured and killed in the Jim Crow South for a crime he didn't commit.

Letting hoodlums get away with hoodlumism today does not undo a single injustice of the past. It is not even a favor to the hoodlums, for many of whom hoodlumism is just the first step on a path that leads to the penitentiary, and maybe to the execution chamber.

Winston Churchill said, "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." He wasn't talking about racial issues, but what he said applies especially where race is involved.

---

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.