Why do Democrats hate Mothers?

The Democrats continue to give us gifts. Here is NOW President Terry O’Neill on Ann Romney:

TERRY O’NEILL: What would we be saying if Hillary Clinton had said this: that Ann Romney has never, has not worked for pay outside the home a day in her life? That’s my understanding that’s an accurate statement, and that raises the exact issue that Hilary Rosen was trying to get to, which is do Mr. & Mrs. Romney have the kind of life experience and if not, the imagination, to really understand what most American families are going through right now? I think that that was what Hilary was getting out, and so she left out the words “for pay outside the home.”

Lack life experience and imagination because they raised their children? Are you freaking kidding me?

That’s your modern day feminist I suppose. Why support woman in all walks of life when you can marginalize and demean some (stay at home Moms) while support those who choose to leave the kids with babysitters. Btw, do babysitters get the support of the Democrats now because they earn a salary while watching other people’s kids?

Is this not a REAL war on women we are seeing here?

From the title of this post you might think that this is yet another blog entry calling out leftist hypocrisy over Rush Limbaugh’s comments toward Sandra Fluke. There is no need for me to add to those arguments – leftist misogyny has already been well documented, at least when it comes to conservative women. Apparently love for diversity and respectful dialog ends for the leftist when a woman (or any other member of the permanent victimhood community based on their gender, race, or sexual orientation) strays from leftist orthodoxy. But I’m not just talking about conservative women today. The recent Fluke controversy shows the left’s disdain for all women.

How does this media circus prove that leftists hate all women? Look no further than the recently discovered "right" to free contraception – sterilizations services, birth control pills, and of course, morning after abortifacient pills. These of course, give the woman the freedom to explore their sexuality without fear of that most dreadful, life ruining condition that could impede their right to pleasure known as pregnancy. Anyone reading this who is old enough to remember the 80′s or 90′s will remember some buzzwords from those ancient times like "Herpes" and "AIDS". Not to mention many other joys that were around long before those days, such as syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia. Does anyone know how much protection that the "free" items from above offer from these diseases? That’s right, none. While other Sexually Transmitted Diseases’ (STDs) infection rates have remained steady over the years, chlamydia has been on the rise, and when this piece Obamacare is implemented, our government’s subsidy for unprotected sex will make these diseases even more widespread.

So if you enjoy warts on your genitalia, cold sores, a burning sensation when you pee, having to get penicillin treatments, just follow this administration’s "advice" for how you should take care of yourself. And if you’re lucky you’ll only get one of the maladies that’s actually curable. As the old joke goes, "What’s the difference between love and herpes? Herpes is forever!" (snare drum) Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week. Be sure to tip your bartenders.

If only there were a way to protect women from diseases that was not only reliable but also inexpensive… Yes, I am talking about condoms. They’re cheap, easily available, and actually will protect women (and men, who leftists hate even more) from STD’s. So why wouldn’t leftists favor condom use? There are several reasons:

• They’re cheap. In the left’s efforts to get the public to accept sacrificing any freedom over their health care decisions, having expensive medical needs are necessary to show why average citizens need the government to protect them.
• Condoms are easily accessible. The evil, capitalist system has crated a product that is so cheap and easy to purchase that it would be difficult for the government to swoop in and take over their distribution, thus the need to force solutions that are easier to control.
• It’s a nice payback for Big Pharma for not fighting too hard against Obamacare, forcing citizens to pay them more premiums for these services whether they have any need for them or not.
• If women get diseases and need treatment, that increases their dependency on Obamacare, and government in general. While that will sound insane to most people in the ears of a leftist, to use an Information Technology term, "It’s not a bug; it’s a feature."

"When you entertain your men don’t you know the risk of getting… disease?"

Does that last point sound far fetched? I’ll admit that it does, but consider this – if George W. Bush was putting record numbers of Americans onto food stamps, do you think the mainstream press would acknowledge this for the problem that it is, rather than pretend it is in any way compassionate or that criticism of said policy should be seen as racist. Making more women dependent on the government somehow equates liberation in the left’s eyes.

I understand that my last few points might make me sound like someone typing this in his pajamas as I adjust my tin foil hat. But can someone explain to me how opposing a policy whose net effect will be to hurt more womens’ health equates a “war on women”?

Cross Posted from Brother Bob’s Blog

Paula Jones. James Carville called her trailer park trash. Evan Thomas said she was a “sleazy woman”

Gloria Steinem said Bill Clinton was entitled to a “freebie” when he groped Kathleen Willey.

That’s Juanita Broaddrick on the right. Lanny Davis said we should all feel dirty even speaking of her accusations.

Betsy Wright had Flowers in mind as the bimbo in “bimbo eruption.”

This is Mary Jo Kopechne. Ted Kennedy “forgot” about her while she was trapped in an inverted submerged car.

Democrats are pitching a phony “war on women” by the right following Rush Limbaugh’s comments on Sandra Fluke. They absolutely pale in contrast to what democrats have done. Rand Simberg recalls democrats’ war on women over the last several decades:

An evergreen guide to what the Left is doing or plans to do is to listen to what they accuse their political opponents of. Along those lines, incandescent in its projection, cynicism, and hypocrisy is the latest mantra emanating from the Democrats of the “Republican War On Women,” based on nothing more than some crude comments (since apologized for) by a talk-show host aimed at a Democrat feminist activist who thinks that the world owes her free (and expensive) contraception and, moreover, that it should be done in violation of the religious conscience of Catholics. Of course, they don’t want their demagoguery to be distracted by the annoying reality that their own misogyny and assault on women is much more virulent, and has been going on for much longer.

It should be shocking, by the conventional narrative, that the White House of a “liberal” president would be a hostile work environment for women, but it is not at all a surprise to anyone familiar with the history of the Democrats and the Left, going back at least to the 1960s, when a prominent Democrat politician got a pass from the media for abandoning a young woman (possibly pregnant by him) to drown in his car. The same man went on to later fame as the top slice of bread in a “waitress sandwich,” and yet was so lionized by the Left that not that long ago, at the time of his death, a woman(!) wrote that Mary Jo Kopechne might have been happy to undergo the terror as her lungs filled with the brackish water of Martha’s Vineyard had she only known what a great legislator he would turn out to be.

To see similar hypocritical Leftist misogyny, we need only go back to the last time a Democrat was in the White House. Whenever a woman came forward with allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct by Bill Clinton, the response of the Clinton defenders, both in and out of the media, was to attack her credibility, character, and virtue. Advisor James Carville famously said of Paula Jones (the young Arkansas state employee whom Clinton as governor had his state police guard procure to his hotel room for the purpose of orally pleasuring him), “Drag $100 bills through trailer parks, there’s no telling what you’ll find.” Evan Thomas of Newsweek dutifully complemented the slander by declaring her on national television “just some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks,” though he later was compelled to apologize in print. (One wonders how residents of trailer parks felt about that, but I guess empathy for them is for the little people.) When Kathleen Willey accused the president of groping her in the White House, and was physically threatened for her trouble, feminist icon and (former) scourge of sexual harassers Gloria Steinem said that it was no problem — he was entitled to a freebie, after which Cathy Young of Reason magazine reported on “the death of sexual harassment.”

It got worse. As the Paula Jones lawsuit progressed, and the president committed acts of obstruction of justice (federal felonies) by perjury and subornation of perjury through threats and bribes, the White House was prepared to go after Monica Lewinsky, the woman about whom he engaged in such obstruction. She was bribed with jobs, and urged to in turn suborn perjury from her confidante Linda Tripp, by implying threats against her family. If the incriminating blue dress hadn’t turned up, their plan was to continue to cover up and lie, and accuse Lewinsky of being a crazy stalker. The White House orchestrated the leak of the personnel files of Pentagon employee Linda Tripp, the only person in the entire fiasco who told the truth, in an attempt (sadly quite successful) to discredit her. This included a mistaken felony arrest record that had been sealed since she was a teenager. She was vilified and maligned in the media, with late-night comedians mocking her physical appearance. It’s unlikely that many of these people were either conservatives or Republicans.

Read it all.

Barack Obama is not without sin. His administration made life brutal for women.

Friction about the roles of women in the Obama White House grew so intense during the first two years of the president’s tenure that he was forced to take steps to reassure senior women on his staff that he valued their presence and their input.

At a dinner in November 2009, several senior female aides complained directly to the president that men enjoyed greater access to him and often muscled them out of key policy discussions.

Those tensions prompted Obama, urged on by senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, to elevate more women into senior White House positions, recognize them more during staff meetings and increase the female presence in the upper ranks of the reelection campaign. “There were some issues early on with women feeling as though they hadn’t figured out what their role was going to be on the senior team at the White House,” Jarrett said in an interview Monday. “Most of the women hadn’t worked on the campaign, and so they didn’t have a personal relationship with the president.”

The women’s-inclusion issue in the Obama White House is featured prominently in a controversial new book to be released Tuesday, “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President,” by journalist Ron Suskind.

The book, based on more than 700 hours of interviews, including one with Obama, quotes a number of top officials describing a difficult work environment at the time for women, due largely to the dominating roles of male officials such as economics adviser Lawrence H. Summers and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn was quoted as saying

“this place would be in court for a hostile workplace. . . . Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

No word on whether Obama explained that to his daughters.

But the lapdog poodle press is rushing to Barack Obama’s side like faithful and dutiful pets. Remember I told you that the left has absolutely no long term memory whatsoever?

Meanwhile, Bristol Palin is still waiting for Obama’s phone call.

And I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear Obama explain to Sasha and Malia about Cee Lo Green (and Daddy is a fan of Cee Lo) and why Daddy arranged for someone to sing F*ck You (a song to a woman) at Daddy’s fundraiser. Don’t miss Green flipping the bird as well.

Click here to view the embedded video.

In case you missed something, here are the complete lyrics

(Chorus)
I See You Driving ’round Town
With The Girl I Love And I’m Like,
Fuck You!
Oo, Oo, Ooo
I Guess The Change In My Pocket
Wasn’t Enough I’m Like,
Fuck You!
And Fuck Her Too!
I Said, If I Was Richer, I’d Still Be With Ya
Ha, Now Ain’t That Some Shit? (ain’t That Some Shit?)
And Although There’s Pain In My Chest
I Still Wish You The Best With A…
Fuck You!
Oo, Oo, Ooo

(so Bad, So Bad, So Bad)
I Tried To Tell My Mamma But She Told Me
“this Is One For Your Dad”
(your Dad, Your Dad, Your Dad)
Uh! Whhhy? Uh! Whhhy? Uh!
Whhhy Lady? Oh! I Love You Oh!
I Still Love You. Oooh!

This sounds like a truly touching Obama family melody. Maybe Obama can share some of Cee Lo’s other dubious remarks with his daughters as well. Maybe he could share all of this history with the kids. Maybe he could say “Girls, ain’t that some sh*t?”

Leftists and conservatives will all argue that they support the freedom to live their lives as they choose. Like anything else in life, the devil is in the details and when you probe further you find a fundamental difference in what is defined as freedom. In a recent blog post discussing the difference between the Tea Party movement versus Occupy Wall Street, Flopping Aces’ guest writer johngalt gave an excellent summary:

“I believe that the two differing groups have vastly different ideas on how freedom and liberty are achieved, and, in essence, who has the responsibility for making a person’s freedom and liberty a reality.”

(Addressing the demands of the OWS) “These “demands” all have one thing in common. That is, the removal of responsibility to individuals over their own lives. Even the requests for spending money on “ecological restoration” removes their own responsibility over the environment they can affect, dumping it on someone else. To put it quite simply, in order to attain what the OWS movement sees as freedom and liberty, their demands only “liberate” themselves from personal responsibility.”

And after summing up core Tea Party principles – “The TEA party groups universally espouse Personal Responsibility over one’s own life. Which means, that when a TEA party member starts to talk about freedom and liberty, they are not talking about imposing upon another person to provide for that freedom and liberty, but rather, that each person take their own responsibility over their lives.”

That sums up the philosophies nicely, and I can break it down into even simpler terms. If an act involves the freedom to insert something into your body or somebody else’s for pleasure, the leftist will choose the option that offers greater freedom. Freedoms that entail responsibility for one’s actions will fall onto the side of the conservative.

There is one exception I can see to this that does not fall squarely into either camp, and I want to briefly examine it before we go any further. I am, of course, talking about gay marriage. On the surface, this looks like a no brainer that conservatives seek to restrict the freedom of consenting adults. When you dig deeper though, there is more to it. A good portion of conservatives (including your author) actually favor civil unions (43% conservative GOP, 59% Mod/Lib GOP, 54% Cons/Mod Dems). It is ridiculous that two consenting adults who love each other shouldn’t be able to enjoy all of the legal benefits that their hetero counterparts do simply because their brains are wired to be attracted to the same gender. Where the line gets drawn is with marriage because marriage itself has a deep meaning within their religion. If you think that sex is no different than race look no further than my analogy regarding gays in the military. The other issue that conservatives have is that it also leads to the state using it to impose its will on its citizens. It’s not homophobic to think that Kindergarten is too young to start teaching children about sex or that forcing the church out of the adoption business is a good idea. This topic warrants its own post, but I needed to discuss it before going any further.

Back to the original point, what are the topics where the leftists will favor greater personal freedom over the right? Simply put, any involving sex, drugs, or alcohol. This is not to say that granting such individual freedoms would be a bad thing. Reforming our drug laws will get quite a few people out of prison and reduce a slew of law enforcement costs, not to mention allowing society to focus treatment on addicts rather than punishment. Are there negative sides to this? Absolutely. The same with sex – there is no reason why the government should interfere in personal relationships provided they do not cause harm to others. Unfortunately, the left never knows when to stop, and suddenly it is a right to have someone else pay for your contraceptives, morning after abortifacients and sterilization services. What the left fails to realize is that having access to something does not constitute the right to have it paid for by someone else. Again, conservatives will for the most part support a woman’s right to access to these services, but draw the line when suddenly the First Amendment to the Constitution is trumped by your need for pleasure. And there are also legitimate medical reasons for these services – some women take the pill to help fight conditions they may have or may need a hysterectomy, and few conservatives will oppose these. They just don’t want to be forced to pay for your weekend romp.

Now look at the other side, and where conservatives desire freedom. Theirs are the ones that our president laments as “negative freedoms:”

• Freedom to defend yourself and your family
• Freedom to not have the state impose on your religious beliefs
• Freedom to choose where your children go to school
• Freedom to decide how your retirement is funded
• Freedom to make the choices over your personal health care

In each one of these the conservative seeks freedom from the state to make choices over the major decisions over their lives, where those of the left focus on their pursuit of pleasure. One wants the freedom to live and grow and take responsibility for one’s life, where the other only looks at short term happiness. Also ironic that for all that leftists claim to love freedom, in each of the bullet points above the leftist happily surrenders his freedom to the state in return for absolution from responsibility for his actions. The conservative freedoms also come with great responsibility, and they not only willingly accept them, but vehemently fight for the freedom to fail.

The leftists can argue that each of those negative freedoms cuts both ways:

• Gun control will protect you and your family from gun-wielding criminals
• The church has no business being granted any kind of exemption from laws of the land that the rest of the citizens live under.
• What is to stop people from using vouchers to send their children to poorly run schools, or to use the extreme example, a school whose teachings are based on White Supremacy?
• What happens to the person who put their entire 401(k) into Enron stock?
• What recourse does a citizen have against an insurance company that rejects their expensive health care claim or they exceed their cap and are forced into bankruptcy over a medical condition?

These are valid questions, and any one of them is worthy of its own post debating the various arguments. But back to my main point, in each of the leftist arguments you are entrusting the state to make the best decision over your life in dealing with these issues. Each one of these issues can be answered with individual freedom and free markets. At the end of the day, it comes down to one simple question: Who do you most trust to make the most important decisions over your life – you, or the state? I know where I stand – where do you?

Crossposted from Brother Bobs Blog

By now everyone has heard of poor lil’ Sandra Fluke. A 30 year old feminist activist posing as some lowly coed who can’t afford contraception and is saddened to see the looks of woman frazzled with sunken eyes, and long faces, tortured by the very thoughts that they may not be able to get laid 2.7 times that day due to lack of funds for contraceptives.

Sorry, I do not feel your pain Ms. Fluke. Yes I am a guy. So I know in your mind that should prevent me from having any opinion on the matter. To that I say Fluke You and the concocted little controversy you road in on. I am a married man with a daughter. So I do have some skin in the game. Our daughter finally arrived after four long hard invitro cycles, something the Catholic Church does not believe in. We did not hold it against the church, nor would we demand they should pay and execute the procedure. It’s called tolerance for ones views and not imposing your needs against another’s ideals. Maybe a little reflection is in order, if you can somehow manage to find the time.

See Sandra, back in the day, when apparently men and woman were more resourceful we didn’t rely on anyone to pay for our contraceptives. Woman tried to hide the fact that they needed it. Every male over the age of 14 had a well-worn circular ring on the back of their leather wallet. It was a sign of perpetual optimism. That can-do spirit and the Boy Scout willingness to always be prepared. If the stars aligned, you got to use that condom before it became unusable due to going past its expiration date. If we needed another one, 4 quarters in the nearest gas station bathroom got you resupplied and French Tickler for you and your buddies to marvel at. Here you are claiming to need a thousand dollars yearly of other people’s money so that you can get your groove on. How about this, why don’t you charge admission of one condom per visit. Any young man with a reasonable sex drive of a male aged 18-50 should be more than willing to pay the freight. Easy Peezy Lemon Squeezy right?

No its not is it? Your little crusade at Georgetown University has nothing to do with your worries for your fellow female comrades. It’s all about a selfish little cause. You came to the college strutting your liberal stuff looking for a party. The whorish thing about this all is not that you’re a slut, I wouldn’t know, I really don’t care, you’re a political whore for shopping yourself out to the Democrat Party to be used as a pawn in a presidential election. Bought and paid for, money left on the night stand, no cigarette needed. Your activist credentials are coming to light, your little moment in the sun is about to end. You are now going to be the butt end of all matters of tasteless adult jokes. Welcome to Monica Lewinski’s world darling. Unlike her, you earned it.

P.S.

Note to President Obama:

Since you seemed to find the time to call Ms. Fluke to tell her how brave you thought she was and how proud her parents must they must be, maybe you should consider doing the same for every U.S. Service member who lost their lives protecting Ms. Fluke from the hordes of religious fanatics who would stone the woman to death for committing the sin of being raped. Somehow I don’t believe they would ask Ms. Fluke if she had adequate contraception before their endeavors nor would they care about who would pay for it.

Eh-Yup!

Here is what Democrats want us to think: Republican candidates are going to take away your contraceptive pills; they are going to go on some jihad against you in the bedroom, and the only salvation is reelecting Barack Obama.

First of all, Obama cannot run on his record. The last thing that he wants you to think about is what he has done while in office. He does not want you to think about Obamacare, because it has continued to remain unpopular, even to today. Now, they will continue to try to sell Obamacare is becoming more popular, but Democrats do not want to carry this flag into the main election.

Whereas Newt Gingrich is going to tell you over and over again that he is the only person on the ticket to ever balance the budget in our lifetimes, Democrats are not going to tout the passage of Obamacare as a great reason to vote for them.

What else have they done? They passed the Stimulus package, which was supposed to reverse the recession. More people believe that Elvis is alive than believe that the Stimulus package worked. Democrat Evan Bayh, when retiring said that if he created one job when he entered into the private sector that would be more than Congress has created in the previous six months.

Are Democrats going to run on the various omnibus bills that they have passed? Yes, at $1.1 trillion for one 2010 bill alone that was 2000 pages long, Dems do not want you to think about that.

Can Obama run on ending the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq? These wars have degenerated into chaos under his watch.

Most people who pay some attention to politics know the numbers:

It doesn’t matter if Obama is at fault here or not; under his watch, things have gotten worse, not better, and he has spent huge sums of money from many generations to come in order to “fix” the U.S. economy.

Both the media and the Obama administration have tried to paint the economy as improving, but a lot of Americans aren’t buying it.

So, what remains are wedge issues and personal attacks. The media managed to drive Herman Cain out of the Republican race and Sarah Palin out of elective office and apparently, out of elective office aspirations.
What the democratic party knows is, there are a lot of voters out there who barely pay attention. Huge numbers of people voted for Obama, and yet had no clue about him or the other candidates. Some young people simply voted for Obama because he was cool and McCain was this doddering old man.

So Obama needs to capture these votes and to do it with manufactured controversies.

The controversy of the last month has been contraception.

Although Republicans are continually blamed for raising this issue, it actually first occurred in a Republican debate, brought up by George Stephanopoulos on January 7^th, a former Clinton aide.

He said the question was a joke. He and Diane Sawyer had a bet that Stephanopoulos could make Romney say, “Contraceptives are working just fine.” A few days earlier, ABC’s Jake Tapper asked Rick Santorum questions about state regulation of birth control.

And then, seemingly out of nowhere, President Obama made to sovereign decision that some Catholic institutions must pay for forms of birth control including the morning after pill. When this became plainly unpopular, the President proposed a compromise, which did not come from any sort of discussion with the Catholic entities about a compromise.

The compromise is, insurance companies will now give out free contraception, which is essentially free to the insurance companies, even though it costs a huge amount of money to individuals (which stories generally ignore that contraceptive pills from WalMart can cost as little as $5–$15/month). And, to liberals, this makes complete sense. If the government requires it to be paid, then it’s free; if a person pays for it individually, the costs are beyond that person’s ability to pay.

Then there is the liberal operative at the Georgetown School of Law, Sandra Fluke [pronounced flook]. There are all kinds of law schools out there and there are a number of different medical plans, yet this woman chose to go to Georgetown, where there are some limits on contraceptive coverage. She said she is attending Jesuit Law School in her testimony. She is concerned that she and others who have spoken to her must come up with $3000 for contraception (which appears to be over the period of time that she is enrolled in school). She claims that contraception is not easily available elsewhere, that they are under crushing demand.

Fluke is a reasonable speaker, but her examples were weird. One woman, after being raped, did not go to her medical provider because she figured they would not help her. Another example was a woman who used birth control for other reasons, and received the birth control, even though maybe it might be denied.

Her primary point was, she should be able to get the coverage that she wants—including free birth control—at a Catholic University, no matter what.

I am certainly not an expert in the female reproductive system. However, it would make sense that, if a woman needed birth control pills for a reason other than birth control, that would be easily verifiable. It appears as though that was not really an issue, even though many people are arguing that is the main issue, where one person actually argued that more people took birth control to prevent ovarian cancer than took it for birth control.

What we have here is a typical Democratic issue. “I am a victim; my friends are victims. This is what we want; we should get it without any hassle or any extra cost.” And Democrats come to her aid, thankful to talk about anything other than the debt, the deficit and unemployment.

As a side note, Rush Limbaugh made light of this, which he often does, illustrating absurdity by being absurd (Rush has since formally apologized for his language and characterization of Fluke). However, in between the absurdity, Rush also throws in some actual information.

As Rush Limbaugh said 2 weeks ago: “The Democrats don’t have one thing they can run on. There’s not one aspect of Obama’s first term that they can say, ‘If you want four more years of this, vote for us.’ They have to create fear, hatred, loathing, impugn the character, all that, of Republicans — and that’s what they do.”

This will be in Conservative Review #218

We now realize the Liberal media controls or tries to control the election process in the United States; obviously, control is a matter of degree, it can be minimal or it can be complete. Regardless of the degree of control the press has over any political process, the press will use every tool at its’ disposal to acquire all the control it can steal from the public, for that is what this control by the press has become, a theft of our election process and our very freedom to determine our own political future. Democrats or high ranking Republicans will never complain about this usurpation of the political process or the freedom of the public to determine their own future because they want the control of the country to be concentrated in the hands of a select few. The press has exposed its’ duplicitous nature well enough, only the most intellectually compromised among us cannot see the glaring inconsistencies and corruption. The attempted evisceration of Cain by circumspect women with motives that may include career advancement or monetary gain, is in sharp contrast to the protection given to the serial rapist and womanizer Bill Clinton.

That contrast only pertains to the men; there is also a sharp contrast in the treatment of the women. Clinton’s accusers were defamed and relegated to the status of cheap whores and today the dubious reputations of these women of questionable merit are considered to be above the scrutiny of the press. Have the social values of the press and the public changed in the last decade?

No, not really, it is a rhetorical question, Clinton is a Democrat; he is to be provided with the full protection of the MSM: Cain is a Conservative, he is to be excoriated with the full wrath of a duplicitous press. America is now using their best skills at detecting lies and half truths learned while watching the latest crime and justice shows and the press has accomplished its’ goal of instilling doubt where there was none. In the case of the Clinton rape scandals, it was the mission of the press to cast doubt on the integrity of the accusers; the press has been extremely successful in their efforts.

Without a doubt, the MSM will be able to find another “victim” of sexual harassment by Herman Cain every week until the election is held or until the press forces him out of the race and virtually insures an Obama reelection. These questions deserve to be asked: are we willing to let a corrupt press have this much control over our election process? Are we willing to let our country be manipulated by a cheap soap opera script and the witless writers and fans of such lame vapidity.

We are at a critical crossroads in our nation’s future. We have an economic illiterate in the White House who is determined to impose a Socialist system of Wealth Redistribution and to bring down the most powerful economic entity in the history of the world, so that other nations can direct this once free and noble country through corrupt organizations like the United Nations.

It is a disgrace to think that we are willing to forget about the desecration of our country and throw away our future because of the pleading of a few bimbos who appear to be little more than political operatives for the Democrat Party. There may never bring another chance to fight back this Socialist conversion that the Obama Socialists and Obama Republicans are so desperate to impose, but the nation is worried over a few neurotic bimbos with stories they are hoping will lead to fame and fortune.

We must remember, a Democrat excuses rape by a Democrat with claims that she wanted or deserved the attention, but innuendo or a smile can be interpreted as sexual harassment if you are a Conservative. These are the standards that Conservatives are expected to maintain. Now, that we know the rules that the Liberal press plays by and how easy it is for them to destroy lives and reputations without a thought for integrity or honor, it should be understood that any business executive or politician who allows himself to be alone with a woman, particularly a Liberal woman without is asking for their lives and reputations to be ruined. I am suggesting open door meetings with witnesses and recording all meetings with women and making a big deal of the necessity to protect yourself from the duplicity so common to Liberal women and the Liberal press.

In the final analysis, it is imperative that we prevent the Liberal press from playing us like bimbos posing in front of the porta-potties.

Michele Admits Propaganda Bureaus Are a Great Help

First Lady Michelle Obama (watch the video at the link) once again creates a dubious aura around the question of her intelligence during an interview with CNN; once again, she was thrown the typical softball question meant to tug at the heart strings of America and ends up looking like a fool.

The CNN reporter asked this inane question with the disjointed grammar that has become typical of the State Directed Media:

CNN reporter: “How’s the family ready for this [the election]? It’s going to be quite vicious, isn’t it? How do you prepare for that?”

With forethought and grammar that belies her Ivy League education, the First Lady responds:

“You know, it’s … we’re ready, you know. Our children, you know, could care less about what we’re doing. We work hard to do that. Fortunately, we have help from the media. I have to say this: I’m very grateful for the support and kindness that we’ve gotten. People have respected their privacy and in that way, I think, you know, no matter what people may feel about my husband’s policies or what have you, they care about children and that’s been good to see.”

Sometimes, people are just not equipped to speak in public and it seems cruel to eviscerate them, because they are so clueless, but this woman’s husband is systematically destroying this country and he has his own propaganda bureaus that willingly participate in this destruction. Should we feel sorry for the simple minded, Hell no.

A huge 19.2 hand horse allows the dentist to feel the back molars with no sedation or intimidation. The horse could close its mouth with thousands of pounds of pressure and crush that right forearm as if it were a child's arm.

I learned to ride jumping horses as a teenager from an old cavalry trooper. Sadly, my English riding and jumping style reflects that early instruction where function was valued over form. It wouldn’t be an issue, except here in America, only the affluent and those who want to appear affluent compose the majority of those who ride jumpers and they have spent years and tens of thousands of dollars to fine tune the image of how they appear or the image they want to project while riding: European riders have disdain for the American rider who seldom ventures beyond the arena; in Europe, they spend their time and money on being able to negotiate difficult courses on horses that aren’t trained to the Nth degree, while being able to train recalcitrant horses to perform at the highest international levels. Americans would rather spend hundreds of thousands or even millions on the easy to ride or push button horse that will win a rosette and a ribbon.

Needless to say, I never competed in this craziness and silliness; although, two of my kids payed the game for a while, but they made their own horses and competed at the lower levels for a few years on horses that rarely cost over a thousand dollars: I took the more Conservative approach and bought horses that scared the Liberal rider and thus had almost no value in North America. Yes, the high dollar horse world, with all its pretensions is 99% Liberal. Now that my kids are grown, they admit that their biggest problems were with the attitudes of the people, the horses were fairly easy. They much preferred riding the European circuits against the European riders.

While learning my humble English skills, I rode horses for a former cavalry trooper that bought reject horses to sell as jumpers. They were almost all former race horses, back in the days before we imported the European Warm Bloods by the tens of thousands; unfortunately, the race horses often suffered from varying degrees of neurotic problems; although, there were a few that I would have loved to owned for twenty years, but that wasn’t the purpose of my work. My boss/instructor had been a sergeant in the cavalry before WWII; after the war started, he and the rest of the cavalry became artillery troopers.

I was apprehensive about crawling on all these horses and testing them for jumping before they had a chance to become regular horses. I remember my boss’s thoughts on the subject, “They all jump, some of them just jump better than others.” I tested that theory on a daily basis.

Occasionally, he would buy or be given the most the most outrageous outlaw or renegade horse for a hundred miles: most of these are the result of poor horsemanship or from dealing with the horse from a point of stark terror on the part of the previous owners. Fear is one of the worst things to inject into the relationship with a horse. The horse is a herd animal and for any horse to show fear is to relegate it to the position of an inferior being. It is in the horse’s personality to abuse those horses that show fear; a pecking order is established from supreme leader to the lowest most cowardly horse. The lower horses are the last to eat or drink and the last in the herd while walking or during migration, thus the most likely to be pulled down by a predator. That is their nature and there are some things we can’t change, with humans on the most basic levels, the same attitudes come forth.

When we would acquire one of these meat eaters, I became the helper rather than the jockey. My mentor would put a bridle on the horse, lead it into the arena and begin walking the horse in an extremely small circle, until the horse began to show signs of being dizzy. If Matt were on the left side of the horse he would pull on the right rein and pull the horse’s head up toward the withers and ask the horse to step forward until he stumbled. When the horse hit the ground, he would jump on the neck with the head cradled in his arms between his legs, he would then pull the horse’s head up and hold it with both hands up on his belly.

I was standing by with a tarp and tent pegs. It was my job to cover the horse with the tarp and secure the perimeter with the tent pegs. Once the horse was secured, it was impossible for him to move and we left him to think on his life and mortality here on earth. The next step was to scatter crushed grain over the tarp and let the chickens scratch and peck at the grain while the horse visualized giant eagles within a millimeter of starting to devour him. After the chickens had enjoyed their treat, we fixed a hose so that it sprayed a stream of water on the tarp and let the horse contemplate the thunder of water on a tarp for thirty minutes or so; it may have been and an early form of water boarding.

You must remember that this horse would have been shot if anyone else would have acquired him and we were pulling out all the stops to reclaim a horse that had been spoiled and ruined, with all the best intentions; meaning that someone tried to overcome their fear of the horse by treating it as if it were an ancient Greek god that needed treats and loving rather than training and discipline.

After being under the tarp for six hours, we pulled the tarp off the disoriented horse. When the horse stood up Matt was on his back, not sitting on the horse’s back, but standing up. He was a big man of 65 years of age and I was always amazed at his ability to ride these wild ones while standing on their back. In his own words, “I want the horse to think he has just emerged from Hell and I am no other than Jesus Christ, his Lord and Savior.” I don’t think that was blasphemy, because it was for the benefit of the horse and not for a human.

He would start riding the horse around the arena and if things went well, I’d hand him a snare drum with one drum stick. He’d then hang the drum over his neck, hold onto the reins with one hand, and play the drum with the other hand. He must have been a drummer at some point, because he could sure make that drum carry some fancy tunes. If the horse passed this phase, I took the drum and handed him a 22 pistol with bird shot. He’d fire the pistol up in the air and usually the horse stood there without moving. If the horse acted up, he went back under the tarp and the process was repeated. None of them ever required a third treatment. Once the horse had passed his exams, it was time to begin training and I was allowed to ride them.

In the final analysis, the horses that are the most difficult to train, often make the best horses. Some of them are born with a contrary attitude and tend to be a natural bully. That type of personality is not uncommon among horses, but it is probably the worst type of horse personality to spoil and treat as if he is an awesome animal and that humans are only here to serve as lesser beings or handmaidens in a similar manner to that of slave and ancient Roman aristocrat.

In essence this becomes capitulation, the human is seen as willing to serve as long as the horse won’t take out his aggression on the human servant. Horses like children can recognize the fear and spineless behavior of the adult who approaches the horse with treats and the tentative touch of supplication in an effort to win the horse’s goodwill. Horses are quick to exploit this behavior; to them it is only a sign of weakness common to inferior animals.

The human has in fact told them a lie or propaganda, for not all humans live in a world based in fear and quiet desperation, a situation that transforms into the false feeling by the horse that normal behavior or acceptable behavior doesn’t apply to them. Thus a horse believes the propaganda that it has been fed for months or years and metastasizes into a renegade outlaw; unfortunately, the horse will terrorize the owners until they have no other option but to get rid of the horse and begin all over with a new horse to ruin. The horse that they ruined will be acquired by someone who will juge whether the horse has the talent to justify the work needed to retrain the horse or if the horse is in fact not worth the effort. If that is the case they will just put a bullet through the horse’s brain to bring a close to his existence here on earth. It is a sad testament to modern life that there just aren’t many horsemen like my old mentor who will give a horse another chance at redemption to become a useful citizen rather than to die believing the propaganda he has been fed throughout his life n the road to perdition.

In today’s world, our younger generations have been been receiving generous doses of propaganda through pubic education and the pop culture. The majority of young people are firmly convinced that Socialism is the way of the future; of course, if they place faith and trust with the state run media their preconceived convictions are reinforced on a daily basis.

You can understand the children being drawn into the matrix of Marxism after being subjected to the theory and having the foundation of education based on Marxism, but the most puzzling aspect of propaganda is when the purveyors of propaganda believe their own lies and hype.

In Egypt a CBS News crew for 60 Minutes was working the mob on February 11 in Tahrir Square, looking for footage and interviews that would support the Democrat Party Line of Demonstrators seeking “Democratic” reforms and fair elections; President Hosni Mubarak had just stepped down and handed control over to the military. Rather than viewing the crowd as a dangerous criminal mob, CBS chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan walked into the crowd as if she were walking among American college students from suburbia. She made the mistake of believing the Leftist hype and propaganda; she and her crew were overwhelmed by the vicious mob and Lara was gang raped and sexually assaulted for a period of time until she was rescued by a group of women and soldiers.

She flew out of Egypt the next morning and is home recovering from her attack. President Obama called her at home to express his concern. Whether he is concerned over her welfare or the difficulty in promoting his message and the party line is a question we are left to ponder.

Police, military men, and people with a measure of common sense develop a sensitivity for situations that can get out of control and they avoid the confrontation until they can be reasonably sure of a favorable outcome. The propagandists who become deluded by their own propaganda are in such a state of naivete that they can inadvertently put themselves in danger.

For Logan and her crew, the crowd was the equivalent of a spoiled horse that had become an outlaw or renegade; she assumed that because she went up to the horse with love and understanding that the horse would respond with respect and love. Unfortunately the horse without respect or manners is completely uncivilized and can be extremely dangerous. Logan is lucky to have escaped with her life. Sadly enough, she and her compatriots share in the guilt of spoiling the mob or the figurative horse, by identifying the crowd as lovers of Democracy and freedom who were merely seeking to overthrow the repressive regime of Mubarak; inadvertently, they gave propaganda fuel to the fire of the mob and nurtured the collective psychosis of the mob. They reinforced the mob’s feeling of invincibility and purpose; unfortunately, the crowd seems to have been propelled by far more sinister forces, thus she visualized walking into a wading pool of guppies and ended up in a sea of sharks. A direct result of believing her own lies and propaganda; still today, the propaganda mill is working the lies continue to be dispensed.

“I think the Muslim Brotherhood is not anything to be afraid of in the upcoming (Egyptian) political situation and the evolution I see as most likely,” Carter said. “They will be subsumed in the overwhelming demonstration of desire for freedom and true democracy.”

Who will be the next fool to believe their own propaganda and lies and let their gullibility over rule common sense so they become the victim of their own delusions.

In April of 2004, Elizabeth ( a fictitious name) a 19 year old female approached Julian Assange in a Melbourne bar. Assange was a 33 year old student studying mathematics and physics at the university.

“I started talking to him and he just seemed kind of quiet and nerdy. I didn’t think he was sexy or anything. Just strangely alluring for a 19-year-old girl.”

Assange flirted with her by flexing his mathematics skills and kidding her about being ignorant of mathematics and science. This is typical procedure for lecherous types who want to impress and establish superiority over their prey or victims.

They talked until closing time and Assange walked Elizabeth home to a small village in the country. Along the way he kissed her, she was not impressed with his behavior, but neither was she turned off.

“It was like, fine, whatever,” Elizabeth said. “He wasn’t creepy about it, and he didn’t try anything weird.”

Before saying goodnight, they exchanged emails and Assange gave her his card with the image of a lighthouse and he rode the train back to town. No doubt he envisages himself as a guiding light for the rest of the world.

She soon received this email requesting a date:

She doesn’t remember how she replied but she didn’t encourage him:

“I wasn’t into him,” she said.

However, she was shocked when she received a phone call from him at her parents’ house; since, she had not given him her phone number.

The call was understandably strained when he refused to explain how he had obtained her phone number.

“I was really cold because he somehow found out information about me and I didn’t know how and it scared me,” she said.

Undaunted in his quest for conquest, Assange promptly sent an email to chastise her for her phone etiquette; however, the real purpose is to discipline her as a parent would an adolescent and to establish a position of dominance and control.

She says she replied with a coldness to his entreaties; yet his technique is a continual assault of stages and progression, he has already instilled an element of self-doubt and the question of worthiness within his victim, a process that she will never admit to herself.

Assange tried another approach by recalling the romantic aspects of the night they met.

Assange called again and Elizabeth, who was becoming wary of Assange’s persistence, countered by pretending to be someone else, a gambit that Assange assumed to be flirtation and an opportunity.

Assange formulated a puzzle to get his phone number to Elizabeth, so she could call him with the satisfaction of having figured out a simple math problem and redeem herself of the ignoble distinction of being a lesser creature who is deficient in math skills. To accomplish this he gave her an equation with her license plate number as part of the known factors. Thankfully, she didn’t fall for his cheap and obvious gambit that was designed to establish Assange’s dominance and omnipotence as well as his willingness to excuse her poor math skills. Elizabeth said she couldn’t call him, so he sent an email asking the best time to call her.

She was left with the cold and bewildering question of how and why did he obtain her license plate number.

At this point, Elizabeth told Assange to quit calling her. And with the dogged persistence that is characteristic of the predator, he told her she might get lucky and be able to contact him through his web site.

Assange finally gave up, but tried to humiliate her with a series of emails meant to hurt her self-image.

Assange’s relationships with women haven’t improved much in the six years since his creepy attempt at wooing Elizabeth. His online dating profile and blogging reveal an insufferable self-styled Don Juan, and he currently stands accused of raping and sexual molesting two Swedish women.

For the record, Elizabeth says she never felt threatened by Assange’s behavior; she viewed it as misguided attempts at courtship by a socially awkward nerd.

“I don’t think he’s a bad person,” she said. “He’s just a funny bugger.”

Although Elizabeth resisted the predatory seduction of Assange, her comment, “I don’t think he’s a bad person, he’s just a funny bugger”, indicates she was susceptible to his miserable game and is still under his spell to a degree; because she still doesn’t recognize the deception and evil inherent in this deviant behavior. Although Assange’s pathetic attempts at romantic writing only mean his poetic license should be revoked, his hacking into another person’s private life is despicable. He definitely has a problem with women and will probably be in more trouble with women if he doesn’t end up in prison. Assange maintains that his hacking is for purely altruistic motives, he also employs his hacking skills to be a sexual predator.

Epilogue: The author has no training in psychology or deviant sexual behavior, but in the horse business, 90% of your customers are women and after listening to tens of thousands of women talk about life and their experiences while I worked on their horses, I have a vast anecdotal background on the nature of these incidents. Thus I have a fairly good idea how these incidents transpire and of the psyche of the predator.