San Fran Nan Explains The Parties

San Fran Nan Explains The Parties

I just got my weekly e-mail from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (former Queen of the House of Representatives). I look forward to her missals each week because she is a genius at clarifying and elucidating the important issues of the day while explaining why Republicans are evil and Democrats are the Good Samaritans. This week she explained the difference between the parties in simple terms, comprehensible to even the most ignorant of voters.

You see, Republicans are only concerned with subsidies for big oil, while Democrats only wish to prevent breast cancer. It’s as clear as earlier Democratic slogans such as “food, not bombs” and “make love, not war.” Says Nancy: “Their priority is to protect the subsidies for Big Oil (capital letters are hers), while our priority is to prevent breast cancer, cervical cancer, to immunize children, so that they are healthy. It’s survival to women. And that just goes to show you what a luxury Speaker Boehner thinks it is to have good health care for women.”

Pelosi is of course doing a head fake to keep the public from noticing that the House Republicans had just passed a paid-for student debt relief bill which the Senate won’t even take up and which the president has vowed to veto if it ever reaches him. Bring the topic back to the “war on women” and the public will miss another Democratic stall tactic to prevent any worthwhile legislation from being passed.

She also muddied the facts by giving credit to Obama for the proposed legislation while blaming the Republicans for ruining it by proposing spending cuts to pay for the cost of buoying up the student loans—all in the name of the war on women. “Thankfully, our president went out, made the pitch to the American people with such clarity that the Republicans are now changing their mind and coming back and saying ‘okay we won’t have it (the loan interest rate) go from 3.4% to 6.8%, but in order to pay for it we’re going to make an assault on women’s health—make another assault on women’s health, continue our assault on women’s health.’” (Just in case you didn’t get it—it’s an assault on women’s health.)

And then came one of those brilliant Pelosi stream of consciousness clarifications of her beliefs: “We will not support a bill that robs Peter to pay Paul, which ostensibly supports a middle-class initiative on making those very same people pay for it. I don’t know what it is that the Republicans have against the idea that there’s a positive role that we can do in a public-private way to make America healthier. That a women’s [sic.]health is central to the health of her family, they consider it a slush fund to pay for women’s health. We consider it an absolute necessity and that’s the difference here.” Ah, now I understand. Don’t you?

What the genius from Sodom by the Bay was talking about (at least I think it’s what she was talking about) is the Republican plan to pay for the lower student government-insured loan rates with $17 billion saved in cuts to the prevention and public health fund portions of the Obamacare monstrosity. That would save $5.9 billion on the loans rates with the rest of the savings going to other needed government functions..

When asked about her “war on women” rhetoric and side-stepping of the issue of Obama multi-trillion dollar deficits, Pelosi insisted that it was not political posturing to go ballistic over $6 billion. “I don’t see it as any posturing. $6 billion is $6 billion.” In fact, it was so important that she already has the answer to the problem: “We say, okay, we want to pay for it (that would be a refreshing departure for Democrats), and we can pay for it by going to subsidies for big oil and gas. And what we see here is what are the priorities of the parties in Washington DC?”

She continues the stream-of-consciousness with: “We say big oil (small letters this time) and gas get subsidies to have incentives to drill so that they can make probably $1 trillion over the next ten years. Certainly, we could spare some of that money for the student loan—reducing the student loan interest. But the Republicans say No! Leave the subsidies for big oil intact and let’s take it out of our old favorite target: women’s health. And that’s just wrong.”

I haven’t heard that kind of clarity of thought since a college sophomore friend of mine got roaring-drunk and tried to explain quantum physics to me in five minutes. It’s easy to dismiss the ramblings of this botoxed beauty as insignificant. But we must remember that she is still the majority leader of the House Democrats, and speaks for the powers-that-be in that party.

I just got my weekly e-mail from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (former Queen of the House of Representatives). I look forward to her missals each week because she is a genius at clarifying and elucidating the important issues of the day while explaining why Republicans are evil and Democrats are the Good Samaritans. This week she explained the difference between the parties in simple terms, comprehensible to even the most ignorant of voters.

You see, Republicans are only concerned with subsidies for big oil, while Democrats only wish to prevent breast cancer. It’s as clear as earlier Democratic slogans such as “food, not bombs” and “make love, not war.” Says Nancy: “Their priority is to protect the subsidies for Big Oil (capital letters are hers), while our priority is to prevent breast cancer, cervical cancer, to immunize children, so that they are healthy. It’s survival to women. And that just goes to show you what a luxury Speaker Boehner thinks it is to have good health care for women.”

Pelosi is of course doing a head fake to keep the public from noticing that the House Republicans had just passed a paid-for student debt relief bill which the Senate won’t even take up and which the president has vowed to veto if it ever reaches him. Bring the topic back to the “war on women” and the public will miss another Democratic stall tactic to prevent any worthwhile legislation from being passed.

She also muddied the facts by giving credit to Obama for the proposed legislation while blaming the Republicans for ruining it by proposing spending cuts to pay for the cost of buoying up the student loans—all in the name of the war on women. “Thankfully, our president went out, made the pitch to the American people with such clarity that the Republicans are now changing their mind and coming back and saying ‘okay we won’t have it (the loan interest rate) go from 3.4% to 6.8%, but in order to pay for it we’re going to make an assault on women’s health—make another assault on women’s health, continue our assault on women’s health.’” (Just in case you didn’t get it—it’s an assault on women’s health.)

And then came one of those brilliant Pelosi stream of consciousness clarifications of her beliefs: “We will not support a bill that robs Peter to pay Paul, which ostensibly supports a middle-class initiative on making those very same people pay for it. I don’t know what it is that the Republicans have against the idea that there’s a positive role that we can do in a public-private way to make America healthier. That a women’s [sic.]health is central to the health of her family, they consider it a slush fund to pay for women’s health. We consider it an absolute necessity and that’s the difference here.” Ah, now I understand. Don’t you?

What the genius from Sodom by the Bay was talking about (at least I think it’s what she was talking about) is the Republican plan to pay for the lower student government-insured loan rates with $17 billion saved in cuts to the prevention and public health fund portions of the Obamacare monstrosity. That would save $5.9 billion on the loans rates with the rest of the savings going to other needed government functions..

When asked about her “war on women” rhetoric and side-stepping of the issue of Obama multi-trillion dollar deficits, Pelosi insisted that it was not political posturing to go ballistic over $6 billion. “I don’t see it as any posturing. $6 billion is $6 billion.” In fact, it was so important that she already has the answer to the problem: “We say, okay, we want to pay for it (that would be a refreshing departure for Democrats), and we can pay for it by going to subsidies for big oil and gas. And what we see here is what are the priorities of the parties in Washington DC?”

She continues the stream-of-consciousness with: “We say big oil (small letters this time) and gas get subsidies to have incentives to drill so that they can make probably $1 trillion over the next ten years. Certainly, we could spare some of that money for the student loan—reducing the student loan interest. But the Republicans say No! Leave the subsidies for big oil intact and let’s take it out of our old favorite target: women’s health. And that’s just wrong.”

I haven’t heard that kind of clarity of thought since a college sophomore friend of mine got roaring-drunk and tried to explain quantum physics to me in five minutes. It’s easy to dismiss the ramblings of this botoxed beauty as insignificant. But we must remember that she is still the majority leader of the House Democrats, and speaks for the powers-that-be in that party.

San Fran Nan Explains The Parties

View Detail

Mohammed Loves Gay Marriage. Huh?

Mohammed Loves Gay Marriage. Huh?

Well, not exactly. But there’s some strange stuff going on here. It has been nearly impossible for conservatives to understand how leftist gay activists can be so tolerant of a religion which condemns them to rather grisly deaths. Now, several Muslim organizations in the West have begun to buzz about “gay marriage” not being any of their business. Homosexuality requires a death penalty, but maybe gay marriage is OK in the decadent West. Or something like that.

Muslim tolerance of gay marriage is about as mystifying as gay support of Islamist causes. Or is it? Marriage makes strange bedfellows (or was that politics?). The religion of peace spends considerable time promoting itself as the world’s largest charitable organization passing out loving gifts to fellow Muslims and the world in general. That way you won’t notice it has a bad habit of lopping off heads and blowing up skyscrapers.

The Islamists have learned a lot about propaganda and how to attain one goal by pretending to support an entirely different one. Do the Jihadis actually support gay marriage? Hardly—but if they can help to get the Western definition of marriage changed in relation to the sex of the partners, then there’s no logical reason to forbid traditional Islamic marital practices such as polygamy (and perhaps even child-marriage). Once you’ve eliminated sex as an issue, why not eliminate numbers or age as restrictions?

The loathsome Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has actually cluck-clucked at gay marriage in the West, but that’s those crazy degenerate Christians, Jews and pagans. Now CAIR is becoming an advocate of Western-style “tolerance.” They may not approve of gay marriage, but shucks, if that’s what the law allows in non-Muslim lands, so be it. In the Arabic versions of CAIR’s message, there remains the minor detail of beheading, hanging, or burying homosexuals alive. But those are eliminated for consumption in the West.

To date, there has been unanimity among the American federal government and all fifty state governments that polygamy must remain illegal. But that’s what the prevailing view was about gay marriage just a few years back. The Islamists see gay marriage as the camel’s nose (or some body part) under the tent. Some states have gotten courts to declare traditional marriage unconstitutional discrimination. In other states, the legislatures or the people have voted in favor of gay marriage. Our Islamist-friendly President went from opposing gay marriage to ordering his Attorney General not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

Whether the issue of same-sex marriage remains one of religious freedom or becomes a simple matter of leaving marriage to the clerics and same sex unions to civil law, the Islamists are seeing the extreme advantage of having non-traditional Western domestic unions embraced by constitutions, the law, and the majority of citizens. And thus the sudden public face of “tolerance” in the Western Islamic leadership.

CAIR spokesman Moein Khawaja said the following after New York legalized same-sex marriage last year: “Easy to support gay marriage today because it’s mainstream. Let’s see the same people [who advocated for same-sex unions] go to bat for polygamy. It’s the same argument.” Funny. That’s the same thing former Senator and former Presidential Republican primary candidate Rick Santorum warned about just a few years back. Nobody of any importance will criticize a sincere Islamist, but when Santorum said it, he was almost universally ridiculed.

Once the barriers are down, what’s left to stop the centuries old practice of polygamy and child-marriage? Who would have the right to criticize or ban communal marriage? So I’ll go Santorum and Khawaja one step further. No law should forbid marriage between loving companions, which explains why there are a lot of nervous-looking sheep out there. Is bestiality the new “love that dares not speak its name?” And how long will it be before it becomes mainstreamed? But that's another story altogether.

For now, the questions are many. Will America relax its traditional standards to allow polygamy on grounds related to religious tolerance of sharia law? Will gays and lesbians then demand equal rights to polygamy? Will radical feminists demand the right to polyandry? Will Hugh Hefner come out of a coma long enough to demand the right to marry all his Playmates? Enquiring minds want to know.

Well, not exactly. But there’s some strange stuff going on here. It has been nearly impossible for conservatives to understand how leftist gay activists can be so tolerant of a religion which condemns them to rather grisly deaths. Now, several Muslim organizations in the West have begun to buzz about “gay marriage” not being any of their business. Homosexuality requires a death penalty, but maybe gay marriage is OK in the decadent West. Or something like that.

Muslim tolerance of gay marriage is about as mystifying as gay support of Islamist causes. Or is it? Marriage makes strange bedfellows (or was that politics?). The religion of peace spends considerable time promoting itself as the world’s largest charitable organization passing out loving gifts to fellow Muslims and the world in general. That way you won’t notice it has a bad habit of lopping off heads and blowing up skyscrapers.

The Islamists have learned a lot about propaganda and how to attain one goal by pretending to support an entirely different one. Do the Jihadis actually support gay marriage? Hardly—but if they can help to get the Western definition of marriage changed in relation to the sex of the partners, then there’s no logical reason to forbid traditional Islamic marital practices such as polygamy (and perhaps even child-marriage). Once you’ve eliminated sex as an issue, why not eliminate numbers or age as restrictions?

The loathsome Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has actually cluck-clucked at gay marriage in the West, but that’s those crazy degenerate Christians, Jews and pagans. Now CAIR is becoming an advocate of Western-style “tolerance.” They may not approve of gay marriage, but shucks, if that’s what the law allows in non-Muslim lands, so be it. In the Arabic versions of CAIR’s message, there remains the minor detail of beheading, hanging, or burying homosexuals alive. But those are eliminated for consumption in the West.

To date, there has been unanimity among the American federal government and all fifty state governments that polygamy must remain illegal. But that’s what the prevailing view was about gay marriage just a few years back. The Islamists see gay marriage as the camel’s nose (or some body part) under the tent. Some states have gotten courts to declare traditional marriage unconstitutional discrimination. In other states, the legislatures or the people have voted in favor of gay marriage. Our Islamist-friendly President went from opposing gay marriage to ordering his Attorney General not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

Whether the issue of same-sex marriage remains one of religious freedom or becomes a simple matter of leaving marriage to the clerics and same sex unions to civil law, the Islamists are seeing the extreme advantage of having non-traditional Western domestic unions embraced by constitutions, the law, and the majority of citizens. And thus the sudden public face of “tolerance” in the Western Islamic leadership.

CAIR spokesman Moein Khawaja said the following after New York legalized same-sex marriage last year: “Easy to support gay marriage today because it’s mainstream. Let’s see the same people [who advocated for same-sex unions] go to bat for polygamy. It’s the same argument.” Funny. That’s the same thing former Senator and former Presidential Republican primary candidate Rick Santorum warned about just a few years back. Nobody of any importance will criticize a sincere Islamist, but when Santorum said it, he was almost universally ridiculed.

Once the barriers are down, what’s left to stop the centuries old practice of polygamy and child-marriage? Who would have the right to criticize or ban communal marriage? So I’ll go Santorum and Khawaja one step further. No law should forbid marriage between loving companions, which explains why there are a lot of nervous-looking sheep out there. Is bestiality the new “love that dares not speak its name?” And how long will it be before it becomes mainstreamed? But that's another story altogether.

For now, the questions are many. Will America relax its traditional standards to allow polygamy on grounds related to religious tolerance of sharia law? Will gays and lesbians then demand equal rights to polygamy? Will radical feminists demand the right to polyandry? Will Hugh Hefner come out of a coma long enough to demand the right to marry all his Playmates? Enquiring minds want to know.

Mohammed Loves Gay Marriage. Huh?

View Detail

I am Woman...

I am Woman...

Okay, I have to rant for a minute (or two). Every since Hillary Clinton stated that she did not stay home and bake cookies and have teas, I have felt betrayed by the "Women's Movement". Yes, I am a woman of certain age who grew up with Helen Reddy's lyrics looping over and over in my head:

"I am Woman, hear me roar...I am strong, I am invincible, I am Woman"

We, as young girls and women of the '60's and '70's were indoctrinated to believe that we had choices. We were no longer to be defined by who we married or what kind of boy children we reared. We could be anything we wanted to be - doctors, astronauts, scientists, fashion models, flight attendants, etc. Well, we could anything that Barbie could be as long as it came with a great wardrobe and accessories.

But I was betrayed. I was betrayed because I believed them. I believed Ellie Schmeal. I believed Gloria Steinem. I believed them when they said that women were smart and capable and should have choices. What I failed to understand was the fine print. With all the indoctrination and all the propaganda, there was a job that was no longer considered fashionable and a real woman would never deign to do it. This job was so lowly, drudge-like, and menial that any truly capable and intelligent woman would think it beneath her dignity and a waste of time. We called it "Housewife and Mother" and/or "Stay-at-Home Mom". I mean, Barbie never came with a vacuum or maternity clothes, did she?

Which brings me to Hilary Rosen and her remark about Ann Romney. By now, we all know what she said:

"Can we just get rid of this word, “war on women”? The Obama campaign does not use it, President Obama does not use it — this is something that the Republicans are accusing people of using, but they’re actually the ones spreading it...What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, ‘Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife that’s what I’m hearing.’ Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life.”

Oh, I know, Ms. Rosen, apologized and backtracked and tried to explain away her statement. She and the MSM have said that it is now time to move on. But I will not move on. I heard what she said and I know exactly what she meant and it offends me. She meant that woman who do not earn a paycheck outside the home are not real women and cannot possible have an opinion about what goes on in the world. It offends me because I fought for the right for women to be free to be what they wanted to be including "Stay-at-Home Moms" and she betrays every thing that I fought for. I am Woman, hear me roar, Ms. Rosen.

Oh, and I am guessing that Ms. Rosen forgets that there is now an ever-growing population of "Stay-at-Home Dads" too.

Okay, I have to rant for a minute (or two). Every since Hillary Clinton stated that she did not stay home and bake cookies and have teas, I have felt betrayed by the "Women's Movement". Yes, I am a woman of certain age who grew up with Helen Reddy's lyrics looping over and over in my head:

"I am Woman, hear me roar...I am strong, I am invincible, I am Woman"

We, as young girls and women of the '60's and '70's were indoctrinated to believe that we had choices. We were no longer to be defined by who we married or what kind of boy children we reared. We could be anything we wanted to be - doctors, astronauts, scientists, fashion models, flight attendants, etc. Well, we could anything that Barbie could be as long as it came with a great wardrobe and accessories.

But I was betrayed. I was betrayed because I believed them. I believed Ellie Schmeal. I believed Gloria Steinem. I believed them when they said that women were smart and capable and should have choices. What I failed to understand was the fine print. With all the indoctrination and all the propaganda, there was a job that was no longer considered fashionable and a real woman would never deign to do it. This job was so lowly, drudge-like, and menial that any truly capable and intelligent woman would think it beneath her dignity and a waste of time. We called it "Housewife and Mother" and/or "Stay-at-Home Mom". I mean, Barbie never came with a vacuum or maternity clothes, did she?

Which brings me to Hilary Rosen and her remark about Ann Romney. By now, we all know what she said:

"Can we just get rid of this word, “war on women”? The Obama campaign does not use it, President Obama does not use it — this is something that the Republicans are accusing people of using, but they’re actually the ones spreading it...What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, ‘Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife that’s what I’m hearing.’ Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life.”

Oh, I know, Ms. Rosen, apologized and backtracked and tried to explain away her statement. She and the MSM have said that it is now time to move on. But I will not move on. I heard what she said and I know exactly what she meant and it offends me. She meant that woman who do not earn a paycheck outside the home are not real women and cannot possible have an opinion about what goes on in the world. It offends me because I fought for the right for women to be free to be what they wanted to be including "Stay-at-Home Moms" and she betrays every thing that I fought for. I am Woman, hear me roar, Ms. Rosen.

Oh, and I am guessing that Ms. Rosen forgets that there is now an ever-growing population of "Stay-at-Home Dads" too.

I am Woman...

View Detail

Slutgate: Saved By A Fluke

Slutgate: Saved By A Fluke

Politics is often a game of fools, with both sides vying to out-do the other in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That’s what’s happening with slutgate. Indeed, the ironies here are tremendous. Let’s discuss.

● Round One: Rush should be condemned for two reasons. First, Rush was wrong to call this girl a slut, even if she is one. It’s poor manners and he knows better. “Slut” is just one of those words you don’t use in polite company. And Rush knows he was wrong. We know this because he apologized and he did it on a Saturday morning (the ultimate “Friday night drop”), which tells me he was embarrassed by the whole thing. Conservatives should not have defended his initial conduct.

Secondly, Rush also should be condemned for handing the Democrats a victory. Putting aside Santorum’s anti-woman jihad, the Democrats were in trouble on this whole sex issue. Not only had they just tried to force religious organizations to provide birth control in violation of their beliefs, but they doubled-down on stupid with this Fluke idiot whining how a Georgetown law student couldn’t afford all the birth control she needs for her vast travels through the male population. This also followed Obama’s humiliating retreat from his plan to make the morning after pill available without a prescription (meaning angry boyfriends, husbands or just plain sickos could buy it and slip it to women). Things were looking pretty grim for the Donks. But along came Rush and wiped all that out. He turned this issue from one of religious freedom and the Democrats demanding money so rich kids could have sex into an issue about Rush “unfairly attacking some defenseless girl.” If the Democrats had left it at that, this would have ended poorly for our side.

● Round Two: It would have ended poorly for Rush too because his sponsors began pulling out. To understand why this was a real danger, you need to understand that the sponsors weren’t pulling out because they thought this was unforgivable. To the contrary, events like this are a good time to dump people you already want to dump. My guess is that several of his sponsors felt Rush was no longer providing the returns they’d hoped and they saw this as a great chance to break a costly long term relationship that was no longer worth the money. In other words, the danger to Rush wasn’t outrage, it was the excuse that would allow them to end their contracts with him. What’s worse, there were enough of these that their exodus was creating an appearance of momentum, which made it more likely that others would flee as well to avoid looking bad. Make no mistake, this kind of exodus could very well have ruined Rush and led to his being dropped all around the country.

● Round Three: But, sensing blood in the water, the Democrats got greedy, and they lost everything. Observe. . .

● One: First, Fluke blew any sympathy she won by refusing to accept Rush’s apology. Everybody accepts verbal apologies for verbal insults. That’s the way you have to play it. She didn’t. That made her petty as well as being a slut. Then she made it worse by pimping Media Matters’ website. Then it came out she’s got connections to various Democratic operatives. So she went from victim to opportunistic, deceptive petty slut who pimps for the left. Way to squander all your goodwill.

● Two: Then we learned Obama’s administration has been coordinating the increasingly fake outrage. Whoops. The public will accept lies, but they won’t accept faked-outrage, and they won’t look kindly upon Obama interfering in a private dispute to exploit it for political purposes. . . did the ridiculous beer summit teach Obama nothing?

● Three: Then the Democrats’ hypocrisy exploded in their faces because the new conservative media proved very good at using the same tactics the left has employed against them: they shifted the debate and made it about Bill Maher. Suddenly, everyone was demanding to know why the left didn’t condemn Bill Maher for all the vile things he’s called Sarah Palin (and every other Republican woman or black). Maher, who recently gave $1,000,000 to Obama is so vile he makes Andrew Dice Clay sound like the Pope.

The Democrats tried to talk their way out of this by claiming Bill Maher isn’t on the radio, he’s on a pay-channel, so he’s immune from criticism. Except, this is laughable. How can something be racist and sexist unless it’s said on pay television? And if that’s true, then why have the Democrats repeatedly attacked people for things they said on pay television like Fox. No one was buying this. So the Democrats came up with a new theory: Rush is the de facto voice of the Republican Party and Bill Maher is just some comedian. Nope, that doesn’t wash either. No one has ever appointed Rush as head of anything, and the Democrats have never accepted that distinction in the past in any event. No sale.

Now they’re trying the “but Fluke isn’t a public figure, Palin is!” argument. Only, when Fluke went before Congress with the intention of getting her idiotic views heard by Congress on the record, she made herself a public figure. When she pimped for Media Matters, she confirmed it. Keep trying.

With no real justification, the Democrats are slowly impaling themselves on their own hypocrisy. And if they keep this up, some conservative comedian needs to drop a few n-words on that big-assed b*tch Michelle Obama because she’s a public figure and none of us are on the radio or run the Republican Party. And when the Democrats get upset, we’ll just invoke the Maher Hypocrisy Doctrine.

● Four: Just when things seemed like they couldn’t get worse for the Democrats, attention whore Gloria Allred arrived to wipe out any last vestiges of a Democratic victory by whining that Rush should be “prosecuted” for crimes against a liberal. She really suggested that in Rush’s case, the use of the word “slut” should be a criminal offense. This is Orwellian, where noncriminal conduct is considered criminal because you don’t like the person who did it. It also exposes the hate-filled, totalitarian mindset of the left. Anyone who has ever doubted just how vile, evil and abusive the left is need look no further. Don’t ever tell me again that any Democrat believes in free speech, because that’s a lie.

That’s how the Democrats squandered a tremendous victory. But even more ironically, in their zeal to destroy Rush, they actually saved him from himself. They turned him from villain to victim. And there’s a good lesson there -- when life hands you a victory, take it, don’t get greedy.

So who you got in the tournament?

Also, can someone please tell me why we need a Facebook page? Specifically, what would it do that the blog doesn’t already do? Seriously.

Politics is often a game of fools, with both sides vying to out-do the other in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That’s what’s happening with slutgate. Indeed, the ironies here are tremendous. Let’s discuss.

● Round One: Rush should be condemned for two reasons. First, Rush was wrong to call this girl a slut, even if she is one. It’s poor manners and he knows better. “Slut” is just one of those words you don’t use in polite company. And Rush knows he was wrong. We know this because he apologized and he did it on a Saturday morning (the ultimate “Friday night drop”), which tells me he was embarrassed by the whole thing. Conservatives should not have defended his initial conduct.

Secondly, Rush also should be condemned for handing the Democrats a victory. Putting aside Santorum’s anti-woman jihad, the Democrats were in trouble on this whole sex issue. Not only had they just tried to force religious organizations to provide birth control in violation of their beliefs, but they doubled-down on stupid with this Fluke idiot whining how a Georgetown law student couldn’t afford all the birth control she needs for her vast travels through the male population. This also followed Obama’s humiliating retreat from his plan to make the morning after pill available without a prescription (meaning angry boyfriends, husbands or just plain sickos could buy it and slip it to women). Things were looking pretty grim for the Donks. But along came Rush and wiped all that out. He turned this issue from one of religious freedom and the Democrats demanding money so rich kids could have sex into an issue about Rush “unfairly attacking some defenseless girl.” If the Democrats had left it at that, this would have ended poorly for our side.

● Round Two: It would have ended poorly for Rush too because his sponsors began pulling out. To understand why this was a real danger, you need to understand that the sponsors weren’t pulling out because they thought this was unforgivable. To the contrary, events like this are a good time to dump people you already want to dump. My guess is that several of his sponsors felt Rush was no longer providing the returns they’d hoped and they saw this as a great chance to break a costly long term relationship that was no longer worth the money. In other words, the danger to Rush wasn’t outrage, it was the excuse that would allow them to end their contracts with him. What’s worse, there were enough of these that their exodus was creating an appearance of momentum, which made it more likely that others would flee as well to avoid looking bad. Make no mistake, this kind of exodus could very well have ruined Rush and led to his being dropped all around the country.

● Round Three: But, sensing blood in the water, the Democrats got greedy, and they lost everything. Observe. . .

● One: First, Fluke blew any sympathy she won by refusing to accept Rush’s apology. Everybody accepts verbal apologies for verbal insults. That’s the way you have to play it. She didn’t. That made her petty as well as being a slut. Then she made it worse by pimping Media Matters’ website. Then it came out she’s got connections to various Democratic operatives. So she went from victim to opportunistic, deceptive petty slut who pimps for the left. Way to squander all your goodwill.

● Two: Then we learned Obama’s administration has been coordinating the increasingly fake outrage. Whoops. The public will accept lies, but they won’t accept faked-outrage, and they won’t look kindly upon Obama interfering in a private dispute to exploit it for political purposes. . . did the ridiculous beer summit teach Obama nothing?

● Three: Then the Democrats’ hypocrisy exploded in their faces because the new conservative media proved very good at using the same tactics the left has employed against them: they shifted the debate and made it about Bill Maher. Suddenly, everyone was demanding to know why the left didn’t condemn Bill Maher for all the vile things he’s called Sarah Palin (and every other Republican woman or black). Maher, who recently gave $1,000,000 to Obama is so vile he makes Andrew Dice Clay sound like the Pope.

The Democrats tried to talk their way out of this by claiming Bill Maher isn’t on the radio, he’s on a pay-channel, so he’s immune from criticism. Except, this is laughable. How can something be racist and sexist unless it’s said on pay television? And if that’s true, then why have the Democrats repeatedly attacked people for things they said on pay television like Fox. No one was buying this. So the Democrats came up with a new theory: Rush is the de facto voice of the Republican Party and Bill Maher is just some comedian. Nope, that doesn’t wash either. No one has ever appointed Rush as head of anything, and the Democrats have never accepted that distinction in the past in any event. No sale.

Now they’re trying the “but Fluke isn’t a public figure, Palin is!” argument. Only, when Fluke went before Congress with the intention of getting her idiotic views heard by Congress on the record, she made herself a public figure. When she pimped for Media Matters, she confirmed it. Keep trying.

With no real justification, the Democrats are slowly impaling themselves on their own hypocrisy. And if they keep this up, some conservative comedian needs to drop a few n-words on that big-assed b*tch Michelle Obama because she’s a public figure and none of us are on the radio or run the Republican Party. And when the Democrats get upset, we’ll just invoke the Maher Hypocrisy Doctrine.

● Four: Just when things seemed like they couldn’t get worse for the Democrats, attention whore Gloria Allred arrived to wipe out any last vestiges of a Democratic victory by whining that Rush should be “prosecuted” for crimes against a liberal. She really suggested that in Rush’s case, the use of the word “slut” should be a criminal offense. This is Orwellian, where noncriminal conduct is considered criminal because you don’t like the person who did it. It also exposes the hate-filled, totalitarian mindset of the left. Anyone who has ever doubted just how vile, evil and abusive the left is need look no further. Don’t ever tell me again that any Democrat believes in free speech, because that’s a lie.

That’s how the Democrats squandered a tremendous victory. But even more ironically, in their zeal to destroy Rush, they actually saved him from himself. They turned him from villain to victim. And there’s a good lesson there -- when life hands you a victory, take it, don’t get greedy.

So who you got in the tournament?

Also, can someone please tell me why we need a Facebook page? Specifically, what would it do that the blog doesn’t already do? Seriously.

Slutgate: Saved By A Fluke

View Detail

Is Western Civilization Too Civilized?

Is Western Civilization Too Civilized?

From banning jungle gyms and monkey bars to eliminating tackle football, American schools have slowly been removing any potential danger from our children's lives. Some schools have gone so far as to eliminate swings and slides, lest some poor child get hurt. Though girls are affected by the weakening of the American child, most of the activities being suppressed on the schoolyard are aimed at boys. But leave it to Canada to lead the way to the complete neutering of Western boys. They've taken away their balls.

The feminization of American males has been going on for decades since the rise of radical feminism. But sadly, even those who should know better have often joined in the blurring of natural biological differences between boys and girls, men and women. One Harvard president was even booted out of his post for daring to suggest that males tend to lean more toward the hard sciences than females.

Toronto public schools are now ball-less. Nerf balls are OK, but no longer will the kids be threatened by oncoming projectiles such as footballs, baseballs, volleyballs, or any ball with an exterior harder than Jell-O. I remember when I was playing football in elementary school, and I somehow got lined up against the biggest kid of them all. I prepared for death. But I was faster than he was, and managed to get out of his way. And I was nowhere near the ball. I don't think having the quarterback throwing a nerf football would have altered my fear one iota. As for baseball, I became a great hitter simply because the alternative was that the leather-bound rock being hurled from the mound would hit me instead of the bat. I survived.

I'm hoping the action in Toronto doesn't metastasize into America, but I'm not holding my breath. No wonder the jihadists think Americans are pushovers. Fortunately, our military has no such delusions about life being without danger. Life itself is about calculated risk. Boys tend to be greater risk-takers than girls. There are plenty of tough girls out there, but on the whole, boys tend to be the daredevils. They are overall more prone to competition, particularly physical competition. Take that away from them, and you get two types of male adults--the effete pinky-finger French wine drinker and the street thug.

Future Christian warriors are being told by their namby-pamby pastors, weak-kneed mothers and metrosexualized fathers that violence never solves anything. Well, tell that to the Japanese and the Germans. Rough schoolyard play, including those hard balls, are part of learning how to take necessary risks while avoiding injury as best you can. As the Duke of Wellington said, "the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton." Instead, we are converting our children into the boy in the plastic bubble. Nothing, not even the smallest virus or bacterium must ever reach them. Remove the plastic bubble, and our children are exposed to all kinds of nasty dangers to which they have no defense.

Bullies and jihadists count on the other children being weak and submissive. A boy who hasn't learned how to dodge a foul ball isn't likely to grow up to know how to dodge a bullet. And he sure as hell isn't going to know how to fight back. Those who have not learned to face the dangers of a flying baseball bat or an oncoming linebacker haven't learned to dodge the hardballs of life or to hit them out of the park. They also haven't learned what differentiates Western civilization from Middle East barbarism--the rules of the game and good sportsmanship. To win honorably or suffer defeat graciously, knowing you've lived to fight another day. It is not the inherent danger that makes a boy a man, but how he handles it.

So to the American schoolmasters who teach left wing propaganda, gender confusion, rabid egalitarianism, cooperation without competition and childhood sexualization, I say "keep your hands off our kids' balls."

Note: It's annual physical checkup day at the doctor's office. Since the doctor's office is over an hour away, and the appointment is at 2 PM Pacific Time, I'm afraid I won't be getting to your comments until late in the day. My apologies, but I will respond as soon as I can.

From banning jungle gyms and monkey bars to eliminating tackle football, American schools have slowly been removing any potential danger from our children's lives. Some schools have gone so far as to eliminate swings and slides, lest some poor child get hurt. Though girls are affected by the weakening of the American child, most of the activities being suppressed on the schoolyard are aimed at boys. But leave it to Canada to lead the way to the complete neutering of Western boys. They've taken away their balls.

The feminization of American males has been going on for decades since the rise of radical feminism. But sadly, even those who should know better have often joined in the blurring of natural biological differences between boys and girls, men and women. One Harvard president was even booted out of his post for daring to suggest that males tend to lean more toward the hard sciences than females.

Toronto public schools are now ball-less. Nerf balls are OK, but no longer will the kids be threatened by oncoming projectiles such as footballs, baseballs, volleyballs, or any ball with an exterior harder than Jell-O. I remember when I was playing football in elementary school, and I somehow got lined up against the biggest kid of them all. I prepared for death. But I was faster than he was, and managed to get out of his way. And I was nowhere near the ball. I don't think having the quarterback throwing a nerf football would have altered my fear one iota. As for baseball, I became a great hitter simply because the alternative was that the leather-bound rock being hurled from the mound would hit me instead of the bat. I survived.

I'm hoping the action in Toronto doesn't metastasize into America, but I'm not holding my breath. No wonder the jihadists think Americans are pushovers. Fortunately, our military has no such delusions about life being without danger. Life itself is about calculated risk. Boys tend to be greater risk-takers than girls. There are plenty of tough girls out there, but on the whole, boys tend to be the daredevils. They are overall more prone to competition, particularly physical competition. Take that away from them, and you get two types of male adults--the effete pinky-finger French wine drinker and the street thug.

Future Christian warriors are being told by their namby-pamby pastors, weak-kneed mothers and metrosexualized fathers that violence never solves anything. Well, tell that to the Japanese and the Germans. Rough schoolyard play, including those hard balls, are part of learning how to take necessary risks while avoiding injury as best you can. As the Duke of Wellington said, "the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton." Instead, we are converting our children into the boy in the plastic bubble. Nothing, not even the smallest virus or bacterium must ever reach them. Remove the plastic bubble, and our children are exposed to all kinds of nasty dangers to which they have no defense.

Bullies and jihadists count on the other children being weak and submissive. A boy who hasn't learned how to dodge a foul ball isn't likely to grow up to know how to dodge a bullet. And he sure as hell isn't going to know how to fight back. Those who have not learned to face the dangers of a flying baseball bat or an oncoming linebacker haven't learned to dodge the hardballs of life or to hit them out of the park. They also haven't learned what differentiates Western civilization from Middle East barbarism--the rules of the game and good sportsmanship. To win honorably or suffer defeat graciously, knowing you've lived to fight another day. It is not the inherent danger that makes a boy a man, but how he handles it.

So to the American schoolmasters who teach left wing propaganda, gender confusion, rabid egalitarianism, cooperation without competition and childhood sexualization, I say "keep your hands off our kids' balls."

Note: It's annual physical checkup day at the doctor's office. Since the doctor's office is over an hour away, and the appointment is at 2 PM Pacific Time, I'm afraid I won't be getting to your comments until late in the day. My apologies, but I will respond as soon as I can.

Is Western Civilization Too Civilized?

View Detail

Palin Exposé Exposes Liberal Sexism, Racism

Palin Exposé Exposes Liberal Sexism, Racism

Liberals love to think everyone else is a bigot. We’re all sexist, racist, ageist, you-name-it-ists. Only they are enlightened because they don’t partake in such evil. . . except they do. In fact, they are the biggest purveyors of it. The latest proof comes from the book about Sarah Palin.

For those who don’t know, a weirdo with a Palin obsession just wrote a book about Sarah Palin. I won’t bother giving his name or the title of the “book,” because he’s not really relevant. . . even to his mom. This “book” is a collection of obviously false rumors strung together to excite liberals. What kind of rumors you ask?

How about this. Weirdo claims Palin snorted cocaine off an oil drum. I like the oil drum, that’s a nice touch guaranteed to get liberals all excited. But the creativity of the rumor aside, this is pure hypocrisy. See, liberals don’t actually mind people doing coke. Nope. Clinton did pot plus. Obama did coke. Marion Barry did (does?) crack. And yet, they’re all happy figures within the liberal pantheon. Since this isn't any worse than conduct liberals already routinely dismiss, how can they attack Palin for doing coke? Easy, they hate Palin. She could do charity and they would attack her for it. By the way, I heard Obama snorted coke out of George Soros’s ass! True story.

Anyways, you’re here to see the liberal sexism and racism in action, not just to be entertained by the creative drug use of our first homosexual president and his Nazi-sympathizer friends. So let’s move on to the “big” allegations: did you know that Palin slept with a basketball player? Oh the horror! And her husband’s business partner! And now Mike Tyson claims she slept with him too. . . between prison stints. Oh my. How could anyone vote for her?

Ok, let’s take this in parts. First, why does it matter if she slept around? The left is all about sleeping around. They’ve been encouraging that since they all gave each other herpes at Haight and Ashbury. Bill Clinton fooled around and liberals said it was Bill being Bill. John Edwards fooled around, lied around and bribed around. Al Gore raped around. The Kennedys fooled around, raped around and killed their dates around, etc. etc. And yet these are liberal icons. In fact, a huge number of liberal males have fooled around and that apparently only adds to their charm among liberals. So how can this allegation excite liberals?

Well, liberals hold conservatives to a higher standard. They think nothing of attacking conservatives for things they do themselves -- that’s how liberals maintain the delusion that they’re better than everyone else. But even that doesn’t fully explain it. The truth is that liberals hold conservative women to an even higher standard than they hold conservatives generally. In their little world, conservative women better live like nuns or they deserve to be attacked for their behavior. Hence, the idea that a liberal man can be attacked for sleeping around is a non sequitur to them, but they happily consider it a high crime for conservative women. Why do they apply this higher standard? Because they’re sexist. What else do you call it when you selectively apply a moral standard only to women?

Moreover, the two ways liberals attack conservative women are the exact ways feminists always said it was improper to treat women. For as long as I can remember, feminists claimed that it is sexist to suggest that any woman is not "independent." They also particularly bristled at anything that suggested women are sex objects. Yet, when liberals attack conservative women, the most common lines of attack are (1) to assert that these women are mindless, stupid drones who slept their way to the top and are dependent on their husbands for their success, and (2) to attack their looks, the way they dress, and their sex lives. That's exactly what this book does, and that's sexism.

But there’s something even worse going on here. These allegations aren’t just about fooling around, they’re about fooling around with black men. Indeed, that seems to be the real “strength” of these allegations in liberal circles. Now think about that. This allegation is meant to demean her. Or, said differently, the allegation that she slept with black men is meant to demean her. If I said to you, “it is demeaning for a white woman to sleep with a black man,” you would call me racist. . . and yet, that’s what this allegation is: “Sarah Palin demeaned herself by sleeping with black men.” Nice, huh? That’s pure racism right there.

And before anybody suggests that not all liberals believe this because even the New York Times, the mouthpiece of dippy, hateful liberalism “defended” Palin against this book. Let me point something out. They didn’t say these allegations were racist or sexist and have no place in politics -- something they certainly would have screamed if a conservative had alleged this against Hillary. Nope. Instead, they criticized the book because it was sloppy, its allegations were not substantiated and this was a missed opportunity. There has been no condemnation of the nature of the attacks on Palin, there has only been an attack on weirdo’s failure to do a better job proving them.

By now, the evidence is overwhelming that liberals are sexist and racist to their cores. This is just the latest example. And if liberals were even 1% self-aware then they would see this. Of course, if they were even 1% self-aware, then they wouldn’t be liberals.

Liberals love to think everyone else is a bigot. We’re all sexist, racist, ageist, you-name-it-ists. Only they are enlightened because they don’t partake in such evil. . . except they do. In fact, they are the biggest purveyors of it. The latest proof comes from the book about Sarah Palin.

For those who don’t know, a weirdo with a Palin obsession just wrote a book about Sarah Palin. I won’t bother giving his name or the title of the “book,” because he’s not really relevant. . . even to his mom. This “book” is a collection of obviously false rumors strung together to excite liberals. What kind of rumors you ask?

How about this. Weirdo claims Palin snorted cocaine off an oil drum. I like the oil drum, that’s a nice touch guaranteed to get liberals all excited. But the creativity of the rumor aside, this is pure hypocrisy. See, liberals don’t actually mind people doing coke. Nope. Clinton did pot plus. Obama did coke. Marion Barry did (does?) crack. And yet, they’re all happy figures within the liberal pantheon. Since this isn't any worse than conduct liberals already routinely dismiss, how can they attack Palin for doing coke? Easy, they hate Palin. She could do charity and they would attack her for it. By the way, I heard Obama snorted coke out of George Soros’s ass! True story.

Anyways, you’re here to see the liberal sexism and racism in action, not just to be entertained by the creative drug use of our first homosexual president and his Nazi-sympathizer friends. So let’s move on to the “big” allegations: did you know that Palin slept with a basketball player? Oh the horror! And her husband’s business partner! And now Mike Tyson claims she slept with him too. . . between prison stints. Oh my. How could anyone vote for her?

Ok, let’s take this in parts. First, why does it matter if she slept around? The left is all about sleeping around. They’ve been encouraging that since they all gave each other herpes at Haight and Ashbury. Bill Clinton fooled around and liberals said it was Bill being Bill. John Edwards fooled around, lied around and bribed around. Al Gore raped around. The Kennedys fooled around, raped around and killed their dates around, etc. etc. And yet these are liberal icons. In fact, a huge number of liberal males have fooled around and that apparently only adds to their charm among liberals. So how can this allegation excite liberals?

Well, liberals hold conservatives to a higher standard. They think nothing of attacking conservatives for things they do themselves -- that’s how liberals maintain the delusion that they’re better than everyone else. But even that doesn’t fully explain it. The truth is that liberals hold conservative women to an even higher standard than they hold conservatives generally. In their little world, conservative women better live like nuns or they deserve to be attacked for their behavior. Hence, the idea that a liberal man can be attacked for sleeping around is a non sequitur to them, but they happily consider it a high crime for conservative women. Why do they apply this higher standard? Because they’re sexist. What else do you call it when you selectively apply a moral standard only to women?

Moreover, the two ways liberals attack conservative women are the exact ways feminists always said it was improper to treat women. For as long as I can remember, feminists claimed that it is sexist to suggest that any woman is not "independent." They also particularly bristled at anything that suggested women are sex objects. Yet, when liberals attack conservative women, the most common lines of attack are (1) to assert that these women are mindless, stupid drones who slept their way to the top and are dependent on their husbands for their success, and (2) to attack their looks, the way they dress, and their sex lives. That's exactly what this book does, and that's sexism.

But there’s something even worse going on here. These allegations aren’t just about fooling around, they’re about fooling around with black men. Indeed, that seems to be the real “strength” of these allegations in liberal circles. Now think about that. This allegation is meant to demean her. Or, said differently, the allegation that she slept with black men is meant to demean her. If I said to you, “it is demeaning for a white woman to sleep with a black man,” you would call me racist. . . and yet, that’s what this allegation is: “Sarah Palin demeaned herself by sleeping with black men.” Nice, huh? That’s pure racism right there.

And before anybody suggests that not all liberals believe this because even the New York Times, the mouthpiece of dippy, hateful liberalism “defended” Palin against this book. Let me point something out. They didn’t say these allegations were racist or sexist and have no place in politics -- something they certainly would have screamed if a conservative had alleged this against Hillary. Nope. Instead, they criticized the book because it was sloppy, its allegations were not substantiated and this was a missed opportunity. There has been no condemnation of the nature of the attacks on Palin, there has only been an attack on weirdo’s failure to do a better job proving them.

By now, the evidence is overwhelming that liberals are sexist and racist to their cores. This is just the latest example. And if liberals were even 1% self-aware then they would see this. Of course, if they were even 1% self-aware, then they wouldn’t be liberals.

Palin Exposé Exposes Liberal Sexism, Racism

View Detail