Dirty Sexy Politics by Meghan McCain is scheduled for release on August 31. But you don’t have to wait until Tuesday to see what didn’t make the final editorial cut. NewsReal Blog has obtained exclusive excerpts from the chapters rejected by Meggie Mac’s editors.
1. How Dare People Gawk At My Boobs When I Posted Them Publicly On Twitter.
Meghan McCain infamously posted a picture of her, shall we say, “cups over-flowing” on Twitter the very same day that the Balloon Boy hoax went down. Presumably because, as a publicity hound extraordinaire, she couldn’t stand the focus being on some icky kid. From fly-over country, no less. As such, she tried to insert herself, and her massive ta-tas, in the mix. And then feigned indignation when people looked at the picture — that she posted publicly on the Internet. She attempted to make this a pop-up chapter in her book.
OMG! All those meany pantser, objectifiers on twitter didn’t understand that picture was code and a public service! I’m a giver! I was trying to let them know balloon boy was safely hidden, tucked away in my cleavage. Hello? I was holding a book! Everyone knows reading is hard. The purty picture on the book was code, too, obvy. Andy Warhol – a sign that the balloon boy people were just trying to steal MY 15 minutes of fame thunder.
The Andy Warhol book was relevant, seeing that Meghan McCain is well past her 15 minutes. However, sadly, the chapter was omitted because while CNN did not fact check the Balloon Boy story prior to setting the nation in a tizzy, they did fact check Meggie Mac’s ta-tas. Endlessly. Proving once again that journalism is, in fact, as dead as Janeane Garofalo’s career.
As for the Balloon Boy scam and the totally empty hot air balloon? STILL more substantive than Meghan McCain.
2. How I Survived Being Stalked by Über Creepy Karl Rove
In this chapter, Meghan recorded her bizarre cyber stalking fantasy featuring the one, the only, The Architect Karl Rove. Here’s a taste:
Karl Rove is a total creep. You have NO idea. He follows me on Twitter. All the time! How freaky is that? Like I wrote in my groundbreaking Daily Beast column last year (where they PAY ME to write!!), “I’ve never met him in person, which only makes our Twitter relationship even weirder.” I wonder if the other people he Twitter stalks are as freaked out as I am. At first he was all boring and stuff, but then I realized, this pervo hangs on my every word. He knows what I eat, what I wear to bed … he even knows which celebrities totally heart me for being all mavericky like my dad.
I’m sorry, but I’m a liberated progressive Republican woman and I have a constitutional right to tweet about my sex-positivity without creepy Karl in the mix. I swear he was on the verge of sending me stuff like this:
Earlier this week, the media once again displayed why no one can take them seriously. The Fourth Estate is totally insolvent and is declaring bankruptcy, morally and otherwise. In this recent instance, having to do with Tuesday night’s Republican primary in Alaska, it was at least quite hilarious.
You see, Sarah Palin had endorsed Joe Miller over the incumbent alleged Republican Senator, Lisa Murkowski. As Jim Treacher at The Daily Caller lays out, and as Ace of Spades also noted, the media was so hell-bent on a way to discredit Sarah Palin that they indulged in the child-like behavior of squinting your eyes closed to reality and wishing really, really hard that fantasy comes true. First up was Alex Gutierrez at Slate, who was clearly desperately hoping for a way to spin Palin as politically detrimental:
On Tuesday, in her home state, Sarah Palin’s favorite will probably get trounced. Joe Miller is widely expected to lose by a large margin to incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary—an embarrassing defeat for the former governor, who has endorsed Miller, but also to Miller’s other major backer, the Tea Party Express.
Yeah, it’s embarrassing alright. Embarrassing for you, Gutierrez. I suggest that you look in the mirror if you want to see embarrassing defeats. How does that crow taste, by the way? I hope Gutierrez at least shared the crow with her boyfriend, Dave Weigel, who defended her in his column without disclosing their relationship status, in true Weigel form. He has updated his column to make the disclosure now, only after being shamed (surprisingly) into it by The Daily Caller piece. His girlfriend has now attempted to cover up her bias as well, and has removed “Grizzly woman not mama grizzly” from her twitter bio.
Too little, too late. They cannot cover up the obvious fact that the media inevitably tries to pin any defeat at all on Sarah Palin and, in this case, they went so far as to wish for said defeat solely in order to do so. But any wins? …
This past week, Republican South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and Republican Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli displayed how the GOP is the party who is actually For The Children, and not just in the talking points way. First up was Governor Mark Sanford, who signed bill H 3245 into law. The law now requires that women have a 24 hour waiting period before obtaining an abortion. Prior to this law, there was only a one hour waiting period. It also requires that abortionists offer women the ability to see their unborn child on an ultrasound before aborting the baby, but does not require that they view the ultrasound. They must merely be given the choice. Choice is important, right? Next, came Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, who concluded last week that state agencies in Virginia can legally regulate abortion clinics as medical establishments.
This should just be common sense and shouldn’t raise the ire of even the most vociferously pro-abortion, right? I mean, it does not make abortion illegal, but it does make it safer – and hopefully rarer. Safe, legal and rare is the mantra, no? Apparently, by safe, legal and rare, pro-abortionists really only mean one out of the three. They actually want it to be unsafe, legal, and not rare at all. As is indicated by their fierce opposition to such simple, decent and potentially life-saving measures.
“I believe life is sacred, and in the debate over when life begins, I think we as a society should always err on the side of life,” Gov. Sanford said. “Given current federal law, I think it’s imperative that a decision of this magnitude only be made with the fullest and most accurate knowledge available. It’s our hope and expectation that this new law results in a substantial decrease in the number of abortions carried out in South Carolina.
How draconian, huh? I thought knowledge was power? Not so for pro-abortionists. They are infuriated over a mere 24 hour waiting period…
During the 2008 Presidential campaign, we heard relentlessly about how Barack Obama would usher in the era of Post-Racial America. Upon his Presidential nomination and subsequent election, it reached a fever pitch, with every speech he made being lauded as the second coming of Martin Luther King, Jr. In reality, not so much. In fact, the reality was almost the antithesis of Martin Luther King, Jr’s dream – instead of being about character, everything became about the color of one’s skin.
Not a fan of “universal” health care? Racist! Approve of Arizona’s law attempting to stop the tide of illegal immigration? Racist! Disagree with President Obama on economic policy? Racist. Also, George Bush. The demagoguing of American citizens reached heretofore unknown epic levels.
It’s easy to understand why, once you realize it is a case of the Left not only protesting too much, but projecting too much. The Left’s own bigotry came out in full and disgusting display. If you want to understand what the Left believes and what they are doing at any given time, just look toward what they accuse others of doing. With all their crying and moaning about what they ‘ inherited’ from President Bush, there is one thing I do wish they had “inherited” — A desire to get rid of the “soft bigotry of lowered expectations.” Instead, those on the Left foment it.
It’s nearly impossible to narrow the list down, but here are ten remarks made by the “tolerant” left, which exemplify their own underlying bigotry.
1) Harry Reid Shows His True, and Racist, Colors
I don’t know if Harry Reid’s ivory tower is padded, but it should be. In January of this year, the king demagoguer had his own hypocritical mask ripped off upon the release of the book Game Change. An excerpt from the book, detailing a private conversation with Harry Reid, exposes what he truly believes, away from the cover of his public facade:
On page 37, a remark, said “privately” by Sen. Harry Reid, about Barack Obama’s racial appeal. Though Reid would later say that he was neutral in the presidential race, the truth, the authors write, was that his “encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.
“Oh, look! He sure does talk purty! For a black guy and all.” How vile. It also means that your race card is no longer accepted, Harry Reid.
Last year, the Left floated the idea that unemployment is really super fun and tried to pass it off as FUNemployment. That spin eventually failed, because people not living in their parents’ basements and fiddling with their iPods realized it really isn’t all that enjoyable not being able to, you know, pay their bills. So, they are now left with inventing new reasons for why people aren’t getting hired. Specifically, we women-folk. Guess what, ladies? It’s not the fact that President Obama has spent more time creating or saving his own golf handicap than he has spent on the economic situation, that is preventing you from getting a job. It’s your girly parts! According to that bastion of enlightenment, Ms. Magazine, at least. In an article entitled “It Wasn’t Your Resume, It Was Your Vagina”, they attempt to make that case. And fail. Miserably, as always.
They first set it up by regurgitating the tired, old “women earn less money” myth. The article then goes on to, of course, praise so-called liberal legislation, then bemoans that it didn’t accomplish enough because we women are still total victims and gender discrimination is nearly epidemic! It’s funny, coming from people who do nothing but base things entirely upon gender. The article is ridiculous enough on it’s face, but one section in particular exemplifies the reality of the faux-problem; it is the left who discriminates against women and it is the left who thinks that women are lesser. The left dislikes women being the fairer sex (heaven forfend that a woman is smart and attractive), but they actually believe that women are the weaker sex. Evidenced here:
For one thing, men tend to fare better than women on job interviews, particularly in male-dominated fields, where hiring managers tend to value stereotypically “masculine” qualities such as intellectual rigor and mathematical ability. The interviewers may have trouble recognizing talent among women applicants, whom they may assume are naturally less savvy. As Jessica Good, a Rutgers University social psychology doctoral student who studies perceptions of women who are the targets of sexism, explained to me in an e-mail:
The traits that society typically ascribes to men are also the traits that society typically ascribes to a good employee. So, men are already assumed to possess a certain level of competence and agency, whereas women must actively demonstrate their competence in an interview setting.
Oh, my. Where to even begin? Firstly, I hate to break it to the chronically willfully ignorant, but there are certain fields in which those characteristics – like mathematical ability - are required, regardless of gender. It’s called, you know, job qualifications. And while some may like to whine about science and math being only “stereotypically” male, the hard truth is that women are not held back in those fields.
Predictably, this didn’t sit well with the feminist Left. Detecting a mortal threat to their exclusive ownership of the terms “feminist” and “woman,” they lashed out at conservative women politicians and their supporters. They dubbed Sarah Palin an anti-feminist, Jan Brewer a racist, and Meg Whitman a ruthless corporate tyrant. And while they admitted Nikki Haley might technically be a woman, she was deemed the wrong kind of woman.
Jezebel waded in with a list of the ten lowest moments for women in politics. Shockingly, it just happened to focus almost exclusively on unfair treatment of female Democrats and supposedly egregious conservative behavior. Number ten, for example, was “Almost anything Michelle Bachmann has ever said.” Such wit! Such biting commentary!
Perhaps the ladies at Jezebel need a reminder (or ten) of why no one’s declaring 2010 the Year of the Lefty Woman.
1. The Self-Destruction of Anti-Semitic Feminist Icon Helen Thomas
For decades Helen Thomas was embraced by the Left as a trailblazing feminist and “hero of journalism.” And the Left is where the recently retired White House correspondent felt at home. She told an interviewer last year, “I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, I’ll be one ’til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?”
That made it especially difficult for progressive admirers to disassociate themselves from Thomas when a Long Island rabbi recorded her disgusting anti-Semitic remarks about Israeli Jews in June:
“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land…not German and not Poland.”
“So, where should they go?”
“Go home. Poland, Germany.”
“So, you think the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?”
“And America and everywhere else.”
Thomas’ status as a feminist icon couldn’t rescue her from a long overdue retirement. But somehow it managed to save her from a place on Jezebel’s list of lowlights for women in politics. Apparently despicable anti-Semitic moonbats who advocate ethnic cleansing get a pass for all those groundbreaking achievements “in the fight for gender justice.”
2. Tina Brown: ‘Wingnut’ Women A Blow To Feminism
While there was a plethora of up in arms, whining articles bemoaning the rise of conservative women to the forefront, Tina Brown, editor of The Daily Beast, fully exposed the Left’s deep-seated fear of losing their gender identified victim-hood status during an appearance on Good Morning America in June of this year. The segment was discussing primary wins by Republican women, including Carly Fiorina and Nikki Haley. Said Miss Brown:
TINA BROWN: Yeah, I mean, it was. I mean, in some ways, it’s, again, representation that people are looking for otherness. You know, they’re so disgusted with incumbents, they’re looking for something completely different. And, as it happens, of course, women usually are seen as, you know, an alternative because many more men are in there. But, actually, the only trouble with this one is, it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism. Because, each one of them, really, most of them, are, you know, very much, uh, uh, you know, against so many of things that women have fought for such a long time.
Sorry, Miss Brown, but, no. These women do represent true feminism. They also fight for things that I fight for – as a woman and as a person. You see, Miss Brown, some people don’t marginalize themselves into gender boxes only. Unlike the Left, who seeks to diminish women by making them perpetual victims and who wants women to focus on busy work issues only. That whole empowerment deal? It’s impossible to be empowered if one is shrouded in victimization.
Faux Feminism, like that espoused by Femisogynists, is dead. People like Tina Brown are merely throwing themselves on the casket, caterwauling in a desperate bid to keep it alive. They are failing, because their hypocrisy is so blatant. Inventing victimization here, but ignoring true victims, the women in the Muslim world, as we’ll see later..
Barbara Boxer was recently up in arms over some words. No, this time it wasn’t the oh-so horrifying word ma’am. She was up in arms over her own words or, more to the point, the fact that George Will was holding her to her own words – words that expressed a pro-abortion position so extreme, it can only be described, no matter one’s position on abortion, as outright infanticide. So, she pulled the handy old “out of context” card. Only, it was totally in context, with full video documentation.George Will quoted Barbara Boxer’s own words – in context – in a Newsweek article last month. Here is one of the relevant sections:
In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.” Santorum persisted: “Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?” She would not say “yes.” Instead, she said, understandably: “I don’t want to engage in this.”
She didn’t want to engage in it. I wouldn’t want to engage in it either, if I was flagrantly sanctioning infanticide and depriving human beings of Constitutional rights, as Barbara Boxer was. Boxer then tried to back-pedal a bit, as you can see in the video of the C-SPAN posted further below.
Her back-pedaling, however, only served to show how delusional her comments are. Her, and other pro-abortionists’, alleged arguments are nowhere near based in sanity. If a toe is still inside the mother, then, says Boxer, you can’t kill the baby. But, if a whole foot? She chose not to answer. Yet, in a partial birth abortion, only the top of the baby’s head remains inside the mother – the entire body and part of the head is fully delivered. Then, in the part of the skull that is outside of the mother’s body, an instrument is used to stab the skull, creating a puncture from which the baby’s brain is then sucked out. And the baby is left to die.
A video surfaced today of the abysmally-rated Katie Couric rehearsing and taping some segments on the very day that Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain’s running mate for the 2008 election. While her derision isn’t surprising – she made it quite evident in all subsequent alleged reporting as well – it does show that she was already biased on Day One. It also quite clearly shows sneering contempt:
Note the contempt dripping from her voice when talking about Sarah Palin’s town of Wasilla – one of those pesky bitterly clinging small towns, I suppose. She also mocks the names of the Palin children. You see, politicians’ children are only off limits if you dig their sweet, sweet liberal policy. And, if you don’t think their mom is icky, in which case it is then totally cool to mock children and make them the butt of jokes.
She then continues in her oh-so-professional way, perhaps learned from JournoList members, to insult female basketball players. She’s heard jeeringly asking someone off camera “you can be feminine and play basketball, right Jerry?” Perhaps she’s projecting her own insecurities, what with Couric’s own unfortunate hairdo and all. Even her own staff seems to have been taken aback by the volume of her disdain and you can hear someone gasping off camera and another staffer appears to have cut off her sound.
The final product actually wasn’t much better. While it wasn’t outright cattiness, like in the above video, it was still full of veiled disdain….
President Obama gave an interview to CBS on Sunday, wherein he attempted to explain his stance against Arizona’s SB 1070 Immigration bill. Still no word on whether or not he’s actually read the bill yet, but based on his inane murmurings, I’d have to go with No. But, to be fair, during the interview he did display a few things that he does quite well: shameless lying and absolute hypocrisy. You see, President Obama had the utter gall to say that we shouldn’t demagogue nor politicize a national problem like immigration reform. No, really. My jaw dropped too and I thought to myself “could he possibly be that shameless?” Apparently, yes:
In a CBS interview broadcast Sunday, President Obama slammed approaches to immigration reform he said “demagogue” a “national problem.”
He also defended progress in the administration’s suit against Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law — an action that states that the controversial measure flouts the federal government’s imperative under the ’supremacy’ clause of the constitution.
Does the Smartest Man Alive ™ not know the meaning of the word demagogue? He is the Demagoguer In Chief, for goodness sake. And the entire Democrat party falls in demagogue-y lockstep right behind him. Incessant race card playing? Fear mongering? Sound familiar, President? That comes from you and your fellow Democrats who brand anyone who merely disagrees with you on policy – ever- as racist. You also use demagoguing in tandem with fear to politicize every issue and further your own agendas. Remember what you said about the law when first passed, Mr. President?
There is a new ‘hot topic’ at various alleged Feminist sites that exemplifies yet another reason why leftist self-named Feminists should really be called Femisogynists. Their agenda is purely a political one and it’s one that is actually harmful to women. The end now justifies the means to the point that the new in thing to do in Leftist Feminist/Femisogynist circles is to “embrace sluthood”. No, really. A most recent example from that hotbed of objectification and subjugation of women disguised as feminism, Feministe.com:
I had never thought of my self as a Casual Encounters kind of girl. I’d read them on occasion, sure, out of fascination, horror, horniness. I’d even, once in a long while, in lonely desperate moments, posted an ad, not with the intention of actually meeting anyone, but because sometimes knowing you have a bunch of bad options that you’re rejecting feels better than feeling like you have no options at all. And it was that exact state I found myself in one Friday night last fall, after having been blown apart yet again by some minor rejection that felt so huge it sent me to my bed. I hadn’t showered or shaved or left the house in days. And so, glass of wine in hand, wearing a robe and dirty sweatpants, I posted an ad just so I could watch the replies come in and feel like I had some kind of choice in the world. That somebody wanted me, even if they were gross and I’d never want them back.
Um. Where to begin? Her article, term used loosely, entitled My Sluthood, Myself, is meant to show how empowering and wonderful it is to embrace always-have-antibiotics-on-hand sluthood, yet, in reality, it shows anything but. Maybe it’s just me, but if I was feeling icky and hadn’t showered nor shaved in days, I’d, you know, shower and shave, for starters. I would not post a random “hit me up for a booty call, total stranger” ad. As you read on, her own words belie her “I’m so empowered” false persona: she admits she is desperately craving being wanted and loved. How on earth does random sex, with strangers no less, achieve that? It doesn’t. What it does achieve is objectification, in the really bad way.
I’d like to think that old school feminists, many of whom were honestly trying to achieve some good, didn’t burn their bras in the hopes that women would start unhooking them for every Tom, Dick and Harry in some demented quest for acceptance and fulfillment.
The article goes on, filled with cliches such as “triggers” – femisogynist new-speak for “I want to read this so that I can get outrageously outraged and claim victimization” – and more words that belie the author’s intent.
Last year when the Lockerbie terrorist, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, was released, freed to die with the compassion – a luxury that his innocent, murdered victims did not have - I thought that I was as angry as I could ever be. I must admit that I was wrong. You see, it seems that the inept Obama Administration once again voted present andactively endorsed “compassionate parole” over a prison transfer of al-Megrahi to Libya, as The Australian reports:
THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be “far preferable” to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.
Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.
Apparently, the administration opposed transfer to Libya because, as would be obvious to any thinking person, such a transfer would paint Megrahi as a martyr and would result in triumphal celebration. But, really – what difference does that even make? That is supposed to be a valid excuse for releasing him? Oh, sure, he may have committed an act of terrorism that sent a plane full of innocent people to a fiery, terrifying, painful death, but as long as he totally promises that he won’t par-tay and celebrate – after he is set free after serving only 11 days per murder - then, it’s all cool.
Which is exactly what happened, anyway and Scottish and American politicians feigned shock and disbelief when it occurred. Here’s a tip for you: terrorists generally don’t have any qualms about lying. They are like many politicians that way. Speaking of which, Obama himself lied last week when he made this statement:
The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama’s claim last week that all Americans were “surprised, disappointed and angry” to learn of Megrahi’s release.
He wasn’t surprised, nor was he disappointed. He knew it was coming and thought the “compassionate release” preferable to prison transfer to Libya. Was this more of his “Muslim outreach” plans, which seem to entail only a feel-goody “let’s all be friends” naive and dangerous mindset?
By most ethical Congress ever, I of course mean the total opposite. Much like the claims of the most transparent administration ever – in Obama-era Newspeak terms, you must just assume the opposite to be true. Charlie Rangel, after having been forced, kicking and screaming, to step down as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee in March, has now been charged with multiple ethics violations by a bipartisan House committee:
The formation of subcommittee, which will consist of four Democrats and four Republicans, is rare. The last time one was convened was in 2002 to handle the case of former Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, who was under investigation in connection with bribery, racketeering and tax evasion convictions…
Rangel, D-N.Y., has been under a lengthy probe by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for a series of ethics allegations that includes failing to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in income and assets, improper use of several rent-controlled apartments in his Harlem district, fundraising efforts for a college center that bears his name, and failing to pay taxes on property he owns in the Dominican Republic.
And, guess what? It’s probably racist! Or, it’s the press out to get him (video at the link). That line of spin is particularly amusing since we now know, thanks to The Daily Caller, that liberal journalists have been conspiring to harm Republicans and aid Democrats.
That aside, the fact that it is a bipartisan subcommittee and pressure really means that the Democrats are growing increasingly nervous about their collective (how ironic) chances in November. However, even that isn’t enough to stop the good old race card from being thrown down…
The most insidious form of media bias is deciding what to cover and, more importantly, what not to cover. The revelations uncovered by The Daily Callerin regard to Journolist have been damning on that front. The latest involve Sarah Palin and while anyone with a speck of honesty already realized that the media has been out to marginalize her from the very beginning, Journolist members took it to an even more egregious level. I know. I didn’t think that was possible either, but apparently it is.
While it is obviously not unheard of for colleagues to discuss stories of the day, that wasn’t the case here. This was a group of reputed (or refudiated!) journalists colluding with openly leftist opinionators to not report the news, but to shape it. As evidenced in these postings to JournoList:
Chris Hayes of the Nation wrote in with words of encouragement, and to ask for more talking points. “Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get,” Hayes wrote.
Time’s Joe Klein then linked to his own piece, parts of which he acknowledged came from strategy sessions on Journolist. “Here’s my attempt to incorporate the accumulated wisdom of this august list-serve community,” he wrote. And indeed Klein’s article contained arguments developed by his fellow Journolisters
Worse, the goal of the framing of the narrative was to marginalize and diminish a woman by using her womanhood itself against her for political means. In fact, one member, Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation, referred to the list as Obama’s “non-official campaign” and admitted he believed it was their job to discredit Palin:
This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away ……
On Sunday Sarah Palin, exhibiting common sense and courage of her convictions, called for a rejection of the planned mosque at Ground Zero. The planned mosque has been causing controversy, controversy that was easily foreseen by anyone with a brain and, you know, an ounce of true as opposed to feigned sensitivity. Apparently, this does not include a New York City Community Board nor Mayor Bloomberg.
Nearly two months ago, Manhattan Community Board 1 voted to approve the plans for a mosque to be built at ground zero. The vote was 29 to 1 in favor, although 10 chose to “vote present” by abstaining. Suffice it to say, the public had a few things to say about it.
The alleged purpose of the mosque was to spread “healing.” The actual result? Not so much. So, you’d think that the plans would have been scrapped once that was crystal clear. But, nope. Of course not. Because it’s always sensitivity for me, but not for thee, to those on the Left. Enter Sarah Palin, who once again is displaying her uncanny ability of creating a national dialogue via social media postings. But she’s just a dum-dum, right? She tweeted this on Sunday:
“Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing,” she tweeted Sunday.
While a recent poll showed a majority of New Yorkers oppose the plan to build the mosque built near Ground Zero, an aide in Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s City Hall hit back at Palin, first tweeting “@SarahPalinUSA mind your business.”
The aide, policy hand Andrea Batista Schlesinger, followed that up with:
Yesterday morning, I had the chance to speak with Renee Ellmers, who is running for Congress against Bob Etheridge (D-NC), he of man-handling those who dare to question him fame. Or, rather, infamy. Etheridge is a clear-cut example of the arrogance of those firmly entrenched in Washington, DC, which is what prompted Renee Ellmers to run in the first place.
As a nurse, whose husband is a surgeon, she knew that doctors don’t nefariously lop off limbs nor reap tonsils willy nilly for cash money. She decided that she needed to speak out during the town halls that were meant to discuss the then proposed Obamacare legislation. Upon doing so, she saw the sneering contempt that Democrat Bob Etheridge had for his own constituents.
This spurred her to run for the seat herself and she elaborates on that in the interview. We also discuss more of the unintended, and intended, consequences of Obamacare, her endorsement by the Susan B. Anthony list as a strong Pro-Life voice, Mama Grizzlies and what they stand for, Arizona’s immigration law, cap and trade and why Renee Ellmers thinks that carbon offsets/global warming is the greatest scam of the century.
First clip is below and the rest can be found here. If you like what you hear as much as I did, or if you would like to learn more about Renee Ellmers (and lend her your support), please visit ReneeForCongress.
Hollywood, the place where so many have been paid so much for so little worth. Their lack of rational thought and honesty astounds even me sometimes, and I have very low expectations. Their latest delusional propaganda, in the form of an upcoming film about Margaret Thatcher entitled The Iron Lady, comes as no surprise but is still infuriating. Inaccurately vilifying Thatcher is totally acceptable, you see, because she has the utter temerity of being a conservative woman. Egads, the horror!
Thatcher’s family members are rightly horrified and call the film somethng from a “left wing fantasy”. They classily stopped short of calling it “sick” fantasy, but I have no such qualms.
Mandrake hears that the screenplay of The Iron Lady depicts Baroness Thatcher as an elderly dementia-sufferer looking back on her career with sadness. She is shown talking to herself and unaware that her husband, Sir Denis Thatcher, has died.
“Sir Mark and Carol are appalled at what they have learnt about the film,” says a friend of the family. “They think it sounds like some Left-wing fantasy. They feel strongly about it, but will not speak publicly for fear of giving it more publicity.”
I don’t wish to give the alleged film publicity either and normally would just ignore it, as I hope movie-goers will. I would usually just push it aside using one of Thatcher’s own quotes: “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” However, the reasons behind the left’s intense hatred for Prime Minister Thatcher need to be pointed out, if only for the youth who know nothing of The Iron Lady and her staggering contributions to the world at large.
It’s not just that she was a strong and able partner to the equally hated by the Left Ronald Reagan. A partnership, forged in the belief of freedom and the power of the individual, that was immensely beneficial not only to our two countries, but to the entire globe. It’s also because she was a conservative woman who not only stated that proudly, but who also refused – absolutely refused – to give any credence to feminists or the “Women’s Lib” movement of her time.
Actually, not just history is hard for Congresswoman Jackson-Lee (D-TX). It appears as if thinking itself is rather difficult for her. After watching this, I couldn’t decide if I was wiping away tears of laughter or tears of dismay at the state of our alleged representatives in Congress. Via RedState:
Oh, my. Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee is on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. No, really. These are the people in charge of our health care now. How comforting!
It has been pointed out that the one thing she got correct was the number of American troops killed in Vietnam, therefore, she couldn’t have been confusing Vietnam with North and South Korea. Which makes no sense anyway – North and South Korea clearly do not live in harmony. Well, clearly if you are not a damn fool. Additionally, surely the culturally sensitive Jackson Lee wouldn’t confuse two separate cultures and peoples like that, would she? I mean, she’s the one who thought having racially diverse names for hurricanes was of the utmost import.
Last week, before the airing of an episode of Friday Night Lights on NBC, feminist sites were gleefully discussing the fact that a teen-age character was pregnant and contemplating an abortion. They were not only gleeful, but were actively and proudly rooting for her to have the abortion and for NBC to air the episode. An example from a post at Feministing entitled “I’m rooting for an abortion this Friday night”:
In the real world, abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures in the country and more than a third of American women will have one by age 45 . On TV, however, unexpected pregnancies usually result in a baby without even a mention of the “A” word. If a character does consider abortion, as Private Practice ’s Maya did last season and Grey’s Anatomy ’s Christina did in Season 1, it typically ends with an 11th hour change of heart or a convenient miscarriage as a last-minute cop-out….
And I want all the teenage girls watching who may one day find themselves, like Becky, unexpectedly pregnant and very scared to know that they too can have an abortion and that life–and football–will go on.
Safe, legal and rare, huh? Well, rare unless you have super fun football games that you must attend. Safe, legal and rare – yet also a most common surgical procedure, with claims that one-third of all women will have an abortion? If you check the statistics, that number doesn’t actually bear true, thankfully. However, only a femisogynist would not only try to claim that one third of pregnancies end in abortion, but would also intellectually dishonestly try to spin it into a positive and an attempted rationale for an insane argument. To anyone else, that’s a devastating, horrifying and incredibly sad statistic.
Secretary Hillary Clinton’s State Department has proven that the only 3:00 a.m. calls that they are willing to answer are calls that further a dangerously misguided progressive agenda.
During the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton proudly proclaimed that she’d be “ready on day one,” but she neglected to mention that she’d only be ready to push dogmatic ideological movements.
Two examples in the past month alone attest to that fact. First, Hillary Clinton’s remarks regarding the G8 Summit in Canada last month and the plans discussed therein to address maternal health, including a high maternal and infant mortality rates in poor and developing countries:
On the agenda at the G8 summit in Canada was promoting maternal and infant health in the poorest parts of the globe. The high rates of maternal and infant mortality in many countries are an impediment to democracy and social development, to say nothing of a human tragedy for these communities. Commitments of resources from the G8 countries to address these problems should be welcomed and commended. Why, then, did the Obama delegation threaten to derail these agreements?
Clinton, when asked about Canada’s G8 plan to address infant and maternal health in the developing world, said the following: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”
Anyone who is intellectually honest already understands this about the Left’s agenda. Everything is an agenda to them, a key component of which is favoring the right to an abortion. To them, the killing of the unborn can be justified as a cost-saving tool. Their pro-abortion agenda has cheapened life as something that can be tossed away at one’s convenience.
Funny, but I always thought that schools should focus on teaching our children subjects like reading, writing and math. Not so, evidently! That’s for fuddy-duddy, old school philistines. Nowadays, with those things called Progress and hopeandchange ™, our children are being taught about oral and anal sex and “fisting.” Often under the guise of abstinence programs and without the consent, or even the knowledge of, their parents.
Montana is just the latest example of where this dangerous sexploitation of your children is occurring. Included in their new proposed “health” curriculum:
By fifth grade, they are taught there are several types of intercourse, and by the sixth grade, the draft document states that students should, “Understand that sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration; using the penis, fingers, tongue or objects.”
Fifth grade. That is 10- and 11-year-olds. Sixth grade, 11- and 12-year-olds. I’m far from a prude, but I don’t care to discuss anal penetration with objects and, in fact, run screeching from my computer screen when sent to Urban Dictionary and coming across such a topic. Yet, our 10-year-old children are supposed to be able to handle such discussions? Worse, people think that they should have such discussions?
In kindergarten, the new curriculum proposes that those five- and six-year-olds know the proper terminology for body parts, such as penis, scrotum and testicles. You see, it’s far more important that they don’t use the word “pee-pee” and that they are sexually knowledgeable and empowered, at age five, than that they know how to spell their own names and count to 20.
I suppose this shouldn’t be surprising since the Obama-appointed “Safe School Czar” Kevin Jenningspromoted fisting to fourteen-year-olds. Of course, if you disagree with Jennings, you must be a prudish homophobe. Don’t agree with the sexualization of your children and the Left’s Anti-Child agenda? You are so old school and oppressive! Try a super cool and “empowering” demonstration of oral sex for high school students instead! That’s what happened in Tennessee earlier this year. Guess what? This was allegedly an abstinence program:
By Lori Ziganto and Jenn Q Public
