We are all familiar with the infamous "War on Women", where the Democrats say Republicans hate women, and want to keep them "down". But now we finally have the truth, right from the mouthpiece for the Democrat Party, the DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Wasserman-Schultz stated that the women speakers at the Republican Convention were "nothing more than shiny packaging". Really? GOVERNOR Susana Martinez, GOVERNOR Nikki Haley, SECRETARY OF STATE Condolessa Rice - all of them far more accomplished than Wasserman-Schultz. Yet, to the Democrat party, those very accomplished and powerful women are only "shiny packaging."
That is what Democrats think of Republican women, no matter who they are, or how accomplished they may be. And that tells the REAL story...
Democrats only care about DEMOCRAT women, DEMOCRAT African-Americans, DEMOCRAT Hispanics. Are you seeing it? If not, here is the point - the Democrats are ONLY for DEMOCRATS, regardless of color, gender, religion etc.. This means they are NOT for women, African-Americans or Hispanics - UNLESS they vote Democrat.
The real "war on women" is being waged by the Democrats, as evidenced by Wasserman-Schultz' comment that Republican women are "only shiny packaging". Does that sound like they are FOR women? No - they are for Democrats, period.
You would never hear any Republican in power accuse any Democrat women of accomplishment as mere "shiny packaging." That's because Republicans actually DO respect women, unlike their Democrat counterparts. And while it may sound as if I do not respect Wasserman-Schultz, it has nothing to do with her being a woman. I disrespect her because almost every word out of her mouth is either a blatant, proven lie, or an unfounded insult.
The "War on Women" is being waged by the Democrats, as stated by their own party head. As for more evidence, just watch the Democrat National Convention this week - they will center primarily on their assumption that the only issues women should be concerned with are contraception and abortion. Watch if they don't. In other words, if it's not about sex, women have nothing to contribute to the conversation. Talk about mysogynists!
Democrats belittle Hispanic Republicans, African-American Republicans and Republican women. So they really cannot say with any honesty that they are FOR hispanics, African-Americans or women. They are not. Nor can they say Republicans are against them, not as long as Republicans keep electing competent people like Rice, Matinez, Rubio, West, Steele, Haley, Brewer and many others to high offices.
A final note - Democrats historically and by platform offer women and minorities hand-outs. Republicans historically and by platform offer them a hand UP.
Yes, there is a war on women - as well as a war on minorities. But it is being waged by the Democrats, not the Republicans.
/
Monday, September 3, 2012
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Obama Mocks GOP Policies - Really?
President Barack Obama, in Iowa to kick off a campaign swing, mocked GOP policies touted at the convention, saying they are "better suited for the last century."
Really, Mr. Amateur? Let me see...
The GOP policy says they will create 12 million jobs. Is that better suited to the last century? Maybe by YOUR standards, Mr. President, having presided over the lousiest employment rate since the Great Depression.
The GOP policy states we need to regain personal freedom to grow business by reducing the stranglehold of over-regulation. Perhaps the president believes business should be strangled, since they are "better suited to the last century" and do not jive with his drive for a nanny state.
Or perhaps Mr Obama was referring to the GOP stance that we need to open up opportunity to more people, or provide school choice so minorities can get a better education. That would reduce poverty and dependence upon government which would weaken the Democratic party.
Or just maybe the president was referring to the GOP position of lowering taxes, that more money in people's pockets means more spending, resulting in more production and jobs. Perhaps that is better suited to the last century, since Obama seems to believe that everyone should be on the public teat.
If Mr. Obama is right - that GOP policies are suited for the last century - then by George I think we should extend them into the next century, because the last century produced more wealth and growth than any other century since Man climbed out of the caves.
/
Really, Mr. Amateur? Let me see...
The GOP policy says they will create 12 million jobs. Is that better suited to the last century? Maybe by YOUR standards, Mr. President, having presided over the lousiest employment rate since the Great Depression.
The GOP policy states we need to regain personal freedom to grow business by reducing the stranglehold of over-regulation. Perhaps the president believes business should be strangled, since they are "better suited to the last century" and do not jive with his drive for a nanny state.
Or perhaps Mr Obama was referring to the GOP stance that we need to open up opportunity to more people, or provide school choice so minorities can get a better education. That would reduce poverty and dependence upon government which would weaken the Democratic party.
Or just maybe the president was referring to the GOP position of lowering taxes, that more money in people's pockets means more spending, resulting in more production and jobs. Perhaps that is better suited to the last century, since Obama seems to believe that everyone should be on the public teat.
If Mr. Obama is right - that GOP policies are suited for the last century - then by George I think we should extend them into the next century, because the last century produced more wealth and growth than any other century since Man climbed out of the caves.
/
UPDATE: Libs Lie About Ryan "Janesville" Remark
As posted here earlier, the liberal media are ranting on and on about how Paul Ryan lied when he claimed Obama did not fulfill his promise to keep the Janesville GM plant open. The liberals claim the plant closed in 2008, under Bush. The facts, however, are a bit different.
For the record, according to the records of General Motors, as of April 21, 2009 there were still 57 workers at the Janesville plant building its last medium-duty truck and rolling it off the assembly line. About 20 workers continued "closing up" until June 2009. Obama, not Bush, was in office.
In February 2008 at a campaign stop in Janesville, Obama says, ”I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.”
The plant was slated to be closed under Bush, and indeed, most employees ceased to work at the plant in December 2008. But the plant was still in operation until April 2009. So, Ryan did not lie at all. Nor did he tell the entire truth - that the plant would have closed in any event. Obama was simply bloviating in order to secure votes.
Obama did not overtly promise to keep the plant open. But neither did he do anything to keep it open. He did not lie, either - he simply misled workers by implying he could keep it open in order to win their votes.
Ryan could have made the point better, using better choice of words, but he did not lie. Obama did not lie, either - he just conned people into thinking he would save them.
/
For the record, according to the records of General Motors, as of April 21, 2009 there were still 57 workers at the Janesville plant building its last medium-duty truck and rolling it off the assembly line. About 20 workers continued "closing up" until June 2009. Obama, not Bush, was in office.
In February 2008 at a campaign stop in Janesville, Obama says, ”I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.”
The plant was slated to be closed under Bush, and indeed, most employees ceased to work at the plant in December 2008. But the plant was still in operation until April 2009. So, Ryan did not lie at all. Nor did he tell the entire truth - that the plant would have closed in any event. Obama was simply bloviating in order to secure votes.
Obama did not overtly promise to keep the plant open. But neither did he do anything to keep it open. He did not lie, either - he simply misled workers by implying he could keep it open in order to win their votes.
Ryan could have made the point better, using better choice of words, but he did not lie. Obama did not lie, either - he just conned people into thinking he would save them.
/
Friday, August 31, 2012
Obama Camp Complains Romney Never Mentioned Afghanistan
After watching the Republican Convention (which, by the way, they said they did not watch), the biggest complaint the Obama campaign has is that Romney failed as a leader because he never mentioned the war in Afghanistan or what he would do about it.
Pardon me for stating the obvious, but that is Obama's war. He was the one who said in 2008 it was a just war that needed to be fought. In addition, he has already ordered that the troops leave by a certain date. It has already been decided.
So, tell me, Mr. Obama - exactly what should Romney have said about the war? And exactly what would you expect him to do about it, since it is already a "done deal" by your own hand?
Frankly, you should feel lucky he did not mention Afghanistan. For if he had, he would have had to remind people that you wanted to fight the war, you spent a trillion bucks on it, and you already decided how and when it would end.
So, what would you have had Romney say, Mr. President? That you were wrong?
/
Pardon me for stating the obvious, but that is Obama's war. He was the one who said in 2008 it was a just war that needed to be fought. In addition, he has already ordered that the troops leave by a certain date. It has already been decided.
So, tell me, Mr. Obama - exactly what should Romney have said about the war? And exactly what would you expect him to do about it, since it is already a "done deal" by your own hand?
Frankly, you should feel lucky he did not mention Afghanistan. For if he had, he would have had to remind people that you wanted to fight the war, you spent a trillion bucks on it, and you already decided how and when it would end.
So, what would you have had Romney say, Mr. President? That you were wrong?
/
Liberals Do Not Understand Purpose of A Convention
Some hack named Fineman at Huffington Post wrote an article stating that it's not what is said at a convention, but what is NOT said that counts. [Ed. note: I hope he feels the same when the Democrat convention makes no reference to the high unemployment rate, escalating $16T deficit, Solyndra and all the other Obama failures]
Among Fineman's "observations are that the following were missing. Each is followed by my own observation:
1. "Social" issues. In 1992, a rudderless Bush One reelection campaign turned the GOP convention over to the abortion/traditional family crowd. It was a disaster. Republicans ever since have tried to tone it down, with mixed success. In Tampa, there has been barely a mention of those issues. Even Mike Huckabee toned it down -- and did not mention his good friend Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri. No reference to gay marriage or traditional marriage. Nearly no mention of abortion.
[REPLY] Het ta break this to ya, Fineman, but those are not the issues that most Americans are absorbed by today. Today they want to know what would be done on the economy and jobs. Nor was it necessary - everyone already knows where the GOP stands on social issues. The purpose of a convention is two-fold - nominate a candidate, and tell folks what they DON'T yet know about the candidate.
2. Sarah Palin. Even Fox TV banned her for one night of the convention, a remarkable editorial coincidence.
[REPLY] No, they did not "ban" her. As was clearly stated by both FOX and Palin, one entire night of the convention was "erased" due to hurricane Isaac. Therefore, all scheduled interviews also had to be canceled. But Palin has been prominently featured on FOX on each of the three remaining days of the convention.
3. Romneycare. Even though Mitt brags about it selectively on the campaign trail, his health care program in Massachusetts has not received a mention here. The reason is obvious: He's running against Obamacare, which was modeled on his own. Wouldn't be prudent.
[REPLY] How about some facts, Fineman. Such as, RomneyCare is quite different from ObamaCare, which was 27,000 pages of new taxes and regulations. Romney actually CUT taxes. Also, what may be good for a single state may not be so good for the nation - each state has different needs. In MA, only 6% of the population was without insurance, so the cost to cover them would be a lot smaller.
4. The GOP's spending/budget record 2001-2008. During George W. Bush's presidency, more than $3 trillion was added to the debt. Paul Ryan voted for most of the measures that made up that total. In his speech on Wednesday, he made passing reference to the Bush spending, but not to his own role.
[REPLY] Guess you missed it, Fineman, but Republicans have always stated they did not approve of all Bush's spending habits. That said, much of that spending was a direct result of 9/11 - what did you expect? Also, America was not in economic trouble at the time - we had it to spend. But mostly you miss the REAL point - while Bush jacked the debt by $3T in 8 long years, Obama has jacked it more than $5T in just 3 short years. BIG difference.
5. Immigration. The divisive issue is verboten here and for good reason: Romney is way behind among Hispanics, disastrously so. He is 5 percentage points behind in Florida, and Nevada and Colorado are in danger, too. I saw Sheriff Joe Arpaio on the floor the other night, but no one was giving him high fives and he was nowhere near the stage.
[REPLY] Immigration is not the issue of the day. Time enough for that in the campaign. Again, bonehead, the purpose of a convention is to tell folks what they do not yet know about a candidate. It is not a 3 day political ad.
6. Lack of diversity. There have been plenty of persons of color at the podium, nearly as many as there are in the hall. It is, frankly, a white-on-white crowd. And the GOP, for better or worse, does not seem to mind. It's not that they don't want more diversity; they just aren't for the kind of methodical outreach that accelerates it. They think their ideas are enough. At least that's the generous interpretation.
[REPLY] Even Fineman knows all are welcome. If more blacks show up at the Democrat convention, it is because most blacks are Democrat. It is not because Republicans don't want them. It's just that the Democrats have bought and paid for the minortities with their entitlements.
7. War in Afghanistan. Last night I watched a stirring and, at the same time, heartbreaking color guard of amputee vets bring Old Glory on stage. That was about the only reminder of the war. Or the trillions that have been spent since 9/11.
[REPLY] Your memory seems to conveniently forget that it was Obama who said the Afghan war was just, and needed to be fought. And he has kept it going. And Obama has done his own trillion dollar spending on it. American security is not a party issue
8. Foreign policy. Except for Condi Rice's speech, and then only partially. And just one mention of Osama bin Laden, by Romney himself, for the obvious reason that President Obama got him and President Bush did not.
[REPLY] There were several pointed statements on foreign policy. But again, you seem to keep forgetting the purpose of a convention. All else is meat for the campaign, but not a convention.
9. The Bushes.Except for Jeb and a short video on the Georges.
[REPLY] The Bushes are not relevant to the purpose of the convention. Do you REALLY think Obama will feature - or even bring up - Jimmy Carter? The Bushes are yesterday, and everyone knows all they need to know about them. Romney, and the convention, are about today and tomorrow. While I understand liberals prefer living in the past, Republicans prefer to look to the future.
/
Among Fineman's "observations are that the following were missing. Each is followed by my own observation:
1. "Social" issues. In 1992, a rudderless Bush One reelection campaign turned the GOP convention over to the abortion/traditional family crowd. It was a disaster. Republicans ever since have tried to tone it down, with mixed success. In Tampa, there has been barely a mention of those issues. Even Mike Huckabee toned it down -- and did not mention his good friend Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri. No reference to gay marriage or traditional marriage. Nearly no mention of abortion.
[REPLY] Het ta break this to ya, Fineman, but those are not the issues that most Americans are absorbed by today. Today they want to know what would be done on the economy and jobs. Nor was it necessary - everyone already knows where the GOP stands on social issues. The purpose of a convention is two-fold - nominate a candidate, and tell folks what they DON'T yet know about the candidate.
2. Sarah Palin. Even Fox TV banned her for one night of the convention, a remarkable editorial coincidence.
[REPLY] No, they did not "ban" her. As was clearly stated by both FOX and Palin, one entire night of the convention was "erased" due to hurricane Isaac. Therefore, all scheduled interviews also had to be canceled. But Palin has been prominently featured on FOX on each of the three remaining days of the convention.
3. Romneycare. Even though Mitt brags about it selectively on the campaign trail, his health care program in Massachusetts has not received a mention here. The reason is obvious: He's running against Obamacare, which was modeled on his own. Wouldn't be prudent.
[REPLY] How about some facts, Fineman. Such as, RomneyCare is quite different from ObamaCare, which was 27,000 pages of new taxes and regulations. Romney actually CUT taxes. Also, what may be good for a single state may not be so good for the nation - each state has different needs. In MA, only 6% of the population was without insurance, so the cost to cover them would be a lot smaller.
4. The GOP's spending/budget record 2001-2008. During George W. Bush's presidency, more than $3 trillion was added to the debt. Paul Ryan voted for most of the measures that made up that total. In his speech on Wednesday, he made passing reference to the Bush spending, but not to his own role.
[REPLY] Guess you missed it, Fineman, but Republicans have always stated they did not approve of all Bush's spending habits. That said, much of that spending was a direct result of 9/11 - what did you expect? Also, America was not in economic trouble at the time - we had it to spend. But mostly you miss the REAL point - while Bush jacked the debt by $3T in 8 long years, Obama has jacked it more than $5T in just 3 short years. BIG difference.
5. Immigration. The divisive issue is verboten here and for good reason: Romney is way behind among Hispanics, disastrously so. He is 5 percentage points behind in Florida, and Nevada and Colorado are in danger, too. I saw Sheriff Joe Arpaio on the floor the other night, but no one was giving him high fives and he was nowhere near the stage.
[REPLY] Immigration is not the issue of the day. Time enough for that in the campaign. Again, bonehead, the purpose of a convention is to tell folks what they do not yet know about a candidate. It is not a 3 day political ad.
6. Lack of diversity. There have been plenty of persons of color at the podium, nearly as many as there are in the hall. It is, frankly, a white-on-white crowd. And the GOP, for better or worse, does not seem to mind. It's not that they don't want more diversity; they just aren't for the kind of methodical outreach that accelerates it. They think their ideas are enough. At least that's the generous interpretation.
[REPLY] Even Fineman knows all are welcome. If more blacks show up at the Democrat convention, it is because most blacks are Democrat. It is not because Republicans don't want them. It's just that the Democrats have bought and paid for the minortities with their entitlements.
7. War in Afghanistan. Last night I watched a stirring and, at the same time, heartbreaking color guard of amputee vets bring Old Glory on stage. That was about the only reminder of the war. Or the trillions that have been spent since 9/11.
[REPLY] Your memory seems to conveniently forget that it was Obama who said the Afghan war was just, and needed to be fought. And he has kept it going. And Obama has done his own trillion dollar spending on it. American security is not a party issue
8. Foreign policy. Except for Condi Rice's speech, and then only partially. And just one mention of Osama bin Laden, by Romney himself, for the obvious reason that President Obama got him and President Bush did not.
[REPLY] There were several pointed statements on foreign policy. But again, you seem to keep forgetting the purpose of a convention. All else is meat for the campaign, but not a convention.
9. The Bushes.Except for Jeb and a short video on the Georges.
[REPLY] The Bushes are not relevant to the purpose of the convention. Do you REALLY think Obama will feature - or even bring up - Jimmy Carter? The Bushes are yesterday, and everyone knows all they need to know about them. Romney, and the convention, are about today and tomorrow. While I understand liberals prefer living in the past, Republicans prefer to look to the future.
/
Thursday, August 30, 2012
The Civil Rights Issue of the 21st Century
It's not equal rights. It's not entitlements. It's not any of the things the Democratic party tries to tell us it is. Condi Rice hit the nail on the head - the Civil Rights issue of the day is equal educational opportunities for minorities.
It's nice to think that adding millions of jobs will solve our problems. But if a student gets a lousy education because their zip code is a slum, what kind of job could he get? Flipping burgers? Cashiering at 7-11?
What America needs is to provide families with school choice. It creates competition among schools, and competition always makes things better - because those that do not get better will disappear.
For years the Republican party has fought tooth and nail for school choice. But in EVERY instance, their efforts were blocked by the Democrats. While the Democrats like to say they are the party of the minorities, the real truth, as we all know, is that they are the party of unions. Union money gets Democrats elected. And the Teacher's Union does not want school choice.
Bear in mind, the job of the unions is to protects its members. And the members of the Teacher's Union are - TEACHERS. Not the students. The unions don't give a damn about the students as long as the teachers get great benefits, and protection from being fired, no matter how bad they may be.
The Democrats fight school choice because if they don't, the union bucks stop flowing. Simple.
If America is to provide all students, regardless of their zip code or ethnic heritage, with equal opportunity for a good education, that will only happen if we elect Republicans - they are not in bed with the unions.
Jeb Bush did it in Florida, and Florida now ranks 4th in academic performance among minorities. It had been last place before Bush became Governor. And Christi is working on education in NJ, and several other Republican governors across the country.
Contrary to what the Democrats tell folks, it was Republicans who pushed for, and passed, the Civil Rights act. And it is Republicans who are pushing for school choice so minorities and the poor can have the same opportunities as everyone else. And when the day comes that Republicans get the chance to make school choice the law of the land, you can bet your butt that Democrats will take credit for that, too.
/
It's nice to think that adding millions of jobs will solve our problems. But if a student gets a lousy education because their zip code is a slum, what kind of job could he get? Flipping burgers? Cashiering at 7-11?
What America needs is to provide families with school choice. It creates competition among schools, and competition always makes things better - because those that do not get better will disappear.
For years the Republican party has fought tooth and nail for school choice. But in EVERY instance, their efforts were blocked by the Democrats. While the Democrats like to say they are the party of the minorities, the real truth, as we all know, is that they are the party of unions. Union money gets Democrats elected. And the Teacher's Union does not want school choice.
Bear in mind, the job of the unions is to protects its members. And the members of the Teacher's Union are - TEACHERS. Not the students. The unions don't give a damn about the students as long as the teachers get great benefits, and protection from being fired, no matter how bad they may be.
The Democrats fight school choice because if they don't, the union bucks stop flowing. Simple.
If America is to provide all students, regardless of their zip code or ethnic heritage, with equal opportunity for a good education, that will only happen if we elect Republicans - they are not in bed with the unions.
Jeb Bush did it in Florida, and Florida now ranks 4th in academic performance among minorities. It had been last place before Bush became Governor. And Christi is working on education in NJ, and several other Republican governors across the country.
Contrary to what the Democrats tell folks, it was Republicans who pushed for, and passed, the Civil Rights act. And it is Republicans who are pushing for school choice so minorities and the poor can have the same opportunities as everyone else. And when the day comes that Republicans get the chance to make school choice the law of the land, you can bet your butt that Democrats will take credit for that, too.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)