The War on Women

[4est_4est_Gump]

Rush Limbaugh on his radio show discussed an article which stated that there is no respected voice in the national arena articulating conservatism. Such an advocate for conservatism is crucial to reversing the direction of America as Obama drives us toward socialism while low-info voters gleefully sing Kumbaya in the backseat.

Well excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but we had an extraordinary advocate for conservatism, and look what happened to her. Judas on our side betrayed her -- sold her reputation for 30 seconds of fame and favor with the media.

Even now, folks on our side are still beating up on Sarah Palin, saying Palin has lost her appeal -- Palin is unelectable -- Palin wasn't smart enough -- Palin wasn't prepared, etc. So this is how we treat our heroes.

Many Democratic Party politicians/advocates are immoral, liars, and cheats. And yet, they are treated like superstars by the media. Democrats have the backs of their associates, no matter what. For example: Democrats never rebuked Clinton for receiving oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office. They simply launched a campaign claiming that any man in Clinton's position would have reacted like him. Think about that, folks: Democrats and the media lowered the standard of national leadership behavior to cover their guy.

We conservatives act as if our representatives must be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ -- perfect in every way. At a conservative's slightest misstep, Republicans/conservatives trip over one another backing away from the individual in an effort to get out of the media's and Democrats' line of fire.

Clearly, advocates of conservatism are expected by both parties to walk on water.

Word on the political street is we need a respected advocate for conservatism to reach low-info voters. While I do believe that a new voice will emerge, I wonder who could be better than Sarah Palin? Will we betray our new conservative hero?

Inevitably, Palin's humanity was revealed; she was not perfect. But still, Palin is extraordinary and will be a tough act to follow.

Allow me to recap. Immediately following her amazing VP nomination acceptance speech, the media/the left went crazy, consumed with hatred and a desperate desire to destroy her. Why? Palin was a beautiful, smart, articulate, and strong woman who boldly touted traditional values and a love for God, family, and country -- all of which are anathemas to the left.

No tactic was too low to discredit Palin. Thus, the left even attacked Trig, Palin's Down syndrome child.

Lloyd Marcus, The American Thinker

Contemporary leftists, on the other hand, view their opponents as people you send off to the Gulag, unworthy of any respect, deserving of any kind of low blow, no matter how foul. So you accuse Goldwater of insanity, slander Justice Thomas as a sexual monster, casually publish plays, books, and films calling for the assassination of President Bush, and assault the first serious Republican female candidate at her weakest point -- her family. And of course, you scream to high heaven if any form of turnabout occurs in your direction, as in the case of the Obama family, which was declared "off limits" early in the presidential campaign, at the same time that Palin's family was being stretched on the media rack.

This style of political loathing has become effectively innate. It has been systemized to such a degree as to become integral. Modern liberalism cannot do without it. An entire structure has been erected on the basis of political hatred, and from that structure a whole new strategy has arisen.
J.R. Dunn

"It's [the new civility] all talk and no real action. Otherwise he'd be on Biden and tell Biden to tone it down a little bit. Yeah, right, independent patriotic Americans who desire fiscal sanity in our beloved nation being called terrorists. Heck..., if we were real domestic terrorists, shoot, President Obama would be wanting to pal around with us, wouldn’t he? I mean he didn’t have a problem paling around with Bill Ayers back in the day when he kicked off his political career in Bill Ayers' apartment."
Sarah Palin

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In the Energy Debate between Palin and Obama...

Obama Lost
Ben Voth
January 19, 2013

You know we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices. If we're going to take control of our energy future, and can start avoiding these annual gas price spikes that happen every year when the economy starts getting better, world demand starts increasing, turmoil in the Middle East or some other parts of the world, if we're going to stop being at the mercy of these world events, then we need a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy - oil, gas, wind, solar, and nuclear, and biofuels, and more.


President Obama made these remarks in February of 2012 at the University of Miami. The President was criticizing the longstanding argument of political rival Sarah Palin, who urges the nation to "drill, baby, drill."


Palin expounded on these sentiments in 2010:


Although the Left chooses to mock the mantra of "drill, baby, drill," and they ignorantly argue against the facts pertaining to the need for America to responsibly develop her domestic supply of natural resources, surely they can't argue the national security implications of relying on foreign countries to extract supplies that America desperately needs for industry, jobs, and security. Some of the countries we're now reliant upon and will soon be beholden to can easily use energy and mineral supplies as a weapon against us.


In 2011, in an interview with the CBS affiliate WTKR in Hampton Roads, Virginia, the president contradicted his own remarks suggesting that oil prices cannot be lowered by arguing:


We're talking to oil producers around the world and letting them know it's in their interest to make sure that high oil prices don't end up hurting the world economy.


Of course, in this case, anyone can increase drilling and lower oil prices -- as long as it is not the United States. In fact, while tightening the moratorium on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling, the federal government provided money for foreign governments to use the same deep drilling techniques in South America to increase global oil supplies. The rhetorical license the Obama administration has to take all sides of this debate is an important political advantage.


Nonetheless, Palin has proven to be the more prescient and intelligent advocate on energy policy. Drilling in the United States is increasing dramatically; it has already transformed our economic outlook and almost everything we know about global geopolitical realities. Palin's simple energy creed portends the following stunning results:


1. The U.S. is on pace to become the largest producer of oil in the world by 2017 and will be an oil exporter by 2030 -- according to the New York Times!


2. The U.S. has taken an overwhelming global lead on the production of natural gas.


These shocking realities will transform American and global life in several important ways:

http://www.americanthinker.com/prin...debate_between_palin_and_obamaobama_lost.html

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

McCain’s Mideast Blunders
Andrew C. McCarthy, NRO
January 19, 2013

I wonder if the jihadists of eastern Libya are still “heroes” to John McCain. That’s what he called them — “my heroes” — after he changed on a dime from chummy Qaddafi tent guest to rabid Qaddafi scourge.

See, the senator and his allies in the Obama-Clinton State Department had a brilliant notion: The reason the “rebels” of eastern Libya hated America so much had nothing to do with their totalitarian, incorrigibly anti-Western ideology. No, no: The problem was that we sided with Qaddafi, giving the dictator — at the insistence of, well, McCain and the State Department — foreign aid, military assistance, and international legitimacy. If we just threw Qaddafi under the bus, the rebels would surely become our grand democratic allies.

This, of course, was a much more sophisticated theory than you’d get from lunatics like Michele Bachmann. Sit down for this, because I know it’s hard to believe anyone could spout such nutter stuff, but Bachmann actually opposed U.S. intervention in Libya. She claimed — stop cackling! — that many of McCain’s heroes might actually be jihadists ideologically hostile to the U.S. and linked to groups such as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the terror enterprise’s North African franchise. She even thought — yeah, I know, crazy — that if Qaddafi were deposed, the heroes would get their hands on his arsenal, ship a lot of it to AQIM havens in places such as Mali and Algeria, and maybe even turn rebel strongholds such as Benghazi into death traps for Americans.

Good thing we listened to McCain, no?

This week, while the guys the senator and the Obama administration aligned us with in Libya (and would like to align us with in Syria) were busy taking Americans and other foreigners hostage in Algeria, in addition to using Qaddafi’s arsenal to fight the French in Mali, McCain was working his magic in Cairo.

An unfortunate hiccup: McCain and his entourage, including fellow Libya hawk Lindsey Graham, showed up on President Mohamed Morsi’s doorstep just as it was revealed that Morsi, while a top Muslim Brotherhood official in 2010, had inveighed against Jews, calling them “blood-suckers” and “the descendants of apes and pigs” and claiming it was incumbent on Egyptians to “nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred” toward them.

Thank goodness Morsi was able to explain to McCain that his remarks had been “taken out of context.” I mean, you can see how that could happen, right? You’re making a few benign remarks about perpetuating hatred for enemies you describe as subhuman and all of a sudden they’re calling you an anti-Semite. Why, next thing you know, they’ll be saying Morsi could be an Islamic supremacist who is hellbent on imposing a sharia constitution on Egypt when he’s not otherwise rolling out the red carpet for Hamas and demanding the release of the Blind Sheikh!

Not to worry: McCain & Co. have promised to go to bat for Egypt’s swell president. Sure, he has imposed a sharia constitution just as crazies like Michele Bachmann predicted the Muslim Brotherhood would do if it took power. That would be the same sharia that, less than two years ago, McCain condemned as “anti-democratic — at least as far as women are concerned.” Back then, McCain was warning that the Brotherhood had to be kept out of the government if there was to be any hope for democracy in Egypt. After all, he explained, the Brothers “have been involved with other terrorist organizations.”

Now, however, McCain says he will push for American taxpayers to fork up another $480 million for Morsi. Or, to be accurate, borrow another $480 million. You see, the United States is already so deep in the red that a $16.3 trillion debt ceiling is not high enough. In fact, we’re such a basket case that our debt-service and “entitlement” payments alone put us in a quarter-trillion-dollar deficit hole even before we borrow and print another trillion-plus for such ancillary expenses as the Defense Department, the Obama family’s vacations, and the $80-odd million that funds “democratization” programs at McCain’s International Republican Institute. But hey, no problem — what’s another $480 million on top of the $2 billion–plus the Obama administration has already extended to Morsi’s regime . . . to say nothing of the sizable U.S. taxpayer chunk of the $4.8 billion IMF loan the Brotherhood government is also about to get its mitts on?

Naturally, “extremist” conservatives like Michele Bachmann are wet blankets when it comes to this gravy train, too. Get this: She thinks that when you get to the point where you have to borrow in order to pay the interest on the loans you already can’t pay off, somebody needs to cut off your credit line — not inflate it by another two or three trill. Even more daft: She thinks that if you subsidize an organization, like the Brotherhood, that promotes sharia and Hamas, you’re apt to get more sharia and more terrorism.

But look, that’s the kind of passé thinking we’ve come to expect from Bachmann. She’s the one, you may recall, who had the audacity to argue last year that it might not be a good idea for the secretary of state to keep as a key staffer a woman who worked for several years with a notorious al-Qaeda financial backer whose “charity” is formally designated as a terrorist organization — indeed, worked with him at a sharia-promotional journal he founded and in charge of which he put her parents, Muslim Brotherhood operatives (the surviving one of whom runs an Islamist organization, the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child, that is part of an umbrella entity called the Union for Good — a designated terrorist organization run by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist).

Congresswoman Bachmann was acting on the obviously irrational belief that Muslim Brotherhood influences in our government might lead to pro-Islamist policies detrimental to American security and interests — as if the State Department might tell pro-American Egyptian military rulers that they should stand down so the Brotherhood could take over; as if the Obama administration might order that information about Islamist ideology be purged from the materials used to train our intelligence agents; as if the Brotherhood, even as it counted its American aid dollars, would impose sharia, prosecute its detractors, and green-light the persecution of minority Christians.

Such insane, Islamophobic scaremongering! Insane enough that McCain, between praising his Islamist “heroes” and championing ever more funding for Islamist Egypt, made certain to lambaste Bachmann on the floor of the Senate over her concerns about Brotherhood infiltration of our government – leading other influential Republicans to follow suit. And now, aping that display, People for the American Way — “PAW,” the outfit created by a hard-left Hollywood icon to smear Robert Bork and derail his Supreme Court nomination — is campaigning to have Bachmann booted from the House Intelligence Committee.

There is a war on over the course of American foreign policy and the security of the United States. The Left has aligned with the Brotherhood — some naïvely relying on the fiction that the Brothers are not the enemy vanguard, others seeing the Brothers as comrades in the quest for a utopian, post-American future. In opposition, the GOP can either continue looking to McCain for leadership or rally behind Bachmann the way the Left always circles the wagons around its stalwarts.

Anyone want to bet me on which way the Republicans will go?

 

[rosco rathbone]

Treat em mean, keep em keen.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Good morning rosco...

The liberals have fully absorbed the lessons taught by their ideological progenitors, the Nazi socialists and Soviet communists. They understand that the big lie, if endlessly repeated, is extremely effective. Its purpose is to establish in the minds of the target audience an automatic stimulus-response connection, a Pavlovian conditioned reflex: capitalist = fat cat; George Bush = moron; Sarah Palin = idiot; Barack Obama = genius, any Kennedy = gift to mankind, etc. Ask the liberal spouting any of the above for proof that, say, Sarah Palin is an idiot or Barack Obama an intellectual giant, and the answer would be a puzzled stare -- why, everyone knows that she is a moron and he a towering intellect, so it must be true. Just repeat your slogan often enough, and once embedded in the minds of the people the mantra becomes reality for them. So effective is this technique that the left has made the former Alaska governor unelectable in the view of independents and even many conservatives, in effect dictating the available choices for the conservatives....
If tomorrow they decide to call the Tea Party members, say, Ghoulish Ghibellines, the moniker will stick though the people who would use it will have not the remotest idea of what it means (they would probably decide it denotes a particularly vicious breed of goblins). Why do you think liberals have such a conniption fit whenever Obama is called a socialist -- a neat and catchy label? It comes straight out of the liberal playbook and potentially is very effective.
Victor Volsky
The American Thinker


Oikophobia

Xenophobia is fear of the alien; oikophobia is fear of the familiar: "the disposition, in any conflict, to side with 'them' against 'us', and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably 'ours.' "

The oik repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed on us from on high by the EU or the UN, though without troubling to consider Terence's question, and defining his political vision in terms of universal values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community.
The oik is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of the oik that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe. For we are seeing a massive expansion of the legislative burden on the people of Europe, and a relentless assault on the only loyalties that would enable them voluntarily to bear it. The explosive effect of this has already been felt in Holland and France. It will be felt soon everywhere, and the result may not be what the oiks expect.
Roger Scruton, British philosopher

 

[SeaDaddy1]

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4574428816017308&pid=15.1

 

[Wat_Tyler]

http://jaime3d.com/wp-content/uploads/3d-alien-porn-pictures/1.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0zvh1wdiI1rp9zzpo1_400.gif
Turn that frown, upside down!​

 

[rosco rathbone]

I think I have oikophobia. "the familiar" to me is the suburban, shopping mall infested land of Northern VA. I fled it for the multiculturalism of Queens, where I'm the only white face around.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

http://www.sexalien.net/content/free-alien-porn-sex-story-picture.jpg

 

[Saint Peter]

"The white women in Queens are not very pretty."


"That is Rosco!"




"Oh."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

She was so fucking stupid...

She said death panels!

Bio-Ethicist Peter Singer is foremost amongst a not so new breed of philosophers who are attempting to shift the measuring rod that will determine how we comprehend existence in a de-enchanted world where the last vestiges of the Christian Weltanschauung are evaporating away. Singer has jettisoned the Christian paradigm of human value for what is known as "personhood:" a term that include includes humans and higher animals that display a measure of: intelligence, self-awareness, sentience, and ability to interact with one's environment and enjoy existence. He writes:

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of the happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if the killing of the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others it would be right to kill him.

In his book, Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, author Wesley J. Smith holds that eschewing humanhood for personhood radically shifts the floor of man's definition of self-value and injects a new standard to judge and therein pronounce human inequality. In dividing life between persons and non-persons, we no longer fall prey to the post-modern indictment of "speciesism" which assaults the core of the Christian hierarchy of man as the apex of creation. This new and artificial cleavage grants personhood to some animals and thereby creates the possibility of rights for these creatures. Conversely, fetuses, embryos, the mentally disabled, and coma and Alzheimer patients may fall under the rubric of "non-persons" and subsequently their value falls short of horses and dolphins that theoretically satisfy the peculiar demands of this definition. Singer has gone so far as to propose that a woman, by virtue of his "enlightened theorizing," retain a 28-day window of decision for the purpose of terminating her new born infant, should she become dissatisfied.

This frightening understanding of personhood has radical implications for medical ethics and social policy. It goes without saying that under color of this new worldview, human abortions through time of birth should not be morally objectionable. More alarming is the notion that newborns who are found to possess characteristics as ephemeral as an undesired sex or eye color can be classified as non-persons because in their helpless stage they are not able to enjoy their life or interact in a "meaningful way." Clearly, those infants that were born with significant congenital birth defects, frailties, or syndromes could be terminated by a subjective judgment, on behalf of the parent or authorities, that the infant's state of being would preclude an unhappy life (for the parent or child) because the infant lacks the "tools" to either mentally or physically connect fully with existence.

Similarly, the cost of health care in sustaining and maintenance of this child must pass muster against a cost-benefit ratio. Singer and radical bio-ethicists hold that non-persons would effectually become the human equivalent of totaled-out automobiles: available for harvesting healthy organs and tissues without the necessity of having to answer to prickly arcane moral charges against treating humans as means and not as ends -- the indictment that Christianity harbors against this radical ethic.

It soon becomes clear that without the safety net of intrinsic human value that is crafted in the moral presuppositions that underlie Christianity's legacy to the West, the worth of an individual life becomes dependent on utilitarian value and the fabric of our civilization ultimately suffers as it is scientifically deconstructed along these materialist lines. Rather than becoming more charitable and humane, it is apparent that a Huxleyan social and genetic dystopia is gaining its ideological foothold in the universities and technocratic seats of dominion that are inexorably growing in power and influence. Several decades ago Dr. Singer's thesis was considered academically beyond the pale in its monstrous implications. Today, such views are respected by a majority of bio-ethicists who have divorced humanity from the strictures of traditionalist moorings and have embraced the project of a radical new humanist definition.

As the accretion of power to the State seems unstoppable and a great centralization of prerogative threatens to swallow up the sphere of the private, the forces of authority will ultimately, by virtue of the collective's moral force, weed out the faulty and the dull, the weak and the defective. It is a small step from gender to designer abortions and an even more logical movement to terminating the living child with the extra chromosome or the cleft palate. Once the camel's nose is under the tent, can termination of live infants by virtue of race, ethnicity, or economic status of the parents be so unimaginable for a system that has come so far down a road that it cannot remember from whence it came? In the name of expedience or social utility that adheres to a paradigm where man is the sum totality of measurement, just how far is too far?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/of_babes_and_bio-ethics.html#ixzz2IWCmb4g7



If we will cull them in the beginning, we will cull them in the end.



BTW... Raise your hand if your healthcare insurance premiums have been trending downward along with the unemployment...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think I have oikophobia. "the familiar" to me is the suburban, shopping mall infested land of Northern VA. I fled it for the multiculturalism of Queens, where I'm the only white face around.

That's a pretty fucked up and racist thing to say.

That fact that you even notice skin color speaks volumes about your Tea Party tendencies...

 

[rosco rathbone]

That's a pretty fucked up and racist thing to say.

That fact that you even notice skin color speaks volumes about your Tea Party tendencies...

I get in trouble for that all the time. One of my favorite things to do is guess where New Yorkers are from "that chick is Fujianese...no, Filipina.".

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I get in trouble for that all the time. One of my favorite things to do is guess where New Yorkers are from "that chick is Fujianese...no, Filipina.".

Did you stop breeding or was it just "white flight?"


... hell, probably both...

 

[SeaDaddy1]

That's a pretty fucked up and racist thing to say.

That fact that you even notice skin color speaks volumes about your Tea Party tendencies...

It's ok. White people are allowed be racist against themselves. I call myself paleface and honkie all the time and no one notices.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://is200.imagesocket.com/images/2013/01/20/2569949-qoqz.jpg
I can be stuck to any smooth surface.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Did you stop breeding or was it just "white flight?"


... hell, probably both...

No, I'm pro-miscegenation.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No, I'm pro-miscegenation.

Actually, my money is on amateur or semi-pro at best...

 

[rosco rathbone]

Actually, my money is on amateur or semi-pro at best...

Ninety days in the stockade for that one.

Guards, take him away.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

All my love, all my kissin'
You don't know what you've been missin', oh boy,

It's palin to see,

OH! BOY!

(((LIPSTICK)))


[voice=Elvis][tone=THE KING!]
Misogyny trap. We can't hold back!
Because we hate you too much baybee... [/voice]

Feelings, nothing more than feelings... [/tone]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Ninety days in the stockade for that one.

Guards, take him away.

But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.
Frédéric Bastiat
The Law

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

How do you know it a woman is a true Liberal?

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly71nvt5KL1qkdlflo1_500.jpg
Wrist Relief Sold Here!​

 

[rosco rathbone]

They're trying to run me off a "men's rights" forum for being pro socialism and pro patriarchy at the same time. Does not compute, in their peabrains.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They're trying to run me off a "men's rights" forum for being pro socialism and pro patriarchy at the same time. Does not compute, in their peabrains.

Men's rights?


That might already be "the" oxymoron of the New Year...