Oops: Dems “War On Women” Meme Not Particularly Successful

By William Teach April 5, 2012 – 7:51 am

Ever since the Democrats trotted student professional activist Sandra Fluke up to a fake Congressional hearing, in which she told us that law students needed to spend a whopping $1,000 a year on birth control, which they couldn’t afford, despite attending a fancy, expensive law school, the Democrats have been attempting to paint a picture of some kind of Republican war on women, especially after the comments Rush Limbaugh made. Then it was shown that liberals tend to make some pretty misogynistic comments, particularly about Conservative women.

And, what did we learn? Well, besides Limbaugh gaining viewers and new stations, well, the Politico grudgingly tells us that the war on women meme is failing, at least in a bluer than blue state

Brown’s continued strength in Massachusetts should alarm Democrats banking on demonizing those on the right as complicit in a “war on women.” Even many voters in the bluest-of-blue state of Massachusetts aren’t buying this line.

Independent Women’s Voice led an independent expenditure ahead of the special election in 2010 to redefine the Brown-Coakley contest as a consequential event deciding the fate of federal legislation on health care and “the critical 41st Senate vote.” And now, in a poll of 505 likely voters in Massachusetts, conducted by the polling company™ and IWV finds Brown now leads 47 percent to 39 percent, while 12 percent of respondents remain undecided. Asked to recall their voting preferences from one month ago, 43 percent said they had supported Brown compared with 34 percent who had supported Warren.

This suggests that Brown’s lead narrowed by a statistically insignificant one point, during a month in which the media-narrative was a moderate Republican’s nightmare. Democrats turned public concern about the Obama administration’s mandate that employers (including those with religious affiliations) must provide health insurance covering abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization into a national discussion of Republican attitudes regarding contraception. GOP missteps — from failing to showcase women at prominent congressional hearings about religious liberty versus the mandate, recast by the left as being about women’s health, to conservative icon Rush Limbaugh, misled by an inaccurate report, insulting a Georgetown law student/contraceptive activist (for which he apologized, but by then the narrative was set) — allowed Democrats to twist opposition to the unprecedented government mandate into a “GOP War on Women.” Elizabeth Warren, the prominent, feminist Harvard professor, seems particularly well positioned to seize this narrative and find a sympathetic audience in the Bay State.

What they determine is that those who bought into the Democrat narrative were those who were predisposed to vote Democrat anyhow, and, as for others

More than half of those who have increased support for Brown in the past month say the health care, birth control mandate debate influenced their vote “a great deal” or “some” compared with only 39 percent of those who recently increased support for Elizabeth Warren.

I’d suggest the increase is because women aren’t stupid. Without attempting to be insulting, women can be very emotional in their beliefs, causing men consternation, because we tend to be practical and try and solve problems when we should be comforting (right now, every man is remembering that time when they got in trouble for this). But, they can also inherently tell when someone is trying to pull the wool over their eyes, when they are completely full of mule fritters. And women prefer to be treated as individuals, not as a group. Democrats expected women as a group to buy into their bat guano narrative regarding the mandate that Catholic religious organizations provide contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients with no copays to those one their insurance plans. They haven’t, because women can smell bullsh*t a mile away, and,also, women do not like to be patronized.

The article does suggest that Republicans need to frame this issue appropriately. Also, that voters want to hear about the real consequences of policy decisions, not overwrought emotional appeals, which, face it, is pretty much all Democrats have left. They sure do not want to talk about the results of their policies.

Read: Oops: Dems “War On Women” Meme Not Particularly Successful »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Elections | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

KSM, 4 Other Jihadis, To Face Military Tribunal For 9/11 Attack

By William Teach April 5, 2012 – 7:10 am

The in-the-bag-media is working hard to forget that this is the final point of a complete capitulation by Obama and Holder, both of whom wanted these al Qaeda members tried in a federal civilian court blocks from Ground Zero, and ran into a massive outcry over that idiotic plan. Perhaps if he had announced a civilian trial in, say, South Dakota, he could have gotten away with it, but, probably not. Obama tried to showboat, and it came back and slapped him around the head with the stupidity bat

(CNN) The United States on Wednesday announced charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, accused of orchestrating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and four others accused of involvement in the plot.

“If convicted, the five accused could be sentenced to death,” the Defense Department said in a statement.

Along with Mohammed, the others are Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi.

The charges allege that the five are “responsible for the planning and execution of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., resulting in the killing of 2,976 people,” the statement said.

This begs the question, which will be completed first, the trials or the Shanksville Memorial/Freedom Tower? Over ten years later and neither is close to completion. And perhaps some apologies to the Islamists around the world when they start rioting.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

The ACLU has issues with this, and decides to insult the military

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes the military tribunals.

They “are sure to be subject to continuous legal challenges and delays, and their outcomes will not be seen as legitimate. That is not justice,” the group said Wednesday.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said the administration is making a “terrible mistake by prosecuting the most important terrorism trials of our time in a second-tier system of justice.”

Besides insulting the military, they’ve also shown their hand that they will do everything in their power to muck up the trials of these jihadis. Firedoglake, good jihadi sympathizers that they are, double down on insulting the military.

KSM and the others must be arraigned within 30 days, which will occur at Guantanamo Bay detention facility, which is still open, despite closing it being Obama’s first act in office. Expect a speedy trial, ending sometime in October, so Obama can claim victory for their sentencing. We all know he’ll claim credit.

Read: KSM, 4 Other Jihadis, To Face Military Tribunal For 9/11 Attack »

Posted in Bad ACLU, Barry Obama, RoP, War On Terrorism | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

MSM Liberal Suggests Impeaching Justices Who Rule The Mandate Unconstitutional

By William Teach April 4, 2012 – 3:14 pm

Sadly, this is not the Onion, this is what passes for serious thought in Liberal World

(Daily Beast) Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law

The Roberts Court’s rulings appear to be a concerted effort to send us back to the Gilded Age. If they dump the Affordable Care Act, writes David Dow, we should dump them.

You think the idea is laughable?

Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you. Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Samuel Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but as the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law, Jefferson’s idea is worth revisiting.

See, the problem with the Left …… well, one of them…. is that to them, the Constitution should always be made to fit their preconceived notions. They should always triumph. And, if not Bad Things should hapoen to others.

They do not like that the Constitution does guarantee rights and stuff to the citizens from the government. It makes them really angry that that document limits the power of the government, particularly the Central Government, and grants everything to the States and the People.

Protein Wisdom says an all-out coup is being attempted. Instapundit calls this pre-emptive war on SCOTUS. The Jawa Report highlights that you should be scared that the writer is a law professor.

Read: MSM Liberal Suggests Impeaching Justices Who Rule The Mandate Unconstitutional »

Posted in Beyond Moonbat, Constitution, Liberal World, Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 4, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is water being wasted, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Are We Lumberjacks?

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Dallas Tornadoes Blamed On…Climate Change

By William Teach April 4, 2012 – 11:43 am

You just had to know that some Warmist was going to speed down this road, and the winner to the race line for stupidity is CNN’s Alexandra Steele

(The Daily Caller) On the Tuesday broadcast of “CNN Newsroom,” CNN meteorologist Alexandra Steele declared that tornadoes plowing through the Dallas-Fort Worth area were brought on by climate change.

Steele, formerly of The Weather Channel, also predicted that more extreme weather is on its way. “It really is [such a strange spring],” Steele said.

“That’s kind of the climate change we are seeing. You know, extremes are kind of ruling the roost and really what we are seeing, more become the norm.”

Because weather never happened before.

This global warming is really kind of a misnomer,” Steele said. “It’s global climate change. So the colds are colder and warms are warmer and severe is more severe.”

So, greenhouse gases which trap heat make it colder? These people are bat shit insane.

Doug Powers wonders if tornado alley will be renamed “climate change alley”.

Read: Dallas Tornadoes Blamed On…Climate Change »

Posted in Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Does Romney’s Triple Win Tuesday Signal The End To The GOP Primaries?

By William Teach April 4, 2012 – 8:06 am

Many are saying “you betcha”, starting with Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post

That sound you hear? It’s the fat lady singing.

For the umpteenth time in the Republican presidential primary race, Mitt Romney defeated Rick Santorum in a major Midwestern swing state — a win that effectively forecloses any chance that the former Massachusetts governor might not be the GOP nominee in the fall.

Romney also took D.C. and Maryland. Santorum has vowed to stay in till at least the Pennsylvania primary. Newt is…well, no one really knows, because he has no embedded press coverage. Ron Paul is simply trying to hose the system. Romney has also started focusing primarily on Obama, not Santorum.

Then there is squishy Republican Jennifer Rubin

Romney is the undisputed choice of the Republican electorate. Exit polls in Maryland showed Romney winning among virtually all segments of the electorate, whether income, religious affiliation, geography, ideology or marital status. It was much the same in Wisconsin. For example, he won among Republicans by a 51 to 37 percent margin. He won among strong supporters of the Tea Party. In sum, he has established himself as the certain nominee.

The Politico’s Maggie Haberman

It’s now really almost over.

The hat trick of primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington, D.C., capped yet another no-drama evening in Mitt Romney’s march toward the GOP presidential nomination. Romney is now more than halfway toward the delegates he needs to win his party’s nod, and Rick Santorum lost his last shot at a big, momentum-changing Midwestern win.

It begs the question “are they right?” It also begs the question “can the Republican base get behind Romney?”

Obviously, many Conservatives are concerned about Romney. But, let’s consider, Conservatives weren’t too pleased with George Bush’s big spending and big government ways in 2004, either. But, it was a choice between a far left candidate who wanted to actively lose the Iraq war or Bush. Heck, John Kerry didn’t particularly excite the Democrat base: for them it was “anybody but Bush.” The election this year is even more important.

If the simple thought of defeating Obama is not enough to get behind Romney, if he does get the GOP nod, or at least pushing you to “anybody but Obama”, here are a few specific reasons

  • Obamacare: the GOP will need to regain the Senate and keep the House to repeal and replace, but, at least with a GOP president, Romney would not sign bills funding it. Furthermore, he would get to pick the head of HHS, and Obamacare gives the head massive powers, which could be used to roll back many portions
  • Courts: not only would this mean Obama would not be picking for lower court vacancies, there will probably be at least one, if not two, Supreme Court justices retiring in the next 4 years. One will probably be Ginsburg. As left as she is, do you want an Obama lefty?
  • Debt and deficit
  • Fixing the economy: Romney may be somewhat squishy as a Republican, but, he would do an excellent job, since he understands how jobs are created.
  • Stopping the class warfare
  • Stopping the Obama “green” economy, and moving America to a real energy plan.

Stop Obama Now provides a few more reasons. Romney may not be perfect, but, he’s what we have. Do we want four more years of Obama moving the country to the far left, despite the citizens being against it?

Read: Does Romney’s Triple Win Tuesday Signal The End To The GOP Primaries? »

Posted in Barry Obama, Elections, Romney | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Here We Go: “Being Uninsured Is A Mandate, Too”

By William Teach April 4, 2012 – 7:09 am

It seems that, in Democrat World, the fact that the majority of American citizens are dead set against the individual mandate, and Obamacare, matters little, because Democrats know what is best for you stupid citizens, and you should be thanking them for forcing you to either purchase health insurance or pay a fine. Dem supporters have tried many different tactics in the wake of the Supreme Court hearing as we await their decision: comparing it to Bush v. Gore, calling a ruling that shoots the law down as “judicial activism”, saying it will destroy the court, going the scare route claiming it would be replaced with single payer, and even attacking the Court before the verdict is rendered. Now, here comes another from far left pundit Jennifer Granholm, who was a Democrat governor of Michigan, served on Obama’s transition team, and is now on Current TV

Granholm starts out with the typical story about someone not having insurance then being forced to pony up $3,000 for medical treatment, said treatment ending in the ER for pneumonia. Perhaps the person could have purchased insurance beforehand, which would have been the responsible thing to do and less than the $3k. Which will be mandatory with the Mandate. And the cost won’t be going down. Then we get

(Politico) A “health care mandate,” it seems, is in the eye of the beholder.

Carmelita has been mandated into the uninsured health care market, banished from “normal” care by a wholly unaffordable insurance system. She doesn’t have insurance, but believe me, she’s participating in commerce. She was forced, mandated to purchase emergency care or choose to risk her life. She doesn’t want that kind of health care coverage; like any rational person, she’d prefer to buy an affordable policy. But like tens of millions of others, she can’t afford it. The market for health care services is ubiquitous; the question is whether Congress mandates emergency-room market participation or a rational health insurance market system. The old system is no less a “mandate” than the Affordable Care Act.

Except, first, the “Affordable Care Act” won’t reduce costs. Second, Congress hasn’t passed a law mandating people get care. It’s a hell of a difference, but, you know, bat guano against the wall as a talking excuse and see if it sticks. The person in question could have gone to see a doctor at a health clinic for quite a bit less, too.

And let’s be honest about where the pre-“Obamacare” emergency-room mandate is coming from. That mandate comes from congressional acts, too — for example, the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires hospitals to treat anyone needing emergency care regardless of ability to pay. Indeed, Congress has enacted over the years a complex web of authorizing statutes and rules that regulate health care and allow insurance companies to price people out of the market.

So, it’s partly Congresses fault? And which Party was in charge when passing that 1986 law? That’s right, Democrats. It originated in the Democrat controlled House.

Carmelita is an unwilling conscript, a mandated gambler in the health care market. She doesn’t want to engage in the market in this fashion, but the system leaves her no choice. And to her, it’s amazing that justices with lifetime appointments who will never have to worry about health care personally, who themselves will never be forced economic bystanders to the health insurance market, are likely to decide this case based upon arcane legal theory — and not upon human reality.

Except, the point of the Court is to decide the constitutionality of the law, not to decide based on feelings. Perhaps if Democrats had decided to pass a law that focused on actually reducing the cost of health insurance, this wouldn’t be a problem. Instead, they decided that they were going to create a massive piece of legislation that creates even more costs and will increase costs, plus have monstrous unfunded liabilities. We are a nation of law, not a nation of people with squishy feelings that Someone Else should pay for. Though, we’re getting to the latter.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Here We Go: “Being Uninsured Is A Mandate, Too” »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats, Healthcare | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Romney Gets A Kick Out Of Obama Blaming….Romney For High Gas Prices

By William Teach April 3, 2012 – 7:01 pm

Good grief, does Obama take responsibility for anything? Well, things that go well, which are few and far between. And George Bush policies that succeed, of course.

(Washington Post) Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney lashed out at President Obama here Tuesday by accusing him of deflecting blame for the nation’s rising gas prices and the slow economic recovery.

Romney said a television advertisement the Obama campaign began airing this week in six swing states linking Romney with big oil conglomerates amounted to the president blaming him for gas prices.

“The president put an ad out yesterday talking about gasoline prices and how high they are. And guess who he blamed? Me!” Romney said during a mid-day campaign stop at a sub shop here. “Maybe after I’m president I can take responsibility for things I might have done wrong. But this president doesn’t want to take responsibility for his mistakes.”

Romney accused Obama of “running as far away from Harry Truman’s dictum as possible. Harry Truman had the sign on his desk that said, ‘The buck stops here,’ but this president is always looking for somewhere else to point.”

Romney also said (I’m merging the story at CBS with the WP’s one to get the full quote)

“Maybe he’ll look for the party that had no power whatsoever for the first two years of his administration, maybe he’ll say, ‘Oh, it’s the Republicans.’ But, you know, he had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate for his first two years. He gets full credit or blame for what’s happened to this economy and what’s happened to gasoline prices under his watch and what’s happened to our schools and what’s happened to our military forces — all these things are his responsibility while he’s president,” Romney said. “It’s time to have someone who will take responsibility, and if I’m president, I will not only get things right again, I’ll take responsibility for my errors.”

When Obama goes in the annals of history, it’ll be as the whiniest blamestorming president of all time. In my 45 years, I’ve never seen a grown man be this whiny, and certainly not any leader of a nation, nor one who can only blame. The guy is living embodiment of the antonym of “leader.”

Read: Romney Gets A Kick Out Of Obama Blaming….Romney For High Gas Prices »

Posted in Barry Obama, Romney | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Liberal World: Being Too Happy Is Bad

By William Teach April 3, 2012 – 4:46 pm

Apparently, liberals want us all to be as miserable as they are

(Washington Post) The happier you are, the better, right? Not necessarily. Studies show that there is a darker side to feeling good and that the pursuit of happiness can sometimes make you . . . well, less happy. Too much cheerfulness can make you gullible, selfish, less successful — and that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

Happiness does have benefits (beyond feeling good, of course). It can protect us from stroke and from the common cold, makes us more resistant to pain and even prolongs our lives. Yet, June Gruber, a professor of psychology at Yale University who has studied happiness, warns that it’s important to experience positive moods in moderation.

So, start being more a sad sack, like liberals!

She compares happiness to food: Although necessary and beneficial, too much food can cause problems; likewise, happiness can lead to bad outcomes. “Research indicates that very high levels of positive feelings predict risk-taking behaviors, excess alcohol and drug consumption, binge eating, and may lead us to neglect threats,” she says.

No need to come up with a drug for that, just become a liberal!

Included in the studies was one involving a group of American college freshmen who in 1976 claimed to be very cheerful. Surveyed again when they were in their late 30s, they earned, on average, almost $3,500 a year less than their slightly less cheerful peers. Why? Diener suggests that people who don’t experience much sadness or anxiety are rarely dissatisfied with their jobs and therefore feel less pressure to get more education or change careers.

So…..they’re happy with their jobs, despite making less money? I’m failing to see the problem. And there are people who are miserable in their jobs, but make more money? Wait, isn’t making money bad in Liberal World?

Anyhow, what kinds of miserable people study “happiness”?

Read: Liberal World: Being Too Happy Is Bad »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 3, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is evil beer releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Doug Ross.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove