Blinders of Women and a phony media

 


While liberal-progs and their lamestream media salivate over what Romney described as a policy to hire more women in his administration — supplied to him in “a binder” — they could ignore the flagrant searching and appointments of Muslims in Barry Hussein’s administration to key positions.

Obama’s policy was reported by a few websites, but other than that the media couldn’t touch it with a hundred-foot pole. And they certainly did not question it.

Cal Thomas reported in Feb. 2010: http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/32840

President Obama’s appointment of Rashad Hussain, his deputy associate counsel, as special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference — the second largest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations, charged with safeguarding and protecting “the interests of the Muslim world” — should be of serious concern to Congress and the American public.
/….

In 1991, a memo written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood spelled out the objective of the organization. Akram said the Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Remember the James Clapper testimony where he said that Muslim Brotherhood was “heterogeneous[diverse] and largely secular”. That was in discussion to the Brotherhood in Egypt and their influence.

No real outrage over either of them; certainly no questions.

But Mitt Romney mentions a binder of women’s names given him by a women’s group for prospective appointments, and they feign outrage across the media before the sun can come up. “Sound the sirens, man the guns!”

Which one of those is worse, and which one more bizarre behavior? Just a cursory look at Hussain’s record should raise concerns, not only about his appointment but in the process and intentions of Obama. But no cries from media about that.

When Romney speaks about what he did as governor they are outraged about “binders”. Maybe they should look at the prez, show some outrage over lack of transparency, secret records, and appointments that pander to some group. Never happen.

Romney looks to hire women and Obama seeks out loyal Muslims. Which one do you care about?

7 comments on “Blinders of Women and a phony media

  1. Davetherave says:

    Good post bull! The imaginary war on women continues. Thankfully not all women are fooled by the radicals dreamed up war. Ya’ just can’t make liberals happy no matter what a Republican does. Mitt hired qualified women, but they weren’t radical women so they don’t count. Obama’s entire small inner circle are men, but that’s OK. Radical women are even making excuses it is OK for White House women staffers to make 18% less than male staffers, while at the same time knocking Republicans for voting against the Ledbetter Act that had absolutely nothing to do with improving pay equality. All it did was allow more time for a women to sue a company, if they believed unfair pay practices were taking place.

    Hell; they already had 180 days to sue a company and the only reason this was brought to light is because Ms. Ledbetter waited longer than 180 days to sue. So this charade that the Ledbetter Act was passed to help improve pay equality is a crock. The group this Act helped the most are lawyers. The only logic radicals will follow is allowing fellow radicals to live by double standards and we all know nothing can fix stupid!

    Like

    • Davetherave says:

      Oh I forgot; women are held in such high regard in the muslim world and we have a muzzie in our White House. But once again; the radicals have no problem with that. The are the definition of hypocrisy…

      Like

      • bullright says:

        Dave, you’re right, they keep touting it as his prime accomplishment. It wsa a boon ato lawyers like everything else they do. What a record of failures if that is the only one he can point to. It seems Barry would rather be compliant with about anythng other than the Constitution. And now he brings his brand of sexism to an all time high. I’m sick of his games. There are a lot of women making more than their husbands (40%) and he did nothing to accomplish that. But it is typical that he looks for things to take credit for and people to blame for his own failures.

        Like

      • bullright says:

        Dave, and talk about arrogance, he goes on the view and tells them he is “eye candy”.

        Like

    • bullright says:

      You nailed it. Dems missed their opportunity. They could have elected a woman over a guy with absolutely no experience. They should be sorry they elected him.

      Like

      • Davetherave says:

        Bull, I truly believe there are only two reasons Obama was elected and he and Hitlery tie on one issue. They both support abortion on demand, but Obama is viewed as black. His momma ain’t black. Obama got the guilt vote of whites that still believe the blacks are owed something and of course the woman vote for abortion on demand. Hitlery just picked the worse time she could have to run. Any other time; she’d be queen. However; it does clearly define the hypocrisy of democrats. I was forced to vote for McLaim in 08′ (did not support him in the primaries), but women chose Obama over Hitlery. Women vastly outnumber men in this country (especially in the democratic party) and if they’d really wanted a woman president they could have made one during the primaries. McLaim was going to lose to either.

        I read a great article today concerning Barry’s time as president of something like the Harvard Law Review. His predecessor and successor were both men (one of them also a minority) had around 40% of women on their staff and Barry only had 25%. He blamed it on lack of applicants, but that lie was disproved. The sumbitch has the muzzie mentality about women yet the lefty women keep protecting him. I’d call that a mix of hypocrisy and masochism…

        Like

        • bullright says:

          Dave, true. I don’t think anyone is more pro-abortion than him. That he is running on the womens’s vote is one of the biggest con jobs he’s pulled, and he’s done some doosies.I have to figure, like everything else, he’ll put is foot in his mouth and step in sh*t. Someone else will be to blame for that.

          Like

Comments...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s