Hillary’s war on truth…and bimbos

Hillary Clinton seems to be stuck on her case for defending women, and the “war on women” rhetoric will soon follow. With Trump now in her sights she attacks him for his treatment of women. Hillary says “We can’t have a Loose Cannon in the oval office. ”

Here Are The Top 5 Reasons Hillary Clinton Is Anti-Woman

The claim that she supports women is extra, double, super laughable.
Steven Crowder April 17, 2015 | Western Journalism

Hillary Clinton claims to be a champion for the middle class. Laughable.

Hillary Clinton also claims to be a champion for women. Extra, double, super laughable. Why? Here are 5 reasons:

1.  Hillary intimidated and suppressed any women who came forward with accusations against her husband while he was serving as President. To quote Political Insider, “Hillary ran a ‘war room’ to crack down on so called ‘bimbo eruptions.’ This was the name given to the countless stories of infidelity and sexual assaults committed by Bill Clinton over the years.”  For some reason, I thought silencing women and being a voice for women were two different things!

2.  She defended a child rapist, and laughed about it. Laughed. About. It. Or, in the words of the victim, “Hillary Clinton took me through hell.”  Sound like a champion of women’s rights to you?

3.  Hillary Clinton is a strong advocate for abortion. Have you heard of gendercide?  Abortion has been consistently shown to affect girl babies at significantly higher levels than boy babies.  It’s absolutely tragic. We’re killing baby girls by the millions, and ‘pro-woman’ Hillary supports it.

4.  She doesn’t believe women can afford their own birth control. Instead, she believes the government should force employers to provide contraceptive coverage of every kind, even if it’s against their deeply-held religious beliefs. Don’t worry about freedom, sweethearts; let the taxpayer get the bill.

5.  Hillary Clinton accepted millions of dollars from countries who oppress and suppress women. Senator Rand Paul may have said it best: “In countries that stone people to death for adultery and imprison people for adultery, this is the kind of thing you would think someone for women’s rights would be standing up against, instead of accepting thinly veiled bribes.” Boom goes the dynamite. (article here)

Now to the “loose canon”? Can we really have serial women victimizers in the office? Yet Hillary is reminding us how nice and great the 1990’s were. Oh, those were the good old days. And she wants to return us to the 90’s. Poor Hillary has amnesia about the 90’s. 

It was chuck full of things like the “bimbo eruptions” or the “war on bimbos,” “white trash” and “cheap sluts.” . And that all came from camp Clinton . Including James Carville’s rationalization, “if you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” Hillary has been called the Chairman Mao of feminism.

American Free Press

It goes without saying that an authentic advocate of women’s rights would try to have serial rapists arrested and imprisoned. Yet Hillary, concerned only with power and political expediency, established secret police smear campaigns against her husband’s victims. She formed covert spy networks, hired private detectives to intimidate women who threatened to go public and even urged her thuggish brother to “take out” one of Bill’s female critics.

But now Hillary is running on her woman card of defending women from all the abuses and victimization from everywhere — or the female super-hero. When the Clintons were in office, the White House was the national headquarters for the War on Women, complete with a ‘war room’ to deal with special problems. (the only threats that mattered)

Hillary running for Berlin

Pro-Hillary Dems say we need a woman in the Oval Office. Ready for Hillary. “It’s time we had a woman president.” Presumably she has sufficient estrogen and female genitalia to qualify. Providing no one calls her bona fides into question.

They point out and ask why do we need a white guy for president? The problem is the white guys were not elected simply because they were white men.

Obama was elected because he was black. It wasn’t based on his accomplishments or record. We created a new qualification for president: skin color, ethnicity, or race. Now they added gender to the affirmative action prerequisites for the job.

So we can now justifiably choose our presidents on an “historical first” basis. First Hispanic, first Asian, first Arab, first Russian. All’s fair. What’s wrong with that?

How about its time to elect a German president? How does that sound? Why isn’t it politically correct? We need a Sicilian or Italian for president.

What if someone said we need a German descendent for president? That conjures up the Third Reich in Germany, particularly Hitler. Ah, we’re over that. We need to elect people on race, ethnicity or sexual identity. Then attack anyone questioning those qualifiers. How dare you? You must be a bigot or racist if you don’t approve.

Certainly voting against them would qualify you as a racist, as it does with Obama. Any disagreement is met with a charge of racism. Then any disagreement with Hillary is misogyny, woman hating, a war on women. It is the most ridiculous idea the Left has had. So why not the first German or first Nazi? Why not? It’s what they are doing.

RightRing | Bullright

Forewarnings of midterms

Shall we look back to see if there may have been indications of 2014 midterms landslide?

Even as far back as 2012 primaries there were stunning warnings — which might have shaken libs’ status quo even then. No, they were busy whistling past the graveyard. Townhall had a piece in May, 2012 that Pepperhawk forwarded me then. “(H/T)

Remember this is early 2012:

Little attention is being paid by the national news media to the Democrats’ presidential primaries because Obama is assured of his nomination. But the large size of the anti-Obama vote — exposing deep unrest in his party’s political base — has shaken his campaign’s high command.

The latest explosions came in Tuesday’s Kentucky and Arkansas primaries which of course he won easily. But a stunning 42 percent of Kentucky Democrats voted for “uncommitted” on their ballot.

In yellow-dog Democrat Arkansas, 42 percent voted for a little- known Tennessee lawyer, John Wolfe, over the president of the United States.

And two weeks ago in the West Virginia primary, Keith Judd, a convicted felon and now Texas prison inmate got 41 percent of the vote.

Some smarty-pants political pundits who think they know everything say some of this is about race and that these states are firmly in the GOP column anyway.

It went on to say, and quote, what the Washington Post had said:

Such strong antipathy toward Obama at this end point in his trouble-plagued presidency is “an indicator of not-insignificant pockets of unrest within his party,” writes The Washington Post’s campaign trackers Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake.

Racial factors “may be less of a problem for Obama than the broader cultural disconnect that many of these voters feel with the Democratic Party.” And they quote Democrats who point to growing grievances that many in their party have over the political direction Obama is taking the country.

“The most significant factor is the perception/reality the Obama administration has leaned toward the ultra-left,” says former Democratic Congressman Charles Stenholm of Texas.

http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2012/05/25/are_democrats_deserting_obama/page/full

With all they have done since, this should have told them not to take support for granted. But the institutionalized Left ignored all that and doubled down on race-baiting, claiming opposition to Obama’s agenda was due to racism. Well, they wore out that excuse. But it didn’t reflect the rising narrative or reality.  And it didn’t fit the reality in 2014. The meme was racism, women, Hispanics, oh my. (Dems refer to as their ‘core’ constituents)

Sure they can always make that claim, as overused as it is, but sooner or later it loses its sting. Just as the ‘war on women’ narrative lost its sting in the 2014 elections. And the ideal of hope and change was lost as well — proving you can overuse a term even if it is vague. Hope and change was redefined as failure. War on women drew yawns and boos at debates. Racism is still a euphemism for disagreement with Obama, but believable? Hardly. Racism is used for an excuse for losing, as an excuse for violent protests, and as an  excuse to oppose election integrity.

So “these are states with large populations of low income, blue collar, “working class” Americans who have been hit hardest by Obama’s economic policies” were instrumental in 2014, too. It seems working class Americans overall are disenchanted with Democrats as revealed in 2014 results. But want more proof? Dems rushed to have a pow wow over the midterm results. They emerged with the message they have to do a better job relating to “middle-class” working people. Well, duh. Their policies have been a thumb in the eye to the so-called middle class.

They don’t want to do anything to actually help the middle class, they just want to talk about it, while trudging on with their elitist policies. But talk about it they will, which rings as hollow as all their other talking point messages of late. We can count on that because it was the consensus of their 2014 autopsy.

When you can’t blame yourselves, then blame the middle class for not quite understanding your message. In effect, they blamed all their special interests. But they dare not blame the teachers’ unions, who dumped record amounts of cash into their coffers.

More insight, another article from Forbes, they analyzed 2014 results:

Perhaps the biggest attrition for the Democrats has been among middle-class voters employed in the private sector, particularly small property and business owners.

Rather than the promise of “hope and change,” according to exit polls, 50% of voters said they lack confidence that their children will do better than they have, 10 points higher than in 2010. This is not surprisingly given that nearly 80% state that the recession has not ended, at least for them.

The effectiveness of the Democrats’ class warfare message has been further undermined by the nature of the recovery; while failing most Americans, the Obama era has been very kind to plutocrats of all kinds.

What’s it mean? “Middle class” will be the most used words in Dem’s vocabulary.

RightRing | Bullright

Saul move on over, reformation is coming

In 2008, the conversation was about a post-racial America. Now all anyone can hope for is a post-racial Obama. But that ain’t going to happen. We know that.

Roger Simon, co-founder of PJ media, wrote a piece on just that with just that conclusion. Racism has become the Holy Grail to Democrats — with their fictitious war on women coming in a close second. As he says, next up it is Hispanics.

Liberal Racism: Hispanics Are Next

Roughly ninety-five percent of racism in America today now either emanates from liberals or is generated by them. The Democratic Party relies on racism because, without the perception of serious ongoing racism in our culture, the identity politics on which the party depends would disintegrate. As presently constituted, they wouldn’t win another national or statewide election. This makes the Democratic Party by necessity a virtual racism-manufacturing machine.

The Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons are not anomalies. They are the motor that drives the car. Barack Obama could in no way be a post-racial president as promised, even if he wanted to be (doubtful). He wouldn’t have had a party anymore.

The idea that the chief executive of our country would want to give special privileges to Latinos above and beyond the wishes of their future fellow citizens is not only morally repugnant, it is highly socially damaging. It drives us apart — and apparently deliberately.

My only question is: isn’t all this getting a bit old, even for Libs? So this is where we are.

Their tactics and arguments have become stale — to be kind — and that is what voters are now seeing. Senator Uterus has learned that lesson. Senator Mark Pryor said Obama was a drag on his campaign. Grimes couldn’t endorse Obama. How long can you push phony arguments until they get old, even laughable? (ridicule can be a positive thing)

Alinsky’s RULE #7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

Liberals can be counted on to do what they always do, when they decide to move on they do so in lockstep. The new thing will be the rage, sucking up all the energy in the room, which backwashes old ideas that are no longer effective. “Don’t become old news.”

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

Of course, the new ideas will be just as specious as the old but that doesn’t matter because they are new. Leftists will tweak them along the way, the same way Obama revises his statements or the way they tweaked Obamacare. When everything is part of an evolving argument, a lot tends to get lost in the shuffle.

Remember the rules for radicals is geared to opposing typical activists or activism, and overwhelming them. If anything, the rules are about breaking rules, and it is always about what works — the ends justify the means. Hispanics beware.

RightRing | Bullright

Abortion is just part of motherhood

Don’t think so? Then you must be an extremist, that’s always the meme of the Left.

Pro-Abortion Author Says Abortion is Normal & “Part of Being a Mother”

by Sarah Zagorski | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/30/14

Earlier this month, The Huffington Post published an excerpt of Katha Pollitt’s new book, “Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights.” The excerpt is titled “The Abortion Conversation We Need to Have” and starts with Pollitt”s statement that abortion “is a common, even normal, event in the reproductive lives of women.”

Then Pollitt attempts to convince her readers that abortion can be moral. She writes: “We need to see abortion as an urgent practical decision that is just as moral as the decision to have a child — indeed, sometimes more moral.

Pro-choicers often say no one is “pro-abortion,” but what is so virtuous about adding another child to the ones you’re already overwhelmed by? Why do we make young women feel guilty for wanting to feel ready for motherhood before they have a baby? Isn’t it a good thing that women think carefully about what it means to bring a child into this world — what, for example, it means to the children she already has? We tend to think of abortion as anti-child and anti- motherhood.

In media iconography, it’s the fetus versus the coat hanger: that is, abortion kills an “unborn baby,” but banning it makes women injure themselves. Actually, abortion is part of being a mother and of caring for children, because part of caring for children is knowing when it’s not a good idea to bring them into the world.” (Emphasis added)

More: LifeNews.com

“We need to talk about ending a pregnancy as a common, even normal, event in the reproductive lives of women — and not just modern American women either,” Pollitt said.

It’s moral and virtuous. Obviously, her biggest problem is those of us who don’t accept the Planned Parenthood paradigm. You know, who think life is the principle to stand on.

As the article points out, she is not only at odds with pro-lifers but some pro-abortion intelligentsia as well.

“Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.” — Elizabeth Williams in Salon.

One can only hope that in 2014 so many of the Liberals’ specious arguments and talking points can be ostracized, like the candidate getting booed for “war on women” Imagine? Maybe this rhetoric will become worn out, too.

Apparently the pro-abortion rationale has not reached that point, yet. (they still use them) “Normal” should have a hard time selling. “Abortion is part of being a mother and of caring for children.” Well, I hope we might have at least reached the saturation level.

RightRing | Bullright

Sex, Lies, Media and cover ups

Sex scandal cover-ups matter…terrorist attacks not so much.

Conservative pundits may have miscalculated the election but those like Krauthammer were spot on about the Petraeus sex scandal. Leftmedia are covering that hot and heavy, every detail matters.

Apparently it has to be sex related before they care what a government official says and when he said it. But if it was a scandal about four dead Americans in a terrorist attack it becomes back-page news, if they cover it. And if the sex scandal is tied to the terrorism, then divert to the sex.

Poor Petraeus, one has to be the prez before sexual trysts are dismissed as private, consensual affairs – and not the public’s business. Gee, with all the interest, it could spark a new sit com or soap opera. “CIA director does the dirty” or “General gets his communication lines crossed”, “new rules for engagement”, “hot and heavy friendly fire”, or “Top Spy On the Sly”.

Obama made a movie about killing bin Laden, but we don’t even get a photo in the situation room when four Americans and an ambassador got killed. What’s wrong with that picture?

But they are always ready to cover a juicy sex scandal.(even better with pictures or Power Point) And the administration can even keep it quiet until after the election. Lesson learned, rules about sex scandals: never upstage the commander-in-chief – especially during an election.

And besides, in this case when they dug into one scandal they got a twofer bonus scandal. This should gve them something to talk about instead of boring hearings about a terrorist attack killing an ambassador and three other Americans.

I suppose when the comander in chief makes his campaign about women’s reproductive organs and a “war on women”, they could make certain accomodations.

Polls and estrogen

How much confidence should anyone put in either of them?

 

Obama’s poll numbers moving up. Its true. He’s enjoying mid-fifties in wrong track polls. When asked if the country is on the right track or wrong track, the Real Clear average is 39.6% say right direction, and 55% say wrong track. Rasmussen has it at 37% right and 58% wrong track.

With all this considered and he is running an anti-Mitt Romney campaign, while he has no plans much less a vision for a second term. All he keeps saying is fair share, fair shot, level playing field. Which are just as much vague euphemisms as “hope and change” was. Yes, he even managed to work them into the last foreign policy debate.

Apparently now people hope to change Barry and his administration of depression. And without plans of his own, Obama is not even on the playing field.

Yet he does have a fetish agenda of using women. I find it so incredible how he and the left talk to women as sex objects because they find themselves in a tough political race. The message they send: “Women, use all your estrogen to support me (us).” They turn women into, excuse the term, voting vaginas. Then to cover their tracks and record, they project the GOP as having a war on women.

But we know women also feel the economy, and the stress of the current state of affairs this administration is pursuing: from Obamacare and budget deficits to the cold economy, to the costs of food, goods and gas, as well as jobs.. But Dems never seem to mention any of that. All they mention about women has to do with reproductive organs. And they call their campaign “forward”?