No 585 “En mi opinión” Febrero 4, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño Editor
FH: Articles Of Impeachment Against Barack Hussein Obama (Finally!) February 3, 2014 by Floyd Brown
Well, the best news of the week (or even the month) is that someone on Capitol Hill still has a spine.
When Rep. Steve Stockman got up and walked out of the president’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night, I rejoiced. Finally, someone has decided that enough is enough!
Stockman apparently couldn’t make it through the entire speech without losing his temper. He’s mad that President Obama is rewriting the U.S. Constitution, and he has every right to be.
Here’s what Stockman had to say:
Tonight I left early after hearing how the president is further abusing his Constitutional powers. I could not bear to watch as he continued to cross the clearly defined boundaries of the Constitutional separation of powers.
Even worse, Obama has openly vowed to break his oath of office and begin enacting his own brand of law through executive decree. This is a wholesale violation of his oath of office and a disqualifying offense.
Stockman didn’t stop there, either.
He went on to proclaim: “I’m considering filing Articles of Impeachment against Barack Obama.”
Now we’re talking!
The nation is tired of the Republican leadership’s complacency and the “let’s all get along” culture that’s endemic among politicians. And finally, it appears that someone on the Hill agrees.
Instead of acting like nothing is wrong, Stockman is speaking the frustration of millions of Americans, citizens who are sickened by their selfish, do-nothing leaders who only care about getting re-elected at all costs.
Recent polls show that just 31% of Americans believe that the country is better off now than in 2009, when Obama was sworn in. And a new Rasmussen poll reported that 69% of likely voters believe that the president should work with Congress, while only 27% believe that the president should go around Congress.
A CNN snap poll conducted among State of the Union viewers found similar results: 67% said that they wanted Obama to compromise with Congress, while just 30% said that they preferred for him to act on his own.
Stockman told NPR that “acting unilaterally, without Congress, is not the concept of what our Founding Fathers envisioned. And I had hoped [Obama] would reach across the aisles and – especially in his final years – make a difference.”
Meanwhile, the rest of the Republican leadership would be smart to follow Stockman’s lead. Impeachment should be on the docket – it’s what the American people want. On top of that, the process is long overdue. To recap:
- Obama’s administration has trafficked guns to Mexican drug cartels.
- Obama’s administration ignored calls for help from numerous Americans in Benghazi, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, resulting in their deaths.
- Obama’s administration has unilaterally rewritten bankruptcy laws and stripped investors in GM bonds, including a teacher’s pension fund, of property rights.
- Obama illegally bombed Libya without Congressional authorization.
- Obama unilaterally rewrote the Affordable Care Act, exempting chosen businesses, unions, and Congress from the effects of the law.
And now he plans to usurp the powers of Congress and govern by decree. I truly wonder how much more these other Republicans can stomach before they join the calls for impeachment, too.
This article originally appeared at CapitolHillDaily.com and is reprinted here with permission. Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/articles-impeachment-barack-obama-finally/#KstxUIh7Gzqr2ZMI.99
‘NOT EVEN A SMIDGEN OF CORRUPTION’: IT’S OBAMA VERSUS O’REILLY DURING INTERVIEW THAT GOT DOWNRIGHT CONTENTIOUS AT TIMES. Feb. 2, 2014 7:22pm Dave Urbanski Story by the Associated Press; curated by Dave Urbanski
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama and Fox News host Bill O’Reilly got together for what became at times a rather contentious pre-Super Bowl interview Sunday.
The president traded barbs with O’Reilly over Obama’s troubled health care law rollout, the 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya and revelations that the IRS targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny.
“I try to focus not on the fumbles but on the next play,” Obama said.
Obama would not say why he didn’t fire Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius after the failed launch of the Obamacare website. He also declined to say that the biggest mistake of his presidency was telling Americans if they liked their health care they could keep it and argued the website is now working the way it’s supposed to.
“We’ve got 3 million people signed up so far. We’re about a month behind where we anticipated we wanted to be,” Obama said.
The most contentious portion of the interview came during O’Reilly’s questions about Benghazi, as he and Obama spoke over each other and often sounded annoyed at the other.
“I’m trying to explain it to you, if you want to listen,” the president told O’Reilly at one point.
Initially saying that the Benghazi attacks were “not some systematic well-organized process,” Obama defended himself as O’Reilly posed questions about why administration officials initially described the attacks at the compound in Libya as a spontaneous mob protest of an anti-Islamic, American-made video.
“Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out,” O’Reilly said. “That’s what they believe.”
“And they believe it because folks like you are telling them that,” Obama countered, then adding that such a claim is “inaccurate” and “the notion that we would hide the ball for political purposes when a week later we all said in fact there was a terrorist attack taking place.”
“That wouldn’t be a very good cover-up,” Obama said.
As for the IRS scandal, Obama insisted there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” contributing to the IRS targeting of tea party and other conservative groups when they applied for tax-exempt status.
“These kinds of things keep on surfacing, in part because you and your TV station will promote them,” Obama said, taking aim at Fox News.
Another portion of the interview will air on The O’Reilly Factor Monday night, Mediaite noted.
Senator Ran Paul:
Dear Lázaro R Gonzalez Mino,
Here we go again.
President Obama is demanding Congress rush through immigration reform that fails to address the real problem and secure our borders.
Lazaro, as I’ve said from day one, any immigration reform MUST start with border security FIRST.
In fact, I’ve filed an absolutely critical Trust but Verify amendment that includes both border security and a prohibition on any National ID card.
Securing our porous borders should be our FIRST priority.
And after the NSA’s warrantless spying program and the Administration unleashing the IRS on Tea Party groups, you and I need to halt ANY big government schemes to create new databases.
When Obama and his allies to tried to ram through a bad immigration deal last spring, you swamped the Senate with phone calls and petitions and beat back their attempt to ram immigration reform that didn’t secure our borders through Congress.
But now that President Obama declared his intention to impose immigration reform that fails to secure our borders through Congress, chatter is heating up that another bad deal is being cooked up in the backrooms.
So it’s absolutely critical you sign your Emergency “No Immigration Reform without Border Security” Fax Petition to your representatives IMMEDIATELY!
Virtually every American understands that ours is a country of immigrants who came here because America has long been known as the “land of opportunity.”
And like most Americans, I want our traditions of hope and economic freedom for all to continue.
But in a day and age where terrorism is a constant threat, can you and I really afford to leave our borders wide open?
Of course not.
The American people simply want to be able to trust that our borders are finally protected – and ensure that Congress verifies the job gets done.
Sadly, that’s not the only concern I have.
You see, even with all the recent news about our federal government spying and snooping on American citizens, I’ve barely heard a peep about this in the national media.
But if you haven’t heard, a brand new National ID scheme is also being considered. Immigration Reform is the vehicle.
Under the National ID scheme, the Department of Homeland Security would create a massive new photo database to include names, ages, and social security numbers of every single American.
The database would be tied to a biometric National ID card to include photos – and perhaps even things like fingerprints and retinal scans.
Before hiring, employers would be required to check the names against the federal database.
And if you don’t get one, you’d be barred from working legally.
But how long before you’d be required to show your National ID card to rent a house, open a bank account or even buy groceries?
How long before you’d be required to be checked against the Department of Homeland Security’s National Database before you could buy a firearm?
You and I have already seen President Obama’s IRS vastly abuse their power over American citizens.
The NSA scandal sends shivers down many Americans’ spines.
And we’re supposed to believe this power won’t be abused?
With this new database, our federal government could not only create an easy national gun registry – but a registry of everything else about our lives.
That’s why your action today is so critical.
As I mentioned, immigration reform must FIRST secure our borders.
But Obama and his allies are hatching a plot to ram immigration reform through Congress that fails to secure our borders and creates a new National ID card.
And only your action can halt this bad deal.
So please sign your Emergency Fax Petition to your representatives IMMEDIATELY.
As you’ll see, your Emergency Fax Petition urges them to oppose ANY immigration reform that doesn’t secure our borders FIRST.
I can tell you many members of Congress know they’re dealing with a political hot potato in this Immigration Reform Bill.
So flooding Congress with Emergency Fax Petitions will make an enormous difference.
And if you can, please agree to your most generous contribution as well.
Your generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or $35 will help me reach and mobilize even more freedom-loving Americans during this critical time.
Even if all you can do is chip in $10 or $20, it would make a tremendous difference and I would be extremely grateful.
Lazaro R, you and I both know just how important this issue is.
It’s absolutely critical that I’m able to mobilize American citizens IMMEDIATELY.
But without your help – and your generosity today – I’m afraid I just may not have the resources to make that happen.
Senator Rand Paul
Lázaro R González Mino: Realmente esto se está volviendo una porquería más rápido de lo que yo pensaba. [Vean esto] Mi respuesta es: Ayer me tome la última Coca Cola… A echar pulgas a otro lado. Vean el artículo de Nelson Horta.
• Grupos conservadores dicen que demuestra un país divido
MIAMI 4 DE FEBRERO DE 2014, nhr.com—El comercial del refresco Coca Cola televisado durante el Super Bowl del pasado domingo ha causado controversia entre los conservadores.
“America the Beautiful”, interpretado por cantantes de todo el mundo fue refrescante para muchos pero dejo un sabor amargo para otros.
El anuncio que tiene 60 segundos de duración llamado “Es Hermoso” y está cantado en 7 idiomas diferentes y está “destinado a demostrar la diversidad del increíble país en que vivimos”, de acuerdo con portavoz de la empresa.
Algunos conservadores dicen que el anuncio está vendiendo una América dividida.
La controversia además se ha centrado sobre la codificación del idioma inglés como el idioma principal en Estados Unidos, una reforma migratoria y la aceptación de las mismas relaciones entre el mismo sexo en los medios de comunicación. En una escena rápida se vislumbran a dos hombres, claramente sonriendo y abrazados.
El ex representante Allen West advirtió que el anuncio de la empresa Coca Cola, “una empresa tan americana, es una señal de que estamos en el camino de la perdición”.
Por su parte ejecutivos de Coca Cola dijeron que creen que fue una buena idea pasar el comercial con niños cantando “America the Beautiful” en varios idiomas, un himno patriótico profundamente cristiano cuyo tema es la unidad.
VIDEO: If A Fox News Host Called Obama What This MSNBC Host Did, He’d Be Branded A RacistOn February 2, 2014 http://www.soopermexican.com
While Obama promised to take America to a “post-racial” utopia, he’s only occasioned liberals to claim half of the English language is actually a “dog-whistle” hiding deep racism when applied to him.
This is even more evident when on that rare occasion that liberals criticize Obama, and use words that would cause the firing up of torches and sharpening of pitchforks had a Republican used them. The latest example is MSNBC’s own Chris Hayes, who angrily denounced Obama for not shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline quick enough for left-wing extremist enviro-nuts’ emotional well-being.
“The conclusions of the report appear to indicate that the project has passed Mr. Obama’s climate criteria, an outcome expected to outrage environmentalists, who have rallied, protested, marched and been arrested in demonstrations around the country against the pipeline.”
Showing a clip of Obama pushing his “all-of-the-above energy strategy” at this week’s State of the Union, Hayes remarked on the “addict’s” tendency to “procrastinate and irrationalize.”
“Everyone who breaks free of any addiction digs down and finds some inner strength to say no, to stop, to say this is the day I start to turn my life around,” Hayes concluded. “And the question is whether we as citizens, and Barack Obama as a president, as a human being, can find that strength within himself.”
If a conservative pundit called him an addict, he’d be excoriated as the worst racist. But we don’t have to hypothesize. Leftist “think-tank” ThinkProgress was angry at then-Senator Jim Demint for doing just that:
Samitier: Cerrando las puertas.
Ahora Los Politiqueros Actúan A Lo Descarado
Hasta Persiguen A Los Artistas Cómicos
Que Se Burlan De Su Política Socialista
Le cierran las puertas… El Cómico del saludo “La Quenelle” que consiste
En un BRAZO EN VEZ DE PARA ARRIBA como el de los Fascistas
Es adelante… PERO PARA ABAJO…En señal que todo va para abajo…
Para Que No visite Inglaterra… lo declararon Ayer “Persona Non Grata”
en todo los territorios del Reino Unido: y cualquiera que lo ayude será
Multado 10 Mil Libras!
En esto momentos, Cada ataque que el gobierno le hace…aumenta el
apoyo que recibe. El pueblo no entiende porque no se puede burlar
de los eventos que todos conocen y que saben que no tiene una
explicación lógica… Lo primero que hacen los comunistas siempre
es prohibir la RISAS… acuérdense que los primeros prohibidos en
Cuba fue el PERIÓDICO CÓMICO ZIC ZAC…
El problema es…Con 3 y medio millón de DESEMPLEADOS, Francia va
estallar. Este tipo, fácilmente, puede sacar 100 mil personas violentas en
las calles! Veremos qué pasa en las elecciones Europeas en mayo???
Samitier: El Terror Cubano más Grande que el de la Revolución Francesa.
Comparemos el “Reino Del Terror” De La Revolución Francesa Del 5 septiembre 1793 a 28 julio 1794 Un Total De 11 meses…
Con El Terror Impuestos Por Los Castro Desde 1 De Enero Hasta Agosto 20 Del 1959… En Que Se Suspendieron Los Fusilamientos…
Mes y Medio Después; La Pena De Muerte Fue Restablecida Por Castro En Octubre Después Del Arresto De Huber Matos… Hasta El Día De Hoy…
El reinado del terror en Francia, también conocido simplemente como El Terrorfue un período de violencia que se produjo tras el inicio de la Revolución Francesa, incitado por los conflictos entre facciones políticas rivales, los girondinos y los jacobinos y marcado por ejecuciones en masa de los “Enemigos De La Revolución ” .
Francia tenía en ese momento, 26 MILLONES DE PERSONAS , la noticias se distribuían a caballo de ciudad en ciudad , la mayoría de la población NO SABÍA LEER, no había ningún periódico, NO EXISTÍA LA RADIO NI LA TELEVISIÓN, pero los historiadores han decidido que las personas vivían bajo ” Terror” y para apoyar sus conclusiones han exagerado el número de víctimas… y cualquier persona puede encontrar en Internet que en París según ellos se guillotinaban personas a razón de 10 personas en 13 minutos… Lo cual es físicamente imposible… debido al proceso de ejecución requerido:
La guillotina requerís entre cinco a ocho asistentes ayudando al verdugo… había que llevar a la víctima a la guillotina; se le quitaba la ropa alrededor del cuello. Ellos ataban a la víctima boca abajo, colocar la cabeza de la víctima a través de una media luna, y bajó la parte superior de la luneta alrededor del cuello de la víctima en una serie de movimientos suaves. El verdugo luego soltaba el disparador, entonces la cabeza y el cuerpo se separaban en una fracción de segundo por el peso de la hoja y la cabeza caía en una bolsa de cuero o una cesta forrada. Un asistente levantó la cabeza para la aprobación de la multitud, y varios otros asistentes se llevaban el cuerpo descabezado bajando las escaleras, donde fueron arrojados a los carros para su eliminación. Las víctimas conocidas tenían la distinción adicional de ser empalados en los postes para exhibirla. Todo lo anterior no se puede hacer en un minuto y medio.
Los historiadores requieren la velocidad y eficiencia para probar su descripción del TERROR… Hoy en día casi todos los historiadores coinciden en PUBLICAR que alrededor de 2600 FUERON decapitado en París, pero las pruebas documentada sólo prueban 943 víctimas de la revolución… otros han dicho que durante los”DÍAS DE GLORIA “, la guillotina se llevó 3000 vidas en un mes para demostrar que esto es un montón de mentiras; calculemos 3.000 dividido por 30 días = 100 un día y suponiendo que estaban matando todos los días, sin pausas o ir a comer… y tener el condenado se alinearon en fila y tomar sólo 5 minutos por decapitación, significa que 100 decapitaciones, tomaría 500 minutos o 8,33 horas por día , los siete días a la semana para llegar a las 3.000 personas condenadas por mes.
Independientemente de que los números hacen que sea virtualmente imposible la cantidad de decapitaciones, todos los maestros y profesores universitarios siguen enseñando a estos números y los estudiantes los siguen aceptando y repitiendo…Ver http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Guillotine.aspx
El “terror en Francia” comenzó el 10 de agosto y en el período de 13 meses, mayo 1793 a junio 1794, tenemos documentación que sólo 943 personas fueron ejecutadas en París y que en todas las otras ciudades francesas la cantidad era mucho menos… Prácticamente toda la aristocracia francesa fueron enviados a la guillotina durante la Revolución Francesa. La ejecución del rey Luis XVI y la reina María Antonieta son sus víctimas más famosas.
Es posible que durante la revolución francesa hubiera las 40.000 muertes, que se informan, pero no pueden haber sido parte del Reino del Terror, sino como resultado de las guerras con otros países europeos que atacaron a Francia para restaurar el sistema monárquico.
El Reinado Del Terror En Cuba Fue Establecido
Metódicamente Desde El Primer Día Del Triunfo
El reinado del terror cubano comenzó inmediatamente… era de conocimiento común y bien conocido por la población cubana que la revolución había estado fusilando y haciendo atentados (asesinando) enemigos… la gente consideraba que esos asesinatos eran hecho porque la revolución no tenía aún un gobierno organizado… También la población consideraba que ejecutar a personas, inclusive culpables sin un juicio previo era un asesinato… pero el Terror no se impone asesinando culpables… se impone cuando se asesinan POSIBLES INOCENTES
A partir de día 28 de Diciembre 1959… en Santa Clara… Independientemente en qué lado político militaban… la población comenzó a ver en la televisión las imágenes de una secuencia de ejecuciones públicas sin juicio… hasta vieron una ejecución al estilo NAZI… nunca antes visto en Cuba, en que Raúl Castro asesino 83 personas juntas y las enterró en una fosa común en Santiago de Cuba… Las ejecuciones continuaron en televisión, radio, periódicos y revistas sobre una base diaria hasta agosto de 1959…
El número de ejecuciones OFICIALES Y NO OFICIALES llegaron a los miles en los primeros meses fue de más de 3.000, sólo en La Habana 103 personas murieron en los primeros 5 días del triunfo de la Revolución y fueron reportados como accidentes con armas de fuego… “MUERTES POR TIROS IDOS” lo mismo ocurrió en casi todas las ciudades y pueblos de Cuba y el número de personas detenidas a finales de enero (en sólo un mes) eran unos 20.000. Se puede afirmar que no existía un pueblo de mediano tamaño que no tuviera 10 o 20 detenidos…
Las personas honestas tienen que reconocer, que no sólo Cuba tiene en el año 1959, 6 millones de personas es decir 5 VECES MENOS QUE FRANCIA EN 1789 que lógicamente requiere 5 VECES MENOS EJECUCIONES Y ENCARCELAMIENTOS PARA SEMBRAR EL TERROR EN LA POBLACIÓN…
Si a la cantidad de ejecuciones y asesinatos cometidos por el Castro-comunismo, se añade el hecho de que la población en general pudo ver las ejecuciones en toda la isla… Porcentualmente los cubanos fueron objeto de una campaña de terror más grande que el que se hace al pueblo francés.
Durante Los Primeros 5 Meses Todos Los Días Se Fusilaba
Los Fusilamientos Continuaron casi a DIARIO Hasta Agosto… Cuando por presión de la ONU fueron Suspendidos… Pero en OCTUBRE con el arresto de Huber Matos… fueron restablecidos y se continuo fusilando hasta el día de hoy… y el régimen hacia publicar la noticia en Periódicos, Radio y la Televisión… pero a NINGÚN HISTORIADOR se le ha ocurrido llamarle a esos 55 años de TERROR… El “Reino Mas Largo De Terror” sufrido por un país…
Sin Duda Los 6 Millones De Cubanos Sufrieron y Sufren Un “Reino Del Terror” Más Grande Que El Sufrido Por los 26 Millones De Franceses Creado Por La Revolución Francesa…
Samitier: QUE INFAMIA, Y ESTE ES UN PROFESOR UNIVERSITARIO!!!
El profesor estadounidense Piero Gleijeses se sumó hoy al reclamo internacional por la excarcelación inmediata de los antiterroristas cubanos presos en su país desde hace 15 años por prevenir la ejecución…
Gleijeses recordó en una carta al presidente Barack Obama que Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando González y Ramón Labañino fueron condenados en un “tribunal de opereta” a largas penas en la cárcel, informó el Comité Internacional por la liberación de esos hombres.
Ellos y su compatriota ya liberado René González fueron arrestados el 12 de septiembre de 1998 mientras supervisaban a grupos violentos en el sur de Florida, desde donde planifican acciones como las que en los últimos 53 años dejaron más de tres mil 400 víctimas en Cuba.
Los cuatro antiterroristas aún enfrentan severas sanciones, mientras René González salió de prisión el 7 de octubre de 2011 después de cumplir su condena y regresó a su patria en mayo pasado tras renunciar a la ciudadanía estadounidense, para terminar un castigo adicional de tres años bajo libertad supervisada.
En su misiva, Gleijeses urgió a Obama a entender que el proceso legal contra los cubanos fue politizado y ejercer su autoridad ejecutiva para poner fin al encierro.
También hizo referencia a la solidaridad de Cuba con países de África que luchaban por su independencia y también de la postura hostil de la Casa Blanca, la cual alentaba a las tropas invasoras.
Piero Gleijeses es profesor de Política Exterior de Estados Unidos en la universidad Johns Hopkins y es autor de varios libros sobre la intervención de su país en varias naciones del mundo.
Samitier: El que no lo ve … es porque no quiere… Los Republicanos se VENDIERON se acomodan con la política de Obama
Republicanos Ni Siguiera Hablan Del Asunto…
Se Acomodaron Con La Política De Obama
Ya Los Compraron!!!!
Esa es la Razón por la cual LOS DOS PARTIDOS atacan al “TEA PARTY…
Van A Endeudar El País Aun Más!!!
Estamos En Picada Y Sin Paracaídas…
The ceiling on the national debt was suspended when lawmakers reached agreement to halt the partial government shutdown last October. It kicks in againon Friday. At that point, the Treasury will once again resort to “extraordinary measures,” like borrowing from government pension funds, and we’ll be treated to another legislative spectacle.
But the extraordinary measures will buy less time than usual, Lew warns: “We expect our outlays over the coming weeks to exceed our net inflows,” he says — owing mostly to tax refunds. Weeks, not months, he says.
For the record, the national debt this morning stands at $17,249,265,796,405.00.
The estimated population of the United States is 317,573,609
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $54,480.57.
there were approximately 117,538,000 households in the country in 2010. Thus, the current debt equals about $136,260 per household.
5 Wacky Things Liberal Feminists Believe. John Hawkins |
I tell Gloria Steinem that women need feminism like fish need a bicycle. — Lori Ziganto
Like unions and the civil rights movement, feminism has been so successful that it has become largely irrelevant. Of course, as long as there’s a buck to be made or an ego to be massaged, no movement in America ever really goes away. So liberal feminists have moved on from noble pursuits like giving women the right to vote and fighting blatant discrimination in the workplace to working overtime to keep successful conservative women from becoming seen as role models. No one hates a happy, successful, much admired conservative woman more than left-wing feminists. In fact, the only thing that makes them angrier is the suggestion that the state shouldn’t provide them with free birth control. Actually on second thought, a lot of liberal feminists seem to hate men even more than not getting free birth control, which is kind of funny if you think about it. After all, if you hate men so much, you don’t need birth control. Speaking of that paradox…
First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not – which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances – it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence.
2) Stay at home moms are failures: From liberal feminist Amy Glass…
I Look Down On Young Women With Husbands And Kids And I’m Not Sorry
…Do people really think that a stay at home mom is really on equal footing with a woman who works and takes care of herself? There’s no way those two things are the same. It’s hard for me to believe it’s not just verbally placating these people so they don’t get in trouble with the mommy bloggers.
Having kids and getting married are considered life milestones. We have baby showers and wedding parties as if it’s a huge accomplishment and cause for celebration to be able to get knocked up or find someone to walk down the aisle with. These aren’t accomplishments, they are actually super easy tasks, literally anyone can do them. They are the most common thing, ever, in the history of the world. They are, by definition, average. And here’s the thing, why on earth are we settling for average?
…You will never have the time, energy, freedom or mobility to be exceptional if you have a husband and kids.
3) Women who have children are reprehensible: If you believe all sex is rape and mothering your children is for losers, it makes a certain kind of sense that many liberal feminists detest the idea of having kids. Of course, it also seems more than a little hypocritical to disown your own daughter for having a child (Just like mom!), but liberal feminist Alice Walker did it.
Alice severed ties with her daughter Rebecca in 2004 after learning that her 30-something daughter had committed the most heinous of anti-feminist acts: procreation. On purpose!
I was at one of her homes, sitting, and told her my news and that I’d never been happier. She went very quiet. All she could say was that she was shocked. Then, she asked if I could check on her garden.
After exchanging a series of emails, Alice wrote to Rebecca to say that their relationship had been “inconsequential for years” and that she was no longer interested in being a mother to her daughter. She later cut Rebecca out of her will.
As Rebecca has since revealed, Alice’s lip service to choice, opportunity, and freedom for women doesn’t allow room for her own daughter to choose motherhood. Unsurprising from a woman whose greatest act of motherly concern was arranging an abortion for Rebecca when she became pregnant at 14.
4) Feminists are unclear on which gender has a vagina: One of the more bizarre beliefs that feminists embrace is that gender is just a social construct. This is a ludicrous idea because although you can find minor differences in how masculinity and femininity are displayed in different cultures, they are minor differences. There are no Amazon societies. In no country on earth do the women love violent sports while the men are out buying dozens of pairs of high heels. Put another way, no matter how much liberal feminists desire it to be so, there are real and very important differences between men and women. One of those differences is that women are the ones with vaginas. Of course, don’t tell that to liberal feminist Jessica Valenti.
I have to disagree with something you said. Not only women have vaginas. Saying that only women have vaginas alienates the trans*community, because some women have penises, and some men have vaginas, not to mention all the nonbinary people in the world. Anatomy and biology do not determine one’s gender identity any more than they do one’s sexual orientation.
5) All men are evil and deserve to be punished: There’s a reason feminists are stereotyped as bitter, man-hating, trench harpies. It’s because most of them are bitter, man-hating, trench harpies. In fact, if you took the man hatred out of the movement, left-wing feminism would collapse because it’s more philosophically centered around hating men than helping women. Just to give you a few examples…
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -– Valerie Solanas
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French
Liberal feminism is a dead end full of unhappy man-haters and wackos. On the other hand, conservative feminists like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Dana Loesch and Michelle Malkin are phenomenal role models not just for young women, but for everyone.
Jorge A. Villalon: Obama’s Superbowl Sunday interview
Rarely has a lame duck emitted such a strange series of quacks, as President Obama sat down for a pre-Super Bowl interview with Bill O’Reilly in which the latter asked the kind of tough questions Obama’s adoring media never asks… and Obama refused to answer any of them.
Remember how Obama said he was more angry and frustrated about the failure of the Obama Care launch than anyone? Forget all that. He’s not going to hold anyone accountable – he thinks “accountability” is just a magic word that he needs to repeat until the scandal goes away.
Remember when Obama said the IRS abuse of conservative groups was totally unacceptable, and swore he’d get to the bottom of it? Never mind. He now says the whole thing is a creation of Fox News. Ditto for the Benghazi scandal, in which Fox News was somehow able to hypnotize Obama, Hillary Clinton, and their underlings into lying repeatedly about the deaths of four Americans. Why, Bill O’Reilly was able to Jedi mind-trick Obama proxy Susan Rice into repeating this lie on every single Sunday talk show! He must have also compelled those IRS officials into admitting the targeting of conservative groups was improper, because now Obama says there wasn’t a “smidgen of corruption” about the whole affair. (Remember when it was all supposedly the work of renegade low-level employees in Cincinnati, who were going to be identified and severely punished?)
Total number of people fired by Obama over the IRS and Benghazi scandals combined: zero. But Obama is prepared to repeat the word “accountability” as often as necessary, on the very rare occasions someone in the media asks him about these matters.
The Obama interview turned out to be eerie foreshadowing for the Super Bowl game, in which Seattle kept scoring points, and Denver never answered them. In the end, the Seattle Seahawks defeated the Denver 404 Errors, 43-8.
What the President was doing with this curious non-interview ischecking off a box. Now he can say he appeared on Fox News with the pugnacious Bill O’Reilly. The rest of his swooning media fans won’t’ care that he spouted off a string of embarrassing lies and evasions. They’re not going to press him on any of this stuff. Nobody from the lame stream media is going to corner Obama next week and demand to know why all the early IRS internal reports said there was seriously improper behavior going on, but now he claims it was all just Fox News obsessing over a non-story. No other media organization is going to step up for Fox News, or declare it outrageous for the President to blame very real scandals – with a body count – on a single media organization he dislikes. The rest of the press was only briefly troubled by Obama spying on them.
That’s why no Republican could ever get away with this. The media would network, close ranks, ask the same questions in unison, refuse to accept evasions instead of answers. The old Beltway wisdom held that the worst way to handle a scandal was to drag it out, because the constant drip-drip-drip of new revelations and punctured talking points would be the death of a thousand cuts. Obama and his team always knew that didn’t apply to them. They can drag out any scandal for as long as they please, knowing that the press will not object to their delaying tactics, or bounce the story back to the front page every time a new revelation comes out. On the contrary, full and prompt disclosure would be the worst thing for them, because it would oblige the media to treat these stories as a really big deal for at least one news cycle.
Give Obama credit for understanding, perhaps better than any major national figure before him, that in the world of 24-7 online news coverage, victory comes one news cycle at a time. The system only has lingering attention for a story if the media builds it into a Narrative – i.e. how all of the scandals Obama refused to discuss candidly with Bill O’Reilly come together into a story about an Administration willing to abuse authority for political gain, obfuscate every inquiry, and handle even the most important matters with seat-of-the-pants improvisation by inept political appointees, confident they can clean up any resulting messes on the next round of Sunday shows. Since the press will never, ever spin such a narrative about Barack Obama, he can follow a scandal management strategy of saying the most ridiculous, patently false things for a week or two, “winning” the spin war, and then consolidating victory by declaring the story “old news.”
And really, what are you going to do about it? America missed its chance to remove him from office, in part because his say-anything news cycle war of attrition worked, with a very timely assist from “moderator” Candy Crowley during a crucial debate. It’s dangerous to leave someone like Obama in power, because he’ll do the same things again, as we saw when Benghazi tactics were used to survive the Obama Care launch debacle. But that’s what America did, and at this point, even if Obama’s ego allowed for frank admissions of failure, his political interests would not be well-served by actually doing anything about the scandals O’Reilly brought up.
If he fired anyone, that person would become a loose cannon with good reason to cook up a tell-all book. (Imagine the book Kathleen Sebelius could have written, if Obama had sacked her in October: “A Woman Alone: How I Was Abandoned By My President and Left to Manage His Signature Achievement.”) He’d also be putting meat on the bones of a story by actually holding someone accountable, which would make the kind of performance he turned in for O’Reilly impossible – he couldn’t say Benghazi was a nothing burger if the sort of head that turns up on talking-head shows had rolled. And he’d demoralize his hardcore True Believers by following through on his loud Day One promises to get to the bottom of scandals they don’t want to think about. (Well, Day Two promises, really, because Obama always claims he didn’t learn about these unfortunate developments until he read the newspaper the following morning.)
This is what happens when you install a President the media loves with romantic intensity, America. One network is not a substitute for the adversarial relationship you’d enjoy between press and Administration if you voted smart, and elected a President the media hates.
“LA LIBERTAD NO ES GRATIS”
<IN GOD WE TRUST>
“En mi opinión” Lázaro R González Miño Editor.