Thursday, February 27, 2014

The Democrat war on women

A new study indicates that using oral contraceptives increase women's chance of getting MS by up to 30%.

You're not going to hear about this in the liberal leaning media nor will Democrat politicians complain about it for the simple reason that in the view of Democrats women should be sex objects who can also earn money.

Liberal men don't want to have to commit to a woman and they really don't like kids all that much.  As a result even though the UN has determined that the pill is a major carcinogen--which few people realize because the liberal Democrat leaning media never mention it-- and now we know that the pill can increase women's risk of getting MS liberals do nothing to either spread the news or reduce the huge risk to women's health.

Also keep in mind that Democrats support sex selection abortions which are almost always targeted at unborn women.

There is a war on women in America today, a war waged by Democrats to ensure that women can be used as sex objects no matter what the cost is to women's health.  Democrats don't care about the deleterious side effects of the pill or that fact that women are targeted in sex selection abortions.  Essentially Democrats are comfortable killing unborn women because they are women and adversely impacting the health of women just so women can be used as sex objects.

Amazingly the Democrats condemn Republicans for Republican's unwillingness to make lower income Black taxpayers subsidize rich white women's contraception even though those contraceptives hurt women.

Democrats are supportive of women so long as women are like men--in the work force making money--but they could care less about women who want to be women--having babies and raising children.  Sure women have what it takes to be great workers but they also have what it takes to be great mothers and most women at some point want to be a mother. Yet Democrats condemn women for raising their children--unless of course the women turns her kids over to strangers and works an80 hour week--while declaring that Democrats are the supporters of women.

Next time a liberal yaps about the Republican war on women ask him if he supports sex selection abortion. Then ask him if he thinks women should take the pill even though it is a carcinogen and it raises the risk of women getting MS.

If he supports either of those things point out that he, not Republicans, is the one waging a war on women.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Hillary Clinton, Benghazi, and the best case scenario

Liberals claim conservatives are going overboard about Benghazi simply because conservatives don’t like Hillary Clinton.

To counteract that let’s look at a best-case assessment of Ms Clinton’s involvement in the disaster at Benghazi.

First let’s look at the facts which are a matter of public record and not subject to debate:

·      The US Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans died in the attack.
·      It was known that there were significant terrorist elements in Libya
·      The State Department did not increase security in spite of warnings
·      The State Department made extensive changes to the CIA talking points to eliminate references to terrorist involvement
·      The attack was not an outgrowth of a mob or demonstration
·      Ms Clinton called for the prosecution of an American who exercised his First Amendment rights.
·      An unnamed State Department source said on 9/13/2012 that there the anti-Muslim movie had nothing to do with the attack
·      Ms Clinton on 9/14/2012 continued to blame the movie
·      The State Department didn’t acknowledge that there were no protesters until 10/9/2012

Let’s assume that at all times Ms Clinton acted solely based on the best interests of America; that her political future in no way impacted any of her actions.

What can we then conclude about Ms. Clinton’s capabilities?

The bipartisan Senate report clearly concluded that the Benghazi tragedy could have been avoided because of the warnings that were available and pins the blame on the State Department and the Intelligence Community.

How Ms Clinton failed keep Americans safe and how she reacted to her failure provides insights into her suitability for the Presidency.

The first negative assessment of Ms Clinton in this best case scenario is based on the fact that she didn’t think terrorists might find attacking on 9/11 tempting.

Her reasoning could have gone one of several ways:
·      Terrorism is no longer a real problem so we needn’t be concerned
·      There are no terrorists in Libya so we needn’t be concerned
·      She didn’t bother to think about the issue at all

In the first case she would have demonstrated an amazingly inaccurate understanding of a key threat to the US.  Could we ever trust someone with that sort of outlook to run America’s foreign policy as President?

In the second case she would have demonstrated not listening to her subordinates, having selected subordinates who were not up to the task, or of having created a climate where raising the issue of terrorism was frowned on.  Clearly someone who ran such a dysfunctional organization is ill suited for running the entire government.

In the third case Ms Clinton would have demonstrated a significant failure in determining what was important.  Do we want a President who can’t prioritize critical issues?

The second negative assessment we can make about Ms Clinton is based on her declaration that she would ensure that the maker of the anti-Muslim movie would be punished.

The first key insight this provides to us is that Ms Clinton believes the First Amendment does not apply to attacks on Muslims and/or to anything that would make US foreign policy harder.  She has not gone on record condemning such anti-Christian artwork as “Piss Christ”—a crucifix in a jar of the “artists” urine – so one has to wonder if she believes that Muslims are more protected than Christians.

Sticking to the concept of best-case analysis however let’s assume that Ms Clinton believes that any artist who produces a piece of art which is offensive to any religious group should be prosecuted.  Do we really want a President who believes that the full power of government should be applied to anyone who creates offensive art?  Christians didn’t call for “Piss Christ” to be destroyed or its creator “punished” but only for condemnation of the work and for the government to not pay for it.

In a similar vein let’s suppose that Ms Clinton only feels that those individuals whose art or expression creates problems for US foreign policy should be subject to prosecution.  Given that the First Amendment was intended to protect political speech, not pornography, it would be very bad to have a President who believed that American’s don’t have the right to publically express condemnation of foreign groups.  From a liberal perspective if this is Ms Clintons belief there is an even more serious problem.  Muslims constantly condemn the US as a source of pornography. Hence Ms Clinton may feel a need to prosecute all producers of pornography that offends Muslims; something liberals would clearly find as intolerable.

Finally even if we assume that Ms Clinton actually believed that Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous riot it seems odd that her first response would be to blame a movie made in America rather than the Libyan mob. Do we want a President who thinks that the problems in the world are due to American movies and not violent Muslims?  Shouldn’t the President condemn murder more than she condemns making offensive movies?

The last major failing of Ms Clinton is that under her the State Department was completely ineffective in keeping her apprised of world events.

Long after there was clear evidence that the attack on Benghazi was not a mob gone bad Ms Clinton kept pitching that story to the American people.

Those who think ill of Ms Clinton would say that she was deliberately lying to protect Obama in return for Obama supporting her in the 2016 primaries. But from the best-case approach that can’t be true.

The only possible conclusion is that Ms Clintons own hand picked staff and advisors were either lying to her or so incompetent that they were unable to find out the facts themselves. Do we want a President who is so inept in picking critical subordinates? What sort of Cabinet appointments can we expect from Ms Clinton given her apparent abject failure in staffing at the State Department?

Using a best-case analysis where we assume that politics had no influence on Ms Clintons actions we can conclude that:

·      She does not understand the role of terrorism in the modern world: she did not understand that Americans might be at risk in a country full of terrorists on 9/11
·      She does not believe in the First Amendment: she wants to punish a man for his Constitutionally protected free speech
·      She does not know how to select good subordinates: her staff were incapable of keeping her up-to-date on what had happened in Benghazi

Even in the best-case scenario it’s clear that Ms Clinton lacks some of the key characteristics we need in a President.

Feel free to follow tom on Twitter

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Liberal Lies 203: Republicans want to cut Social Security

While perusing formerly newspaper based cartoons on the web I was targeted with the same ad over and over; Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer warning me that people want to cut Social Security and Medicare.

The only person who's cutting Social Security and Medicare is President Obama, with the support of Senators Boxer and Feinstein.

President Obama is proposing to cut Social Security by $130 Billion and Medicare by $380Billion.

So Boxer and Feinstein are trying to gin up outrage over the cuts to Medicare and Social Security that they support, since they support Obama.

Another example of how truth is not considered important in liberal land.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Democrats unending war on Blacks

Democrats talk a lot about the fictitious war on women—while supporting sex selection abortion— but the real war in America has been going on for nearly 150 years; Democrat’s war on Blacks.

After the Civil war Democrats passed laws to oppress Blacks, Democrats made Blacks sit in the back of the bus, Democrats founded the KKK, and Democrats, like George Wallace and Orval Faubus,  fought to keep schools segregated.

It was no accident that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican; after all from Lincoln on it was Republicans who fought for the civil rights of Blacks and Democrats who fought for segregation.

When solid Republican support for the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the clear trend away from popular support for public discrimination against Blacks made racism uncool Democrats had to find some other way to keep Blacks “in their place” and simultaneously get Blacks to vote for their oppressors.

The Democrats war on Blacks has 4 main aspects:

·      Keep Blacks in poverty
·      Keep the number of Blacks low
·      Keep Blacks poorly educated
·      Persecuting Blacks who don’t support Democrats

Keeping Blacks in poverty:

LBJ, a staunch racist, came up with the “Great Society” in order to buy Black votes saying
“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years”

While it may be that some Democrats actually thought that incentivizing Blacks to have babies and not get married—welfare benefits grew if a woman was single and with the number of children—was a good way to help Blacks but by the 1970’s it was clear that the “Great Society” was destroying Black families and creating multi-generational poverty.

The best way to keep a child out of poverty is to ensure that her parents get and stay married.  Children raised by a single parent are 5.5 times more likely to be raised in poverty than children raised by married parents. Clearly a program that helped out of wedlock births for Blacks go from 24% in 1965 to 72% today is clearly not going to help Blacks escape poverty.

But even though it was clear that the “Great Society” was hurting Blacks Democrats made no move to modify it; perhaps because Democrats were only concerned about getting Black votes not about helping Blacks.

In fact only Bill Clintons desire to be reelected allowed Republicans to reform welfare in the 1990’s which lead to a dip in the out of wedlock births in the Black community.

But welfare isn’t the only weapon Democrats use to keep Blacks poor.

Democrats push for a higher minimum wage is a
slap in the face of low skilled—due to the Democrats lack of concern about the failure of inner city schools— Blacks since it will increase the already astronomical Black youth unemployment rates.

Similarly Democrats pushing for legalizing illegal aliens—sadly assisted by some Republicans—don’t seem to care about the
impact on Black employment of suddenly having millions of low skill workers competing with Blacks. Could it be that having Blacks on the plantation…err dependent on the government for survival helps Democrats win elections?

Keeping Blacks a minority:

Today the leading cause of death for Black Americans is abortion.  Yet Democrats constantly honor Planned Parenthood whose founder was a virulent racist and which has been caught on tape accepting donations targeted at aborting Black babies.

Before the White elite Democrats forced him to change his tune Jesse Jackson was pro-life saying

Abortion is genocide.

A not surprising remark given that Black women are 3
times as likely to abort their children than White women and that 79% of Planned Parenthood abortion mills are in minority neighborhoods; where those considered to be unworthy of reproducing according to Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, live.

If Democrats really cared about Blacks they’d share Republicans concern about this horrible racial inequality; after all Democrats are incensed about a supposed wage gap between men and women so why aren’t they concerned that Blacks are 3 times more likely to be killed before they have a chance to be born than Whites?

Keeping Blacks poorly educated:

Democrat run cities like Chicago have horrible inner city schools and the gap between White and Black test scores is widening.  Yet Democrats do nothing other than demand higher pay for unionized teachers—probably because the teachers unions give huge amounts of money to Democrat candidates.  Given that the average salary—not counting benefits—of a Chicago public school teacher is $76,000 one would expect that Black students should be getting a good education if money was the real problem.

Many Black parents make huge sacrifices to send their children to private schools where the kids stand a chance of getting a decent education.  Conservatives have pushed school voucher programs so more Black children can get the education they deserve but Democrats fight choice at every turn.

President Obama has worked tirelessly to end school vouchers for poor Blacks in D.C..  Eric Holder tried to end a voucher program in Louisiana, even though >85% of the students benefiting from the program are Black.  Holder went so far as to attempt to get the court to refuse to listen to the arguments of Black parents whose children benefited from the program.

Now in New York we see Democrat de Blasio starting to try and eliminate charter schools even though those schools serve a
disproportionate percentage, 1.6 times higher in charter schools than in NY public schools, of Blacks and have a record of giving those at risk children a good education.

If Democrats really cared about Blacks the inner city schools would not continue to fail Black students as they have done for generations.  Maybe Democrats wouldn’t support competition that would force the public schools to care but they would support something other than giving pay raises to employee’s who have failed decades of Black students.

But keeping Blacks uneducated makes them more likely to vote Democratic so for Democrats the failed schools are a win win proposition.

Persecuting Blacks who aren’t house n*ggers

Any Black man who does not toe the Democrat party line is open to vicious attacks while any criticism of Obama’s policies is immediately labeled as racist.

Can you imagine the response if a conservative said that Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was “an embarrassment to the Supreme Court” and his “opinions are poorly written."? Yet when Harry Reid said that of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Democrats were silent—even though in the same interview Reid praised Justice Scalia who is a white conservative.

Similarly look at how Democrats attack any conservative Black from Cain to Sowell; their language is little different than that used by Democrats in the 1950’s.

By making Blacks think they’re race traitors if they don’t vote Democrat Democrats ensure that Blacks will vote Democrat even if Democrats do nothing for Blacks.

For over 150 Democrats have waged a war to co-opt, marginalize, and oppress Blacks using violence in the beginning and now soft power.

It’s time that Democrats motives are questioned and Democrats failure to help Blacks be attacked.  Some Black pastors are starting to speak out noting that after generations of voting for Democrats Blacks are still poor but they need the help of all Americans to end America’s longest running war.

Feel  free to follow tom on Twitter