O'Reilly vs. Feminists
Okay, gotta love this...On March 23 (I've been out of town, so I'm a little late on this one...), Bill O'Reilly is discussing single mothers with two women: Margaret Hoover and Monica Crowley -- both of whom are conservative.
In addressing the now 40% of new mothers in this country who are not married -- many by choice -- and comparing this figure to 5% of single mothers in the 1960s -- all of whom were either widowed or divorced -- O'Reilly says pointedly, "Single motherhood drives poverty if you don't have a father supporting the family."
This is a fact. Not an opinion, a fact.
To which Ms. Hoover says, "Okay, now that's sexist."
Excuse me? This is a perfect example of how feminism has screwed up the thinking process of even conservative women. So O'Reilly says, "It's sexist because I just told the truth. You should be watching the kid anyway and there's got to be someone else giving [the mother] money besides the government."
After some hemming and hawing, Hoover concedes she'll "give him that." Translation: All right, it still sounds sexist to me, but I guess you're right: someone must take care of the child and someone must bring home the bacon.
Duh.
But this is how far feminism has come: so far that we can't even say -- without getting accused of sexism -- that one parent must raise the children while the other provides the means to do so.
Pathetic.
Clare Boothe Luce Conference
I'm off to a conference in CA and won't return until Monday, the 20th. I'll try to keep posting, but I can't make any promises.Understanding Liberal Bias
Recently I was discussing media bias with my socially liberal but fiscally conservative friend. She's your average college-educated, middle-class busy mom of three who's politically aware but not knee-deep in specifics. When I told her I didn't want my children growing up under the liberal umbrella of our public schools, she conceded she doesn't like this either. But then this caveat: "I don't want them growing up with conservative bias either. I want them to make up their own minds about what to think."This conversation stuck with me, as I realized something about everyday Americans (like my friend) who are too busy with their daily lives to be concerned with media bias: they're confused.
Conservative bias is not the opposite of liberal bias (though, I admit, this is a perfectly intelligent assumption). Liberal bias exists for one reason: The overwhelming majority of Americans in power -- college professors, the media, and Hollywood -- are liberal-minded folks and believe being liberal is the good way, the right way, the only way, to be. As a result, they refuse to acknowledge the conservative mindset -- depsite the fact that most people between New York and CA (where most of the media and Hollywood folks reside) consider themselves traditional Americans. To those in power, traditional-minded Americans need to be enlightened to the inner workings of the liberal mind.
The indoctrination begins in college, particularly for those who attend schools on either coast, as I did. I was considered the "conservative" girl from the Midwest when I attended Boston University, where most of my friends hailed from the East Coast. I remember thinking even then how crazy this seemed -- since I am not, and wasn't then, that conservative in my beliefs. It was only compared to modern liberals that I appeared this way. One year I didn't attend a pro-choice rally in Washington D.C. with my friends, for example. I might as well have been a pariah! Funny thing was, I am not (and wasn't then) staunchly pro-life; I'm just not a "ban together with other people to fight for my rights" kind of gal. But this didn't matter. The fact that I wasn't staunchly pro-choice was enough to marginalize me.
After college the indoctrination continues every time you turn on your television or read a magazine. Whether you're watching Lifetime television for women, reading women's magazines, or trying to catch the news, you're bombarded with liberals. You can't escape them. Unfortunately, to the average American who's too busy to pay attention, this all smacks of paranoia.
It is not paranoia.
To see the bias clearly, you have to pay very close attention and take the time to study the messages sent to you every day through the idiot box. Because, trust me, that's what the folks in media are banking on: that you're too busy to realize you're being indoctrinated. Even worse, as Bernard Goldberg points out in Bias, the folks in the media don't even know they're biased. Their arrogance is so severe they truly, honestly believe the liberal view of the world is the only view of the world.
Which brings me back to the alternative. The alternative to liberal bias is not conservative bias. It's regular news, the way news used to be. Not liberal news, or conservative news, just news. And the only way to cover news objectively is to:
1) cover ALL news stories, rather than cherry-picking the producers' favorite ones (which will always include stories of victims and paint America in a bad light)
2) when analyzing the news, offer conservative and liberal perspectives
These two things are not difficult to do. The reason FOX news outperforms the rest is precisely because they figured out this is how America prefers to watch news. They like the debate. They want to hear everything there is to hear, and they want both sides presented.
Liberals will tell you FOX News is conservative news, but keep in mind two things:
1) They don't watch the channel, so they have no idea what they're talking about.
2) While it's true FOX presents conservative views, it also presents liberal views!
In other words, you hear a bit of everything -- and you decide what to think. The fact that Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are traditional-minded Americans doesn't make their shows conservative; it makes them conservative. Moreover, Greta is not a conservative, nor are some of the others. Liberals like to use Rush, Ann, Bill, and Sean as examples, but there are plenty more journalists from whom we're getting our news! Finally, there's a difference between news analyis and straight news. Part of the evening line-up includes news analysis, but the morning programs and dinnertime news hour are supposed to be straight news.
Unfortunately, liberals don't know the difference.
Lies and Deception
Below is a quote from Joseph Farah of World Net Daily. For the longest time I have had a problem using the term "liberal" (though I use it, for lack of a better word) because the term has changed so much over the years -- as my first blog posts explain -- and because people are sick of the term. As soon as people hear the cat fight going, they tune out. A better explanation of what has happened to people in America with respect to having fallen for a person such as Barack Obama is this statement from Farah:"Liberals" are not the enemy. Liberals are mostly people who have been deceived – people who have been programmed to hand over control of their lives to elites. They were programmed to do that from the day they entered school. They got advanced degrees in handing over their liberty when they attended colleges and universities. In most cases, they are nice people who have simply been conditioned to accept control over their lives in exchange for what they perceive to be some measure of security.
Indeed, most people I know who are liberal are good, decent folks. They're not far left "loons," to borrow Bill O'Reilly's phrase. But that's what makes it even worse. These folks truly, honestly believe the junk they've been spoonfed their entire lives. Say something often enough, and it becomes true.
Only by debunking myths over and over again, only by explaining to Americans that they've been misled -- in offering them an alternative point of view -- does this country stand a chance.
The Approval Rating Gap
What else is there to say.Wall Street Journal
MARCH 13, 2009
Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth
By DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN and SCOTT RASMUSSEN
It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true.
The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.
Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date.
Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.
White House Counsel on Women and Girls
You should be worried. Very worried. Not only do we have a socialist president, we have a feminist president. Indeed, we now have a White House Counsel on Women and Girls.Obama family looms large at women's panel launch
Mar 11 06:02 PM US/Eastern
President Barack Obama Wednesday paid poignant tributes to the grandmother who raised him and his mother who died of cancer, at the launch of a high-level forum to advise him on women's issues.
Obama also held up the life story of his wife and "rock" Michelle and the example of his foe turned ally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as he signed an executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls.
"The purpose of this Council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy," Obama said. The council will meet regularly, he said, and will include Clinton, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder among other members, Obama said.
"I sign this order not just as a president, but as a son, a grandson, a husband and a father," Obama said. He cited the example of his mother, Ann Dunham, who educated herself even while she worried about paying the bills and cared for Obama and his sister as a single parent.
Obama also recalled the example of his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who worked hard in the corporate world, but then hit a glass ceiling and saw less qualified men get jobs ahead of her. "I've seen Michelle, the rock of the Obama family, juggling work and parenting with more skill and grace than anybody that I know," he said. "I had the privilege of participating in a historic campaign with a historic candidate who we now have the privilege of calling Madam Secretary."
The new council will work to ensure each government agency is directly orientated to improving the economic status of women and to try to frame policies that establish a balance between work and family.
It will also work with the vice president's office and the Justice Department to seek ways to halt violence against women in the United States and abroad, and work to improve women's healthcare.
So in addition to government handouts, Obama and his cronies are now going to "assure that women and girls are treated fairly in matters of public policy." What era does this man think he's living in?
He's also going to "help women balance work and family," "improve women's health care," and "improve the economic status of women." Give me a break. I knew it was only a matter of time before Obama fell prey to feminist pandering. Judging by this newly formed counsel, he honestly believes women are an oppressed group of victims who need special care. He must be under the impression that violence against women in America is at an all-time high, too. Once again, this man doesn't do his homework. He simply does what he's told.
Scary.
Socialism
Read it and weep:CHAVEZ CALLS ON OBAMA TO FOLLOW PATH OF SOCIALISM
Fri Mar 06 2009 17:13:48 ET Caracas -
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday called upon US President Barack Obama to follow the path to socialism, which he termed as the "only" way out of the global recession. "Come with us, align yourself, come with us on the road to socialism. This is the only path. Imagine a socialist revolution in the United States," Chavez told a group of workers in the southern Venezuelan state of Bolivar. The controversial Venezuelan leader, who taunted the United States as a source of capitalistic evil under former president George W Bush, added that the United States needs a leader who can take it to a "higher" destiny and bring it out of "the sad role that it has been given, as a murderous, attacking power that is hated all around the world."
Chavez said that people are calling Obama a "socialist" for the measures of state intervention he is taking to counter the crisis, so it would not be too far-fetched to suggest that he might join the project of "21st century socialism" that the Venezuelan leader is heading. "Nothing is impossible. Who would have thought in the 1980s that the Soviet Union would disappear? No one," he said. "That murderous, genocidal empire has to end, and some day there has to come a leader ... who interprets the best of a people who also include human beings who suffer, endure, weep and laugh," the outspoken Chavez said.
If you want to brush on your understanding of socialism, I recommend reading the following piece by Patrice Lewis: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=90946.
It's virtually impossible for modern liberals to admit Obama is a socialist. The word has such a negative meaning and connotation (for those who actually know what it means) that most people don't want to be associated with it -- including Obama! I can never figure out whether modern liberals just don't know what it means to be a socialist, or if they steadfastly refuse to admit that the man they voted into office is more radical than they ever dreamed. Either way, they have no one to blame for what's about to happen to this country (or what is happening, I should say) except themselves.
p.s. Yes, I know Obama "inherited" the country's problems; but if you think he's capable of solving them -- or is wisely trying to solve them as we speak -- think again.
Obama's Supposed Eloquence
Below is an article from Politico about Obama's use of a Teleprompter:Obama's safety net: the TelePrompter
By CAROL E. LEE 3/5/09 1:04 PM EST
President Barack Obama doesn’t go anywhere without his TelePrompter.
The textbook-sized panes of glass holding the president’s prepared remarks follow him wherever he speaks.
Resting on top of a tall, narrow pole, they flank his podium during speeches in the White House’s stately parlors. They stood next to him on the floor of a manufacturing plant in Indiana as he pitched his economic stimulus plan. They traveled to the Department of Transportation this week and were in the Capitol Rotunda last month when he paid tribute to Abraham Lincoln in six-minute prepared remarks.
Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.
After the teleprompter malfunctioned a few times last summer and Obama delivered some less-than-soaring speeches, reports surfaced that he was training to wean himself off of the device while on vacation in Hawaii. But no such luck.
His use of the teleprompter makes work tricky for the television crews and photographers trying to capture an image of the president announcing a new Cabinet secretary or housing plan without a pane of glass blocking his face. And it is a startling sight to see such sleek, modern technology set against the mahogany doors and Bohemian crystal chandeliers in the East Room or the marble columns of the Grand Foyer.
“It’s just something presidents haven’t done,” said Martha Joynt Kumar, a presidential historian who has held court in the White House since December 1975. “It’s jarring to the eye. In a way, it stands in the middle between the audience and the president because his eye is on the teleprompter.”
It's funny. I have long thought Obama was eloquent -- too eloquent. As in, something's not quite right here. There was no question he won an election based on his eloquence. He looks and sounds wonderful. If there's one thing he's proven, it's that people are gullible. His worldview is so radical that his own supporters didn't realize how radical he was; they were too busy being mesmerized by his looks and speech. What they didn't know was that he was simply reading.
Even a first-grader can read.
Partisanship
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years. Despite the steadfast belief of some Americans that Obama is extremely popular, his approval ratings are dead average for a president who's been in office for a month. Obama may be a media darling; but there's no evidence to suggest he's popular among everyday Americans.What IS notable is the increasing partisanship that exists under Obama's watch. Indeed, the gap between a president’s rating in his own party vs. the out party has been much wider for the last three presidents compared with their six predecessors. Reagan started with 89 percent approval among Republicans, 71 percent among independents, and 56 percent among Democrats. George Bush senior's first-month approval ratings from these groups were 90, 74 and 64 percent, respectively.
All this changed with Bill Clinton. He started with 86 percent approval from Democrats, but just 59 percent from independents and 40 percent from Republicans. Then George W. Bush – 86 percent in his party, but dropping to 54 percent among independents and 37 percent among Democrats. And now there’s Obama, who based his candidacy on the promise that he would bring people together and end partisanship, with the greatest partisan gap in history. After a month in office, 90 percent of Democrats approve of his work -- compared to 67 percent of independents and 37 percent of Republicans.
Notice I didn't put in bold the figures from the presidents' own parties; it goes without saying such figures will be high. It's the independent and opposing party figures that are jarring. Never before in our nation's history has America been such a divided nation. Why is that?
It goes back to my earlier posts about the difference between liberals and conservatives. Four presidents ago, it would be hard to distinguish between the two -- for liberals and conservatives had much in common. Old-fashioned liberals were no more interested in socialism than conservatives were. It's the change in the Democratic party that has caused this nation to be so divided. Remember: College professors, Hollywood actors, and the media are the most influential people in this country. They have enormous power to change the minds of people who may not be convicted about what they believe. People who are too busy or too lazy to do their own research. People who are young and impressionable.
If there's one thing I've learned in my life that I'm sure of, it's that most people are followers. They want to be a part of the popular group and would rather join the masses than think for themselves. So when modern liberalism became "the popular party," people joined in. After all, it's the feel-good party. It's the party that wants people to "be themselves" and not let The Man hold them down -- which allows a person to do whatever they want, whenever they want. It's the party of the little guy; and since the average nice person wants to help the little guy, they think the Democratic party is where they belong. Unfortuantely, this person has no comprehension that his party holds the little guy down.
Classic liberals knew this. That's why our country wasn't as divided back then. While there were differences of opinion between classic liberals and conservatives, most people understood that capitalism works. They knew that the only way to help the little guy is to create a system that encourages self-sufficiency. They knew that government handouts -- not securities, but handouts -- does nothing to help those in need. Modern liberals changed this by convincing impressionable people that taking from the rich and giving to the poor is indeed a compassionate act. That Obama was elected in the first place is a testament to how uninformed people are today. Because people who know and understand history, who read and think for themselves, and who vote with their heads and not their hearts, would never have voted for Obama.
I'm not one to make political predictions, but ain't no way Obama's going to unify America. The only person can do that is a moderate.
God Bless Clint Eastwood!
The following is from Yahoo News:
--> Eastwood thinks political correctness has made society humourless-->
Fri, Feb 27 01:15 PM
London, February 27 (ANI): Acting legend Clint Eastwood , 79, apparently believes that political correctness has rendered modern society humourless, for he accuses younger generations of spending too much time trying to avoid being offensive.
The Dirty Harry star insists that he should be able to tell harmless jokes about nationality without fearing that people may brand him "a racist"."People have lost their sense of humour. In former times we constantly made jokes about different races. You can only tell them today with one hand over your mouth or you will be insulted as a racist," the Daily Express quoted him as saying."I find that ridiculous. In those earlier days every friendly clique had a 'Sam the Jew' or 'Jose the Mexican' - but we didn't think anything of it or have a racist thought. It was just normal that we made jokes based on our nationality or ethnicity. That was never a problem.
I don't want to be politically correct. We're all spending too much time and energy trying to be politically correct about everything," he added.
Finally, a Hollywood actor with some guts.
