Pandering: 1.a person who furnishes clients for a prostitute or supplies persons for illicit sexual intercourse; procurer; pimp. 2. a person who caters to or profits from the weaknesses or vices of others. 3. a go-between in amorous intrigues. verb (used without object) 4. to act as a pander; cater basely: to pander to the vile tastes of vulgar persons. (From dictionary.com)
I would never want this word bandied about in association with my name- ever. And yet we hear on news reports and other commentators that President Obama is “pandering” to certain groups of people or “niches”. At first his campaign was targeting female voters with the phony “Republican War on Women”. His campaign pits the poor against the rich. In a hypocritical move, Obama told the wealthiest of the wealthiest from New York and Hollywood’s A-listers, “You’re the tie-breaker… You’re the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes”.
In May of 2012, Obama’s support of gay marriage opened doors for him to campaign openly to any and all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender groups all over this great country. It is ironic that his support for LGBT may have cost him some support with his largest base – the African American community.
In spite of the fact that Republican Senator Marco Rubio has been working on a Dream Act alternative that would legally address the issue of children born to illegal immigrants, Obama signed an Executive Order that stops the deportation of 800,000 illegals. Obama is so desperate for the Hispanic vote that he has bypassed his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. A country without borders is not a country. Every other country in the world understands this. Even Mexico.
Okay – before anyone starts labeling me or calling me names, let me give you my reasons for bringing up the previous points. #1 – Pandering. I realize that politics is a dirty game and must be won at all costs, but Obama is already our…our President. Isn’t this right? In my lifetime, in your lifetime, do you remember such divisiveness by any President or campaign? Do you remember reading about any campaign in the history of our nation that has resorted to labeling people, separating groups of Americans, or trying to call attention to our differences? This President, this man who was to be the “great uniter” has been the great divider. He panders to groups, dividing us like marbles in a child’s game. He is carefully placing us into groups by size, color, and worth (not to mention religion, class, party, etc.) Where do you fit into his strategy? This is no game, my friends.
Let’s talk about Gay Marriage and the entire LGBT issue. As Hollywood celebrates and many congratulate Obama’s “forward” thinking, I ask you to look at reality. Open your eyes to the truth that is staring at you. Just this past April, The White House opened its doors and hosted members of The Muslim Brotherhood. Who are the Muslim Brotherhood? They are Shariah-compliant, theocratic dictators. They are known to support terrorism and terrorists. In relation to how this affects the LGBT community, Shariah Law and Islam are very clear about homosexuality: it is not tolerated. Punishment is severe. The guilty are beaten, tortured, or executed.
The Democrats and Obama Administration failed at their “War on Women” as they should, because with this Administration embracing the Muslim Brotherhood, all women in this country should be very afraid for their future. Shariah Law suppresses women and their rights. Women are merely considered as property. Under Shariah, women would be diminished to the level of our dogs…or worse.
The Muslim Brotherhood eliminates free speech. They teach hatred toward Christians and Jews. That’s not all. They hate Western Civilization and top on their list is the United States of America. That’s you. That’s your child…your neighbor. That’s your Catholic or Christian immigrant neighbor from another country.
So, I ask you, what is Obama doing pandering to the Muslim Brotherhood?
In 2009, while commenting on our poor economic health, Obama said, “I will be held accountable…If I don’t have this done in 3 years, then there’s going to be a ONE term proposition”. Today he’s trying to re-spin this statement because of his failures. The price of gas is up, food prices have skyrocketed, un-employment is high, the housing market is in the toilet, etc. It doesn’t matter if you are Gay, Straight, Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Legal, Illegal, Married, Single, Student or a Senior Citizen – this economy is Obama’s economy. He asked for it. He campaigned for it. He said he could and would fix it. It has been 3 years and the gig is up.
Now it is time for a President that speaks to us as a “people”…as a nation. Forget the “hope and change”. Forget “forward”. Put the car in reverse. Back up. Set a new course and look for the familiar road signs: Freedom, Liberty, Prosperity…
I’m voting for Mitt Romney. I’m voting for a man that I know is FOR America, not AGAINST America. I’m voting for a man that doesn’t have ties with terrorists. I’m voting for a man that IS on the side of women. I’m voting for a man that doesn’t divide Americans by race or group or religion. I’m voting for a man that doesn’t divide poor from rich. I’m voting for a man that sees me as quite simply, Debi Devens – American.
As the 2012 election draws closer, Democrats desperately want to divert the public’s attention away from President Obama’s abysmal record on the economy and jobs. It seems no attack on Republicans is too absurd or too low to make toward that effort. Case in point: The Democrats now preposterously claim that the GOP is waging a “War on Women,” and the media is shamelessly going along with that fact-free propaganda slogan. With a straight face, they insist that Americans should be gullible enough to believe that Republicans truly hate women and want to enact laws to prevent them from getting any birth control.
The truth is, Republicans simply don’t want to have to pay for someone else’s birth control—or use government force to require a religious institution to violate its sacred beliefs. The GOP wants to stay out of bedrooms and churches. (To nip the standard liberal red herring in the bud: no, being pro-life is not being in your bedroom; it’s being pro-pre-natal care. Using the Democratic playbook, Republicans could easily, disingenuously ask: Why do Democrats hate pre-natal care?)
Women writers from across the political spectrum have documented the fact that when it comes to making vicious attacks on female political opponents, the Democrats take the cake…and then deny they ate it. Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers bravely penned a piece for the Daily Beast (“Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist”), calling out liberally abusive commentators:
Did you know there is a war on women? Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts.
Right-wing author Michelle Malkin’s most recent syndicated column, “The War on Conservative Women,” chronicled the ugly side of being a conservative woman in the public eye from her own personal experience. In it, she also pointed out that it’s not just liberal men doing the name-calling and slandering:
Self-serving opponents argue that such attacks do not represent “respectable,” “mainstream” liberal opinion about their conservative female counterparts. But it was feminist godmother Gloria Steinem who called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator.” It was NOW leader Patricia Ireland who commanded her flock to only vote for “authentic” female political candidates. It was Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf who accused the late Jeane Kirkpatrick of being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body.”
Conservative blogger Nice Deb has dug through the internet to compile another collection of left-wing venom and hypocrisy in her post “The Left’s War On Conservative Women.”
The Real War on Women
It all seems so important, proving our side is the truly aggrieved party—and it is, in terms of not letting a false narrative take root in the minds of the voting public. But when it comes to the phrase “War on Women,” it is utterly ridiculous for that phrase to be used in relation to any Western women. On this International Women’s Day, we need to turn our eyes to the true assaults on women.
One such assault was launched yesterday by the Afghanistan government and clerics. The US-sanctioned appeasement of the Taliban has begun blossoming in full, with Afghan women getting pushed back into the burqa and isolated in the home. As reported in the back pages of American newspapers (and on FoxNews.com):
Afghanistan’s president on Tuesday endorsed a “code of conduct” issued by an influential council of clerics that activists say represents a giant step backward for women’s rights in the country.
President Hamid Karzai’s Tuesday endorsement of the Ulema Council’s document, which allows husbands to beat wives under certain circumstances and encourages segregation of the sexes, is seen as part of his outreach to insurgents like the Taliban.
Both the U.S. and Karzai hope that the Taliban can be brought into negotiations to end the country’s decade-long war. But activists say they’re worried that gains made by women since 2001 may be lost in the process.
While the Democrats and their leader, Barack Obama, have taken to the microphones to phonily decry their ginned-up “GOP war on women” since this declaration was made, they have uttered no disapproval of the Afghan move. After all, if they were to complain, they might hinder the negotiations to turn the country over to the Taliban (ok, perhaps not officially, but does anyone doubt that will be the end result?) so our military can hurriedly leave by Obama’s rushed political timetable.
Surely our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—who used to tout her daring to lecture China on women’s rights during her stint as First Lady—would feel compelled to speak out and issue a statement. But no, she didn’t, even though she, and Obama, had to have seen this coming.
Two years ago, she authorized $500 million to go to Karzai to grease the wheels in negotiating with the women-hating people killing our soldiers: the Taliban and other “insurgents.” Then, in May 2010 when Karzai visited DC and the public expressed concern over his Taliban negotiations, Clinton vowed to a group of visiting Afghan women, “We will not abandon you, we will stand with you always.”
But feminist-hero Clinton’s State Department has been waffling and weakening on Afghan women’s rights ever since. Now, in the wake of this new and worrisome development, instead of taking Karzai to task, they have stuck their head in the sand and made not a peep about this reignition of a true War on Women.
Here’s a few things with which Clinton and the Obama State Department have no problem, as reported in the FoxNews.com story:
Among the rules: Women should not travel without a male guardian and women should not mingle with strange men in places like schools, markets or offices. Beating one’s wife is prohibited only if there is no “Shariah-compliant reason,” it said, referring to the principles of Islamic law.
Asked about the code of conduct at a press conference in the capital, Karzai said it was in line with Islamic law and was written in consultation with Afghan women’s groups. He did not name the groups that were consulted.
“The clerics’ council of Afghanistan did not put any limitations on women,” Karzai said, adding: “It is the Shariah law of all Muslims and all Afghans.”
According to the Guardian, Karzai’s Taliban appeasement could lead to the expulsion of women from the Afghan government and the loss of 10 years of hard-won gains:
The clerics renounced the equality of men and women enshrined in the Afghan constitution, suggesting they consider the document that forms the basis of the Afghan state to be flawed from a religious perspective.
“Men are fundamental and women are secondary,” the statement says, according to a translation by Afghan analyst Ahmad Shuja. “Also, lineage is derived from the man. Therefore, the use of words and expressions that contradict the sacred verses must be strictly avoided.”
The statement drew criticism in parliament, where some politicians took it as a direct assault on the constitution and the wider government. If a ban on men and women working and studying together were implemented, it would in effect dissolve the legislature. (emphasis added)
How ironic that just last week, Obama issued his annual proclamation declaring March as Women’s History Month, with today March 8 as International Women’s Day. What a history we have developing in Afghanistan.
Likewise, the UN issued an International Women’s Day statement from their United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan calling on the Karzai government to finally get around to implementing its anti-violence against women act:
Enacted in August 2009, the landmark Elimination of Violence against Women (EVAW) law criminalises child marriage, forced marriage, selling and buying women for the purpose or under the pretext of marriage, baad (giving away a woman or girl to settle a dispute), forced self-immolation and 17 other acts of violence against women including rape and beating. It also specifies punishment for perpetrators.
In spite of these legal protections under the EVAW law and other constitutional safeguards for women, violence against women and girls remains pervasive in Afghanistan with an inconsistent response from Afghan authorities.
UNAMA found that judicial and law enforcement officials were implementing sporadically the two-year-old law and were not yet applying the law to the majority of cases of violence against women. The report determined that many cases of violence against Afghan women were withdrawn or mediated including serious crimes that would require prosecution with a low number of cases prosecuted.
“I have knocked all doors to get rid of violence but all my complaints had fallen on deaf ears. Instead, the prosecutor accused me of lying and warned me of dire consequence,” 15-year-old Sadat said while undergoing treatment in a Herat hospital. She had set herself on fire due to repeated and unaddressed domestic violence. Sadat later died in a hospital in Turkey where she was taken for further treatment.
They can quote a 15-year-old girl’s heart-breaking words from her deathbed, but the UN can’t bother to note the deal Karzai had just approved days before that will make life brutal again for all the other women and girls of Afghanistan.
But the real War on Women is not confined to Afghanistan. It is being waged on women around the world, as Nina Shea, co-author of Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide, showed in an excellent roundup at National Review Online, outlining the atrocities happening daily in:
Shea didn’t have room to mention hundreds of other unspeakable offenses, including ones that occur outside the Muslim world, such as India’s pervasive problem with selectively aborting female babies, creating extreme societal problems that are also seen in China where they abide a similar practice as a result of the one-child policy.
The point is, those are the places that are experiencing a real War on Women, not here in Chicago, El Paso and San Francisco. It is an insult to those women fighting real threats in distant lands to apply that phrase to a hyperbolic political argument between the Left and the Right in the United States, where we women have it cushier than anywhere else in the world.
I’ve proudly been a member of “Bloggers for Cruz” supporting Ted Cruz’s campaign for U.S. Senate since last summer. I’ve seen him at countless events throughout Texas and our great nation. Tea Party events, Republican Women’s Club meetings, the Texas Straw Poll, Empower Texan’s Senate debate, and CPAC last year and again this year. Ted repeatedly proves his dedication to meet with us, listen to us and talk with us about the importance of what our next Senator from Texas should do to put our country back on track to prosperity.
Just yesterday, the North Texas Tea Party released their February poll numbers from their membership regarding the US Senate Race and Ted led the dominated the candidates, winning with 57.5% of the vote. Wow. Just wow.
The final results were as follows:
And today, the poll out by the Texas Tribune/UT further shows a Cruz surge continues and that he is headed to a runoff with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. This new, independent, statewide poll shows that Dewhurst is at 38%, Cruz at 27% and the next two candidates are 20 points behind at 7%. This means the race is headed for a runoff between Cruz and Dewhurst.
UT pollster Jim Henson summarizes the situation: “Cruz is in the advantageous position right now of, for the most part, defending his ideas against Dewhurst’s record. In the last few cycles, that’s been a good place to be, and not to be the person who’s having to defend your actions in government.”
Yes! The campaign is surging and Ted’s message of returning our country to the limited government principles our Founding Fathers is resonating amongst Texas voters. But a Super PAC will soon be launching in Texas that will attack all others so we need to keep the Cruz Crew momentum alive!
Listen to Ted as he speaks with Steve Bannon about the U.S. Senate battleground:
It goes without saying that Newt Gingrich is brilliant. I would easily pay to watch Newt debate Obama with a Guinness and nachos by my side. The verbal smackdown of Obama would be well worth the price of admission knowing Newt’s impeccable debate prowess and knowledge of history.
With these credientials who could possibly say no to a Newt presidency? Well, I for one adore the aforementioned part of Newt. But let’s look at Newt from another perspective so we understand exactly what the conservative conundrum is at the moment. My memory is a long one and for some reason this picture keeps coming to mind. (more…)
Rick Perry announced today that he was dropping out and endorsing Newt Gingrich. Thus the campaign of the man James Carville called the worst Presidential candidate ever came to a disappointing end. Many conservatives, myself included, wanted nothing more than for Perry to become the candidate who would defeat Mitt Romney and carry the conservative banner to victory over Obama. Now that that dream has ended, it makes me wonder if Perry’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich will make much of a difference.
It’s no secret that Gingrich, Perry and Rick Santorum are fighting over many of the same voters, the anti-Mitt bloc. Perry had been polling the lowest in South Carolina, a state where he should have had a considerable natural advantage. After a surge in Iowa, Santorum seems to have faded. Now, it seems, Gingrich has emerged once again as the flavor of the week to face off against Romney.
In addition to the endorsement of Perry, Gingrich has recently picked up the endorsement of many other conservatives and Tea Party leaders, including Politicalistas founder and co-Chairman of the Not Mitt Romney movement, Ali Akbar.
The question now, though, is whether Gingrich can discipline himself and his campaign enough to make those endorsements matter. His personal failings are well documented and public. His flirtations with liberal policies are known. And the news out today that he asked his former wife for an “open marriage” so that he could carry on an affair with his current wife surely won’t help.
What do you think? Will Gingrich be able to ride his recent momentum to victory? Or will he end up self destructing as so many have predicted?