Tuesday, October 30, 2012

There's Something About Lilly Ledbetter

I've been getting a lot of this on twitter lately, and, frankly, it's starting to get on my nerves. Obama's voice must be so charming and smooth people forget to do their own research or learn stuff. I wasn't the best student in high school, but History and ELP (Economics, Legal, and Political) were my absolute favorites. It's easy stuff. The Lilly Ledbetter Act wasn't on my radar until a few months. I kept hearing it, but I didn't care, until President Obama wouldn't shut up about it, so I looked it up myself. Why that's so hard for Obama Zombie Liberals is beyond me.

So what is The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Ignore the "Fair Pay" part because that's kind of a misnomer. The Act does not guarantee equal pay. I will repeat: The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act does not guarantee equal pay. What does it do? Stephen Feller from Newsmax.com puts it so eloquently:
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act extends the statute of limitations time frame within which a lawsuit can be brought against an employer for discriminatory actions, seemingly preventing a company from removing the employee responsible for the discrimination and escaping from any penalty for the action.
In English, instead of having only 180 days (or whatever the state's statute of limitations on that particular law happens to be) from the initial discrimination, that 180 days resets with each new paycheck. The act does not say an employer must pay a woman equal to a man. THE Equal Pay Act was signed in 1963 by John Kennedy. Equal pay is still a problem, of course. What this law does is it allows for more lawsuits without fixing the problem, which is a recurring theme throughout Obama's presidency. I, me personally, happen to like statute of limitations. Thought some of them seem unfair, I understand the purpose and need for them. To me, it helps guarantee a person's right to due process under the law.

In order for women to get equal pay they have to have a job first. With regards to unemployment, women are suffering worse than men and I was one of those women up until a few weeks ago. Now I'm underemployed working a crap job I thank God everyday for. Honestly, equal pay is not at the top of my list. So next time anyone decides to come at me on twitter claiming I don't support equal pay because I'm voting for Romney I'm going to throw a link to this post at them like a punch to the face.

How Many Days Until the Election...?



Seven Days. One More Week. This never ending political game is almost over and now is not the time to act like we're up by four touchdowns. It's close and we WILL NOT spike the football, we won't take a knee. We've got work to do. Make phone calls, go door to door, wear your Romney/Ryan t-shirts, sport your bumper stickers, blog, tweet, start Facebook conversations, talk to your family. Tell people to vote early or wake up early on election day. In seven days we get to tell Obama to pack his bags and move the hell out of the White House.

Yes, there's a hurricane and people are struggling and suffering, but for those of us who only know the devastation through the news, we have an election to win. Let them put their lives together, we'll carry on the fight for them. Don't get distracted or lose focus. Pictures of Obama acting like a president doesn't change the fact that unemployment is high, the debt is out of control, Obamacare will cost jobs, and Tyrone Woods was told to "stand down."

Clear Eyes. Full Hearts. America Can't Lose.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Lady Parts vs. Lady Smarts

You have a choice, ladies: Are you the sum of your reproductive organs or do you have a working brain between your ears?


Friday, October 26, 2012

#MoreFreeCrap

Someone had to do it, and no one better than Stephen Crowder. Yes! It's a parody of Obama's "My First Time" ad. It speaks for itself, just watch:

Trust In Me

Remember Kaa, the snake from The Jungle Book? He hypnotizes little Mowgli so he can eat him, while singing the song "Trust in Me?" I'm not saying Obama wants to eat the American people, but he is a snake in the grass.

Here's the deal: Mitt Romney did more than win  that first debate, he made the remaining debates a waste of time. He made Obama look like a weak challenger. Romney came off as presidential and a worthy presidential alternative. For many Americans, the substance is something they don't understand so they don't care - it's about image. The image of Obama sleeping through that debate hasn't gone away, and neither has his condescending behavior. For months, Obama has been defining Romney and voters were seeing him through Obama's eyes. That was the advantage Obama  had, but he threw that away during that first debate. Mitt Romney is now defining himself. He's not the man Obama said he was and it makes people question Obama and there's nothing people can do to turn that around. But he can try really hard.

His latest from the stump is telling his supporters, in one way or another, that Mitt Romney can't be trusted. "You want someone you can trust," he says, "You know I mean what I say."  He's not giving his supporters or undecided voters a reason to vote for him, he's manipulating them. Obama calling himself trustworthy is hilarious to me given the scandal he's found himself in with Benghazi. He told us his administration would be the most transparent, yet he can't talk about Benghazi without lying, pretending he said things he didn't say. Does he mean what he says? He said GDP would be at 4.0% and we're barely limping along with 2.0%. He said he would cut the debt in half when he's added $5 Trillion, triple what we promised. He promised unemployment would be around 5.4% by this time, but we're at 7.8% which is where Bush left us. I'm supposed to trust a man who's as good as Big Bad Bush on his worst day? Let's not forget executive privilege with Fast and Furious, the fact that Gitmo is still open, the "hidden" taxes in Obamacare, and how his so-called "Affordable" Care Act has driven up the price of health care and has forced many doctors to stop taking Medicare patients or give up their practices altogether.

The word "trust" is a hot word. It's heavy and has a lot of meaning. It resonates with people, and he knows that. He can't talk about his records, and no one takes his "plan" seriously, so he's playing mind games with words. The momentum and enthusiasm is on Romney's side, and the polls show it, and Obama can't find anything to say for himself outside of verbally beating down Romney? If is he can't give you reason to trust him, and his promises are no good, then why should you trust him?

Obama Wants To Be Your First

Once upon a time, Barack Obama had a huge advantage with the female vote, then a mysterious political monster came and closed the gap and now women are seeing Mitt Romney through their own eyes and not Obama's. This is a problem for the Obama campaign. How could this not work, with all their talk about free birth control and abortion and their Planned Parenthood lies and misleading the American public on the Lily Ledbetter Act? Obama treating women like they only care about what's in between their legs has backfired. Women want equal pay, Mr. President, but they want a job first. In an effort to regain the momentum he's lost with women, his campaign released this ad:



You do political ads that target a specific demographic with the purpose of reaching them where they're at, using words, phrases, and situations they'll connect with; so someone somewhere, or Obama himself, thought alluding to sex would resonate with women. Our President thinks this is the American Woman mindset? What are we? Streetwalkers? Spoken like a bad boyfriend who can't keep his promises, Obama's basically saying, "I'll do all this stuff and take care of you, baby, if you do this for me." It's wrong for Romney to seek women to work in his Cabinet, but it's okay for Obama to seek out women's voters like they're virgins at a frat party? I don't know who Lena Dunham is, nor do I care, but congrats to her on becoming the new "Julia," I know Sandra Fluke was really gunning for that prize. I would much rather waste my vote on a man who thinks, as a woman, I am valuable to the workforce than a man who thinks I only have one thing on my mind. I guess no one gave his campaign the memo that speaking to women's lady parts isn't helping.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

It's Not Over

I don't like polls. They make my nerves bad and my stomach ache. I don't like hearing the word "poll" this late in the game, but I can't ignore this. Gallup released a new "7-day rolling average" poll today and Romney is up 52% to Obama's 45% among likely voters. On "The Five" today, Bob Beckel was asked by his conservative co-hosts what he thought about the numbers and he said if the numbers are true, "It's Over". It's been said many times, Karl Rove in particular, that anyone who polls above 50% historically has never lost the election. This is huge and a little scary.

I'm here to say that it's not over. Early voting started in North Carolina today, and we still have less than three weeks until election day. It's the fourth quarter, fourth down and 10 yards to the end zone. I will say it again: This Is Not Over. This is not the time to spike the football. Send your prayers now for open minds and open hearts because we have one more debate left and Obama has to go. Don't get happy over a miracle poll, this fight isn't over until the last vote is counted.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Race Over Grace

Actress Stacey Dash announced on twitter the other day her support for Mitt Romney and the backlash was expected and disgusting. Like I said yesterday, I don't understand how people live in this head space or how people can believe black people should think the same. We should be Democrats and support Barack Obama because...we're black? That doesn't make any sense to me. We're no longer in chains or limited by Jim Crow, so why would we stay shackled in this mental slavery where we have to believe, think, act, and vote a certain way? We of all Americans should understand and feel freedom, yet black people are willfully enslaved by the Democrat Party. Why? Other than be black in the White House, what has Obama done for the black community? Give us more food stamps? Free phones? Increase black unemployment? Diminish the black middle class? It's one thing for white people to suggest black people should think alike, but when black people drag their own people back to the plantation, it's heartbreaking. Harriet Tubman didn't risk her life for this and Martin Luther King Jr. didn't die for this. If you are black and you have it in your head that you should vote, think, act, listen to music, wear clothes, or do anything a certain way because you're black, then free yourself. 

Every now and then people on twitter like to call me a sell out or tell me I've sold out. I don't understand that either. Nothing I agree with is in line with the Democrat Party. I'm extremely pro-life, I don't support gay marriage, I don't like affirmative action, I don't like Big Government, and I believe in teaching a man to fish instead of just giving him a fish. If those are things I believe in, then why would I vote against them. Selling out would be to go against who I am, not who someone else is. Selling out would be to go against the Savior who saved and paid for me with his own life. Bishop Harry Jackson released a video yesterday of him giving four reasons why he can't vote for Obama. Something he said struck me like lightening and I can't get it out of my head. He said, "If you celebrate race over grace you ought to do badly." It's ignorant and foolish to use skin color as a litmus test and pledge our loyalty to someone or anything despite its negative effects on us as an individual or our community. This black group think isn't helping the black community, it's wasting all the progress we've made.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Too Funny Not to Share

Every now and then someone gets a bad case of the ignorants and decides to tweet me something stupid. When it's this stupid and too funny to ignore I have a little fun. I'll never understand this kind of thinking, why skin color matters or why this individual thinks it should matter to me. What does being a BLACK WOMAN have to do with voting for Obama or voting for Romney? I don't have the answer because I don't live a life where my skin color makes my decision. I don't know what it's like to live in that kind of head space. I'm not saying I'm better than her or she's worse than me, but like she says I've made a lifestyle choice. I wanna be Savannah, a woman who wants to see the world through God's eyes and not the color of her skin.

But like I said, when I get tweets like this I like to have a little fun; and when someone has the audacity to say something ignorant and mean, I like to share it. Expose it. I mocked her a little and made her a "Tweet of the Day" and I guess she couldn't handle it, so she blocked it. Typical. This tweet had me rolling for a good five minutes. No just her ignorance, but she actually believes what she's saying. It's more than funny, it's sad...and mean. I'm no longer able to see her tweets, but it's okay. I took a picture.


Melanie

Meet Melanie McNamara. According to this campaign ad, she's a small business owner voted for Obama in 2008, but is changing her vote for 2012. Like many Americans, Melanie is disappointed with our current president, unable to see the things he promised. I've watched this ad several times over these last few days, and I'm very impressed with it. I like the simplicity and it's straight-forward approach. I like, more than anything, is the spin it provides on the phony war on women narrative. Obama and his people want to tell women what's important to them. Women don't care about the economy, jobs, the debt, or foreign policy. Women deserve better than a President who thinks women are all about their lady parts.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Compliments, in all shapes and sizes

Creative Loafing is a local paper that's about something and...I don't know. I've never actually read it, but a friend of mine on twitter pointed me to an article on page 30 and this is what I saw:



This has to be the best hypocritical compliment I've ever seen. Let me give you the non-hate filled version of this article: Sister Toldjah, whom I've known for at least a year and met officially at the Romney/Ryan rally in Mooresville, is Superwoman. She takes on dumb liberals like they're spineless worms, voices her opinions, concerns, values, and beliefs like she has nothing to fear, and then takes the time to stand up for her friends. The prejudice oozing from this article is disgraceful and hilarious. Do they not see the hypocrisy in their words? If this article were a tweet, she'd retweet it and we'd all have a good laugh because whoever wrote this is everything they claim she is: hateful. Sister Toldjah is also one of those "just a bloggers" Juan Williams was talking about. She writes about the news of the day and the news no one wants to report. She makes it her duty to inform people about both sides of the debate and what's going on between the lines. She asked me to check this out and let her know what I think. What do I think? I think it's awesome. I think anytime you expose hate, whether it's grabbing someone's attention and they write about you in a newspaper, is amazing. I also think it's hilarious. If she is so anti this and that, why give her exposure? She's "just a blogger" after all. Take their opinion with a grain of salt, the article to the right starts off with "Best Local Hipster Music 'Zine". The woman took on D.L. Hughley. I mean...how awesome can you get?!

The Rocky Mountain Beat Down

Who watched last night's debate? After catching the last 30 minutes of the Dalton/McCrory debate I wasn't sure how I would sit through 90 minutes of Obama. To be honest, I tuned Obama out the moment he started speaking, but I got back on track and I made it through the entire debate plus an hour and a half of news commentary. I'm proud of myself, I can't lie. I was nervous going into the debate, nervous for Mitt Romney. I know he gave Newt a hard time during the primaries, but Newt is no Obama. Obama is a gifted orator, intelligent, a great communicator, and the king of cool. Mitt is a nice guy. That's how I've come to see him this last year. On the other hand, Obama has a very thin skin and he's going out there alone. No lapdog media and no teleprompter.

If I ever meet Mitt in person I will apologize for underestimating him because he OWNED Obama during that debate (or as Sean Hannity put it so eloquently, The Rocky Mountain Beat Down). He came prepared, locked and loaded, and ready for war. There was a fight in his belly we haven't seen since the primaries and it was amazing to see. The biggest shock to me wasn't Romney, but it was Obama. Obama looked like he'd rather be golfing, an "anywhere but here" attitude. He held his head, he was stammering, and he was unprepared. He came off his usual smug and arrogant self, and I expected that, but I didn't expect it to be so evident.

Romney challenged Obama and he didn't know what to do, he didn't know how to handle it. Could it be because he has never been challenged. No one has thrown his record in his face or confronted him with his failures or called him out on his lies. The media has coddled him for five years, demonizing anyone who would ridicule their messiah, so he's never had to answer to anyone. He looked like a child being scolded by his father. He kept rehashing the same misstatements and talking points, trying to define Romney and it just wasn't happening.

Obama and his people have been going around the talk shows playing off like they're not worried, when we know they are and they should be. Many people were introduced to The Real Romney for the first time and Obama exposed himself as weak. That debate was a job interview and he looked like he didn't want the job. Why would I vote for that? There were some funny moments during that debate. This was probably my favorite:



"Jim, you may want to move on to another topic." = "No mas!"

I heard specifics from Romney yesterday; I've been hearing specifics for months. What these liberals mean by specifics is beyond me, but to each their own. So what did you think of the debates last time?

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Debate Drinking Game

I haven't had a beer or any alcohol in over two years, and I don't plan on breaking that record, but I will have my water bottle handy anyway. The first 2012 Presidential Debate is tonight at 9pm EST and it will be a hoot or extremely boring. In case we are bored to tears, ConservativeIntel.com came up with a drinking game:



Obama's "Let me be clear" should have the entire country wasted within the first five minutes.


(pic courtesy of Madeleine McAulay)

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

The Art of Desperation

These attack ads are getting ridiculous. Desperation, maybe? The AFSCME, one of the largest labor unions in the country, released this ad:



Many people work thankless jobs and know they will never be thanked or appreciated or recognized for what they do, but they do it because they want to or they need the money. It's called service. Men and women don't join the military for the recognition or the respect. Most teachers don't become teachers to get voted best teacher. And I've never met a garbage man who picks up garbage to get hugs and Gatorade. Richard Hayes, the man in the ad, personifies what's wrong with Obama supporters: unless you're someones mother or father, or you're God, no one owes you anything. As a society we should thank people for the things they do for our community, but there's something wrong with you if you get into a business expecting it.

It seems the AFSCME is trying to capitalize on Romney's 47% line by showing the country he doesn't care about poor people. Though they claim to be non-partisan, they're clearly liberal, and, like most liberals, they don't do well with research or facts.


That is Mitt Romney collecting trash in Massachusetts when he was running for Governor. He had this to say in his book 2010 book No Apology:
"During my campaign for governor, I decided to spend a day every few weeks doing the jobs of other people in Massachusetts. Among other jobs, I cooked sausages at Fenway Park, worked on asphalt paving crew, stacked bales of hay on a farm, volunteered in an emergency room, served food at a nursing home, and worked as a child-care assistant. I’m often asked which was the hardest job – it’s child care, by a mile.
One day I gathered trash as a garbage collector. I stood on that little platform at the back of the truck, holding on as the driver navigated his way through the narrow streets of Boston. As we pulled up to traffic lights, I noticed that the shoppers and businesspeople who were standing only a few feet from me didn’t even see me. It was as if I was invisible. Perhaps it was because a lot of us don’t think garbage men are worthy of notice; I disagree – anyone who works that hard deserves our respect. – I wasn’t a particularly good garbage collector: at one point, after filling the trough at the back of the truck, I pulled the wrong hydraulic lever. Instead of pushing the load into the truck, I dumped it onto the street. Maybe the suits didn’t notice me, but the guys at the construction site sure did: “Nice job, Mitt,” they called. “Why don’t you find an easier job?” And then they good-naturedly came down and helped me pick up my mess."
Mitt Romney didn't make a career out of it or spend more than a day, but it makes the union look like idiots. What it says about Mitt Romney is he is someone who took the time to put himself in another person's shoes. That's a lot better than a man who is arrogant enough to claim he should receive a thank you.

(photo and quote courtesy of National Review Online)

Monday, October 1, 2012

The Legend of Areopagitica

King Charles I, an arrogant man, was at constant odds with Parliament over money and his marriage to Henrietta Maria of France, a Catholic. In 1629, he ordered Parliament not to meet, and this lasted for eleven years. He ordered the Scots to use a prayer book during their worship services, which resulted in the Scots invading England in 1639. While he tried to avoid Parliament for much of his reign, Charles I found it impossible since that's where funding came from, so he allowed Parliament to meet in 1640 so they could deal with their Scot problem. The reunion didn't ease the tension, and things escalated. In 1642, Charles I and three hundred soldiers went to Parliament to arrest five members who greatly criticized the king, but they found the building empty. Someone had given them warning and they fled to London. The English Civil War began soon after. During the height of the war, while England was fighting over money, religion, and tyranny, John Milton began to fight a different battle. The Licensing Order of 1643 was an effort by Parliament not to permit free speech, but to override the monarchy's censorship "law" with their own. This Order allowed them to, among other things, arrest authors and destroy materials they found "offensive to the government." Looking to Isocrates for inspiration, John Milton took issue with this. To convince Presbyterians in Parliament of the ills of censorship, he published a speech called "Areopagitica" in 1644. In it he lays out his grievances, explaining the importance of freedom and wrong ideas and the value of debate. In the end, Milton wasn't able to convince Parliament to dump censorship and adopt freedom. That would come twenty years after his death. At the end of the War, England prevailed and King Charles I was beheaded and Parliament worked to restore their fractured government.

It was during the reign of James I the Pilgrims took off for the New World in the Mayflower, seeking religious freedom and freedom from a tyrannical king while, luckily, avoiding the reign of his tragic son. While freedom of the press was farthest from their minds, it's John Milton's words, bold in a hostile time, that should ring the loudest for us, especially during this 2012 election year. In it he says:
"And yet on the other hand, unlesse warinesse be us'd, as good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, Gods Image; but hee who destroyes a good Booke, kills reason it selfe, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye."
Many scholars call these words, and the rest of his speech, one of the greatest defenses of the freedom of the press. The freedom of the press is precious to a free society because it allows us to take our ideologies and values and publish them for the world to see, spawning new ideas and stirring debate. Freedom of the press creates an informed people allow them to see their government for what they are and not how the government wants to be seen. Our founding fathers knew the danger of government dipping its hands in the press and they sought to prevent that with the writing of the First Amendment. We have the unique freedom to disagree with our government - call them liars, question their integrity, and demand change. Freedom of religion and speech are very important, but these things can be done behind closed doors and with trusted friends; but we're not truly free until we have access to the public square.

If censoring our press could put us in political slavery, and this is basic common sense, why do I see MSNBC doctoring campaign footage? Why is NBC editing 911 tapes? Why are our news outlets reporting on a "long lost" video of Romney talking about the 47% and not reporting on an old tape of Obama talking about redistribution? Why did George Stephanopolous throw New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie hardball questions then treat his next guest, David Plouffe, Senior White House Advisor, as if he's delicate? Why is Fox News asking the hard questions about Libya while everyone else is pretending "under investigation" is a valid excuse? New Media offers a great alternative for those wanting to be informed rather than coddled and mislead, but we still have cable news and regular broadcast to deal with. Yes, it is misleading to fake outrage over some things while keeping hush about others in order to sway public opinion. That's the politician's job, not the press. Our politicians are supposed to lie to us, keep things from us, use emotion to sway us one way or the other, and it's the job of the press to keep them straight and keep us from becoming ignorant. Our media becoming complicit with any government is no different than government dipping their hands, and that's not what the cornerstone on which this country was built. Libby Sternberg of HotAir.com writes:
Conservatives are used to media bias, used to hearing excuses made for “out of context” gaffes by Democrats and the collective gasps of horror at similar stumbles by Republicans. We’re used to the stories of Democratic errors being turned into Mean-Republicans-Point-Out-Democratic Mistakes headlines. But ignoring real news literally blowing up in reporters’ faces seems to me a new low and probably accounts for why fewer and fewer people subscribe to mainstream newspapers or rely on broadcast news.
Being "used-to" something leads to complacency which leads to us losing our country. Old Media or New Media, it doesn't matter - they serve us. They are educators in the unconventional sense, and when we don't hold them accountable we have only ourselves to blame. It's not enough to create alternative Internet news outlets that report everything; we have to be louder than that because if this continues then how long until our Government demands their loyalty? Our loyalty? We are foolish to think it would never come to that. We need only to read John Milton's plea or hear King Charles I's life story to know the destruction of our basic freedoms is not only possible, but - if we continue on this path - inevitable. Remember this: an uninformed electorate also has the right to vote.

At the beginning of his speech, John Milton quotes Euripides:
This is true liberty, when free-born men,
Having to advise the public, may speak free,
Which he who can, and will, deserves high praise;
Who neither can, nor will, may hold his peace:
What can be juster in a state than this?

John Milton reminds us God gave us reason, "freedom to choose". Government doesn't have to take away our freedoms for us to lose it, we can do that ourselves by not knowing why such freedoms exist in the first place.

Read John Milton's Areopagitica