Carly Fiorina and the Male Chauvinists of “The View”
As Carly Fiorina prepares to enter the lion’s den with her appearance on “The View” this Friday, I hope she’s aware that the hosts of the show are apparently “self-identifying” as liberal male chauvinists. What else would cause a fellow human-being to degrade a woman based upon her physical attributes, while totally ignoring her accomplishments and capabilities?
Let’s be honest, Carly Fiorina is far more attractive than Hillary Clinton could dream to be and she certainly doesn’t look “demented.” I’m certain the hosts of “The View” will not comment on Hillary’s looks any time soon- at least not before Election day November 2016. Therefore, the question becomes what caused this aberration from the lefts “I am woman hear me roar” mantra? I suspect there are a few reasons. Here they are:
1) Fear. A competent conservative woman undermines the lefts narrative that women with conservative values serve their families barefoot and pregnant at the kitchen table; They don’t serve as CEO’s of Hewlett Packard like Carly did.
2) Leftism is self-contradictory. With the exception of the activists in their party, you’d be hard pressed to find any democrats that practice what they preach behind the closed doors of their home. I’m certain Barack Obama doesn’t want his daughters in a bathroom with men who “identify” as women (aka perverts). Likewise, I’m doubtful that Tom Steyr and George Soros go out of their way to pay taxes, and divvy up their wealth amongst their homies in the hood.
3) Thirdly, leftists need a villain in order to feel good about themselves. This is why they create “fake moral causes” like man-made global warming, or saving the whales at Sea World from the people that saved them, and even championing a mental disorder like “gender-dysphoria,” while lashing out at those of us that realize a man that wants to be a woman is not normal.
Could you imagine the exodus that might occur by women of the left from the Democratic party were Carly Fiorina to become president? Based on their apparent juvenile IQ’s (you can only be nice for so long), I’m doubtful the women of “The View” can. The idea that you could break the “glass ceiling” as a woman that holds traditional values, flies in the face of everything their leftists professors on college campuses, SNL and MTV taught them.
Furthermore, it is the height of hyprocrisy to stand for so-called “women’s rights” while attacking Carly’s appearance. As they’d argue, “aren’t we passed the caveman era?” In an attempt to render men an unnecessary species, leftists feminists have begun behaving like the male chauvinists of the good ole days.
Lastly, does anyone really believe the hosts of “The View” could offer a philosophical view of their ideology? Of course not! The democrat’s voter base are motivated by emotion not common sense. They vilify conservatives like Carly Fiorina because they have no effective arguments to the contrary. Democrats don’t win by making their constituents successful; they win by keeping them mad and dependent upon the federal government.
I’d imagine the male chauvinists of “The View” are salivating to rip Carly to shreds, or rip her clothes off depending on which sex they identify as at the time of the taping. I’m confident however, that Carly’s substance will carry the day.
The Sexiness of Fertility Rates
The sexiness of fertility rates
Like heterosexuals, homosexuals can make love. Unlike heterosexuals, they can’t make babies.
According to an article by James Pethakoukis of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) entitled “Should America welcome its falling fertility rate?” there are no examples of a nation that has dipped below a sustained 1.5 fertility rate returning to its replacement rate. Currently, America stands at a 1.9 fertility rate. Abortion isn’t just a moral issue; it is an existential threat to our nation. China is the latest example of a country that has realized the error of its ways, when its leaders recently decided to change their decades long one-child policy to a two-child policy.
As a Christian, I don’t expect pro-abortionists to share my pro-life values. However, anyone with a modicum of common sense and an honest bone in their body should be able to understand why it’s important for a civilized nation to support God’s definition of marriage: one man, one woman. Gays can’t create taxpayers that keep welfare programs sustainable, and this is a dilemma for the left.
Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to the issue of promulgating “life,” and here’s how they get around it. They support the two “a” words: abortion and amnesty.
Proponents of illegal foreigners are a large voting bloc for the left, as are pro-abortionists. Under the guise of “compassion,” liberal politicians pretend as though they care for the down trodden. In reality, because they’ve intentionally segregated so many voting blocs of people, they must use varying policies to hide the flaws of others; such is the case with abortion and amnesty.
I’m convinced that leftists, particularly the elitists of the Democratic Party, understand the importance of maintaining life – not just for basic societal and economic purposes, but for the existential survival of our country. Don’t be fooled. They understand their policies are largely responsible for destroying the traditional family – the building block of society and the one voting bloc they despise. However, in order to maintain their power base in Washington, D.C., and state capitols around the country, they attempt to convince us that their immoral policies are moral.
Do you recall just last week when Senate Democrats fought so vehemently to retain federal funding for so-called “sanctuary cities”? Primarily Democrat-run cities that are safe havens for illegal foreigners? These cities will not enforce federal immigration laws, despite growing concerns of some illegal aliens refusing to assimilate and committing criminal acts of violence upon American citizens. Leftists argue that as a “nation of immigrants” we should be sympathetic to the plight of those that have broken our border laws. If you believe as I do, that leftists are deceptive, then you have to consider that perhaps they simply want to replace the babies they’ve helped to kill by replenishing their voter base. Seriously, one can’t expect to kill his constituents and then receive their vote – although Democrats have managed to pull that off before.
In addition, I’d like you to recall Gov. Jerry Brown of California signing the Reproductive FACT Act just weeks ago. This piece of legislation will force pro-life pregnancy crisis centers and state-licensed medical clinics in California to distribute and post information on where pregnant moms can go to kill their babies at taxpayers’ expense. This law gives no regard to the spiritual, psychological, or physical damages it places on women. Instead, it simply satisfies yet another voting block in exchange for more Democratic power.
Carl, what’s so sexy about this information? The answer is nothing. But now you’re empowered to give an account for the reasons you’re pro-life, not just on a spiritual level, but on a practical one.
Amnesty will destroy our nations sovereignty. Abortion is destroying our soul. There’s gotta be something sexy about putting a stop to both and saving our nation. At least, I think so.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/the-sexiness-of-fertility-rates/#fC1H53OmW8LaExLX.99
The GOP Wins, CNBC Loses: My Observation of the GOP Debate
With the exception of Kramer, it appears as if the CNBC moderators were on a mission to do Hillary’s bidding, undermine capitalism and have the GOP candidates go at each others throats. For the most part it didn’t work. Unfortunately, Jeb Bush and John Kasich took the bait. So here’s my observation:
- Ted Cruz had the best night by heaping coals on the CNBC moderators. He looked big. They looked small.
- Marco Rubio arguably came in a close second by schooling Jeb Bush, and going after the left’s SuperPac – mainstream media.
- Trump came in third. He was effective in his answers, he put John Kasich in his place. Finally, an attack that seemed justified.
- Chris Christie solidified his place as the top “establishment dog” over Bush and Kasich.
- Carly Fiorina gave great substantive answers, but seemed to disappear.
- Ben Carson didn’t have his best night, but I don’t believe it will hurt him in the polls. He looked very presidential.
- Mike Huckabee was consistent and provided great zingers. I’m doubtful it was enough to move him up in the polls.
- Rand Paul seemed angry and too small for the moment. He has great domestic ideas, but is unable to connect with the audience like his dad. He should stay in the senate where he’s greatly needed.
- John Kasich sounded as if he was running for Hillary’s VP slot. it was over for him once he went after Donald Trump. Trump got the best of him. Kasich seemed petulant.
- Jeb Bush is done! It was a bad idea to attack Rubio on his senate absences. Rubio was ready for him, and pimp slapped him with facts about Obama and McCain’s senate attendance when they were running for president. Jeb appeared desperate and small.
Frankly, we should shrink the GOP field down to eight candidates – maybe nine, before the Wisconsin debate. Two will surprise you. Keep Trump, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina and Christie where they are. Promote Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum up from the “kiddie” table, and call it a day. it’s time for the others to cut their losses.
WHY CHOOSING THE RIGHT SPEAKER MATTERS
Paul Ryan’s ability to communicate legislation is masterful. It’s his depth of conservative conviction that has left many wondering if he’s the right man for the job as speaker of the House at this moment in history.
Many Republicans were upset when the Freedom Caucus initially withheld its support from Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in his bid for speaker. I suspect they caved due to the time limitation Ryan placed on them, in addition to insurmountable outside pressure. Nonetheless, the office of speaker is so consequential it’s worth fighting over, and those that stood for Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla., should be applauded not despised.
Under Article I, Section 2, of our Constitution, the founders gave the House of Representatives the power to choose its speaker and other officers. Since “the People’s House” has a direct impact upon local municipalities and their citizens, it is our last line of defense from a power-hungry federal government that will take the shirts off of our backs if we allow it. In the book “The Making of America,” the duties of the speaker are outlined:
- Supervising the daily business of the House.
- Deciding which member will be recognized to speak.
- Appointing members to the special conference committees.
- Vacating the chair in order to debate on an issue or cast a vote.
- Following the vice president in line of succession to be president.
Ultimately, John Boehner was “fired” because he implemented a “power-based” system in the House rather than a “principle-based” system, as Congressman Webster has promoted. In other words, John Boehner ruled with an iron fist and appointed officers in the House based upon loyalty, not necessarily ability. In effect, his actions silenced many of the voices we sent to Washington to serve us. A principle-based system requires the Sseaker to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of all party members and place them in committees accordingly. This requires more listening, less dictating, abolishing cronyism, less aloofness and fewer cocktails at happy hour.
Although the speaker speaks on behalf of the House, each of the 435 members are responsible to their constituents back home for the individual votes they cast. Unfortunately, the pursuit of power has resulted in doing the speaker’s bidding over the people’s business. As a result, the process by which the House functions has morphed into a system where committee assignments and leadership posts are passed out based on loyalty to the speaker – not to our Constitution.
Furthermore, we mustn’t forget the offices of the House that are also consequential. The committee chairmen who supervise the legislative process determine where their committees will meet, which bills are to be considered and the manner in which they’re treated.
There are floor leaders that keep their party focused on moving legislation forward while keeping the party unified and up to speed on bills.
Party whips monitor the progress of legislation before the House, attempting to make certain their party members vote and follow the suggestions of the party leader.
The House parliamentarian advises officers on the rules and indicates which committee has jurisdiction over which bills.
Other offices of the House include the clerk of the House, postmaster, chaplain, sergeant at arms and pages, who sometimes become congressmen themselves.
This may sound like political jargon to the politically uninformed. However, if conservatives are going to restore this nation by taking our government back, not only are we responsible to know the system, we should feel obligated to discriminate against anyone less than exceptional when determining who is placed into the system. The best place to start is in the House.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/why-choosing-the-right-speaker-matters/#9xVywKsPXEWxvV9d.99
The problem with “No Labels” movement
Labels in politics serve several purposes. Labels allow others to identify like-minded people. Labels allow you to define yourself before your opponent beats you to it. Ironically, labels can be freeing rather than confining, allowing you to think out of the box. And, additionally, labels can compel others to embrace your worldview when they associate your lifestyle with what you claim to be – faith being the best example.
I often tell my radio audience that I’m a “Christian, conservative American that happens to be black – in that order.” Those words say a lot about me by summing up my spiritual worldview, political philosophy, national allegiance and ethnicity. Likewise, at the Democratic debate earlier this week, Bernie Sanders labeled himself a “Democratic socialist,” and Hillary Clinton labeled herself a “progressive.” Those words should mean something to us.
The “No Labels” movement believes that political labels have caused too much division in this country, hindering our ability to solve our nation’s problems – there’s some truth to that! However, if words still matter, and they do, then “No Labels” is a label in and of itself, because it identifies an objective, an objective that will be difficult to achieve if no one knows what to call it.
The No Labels campaign has four goals listed on its website for which organizers would like to lobby the federal government. They’re listed as follows:
1) Create 25 million new jobs over the next 10 years.
2) Secure Social Security and Medicare for another 75 years.
3) Balance the federal budget by 2030.
4) Make America energy secure by 2024.
After reading through those objectives, I was able to deduce that No Labels are conservative Democrats to moderate Republicans. There, they’re labeled! In politics they’d be officially “defined.”
Recall how I began this column. By labeling themselves No Labels, they’ve been able to identify with like-minded people with common goals. Unfortunately, they come off as a bunch of elitists former consultants and politicians who hold their noses in the air at the rest of us – they have the solutions, we don’t. That’s fine! But, it’s a bit naive to believe that your campaign sets the standard for all things agreeable in politics. Our system was built to be adversarial by replacing the coercion of tyranny with the power of persuasion. Just because you believe your ideas are unifying doesn’t mean others will.
Again, contrary to the populist worldview, labels can be freeing. Let me provide anecdotal evidence from my own life. I’m a dad, husband and a writer. Before my spiritual journey with Jesus Christ began, I was a womanizer, thief, and though I always had a good work ethic and decent mind, I was going nowhere fast. Each one of those labels helped me to become a new person, freeing me from the chains (figuratively speaking) and tumult that consumed my life. Let’s take writing for example. Taking on the label “writer” helped me to begin focusing on a new career and freed me to dream. Furthermore, I’m oddly quirky when it comes to my craft. Without a working title, or “labeling” my columns, I’m paralyzed. With a title, my mind is free to roam. Oddly enough, the boundary of a title helps me to become creative.
Lastly, it’s difficult to persuade anyone to your side of the argument without first identifying your side. I’m a black conservative. Because of my influence, most of my immediate family members are as well. Becoming a Republican was an easy decision for me once I began researching the history of the party. Whenever I’m confronted with why I became a Republican, knowing the party’s history makes it easier to persuade others, or at least get them to understand why I believe what I believe. There’s no need to re-label myself when the GOP screw up, I just go back to the original intent of the party – freedom. When people know why you believe what you believe, it’s easier for them to accept you.
I’m not so certain that D.C. has a “division” problem as much as it has a “distinction” problem due to the lack of clarity. The “outsiders” have brought a sense of clarity back to the GOP brand. It’s why their soaring – and frankly, why “No Labels” is not.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/the-problem-with-no-labels-movement/#s30ewkCw1Dw36KPL.99