Conservative Political Views


Barack Obama — our imperial emperor in chief


Published January 17, 2013

  • Obama_ceiling.jpg

    January 14, 2013: President Obama at a news conference at the White House in Washington, D.C. (REUTERS)

One definition of “imperial” on is, “of the nature or rank of an emperor or supreme ruler.”

At his news conference Monday, a petulant, threatening and confrontational President Obama spoke like an emperor or supreme ruler. All that was missing was a scepter, a crown and a robe trimmed in ermine.

This president exceeds even Bill Clinton in his ability to evade, prevaricate and dissemble. I didn’t think that possible.

Not only did he supply long answers to relatively easy questions, but much of what he said bore no relation to reality.

A petulant, threatening and confrontational President Obama spoke Monday like an emperor or supreme ruler. All that was missing was a scepter, a crown and a robe trimmed in ermine.

He spoke of having had the debate over the economy during the 2012 campaign and boasted, “…the American people agreed with me.”

By the way, can we now retire the phrase “the American people”? Too many politicians overuse it, including Speaker John Boehner. Forty-seven percent of voters supported Mitt Romney and other Republicans in the last election. Ninety-four million people eligible to vote didn’t vote. Can Obama really claim “the American people” agreed with him?

The president won the election, but he has yet to win the debate over smaller vs. larger government, and more vs. less spending.

The question Major Garrett of CBS News posed to the president on raising the debt ceiling in tandem with spending cuts exposed his hypocrisy and that of many congressional Democrats: “You yourself, as a member of the Senate, voted against a debt ceiling increase. And in previous aspects of American history, President Reagan in 1985, President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, President Clinton in 1997, all signed deficit-reduction deals that were contingent upon or in the context of raising the debt ceiling. You yourself, four times have done that. Three times, those were related to deficit reduction or budget maneuvers. What Chuck (NBC’s Chuck Todd) and I and, I think, many people are curious about is this new adamant desire on your part not to negotiate when that seems to conflict with the entire history of the modern era of American presidents on the debt ceiling and your own history on the debt ceiling. And doesn’t that suggest that we are going to go into a default situation, because no one is talking to each other about how to resolve this?”

The president dissembled, talking again (he repeated this at least three times by my count) about how Congress had authorized all the spending and how we must now “pay our bills.” But as Garrett noted, the president had a different view of the debt ceiling when he was an Illinois senator and voted against raising it. In 2006, he said, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.” Except when he’s the leader, then it’s someone else’s failure.

In 2003, during another debate over raising the debt ceiling, Sen. Max Baucus, (D-Mont.), said, “The federal debt is like the family credit card. Sooner or later you have to pay down the debts that you have already incurred. If you don’t, your credit rating will suffer. The way the government raises the debt limit is also like a family who just keeps calling the bank every time they hit the credit limit and asks the bank over and over again for an increase in their credit limit without regard to anything else. Rather than pay down their debt, they just keep on asking for a higher debt limit.”

Many other Senate Democrats, including Senators Harry Reid, (D-Nev.), and John Kerry, (D-Mass.), shared Baucus’ concerns, but that was during the George W. Bush administration.

The president says he will reduce debt with a “balanced approach,” by which he means offsetting higher taxes on the wealthy with spending cuts, which will never materialize. It won’t work. Whatever tax revenue government manages to save, Congress will always find a way to spend it.

The president has submitted a budget proposal to Congress for each fiscal year he’s been in office, but Congress has failed to pass a single one. That’s a staggering repudiation of his leadership.

President Obama will not negotiate about raising the debt ceiling? Not surprising. Imperial leaders don’t negotiate.

Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@CalThomas. Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at


January 18, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | 3 Comments


Cause for Hope

Posted by ⋅ November 15, 2012
Filed Under  , , , ,
First, a quote from Charles W. Cooke at National Review Online, who is fast becoming one of my most preferred political commentators:

“Conservative Americans are not systematically being denied their liberties. They are not facing the might of a British empire determined to crush them. There is no Declaratory Act. There are no unwanted foreign troops stationed in our cities. Instead, we are failing to win the argument. This is a considerable problem, but we have [an] advantage. And it is that our ideas are timeless and they are right. They will win again, whether it is by argument or economic gravity.”

Barack Obama and Democrats delivered to Romney and his supporters last week the stomach punch of a lifetime; a resounding victory for the left, and a demoralizing defeat for the right.  Conservative author Ann Coulter wallowed Wednesday on Laura Ingraham’s radio show that “If Mitt Romney can’t win in this economy, we’ve reached the tipping point. There are more takers than makers, there is no hope. It’s over.” Indeed, given our dire straits and the implications, there’s not much to be said in the way of silver linings or post-storm rainbows.

Obama won every swing state save North Carolina, and this after the GOP and its surrogate organizations made hundreds of thousands more voter contacts than they managed for John McCain’s campaign. The president won 55% of women, 93% of blacks, 71% of Hispanics, and 50% of the religiously affiliated (including 75% of Hispanic Catholics).  He won 60% of the youth vote, which grew a percentage point in 2012 to 19% of the total electorate compared to 18% in 2008.  About the only major demographics Obama didn’t win are the two shrinking more with each cycle: white adult males and married women.

And, yet…

Obama won about nine million fewer votes in 2012 than he did just four years ago.  While he bested Romney, it’s not unreasonable nor irrelevant to note that this was not some grand endorsement by the public at large of his results or, more importantly, his policies.  Rather, this loss revealed great Republican organizational weakness and a thus far ignored necessity to bend its marketing toward a broader base, namely Hispanics and youth.

Romney closed the popular vote gap by 5% (losing 48% to 51%), a full 4.5% better than McCain managed.

To look at it another way, and while perhaps evermore frustrating, Mitt Romney and Republicans lost this election, more than Obama and Democrats won it.  The GOP failed, and that is a good thing.

Good, in the face of the alternative (getting our tails kicked on ideological grounds, which isn’t what happened), for it presents opportunity to reach potential voters that are not necessarily taken in by the twirls and swirls of liberalism’s diatribe.  If Obama had increased his turnout by nine million, conservatives would be better served to buy an island and start anew.  But he didn’t.  Republicans failed to convincingly market their candidate and positions in a trustworthy way, and in a manner that would persuade enough people that conservatism is best for all, not just the affluent. More than Obama’s likeability advantage, that is what impairedthem on election day.  Improved messaging, especially in minority communities, and avoiding get-out-the-vote catastrophes like Project Orca (Ben Domenech quipped: “You’d at least think a Mormon would get door-to-door right”), and Mitt Romney is packing his bags for the White House.

In David Limbaugh’s recent column, he slashes into the naysayers and white flaggers:

“Never mind, you say. The electorate has irreversibly become a taker class, and conservative ideas of self-reliance, personal responsibility and individual liberties will never appeal to a majority again, especially with demographics working against the GOP. We must reject that, or we are as good as surrendering. To accept it, we are confessing our skepticism of the power of ideas, which itself is contrary to the conservative spirit.”

As Jim Geraghty notes, but for 407,000 votes in four swing states – less than 0.5% of all voters – Mitt would have won. We were really close. This is an opportunity.

Contrary to liberals’ cries of a principles and values-driven shellacking, America didn’t beat a resounding liberal drum last Tuesday (nine million fewer votes!).  Instead, she bore a whole lot of frustrated and apathetic evangelicals, libertarians, and conservatives who didn’t like Romney.

The cause for optimism here is that Republican failings this cycle are not solution-less.  It’s easier to make a case to those who simply didn’t like your candidate enough to vote against the other side, than it is convincing voters away from the other contender.  Branding, messaging, organizing, and minority outreach (not pandering, there’s a difference; we have to better articulate why the conservative tide will raise all boats). Broaden the base. Very doable.

Yes, it’s thoroughly disgusting what the American people chose by electing Barack Obama again. Yes, it’s thoroughly disheartening that millions accepted him by default by staying home. Yes, there is work to be done – mountains and mole hills alike – for Republicans to take the Senate in 2014 and the Presidency in 2016. But this wasn’t a wave of liberalism flowing over the country brandishing a bullhorn to pronounce conservatism’s permanent death.  2012 was a staggering blow, but not necessarily a lethal one if we play our cards right. Down, but not out.

Ingraham concluded her segment by disagreeing with Coulter, saying that the country hasn’t had a national leader make an elegant and articulate case for conservatism in two decades.  She’s right.  If we’re able to revamp our messaging to the masses and convince them that it is conservatism, not liberalism, which most improves the maximum number of lives, then all is not yet lost.

Iron sharpens iron, and conservatives must work to ensure that their mill is bigger and more efficient in the very near future.  We carry on the fight. No other option exists.


American Tipping Point, Part 1: Reflection

Posted by ⋅ November 15, 2012 ⋅
Filed Under  , , , ,
 -by Geoff Caldwell

Since the day after the debacle of November 6th, 2012, I have been on the road to Memphis, Nashville and points in between.  The remnants of the devastation to our founding principles are scattered along mile after mile of highway and in lawn after patriotic lawn in every town along the way.

What had been intended as a Romney victory celebration trip had suddenly become a mile after mile after mile moment of soul-searching I had never in my life dreamed I would ever be experiencing.  After coming to adulthood during the catastrophe that was the Carter administration, I just did not have it in me to think the America would ever, (and I do men ever, as in never, is in no way in friggin hell could we EVER be that stupid again) repeat that mistake again.

But repeat it we did, and in such a large and ominous way.

While Obama’s incompetence on the economy (unemployment, energy and food prices, almost stagnant GDP growth) is only matched by his incompetence on foreign policy (Iran, Libya, Egypt, China, Russia and on and on and on) the most visible example of incompetence on display November 6th was not Barack Obama’s, it was the American voter’s.

One by ignorant one, millions upon millions of those voters lined up to enter the polling booths and cast their lot against the America that had gotten them to that booth.  Turning their back on founding principles, they gave the most divisive, left-wing ideologue to ever occupy the Oval Office four more years to continue the destruction he started in 2009.

And that has been the question haunting me for these past five days:

Just HOW IN THE HELL could so many, be absolutely SO STUPID?

The question may be short, it may be simple, but the answer is neither and tis far more complex than to be given justice in but one column.  We didn’t get to this point in just one election cycle and it certainly can’t be explained in the context of any one thing or one event.

With that in mind, I am embarking upon a new series:  American Tipping Point

Broken into four segments, it’s my response to the Alice in Wonderland result of Tuesday last and puts forth four basic questions:

What just happened?

Where are we now?

How did we get here?

Where do we go from here?

I’m no sage, I’m no keeper of all things political, and I’ve no more wisdom than that found in my little finger, but I have been living, eating and breathing American politics and her societal changes for over 35 years.

My “cred” comes not from any formal training as a “journalist” or “political scientist”, but only from being more politically engaged than most over those years and being given what some poor misguided souls feel is a “gift” to put on paper (or pixels now) the feelings that so many feel but just can’t or don’t have the time to express.

I’m nothing special, but I AM an American and as an American I do feel a duty to protect her as I can.  As an idealistic teenager, I may have had to endure the let down of a certain military recruiter telling me “son, your academics are stellar, but between your arm and your eyes, there isn’t a chance in hell you’re entering the cockpit of a Navy jet”  (paraphrased but you get the point).

But as a realistic adult now 33 years post that dream crushing moment, I do not have to endure the let down handed this nation by a certain group of its citizenry more concerned to continue the free flow of their “stuff” than to ensure the existence of it for future generations.

I do not have to stand idly by and just watch as what so many paid the ultimate price for, disintegrates into the lowest common denominator of “I’ve got mine so screw you”.  And neither do you.

There is no question we crossed de Tocqueville’s “tipping point” last Tuesday.  We’ve all known it was coming and we all knew it was possible going into Tuesday.

What we don’t know is whether we can “tip back” (fight for the return of America as founded) or whether a mass surrender just occurred (no return) and America is now but a failed experiment on the road to decline.

The series begins Tuesday and will be interspersed among other columns as the news of the day dictates.

I do not now nor ever will claim to have all the answers, but I do ask you to take my four basic questions and answer them in your own mind, within your own world view, from your own political perspectives and then in the privacy of your own soul, decide for yourself what America you’re willing to fight for.

But we cannot delude ourselves.  November 6th 2012 was a Dunkirk.

It was without a doubt, a massive defeat.

Whether that defeat marks the beginning of America’s end or a rallying cry for the new revolution remains to be seen.

Myself personally, I promise to stand tall upon the rock of freedom and do whatever I can to reverse that defeat and return America to her rightful place in history as that “shining city on a hill”.

And I do so knowing full well what lies ahead:

The fight will not be easy, it will be long, it will be hard,

You will not be popular, you will be ridiculed and reviled,

It will not be cheap as the war chest before us overflows with ill-gotten gains,

But it is necessary and vital and it shall not be in vain.

There are but two choices:  victory or defeat,

So let it be written by future generations that when the country needed them most,

The strong, the sure, the pure of heart, stood tall upon the rock of freedom,

And in unified spirit and singular voice shouted to the tyranny: NO MORE

God Save the United States of America.

Geoff Caldwell


Where Do We Go From Here?  (GOD HELP US! JM)

Posted by ⋅ November 15, 2012 ⋅
Filed Under  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Before the elections, an echo rang throughout the land.  Well at least through the MSM.  We kept hearing Obama and the left proclaim that the rich need to pay their fair share of the nation’s taxes(failing to mention that the rich already pay over 70% of the nation’s taxes).  They also claimed that the rich won’t care if they pay more in taxes.  That’s a load of crap, I said to myself over and over again.  Surely the rich won’t vote for individuals that want to steal their income and redistribute it to a group of bottom-feeders.  Boy was I wrong.  Obama actually picked up eight of the ten wealthiest counties in the U.S.

This is absolutely mind-boggling, to say the least.  I can’t wrap my mind around the thought process of these people.  I don’t know if they are just stupid or ignorant.  Maybe the rich had some elaborate plan to get Obama re-elected and then start a mass exodus in the near future, taking their money and jobs with them to another country–which, by the way, would leave the rest of us screwed.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see the unemployment rate doubled, $6.00 gas, and a restricted second amendment.

A fortune-teller I am not, but I do know that we are heading for rough waters in the near future.  Luckily you don’t have to be a fortune-teller to be able to know where we are heading.  All you have to do is look back through world history and find out what happened to civilizations in the days of yore.

Looking back to the Roman Empire, you will find a lot of similarities between the former and current powerful nations.  The Romans, before their fall, became a very perverse society.  Sexual immorality was rampant.  It decayed the foundation of the society like a plague.  Sound familiar?  As we all know, our society is following in the path of the Romans.  Sex is almost used like currency in our society.  People meet a stranger in some bar and have a one night stand, or they want that promotion so they use sex to get it.  There are also a lot of people who participate in acts like sodomy, bestiality, and many other perverse sex acts.  Sounds like a sexually immoral society to me.

Another reason for the fall of the Roman civilization was that they had the majority of their population on a type of welfare system, the government would give citizens a monthly ration of grain, at a highly discounted price.  Since the government controlled the price of the grain, they could raise or lower the price to affect the favorability of the ruler.  Again, sounds the same.  Looking at today’s society it is very clear that we are heavily vested in our welfare system.  It is an ever-expanding behemoth.  Not only are we giving people free money for nothing, but in the not so distant past FDR gave his “hold-the-line” order where the government froze most prices.  They even jailed people who tried charging any more than these set limits.  Again, sounds like the Roman empire to me.

Let’s not fail to mention that the Romans had a blood lust, where the Christians bore the brunt of their lust for violence.  Now Americans currently don’t have gladiators who fight to the death.  However we do enjoy watching two men beat the crap out of each other for hours at a time.  What America does have, in comparison, is a society the is increasingly anti-Christian, anti-Jew, and/or just plain anti-God.  Atheists say that the nation was not founded on biblical principles and the founding fathers were ‘areligious.’ However, all you have to do is look at what the founders said in their own words (not a text-book written two years ago by a bunch of commie educators) and you see that they were, in fact, devout Christians. Even Thomas Jefferson was, comparatively, more Christian than most Christians today.

More than fifty percent of American voters made a statement that was loud and clear on November 6, 2012.  ”We would rather have free crap than Freedom.”  This is disheartening.  I no longer recognize the country that I have loved my entire life.  We let politicians that have lied to us–right to our faces–sweet talks us into voting for them again.  We voted in favor of letting our taxes be raised to new historic levels.

Barack Obama will go down in history as the president who single-handedly destroyed the America that we know and love today.  We have seen his failed and destructive policies being inflicted upon the American people for just about four years now with dire consequences.  We have seen his ineptitude when it comes to handling issues of foreign policy.  It seems the president, in the last few months, started showing his true colors.  He has revealed that he is a socialist, and America still voted to keep him as the leader of our country.

In the coming months, conservatives need to regroup and figure out a strategy to start taking back our society.  We need to either change the Republican party, or send it the way of the Whig party.  We bloggers are the new media and we need to connect, we need to come together.  So get on Twitter, get a blog, connect with other like-minded people, and don’t worry, real change will come to the country and we will bring it to fruition.

You can follow TheRevolutionary on twitter @RevOnlineDotCom or you can follow me @OlyPatriot.  Like Facebook?  Like TheRevolutionary here.


November 15, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now, Home, Must See, Political Corruption | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


[Dagnabbit, if he ain’t gone and done it again.  He’s flippin’ us off! (Just Me)]

Obama: Without Tax Increases There Will Be No Bipartisanship

On CBS’ Face The Nation on Sunday, Barack Obamawas clear that at the center of his presidential campaign was his crusade to raise Americans’ taxes. In 2011 Republicans indicated that they were willing to raise some taxes in order to cut the deficit, but that would be contingent upon Obama agreeing to spending cuts. That deal fell apart as Obama insisted in billions of new taxes which Republicans did not agree to.Scott Pelleyaddressed the issue with Obama:

OBAMA: What I’ve said in reducing our deficits – we can make sure that we cut 2.5 dollars for every dollar of increased revenue.

PELLEY: That’s the deal they turned down.

OBAMA: That’s part of what this election is about. Gov. Romney said he wouldn’t take a deal for $10 in spending cuts for $1 of revenue increases.

The Hill reports,

The dispute over taxes will take front-and-center stage after the election as lawmakers work to find a solution to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” the combination of expiring Bush-era tax rates and $1 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts which would take effect at the start of 2013.

Obama also cited former President Bill Clinton, who spoke at last week’s Democratic convention, to back his argument to raise tax rates on those making more than $250,000 by allowing the Bush rates to expire.

“If we go back to the rates we had under Bill Clinton, we can close the deficit stabilize the economy, and keep taxes on the middle class low,” Obama said.

Republicans though are in favor of extending the Bush rates for all tax brackets, saying that Obama’s proposal would hurt small businesses and weaken job growth.

At the same time that Obama was claiming Romney’s unwillingness to raise taxes in a deal to cut spending, vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan was on ABC’s This Week talking about a deal he would consider. Again, The Hill reports,

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Sunday refused to reject a hypothetical debt-reduction deal that would include both spending cuts and tax hikes.

In an interview on ABC’s This Week airing Sunday, Ryan was asked if he would straight reject a deal which would provide $1 in new taxes for every $10 in spending cuts.

Ryan, the GOP vice presidential nominee, said he would weigh the “quality of the agreement.”

“It depends on the quality of the policy. Our negotiators in the supercommittee offered higher revenues through tax reform. John Boehner did as well. So George, what really matters to me is not ratios but what matters is the quality of the policy,” Ryan told host George Stephanopoulos.

“There’s no deal to walk away from. The point is, you’re not giving me a deal to look at. You’re giving me ratios,” said Ryan. “Here’s — let me say this. Our problem is not that we are overtaxed. We are overtaxed. Our problem is we spend too much money.”

Ryan also said that there would be no “back room” deals cut and that they “shouldn’t hatch a secret plan like ObamaCare. We should do it out in the public view where the public can participate.” He did acknowledge that “high income earners use most of the loopholes,” but said the goal was that “high income earners should not get these kinds of loopholes.”

“If you take those loopholes, those tax shelters away from high income earners, more of their income is subject to taxation. And that allows us to lower tax rates on everybody — small businesses, families, economic growth,” said Ryan.

Read more:

September 10, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



Homeland Security

Homeland Security (Photo credit: Phantamage)


Secretary of Homeland Secretary Janet Napolita...

Secretary of Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano, FBI Special Agent in Charge John V. Gilies and Vice President NFL Security Operations Milt Aldridge answer questions on Super Bowl XLIV security which CBP will be assisting with. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


English: Janet Napolitano is sworn in as the t...

English: Janet Napolitano is sworn in as the third United States Secretary of Homeland Security, January 21, 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security

Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)


Has Obama Been Asked About the Big Sis Sexual Harassment Scandal?


August 21, 2012


Listen to it Button






RUSH: Here, grab audio sound bite number eight.

I mentioned in the previous busy broadcast hour that it was Todd Akin who finally drew Barack Obama out and sent him to the White House pressroom.  Two months without taking substantive questions from his own stenographers.  He’s been talking to People magazine, Entertainment Tonight, but his own stenographers’ feelings were hurt.  He won’t come out and talk to ’em.

So Akin says what he says Sunday in St. Louis, and Obama says, (imitating Obama) “You know what, I’m gonna go out, I’m gonna talk to press.”  And it was yesterday at the White House, the press briefing, Obama dropped in, spoke with his stenographers, and Jim Kuhnhenn, AP, said, “You’re no doubt aware the comments made by Todd Akin.  I wondered if you think those views represent the views of the Republican Party in general.”  Oh, what a probing question.  Man, oh, man, what would we do without our press corps?  “Mr. President, Mr. President, do you think what Todd Akin says represents the entire thinking of the Republican Party?  Hmm?  Hmm?”  Obama’s been afraid to face this?  Obama’s been scared to go out and take these hard, penetrating questions?  Now, here’s what Obama said.

OBAMA:  The views expressed were offensive.  Rape is rape.  What I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women.  And so although these particular comments have led Governor Romney and other Republicans to distance themselves, I think the underlying notion that we should be making decisions on behalf of women for their health care decisions or qualifying forcible rape versus non-forcible rape, I think those are broader issues, and that is a significant difference in approach between me and the other party.

RUSH:  Okay.  Rape is rape.  Women’s health care.  I don’t know, but I mean I know that all Akin cares about is the lives of innocent children.  I guarantee you, folks, that’s all he cares about.  And he doesn’t know how to talk about it. He doesn’t know how to make his point about it.  But do you remember the story from last week?  This is from Reuters:  “Janet Napolitano Accused of Sexual Harassment — Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has been accused of sexual harassment and discrimination against male employees.”  Really.  Does anybody care about this?  Has anybody seen this story outside of the first day it was reported?

We have an ongoing controversy at the Department of Homeland Security, article from August the 12th, folks, that’s when this story hit.  August the 12th, nine days ago.  We have a lawsuit here.  We have actual charges of sexual harassment against the Department of Homeland Security director, and what’s Obama have to say about that?  Zip, zero, nada.  Is anybody gonna ask Napolitano to resign?  For the good of the party, for the good of the country, for the good of Obama’s reelection.  Anybody gonna say to Janet Napolitano, “Hey, Big Sis, this is a distraction we don’t need.”  No, nobody’s gonna say that because it isn’t a distraction because nobody knows about it.

You know, talking about making health care decisions for women and men, ought not be doing that, what the hell is Obama?  He’s a man.  What does Obamacare do?  He’s got his mandate in there.  He’s got a birth control mandate in there.  He is mandating certain behaviors where women are concerned via Obamacare.  But somehow that connection isn’t made.

“In the complaint, Napolitano is accused of turning her female-run department into a ‘frat house’ where male staffers were routinely humiliated, reports Forbes. Along with the culture against men, Napolitano is also accused of providing unequal opportunities for men and women, promoting women to the highest positions while equally qualified men were bypassed. The lawsuit against Janet Napolitano serves as a stark reminder for employers that discrimination goes both ways, and that you have to be on the lookout for much more than men harassing women.” We do?  We have to be on the lookout for that?  No, we don’t.

This story didn’t cause a ripple, much less a wave.  There wasn’t anybody upset about this.  This story didn’t cause Obama to go to the pressroom and start taking questions.  This story didn’t cause anybody any concern. Sexual harassment at the highest levels of Homeland Security.  A female frat house.  Discrimination against men.  “The complaint against Napolitano is instructive to employers” because you gotta pay attention to discrimination against men now.  Nobody cares.  Not a word.





August 22, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment


Political Vel Craft

Veil Of Politics

Political Film Blog

money, power, injustice, sex, violence, propaganda, anti-fascism...


Fighting Against Government Harassment

Constitutional Clayton

Politics surrounding the Constitution


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

John Groves Art Stuff

Art from johngrovesart


Swiss Defence League

the seaton post

A little bit of this and a little bit of that

Jericho777's Blog

Correcting Misinformation!

%d bloggers like this: