Disrupting the Narrative of the New Left, its allies in Academia, Hollywood and the Establishment Media, and examining with honesty the goals of cultural Marxism and the dangers of reactionary and abusive political correctness.
THE NARRATIVE AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”-George Orwell
Fort Hood to award Purple Hearts, Defense of Freedom medals to victims of 2009 shooting at a ceremony this Friday. 47 medals in all.
— Leo Shane III (@LeoShane) April 6, 2015
@ThisIsJoshSmith
"Rape is not real! It's manufactured by the media!"
This is what @TPM thinks people who are concerned with the facts say.
— Martini Shark (@MartiniShark) April 6, 2015
PJTV's John Phillips, Stephen Kruiser and Scott Ott discuss recent events, including Mitt Romney dropping out of the 2016 campaign, the weak Democrat 2016 field, Apple avoiding taxes and Super Bowl ads that flopped.
While you were sleeping...5 more Gitmo detainees released, despite being considered medium to high risk pic.twitter.com/v5MyRLmNh2
— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) January 15, 2015
All actions, including how we go to the toilet & clean ourselves & even in which direction we relieve ourselves, must be based on revelation
— Anjem Choudary (@anjemchoudary) January 5, 2015
1,000 lb barrels with plastic pipe through center, hands chained together inside pipe.
Idiots. pic.twitter.com/5hogyHwO82
— Ulysses E. McGill (@Just_a_Texan) January 15, 2015
#Protest all you want...Do not block hwy, it's illegal.
Stopping highway traffic proves nothing. What if an ambulance needs to get by?
— Dustin Fitch (@DustinGFitch) January 15, 2015
Ambulance had to be diverted to a smaller hospital in SE Mass rather than level 1 Boston trauma hospital. Victim had been in Easton crash.
— Mass State Police (@MassStatePolice) January 15, 2015
Emerging Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, kicking off a West Coast fundraising effort, is opening the door to criticism from skeptical conservatives by attending one event hosted by a former moderate GOP senator who blasted the party for giving in to the Christian right's agenda.
A Bush fundraiser Thursday in Indian Wells, Calif., is being hosted by former Missouri Sen. John Danforth, one of a group of former Republican lawmakers who have criticized the party for shifting focus to a Christian social agenda.
In advance of the country club fundraiser for Bush's Right to Rise PAC, critics distributed a 2005 op-ed Danforth wrote for the New York Times in which he slapped the party for moving away from fighting deficits to opposing gay marriage. And he accused the GOP of becoming a "political arm" of Christians.
"Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction," he wrote, adding, "Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians."
Bush has been criticized by conservatives worried about his positions in support of immigration reform and common core education standards and another line of attack, this time from evangelicals, could be damaging...
No, free people do not have a responsibility to not offend psychopathic dictators who are normally in the business of executing their fellow citizens when offended. We are not subject to Dear Leader's censorship rules unless we voluntarily submit ourselves, which is what all these companies have done by refusing to release "The Interview."
This argument is similar to the one I was surprised to see Greta van Susteren make last night, which I disagreed to on Twitter and John McCormack addressed on air:
Completely disagree. RT @greta: anyone who has been to NK knows how dangerous it is and would not have been so stupid to make that movie;
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) December 17, 2014
Sharon Waxman, a journalist who has worked for the Washington Post and founded The Wrap asks, "What is the thought process behind making a movie in which we decide to depict, for our amusement, the assassination of a living foreign leader?" The same thought process behind "Team America" and "Naked Gun" and a thousand other films both serious and funny which depict the deaths of living foreign leaders because we are a free people who can make art and social commentary on any number of things and people who are dangerous. The notable exception of late has been, of course, Islam. Now we've added the vanity of psychopaths. Neither is healthy. She then likened this goofy comedy to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.
I put up a petition to have "The Interview" released, which I've never done before, but I found this episode especially, intensely disturbing. I was trying to get to the bottom of why and this is what I came up with. It's that it seemed like an easy win. Like, sure, maybe the majority of Americans aren't deeply engaged on foreign policy matters and don't contemplate or really feel the consequences of various appeasements on the world stage. But surely this American culture would at least stand tall for a dumb, stoner comedy and the promise of future dumb, stoner comedies. And, yet even on this…crumble and fold. Yikes. The addition of the cave on "Team America" has just added to my despair.
I probably shouldn't be surprised there are a fair number of people who think mere offense is a reason to get rid of speech and artistic expression. It's the core of what pretty much everyone learns in college these days. As illustrated by this liberal intellectual who calls "The Interview" white privilege or something:
Good Lordy. RT @jamilahlemieux: You can't defend a buddy comedy about a dictator. That's not how you show that you care about his victims.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) December 18, 2014
Uh huh. RT @jamilahlemieux: It's not about his dictatorship, it's about ethics in letting dudebros do whatever they want. Good night.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) December 18, 2014
What can be said about Eric Holder's six years as attorney general that PJ Media hasn't already said? The news that Holder is going to resign should be bittersweet to anyone who cares about racial equality and the rule of law. The damage he has already done to the country leaves a turbulent wake that is ill-matched to the financial reward awaiting him at a shameless and large Washington, D.C., law firm.
Our country is more polarized and more racially divided because of Eric Holder. He turned the power of the Justice Department into a racially motivated turnout machine for the Democratic Party. That was his job in this administration, and he did it well.
When I first reported on the racially motivated law enforcement of Holder's Justice Department, it seemed fanciful to some. But after six years of Holder hugging Al Sharpton, stoking racial division in places like Florida and Ferguson, after suing police and fire departments to impose racial hiring requirements, after refusing to enforce election laws that protect white victims or require voter rolls to be cleaned, after launching harassing litigation against peaceful pro-life protesters, after incident after incident of dishonesty and contempt before Congress — after all this, it was clear to anyone with any intellectual honesty that this man had a vision of the law at odds with the nation's traditions.
Why would it surprise anyone he behaved as he did? As I made clear in my book Injustice, he carried around a quote in his wallet for 40 years about race that, he explained to the Washington Post, indicated that he had common cause with the black criminal. That's a fact. That's who he is.
How ISIS is using social media to get its message out to the world. Another push to get Mitt Romney to run for President in 2016. Yahoo takes on the government and two senators stranded on an island!
So many illegal immigrants are swarming across the southern border that the federal government is now running a full time transportation service to take the aliens from the border to immigration centers throughout the southwest where they are often released without consequence.
The Associated Press reports that a "fleet of Border Patrol vans" and "government buses" now "spend each night idling on a Texas roadside, awaiting the latest arrivals."
All illegal immigrants have to do is get here and the Obama administration is releasing them without consequence into the United States. It has become so well known that the Obama administration will do nothing to migrants that they now "walk up to agents, wave to their remote cameras or simply wait to be picked up on the side of a road" by US authorities.
Meanwhile, the onslaught of illegal aliens is bringing into the country diseases and sicknesses that Americans don't generally see. These would-be immigrants are suffering from widespread cases of lice, bed bugs, strep, and even scabies.
According to news reports, about 10-15 percent of apprehended illegal immigrants have scabies.
Worse, as the administration transports thousands of illegal immigrants to facilities throughout the US, after which many are released into the heart of the nation, fears that the general population will contract these diseases grows.
Republicans are correct to aim toward blue-collar economics, especially after the debacle of focusing on the so-called "47 percent." The minimum-wage hike, especially as proposed by the Obama administration, is the wrong way to go about it. The US has repeatedly hiked the minimum wage, and yet has ended up in the same position in regard to the percentage living in poverty anyway. Why? Because raising the minimum wage only temporarily boosts buying power, as prices rise and jobs erode in response to the higher costs it imposes.
In fact, as the CBO pointed out, the majority of the costs end up being borne by the poor the minimum-wage hike is supposed to help...
If minimum-wage hikes solve problems of poverty and inequality, then we would have solved both of those issues decades ago. We have yet to see any evidence that they actually produce anything but an extremely short-term benefit, and mostly to those who don't need it. (Amity Shlaes presented an argument this week that it actually made the unemployment situation during the Depression substantially worse.) Unfortunately, the GOP hasn't done a very good job of pointing out the pitfalls of this policy, while Democrats mainly demagogue the point on "fairness."
By now, everyone knows that Mitt Romney's inner circle was righteously peeved at New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for spending the final days of the 2012 presidential race arm-in-arm with President Obama as they toured the Jersey coastline after its thrashing by Hurricane Sandy. The buddy-buddy act boxed Romney out of national media coverage for days while lending the president some bipartisan street cred.
But it wasn't just the storm. Christie had rankled Romney's team throughout the campaign: He held back his endorsement as long as possible, flirted with big-shot GOP donors who begged him to jump into the race and used his prime-time address at the Republican National Convention to puff up his Garden State record — without mentioning Romney once.
For Romney's aides, dealing with Christie's overbearing team was about as pleasurable as a traffic jam on the New Jersey Turnpike.
The book lacks the made-for-Hollywood scenes of "Game Change": Elizabeth Edwards ripping off her shirt to reveal her mastectomy scars in an emotional tarmac confrontation with her cheating husband, or anything Palin-related. But there's still click-bait aplenty: Obama meditating on drone strikes and telling his aides that he's "really good at killing people"; Christie's raging temper; Romney adviser Stuart Stevens vomiting backstage after Clint Eastwood's performance art in Tampa; Romney's fascination with fat people, including his habit of ribbing male campaign staffers about dating overweight women; George W. Bush calling Rick Perry, his gubernatorial successor in Texas, "a chicken-[expletive] guy"; Obama's team secretly polling and focus-grouping the notion of replacing Joe Biden with Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Democratic ticket; and so on. It's a book that will launch a thousand listicles.
Oh look! Somebody must have left the irony on again! Honestly, who can be surprised that Clueless Joe was both wrong...and yet right at the same time. Somebody's wanting to go to war with Syria but it ain't Romney. FLASHBACK: Biden accused Romney of wanting war with Syria
Sept. 2, 2012, YORK, Pa. (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that Republican rival Mitt Romney is "ready to go to war in Syria and Iran" while hurting the middle class.
The warning came during a campaign stop in York, Pa., designed to promote President Barack Obama’s economic policies among white, working-class voters. The thrust of Biden's pitch has been that America is digging out from the 2008 economic collapse and that Romney would take the country backward. But Biden, a foreign policy heavyweight, also cautioned voters that Romney would adopt policies that favor confrontation over cooperation.
"He said it was a mistake to end the war in Iraq and bring all of our warriors home," Biden said of Romney. "He said it was a mistake to set an end date for our warriors in Afghanistan and bring them home. He implies by the speech that he's ready to go to war in Syria and Iran."
Biden made the claim about Syria and Iran without offering specifics; his campaign did not immediately respond to a request for details and he did not use similar language on Syria and Iran at a later stop in Green Bay, Wis.
But while it's fun to laugh at good ol' Clueless Joe, I think perhaps the most interesting nugget from the article is this:
Romney has said he would consider military action in Syria if the war-torn country's chemical weapons were at risk of falling into the wrong hands. Obama, who has opposed military action in Syria, has made similar remarks, calling it a "red line" for the U.S. if Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime were to use chemical or biological weapons.
Note that Romney's position was to consider intervening if the chemical weapons fell into the wrong hands. Since the Assad regime already possessed the weapons, it's clear that Romney was concerned about jihadists acquiring them. Meanwhile, there's that pesky "red line" warning that Obama now denies issuing. "A red line for the U.S.," not "the world" or "Congress."
I tweeted my prediction last night but I just want to take a moment to go into a little more detail.
These are the states (withtheir # of EVs) I believe will wind up on Mitt Romney's side of the ledger:
New Hampshire (4) Virginia (13) West Virginia (5) North Carolina (15) South Carolina (9) Georgia (16) Florida (29) Alabama (9) Mississippi (6) Tennessee (11) Louisiana (8) Arkansas (6) Missouri (10) Kentucky (8) Indiana (11) Iowa (6) North Dakota (3) South Dakota (3) Nebraska (5) Kansas (6) Oklahoma (7) Texas (38) Montana (3) Wyoming (3) Colorado (9) Idaho (4) Utah (6) Arizona (11) Alaska (3)
And the two states that will put Romney over the top: Ohio (18) Pennsylvania (20)
Here are the states that will waste their votes on Barack Obama:
Maine (4) Vermont (3) Massachusetts (11) Rhode Island (4) Connecticut (7) New York (29) New Jersey (14) Delaware (3) Maryland (10) District of Columbia (3) Michigan (16) Illinois (20) Wisconsin (10) Minnesota (10) New Mexico (5) Washington (12) Oregon (7) Nevada (6) California (55) Hawaii (4)
Jenny is a 13-year-old 8th grader who's been interested in politics for a
couple of years. She was confused about the claims of the Democrats
and the claims of the Republicans. So, she decided to look at the facts
and do a report card for President Barack Obama and one for Governor
Mitt Romney. She compared them and now presents her findings in this
video.
Sandra Fluke holds a rally in a parking spot at the Sak 'N Save in Reno
Have you heard the latest joke on the internet? It's the one about notorious birth-control hound Sandra Fluke and her rallies in Nevada this weekend. You know your 15 minutes of fame are up when you can't even fill a single space in a grocery store parking lot. Judging by the photographs provided by the tens of people who were there, it really was as embarrassing and awkward as you might expect. But you know what they say: war is hell!
Yes, that's right. I'm talking about the war on women that is being waged by evil Rethuglicans in the vivid imaginations of the Democrats, desperate to exploit what they perceive as Mitt Romney's "woman problem." After last Tuesday's debate the Democrats had fun promoting a meme based on nothing more than the way Romney phrased an answer about his efforts to hire more women when he was governor of Massachusetts. The "binders full of women" nonsense was kinda funny as an internet meme but completely ridiculous as a serious Obama talking point. In fact, it actually works better as a Romney talking point.
No doubt recognizing that fact, Virginia Heffernan of Yahoo! News wrote a piece on Thursday entitled "Romney and the binder blunder," in which she used the meme as a springboard into a few of the usual threadbare talking points:
First, his answer to a question
about the grave subject of wage inequality flaunts his gender bias: In
his anecdote, Romney ostentatiously refuses to consider qualified
applicants just because they’re men.
Second, Romney in this instance was hiring for positions largely
about optics: He wanted women in his cabinet so he could say he had
women in his cabinet. He recruited women to be women—not cabinet
members.
Third, the binders response
raises the specter of a still more hideous idea. Before answering the
question, Romney had been reminded that women earn about 72 percent what
their male counterparts do—and his response was to say, “Exactly!
That’s why, given half a chance, I hire women!” Bottom line, Romney
recruits women because they look good and they come cheap.
The remark has done more than
alienate women, for whom—as all recent data confirms—no one needs to do
any special favors. For years, and to the despair of mothers of sons,
females have been far more educated and better qualified than male applicants for almost anything.
They also get jobs easily and don’t need someone searching high and low
for binders of resumes. They just need to get paid fairly for what they
do.
Lastly, Romney’s remark exposed
something on flagrant display all night. It’s that he’s a boss—and only a
boss. He sees everything from the throne of a massive realm:
Massachusetts, Bain Capital, and the many businesses he’s “had the
privilege of staffing,” or however he puts it.
From the standpoint of journalistic integrity, there's quite a bit of fail in Heffernan's ramblings. First, she completely fabricates a weird claim of gender bias...against men? In her fanciful interpretation of Romney's statement she chooses to portray his interest in hiring more women as being the result of a bias against qualified male staffers. It's absurd.
Second, she claims that Romney only wanted to hire women so that he could say he had hired women. Again, that's a rather self-serving assumption on her part based on nothing but wishful thinking. Furthermore, she misses an obvious hypocrisy by ignoring the fact that most of Obama's campaign has been crafted to appeal to women...so that he can get re-elected. Obama doesn't do anything or help any group unless it benefits him politically.
Third, she invokes the notorious "gender wage gap" and then completely misquotes Romney to make it seem as if his interest in hiring more women was based on how cheaply they work. Really? Romney hired more women because he's so thrifty that he couldn't resist the bargain pricing? The 72% figure also contradicts Obama's political advertising which claimed that the figure was 77%.And then there's this hypocrisy: The large wage discrepancy in the Obama White House.
Heffernan then steps on the liberalmessage itself by acknowledging what Conservative women already understand: the fact that women are doing just fine when it comes to succeeding in the workplace. She acknowledges that women no longer need special treatmentand so on top of everything else, in her mind Romney is guilty of insulting women by patronizing them? Again, by the standards of her own liberalism it would seem that Romney would be a hero rather than a villain.
But if having a patronizing attitude towards women is a bad thing then why is she so intent on defending Barack Obama? As I said, most of his campaign has been based on patronizing women as lesser beings who are incapable of being concerned about issues beyond our "lady parts."And for good measure she throws in some quasi-class warfare rhetoric about Romney acting like a "boss" or something.
I've pointed out the many reasons why Virginia Heffernan can't be trusted as a source for anything more than lame talking points and even lamer attempts at snark. So let's go straight to the debate transcript:
QUESTION: In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities
in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent
of what their male counterparts earn?
OBAMA: Well, Katherine, that's a great question. And, you know, I was
raised by a single mom who had to put herself through school while
looking after two kids. And she worked hard every day and made a lot of
sacrifices to make sure we got everything we needed. My grandmother, she
started off as a secretary in a bank. She never got a college
education, even though she was smart as a whip. And she worked her way
up to become a vice president of a local bank, but she hit the glass
ceiling. She trained people who would end up becoming her bosses during
the course of her career.
She didn't complain. That's not what you did in that generation. And
this is one of the reasons why one of the first -- the first bill I
signed was something called the Lily Ledbetter bill. And it's named
after this amazing woman who had been doing the same job as a man for
years, found out that she was getting paid less, and the Supreme Court
said that she couldn't bring suit because she should have found about it
earlier, whereas she had no way of finding out about it. So we fixed
that. And that's an example of the kind of advocacy that we need,
because women are increasingly the breadwinners in the family. This is
not just a women's issue, this is a family issue, this is a middle-class
issue, and that's why we've got to fight for it.
It also means that we've got to make sure that young people like
yourself are able to afford a college education. Earlier, Governor
Romney talked about he wants to make Pell Grants and other education
accessible for young people.
Well, the truth of the matter is, is that that's exactly what we've
done. We've expanded Pell Grants for millions of people, including
millions of young women, all across the country.
We did it by taking $60 billion that was going to banks and lenders
as middlemen for the student loan program, and we said, let's just cut
out the middleman. Let's give the money directly to students.
And as a consequence, we've seen millions of young people be able to
afford college, and that's going to make sure that young women are going
to be able to compete in that marketplace.
But we've got to enforce the laws, which is what we are doing, and
we've also got to make sure that in every walk of life we do not
tolerate discrimination.
That's been one of the hallmarks of my administration. I'm going to continue to push on this issue for the next four years.
CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women?
ROMNEY: Thank you. And important topic, and one which I learned a
great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state,
because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the
applicants seemed to be men.
And I -- and I went to my staff, and I said, "How come all the people
for these jobs are -- are all men." They said, "Well, these are the
people that have the qualifications." And I said, "Well, gosh, can't we
-- can't we find some -- some women that are also qualified?"
And -- and so we -- we took a concerted effort to go out and
find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members
of our cabinet.
I went to a number of women's groups and said, "Can you help us find folks," and they brought us whole binders full of women.
I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior
staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50
states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership
positions than any other state in America.
Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be
part of that team was because of our recruiting effort. But number two,
because I recognized that if you're going to have women in the workforce
that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for
instance, had two kids that were still in school.
She said, I can't be here until 7 or 8 o'clock at night. I need to be
able to get home at 5 o'clock so I can be there for making dinner for
my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said
fine. Let's have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for
you.
We're going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the
economy I'm going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to
get good workers they're going to be anxious to hire women. In the -- in
the last women have lost 580,000 jobs. That's the net of what's
happened in the last four years. We're still down 580,000 jobs. I
mentioned 31/2 million women, more now in poverty than four years ago.
What we can do to help young women and women of all ages is to have a
strong economy, so strong that employers that are looking to find good
employees and bringing them into their workforce and adapting to a
flexible work schedule that gives women opportunities that they would
otherwise not be able to afford.
This is what I have done. It's what I look forward to doing and I
know what it takes to make an economy work, and I know what a working
economy looks like. And an economy with 7.8 percent unemployment is not a
real strong economy. An economy that has 23 million people looking for
work is not a strong economy.An economy with 50 percent of kids graduating from college that can't
finds a job, or a college level job, that's not what we have to have.
CROWLEY: Governor?
ROMNEY: I'm going to help women in America get good work by getting a stronger economy and by supporting women in the workforce.
CROWLEY: Mr. President why don't you get in on this quickly, please?
OBAMA: Katherine, I just want to point out that when Governor
Romney's campaign was asked about the Lilly Ledbetter bill, whether he
supported it? He said, "I'll get back to you." And that's not the kind
of advocacy that women need in any economy. Now, there are some other
issues that have a bearing on how women succeed in the workplace. For
example, their healthcare. You know a major difference in this campaign
is that Governor Romney feels comfortable having politicians in
Washington decide the health care choices that women are making.
I think that's a mistake. In my health care bill, I said insurance
companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who is
insured. Because this is not just a -- a health issue, it's an economic
issue for women. It makes a difference. This is money out of that
family's pocket. Governor Romney not only opposed it, he suggested that
in fact employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or
not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage.
That's not the kind of advocacy that women need. When Governor Romney
says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are
millions of women all across the country, who rely on Planned
Parenthood for, not just contraceptive care, they rely on it for
mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings. That's a pocketbook issue
for women and families all across the country. And it makes a difference
in terms of how well and effectively women are able to work. When we
talk about child care, and the credits that we're providing. That makes a
difference in whether they can go out there and -- and earn a living
for their family.
These are not just women's issues. These are family issues. These are economic issues.
And one of the things that makes us grow as an economy is when
everybody participates and women are getting the same fair deal as men
are.
CROWLEY: Mr. President...
OBAMA: And I've got two daughters and I want to make sure that they
have the same opportunities that anybody's sons have. That's part of
what I'm fighting for as president of the United States.
CROWLEY: I want to move us along here to Susan Katz, who has a question. And, Governor, it's for you.
QUESTION: Governor Romney, I am an
undecided voter, because I'm disappointed with the lack of progress I've
seen in the last four years. However, I do attribute much of America's
economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the
Bush administration. Since both you and President Bush are Republicans, I fear a return to
the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the
biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you
differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?
ROMNEY: Thank you. And I appreciate that question.
I just want to make sure that, I think I was supposed to get that
last answer, but I want to point out that that I don't believe...
OBAMA: I don't think so, Candy.
ROMNEY: ... I don't believe...
OBAMA: I want to make sure our timekeepers are working here.
ROMNEY: The time -- the time...
CROWLEY: OK. The timekeepers are all working. And let me tell you
that the last part, it's for the two of you to talk to one another, and
it isn't quite as (inaudible) you think.
But go ahead and use this two minutes any way you'd like to, the question is on the floor.
ROMNEY: I'd just note that I don't believe that bureaucrats in
Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or
not. And I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they
could have contraceptive care of not. Every woman in America should have
access to contraceptives. And -- and the -- and the president's
statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.
OBAMA: Governor...
As you can see, a number of significant things occurred during that segment of the debate. They include:
Obama was given a question that was obviously designed to let him brag about what a great president he has been for American women. It might as well as been phrased "Tell us just how much you love women, Mr. President, and all the wonderful things you've done for us."
The question was based on a highly misleading claim, namely that women are paid only 72% of what men doing the same job are paid.
Romney talked about the importance of flexibility in the work place for women who have children and can't stay at the office till all hours of the night. That's an important thing but the Establishment media ignored that in order to promote the "binders of women" meme.
As Romney was making some excellent points Crowley interrupted him and invited Obama to jump in and refute was Romney was saying.
Obama then proceeded to tell one his bigger whoppers when he claimed that "millions of women" across the country rely on Planned Parenthood for their mammograms and cervical cancer screenings. Crowley should have but did not call Obama on this blatant falsehood.As we know, she reserved her "fact-checking" exclusively for Romney.
Obama also made the peculiar accusation that it's Romney who wants Washington to dictate to women with regard to their health care choices. Umm, what?
When it came time for Romney to get a question, it was not, unlike the Obama question, a softball designed to allow him to promote his record or his platform. Rather, he was linked by the so-called"undecided voter" to the "failures" of the Bush administration and then asked to explain how he's any different. And who was responsible for picking the questions and the order in which they were asked? Oh, that's right. It was Candy Crowley, heavyweight champion of "fact-checkers..."
Brilliant, right? Creating the opportunity for a little Bush-bashing while at the same time putting Romney in the awkward position of having to throw Bush under the bus and, possibly, irritate the GOP base. Romney ultimately handled the question as well as he could. But before he did, he tried to get a chance to offer rebuttalto Obama's follow-up on the pay equity question. Crowley scoffed but allowed it, which caused Obama to whine about the time.
Time and time again we have seen Obama and his clueless sidekick Joe Biden run away from their own failures by constantly interrupting, heckling and whining to the moderator when Romney and Ryan are giving their answers. And when Romney or Ryan have been allowed to answer, the response from Team Obama is to accuse them of telling lies. Obama also relies heavily on friendly moderators and the Establishment Media to repeat and validate the accusations.
But the bias and total lack of professionalism we've seen from debate moderators is a topic for another time. So let me finish this article by going back to the very first piece of legislation that Obama signed into law and echoing what so many other Conservatives have already pointed out: the Lily Ledbetter Act was never really about equal pay for equal work. As shown in the transcript above, Obama himself admitted it in the debate. And Joe Biden admitted it as well on Saturday.
Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that the law actually exacerbates the gender gap discouraging companies from hiring women due to concerns about expensive and frivolous law suits.
