‘DUKAKIS MOMENT’? WENDY DAVIS CAUTIOUSLY WIELDS GUN AT FUNDRAISER

Wendy Davis has plenty of scandal on her plate: the biographical lies, the ethics investigation, the seemingly years-long loyalty to the Republican Party. Last week, she suddenly revealed that she was campaigning on a pro-gun rights platform, but her photo-op with a gun earlier this week is not doing her any favors.

The incident occurred at an event last Tuesday with Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, daughter of former Democratic Texas Governor Ann Richards. While the event did not explicitly mention abortion, opting instead for rallying statements on how Davis would be a great governor for the state, the younger Richards’ presence at the event made many onlookers in Texas politics wonder whether Davis was dangerously close to branding herself a “one-issue candidate.” 

Davis managed to eclipse the abortion aspect of her campaign, however. The Dallas Morning News report notes that much of her speaking time was devoted to the other thing Davis is nationally known for: lying about her biography. While the entirety of her statements are not available because the campaign banned many reporters from entering the event hall, the paper did print some of the statements Davis gave. 

Davis chided Republican opponent Greg Abbott for spreading “a distorted version of what happened to my family 30 years ago,” increasing the likelihood that Davis will neither apologize nor correct the errors the Dallas Morning News found in her official biography at any point in the campaign. This includes the lie that she was a teenage single mother and that she single-handedly put herself through law school.

Despite all the baggage of both Davis’s abortion record and her biography scandal, the event was most memorable for one simple image involving neither: her attempt to hold the famed gun of Ann Richards, provided to her by her daughter.

The lack of a steady hand triggered snickers all over the state, perhaps the most common comparing Davis to another Democrat who failed miserably at an attempt to look authoritative and intimidating: 1988 presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. MySanAntonio quipped Republicans immediately considered that she looked “less than natural” holding a weapon. Bryan Preston compared Davis to both Dukakis and fellow Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, and called the photo an “unfortunate” attempt to make Davis look “badass” (he also provides a photo of Ann Richards holding the very same gun, adding insult to ego injury). Conservatives on Twitter were even more brutal,dragging poor Richard Simmons into the incident.

The photo is certainly comical but underscores a more sinister attempt by Davis to reshape her campaign into something more palatable to Texas voters. Davis told the Associated Press last week that she would like to work on legislation to “expand where people may carry handguns,” despite any opinion on guns being entirely absent from her official campaign platform and her “F” grade as a legislator from the NRA. 

Davis’s only legislative history on guns was to promote a bill that would ban individuals with concealed carry licenses from bringing their weapons onto college campuses and a call for background checks at gun shows. The timing of this recent gun rights push is, at best, suspect. Davis not only faces the many accusations of distorting her biographical history; she faces an ethics investigation over her relationship with lobbyists and income that she appears to have not reported.

The gun push also comes at a time in which her past with the Republican Party is slowly bubbling up to the surface, including her donation to the George W. Bush presidential campaign. A candidate known only for supporting abortion and receiving a failing grade from the NRA before suddenly branding herself a pro-gun candidate stands to create a wildly incoherent platform and confuse voters. That her ideological background is completely unclear only adds to the image of a politician striving to amass power with no clear principles behind it.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  WHAT A COINCIDENCE, THE CANDIDATE IS SUDDENLY FOR GUN RIGHTS.  WHAT’S NEXT?  LOWER TAXES, SCHOOL VOUCHERS AND WELFARE REFORM.  WHAT A PHONEY!

LA TIMES: THE REAL VILLAIN OF THE WENDY DAVIS STORY IS BRISTOL PALIN

LA Times writer Paul Thornton has been following the many scandals surrounding Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis: her lies about her personal life, her lack of identifiable political ideology, the attacks on her opponent Greg Abbott. Yet to Thornton, it isn’t Davis who comes out looking worst in this ordeal: it’s “sexist” Bristol Palin.

In a column in the LA Times Thursday, Thornton declared Davis a “hero (and I really mean hero)” because her daughters, in open letters to the voters of Texas, say Davis was “a fine mother.” Had he stopped at praising Davis for going from community college to law school with two children in tow, his piece would have been insipid and benign. Instead, Thornton takes aim at critics of Davis, personalizing the piece by telling the story of his childhood memories when he felt the stigma of single motherhood. Those that attack Davis’s life story, he contends, bring us back to a time “not long after Dan Quayle blamed society’s ills on Murphy Brown,” a time that can be very damaging for the children of single mothers.

To make his point, he attacks Bristol Palin.

Palin wrote a post on her personal blog attacking Davis’s life choices in raising her children from the perspective of a teenage single mother (something Davis claimed to be, but was later found to be lying about and refuses to apologize for). Calling Davis “pathetic,” Palin took issue with Davis’s choice to leave her children in Texas while she was in Massachusetts studying. Although the personal opinion of a public figure who explicitly distances herself from politics despite her family history, the post by Bristol Palin went viral and reached Wendy Davis. Davis replied in an appearance on Fusion, as she has to all such accusations, that she was “proud” of her work as a mother.

That would have been the end of that if Thornton didn’t feel he had to so ardently defend the honor of single mothers by attacking a single mother.

Thornton, an opinion writer for a newspaper, objects to Palin’s “mak[ing] money hurling invective on issues [she has] no business commenting on.” He does not, unfortunately, immediately retire from his position at the LA Times upon realizing the irony of his state, instead continuing to lambaste Palin. Next he raises the question “Who asked you?”, outraged apparently at the existence of Palin’s blog. He then takes “personal” umbrage at Palin, “and not only for [her] sexism,” but for harking back, he argues, to a time when single mothers were stigmatized publicly.

“As someone who came of age not long after Dan Quayle blamed society’s ills on Murphy Brown, I can tell you that we don’t want to go back to the days when these mothers were fair game in the culture war,” he argues, explaining that as a youth he suffered first-hand from having to explain his family situation and feeling ridiculed by both his classmates and the culture for it. 

Nowhere in his personal story does he mention Palin’s son, Tripp Johnston. He mentions Palin’s single motherhood once. He does not mention the things Tripp may one day read about his mother – things said by such tolerant minds as Bill Maher, the Washington Post‘s Susan Jacoby, and Kathy Griffin, to name a few.

In one last ironic flourish, Thornton quotes the Davis daughters on their mother’s maternal abilities, concluding, “theirs are the only opinions that matter.” If only his editors agreed.

Once again, those who support Davis say nothing of her political career: of the bills she passed or wanted to pass; of the many Republicans she voted for in Republican primaries; of her financial support for George W. Bush. Instead they hone in on a young girl’s blog and imply that, because this one person with a conservative family has an opinion of Wendy Davis on the internet, no one (especially conservatives) should ever question Wendy Davis as a politician. 

Agreeing or disagreeing with Palin, who is entitled to that opinion and to blog about it as millions of people do, is entirely beside the point, just as Davis’s skills as a mother are entirely beside the point. None of this has anything to do with Davis’s capacity to be a good governor of Texas, which is exactly why the LA Times is playing it up. 

Riling people up about the question of whether or not Davis was a good mother detracts from the simple fact that she lied repeatedly to the people of Texas and has a reputation for not being trustworthy among Texas Democrats. It detracts from the fact that she has yet to apologize for lying about her biography, instead taunting Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott, who seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the Dallas Morning News story that unmasked her, that he messed with “the wrong Texas gal.” It detracts from the comical transparency of her latest vote-grabbing gimmick, an attempt to portray herself as a pro-gun legislature, hoping everyone ignores her “F” rating from the NRA.

Single mothers who work hard to provide a better life for their children – no matter how they manage to do it – are among the most outstanding citizens our nation has to offer, and few in our society disagree. The left has managed to tangle such a universally recognized truth up with the many lies of Wendy Davis’s public career in the hopes that those passionate about providing all American children with a bright future will see the shiny object and run. 

So far, it has done little to benefit Davis’s campaign, instead encouraging conservatives to dig deeper, to find exactly what it is about her that her supporters are trying to distract from so desperately.

EDITOR’S NOTE:   ONCE AGAIN, THE “WAR ON WOMEN IS REALLY AGAINST CONSERVATIVE WOMEN.  LIBERAL WOMEN, AND MEN FOR THAT MATTER, GET A FREE PASS.

Higher Education: Rutgers University Offers Class on Beyonce

Parents shelling out $50K a year for a Rutgers education were unavailable for comment. What kind of nonsense is this?

Rutgers is so crazy in love with Beyoncé Knowles, it’s offering a course on the famed diva.

Students at the New Brunswick campus are now enrolled in “Politicizing Beyoncé,” a class led by doctoral student and lecturer Kevin Allred in the Department of Women’s and Gender Studies.

Allred said the class isn’t specifically about Bey’s career. Instead, course material examines gender, sexuality and racial politics through the lens of Queen B’s standing in American pop culture.

Racial politics, huh? Thought this was women’s and gender studies?

“This isn’t a course about Beyoncé’s political engagement or how many times she performed during President Obama’s inauguration weekend,” Allred told the university’s online news site.

Then what’s the point?

EDITOR’S NOTE:  SHE’S NOT A CONSERVATIVE, SHE’S A FRIEND OF B.O.

Will Gay Republicans Reveal Liberal Hypocrisy?

One of the many interesting sub-plots of the 2014 election year is the possibility that Congress may welcome its first openly gay Republican.

Dan Innis is running for a House seat in New Hampshire. He is a businessman, entrepreneur, Dean of the Whittemore School of Business and Economics, and is married to a man. It was his husband who convinced him to run, saying “You’ve got to do this” to see if Innis could “make a difference.”

Richard Tisei is running again for a House seat in Massachusetts. He lost by just 1 point in the general election to John Tierney, and will face him again this time around. He has already served as a state senator. He is also married to a man.

Carl DeMaio is running for a House seat in California. He is a businessman who provided training and consulting specifically to financially-troubled government entities to help them become more efficient. He has also served as a city councilman for San Diego. At the time of writing this I do not know if DeMaio is married to his partner, but it is my understanding they have been together for six years.

None of these men are making their sexuality part of their campaign. It will be interesting to see what the liberals do, should these men make it through the GOP primaries. Kevin has often pointed out that liberals reveal their ultimate hypocrisy when faced with an opponent who would traditionally be a liberal. As a living example, DeMaio and his partner were booed while walking in the Gay Pride parade, because DeMaio is a Republican and was running for Mayor.

 

While both political parties tend to lean on wedge issues for securing easy votes, liberals seem to have mastered the exploitation of identity politics. As Kevin has pointed out, whenever someone threatens the liberal stranglehold on one of their core identities — such as a gay Republican or a black Republican or even a female Republican — liberals go after them with a special kind of fervor.

I’ve seen liberals call black Republicans “Uncle Tom”, even use the “N-Word.” Kevin has documented several cases where liberals have outed gay Republicans in vicious manner. Of course we all know what happens if you’re a strong conservative woman with a special needs child on the national political scene.

Entrenched political interests, Republican and Democrat alike, always fear being exposed as hypocritical. But they also fear losing their death grip on whatever voting blocks they control. A gay Republican getting elected to Congress means that maybe gays start realizing they have other options besides automatically voting Democrat. So it will be interesting to see how these gay Republican contenders will be treated should they make it to the general election.

I think we will start to see the entrenched liberal interests exposing themselves as the hypocrites they are. After all, progressives staunchly support the idea that “the ends justify the means,” hypocrisy be damned. They are the party of “say anything, do anything to win”. Obama is proof enough of that. Ultimately, hypocrisy can be forgiven, but losing a monopoly on a voting group is permanent.

Of course, the GOP has a way to go on this front as well. Gays aren’t exactly welcome in most Republican ranks. I’m sure there are some reading this article right now who would never vote for an openly gay person. Well here’s a message to my fellow conservatives — get over it. If you are truly a conservative, then you should acknowledge that the government has no right to tell anybody who they can and cannot be with.

While I understand the opposition to redefining marriage, consider that this argument about gay marriage is only an issue because the government inadvertently created this wedge issue decades ago when it turned “married” into a special status. Marriage existed long before the U.S. government did. In truth, the government shouldn’t have the moral authority to define marriage at all.

EDITOR’S NOTE:   ONCE AGAIN, THESE CANDIDATES WILL BE SUBJECT TO DERISION FROM THE TOLERANT LEFT.  THE EMBRACE OF TOLERANCE DOES NOT CROSS PARTY LINES.  DIVERSITY CELEBRATION IS ONLY FOR THOSE THAT FOLLOW IN LOCKSTEP WITH THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA.

These Are The Most Godless Cities In America

A new survey ranks U.S. cities in terms of ‘bible-mindedness’

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

EDITOR’S NOTE:  IT’S SHOCKING TO SEE THAT THE MOST GODLESS AREAS ARE IN THE NORTHEAST AND WEST COAST (BLUE/PROGRESSSIVE) AND THE MOST BIBLE-MINDED ARE IN THE SOUTH AND MIDWEST (RED/CONSERVATIVE)  IT’S NO WONDER WHY THE LIBS HATE CHRISTIANS.

Most Bible-Minded Cities/2013

1. Chattanooga, Tenn.
2. Birmingham, Ala.
3. Roanoke/Lynchburg, Va.
4. Springfield, Mo.
5. Shreveport, La.
6. Charlotte, N.C.
7. Greenville/Spartanburg, S.C./Asheville, N.C.
8. Little Rock, Ark.
9. Jackson, Miss.
10. Knoxville, Tenn.

Least Bible-Minded Cities/2013

1. Providence, R.I./New Bedford, Mass.
2. Albany, N.Y.
3. Boston
4. San Francisco
5. Cedar Rapids, Iowa
6. Buffalo, N.Y.
7. Hartford/New Haven, Conn.
8. Phoenix
9. Burlington, Vt.
10. Portland, Maine

Bestiality one step closer to being a crime in Alabama

Bestiality is one step closer to being illegal in Alabama after the Alabama Senate today passed a bill to criminalize sexual contact with animals.

Senate Bill 151 would criminalize sexual contact with animals, with exemptions for acceptable animal husbandry and veterinarian practices.

State Sen. Tom Whatley, R-Auburn, sponsored the bill which passed today with no debate by a vote of 20-1. The lone dissenting vote was due to a common procedure in the Legislature, whereby a vote on a previous bill can be used for the next bill up for a vote.

Next, the bill will go before the Alabama House for approval. 

Currently, bestiality is still legal in 14 states and the District of Columbia.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  WHY ISN’T IT ALREADY ILLEGAL?  I CAN ALMOST UNDERSTAND IT WITH THOSE ANIMALS IN D.C., BUT 14 STATES?

IS SCARLETT JOHANSSON WRONG TO DUMP OXFAM? ASK SODASTREAM’S PALESTINIAN WORKERS

While the likes of MSNBC’s Chris Hayes are criticising actressScarlett Johansson‘s decision to stand by SodaStream and Israel and ditch the politicking Oxfam, there is another group of people whose opinions on this issue should be heard: the Palestinians employed by SodaStream in the West Bank.

Earlier this month, Johansson and Oxfam came to blows over the actress’s appearance for and endorsement of SodaStream, a company which has factories in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

And while there are of course many Palestinians not employed by the company who oppose the West Bank factories, the resounding consensus from employees and their dependents seems to be one of excitement and gratitude towards the Israeli-owned firm. Over 500 Palestinians are able to earn three times as much as the average Palestinian worker—and even more than Israel’s own minimum wage.

One worker told NPR: “It’s an excellent place to work. It provides a good salary and they treat us very well. At SodaStream, they do not discriminate between Arabs, Jews, or any ethnic group.”

But there are those for whom the status quo and the “pro-Palestinian” lobbying that goes along with it is more important than Palestinian jobs and economic liberties.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, while not the worst of all culprits, illustrates how ignorant yet politically exigent statements contribute very little to a solution in the region. Earlier Thursday he stated, “Well I’m sure the Hollywood actress getting paid $ for sponsorship and not the NGO that feeds people is right about this particular policy.”

One wonders if the liberal media darling getting paid $ for pushing a particular narrative and not the Palestinian worker is right.

Another Palestinian told CSMonitor what he thought of Oxfam and many other organisations’ boycotts of Israel and Israeli companies operating in the West Bank: “Before boycotting, they should think of the workers who are going to suffer.” The man previously is said to have earned 20 shekels ($6) a day plucking and cleaning chickens but now he makes nearly 10 times that at SodaStream, which also provides transportation, breakfast, and lunch.

One of his fellow Palestinians remarked: “I would love to work for SodaStream. They’re quite privileged. People look up to them. It’s not the people who want to boycott, it’s the officials.”

So why does the so-called “pro-Palestinian” (read: anti-Israel) lobby fail to concern themselves with the welfare and rights of ordinary Palestinians?

One Palestinian man claims it is because “When they [Israelis] provide work for the Palestinians, it’s a way of beautifying the image of the occupation,” whereas the SodaStream CEO says that while he isn’t in favour of the settlements in the West Bank, he doesn’t “want to send 5,000 people into hunger because some activist group thinks that’s going to promote peace.”

If we’re talking about human rights in its truest form, surely the right to economic liberty trumps an unprovable notion of what you perceive your neighbours’ government to be doing in order to “beautify” their policies. If it doesn’t, then you have to question many NGOs’ use of the phrase “human rights” at all.

EDITOR’S NOTE:   IT SEEMS ONE OF THEIR PRECIOUS HOLLYWOOD CELEBS HAS STRAYED OFF THE RESERVATION BY HAVING A DIFFERING OPINION.  IN THIS CASE DIVERSITY WILL NOT BE CELEBRATED.  IT WILL BE PUNISHED.

BETTE MIDLER: SNOW IN SOUTH PROVES CLIMATE CHANGE EXISTS

Bette Midler is not a meteorologist, not does she play one on the small or big screen.

She still uses social media to promote global warming, or rather climate change, whenever she can. The trigger is generally an extreme weather pattern anywhere in the U.S.

This week, Midler seized upon a cold snap in the south as proof positive climate change exists.

Midler previously cried “global warming” after a warm winter day in New York City and joked that climate change “deniers” have small brains.

EDITOR’S NOTE:   FINALLY THE VOICE OF REASON AND EXPERTISE HAS SPOKEN.  THE PLANET WILL SLEEP BETTER TONIGHT.

OBAMA’S ORGANIZERS BEG FOR POSITIVE OBAMACARE STORIES

Worried by a wave of popular outrage at Obamacare, the activists of President Barack Obama’s community organizing arm, Organizing for Action, are urging members to share positive stories about the president’s flagship domestic policy. In an email to volunteers in Los Angeles, organizers note that “we are making a big effort to document the stories of people who have benefited from Obamacare” to counter negative stories.

Organizing for Action is also asking members to write letters to local media: “We are also encouraging all of you to spend a few minutes each week to write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper about how you, or someone you know, has been helped by Obamacare. The letters must be brief and some newspapers ask you to refer to an article in their paper related to your subject.” Training in letter-writing is provided by the group.

The president’s allies have reason to be worried. A poll released Thursday by the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed that opposition to Obamacare has risen dramatically among uninsured Americans, to 47% (as opposed to 24% who are in favor, a striking 2:1 ratio). Organizing for Action attributes the poor polling to bad media coverage, and hopes to use its vast network of donors and activists to generate positive media in response.

EDITOR’S NOTE:   BAD MEDIA COVERAGE?  YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.  THE LEFT WING PRESS HAS DONE EVERYTHING FOR OBAMA EXCEPT CHANGE HIS DIAPER.

Climate Change Nonsense

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Barack Obama warned, “[W]e have to act with more urgency – because a changing climate is already harming Western communities struggling with drought, and coastal cities dealing with floods. That’s why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air.” Those regulations are greatly harming the coal industry and are thus reflected on your monthly power bill.

Obama then declared, “[T]he debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”

ATLANTA, GEORGIA WITH 2 INCHES OF “GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE”

Indeed, much of the nation saw several inches of “climate change” Tuesday, as snow and ice covered several states as far south as the Gulf Coast. In the South, thousands of people were stuck for hours – often overnight – in traffic or wherever they could find shelter, kids were stranded at school, and a region unaccustomed to dealing with such weather was crippled.

One of the main problems in the South was inaccurate forecasting. Chattanooga meteorologist Paul Barys admitted, “This was just not what we were seeing in the forecast models.” Therefore, road crews made almost no preparation until the snow actually began to fall, and schools waited until then to send kids home, compounding a bad situation. The South isn’t exactly known for its snowplows anyway.

It’s important to note that weather is not the same thing as climate, but we’ll make some observations. First, climatologists also use computer forecast models to show that the climate is changing. Computer models can be wrong, especially if the data entered is faulty, and that’s true if the prediction is tomorrow’s weather or the next century’s climate. Indeed, as we noted above, there hasn’t been any global warming in 17 years – hence the change in terminology to “climate change.” Second, alarmists like Barack Obama constantly point to weather patterns – drought and floods, for example – as definitive proof that, in order to prevent climate change, we need draconian government regulations and taxes that will hit the economy like, well, a snow storm in Atlanta. And no matter the weather, these alarmists blame climate change. Truth is the only thing getting plowed.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  I CAN’T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE BUT I’M GETTING TIRED OF SHOVELING “GLOBAL WARMING” OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY.