The “Lies” of Fox News

Whenever I get into a “debate” with a liberal (I use the term lightly, considering the fact that it is usually comprised of someone spewing personal invectives at me for admitting that I’m conservative), I could practically set my watch by their claims that I am a mindless drone for Fox News. “Turn of Fox,” they say, “and learn to think for yourself!”

Didn’t you know? FOX LIES!!! Now learn to be more tolerant, you idiot!

It’s funny when they say that, because it is their go-to accusation whenever you say something that they can’t come up with a decent response to. I have asked multiple times for all of them to give me evidence that Fox actually lies. None of them have even attempted it. They always tell me, “if you can’t see it, then you’re hopeless!” Apparently being able to prove one’s claims is no longer important. Finally, though, after pointing out many of the lies from MSNBC, a liberal actually gave me something I could respond to.

I just picked my head up off of my desk. Yes, it’s that bad.

The first link that the liberal in question gave me was for Salon.com. The article is titled, “12 Most Despicable Things Fox News Did In 2012.”

“Romancing Petraeus: Fox News CEO Roger Ailes Tries to Recruit for the GOP.” The claim is made that Ailes sent a Fox News defense analyst to try to persuade Petraeus to run. Actually, WaPo’s Bob Woodward reported that Ailes sent a personal request – likely in writing – to ask Petraeus to consider it. Ailes didn’t send Kathleen McFarland to talk Petraeus into running in 2012, she was sent by her producers to interview Petraeus about the war in Afghanistan. She was about to ask him if there was anything he felt the media could do to help the troops, and he jokingly made reference to a personal remark that Ailes had made. Petraeus said, “I’m not running.” That was it. It’s not a lie, nor is it Fox News “exploiting its power and wealth to manipulate political outcomes.” To claim such is a lie in and of itself.

“Fox News Produces Its Own Anti-Obama Video.” It’s not anti-Obama…it’s a commentary on how things have changed since Obama rode into the White House on a unicorn promising to change everything. If you’ll recall, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half in his first year in office. Not only did he miserably fail, he only made the deficit AND the debt far worse. The writer links Newscorpse, which in turn links Media Matters. MM only answers three of the many points made in the video, and their entire response is, “it’s all Bush’s fault!” Obama has been in office for four years by the time this is all being written, but it’s still Bush’s fault. Oh…and where did MM get their supposed “proof”? From The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a group helmed by uber-liberal Robert Greenstein, a former financial advisor for Democrat presidents Carter and Clinton.

“Fox News: How Much Rape Is Too Much?” Dear Lord. Seriously? The oft-slammed remarks from Liz Trotta are, again, paraded out as evidence of Fox being a group of hatemongers. What the writer never mentions is that the segment’s host, Eric Shaw, openly disagreed with Trotta – as has pretty much every host on Fox she’s been on with. Fox is hardly the only network to ever invite a contributor on who has made incendiary remarks. Hell, MSNBC has multiple hosts that do that on a routine basis. Keith Olbermann used the Nazi salute and refused to apologize even after the Anti-Defamation league stepped in, Lawrence O’Donnell challenged one of Mitt Romney’s sons to a fistfight, and Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut”. Ed Schultz also deliberately edited an audio of Texas governor Rick Perry, cutting it off at a certain point to make it sound like Perry was referring to President Obama as “a black cloud that hangs over America.” At least Fox hosts have no problem calling out other right-wingers when they’re wrong. Olbermann had Jeneane Garofalo on his show multiple times and guffawed loudly when she called all conservatives racists.

“Fox News Conning Latinos for Politics and Profit.” Oh, horsefeathers. Fox News has its own Latino site. Yes, Fox reports on illegal immigration – because no other news network will. When was the last time you saw MSNBC or CNN report on the criminals pouring across our Southern border?

(BTW, I had to link Michelle Malkin for most of the stories on illegal aliens who commit rape and murder because most of the media – Fox included – ignores the fact that some of these brutal criminals are illegals. Mrs. Malkin has done an incredible job of reporting some of these stories and she continuously takes a great deal of hate for it.)

“Fox Lies About Military Access to Voting in Ohio.” Actually, they weren’t lying. Absentee voting laws actually began during the Civil War as a way to make sure that the troops were guaranteed the ability to vote. To be sure, absentee voting was only upheld by six states after the Civil War ended, but that doesn’t mean that the military doesn’t have the right to vote – and since much of our military is still caught up in a war, it’s only fair that their special circumstances grant special rights to make sure that their votes are counted. As it was, thousands of ballots in the last election were lost or destroyed between Afghanistan and the US. Convenient, isn’t it?

“Graphic Evidence of the Racism of Fox News: Racial Photoshopping.” This is an egregious lie, one I’m tired of having to answer. Every liberal in America seems content to accuse us of racism when we refuse to agree with them. In this accusation, they claim that a photo of Trayvon Martin was “obviously darkened” to make it look more “ominous.” Click here for the graphic in question. The photo actually came from another publication, and it is actually Newscorpse that makes the outrageous claim that some kind of “racial photoshopping” was carried out to make Trayvon look more dangerous somehow. Then, it’s claimed that Fox changed the graphic to make it look less damning – actually, they changed the entire headline. The first headline stated that charges were to be filed. The second stated that Zimmerman was actually in custody following the filing of charges. It’s all racism, though!

“The Polling Schizophrenia at Fox News.” First of all, schizophrenia is a mental disorder involving delusions and paranoia – not lying. The sub-title just sounds insultingly stupid. Second, the Salon writer (again) links Newscorpse, which claims that Fox ignores its own polls and refuses to report on them…by linking a report by Fox News showing that Obama had gained a lead in a poll. Wow. I’m speechless.

“Fox News Psycho Analyst: Newt Gingrich’s Adultery Means A Stronger America.” Here the Salon writer lambasts Psychologist Dr. Keith Ablow (now notorious for suggesting the possibility that Casey Anthony really didn’t do it) for saying that Obama is “contemptuous of the judiciary” (he is) and “devoid of all emotion” (when was the last time he showed any emotion other than anger?). Nobody had any problem with Dr. Martha Stout constantly referencing George W. Bush in her book “The Sociopath Next Door” and declaring him to be an absolute monster, but they’re going to tear down Dr. Ablow for stating the blatantly obvious? Plus, they’re going to mock Dr. Ablow’s forgiveness of Gingrich’s indiscretions when they weren’t even willing to hold Bill Clinton’s feet to the fire after he was accused by more than one woman of rape? Puh-leeze.

“Fox News Airs Hour-Long Commercial for Anti-Obama Film on Hannity.” First the Salon writer (who is still only quoting Newscorpse) crows about “The Undefeated” being a “flop” at the box office. Then he bemoans Hannity pushing the documentary “The Hope & The Change”, as if doing so was immoral. The Newscorpse writer he links then goes on to say, “Hannity didn’t reveal what other documentaries he’s seen, but it’s fair to guess that his second favorite would be “Triumph of the Will,” Hitler’s propaganda film directed by Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.” Really? We’re calling Fox a network of liars over this? Moving along…

“Fox News ‘Democrat’ Kirsten Powers Accuses Obama of Sympathizing With Terrorists.” The implication here by the Salon writer is that Powers can’t possibly be an actual Democrat if she disagrees with something President Obama has done! This is the SAME organization that proudly posted a “Republican Women for Obama” video in the last post that was linked. Powers wrote an op-ed for Foxnews.com in which she blasted the President and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for their comments against the video that was accused of starting the attack on our embassy in Benghazi. We have since uncovered (no thanks to Fox News and others who have refused to let it go) that the video, “Innocence of Muslims”, had nothing to do with the attack. It was premeditated by multiple jihadist organizations well in advance, and there were multiple warnings that it was coming. Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton were swift to righteously condemn the video, but said nothing against the terrorists who plotted and carried out the attack. It was refreshing to hear a Democrat admit that her side was being cowardly in refusing to respond to the attack.

“Fox News Spinning Furiously On Unemployment Rate.” The spin here appears to be a Foxnews.com headline questioning the report in 2012 that the unemployment rate dropped from 8.1 to 7.8. Never mind the fact that they’re reporters and their job is to question the official story. Never mind the fact that unemployment is actually dropping in some cases because some folks have been out of work for so long that they’re just giving up – no employer wants to hire someone with an extensive gap in their employment history, and some people have been out of work for so long that they’re dropping out of the workforce altogether. There’s a lot that plays into the unemployment numbers, and trying to simplify it into “something GOOD is happening under Obama!” is irresponsible at best.

And, the kicker…

“Fox Opposes Ban on Assault Weapons But Imposes Ban on Talking About It.” Okay…let’s get something straight for the umpteen jillionth time: the First Amendment is meant to protect you from the government, not from private entities. Even if you could prove that Fox had instituted a ban on talking about assault weapon bans, trying to say that Fox is “slaughtering the First Amendment” by refusing to allow guests to talk about it is every bit as silly as conservatives who accuse MSNBC of somehow abridging our First Amendment rights. I will tell you what I tell them…you have the same right that the other guys have. You just need to exercise it. That said, Fox has instituted no such ban on discussing proposed revivals of the Clinton-era assault weapons ban. David Clark, one of the executive producers, instituted a temporary ban on discussing gun control policy for a short time because he felt it was too soon after the Newtown tragedy to talk about such a charged political issue. The ban was lifted not too long afterwards and there have since been quite a few discussions on FNC and Foxnews.com about gun control and assault weapons bans.

The author of this article is Mark Howard, who appears to have written the multiple Newscorpse articles that are literally the only thing linked. It’s remarkable that Salon would allow this kind of hit piece to appear on its pages. What is more remarkable is that there are liberals out there trying to point to this tripe when they claim that they have proof that Fox News does nothing but lie. It seems more like liberals are obsessed with Fox, so much so that they’re willing to pass anything off as proof – even if it’s a lie.

Next up: George Soros, Media Matters, and the war against Fox News.

Make It Hurt

I can still remember the big government shutdown in 1995. November of that year, feuds over then-president Bill Clinton’s demands for budget concessions on public health (including Medicare), education, and environmental issues (remember the “hole in the ozone” that nobody ever talks about anymore?) drove the Republican-led House to force the government into a shutdown that lasted nearly a month. After national parks were closed, Jay Leno made the joke that “they put a guy out front to tell people, ‘don’t look at that!'” National parks were closed, but now that we’re in the middle of another shutdown Obama is taking it a hell of a lot further than last time.

They haven’t just closed down the parks. Rangers have been ordered to step outside their jurisdiction and actually put cones and barriers up on highways to block off scenic overlooks, with the purpose of stopping people who are only passing through from pulling over to take pictures. Open-air war memorials – particularly the WWII memorial and the Vietnam memorial wall – have had barricades put up. At the Vietnam wall, when veterans and other visitors crossed the barriers to pay their respects, police officers chased them off. At the WWII memorial, which sees a couple of “honor flights” every week bringing dying WWII veterans to pay their final respects, barriers had to be crossed by Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) to lead the vets into the memorial. The entire memorial is outdoors. As in, requiring no personnel to staff it. Other outdoor memorials closed include the 2nd Infantry Division (WWI) memorial and the Iwo Jima memorial.

One volunteer took home a section of the “police line” crime scene tape that had been erected to keep people out. The Park Service threw President Obama under the bus – they confirmed that the order to close the memorials came straight from the White House.

Something else I don’t remember happening in 1995: the FBI ending all meetings with the public. One of my closest friends just told me something that made my blood run cold. She called the local FBI office to report that a known pedophile with a serious mental illness has been released from an institution and is delusional and dangerous. The secretary who answered replied, “I’m sorry, ma’am, but you’ll have to start with local police. We had to suspend meetings with the public to report criminal activity because of the shutdown.”

In other words? Now is the time to go nuts on that criminal enterprise you’ve been building. The FBI (and likely the ATF and DEA) aren’t taking reports right now.

Other friends have reported that websites set up through the Library of Congress have been shut down. College students facing assignment deadlines can’t do the research they need to do because all they see is a white screen saying that the site has been shut down. What nobody has questioned yet, beyond the ridiculous “why?” that we should be asking, is how they’re paying for all of this.

It costs money to rent barricades and put up signs. It costs money to station park rangers and police officers in front of parks and monuments. It costs money to send someone out to shut off scenic overlooks. It costs money to send Secret Service agents to stand outside of an outdoor monument and tell people to go away. It costs money to take a website offline and replace it with a “closed” sign. None of these things are inexpensive. It costs more to put the barriers up around the WWII memorial than it does to just let people in. There are probably more police and park rangers on duty now than there are normally.

Most of this isn’t necessary. Some of it, like suspending the ability of the FBI to take reports, is downright dangerous. All of it is the result of President Obama throwing a temper tantrum and saying, “I’m not your friend anymore, so you can’t play in my yard!” He figures that if he can make it hurt, even in the smallest of ways, that people will side with him and beg the Republicans to just cave in and let him do what he wants to do. Unfortunately, Democrats are defending him. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have even urged Democrats in the House and Senate to vote “no” on funding for veteran’s benefits just to make sure they’re still in Dear Leader’s good graces. For her part, Pelosi tried to use the line that voting for anything less than full government funding is “using veterans as a bargaining chip.” It’s literally all or nothing with the Democrats right now, but Obama quietly signed a bill allowing the troops to keep receiving their pay during the shutdown.

Not that I’m upset about that. I just can’t figure out how they can excuse paying the currently-serving troops and ignore the disabled veterans who still need their healthcare.

What’s absolutely unforgivable (only slightly moreso than refusing to care for our disabled vets) is that elderly residents on Lake Mead have been forced from their homes. Why? Their homes sit on federal land, so because of the shutdown, they all have to leave. If they can do this, they can do anything. The media is practically asleep. The only channel that is reporting the truth about some of these outrageous violations of our basic rights in the name of this shutdown is Fox News. MSNBC is reporting that Spite House is calling on the GOP to pass a “clean” spending bill. CNN is reporting that Boehner is calling default our “current path”. ABC is reporting that Boehner won’t make a move without Obama agreeing to even talk to GOP representatives. In reality, the only way that any of the realities of what the Democrats are doing right now is seeing the light of day is alternative media.

Obama’s own Twitter account laid the blame for the shutdown solely on the Tea Party. Someone please explain something to me…Obama and his cronies are swearing up and down that they will never sign any bill that doesn’t raise the debt ceiling (something that, in 2008, he had called “irresponsible”) and strips ANY funding from Obamacare (even though Dear Leader himself has made over 100 changes to the bill by executive order – including giving a complete exemption to members of Congress), yet they’re accusing the Republicans of refusing to negotiate. I’m sorry, but how does that work? You take everything off the table and then walk out of the room because the other guy won’t compromise? What, are you twelve years old?

The Spite House may end up winning something in the end here, but they will continue to do everything they can to make it hurt until they do get what they want. I can only hope that the GOP stays strong and refuses to back down. Negotiation means both sides come to an agreement. This isn’t diplomacy – it’s bullying.

Social Conservatism Strikes Again

For some time now, I’ve been a fan of the “Liberal Logic 101” page on Facebook. Considering just how hypocritical most liberals can be (need I remind anyone that I get plenty of hate from liberals for being a lesbian who is politically conservative?), it’s hard not to smile at the sarcasm of some of their posts. On my profile, I describe myself thus: “I am the flag-waving, gun-toting, tea-partying American badass with a genius IQ that your hippie friends warned you about. I stole your girlfriend while you were banging on drums at the Occupy Wall Street camp.”

Yesterday the moderators at LL101 posted another word pic that said, “When a Christians [sic] says homosexuality is sin it’s not hate; it’s one wounded person telling another wounded person that he’s found a hospital that can treat those wounds.” I didn’t attack anyone (I never do). I was absolutely respectful in my response. I told them that I’m not willing to call it hate and I completely respect their rights to believe that my sexual orientation is a sin, but I disagree with their beliefs about it.

I was immediately attacked. A few minutes later, my comments were removed and I was banned from the page.

I’m not going to cry about my First Amendment rights. Those rights are meant to protect me from the government, not from other law-abiding citizens (no matter how childish they may be). They have every right to ban me. I will tell them and their true believers, though, that their social conservatism is a huge part of the problem in America right now, and they’re giving all conservatives a bad name.

YOU PEOPLE are the reason why gay liberals lash out at me for “aligning with my oppressors.” You’re not conservatives – you’re social extremists. You are the reason Romney lost the election. You refused to get out and vote for him because he wasn’t socially-minded enough for you. He wasn’t willing to make his stance against abortion and gay marriage the most important part of his platform. Now we’re stuck with the President from hell, a guy who appoints people to the IRS and the DoD who openly attack our basic rights and destroys not only our economy but our image on the world stage as the one country you shouldn’t screw around with.

You are no better than the liberals you claim to dislike. You say you want limited government, but you want to push laws that give the government more power over personal moral issues? How is that limiting government? The instant you ask the government to start moralizing, you fling the door open for the other side (in this case, the liberals) to do the exact same thing. Liberals make the same excuse that you make: “it’s just WRONG!” If your only excuse for supporting or not supporting a law is your religious views, chances are you should reevaluate your motives. The Constitution doesn’t support the passage of laws that are based purely on religious dogma – whether that dogma is Christian, Catholic, Mormon, or Muslim.

The most ridiculous thing I frequently hear from social conservatives is, “if we don’t stop the gay rights movement, G-d will give up on America!” Yes, social conservatives really do believe this sort of thing. We are one of VERY few nations that is closely allied with Israel and we have afforded Jews – G-d’s chosen people, in case you missed it – more protection and freedom than any other nation in the world, but somehow they’ve come to the conclusion that the gay rights movement is going to be G-d’s final straw. Israel is literally the only gay-friendly nation in the Middle East and G-d hasn’t stopped protecting them (at least if you see it from a spiritual perspective), so I have to ask, where are you guys getting this ridiculous belief that America will fall out of G-d’s good graces if you show tolerance for gay people?

Your refusal to even engage conservatives like me on what is likely the only issue we disagree on is the very thing that gay liberals point to when they try to make the point that all conservatives are hatemongers. If you don’t like that label, then do something to change it. No, it’s not hateful to disagree with my sexual orientation. It is hateful to shout me down, call me a pervert, and claim that I am all that’s wrong with America just because I’m gay – and then take away my ability to respond.

If you don’t want to be labeled a hatemonger, then change the way you treat the people you disagree with. Not all gay people are liberal, but if you wonder why so many ARE liberal, then look no further than your own mirror. I would fight to my last breath for anyone’s right to believe that I’m living in sin for being openly gay. No matter how much you may hate me, I don’t hate you. That does not mean I will be silent while you attack us.

***UPDATE***

A mutual friend tried to stand up for me. She felt that her comments might have been part of the reason I had been banned; the moderator un-banned me and said, “Be very careful in the future. Since Facebook punishes Conservatives for responding to Liberals, banning Liberals is the only way to safely maintain a free exchange of ideas.” I, naturally, was offended – I told them that I had been nothing but respectful and never attacked anyone despite being attacked myself. I quoted this very post when I told them that it wasn’t hateful to disagree, but it was to call me a pervert. I was immediately banned again – this time the excuse was, “in her one and only post-banning comment, she called people names, accused commenters of saying things they did not say and made some insulting broad-sweeping comments about Conservatives and Christians. So she is banned again. Whether or not you call yourself a Liberal or a Conservative, there is a certain level of civilized behavior we expect from people.”

I’m sorry, but here’s one of the very comments you claim was never made, by a user named Tim George: “It’s no coincidence that people who approve of homosexuality don’t understand Christianity. There are the rare few out there who are not Christians yet can see homosexuality for the disgusting perversion it is because they’re still listening to the moral code written on their hearts by God and not accepting the liberal brainwashing that most people have come to accept.” Because I’ve been banned and don’t know who the moderator is, I can’t send them a message. They have effectively cut off my ability to defend myself. Every one of my friends who have tried to back me up, no matter how civilized they are, have also been banned. We’re all pretty well convinced that I was really banned for having the gumption to hold a mirror to their face.

Calling me an “anti-Christian bigot” for disagreeing ranks right up there with the liberals who call me a racist because I can’t stand President Obama. I’ve gotten death threats from gay liberals for standing up for the rights of Christians. A few years ago, at a PFLAG meeting, a politely disagreed with a member who openly called for “hate speech laws” to shut Christians up – I was asked to leave. This is how I’m repaid. I’m accused of the opposite and shut out of any discourse because someone’s pride has been injured.

Stay classy, social conservatives!

Please, Make It Stop!

Many of my friends have been posting a video clip of Alex Jones on Piers Morgan telling the British liberal elitist that “1776 will commence again” if the government tries to take our guns. They all think it’s great, but they forget who he is.

Jones is a 9/11 truther, a bona fide member of the tin-foil hat brigade who was interviewed along with several other truthers for a History Channel special on 9/11 conspiracy theories – toward the end of the special, he compared himself to Galileo, saying, “I’m saying the world is round, I’m saying that 9/11 is an inside job, I’m showing the official story is a fraud, a flat Earth theory, and I know I’m going to be vindicated.” Later, outside the Denver Mint (near the 2008 Democratic Convention was taking place), Jones went on a screaming rant during which he chased Michelle Malkin around the crowd, calling her “evil” and “a monster”. In an interview after that incident he claimed that he was set up, that his voice was normal, he was being polite and just asking a question – but that Malkin’s “people” created the video as disinformation.

In short, Alex Jones is a couple of french fries short of a Happy Meal.

I can’t stand the guy. He’s an embarrassment to the conservative cause. Completely aside from fudging the fact that 1776 actually wasn’t the start of the American Revolution (it had been cooking for years prior to the outbreak of the actual war, with the Tea Party occurring in 1773 – yes, I really am that cheeky), Jones did exactly what Piers invited him on the show to do: have a complete meltdown.

Jones fudges a few points in his long-winded growling and howling session. He states that out of 11,000 supposed gun deaths in America in 2012 (a figure that can’t be backed up since statistics won’t be available until next year), 74% were gang-related – that is false, and he never says where he gets his ridiculous statistics. The most recent statistics available from the FBI show that in 2011, 12,664 homicides occurred. Of that number, right around 68% were committed with firearms – 8,583 exactly. About 53% of all homicides occurred during the commission of another crime (burglary, robbery, auto theft, rape, etc.). According to the statistics, only about 673 homicides in 2011 were inter-gang in nature – that’s about .5% of all homicides. Oops.

Rather than calmly countering Piers’ questions about gun murders in the US as opposed to the UK (something that’s easy to do if you simply compare violent crime rates as a whole), Jones just calls him “a Hatchet Man of the New World Order” and then tells him to set up a boxing ring. Jones is a one-man wrecking crew; Piers knew what he was doing when he invited him, and Jones played right into it. He beautifully made the Limey’s point that those of us who support the Second Amendment are all drooling mouth-breathers who don’t know how to have an intelligent conversation.

He is the pathetic caricature that President Obama paints all conservatives as. Sadly, the media is only to happy to give him airtime because of it.

Not quite two years ago, however, Ted Nugent went on Piers Morgan’s show and very articulately took him out to the woodshed on gun control. It’s so beautiful it almost brought a tear to my eye. You aren’t going to see Nuge or John Lott on Piers right now…he’s too busy building the aforementioned narrative.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=50vUx0DfGtE]

The Mystery of “Tolerant” Gay Liberals

A friend who reads the blog was recently quoted in a New York Times article about lesbian conservatives. I was surprised – it was very tasteful, something I hadn’t expected from the Times. My hope that we might be looking toward actually being respected for once was immediately dashed when Bruce over at GayPatriot linked an op-ed from Advocate.com about “The Mystery of Gay Republicans.”

If I wasn’t angry before, I certainly am now. In fact, I’m downright pissed off.

Broadway diva John Carroll is the author, and considering the fact that I’ve been openly hated (and even threatened) in the comments section of multiple articles on that website – to the point that I no longer post comments there – I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I am appalled at his open hatred and intolerance. I have to ask, where is all of this tolerance the gay left keeps preaching?

Carroll sings the worship of Obama and describes his elation at the President’s re-election, then goes on to detail everything the President has done for the LGBT community. True enough, he ended DADT – it didn’t happen in a vacuum, though. There were Republicans who wanted to see the policy end. I have friends and family in the military who never saw a point to banning gay and lesbian troops from serving, all of them conservative in nature. What else does Carroll claim the messiah has done?

Well, he signed the Mathew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act into law. So what? How many times have I asked why we need a law to make our lives more valuable than the lives of straight people? Why do we need a hate crimes law in cases where the murderers were already sentenced to death? What are you going to do – resuscitate them then execute them a second time? If you’re like most liberals who are against the death penalty, what more can you give Matt Shepard’s killers than life in prison without the possibility of parole? Do you really think that sentencing them to 400 years is going to send a message that people should stop and ask, “hmmm, maybe I shouldn’t beat this guy to death…after all, I might be kept in prison until my corpse has rotted!” It’s one step closer to hate speech legislation. Sorry, but that’s no great leap forward in gay rights.

What about his executive order to all facilities that accept Medicare/Medicaid patients to immediately allow patients to be cared for by their same-sex partners? That wasn’t just for us, kids. It was a blanket order forcing hospitals to allow patients to decide who they wish to see and who will make decisions for them. What that order doesn’t have power over are situations where the patient is incapacitated and there’s no living will in place (I learned in EMT school to have one, and my significant other is listed on it along with my father). If you get into a wreck and you are brought to the hospital in a state of unconsciousness, the hospital still has every right to restrict your visitors to immediately verifiable relatives. We’re still not onto anything major here.

He announced that the Dept of Justice would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. I’m sorry, but how is this supposed to make me happy? He didn’t say he was going to work to repeal it, he just said he wouldn’t defend it anymore. That is what we riding the fence, and it’s a tactic commonly employed by politicians looking to seal the gay vote in their bag. By not openly supporting DOMA the way he did during the 2008 elections, he gets on your good side. It’s his way of making you happy without having to anger the rest of the liberal base. Believe what you will but there are many Democrats who still believe that homosexuality is wrong and gay marriage is an abomination. Ask Bill Clinton, who signed it into law. Ask Democrats Robert Byrd, Dick Gephardt, James Clyburn, Gary Condit, Dick Durbin, John Edwards, Steny Hoyer, Jack Murtha, Chuck Schumer, and Bart Stupak – every single one of them supported DOMA when it was passed, and not a single one has come out to say it should be repealed although most of them are still in Congress (two of them died while in Congress, having never admitted they were wrong to vote for it). Republican Bob Barr, on the other hand, helped write the bill and he has vocally come out in saying he was wrong and DOMA should be repealed.

I’m sorry…that last bit didn’t fit the narrative very well, did it?

He expanded benefits for federal employees to unmarried, same-sex partners. Fantastic. My life is already better. Not much to sing about, since the VERY Republican state I live in, along with the very Republican state that Sarah Palin hails from, allow the same kind of thing for the same-sex partners of State employees as well.

He directed all federal agencies engaged abroad to “promote and protect” the human rights of LGBT people in foreign countries. That’s rich…you mean the rights of 12 men currently awaiting execution in Libya for being accused of being gay? How about the rights of gays in Uganda who face stiff jail sentences or even death for engaging in homosexual sex acts? Oh, I know – they’re talking about protecting the rights of gay people in Egypt, Iran and Gaza! (Meanwhile, back on the farm…) Barack Obama has favored Sharia-led nations and their rights for his entire administration, and we have heard him pay lip service to protecting the interests of gay people abroad, but action is scarce. I sincerely doubt that Carroll (or any other gay liberal) could name a single instance in which any member of Obama’s cabinet has made even a half-hearted attempt to intervene on behalf of any gay person in a foreign country.

Oh, but he came out in support of gay marriage! WOOHOO! Hold on there, Sparky. All he did (yet again) was pay lip service to the issue. He may claim to support our rights to marry, but he currently calls it a “state’s rights issue” (the same thing the gay left got mad at McCain for saying back in 2008, as I recall) and told MTV flat-out that gay marriage was not going to be an issue he is willing to take up in his second term. Here’s the telling part, though: he blathered about his supposedly personal beliefs about gay marriage for a couple of minutes before getting to the part where he said he wasn’t willing to approach the issue. Not one of you have called him out for merely claiming to support it and not being willing to do anything. He was playing every one of the gay liberals who voted for him like a fiddle and they let him get away with it.

Gay liberals talk about how we, as conservatives, are willing to merely take scraps from the Republicans’ table. What on Earth do they think they’re doing? They’re supporting a party that lies to their faces. At least I know exactly where I stand with Republicans. Plus, they’ll sit down and talk to me while they won’t give the likes of Carroll the time of day. Why? Because they know that I care about their rights, too, and I’m not being so brazenly insulting that they can’t stand to be in the same room with me.

Instead of wondering how their bastion state, California, could possibly pass Prop 8, now they’re breathlessly asking what Obama can do during this term to further the rights of gays in America. Sorry, folks. This term won’t be one for the record books. He’s not actively trying to repeal DOMA, he’s not interested in fighting for gay marriage, and he’s not even broaching the subject of adoptions for gay couples.

The comment that really roasts me is where Carroll says, “So basically a vote is cast for their bank account while they remain spiritually bankrupt.” Wait just one damned minute. Is that not the exact same kind of line that the gay community has so despised American Christians for? Super-religious Christians are famous for calling gay people spiritually bankrupt. I listened to it all throughout my childhood. He’s willing to make a moral case out of his arguments, but he dismisses the moralizing of the other side as being…what, irrelevant? Who decides who is right? Whose morality is the right one? How do you know that your brand of moralizing is somehow better than the ones you’re so mad at in the first place? Somehow, in an article written about the desire for tolerance, you manage to come off as a self-righteous, arrogant cretin, especially when you congratulate yourself for turning your back on a gay Republican at a party.

Maybe I should tell myself that it gets better.

It’s The Economy, Stupid! (Part II)

John Schnatter began working in pizza parlors as soon as he was old enough to work. He went to college and worked at getting a good education. At age 22, he sold his 1972 Camaro Z28 to buy out the partner at his father’s pub, Mick’s Lounge, and turn it into the first-ever Papa John’s Pizza place. Today, he commands a chain of some four thousand franchisees and has a net worth of $600 million.

Schnatter worked hard for everything he has. Now the government is requiring him to add nearly $10 million a year to his operating costs, taking another 10% bite out of his profits. You see, while the company brought in $1.218 billion last year, it shelled out $1.131 billion in operating costs – a gross profit of $87 million. That’s before taxes. Schnatter himself has spoken out against the Obamacare mandate. Now that Obama has been re-elected, he’s said that he’ll have to cut some employee hours to avoid losing profits.

Liberals are calling for a boycott of Papa John’s now. Their beef? “He’s worth $600 million! He can afford it!” When he said he’d have to raise the price of his pizzas by 10-14 cents a pie, the left mocked him. “Oh, ten cents a pizza! That’ll really drive business away!”

And the left wonders why I’m so derisive when I talk about economic issues.

A large business that makes tens of millions of dollars can’t necessarily afford to lose more of their profits; $87 million wouldn’t even keep the company afloat for two months if things went bad. Schnatter’s own fortune wouldn’t even keep the company afloat for six months – a fair-sized portion of his net worth resides completely in the 6.1 million shares he owns in his own company. If they were to go under, his net worth would all but evaporate. Not to mention the losses he’d incur just trying to salvage what was left. The price of his pizzas would go up by about 10-14 cents per pizza on average; that doesn’t break down the rise in price for everything on the menu, because the price of some items would rise more than others. While Forbes talks about the cost only rising by a certain amount based purely on the health insurance costs, what their writer didn’t take into account are the other companies that Papa John’s buys from – particularly food and packaging companies, all of which must also offer health insurance to employees who weren’t eligible or didn’t sign up before. That adds to his cost because those companies raise their prices as well. They, like all other companies, have to find a way to recoup lost profits. Too much of a hit and the company is no longer as profitable for investors – they start selling off and take their business elsewhere.

You see, there’s more to this than simply a guy who is supposed to be worth $600 million. If any of the liberals who are boycotting Papa John’s (among other restaurants) right now had taken at least one economics class to supplement their studies in underwater basket weaving, they might have been able to deduce that there’s more to it than what they see on the surface.

In the last post, I talked about the higher cost that I, as an individual, am paying for my health insurance. I have a deductible that I didn’t have before. I pay more than twice per paycheck what I was paying five years ago. Liberals say that their goal with Obamacare is to provide preventative healthcare to those who supposedly wait until they have a medical emergency so that their costs don’t get passed on to us – the cost, however, is still getting passed on to us, and it’s more expensive than it was before.

Their way of doing this is to force employers to pay for health insurance for employees who don’t actually work full-time. Remember, for decades now full-time has been considered 40 hours per week. Anything over 40, and companies are required by labor laws to pay overtime. In one fell swoop, the Democrat supermajority in Congress and the White House managed to raise the federal minimum wage by two dollars an hour (from $5.25/hr to $7.25/hr) and require all companies to offer healthcare to all employees who work 30 hours a week or more along with the same law that requires every single person to buy health insurance and hamstrings a private industry by taking away their ability to determine who they want to risk covering. (Oh, and let’s not forget – part of the law requires 80-85 cents of every premium dollar to be spent on coverage itself, because the liberals can’t handle the idea of anything in healthcare turning a profit.)

What could possibly go wrong?

It all comes down to personal rights. The government made an incredible power grab when Obamacare was passed. They took power they did not have to force something radically unpopular on everyone. Our rights as a society took a massive hit when this legislation passed, and the consequences are becoming more clear as some of the deadlines in the bill race towards us. It’s all done in the name of altruism, the idea that everyone should sacrifice something to help and those who have more should sacrifice more. This kind of high-level socialism can only be very detrimental to a free-market economy. The Robin Hood mindset among liberals is doing damage that we may never recover from, and it’s all because the have-nots are angry with the haves.

Basing laws on what one side considers fair has never been a good idea.

Next up: the estate tax, and what it will really do if left unchecked.

Best Served Cold

How did conservatives react when Bush was re-elected in 2004 over uber-liberal John Kerry?

Thank God, Kerry won’t pull a Winter Soldier on our troops overseas!

How are the liberals reacting now that Obama has been re-elected?

Take that, Mitches!

No kidding. Pop superstar Beyoncé took to Tumblr to throw it in our collective face, setting the tone for everyone else who would have something to say the day after the election. I visited the homepage of one friend who voted for Obama to find several of her friends had tagged her in a theme photo of Beyoncé’s quote. That friend was willing to agree to disagree with me but none of those I know who voted for Obama have called out those who are behaving like juvenile delinquents. They’re celebrating with them. Relatives who are liberal weren’t willing to admit that the behavior from Democrats on election day was unacceptable; I was literally told to “quit whining” and be more graceful, as Romney was in his concession speech.

Sorry. I fail to see how I’m wrong for pointing out just how callow some people are being about this.

Not one of my relatives or friends who are liberal ever once tried to stand up for me or anyone else when accusations of racism began being tossed about carelessly. Not one of them, who all know many people like me who are conservative and know what kind of people we are, ever raised a single question when we were attacked as hatemongers and homophobes. None of the people who knew me as a child, watched me grow up, and know my heart have ever once stopped to tell others who didn’t know me as well that their outrageous comments were unfair. NEVER. Not a single time.

Where were they when Bill Maher made multiple unutterable remarks about Governor Palin? Where were they when David Letterman made tasteless jokes about her children? Where was such sentiment about being civil when the shooting in Tucson was politicized, and conservatives were branded as being at fault for the tragedy? None of them, not a single one, stopped to think that their side was being hysterical – not even when it was discovered that Jared Lee Loughner wasn’t political at all, but was genuinely koo-koo for Coco Puffs. They certainly didn’t speak up for us. They either let it go or, in some cases, joined in. None of us on the right side of the political spectrum lives in a vacuum. We all have liberals in our lives. How many of them bothered to stick up for us? We called Ann Coulter out for calling the President a “retard” because she was wrong – how many of the liberals in our lives would stand up to Keith Olbermann calling us the worst people in the world?

I love all of my family. I think the ones who are liberal are wrong, but I don’t think it’s up to me to change their minds (and I couldn’t even if I wanted to). Some of my liberal relatives, however, have no respect at all for me. They’ll put on a nice face when the family comes together, but they think I am out of my mind for supporting the one political ideal that they have decided is anathema to everything I am as a lesbian in America. They’ve never asked me to explain my beliefs, but they have no problem spitting out incredibly insulting things (such as remarks about how the troops are all rapists and murderers) in front of me, then looking at me for a response.

I’m sick of it. I’m tired of doing this back-and-forth with liberals, listening to them talk about how evil I am and wondering why the liberals who really know me never had my back. I’m tired of being called a traitor, a collaborator, a quisling, and a self-loathing closet case because liberalism makes no sense to me. I understand mathematics and basic economics, the rules of which say quite plainly that if you keep taxing the people responsible for the jobs in this country to give to people who won’t work for a living, eventually you’ll run out of rich people to tax and everybody is miserably poor.

I believe in charity – I just happen to see the basic truth that charity cannot be forced upon people. If my neighbor, who frequently gushes about how nice my truck is, decides one day to steal it, he’ll go to prison if he’s caught. If he breaks into my house and steals my computer or my guitars, same deal – he goes to prison. It doesn’t matter if he tells the judge that he needed transportation or if he needed to hock my things to eat. The judge will still ask him, “did you know that it was wrong to steal?” If it’s illegal for my neighbor to steal my physical possessions, how is it acceptable for the government to tax me half to death in the name of altruism?

The phrase “revenge is a dish best served cold” has been in use since the first half of the 17th century. Nobody knows exactly where it came from, but the phrase is often misunderstood. What it means is that revenge works best when it is exacted through calculated planning and emotional detachment. When the one seeking revenge plans every step, carries it out, and then walks away without another word, it bears far more profoundly than the oaf who takes a wild swing at your nose and guffaws when you hit the floor.

Most liberals today don’t understand that. They can’t just get their revenge – they have to gloat afterwards, making certain to twist the knife after burying it in our backs. They’ve spent the last five years calling us all racists, homophobes and hatemongers while those who know we’re none of those things sit and let it happen. The propaganda is slowly killing us.

Who are the Nazis, again?

Don’t retreat, reload – and keep your powder dry.

The Great Planned Parenthood Lie

I’m sick to death of big names in American culture trying to have me believe that, as a woman, I should be a pro-abortion liberal who screams for forced coverage for contraceptives. Scarlett Johansson is a beautiful and talented young woman. So is Eva Longoria. But the fact that they are lined up with other starlets to push their “vote with your ladyparts” campaign is disgusting and extremely off-putting.

In the newest ad, Hollywood is climbing all over Romney and Ryan for promising to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Their choice of words comes across as being dishonest, though – the Obama campaign is accusing Ryan of backing laws that would “allow employers to deny women access to cancer screenings and contraceptives.” In the Hollywood ad, Johansson makes an absolutely deplorable statement: she claims that “we have the GOP trying to re-define rape!”

Oh, yes…she did. She, like Cameron Diaz before her, is trying to accuse conservatives of wanting to undo laws that make rape – particularly marital rape – a crime. There is no evidence of this at all. No meetings or hearings, no drafts of bills being considered in committee, not even the slightest hint that Republicans are actually trying to do such a thing. She is accusing me, my family and most of my friends of trying to decriminalize one of the most outrageous personal crimes that can be committed. As a fire/rescue/EMS worker who has helped rape victims, I am furiously insulted.

As for the meat of the argument, I’m always the kind of person who wants both sides of a story, so I went looking. Michelle Malkin recently quoted a report by Live Action that showed 30 Planned Parenthood offices in 27 states had no direct programs for mammograms. One staffer openly admitted that they don’t provide those services at all. The Alliance Defense Fund asked the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for information on how many PP centers are certified to perform mammograms. HHS said they had no such documentation for PP.

When I wanted to read investigative pieces from the other side of the argument, I couldn’t find any. I found plenty of op-eds, for sure, but none of them offered any tangible evidence to back their argument. Stephanie Todd, writing for The Examiner, quoted PP president Cecile Richards in claiming that 97% of all services provided by PP are “preventive care” medical services. What she didn’t do was ask for proof to back up Richards’ claim – and since she got the quote from a Joy Behar interview, we all know why no probing questions were asked. A Huffington Post article claimed in its headline that “women rely on PP for critical breast health care – period.” That article turned out to be written by Rachel B. Fleischer, who happens to be the Managing Director of Communications for the PP Action Fund. She comes out and admits that PP’s staff OB-GYNs and nurses do not perform mammograms, though she never addresses cervical cancer screenings. She says that PP gives referrals, which she says you need to get a mammogram (this is untrue, as family history can dictate that a mammogram before age 40 is important, as it is in my case). She, like President Obama, claims that PP is vital to women who are underinsured or uninsured.

What none of the PP cheerleaders have mentioned is the CDC’s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). This program “provides access to breast and cervical cancer screening services to underserved women in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 5 U.S. territories, and 12 tribes” (that’s straight from the website). There’s no information immediately available for how much money is spent on the program, but the website boasts that in 2011, 333,302 women were screened for breast cancer, with 5,655 diagnosed. 253,312 women were screened for cervical cancer, with 4,695 diagnosed. With those numbers it’s not hard to believe that between the tests themselves (which run anywhere from $75-$120 apiece) and funding for staff, equipment and facilities, funding likely runs into the $300M range.

With PP, the numbers have to be read carefully. If you’re looking directly at their numbers, they they don’t add up. Cecile Richards claims that only 3% of PP’s business comes from abortions. Here’s how their pie chart breaks it down: 35% of services were for testing and treatment of STD’s, 35% for contraception, 16% for “cancer screening and prevention” (which, we’ll talk about shortly, takes place largely through referrals outside the organization), 10% “other” women’s health (which is undefined by the report), 3% for abortions and 1% for “other” (also undefined). Even those figures are doctored, as other notes in the same report show that out of three million people who walked through their doors in 2009 (the latest year I could find expense reports for), 332,278 went for abortions. That would, in reality, be one out of every nine people, or 11%. Also, their revenue shows that 37% comes from actual income from their “health centers” (read: abortions). They recorded a total revenue of $737M (aside from government funding) and recorded net assets of $994.7M.

We the taxpayers gave them $363.2M that year.

Everything that I found showed that PP doctors and nurses give referrals when someone comes in for a mammogram. Who do they refer these women to? Well, bless me – they refer them right back to NBCCEDP! That’s the government program that funds cancer screenings, pelvic exams, biopsies and referrals for treatment. Rachel Fleischer also says that PP works in conjunction with other organizations to provide mobile mammography sites. Considering what’s likely spent on the CDC’s current program, the government could transfer all of the money they’re giving PP to the CDC and expand it so those poor women who are going to PP right now can go to another participating doctor.

And we’re supposed to believe that electing Mitt Romney to the presidency is going to put PP out of business and deprive women of affordable cancer screenings?

It frightens me that those who stand on society’s pedestals are so willing to lie just to support their chosen political candidate. I would never have lied for Bush, nor would I lie for Romney or Governor Palin. I would hope that none of them would ever ask me to – and if they found me doing it, would insist that I stop. I would hope that Obama would have some shred of honesty, at least enough to ask his high-powered followers not to go so far as to claim that the opposition is attempting to de-criminalize rape. That is reprehensible.

If you’re not willing to actually research all of the facts, don’t throw your hat in the ring. Just because you have an emotional reaction to something you’ve heard or read does not mean you’re right.

Adam Smith Spreads the Insanity

If I, a front-of-the-line public safety worker, were to film myself harassing someone and post it on YouTube, I would be fired from my job. Immediately. There would be no question. My neighbors and quite a few people in my city would recognize me immediately. Even those who may agree with my views would frown upon me behaving that way and would likely complain that a public servant – even one at the bottom of the food chain – had behaved so childishly.

You can imagine my stunned silence at the idea that so many would fail to understand why a chief financial officer, an executive employee, of a major medical supplier, would lose his job upon behaving exactly that way when he goes through the drive-thru and pitches a narcissistic fit at a very nice employee of Chick-Fil-A.

Take a look.

Adam Smith Rant

First of all, he’s practically bouncing in the car waiting to get to the window. You can tell he’s excited about what he’s about to do. On CFA Appreciation Day, he got in the drive-thru line, ordered a free water, then waited. Once he got close, he turned on his cell phone camera. He captured himself joking how “it tastes better when it’s full of hate” and hoping that a group of college-aged kids the next building over might be getting ready for a sit-in (for the record, none was reported that I know of, and this was in Tucson). Listening to this guy say “I think I might just say a few words, let’s see!” makes me gag. He knew exactly what he was going to do – that’s why he was filming himself.

He gets up there and as soon as he starts talking, he cements in our minds the fact that he had the whole thing planned, right down to what he was going to say. This was not impromptu. I’d be willing to bet he practiced it. He complains, “come on, I want my free water,” still fidgeting in his seat like a little kid about to sing for a talent show. He then unleashes a tirade on Rachel, telling her “I don’t know how you sleep at night” and repeatedly telling her she works for a hateful organization.

This is just about the most low-brow, juvenile thing a person can do.

If an EMT, firefighter or police officer had done something like that the public would have called for their head on a pike. For the record, Adam did film an “apology” video. Personally, I don’t believe most of what he says, especially when he excuses himself by claiming that certain passions could be turned around and used for gay rights. That was sick.

I do not, however, have any problem believing him when he says that he and his company, Vante, have received threats via voice mail and email. I’ve heard even some of those I consider perfectly sane do that kind of thing, both left and right. If I find that a single one of my friends has been involved in threatening Adam Smith, his family, and/or his former employer, I will out you for it. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior. To those of you I don’t know who did that – stop it. You aren’t being a better person. Threats are never acceptable, no matter how angry you might get. Besides…I’d be willing to bet that at least a handful of you have screamed at me and treated me like dirt a time or two. Get off your self-made pedestal and fix that cranial-rectal inversion.

And Adam? If this is your idea of helping, please stop.

Roseanne Barr: American Idiot

When I was a kid we used to watch the show Roseanne. The first few seasons were absolutely hysterical. Once it got into the gay marriage mess my mother wouldn’t let us watch it anymore, but I remember some of the funniest stuff from that show. Sure, the family in the show was outrageously dysfunctional, but by the time Roseanne Barr had her own show that wasn’t anything new.

Roseanne is up to other things these days. I made such an impression on her that she blocked me on Twitter; the only way I can see her idiotic tweets now is if the Twitchy team posts them. Today, they posted one of the most outrageous things she could have possibly said. I was pissed off enough when she waded into the “hate chicken” debate.

Today, though, she told the wife of a US Naval officer that she was living “on the dole.”

Yeah. I just about spewed my nice chianti all over my computer screen.

She didn’t stop there, though. She continued, “so you are not on military retirement or socialized medicine or the government dole in any way?” THEN, she wrapped up by saying, “t party is another word 4 ppl employed by the military who want to see the social safety net dismantled so they can b assured of their gov$.”

I tend to watch my language here, but I’m gonna say it…that cock-juggling thundercunt can kiss my military family’s collective ass. I’m a Navy brat. I even remember all of the ships my father served aboard. Were the Navy to accept me now, none of the pranks would work on me because I was raised on stories of them. In real life, I tend to have a pretty foul mouth – not just because I was a corrections officer, but my dad was a tin can sailor, from the days when women weren’t on ships yet and there was no such thing as a harassment complaint. My father is extremely intelligent, but when he and I get going we could make today’s sailors faint. My brother is still in the Army and, if I can get a waiver for my missing gallbladder, eventually I’ll be joining him. Many of our friends have either died serving this country or come back with serious injuries, and not a damn one of them has complained about what their lives have turned into.

Roseanne has no spine. She has no clue what sacrifice those men and women make to serve their country. That is the main reason why she would accuse them all of being “tea partiers on the dole” and claim that they’re “trying to destroy the social safety net to protect their own money”. That she would even think that is an outrage – that she’d say it publicly is unforgivable.

So, Roseanne, block us all you want, but there is no way in hell you’d make it in showbiz now. Nobody would watch your drivel. Even the liberals in the military would turn off the TV before watching you.

Oh, and by the way…you’re welcome, you colossal bitch.