The race card is pulled on an almost daily basis at this point, but one of the districts (not mine, thank god) in my city is undergoing a landslide of racism at the moment. District 8 has historically been a “black district” which apparently means a white person can’t run for office there without it being tantamount to “lynching” the black community politically, according to Jarrett Maupin.
“Post-racial society” my ass.
Hey, look, the pale skin running in district 8 is a democrat and I’m not here to defend her political views, but trying to stop her from running because she’s white is the exact opposite of not being a racist. How unbelievably blind can people like Reverend Jarrett Maupin, the author of this storm of accusations toward Kate Gallego, be?
If the people in the district don’t believe that she will represent them properly, either because they don’t agree with her political views and policies or because they judge her based on raced and they don’t want a white woman in office, they will not vote her into office. That’s how elections, generally, work.
As readers of my blog, you all need to help keep me accountable and working hard on this book.
Obviously I won’t be ‘live blogging’ the writing of a book, since that would defeat the purpose of writing a book, but you can follow me on twitter and watch for the occasionally frustrated, rending of clothing and tearing of hair, tweets about my progress…among other things.
How do you keep me accountable?
Well if you are interested in the book, send me a tweet or leave me a comment on the blog to nag me about when I will finish the book.
Of course when it’s done I’ll have to find an agent and a publishing company, so if you have any advice on that, feel free to include that along with the nagging.
What’s the book about, you ask?
What do you think? It’s a non-fiction political book which, among other things, tells a bit of my own personal story of transition from liberalism to conservatism, a discussion of what being a gay conservative means (mostly a lot of being insulted by gay liberals), clearing up some misconceptions about what it means to be conservative, and quite a large section devoted to motivating young conservatives (gay and straight) and encouraging them to get their views out there and argue their beliefs.*
Also there is will be some vague threatening posturing towards a few conservative pundits, who have their own shows *cough*GregGutfeld*cough* about what will happen if they don’t invite me to come on their show.
*any and all parts of this description could change. In fact, the whole book could become an argument about why koalas are superior house guards than dogs. I make no promises.
Gay marriage is a beautiful example as to why government approval is a bad thing, though it is but one of countless decisions we hope the government will recognize every day, looking for its holy approval.
He who controls our money controls our morality, and so long as we put so much of our money into the hands of the government, we will continue to struggle with its approval. The problem is, the government can offer its approval in only one direction, and regardless of that direction and however noble it seems, in a land full of 400,000,000 residents, one direction is not good enough.
Gay marriage is today’s hot button topic, so let’s look at it. The Christian Right and other conservative groups, including other faiths and even certain homosexual groups, demand that marriage remain only between a man and a woman, believing that male and female are the formation of holy union and that the government should only recognize it traditionally. Mainstream gay rights groups and other civil liberty organizations are banging down the door of discrimination and demanding the government recognize that homosexuals may marry.
But why are we demanding the government provide approval for either?
Read the rest of the post at Rechabite’s website.
This is exactly how I feel. I don’t need to government to validate my relationship and outside the need for legal protections, like inheritance, visitation, and next of kin, I don’t need anything from the government to validate my feelings.
If I wanted a ‘marriage’, guess what? There are numerous religious institutions that will perform one for a gay couple.
Republican war on what? Sorry, I can’t hear you over this liberal union employee beating an effigy of Nikki Haley.
We hear a lot about the “Republican War on Women” in which Republicans are supposedly trying to take away women’s birth control, our right to work, our right to have sex, our right to drive, our right to have bank accounts, our right to get divorces…
Oh wait, sorry, I got distracted by thoughts of the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood for a second.
Which is apparently what Liberals thinks we are.* Regardless of the fact that, outside of the religious right and Santorum (who no legitimate conservative listens too), no one in the Republican party wants to do anything of the kind.
But this post isn’t about that. I do have a couple of fantastic articles, by a very smart lady, about the ridiculousness of the “Republican War on Women”, but I don’t feel like addressing the issue again when she has done so already.
The really outrageous issue here is that, while Liberals are screaming about the War on Women being perpetrated by Conservatives, the Liberals are setting records for heinous activities toward women, both conservative and in general…and the “unbiased” media aren’t saying a word.
S.E. Cupp, a well known and fantastic conservative writer** and political commentator, was depicted in Hustler with an altered photo of herself, with a penis in her mouth. The page was titled “What would S.E. Cupp look like with a d*ck in her mouth?” along with this paragraph.
S.E. Cupp is a lovely young lady who read too much Ayn Rand in high school and ended up joining the dark side. Cupp, an author and media commentator who often shows up on Fox News programs, is undeniably cute. But her hotness is diminished when she espouses dumb ideas like defunding Planned Parenthood. Perhaps the method pictured here is Ms. Cupp’s suggestion for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.
(via article on The Blaze)
Now, admittedly, the page also contained a disclaimer that the picture was fake and had been photoshopped, but that isn’t the issue.
Where is the outcry at this horribly treatment of a female commentator? There was certainly outcry enough over the Sandra Fluke incident? Can you imagine the outcry if this had been a photo of Nancy Pelosi or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? S.E. certainly doesn’t feel any outcry on that level will come to her aid.
Cupp essentially laughed off the idea of any feminist organizations coming to her defense.
“The National Organization for Women, NOW, will not come out and say liberal women deserve more respect than conservative women and we are not going to defend conservative women. They’re not going to admit to that but let me tell you that is exactly how they feel,” she said.
Despite the storm of controversy that erupted after Rush Limbaugh called Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” on the radio, Cupp predicted she wouldn’t get the same reaction, even when “clearly by anyone’s standards this is worse.”
Despite the fact that she was “horrified and disgusted” by the image, S.E. Cupp complimented Hustler on one thing.
Cupp said she had to commend Hustler for their “honesty” in the image’s accompanying sidebar.
“S.E. Cupp is lovely, she’s smart, she’s fine but she happens be a crazy conservative who is pro-life and wants to defund Planned Parenthood and for that she deserves the phallus in her mouth — that is essentially what they’re saying and I have to commend that as being incredibly honest,” Cupp said.
She added, “They have uncomplicated this belief system that my political views, my being pro-life, my political views make this kind of behavior OK. It justifies it and I essentially deserve it. That is honesty and I have never seen it before.”
Michelle Malkin, another super sexy conservative writer and political commentator***, wrote an article on her blog about the situation as well, referencing a 4 year old article that she wrote called “The Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse” of which I have experienced all four, even in my relatively small contribution to the conservative female (and gay) writing pool.
While the previous repulsive story was going on, another repulsive, if not as explicit, event was going on in South Carolina where the, now retired, head of the local chapter of the AFL-CIO, Donna DeWitt, was applying a baseball bat to Governor Nikki Haley’s face…well a photo of her face on a pinata. As this was going on, DeWitt’s fellow union minions were shouting in the background “Hit her again! Whack her again!”
Oh yes, liberals really respect women.
For all the shouting about equal pay for women in the workplace, it’s a bit disturbing that neither Nancy Pelosi nor Barack Obama is putting their money where their mouth is.
Despite the 2009 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, odd reports are coming out that Nancy Pelosi’s female staff are being paid significantly less than the men on her staff.
According to publicly available salary data at the website Legistorm, Pelosi’s female employees earned an average annual salary of $96,394 in fiscal year 2011. Male employees earned $123,000 on average, a difference of 27.6 percent.
The gap is even larger if calculated using the median salaries for men and women. For Pelosi’s female employees, the median annual salary was $93,320 in 2011, compared to $130,455 for male employees—a difference of $37,135, or 40 percent.
Pelosi’s entire staff—men and women—earned an average annual salary of $108,150 and a median salary of $114,662. By both measures, women made considerably less.
Pelosi’s response to questions about this strangely unequal situation with female staffers in the Senate was the she couldn’t comment on it and that the senate was “another world”.
Oh give me a break Pelosi, could you be more full of shit?****
On top of that, it appears that the White House has a similar issue with pay for their female employees.
Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.
According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).
- Free Beacon (via Hotair.com)
Whose war on women? I couldn’t hear you over the sound of your raging hypocrisy.
*Despite the fact that their lord and savoir, Obama, is considering getting into bed with both those organizations in some way. Because the Taliban was all warm and fluffy before Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood just got $1.5 Billion from Obama because they love equality for women. That was sarcasm…could you tell?
**Who I may or may not have harbored a major crush on for years. Apologies to my girlfriend, it’s not serious…
***I’m not objectifying them…I hope. Though it might be a bit weird if Malkin sees this before I have a chance to potentially meet her in a week or two in Las Vegas.
****Could that be anymore of a Friends reference?
Well not yet, the primaries aren’t over, but my state just gave Romney another 29 delegates and he won Michigan as well.
It’s a good night.
Thank you Arizona. You occasionally make me happy to live here.
My day could not possibly get any better.
(okay, I’m a crazy political fangirl. Getting my picture taken with a political figure is cooler than meeting an actor in my book.)
I had the good fortune to be able to attend a meeting of the ASU College Republicans this afternoon and Maricopa county Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, was the guest speaker.
He is nothing like the papers describe him, and he had more than a few comments on journalistic bias and the press in general.
He is a very funny, personable man, with an extremely “no non-sense” point of view and an awesome tie pin.
He joked a lot, took some (extremely polite) jabs at democrats, and refused to comment on “operation fast and furious” because he doesn’t like to talk badly about other law enforcement agencies.
He cares a lot about his deputies and their families and about his duty as Sheriff, to the people if his county and to the laws of our country and state.
I was amazed to hear how many years he has worked in law enforcement and how diverse his background is. He’s worked in numerous countries and spent many years protecting the Texas/Mexico border.
If I hadn’t been planning to vote for him already, I would be now.
It was a great honor to meet him and I hope that I will get to hear him speak again.
Yes, I said frakking. Yes, I like Battlestar Galactica. Yes, it was an attempt to be delicate.
I have never liked the midwest. I grew up in the Bible belt. It wasn’t a fun childhood or teen years.
Now I have a bigger reason than my own personal demons to dislike the midwest.
Tonight’s Primary results.
Santorum, SANTORUM, won Missouri and Minnesota. (and while Colorado is too close to tell as of right now, Santorum is projected to win that as well. I will apologize to my friend who lives in Colorado, I love you Tinystork, but your state can go DIAF.)
I have a few theories, outside of the Midwest breeding morons, about how and why this happened. However I’ll wait to write about that sometime later this week when I’m not fuming.
As I am still fuming, that’s all I have to say tonight. I’ll leave you with this.
Now if only I had a space ship.
Though if I did, I’d be tempted to send all the people who voted for Santorum to Newt’s moon colony and wash my hands of them.
Foreign aid now comes with strings attached and that’s a good thing. So why is it wrong when domestic government aid comes with strings?
Britain and the United States have both decided that enough is enough. They aren’t going to be handing out anymore foreign aid to countries that ban homosexuality or do not adhere proper human rights in other cases. David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Great Britain says that aid should come with more strings attached.
“Britain is one of the premier aid givers in the world. We want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper human rights. We are saying that is one of the things that determines our aid policy, and there have been particularly bad examples where we have taken action.”
And in the United States
“I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world,” Obama said in a memorandum. “Whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations or killing men, women and children for their perceived sexual orientation.”
Obama said, “I am directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons.”
Much to my chagrin, I have to say that if Obama actually enforces this plan, I’ll have to applaud his actions. We can’t give money to countries that are doing things we disapprove of. It would be like continuously giving out free money to people who are only going to spend it on drugs and not on bettering themselves.
Of course I would be a little happier if Obama had decided that any violations of human rights would be enough to nix foreign aid for a country, similar to David Cameron’s plan. Making it only about issues discrimination and violence toward the GLBT community just seems a bit like he is ignoring all the other violation’s of human rights that happen all over the world that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
Liberals are, of course, very excited about this move on both country’s parts. Most of the Conservatives I know are also pleased and if they aren’t, they should just remember something that The Conservative New Ager said to me a couple of days ago. If America is only giving aid to countries that don’t discriminate against against homosexuals, then the countries we give aid too will shrink drastically (good for the deficit) in fact the number will probably shrink down to only 1…Israel.
Of course there is something ironic about Liberals being okay with, even excited about, financial aid coming with more strings attached. Remember that comment I made about giving money to someone so they could just spend it on drugs? Yeah, you may not have read this post I wrote in June, but give it a read really fast.
Liberals were in an uproar about how wrong it was to give people drug tests before they could qualify for welfare. Isn’t that basically the same thing as telling other countries to shape up or we won’t give them money? America and Britain don’t want to subsidize the violence and bigotry of other nations, I think we can all agree that is great. So why is it suddenly wrong when the tax payer’s of America don’t want to subsidize someone’s illegal drug habit?
I think by now we have all heard of the “whoopsie!” moment that GOProud had with Governor Rick Perry’s campaign pollster and strategist Tony Fabrizio. They outed him, accidentally. They didn’t know he wasn’t out. As Chris Barron, from GOProud, said on his twitter account on December 8th:
I don’t believe in outing – but if you live your life like an openly gay man how the hell am I supposed to assume you are closeted
GOProud issued a press release on December 9th which said that they were lead to believe that Fabrizio was out of the closet.
“From the time this organization was founded we have been clear in our opposition to outing. We would never intentionally out anyone. However, in the case of Tony Fabrizio, top pollster and chief strategist for the Presidential campaign of Texas Governor Rick Perry, we did not believe there was any question about his sexual orientation – nor did the reporters who called us to ask about his involvement in Perry’s anti-gay campaign strategy. Questions about an individual’s sexual orientation should obviously be answered by that individual.