Old Lies About Romney Make a Come Back with Populists…Time to Slap Them Down (AGAIN)…

By The Snark Who Hunts Back and The Conservative New Ager

Paul Ryan

The look on our faces every time these anti-Romney lies keep coming back.

So recently we’ve been seeing a string of complaints coming out the less intelligent, less thoughtful, and more populist/progressive quarters of the Right once again attacking Romney. And the problem is that the vast majority of these arguments boil down to two problems. The first problem is that they’re trotting out the same complaints that they used 4 years ago and were shown to be utterly without fact, basis, or sanity 4 years ago…and the second problem is that if you had a candidate to actually put up you would be singing their praises and not attacking the only competent candidate there is.   But the clearly the kind of people who prefer populists and progressives are the kind who like to repeat lies that have already been struck down, we might as well cover why these lies are horseshit once again…


So the first thing that all small minded people claiming to be conservative like to point to is Romneycare. They claim it’s the origin of Obamacare. Continue reading


Government Mandated Neverland: Parents? What Are Those?

I recently talked about the story of the of the Niklayev family of Sacramento, California in an article for Damn Straight Politics. The story was absolutely horrifying to me, that the police and a government organization like CPS could simply walk into your home without a warrant or any proof or documentation and take away a women’s child for unsubstantiated reports of neglect.

Are we living in the USSR now?

It’s like the government wants us to believe that we don’t have the right to raise our children as we see fit.

Oh wait, they aren’t actually OUR kids at all, they belong to the community at large, right Melissa Harris-Perry?

The government is invented a world in which parents don’t matter. Their own twisted version of Neverland where the peace pipe contains actual weed, Peter Pan is taught to recognize whether Tiger Lily and Wendy are sluts based on their clothing choices, the lost boys aren’t really sure they are boys at all, and Wendy can buy the morning after pill without talking to a doctor, a pharmacist, or her parents first.

Parents? Who needs ’em?

A world where no one ever grows up, but they all do adult things and expect someone else to clean up the mess for them.

California is pushing for legislation that would allow boys and girls to use whatever bathroom they want, regardless of gender, as long as they feel they have a different “gender identity” than they were born with.

Yeah, that can’t possibly go wrong.

California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano [is] pushing a bill that would allow public school students to pick the bathroom of their choosing based on their “gender identity.”

Assembly Bill 1266 would force boys athletic teams to accept girls if those girls identified as boys, or vice versa. It would force schools to allow boys to use girls bathrooms if they identify as girls, or vice versa.

– Breitbart

But what about the parents? Where is their say in this little scheme to promote “equality”. Now I have no problem with people who say that they feel like they should have been born the opposite gender, but the issue is that 99% of the time they still have the same plumbing they were born with if they are under the age of 18 and so do all the other people of that gender.

So a boy who feels like a girl wants to be in the same bathroom and, quite possibly, the same locker room as well (unless they plan to relegate the one transgendered kid on the team to a separate locker room before and after practice and games. Try that and you really would hear the howls of “DISCRIMINATION!” from the left) as your daughter.

So does the rest of the male population that identifies as male. What’s to stop them from claiming they are transgendered and walking right in any way?

Do you really want the problems that come with that? I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable putting my son or daughter in a room where they are exposing their genitalia to use the restroom or shower or change for games and having people of the opposite gender sanctioned to come into that room and expose themselves right along with them.

But somehow I’m just a closed minded bigot for wanting to have a say over which gender is allowed around my child when they are removing clothing.

Then there’s the fact that the FDA has decided that not only do girls as young as 15 need to be able to buy the morning after pill, but they really need to be able to do so without their parents permission and they really need to be able to do it without talking to a pharmacist about the side effects of a drug that, essentially, performs a chemical abortion.

The government is moving the morning-after pill over the counter for those 15 or older.

Today, Plan B One-Step is sold behind pharmacy counters, and buyers must prove they’re 17 or older to buy it without a prescription. Tuesday’s decision by the Food and Drug Administration lowers the age limit and will allow the pill to sit on drugstore shelves next to spermicides or other women’s health products and condoms — but anyone who wants to buy it must prove their age at the cash register.

The Blaze

Yeah, 15 year olds are totally old enough and responsible enough to understand the risks of taking dangerous medication.

Here’s a quandary, why are Plan B pills stocked next to the Trojans, but you still need a doctor’s visit to be prescribed a low dose birth control pill? Why aren’t they next to the flavored, glow in the dark rubbers?

Not only that, but in New York City school nurses can hand out the Plan B pill (and have, to thousands of students) without permission from the parent. I couldn’t even get an aspirin when I was in school, without a signed release form. How much longer till this spreads to your local school?

Parent’s opinion on whether their daughter (who probably has no idea if the medication is something she is allergic too or will interact with other medication she’s on) should be taking this stuff? Why would we need that?

Here’s another interesting “WTF?!” moment that happened recently.

Outraged parents say a New York middle school instructed young female students to ask one another for a lesbian kiss – and boys learned how to spot young sluts – in an anti-bullying presentation on gender identity and sexual orientation, according to Fox News’ Todd Starnes.

According to Starnes’ report, the children attended a special April 11 health class taught by college students at Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook, N.Y. Parents say they were not notified of the presentation.

The students were introduced to terms such as “pansexual” and “genderqueer.”

Some of the young female students said they were told it was common for 14-year-old girls to have sex and their parents couldn’t stop them.


Now I know exactly which girl I would have asked for a kiss (and I probably would have got it) in school if this had happened to me, but that’s beside the point. (She was bad news, 2 grades above me, and so hot it hurt to look at her sometimes.)

Seriously though, what the ever loving hell?

The lesbian kiss request is weird enough, but teaching boys how to spot “sluts”? I thought that was a “no-no” in liberal ideology.

Mandy Coon, one of the parents, got it right when she said this:

“I am furious. I am her parent. Where does anyone get the right to tell her that it’s OK for her to have sex?”


For some reason my little sister wouldn’t be able to buy a soda bigger than 16 oz. in New York City, but she could get Plan B over the counter and her parents would never be wiser. That infuriates me.

Every day they are taking away our right to make basic decisions for ourselves and our families, turning that right over to alphabet agencies. IRS, FDA, CPS, and so many others.

In the [paraphrased] words of Ronald Weasley, “Liberals need to sort out their priorities.”

Liberals really are living in a fantasy land.

If Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, and Three Times is Enemy Action, Then What the Hell is Ten Times?

Kermit Gosnell’s clinic, the Women’s Medical Society, was shut down in 2010 for truly heinous violations of medical ethics. Almost immediately the coverage from left wing feminist blogs began, only they weren’t actually concentrating on condemning Gosnell’s activities, as William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection points out:

The links provided in the Carmon article prove only that a small number of “feminist” writers wrote about Gosnell, but primarily out of a concern to protect abortion rights in the face of pro-life criticism of Gosnell.

Legal Insurrection

Their argument primarily consisted of reminding people that Gosnell’s clinic was an outlier, that other abortion clinics were perfectly safe and we shouldn’t jump to conclusions or judge them based on what we read or see in the Grand Jury report.

The problem here is that Gosnell’s clinic is not an isolated incident, which is being shown more and more since his clinic was shut down and suddenly the Department of Health in various states have begun to start looking at the abortion providers in their states.

A cursory search (meaning I spent less than 10 minutes on it initially) turned up 10 other abortion clinics that have been shut down for health code violations (among other things) since Gosnell’s clinic was shut down.

Continue reading

Gosnell and Sandy Hook, A Comparison

The site of horrors more disgusting than anything ever put in a horror movie.

December 14th, 2012 a tragedy happened in Newtown, Connecticut. A mass shooting which led to an almost immediate outcry for new gun control laws. More oversight from the government on gun owners and gun sellers in order to stop such a tragedy from occurring again. It was nearly impossible to turn on a television or get on the internet without seeing the media coverage and ensuing debate over gun safety.

On February 18th, 2010 an abortion clinic in Philadelphia was raided by the DEA and the police, because of an ongoing investigation into selling of prescriptions for powerful narcotics that was occurring in the premises.

Continue reading

If Children Belong to the Community, I’m Part of the Community. Leave My Kids Alone.

“I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien,” West testified, telling a judge and Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas jury that the body of the child was about 18 to 24 inches long and was one of the largest babies she had seen delivered during abortion procedures at Gosnell’s clinic.- Twitchy

Here’s a question that’s been bugging me for a couple of days and it relates to Melissa Harris-Perry’s comments about how all children belong to the “community”.

Well this child was alive, it was screaming in fact. Doesn’t that mean that child belonged to the community? That child was as much my child as it was the child of the “mother” who chose to abort.

Why is it that this concept of “community” children only kicks in after they are born? Why is it that the Kermit Gosnell case can’t get media coverage, but a Rutgers basketball coach being fired can get nearly 3 quarters of an hour of coverage on different network news outlets?

Are they too stingy to use their time and money for those children? What’s the difference between that living child being stabbed to death in an abortion clinic  and the teenage girl who was shot in Chicago recently? The one Michelle Obama got so teary eyed over recently.

What’s the difference between the children that Gosnell murdered during late term abortions and the children who died at Sandy Hook?

At what point does “My Body, My Choice” get voided by “the community” that is, presumably, interested in protecting the lives of children?

When are the 100+ children, that witnesses have testified to being “aborted” outside the womb by Gosnell, going to get their 15 minutes of time on the air?

Why is our culture more outraged by a basketball coach yelling at his students than they are by a man cutting the spinal cords of babies with a pair of scissors?

If these children are part of the “community” then it hardly matters that I’m not their mother by blood, I’m their mother by “social contract” and the worst place to be is between a mother and her children.


Before any liberal pro-choicers start to get on my case, remember that this is not about abortion. Gosnell’s crime was, at best, late term abortions, at worst, post birth murder of infants.


Well that’s apparently what liberals would like us to believe.

Anyone with a working brain is, I trust, automatically skeptical of such a claim…as you should be.

It’s not true.

I recently received a message on tumblr from a liberal who appeared to be very smug. They wrote “What if I told you” and linked to this article “Nightmare: 31 States Allow Paternal Rights for Rapists”.

Now the websites tagline is “Progressive: Politics to Pop Culture” so we can already tell this is A.) completely biased and B.) lacks any semblance of actual journalism already.
(Before you respond that I am also biased, remember that I don’t recommend you believe me with no further questioning…which is why I link to legitimate research and news so that you can start your own research.)

Okay, so this article is a hatchet job that provides no facts. Half of the links to ‘proof’ in their article lead to either articles on their own website (which also have no real facts to back them up) and the rest of the links (3 others) have to do DIRECTLY with a case that they cite where the mother won her court case, even though the rapist DID petition for parental rights.

The article (and none of the links) even tries to give us a percentage of woman who are A.) petitioned for parental rights by their rapists or B.) A percentage of rapists who are actually granted these rights.

My thoughts on that are of course that this is because the B part of that equation would be about 0% since the idea that any reasonably sane judge would grant custody or visitation rights to a felon and a registered sex offender (of which a rapist would be both) is absolutely ludicrous.

The article is actually so very bad that I’m going to have to take most of it apart piece by piece, which is something I think my readers enjoy.

In the midst of all the outrage over Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments, Missouri resident Shauna Prewitt waded into the war zone. The victim of a brutal rape, Prewitt later gave birth to a daughter borne of that encounter. When her rapist later filed for custody of her child, Prewitt’s nightmare became frighteningly worse. This courageous woman shared her experience with the rest of America; she is not alone:

“Prewitt says that if she knew then what she knows now about the laws in 31 states thatgrant men who father children via rape visitation rights that are equal to those that other fathers also enjoy, she might not have chosen to keep her child.

“My attacker sought custody of my daughter, but thankfully I got lucky and his visitation rights were terminated,” Prewitt says. “But I’m not sure I would have made the decision I did had I known I might be tethered to my rapist for the rest of my life.””

Okay, so you are saying that a convicted rapist petitioned for parental rights and were denied…that’s not ‘luck’ that’s just common sense on the judge’s part.

This section is curiously lacking in any sort of statistic on how many women this happens to and how often the rapist succeeds…that just might be pertinent.

What does this have to do with Todd Akin’s comments? The idea that there can be “legitimate rape” because the woman was not impregnated during that vile act, and conversely, the notion of “false rape” when it results in pregnancy, is mind-blowingly frightening.

I must be missing something, but when did Akin claim that a pregnancy resulting from rape made it a ‘false rape’?

Regardless, most Conservatives saw Akin’s comments for the stupidity they were (he’s far better than his opponent regardless) so attempting to pin his comments on conservatives in general is just ridiculous.

For a victim to be forced to bear the child of the man who sexually assaulted her, and in many cases also drugged, abducted, terrorized, battered, disfigured, pummeled, shot, or stabbed her is unimaginable. While the sponsors of HR-3 will insist that such a victim was never raped, since alas, there is a pregnancy; these legislators also tell the perpetrator that he, by default, cannot be considered a rapist. In such a world, Ms. Prewitt would have had no grounds upon which to terminate the visitation of the rapist bastard who fathered her child.

Okay…so Akin was in on creating HR-3. However if you actually read the bill, like I actually did, you will find that it has no restrictions on women being raped having an abortion.

Nor does it change the definition of rape or say that women who get pregnant ‘weren’t really raped’ because they got pregnant. Now you just reaching the territory of stupid. Nor have the legislators in question tried to say that ‘if you get pregnant, then your rapists isn’t actually a rapist’.

So, yeah…she would still have grounds, except in the fantasy world you are constructing which has nothing to do with reality.

It’s nice how you never link to the text of the actual bill you are badmouthing, you just make up what you think is in the bill and feed it to your readers. Fact checking might help you.

What are we to take away from Prewitt’s experience? Consider that 31 states have not yet adopted special laws that restrict the ability of rapists to assert their custodian and visitation rights to a child born through rape. These 31 states effectively grant men who father children via rape visitation rights that are equal to those that other fathers also enjoy.

Okay, so maybe we should have a law that says ‘no felon or sex offender may petition for custodial rights of children’, but the states you are criticizing to NOT ‘effectively grant men who father children via rape visitation rights.’

What the state laws allow is for them to petition the court for those rights.

Remember earlier when I said that the idea that judge would grant such a person custodial rights was ludicrous?

Remember when you never gave us any statistics on how often this is attempted or how often it succeeds?

HR-3’s “legitimate rape” and “forcible rape” language would nullify the laws of the other 19 states for all of the reasons given above.

HR-3 uses no such language. Did you even read the bill?

After all, HR-3 says no such father could be a rapist – and fathers have rights.

HR-3 says no such thing. Did you even read the bill?

Data shows that roughly 27% of all American women faced with Shauna Prewitt’s circumstances make the decision to have and raise the baby; roughly 47% give birth but put the baby up for adoption.

Ooh! This looks like a buildup to some actual statistics on how many rapists petition and succeed in petitioning for custodial rights!

In the world of HR-3, the 26% who opt to have an abortion would be criminalized.

Whoops….no, just more fantasy world.

In point of fact, HR-3 actually say:

‘Sec. 306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws

‘Nothing in this chapter shall repeal, amend, or have any effect on any other Federal law to the extent such law imposes any limitation on the use of funds for abortion or for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion, beyond the limitations set forth in this chapter.

which means, for those with less reading comprehension, that this bill does not change the law on abortion at all. All it does is say that federal money cannot be used for abortions, except in the case of:

‘Sec. 308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother

‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303 shall not apply to an abortion–

‘(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

‘(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

So actually…this law doesn’t change anything for women who have been raped or have lives that are being endangered by the pregnancy.

To escape an imminent jail term, women would be forced to have their rapist’s baby

No, just stop.

and face the likelihood of being tethered to him for life.

Really, stop. Your fantasy world is not amusing anymore. You really need to live in reality.

Likewise, any rapist-father, now legally classified as non-rapist under Akin/Ryan law, could withhold consent to adoption as the unwed biological father and insinuate himself into the lives of mother and child.

No, they are still considered rapists. HR-3 has nothing to do with the definition of rape or defining what constitutes a rapist, a felon, or a sex offender is.

As previously stated, the rapist could attempt any of these things, but a judge would throw out the requests nearly as fast as they were made, HR-3 has NOTHING to do with this.

Consider the psychological aspects of rape: it is about domination, humiliation, control, and brutal degradation. For such a man to have controlling interests in the life of a child spawned by his brutality is heinous and reprehensible.

Oh look, we agree on something. This may be the only truthful thing you’ve said in this entire piece of crap.

Still has nothing to do with HR-3.

Legislation that would open the doors of victimized women to their attackers and give them free reign to manipulate, control, and to exert psychological torture indefinitely is downright barbaric.

Yes, yes it is.

Good job, you managed two correct (if obvious) statements in this article.

Still had nothing to do with HR-3.

Consideration should also be given to children fathered through acts of incest, and pedophilia; these two are often interrelated. In such instances, the Akin/Ryan law could grant indisputable custody to men who already have a sexual predilection for children, and would place the children of the children they raped squarely under their control.

No, no it wouldn’t.

HR-3 says NOTHING about protecting rapists or pedophiles.

In fact, it protects federal funding for abortions in one two cases at all.

‘(A) an abortion–

‘(i) in the case of a pregnancy that is the result of an act of rape or incest, or

‘(ii) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy.


Great job at trying to poison the well though. I’m sure most of your liberal readers won’t bother to research this bill and will run around claiming that they have and that it protects rapists and bans abortions, but we both know that’s not true.


You’re an idiot if you think GOP will outlaw abortion (via The Conservative New Ager)

So that barely qualified moderator at the VP debate opened up the can of worms that is the pointless abortion debate once again (probably on orders from Dem. higher ups to try and once again churn up this dumb “War on Women”…ignoring that it is this administration which is pumping money to the very anti-women Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, negotiating with the very same Taliban who shoots girls if they dare to try and learn, and views all women as nothing but Julia who must be taken care of because they couldn’t possibly do anything for themselves*

But this brought up two points.

The first being that you’re an idiot if you think Republicans are going to outlaw abortion?

Why are you an idiot?

via You’re an idiot if you think GOP will outlaw abortion.

I felt this made a great follow up to my post about why a constitutional amendment on abortion, birth control, of gay marriage would never happen.