The Left standing on the necks of women and minorities

Have you ever voted for your local elections such as mayor, city council, etc. and not known who the candidates are? Have you ever driven by political signs that say "Joe Smith for City Council Seat 1" and you didn't know which party the candidate belonged to? This is bad, but if the candidate is a woman and I don't know which party she belongs to, I always assume she's a liberal. It's a knee-jerk reaction. I shouldn't have that reaction being a Palin supporter and woman myself who agrees with her. I know many women who love Palin, more than those who don't. So why do I get this reaction?

Because the women's movement and liberal feminists like Hillary Clinton and Oprah have brainwashed us all into thinking that women must be liberal or else they "aren't women." Yes, many feminists accused Palin of not being a woman since she is a conservative.
The result? Since most of America is conservative, that means conservatives won't vote for women because if they don't know them, since they'll assume she is a liberal and therefore not vote for her. I know it's bad to not know your candidates, but sometimes it's impossible to keep up with local politics. They're not as accessible and sometimes city and county lines are blurred. My point is the same: conservative women have to be very outspoken about their viewpoints or else people will assume they're leftists. Conservative women won't get elected otherwise. This keeps the Leftist cycle going.

The same with minorities and gays. The Left has adopted these groups and have labeled them "not ___" if they are conservative. They undermine their very identity if they are conservative. The result is the same as with women: the larger public assumes minorities and gays are Leftists. They create a separation. Politically, there's no difference between a gay conservative, straight conservative, female conservative and black conservative. The Left hates that. They don't want conservatives to unite based on their ideology. They want to divide conservatives by attacking minority groups based on their identity. The Left's main goal is to promote wealth redistribution and socialism at all costs. I pity the women, minority groups and gays who have fallen for their mind games.

"Palin has the base, but not the Independents."

To which I say:

You cannot consider yourself an Independent if you would vote for a Radical Leftist. The "Independents" who voted for Obama in 2008 are Radical Leftists. "Independents" who would consider voting for Hillary or Obama in 2012 are Radical Leftists.

Next.

It looks like Hillary will run in 2012

Bill Richardson, former Governor of New Mexico, is a friend of the Clintons. Recently Richardson went on a  "diplomatic" trip to North Korea. Why? As then-Governor of New Mexico, he didn't really have much input in our relations with North Korea. I realize he was a former foreign diplomat, but there are tons of former foreign diplomats and they're not traveling to North Korea. He had to obtain permission from the White House and State Department in order to travel.

I put two and two together. This trip came at the very end of Richardson's term, so he wasn't just a private citizen going to North Korea; it provided him the opportunity to form official "diplomatic" relations. It will enhance Richardson's foreign policy cred even moreso. The State Department (i.e. Hillary) would not have ok'd this trip if he was going to run for POTUS on his own. She's building her brigade. If she runs, she could very well win the Democratic nomination. She could pick Richardson as her VP and use this trip as a promotion tool for him.

Given how volatile our relationship is with North Korea, can you imagine the State Department giving the governor of Nebraska, Idaho, Vermont, or any other state the ok to take a diplomatic trip there? No. Why would they even need to? Why would Richardson even need to unless he is planning on being appointed to a cabinet position again? So, that leads me to believe that the only reason Richardson went is because he's a friend of the Clintons. He's been a player inside the Beltway for over 20 years. This was a political favor for someone, probably several people: Richardson to Hillary, Obama to Hillary, and possibly a few more. It was a blip on the news cycle but I believe this trip is a big indicator that Hillary has decided to run.

Obama's use of symbolism

Obama loves to use symbolism in his daily public life. I suppose it appeals to the idealogue in him, but it's almost creepy the way he acts like the world is a stage on which to interpret metaphors and symbols instead of being a leader of real people and solving real problems.

Take for instance today. It was announced that the 9/11 mastermind and other terrorists will be tried in a federal court civilian trial in New York City. This decision made by Obama shows a complete disregard for the massive loss of human life that happened right down the street from where the trial will take place. In fact, the courthouse was in the shadow of the World Trade Center towers, before the terrorists destroyed them and killed thousands of innocent Americans. He reduced the horrific acts of terror from being war crimes to simply "criminal acts." He's forcing the New Yorkers who are still reeling from this attack, to live alongside KSM while he defends himself against the atrocities he committed against them. The NYFD and NYPD will have to maintain security during the trial. Obama just forced them to them all to relive their personal hell each day the trial drags on.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but since it's a federal trial couldn't it be held anywhere like DC, Chicago, Seattle, anywhere? It didn't have to be in NYC. With this announcement, he's making a huge statement as to how he perceives the 9/11 attacks - no big deal to him at all. And that is symbolic. To him, who cares if it happened to the people of that city? He doesn't think they've suffered enough to warrant any backlash from the trial being held there.

I won't even get into the fact that it's going to be a civilian trial. It's detestable on so many levels and Andy McCarthy at The Corner speculates that the reason could be to use the information gathered during the trial to strengthen Obama's interrogation case against the CIA and top Bush administration officials. If that is one of the reasons, I will never forgive him.

This isn't the first time he's used symbolism to express his beliefs:

Uses of symbolism during the 2008 election campaign

--During the 2008 election campaign Obama stopped wearing his flag pin. The flag pin was the symbol of our unification after the 9/11 attacks and every politician had been wearing them daily. His break from the pin signaled that voting for him would be a change or an end to the way we had been handling terrorism policy-wise since the attacks took place. George W. Bush represented unity and strength against terror; Obama would represent something else, but certainly not a continuation of Bush's policies. His decision was also symbolic in the way he perceived the attacks: they are over and we should move on. Removing the pin symbolized that we should go back to the we were before the attacks took place and not live with them in mind daily.

--Obama played the Jay-Z song "99 problems but a b*tch ain't one" after he won the Iowa primary and Hillary Clinton lost. You don't have to think too hard about the meaning of that disgusting use of symbolism.

--He also "flipped the bird" to Hillary while speaking about her during the campaign, and did the same thing to McCain during another speech.

Symbolism with foreign policy and leaders

--The bottom of Obama's shoes were photographed while he was on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The article states that it is an insult in the Arab world to show the bottom of your shoes to someone. Even though Israel doesn't necessarily share the custom, many felt insulted by the photo, which is exactly why Obama did it. He was insulting them in a subtle, symbolic way.

--He announced that he would scrap the missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, giving in to a demand from Russia, on the 70th anniversary of Russia's invasion of Poland. Poland and the Czech Republic were occupied by the Soviet Union for 40 years and have since had a strenuous relationship with Russia. This announcement on the anniversary of the invasion was a clear symbol that Obama is interested in appeasing Russia and communist rule. He does not like individual freedom nor expressions of it.

This month, two more major uses of symbolism

--Obama made a "shout-out" and spoke in a jovial manner for approximately two minutes before discussing the Ft. Hood massacre for the first time. He had hours to prepare a speech, and everyone was breathless waiting to hear what he would say. At that time there were already 12 confirmed dead. He knew, without a doubt, that the entire nation was waiting to watch his speech. He gives a display of smiles, happiness and gives a "shout out" to Joe Medicine Crow who says won the Congressional Medal of Honor; however, he had not won the CMH. That is a military decoration awarded to someone in combat. Crow won the Presidential Medal of Freedom, awarded to civilians. Two symbols there. One is that he undermined the CMH as some worthless, toss-away award when in fact it's the highest military decoration anyone in the military could ever receive and it's the highest honor to receive it. Obama shows that he has no respect for the award or the military by mistakenly saying that a civilian won it. Obama himself was the one who awarded Crow the PMF on August 12, 2009 - a mere three months ago - and he "mistakenly" confuses it with the CMH? Please. This was a deliberate diss.

But the big symbol here was that Obama had zero empathy, zero respect and zero care for the acts of war on the United States on US soil. He had no feelings whatsoever that 12 military servicemen and women were murdered on their own base by a terrorist. He displayed his leadership and caring by goofing off for two minutes and giving shout outs instead of giving the dead the solemnity they deserve. But that's the symbol - he really was showing you what he really believes by doing that. You get to take away the meaning yourself.

--On Veterans Day last Wednesday he announced that he would wait several more weeks to decide on whether or not he will send more troops to Afghanistan, igorning his General's recommendation and leaving the troops already there flapping in the wind. It was also reported that if he does send more, it will be a far less amount than McChrystal's request. This was done on Veterans Day, the day we honor those who have served and are serving in the military. This symbol shows that he despises the military.


Whenever someone brings it to his attention that he offended someone by his symbolic gesture, Obama feigns ignorance - "Oh no, I didn't mean that!" or "What does that say about you that you would think of something like that?" So they get reduced to conspiracy theories and crazy ideas. But you can't deny that he does employ this technique to convey his true beliefs, add salt to the wound or to belittle something that someone holds dear.

Hillary taking Secretary of State – what it would mean for the 2012 election

Hitching herself directly to the Obama Administration almost guarantees she will not run for President in 2012. This could be really good for Palin in 2012. She’ll most likely face an Obama/Clinton ticket in 2012. Palin has already run against Obama, she knows what to expect and will be prepared. Plus, she'll be the breath of fresh air against the extreme left of an Obama/Clinton ticket.

This news was initially surprising to me. I was thinking that Hillary wanted to distance herself from Obama, sharpen her voting record even more as Senator, take a few opportunities to reach across the aisle (attracting moderates), occasionally disagree publicly with Obama and raise more money to run for President again in 2012. I thought she would never want to be "chosen" to do anything.

Being Secretary of State she won’t be involved in domestic issues or representing her constituents in New York. She’ll be firmly with Obama. That’s an extremely risky choice given that Obama has zero foreign policy experience. There would be no way to distance herself from any negative outcomes as SoS. On the other hand, anything good that happens will be attributed to Obama. SoS tenures are typically short and easily terminated. If there's friction between her and Obama she could lose that job quickly.

In my opinion, if she takes the job she'll appear to be even more power-hungry than she already does. It looks like she would settle for any position of power now. I don't think it would be a good political move for her to abandon the people of New York at this point - but that's good news for us.

My prediction is the natural one if this comes to pass – I predict she will abandon her Presidential run and Obama will select her as his running mate in 2012. Look for an Obama/Clinton ticket to face Palin and whomever she chooses in 2012.

We have a long way to go. . .

. . .before we’re ready for a female President. Part I.

I’ve heard a lot of praise for Obama being elected as the first black President. I see a bit of irony, or maybe it’s injustice, at the fact that people are happy and relieved that Sarah Palin did not become the Vice President. If Obama had lost, it would not have been acceptable for anyone to be happy or relieved. I imagine the majority would be saddened that a black man came so close, almost got there and would be proud he got so far.

Conversely, if McCain/Palin won, would there be women celebrating in the streets? Would there be women crying that we finally have made it, at least as the Vice President? Would party walls be dropped temporarily so everyone could celebrate the historic milestone? Would articles be written about how little girls could finally aspire to be in the White House and therefore, women really can do everything men can? I don’t think any of that would have happened.

I haven’t heard anyone lamenting that the female candidate lost. No one is praising that she got so far or saying we should be proud and persevere to get to the top next time.

When Palin was picked there was a public outcry that McCain was merely pandering to women. I heard many women proclaim with righteous indignation that they would NOT be fooled by this obvious attempt to get the female vote. “Women don’t vote for women just because they’re women.” But somehow it is acceptable that a higher black turnout was expected for Obama. Those women did not stop to think that maybe she was picked because of her qualifications. There are a large number of people who continue to deny her qualifications with their index fingers stuck in their ears screaming “la, la, la, la, I’m not listening, Palin is dumb, la, la, la.” They would have been more comfortable with a man.

When Hillary had the chance to win the Democratic nomination, I was breathless with excitement. Even though I disagree with her completely, I was amazed at her strength, determination and guts to run for President. If she had won, it would have been amazing. A woman with a very long political career fighting her way to the top through many obstacles, earning the respect of her colleagues and the American public to win the nomination for President of the United States. She could have picked her running mate. If she won, she would have picked her Cabinet. It gives me chills, really, to think about what might have been. I’m not ashamed to admit that I really would have been truly happy for her and loved to see it happen.

I think Hillary was cheated by her own party. A party that would rather nominate a freshman Senator, with a very short career and shady history was more preferable because why? Was it because he was a man? And despite her very long career, leadership and dedication they weren’t comfortable nominating her; they would rather have. . .who exactly? Just someone who is not Hillary, no matter what his credentials are. After everything the Clintons have done for their party to see them be turned on like that was shocking to say the least.

I'm not saying people should vote for them just because they're women, quite the contrary. I see two highly qualified candidates who got passed over because they were women. Two candidates who would have succeeded if they were men. It says a lot about our society when we pass over these two individuals and instead opt for a man with significantly less experience and accomplishments.

What happened to the two significant female candidates in this election leaves me greatly disappointed. The way the public is ignoring how far these women came, and how close they were to the President/VP is disheartening, but par for the course on society's treatment of women today.