Krauthammer’s Advice to GOP: “Take the Side of the Little Sisters of the Poor – You Can’t Lose” (Video)

After yesterday’s “media tempest in a teapot” over some misquoted lines from a Mike Huckabee’s speech, pundits are debating whether Republican men should discuss women’s issues or just zip it. In a speech before the NRC, the former Arkansas Governor said Democrats want to “insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government.” Some media outlets reported the line as if Huck himself believed women can’t control their libido. Many took offense that he characterized Democrats as believing the same.

John Hayward weighed in at the Conversation, arguing that men shouldn’t shy away from important issues, but learn to avoid certain words and phrases that can be easily mischaracterized.

The other conservative backlash I’ve noticed against this specific passage of Huckabee’s speech is that he was foolish to set himself up for misquote mania by daring to talk about women’s libidos and reproductive systems, even if he was sarcastically describing Democrats’ views of women, or more precisely their political agenda to make women see themselves that way.  Republicans are therefore supposed to avoid using any words that could be randomly resorted to make them look really bad.  In fact, maybe it would be best if male Republicans avoided talking about women altogether, especially in the context of social issues.

There are a few topics that could be judged especially radioactive – the fallout zone around Todd Akin is large, and it’s got a half-life that take years to decay.  But it seems to me that backing male Republicans away from “women’s issues” entirely would be ceding a great deal of rhetorical territory to the Democrats, who incessantly make proclamations on those subjects.  In fact, if male Republican candidates never say a word about women, they will soon be attacked for their silence on women’s issues.  Is the challenge really more about avoiding certain words and phrases?  That’s really a universal political skill, when you think about it.  Every conceivable segment of the electorate has words and phrases that are guaranteed to provoke a negative reaction.  And when you’re a Republican, you can guarantee the media will never, ever ignore your utterance of those hot-button phrases.

Bret Baier asked the panel to weigh in on the question on Special Report, Friday evening. He noted that Republicans (ever in a defensive posture)had chosen Congresswoman Kathy McMorris Rogers to give the Republican response to Obama’s State of the Union speech – hoping to mitigate the Democrats’ “War on Women” b.s.

Krauthammer declared, “that kind of cosmetic change is not going to work if you keep having people talk about the psychology of women’s sexuality. For God’s sake, why do you have to talk about that?!” My thoughts exactly. Republicans are not impressed with symbolic gestures – (if that’s what it is.) They need to learn how to talk about women’s issues without giving Democrats any openings to attack them on, and go on the offensive where we’re on solid ground.

Dr. K.’s advice to Republicans is for them to talk about issues like late term abortions – which everyone agrees are an abomination – or the Regime’s attacks on the Little Sisters of the Poor.

“When there’s a suit between the leviathan State of Obama and the Little Sisters of the Poor”, Krauthammer declared,  “take the side of the Little Sisters of the Poor. You can’t lose.”

So true.

Video via National Review.

Advertisements

The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results

DebateBetweenCatholicsAndOrientalChristiansInThe13thCenturyAcre1290

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave…when first we practice to deceive.” -Sir Walter Scott,Marmion


“People never lie so much as before an election, during a war, or after a hunt.” ― Otto Von Bismark


“There can be no liberty for a community which lacks the means by which to detect lies.” – Walter Lippmann

 

joshua2

This week’s winner, Joshuapundit’s Senate Intel Committee: Benghazi Was Preventable,Al Qaeda Was Involved, And The White House Knew It is my analysis of the long delayed Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the Benghazi debacle. Here’s a slice:

The bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee finally issued its long-delayed report on the Benghazi attack, and based on what it said, it’s pretty understandable why some of the Democrats on the committee strung things out as long as they could and fought over the wording. But some things simply give off too foul a stench for any perfume to make a difference.

The committee’s minority Republicans criticized the White House for obstructing the report, which the committee had wanted to complete much earlier, and openly accused Patrick Kennedy, U.S. undersecretary of State for Management of shielding the Obama administration from Congressional oversight.

Of course, Kennedy was also concentrating on covering his own behind. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) who normally votes with the Democrats an dis the very epitome of bi-partisanship angrily made a point of saying that Kennedy “failed to ensure that a facility he personally approved in December 2011 had the necessary security to match the heightened threat environment.”

The committee’s report said that Benghazi was entirely preventable, and that the State Department failed to increase security at the Benghazi consulate in spite numerous warnings. As I’ve mentioned on these pages before,even the Brits and the International Red Cross had pulled their people out because Benghazi, thanks to President Obama’s timely intervention had become a major headquarters for al-Qaeda and other Islamists. Anyone who knows anything about Ansar al Shariah and its connections to al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) understood that a long time ago.

The report states, unequivocally: “Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM, Ansar al-Sharia, AQAP, and the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks.”

The very fact that mortars and other heavy weapons were used points to long time planning. A mortar isn’t like a Kalishnikov. It takes training, and it takes time to scope out ranges and angles of fire.

Georgia Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss summarized the report, saying,

“In spite of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and ample strategic warnings, the United States Government simply did not do enough to prevent these attacks and ensure the safety of those serving in Benghazi.”

Another thing that came out is that the entire ‘protest over a video’ narrative pushed by the president, Mrs. Clinton, Jay Carney, Susan Rice and goodness knows how many others was an outright lie…and just like ObamaCare, they lied knowingly, although the report doesn’t put it in such blunt terms.

What we were told – conveniently after the 2012 elections- is that the original fairy tales about the video and a spontaneous protest occurred because the situation ‘was developing.’

It wasn’t.

In fact, the FBI interviewed the Benghazi survivors over a three-day period right after the attack, when they were still being prevented from speaking to anyone. None of them reported a protest or a demonstration.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) said that “The FBI confirmed to me that when they interviewed the survivors on the 15th the 16th and the 17th [of September], not one person ever mentioned anything other than a terrorist attack. No one mentioned a protest outside the consulate.”

“So, how could the Obama administration come up with a protest story if everybody on the ground during the attack said it was a terrorist attack and there was no protest?” he asked.

Trust me, the stench increases. Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, we had a tie between Neo NeoCon with “Wendy Davis: ‘empowerment’ and the poor little woman; “struggle” and the man” submitted by The Glittering Eye,and Kevin Williamson/NRO for  The White Ghetto submitted by Joshuapundit, a beautiful and haunting portrait of Applachia.

I was torn on this one..I honestly like Wiliamson’s piece a lot more personally, but while the totals were the same Neo Neocon got more individual votes among the Council, and it’s a really nice piece, so I’m calling it that way,

Here are this week’s full results.

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week! Don’t forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week’s Watcher’s Forum, as the Council and their invited guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day and weigh in…don’t you dare miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that!

Cuomo Not Apologizing For Obnoxious anti-Conservative Comments (Video)

cuomo
Andrew Cuomo set off a “right-wing firestorm” (not media firestorm – the MSM agree with him), last week, when he characterized  right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon (read: pro-2nd Amendment), anti-gay (read anti-gay marriage) candidates as “extreme conservatives” who are not welcome in New York, because “that’s not who New Yorkers are.” What obnoxious presumption! What must it be like to be a conservative living in New York under one party rule – forced to listen to this extreme, gun-grabbing, liberal fascist governor (and now the Communist Mayor of NYC, too)  speak for you in such terms.
Can you imagine the media firestorm (not just the left- the entire MSM) that would erupt if a Republican governor or mayor made comparable comments about the left? “Who are they?Are they these extreme liberals who are pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro gay marriage?  Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme liberals, they have no place in the state of Texas, because that’s not who Texans are.” We’d never hear the end of it. There would be blood in the streets.
Every conservative in New York should move out of the state. “Escape from NY” as it were. And the state should not be a destination for any conservative to go on vacation until Andrew Cuomo, the “Architect of Ruin” is gone.
NY State Republican chairman Ed Cox has called on Cuomo to apologize, but of course he’s doing nothing of the sort.

On Sunday, the Cuomo administration lashed out at the New York Post and its Albany bureau chief, Fred Dicker—a one-time Cuomo supporter who now stands accused of being an “extreme conservative” for reporting Cuomo’s claims.

In an open letter posted to the governor’s website, Mylan Denerstein, counsel to the governor said, “As we approach the political season we expect the campaign dialogue to become more heated on both sides. We understand the New York Post is an opinionated newspaper and that Fred Dicker is an extreme conservative. However responsibility must not be forsaken. Dicker’s story that the Governor said Conservatives have no place in New York is unfair, false and the exact opposite of what his tenure as Attorney General and his state administration has been all about.”

She added, “The Governor was making the point that he makes often: New York is a politically moderate state and an extremist agenda is not politically viable statewide. New York has a long history of electing Democrats and Republicans statewide who are moderate rather than on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. That is an inarguable fact.”
Also an inarguable fact: Conservatives are not welcome in New York:  Cuomo Really is Targeting Conservatives in NY:

Via Fox News:

Conservative activist James O’Keefe is accusing New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration of targeting his group with document requests and a subpoena, claiming the Democratic governor’s recent comments critical of conservatives “aren’t simply words.”

O’Keefe, whose Project Veritas is behind a series of hidden-camera investigations against left-leaning groups and causes, made the claims on the heels of the controversy over a recent Cuomo interview. In it, Cuomo blasted “extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay” and said they “have no place” in New York. He later walked back his remarks, and said they were being taken out of context in the media.

But O’Keefe claimed that Cuomo’s government is acting on those words, revealing that the Department of Labor has hit his office in Westchester County, N.Y., with demands for financial documents for months. He compared it to IRS targeting of conservative groups nationwide.

SEE ALSO:
Andrew Stiles, NRO: Cuomo, Still the Prince of Darkness New York’s governor has a long history of nasty behavior toward opponents. 

Feds Finally Crack Down on 2012 Campaign Finance Fraud

IllegalContributionsWanted051

Image via Powerline

In 2012, Obama.com—which was run by Robert Roche, an American businessman and Obama fundraiser who lives in Shanghai — raised a boatload of money for Barack Obama’s reelection campaign..

Roche’s China-based media company, Acorn International, runs infomercials on Chinese state television. Obama.com redirects to a specific donation page on BarackObama.com, the official campaign website. Unlike BarackObama.com, Obama.com’s traffic is 68 percent foreign, according to markosweb.com, a traffic-analysis website. According to France-based web analytics site Mustat.com, Obama.com receives over 2,000 visitors every day.

The name Robert W. Roche appears 11 times in the White House visitors log during the Obama administration. Roche also sits on the Obama administration’s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations, and is a co-chair of Technology for Obama, a fundraising effort. (In an email exchange, Roche declined to discuss his website, or his support for the Obama reelection effort, referring the inquiries to the Obama campaign team. The Obama campaign, in turn, says it has no control over Roche’s website; it also says only 2 percent of the donations associated with Obama.com come from overseas.)

But it isn’t just foreign donations that are a concern. So are fraudulent donations. In the age of digital contributions, fraudsters can deploy so-called robo-donations, computer programs that use false names to spew hundreds of donations a day in small increments, in order to evade reporting requirements.

***

This makes it all the more surprising that the Obama campaign does not use a standard security tool, the card verification value (CVV) system—the three- or four-digit number often imprinted on the back of a credit card, whose purpose is to verify that the person executing the purchase (or, in this case, donation) physically possesses the card. The Romney campaign, by contrast, does use the CVV—as has almost every other candidate who has run for president in recent years, from Hillary Clinton in 2008 to Ron Paul this year. (The Obama campaign says it doesn’t use the CVV because it can be an inhibiting factor for some small donors.) Interestingly, the Obama campaign’s online store requires the CVV to purchase items like hats or hoodies (the campaign points out that its merchandise vendor requires the tool).

The Obama Campaign claimed that it was rigorous in its self-regulation effort. “We take great care to make sure that every one of our more than three million donors are eligible to donate and that our fundraising efforts fully comply with all U.S. laws and regulations,” a campaign spokesman told GAI president Peter Schweizer.

But as Schweizer noted, instead of allowing outsiders—the press, the public, good government watchdog groups, or the Federal Election Commission—to independently determine whether everything was on the up and up, the Obama camp instead relied on self-policing combined with a lack of transparency – leaving an opening for foreign and fraudulent donations. In 2012, Obama raised over $1 billion.

Finally,  the feds are looking into massive campaign finance fraud. Just not Obama’s. And actually not all that massive.

See, there’s this guy who is accused of reimbursing “people who he had directed to contribute $20,000” to the campaign of a U.S. Senate candidate.

The accused is conservative author Dinesh D’Souza, the author of books like Illiberal EducationWhat’s So Great About America, and The End of Racism, and the  the film 2016: Obama’s America, which was based on his book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage.

According to Reuters, D’Souza was accused of “arranging excessive campaign contributions to a candidate for the U.S. Senate.” He is accused of reimbursing “people who he had directed to contribute $20,000” to the campaign of a U.S. Senate candidate who is not named in the indictment. He was also charged on one count of “causing false statements to be made.”

In 2012, federal law “limited primary and general election campaign contributions to $2,500 each, for a total of $5,000, from any individual to any one candidate.”

Preet Bharara, an Obama appointee who is the U.S. Attorney for Manhattan, said, “As we have long said, this Office and the FBI take a zero tolerance approach to corruption of the electoral process.”

An *Obama* appointee who takes “a zero tolerance approach to corruption.” It is to laugh.

D’Souza’s lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, told The Hollywood Reporter that D’Souza “did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever… at worst this was an act of misguided friendship by D’Souza.”

Gerald Molen, a co-producer of the 2016 movie, accused the Obama administration of “criminalizing dissent through the selective enforcement of the law.”

As you may remember 2016: Obama’s America became a box office hit in the summer of 2012 – a rare thing for a political documentary. You may also remember –  it wasn’t complimentary of Obama or his vision.

“After we win this election, it’s our turn.  Payback time.  Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay.  Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.”  – Valerie Jarrett 11/2012 (Allegedly)

Retaliation against political enemies? – check.

Via Ace of Spades HQ: 

Coincidence: Hollywood’s only conservative group is getting close IRS nonprofit scrutiny

Another Coincidence: James O’Keefe Group Being Audited by NY. Again.

Yet Another Coincidence: Dinesh D’Souza Indicted For Election Fraud

Still Another Coincidence: IRS Proposes New 501(c)(4) Rules That Just Happen to Cover Most Tea Party Groups

Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin’s ‘John Doe’ Subpoenas

one more: Obama Admin Accused Of Filing Standard and Poor’s Lawsuit In Retaliation For 2011 US Credit Downgrade

It’s like the night of the long knives – Chicago style.

Congress won’t be a problem for them, this time – check.

Two judges ready to go – check. 

They’re not even being subtle. We are officially living in a Banana Republic, now folks….

And the Stupid Party is  doing what? 

Let this seep in for a few minutes. The entire force of the GOP establishment is being applied towards Obama’s most cherished agenda item for his second term, not towards fighting Obamacare and the debt ceiling. While Americans are concerned about out-of-control government, Obamacare, debt, and jobs, these clowns are concerned about illegal immigrants, foreign lobbies, and special interests. —Daniel Horowitz

Rolling over and playing dead.

Update via Weasel Zippers: 

Keep in mind, D’Souza is facing a maximum sentence of two years in prison. Update: Now I’m hearing $1,000,000 fine from D’Souza plus up to seven years of jail…(I’m guessing his debate with Bill Ayers at Dartsmouth on Jan 30 is now cancelled…)

Let’s look at what happens when you do even more than what Dinesh is alleged to have done, but you’re a Democrat…

From Overlawyered:

The Federal Election Commission has fined an Arkansas law firm for making illegal contributions to John Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign. Tab Turner solicited four $2,000 contributions from his co-workers at Little Rock law firm Turner & Associates in January 2003 and illegally reimbursed them for their contributions using a company credit card, according to the FEC. He also used a company credit card to make an illegal campaign contribution in his own name and to pay for various campaign expenses. Federal law prohibits donors from making contributions in others’ names and prohibits direct corporate contributions to a federal candidate. Edwards for President also agreed to pay a $9,500 fine, and called the commission’s announcement “old news,” reported the AP.

Linked by Doug Ross, thanks!