…..Politico columnist Roger Simon recited the liberal line of attack on Republicans as he theorized that female voters were being turned off from Republicans.
After quoting the Democratic charge of there being a GOP “war on women,” moments later he wondered why Republicans were trying to get government ‘into our wombs.”
And there’s also a larger price you pay for this. Women, I think, can be said to be increasingly concerned about what Democrats call the Republicans’ “war on women.” Read more: here
Get “government into our wombs”? I believe that Democrat lead assault was flourishing under Pres. John Kennedy and expanded to new heights under Dem. Pres. Bill Clinton. Neither of whom were Republicans. They were certainly ‘getting into women’ wombs and otherwise, but I digress. . . . . .
If any government lead entity is “getting into wombs”, it IS Democrats. It’s their liberal policies which began reaching into women to disembody a new baby’s life. Not Republicans. It’s now Democrats who want to reach in and control birth-control, to control health care. And once health care is controlled by big government, they can control every aspect of our lives… literally.
Mr. Roger Simon is simply repeating talking points from the White House to push the Liberal agenda. And it’s a very dangerous, intrusive agenda at that. Even more so than either that of the philandering Pres. Kennedy or Clinton.
Swimming Against The Current 
The Democratic Party has historically fought to protect a woman’s choice to have or not have what they deem to be a “medical procedure”. Republicans, on the other hand, are trying to restrict what they see as “an immoral act”. Regardless of how you view abortion, it is the Republican Party that is attempting to get between women and their doctors. With respect to birth control, I am unable to follow your train of reasoning. Proper birth control reduces the number of abortions necessary. I would think that anti-abortion activists could get behind something like that.
Actually, the Democrat Party has historically been the party of George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, the K.K.K., slavery, segregation, racial bigotry and the Confederacy. Democrats historically have always had a low regard for human life, bringing that legacy today by relegating infanticide as nothing more than a meaningless “medical procedure”.
What is perceived as “fighting for a women’s choice”, or a woman’s “right” to choose, is really nothing more than a woman’s “right” to destroy and put to death her unborn baby for the greater sake of convenience. Abortion is big money, with big donations to democrats: the democrats keep alive the business while the business keeps alive the democrats—all at the expense of human life which has always been regarded by democrats as inconsequential.
The Republican Party today has been slowly morphing into a form of Democrat-lite with many pro-abortion republicans getting on board the abortion gravy train. And if human life is devalued at its conception, then what’s next? Euthanasia?
Birth control isn’t for the sake of preventing abortions; it’s for the continuation of a false sense of security for the sexually promiscuous.
As John Adams said: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”
Morality and freedom go hand in hand.
It’s almost like you took the words from a Tim Wildmon radio broadcast. I’ve heard this exact same argument. With respect to party history, the Democratic Party does have all that you said in it’s history. This is due more to geographical location than anything else. The Democrats represented the south, the Republicans generally the north. When the Republicans moved south and the Democrats moved north, we see a shift in policies pursued. I blame it more on southern ignorance than anything else. When I talk about the Democratic or Republican Party, I’m not referring as far back as Lincoln or even FDR. I’m talking about a post civil-rights era. Now that We’re clear on that point, you can now actually respond to the heart of what my post was about.
If birth control reduces the number of abortions, what’s the problem? Why do you care what other people do with their sex lives? This is America, right? Do your own thing.
Women can afford to pay for BC pills themselves, as millions have done thus far. It the typical, big Liberal, controlling government who wants to take money from the working public and “redistribute” it, as THEY deem fit – a SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST agenda. Your argument is rather silly and holds no depth. BC like condoms is very inexpensive ($7 at Walmart) and can already be received FREE from many groups. Let the boyfriend, husband or sig. other pay for it, since he’s using the product. No one else needs to be involved in their personal behavior by paying for it..
I don’t really have a strong opinion on the issue. I was just simply trying to correct what I saw as some inconsistencies. I really don’t care whether or not birth control is covered. I would say this to you. I think you have misspoken or are misinformed. This is not any type of redistribution of wealth. It is not a new government provided entitlement. It is simply a directive from the federal government to insurance providers. If a company wishes to provide health insurance in this country it must abide by the government regulations. The healthcare provider must provide contraception to the insured individual free of charge. That means that an individual will pay no out of pocket cost for to obtain contraceptives. That doesn’t mean the person isn’t paying. The insurer simply builds in the cost of contraceptives into the insurance coverage. You may disagree with the government regulating the insurance industry in this way, and you have a legitimate argument. However, you can’t accurately frame this as a redistribution of wealth. Feel me on that?
The exit polls from the Republican primaries have been showing below 49% of the voters to be women. That’s not too big of a gap, but when you see Jewish, Muslim, black, and Latino voters in the single digits, you see that the Republican party is clearly not appealing to minorities.
[…]but when you see Jewish, Muslim, black, and Latino voters in the single digits, you see that the Republican party is clearly not appealing to minorities.
And why would that be? Could it be that enforcing our immigration laws, proclaiming a unified nation of Americans instead of a gaggle of hyphens, doing things yourself in your own way without government interference is unappealing to those groups who would prefer special treatment/rights, handouts and lawlessness? Are the promises of such things more enticing coming from a political party who actually believes these things to be morally correct?
By the way, those groups would be considered “special interest”. So why are Democrats always disparaging “special interests” when they’re campaigning asking for votes?
…and a lot must be given to the dumbing down of our education, when we see example after example of teachers not doing their job, aka teaching and requiring something as simple as correct grammar, etc..
The cancerous mind-think of liberalism has infected most black minorities, not… because it’s easy to feel like a “victim” and ‘entitled’ to something someone else has honestly earned. And ONE reason Herman Cain is so appreciated – he was taught what was correct.
The Democrat- Socialist has about succeeded in destroying Americanism.
White Christian males are a special interest, and right now, they’re the only group that Republicans seem to give a damn about. When they say “I want my country back,” they’re dreaming of the idyllic 1950s when the white Christian male was the only interest group in politics. The word “conservativism” itself reveals what their ideals really are — to conserve the status quo, to stifle progress. So they attack the educators, the feminists, the community organizers, anyone who could upset the balance and empower the lower classes to achieve greater standing.
Really? What about black Christian males, or latino Christian males? They’re excluded? Where does this assumption come from that Republicans even give a rip about what Christians want anyway? Last time I checked, the “country clubber Rockefeller Repubs didn’t want the “bible-thumpers” anywhere near the party. They were embarrassed and threatened by “religious people” (but not moozlims), who weren’t up to the current trends of killing babies and shedding morality as fast as they were doing. Christians are fast becoming the “minority” around here, which doesn’t make them a “special interest” that anyone is interested in.
When they say “I want my country back,” they’re dreaming of the idyllic 1950s when the white Christian male was the only interest group in politics.
Really? This is what they mean? Are you a conservative that you would know? Or are you just grasping at straws? Let me help you out here: The saying is “I want my country back!” Not “I want my country backwards!”. See the difference? No one in their right mind would ever think we could take the country back to the 50’s. That’s silly. But here’s what it means to “take our country back”: It means getting back to a Constitutional government that’s held accountable. It means going back to capitalism that works for everyone, and rendering socialism in the ash heep of history once and for all. It means actually teaching students in school rather than indocrinating them with lodes of useless crap. It means making common sense common again, lowering taxes and getting the government out of the way so people can start a business and prosper by keeping their own money. It means allowing people to be responsible for their own lives and pay their own way, rather than burdening society with the tab. Get the picture?
The word “conservativism” itself reveals what their ideals really are — to conserve the status quo, to stifle progress. So they attack the educators, the feminists, the community organizers, anyone who could upset the balance and empower the lower classes to achieve greater standing.
Aside from the slogans, buzzwords and clichés, what exactly is the “status quo”? What do you consider “progress”? Is it a regression away from law and order and the rule of law? Is it the abondonment of morals and standards that used to be common sense? Is it divorcing society from simple, common decency? Tell me, what’s “progress” these days? What are the educators teaching these days? Any idea? Feminists? What do they have to do with anything? You mean “community organizers” like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and other similar interlopers? Do you really believe Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are doing any good by always inspiring racism and hate? Obama was a “community organizer”, too. What good did it do? Don’t the “community organizers” keep the lower classes low so they can pilfer and leach off them? How else do you think Jesse and Al get paid? It’s from the lower classes they have control over and keep down.
You see, it’s not the conservatives who are worried about “balance of power” (whatever that means), or empowering the lower classes. Conservatives have nothing to gain from any of that. But the liberals, and democrat massahs have much to gain by keeping people low and captive. It’s their Plantation Class; their modern-day slavery; their legacy and their bread and butter. It’s not a conservative thang.
Go check out the exit polls from today’s Republican primaries to see just how homogeneous the party is today. Then you can try convincing the minorities that they’re just being lazy and stupid. As a white Judeo-Christian male myself (stress on the “Judeo” part), I advise against this approach as it makes you seem out of touch and dare I say racist (I said it). And look no further than the current crop of Republican presidential candidates for the party’s increased alienation.
Newt Gingrich: “We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and so they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto.”
Rick Santorum: “Satan has his sights on the United States of America!”
Ron Paul: “And we are supposed to honor [Martin Luther King Jr.] this ‘Christian minister’ and lying socialist with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?”
Mitt Romney: “Corporations are people, my friend.”
The Republican party of 2012 is nothing more than an exclusive group of bullies who proudly promote greed and religious extremism.
There is no “right” to abortion in the Constitution, so the Democrat’s have historically fought for something that didn’t exist… for the purpose of killing what’s inconvenient. It is an “immoral act” – it called murder. It’s a pathetic souring of culture to accept murdering innocent, unborn as a “right” and as birth control, when it’s neither.
The Republicans have become too liberal and too weak and thus incapable to speaking out on true conservative principles, which is one reason that gave birth to the Tea Party. But there are plenty of education, thinking, conservatives “minorities” and millions of more who are brainwashed by liberal propaganda… and not the facts. Again, a sad state of our culture.
It’s easy to be a liberal Democrat.. it’s not thought. Just going along with the crowd, so to speak;, but takes thought, consideration, education.and a strong moral, ethical base to decided to be a Conservative.
Pingback: Political Indigestion Provided By The New York Times « Swimming Against The Current
Not because any of these are outstanding points that really deserve the scrutiny in comparison to the pressing issues of the day, but just out of courtesy because you brought them up:
And look no further than the current crop of Republican presidential candidates for the party’s increased alienation.
So it’s your opinion the Republican party is “alienating” whoever. You’re entitled to your own perceptions.
Newt Gingrich: “We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and so they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto.”
So why is this controversial? I don’t know how old you are, but when I was growing up here in America, going through the public school system, this wasn’t even an issue. English was the language you learned, and if you wanted to learn a foreign language as a second language, you would sign up for the class and learn it. Teachers weren’t “bilingual” unless they were secondary language teachers. There was no need for every teacher to be bilingual. When Eastern European immigrants came to this country in the 1800s, they learned ENGLISH and learned to ASSIMILATE into the AMERICAN culture. Why, all of a sudden, is this concept to be discouraged?
Don’t you know that the universal language in America is ENGLISH? Or haven’t you yet figured out that a common language unifies the country—any country? Assuming you haven’t been anywhere outside your own backyard, if you ever bother to go to other countries around the world you will note that they speak their own language universally, and English as a secondary language because it is the most widely used language on the planet. I agree with Newt. A common language unifies the country. This still is the UNITED States of America; not the Peoples Balkanized Rebuplic of Disparateness.
Even Bill Cosby chided blacks to learn how to speak proper English if they want to succeed in the world. He spoke against Eubonics and the “rap/hiphop” secret code language. And he was denounced and unfairly criticized by the ‘hood for speaking the truth.
Rick Santorum: “Satan has his sights on the United States of America!”
This is somewhat different than saying “DEATH TO AMERICA!”, or, “America is the Great Satan”. Maybe you might know how many terrorists were inspired to fly jets into highrise buildings, or how many riots and murders occured because of this “extremist” religious point of view? How many acts of violence, that you know about, occured whenever a bible was burned, or defaced? Of course we can’t cite any of the violence that’s associated with Islam as being “religious extremism”, right? That’s a peaceful, fun-loving religion we can all turn our backs to. I’m sure you had no problem with Keith Ellison (muslim liberal-MN) when he demanded to be sworn into office with his right hand on a Quran, right? We don’t have any religious “litmus tests” according to our Constitution that anyone should be excluded based upon their religious beliefs. O’bama and the democrats are the “extremists” who are endangering the country and destroying the Constitution with their methods and fiats; not Rick Santorum.
Ron Paul: “And we are supposed to honor [Martin Luther King Jr.] this ‘Christian minister’ and lying socialist with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?”
Uh, this speaks for itself. Ron Paul is that “crazy uncle locked in the attic” you heard family rumors about.
Mitt Romney: “Corporations are people, my friend.”
Corporations would be my friend, too, if I were retired counting on the monthly dividends coming from stock investments. I don’t think there’s nearly enough economic and business education these days to educate people on exactly who and what a corporation is. Corporations mean JOBS for people, and investment opportunities for those who plan their retirement someday. This notion that they’re “evil” is utter nonsense. It’s the government—especially this current incarnation that’s the real “evil” beast in this story.
The Republican party of 2012 is nothing more than an exclusive group of bullies who proudly promote greed and religious extremism.
Other than this being a cliché, where’s the reasoning behind this? We all know the facts that there are more democrats who are multi-millionaires than there are republicans. Democrats RAISE my taxes in excess—because they’re for working families and the middle-class! I (unfortunately) live in the Peoples Republic of IL; in Crook County of all places. I know what Democrats stand for, their phony “compassion” and “for the little guy” bullshit. They’re the MOST greedy, hateful bunch of extremist bastards that I know of.
And we do know democrats have a penchant; an obsession, embracing Radical Islamic extremists. So why the hate?
I should probably stop right now and realize that neither of us are going to see eye to eye on anything, but I’ve got five minutes, so what the hell, here’s my last word.
It is indeed my opinion that Republicans are alienating themselves and if you looked at the exit polls from yesterday’s primaries, you would see that a significant number of blacks, Latinos, Jews, Muslims, and people under 40 agree. http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/tn?hpt=hp_c2
I’m writing to you now from South Korea, fresh off my two year volunteer service in Bulgaria, which came after my study abroad program in Japan. In each place, I’ve been forced to learn the native language, an incredibly difficult endeavor unless you’ve been immersed in it and guided by teachers who speak your mother tongue. It would be incredibly useful for new immigrants to the US to learn English, but we can’t be so bold as to say that 21st century English is the only language of the US. It’s beyond bold to take Gingrich’s view that Spanish is the ghetto language.
If every subscriber of the world’s second largest religion (Islam, by the way) was hellbent on killing non-believers, we wouldn’t be here today. Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, and countless other madmen were Christian, yet we don’t call them “Christian extremists” just because they’ve killed people while being Christian. American Muslims don’t blow up abortion clinics or picket outside of soldiers funerals with signs that say “God Hates Fags.” The Republicans don’t necessarily have a religious litmus test, but if you accept evolution, climate change, and the genetic cause for homosexuality, you’re as popular as Jon Huntsman.
Corporations may supply jobs, but there’s no reason for them to supply the largest percentage of campaign contributions. I want my elected leaders to give my voice as much importance as the Koch brothers or Bill Gates. Citizens United has corrupted politics on both sides of the aisle, and everyday it’s still around, you and I lose just a little more free speech. You may think our government is an evil, bureaucratic nightmare, but I’ll take it over the United States of Exxon any day.
[…]so what the hell, here’s my last word.
Just a few things that demand a response.
It is indeed my opinion that Republicans are alienating themselves and if you looked at the exit polls from yesterday’s primaries, you would see that a significant number of blacks, Latinos, Jews, Muslims, and people under 40 agree.
I’m not really interested in exit polls, and don’t pay them much mind. The one common thread you leave out with all these groups you claim are alienated from the Republican Party is that they’re all left-leaning liberal.
Blacks don’t like Republicans because of decades of brainwashing from liberals that Repubublicans are “evil” and racist. So far, a small minority of blacks call that hand to become conservatives, and have left the plantation. Those that do are equally demonized and made examples of so that no more welfare ‘slaves’ will get any funny ideas. Blacks get lots of OPM from Democrats. They’re not going to bite the hand of the ‘massah’ when the only work they’re required to do is hand over their vote.
Latinos don’t like Republicans because they’re for enforcing immigration laws and against amnesty (most of them anyway).
They have been propgandized and brainwashed to believe that somehow enforcing immigration laws means “anti-immigrant”,
“nativist”, or just plain “racist”.
Of course none of these charges are even remotely true, but the Republicans are responsible for not making it clear what they really are for. And there are some pro-amnesty Republicans in the mix that make it even more muddled in having a clear position on what the party in general stands for, thus leaving it wide open to be defined by pro-amnesty/open borders liberals.
Jews have a history of siding with liberalism. Very few see the light and change, but some do.
Muslims do not lean conservative either. They have much more in common with liberals with their political agendas than they do with conservatives. American muslims tend to be leftwing liberals. I have read many different muslim newspapers, op-eds, articles and screeds and never have found anything pro-American/pro-assimilation in any of their views. They have their own agenda and see the Democrat Party as a vessel to implement it.
So in being that, I’m surprised you haven’t figured this out for yourself. It’s not rocket science that takes a college
degree to figure out why these groups flock to liberals.
I’ve been forced to learn the native language, an incredibly difficult endeavor unless you’ve been immersed in it and guided by teachers who speak your mother tongue.
Indeed it is. Immersion usually is the best way because it forces the new learner to listen and adapt.
It would be incredibly useful for new immigrants to the US to learn English, but we can’t be so bold as to say that 21st century English is the only language of the US.
I don’t think anyone is saying for English to be the ONLY language; just the OFFICIAL language. That means ballots only have English on them (Only citizens can vote, and citizens are required to be fluent in convserational English) so there is no need for 10 different translations on a ballot.
In Singapore, Malay is the official language, but that doesn’t mean everyone is required to speak it exclusively. English is a requirement in the schools, along with a second language of choice.
It’s beyond bold to take Gingrich’s view that Spanish is the ghetto language.
Newt never mentioned “Spanish”, and he never made any connections with it to being a “ghetto language”. This fallacy is your own inference rooted in your own perception of how you personally view Spanish.
If every subscriber of the world’s second largest religion (Islam, by the way) was hellbent on killing non-
believers, we wouldn’t be here today.
That’s why there were wars, such as the Holy Crusades, to keep that from happening. That’s why we fight terrorism and terrorists today—to keep that from happening.
Timothy McVeigh, Anders Breivik, and countless other madmen were Christian, yet we don’t call them “Christian extremists” just because they’ve killed people while being Christian.
The error here is in trying to create a moral equivalent—assuming McVeigh and Breivik were “Christians”—to compare to the 1400 year history of Islamic violence. First of all, McVeigh wasn’t a Christian. Afer he was arrested he admitted he was an agnostic. It’s best explained here, including his ties with islamic terrorism.
Breivik was diagnosed as a paraniod schizophrenic with a so-called “far right” militant ideology. He never claimed the motivation for his crimes was inspired from religious beliefs or doctrine (meaning Christianity).
It’s helpful that before you try to create moral equivalents that at least you have some knowledge of the objects your trying to equate. Islam and Christianity are POLAR OPPOSITES in that in trying to tie them together to be equally heinous and violent requires more ignorance than understanding.
American Muslims don’t blow up abortion clinics or picket outside of soldiers funerals with signs that say “God
Hates Fags.”
Neither do Christians. American Muslims blew up something worse: the Twin Towers. And have tried on seperate occassions, too. “God Hates” Fags” is just as repugnant as a black ‘pastor’ screaming “God DAMN the USA!”. Maybe there’s a connection between the two belief systems.
The Republicans don’t necessarily have a religious litmus test, but if you accept evolution, climate change, and the genetic cause for homosexuality, you’re as popular as Jon Huntsman.
Thanks for clearing that up. And here, all along, I thought Huntsman’s unpopularity was based solely with his involvement with the Obama administration. But try your experiment with someone who believes in ‘intelligent design’, or ‘the earth is round’ trying to get into the Democrat Party and see how it “evolves”.
Corporations may supply jobs, but there’s no reason for them to supply the largest percentage of campaign contributions.
Who ever made the claim that they supply the “largest”? Sounds like hyperbole to me. And the 1st Amendment should apply to everyone.
I want my elected leaders to give my voice as much importance as the Koch brothers or Bill Gates. Citizens United has corrupted politics on both sides of the aisle, and everyday it’s still around, you and I lose just a little more free speech.
This is also another fallacy based on more hyperventilation. Interesting how you haven’t mentioned George Soros, Tom Gill
or Warren Buffett as big threats to your voice and freedoms as well. Citizens United is another ‘whipping boy’ of the left who claim they want free speech, but only dole it out to whom they wish. Such hypocrisy.
You may think our government is an evil, bureaucratic nightmare, but I’ll take it over the United States of Exxon any day.
This conclusion isn’t surprising based upon some of your earlier comments. I’ll take the free market any day over big
government. But since you feel this way, I’m surprised you’re not writing from NORTH Korea instead.
“exit polls” can be fairly useless and extremely faulty, depending on the poll taker and how the questions are ASKED, which most of us know. Take for instance, exit polls showed Reagan losing and he did not. Polls showed Bush losing when he did not.
People lie in polls just for gags so you can’t put much stock in them. And seriously, if more so- called minorities are Democrats, that’s a problem WITH THEIR THINKING and not Conservative principles. How can respecting our Constitution, wanting smaller government OUT of our lives, keeping more of OUR money… wrong? Clearly, it isn’t. If you disagree then time should be spent studying the Constitution and reading founding documents. Hillsdale College would be a great place to start and they offer some free courses.
Conservatives and to some extent Republicans, don’t pander to any race, gender, etc. Conservatives have values, things in which to believe and support… it’s not beneficial to have ‘special issue’ in some phony, racial based attempted to drawn in some segment of the population. That’s what Democrats do.. and thus, divide America on every issue possible. That’s a pathetic way to run politics. The thing to do is speak truth and facts and wait for people to be drawn to it.