President Obama has been outspoken in his criticism of “paycheck discrimination” that has women earning less than men for the same jobs, but a new report shows that female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, while the median salary for male employees was $71,000 — about 18 percent more, the Washington Free Beacon reports.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” former Bill Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Meyers told the New York Times.

http://freebeacon.com/hostile-workplace/

Wow!   President Carter is Pro-Life and all this time I assumed he ran with the pac.  Carter is right, nothing turns voters away more than abortion ranting liberals who become too emotional making people very uncomfortable.

Obama planned to use abortion ads this fall, Carter just gave us a fresh video with the face of life over the pro abortion Obamabots.  Let him run ads then we take a clip or two and add the Carter video showing a compassionate democrat whose party has chosen death over life.   Republicans can regain women vote support using one president against an unpopular one.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/jimmy-carter-democrats-should-abandon-pro-abortion-position/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=e58a97db4e-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

Appearing on the radio talk show of conservative radio host Laura Ingraham today, former President Jimmy Carter said he believes the Democratic Party should moderate its position on abortion, which it currently supports without limits and funded at taxpayer expense.

“I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions and that was one of the problems I had when I was president having to uphold Roe v. Wade and I did everything I could to minimize the need for abortions. I made it easy to adopt children for instance who were unwanted and also initiated the program called Women and Infant Children or WIC program that’s still in existence now. But except for the times when a mother’s life is in danger or when a pregnancy is caused by rape or incest I would certainly not or never have approved of any abortions.”

“I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. I think if the Democratic Party would adopt that policy that would be acceptable to a lot of people who are now estranged from our party because of the abortion issue.”

Romney being funded by AGW believers.  We all know he supported AGW as governor and now people are vetting him online and discover some of his major donors are AGW freaks who are well know friends of all that is left wing!

Can we really trust him 100% considering the spin aka lies and all the flip flops. For me this is a campaign killer which makes me wonder if I could vote for him and live with it.  Can you?  Maybe some advice other than Obama wins if Romney loses.  I’m thinking here and now because we have better choices who have taken a clear stand against AGW.  Even Newt who educated himself is sworn off AGW totally but Romney is Cap and Trade friendly and AGW friendly.

Santorum was always against AGW and he’s closing the gap.  If Newt rolls his support to Santorum, we win against Obama.  Why?  Santorum said he’d consider Newt as a running mate.  That moves a lot of support away from Romney into Santoromentum towards Super Tuesday.

http://rightwingnews.com/column-2/why-is-romney-being-supported-by-the-global-warming-crowd/

Romney’s effort to portray himself as a conservative has had great success, primarily due to a black out on Romney’s record not only by the mainstream press but also by much of the conservative media. Moreover, much of America’s conservative “leadership” has decided to give Romney a pass.

I posted a piece here a few weeks ago about Romney’s aggressive effort to promote global warming in Massachusetts, policies that have largely been ignored in this campaign.  Since that piece was posted, more evidence has surfaced that Romney will govern as a global warming zealot.  It turns out that one of Romney’s largest donors is Julian Robertson Jr., who has given $1.3 million to the pro-Romney Super Pac, Restore our Future.  Robertson serves on the board of the Environmental Defense Fund and was a big cheerleader for Obama’s 2009 Cap-and-Trade bill.   When Robertson’s office was questioned about Romney’s views on global warming, a spokesperson responded that, “he [Robertson] has confidence that Romney, once he’s in there, will do the right thing.”  Can you spell SELL-OUT?

But that’s not all.  A number of other global warming zealots are backing Romney including billionaire Trammel Crow and Rob Sisson, who heads up a group called Republicans for Environmental Protection.  And one of Romney’s economic advisors is Greg Mankiw, who has spent much of his career pushing for a carbon tax to finance all the wacky global warming programs of the type Mitt pushed in Massachusetts.  Also advising Romney on environmental issues are James Connaughton, a cap-and-trader who headed up Bush’s Council of Environmental Quality, and Jeff Holmstead, a Bush EPA official known for his extreme global warming views. But this isn’t surprising given the fact Romney hired hard-left environmentalist John Holdren – now Obama’s science advisor – to be a key advisor while Governor of Massachusetts.

Robertson, Crow, Sisson, etc. must know something we don’t.  That’s right, we’re being set up folks. We’re being screwed by the RINO wing of the GOP. Yet conservatives by the thousands continue to vote for Romney like lemmings crawling to water.

Part of the reason why this is happening is that many of America’s leading conservatives have remained silent or neutral in this race.  Many leaders are tied to groups that took money from one of Romney’s six PACS over the last six years and so they either cheerlead for Romney or stay silent.  And then there are many conservatives supporting Romney in hopes of receiving a position in his administration.  You know, the “career first, America last” types.

Sadly, even several Tea Party-supported politicians have endorsed Romney, such as South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, Jason Chaffetz, Christine O’Donnell and Senator Jim DeMint (DeMint claims he hasn’t endorsed Romney but all his staff member have and he publicly promotes Romney as a conservative on a daily basis).  And one can guess why. Haley took $36,000 from Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC for her 2010 campaign. Chaffetz took $7,000 from Romney and O’Donnell received $5,000.  And Senator DeMint, a guy I used to think was a conservative superstar, took $20,000 from Romney the last few cycles.  These people have allowed Romney’s wealth to jade their judgment since all of them surely know about Romney’s liberal record.

But it gets worse, FEC records shows that Romney poured close to a million dollars into the coffers of 167 congressional and senate candidates during the 2010 cycle. And that’s not counting the $404,000 given to state and local GOP parties in 2010.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/santorum-gingrich-runningmate-alabama/2012/03/08/id/431942

Saying he’d look for a “strong and principled conservative” as a running mate should he win the Republican presidential nomination, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum tells Newsmax that he certainly would consider rival Newt Gingrich for that vital role.

When asked if he would consider the former House Speaker as number two on his ticket, Santorum said Gingrich had been “tested” by the bruising GOP race and that makes him an attractive vice presidential candidate.

Santorum tells Newsmax that his choice would be a core conservative who is “willing to stand up and fight for the things that I believe in.”

“My principal and only criterion for vice president is to make sure that I have someone that I have confidence that if something should happen to me that they could carry on and do what I promised the people of America I would try to do,” he said.

Gingrich would seem to fit the bill more than any of the other candidates. He and Santorum have been battling for the same voters on the right of the party as they try to defeat front-runner Mitt Romney.

Santorum said the GOP only has to look to history to see that conservative candidates do better in general elections that do moderates.

“If we have another moderate Republican we are going to end up with the same situation we had four years ago,” he said, referring to John McCain’s loss to Barack Obama. “We’ll have the same situation we had with Bob Dole and the same situation we had with Gerry Ford.

Why A Moderate Cannot Beat Obama

Can we just get real here? Are we destined to repeat history? Has everyone forgotten the 2008 Presidential election?? Obama has already beat a moderate in 2008, in McCain. A moderate CANNOT beat Obama, why? Because Obama is clever enough to be “moderate” on enough issues to carry the moderate vote away from another moderate candidate. The fact that Obama just so happens to be the incumbent does not hurt either.  A trick only a far lefty with radical mad skills can pull off.

These people who argue that Romney is the most “electable” are walking around in a state of amnesia with blinders. Trying to snag that 20% moderate/independent voter is like trying to nail jello to a tree. The only one who can beat Obama is a true conservative with leadership and governing capabilities, why, because the moderate/independent voter can and will vote republican depending upon the candidate/issue. Don’t you know that many Democrats voted for Reagan?

Destroying the Republican base by moving towards the middle like Romney has done is suicide, why, because when the general election rolls around, the conservatives will bail (just like in 2008), and Obama will win just like in 2008. Now give me one good reason the Republican party should nominate a moderate after what we have seen happen in the past? The object of the game is to beat Obama, not have warm fuzzy feelings about a man who is doomed to fail.

Now that a report has come out stating that 38% of American voters consider themselves “Independents,” the Republican Party had better take notice and open their eyes.  The Republican party and some conservative media markets are attempting to brain wash voters into believing that Romney is “the most electable candidate,” against Obama in the general election; think again.

It is the responsibility of the Republican Party to nominate a strong  alternative candidate to President Obama if they intend to beat Obama in the general election.  While most Americans are aware of the damage that Obama has done to our rights, out constitution and economic future, the Republican party somehow does not see the dire straights our nation is in.  The Republican party does not accept the fact that the American people want to vote for a candidate they feel can quickly and substantially change the direction of our country NOW.  The American voter does not want to vote for a candidate that sounds like Obama, nor does their “on the job training” while in the White House at the nation’s expense.

Presently we have a conservative base and tea party voters who do not want to vote for another moderate (2008 McCain), we have dissatisfied Democrats who do not want to vote for Obama again, and now we have a block of 38% of American voters stating they are independents.  This nation is clearly dissatisfied with what is going on in Washington and are sincerely hoping that the Republican party will nominate a candidate that they can rally around to beat Obama and who will take this country in a very different direction.  Who is that candidate?  Does the Republican party think that Romney can get enough of the conservative vote, democratic vote, and independent vote to beat Obama in the general election, really?

Reagan beat Carter because of the very same formula just described.  He was able to garner conservative, democrat and independent voters to beat Carter.  Why, because he offered a clear distinct alternative to the Carter administration.  The Republican party must offer a candidate that represents a clear distinct alternative to the Obama administration.  If the Republican party does not accept their responsibility seriously, the above referenced voters will have no alternative candidate to vote for and may very well sit out the general election.

What the Republican party fails to realize once again is the fact that although Americans are starkly aware of the need to remove Obama, they are far more starkly aware that no one is listening to them, and that is where the REAL anger lies.  If the Republican party really thinks that the nation is  going to rally around Romney just to beat Obama, they have another thing coming.  Playing that “we have to beat Obama” card is not going to fly with voters in this general election.  Voters are looking past the nomination process, past the general election, and to the end result.  Remember, many voters do not follow politics as closely as you or I.

The $64,000 question with American voters is the same.  Can the Republican party offer a nominee who can significantly improve the economic situation now?  Can the Republican party offer candidates that have a proven plan and track record for balancing the budget?  Can the Republican party offer  candidates that have a proven plan and track record for creating jobs quickly?  If the Republican party cannot nominate a candidate that has a strong grasp and ability to accomplish these tasks, the conservatives, dissatisfied Obama supporters, and new independent voters will not have an alternative candidate to vote for and will sit out the general election, regardless of the consequences.  One way or another the American people will make their voice heard, and have their demands met, with or without the help of the Republican party.  And that my fellow Americans is what is called government by the people and for the people.  Not the Establishment’s way!  Former RNC Chairman Micheal Steele gave us fairer elections that are not closed out fast by establishment types in smoke filled rooms who don’t care what “we the people” think.

Santorum/ Gingrich 2012 will unite the party!!!  Offer Ron Paul a good job working for the president closes the gap and on we go to Super Tuesday.

Talk about slap down, Kirsten Powers deserves respect for attacking left wing whackos for their pathetic behavior in a manner I have have never seen from a liberal.  One reason they attack her, she contributes at FOX and debates the Round Table discussions with Special Report host Bret Baier.  Not easy for a leftie to get air time because they have standards.  Can’t say the same of MSNBC or CNN who allow these degenerates to slither on from time to time.

Not a normal poll no doubt but women like this deserve recognition even though I disagree with her positions most of the time.  We’ll see more left wing hate till they take a stand.  Rush apologized and the mentally ill still rant about him  so while they foam at the mouth its nice to see a leftie throw it up in their faces.

WTG Girl!!!

 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html

Did you know there is a war on women?

Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.

Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don’t show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.

Mitt Romney was proud to attend the  September 2002 meeting with NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts Romney promised the ghouls in attendance that they would have a friend in “Washington” (if they helped him someday get elected president) it becomes difficult to believe Mister Romney when he says he never forced Catholic hospitals to dispense R U 486.   Yes he forced abortion on good people who deserved better!!!

On December 8, 2005 as governor of Massachusetts Willard Mitt Romney announced that private hospitals including those run by the Catholic Church would be forced by the power of the State of Massachusetts to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims without regard for the moral convictions of the hospital’s administration.

What made this still worse was that right up until his flip flop on this issue Romney had defended the right of Catholic hospitals to refuse to dispense these RU 486 pills. It came out of the blue.

The cynical explanation for the turnaround was that a Romney lawyer had concluded the recently enacted RomneyCare program (callously signed  the preceding spring during Easter Week) supersedes a preexisting state law that allowed an exemption for Catholic and other faith based conscious driven organizations.

The grounds for Romney’s announcement were undermined by a Massachusetts Department of Public Health statement, made around the same time, which reaffirmed the exemption. It  disagreed saying RomneyCare does not supersede a previous statute protecting the conscious rights of private medical facilities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-governor-romney-worked-to-reassure-liberals/2011/11/02/gIQAookxgM_story.html

Mitt Romney was firm and direct with the abortion rights advocates sitting in his office nine years ago, assuring the group that if elected Massachusetts governor, he would protect the state’s abortion laws.

Then, as the meeting drew to a close, the businessman offered an intriguing suggestion — that he would rise to national prominence in the Republican Party as a victor in a liberal state and could use his influence to soften the GOP’s hard-line opposition to abortion.

He would be a “good voice in the party” for their cause, and his moderation on the issue would be “widely written about,” he said, according to detailed notes taken by an officer of the group, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.

“You need someone like me in Washington,” several participants recalled Romney saying that day in September 2002, an apparent reference to his future ambitions.

Romney made similar assurances to activists for gay rights and the environment, according to people familiar with the discussions, both as a candidate for governor and then in the early days of his term.

Any candidate who openly supports baby killers is not electable as a nominee.

Someone said RomneyCare is right wing socialism, well yes it is and we the people should be focusing on better choices because Romney is favored by too many liberal media types who sort of supported him as the likely nominee because they know they get a version of healthcare they like and we can’t afford it no more than we can afford to elect a man who openly supported abortion!!!