Editor’s Note from Erick: I woke up this morning and found Media Matters all over the case that RedState is calling Karen Finney “half breed.” Seriously? While I appreciate the user defending me on Twitter, calling someone “half breed” is, in fact, racist and demeaning and I am just as offended as the people complaining. Crap like this is as effective and useful as that dumbass at the Santorum gun shooting event saying “pretend its Obama.” In addition to it being pathetic, it also serves as a wonderful distraction for the left to point at. If you can’t figure out all those points, please don’t come to RedState. I’ve stricken the offending paragraph below and have closed this account, though I’ll turn back on should we get an apology for saying crap like that as, to my knowledge, this is the first time this user has said something like that. Oh, and comments are now closed.

Ah the left, to what ends will they not go in order to advance their insidious agenda? They’ve gone from sex to murder in a matter of a month and in more disgusting fashion using the tragic murder of a fine young lad cut down in his youth by a trigger happy man who jumped the gun and made a fatal error. There are no winners in this case and in fact it pains me so much I’ve avoided any mention of the incident because as I suspected when I first got wind of this shooting the media started using it to paint white men as racists, push for gun control, and now they’re starting to use this as a way to smear Rush Limbaugh and the GOP.

A family mourns the loss of a son, a community is broken, a man who made a serious misjudgment might go to prison, and a young teen will never realize the fruits of his talent because he’s dead. The left looks at this situation and their mouths water as though they’re sitting in front of a nicely grilled T-bone steak with a side of mashed potatoes and chocolate cream pie for dessert. I haven’t watched the rounds of political shows because of this and no I realize it was a good idea not to.

Instead of using a young man’s murder as a political tennis ball maybe we should focus on praying for the family, the young man’s soul, and the shooter. But of course the left knows no god in heaven but the political god of liberalism and government. These people make me want to vomit, every last one of them.

Karen Finney the half breed malcontent over at the “Mess” network MSNBC tried to tie Rush Limbaugh with young Trayvon Martin‘s murder. So now Rush is responsible for the degradation of an entire gender of people not to mention the death of a young African American boy in Florida. And I suspect if Iran got the bomb Rush would be responsible for that too.

That was the running theme of Tamron Hall’s show on MSNBC this afternoon. The idea that Rush should finally be given the old cane around the neck and yanked off stage treatment by I guess the FCC. But I ask this simple question: “If Rush goes for the word “slut” then shouldn’t Bill Maher go for saying things far worse than what Rush said once about a person we now know was a hired gun for the Democrat Party?”

If Rush needs his butt canned for slut then Bill Maher should go for saying the word “punt” take away the “p” and add “c”. He’s referred to governor Sarah Palin as a slut and used various sexually explicit words and phrases to describe any and all things Palin related.

So yes in that context I would gladly welcome the demise of Rush Limbaugh if and only we see the same fate mark Bill Maher’s television career. Let’s be consistent in who we seek to embrace with our outrage. Let’s be honest the left loves  nasty talk because they have no moral beef with how the culture has slid into the gutter. This is the same left that embraces pornography, explicit rap and rock music, and all other forms of secular and poisonous darts that slowly kill off the traditional and Christian based value system in this country.

And while we’re beginning with Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher perhaps we should call for every major record label to cease in the signing of hip hop artists as well as the distribution of their vile music. I don’t like the word slut but I especially don’t like it when its said in every other verse in every song on a rap album. But let’s not stop there, we should call for the end to movie theaters showing explicit and degrading movies that portray women in less than flattering roles and images. We need to boycott the publication of the annual Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition, the porn industry, strip clubs, music videos show by MTV, VH1, and BET, Spring Break, Hollywood, Go Daddy.com, many ad campaigns and commercials; should I continue or do you get my point lad?

To argue Rush Limbaugh’s removal from airwaves based on what he said is to then argue very same punishment for the hundreds of hip hop radio stations broadcasting Lil Wayne, Drake, Nicki Minaj, Jay-Z, Kanye West, and other foul mouth “rappers” who make millions off the gutter toilet vocabulary in which they degrade women, promote godless culture, drugs, materialism, idol worship, and a thug mentality.

So yes I want Rush Limbaugh fired and those like him. Go ahead and show how consistently pro-women you are liberals, prove my assumptions wrong. Although I won’t hold my breath on this one either.

In light of the most recent poll showing Mr. Obama’s approval rating near 41%, oh and by the way according to Willie Geist of Morning Joe fame that’s astonishing that the president’s approval rating would be that low (huh?). But anyway it looks as though the president might deploy the “I stand for women” strategy in order to get reelected. Now one might assume he’s using a favorable tactic if one assumes the media narrative that Republicans are anti-women is an honest and accurate narrative to project.

However I could and will make the argument that in fact it’s Mr. Obama that has been surrounded by, endorsed by, and receiving campaign contributions from some of the most sexist, misogynistic men around. Bill Maher of course being the most obvious and sort of the face of Mr. Obama’s sexist male campaign donors. But you also have some names that have gone unnoticed. For example rapper Ludacris supported the president in 2008; one would assume he will support him in 2012. Now for those of you not familiar with Ludacris and his work let me throw out a few titles so you get the idea of where I’m coming from:

“How Low”

“She could go lower than I ever really thought she could

Face down, (bleep) up

The top of your booty jiggling out your jeans”

Just to give you an insight to his favorite topics here are a few names to some of Ludacris’ songs: “Hey Ho”, “Sex Room”, “Pimpin All Over the World”. You see where I’m going with this? I however don’t want to single out Ludacris because the entire base of support in terms of the entertainment industry is in lockstep with President Obama. Now of course we could successfully make the argument that there has never been a more sexist and anti-woman echo chamber in America quite like the Hollywood and Music industry landfill.

If Mr. Obama wants to play this round of Texas Hold Em we’ll surely oblige because we can cite numerous examples of what some of his strongest and most lucrative supporters have said in just the last few weeks alone.

It still tickles my humor to hear our president talk invoke his daughters in light of the Rush Limbaugh incident when his supporters like Bill Maher and others have said far worse. And I wonder, how many of those rap artists do he and his daughters have on their iPODs? As I recall I do know the president is a fan of Jay-Z, who had a song a few years back called “Big Pimpin”. Now never mind the utter blasphemy of referring to yourself as “Jay Hova” (Jehovah), Jay-Z is no respecter of women when it comes to his songs and the lyrical content.

It would be an unfortunate circumstance should it be known that Mr. Obama’s daughters listen to Jay-Z and his ilk, sadly I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.

Now is not the time for this. I understand the reason; however misguided I assure you I understand the reason behind all of this. However I think it’s extremely short sided to go after Mr. Obama in such a way that will make us look like “swift boaters”.

We have so many tools at which to attack the president on his record why take a gamble with past associations and friendships? If you open this can of worms rest assure the media, whose machine is larger, more financially powerful, and unfortunately more influential will hit back with their own swift boat campaign. Just look at what they did to Sarah Palin in 2008 and what they’ve started to do to Marco Rubio, fearing he might be the likely vice presidential nominee. I’ve noticed a series of off balance mistakes made by both the Republican Party and the conservative movement. We keep doing and saying things that make us look very bad to the very people we need in November.

By now we should be well aware of how the media likes to twist and turn what we say and what we believe in; so why do we constantly give them the ammo? Why make ourselves look crazy if the media calls us crazy anyway? If you don’t give them a reason when they make up a reason they in turn are discredited and rejected, not us.

So this is an appeal to the Breitbart team not to go on with this bombshell mission to so called “vet the Prez”.  Listen, it won’t work because for the most part the American people know this president. He’s running for reelection as an incumbent, not a fresh new candidate whom we’ve never heard of. It’s too late to do now what we should have done four years ago. But if we focus like a laser beam on his record, and trap him in a cage of his own lies based on what he says and how he governed then we have the strong hand to play come poker night.

But let me tell you this stuff with video tapes and Derrick Bell won’t work guys. The media will defend him to the death and because they have the money, a major platform, and every household around the country they can eclipse what Breitbart’s team can do.

Just think about these numbers for a moment:

40 million

45 million

13 million

15 trillion

8.3%

1.6 million

8 million

The first number is how many people have been living at or below the poverty level since Barack Obama has been president.

The second number represents the number of people who are now using food stamps. That number has increased to 45 million total under Mr. Obama’s administration.

The third figure represents the number of Americans who have been unemployed during the four years of the Obama administration. It has been 13 million for all four years, but in fact it totals out at around 13 million when you combine his first four years as president.

The next is the total accumulated deficit under President Obama. He has spent more money and amassed my debt than any elected president in US history. The deficit under George Bush was in the billions, whereas President Obama accounts for debt and deficits in the trillions and in many cases surpassing the total gross domestic product of the United States which is 14 trillion. In less than five years our total debt will peak at the 21 trillion dollar mark.

Now for the unemployment rate. When President Obama took office the unemployment rate was near 7%. At the time he enacted the American Jobs and Recovery Act, or the stimulus bill, his administration said unemployment would not exceed 8%. However figures show that the post-stimulus package period of employment and unemployment in America has gone from 10.0, to 9.6, to 8.5, to 8.3. Now looking at this on a superficial level you might see an illusion of steady progress. But the next number tells you the real story about the unemployment rate. 1.6 million people discontinued their search for employment thus the contracted workforce compelled the Labor department to disregard an actual component of how you determine unemployment the right way. Those who no longer wish to continue their search for full time and permanent part time work are the very definition of what “unemployment” means. Instead the Labor Department counts those who find work, which is telling half the story at best.

So the unemployment rate is down for two distinct reasons: 1. The workforce contracted significantly with 1.6 million Americans giving up on their job search. 2. The Labor Department purposely ignores those who left the workforce and discouraged job seekers.

Finally the number 8 million. That number represents the total number of jobs that have been lost during the four years of the Obama presidency. For every 200,000 jobs created each month in 2011 and 2012, when you add every job created in all four years you barely scratch the surface of the total amount of jobs lost in all four of those years.

Add to that the massive number of foreclosures, the decrease in home values, home prices, real unemployment which is around 15%, Minority unemployment which stands at 13%, and what you have is the strongest set of facts and source material that could not only stop a Barack Obama second term dead in his tracks, but with this information Republicans could win a landslide similar to that of Ronald Reagan in 1980. That is if we drop this videotape nonsense and stick to the issues. Trust me the left wants you to run on this rather than focus on the president’s record. Don’t take the bait because you’re stepping in a trap.

Mr. President I respect you as a man and I’m always praying for you and your family. But unfortunately you failed the most basic political examination in that you not only refused to address this issue of hypocrisy in regards to smear merchant and HBO’s darling sexist Bill Maher and the million dollar check he so happily donated to your reelection efforts. Mr. Obama you said you called Sandra Fluke for the sake of your daughters and really daughters everywhere in America, and while Rush Limbaugh’s words were misguided and wrong; how can one argue the poison levels in a pair of serpent’s fangs? The way I see it sexism is sexism, and a snake bite is a snake bite regardless of the viper feel me?

So when of all people a reporter from the Huffington Post tried to ask you about this very issue you ignored him like a married man ignores his drunk ex girlfriend who suddenly shows up at his wedding reception. Instead you looked for a bailout from CNN’s Jessica Yellin, and like a compliant little lackey she obliged and pretty much shut down that question from the Huffington Post reporter.

It’s not worth any amount of cash for any reason to be a hypocrite in my eyes anyway. I don’t care if Bill Maher wrote a check for a trillion dollars I wouldn’t take it because what does that say about me? It’s like those corrupt cop movies where in public the cops are busting drug lords but behind the scenes they’re on those drug lords’ payroll. So in that aspect Mr. Obama you’re kinda corrupt. You’re taking campaign cash from the very people you spoke out against on Tuesday.

So in the name of real men everywhere who have daughters and would die for them without hesitation, in the name of real men who would remove creeps like Bill Maher from reality with a hard right hook to the face for disrespecting a woman, for the real men who still practice this thing called chivalry, return the check and tell Bill Maher and those like him “Thanks but no thanks” for that check to nowhere.

You see I’m from the old school, I don’t believe in smearing women under any circumstance. Let me tell you these guys like Maher and this Louie C.K. fella who hide behind their connections and their vulgarity man these guys wouldn’t make it to the corner stop sign in my neighborhood. I come from a family where the men don’t have to impress people or pump themselves up by going after women. How bout that? So check it this is where manhood has gone in American society today family. Nowadays the men we see being pumped up in pop culture are these little metro sexual types who make going after women int he most vile manner a sport. The Bill Maher’s of the world are the “real” men now. I mean because guys like Bill Maher and Louie C.K. are who our young boys should model themselves after, not Tim Tebow or Albert Pujols. Guys like Tebow and Pujols are these 6’4 all world athletes who not only excel on the field but excel off the field in a positive manner. But they don’t represent the new American culture so oh well.

Yeah it’s easy to go after Sarah Palin, all 5’1 of her. But you notice these guys would never go at someone like Alan West. Could you imagine Bill Maher saying something to Alan West face to face much less behind his back? Col. West would knock his friggin’ head clean off his shoulders and crap down his neck. You think he would say this stuff to Todd Palin or her son Track? Like I said these guys are acting tough by attacking women; we used to call em wife beaters.

So Mr. Obama I hope you have a change of heart and give the money back. I would regain the respect I lost for you when you took the money in the first place. Think about it for the sake of your daughters. If he called them the c-word I doubt the last thing you would want to do involving Bill Maher is take a million dollar check from him.

Last night’s big winner was Mitt Romney. I know a lot of conservatives were kind of down but if you want to get technical he won six but Santorum won three. If you want to get even more technical Mitt Romney was suppose to have an even better night than he did. Remember the media and the Republican establishment told us he’s got wind at his back from Arizona and Michigan. Karl Rove said Romney would win Ohio by a large margin; we were told he would win Tennessee. Mark Levin was right by the way these Bush guys and gal (Nicole Wallace) are really pushing Romney and its beyond what reality would suggest. For example as I said above Karl Rove said Romney would win Ohio by a large margin despite the polls telling a different story and despite of course last night’s result which had Romney winning the Buckeye state by barely one percentage point over Rick Santorum.

Though Mitt Romney has the delegate lead the upcoming races don’t bode well for him. Kansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Hawaii. Now of those states I count three Romney victories for certain (Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Hawaii), two solid victories for Rick Santorum (Kansas, Missouri) and three for Newt Gingrich (Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana). So the idea that Romney’s just going to sail is not only inaccurate but the primary map just doesn’t support that view. If Santorum wins Missouri and Kansas which he’ll be favored to win at least one of those, Missouri by a significant margin, he’ll notch a majority of the 80 total delegates at stake. Newt will be favored to sweep the south but don’t be surprised if Santorum plays well in Alabama.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Mitt Romney can only win in the west and on the east coast. The only two Midwestern states he won (Ohio and Michigan) he won by less than three percentage points despite Rick Santorum essentially sacking himself in the polls beforehand. Even when Rick Santorum missteps somehow Romney can’t seem to capitalize on Santorum’s flops in a big way. Furthermore Rick Santorum continues to show bounce back ability where he gets into trouble and yet he over performs on election night.

Beyond the next set of primaries you have a combination of Santorum and Romney states. You have Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Illinois, Puerto Rico, Maryland, Wisconsin, Indiana, New York, Delaware, and Connecticut. In other words, this is going to go on for quite some time. As for Newt Gingrich when his southern strategy calls for more southern states that just aren’t there anymore it’ll be interesting to see how he goes forward.

Looking at the final stretch after early April the map breakdown for the first time in I don’t know how long seems to favor both Romney and Santorum on a pretty equal split. There’s a mixture of western and Midwestern states and you could argue how the rest of this favors either candidate to be quite honest. Newt’s final stand is Arkansas should he survive until then. They vote on the 22nd of May and if he has a reason votes wise to hang around when that day comes he could be favored. However of the anti-Romney wing Santorum remains the most likely to give Mitt a lot of problems until the final bell.

Santorum won North Dakota big so it’s likely he’ll win South Dakota. There’s also Kentucky which means Santorum will have to fend off Ron Paul. Montana, Nebraska, West Virginia, Texas, and maybe North Carolina look like a foregone conclusion as lock states for Santorum. Despite Ron Paul being from Texas and Newt Gingrich having the support of the governor, last poll I read showed Santorum enjoying a sizable lead there.

So this thing is far from done and I don’t much care what Chuck Todd said about waking up early and breaking down the primary map three times and it just so happens that all three conclusions pointed to a much smoother sail for Romney and a rough ride for Santorum. I don’t care if Karl Rove has his little nerdy white dry erase board because you know he’s pro-Romney anyway so anything he concludes will conveniently favor Romney over Santorum as well.

But know this conservatives and Tea Partiers, as we head into late April and throughout the month of May expect the establishment in Washington to try and silence us and knock out Rick Santorum. Even if he has a sizable number of delegates they’re gonna try and unite against him and strong arm him out of the race. As a former Hillary supporter I know firsthand what an establishment can do when they want contested primaries to be over with. They screwed Hillary Clinton in Florida and Michigan because they decided it was time for her to shut up and get in line. You already heard the Bushites like Air Fleischer and again with Nicole Wallace on Morning Joe start to talk about the party uniting behind Romney soon. They know they can’t go to Santorum and convince him to leave so they will start to relay this message of “unification” by constantly talking about getting in line behind Romney because it’s important that we turn our focus on Obama.

It has been a constant in this long drawn out GOP primary campaign. The conservative grassroots and Tea Party base has made it their prime focus to not only stop Mr. Obama this November but to also take a bit of a detour and try and prevent Mitt Romney from being the one to face the president in the general election. Now, I’m a pretty reasonable even tempered guy and I don’t normally sound the alarms because I believe eventually the good nature of voters wins out. However we must understand the bigger picture in regards to this election year. This is the most important election in our lifetime by far, and while we’ve known the central reason behind the support of Mitt Romney has been the feeble at best argument that he’s the most electable, no matter what you think of Rick Santorum most conservatives, or I should say real conservatives know for a fact that Romney cannot and will not win the general election should he be our nominee in the end.

Mark Levin said he would certainly vote for Romney against Obama but he said something I thought was very interesting and to be honest it mirrored my feelings to an extent. Mr. Levin said he would support Romney if he wins the nomination but he hopes Romney doesn’t win the nomination because he’s very concerned with his chances come this fall. I couldn’t agree more and I promise you a lot of Washington establishment types feel the same way but won’t speak out because they want to beat Obama so bad they’ll just fall in line when told. The problem is the guy they’re coalescing around might be the weakest presidential candidate in modern American history.

The argument was well Romney can win independents and Democrats. In fact the opposite is true because if Romney is the nominee the Democrats will unite in force against him and their enthusiasm will overwhelm Republican excitement for a guy who let’s face it, Democrats hate Mitt Romney more so than Republicans genuinely like him. He’s just not the type to rally folks to a cause because his cause is that he wants to be president because he’s more in love with the idea and the image than being president in a literal sense.

Mitt Romney must be stopped or else we’re going to witness the end of the conservative movement, the Republican Party, and the nation as we know it all in one election cycle. A Romney win as Eric Erickson said a while back will mean the conservative movement lost. If he faces Obama in the general election the country will ultimately lose because Romney can’t win.

I want to know this seriously: Why do we insist on nominating moderates? Seriously because it’s an ongoing problem in our party where we try a moderate one year, they lose, we say we’ll never do it again and then we do it again the next year. Ann Coulter and those same voices who said McCain was a horrible candidate and that moderates never win are the same folks out there cheer leading for Mitt Romney.

We may ultimately have to seriously consider taking it on the chin in 2012. Perhaps going underground while hell breaks loose and you know rebuilding our entire party starting with the complete divorce from the no good no balls establishment who are the sole reason why the GOP is such a disgrace and a shadow of its former self. I’m not voting for Romney and I don’t care if my life depended on it I would rather die than vote for Mitt Romney.

The problem is this folks, Romney isn’t a movement conservative so he won’t put himself out there in order to make the necessary changes we need in order to reverse what Mr. Obama and his administration has done. If he’s willing to put together something as extreme as Romneycare you think he’s honestly going to fight the good fight to get Obamacare repealed across the board? If say Democrats pick up seats in the House and break the Republican majority you think he’s going to stand up to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi or as he did in Massachusetts he’ll just go along to get along? Why are we willingly marching to our own demise?

So many in our party have bought into this fake hype that only Romney can win. How funny that the only ones saying this other than the establishment is the left wing media and Democrats. Why do you think that is? Why do you think they’ve pushed Romney’s inevitability on us from the start? It’s not just because he’s the next guy in line. They want Romney because they know how to beat him. They wouldn’t know how to run against a Sarah Palin or a Bobby Jindal, a Michele Bachmann. At worst they would resort to personal attacks but you notice they never ever went at Palin when it came to her record. She had a solid record as governor and they weren’t sure how to hit her from that angle. With Santorum they try to paint him as extreme yet the left openly expressed concern over his blue collar message and middle class roots. They can define Romney in no time flat because he’s easily definable. He has no real core, his record as governor is mediocre at best, at best, and he can’t seem to stop getting in his own way when it comes to what he stands for and doesn’t stand for, and what he says on the campaign trail. For someone who is seen as a polished, well managed candidate boy does he stick his foot in his mouth.

So basically Santorum has to render Romney’s wins tomorrow as a wash or else we’re screwed. He has to at least equal Romney in terms of states won. I support Santorum but I also support the prospects of a contested convention and a nominee emerging from that point on. Like I said before Mitt Romney winning the nomination is a non starter for me.

I can’t pretend I know the ins and outs of the feminist movement. Although I do believe at some point the movement as a whole fractured into two separate divisions, dividing its initial intent and the more radical modern form we know today. I don’t have access to a time machine DeLorean so I can’t go back and have a sit down with Susan B. Anthony and other early feminist pioneers. But in my view as I said before I believe what we have today is not necessarily what those trailblazers back then had in mind. What Mrs. Anthony and others fought for were basic rights and liberties for women. For example they fought for a woman’s right to vote, which is now the 19th amendment.

Women during the suffrage movement fought against prostitution and sex trafficking. Nowadays you’re considered “empowering” if you’re a woman who shows her body in a sexual manner. It’s hard to believe that in the 1900s women had more of a strong voice and powerful message than they do now. Like I said in today’s culture women are even more objectified and sexualized than they were during the era of Genevieve Clark and others. Could you imagine those women holding slut marches? Well, that’s what we had a year ago as a form of solidarity and pseudo-feminist action. Today’s feminists want you to embrace your inner slut as a symbol of nobility while I assure you the classic feminists would want you to work hard to once and for all shred the misogynist stereotypes.

I can’t tell you how many porn stars I’ve heard tell Howard Stern that them being a porn star is a form of feminism because it gives them power they otherwise wouldn’t have. What? So having sex on camera with a man while another man directs the movie knowing this film will be seen by mostly men so they can get aroused and pleasure themselves is a form of feminism? Slut must be the new form of feminism because it’s often defended using a twisted meaning of what the movement used to stand for. I don’t see how letting yourself be an object of sexual desire and empty pleasure for men makes you strong and “free”. Doesn’t that make you the opposite?

But of course there’s the issue of birth control and abortion. How did we go from fighting the good and important fight for what was eventually the 19th amendment (woman’s right to vote) to fighting the fight based on something so narrow minded like contraception and abortion? In my view, and you know I’m not a woman but I would venture to say that having the right to vote and own property is more important and more vital to the lives of women in America than whether or not they can have an abortion or access to birth control. I know it makes me anti-woman or a throwback from the caveman era but I’m just saying; and I doubt most clear thinking Americans would disagree.

I’m not going to get into the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke beef because I don’t know much about it and quite frankly I don’t really care. I’m not a fan of Rush Limbaugh but I’m not a hater either, I just don’t listen to his show. I do know that Susan B. Anthony stood for something once upon a time that was worth fighting for, I’m not sure modern feminists are worth fighting alongside today. I don’t want to support a movement that has become so anti-family, anti-male, and anti-women. Funny no? A movement created solely on the basis of promoting women and equality for women in relation with their male counterparts in the home, the work place, and sometimes in the athletic and aviation world is now nothing more than a political movement based on abortions, pills, PACs, voting blocks, and campaign dollars.

If you were a housewife the early feminists would neither look down on you nor seek to ignore your rights equal to that of a working woman. Today in the mind of the Gloria Steinem and other radical feminists who slithered out of the 1960s “anti-everything” swamp believe a woman choosing to be a homemaker is not worth their time. In fact the homemakers in the Midwest and south are more hated than their suit and tie husbands.

Sarah Palin isn’t a feminist because she has a large family and she didn’t chose to abort her young son Trig despite knowing before hand he would be born with Down’s syndrome. Michele Bachmann isn’t a feminist either because she opposes homosexuality and she too has a large family. You see the modern feminist movement is all about the breakdown of the family by first removing and marginalizing the important role of fathers either by standing beside the homosexuality movement or by encouraging the idea that women don’t need men in order to lead happy fulfilled lives, and two they target women who choose home life over a career in order to discourage the important role they play in society.

I agree with Rick Santorum. My mom was a housewife early on and then joined the career world for many years. I think both are essential to how well the family functions because it’s always good when both parents work, but having the mother stay at home with the little kiddies while dad goes to work is not bad either. Why is it such a horrible backward principle to believe in the man working while the woman stays home? It’s always been that way but if the woman decides she wants a part time job or to go after a career there’s nothing wrong with having that option.

I have a question: What’s a working American?, what does one look like, dress like, and sound like? I ask this because I was surfing the net waves late one night and you know how at every social media, video, and blog site you go to there seems to be an Obama campaign banner or ad on the site? Well I saw one of those and it said “Help President Obama stand for working Americans”. I thought to myself, “what’s that even mean, working Americans?”. I know the term is used to sort of signal a nod to the middle class but even that term “middle class” is one that I find myself pondering more and more. Why all the categories and classifications?

Are working Americans who strike big on a successful product or idea and as a result experience wealth and prosperity still considered working Americans because there are plenty of rich Americans who work hard to maintain their success. After all is they suddenly lost that hunger they would probably go broke and fail. You see it takes just as much hunger and will to keep millions as it does to make your first million. People lose sight of that because the perception and the narrative against rich people is one of general stereotypes and unnecessary demagoguery.

So I’m asking this question having thought this over a bit: Is there a difference between working Americans in the middle class and working Americans who make more money? Aren’t they both working to achieve the same goal? Can we sit here and say that wealthy Americans who own companies or say sports team owners, do you think they work less or their kind of work is somehow illegitimate because they aren’t sweating it out in a coal mine or steel mill? I’d venture to guess that many rich business men and women have the same level of work ethic and drive that most non business owners have.

And as for those non working Americans, does Mr. Obama want to stand for them as well, or do they not count in this equation? Terms like “working” or “middle”, “rich” these words have no meaning anymore because society has shifted a great deal. Perhaps these terms could have been used at a time deemed more relevant like the Depression era, maybe even a little after that during the 50s and early 60s; especially in the black community.

But today there are more rich people and more well to do folks in America than in years past. lower class Americans have more television sets and more PlayStation 3 consoles in their homes than lower class Africans have access to clean water and food. So yes there are poor people in America but if you ask a mother of four in a third world country they would look at the poorest American and see the richest person on earth.

Our problem is not President Obama or the Democrats, our problem is that we allow ourselves to get suckered into these irrelevant class warfare fist fights. Most middle class Americans are happy with what they have and don’t hate the rich. Most rich people work hard for their wealth and aren’t greedy pigs driving around in a Model T with a bag full of money in one arm and a cigar in their mouth. Now you have the small percent on both income levels who either exploit certain groups or as we’ve seen with the Occupy movement, player hate on the rich because they’re not happy with their own lives. And in that instance you can’t blame rich people for your life not turning out the way you hoped.

So I don’t believe in working Americans versus non working or rich Americans because most Americans tend to work, no matter income level. So in that sense Mr. Obama ought to represent all Americans and not create an entirely new sub genre of American citizen. We love our president, and we pray for him but he’s steadily playing a deadly social and political game because he wants power.

Those who knew him best said Ronald Reagan had among many, one very effective and fool proof plan when he ran for president against then incumbent Jimmy Carter in 1980. They say Mr. Reagan talked directly to the American people by relaying his message over the head of the hostile left leaning media and straight to the source. It’s a good strategy that’s often lost on Republican candidates who find themselves playing defense when it’s time to play offense and offense when it’s time to defend.

Over the last sixteen or so years we’ve fallen into the mindset that it’s better to appease an already anti-Republican media than simply disregarding them as the bottom feeding story chasers that they are. To say the media is bias and against all things Republican related is to say the sun is hot and water is wet. No, it’s saying the sun is hot and water is wet one million times for the next 25 years. Republicans need to get past their anger toward the media and go to what really matters: Expressing your vision to the people face to face.

Democrats aren’t better at the retail campaigns than Republicans, on the contrary. They have the establishment media, the culture, and Hollywood to spread their message for them. That leaves the homes, town halls, and meet and greets for Republican who mustn’t forget the important of playing small ball politics. We don’t need the Kathleen Parker’s, the Joe Scarborough’s and the David Brooks’ of the world who crawl on hands and knees to kiss liberal tail. They’re constantly drowning their faces in the butt cracks of the left in order to avoid their scorn. This only pushes the perception that Republicans aren’t willing to engage; just look at our current House speaker if you don’t believe in the power of cowardly perception.

Whether it’s the debt ceiling debate this past summer, the payroll tax cut debate this past few months, or any other issue, Republicans in Congress fail to talk directly to the people and instead find themselves explaining false accusations political misrepresentations by Mr. Obama, the media, and the Democrat Party.

If we’re to cut through the propaganda about the so called improving economic numbers, the so called damaging GOP primary, and the usual toilet bowl punditry designed to hurt Republicans then we need to try a different approach.

The candidates should stop going on these shows like Good Morning America, the Today show, and other outlets that set them up to look extreme or out of touch. You would think by now Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney would have figured out that by agreeing to these interviews with hmm, former Clinton staffer and Democrat George Stephanopoulos they probably won’t get the most relevant questions because little George the Greek midget has an agenda and wants to make them look as bad as he possible can by cornering them on certain views and things they’ve said in the past.

So why even go on these shows anymore? It’s not like these old networks can rally the American people to put pressure on Republican candidates to go on their shows because the American people stopped watching shows like Today and Good Morning America ten years ago. Plus no one watches network news anymore either. Times have changed and these so called major platforms to which a public figure could express their message and have it reach millions of viewers is no longer the case. Most of which has to do with the fact that millions of viewers around the country aren’t tuning in like they once were.

I never understood why John McCain went on the view. Why would you want to sit on a small couch next to five marginally to medium level famous women, four of whom don’t like what you stand for and the other is a weak “Go along with the crowd because I’m too afraid to disagree” know nothing RINO.