Just Let Me -- G -- Indoctrinate You!

Thursday, March 8, 2012

It's Lady Liberation vs. Lady Liberty Thing

Dear America,

this clip dates back just a couple of days, to the president's first news conference of the year.

before that, on March 2 -- the president made a direct call to Sandra Fluke.  It came immediately after Rush Limbaugh's twisted right wing response to Sandra's testimony before congress, reinforcing the administration's stance to pay for contraceptives  (and essentially, subsidizing a personal activity -- a woman's sex life of all things -- and mandating that the American people pay for women to have protected sex).  Rush was not gentle or kind -- but the argument is basically spot on whether you want to look at it that way, or not.


"He encouraged me 
and supported me 
and thanked me 
for speaking out about 
the concerns of American women.  
And what was really personal 
for me 
was that he said to tell my parents 
that they should be proud. 
And that meant a lot 
because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether 
or not my family would be proud of me."  
explaining a president's intent, 
reporting to Politico.com

but let's get back to the press room:
"One of the things I want them to do [Sasha and Malia] as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on [cough, choke]. I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don't want them attacked or called horrible names because they're being good citizens," 

"I wanted Sandra to know that I thought her parents should be proud of her, and that we want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a democracy involves argument and disagreements and debate. And we want you to be engaged, and there's a way to do it in a way that doesn't involve you being demeaned and insulted."  President Obama @ press conference
He says, "even ones I may not agree with them on."

As if. Right. That's a good one, Mr. President.

Just what is this Mastermind-in-Chief saying here?  He is insinuating, under no uncertain terms, that he is consciously choosing to walk that political thin line of 'does he, or doesn't he?' 

Let's be clear.

He called Sandra Fluke because he is proud of her for speaking with conviction on a women's health issue, for being a good citizen, for taking the risk to stand up --  BECAUSE HE AGREES with her!  He is proud of HER for supporting HIS legislation.

It also means that this president is proud of her for fully supporting the USURPING of the Constitution, undermining this nation's first amendment, and be it ever so graciously and politely -- yet oh so radically -- uprooting the law of the land.

The president is being perfectly clear:  he IS proud of Sandra Fluke in every way, or else he would not pick up the phone to call her; nor would he double down on his remarks of how much her parents should be proud of her; nor would he make no mistake to tell his girls, Sasha and Malia -- and the entire press room -- and the whole world for that matter --  that he is proud of THIS girl, Sandra.  He sees Sandra speaking his language; she is saying and demonstrating the right stance to take all the way around.

[cuz like, did he, the president,  'stand up' to support Bristol Palin, when she was speaking with conviction of her pregnancy and her pro-life values ...and after doing so... becoming the target of viscous attacks from the Left????...ignore this, it's a rhetorical question]

Bristol's convictions do not serve the president's agenda.

The truth is, mathematically speaking -- half of the American women are proud of Sandra, too -- while the other half, not so much.

Is this really how all women choose to move forward?

I think not.

Isn't this sort of thing taking women a couple steps backwards?  Think about it.

Needing a brand-spankin-new entitlement program to cover birth control that costs less than a dollar a day?

Needing somebody else to pay for our prescriptions -- as if we have no means, no wherewithal at all, to figure it out and prioritize our medicinal and personal necessities of choice?

Casting the burden out to society to subsidize something that is very much our own responsibility?

If this is what [some] women are saying -- they might as well marry it -- the government -- and call it a day.

[Which is ironic, isn't it --- given how much the Left loathes traditional marriage...]

Sandra is going to graduate with a LAW DEGREE, for goodness sakes.  She is about to be entering a field of work that offers plenty of cash by the hour (and it has nothing to do with prostitution, but I guess it could be misconstrued as such.... but I quickly digress into the gutter, let's moveon.org....).  She is on the verge of making hundreds of dollars an hour and SHE wants an entitlement program offering free contraceptives to protect her -- and every other woman in America -- believing she has a right to have her sexual life subsidized on the backs of the taxpayers?  of all people.... seriously?


yeah, let's hear it for women's liberation.
 -- are we?  
yeah. we've come a long way, baby.
-- have we?

today -- we are long past the burning of our bras and now look at us.

How pathetic.

But the president is proud of Sandra.

And he doesn't care if his Obamacare -- the Affordable Care Act -- rapes the Constitution; he doesn't care if it tramples all over the first amendment.  He doesn't care how it leaves us feeling, inside and out.  He doesn't care.

He is all about fundamentally transforming this country, beginning with everything that upholds our cultural roots of God, country, tradition, family, living in communion with one another and humbly under the Rule of Law.

and then we have the little Mrs. say this:

wow, right.

no.  these two videos are nothing new.  we have played them before.

it's just that,
as time goes by,
the more and more they haunt us,
as we find ourselves always looking over our shoulder.

today, just so you know, given how I feel --
I am consciously choosing to leave this on a really somber note.
But you run along and skip to m'loo up ahead.
Make it a Good Day...
I'll catch up with you later, G

AND just in case you need some really great back up on this administration's assault on America by "America's Most Biblically-Hostile U.S. President" --
go to The Blaze.  Print the article by Billy Hallowell, citing research by David Barton, and be shocked for yourself.  When it is down on paper -- and on film -- and when we put all the itty bitty details together -- we see clearly who this president truly is.      Kudos to Glenn Beck and his machine.

No comments:

Post a Comment