Appeasement and a Lack of Accountability in Ferguson and Beyond

| Comments (0)

As many of us did, I listened today to the “morning-after” coverage of last night’s Ferguson announcement and the resulting riots as so-called victimized activists burned businesses and property, primarily minority-owned businesses and property, to the ground.  In addition to wondering just how and why people protest by igniting their homes in flames, I found it amazing, as I hope many of us did, as representatives of Ferguson — and cities that hosted their own sympathy riots — boasted proudly that so few arrests were made on this first and incendiary night.  Not a phenomenon worthy of pride, folks!  And certainly nothing to brag about.

Floods of arrests should have been the upshot of that behavior, that destruction, last night.  The fact that so few occurred, and that morning-after quarterbacks are proud of that….what have we become?  And what are we teaching our children?  Even a 5-year-old can recognize that a lack of arrests was not because the protests were peaceful.  And I’d venture to say that even a 5-year-old can recognize appeasement when he or she sees it.

A Union Wages War Against Americans, and the White House Swoons

| Comments (0)

 Think back, if you will, to that terrible day in January of this year when a gunman of questionable sanity left dead or injured more than a dozen people who had gathered for an event in Tucson, Arizona, headlined by their local congresswoman. Within minutes of the shooting, the nation’s democrats took ownership of the tragedy, blaming conservatives for the shooting and demanding that those on the right from now on conduct themselves with only the highest level of civility and obedience.

In keeping with this commandment, Obama, using the event himself to launch his 2012 reelection campaign, headlined the ensuing “memorial”/pep rally to lecture us once again, like a finger-wagging schoolmarm, that we the people (of the right, of course) were responsible for the tragedy in Tucson and we must “be better.”

So now let’s take stock, shall we, of how well this lopsided call for civility has fared since its inception.

While there are far too many examples to cite, we the people of the right continue to hear ourselves referred to as “Nazis,” an accusation the left might abandon if they cared to get their noses into a genuine history book or two.  They then might grasp an understanding of America (including our proper number of states), as well as the fact that the Nazis where the poster children for leftwing fascism.

On a related note, we continue to hear that familiar chestnut “racist” hurled at anyone who dares to criticize this president or any leftist cause, from global warming to tax reform to illegal immigration to gun restrictions, thus rendering it the most trite and meaningless word in the English language. Meanwhile, as congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) condemns the Tea Party “to hell,” vice president Joe Biden refers to those who comprise the Tea Party as “terrorists.” I question the wisdom of Biden’s accusation, coming as it does on the eve of the tenth anniversary of the day when genuine terrorists took more than 3,000 American lives in a well-orchestrated attack on American soil.

But the crowning glory of the left’s definition of civility occurred this last weekend, when a prominent union leader pledged his organization’s allegiance to the president. “President Obama,” declared the commander of the Teamster’s Union, “this is your army. We are ready to march….let’s take these son-of-a-bitches out!” (the SOBs in question being the right, the republicans, the Tea Party….you know the drill).

What has been most chilling about this diatribe is the failure of Obama, the President of the United States, to condemn this blatant lack of civility, let alone its outright call for violence against American citizens. This is not surprising, though, really, considering we have a president, who for decades listened to his family minister damn America, and who has himself called loyal thugs to do his bidding. “Bring a gun to a knife fight,” he has been known to command his minions. “Punish” our “enemies,” and “get in the faces” of those who oppose this administration. And now, with this most recent and deafening vow of silence, Obama brings once again new meaning to the word “unpresidential.”

So as this president and his followers continue to make clear that they are as exempt from an expectation of civility as they are exempt from the blue pills and life-threatening restraints of Obamacare, we the people will continue to work toward bringing someone back to the White House who not only understands the office of the Presidency, but who also understands the greatness of our nation.  Keep the faith, America.

The Secret Longings of Useful Liberal Men

| Comments (1)

As someone constantly recognizing connections in the events that shape this world, I couldn’t help but find some rather illuminating links between news stories from the last few weeks.

The first involved Michelle Obama as she and her husband enjoyed their regal sojourn across the British Isles. The press followed the wannabe royals with slobbering idolatry, chronicling with mad, obsessive detail everything their beloveds ate, wore and said, all the while heralding them as legendary scions of style and intellect.

What captured my attention, however, was not the fabric that may or may not have adorned the first lady’s much-lauded arms and waistline, but rather comments she made to the young students at a girls’ school somewhere in Britain. In a nutshell, she confided to these impressionable young ladies that when she met her husband – to whom she said she was ordered to “mentor” – she got the feeling that he might be “useful” someday.

And that, in a related nutshell, sums up my personal perception of the liberal female view of men. Men are, after all, the root of all evil and, no doubt, the source of every awful event liberal women have ever experienced in their own personal liberal lives. But should a man pledge his allegiance to the most extreme liberal tenets and prove himself willing to sacrifice any hint of testosterone in favor of a progressive and feminized/metrosexual agenda, then that guy may just earn his way into the graces of liberal women, “useful” to their cause. Michelle here reminds us most brazenly of her own allegiance to the likes of Hillary, Janet, the Supreme Court’s Sonia, and the politically paralyzed/blinded National Organization of Women.

Think a moment about our nation’s current political climate. As entrenched and trembling republican men struggle to find their way through an angry American right, staunchly conservative women, such as Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Michele Bachmann, Dana Perino, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney and Ann Coulter are out there roaring from the rooftops, reminding Americans what this nation was and is meant to be.

What perplexes the left, particularly the men of the left, is that these women roar with a smile and a fearlessly feminine sparkle, extolling the virtues of joyful patriotism, love of country, and, yes, even a love of men.  Such messages simply cannot be lost on those useful left-wing male reporters sent out to vilify and destroy them. Following obediently the directive, do these men wonder beneath the vitriol slung by their side, what it might be like to enjoy the good graces of women who might actually value and respect the masculine for its own sake? Women who see men as more than simply “useful” servants? In their quiet moments, do they think back to a moment when, ignored or rebuffed by smart, confident, patriotic and right-minded girls in high school and college, they pledged instead to become “useful” to those other women? Do they ever regret the sacrifice? I don’t know, of course. Just a thought.…

As I have pondered these connections and the possible secret longings of liberal men, Doug Giles, conservative author of the book Raising Righteous and Rowdy Girls has posted another of his brilliant articles on the need for young women to learn to defend themselves to the death (an assailant’s death, of course). This time his inspiration is the alleged attack by the avowed socialist and “useful” French International-Monetary-Fund president on a hotel maid in New York City, resulting in Mr. Giles’ article, “Preferred Headline: IMF CEO Killed by Rape Victim.”

Whenever Mr. Giles writes about his passionate belief that young women should be trained as both expert martial artists and expert marksmen, I am inevitably drawn to the commentary that follows. The vast majority of his readers sing his praises, but far too many ignore the message in favor simply of blasting Mr. Giles for even suggesting that young women learn to fight off attempted rapists and murderers.

That women in general — or parents of either girls or boys — would oppose Mr. Giles’ belief in self-protection….well, I don’t know what to make of that and I won’t even venture a guess. But that liberal men would find female self-protection repulsive and unacceptable….perhaps that reveals a deeply rooted psychological phenomenon deserving of study. I’m no psychiatrist, but perhaps liberal men who have allowed themselves to be subjugated as “useful” to liberal women relish secretly, subconsciously, the notion of such women rendered weak and helpless. Perhaps it is simply that hobbled testosterone making one last gasp of protest. I’m no psychiatrist, but you never know.

NOW Breaks Its Code of Silence

| Comments (0)

March 3, 2010 | Comments

What a surprise it has been this week to hear the National Organization for Women break the code of silence they typically adopt under democratic regimes (a code made legendary under the last democratic administration when Bill Clinton’s shenanigans were making daily headlines).

Until this week, NOW has maintained the code, remaining mum, for example, when a government agency instructed women to stop conducting breast-cancer self-examinations and, because not enough women were dying to justify the cost, hold off on mammograms until age 50. The organization would also never dream of celebrating a self-made woman like Sarah Palin, who, unlike a certain Secretary-of-State we could name, reaped political success all on her own, without benefit of a husband’s coattails.

NOW broke its sacred code this week, however, as hints began to circulate that New York Governor, David Paterson, allegedly influenced a domestic situation involving his staff. Though the details remain murky, NOW called for the democratic Governor’s head — given the go-ahead, no doubt, by the democrat community at large. The dems long ago abandoned this Governor, who has repeatedly defied his party’s mandate that he not seek reelection – even when it was issued by the President of the United States.

The Governor’s defiance evaporated this week, when he announced, for whatever reason (I envision closed doors, threats, and private calls from Washington), that he will not seek reelection after all. Not good enough, screeched NOW. He needs to step down! If only the organization had issued a similar call back in 1998, when the most powerful man in the world was preying upon a young intern in the White House. Had they chosen to break the code then, maybe I’d be less inclined now to believe that their defense of women is purely political, and thus, purely hypocritical.

Betsy Siino | Comments

End of an Arthurian Era

| Comments (1)

February 12, 2010 | Comments

I was in the middle of writing a piece on Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) last night, when the news broke that he would not be seeking reelection to the House of Representatives in 2010. Perfect timing.

Kennedy’s poll numbers have apparently been slipping – no surprise, given the tsunami threatening to hit the democratic Congress come November. On a more personal level, last month he watched the sacred Massachusetts Senate seat long-held by Ted Kennedy, his late father, go to Scott Brown – a man Patrick Kennedy describes as “a joke.” This upset threw a road block in the passage of his father’s pet project: nationalized, socialized, rationed health care, a mandated plan that would be the exempted Kennedys’ legacy to we the little people.

When Patrick steps down, Congress will be Kennedy-less for the first time since 1962. I frankly don’t consider this much of a loss. If indeed first impressions offer our most illuminating insight into the people we encounter, my first impression of this guy was right on target.

I first noticed Patrick Kennedy pre-Congress, when his cousin William Kennedy Smith was standing trial on rape charges in Florida in 1991. Because Patrick was out partying with his cousin and dad Teddy on that fateful night (Good Friday, by the way), he was called to testify. Jittery and sweating, TV cameras rolling, he stuttered his answers, his eyes darting, voice cracking, desperately seeking, it seemed, that “special treatment” to which his family is so accustomed. Dangling out there alone, I thought he would burst into tears at any moment.

Three years later, at age 26, Patrick was elected to Congress. His legislative career since has been anything but extraordinary, his name making headlines primarily in connection with mind-altering substances: repeated stints in drug rehab, come to mind, as well as his collision with a security barrier in the wee hours one morning in DC (at least he was driving alone). His failed attempts to convince authorities that he was on official business ultimately morphed into a more truthful tale, in which prescription drugs and impaired sensibilities played the starring roles.

In recent months, Patrick Kennedy has made valiant attempts to reach out and grasp daddy’s baton to claim the title of heir apparent. First, he scolded the Catholic Church for refusing to support the democrats’ socialized health-care bill — and, by extension, abortion and rationed care for the elderly, the imperfect and the critically ill. (It would seem a return to chatecism for a refresher course might be in order).

But when, during a post-Massachusetts-special-election hissy fit, Patrick referred to now-Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) as “a joke,” he let slip his spoiled-brat gene – conduct unbecoming, I’d say, of a 42-year-old Congressman. Come to think of it, though, like so many in the political spotlight these days, little in Patrick Kennedy’s life experience has offered him the challenges and obstacles necessary for the transformation from child to adult.

I’ll never forget seeing that “child” in a photo taken at one of his early campaign events in 1994. Shaking the hand of an older woman who could have been his grandmother, he seemed as gawky and uncomfortable in his own skin as he had in that Florida courtroom three years prior. But the woman whose hand he touched…she was in tears, sobbing, it seemed, as though she were touching the hand of a god. It sent a chill up my spine. Given her age, though, and thus her many years exposed to the Arthurian mythology of the Kennedy dynasty, in her mind, perhaps she was touching a god, willingly ignoring the warts and the scandals and the arrogance that have followed that god’s family through history and damaged so many of its young.

Almost 20 years later, it seems that wisdom and clarity are finally beginning to trump the blind infatuation that has protected a name many have considered royal for decades. We saw this in the election of Massachusetts republican Scott Brown. We saw it when Caroline was denied New York’s vacant U.S. Senate seat and an ambassadorship to the Vatican last year. And we see it in the eyes of Patrick Kennedy, who rode into Washington on Kennedy coattails that have now been whipped out from under him. We the people will be better off for the shake-up. Perhaps the esteemed Congressman Kennedy will be better off, too.

Betsy Siino | Comments

Redistribution of Donations

| Comments (0)

January 5, 2010 | Comments

I read an article yesterday lamenting the GOP’s lack of funds needed to finance Congressional elections in 2010. The left, no doubt, will run with that, giggling their “we told you so’s,” completely misreading the facts.

Allow me to clarify this for my left-wing friends. What this story failed to mention is that there is still plenty of conservative money flying around out there, only now the donors are being very selective about who their political benefactors will be. After the fiasco in New York’s District 23 last November, when the GOP endorsed a woman ranked as one of the most liberal politicians in one of the nation’s most liberal states, simply because she put an “R” next to her name and proceeded to endorse the democrat when she dropped out of the race, conservatives just don’t trust the republican party to distribute their precious funds in the right direction. Myself included.

Like so many conservatives I’ve heard from, I have been receiving solicitations from the Republican National Committee. I have in turn informed them that, for the time being, my political donations will be sent directly to those bonafide conservative candidates throughout the country who will be opposing the left-wing tyrants – on both sides of the aisle – who are ignoring the will of the American people and gutting the Constitution of our United States.

I am not talking third party here, for I think that would spell disaster for our conservative efforts and our country – and that is exactly what our left-wing opponents are hoping to see happen. No, I am talking aggressive action that will further our efforts and send a clear message at the same time. In the months to come, I will be sending my donations to any true conservative anywhere in the country who opposes the likes of Harry Reid (NV), Olympia Snowe (ME), Mary Landrieu (LA), Ben Nelson (NE), Barbara Boxer (CA), Kirstin Gillibrand (NY), Barney Frank (MA), Nancy Pelosi (CA), Dick Durbin (IL), John Murtha (PA), Chris Dodd (CT), Alan Grayson (FL)….you get the drill.

If en masse we conservatives take this tact, I have confidence the RNC will get the message and get back in both word and deed to the fearless conservative principles that make this country exceptional. In the meantime, we must keep reminding them: You have failed to represent us and our Constitution, dear RNC, you have thrown away golden opportunity after golden opportunity to carry our flag, so we are doing it ourselves. You’re welcome to come along, but we will gladly leave you in the dust if you continue to preach touchy-feely moderation and liberalism. And we’ll take our money with us.

What we have learned from our life under the current, and very oppressive, regime, is that the votes of everyone in Congress, whether or not they represent our own districts or our own states, affect us all more dramatically than we ever dreamed possible. You may live in Florida, but the vote of a Senator in Nebraska can sentence your family and our country to bankruptcy. I may not in any way be represented by my Congressman and my Senators – and believe me, I am not – but I can take action to help ensure that people are elected in other districts and other states, who will directly represent my beliefs and the well-being of my country, my family and my children.

So this is our challenge in 2010. It will take time and effort and research, but together we can take our country back from those who seek to “transform” it forever. We have our work cut out for us, but we can’t let that transformation occur. And we won’t.

Betsy Siino | Comments

Leaks in Time for Copenhagen

| Comments (0)

December 1, 2009 | Comments

Every year, as part of their science classes, my kids are taught the Scientific Method – the basic tenets by which scientific theories are tested to confirm that yes, they are indeed correct, or no, go back to the drawing board and start over.

I guess my kids are lucky still to be learning this, as it seems the Scientific Method has been replaced by a new technique that is much quicker and easier: the Consensus Method.

First, get some willing scientists together, particularly those affiliated with a university — oh, say, Britain’s University of East Anglia, for example. Now, get these scientists to agree to a consensus that fits your agenda (use threats, bribes…whatever it takes). Next, recruit some high-profile political types — a Nobel Peace Prize/Oscar winner, the leader of the free world, the United Nations, socialist-minded legislators – and some Fortune 500s (General Electric perhaps?), the mainstream media, and the nation’s school systems. Using pictures of cuddly polar bears, convince these entities to behave as though your theory is a given, that the science is “settled,” dispose of any pesky evidence that may prove otherwise, and there you have it. Your scientific theory is proven, a done deal, case closed. No Scientific Method necessary. No science at all, actually. Easy.

Of course this is exactly how the whole idea of manmade global warming, a.k.a. climate change, became accepted and “settled science” – touted by such highly trained scientific minds as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, various supermodels, the President of the United States, your kid’s English teacher, and most of Hollywood’s TV and movie stars.

But these folks were faced with a problem a couple of weeks ago when emails were leaked from the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s leading institutions in the proliferation of the global-warming agenda, essentially proving what we heretical non-believers knew all along: There is no evidence that we humans are heating up our planet, and evidence defying the global-warming theory is being destroyed, ignored and disregarded, like the Scientific Method itself.

Unwilling to abandon their efforts to promote global warming, however — and the power grab that comes with it — those who have made it their mission to further the concept, many of them making hefty profits by selling carbon offsets, squiggly light bulbs and tiny, tin-can automobiles, refuse to give up the ghost. The media, GE, various Congresspeople and the White House continue to preach to us huddled masses the accepted science that record cold, record heat, hurricanes, arson-sparked brushfires, tornadoes, earthquakes, record snowfall, record rainfall, ice storms, tsunamis, droughts and floods – all are caused by manmade global warming. The message is embodied in artsy, self-congratulatory commercials, sponsored in part by Coca-Cola and Siemens, celebrating the upcoming Climate Change Conference not in Copenhagen, but “Hopenhagen.”

Despite the mounting evidence, and despite the stupid Hopenhagen ads, I don’t see much shame evident in the global-warming crowd. Nor is there any sign of them changing their travel plans when a week from now they make the pilgrimage in their fleets of private jets and limousines to Copenhagen. The President of the United States among them, there they will gush on about the climactic dangers our world is facing and the income that needs to be redistributed to fix it, glad-handing each other over feasts of Kobe beef and caviar for their mutual heroism in saving the world.

I can’t help but wonder, though, will anyone dare mention during these sumptuous feasts the East Anglia emails? Will there be a moment of conscience among at least a few of the attendees as they ponder their own involvement in what many are calling the greatest scientific hoax in history? Will any dare whisper the word “Climategate?” It doesn’t matter. The secret is out, and all the self-congratulation and avoidance in the world can’t erase that.

So a week from now as the Copenhagen attendees stand before us, their peers, and their teleprompters in their black-tie finery, spouting the now-even-emptier rhetoric of climate change, they will look more and more foolish with every uttered phrase. And I think they know it. We’ll see it in their eyes. We may see fear in those eyes, too, as they start worrying about investigations and mobs with torches at the castle gates.

Indeed outside those gates, we angry mobs are demanding, “Let the investigations begin!” Let’s start with the guys in the tuxes – the ones with the look of worry in their eyes. Time to find out what they knew and when they knew it – and how much money they’ve raked in because of it. Follow the money, and you will find the truth – and the Scientific Method — waiting to be set free. That will be a show worth watching. I can’t wait.

Betsy Siino | Comments

Watching Them Squirm – Part 2

| Comments (0)

November 18, 2009 | Comments
I caught Andrea Mitchell and that morning blond on MSNBC this morning. Their subject: Sarah Palin, of course.

They did seem to give it their best effort, and that couldn’t have been easy for them. Surrounded by their male cronies who, wisely, remained pretty quiet, they fought through the twin sneers on their faces, spitting and choking out words that said in effect that yeah, she is selling a bunch of books and yeah, lots of people are lining up to see her, and…yeah…yeah…okay…whatever. Though it seemed elephants were standing on their chests, they did get the words out eventually. Gotta give them credit for that.

But I won’t give them credit for their overall coverage. When they weren’t showing us the people, sometimes thousands of people, lined up to see Sarah and/or buy her book, they turned their cameras on regular people among them who unabashedly gushed that they couldn’t wait to get their hands on the book and read it (because yes, regular people do know how to read, ladies).

On its face, this coverage seemed innocent enough, but we are far too familiar with the sensibilities of those behind that coverage (“consider the source”), revealed in their arrogant commentator smirks. Once again they came at it hobbled by a severe misunderstanding of the regular oh-so-pathetic-and-inferior American people out here, who, frankly, probably weren’t watching them anyway. And again they underestimate us. What they don’t understand, is that when they laugh at Sarah and cackle about her intellect or lack thereof, when they roll their eyes in response to an effusive older woman buying the book in Alaska, or an ebullient gentleman doing the same in Michigan – we know they are actually laughing at us.

 And we don’t really care for that.

While these women — and the men who are afraid not to agree with them — sneer and spit and spin within the confines of their insulated studios, the regular people of America are sending Sarah’s book through the stratosphere in sales and attention. Indeed as we have witnessed since Sarah Palin’s name was introduced as a VP Candidate in 2008, she has clearly driven them insane.

And Sarah just smiles. Unlike shrill Hill, who would spit and cry and screech in the face of adversity (much of it self-made by either herself or her husband), Sarah grins and says bring it on. She is secure in what she believes, she is genuine in her love for America and her people, and she knows that those people, the regular people, won’t be manipulated by threats and tears and talk of doom and gloom.

And that is why the left is running scared. As Shakespeare wrote, “Methinks thou doth protest too much.” Four centuries later, we are witnessing a left wing living those words, telling us with their ear-splitting howls of protest just how terrified they are of Sarah — and, perhaps, by extension, of us.

Betsy Siino | Comments

Watching Them Squirm – Part 1

| Comments (0)

November 18, 2009 | Comments

I have always been a comedy nerd, from Lucy to SNL (classic not current) to SCTV to Seinfeld and Curb to live stand-up….you get the drill.  And I have to say that what we are witnessing right now in the reaction of the democratic party and the non-Fox media to the release of Sarah Palin’s book is just about as hilarious as it gets.

Every mention of the word “Sarah,” every glimpse of her image, and they seize up, their eyes bulge, their voices rise to a shriek that makes our ears bleed, and they spin off their chairs like Tasmanian devils. Poor things. They can’t help it, I guess. They have no control over what is a completely involuntary response.

When they finally run out of energy and come down for a landing, panting and sweating and exhausted, they resort to calling her names. She’s a joke. She’s a bimbo. She’s a nobody. She’s a has-been. Yeah, right. Keep telling yourselves that, and maybe it will come true – or at least maybe you’ll convince yourselves of it. Maybe you’ll even get a Sarah of your own someday, but I doubt it.

Just turn on your TV or pick up a paper and you’ll see it. I thought the right’s reaction to Hillary was heated (mine included), but we’ve never seen anything like this. Mass hysteria, is what it is. And they’re not even trying to hide it.

Inspired by the high-falutin’ journalistic precedent set by Wolf Blitzer a few weeks back when he fact-checked a once-in-a-lifetime Obama-negative sketch on Saturday Night Live, the Associated Press enlisted 11 reporters to fact-check Sarah’s book. They found a typo or two and a couple passages easily presented out of context. Time and money well spent on their part. Of course they never bothered with such journalistic nuisances when it came time to vet a presidential candidate from Chicago, but this is far more important.

Newsweek took a stab at premeditated reaction, too, featuring Sarah on its cover with a shot taken of her for a running magazine. Sorry, guys. This lame effort not only degrades your own already-endangered publication, it is a stark and obvious (not to mention pathetic) cry from Time’s and Newsweek’s habit of portraying the President on their covers as a messiah, sometimes with a halo, or at least bathed in a heavenly glow. But then, he is the President that they, like the Associated Press, never bothered to vet.

So let’s wonder for a moment, why all the conniptions over Sarah. Why the magazine covers. Why the Tasmanian spins. Why the spit and fire and screeches. She’s not the President. She’s not the Vice President. She’s not an elected official at all anymore. She’s just some woman that once ran for Vice President and didn’t win. Like Geraldine Ferraro. A former Governor. A mom (a GrizzlyMom). She wrote a book and talked about her life, her family and her experiences, like so many before her have done.

But for the left, she is the most dangerous woman in America.

Acknowledging this, and apparently following the Newsweek school of pathetic journalism, MSNBC raided the been-there/done-that vault and splattered the images of a gun-toting Sarah in a bikini to their tiny audience. Of course we all saw those shots a year ago, and we all know that they were doctored with Photoshop. MSNBC says now that they forgot that. Or, in another account, it was some staffer’s fault. And they’re sorry. Yeah, okay. You didn’t know. You forgot. Thanks for your contribution to the hilarity.

Keep it coming. I’m always up for a good laugh.

Betsy Siino | Comments

Keep Thinking That Way, Guys!

| Comments (0)

November 9, 2009| Comments

It seems that yet again the left has plenty of advice for the GOP.

Ignoring their own plummeting circulations, muckety-mucks at both Time and Newsweek have warned the GOP that they had better get their act together and ignore the nut-job right-wing extremists out there who dare to oppose the President that they – Time and Newsweek – and all their media comrades have worked to so hard to elect and fortify. Joining the chorus – and also in ratings peril — are Katie Couric and her counterparts from the network and (non-Fox) cable news world.

And now we hear from democratic congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who, in addition to blasting the GOP for viewing women as inferior to men, has told POLITICO that strong women like republican congresswoman Michelle Bachmann don’t “attract women to the party….I think they repulse women.”

And that just leaves women like me, and thousands of others like me, laughing our way to the polling booth.

What so many on the left fail to realize – or choose not to realize – is that what has been happening on the right since November, 2008, has nothing to do with the GOP. The issue here is conservatism, which is a belief system, not a party. And yes, conservatives, who can be found in any political party, are currently in the process of informing the GOP that they need to stop acting like liberals. They made this quite clear in last week’s elections, both at the gubernatorial level and at small local elections throughout the country.

But with more and more people nationwide – including those precious independents – identifying themselves as conservatives, this issue is far too frightening for left-wing media and government pundits to address. So they do what they always do: Criticize the GOP and vilify uppity conservative women.

For some reason, they think this tactic works for them. Fine, keep it up, I say. They will probably never recognize that they are simply exposing to us, their opposition, just how desperate and fearful they have become. So yes, keep it up. We love to hear it.   

Simply put, liberal women remain fixated on a victim mentality (without it, they, and all liberals, would be out of a job), and their belief in the inherent despicable and evil natures of men and America. Meanwhile the voices of conservative women are becoming some of the most powerful in the country. Rather than “repulsing” right-minded women – and men, too –women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann and so many others, both in and away from the public eye, are energizing the American spirit, celebrating a conservative power fueled by independence, integrity, creativity and family bonds – and all with a positive outlook and a sense of humor. What sad creatures are the women who would find this “repulsive.”

Though efforts were made to silence them, conservatives, men and women alike, raised their voices during the summer’s town halls, on September 12th, and on election day last week. And it’s only the beginning.

So go on, keep dismissing us as GOP right-wing extremists. But remember: Misidentify your opponent, and you just make that opponent stronger.

Betsy Siino | Comments