Much Ado About Binders of Women

| Comments (0)

What is all the commotion about?  Binders of women, of course.  Mitt Romney had the audacity during Tuesday’s presidential debate to mention his concerted effort as Governor of Massachusetts to find female staff members with the help of “binders” of qualified applicants supplied to him by various recruiters and women’s organizations.

Perhaps those outraged by this — Barack Obama and the leading members of his administration (and his mouthpieces in the media) — can be forgiven their misunderstanding of the binder concept, given their sad lack of experience in the private sector, not to mention their lack of executive experience, as well.  Of course they are unfamiliar with the binders, which, just so they know, are not limited solely to those of the female gender.  As many have said in the wake of Governor Romney’s apparently unforgivable binder statement, the review of such binders is common practice within various professional environments.  Perhaps those lacking the necessary professional experience, then, would be wise to use this as a “teachable moment” of which their president is so fond.

I remember clearly my own tour through such a binder four years ago or so.  It was, yes, a binder of women, gathered for a Fortune 500 company seeking staff members with two X chromosomes.  Marveling at the collection of such well-educated, experienced, accomplished women, I remember thinking, “Wow.  Any one of these women is far more qualified to be President of the United States than the woman currently leading in the polls for that office (Hillary Clinton, of course).

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, the man who ultimately defeated Hillary and then claimed the White House, the Obama campaign and the democrat party at large continue to reduce the interests and concerns of America’s women to nothing more than condoms and birth control — and now, they hope, outrage over a binder.  Here’s hoping that 19 days from now they will be realizing just how misguided and self-destructive it is to underestimate and dismiss half the population of the United States.

Using Canine Pack Behavior to Evaluate Obama’s Debate Performance

| Comments (2)

7:06 pm PST: Obama still refuses to look the alpha dog in the eye, even when he makes a lame attempt to interrupt him.  And a young woman just called Governor Romney “President Romney.”  And now, after assuming in a most condescending way the dreaded Libya question was asked by a little old lady rather than the beefy intelligent business man in the back, he refused to answer the question about accountability and blamed Governor Romney for having an opinion on the killing of four Americans.  And Mr. Obama, quit calling the terrorists “folks!”  And now, miracle of miracles, Candy just asked if the buck stops with Obama or with Hillary.  Needless to say, he won’t answer.  He just keeps talking about the caskets, but at least he’s finally looking the alpha dog in the eye.  And Governor Romney stared him right back down, catching him in yet another Obama lie about how this fiasco was handled.  Great moment!

Original Post:  As somewhat of an expert on canine behavior, I feel like a field researcher tonight watching the second presidential debate.  Tonight we are watching an alpha male (Mitt Romney) facing off against omega Obama (the omega, for those who might not know, being the lowest member of the pack).  I realized this most pointedly when the question was about gas prices.  When it was Governor Romney’s turn to counter Obama’s predictable rhetorical answer, he turned to face the president of the United States, looked him in the eye and asked a pointed question.  The trouble for Obama was that when the Governor turned to face him, the president of the United States diverted his eyes, looking away and down, and he hunched his shoulders over to make himself as small and weak as possible, just like a good omega does when the alpha looks his way.  And it seemed a completely natural reflex, a reflex he has since repeated over and over again when the Governor looks his way.

Now, I’ve never viewed Obama as some powerhouse of masculinity.  Indeed he spends his life surrounded by women (often hiding behind them…right, Hillary?), and I have seen very little evidence of a strong male presence in his life at any stage of his life (I know he has placed his father on a pedestal, but given that daddy left him so young, I don’t happen to believe that pedestal is deserved).  So I don’t think he can help reacting in such a submissive manner when confronted by a successful alpha male, especially when he has spent his life avoiding any confrontation or opposition from anyone.

So no, the debate is about half done, and though he has improved over his first performance, Obama seems to be breathing heavy; his struggles to suppress the “ums” are noticeable (oops! one just snuck through); he is simply repeating the same rhetoric we have heard over and over again for four years; and, as someone with whom I’m watching the debate has pointed out, his voice seems high and strained in his attempt to sound energetic and concerned, and as a result it just makes him sound whiny.

So now let’s all wait to hear, once this hour and half is over, that Obama has emerged victorious, because you know that has already been decided by the media types so invested in this president’s re-election.  I, however, will disagree wholeheartedly, because you see, fluent as I am in the language of dogs, I am well aware that an omega with his tail between his legs, his shoulders hunched, head down and eyes lowered just because the alpha looks his way…well, that is not a portrait of victory, either in the wolf pack or on a stage in New York State.

As Debate Number 2 Nears, Why Aren’t Feminists Gathering Around Their Hillary?

| Comments (0)

With just a few hours to go before Mitt Romney and Barack Obama clash antlers in the second of their three presidential debates, the silence from far too many women on the left is deafening.  Sure, they are squealing that it’s so unfair that a woman is moderating the one debate where the questions come from the audience (yeah, right), but I’m not hearing a peep from them about the fact that Hillary Clinton has announced that she is responsible for the lack of security in Libya that was not only never reported to the White House, but also led to the deaths of four of our Americans one month ago.

No, it’s pretty darn quiet from the feminist camp, other than the chorus of voices, both male and female, insisting that Obama will of course win tonight.  He’s so much better with people than that cold, rich Romney, they proclaim in unison.  I, however, think this is a going to be a tough one for the messiah.  I’ve always found his alleged magnetism, his alleged magical way of connecting with the riff raff, as mysterious as his so-called brilliant oratory skills.  I will forever be haunted by one interchange we witnessed when he was torturing us daily with his campaigning for his beloved Obamacare.  A woman in an audience asked if, under Obamacare, the bureaucrats would consider life force and spirit when determining whether a particular patient would receive treatment.  She used her spry elderly mother’s need for a pacemaker as her example.  “Nope,” Obama told her with an unabashed grin.  “We can’t worry about things like that,” he quipped, his answer fitting perfectly with who I have always believed him to be.  And who I think we will be seeing in the town hall tonight.  One cannot learn to be warm, genuine and compassionate in a week.  Yet the narrative continues in full spin mode, and, as I predicted so wonderfully incorrectly on the eve of the first debate, the lapdogs have already declared Obama tonight’s winner.

Meanwhile, Hillary dresses the wound made by the sword upon which she thrust herself yesterday, but I continue to believe that this is far from over.  Rumor had it this past weekend that Hillary’s hubby was not at all pleased to hear that his wife was to be thrown upon that blade, the buck stopping with her rather than with her boss, and just in time for debate number two.  Her hubby’s former aide Dick Morris predicted several weeks back that Bill may indeed make a cuddly speech for Obama at the convention, but expect another shoe to fall as we near election day.  As few among us rally around the idea that when American lives are at stake, the buck stops with a diplomat rather than with the commander in chief, I think we may be in store for some fireworks in the days ahead.  At least I hope so.  I also think we will once again be seeing a strong, presidential, compassionate Governor Romney in the debate tonight, again revealing who has really waged a war against women — and who has our nation’s best interests at heart.

Wishing We Could Fight the War on Women the Old-Fashioned Way

| Comments (0)

The war against women rages on.  The media propogandists continue to carry the water for the president, his democrats, and all his leftwing minions, but it hasn’t gone precisely as they had all hoped.  When the whole ridiculous contraception business failed, they found themselves having to defend their own vicious name-calling against the likes of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann — and, by extension, any and all women with conservative leanings.  The president even threw together a last-minute “conference” of so-called experts on women, designed to convince the American people that we of the right, indeed anyone who opposes Obama, socialized medicine, socialism, gun control, global warming, electric cars, voter fraud, or our families’ responsibilty to pay for a college student’s contraception  —  we all hate women.  At the same time, the president of the United States complimented the activist law student who started the manufactured contraception brouhaha, telling us he hopes that one day his own daughters will model themselves after her (thus convicing this mom that his idea of good parenting and behavior worthy of parental pride differs vastly from my own).

The tactic has failed.  We know cow manure when we see it.  But the left has had no choice but to stay the course, next setting their sites on Ann Romney, the wife of probable republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.  As a a stay-at-home mom, she — and, by extension, all stay-at-home moms — they have claimed, can’t possibly understand the pressures of economic instability and life beyond the front door (never mind that their guy is responsible for that economic instability and the obstacles designed to maintain it).  Indeed the name-calling continues, ever the sign that the namecallers have no cogent arguments in their arsenal.

This has all left me wishing we could settle this score the old-fashioned way and be done with it.  The trips down memory lane over the past weeks to those moments when unspeakable names were repeatedly hurled at conservative women (and their children), have me wondering if perhaps it’s time to let loose the men in the lives of the women and children being used as fodder for the liberal agenda/comedy act.  I would presume that many of those men — husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, uncles — strain at their leashes every time their women and children are described in unrepeatable terms, all to the delight of the gleeful, giggling audiences of leftwing talk-show hosts, politicians and so-called comedians.

So imagine, if you will, Maher, Letterman, one of them, again spouting some trashy, anatomy-laced anecdote about, say, Sarah Palin and her youngest daughter, the rant met with wild applause from a carefully chosen audience.  Not this time, pal! shouts Sarah’s hubby, Todd.  With Sarah’s dad and oldest son in tow, Todd treks to New York, coldcocks the perpetrating funnyman a good one in the jaw, and informs him that he will heretofore cease and desist in describing Todd’s family, the people he loves, in such a base and degrading manner.  Would love to see that.  Wouldn’t you?

Of course, the men in the lives of left-leaning women are welcome to defend their own loved ones in like fashion, if, of course, those men have the muscle and wherewithal to back up such efforts (the men mentioned here — Letterman, Maher, the president…eh, probably not).  Back in the day such manly behavior would not only be expected, it would be applauded.  And today?  Well, litigated, of course.  But we can dream, can’t we?

I Thought It’s Planned Parenthood’s Job to Supply the Free Contraception

| Comments (1)

First, I cannot believe that in 2012 America the hottest topic of conversation among politicians, media types, and, apparently, very active law students, is contraception.  Didn’t our nation already travel this road during those halcyon bra-burning “women’s lib” days of the 60s or whenever that was?

Second, this so-called outrage comes on the heels of the most recent national brouhaha regarding the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s financial support of Planned Parenthood.  Excuse me, but did we not glean from that illuminating passion play that Planned Parenthood rakes in gobs of dough, not only from the United States government, but also from the likes of organizations dedicated, not to planning parenthood, but to the prevention of breast cancer?  Rich and powerful Planned Parenthood earmarks those funds for, yes, the provision of contraception and related services to all manner of women, including, of course, destitute law students, who, it seems, are spending an inordinant amount of time on extracurricular activities.

So why the retro, embarrassingly manufactured controversy?  I’ll tell you why.  How else can the right (as well as those pesky religious-freedom fanatics — Catholics and Baptists among them) be painted as modern-day, woman-hating slave traders?  Shame on the republicans for taking the bait so artificially dangled by the left.  And shame on anyone who believes the sob stories.  Next time you hear one, just send the crybaby over to Planned Parenthood for a ration of free supplies and call it a day.

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.