Sunday, September 23, 2012

Sandra Fluke: Belle of the Liberal Ball

Side note: Never in a billion years thought I'd need to say this, but please do not tell anyone you write for this blog. I, Hailey Dunn, am the sole creator and thus far writer. Especially do not tell prospective grad schools because when they contact me I will tell them I don't know who the hell you are and what is I'm sure an already weak resumé will quickly become as weak as a watered down cranberry vodka. Also, this blog is quite minor so to act like this is your claim to fame is sad to say the least...

Anywho, as I said before, I'd planned to do a piece on Sandra Fluke and now, as many mustangs surely know, is quite an appropriate time to do so. Sandra Fluke... shall I compare thee to a summer's day? No, I won't. You are more like an engorged leech. First of all, I think it's valid to point out that while the subject of human rights should not now or ever be put aside due to other important matters, I think it is the height of stupidity to be focusing so much attention on the care of women's "reproductive health" right now. If we get our economy back up and running your odds of being able to pop Yaz like pez and dance around with a Nuva ring you paid for will be significantly greater. 
This woman was a nobody really when she was projected into the public eye last winter. She sought to testify in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the importance of insurance covered birth control during a birth control mandate discussion, but was blocked from doing so by the big, bad republicans. (It has been stated that her name was submitted too late to be included, but democrats disputed that claim.) She ended up with an audience of democratic House members. Some people heard of this as it was a small scale scandal, but most Americans did not. Rush Limbaugh ended up being the one to catapult her into the public eye and make her smarmy little self the new champion of the feminist movement. On his Feburary 29th show, Limbaugh had this to say about Fluke:

"[Fluke] essentially says that she must be paid to have sex—what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

His words, not mine. I'm not saying she's a slut, but her demanding that institutions who object to coverage that includes contraception  on moral grounds be forced by the government to still provide it is repugnant. As a student of Georgetown University at the time, her complaint was that a number of students, along with her married friend and polycystic ovarian syndrom having lesbian friend, could not afford to  take birth control they needed due to the stringent requirements placed on the dispensing of contraception by the university's health plan.  Through her lamentations of the Jesuit college's discrimination of women and woeful assertion that her possessing ovaries should not constitute having to choose between healthcare and education, a vulnerable down trodden picture of a beleaguered graduate student was painted. What this comes down to is freedom of religion. While I personally know few Catholics as I come from a largely Baptist town, I can say the ones I do know are quite earnest in their convictions. It is not their legal responsibility or moral imperative to provide or provide access to a service or product that is in contrast to their own beliefs.
Part of her testimony adresses the inability to get free or discounted birth control as free clinics are being downsized and shut down. A quick google of Planned Parenthood, the name brand free clinic if you will, will tell you that there are currently 820 locations and as of the fiscal year 2008-2009, it had a budget of $1.04 billion. From July 1st 2009- June 30th 2010, it was reported that PP received $487.4 million in "government health services grants and reimbursements"(coming from tax dollars) and performed 329,455 abortions. Let us all take a moment to mourn the hard times of Planned Parenthood. 
Interesting fact, Fluke, prior to attending Georgetown, was a women's rights activist and stated that she had examined the health insurance policy of the university and decided to attend with the purpose of taking on the coverage it carried. Basically, she knew what she was getting into, knew it was a Catholic institution that did not believe in administering contraception for non-medical purposes and jumped in with both feet to start trouble.  She was also initially billed as a 23 year old coed, but we now know that she is in fact 31. I don't know about you, but rather than an impassioned student activist, she's kind of starting to come off to me as a liberal pawn.  Also, not sure when this was updated but according to US News, to be a full time law student at Georgetown costs $46,865 and part time costs $33,500. Unless you have a hefty scholarship, that's a lot of money to be paying for school and you can sit there and tell me that you don't have $100/ month? (That's what according to her testimony her PCOS having friend needed for her prescription) Georgetown is also ranked #13 in the US in terms of law schools.  While that is nothing to scoff at, that means that if you are so in need of contraception coverage, you have 12 other even better schools to choose from that probably don't care if or why you're "on the pill". Lucky you!
I have much more to complain about in regards to this vile woman, but this is a good start. I don't take kindly to someone going to great lengths to be painted a victim and as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what she did. She has since ridden the wave of her "poor little me" routine all the way to being a speaker at the DNC where she proved that you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. 

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Narcissism and Lies From the Obama Campaign

No, that is not a kindergartener's finger painting or the picture from a crime scene. This my friends is a new print made by Ross Bruggink and Dan Olson of Studio MPLS. They are legitimately trying to sell this to people for $35 a pop. Never mind the fact that it is the height of narcissism and disrespect to replace the field of stars representing the 50 states with a campaign symbol, but it's ugly as hell too.

Anyways, congressional budget analysts came out yesterday and said that 6 million people, mostly residing in the middle class Obama claims he wants to help so much, will face a tax penalty for not having medical coverage. The average penalty is projected to be around $1,200 in 2016. The non-partisan office projected 4 million people would be effected when the analysis was originally done in 2010, but they now admit they were off by about 2 million people. No big deal or anything.

This is a pretty substantial blow to Obama's campaign as he has repeatedly vowed to not raise taxes for who he deems to be the middle class (individuals making less than $200,000/year, families making less than $250,000/year) However, 80% of those being penalized would make $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family. Smack dab in the midst of the middle class. The penalty, when it goes into effect in 2016, is expected to raise $6.9 billion.

If you remember back to this summer, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare and its corresponding penalties by saying it was constitutional as it was within congressional power to levy a tax. However, one of the major points made about the bill was that this would be a penalty, not a tax. Oops, it's a tax. It is expected that a number of people will opt to simply pay the tax come 2016 as the average health insurance for a family costs $15,800 and the average cost for a single plan is $4,300. Comparably, the tax/penalty/whatever the f it is, is relatively cheap.

This is the latest broken promise form Obama and his administration. I can't say he has at any point promised anything for me and mine, but to a number of his supporters this is a slap in the face. Raising taxes under the guise of a penalty is deplorable and people will realize and are realizing what he is doing. Will this hurt his poll numbers? Stay tuned.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Political Drinking Game

Blame it on my 3 day Nyquil bender, but watching the above clip made me realize that it desperately needed a drinking game. Basically, take a sip every time he says "uhh" and finish your drink when he says "I believe in the redistribution of wealth" because let's face it, once you hear that you'll want to finish your whole drink. 

Definition of redistribution of wealth: The transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism "such as tax laws, monetary policies, or tort law"

Definition of communism: A sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless society structured upon communal ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labour and private property.

Definition of socialism: A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

Gone are the days of the "Red Scare", now we elect people with these ideologies to be our president. Terrifying

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Media Bias

Today as I lay in bed missing class and succumbing to the flu and what I was sure to be my untimely death, I took a little time to do a cross-study on the articles popping up on Fox, CNN and MSNBC. As an avid Fox viewer, I am inundated with my friends complaints of blatant bias on this channel. While admittedly there is a bias, I can safely say the main bias in this country is not in favor of the right. Reading the articles posted on the latter twos' websites, Yahoo, etc.. I was absolutely livid. Some of these articles all but said Obama had already won.

This comes in the face of the whole Mother Jones scandal. If you're not aware, Mother Jones is an allegedly independent political website that posted a video of Mitt Romney making some off the record remarks to financial backers. One of the 'offensive remarks was this:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."

Is that wrong? No. 46.4% of people in this country pay no or negative taxes. The fact of the matter is that Obama supports government programs that Romney does not and getting voters who are habitually dependent on these programs to vote for a candidate not whole heartedly for them just won't happen. As it stands, Democrats receive 63% of the welfare recipient vote, 67% of food stamp recipients vote, 74% of the vote of those on Medicaid, and 81% of those in public housing. The GOP has all but had Kanye West come out and say, "Republicans don't care about poor people" and this identifier has been a hard one to shake. Personally, I find this completely ridiculous. Romney's above quote is indicative of the position of many people who identify as aligning with the GOP and Romney's campaign in particular. He is not disparaging people who are down on their luck and need temporary governmental assistance. What he and his party are advocating for are personal responsibility. 
The three inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the responsibility of the government to provide you access to those free. Nothing more, nothing less. People living significant portions of their lives receiving food stamps, collecting unemployment and living in government housing are blatantly taking advantage of a system Obama is supporting and as Romney said, he can't do anything to win that vote. Why try? 

But I digress... The media is so obviously biased it is sickening.

So as I lay there now angry and still sick knowing the end was imminent for me, my connect to a power source window popped up. My charger was of course out in my car so I got up breathing like Darth Vader and looking like a Walking Dead character to go get it. When I was walking to the garage, I bumped into one of the maintenance men for my apartment. Upon seeing me, he suggested I go to the doctor. I told him I was trying but I was having trouble getting an appointment until Thursday. His suggestion? Go to the ER, tell them I don't have insurance  I'll get seen in a couple of hours and "it will probably be free. Someone will pay for it but it don't gotta be us. Haha" Are you effing kidding me? We're all screwed. And I'm still dying. The end. 

The above two "polls" are from ABC's website. Clearly according to them Obama has been ahead the entire time and Romney doesn't have a shot in hell
This poll comes from the Rasmussen Reports and shows bumps in popularity corresponding with conventions, scandals, etc.. 

This banner is from the top of ABC's website. As you can see, of the eight political figures ABC deemed important enough to merit inclusion, only 3 of the 8 are Republicans. In the middle is Romney and Obama, on either side of them are their wives followed by Obama's VP and inexplicably the current House minority leader (Where's Romney's VP?) Followed by Senate majority leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House John Boehner. While this may seem insignificant, this is a classic example of a subliminal message by a liberal media outlet. 

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Libya, Egypt Erupt in Chaos Over Movie- Americans Die

On the 11th anniversary of the tragedy of 9/11, Muslims offended over the movie Innocence of Muslims stormed the American embassies in both Cairo, Egypt and Benghazi, Libya. As if the tearing down of the American flag in Egypt was not enough, the U.S, Ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed.

Basically, Israeli-American Sam Bacile made this movie called Innocence of Muslims knowing it would incite violence. In it, according to the Associated Press, Mohammad is portrayed as a pedophile and homosexual and there is a scene in which he is having sex. Since Islam considers any depiction of the prophet to be offensive, Muslims thought this crossed the line. This film was promoted by the Florida pastor Terry Jones who in 2010 threatened to burn the Quran. We all remember the madness that resulted from that. While Bacile sought to anger people with his film, the blame of the killings and destruction cannot be placed solely on him. It is now being reported that the movie was only a pretext for the violence, not the reason for it. It has been postulated that since this came so soon after a call from  Al Quaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to revenge the June killing of a senior Libyan member of the terror group Abu Yahya al-Libi, it has more to do with that.

Blame for the attacks is currently being placed on a number of militia groups, one of which is Ansar al-Sharia, but the group is denying involvement. Here is a rundown of what happened:

The United States Embassy in Cairo issued the following press release in regards to the aforementioned film:

In Egypt, 2,000 protestors gathered outside of the US Embassy, a number scaled the walls of said Embassy, took down the American flag and attempted to raise a black flag with the slogan, "There is no God but God, and Mohammad is his messenger"

Next, the violence and outrage spread to Libya, a hotbed of political unrest where militant groups frequently take the law into their own hands as of late. As armed men stormed the consulate, firing at buildings and throwing handmade bombs into the compound, Ambassador Christopher Stephens and 3 others attempted to flee. The doctor who treated the Ambassador is reporting the cause of death was asphyxiation resulting from smoke inhalation which caused stomach bleeding and ultimately, death.

What happened in Cairo and especially in Libya was nothing short of a travesty. On a day that already holds so much pain for Americans, this proved to be just too much. The American Embassy in Cairo unnecessarily apologized on behalf of the United States to an entire religion for a movie made by one man looking to incite violence. How was their apology repaid? With 2 destroyed consulates and four dead Americans. Libyan leader Mohammed Magarief apologized to the United States, but this is the textbook definition of too little too late.

The United States diplomatic policy in dealing with these animals is a joke. (Yes, they are animals. PEOPLE don't do this, animals do.) Muslims in general I do not believe are a violent or ill-natured people, but there are factions within the religion with such malice that we cannot expect to reason with them. The above apology is an embarrassment to America and even the White House took measures to distance themselves from it. When you are dealing with groups so hell bent on destruction, you must stand your ground not say thank you, wipe your chin and walk away. Why a nation as powerful as the United States is so hesitant to stand up for itself is beyond me. What happened to speak softly and carry a big stick? I'll tell you what happened:

Those who carried out the attacks realize that we have gone soft. Sure we got bin Laden, but this administration has been one of appeasement more than one of action. President Obama spoke today and vowed that justice will be served, but to the families and friends of those we lost, that is not enough. America has become the joke of the world. Once upon a time, if the US had been a frat it would have been the top of the top tier. Every member would have looked like a Ralph Lauren model, been a billionaire and drove an Aston Martin. Their girlfriends would have all been Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders and their 'slams' would have all been Victoria's Secret Models. Every other country would have wanted to make us a sandwich all of the time. Now, we're on the verge of having our charter revoked. Even France wouldn't heat us up a hot pocket. It's time for America to take a stand against the blatant disrespect. The red, white and blue doesn't bow down, it stands up and it is imperative that in the face of these attacks, America does so.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

September 11th

Where were you on September 11th? A question we ask each other, a question our children and our children's children will ask us. Of course we all know the answer. What we were doing the millisecond we found out, who we were with and where we were will forever be etched into our memories. This day, much like December 7th, 1941 was a day that shall live in infamy. It seems like only yesterday I was sitting in Mrs Durr's class. As a fourth grader, I didn't really pay much attention to what the adults did. I was more worried about retaining my customary top spot, grade wise, in the class.  That day however, everyone took notice. My teacher's husband traveled a lot for work and not so unexpectedly, he was on a plane that day headed for Washington DC. He was fine but she was unable to reach him for quite awhile so she was of course inconsolable. Once the teachers found out, the entire school broke into hysterics but we were not told why. Our teachers spent almost the entire day out in the hall together crying while we watched movies. When I got home I saw that my mother, who never really watched the news, was doing nothing but watching the news and they kept showing a video of a building falling down. She told me it was a movie being made. I was a dumb kid so I bought it and went back to probably playing with Barbies. That night, my parents dropped my brother, sister and I off at my grandmothers so they could go to dinner. My dad pulled my grandmother into another room to talk to her and then they left. My grandfather loaded several gas cans into his car to go get gas and was gone for hours. We were told we could only watch videos that night because there  was "some stuff happening on tv that my parents didn't agree with". However, I was a brat and there was something on TV that I wanted to watch so I of course had to beg my grandmother to let me watch it. She left my blissfully ignorant brother and sister to watch Alvin & the Chipmunks and pulled me into her room. She told me she would let me see what was on TV but that I mustn't cry. What I saw on that TV was more than any nine year old could possibly comprehend. The next day at school, there was a mixture of children whose parents had told them about what had happened and those whose parents, like my parents, attempted to leave their innocence somewhat intact. In a cruel twist, those who hadn't been made aware of what was happening found out from their panicked and misinformed peers and were all the more upset.

My story is in no way atypical from that of most of my peers. While people my age are among the youngest able to really remember what happened that day and where they were, the repercussions of it have irrevocably altered the American way of life. Our feeling of security in our own country will never again be as certain as it was before that day.

September 11, 2001 an entire nation lost its innocence. America had not since Pearl Harbor had its borders so violently breeched. The idea that violence of this caliber could reach our own shores was unfathomable before this. America went to war in other countries, the violence did not come to us. Now our guard is up. Now we know that this country is not infallible. Politics aside, what happened that day was beyond awful. Whether you are a republican, democrat, libertarian, socialist, communist or whatever, today is a day that we must all remember what we lost.

(There is some "language" in the following clips, but I'd be saying some pretty strong words too if I was watching this happen.)
Good Morning America's Coverage of the Attack- Second Plane Hits
A News Reporter Has His Camera on the Ground- You Hear the First Plane Hit
Only Known Footage of the First Plane Hitting- Taken By a Fireman
Bush Finding Out
Never Forget

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Romney's Camp v Obama's

In a presidential race, Americans look for the strongest candidate with an iron will capable of making the tough calls and not breaking under the monumental stress put upon the POTUS. For this reason, the candidates tend to show only their overtly masculine side, forsaking their softer, family man sides. For this reason, in recent years candidates have relied on their wives to bring home to the American electorate the fact that behind the visade of stone faced politician there is a human being. It is the job of the wives to humanize their husbands and make them relatable so that people feel they are voting for their neighbor, not a Christian Grey type.

First up, Ann Romney. I will concede, I am completely biased towards this little gem. She is so precious, raised 5 smokin' hot sons (Do all Mormons look like this??) and holds herself at all times with amazing grace despite her battle with MS. Her speech targeted the American woman and family who can often times feel lost in the mix of politics. Her address was deliberately devoid of policy and targeted the female voters which the democrats have worked overtime to bring in. The liberal agenda has pushed the allegation that Republicans essentially want women dying in the streets as they succumb to various afflictions of their uteruses (Uteri? I don't know the plural form of uterus. I hate that word). Obviously, this is not the case Sandra Fluke, but it has painted the GOP as being at war against women and it was the job of Ann Romney to be like "Ummmmmmm no". And that she did. Unlike Michelle Obama, this was for all intents and purposes Ann's first time speaking to the American people. She got up on that stage in her Oscar de la Renta frock and nailed it. Obviously, her technique could use some tweaking as she is not the wordsmith that Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, her husband and even I'll concede the Obama's are, but she did really well. Her mission going in: Humanize Mitt, showcase him as a capable leader worthy of the position and show women that the GOP is not against them. I can honestly say I believe from the reception she received both from voters and critics alike, she did succeed. A full transcript of her speech can be read here. (As far as the GOP "war on women", I have A LOT to say and will cover that in a later post. I despise that piecey bob having woman for having the nerve to say she's standing up for my rights. I don't feel victimized by the GOP one bit as a woman do not believe she represents me or my rights one bit. But that's for another day.)

Then there's Michelle... Michelle, Michelle, Michelle. NOT a fan. Much like her husband, I perceive her to be opportunistic and the epitome of a nihilist. However, the woman can speak. Chalk it up to her having been a lawyer or the great deal of practice she's had since entering the White House, but her public speaking skills are on par with her deplorable husband's. Her target has always been the family unit and women, but in this particular speech more than just targeting those key demographics, Obama spoke to the men as the heads of struggling families. She spoke of the struggles of her own father and the fact that her husband and the father of her children understand the position of the average American, whereas Romney does not. Her speech was an amalgamation of personal anecdotes with the purpose of portraying the Obamas as a typical American family who understands the heartaches of "the middle class". Despite keeping her speech apolitical, she was able to score points by delivering a message with strong political undercurrents. The gist was that the American family is working hard and deserves a government that understands them and that most people on government assistance aren't lazy degenerates. Her assertion however that her and her husband were average people who dealt with being overwhelmed by student loans and various other problems afflicting the middle class was a touch far fetched. It's hard for most Americans to wax emotional over the woes of a Columbia/ Harvard Law graduate and his wife a Princeton/ Harvard Law graduate.

Final tally: While both ladies did exceptionally well in regards to putting forth the message their husbands and subsequent parties counted on them for, I'd have to say it's a tie. Ann Romney was tasked with bringing to the attention of the voters the side of Mitt that she knows, loves and depends on while Michelle was tasked with making the case for her husband to be reinstated to a post that, let's be honest, he fouled up in round one. Did either pull into their side independents? Maybe, but speakers such as Marco Rubio and Bill Clinton were under much more pressure to do that while the first ladies were more counted on to solidify and inspire the parties base of voters.

First, I was overwhelmed by the irony that not long before Bill Clinton took the stage for his 50 minute speech (which was arguably the best of his career) that Sandra Fluke, the Patron Saint of feminism and a woman's right to not be exploited by men, was speaking. Did you ever happen to read into the specifics of the Monica Lewinsky scandal? I was 3-5 when it happened and 6 when the story became public, so while I'd heard of it and knew the basics, the gory details were a little much. I'll never look at a cigar the same way... Anyways, Clinton is a gifted speaker and by all accounts one of the most charismatic people you could ever meet so obviously his speech was going to be convincing whichever way he decided to go with it. Despite his former remarks on Obama's inexperience and tendency to flip-flop, without Obama his wife is out of a job until she gears up for her inevitable 2016 run. An idle wife might start caring about what I am sure is still a philandering husband, so Clinton got up and whole heartedly endorsed a man he had previously cast aspersions on. Frequently going off the cuff and speaking in earnest to a crowd that ate up his every word, Clinton in my personal opinion garnered a great deal of independent voters. Harkening back to the boom of the 1990's, Clinton strongly insinuated that were the American people to reelect Barack Obama, they would be seeing equal prosperity in the very near future. The crowd went wild.

The goal of the RNC was essentially to pick up more voters in the independents and Ron Paul supporters who are, for all intents and purposes, the prodigal son of the GOP. The goal of the DNC was to convince the American voter base that Obama did the best he could in the time he had, given the circumstances, and that for his promises of prosperity to materialize he needs another term. Did either party accomplish their goals? Only time will tell, but both put up the good fight. As for this evening's speech, from the man who has come to be known as one of the modern great orators, the nation awaits with bated breath as both detractors and those who have drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid of the Obama campaign tune in to see if Obama can reprise his former popularity. 

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Imma Republican votin for Mitt RMoneyy

During my summer sabbatical a lot changed on the political landscape. Romney announced the  adorable economic genius (and only 6% body fat having) Paul Ryan as his running-mate and was officially nominated at the Republican National Convention to be the GOP's candidate to take on Obama.  The Republicans raised more than $100 million in June, July and August and around $75 million in May for a combined total of  just under $400 million for the summer, outstripping Obama.  Obama supports gay marriage openly now and has added top political minds Eva Longoria and Kal Penn (Kumar) to his team of miscreants. With so much having had happen since June, it's hard to summarize it, but with the RNC having just recently ended and the DNC in full swing, there is much ground to be covered there.

Now admittedly due to my night class I have not yet seen Michelle Obama's speech, which I heard was actually very good even if you're not a fan, but as soon as I get to I plan to contrast hers with Ann Romney's because more than ever, this year women seem to be playing a larger role in the arena. But for now, I will leave you with the skit Obama wasted who knows how much time on pandering to the stoner masses. If I were him I probably would too seeing as you'd have to be high to vote him back into office. Also, I can't really tell if Nicki Minaj is being sarcastic (probably), but this is rather catchy!

**Side Note: One of the best things about going to SMU is the opportunities put before you. Being in college in Dallas during an election year is amazing as it has afforded me the opportunity to take on my second internship in the political realm. As of last week, I began work on the John Carona and Kenneth Sheets campaigns in addition to my phone banking for Mitt Romney. All three are very worthy Republican candidates who we could only be so lucky to have represent us.