Leftists Take Aim at Schlafly

Phyllis Schlafly has politically outlived her opposition from the ERA days and now finds herself the aim of criticism due to her remarks about unmarried women:

“Unmarried women, 70% of unmarried women, voted for Obama, and this is because when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have big brother government to be your provider.”

I’ve long pointed out the irony of claiming the feminist mantle while promoting policies that make you dependent upon The Man.

Of course, the libs are silent on this:

Alle Bautsch, Failed by Feminists

The Attack on Women in Health Control Rationing

The Hypocrisy of the Women’s Media Center

A Profile in True Feminism

They criticize because Schlafly hits too close to home.

*From RS McCain, though I disagree with him about right-sphere conservatism because popularly-defined feminism isn’t about liberating women from the patriarchy but about beholding them to a political party whose policies clearly impact women negatively, as highlighted by one of my links above. Right-thinking feminism is liberation of women from that.

And yes, any GOPer who throws Schlafly under the bus deserves a slap to the face. I had the privilege of taking part in a documentary about women on the right, currently in production, with Mrs. Schlafly and featuring some other ladies with names as big as hers.

Sherrod to Sue Breitbart

Three words: BUFFET OF AWESOME. I’ll tell you why in a minute.

Earlier today:

Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted an edited video of her making racially tinged remarks last week.

[...]

She said she doesn’t want an apology from Breitbart for posting the video that took her comments out of context, but told a crowd at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention that she would “definitely sue.”

The only way that her remarks could be taken out of context would be if, after the 23:53 remark where she says that opposition to health care is racist (wtf?) she followed it up with a hearty “NOT!” and the “NOT” was removed in editing. But it wasn’t. The video, the remarks were in context.

More:

Sherrod though has shown that she holds a grudge against Breitbart, accusing him last week of stoking racists to attack her.

“He knew exactly what effect that would have on not only — he knew what effect that would have on the conservative, racist people he’s dealing with,” Sherrod said in an interview with CNN.

Breitbart did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Breitbart has not apologized for posting the misleading video, arguing that the incident was “not about Shirley Sherrod” and was instead about the NAACP’s accusation that the tea party has employed “racist tactics.”

Wait, the woman who called opposition to HCR “racist,” who claimed Republicans were all raaacists – and claimed to be post-racial is doubling-down on the race card? The post-racial Sherrod also made these remarks after the White House fired her before so much as speaking to her:

[On Fox News] “they are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to… where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.” via

So this is Sherrod’s defense, in layman’s terms for those reading who like books with pictures:

Say some crazy things on tape, have it offend people, have the White House use that as a guise for firing her over Pigford, she gets mad, calls the people upset at being called racists “racists,” and threatens to sue the guy who simply published a video of her to the web.

Annnd scene.

Additionally, please note the new definition of “racist, racism” by Merriam-Webster, just out this morning:

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that you have the freedom to purchase your own health insurance
2 : the act of disagreeing with a liberal
3 : taking offense at being called a racist over your belief that you have the freedom to purchase your own health insurance or after disagreeing with a liberal
— rac·ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective

Sherrod is mad that she had to go public with her convictions.

The White House is flummoxed because of Pigford. What is Pigford, you ask?

Shirley Sherrod’s quick dismissal from the Obama administration may have had less to do with her comments on race before the NAACP than her long involvement in the aptly named Pigford case, a class action against the US government on behalf of black farmers alleging that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had discriminated against black farmers during the period from 1983 through 1997.

[...]

So where does Sherrod come into this picture?  In a special to the Washington Examiner,Tom Blumer explains that Sherrod and the group she formed along with family members and others, New Communities. Inc. received the largest single settlement under Pigford.

Read the entire thing.

Yes, Shirley Sherrod, go on with your suit. PLEASE. I LOVE hearing you talk on television. I know that the media didn’t want to have you on any of the Sunday talk shows (racists!) because when they heard you talk a warning sounded in their a heads, a warning that went “no, no, no, No, No, NO, NO” but I love it. I can’t wait to hear more about your Pigford settlement with this suit, I can’t wait to see the phone records of when you were told to pull off the side of the road and give up your job, a move the White House thought would make folks walk away – but they didn’t account for your mastery of the liberalized squeaky-wheel strategy, the very strategy they promote but hate used against them as you so artfully did. They didn’t bank on you doubling-down on the race card and implicating the White House; now they’re stuck with you and they have to basically jog after you mumbling incoherently about how there is still racial tension and something about that 24-7 media cycle they love to use but hate pointed at them.

File away. It will be a smorgasbord of delight.

Obama: Blacks are a ‘Mongrel’ People

Wow. Interesting choice of words there.

President Obama waded into the national race debate in an unlikely setting and with an unusual choice of words: telling daytime talk show hosts that African-Americans are “sort of a mongrel people.”

The president appeared on ABC’s morning talk show “The View” Thursday, where he talked about the forced resignation of Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod, his experience with race and his roots.

When asked about his background, which includes a black father and white mother, Obama said of African-Americans: “We are sort of a mongrel people.”

Imagine for one second if Bush, Jindal, Bachmann, etc. said such a thing.

Obama’s Easy Breezy Health Care Flow Chart

Good luck with that.

MO Hospital Association Attacking Patients’ Choice?

But … I thought the left was ALL ABOUT choice?

Those who wish to eliminate your ability to privacy in the doctor’s office, freedom over your own body, and penalize you if you wish to seek better care than the government will give you want to keep you from voting for Prop C. They’ve gone so far as to tamper with the ballots. Already. Sigh.

Now they’re pumping propaganda into hospitals; I’ve audio I’m posting shortly of a hospital worker alleging that management is pressuring employees about Prop C. (h/t Judy and Tim)

From Caroline:

These mailings are from the Missouri Hospitals Association. Is the MHA shipping literature to hospitals and their employees as well?

Concerning the fake attempt at tying it to the Supremacy Clause:

I must admit, even though I am a trained attorney, I have not read the whole thing, but I did read the provisions regarding enforcement.  The IRS enforces the individual mandate of Obamacare.  This means the only court in this country where Americans are presumed guilty will decide whether one has adequate insurance, and if you do not (according to the IRS), expect fines, penalties and harassment from Big Brother.  This is why I support Prop C.  It lays a duty on our elected state officials to defend Missourians from arbitrary and capricious decisions made in Washington.  It also prevents Washington from co-opting state resources to enforce a program where no one is really sure how it will work.

[...]

Neither one of the reasons behind my support for Prop C would violate the “supremacy clause” of the Constitution, backed up by constitutional jurisprudence.  In fact, suggesting that Prop C would waste state resources because Obamacare is clearly constitutional reeks of journalistic laziness.

The mailings are amusing – so NOW they’re concerned about cost? They weren’t concerned when the IRS said they lacked the funds to implement it. Isn’t it the socialists who say that conservatives make everything about cost?

The mailing propaganda is invalid because it presupposes (while its colleagues simultaneously make the argument that only the rich are for Prop C) that those opposing health control aren’t willing to pay their own way. Those against Prop C ignore this fact, conveniently, while suppressing the fact that individual rights would be abridged concerning medical choices and choices over your body, period. The language asserts that people are getting “a free ride,” which is exactly the motivation fueling support for Obamacare in the first place – except it’s NOT a free ride, it’s largely unfunded with the tab being sent to the public, small business, and the rest of the cost-cutting occurring by way of rationing.

If the MHA was seriously concerned about people getting “a free ride” they would have opposed Obamacare outright; but that they’re now selectively and illogically trying to enact this defense now simply shows absurd hypocrisy. The MHA is concerned about that but NOT about the lack of funding (all linked above), the rationing, the fact that we were lied to and told children would be covered and in fact they are not; the fact that businesses are dropping plans left and right to comply and cut costs; that despite promises, employees WON’T get to keep their plans; it’s endless.

The bottom line is that opposition to Prop C is fueled by the desire to eliminate individual choice and freedom concerning YOUR medical choices. Equality is the same opportunity for everyone, equality is not using government to deny opportunity for all and giving everyone equally sub-par coverage. Prop C gives Missourians TRUE CHOICE over their bodies and their medical care, away from government rationing. It will set a precedence which scares those who wish to assume control by limiting your rights.

Vote Prop C on August 3rd.

Additionally: excellent Prop C legal analysis

More on debunking the MHA hogwash

*Also – Sen. Jane Cunningham on the show today to talk Prop C and the propaganda