Emily’s List Ridicules “Mama Grizzlies,” or How Liberal Feminism Became Irrelevant

I’m embarrassed for the lack of economic understanding demonstrated by these women, really by the group exploiting them, in this video.

One woman complains about Republicans and asserts that they want to do away with unemployment benefits which is false; Republicans are asking why they have to be extended to nearly two years – especially when, during the 80s, unemployment was at 10.8% and unemployment benefits were less than what they are now. Instead of asking why capital must be diverted towards non-production, Emily’s List ought to be asking why this administration isn’t doing anything about the 9.5% unemployment rate which – and this may shock these costumed ladies – is directly related to unemployment benefits! SHOCKERZ! They ought to ask why excessive government manipulation and intervention is ongoing despite the carcasses of failures in its wake.

If the government got its hands out of the private sector and eased up on small businesses we wouldn’t be engaged in this discussion of whether or not to turn extended unemployment benefits into a new, quasi-welfare system.

And what was that about their little cubs not having health care?

Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

Of course, it seems they were too busy fighting over the feminist mantle, their bread and butter, to pay attention to their pretense of actual advocacy for women.

Their indignation at why The Man won’t pay for their female genocide, the litmus of abortion, pops in at :24 in; they are angry at The Man telling them no abortion on demand (because babies come from MAGIC, not from sex that a woman can choose to have, just as she can choose to walk up into Wal-Mart and buy herself a box of condoms, spermicidal gel, a diaphragm, the pill, et. al.) but are perfectly A-OK with The Man telling what they can or cannot do in every other aspect of their medical choices. Side note – is it really “independent” to claim girl power when you have to have The Man pay for your medical choices, a la abortion? Curious.

What about Emily’s List mama grizzlies being shut out of their existing health care plan?

Under the most likely scenario, 87 million Americans will no longer be able to retain the health plan they have and the number could be as high as 117 million. Small businesses will be especially hard hit. As many as 80% will lose their grandfather status by 2013, for example. One reason: any change of insurers (say, to take advantage of lower premiums) will cause a loss of such status. By contrast, a self-insured union plan is free to change its third-party administrator and still keep its grandfather status.

Where were Emily’s List’s mama grizzlies when the FDA announced that the first victims of the Democrats’ health care rationing would be breast cancer patients?

Susan G. Komen for the Cure® and the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance (OCNA) today urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to continue to allow the use of the drug bevacizumab, commonly known as Avastin, for metastatic breast cancer patients, noting that it is effective for some patients and warning of a chilling effect on new drug development if approval is withdrawn…

Rationing, thy name is Obamacare:

The FDA advisory panel has now voted 12-1 to drop the endorsement for breast cancer treatment. The panel unusually cited “effectiveness” grounds for the decision. But it has been claimed that “cost effectiveness” was the real reason ahead of reforms in which the government will extend health insurance to the poorest.

No, instead of focusing on these actual issues, Emily’s List is trying desperately to keep their meal ticket – the facade of caring about women’s issues a la “feminism” while selling them out to the pimp with the most restrictive entitlements – from being used by any woman that dares not carry water for the DNC. Meanwhile women dealing with breast cancer suffer, women who thought their children would be included in this joke of health care reform suffer, women who are trying to put food on the table and pay their bills suffer because Emily’s List thinks it more important to fight over who can call themselves “feminist” and who can’t.

That’s what this issue is really about: liberal feminists unable to justify their support for a party that contributed to the dismal economic situation, a party that enabled The Man to control their medical decisions (irony!), a party that does more to squelch freedom and opportunity in the name of equal misery for all than any others.

Emily’s List is mad that modern day women are giving the one finger salute to the liberal establishment, slipping on shoes and walking out of the kitchen. They’ve said loud and clear that liberal “feminists” don’t speak for them, for us, for me. Now groups like Emily’s List have come full circle: they’ve become cannibals to the very group for which they originated to protect; in order to keep control of their shtick they must attack any woman who dares question it.

And this is how liberal feminism became irrelevant.

Anderson Cooper Defines Irony – and the Litmus of the Left

From Newsbusters.

Oh, where to start?

“… has been dragged through the mud and has had to prove she’s not a racist. This can happen to anyone and it’s not right. Imagine it happening to you.”

Um, it has.

Remember this?

… House Democratic leaders took a different tack: One senior aide has been circulating a document to the media that debunks the effort as one driven by corporate lobbyists and attended by neo-Nazis…

In addition, the tea parties are “not really all about average citizens,” the document continues, saying neo-Nazis, militias, secessionists and racists are attending them.

Or this?

What about getting placed on a DHS watch list?

Where was the media coverage then?

Oh. Right. The left believes freedom is only found on the Democrat plantation, it doesn’t fit the media’s narrative.

As I said on King last night, apparently, I’m one of few who’s actually read the original post, watched the original video, and watched the entire 45-minute-15-second video in its entirety. Some points.

- People need to get out a dictionary and look up “exculpatory.”

- The original post and video was to highlight the applause of discrimination towards a white farmer. It was given in context.

- The original video was not “doctored” nor “out of context,” and the irony is that those making such statements are actually taking the context away from its original presentation. Sherrod was building to a lesson in her speech – but went on later in her speech to talk about how people who support HCR are racist, essentially. It’s at 23:53 in. Look, I did your homework for you.

Transcript:

“I Haven’t seen such mean-spirited people as I’ve seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of this racism we thought was buried didn’t it surface?” Now we endured eight years of the Bushes and we didn’t do the stuff that these Republicans are doing because you have a black president.”

Um … soooo people who wanted to make their own medical decisions over their own bodies were doing it because they were racist?

While I’m continuing to do your homework and critical thinking for you, check this at 25:00 in:

“I couldn’t say 45-years ago, I couldn’t stand here and say what I will say to you tonight … God helped me to see that it’s not just about black people, it’s about poor people.”

Why can’t it just be about PEOPLE? PEOPLE, PERIOD?

Sherrod is using race to stoke class warfare and promote Marxist principles. The dude from the Daily Beast on last night’s panel committed a massive facepalm when he tried to deny this in defense of Sherrod but went on to parrot her remarks as a way to push the need for economic equality.

You don’t achieve equality by tearing everyone down equally. You promote equality by giving people the opportunity to exercise their free will and make of themselves what they will. You promote equality by not killing school choice by way of vouchers, or killing small business with penalties via health control.

This began because the left is losing in the arena of public opinion.

They’re losing because people now see the full scope of their policies:

Firms cancel health coverage – The Boston Globe

IRS: We don’t have the resources to handle ObamaCare

Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

More Americans Favor Than Oppose Arizona Immigration Law

Confidence in Obama reaches new low, Washington Post-ABC News poll …

58% Say Most Congress Members Won’t Know Stimulus Plan When They …

Confidence in Congress: Lowest Ever for Any U.S. Institution

Obama Approval Falls To Lowest Since He Took Office

Latest Gallup poll shows President Obama’s approval rating at 46 …

Obama’s Approval Rating Hits New Low – Political Hotsheet – CBS News

Obama’s Approval Rating Much Worse Than It Looks – Peter Roff …

Poll: Unemployment is Americans’ top economic concern – CNN.com

And they’re desperate.

Survey: Four in 10 Tea Party members are Democrats or independents …

New poll shows more Americans identify with tea party movement …

After Tripling Deficit in 2009 Obama On Track to Nearly Quadruple …

So they double-down on race and make an already hyper-paranoid state of racial awareness even crazier. In a rock-throwing fight in a climate they created, they took out one of their political own. The White House, the USDA fired Sherrod, not Andrew Breitbart, not Fox News, not anyone else.

Liberals, unable to hold a government in which they’ve invested the entirety of their credibility, deflect and attack conservatives for holding the story up – not their own ideology which tried to spear a movement which now encompasses half the country and has gone mainstream – so they don’t have to implicate their own rhetoric. Doing so would mean they have to back down and debate their policies on merit, and, as you can see from the accumulating public opinion, you’re not going to convince folks to support big government and wasteful spending.

It also shows the litmus test of the left: they’re only willing to come to the aid of a black American if that American shares their liberal ideology. Obama didn’t call Kenneth Gladney after he was beaten, he didn’t call Cedra Crenshaw when the Chicago machine got scared of a conservative black woman entering their ring and tried to run her (unsuccessfully) off the ballot.

The grassroots movement shares more in common with the communities that the left tries to exploit than the left shares with them. All of this is smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the truth.

That’s not empowering, liberating, freeing, nor choice.

Do a story on that, Cooper.

*More on liberal litmus

*UPDATED: Meet the New KKK: the NBPP

This is the man that Eric Holder and the DOJ dropped charges against even though he was the one intimidating voters by swinging a stick at them and yelling racial slurs outside of a polling place.

I would love to see how the left explains this one away. I would love to hear this administrations excuse as to the preferential treatment of thugs before the law, thugs who’ve threatened to kill adults and babies simply because the color of their skin.

File under: real angry mobs

*UPDATE: The National Geographic video? It was played at Shabazz’s April 27th hearing, the one to which they went dressed as jackbooted thugs:

After the opening statements and the reading of evidence into the record, the hearing continued with three videos: the atwo camera-phone videos shot at the polling place (now on YouTube), and clips from a National Geographic documentary about the NBPP that includes interviews with Chairman Shabazz and with the billy-club-wielding King Samir Shabazz. Mr. Billy Club talks about how much he hates and wants to kill white people, including white babies, and the documentary includes a very ugly scene (among many) in which he confronts an interracial couple in a Philadelphia neighborhood.

**MORE: The People’s Socialist Party took part in the New Black Panthers’ convention this year.

No More Eggs by the Dozen: EU Micromanages British Sales

File this under one of the most ridiculous egregious examples of big government micromanagement that I’ve ever seen. British food merchants are now forbidden to sell products by the number (i.e. a dozen eggs, rolls, et al.) and are told they must sell by weight only. It’s also forbidden to put the weight AND the number of items on the package. Why? Because the EU is crazy. Hi, welcome to big government.

Until now, Britain has been exempt from EU regulations that forbid the selling of goods by number. But last week MEPs voted to end Britain’s deal despite objections from UK members.

The new rules will mean that instead of packaging telling shoppers a box contains six eggs, it will show the weight in grams of the eggs inside, for example 372g.

Or that a bag of white rolls has 322g inside instead of half a dozen. The rules will not allow both the weight and the quantity to be displayed.

[...]

The move could cost retailers millions of pounds because of changes they will have to make to packaging and labelling, as well as the extra burden of weighing each box of food before it is put on sale.

The cost is likely to be passed on to shoppers through higher grocery bills.

The cost that merchants will be forced to incur complying with this law will be astronomical. Yes, at a time when the world economy is teetering on the edge, let’s make it more difficult for families to afford food! Let’s raise the cost of their groceries as a way to help them. If you told me that Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter was writing these regulations I would be completely unsurprised.

Look how much time they have on their hands:

The new labelling row is the latest in a long line of European Union food policy scandals.

The EU passed a directive in 1994 ruling that top-of-the-range bananas had to be ‘free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers’. The directive was ridiculed as a symbol of bureaucratic excess in Brussels.

In 1988, it ruled that top-of-the-range cucumbers must bend by only 10mm per 10cm in a directive designed to help packaging and transport.

In 1979, another directive ruled that carrots should be termed as fruits, as the Portuguese made jam out of them.

In 2003, a threatened European ban on smoky-bacon crisps was averted at the last minute when MEPs forced through amendments after a backlash from the British public.

Finger-curved bananas? Ghastly! But a ban on bacon crisps? ATROCITY. David Cameron will meet his first test as prime minister going toe-to-toe with the EU over this.

If cap-and-tax passes we’ll face a similar intrusion.

ACTION ALERT: Melt the Phones for DISCLOSE Act

Vote likely tomorrow. Those who screeched over the Patriot Act and are silent over this? That shows how much you truly care about freedom. Regulated speech is NOT free speech. This, the government abridgment of free speech, is the true definition of censorship.

Even though Pelosi took it off the floor last week, it’s baa-ack. Vote tomorrow. Little by little until there’s nothing else free left. Democrats can’t be bothered to help jobs, pass a budget, clean up the Gulf, but they have time to trump up reports and make unConstitutional policy abridging free speech.

From The Hill:

The House Rules Committee on Wednesday is expected to consider the Disclose Act, legislation authored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) that requires greater disclosure on campaign funding.

The chamber could vote on the bill as early as Thursday and leadership is confident they will have the votes to pass it, according to a House aide.

Earlier on Tuesday, Van Hollen’s office released poll results showing the bill has overwhelming bipartisan support with 87 percent of Republicans and 91 percent of Independents supporting the bill.  Over 90 percent of Democrats also support the measure.

Who the hell are the Republicans supporting this legislation?

Don’t you love this Randian little title?

The DISCLOSE Act – Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Election

Douchebags Ignore Supreme Constitutional Lawful Speech Edict.

Free speech while I can get it.

What don’t you understand about this, congress?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech …

On April 29, 2010, Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. The bill is a direct response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (McCain- Feingold) – a First Amendment victory in which the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent expenditures supporting or opposing political candidates at any time of the year. Simply put, the DISCLOSE Act will limit the political speech that was protected and encouraged by Citizens United.

Why this bill blows:

  • It would expand the window for “electioneering communications,” which was 30 to 60 days under McCain-Feingold, to 90 days before a primary or caucus. During that period, corporations and nonprofits would face stringent procedures for any corporate advertising. The electioneering window, once opened, would continue through to the general election. So because presidential primaries fall well before the election, the restrictions could conceivably be in place for over a year.
  • The bill requires a mountain of paperwork, because companies must submit a list to the FEC of all donors who contributed more than $600. “In the 1950s, the NAACP went to court to say it should not have to disclose its membership list,” Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans Von Spakovsky says. He contends the provision to disclose members’ names poses constitutional problems “because it interferes with their right to associate.”
  • [...]
  • In a precedent-setting exemption, the Disclose Act for the first time would restrict the activities of nonprofits and companies, but not unions in some cases. Opponents point out that unions recently spent over $10 million in an unsuccessful bid to defeat Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln in the Democratic primary. “This is the empower-labor-unions-over-everybody-else act,” says Norquist. “It’s making it illegal for Americans to participate in politics.”
  • It bans any advertising from foreign companies, including domestic companies that have 20 percent or more foreign control.
  • The names of all donors who give $1,000 or more to an organization must be disclosed to the FEC, if the organization spends more than $10,000 on political advertising. Labor unions are included in this provision.
  • It requires CEOs to appear on camera stating they “approve this message.” Those familiar with how political fundraising work say this alone would scare away political speech by the vast majority of companies and associations. Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice, one of the groups that signed the anti-Disclose Act letter, tells Newsmax: “I see this as a threat especially to conservative nonprofits, but really to nonprofits in general, because that’s ultimately where the corporate spending that is being attacked here is coming from. Donors very often ask about anonymity. That’s important to them. I could see the groups losing a lot of donations. It’s meant to have a chilling effect, and it will have a chilling effect. I think it’s going to have a horrible effect on nonprofits groups.”
  • The top donor to the organization, who might not have donated any money for that particular ad, would be required to appear in the commercial to provide the public with information on those funding the commercial. Also, a TV ad would have to list the top five funders to the organization, and radio ads would have to disclose the top two funders. Disclose Act opponents point out the additional time required for the burdensome disclosures would make the ads prohibitively expensive.

Numbers:

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration 202-225-2801 202-225-5823
Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy 202-225-5315 202-226-6866
Rep. Jim Matheson (UT-02), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications 202-225-3011 (202) 225-5638
Altmire, Jason (PA-04) 202-225-2565 202-226-2274
Baca, Joe (CA-43) 202-225-6161 202-225-8671
Barrow, John (GA-12) 202-225-2823 202-225-3377
Berry, Marion (AR-01) 202-225-4076 202-225-5602
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02) 202-225-3631 202-225-2203
Boren, Dan (OK-02) 202-225-2701 202-225-3038
Boyd, Allen (FL-02) 202-225-5235 202-225-5615
Bright, Bobby (AL-02) 202-225-2901 202-225-8913
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18) 202-225-6131
Carney, Christopher (PA-10) 202-225-3731
Childers, Travis (MS-01) 202-225-4306 202-225-3549
Cooper, Jim (TN-05) 202-225-4311 202-226-1035
Costa, Jim (CA-20) 202-225-3341 202-225-9308
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28) 202-225-1640 202-225-1641
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03) 202-225-5406 202-225-3103
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04) 202-225-6831 202-226-5172
Donnelly, Joe (IN-02) 202-225-3915 202-225-6798
Gordon, Bart (TN-06) (202) 225-4231
Holden, Tim (PA-17) (202) 225-5546 (202) 226-0996
Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01) (202) 225-5311 (202) 225-0254
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07) (202) 225-2731 (202) 225-5773
Markey, Betsy (CO-04) 202.225.4676 202-225-5870
Marshall, Jim (GA-08) 202-225-6531 202-225-3013
Matheson, Jim (UT-02) (202) 225-3011 (202) 225-5638
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03) (202) 225-4031 (202) 226-3944
Michaud, Mike (ME-02) 202-225-6306 202-225-2943
Minnick, Walt (ID-01) (202) 225-6611 202)225-3029
Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05) (202) 225-2190 N/A
Moore, Dennis (KS-03) (202) 225-2865 (202) 225-2807
Murphy, Scott (NY-20) (202) 225-5614 (202) 225-1168
Nye, Glenn (VA-02) (202) 225-4215 202225-4218
Peterson, Collin (MN-07) (202) 225-2165 202)225-1593
Salazar, John (CO-03) 202-225-4761 202-226-9669
Scott, David (GA-13) (202) 225-2939 202225-4628
Space, Zack (OH-18) (202) 225-6265 (202) 225-3394
Tanner, John (TN-08) (202) 225-4714 (202) 225-1765
Taylor, Gene (MS-04) 202-225-5772 202.225.7074

(h/t Bill)

I will cut up my NRA membership card if this act passes congress.