Sensational Woman, Fantastic Speech, Meet Ann Romney! (Open Thread)



Doesn’t This Say it All?


This is what real beauty looks like!  How refreshing.

The media won’t have to lie about her looks or her fashions.

She was radiant.  Ann glowed throughout her speech.

America Will Be Proud with Ann as Our First Lady

and Mitt as our President.


To All  Americans:

“I make you this solemn commitment,



H/T Zenway


144 responses to “Sensational Woman, Fantastic Speech, Meet Ann Romney! (Open Thread)

  1. I was listening to Rush, and he said the Left is going nuts over all the “birtherisms” in speeches that “they” heard. One had to do with Romney talking about America’s exceptionalism when mentioning Neil Armstrong.
    I don’t know the exact quote, but it was something like this.

    When you need someone to do something big, you need a real American. So the Left believes that was a slam against Obama. Oh sure, I see that… only if taken out of context as to what was being said.

    So without checking leftist sites, they are cherry picking sentences to excoriate. Supposedly they are writing articles on all the “fact checking” they did into everybody’s speeches. If it doesn’t agree with their propaganda, there is an article about it.

  2. “MSNBC Whines About Mitt Romney ‘Throwing A Bone To Birthers’ In RNC Acceptance Speech”

    • Part of Mario Apuzzo’s comment:

      August 29, 2012 1:43 PM

      “Mr. Houghton,

      I am sorry to inform you that you have applied the wrong statute to Obama, given his birth on August 4, 1961. If Obama was not born in the United States, he would be an illegal alien. This means that not only would he not be a “natural born Citizen,” but he would not even be a “citizen of the United States.” If Obama was born out of the United States, he would not qualify to obtain U.S. citizenship from his U.S. citizen mother under the Congressional statute that applied to him when he was born on August 4, 1961, because she was too young to allow his to inherit her U.S. citizenship.

      Here is our U.S. State Department explaining which statute would apply to Obama birth circumstances:

      “Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

      A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.”

      According to public information provided by Obama, he was born to Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham after they were married. Hence, he was born in wedlock. Obama’s mother, born on November 29, 1942, was 18 years old when she gave birth to Obama on August 4, 1961. She was 117 days short from being 19 years old. But she had to be at least 19 years old (14 years old plus 5 years of U.S. physical presence) to satisfy Section 301(g). Hence, if Obama was born in Kenya, under the Fourteenth Amendment, he is neither a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil nor one by naturalization. Nor would he qualify to be a U.S. citizen by any Act of Congress by being born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent. There is no evidence that Obama ever naturalized as a U.S. “citizen” after he was born. Hence, if Obama was not born in the United States, it can be reasonably argued that Obama is an illegal alien.”

      • the 10 year residence, 5 after age 14 was in place at the time of obama’s birth. BUT, if the child is born OUT of wedlock, the 5 year residence, 2 after age 14 was made retroactive to 1952 if the child was legitimated (father takes affirmative steps to establish paternity/take financial responsiility until child is 18) and if the u.s. citizen parent is the mother, only one year of continuous residence prior to the child’s birth is required (also retroactive to 1952). 8 USC 1409/INA 309. so, if they were NOT married and she was a u.s. citizen, he would acquire derivative citizenship from her. but if they WERE married, she would not meet the wedlock requirements of 10/5 because she was too young. so he’s actually better off if they weren’t married…which i don’t think they were but then they faked it…but he was probably adopted by Lolo and then took an affirmative step after age 18 in renouncing u.s. citizenship by going to college as a foreign student….elizabeth warren got interest free 20 yr. loans for harvard because she was a member of an oppressed minority (cherokee indian, in case you haven’t heard about her high cheekones)….i wonder if those student loans obama paid off just before he ran for president were interest free?

        8 usc 1409
        The provisions of paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (g) of section 1401 of this title, and of paragraph (2) of section 1408 of this title, shall apply as of the date of birth to a person born out of wedlock if–
        (1) a blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence,
        (2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth,
        (3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and
        (4) while the person is under the age of 18 years–
        (A) the person is legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile,
        (B) the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
        (C) the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
        (b) Except as otherwise provided in section 405 of this Act, the provisions of section 1401(g) of this title shall apply to a child born out of wedlock on or after January 13, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, as of the date of birth, if the paternity of such child is established at any time while such child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation.

        (c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
        8 U.S.C.A. § 1409 (West)

        • What a bunch of technicalities! I doubt that BHO Sr. EVER paid child support for that kid. Didn’t the divorce papers say he didn’t? I remember that the divorce papers from Lolo stated that they were responsible financially for the child over age 18, for his education, that is. Hmmm. So did Lolo’s royal family connections help pay Barry’s way to Occidental? Were there even any loans at all? I suspect not because he fudges about the timeline on when those loans were paid off. He released tax returns from 2000 on, I think. I saw nothing on the ones I looked at that talked about any loans or INTEREST paid on loans. Wouldn’t he get a tax deduction for interest paid on school loans, if there was any interest paid? I think they lie about it because either he had no loans because somebody else paid his way through college or they WERE interest-free and since they weren’t mentioned in the tax returns, somebody could figure out that fact. Yes, he would be better off if he is illegitimate if born in Kenya. That is, IF his mother is Stanley Ann Dunham OR some other citizen of the USA. I’ll bet that he did take that “affirmative step” to keep or obtain foreign citizenship (so he could get a scholarship for foreign students) and that’s what was cauterized by Brennan’s employee from the passport files. Oaths of allegiance and other items are kept in those files.

  3. Media Strikes Back After Dirty Harry Dares To Mock Obama
    August 30 Snip

    Newsflash: Obama can’t take a joke. But we already knew that.

    For four long years we’ve waited, hoped and prayed that some young comic would break free of the politically correct demands of The State and mock Obama the way all presidents and all people in power should be mocked.
    Who would’ve ever thought that one of the men who would display enough backbone and “edge” to finally take it to Obama with wicked mockery on about 30 million live television screens would be 82 year-old Clint Eastwood?

    Once we learned Eastwood was the night’s mystery guest, no one knew what to expect. And anyone who took a guess most certainly didn’t guess that the Oscar-winning American icon would use his opportunity to relentlessly and hilariously mock Barack Obama in front of the entire free world!

    • Make Our Day: Mock Eastwood At Your Peril, ObamaBots!
      31 Aug 2012, 8:00 AM Snips

      Bring it on, Dems and you Obama-shills in the media.

      You want to criticize Clint Eastwood’s performance at the RNC? Go for it. Here’s why we can’t wait for you to mock this American icon:

      1. No real American likes it when people make fun of someone who represents the image of American toughness. The only people who mock macho Americans are effete leftists who are uncomfortable with a strong America, and that won’t play with most Americans, who are proud of being strong and independent.
      2. The more you pick on Eastwood, the more it becomes apparent that you’re desperate to find something, anything to avoid acknowledging that Romney and Ryan were simply terrific and you’re scared to death.
      4. This is the most important reason: down deep, most Americans know a dirty little secret you try so hard to hide: All of the Dems running the government are the spiritual descendants of the radicals of the 1960’s. Barack Obama is a disciple of Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky.

      • About number 1: That’s why they’re going to imply that they were only “reporting” the reaction of some in the audience, who made fun of Clint. It wasn’t them. No, it was the Republicans. 5000+ stories where THESE JOURNOLISTERS CALLED CLINT “INCOHERENT” OR “BIZARRE” OR “RAMBLING”. (It wasn’t a rambler. It was a Gran Torino!) Anyway, these are the same people who don’t think elephant dung on an image of the Virgin Mary or a crucifix in urine is “bizarre”. So …

        Barack is a disciple of Someone Else, too.

    • Left-Wing Celebs Trash Eastwood For Daring To Mock Obama
      Aug. 31

      What they are is furious — furious that the most beloved and respected member of their plantation bolted to tell the truth and knock some of the phony bark off their naked emperor.

    • Jon Lovitz.

    • It’s said Clint ad-libbed it, too. They’re now reporting that he did NOT tell Obama to “shut up;” Clint was telling Obama that HE’S NOT GOING TO SHUT UP. That was perfect because it’s exactly how Obama behaves. Nobody dare question the Great and Powerful BO.

      Clint used my favorite line that so needed to be said: “Politicians are EMPLOYEES OF OURS.” No wonder they mock Clint. Just as they mock birthers. They MUST mock truth because they can’t argue with it. Again, I do SO LOVE NOLTE!

      “All I can say in response is: Go to hell you Obama-shilling crybabies. Eastwood showed more grit and honestly in those few minutes than you water carriers have during your entire propaganda-for-the-collective careers.

      What Eastwood did tonight was funnier, fresher, edgier, and braver than anything those comedy cowards Chris Rock, Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert have done in 15 years.

      82 years-old, and Dirty Harry is still pissing all the right people off.

      My hero.”

      Two heroes here: Eastwood and Nolte, who did such a great job of saying what needs to be said.

      • Zenway! Check out what Rush said:

        “RUSH: Now, I don’t know about you. I love words. Words mean things. Even words that sound like throwaway words. When Eastwood said, “I was watching that night when he was having that thing,” people said, “He’s senile! He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He couldn’t even remember what that was.” No, no, no! “Having that thing” is perfect. Yeah, “they were having that thing.” This is the perfect way to diminish it.

        He was talking about Obama and Grant Park after the election. All these people, the zombies, are lighting candles. They don’t even know why they’re there. They just feel good. But if you ask ’em why, you’d get spaced-out, Oprah-type answers. And then to throw in Oprah was crying? I mean, I’m sorry, that hits me right in the heart because I have a theory that Oprah’s success is directly related to how much she cries, and I’ve told you this over and over again.

        So that one, when I heard it, just made my day. You talk about emotional connections? Clint and I were on the same Zen-like astral plane with that one. “Yeah, I was watching that night and they were having that thing.” (laughing) That just cracked me up. That’s the kind of thing I wish I had said, and to most people it’s a throwaway or some senile old guy who can’t remember what he’s talking about. And he also ripped, appropriately so, Vice President Joe Biden.

        EASTWOOD: (asking the empty Obama chair) What do you want me to tell Romney? (pause) I can’t tell him to do that. He can’t do that to himself.

        CONVENTION: (laughter)

        EASTWOOD: You’re… You’re absolutely crazy.

        CONVENTION: (whistles and laughter)

        EASTWOOD: You’re getting as bad as Biden.

        CONVENTION: (wild laughter and applause)

        EASTWOOD: Of course, we all know Biden is the intellect of the Democrat Party, so…

        CONVENTION: (roaring laughter)

        EASTWOOD: He’s kind of a grin with a body behind it.”

  4. Love these Breitbart headlines …

    Romney to Tour Hurricane Damage Today; Obama Has Yet to Visit

    Followed by:

    Leading From Behind: Empty Chair To Visit Louisiana On Monday

  5. I read and reread Clint’s skit. it is Amazing ripped obama to shreds 😆

    • Here’s their game:

      “Eastwood seemed to thrill the audience with his celebrity and swagger, drawing cheers and chortles — even if some of the laughter seemed of the nervous variety, of the sort one gives an elderly uncle at the Thanksgiving table in the middle of a story that doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.”

      I can’t tell if the story was implying that the Republicans in the audience were making fun of Clint. I think not, but they WOULD try to find a way to imply whatever they can to (1) diminish the impact of Clint’s “defection” and (2) damage the Republicans.

      Keep in mind that progressives love the various ridiculous stage plays that (mostly gay) playwrites put on these days. So they can’t appreciate Clint’s art when its their own sacred cow who’s being gored?

      Speaking of Gore, I read on Drudge that he wants to abolish the electoral college. Well, OF COURSE he does. Believe it or not, he spins it AS IF having a simple majority-rules “democracy” will ensure a voice for the non-battleground states. NO, AL. It will disenfranchise every non-populous state and let NY and CA decide most elections. CA, being full of ILLEGAL ALIEN VOTERS, it will be particularly UNFAIR to the citizens in flyover country. Thank goodnesss, the Republican platform OPPOSES changing the electoral college and especially that unconstitutional “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” so beloved by the likes of Soros.

  6. Maybe he meant his other daughter? … George Soros is 82 the same
    as Clint….& look at Joe (Bite-me Biden) 69… & dumb as a bag of rocks!

  7. Feds end probe of ‘America’s toughest sheriff’ Joe Arpaio; no charges
    Aug 31
    GREAT NEWS!!!!!!!! Sheriff JOE!!!!

    • They fought the law and the law won! Investigation of Joe by the Feds ended and NO CHARGES filed. Why? They dare not charge him with jack sh** because … why? Why? Because then Joe is entitled to a defense in a court of law. Open. Defense. Truth, justice, and the American Way.

      Who got the last laugh? Sheriff Joe! See this column that mentions Joe at the end:

      An excellent recap. We know it all but it’s always worth repeating endlessly UNTIL SOMEONE LISTENS. And no, Andrea Mitchell and Condi Rice (see MSNBC): Being a “birther” is NOT synonymous with being a racist, with being divisive, or with being an “extreme” voice. It’s wanting the TRUTH from OUR EMPLOYEES. CLINT GETS IT. JOE GETS IT. WHY DON’T YOU?


        That post references the same article by Ms. West. My comment refers to a comment by David, who is a lawyer:

        “There are two points about the born in Kenya thesis.

        If you could show that he was born in Kenya to Stanley and Obama Senior as parents, he was not born a citizen of the United States at all–applicable citizenship statutes are clear on that point. No possible way he would be held Natural Born.

        Further, as the article points out, zero went around for years telling anyone who would listen (and authorizing biographies setting forth) that he was born in Kenya.

        Under another fairly obscure legal doctrine in the law of evidence, such statements against interest are in most jurisdictions under most circumstances, evidence that is where he was born.

        Since there is no other evidence of any nature where he was born, in the proper legal proceeding (which was in place before the ALJ in Georgia and muffed by our lawyers), a court should hold that zero was obligated to prove on the record where he was in fact born or be held to have been born in Kenya, whether he was in fact born there or not.”

        Now that is a novel point of view that is very welcome. I have heard of “statements against interest.” I hope someone gets a chance to test that legal theory in a court.

        • If that legal tactic would work then he could be stripped of of all pensions and healthcare and whatever perks he gets for sitting in the WH. The 24/7 security detail would be relinquished also. The treason charge would lead to a really pleasant solitary cell where he could talk to himself until he was blue or purple in the face. (To match his lips!) How great to know he would spend the rest of his life in one of our federal prisons. I get one of those tingles in my entire body imagining the conclusion to his charade. Drawn and quartered was the charge for treason in yesteryear, and this would be the perfect time for it to be reinstated. May he be joined in the same cell block by those who refused to stand up for our constitution and our country. Congress might have to allocate funds for a new prison to house everyone involved. I bet it could be publicly financed quickly and easily!

          Once people know the truth and it is self-evident – he wouldn’t be safe in our country. Because he wasn’t legitimate, exile in another country wouldn’t be recognized either as he would have no status. Instead of a wannabee he’d be a neverwas.

    • Snips
      The federal government has closed a criminal probe of alleged financial misconduct by Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio, who styles himself as “America’s toughest sheriff,” and no charges will be filed, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said on Friday.

      A separate federal investigation relating to allegations of civil rights abuses by Arpaio’s office is continuing. The announcement on Friday marked the end of an investigation that began in November 2010 at the behest of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to examine alleged financial improprieties by the county sheriff and his deputies.

      Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Birmingham Scheel said in a statement that her office “is closing its investigation into allegations of criminal conduct by current and former members of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.”

      • Dang! I didn’t read closely enough AND I didn’t know that the financial accusations were FEDERAL, either. So I got misled by the headline. Rats. The civil rights allegations are continuing. Well, that’s the flimsiest case, so he’ll beat that one, too. It’s only harassment, anyway. It will be dropped after the election (either one–his or the presidential one). They don’t have the guts to prosecute him. They’re only using this to damage him in the minds of voters and to diminish his credibility on the birth certificate issue. It’s abuse of office and they know it. Thugs.

    • I don’t think this is the newspaper that targets Joe minute by minute. One AZ newspaper does and acts in concert with Obot blogs who are out to destroy their enemy – whichever one it is for the day. Sheriff Joe has been the administrations target since Eric Holder took office. I assume Eric wants to keep the immigration investigation going until after the election. Still this is a feather for Joe> Feds – ZERO Joe One!

      Feds shut down criminal investigation of Arpaio, Thomas; no charges to be filed
      Aug. 31

      Federal prosecutors closed an exhaustive four-year FBI criminal investigation and grand-jury probe targeting Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and their top deputies, saying there will be no indictments.

      •The press release issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office Friday

      Click to access 0831feds-arpaio.pdf

      • Department of Justice letter with additional details

      Click to access arpaio-doj-montgomery-letter.pdf

      ****• An in-depth look at the self-dubbed ‘America’s toughest sheriff’

      • Maricopa County feuds cost taxpayers $28 million
      Politically charged investigations and legal reprisals involving the Maricopa County’s Sheriff’s Office, County Attorney’s Office and Board of Supervisors have cost taxpayers at least $28 million since the infighting began in 2008, and the tab is expected to grow by millions more before the disputes are resolved.

      An Arizona Republic analysis found the costs were primarily incurred as the county defended itself, elected officials and other employees against lawsuits, investigations and legal claims related to the political scrapes.
      The costly infighting began when the Board of Supervisors voted to cut the sheriff’s and county attorney’s budgets in 2008, as the recession deepened.

      Viewing the cuts as politically motivated restrictions on their power as elected officials, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas responded with so-called government-corruption investigations. They filed criminal cases and federal racketeering lawsuits against county supervisors, as well as retired judges involved in some of the cases.
      County officials say the worst is behind them, noting several key players have been ousted.

      • From CW’s post about this: “A spokesman for the Arizona Republican Party, on behalf of chairman Tom Morrissey said, “It is good to see this witch hunt has come to an end. I find it bizarre when a man is hounded for doing his job by those who refuse to do theirs.””

  8. As CLINT was going on stage he asked for a chair… they thought he might plan on sitting & talking ….. NOPE FOOLED YA… ALL…
    He had no script or teleprompter …. He was spot on….. as always. The Mockers don’t want to GET IT!!!! So B IT! Unless it were turned
    around and they would be rolling off the cliff… OPRAH & OBAMA …I heard O had plans for a mystery guest till they saw CLINT…..

  9. On a prior thread, I wrote a long rant about dishonesty in the so-called scientific journals and academia.

    Here are two stories about the same issue, which perfectly illustrate my point:

    “The University of Texas at Austin says it has investigated and found no evidence of research misconduct in a study that found adult children from “gay” families are “more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law” than children from traditional mom-and-dad households.

    “The University of Texas at Austin has determined that no formal investigation is warranted into the allegations of scientific misconduct lodged against associate professor Mark Regnerus regarding his July article in the journal Social Science Research,” the school announced yesterday.”

    This scientist found scientific results that disprove the politically correct notion that no harm is done to children raised by same-sex couples. Instead, his study shows what is obvious to most thinking people with common sense: Children DO BEST when raised by a mother and a father. Duh. Let me say again, DUH.

    However, because the study did not “prove” what the politically correct, gay activist, progressive pseudo-scientists wanted it to show (that kids do fine raised by gays), then they attacked the messenger and tried to destroy his career.

    That story explains a similar study in more detail.

    Woe to any scientist with an interest in objectively researching and reporting on “LGBT”-related issues. If your findings fail the left’s socio-political “butterflies-and-rainbows” litmus test, the “progressive” establishment will try to destroy you – guaranteed. Thus, on these matters, honest scientific inquiry will require courage.

    Kansas State University, July 2010: Family Studies professor Dr. Walter Schumm releases the most comprehensive study to date on the effects of homosexual “parenting.” Published in the Journal of Biosocial Science, the study determined, among other things:

    •Children raised in “gay” households are up to 12 times more likely to self-identify as “gay”; [So that abolishes another of their politically correct theses: that being gay is NOT learned behavior; it’s biologically determined like race or sex; it’s therefore like a protected status; a person who’s gay cannot be changed; it’s not a choice.]

    •Of those in their 20s – presumably after they’d been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation – 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves “gay,” and 33 percent of the children of “gay” men called themselves “gay.” (Contrast these rates with current studies indicating that around 3 percent of the general population is homosexual.)

    Just before the research was released, AOL News reported, “Schumm says it shouldn’t have taken until 2010 to do the meta-analysis. Too often his colleagues impose ‘liberal or progressive political interpretations’ on their studies, which inhibit further inquiry. ‘It’s kind of sad,’” he said.

    Sad, yes, but it’s also by design. “I just want to know the truth about something,” he confessed. Unfortunately, there are many with an extreme socio-political agenda who depend entirely upon suppressing the truth.

    “As if expecting a political backlash himself,” reported AOL, “Schumm concludes his study with a quote from philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. ‘All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.’””

    Like the first scientist, Schumm was similarly instantly attacked by progressive nazis.

    I like that last quote. I cannot wait until the truth about Barry’s ineligibility reaches the “self-evident” stage.

    • Who would think that we lived in a time when scientific evidence had to conform to political and ideological thought or needed to be manufactured? Who would have believed that scientists could be bought in the U.S. to create studies intentionally flawed – such as what happened with global warming.

      This information should be very important to judges who are determining which parent a child should live with as well. These numbers are astounding ” 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves “gay,” and 33 percent of the children of “gay” men called themselves “gay.” Those are astounding numbers. I immediately wondered why the number is considerably higher for children of lesbians.

      Somehow I missed those first two truth stages regarding BHO, it was self evident very quickly when nothing garnered added up to truth. My ridicule and opposition is directed at the person who thought he could pull the wool over our eyes…the great deceiver.

      • Most of us missed those first two truth stages about BO’s BC and skipped right to SELF-EVIDENT, but the masses are still in pre-stage-1 because so many of them don’t even know about the issue in the first place. The OBOTS are in stages 1 and 2, still ridiculing and violently opposing. I can’t wait, though, until everyone hits stage 3.

        Those numbers ARE astounding, for the percentage of kids raised by gay parents IDENTIFYING as gay themselves. I should have said that I do believe that there’s a biological component to homosexuality, but there’s also huge element of nurture there, too.

        The activists USED to say that it’s not biologically determined until they realized that if they go with biology as THE explanation, then they can use civil rights laws to get special status and more-than-equal rights.

        They will, however, say anybody is BIGOTED if they object to such a high percentage of these children becoming gay themselves. They will say, “What’s wrong with being gay?” They want to NORMALIZE being gay. Their goal. And to get social security and other benefits for their partners. It serves communist collective ends to destroy the nuclear family, besides.

        I know lesbians who adopted children. I SEE how these poor children are used and paraded around like some kind of social experiment. These people and society are playing with the lives of innocent children. These women adopted boys and are raising them like transvestites. I’m not making this up. They say that they don’t want to shape the boys’ sexuality so they allow them (I suspect encourage them) to dress as females if they want to.

        It’s child abuse, imho, because these children STILL have to live in our society and acting this way WILL cause them to become pariahs and probably end up needing psychiatric help.

        The answer is NOT to claim that the other children (or even adults) shouldn’t ridicule or bully them (and they shouldn’t) but the REALITY is that they will become victims of ostracism.

        Why deliberately subject a child to this in the name of their own selfish self-righteousness? Why are so many of these kids depressed and substance abusers?

        They can say all they want that society SHOULD BE DIFFERENT and shouldn’t be so judgemental and cruel, but still. REALITY is that in our society they will suffer from the choices their “mommies” made for them. These studies show it. But what the response of the activists will be, when forced to accept the studies, is to say that this proves that society MUST BE FORCED to be more accepting, via more government programs to INDOCTRINATE the born-bigoted heterosexuals of this country, in the same way that whites must be sent through “sensitivity training” to eliminate as much as possible that “inborn racism” that only whites have, or so they claim.

        In an example of how back-asswards our country has become over this issue, now California is trying to BAN therapy for people under the age of 18 who want to change their “sexual orientation”.

        “The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, says treatments that attempt to change a gay kid into a straight kid are harmful and amount to “psychological abuse of children.”

        “These non-scientific efforts have led in some cases to patients later committing suicide, as well as severe mental and physical anguish,” Lieu said in a press release hailing the vote.”

        AND YET, they don’t consider it to be “psychological abuse” to deliberately raise children in a gay home, which now SCIENTIFIC STUDIES PROVE leads to “severe mental and physical anguish” and no doubt suicides. Isn’t raising a most-likely heterosexual child in a homosexual environment, causing him or her to “change” his sexual identity, PSYCHOLOGICAL CHILD ABUSE? IMHO, it is. The story goes on:

        “In an op-ed column earlier this week in the Los Angeles Times, Lara Embry, a clinical psychologist who is married to actress Jane Lynch, said that the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association and the American Psychiatric Association all declared long ago that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is not a form of mental illness or defect.”

        That is true. Under pressure from gay activists and infiltrators into the APA (target of my previous rant) and other groups, these organizations DID, against logic and common sense, try to state that being gay is “normal”.

        “The American Psychological Association, which has done a number of nationally recognized studies stating that gay parents don’t have any negative effects on their children based on their sexuality, supports gay adoption.”

        So they cherry-picked which studies they’d recognize as showing SCIENTIFIC proof that there’s NO NEGATIVE effects on children. They can say this, probably, because they don’t consider 33-58% of gay-raised kids being gay themselves to be “negative” because they’ve already redefined “normal”. See how easy it is?

        From that lesbian’s op-ed:

        “Not only can these techniques cause significant harm, their stated goal — changing a gay kid into a straight kid — cannot be achieved.”

        And so she states as FACT something that these studies of children raised in gay homes seem to prove is not fact. If a likely born-heterosexual child can identify as a homosexual after being raised in a home BY homosexuals, then does it not logically follow that a gay person can be treated somehow to change his or her sexual identity? These studies show that sexual identity is changeable. If it can change one way, it can change another.

        They also publish studies attempting to prove that being conservative and/or religious IS a form of mental illness or defect. So much for scientific truth.

        These associations have all become political arms of the progressives in the DemoncRAT party. Just as all of academia is infiltrated and undermined. Via academia and these associations, the students of America are similarly indoctrinated. Simply look at the percentage of students who study psychology, sociology, or education and the scope of the problem becomes apparent.

        They warp the research results on the effects of abortion, too. They will not suffer scientists to study the effects. They WANT to ignore the emotional pain that some women who abort suffer, immediately after or even years in the future. So the effects aren’t studied but if they are, they distort the findings or will not allow them to be published if they show the very real emotional anguish that many women suffer after abortion. Not all, but many. Similarly, they won’t allow studies showing the physical effects of abortion. Remember the outcry when a study showed that women who abort have a higher incidence of breast cancer? They want to deny reality. It’s simply because women who give birth and nurse children have a lower incidence of breast cancer. But even that simple and logical explanation MUST BE suppressed lest women decide to carry a baby to term rather than to abort. Why does it sometimes seems as if they WANT women to abort? That’s the question. Why is it SO IMPORTANT to them?

        • Tell me: What’d I say? A perfect example:

          “Many fathers insist that their cross-dressing sons change clothes before stepping outside—especially if neighbors are starting to snicker. A German dad is quickly becoming an international hero for taking an entirely different approach.

          When Nils Pickert moved his family from open-minded West Berlin to a more conservative small southern German town, locals rolled their eyes at his dress-wearing son. His 5-year-old boy became too embarrassed to put on his favorite frocks.

          Pickert decided to teach his son a lesson in self-confidence and started wearing skirts around town himself.

          I didn’t want to talk my son into not wearing dresses and skirts,” Pickert told the German feminist magazine EMMA. “He didn’t make friends in doing that in Berlin already and after a lot of contemplation I had only one option left: To broaden my shoulders for my little buddy and dress in a skirt myself.”

          A photo of the two dressed like twins (dad in a red skirt and son in a red sundress) appears in the German feminist magazine EMMA and is now spreading like wildfire across the Internet. People are applauding this father for teaching his son that you don’t have to conform to society’s gender expectations. Gawker called Pickert “Father of the Year.””

          You cannot make this stuff up. San Francisco blog. Where else?

  10. Published on Aug 1, 2012 by Article2SuperPAC

    ~Our Humble Servant~ ….. I’m here 2….LEARN!!!!
    He’s the MAN!!!!!!…. he is a MAN!!! he is OUR MAN!….MITT ROMNEY….
    ….or as Hushpuppy says…. I’M THE MAN!!!!!!!!!


    That’s a funny post by Michelle Malkin. She lists the new racial code words that conservatives aren’t supposed to use. Basically, anything we say about Obama is racist.

    • A synopsis of the week that was…

      Republicans Join the Battle
      After a shaky start, the convention hits its stride.
      August 31, 2012, 7:00 p.m
      We’ll know in 9½ weeks. You’re bored with politics?
      Kid, right now is when it gets interesting.

    It’s all cheap BS…working to scare others celebrities…toe the line or we will destroy you.



    “Last week, I had the occasion to cross paths with “revered” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been for many years the darling of conservatives, a judge who they believed had the guts to enforce the Rule of Law and the Constitution in the face of corrosive influences, foreign and domestic. I took the occasion to ask him a simple question, one he would be able to answer. I asked the “constitutionalist” Scalia what he believed to be the definition of “natural born citizen,” without asking him to render an opinion on whether Obama was eligible to be president, given that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States at the time he claims falsely that he was born here.

    Looking like a deer in the headlights and stuttering sheepishly, Justice Scalia responded, “I don’t know. Isn’t a natural born citizen a person born in this country?” I pressed on, asking “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?” Again, Justice Scalia, pulling back out of apparent fright at having to give a straight answer, responded in the same fashion, I don’t know.”

    • OMG! Speechless here in Dallas!

      Who is as smart as a Supreme Ct. Justice?
      WTP are!

      Do we have to educate our Supremes like we are doing for our citizens? How could they rule on eligibility if they don’t know the answer as to what constitutes a NBC? Are we all flabbergasted or what?

    • he wasn’t “flummoxed” he’s just too smart to answer it and get embroiled in the controversy when it may come before the court. he has to be careful not to get himself recused, or from the pr perspective, appearing to have an opinion on a case/agenda going in, rather than deciding on the merits of the arguments before the court. sly like a fox.

  15. “The first Birthers were the Mainstream Media (MSM)”

    Published on Sep 1, 2012 by TheDrRJP

    The Confidence Game
    Team Obama won’t come out and say it, but it believes the race is in the bag.
    Major Garrett

  17. Obama: GOP Convention Was from Era of Black-and-White TV
    The president said the GOP event showcased bad ideas from the last century.

    O….. RNC … just a rerun …. that’s why O’s running in circles….

    • Maybe so, but I prefer that VISION to the fantasy “hope and change” that Obama sold too many in 2008.

      This was their talking point, planned even before the convention. I remember reading about it.

      btw, I just watched Clint Eastwood’s performance and Bill Maher was right: He was fabulous. It was stunning. We don’t have to be masochists and reelected some guy just because he appears to be nice (or not so nice). However, that article about the Obama campaign feeling as if they have it in the bag, that’s scary because that, coupled with Scalia running scared from the topic of NBC, reminds me just too, too much of the inevitability of his first selection.

    • “It was a rerun. We’d seen it before. HA! duh! no wonder he’d made that comment. yeah, maybe he did watch the GOP Convention as a rerun, and his staff did see the Convention BEFORE he did. Because according to White House spokesman Jay Carney Obama “did not” even watch the GOP Convention! Obama watched sports instead!

      Obama watching sports while people in New Orleans were scrambling for their lives!

      Carney: Obama ‘Did Not’ Watch Republican Convention, Instead Watched Sports

      August. 29, 2012

      White House spokesman Jay Carney said President Obama “did not” watch the Republican last night. Instead, Carney said, Obama watched sports. Via the pool report:

      When the conversation turned to the Republican convention, Mr. Carney was asked whether the president watched any of the speeches last night.

      “He did not,” he said. “I was with him and afterward he was working on his briefing books and reading a lot of material, watching sports, but not watching the convention…He had other things to do.”

    Chuck Norris Dire Warning for America….. are we listening???

  19. Capitulation by one of the Leftist Leaders? [Does he see the writing on the great wall of Obama?]
    Michael Moore: ‘Get used to saying President Romney’ [It is easy to say Mikey!]
    White House in panic – ‘People should start to practice the words’
    August 31

    TAMPA, Fla. – What a difference four years make.

    Early signs emerging from Democrats during the Republican National Convention indicate the White House and influential activists are in a panic, fearing that Gov. Mitt Romney is increasingly likely to emerge victorious Nov. 6.

    The Obama campaign has sent out a fundraising email by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., warning Democratic supporters that Obama is in the process of being “Swift-Boated” by conservative PACs, while filmmaker Michael Moore has predicted in a Huffington Post interview that Romney will win.
    Moore is concerned with Obama’s inability to raise money 2008-style.[No illegal foreign money flowing into his coffers?]

    • Yeah, Mitt will win because he raised more money Mikey, oh sure, that is the ticket. Or might it be Obama will lose in a landslide because the majority of citizens aren’t supporting the minority comprised of anti-American radicals who spew you. (Moore – the hypocrite – who made his money off of the backs and talents of others in a capitalist system that he now has the nerve to denigrate.). The majority doesn’t go along with the views of the Ismistas – the socialists, Marxists, communists, or any of the anti – capitalism freaks. That will be the reason Obama loses Mikey, not because of the amount of money the campaigns raised or didn’t raise.

    • Did you guys happen to see who’s going to speak at the convention? Mooch, of course. But also, get ready: CARTER! He’ll be jumping for joy that he’s lost his title as worst potus evah. This is the best: ELIZABETH WARREN, aka Fauxcahontas. Where ELSE but the DemoncRAT party would a fraud like her, someone who stole a scholarship from a true minority individual, be applauded and featured as a headline speaker instead of being forced to drop out of her race for the Senate? The media excoriates Akin for misspeaking about rape, but this woman, a total fraud and cheat, is going to be featured at the DemoncRAT convention. Have they NO SHAME at all? DemoncRATS can BE rapists, can have boyfriends who run prostitution rings out of their shared apartments, can hide dirty money in their freezers, can be PHONY NATIVE AMERICANS and still be applauded. A news story today said of Warren that she’s “known as” a woman who made a good case for huge government, as an anti-capitalist. (Well, they didn’t say it in those words, but that was the gist.) I nearly puked. NO, she’s not known for that speech–she’s known, if known at all, for being a FRAUD. A liar and a fraud. What else can you call someone who lied about her ancestry and shoved ahead in line to steal away a Harvard scholarship that should have gone to someone from that intended minority? Who else is speaking? JOHN KERRY, the so-called war hero who threw away his unearned medals. Where are the Hollywood celebs who pretend to so love Obama? Have they suffered financially, not only because of his policies but also because their audience is deserting their “art” in droves because they insult us in flyover country with their BIG MOUTHS? Where’s George Clooney? Isn’t he going to speak? Where’s Sean Penn? Isn’t he going to speak? But Clinton will speak. What will Bill say (this accused rapist)? Will lightning strike and will the clouds part and will Bill become our hero by TELLING THE WORLD JUST WHO BARACK OBAMA IS? Obama wants to vet Bill’s speech. So far, he won’t let them.


      • From that story: “Hillary rejected her husband’s advice that she run against a sitting president of her own party. But that didn’t stop Bill Clinton from going on a rant about Obama.

        “I’ve heard more from Bush, asking for my advice, than I’ve heard from Obama,” my sources quoted Clinton as saying. “I have no relationship with the president — none whatsoever. Obama doesn’t know how to be president. He doesn’t know how the world works. He’s incompetent. He’s an amateur!”

        Why, then, is Clinton making a speech on behalf of a man for whom he has such little respect? And why is Obama putting his nomination in the hands of man he doesn’t trust?

        My sources inside the Obama campaign tell me that the last thing Obama wanted to see was Clinton, one of the country’s greatest orators, standing at the podium of the Democratic convention and sucking all the air out of the place.

        The president, First Lady Michelle Obama and their senior political adviser, Valerie Jarrett, all argued strenuously against offering Clinton a plum assignment at the convention. They wanted to relegate him to a minor, non-prime-time speaking role. However, Clinton, who is viewed as an iconic figure by the party faithful, refused to accept anything less than the all-important nominating speech and threatened to boycott the convention unless his demands were met.”

        So Bill, suck away. Please. Make our day.

    • He’s being the Stooge that we can always count on Moore being. A fundraising ploy. Strike fear in the heart of the progressives. Why isn’t Mikey speaking at the convention? Do you really think there will be 10,000 OWS protestors on hand?

  20. Bridgette… Judge Scalia jerking us all for FOOLS? If I was Larry Klayman a former Justice Dept. Prosecutor heard him stuttering…pulling back….& saying I DON’T KNOW…. I would give him MY CARD & will wait for that answer soon! WHO the F* does he THINK he is a flunky … or a JUDGE?….it was not being taped so he thinks it would not stick & he could RUN & HE could HIDE!!! NO more of this s***…were sinking in s***… it will STOP & he needs to be exposed
    24/7…. Just like CLINT said….. Not doing your JOB MAN….U Got 2 GO!

  21. Alabama GOP Quashes Challenge To Obama Legitimacy
    September 1, 2012

    On August 8th, a pair of Republican conservative stalwarts went before a sub-committee of the Alabama GOP in Birmingham asking for their support in a proposed court suit challenging the legitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States.

    Hugh McInnish and his lawyer Dean Johnson, both members of the state’s Republican Executive Committee, asked that the Party join with them in asking the court to issue an order to the Alabama Secretary of State requiring her to obtain from Obama a genuine birth certificate before putting his name on the ballot. Without such participation by the Party, it was unlikely that the court would hear the case owing to the petitioner’s lack of standing.

    The sub-committee rejected the request by a vote of 9-to-7, with many of the leaders below the chairman voting yea.

    Cameras nor recorders were allowed in the hearing room, so we have done the next best thing. In the video here, Dean Johnson and Hugh McInnish have repeated their presentations just as they were given to the sub-committee of the Republican Party. The names of those supporting the motion are given at the end of the presentations. It would be excellent if viewers would express their appreciation to them.

    Also, please encourage the Republican leaders you know to find the courage to speak up regarding the fake birth certificates that Obama has submitted.

    This issue has the potential to win the election outright.

    • He was fabulous. Those who didn’t “get it” didn’t want to get it. They wanted to diminish the effect of what he said. Yes, it was subtle but devastating. He did NOT ramble at all. They didn’t get it that he was pretending to listen to Barry telling him to tell Romney to go eff himself. Then later, Barry told Clint to go eff himself. It was great. Clint knew what he was doing every second of the performance, which he did without notes or a teleprompter. Something Barry can’t even accomplish. Clint is not an acting and directing icon for nothing. He’s so multi-talented that any of his many “careers” out accomplish anything Barry’s ever done, including pretending to be the potus. Dr. [of music and humane letters] Clint Eastwood is an actor, director, Academy Award winner, jazz aficianado, local politician, restaurateur, pilot, philanthropist, musician, pianist, first-class swimmer, military veteran, producer, composer, former mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea (wish I were there), businessman, cultural icon, and even forest firefighter. Still cool and oh, so cute.

    Hey folks… have a seat… but please don’t put your feet on OUR table!

    • Well, there isn’t any bias in the media that he watches. They are all clones of each other. Monkey see, monkey dos directed from either the the WH or John Podesta. A discerning mind can read two different views and come to a conclusion. If they aren’t exposed to any other views, they have nothing to relate to. I guess he doesn’t see a problem with all of the articles regurgitating the same information at about the same time either. Well, he participates in those little chats with Begala and the Louisiana numbskull, and can’t see the similarity in articles? They live in a bubble that doesn’t allow any extraneous information to filter through. They repeat their lies so often they can’t tell the difference between truth and fiction. They are perfect little comrades who have lost their ability to interpret or analyze… if they ever had that ability. They are just used up propaganda tools. They get told what to write and think in order to keep their jobs. They aren’t supposed to be in bed with government, they are supposed to question it.

  23. If anyone cited this controversy already, I missed it. This is DISGUSTING. Talk about a War on Women. A guy who works for Nickelodeon tweeted the most vile, sexist, insulting, dishonorable, hateful things about Mrs. Ryan AND Mrs. Romney. Does the media care? Apparently not, since I’ve seen this only on Breitbart. Does Nickelodeon care? Apparently not; they actually link kids to this guy’s tweets from their own website. I’m not going to copy the tweets. You can read them there, if you dare. Or here:

    After it became public, the guy deleted his tweets, but they were saved.

    “Yes, that’s right, Nickelodeon directs your children to a Twitter account filled with sexist talk of bleached assholes, incest (complete with photos), “cock,” photos of dildos, and Chick-fil-A trashing.

    To me the story here isn’t yet one more actor revealing himself as an intolerant, woman-hating, sexual degenerate — it’s that parents cannot trust Nickelodeon to protect their children from pornographic talk, hate, and religious bigotry. In fact, Nickelodeon encourages your children to click their way into this world.

    If you’re at all interested in protecting your children’s innocence, Nickelodeon has proven itself a shatterer of that innocence.

    Stay away, parents… and keep your children even further away.”

    Shapiro has challenged Nickelodeon to respond; we’ll see if they do.

    You gotta ask yourself: Would this be front page news if a conservative had said similar things about Michelle Obama or Mrs. Biden?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s