641.) The first shots in the Republican “war on women” were fired when those evil conservatives took issues with the government striping an employers right to choose whether or not to provide free birth control. Of course the progressives are trying to turn this into an issue of Republicans hating women.
Well an interesting little fact has surfaced from the bowels of the White House. President Obama has gone on the record several times talking about the disperity in wages between men and women. In July of 2010 President Obama said, “Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income, and with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.” Well that is shocking, seeing as the Women working at the White House earn on average $60,000 a year, where as their male counter parts make on average $71,000 a year, thats an 18% difference. So if there is a war on women, are Democrats and Progressives really on their side, is it really Republicans and Conservatives who are out to get them? In the end its just another case of politics as usual and President Obama’s hipocrisy.
642.) This is dealing with an earlier post “President Obama Almighty”. There was a hailstorm after President Obama’s remarks about the Supreme Court, to try to calm things down President Obama sent his Jay Carney our to set the record straight, here is the line of questions that caught my interest.
“Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?
Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.
Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.
Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.”
What I found interesting here is first the arrogance of Jay Carney. Oh we aren’t smart enough to understand the President because he was using some strange language that only legal experts understand. I understood it pretty clearly, it sounded like a political speech, what President Obama was trying to say was pretty clear. So yet another example of the arrogance of the Obama Administration.
The second item that I found interesting, and just continues to drive me up a wall, is that people actually believe that President Barack Obama was at one time a Consitutional Law Professor, he was never actually a professor he was what is known as a Senior Lecturer. The school has come to consider him to have basically been a part time professor, but he never held the professor title. A technicallity I know, but it bothers me. It probably wouldn’t had he not called himself a professor in 2007 then say “which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution” then upon his election tare the Consitution up and decided to run the country like outside of the law.
643.) Most of us have heard about the attack on Ann Romeny by Democrat strategist Hilary Rosen, if you have not hear is what she said, “His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and how do we . . . why we worry about their future”. Now Ms. Rosen has sense appologized and many of those on the inside of the administration have expressed outrage over the comment. That is not what bothers me. No what bothers me once again rest on the shoulders of President Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney.
Whenever there is a scandaless comment made in the world of politics questions arise, and people demand answers. Where do you go when you want answers, why the source. When asked about the subject Mr. Carney answered by stating how President Obama has helped women and how those Evil Republicans have waged a relentless war against the fairer sex. When pushed about about the fact that Ms. Rosen was a frequent visitor at the White House, having been there 35 times according to the White House logs, Carney had this outrageous answer to give, “I haven’t seen the records. I don’t know that Hillary Rosen– I know three personally, women named Hillary Rosen. So I‘m not sure that those represent the person we’re talking about necessarily.” That is the best answer that he can give, that is what he resorts to, I don’t know if it is the same person, does that really mesh in anyones mind? To all of you progressives out there do you really believe that there is a doubt if the Hillary Rosen, the Democrat Strategist, is the Hillary Rosen who visited the White House, which is currently occupied by a Demcorat President, 35 times? The arrogance, the sheer and unadulterated contempt of the American People makes my blood boil.
There are other ways of handling this issue, for example you start off just as he had, “I haven’t seen the records,” then you could say something like, “so I personally cannot confirm that,” okay so you established you haven’t seen the records, you established that you cannot confirm if she had been at the White House 35 times, now you continue the respectful tone, “Once I know more I can address that.” then if you must you could throw a joke in there, “I know three Hilary Rosens, I hate to tell you that it was the one, and it turn out that it was one of the others who made all those trips”. You come off as funny, respectful and don’t full an already raging fire of political outrage. But no, Mr. Carney has to slap everyone in the face.