The Obama War On Women

The Romney Obama War On Women

Women are smart, Mr. President. Watch out!

Obama War On Women

92.3 percent of jobs lost under Obama were lost by women!

While Hypocrite-In-Chief Obama fabricates one false charge after another against Mitt Romney, he and the Obama Media hide the devastating consequences Obama’s policies have had on American women. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between January 2009, when Obama took office, and March 2012, there has been a net decline of 740,000 jobs for both men and women. But (it’s a big BUT) among women there has been a net loss of 683,000 jobs. So 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under Obama were lost by women! Whoa, wait a minute, that can’t be. Obama loves women. He gives them all kinds of free stuff for goodness sake. I mean you don’t give free stuff to someone unless you love them. Right? Or unless you want them to vote for you. Hmm, yeah, there’s that.

The truth is, Obama’s economic flimflam has wreaked havoc on both men and women but it has taken a monumentally disproportionate hit on women. I repeat: 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under Obama have been lost by women! That means only 7.7 percent were lost by men. You can play with the numbers until your head bursts but it won’t change the facts. So did Obama sit down behind his big president desk one day and figure out how to hurt women more than men? I certainly hope not. No, it’s just that his policies happened to hurt women much more than men. But no matter what he had in mind, the net result is that women have suffered enormously under Obama and there is no relief in sight. It’s no wonder women can’t afford to pay for their own birth control pills!

“Romney’s War On Women”

Now, let’s take a look at “Romney’s War On Women.” Oh, we have a little problem: There is none. Come on all you Liberal hard heads, just for a few short minutes I want you to take a deep breath, imagine that Barack Obama is not the Messiah, and use some good old-fashion common sense. Why in the world would Mitt Romney declare a war on women? Come on now. You can do this. It is absurd! It is just as absurd as all the other bogus charges Democrats have made against Mitt Romney. (That he was responsible for a woman’s death for just one example.) Does Romney hold some positions that you don’t share? Of course he does. And Obama holds some positions that millions of other Americans don’t share. That is why we have elections. That is how we do things in America. But what we should not do is make up lies about whoever we disagree with in order to destroy their character for the sake of winning an election. You know, like Obama does.

Romney is Pro-Life. He also supports the de-funding of federal taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood, and government mandated free contraception for women. He doesn’t think it’s right that taxpayers who oppose abortion should have to pay for abortions. Nor does he think it is right that people who oppose the use of contraception should have to pay for others to use it. We should all take personal responsibility for our choices. That philosophy has made the United States the most successful country in human history and if we lose it, we will surely fail.

While you have every right to disagree with Romney’s beliefs, you do not have the right to impose your beliefs on others. Again, that is why we have elections. Furthermore, to disagree with a candidate’s position on an issue should not give anyone a license to mount unfair, dishonest, vicious attacks on that candidate.

Obama the baby killer?

What if Romney called Obama a baby killer for his position on late-term abortions? As an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted repeatedly to defeat a law that would have saved the lives of babies born alive during botched abortions. He did so in spite of at least one case in which a live baby was unceremoniously placed on a towel and allowed to die while distraught nurses in the delivery room were prevented by law from administering life-saving procedures. Of course my point is that even in that factually-based issue, Romney has refrained from exploiting it. Yet Obama never misses an opportunity to viciously attack Romney with wholly fabricated charges. It is despicable.

The Obama Administration Mistreats Women: Wage disparity and much more …

Now, let’s look at a few more examples of the Obama War On Women. Records show that female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues. What? Where do I get this stuff? Glad I asked. According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees, which was $71,000. Oh me and my facts. Yeah, I know. But it gets worse. Even though Obama White House women earn considerably less than their male counterparts, the Obama campaign trashed Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which extended the time in which women could file lawsuits against employers that discriminate against women on equal pay. To be perfectly clear for all you Liberal diehards: Romney is for (NOT AGAINST) equal pay for women. But the real question is: Did any female employees at the White House file lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act, and if not, why not?

There’s more

Former Obama Economic Advisor, Christina Romer, “I felt like a piece of meat.” (working in the Obama White House”)

“Even when women are in the room with Obama, they are sometimes seen but not heard.” Time Magazine

“… Obama himself is responsible for a work atmosphere that marginalizes and ignores women.” Time Magazine

“The president has a real woman problem.” Reported in book by Nia-Malika Henderson, Women In Obama White House Felt Excluded And Ignored

Alright, if you insist, I’ll throw in one more: Former Obama White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, described attitudes in the White House as fitting

“… all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” – and “This place would be in court for a hostile workplace.”

So how is Obama doing with the female vote? He is not doing great with married women and women with children but he is winning with young single women. But let’s be clear: Women are smart and if the media starts to do their job and they tell the truth, even the young women will change their minds about Barack Obama. After all, he is hurting them right now and under his policies, their future’s don’t look bright at all. The majority of married women and mothers have already figured it out and it is just a matter of time before the young single women do the same—at least for their sake, I hope so.

Rosie The Riveter

It’s a hard pill to swallow

There, there. I know this has given you Liberals a migraine. It is because your brains are overloading trying to compute this horribly dissonant information. Not to worry. There is a cure. As foreign as it may sound to you, it is really quite simple: Just open your minds to new, honest information. One of our presidents rightfully cautioned that, “The nine scariest words are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” Thomas Jefferson said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

While President Obama tells you that he is your guardian angel, his treatment of women in his own administration is deplorable and his economic policies have wreaked havoc on women in particular. Those are incontrovertible facts. You are being conned! Barack Obama is not in love with women, he is in love with the female vote. Ignore the facts at your own peril.

Personal responsibility is at the heart of American greatness

Learn to respect the rights of other people with whom you disagree. Accept the idea that you cannot always get your way and that other American citizens should not have to pay for free stuff for which you, yourselves, as adults, should be responsible. They aren’t asking you to pay for their stuff so don’t ask them to pay for your stuff.

To Liberals: You have read the facts. Now it’s time to take action. Call the White House, your congressional representatives, and the Obama Media and demand that President Obama end his War On Women. No, I will not hold my breath, but thank you for asking.




The Media Hide Obama Associations

The Media Hide The Truth From The Public

Media BiasOne of the most remarkable things that distinguished Election 2008 from all other presidential elections was the media’s blatant policy of hiding the real history and past associations of a presidential candidate.

It is undeniable that if a Republican presidential candidate had even one association with a radical right-wing activist, he or she would not have become the Republican nominee. First, the Republican Party would not have allowed it and, second, the media would have launched a relentless campaign to destroy him or her, politically.

Yet, not only did the Democratic Party nominate a man who for over twenty years almost exclusively surrounded himself with extreme anti-American, radical activists, the American media were as determined to hide this truth from us as they would have been determined to reveal such associations if the candidate were a Republican. We may as well be living in a fascist country in which the media is strictly controlled by the political party in power. The result is the same.

For all who may object to this line of criticism, I can only wonder why. It is fact, not speculation that the media hide Obama associations along with virtually anything negative that could harm his presidency or his bid for reelection. If you think it is unfair or harmful in some way to report all the facts, then I suggest that you do not understand how our political system works. The health of our nation depends on an informed citizenry. Beginning with George Washington, our founders as well many leaders since then have warned of the consequences of an uninformed public. Politicians can manipulate ignorant people but not well informed people.

So the critical importance of an honest, professional media cannot be overstated. We depend on them to honestly and objectively inform us, yet to our detriment, far too many of them are nothing more than agenda-driven propagandists. All Americans should be outraged by this because their dishonesty endangers us all. It cuts into the very fabric of our constitutional republic and weakens the foundational principles upon which the survival of our nation depends. Today, they may favor the Left, yet tomorrow they may lean Right, so do you see the problem?

See also:




The Bush Failed Economic Policies

Let’s review them

Barack Obama and the Democrats repeatedly use the phrase “The Bush failed economic policies.” Yet the facts reveal their dishonesty. Here is a brief review.

President Bush’s Economic Policies Resulted In Creation Of 8.31 Million Jobs Beginning August 2003 In The Longest Continuous Months Of Job Growth On Record

November 2, 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures. From August 2003, 8.31 million jobs were created, with 1.68 million jobs created over the 12 months that ended in October. The economy added jobs for 50 straight months – the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remained at a low 4.7 percent.

The U.S. Economy Remained Strong, Flexible, And Dynamic

  • Real GDP grew at a strong 3.9 percent in the third quarter of 2007. The economy experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year from 2001.
  • Real after-tax per capita personal income rose by 12.7 percent – an average of over $3,800 per person – from when President Bush took office.
  • Real wages rose 1.2 percent over the 12 months that ended in September. This rise was faster than the average rate during the 1990s.
  • From the first quarter of 2001, productivity growth averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.
  • The deficit was at 1.2 percent of GDP, well below the 40-year average. Economic growth contributed to a 6.7 percent rise in tax receipts in FY 2007, following an increase of 11.8 percent in FY 2006.

So Obama and the Democrats continue to lie about the Bush economic policies. It is just one more important story that the Obama Media do not want you to hear.




Bush Warned Us Of A Potential Financial Crisis

By MacPundit

Barack Obama continues to blame the Bush Administration for our current financial crisis. He charges President Bush with incompetence for his failure to identify the problems and for not seeking reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Is this accurate? The answer is: Not even close! Here are the facts:

President Bush warned us of a potential financial crisis, repeatedly. So did other members of his administration.

For many years President Bush and his Administration not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded. The President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of congressional Democrats who emphatically denied there were problems.

Here is the record:

2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (”Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market’s] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

·“Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

·“[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

·“Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

Also see Obama Blames Bush For Our Financial Crisis