November 15, 2008 — Assigned Reading

Border Agents’ Prosecutor Defends ‘Righteous’ Case as Judge Upholds Lengthy Imprisonment
(FROM: CNS News) As we’ve done before at America’s Right, let’s review the timeline:

  • First, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila was confronted near El Paso, Texas by Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean as he attempted to smuggle 743 pounds of pot into the United States from Mexico. He presented what the agents thought was a gun, and was shot in the ass and escaped back across the border into Mexico.
  • Ramos and Compean were charged with, among other things, violating the constitutional rights of a Mexican criminal that shouldn’t be in America in the first place.
  • U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton goes out of his way to punish American Border Agents and advance a culture of lawlessness, seeking out Davila in Mexico and offering (1) prosecutorial immunity for the smuggling incident, (2) free medical care to patch up his rightfully perforated ass, and (3) amnesty so he can travel to and from Mexico unmolested, all so the drug smuggler will testify against the agents being punished for doing their job.
  • Davila then uses the amnesty and immunity received from Sutton to facilitate more drug smuggling adventures, hauling 800 pounds of pot into America months later.
  • Sutton, after that, managed to keep news of the repeat offenses from being heard by the jury in the case against the Border Patrol agents, and Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are sentenced to 11 and 12 years in federal prison, respectively.

Now, while agents Compean and Ramos continue to languish in solitary confinement for 23 out of 24 hours each day, and after Davila received a lighter sentence than those who were doing their job in preventing him and his cargo from unlawfully entering America, Johnny Sutton calls it a “righteous prosecution.”

It appears that these wronged agents’ only hope lies in President Bush essentially reducing their sentences to time served before he leaves the Oval Office in about two months’ time. I hope he does so, and will be writing a few letters to that effect. I encourage all of you to do the same.

GOP Senator: McCain Betrayed Republican Principles
(FROM: CNN) I really like Sen. Jim DeMint, and look forward to May of 2010 when we leave behind the doldrums of Philadelphia and become one of his constituents. With regard to this particular matter, he’s right, but he should not limit his criticisms to John McCain. Indeed, rather than it being specifically McCain who betrayed Republican principles, I think it’s been the Republicans who have betrayed conservatism as a whole. The era of big-tent, big-government Republican leadership must end, and Sen. DeMint will undoubtedly be a large part of moving the party in the right direction, quite literally.


Change You Can Conceive In
(FROM: Newsweek) If a hippie swears that he showered, but nobody was there to see it, does he still smell like patchouli and feet? More importantly, is the euphoria among the American political left about President-elect B.O. enough for a potential mate to overcome the average tree hugger’s B.O.? In this Newsweek article, Jessica Bennett contends that not only could the happiness stemming from Obama’s election be enough to cause a miniature baby boom, but that Obama himself may have been the result of post-JFK-election coitus.

Will Men Dominate Obama Administration?
(FROM: Politico) Okay, so let me get this straight — an accomplished woman, a governor and mother of five is on the GOP ticket as possible vice president, and the women’s groups didn’t seem to mind that she was attacked as a parent, as a careerwoman and as a woman in general, but they’re up in arms about a lack of female representation in Obama’s administration? I’ve said all along that the women’s rights movement in America was less about women and more about women who fit the movements’ ultra-left ideology … this is just another example of that overt double-standard.

President Bush: The Surest Path to Prosperity
(FROM: The Wall Street Journal) In a Thursday speech, President Bush maintained that the free market system is “the way to go” for those who seek “economic growth, social justice and human dignity.” Interesting statement coming from a man who thought it necessary to essentially permit blank, taxpayer-funded checks to be written to companies and organizations which teeter on the brink of failure due to their own–and to the federal government’s–malfeasance. I don’t see how someone can endorse the free market system just weeks after facilitating the privatization of gains and socialization of losses, but that’s just me.



  1. Anonymous says:

    Jeff, I don’t want to get off subject here, but I really would like to ask you a question and I’d like you to be really, really honest with me. – There are currently about a dozen lawsuits in either state, federal, or the Supreme Court. In your honest opinion, will any of these lawsuits be heard and if so, will any of them have any merit to either gain access to the infamous birth certificate or to decertify the election due to the inedibility of the candidate? – Honestly…???

  2. let's move forward says:

    Someone has presented an argument for standing by a person in the military. Let’s keep the link somewhere on this site as a military person may volunteer to serve as plaintiff.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Stupid question time. Again.

    Or, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Tinfoil Hats But Was Afraid to Ask.

    I asked this earlier on another post, but didn’t get a response so I’ll just ask it again.

    Who can define or tell me the meaning and/or significance of the phrase “tinfoil hat”?

    I keep seeing the phrase used here and I’ve searched through all the reference books on Bartleby and tried to find the meaning but can’t.

    Can anyone help me out? I’d like to have an explanation so I’m not struggling to define this phrase for myself based on context.

    Thanks readers!

    November 14, 2008 11:46 PM

  4. Über says:


    Here’s another twist.

    Have you seen this? What do you think of it?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Correction…from the post above:

    “…election due to the inedibility of the candidate? – Honestly…???”

    Should read:

    “…election due to the ineligibility of the candidate? – Honestly…???”

    Sorry for the typo!

  6. Anonymous says:

    I’m so glad I had my tubes tied! I think there will be a boom for this kind of thing instead.

    I can’t imagine getting pregnant in this day and time knowing what looms ahead. I really believe people are going to take measures.

  7. Ian Thorpe says:

    Free Markets and Prosperity:

    The problem with free market philosophies Jeff is that without regulation free markets cannot exist, human nature gets in the way.

    The major success of my second writing career was when I scripted a BBC documentary series on markets. We covered the earliest beginnings when people brought their surplus produce to the town square, the rise of commodity and livestock markets (again where actual goods were bought and sold on the spot) and the beginnings of institutions like the Stock Exchanges and the Insurance market Lloyds of London.

    It was a fascinating topic but one thing I learned was that no successful market has ever been “free.” All are bound with a strict set of rules and overseen by a governing body with the power to expel traders who break those rules.

    The oil price insanity of the early summer months was due to a badly regulated market. Traders were buying and selling oil they did not own, trading futures contracts and making long term commitments in anticipation of oil going to $200 a barrel. Oil is now close to $50 a barrel again because nobody is buying; they are all having to honour contracts made at much higher prices. As soon as damand picks up and new contracts are made prices will go up once more.

    Going back to my documentary scripts, the practice of buying up goods to “forestall” the market with the aim of creating a shortage and forcing prices up was common in medieval times. The local baron would have his men stop traders on the way to market and “buy” all of a commodity at the price the Baron dictated. If the trader did not sell and refused to turn back he would be robbed a little way along the road. (very simple economic principles in those days) Thus the only person selling that commodity was the Baron, working through his agents of course.

    Forestalling the market still goes on, the scale is bigger now, a little more subtlety is involved but the big players dictate how much the producer will receive and manipulate supply to inflate the prices the market will bear.

    Free markets are a very effective way of doing trade but when they are so free that the small players can be squeezed out by bigger operators the markets are neither free nor do they benefit the wider community.

    America’s prosperity is currently under threat from China and India. These nations will pay more to producers for commodities, knowing they can take advantage of lower manufacture and distribution costs to continue to undercut American exports.

    When you think of it like that, lightv regulation starts to look a much better option.

    I get the impression the American right are suffering a mega hangover from the anti-socialist nonsense written in the cold war. The USSR was not a socialist state in anything but name and Adolf Hitler’s party was named the National Socialists. Both were in fact fascist, a term which has its origins in The Roman Empire.

    In actual fact the fathers of the American state were socialists, why do you think their families had got out of authoritarian England? All men equal in the eyes of the law, free speech and the rest. These things would never have been tolerated under the Hanovrian monarchs. Also it has always been said that the British Labour party owes more to methodism than to Marxism. The philosophies of John Wesley and the Moravian Church that influenced him are certainly socialist, emphasising the duty of the community to the individual and of the individual to the community as well as calling for universal enfranchisement, state funded education, welfare payments to alleviate hardship… These are all very reasonable demands when seen from the perspective of the eightenth century. It all starts to go pear – shaped when we mix these excellent (some would say Christian but I am not religious) principles with the late twentieth century politically correct thinking of middle class guilt trippers. We can correct the failings of the past without having to spend our whole lives apologising for them.

    There are so many isms it gets confusing but what I read of as socialism in American blogs is the centralised state collectivism of the Bolsheviks, the harldline elite that emerged victorious from the chaos of the Russian revolution, not the moderate social reforms of liberal thinkers which were aimed as creating a society in which people could better themselves, rise above the class in which they were born or prosper materially within that class.

    The Bolsheviks, in comon with Sidi Obama and his buddies were an elite, control freaks who suppressed individual freedom and tried to create an Orwellian system in which people could not think for themselves, literature was suppressed and everything came from the hierarchy.

    Now that kind of government is truly to be feared and must be resisted at all costs.

  8. Anonymous says:

    How did you upload or get the code for the democrats partying? I would love to add that to my blog!!

  9. Ted Park says:

    Critical questions:

    The African Press International web site was just shut down by their service provider for “violations of terms of service”.

    Is this a good riddance of fradulent pot-stirrers.


    Is this really REALLY bad?

  10. Anonymous says:

    To Anonymous who asked about the meaning of Tin Foil Hat:

    Don’t ever give up until you do an internet search.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Below is an interesting article written in 1988 (I think…) in the Yale Law Journal regarding the issue of “natural born” citizens and the Presidency of the US. It’s a very legal argument, so its not easy reading, but maybe one of you legal minds might want to approach the translation for those of us that are legally challenged.

  12. Ted Park says:

    I’m posting this on several blogs today to see if I can encourage some “viral” email and posting activity and to encourage some people to send something like this to their local newspapers.

    I am repeatedly amazed, stunned, and frankly staggered, at the unwillingness of my Democrat acquaintances and correspondents to face this issue. The outcome for them could be particularly bad. It seems to me that the rational course of action under such extreme circumstances is to engage in Risk Mitigation.

    It is a fact that Obama has yet to provide the necessary documents showing his eligibility for President. Millions of people in the US know this. The military knows this. Foreigners, even heads of state know this. In particular, if Obama is NOT a US citizen, the country of which he IS a citizen knows this for sure. And would be in a position to perpetrate great harm to Obama and to the US.

    The rational and intelligent approach would be to get this resolved. Seriously, if this were happening to my preferred candidate, I would be screaming the loudest. If I believed in my candidate I would want this cleared up NOW to prevent unrest domestically or internationally. If there were the slightest doubt, the sooner we know the truth the better. The truth (whatever it may be) cannot be hidden for ever. The truth WILL out. It is just a matter of timing.

    The time is NOW – this will not get better later. The problem is not lessened, but worsened, by the Electoral College meeting in December and formalizing his election. The problem is not lessened, but worsened, by the Inauguration in January. No treaty will be safe if there is doubt about the constitutionality of our president. No executive order or signed law will have any power. The military is sworn to protect the constitution, not the president. What will they do (what MUST they do) if eligibility and constitutionality are still at issue?

    Do you have any idea of the ENORMITY of the problems if Obama is indeed not constitutionally eligible?

    And, this is NOT brain surgery or rocket science. This is easily resolved. Please, regardless of your emotions and affiliation, do every thing you can to get this problem resolved. Simply raise a public outcry that Obama must provide the same records that every other presidential candidate has provided. Question why he has not done this so far and why he continues to refuse and to throw dozens of lawyers into the gears to prevent this disclosure from happening.

    America – what is going on?

  13. Anonymous says:

    Ian Thorpe,

    I’m not really sure what you are getting at, but the term ‘socialism’ aside, this whole Obama ‘rule’ boils down to a few things for me:

    1) I do not like cheaters. Obama cheated in the caucuses, cheated in cooperation with ACORN, and cheated on campaign finance. These are all documented facts. He has done nothing to garner my respect so I have none for him.

    2) I do not want my 401K CONFISCATED by the government–yes, that is the word they are using. I also do not want the government deciding how much of what I make I can keep because they don’t want someone who sits on their tush all day to feel bad that they are not prosperous. I believe in equality of opportunity, not necessarily equality of outcomes.

    3) I do not want the “fairness” doctrine reinstated—freedom of speech and all that.

    4) Obama is apparently not even a natural born citizen. If he wants to change this rule, he should have done so before he ran for president, not after the fact. He has said other things that indicate his lack of respect for the Constitution, such as saying it is full of “negative liberties” and “doesn’t go far enough” which lead me to believe he does not even understand what the Constitution is intended to do for our country.

    I could go on, but those are the basics. I don’t care what term we use with his wrangled presidency, but let’s face it, the guy does not support freedom and justice.

  14. Anonymous says:



  15. Anonymous says:

    The article below is from the Lan Lamphere AM Radio show. From what he’s posting, a state court in Virginia has already seen and verified BHO’s birth certificate as being authentic.

    Is this true? …if so, what happens to Berg’s case and others currently in court?


    Virginia State Court Dismisses Action Challenging Obama’s Eligibility to be President
    The November 03, 2008 regarding the Virginia State Court Dismissal Action Challenging Obama’s Eligibility to be President is not the result of a conspiracy, nor is it the result of a biased or unprincipled judge. I would hope all patriotic Americans would feel the same way and avoid making unfounded scurrilous remarks about the judge or the judicial system. (


    There are two parts – first the response on the State’s argument that the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president, second the issues we raised regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship.

    [Part 1: State’s argument that the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president]

    With respect to the first part, the judge noted that in a presidential election, unlike any other election, the electorate votes for a slate of electors, not directly for the presidential candidates. The judge noted that there is no question that all of the proposed VA electors are qualified to hold that position (a position we never contested). The judge recognized the problem with this is that perhaps there is no entity that is responsible for vetting the presidential candidates. Some on this site have argued that the DNC is responsible for vetting their candidates. There is no legal support for that argument. The judge held that the Constitutional requirements for a presidential candidate are to be determined solely by the congress in session when the electoral votes are cast. The court cited Federal legislation further details the process for counting electoral votes in Congress. 3 U.S.C. 15. Section 15, which directs that Congress shall be in session on the appropriate day to count the electoral votes, with the President of the Senate presiding. It directs that designated individuals shall open, count and record the electoral votes, and then present the results to the President of the Senate, who shall then “announce the state of the vote.” The statute provides a mechanism for objections then to be registered and resolved:

    “[e]very objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.”

    Thus the court denied the motion for a writ of mandamaus and dismissed the petition.

    As I mentioned earlier, this was the argument that I think the State had the best chance on and it strikes me as correct. Much as the membership of the Senate is controlled by the senate (see, e.g. the senator Stevens discussion), the constitution places the power to determine presidential eligibility on the congress.

    Based on this, our real battle should be to contact our representatives and senators and make certain that an objection is brought at the time of the counting of the electoral votes. Remember, this will be the new congress, so wait until Wednesday when you know who your new representatives and senators are.

    The Court could have ended there, but it went beyond this initial holding and addressed our other arguments (this is not uncommon – just as lawyers often make alternate arguments, courts regularly provide alternate holdings in case one is rejected).

    [Part 2: issues we raised regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship]

    The Court made the following findings:
    1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.

    The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

    2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.

    The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

    3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:

    “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..

    is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

    4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:

    “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

    1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

    2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

    Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963. However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

    The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

    5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

    The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”

    “There is no need to file a lawsuit against Barack Obama. No court will ever hear it and no committee will ever act on it even if it was won.” – Lan Lamphere

  16. Stacy says:

    Mr. Schreiber,

    Can you please update or comment on the status of the Arican Press International’s claim to have a tape recording of Michelle Obama in regard to the birth certificate? You reported in October that Phil Berg had been retained by API and that Berg said the tape existed. API was reporting an imminent release of the tape on Nov. 13th and then their website on Word Press was shut down.

    Comment, please?

  17. Anonymous says:

    Hey anonymous and Tinfoil Hats… read this-
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    A tin foil hat is a piece of headgear made from one or more sheets of tin foil, aluminum foil or similar material. People wear the hats in the belief that they act to shield the brain from such influences as electromagnetic fields, or against alien interference, mind control and mind reading. The idea of wearing a tin foil hat for protection from such threats has become a popular stereotype and term of derision. The phrase serves as a byword for paranoia and is often used to characterize conspiracy theorists.

  18. TJ says:

    Anonymous, the term “tin foil hat” is used to denote people fearing alien mind control and electromagnetic fields. So it’s often used with regard to people who believe in conspiracy theories as well.

    Ever see the movie Signs where the children and uncle are wearing a hat made of tin foil?

  19. MIDDLE CLASS GUY says:

    President Bush better pardon these guys. Compare these guys to the list of hardened criminals that Comrade Clinocchio pardoned the last night in office for various reasons other then they deserved a secOnd chance. These guys were doing their job. I think he should do it now and not wait until the end of term as the coward did.

  20. fleur says:

    With regard to women’s groups, I agree. They should have spoken out,but they are politically driven groups such as NOW with liberal agendas. There is an organization which is speaking out and has been on behalf of Gov. Palin. The NEW agenda.
    A nonpartisan group extolling the accomplishments of women and addressing the misogyny women such as Gov. Palin faced during this past election. We are 52 % of the population but represent only 17% in govt and are 69th in terms of the world with representation of women. And it continues…I can’t believe some of the statements made by some of the governors at their recent convention. Jindal, Pawlenty both on the attack , probably wanting to set themselves up for 2012. Shameful really.

  21. Anonymous says:

    To all those who did their part to eradicate ignorance (mine):

    Thanks for steering me to Wikipedia and the terrific little article on tinfoil hats. Some of it was marvelously amusing.

    I now feel a little embarrassed that I couldn’t figure it out in context. (And I’ll also stop discounting Wiki — I guess the mainstream reference books are kind of like the mainstream media: they cover what they think is fit for us to know. The rest they just ignore.)

    Thanks again!

  22. msjkulig430 says:

    Jeff or readers,

    I received an email from the attorney who is involved in the Alan Keyes case in California. She informed me that she could not validate any information on the “Virgina” lawsuit. No case number, attorney, judge, etc. If anyone has any information on whether or not this case was actually ligit, please post it. Thanks.

  23. Katherine says:

    Jeff and Fleur,

    You are both wrong about women's organizations. Sorry, but this really got to me. They did call out sexism against Palin, especially NOW!

    There are a number of anti-Palin examples in here that NOW calls out as sexist. And they do not claim their list to be remotely comprehensive.

    Women did get livid with the treatment of Palin. And Clinton. And Michelle Obama. And Cindy McCain, though she wasn't talked about as much as the others. It is possible to want to vote against a candidate and still think that she is being unfairly treated in a sexist manner (i.e. how the majority of women feel about Palin — they voted for Obama on average, but were still upset with how Palin was portrayed–from the legs, usually–and talked about.) Just because NOW endorsed Obama/Biden doesn't mean that they didn't sound the horn when Palin was treated badly.

    Get mad at the male-dominated media and liberal blogosphere if you prefer, but don't blame women's groups. If people would actually listen to them, they'd realize these groups are calling out sexism whenever it happens, including for republican candidates.

    I'm a liberal who campaigned and voted for Obama and preferred him over Clinton in the primary. But I spent a lot of time calling out sexism against both Clinton and Palin, even if this was surprising to my male friends who were all, "I thought you liked Obama!" Yes, I do. I'm just sick of double standards and sexism. And I don't get the impression that some republicans are sincere in their sudden caring about sexism:

    (I'm not mad at you — just letting you know about this.)

Speak Your Mind