What was the "women's movement" about? Allegedly, it was to open up previously unavailable choices and options to women and to foster equality with men - socially, sexually and economically.
Why, then, do so many women look to the government, Democrats specifically, to be their provider? As you may or may not know, there is a "gender gap" when it comes to the support each political party enjoys. By and large, men tend to support Republicans, while women tend to support Democrats. When looking at single vs. married women, this gap narrows, with a larger percentage of married women supporting Republicans than single women.
Perhaps women have bought into the notion pushed by Democrats and reinforced by the compliant liberal media that Republicans have no compassion and are waging a "war on women". Listening to the Democrats, one might come to the conclusion that Republicans and conservatives are trying to deny access to contraceptives, keep women down and - who knows - maybe even take away the right to vote!
As a woman, I'm embarrassed that so many of my fellow females have fallen for these falsehoods. The assumption that women need the government to take care of them and provide their most basic needs is insulting and condescending. The policies endorsed and promulgated by Democrats do not arise from compassion. They originate in the desire to gain and keep political power. After all, if you can keep people dependent on governmental goodies, they're likely to keep voting for the provider of those benefits.
Conservatives, on the other hand, endorse a smaller governmental footprint in our lives, common-sense regulations and policies that foster economic growth that will benefit all levels of society, while keeping the safety net for those who truly need it.
I'm appealing to American women: don't fall for the Democrats' lies about the terrible tragedies that will befall you should Republicans be elected. You're smarter than that! Republicans are the ones who recognize that you are strong and capable of standing on your own two feet. The policies of the Democrats are patronizing and condescending. Ask yourself: who's truly conducting a "war on women"?
Showing posts with label war on women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war on women. Show all posts
Monday, May 5, 2014
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Sorry State of the Union
As many people know, tonight is the annual State of the Union address, in which the president lays out his agenda for the coming year. Although this is a long-held tradition, it often is an exercise in frustration and futility.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the country is "increasingly worried" about the president's abilities and are fearful about America's future. A Washington Post poll revealed that fully 63% of Americans have little or no faith that Mr. Obama will make the right decisions. At the same time, the public seems to support many of the president's themes and policy ideas. There seems to be some kind of disconnection here.
Mr. Obama and other Democrats have certain phrases that they use over and over, knowing that they resonate with people: "income inequality", "war on women", "minimum wage", etc. When it comes to income inequality, for example, who could possibly be against helping the poor improve their lot in life? No one whom I know. But pay close attention; what has Obama actually done to address these problems? His "solution" is to take money that the wealthy have earned and redistribute it to those less fortunate. Would it not be better to empower people to rise out of poverty through their own efforts, rather than simply taking from the wealthy? Our economy remains anemic, millions of people have simply given up on looking for work and the median household income has decreased during Mr. Obama's presidency, due to his failed policies. We could all possibly end up poor and miserable, but, boy, we'd all be equal!
The United States, although weakened, is still a strong country, but we will likely not recover fully under this president. Mr. Obama seems to confuse rhetoric with action, and there is a dichotomy between what he says and what he actually does. We would do well to follow the example of Andrew Carnegie, who said "As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do."
According to the Wall Street Journal, the country is "increasingly worried" about the president's abilities and are fearful about America's future. A Washington Post poll revealed that fully 63% of Americans have little or no faith that Mr. Obama will make the right decisions. At the same time, the public seems to support many of the president's themes and policy ideas. There seems to be some kind of disconnection here.
Mr. Obama and other Democrats have certain phrases that they use over and over, knowing that they resonate with people: "income inequality", "war on women", "minimum wage", etc. When it comes to income inequality, for example, who could possibly be against helping the poor improve their lot in life? No one whom I know. But pay close attention; what has Obama actually done to address these problems? His "solution" is to take money that the wealthy have earned and redistribute it to those less fortunate. Would it not be better to empower people to rise out of poverty through their own efforts, rather than simply taking from the wealthy? Our economy remains anemic, millions of people have simply given up on looking for work and the median household income has decreased during Mr. Obama's presidency, due to his failed policies. We could all possibly end up poor and miserable, but, boy, we'd all be equal!
The United States, although weakened, is still a strong country, but we will likely not recover fully under this president. Mr. Obama seems to confuse rhetoric with action, and there is a dichotomy between what he says and what he actually does. We would do well to follow the example of Andrew Carnegie, who said "As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
