« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama’s punk, #1 advisor says Christian women are dogs

Democrat Sleaze Machine works to achieve new lows - on your tab

By: E Pluribus Unum (Diary)  |  May 18th, 2009 at 01:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

It’s a good thing that Bambi campaigned on “bringing America together”. And it’s a good thing that the Democrat Party claims to have “a long and proud history of representing and protecting the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing personal liberties for all.”

Because if they didn’t say so, I wouldn’t know it.

If you have not been introduced to David Axelrod, you should be. You pay his salary. He’s Barack Obama’s right-hand man, has been for years, and holds the official title Senior Advisor to the President of the United States. A highly sought-after campaign strategist, here’s a man who knows something about sleaze..

He’s worked on, among many others:

  • Obama‘s 2004 Senate campaign.
  • Obama‘s 2008 presidential campaign.
  • John Edwards‘ 2004 presidential campaign.
  • Eliot Spitzer‘s NY gubernatorial campaign.

In addition, he holds to his credit:

  • a strategist for Chicago Mayor Dick Daley.
  • former columnist at the Chicago Tribune.
  • worked for the DCCC and Rahm Emanuel in the 2006 House elections.

How’s that for a bunch of skid-marks: Tony Rezco’s BFF Obama, Rahm Emanuel, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Dick Daley. And did I even mention Oregon’s child-molesting Governor Neil Goldschmidt on whose re-election campaign Axelrod worked?

Guess what. Mister Sleaze Expert thinks Christian women, on the basis of their being Christian, are dogs. Maybe you think I’m kidding, or exaggerating.

Our own editor emeritus Moe Lane called this to our attention Friday (h/t George Joyce of American Thinker via Gateway Pundit).

American Thinker:

On Thursday evening’s NPR quiz show “Wait Wait . . . Don’t Tell Me” senior Obama advisor David Axelrod made reference to Miss California Carrie Prejean as a dog. Politico is reporting that when Axelrod was asked on the show if he had helped the Obama’s choose their recently acquired dog Axelrod replied:

“I was only called in for the final three, and one was Miss California.”

Here’s the actual audio (h/t Hot Air)

So why would he say such a moronic thing? It’s obviously a dig on Miss California Carrie Prejean. The NPR guy (also paid by you and me) piled on immediately with “Dude! You just lost the carelessly topless demographic for 2012″.

And who is she and what has she done? And why has she now been equated — by the chief advisor to the frakking President of the United States, paid by you and me — to a dog? One reason, really.

She’s the one who said in response to a politically charged question at the Miss USA pageant:

And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.

And for that she’s been smeared, lied about, misrepresented, mocked, and gotten her whole life examined like a Republican candidate. Since then it’s been revealed in prime-time news, derisively, that she’s had a boob job and posed in some racy modeling pictures. Why is that news, do you suppose? I’m not aware of any news article since April 20, making note of any other Miss USA candidate having had a boob job (said to be a very common practice) or racy modeling photos. Oh please – find one who *hasn’t* : THAT might actually be a news item. [And for the fellas our there, "Miss Rhode Island" and "google". Nuf said.]

So, why does Miss Prejean now meet public derision at the hands of Bambi’s top advisor? Is it because she’s had a boob job and some racy photos? I don’t recall Axelrod mentioning potential names for the presidential mutt like Pam Anderson or Carmen Electra. Did I miss it?

No, for one reason and for one reason only has she met this kind of scorn from this sort of man – an expert on sleaze, I repeat.

It is because she made a courageous stand, as a correct expression of Christian faith, for traditional marriage, knowing it might cost her the crown. So in Bambi-land, it’s cool to sit in church for 20 years where a pastor curses and rants against white people, and call that pastor your mentor. But any Christian woman that articulates her faith is to be equated with a dog. In the 4 days since saying it Axelrod has not retracted, apologized for, redacted, or in any way moderated that statement, nor has anybody else in the administration, to my knowledge.

Ergo, the official policy of the Obama administration is that Christian women are dogs.

.
Somebody prove me wrong. But if I were you, lefty apologists, I would not work too hard at it. Your administration, and your party leadership, simply don’t care whether Christians believe this or not.
.
[Digg it]

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mightymo

    “wait wait don’t tell” is a COMEDY. Obama does not support same sex marriage, he only supports civil unions. Hence, he agrees with Ms. Prejean on that issue. To say that because Alexrod makes a joke that the Obama Administration’s official policy is that christian women are dog is quite the stretch. Did you think that the WH would start handing out collars or require flea baths?

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Save your talking points for Daily Kos.

    • Brian Hibbert

      If they’re going to set up sleeper accounts, you’d think they’d give it to a smarter person to do the posting posting. But then these are progressives. They don’t have smarter people.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      Raise your hand if you *actually* believe that Obama does not actually support SSM.

      Yes, I’m aware of what he said on the campaign.

      And listen up. David Axelrod is the Senior Advisor to the President of the United States. No matter where he is, and no matter what audience he is in front of.

      Are you kidding me? If Karl Rove, at the time he was GWB’s right-hand-man, had gone on Leno and said John Kerry’s daughter looks like a horse, that would just be laughed off and forgotten?

      Uh huh.

    • bs

      Hearing you guys try to give excuses for your man-God is just hilarious. Glad to have you drop by and show your inadequacies.

      • E Pluribus Unum
  • bobojake

    obama alway makes fun of the use rambo makes ofthe word mother.
    There is no class act in obama, axle and rambo they are gutter mouths. They should apply to work in skidrow comedy houses but wouldn’t last long there because they don’t like liars and theives there either.

  • stuckinthemiddle

    it was a joke. Referring to what’s-her-face as a dog was tasteless but so what? Nobody except crackpots will actually believe that Obama thinks all Christian women are dogs.

    And if memory serves, McCain and Rush both referred to Chelsea Clinton as the “new WH dog” when she was only 12 years old. I didn’t hear much outrage form the right back then.

    • Aaron Gardner

      see how that works.

      • stuckinthemiddle

        Prejean is a grown-up (although I hear her tits are still pretty young) who has quite happily thrown herself into the limelight.

        In the event, the incredibly stupid point of the OP was that Obama thinks all Christian women are dogs. This is just ridiculous. There’s enough substantive problems with the Obama adminstration that we don’t need to go making stuff up.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          I do hope you start treating your mother better, though. I know, she’s a woman and we know what you think of them, but she deserves better.

        • Uma Richie

          Thank you. It needed doing.

        • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

          The funny part was that I actually unbanned you, once I checked out your bona fides.

          Silly me.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Sounds like she resents all her female classmates. Who probably remind her of her mother.

          • Uma Richie

            The name Jennifer suggests that she’s in her mid-to-late-thirties. I’ll take an ad hominem guess that she resents the beautiful young Christian women all around her.

          • aesthete

            n/t

        • ddlbb

          i just think his man–as true representative of the president himself–was yucking it up for a laugh on a liberal (tell me an npr show that isn’t liberal) show. however, in doing so, he does represent the administration. this obama group thinks little of offending christians, the mentally disabled, and veterans (non-terrorist dhs-watchlist types). don’t be so quick to write it off as nonsense. the group you are a part of might be next with this crew, and you won’t think it’s so funny then. little by little as they chip away at the decency we should show one another, and with little to no criticism from the mainstream media, they are showing us how they marginalize and ridicule those that disagree with them. they hope to make it more acceptable to slap down and shut up those that disagree, to silence opposition. funny? i say frightening.

          • Diogenes314

            I mean, have you seen what passes for attractive on the other side of the aisle?

    • Warrior

      I don’t recall and am not going to look it up, but if McCain and Rush called Chelsea a “dog” they were being rude and crude and owe her an apology.

      However, there is a fundamental difference — Chelsea had not just uttered a political opinion with which they disagreed. Sure, it was her parents they were trying to attack and it was wrong to use Chelsea to do it.

      But the Prejean matter is an entirely different circumstance. She was publically attacked for voicing a religious belief (with political overtones) after being ASKED to do so. Now, for a senior admin official to insult an individual citizen personally in a public forum is beyong the pale. He owes her an apology.

  • scarchin

    This was no accident.

    It was a calculated comment to send a message to those upset by Barry’s publicly stated position: “Don’t worry – we’ll back you when it counts.”

    Barry will do exactly what the governor of NH did, campaign as opposed to homosexual marriage and then flip-flop at the last minute while he has majorities in both houses.

    • Swamp_Yankee

      Shows how useless Biden and the Dem Congress have become. But I’m not sure it will ever be a legislative issue. I think the gay lobby will be content with him stacking the federal benches with dozens of Margaret Marshalls. I think their big payoff will be the reversal of dont ask dont tell, but they will wait until afer the 2010 elections.

  • denisjh

    [Hi. Mi name is week troll. I deosn't no how speeleing goz. My hayt is on u cuz of stopid pajunt ladie hoo is dum.]

    By nailed it, I am of course referring to my above impression of the moron I just gacked. Have a nice day. – Caleb

    • Aaron Gardner

      I think the context is pretty clear….apparently you are incapable of seeing that context.

    • Aaron Gardner
  • Maggie_in_Indiana

    The jokes they laugh at publicly seem to be sleazy or slandering in the worst possible ways.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Heck, we hear it almost everyday (if that is your thing) on radio, CD?s and television. It?s a popular culture cornerstone and meant to show how cool and humorous Axelrod is.

    You and I just don?t understand. We are old, prudish, respectful and observant. Get with the times man, denigrating women is funny. Give the Obama Administration a break, would ya.

    You know how this works, next week ?The One? will come out, disavow the remarks and preach to the unwashed masses. This way, they can play both sides of the issues and everyone will fall down in amazement while “The One” and Axelrod chortle, spit out their lattes and guffaw over how everyone in this country is so gullible.

  • Gengisdon

    You know, I’m really just a lurker now, and I have always said to you guys it’s your sandbox, your rules….but this is patently absurd.

    Miss California is a public figure, with all the rights and priveleges thereto. As is Mr. Axelrod. I personally suspect much of this is rather canny marketing on her and her manager’s part, and I wonder if she already knew about the negative publicity she was going to receive over what are, in truth, unremarkable and inoffensive pictures by today’s standards. Even if I accept on its face that her declaration during competition was from the very moral fiber of her being (which I cannot know), and even if I accept that the only reason for her second place finish and subsequent humiliation are exclusively products of political and cultural hostility (which I do not), that would not lead to the conclusion of the poster.

    More importantly, I’ve always liked Redstate because, while obviously opposed to most of the things for which I advocate, it was a forum where some levels of decency and appropriateness were properly monitored. I could engage here freely, so long as I was respectful, and even when flamed, it was not quite like the wild, wild west of the liberal sites I visit and like less. I still read redstate everyday, even if I no longer am active.

    The issue around a beautry pageant contestant appalls me more than anything else because it represents the lowest common denominator idiocy we’ve been reduced to. I could care less what Miss California thinks, as much as I could care less what Sean Penn or Susan Sarandon think. I do care what David Axlerod things, as he is actually relevant, but I must say I don’t really care what he thinks about Miss California. The fact that people on either side of the issue are particularly galvanized by it just emphasizes the triteness of our political culture.

    But to run that headline on the frontpage here, is, well, at the very least disappointing. Have you no shame, sir, at long last? I do not agree with Miss California’s opinion, nor, from what I’ve gleaned from the 24 news cycle where you cannot avoid her, do I particularly like her. Does that mean I do not like Christian women? Please. Slam Axelrod all you want for being a newsmaker for his comments when he’s supposed to be one of the guys behind the curtain, sure, but the logical leap made her defies even blind partisanship and liberal loathing.

    And assuming anyone even cares what I think anymore, I continue to acknowledge the suzerainity of the editors and recognize if this flag flies on this site it is with their permission and endorsement. And that I have no place or standing to criticize. But I do so nonetheless because some of you, I have to think, must blush a least a little to see such a silly and provocative statement on your site. As silly as some of the lunacy I read on Kos. That, my friends on the other side of the big ditch, ain’t good.

    (BTW, EPU, still love ya man, but gotta call it like I see em. Feel free to fire at will).

    • Jack_Savage

      “I mean really guys, this is simply not worthy blah blah blah blah blahdy blah blah…

      (snip)

      ….and I find it almost as bad as Kos, because I am fair minded and get my opinions from every source, including Marx and Chavez and Castro, but this is just too much and you should be more like me, a kind and humane referee in this crazy world of discourse blah blah blah blah.”

      Thanks. Very nice. I am so sorry your side has such a problem with heterosexual women.

      • Gengisdon

        I like them waaay too much :-) .

    • JadedByPolitics

      “just emphasizes the triteness of our political culture.”

      So you care what Axelrod has to say? this man peddles in hate and that he called a woman a dog read bit*h does not bother you? well I would say your lurker status will go back to just that! If you cannot be bothered as a human beng by the man who is Obama’s number 1 guy nastily engaging the left on NPR by demeaning a woman who he disagrees with it very much shows that vapidness of your soul!

      OBTW GREAT DIARY EPU! keep calling those nasty, disgusting, hateful leftards and do it daily! luckily you need not impress everyone especially those who have no skin in the game!

    • Doc Holliday

      nt

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      This transcends the issue of same-sex marriage; I support it, but I will not be quiet when trash behavior like Axelrod’s comes up.

      • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

        I am not saying that you are attempting to find something funny in all of this; merely that we have no sense of humor on this topic, and have had none since roughly August of 2008.

        • Gengisdon

          I wrestled with writing it. Not like you need a lecture from me, which is what it turned into. I just read the piece, went from mild sympathy for a young woman caught in her 15 minutes getting piled on and irritated my side was paying attention to “whoa, that’s a little nuts.”

          Actually, I think EPU cleverly embroiled me in trollpaper. Dagnabit!

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            nt

          • E Pluribus Unum

            but look below, I have my own rambling answer.

            It’s all good, man.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      Because I respect your opinion – and your last parenthetical is welcome, and I believe you.

      I don’t quite get you, on this. I care very much what David Axelrod thinks, which is precisely why his little completely unnecessary dig on Miss Prejean is such a big deal. Axelrod was not asked about Miss Prejean, he just took a gratuitous shot, for the fun of it.

      Please remember, I did not lift our blonde friend in terms of importance, intellect, or even a consistent Christian walk. I held merely that she, put in a difficult spot by an utterly unfair question, acted with the courage of her convictions.

      And her reward for it has been a full-scale media assault on her character, her past, and her future. And the Democrat government is right there along with the media.

      But I reject that his comment was insignificant. Who he is, *makes* it significant. His position at the right ear of our president *makes* it significant. His refusal, in 4 days, to even moderate that statement, much less apologize for it, *makes* it stand as de facto ‘the opinion of the administration’. His long and illustrious history of working closely with sleazes is significant. This statement parks his butt in the same bleachers as his associates. All that, coupled with this administration’s and this party’s well-known desire to use courts to force SSM on an unwilling public, that is significant.

      I believe, that he ridiculed her 100% because she expressed an article of Christian faith that is displeasing to him. Because of who he is, this is an assault by the Obama administration on her freedom of speech (and therefore *mine*), and her freedom of religion (and therefore *mine*).

      I invite you to debate that.

      My headline is perhaps a bit over the top, but tell me that every frakking day the left media do not do that to us on the right. To hear them tell it, Bush personally tortured Gitmo prisoners, and did the Abu Ghraib thing himself. Bush also personally wiretaps the homes of every American, puts their personal secrets in a file for later. He also aimed the hurricane at New Orleans and destroyed the levees.

      So I’m getting my pound of flesh from this little bag of crap that is Obama’s right-hand man.

      I’m not fighting by gentleman’s rules anymore. In fact, I’ll tell you this. I am actively looking for a good picture of a dog licking his butthole, so I can make a RedHot titled New pet at the EPU household – I’ve named him David Axelrod.

      RedState ain’t The New Ledger, and in spite of some spite, you and I both know the level of discourse, even in this piece, is far, far above that of dKos, or even that of Huffington Post.

      I am sorry you think this is beyond the pale, but I don’t agree with you on that.

      • Gengisdon

        which I suspect he does, he’ll never mention the incident again. The people who agree with him on Miss California might have gotten a chuckle, but they’ve already forgotten it. Meanwhile, he’s put some grease in the firepit here. Kind of an “own goal” of sorts.

        EPU, I can’t agree with you that David Axelrod dissing Prejean is an assault on either freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Unless you think you launched a counterattack on his freedom of speech by criticizing him, which I do not think you did. Miss Prejean is free to say what she thinks, so is Axelrod, we all get to comment on it, and if you said “David Axelrod is a moron for interjecting himself into a dying and silly controversy, involving a !beauty queen! for crying out loud. He’s clearly not as smart and savvy as the media and the democrats would like to think” I would have said rock on, EPU, I’ve been thinking that for 4 days. It was the link from the lesser (Prejean) to the greater (Christian women) that sparked me.

        And to the extent you see your post as counterbattery to media breathlessness on certain other red button topics, I can see your perspective. Lord knows I get the giggles sometimes from a certain breathlessness aspects of the media have for Obama. Nice fringe benefit for a prez, but not permanent or durable. Keep wondering when the sell-by date is going to come up.

        • JadedByPolitics

          who in the hell set you up as a moral judge of character on a woman you do not even know except for what the media has thrown out there in defense of their goal of gay marriage? how dare you say she is less then! Is there something un-Christian about being naked? Eve was naked in the garden of Eden….is their something un-Christian about speaking one’s mind? which is what she did! You find women in the pagent world somehow less then some idealized version of women or Christian women? if so why so!

          • Doc Holliday

            but I think he was saying you can not argue from the specific (lesser) to the general (greater). On the other hand, he could have meant to demean with those words, but he at least gave himself a bit of cover.

          • Gengisdon

            I’ve reread that post a couple of times now and I think I can see how you got there, though. Jaded aptly summed up what I was getting at. Prejean is one woman who professes to be Christian. “Christian women” presumable would be all women who profess to be Christian. Group of one (lesser, smaller) versus group of millions (greater, bigger). Definitely did not intend for any other conclusion to be drawn.

          • Warrior

            about going from the speciic to the general except in personal terms. But in political terms, the equation stands. It is highly likely that MOST Christian women oppose gay marriage. Axlerod did not abuse Ms. Prejean because she was a woman, a Christian woman, a Christian woman in a beauty pageant or a Christian woman in a beauty pageant who expressed an opinion. He trashed her because she opposed gay marriage, and by extension, he trashed anyone who opposes it. Of course, the fact that she was a woman and that the nature of the insult involved gender, the abuse can be narrowed down to women. However, the rest stands. (This should give pause to every young female colleg student out there who thinks the Dem party’s got their back. Only until YOU have an opinion that contradicts the prevailing progressive wind.)

            But it was a political attack on a non-political figure — which is very scary. Think Joe the Plumber. Who’s the next innocent citizen going about their daily lives who will be mugged by someone in the O admin because they inadvertently stated their beliefs forthrightly?

            This kind of thing can’t help but put the damper on anyone who might even think of uttering a political belief. Now, every knucklehead out there thinks it’s funny to abuse someone because they have opposing political views. This is not good. Didn’t Clinton, the First Black President and Obama, the Historic Black President, both claim to be ushering in a new, bi-partisan, less rancorous politcal climate in this country. Seems to me things have gotten much worse.

            Gdon, you castigate EPU for over-reacting. But look closely at what’s happened. One of the most senior staff members of a sitting President has publically insulted a private citizen (I don’t care if she was in a beauty pageant, she didn’t sign on for personal abuse) because, when asked, she stated a personally held religious belief that contradicted the predominant political views of the party in power. He owes her an apology. The fact that he doesn’t shows just how thuggish, ugly, rude and childish has public liberal opinion become.

        • E Pluribus Unum

          because there’s a limit to how much fun can be had on a single topic that involves a beauty pageant contestant and a political hack.

          Two things, really.
          (1) it’s only my opinion, but I think the comment was planned. Certainly by Axelrod, and maybe set up by the host.
          (2) I think Axelrod’s status as an official member of the Obama administration is chemically different. The same crack made by Chris Matthews or James Carville is just fluff. Axelrod saying it, that has power. The Obama administration has shown no qualms whatsoever about using its muscle to intimidate auto companies, banks, and investment firms. I find it troublesome, and I’m deadly serious about that. When they target somebody, that person is well and truly screwed.

    • gekster
  • Gengisdon

    and, while this isn’t what you’re driving it, I would have been perfectly happy without Axelrod making comments that blow up in his face. Now there is a bipartisan sport if I’ve ever seen one.

    • Doc Holliday

      You have bashed us. You say you are not one of us,but you claim this diary unworthy of our standards? Then you “admit” you don’t really like this girl or her views, well that is very shocking! Did you think we might have supposed you were a Christian conservative taking intellectual umbrage with the tenor of a post even though it supported your views? It is so rare to see people criticizing their own cause there is no reason for you to set us straight.

      Sir, you are simply talking your book, and if I were in charge I would not debate you, I would ban you for this. I love honest debate when logic is the rule, but my instincts and your posts tell me that would never occur.

      • Gengisdon

        But I’m not seeking to draw the attention of the spectre of Thomas, either.

        I will leave to you to defend the logic of “ergo, David Axelrod thinks Christian women are dogs.” I think you may a problem in the size of the set you seek to extrapolate into from a very specific subset. But I don’t think of either of us would persuade the other. Thus, no puns intended, I’ll let sleeping dogs lie.

        • Doc Holliday

          I think EPU might have been demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. But then again, it was Axelrod who allowed this broad brush to paint. Think about it, does Axelrod know Prejean personally? If he does not, why would he call her a dog? He can’t think she looks like a dog, so we must assume he thinks she thinks like a dog? And since he only knows her thoughts as those of a Christian conservative woman, well, there you go.

          It was Axelrod who generalized, not EPU. If you noticed my previous comment in this thread, I took the most offense at Axelrod’s use of governmental power to demean and slander a young American citizen who is NOT in politics.

          • Gengisdon

            She is an unquestionably public figure who made a statement which folks charged off with (to some extent, at her encoragement) and drew all sorts of socio/cultural and political meanings from. From her perspective this is probably a good thing. She’s more famous now than if she had actually won the thing without controversey while talking about how much she loved baby kittens, dolphins, and unicorns.

            Since her commentary, her single comment has been expanded upon with her backstory, the hissing from Paris Hilton and other micro-celeb buffoons, her own near fiasco with what I continue to think are not terribly shocking photos, and additional public comments which are not exclusively about traditional marriage. She’s actively sought this role, and I thought was even going to be a spokesperson for an advocacy group or something like that. She’s on minute 12 of 15 and living it to the fullest.

          • Aaron Gardner

            shouldn’t be wearing those sexy clothes huh Gengisdon….typical lefty…blame the victim.

          • Doc Holliday

            whenever someone says a story is soon to end, that is when you know it will go on and on. They are saying the Pelosi controversy will be forgotten in a week; good luck with that guys lol. They say Prejean is the reason for the controversy and she is about to be a nobody. Again, when you wish for something too hard, it never comes true. The fact is this story hurts the left, not us.

            And she was made a public figure by Perez Hitlon’s vicious attacks added to by Axelrod. I don’t blame her a bit for responding to the attacks and not cowering at the leftist personal destruction machine. To many in this country this is just like when Clinton used his power to destroy Monica. People don’t like power hungry political hacks using their power to hurt our citizens. I say keep up the attacks, it is YOUR side that is making her famous.

        • E Pluribus Unum

          Simply this: I believe the attention drawn to Miss Prejean is *entirely* about her stand against SSM, which she specifically stated (and has repeated ad nauseum since) was due to her Christian beliefs.

          There’s a part of the diary that was originally in there, which I cut out after some discussion with high-ranking RedState muckety-mucks, in which I connected the dots more directly – short version being that standard Bible-following Christianity leads to a single possible conclusion inre SSM.

          So I draw the dots thusly:

          • Prejean speaks up for traditional marriage, and against SSM.
          • She claims she does so because of her Christian beliefs.
          • Christian beliefs, in the main, are drawn from the text and study of the Holy Bible
          • the Bible speaks very clearly against homosexuality. Traditional Christian values condemn homosexuality (not the homosexual person, we all know the drill)
          • the left (broad brush, forgive me) has scorned her and smeared her for a single reason — because of her stand against SSM
          • which is mandated by traditional Christian faith.
          • therefore, any Christian woman who when pressed to give an answer, stands for her Christian beliefs — which are held my most Christians, and which the Bible speaks plainly — is subject to all the abuse Miss Prejean has suffered.

          I see no chink in that argument, although you may.

    • JadedByPolitics

      ..

  • Aaron Gardner

    Axelrod *repeated* that “Miss California” was one of three names that he was called in to consult on….meaning the original inference came from either Michelle or Barrack themselves.

    So maybe we should be asking President Obama why he believes that a Christian Conservative woman is equatable to a dog as well.

    • Tbone

      a Christian affiliation.

      • Aaron Gardner
      • JadedByPolitics

        when you are pointing a finger you have three pointing back at yourself! Obama has shown absolutely ZERO respect for women and it continue’s even though “he won”!

    • Finrod

      .

  • Finrod

    First we had Obama all but call Palin a pig, now Axelrod has called Miss California a dog, and Obama called us all sheep for listening to Rush Limbaugh.

    C’mon, guys, put down the Pink Floyd and get to governing. Is there a dark side to Obama cancelling Bush’s plan to return to the moon? Is there a part of the free market Obama won’t meddle with? Was the 2008 election a momentary lapse of reason on the part of the nation? Is the economy about to hit the wall?

    … I could continue this all day, heh.

    • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

      How I wish you were here.

      We could discuss Obamanomics and Have a Cigar together.

      If you ask me will I vote for conservatives after this?

      Will Umagumma do it!

  • Pingback: My Homepage

  • Pingback: replica watches for sale

  • Pingback: hale industriale, spatii comerciale, terenuri