Search This Blog

Tuesday, January 28, 2014


     Hit and Run Rowland (HR2) has struck again in a column entitled "Republican male politicians, just stop talking about women", attacking the Party of which he falsely claims to belong (in the full sense of the word belong). I call him HR2 because he writes mostly negative inflammatory pieces about Conservative individuals and the Republican Party, then he hides refusing to answer comments or engage in a discussion.  He rarely writes about issues, writing only about what has already been sensationalized in the Liberal mainstream media. His column is like reading a political version of The National Enquirer where issues are avoided and personal attacks are encouraged. He really should stick to writing about farm animals.
    Today he blathered about the Republican Party's misunderstanding of women and their alleged War on Women. He offers three "proofs" of Republican misogyny, which are the most over-used attempts of the media to try to inflame the public against Conservatives.

1.  Birth control (Republicans think women are sluts)
2.  Legitimate rape (one goofy politician)
3.  Christianity and the concept of  "submission to one's husband"

"I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”
Rush Limbaugh

     The first issue that was left out of Rowland's article is birth control and who pays for it, and most recently who must supply it against their religious beliefs. Like the saying goes, "I still don't know how someone's reproductive system can simultaneously be 0% my business but 100% my financial responsibility." Many taxpayers object to paying for other's birth control.  Most recently, based on their religious beliefs, a group of nuns and the Catholic Church fought against Obamacare's mandate for them to supply birth control to their employees. This is  a very reasonable argument. Most mainstream religions would consider an unmarried woman fighting for birth control as wrong or promiscuous behavior. Did Rush go too far by stating that the young woman who was fighting for free birth control "must be a slut"? Yes...and guess what?...he apologized.

[crickets chirping]
Dave Letterman, Bill Maher, et al

    Now here is the hypocrisy of the Left that Rowland also left out of his article: Liberals have publicly called  Sarah Palin and her daughter sluts without apology and even refused to condemn those that did. Palin has also been called a c@#t. She has been deemed deserving of having men deficate into her mouth. Her special needs child was said not to be hers, not to be her husbands, and called a retard. Hustler did a porn movie about her called, "Who's Nailin' Paylin?" and Eminem rapped about sex with Palin in "We Made You." Where was the outrage from the Left? Why doesn't Rowland write about it?

We should not judge all Muslims by the actions of a few terrorists. It is OK to judge the Republican Party by one ignoramus who happens to be a Republican.
    The second issue that was left out of Rowland's article is abortion and whether it is morally acceptable in cases of rape. One ignorant Republican stated that if it was a legitimate [actual] rape that no pregnancy would result. This is clearly one misinformed, misguided, and ignorant individual who happens to be a Republican. I don't know him. I know many, many Republicans, and I can state without reservation that I have never met one who would agree with that statement, nor do I. Yet, this one statement by one individual is used shamelessly in an attempt to prove that Republicans hate women. It was a valid question about an issue that has been debated for decades. I might add that statistics show that less than 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest. Rowland thought it would be cool to use this one statement to flippantly sully "his peeps" the Republicans. This is called a legitimate writing skill?
This is one of the most misrepresented tenants of the Christian faith used to divide Americans and further an agenda.

     The third issue that was left out of Rowland's article is the Christian precept that "wives should submit to their husbands." This is also a Jewish and a Muslim precept. Of course all three major religions have devotees that range from modern to orthodox. It is disingenuous to attach this thought only to fundamentalist Christian Republicans. This is one of the most misrepresented tenants of the Christian faith used to divide Americans and further an agenda. Those who use it always intentionally leave out the part where husbands are to lay down their lives for their wives like Christ did for the church. In other words it is a two-way street of giving and preferring one another over one's self. Liberals make it sound like Christian Republicans actually believe in wife rape, battery, slavery, abuse, forced pregnancy, with no choice of a career or the pursuit of happiness. Are you kidding me? Do you know the fabulous, intelligent, educated, gifted, motivated, and successful Republican/Conservative women that I know? The only ones that I know that treat Conservative women that way are Liberals! Again, this was used by Rowland in an attempt to cleverly brand all  men on the Right as Neanderthals.
   Here again is the hypocrisy of the Left, also not mentioned in Rowland's article.  Liberals have shown that they cannot conceive of the notion of submitting to anyone in a decision-making process. I certainly have seen that. However, they don't mind at all forcing their wives to submit to public humiliation.  She is made to face the public with a smile when her Liberal politician husband publicly announces that their marriage has been a complete sham (only after getting caught) and that he is actually gay... or when her Liberal politician husband gets caught getting BJs in the Oval Office...or when her Liberal politician husband gets caught twice sexting with other women...or when her Liberal politician husband has been caught in an affair that resulted in a love child, even while she--the wife--is dying of cancer. They were all forced to submit to degrading themselves in public for the cause of Liberal politics.

The real acts of war against women...

1. Ted Kennedy, one of the heroes of the Left,  was driving drunk and drove off of a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island where his car was submerged in water. He saved himself, leaving his passenger  Mary Jo Kopechne to drown.  He was married with 3 children, which is probably why he did not report the accident and that Kopechne was in the car for almost 10 hours! His constant selfish behavior humiliated his wife to the point that she drank herself into alcoholism in order to cope.

2. Bill Clinton, the rock star of the Left, took advantage of a 21-year old female intern. He was the most powerful man in the world at the time and at least 20 years her senior. It was revealed that he used her to get oral sex in the oval office. He then demonized the young girl and her girlfriend who had the audacity to expose his behavior. Talk about sexual harassment on the job! There are about a dozen women who made allegations of his aggressive sexual behavior over many years beginning when he was the governor of Arkansas. Each time the woman was threatened by his cronies, ruined publicly, or silenced in some way. He lied about Monica Lewinsky and when he knew he couldn't get away with it any longer he ruined her life making her the laughing stock of the country. All of this while his wife was forced to stand by him publicly.

3. The Left promotes abortion at any time in a woman's pregnancy, performed in any place (doesn't have to be a hospital), by anyone (does not need to be an M.D.) without allowing them to see a sonogram or receive counseling about how they will deal with this act for the rest of their lives. This is considered a kindness towards women?

4. The Left claims to support women yet they set out to destroy and dismiss any successful woman who happens to be a Conservative. If they can't prove her to be an adulteress or a enticer of men, they attack her intelligence and characterize her as an idiot. So-called women's groups do not ever rise to defend them.

   Did Tim Rowland write anything of substance in this piece about Republicans? The article was just full of silly frill and fluff with no facts and no depth of opinion. Will he respond to comments?  Never.
   The Herald Mail should allow the local TEA Party to have a column where issues would be debated and discussed openly and intelligently. They cancelled Mail Call in an attempt to improve the image of the city. The next obvious step is to cancel Rowland and/or provide a new column written by a local who is not afraid to take comments and discuss and defend what they write.

I am a liberated Conservative woman! Come on Ol' Hit and Run Rowland...bring it on!!


1 comment:

  1. You are absolutely right! But say that out loud and your a "hater" of...well, whatever is the flavor of the month.


I appreciate all comments! It seems that it is a difficult process to comment here...but please try to get them posted. All feedback, positive or negative, will be considered. PLEASE pass this link on to anyone that you think may appreciate reading this blog.

Thank you!