On June 1st 2010, RightWing News (RWN) published a compilation of 20 hot conservative women, to my delight, I was included among 20 accomplished and beautiful conservative women.

Within a few day of  this post on RWN,  Newsweek publishes a scathing rebuttal authored by a very male, very Caucasian staff journalist named David A Graham. While David racks up pixel space pondering the fine distinctions of the photos chosen to represent each woman; I was questioning why Newsweek and David A. Graham felt threatened by a cheeky, top 20 list of conservative women.

Sigh. Where to start.

Let us begin with the logic behind the author singling out Lori Ziganto’s blog ‘Snark and Boobs‘.

“…anyone who calls her blog Snark and Boobs knows she is trading on sex appeal.”

Snark and Boobs appropriately identifies the intent of a blog filled with biting posts about stupid people and stupid ideas in politics. Anyone who actually clicked on the link and read her blog clearly understands the intent of the title.
I’m glad John did not post a photo of me wearing a ‘Save the ta-ta’s‘ teeshirt. (Yes, I purchased one and so should all of you). According the author’s premise,  I would have been trading my sex appeal..for something. Unless I missed the author’s previous article harrumphing at the objectification of women wearing such teeshirts? In such case, I would be happy to link to the article.

One can rightfully question the sudden prudishness on display in this article? In case Newsweek and the author missed the memo – sex sells:

“That iPhone in your pocket? That’s for sex. As is pretty much everything you’ve ever bought, from the car you drive to the T shirt you wear — or so says evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller. From mating to marketing, Miller explores how everyday consumer choices subtly — and sometimes not so subtly — reveal society’s misguided attempts at projecting four central traits (intelligence, conscientiousness, openness, agreeableness) to attract sexual partner.”

“Save the ta-ta’s” – It certainly works for breast cancer research.

Getting back to the article, it is clear the author is uncomfortable with women who possess intelligence, a conservative CV, while maintaining wholesome appearance.  He assumes there should be offense taken by the ‘values’ crowd. Note he puts quotes around the word ‘values’  - in order to project a lack of belief in any sort of values by the author.

“The failure of the right-wing ‘values’ crowd to decry contests like this is bad for them – it undermines their standing to comment on gender – and, most important, bad for women.”

The author spends much time making nebulous statements about conservative women without clearly defining what would be an acceptable format for highlighting accomplished and beautiful women.

Every woman on the Top 20 list can be credited for amazing, ground breaking work in the conservative movement. I am truly honored to be included with these women. This is a list of women one can use to inspire the next generation of young women to succeed and the confidence to reject the feminist construct of perpetual victim-hood. Breaking free of the vicious cycle is good for women, not bad as the author would lead you to believe. Freedom will always trumps perpetual victim-hood.

While one cannot ignore there are beautiful women who subscribe to the liberal feminist construct, it cannot be ignored that there is little more than that. Look beyond the surface of these women and you will find very little of consequence and very much hate.  It is not surprising to me that the author spends a majority of this article smearing a group of beautiful, intelligent and capable conservative women and neglecting to promote a list of opposing women that he would find acceptable.

Dick Morris takes a look at the upsurge of conservative female candidates across the nation. It is a good indicator of the progress conservative women, like the 20 listed in RWN, have made to the political landscape:

The primaries of June 8, 2010 were historic in that they represented a sweep by women in states as diverse as California, Nevada, Arkansas, and South Carolina. The feminists of the 60s would be upset that most of the candidates nominated in this landslide were Republican and pro-life, but the upsurge of women cannot be denied.

In short, this is why Newsweek and journalists like David A. Graham found themselves in apoplectic fits since 2008, when Sarah Palin stepped on to the national stage.  Capable women of beauty and substance who do not conform to the feminist status quo must be stopped – at all costs.  If this post contains too complex ideas for the author to digest, I suggest a beer summit with the Ladies of the List – it could be a teachable moment for a liberal dude.

Sigh.

It sucks to be Newsweek these days..or should I call it NewsMax?

PS: Because I believe in transparency, unlike our current administration, below the cut is the original, uncut photo used for my portrait on RWN Top 20 Hottest Conservative Women in New Media:

Beautiful conservative women respond:

Lori Ziganto

Tabitha Hale

The Hill reports:

House GOP leaders have planned a high-profile event at Washington D.C.’s Newseum Tuesday morning to launch the start of their “America Speaking Out” project.

Chief Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is in charge of the initiative to result in the release of a set of policy items that Republicans would pursue if they won back control of the House in November.

According to officials involved in the effort, “America Speaking Out” will focus on gathering feedback from Americans on what items that lawmakers should be focusing on in the future.

GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (Ind.) said on Monday “it’s part of a process of engaging Americans.”

Out of the box thinking – policy items derived from the people, not created in smoky back rooms and shoved down our throats. I will be following this project closely.

1. The Obama Administration has already run the numbers on the VAT. Last Sunday, well before high-level Obama Administration officials began their on-again, off-again dance around the VAT, the White House economic team’s “calculations” made their way to The New York Times:

“But since any Social Security plan would probably preserve benefits for those nearing retirement, it would not help the administration achieve its goal of reducing the deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product, from 10 percent, within a decade. One way to reach that 3 percent goal, by the calculations of Mr. Obama’s economic team: a 5 percent value-added tax….”

2. The VAT would take thousands from every household. The VAT is a version of a national sales tax that hits everyone who consumes. Under a five percent VAT, a $3.70 gallon of milk would sell for $3.89; a $2,000 MacBook Pro would cost $2,100. A five percent VAT would pump nearly $300 billion into the government’s coffers, taking thousands from every household. The Cato Institute outlined how the VAT would be a “large new burden on American families:”

“A VAT would raise hundreds of billions of dollars a year for the government, even at a 10-percent rate. The math is simple: total U.S. consumption in 2008 was $10 trillion. VATs usually tax about half of a nation’s consumption or less, say $5 trillion. That means that a 10% VAT would raise about $500 billion a year in the United States, or about $4,300 from every household.”

3. The VAT would shred President Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on middle-class families. President Obama has already broken his campaign pledge to ensure that “no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase” on his watch, but the VAT would shred that promise altogether. White House advisers are hoping that sufficient political cover to impose this massive middle-class tax hike will come later this year from the President’s fiscal commission. Sure enough, Bruce Reed, the executive director of the commission, says the VAT is “in the mix.”

4. The VAT is a job-killer that could “slow the economy” at the worst possible time. Experts have noted that a value-added tax could reduce long-term economic growth by more than one percent annually; even a relatively small VAT of three percent would demolish or destroy up to 2.1 million jobs by its fifth year. As economist Robert Samuelson pointed out in a recent Washington Post op-ed:

“He also warned that politicians and economists should not envision an “idealized” VAT tax as a clean, simple system.

“‘If we were to adopt a VAT tax in this country, it would be subject to many of the same (tax) preferences the income tax is subject to.’ he said. ‘The VAT tax itself could become very complicated.’”

6. The VAT is a hidden tax, which makes it even easier to increase. Unlike a state or local sales tax, the VAT isn’t itemized on a receipt. This makes it that much easier for politicians to tighten the vise on pocketbooks and wallets. As Reuters columnist James Pethokoukis noted, “politicians love the hidden aspect of a VAT as a way of duping voters. To them opaqueness is a feature, not a bug.”

7. The VAT typically rises over time. This spreadsheet of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries demonstrates how the VAT typically rises over time. While most European countries began with VATs of just five percent, the rates have climbed to an average 20 percent. Admission to the European Union requires a minimum VAT of 15 percent. Denmark has seen its VAT rise by nearly 67 percent since 1976; the same goes for Italy. The rate of increase in Germany is 72 percent; the UK: 87.5 percent. Why would it be any different in the United States, where our record $12.8 trillion national debt is on pace to exceed the size of our economy in just two years? Charles Krauthammer has called the VAT “the ultimate cash cow,” and at the rate Washington Democrats are spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars, they are going to need it.

House Republicans approved a conference-wide moratorium on earmarks on Thursday, one day after a House committee enacted a ban on for-profit earmarks.

The Republicans’ moratorium is more extensive than the House Appropriations Committee’s ban in that it applies to all earmarks for all members of the caucus.

Today’s earmark moratorium shows the American people that House Republicans are prepared to end business as usual and change the way Washington spends the people’s money.

Click HERE for the SLA website – all you need to know!

Republican Representatives Mike Pence and Jeb Hensarling have proposed a new amendment to the Constitution that puts the breaks on out of control spending by congress.

The amendment limits the amount of spending to one-fifth of the economy without out-pacing an American family’s ability to pay for this spending. In essence, living within our means.

For your perusal, HERE is a link to a brief summary of the Spending Limit Amendment (SLA). A more detailed report can be found HERE.

I emailed a reader’s comment regarding this issue to the policy people behind this amendment, this is their reply:

The bill would require a 2/3 vote of both Houses to override the amendment. Thus a super-majority (answerable to the public) would be necessary enact an emergency override. We believe this threshold high enough to prevent abuse.

Let the bribes begin!  Politico reports the arm twisting for votes has begun. How much will this cost the American taxpayer this time?

Pat Meehan is a longtime GOP hack who initiated charges against former Representative Curt Weldon. His efforts have paid off, Pat has been tapped by the GOP to run for Curt’s former seat in Pennsylvania’s 7th district. All fun aside, news items like this should make one pause and take a closer look at candidates vying for Congressional seats in Pennsylvania and across the nation.

Scott Brown’s stunning win in Massachusetts (not Massachusettes) sent tectonic ripples through both parties. In three consecutive elections, Americans voted for a change in leadership they thought they voted for in November 2008. After the MA special election, many GOP candidates have been quick to adopt the brand of ‘Independent Leadership’ into their campaign. As this political tsunami breaks across campaigns, it would be wise to take a close look at the candidates allowing themselves to be swept up in this tidal wave. Too often voters elect candidates who claimed to be concerned about the cost of government and when sent to DC, betrayed the voters trust. Pennsylvania has witnessed this closer to home at the state level with the ‘Clean Sweep’ movement a few years back. Today, the stakes are far greater and the impact of sending a political opportunist to DC would be devastating.

With this in mind, lets take a closer look at the Republican candidates vying for a chance to run for a seat in the 6th congressional district in Chester County, Pennsylvania. This is a contentious race, with a stunning turnaround by the man who occupies the seat, Jim Gerlach,who bowed out of the Governors race to campaign for his congressional seat. This action forced the best candidate for the 6th congressional district to leave the race. In the interest of disclosure, I supported Curt Schroder’s campaign and will do so again when he decides to run for the seat in the future. For me there is no better candidate in this race. That being said, lets get to the candidates.

Jim Gerlach can best be described as the devil we know. An establishment politician who has a voting record that you can review at Project VoteSmart.

Pat Sellers, a Ron Paul organizer who favors a narrowly defined foreign policy and suspects Bin Laden is dead. Many red flags around a candidate who favors fringe foreign policy.

Then there is Steve Welch, a business man running in Pennsylvania’s 6th district. Since he has not held elected office, my opinion is based on the evidence of his past registration and donation records. Let me lay out the facts regarding this candidate:

In 2006, while still registered as Republican, he donated to Democrat Joe Sestak’s campaign. He subsequently changed party affiliation to Democrat after the disastrous 2006 election cycle. In an article in Philly.com from July 2009, Welch explains his donation was born out of frustration with the GOP leadership. He remained a Democrat, voting for Obama in the 2008 Pennsylvania primary and perhaps the General election, until May of 2009. At that time, he changed his party affiliation back to Republican and commenced his campaign in Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional district. It is unclear if his decision to become a Republican again was based on his frustration with DNC leadership. A few months later,the GOP leadership directed him to run in the 6th district and he complied with their request. Yes, this is the same GOP leadership that he was so frustrated with a few years ago.

Some have stated that this is a competitive race and Welch is well financed. In an earlier post , I described the anemic public support for Welch’s campaign in the 6th district based upon donation receipts.

Despite such questionable actions, some groups have been swayed by his updated explanation for voting and financially supporting Democrats as being a ‘foolish vote’. I cannot help but wonder who’s fooling whom? It is irresponsible to ignore these action. His past actions reveal a candidate that is less of an independent leader and more of a political opportunist in the style of Arlen Specter.

With the best qualified candidate out of the race, Republican voters in the 6th district are challenged with an immensely difficult choice. Will they chose an establishment politician, a party jumping political opportunist or a Ron Paul candidate. This is one of the few times I’m glad I live in Philly.

The current edition of Back Channels clearly explains how we arrived at this ticking time bomb:

Here’s how the mess began: Starting in 2001, with a surplus in state pension funds – for teachers and for state employees – Harrisburg embarked on a series of fiscally irresponsible moves that essentially increased benefits but lowered contributions. Worse, contributions went on a payment plan equivalent to an adjustable-rate mortgage that starts with a low interest rate but mushrooms for most of the life of the loan.

Early on in Harrisburg’s pension-fund restructuring, employer contribution rates were at 5 to 7 percent of payroll for about 10 years. But starting in 2014, according to the Commonwealth Foundation, the contribution rates for school districts will climb to 33 percent, and stay above 30 percent for almost 10 years. They’ll drop after that, but not below 24 percent.

What does this mean to Joe and Jane taxpayer in Pennsylvania?

The cost to households goes from $212 this year to more than $2,000 by 2019, the Commonwealth Foundation estimates.

Understand the above amount is based upon the taxpayers shouldering the entire burden without the state taking any steps to correct this situation. So far, nothing has been proposed by Harrisburg and the clock is running.

Sam Rohrer has promising ideas:

One, put all new state hires on defined-contribution pension plans, such as a 401(k), instead of defined-benefit plans – the current system.

Two, reduce all pension enhancements – from vesting periods to multipliers to raises – to pre-2001 levels. While some argue that salary and compensation packages for state workers can’t be cut – as decreed by state judges who benefit from any increases – Rohrer says the state must reduce future obligations, while meeting any accrued since ’01.

“There’s no way to deal with this issue significantly without rolling back benefits on the front end, at least for those not yet retired,” he says.

State GOP straw poll results were released recently and unfortunately Rohrer’s ideas may only be his own:

PA GOP Caucus Straw Poll

Where are the Jobs?

Graph courtesy of The Foundry

A critic of the newly minted Senator Scott Brown sneered at a  remark made after his swearing in ceremony regarding the state of the Stimulus – “The economic stimulus bill has not created one single job.”

It seems the Foundry has data that backs Senator Brown’s astute statement. Facts are stubborn things, ya know:

The figure above shows the projections the administration made in January with and without the stimulus bill, and the actual unemployment rate since then. Unemployment has risen not only above what the President’s advisors predicted would happen if the stimulus passed, but above what they estimated would occur without the stimulus. By the President’s own measure, the stimulus has failed. The promised benefits from the $800 billion in additional federal spending and debt remain invisible.

Keep burying your head in the sand, Libs, it makes the election of Scott Brown all the sweeter.

You know, Mr. Speaker, when I look at the president’s budget for fiscal year 2011, I think about what Albert Einstein said one time. He said that ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result’ is the very definition of insanity.

Well, after years of runaway federal spending under both political parties, and after promises by this administration of fiscal discipline and reform, the president’s budget more than doubles the debt, it drives spending to a record $3.8 trillion, it pushes the deficit to a record $1.6 trillion, raises taxes by more than $2 trillion by 2020, during the worst recession in 25 years. Despite future spending freezes promised and commissions doesn’t change the fact that by any measure this budget is insane.

The American people know we can’t borrow and spend and bail our way back to prosperity. They know that deficits and debt threaten our prosperity and our posterity.

House Republicans have a better plan, a plan built on hard choices, fiscal responsibility and entitlement reform. “On behalf of our families, on behalf of our economy, we say: let’s reject this irresponsible and unsustainable budget, and lets come together around the principles of fiscal responsibility and reform, and let’s put our house in order.

Check out Better Solutions – a compilation of policy proposals House Republicans have developed and introduced since January, 2009.

The Republicans respond:

More coverage at

Mike’s America
Flopping Aces