The American people have spoken — and they have rejected the Democrats’ health care plan. Poll after poll, rally after rally, constiuent phone call after constituent phone call leave no room for guessing. But President Obama and Nancy Pelosi don’t care. They don’t care that Americans — whom they were elected to represent — disagree with them. They don’t care that they don’t have enough votes from their SUPERMAJORITY. They will secure their votes, as Fox News contributor Doug Schoen said this morning, “by any means necessary.”

Yesterday morning, Democrat Dennis Kucinich had solidly rejected the health care plan. After a quick ride on Air Force One with the President, he now wants to “hear more about what the President has to say.” How many back room deals are being made right now to push weary Democrats over to the President’s side? It’s government corruption at its worst.

In addition to “buying” support through deals like the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase, Pelosi is trying to trick the American people — most of whom have no genuine understanding of the interworkings of government. In addition to admitting that we don’t even know what’s in the bill, Pelosi is pushing a method that will merely “deem” the bill passed without Members actually voting so the power is all in their hands. That just doesn’t seem right to me.

“I like it because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill,” Pelosi said this week.

How convenient. Though this tactic has been used many times before, it’s never been used to push through legislation as monumental and precedent setting as this. It’s happening all ready. Last week, Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY) said the Senate bill “burns the village in order to save it.” Today Maffei has changed his mind and one has to wonder why he’s decided to “burn the village.”

As Rep. Mike Pence (IN) said today in press release, “More than three years ago Speaker Pelosi promised the American people a new direction and its time she made good on her promise.” The most “ethical” Congress ever? I think not. Democrat leadership is desperate to ram this thing through because they need to have something to show for themselves. It’s apparently the one campaign promise they will stop at nothing to keep.

If this health care bill passes, the Democrats will pay in November. The American people recognize this corruption, this hiding, these lies, for what they are. And they won’t be electing anyone associated with it again soon. Proceed at your own peril, Mr. President.

*This was first published on BlogHer. All writing are the personal opinions of the writer and do not represent her employer.

Our individual scale number is apparently no longer our exclusive business, at least in certain boroughs.  New York City’s effort to impose a penny-per-ounce toll on soda pop will produce a bitterer aftertaste than saccharin.  Evergreen Grinch Michael Bloomberg doesn’t want you getting obese or enjoying life.  Or maybe the dwarfish mayor is tired of people resting their Coke cans on top of his skull.  Either way, he’s out to punish citizens for the crime of nipping sweet liquids.  Have all of Gotham’s crimes been solved?

Anyone unsure of whether the plan should be opposed should consider who supports it.  Specifically, The New York Times thinks a penny-per-ounce tax would be good for two reasons, which of course actually means it would be bad for many reasons.  To the paper’s surprise, most don’t hold that taking more of our money or regulating our personal dimensions should be among our leaders’ goals.  But that won’t stop them: as with efforts to induce prosperity by jury-rigging the economy, the faceless trust-funded hacks responsible for churning out the faded rag’s nameless editorials think manipulating society in the name of liberal ideals will benefit all.

In practice, the consumption manipulation will work about as well as the stimulus.  The next thing you know, officious politicians who don’t want us tasting too much will take the next preposterously logical step and try to ban restaurants from using salt.  Oh, wait.  That’s only slightly more odious than getting to use the rather popular spice but being taxed for the privilege.

Such legal cons are old bad ideas.  State and federal nags have tried confiscating our money as a penalty for our vices in untold ways before.  Take smoking, which they’ve made into a hobby more expensive than yachting or Lexus demolition derbies.

While we should be free to char-broil our own lungs, the government wants us to quit.  At the same time, they also don’t want us to quit: while the tariffs are allegedly designed to improve our health, the capitals in question have grown accustomed to amassing the capital they take.  Oddly, the biggest addict becomes the ruling body that gets hooked on a new way to mainline our earnings.  As with speeding tickets, the motivation for the punitive measure becomes public revenue.  Oh right, and it’s about our safety.  Don’t forget about our safe safety.

Even if the fun fines were effective, we shouldn’t want them to be.  Back in the 20^th century, certain theorists whispered clandestinely about the possible existence of voluntary decision-making, whereby we could weigh the costs and gains of actions and choose a path accordingly using a human brain.  We might do something that could be bad for us, but we’d merely have to face the potential consequences of getting enjoyment out of the pursuit.  But such antiquated, reactionary notions have been abandoned along with the notion that one should repay one’s college loans.

The suggested levy is ostensibly based around the apparently fresh notion that having fun may be bad for you.  On a related note, performing studies that note gratuitous caloric intake may lead to health problems and that too much sugar causes diabetes is one of the few dependable vocations left in our social democracy.  Our young people undecided about careers should be aware that putting on a lab coat and pointing out the painfully obvious is an apparently recession-proof field.

The obnoxiously annoying cash grab impedes upon our right to enjoy ourselves at will.  While it brings to mind fears of bigger rights and income grabs, the $1.44 extra per 12-pack is also odious on its own.  It’s a particular burden on families and low-wage earners who are struggling to stretch grocery budgets and happen to enjoy Dr Pepper.  CEOs and mail clerks would have to endure the same charge.  But don’t fear: our overlords will figure out how to make the tax progressive somehow.

The tyrants with misplaced caretaker tendencies don’t want anyone having fun regardless of income.  The pathetic foes of indulgence won’t rest until they have seized both our spending money and bliss.  They’re the most miserable type of miserable people, namely those who are only happy when others aren’t.  They can’t be content moping in the dark: they need to destroy sunshine like human black holes, too.  As an example, they want to do what they can to prevent you from putting tasty things in your mouth.

Plus, taxing fizzy beverages hurts the economy beyond the initial transaction.  How many soda pop plant workers would lose jobs if the chastisement gets enacted?  Merchandise delivery drivers?  Convenience store cashiers?  The other group at risk is everyone else: having to spend more on cold drinks means less money overall in the economy, so we’ll all suffer.  At least we can still kick back and spoil ourselves with an affordable glass of tap water.

You should take this proposed nuisance personally, as it’s a direct insult aimed at your closest family member.  Simply put, politicians advocating such plots don’t trust moms.  The family’s mayor should be monitoring drinking habits, not New York’s.  I naturally speak from experience, as whippersnapper me was commanded by my mom to avoid excessive two-liter pours with accompanying threats of room confinement and limited G.I. Joe and/or Nintendo access.

The lady you address as Mrs. Bialy did more to ensure I wasn’t over-fizzed than any politician ever would, or should.  But certain mayors, governors, representatives, senators, and presidents don’t think the traditional family is capable of promoting reasonable use of anything.  It’s undeniably appalling how the government is attempting to usurp your mother’s place.  But it unfortunately can’t seem like a strange tendency to anyone who’s observed a high percentage of present office-fillers in action.

As usual, a disgustingly obese government is out to modify personal ingestion instead of protecting our actual rights.  They get tough on root beer fiends, not the Underpants Bomber.  Such an irritating autonomy grab is to be expected.  After all, these are the same lifestyle fascists who want to turn your health care into our health care.  On a broader scale, they also want to make everyone empty their wallets into a communal pile.  You trust your brothers and sisters who are fellow passengers on Spaceship Earth to take only what’s necessary, don’t you?

Meanwhile, the elected au pairs can’t confide in us to monitor our diets.  Restricting fun with a financial charge is exactly what we should expect from these sad enemies of pleasure.  They’re trying to exploit the final moments of Obamamania by promoting yet one more example of agonizingly superfluous governmental interdiction.  The wretched souls are trying to compensate for their gloomy existences by dragging us down, too.

Thankfully, as with every other unwarranted state and federal encroachment, more/most of the public recognizes such annoying measures for the bunk they are.  For people sick of bureaucratic hassle, the idea that the government should be trying to confiscate more of our income to bully us into emaciation is not even worth considering.  Rather, we should only be debating over whether it’s “pop” or “soda.”  Yes, “pop” is loads more fun to use, and if you say “soda” you know you’re jealous.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Late last week, CQPolitics published an article rhetorically asking where all the GOP women were this election cycle.  It was said there were only 4 “strong” candidates running for the “most competitive” House seats.  What was not clearly communicated, however, was the standard by which the argument was made: the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Young Guns Program.

The NRCC developed a program as a means of drawing new blood into the party.  With pre-set fundraising and campaign benchmarks, this is a clever way for candidates to gain party support but it is not a measure of how strong a candidate is in a given district.

Moreover, these “competitive” races are defined by CQPolitics as elections occurring in swing districts.  Those infamous purple areas are zealously sought after by both parties, but what about women in those neck-and-neck primaries?  Or female candidates in Republican strongholds?  Well, they are unaccounted for by both CQPolitics and the NRCC.

There are over 60 women running for House seats on the Republican ticket this election cycle and some districts have yet to close filing.  Some of these women may not be considered “strong” by the NRCC because they have just started campaigning and/or fundraising, they have decided to create some distance between themselves and the Republican party, or they just don’t need (or want) the GOP.

The fact of the matter is the conservative women are out there fighting for principles, standing for small government, raising their voices for fiscal responsibility.  Currently 18 Republican women are in the House of Representatives; 5 of them are up for re-election.  The NRCC also has a plan of action for incumbents called the Patriot Program; these 5 women constitute 20% of the membership.

But what about the other side of the aisle?  How do Democrats fare when it comes to female representation?

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) also has two programs, one for new candidates and one for incumbents.  The Red to Blue Program for newbies uses the same type of criteria (fundraising and campaign goals) as the NRCC’s Young Guns Program.  Out of 13 people in the Red to Blue crowd, only 3 of them are women.

The DCCC group for incumbent Representatives is called Frontline Democrats.  This group has 41 members, 9 of them are women.  Interestingly, women comprise almost 22% of the Frontline group which is only 2 points ahead of the Republicans’ Patriot Program.

When you compare apples to apples, the Democrats are only ahead of the Republicans by a nose.  Both parties claim they focus on finding the best candidate for the job and pay little attention to gender.  While this may be as true as a talking point can be, neither party has actively engaged women to the point of openly encouraging them to run for a seat in the House of Representatives.

Women are increasingly joining the ranks of public office.  Particularly with the aid of the grassroots movement, conservative females across the country are taking charge of their city councils, mayor’s offices, state legislatures, and governor’s mansions and, for some, their sights are set to Washington, D.C..  If Yahoo! thinks 2010 is short on estrogen, then they should brace themselves for 2012 because there are definitely smart girls moving up the political ladder.

Today, Keli is a teacher for a private nonprofit education organization and dedicates a great deal of her free time to the Tea Party movement in the Seattle area. When not working, she is a tea party activist. She is currently the Political Director of the King County Young Republicans as well as Chairman of the Washington Young Republican Federation. She also writes for the blogs Red County and American Thinker, in addition to running her own blog., Redistributing Knowledge Additionally, Keli professes that she spend a great deal of her time continuing to educate herself about history, economics, and current events; all of which she believes aids her in, “Helping to promote conservatism in a positive and empowering manner to those that have never been introduced to conservative ideas before.”

Keli is the founder and co-chair of the Seattle-area activist coalition, The Seattle Sons & Daughters of Liberty. She previously lived and worked in Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand, and received a graduate diploma in Education at the University of Oxford in Oxford, England.

When it comes to current political figures, Keli greatly respects Senator Jim DeMint and Congresswoman Michelle Bachman. She points to their unwavering beliefs and willingness to stand by their conservative principles no matter what the circumstance. Additionally, she admires the fact that in a modern day era of corruption, controversy, and inside the beltway politics, they have both managed to remain outsiders, refusing to bend to the will of D.C.

Keli recommends to young conservatives “find some like-minded friends. Always keep friends around with whom you disagree, for sure, but also make sure that you have a support network so that you are not constantly fighting and defending yourself. Sometimes you need to work with people who can give you strength and support,” she says.

Since becoming active and involved in the conservative movement, Keli says she’s learned some important lessons. Her best advice is that young conservatives stay focus. “Don’t get distracted or disheartened.” she says. “There are many people out there that want to rip you apart and bring you down, or to at least distract you enough so that you lose your way. Do not be bothered by them. You have important work that needs to be done and taking the time to respond to every single attack steals those precious moments you have. Do not let them steal your time or your optimism.” With this kind of mindset and a steady resolve, Keli Carender will continue to be a conservative leader for years to come.

Specifically, some have abruptly realized that a government proposal designed to give millions of people free health care while removing all cost accountability might be pricey (h/t Ericka Andersen).  President Obama can deliver yet another lecture about how it will be cheaper than our present setup to insure everyone with no competition, but we haven’t fallen, aren’t falling, and won’t ever fall for it.

He may in fact be reading the same speech every time.  It’s become such a chore to follow his incessant campaign that his staff may have realized they can get away with slothfully feeding the same words into the teleprompter every morning.  Regardless, the counterargument remains consistent: no federal program has ever saved money, and the first to do so won’t be one that commandeers an entire industry.

Still, they’ll try to pull magical quarters out of our ears until they have enough to pay for the charade.  Their most recent stab at cunningness is to not say how much Democraticare would actually cost.  That strategy explains why, whoops, they forgot to mention the plot’s real expenses.  Like Jerry Lundegaard-style car dealers who announce the cost of sealant only as the deal’s being closed, they’ve been caught trying to sneak through yet one more cripplingly brutal cost.  It’s all for the right to buy a junky late 80s GM car.  Nobody wants to pay loads extra for a Cutlass Ciera.

Unsurprisingly, national health backers frame the issue incorrectly.  For one, they think offering exemplary care levels at rock bottom prices is possible by passing a 2,300-plus page bill with the shiftiest of tactics.  If proponents maintain reams of legislation will simultaneously improve costs and care, it has to happen that way here in reality, right?  They shouldn’t but will be astonished to learn that passing a law doesn’t turn intentions into results.

Further, they’re offering something that’s not theirs to offer.  We and not the Steny Hoyers of the world are supposed to take care of life’s details, including our well-being.  The White House and a portion of legislators can ignore it all they want, but they’re only trying to revoke our freedom to be accountable.

Health care is a commodity.  It’s not a right, and we’re certainly not entitled to it.  To clarify for our misguidedly persnickety liberal friends, we have the right to acquire insurance but not be handed it.  The product in question might be important and necessary, but it’s still our responsibility to obtain it.  Actually, rumor holds that the bill makes the word “responsibility” illegal, but nobody’s read that far without suffering boredom-related trauma.  In the meantime, there’s still presently hope for those reactionaries who think humans ought to take care of themselves.

It’s not as if any Democratic bill would leave us destitute but healthy.  The government, in their governmental way, will figure how to reduce the quality of care but not expenses.  Some states have already pulled off this perverse miracle: for one, Tennessee failed to improve its citizens’ bank accounts or selves with their take on collective care (h/t Jay Riemersma, MI-2’s next congressman).  Such a racket won’t work any better if imposed upon both the Volunteer State and their 49 neighbors.  Ask Mitt Romney for another example, and he’ll reflexively cringe.

When they’re not relying on financial sorcery, Obamacare enthusiasts will merely neglect to mention any possible downside of their machinations.  For one, they’ll fail to admit how taxes to fuel their monster will be collected immediately even though the plan itself will be immediately mothballed for a couple years.  On a related note, you can reduce your food budget if you only eat four days per week.  While Michelle Obama might consider the strategy to be a useful obesity-fighting measure, it’s fair to classify it as an unhealthy approach to fitness.

But we’ve come to expect such crooked legerdemain from everyone attempting to Cubafy our health care.  Their most absurdly shameless fraud so far has been trying to pass the bill through the House without passing it.  Don’t worry: they’ll find a way to sink lower within a week or two.

Perfectly appropriately, the House and Senate face a prisoner’s dilemma.  It’s an applicable term not just because many of them are under investigation and/or act like felons: more specifically, each side is currently pondering what the other will do and accordingly acting in a manner conducive to their own goals.  With that in mind, representatives could pass the bill and hope the upper chamber twits then pass the promised modifications.  Should they fall for it?  Do you trust Chuck Schumer?

All the confusion, nonsense, and subterfuge stems from a preposterous effort to turn an item we should buy on our own into a free handout.  The genuine competition that would emerge as a byproduct of allowing insurance purchases across state lines would do more to lower costs than Washington ever will on anything.  But Democrats will eschew allowing more people to buy a plan in favor of attempting to get more people on medical welfare.  There’s nothing cynical about noticing that every one of their initiatives expands federal control over everyone but Guantanamo inmates.

Of course, they’re also simultaneously ruining the word “insurance,” as the service is supposed to be obtained voluntarily to protect against possible future calamity.  Instead, people will wait until becoming sick to enroll, then sign up and suck up all the rationed care available.  While it’s an infinitely safer bet, the house will inevitably go bankrupt.

And Obama won’t stop moaning about health insurers denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions.  Next, he’ll complain that home insurers won’t sell policies to those whose dwellings are presently aflame.  They’re so greedy, and probably connected to Wall Street fat cats somehow.

If the present Congress passes any health bill, the only way to limit costs will be spreading out care evenly.  I’m sure someone has broached the inevitability of rationing panels.  It will cost so much to get much less, but at least we’ll suffer together.  Turning America into South Quebec will make our lives resemble the situation on The Office: we’re essentially stuck in a lousy job where the only coping mechanism is being unified by contempt for the ludicrously misguided boss.  Whether Steve Carrell or Ricky Gervais comes to mind, we’re not suffering alone.

It’s too bad morale had to sink this low in order for us to bond.  But at least we’re making new friends.  Best, we share common interests: the new crew is entirely composed of folks wise to the philosophical and financial catastrophe that congressional and executive Democrats wish to inflict upon us.

Like a Greek organization or sports team initiation, the misery has bonded us together, and not in an Eric Massa’s Naval career way, either.  We’re united with our honorary brothers and sisters by the belief that the only thing worse than surrendering freedoms to the state is getting a thoroughly lousy, woefully overpriced service in return.  Other than that, we’d get a good deal.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Cheryl Lavette, Georgia State Coordinator

Cheryl Lavette, Smart Girl Politics’ Georgia State Coordinator, had no idea what she was getting into when she won the group’s raffle for a ticket to CPAC 2010.  This was her first time attending the Conservative Political Action Conference and it’s certain not be to be the last.   She said “CPAC empowered me to network and connect with other people within the political community” and went on to explain that even though she needed a small break afterwards, the organized chaos energized her.

Three days of 16-hour schedules stacked with speakers, panels, exhibits, book signings, and debate, Cheryl felt right at home in the mayhem; Cheryl is a Registered Investment Advisor.  Her professional life started on the trading floors and, even though she now has an office of her own, the high-pressure and the stress has not diminished.  In fact, the 2008-2009 market crash intensified the stress because the policies that were being made directly affected not only her industry, colleagues, and career, but also the very people she worked for – her clients.

A group of women from the Atlanta financial community began holding what came to be known as “strategy sessions” to discuss these changes, how to cope with them, and what they could do to change them.  She says her “concern about the economy turned into ‘my country is changing before my eyes’”.  Heartbroken, Cheryl wondered if her country had slipped through her fingers, but March 31, 2009 she found Smart Girl Politics and she hasn’t looked back since.

Cheryl Lavette & General David Petraeus

Wanting to be completely engaged in the political conversation, Cheryl resigned from the Georgia Securities Association Board of Directors so she would have more time to commit to the conservative movement.  Shortly after opening her schedule, she was asked to serve as Georgia State Coordinator – an invitation that has had tremendous results for Smart Girl Politics, as well as the Georgia state group.  Since then she has created the National Debt and Economic Watch Group, a forum on SGP’s Ning site dedicated to the concerns members have about America’s national debt.  According to the SGP Annual Member Survey, healthcare was trumped by the national spending as the primary concern; Cheryl saw this concern as an opportunity to use her education, talent, and energy to help educate members.

Cheryl is a true patriot and her passion for this country is motivating her activism.  Her words echo the sentiment of the entire grassroots movement: “I’m not going to sit by and watch this unfold and tell my niece and nephews I did nothing.”

A new poll of America’s 18-29 year-olds released yesterday by Harvard’s Institute of Politics gives the Republican Party serious hope for change in 2010.

The poll reveals a significant enthusiasm gap among young voters, with young Republicans expressing greater eagerness to vote in November’s midterm elections than their young Democrat counterparts. Among young Republicans, 41 percent said they will “definitely be voting in November” compared to 35 percent of under-30 Democrats and 13 percent of young Independents.

Even more significantly, young McCain voters are much more likely than young Obama voters to show up at the polls in 2010. Fifty-three percent of under-30 McCain voters say they will definitely vote, compared to 44 percent of those who supported President Obama. There have been early signs that the young Americans who helped fuel the Obama campaign are not beholden to the Democrats: Bob McDonnell won the under-30 demographic 54-44 in Virginia’s gubernatorial election, and only 15 percent of 18-29 year-olds came out to the polls in the crucial Massachusetts Senate special election.

Those were not the poll’s only hopeful signs for the center-right. On the question of political ideology, a statistically equal number of young Americans identified themselves as conservative as they did liberal (34 percent vs. 36 percent, within the poll’s +/- 2.3 percent margin of error).

What a difference a year makes.

But that data does not necessarily translate into party identification on the right. When asked about party affiliation, the exact same number (36 percent) who said they were liberal also called themselves Democrats. But only 23 percent identified as Republicans, 11 percent less than those who called themselves conservative.

The GOP still has a long way to go to revive its brand among America’s youngest generation of voters. But this new data gives the Republican Party hope that its youth movement, once thought lost, can be found – and maybe as early as November.

This article has been cross-posted from The Daily Caller.

It’s clear that the Pelosi and crew are hurting to gather all the votes necessary to pass their government takeover of health care. Michael Barone broke it down today and it seems unlikely that they will without pulling out every backdoor, corrupted stop they’ve got. Every day, we read more reports of another Democrat claiming they will vote no on the bill. The American people have spoken via polls stats, townhall meetings and elections (hello, Republican in Massachusetts!).

The GOP submitted a health care reform plan months ago that Democrats have repeatedly ignored. Republicans realize they represent the American people and know there is still time to stop this horrible bill. They’ve consistently submitted to the President that the entire bill be scrapped. Leadership has suggested that a clean slate is the best idea as the bill have become so bogged down in opposition, changes, corrupted deals and backlash that it is impossible for it to come out “clean” and accceptable for America. Passing major health care legislation sets a critical precedent for the future of our country. Democrat leadership refuses to acknowledge their responsibility to present a responsible, transparent plan. As Pelosi said yesterday, no one even knows what is in the bill! A new video shows Democrats coughing up some very inconvenient truths about their precious big government health care bill.

The ominous music is appropriate, watch it here.

I am sure you are aware that, over the weekend, D-List Actress Kathy Griffin made some very vulgar comments about Sarah Palin, including one comment in which she said Sarah performed a sex act on John McCain when they first met. I don’t know what she considers comedy, but it is VERY obvious to me that a joke like that is NEVER funny no matter who says it. Regular readers of my blog are well aware that I am not afraid to call it like I see it. My regular readers also know that I am not afraid to call individuals and groups out when they DON’T act accordingly. It seems to me that Kathy Griffin is a lost cause. While I am angered at the comments she made and continues to make at Sarah’s expense, it is not surprising seeing that she is an attention-seeking-walking disaster whose only claim to fame seems to be as Levi Johnston’s sad excuse for a date.

Again, I find myself asking: “Where are the NOW women?” “Where are the other feminist groups?” After all, these groups seem to preach female empowerment and equal rights, yet fail to act when one of their own sex is attacked. This is the reason why I strongly believe these so-called feminists are the most cowardly, hypocritical individuals on the face of the earth. Have they ever caused me to view them differently? NO! I am sick and tired of feminist groups picking and choosing whom they will defend. I was a guest on Eddie Burke’s show yesterday. As we were discussing this issue, Eddie brought up a great point in that if Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton were the individuals being attacked, the press would hear from these groups in a heartbeat. While it is clear that they would immediately jump to Michelle and Hillary’s defense, once again, they stand silent while Sarah is blatantly and unfairly attacked. Shame on them for not doing what so many of us do on a daily basis. When it comes to defending one of my fellow women, I see no color; I see no party. I simply see a fellow woman who is being treated unfairly and unjustly. This is a common sense response that the NOW women seem to ignore, or are just simply too blind to see.

Yet again, we see the difference between the treatment conservative women and liberal women receive. These feminazis are too proud and afraid- yes afraid- to do the right thing. While they are too wrapped up in their own feminist bubble to realize their actions, I am not. There are many individuals like me out there who are not afraid to call these groups out. The more I read and hear about NOW and others who describe themselves as “feminists,” the more I question just how pro-women they really are. In the end, it is clear that feminist groups want nothing to do with empowering women, and everything to with pushing their own agenda and only supporting women who represent this agenda. Their motto seems to have become: “Stand with us or else- others WILL attack you.” Yep, just another day in the life of so-called women’s rights groups.

This article is cross-posted from Conservative Girl With a Voice

If you’re like most Americans and too busy to read whiny feminist blogs, note that March is Women’s History Month. Christina Hoff Sommers has an article in the current Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute’s Policy Express on taking back the feminist movement and highlighting women’s history. It’s an absolute must read. She writes: 

But today the movement has been taken over by aggrieved eccentrics. Marching under the banner of feminism, the current activists are fighting a gender war that few women support or understand. The potential for harm is enormous. Mainstream women are going to have to rescue feminism from the feminists.

We badly need a responsible, reality- based women’s movement. Women in many parts of the developing world are still struggling for their basic rights.
Egalitarian progressives—some would say radicals. They held that men and women, although socialized to different roles, are identical in their essential natures. By appealing to principles of social justice and universal rights, egalitarians sought to liberate women from the private sphere of the home—into the public spheres of politics, business, and work.

I came into this fight over feminism late. As a young woman and conservative college student, I purposely avoided anything relating to womyn’s studies or gender politics. After working at a nonprofit geared towards girls, I came face-to-face with the “egalitarian feminism” that Sommers discusses. Behind every rallying cry for “equality” there’s a scary agenda from the Radical Left to remake our society into a European socialist copycat that has taken over colleges, the media and our court system.

Since the left has demonized conservative women for so long, most females on the right avoid anything remotely resembling feminism. That leaves us woefully ignorant when it comes to the history for women’s equality. Please take a few minutes and understand that there is a need to fight for equality between men and women, but this can be done–and has been done–in ways that value and protect American traditions and capitalism.

As Sommer’s notes in the article, Clare Booth Luce was writing about women’s issues long before Betty Friedan ever felt bored in her affluent suburban home. Rather than fight to change society into some socialistic utopia, she understood how women operate. Sommer’s quotes Luce:

It is time to leave the question of the role of women in society up to Mother Nature—a difficult lady to fool. You have only to give women the same opportunities as men, and you will soon find out what is or is not in their nature. What is in women’s nature to do they will do, and you won’t be able to stop them. But you will also find, and so will they, that what is not in their nature, even if they are given every opportunity, they will not do, and you won’t be able to make them do it.

Feminist arguments fall flat over “second shift” work, the so-called wage gap and complaints that we still have not achieved equality despite making up more than half of the workforce, as seen in the recent Shriver Report. Women don’t make choices to better the cause of women. Women make choices that better their individual lives and families. When you make women equal, as our society has largely done, women will reject what doesn’t work, even if this conflicts with the agenda of the left-leaning feminist movement.

** Crossposted from www.cosmopolitanconservative.com