For weeks I have wanted to write about Republican women and I couldn’t merge my scattered thoughts in a way that made any sense. Enter former HP CEO Carly Fiorina and her comments directed towards her GOP primary opponent, Assemblyman Chuck Devore. I’ll get to her comments in a moment, but first I must say that Republican women in politics often behave similarly to Democratic women when it comes to gender identity politics and, in doing so, they do Republican women a disservice.

In case you missed it, on November 23rd, Carly Fiorina, who is running in the GOP primary for US Senate in California, said in reference to Senator Barbara Boxer, “With all due respect and deep affection for white men — I’m married to one — but [Boxer] knows how to beat them. She’s done it over and over and over.”  Aside from the fact that Senator Boxer’s last opponent was an Asian-American, this comment made all my fellow conservative female friends shout collectively: Why does that matter, Carly?

Gender identity politics have become apparent in the Republican party. and not to our advantage.  Strong conservative women see the inherent strength that comes from being a woman. We also see a cheap ploy in female politicians trying to bring male opponents down for their gender alone to inflate themselves.  It cheapens the issues and tries to excuse away the natural strength that we possess.

The reality is, women are viable candidates without bringing our gender into the campaign.  We don’t need to run a female candidate just because the opponent is female in order to win. Men can represent the values of women just as women can represent the values of men, as a candidate and a politician. Republican women don’t feel the need to blindly support a woman merely because we are of the same gender.  If you seek to protect our families, country and constitution, we will support you. 

I personally find it to be insulting to my sensibilities when politicians try to trap me into gender identity politics. Fiorina’s comments yesterday reminded me why; they result in attacks based on irrelevant premises and are tricks of the left and we, conservative women, can’t stand it.

We are simple: We stand for values and the founding principles of this country and we will stand with you, irrespective of gender.

At a time when world tension is high, the US is involved in a war on two fronts (at least), the economy is tanking and taking the world economy with it and we have innumerable psycho nations seeking nuclear capabilities, we have a President that is an obsequious toady and wants the world to love him.

Obama began his administration with World Apology Tour One.  He paraded around Africa and the Middle East, insulting our allies and courting our enemies.  Can anyone forget the BOW to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah?   Or giving the Russians a big red button to “restart”?

State Department protocol has been that American Presidents do not bow…TO ANYONE.  Our Founding Fathers fled religious and royal persecution over 200 years ago and one of the bonuses is that Americans do not have to bow.  We do not recognize that we are subservient to ANY Monarch and that is what a bow signifies.  Miss Manners agrees (see full article here) but of course, her opinion at this point is probably construed as rightwing extremism and bought her a spot on the Homeland Security watch list.

But symbolic subservience to a foreign ruler is worse. When Miss Manners sees American citizens delighting in bowing or curtseying to royalty, she tries to remind herself that they are just being silly, not treasonous. When an American official does it, we can only hope it was because he was noticing that his own shoelace was undone — and not that he recognizes the divine right of kings in general, or the authority over us of that king in particular.

George Bush did not bow, but it did seem that he formed his own protocol by holding hands with the Saudi Crown Prince…Lady Libertas was not quite sure what to make of that but at least it was more egalitarian than a bow.

Liberty-Minded Americans cringed over Obama’s submissiveness in Riyadh, but apparently that was just a test run.  In his meeting with Japanese Emperor Akihito, Obama dipped deep AGAIN!  We can be sure that the Liberal Obama Defenders will rush to protest that Obama was simply showing respect, but even in Japanese tradition, it was a sign of weakness.

Jake Tapper from ABC reached out to a “an old friend — an academic with expertise about the Japanese Empire, and in general a supporter of President Obama…” who made the following observations about Obama’s bow to the Emperor (see full article here):

“The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms….The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.”

Jake Tapper’s friend states that a bow to the Emperor is not unprecedented and he is referring to the Nixon bow to Emperor Hirohito (Akihito’s father) in 1971.  Lady Libertas agrees that the Nixon bow was certainly not as deferential as Obama’s and lest the Liberal Defenders excuse that it was Obama’s height, there is only a 2 inch difference between Nixon and Obama.  As well, no other heads of state feel the need to be as ingratiating as President Obama as evidenced by the 46 handshakes collected by UConn Republicans by other world leaders as they met with the Emperor.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U6fL7Y4BZA]

Dick Cheney commented to Politico, ““There is no reason for an American president to bow to anyone. Our friends and allies don’t expect it, and our enemies see it as a sign of weakness.”

When Bill Clinton made what was interpreted as a slight bow to the Emperor in 1994, the NY Times slammed him:

“The image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent President, and the Emperor of Japan.” The paper wrote that the “thou need not bow” standard in State Department protocol has been constant since the country’s founding.

In yet another remarkably poor decision, President Obama has decided to bring five of the 911 terrorists to New York for trial. This move has outraged many Americans for obvious reasons, (obvious to most people), but for anyone unsure as to why this is a bad idea, here are three reasons:

1. By bringing terrorists into the American judicial system we instantly accord them a wealth of rights and privileges not normally provided to war criminals let alone terrorists who do not wear a uniform or in any manner acknowledge the Geneva convention protocols. Taxpayers will actually have to foot the bill for five brutal murderers who have already admitted to their crimes.

2. Under law, we are now stating that these five terrorists are indeed innocent, and the court must prove otherwise. Self-professed killers are being treated with respect and consideration they neither want nor requested.

3. By trying these terrorists in the court system we open a Pandora’s box of legal issues that may well come back to haunt us.

Bringing terrorists into our courtrooms returns us to a pre-911 mentality in which horrific terrorist acts are treated as mere criminal offenses. Readers may recall how during the 1990’s radial Jihad had formally declared war on the U.S., but President Clinton responded to repeated attacks as anything but acts of war (read U.S.S. Cole, the bombing of an American embassy, etc.).

Perhaps worse still is the dark irony that these terrorists will be tried in the very city in which so many Americans lost loved ones.

This is a horrible decision which Obama cannot blame on President Bush or in any other way justify. It is a remarkable slap in the face to every American citizen who is disgusted at the mere notion of providing these animals all the legal trimmings and accouterments of a civil legal system.

Here is Howard Roark’s final courtroom summation. It is a powerful monologue on the human condition and the pursuit of greatness. Enjoy!