Komen betrayed from within, Part II: The coincidences
Yesterday I described all the players who doomed Susan G. Komen for the Cure from within to lose against Planned Parenthood’s assault when it tried to defund the abortion giant.
Today I will list “coincidences” from Karen Handel’s book, Planned Bullyhood, and also from my interview with her, that give evidence of the Trojan Horse.
December 8, 2011: Komen places a conference call about its decision to defund Planned Parenthood with its public relations representative from SKDKnickerbocker, Hilary Rosen.
December 16, 2011: Komen president Liz Thompson speaks to Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards by phone, but Richards already knows everything.
First week of January 2012: A brief snippet about Komen ending PP grants appears on a radio show out of Ohio. Komen has no idea where it came from. (JLS note: I kind of know where it came from. There was a pro-lifer on the Komen board who tipped Life Decisions International off, and LDI went public before getting a fierce call from the source telling LDI to unplug the news, that the situation was very dicey. Read more here and here.) Handel speaks by phone with Rosen, asking for an update. Rosen says it appears PP is going to just let things go because the organization has other issues. This turns out to either be a lie or an epic fail on Rosen’s part to properly perform her job as liaison between Komen and PP.
January 23, 2012: Komen receives a call that Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, saying she needs to speak with Nancy Brinker “urgently – that day if possible.” She then fails to follow-up and strangely reschedules the “urgent” call for one week later – January 30.
January 30, 2012: Komen gets a bombshell. An Associated Press reporter contacts Komen and says he is writing a story on Komen and Planned Parenthood. Meanwhile, Rosen and other reps from SKD have coincidentally come to the office without Handel’s knowledge. Handel asks Rosen if she thinks PP is going to “DEFCON 4.” “Oh no,” is Rosen’s response, “I don’t think this is any big deal.” Meanwhile, the Wasserman Schultz call happens, and she knows about everything “in great detail… somehow… privy to what had been going on within our organization,” writes Handel. Brinker says the call got “extremely ugly” with Wasserman Schultz telling her Komen would “regret the decision.”
January 31, 2012: The infamous Associated Press story comes out. As I described in this post, Planned Parenthood had tweets and Facebook updates ready to launch. Also, within 48 hours PP lobbyists had gathered signatures of 26 senators on a letter to Komen.
Rosen is absolutely nowhere to be found after January 30. According to Handel she didn’t even attend the murder board session to prep Brinker for her disastrous interview with Andrea Mitchell.
According to Handel in our interview, “This is unconfirmed but I heard from several sources that at some point on February 2, I believe after the Mitchell interview, Rosen called and said she was resigning the account because she just couldn’t take it anymore. That would explain how she felt she could send that congratulatory tweet the following day,” which was positively scandalous in light of her role at Komen…
Congrats to Susan G. Komen for the Curesgk.mn/w7MEZR. No room for politics in fighting cancer.
— Hilary Rosen (@hilaryr) February 3, 2012
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
STUDY: Female GOP Politicians Look More Feminine
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/sep/27/study-female-gop-politicians-look-more-feminine/
If a new academic study is to be believed, Republican women politicians look more feminine than their Democratic counterparts.
The study, by two UCLA researchers, found that female politicians with what are described as stereotypically feminine features tended to be Republicans, and the reverse was also true for Democratic women. GOP women rated, on average, twice as stereotypically feminine as Democrats.
In fact, the authors said the correlation was so strong that undergraduates were regularly able to guess someone’s party affiliation just by the way she looks.
Let me see if I can apply some DenseGnome analysis to this article:
Female democRAT politicians, in an attempt to reject their femininity, choose to project a ‘masculine’ appearance. [This seems counter intuitive to feminista dogma. Even some in the homosexual community would say these women look ‘butch’. Not saying that the current Secretary of State is gender challendged, but I have always contended that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the strongest man in the obamateur administration.]
Celebrating the number of abortions last weekend = pro-abortion.
There ya have it folks. Get your screenshot now so you can bring it out the next time a pro-choicer tries to say that no one is pro-abortion.
Right. Because no Republican women are “strong”. I dare you to say that to Ann Coulter’s face. Or mine.
But yeah, gloat about the 9,000 children killed over the weekend. I bet you’d talk about how “violent” Pro-Lifers or Christians are in the same breath. How ignorant.
Great. I’d welcome the chance to show you how wrong you are.
“xalisae, Coulter is not a woman.”
And abortion supporters are always going on about how “misogynist” we are, and trying to cast themselves as being supportive of females and anti-sexist. It’s hilarious how overtly hypocritical they are!
“Coulter is not a woman.”
And here we have another great screenshot.
Meanwhile, back on topic, this just goes to show how the DNC, Planned Parenthood and many elite organizations are pracitically one in the same institution, and if anyone (even the leaders of said organization) runs afoul of the revolution, they are next in line for the show trial. I guess you can say their “long march” through most of our institutions is complete and their rule that of an iron fist.