Penny Nance, CEO of the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC), released the following statement in reaction to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-California) remarks today at the pro-abortion EMILY’s List luncheon: 

“For perhaps the only time, CWALAC agrees with Speaker Pelosi that women will most certainly decide the outcome of this election and that women have indeed changed the course of history. 

“Unfortunately for the women and families Nancy Pelosi vowed to protect and support when she assumed the Speakership, they have suffered under the weight of a Congress that forces unpopular and harmful legislation down the throats of Americans and whose Members run wild through the halls of the Capitol, harassing anyone who ignites their fancy.  Disgusting. 

“But Americans, particularly women, have woken up.  They are out in full force and will be voting this election, and like Pelosi said, they will decide this election — although we highly doubt the election will be in Pelosi’s favor.  Drop the gavel, Nancy.  Your time is up.”

Eleven times.  That’s how many times the Honorable Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) used the word “sh***y” when grilling an executive from Goldman Sachs yesterday in a Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Investigations hearing regarding the company’s financial dealings. 

Are you kidding me?  What an embarrassment to our country to have a sitting U.S. Senator, on public television, use such coarse language.  How dare Senator Levin, no matter how angry he was, use a string of expletives when interrogating a witness.  This isn’t the men’s locker room.  Get over yourself and have some decency Mr. Levin. 

This wasn’t just a “fleeting expletive” either.  This was more like a shower of expletives.  And since it was on public television, there is a very good chance FCC indecency laws would (or should) kick in. 

We expect a lot more from the leaders of this country than the lack of self-control that Senator Levin showed today.  The Senator should have his mouth washed out with soap. 

Senator Levin should not only publicly apologize, but Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) should get off his high horse and publicly admonish his colleague for such outrageous and offensive behavior.

Concerned Women for America’s CEO Penny Nance has a piece up this morning on the Daily Caller about the federal government workers who were surfing the web for pornography all day at the SEC. Turns out that they aren’t the only gov organization to be caught doing this. Recently employees of the National Science Foundation were also caught spending their time surfing for porn instead of working – and all on the taxpayer dime.

Penny learned from a source that there’s more to this story than simply firing the offensive employees:

Why aren’t these folks immediately fired upon exposure? According to a source at the SEC it’s not as simple as it seems. In order to fire or even suspend employees caught purposely viewing porn the agency must fight with their union. Apparently, even wasting tax dollars viewing porn isn’t reason enough for the NTEU to support a bad employee getting the sack. Perhaps partially for the aforementioned reason, the typical response of big government agencies is people never get fired, just reassigned to another cubicle.

Bernie Madoff and all the other scandals regarding lack of oversight and enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) now make a lot more sense.  The SEC’s Office of the Inspector General’s summary regarding 33 investigations into the wide spread use of pornography on SEC computers has become public and is quite, ahem, revealing.  Apparently, during the last two years, high ranking government employees making between $99K and $220K have been looking at porn — a lot of porn.  In fact, one senior attorney spent eight hours per day exercising his “1st Amendment right” to free porn, and there were plenty of other similar stories. 

I have two real concerns with this story.  As the CEO of the nations’ largest public policy organization for women, I am outraged that my tax dollars paid for the salaries for these men and women while they wasted time instead of doing their jobs.  This brings to light an insidious use of government waste and fraud by a government regulatory body while the nation teetered on the edge of economic collapse.  Really?!  Why weren’t these folks immediately fired upon exposure?  As of today, only one person investigated “resigned.”  Typical of big government agencies, folks never get fired.  They just get reassigned to another cubicle.  The fact that they were not for the most part disciplined only leads me to conclude that the SEC is being mismanaged, and I seriously wonder how more power and authority is expected to magically fix the problem. 

Finally, my other concerns center around the folks investigated.  They are perfect examples of how some people become truly addicted to porn to the point that they can no longer lead normal lives or have healthy relationships.  The pornography business is an over $13 billion per year enterprise with profits larger than the NFL, NBA, and MLB combined.  It is literally everywhere and prevalent to the point where moms can barely protect their kids from inadvertent exposure.  It dehumanizes women in general and abuses the women (many of whom were victimized as children) in particular. 

Porn coarsens our society and also hurts those who view it.  Mary Ann Layden, Ph.D., from the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Cognitive Therapy, said in a Wired.com interview that, “Porn is the most concerning thing to psychological health that I know of.”  She also said it is a more difficult habit to kick than cocaine.  Clearly the government workers at the SEC, and perhaps other agencies, would agree.  I believe strongly that is time for a government-wide response to the wasted hours and human toll of a society that refuses to admit that porn harms.  

Today, I call on President Obama to require a government investigation into how widespread this problem exists, and set up proper disciplinary action for those caught wasting our money.  I believe in porn addiction, but we also drug test federal workers.  I seriously doubt the SEC is the only government agency with a porn problem.  Last year, it was uncovered that employees at the National Science Foundation also spent hours and hours looking at porn on the job.  

Enough is enough.  More than just a slap on the wrist is needed for these employees and the supervisors who manage them.

Like I have said before, I think House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) knew a lot about former Congressman Eric Massa’s (D-New York) antics long before it became public, and she decided to do nothing.  She kept the status quo and refused to “drain the swamp” that she so adamantly protested against when elected Speaker. 

The Washington Examiner reported yesterday that Speaker Pelosi may be called to testify in front of the House Ethics committee on what her office knew about the complaints made by Massa’s staffers. 

Pelosi is already saying that her staff knew but never told her.  What a copout.  You’re the Speaker of the House, and you blame a huge scandal on your staff?  That’s not what a leader does. 

I was also critical of the way the Republicans handled allegations of ex-Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Florida) sexual misconduct with young boys.  The Ethics Committee released a report saying that Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) was told in passing about it and that his staff knew.

The Speaker of the House and his/her staff should respond immediately to serious allegations.  If this was a private company, antics like those of Foley and Massa would have been dealt with immediately.  Raunchy movies like Animal House appear more ethical than our U.S. Congress.

Kim Kardashian, celebrity, socialite, and star of the E! reality show “Keeping Up With The Kardashians,” recently announced that she regrets posing for Playboy back in 2007.

Just before her reality show was to begin airing, Kim posed nude for Playboy.  Of course, an episode of her show documented the shoot.  At the time, Kim was proud to celebrate her body, and her mom told her how beautiful the photos were going to be. 

However, three years later, Kim says the shoot made her feel “uncomfortable,” and she regrets it altogether.  What was Kim’s mom’s response to her hesitance?  She says her mom, Kris Jenner, actually pressured her to go through with it.  “They might never ask you again.  Our show isn’t on the air yet.  No one knows who you are.  Do it and you’ll have these beautiful pictures to look at when you’re my age.” 

Wow.  She gives an entirely new meaning to the term “stage mom.”

I mean, it just seems as if more and more mothers are willing to pimp their daughters out for fame and publicity.  The message it sends to young girls is that it’s more important to be admired for your sexuality than for true beauty and character. 

It makes me sad beyond words that Kris Jenner sent that kind of message to her daughter, and by extension, young women everywhere.  Daughters want to be told by their mothers that they’re beautiful and valued, not that the only way to get attention and publicity is to exploit their body for a magazine that demeans and insults women and perverts the minds of men. 

I hope Kim heals.  And I hope she learns the truth that her intrinsic value has precious little to do with her body.  Most of all, when she’s her mom’s age and has all those “beautiful pictures to look at,” I hope she’ll tell her daughter, “Popularity is as fleeting as your looks.  You are more beautiful in your quiet confidence and virtue than anyone can ever know.  Tell Playboy to take a hike.”

Demi Bardsley is Congressional Liaison and Media Coordinator for Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee.

President Obama, in pandering to the homosexual activists who supported him during his presidential run, yesterday mandated something that already exists — that almost all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of homosexuals and respect patients’ choices about who may make critical health care decisions for them.

Like anyone else, homosexuals have the right by legal means to decide who should be able to visit them in the hospital, and even if the family rejects this, the doctor can overrule it if he/she deems it helpful to the patient’s recovery.

What have not existed are rules on the federal level to refer to a homosexual partner as a “spouse.” That is something the House Ethics Committee wrote into the rules that were posted on its website yesterday, but have since been taken down.

All Members of Congress, their spouses, and senior staff are required by law to fill out financial disclosure forms, and the ethics committee said that from now on they have to refer to their homosexual partners as “spouses.” This flies in the face of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by significant margins in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

The House Ethics Committee just overwrote federal law. But what else do you expect from an out-of-control Congress led by a President whose policies continue to undermine the foundation of country — the family?

It’s been too easy to mistake the U.S. Congress for frat house brothers recently.  And the worst part is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi could care less.  She might as well say “boys will be boys” and let them have their tickle fights and hit on staff members and interns to no end. 

Like Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), I have serious concerns about when Democratic leadership knew of the allegations against former Congressman Eric Massa (D-New York) but refused to take action.  It’s time that Nancy Pelosi (D-California) hand over the gavel.  Instead of draining the swamp like she promised, she’s now taking a bubble bath in it — and loving every minute.

Homosexual advocates in California failed to gather enough signatures to place a measure on this year’s ballot challenging the constitutional amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman.

Californians voted for the constitutional amendment in 2008.  Even in this liberal state, voters back the simple definition: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Every time but one, when marriage has been put to a popular vote it has won — and the one loss in Arizona (due to confusion and misrepresentation by homosexual activists) was placed in a “win” column two years later when a second ballot measure passed. 

So, homosexual activists turn to courts to impose same-sex “marriage” on states.  That’s what they have done in California.  Soon after California voters spoke, advocates for homosexuals filed a federal lawsuit to overturn the will of the people.  We’re waiting on that decision.  Whichever way it goes, everyone expects it to be appealed — so once again, the fate of marriage is in the hands of judges.

But we have a thread of hope in this case, because the judge has acted so outrageously.  As the trial began, one of his pre-trial decisions was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Judge Vaughn Walker fixed the rules to allow real-time video broadcasts of the trial.  Before this case, no photos or broadcasts of proceedings were allowed. 

His actions were clearly an attempt to intimidate witnesses.  Supporters of the marriage amendment have been threatened, fired from their jobs, and their homes and cars vandalized.  A number of expert witnesses declined to testify when they learned that the judge was going to allow the trial to be broadcast.  They knew they’d become a special target of homosexual activists.

This unjust decision (along with a number of others he’s made) casts a shadow of doubt on Judge Walker’s ability to handle this case impartially and righteously.  Unwittingly, he made a better case for marriage proponents on appeal.

While one news report claims that this latest attempt to get a ballot measure to overturn the California marriage amendment may have garnered more votes than it could signatures, that’s questionable.  The outbreak of violence and threats by homosexual activists after the marriage amendment passed helped to expose the scary nature — and intentions — of same-sex advocates. 

Americans became keenly aware that homosexual activists are not tolerant and will use any means to intimidate and oppress others.  It highlighted that this movement is different from the civil rights movement.

What homosexual activists demand of others, they are not willing to do themselves.  It’s not about equal rights, but superiority and subservience.  That may be a better explanation for why this effort to gather signatures failed.