According to author and columnist Virginia Ironside, most adopted kids would be better off dead. As would most children she considers “unfit”. In fact, she says, a “loving” mother would smother a sickly child with a pillow, because the “suffering” of being ill makes that life meaningless and not worth living. She made these vile assertions in defense of abortion while appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning Live during a discussion grossly entitled “Can abortion be a kindness?” First, her odious attempt to argue that abortion is a “loving choice” because some kids, in her mind, are unwanted. Her tunnel-visioned, sad excuse for a mind can’t seem to fathom the fact that the children are always wanted, by someone. You know, like people with hearts and compassion.
I was rendered speechless when I first watched this. Killing a child for being inconvenient to someone is “loving, moral and unselfish”? So, having a baby is, therefore, selfish? Besides her utter lack of a soul, she is completely morally bankrupt. And I think she has some explaining to do to very happy and loved children who have been adopted as well as to the mothers who, according to her, were so selfish as to give that child life. My friend, Rick Sheridan, can teach her a thing or two about what an actual unselfish act is. His adopted baby girl can also teach her what a loving mother actually does. Her mama gave her life and gave her A life. She didn’t kill her. She unselfishly bore her and gifted Rick and his wife with a beautiful baby girl. I suggest Virginia look at a picture of Rick and his beautiful daughter and try to explain to her why she would have been better off dead.
Conservative women neither want nor need a gender card, yet some seem hell-bent on forcing one upon us. It is one thing to correctly point out blatant sexism and the outright misogyny of the Left, particularly that of the so-called feminist Left. But it’s quite another to make up sexism out of whole cloth. Which is exactly what has happened recently, in regards to Christine O’Donnell.
The first to enter the “let’s invent an -ism where none actually exists” fray was The New Agenda. At least they are honest enough to admit that their entire goal is a new form of gender identity politics. Anna Belle Pfau wrote:
Delaware has never elected a female senator. The state is among seven of the original thirteen states that have never been represented in the Senate by a woman. Delaware may get its first real shot at correcting this oversight should polls bear out in the primary between Christine O’Donnell and Mike Castle today.
This oversight? Yes, because that is the entire basis of what we should look for in a candidate: a “historic” first. That’s worked out so well in the presidency, hasn’t it? She then went on finding things “fishy” and magically discerning that phrases like “Perspective, Boys, Perspective”and “My mistake, fellas.” were “typical insider boys’ club-style of talking over a woman’s head.” I hate to inform Miss Pfau, but those aren’t very big words and aren’t over my head, girly as it is.
Next, upon O’Donnell’s primary win, Karl Rove, whose job is to politically opine, pointed out some things regarding O’Donnell’s candidacy that might cause a bit of a strategic problem garnering a win. Everything he said, while I may not agree, was arguably valid. The gender card was immediately played and he was accused of sexism. Sadly, it was played not by the usual suspects: the professional grievance mongering, victimhood reveling Feminist Left. It was played by the Right, with Jeri Thompson being the first to go all-in. That surprised me because I’m generally in agreement with Jeri Thompson, who is clever as all get-out, 99% of the time.
The difference here is that once the primary was over, the political elites in Washington stood by their men. Why won’t they do it for the woman?
Gee, I do seem to remember them standing by Carly Fiorina over Chuck Devore, a man. And Meg Whitman over Poizner, also a man. It also should not have to be explained that merely disagreeing with someone and thinking she’s a lousy candidate is not sexist. Why even consider gender? Why is that the first thing to latch onto? Considering her gender as a factor actually IS sexist.
It got worse from there, which I found infuriating. The more I read, the more I scowled which is totally not cute. This time it’s personal and for that, they must pay. Moreover, the last thing we should want or need is a new form of gender identity politics. But, it kept coming. Day after day.
If you rely on leftist blogs or even the alleged mainstream media, you’d think that Mama Grizzlies/conservative women are actually some strange form of wildlife to be peered at curiously. For some, making sport of them has become a hobby. Instead of seeing the caricature made of them by the “Press,” why not come meet some in person? See us in our natural habitat, only without our kids and with lots of wine instead. Or, in my case, beer.
Smart Girl Politics‘ 2010 Summit is on September 30th and October 1st and it promises to be both informative and lots of fun. You see, we conservative dames aren’t the freakish oddities that we are made out to be. Nor are we exclusionary; Papa Grizzlies are more than welcome, too. Unlike our leftist counterparts, we do not think men are icky. They don’t oppress us, they complement us.
Citizen’s United recently released a film entitled Fire From The Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman. Many of the women featured in that movie will be in attendance, and speaking at, Smart Girl Summit. A screening of the movie will take place during the Summit as well. What better time to see that movie than when hobnobbing (Only not as fancy. We aren’t elitists!) with some of the incredible women featured in it? Lorie Byrd, writing at Big Hollywood, describes the movie – and sums up some of the underlying factors for the apparent rise of the conservative woman:
Another interesting aspect of the movie was listening to women like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter and Michelle Easton talk about how they viewed the roles Phylis Schlafly and Margaret Thatcher played in the history of the conservative movement, highlighting how today’s generation of conservative women are just a continuation of those who came before them.
For those surprised that so many of the women becoming active in politics today come from the right side of the aisle the film shows this is an understandable result of the feminist movement. As S.E. Cupp says in the movie, “Women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann are really the unintended consequences of the women’s liberation movement. For liberal feminists, this was not what they bargained for.”
Exactly. We aren’t some new breed of special interest group. We have always been here; we are merely rising to the top now. Thank you, feminists! By ignoring you and your harmful agenda, we *have* come a long way, baby.
The agenda is chock-full of other goodies as well. And not just because I will be on a panel – although you really should attend that one, of course. Tammy Bruce will moderate a panel including me, Jenn Q. Public and the estimable Pamela Gorman wherein we will be discussing Feminism 2.0. And hopefully giving leftist feminists, or Femisogynists, a few whacks. Violence foment-y? Probably, since I’m a conservative. At least I didn’t say “set our sights on.” Because, racism.
Oh yeah, the speakers? Take a gander – it’s like a who’s who of women who make the Left foam at the mouth.
Oh, the sweet, sweet irony. As a party, Democrats are always quick to throw the “gender traitor” or the “self-loathing” label at a person whom they deem should be walking in lock-step with them. They box people up into special interest groups and if you dare wander off the leftist plantation with thoughts of your own, it can only be explained by insanity or self-hatred. Now, however, it appears as if they are the ones who are rather self-loathing. Or, at least, totally embarrassed and ashamed of having a D next to their name, as evidenced by a new ad campaign for Democrat Harry Mitchell. The ad touts Republicans only who have endorsed Mitchell.
It’s funny that one would want the support of Republicans, isn’t it? Because, racism. Also, George W. Bush. I mean, aren’t we violence fomenting h8rs and stuff? Totally cuckoo pants and off the rails?
No, he doesn’t say he’s a Republican — just all of his supporters announce “I’m a Republican, and I support Harry Mitchell.”
Mitchell’s party entirely unmentioned. I’m a Republican… I’m a Republican… I’m a Republican… Harry Mitchell.
Almost as slick as their super cool new logo.
I suppose Democrats can’t rely on getting support from the DNC, since Kaine has been so busy fiddling around with Photoshop and coming up with that oh-so-inventive logo of the letter D. In a circle. When I first saw it, I thought it had to have been done by a child. I figured it was some lame attempt at Reaching The Children ™ and that it had been a school contest or some such. No, no – it was all Kaine’s DNC. They are even desperately begging people, “Can we send you a sticker?” with the pitiful logo. So, I now imagine Kaine, curled up in the fetal position and whimpering, muttering, “My stickers! Did you see my super cool logo? Change, baby! – Mommy. I want Mommy – Please take a sticker. I can haz cookie now?”
In 1984, the documentary The Silent Scream opened the eyes of many to the absolute horror of abortion. 26 years later, the documentary Blood Money now strives to help hammer the final nail into the coffin of the state-sanctioned killing of our unborn children.
This documentary uncovers the pro-abortion industry for what it is: a killing machine for profit, based on an agenda filled with outright lies and an utter lack of humanity. Finally, the voices of those lost lives, who have died at the hands of an industry devoted solely to killing, can be heard. Blood Money also exposes something frequently overlooked; the harm that abortion does to women. Often, there are two lives lost in an abortion. The life of the unborn baby is literally, and unmercilessly, snuffed out. The woman’s life is often figuratively lost; her life from then on is one full of guilt, regret and deep pain.
Narrated by Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, this film exposes the truth behind an industry that has harmed untold numbers of people and taken the lives of 50 million innocent children. In the film Dr. King speaks not only from the perspective of a post abortive woman, but as a civil rights leader about the injustice of abortion.
“Bloodmoney brings startling revelation to the forefront of the pro-life battle and exposes the true agenda behind the abortion industry. This film is truly part of the plan to set the captives free,” – Dr. Alveda King, director of African American Outreach, Priests for Life.
For too long, the pro-abortion regime has been able to use strawmen arguments, lies and fear tactics. No more. With medical advancements and with more and more people once enshrined in the pro-abortion industry speaking out, the truth is coming forth. The truth will set us free. And will save the lives of countless babies and the women who bear them. The mantra of safe, legal and rare is now known for the lie it has always been. Firstly, safe? There is not one whit of concern for safety. This has been proven time and time again, most recently by the outrageous outrage over the Attorney General of Virginia fighting for at least some safety regulations for abortion clinics. Why the outrage? Because some would have to close. It dips too far into their profits to actually, you know, meet the same safety standards that are afforded animals at a veterinary clinic. It’s just women and their “punishing” babies, right? No big whoop.
Hey, it’s easier for their blood money to stain their hands when they don’t have to worry about lives at all; neither the woman’s life nor the baby’s. They mean so little to them, that it’s standard operating procedure to toss unborn babies, nearly full-term, into a freezer:
This past weekend, the woman billed by her employer as Mexico’s “Hottest Reporter” entered the locker room of the New York Jets football team to conduct an interview. She was wearing the totally demure outfit pictured above. Shockingly, the locker room full of testosterone-laden men noticed that she’s more than a bit attractive and catcalls, whistling and leering ensued. Enter the usual suspects: the media and “womens groups“, like the Association for Women in Sports Media. And the ever annoying and always wrong Joy Behar.
I’m infuriated that this incident happened. I’m not infuriated by the alleged incident itself; I’m super ticked that the inanity required me to read about sporty thingies. And to watch Joy Behar, a woman who could turn me into a misogynist merely by opening her pie hole. In this particular interview, Sainz implies that she was going to let it go, as she should have, until the media and women’s groups stepped in. Naturally; never let a catcall go to waste! Always use it as a way to further enshrine women as poor little victims.
However, subsequent interviews with Sainz show that she didn’t need much prodding to whine and complain. Via aolnews.com:
Yes, she wears low-cut shirts, tight jeans and has photos on her employer’s website showing her in a bikini. But that has nothing to do with being a professional sports reporter for Mexico’s TV Azteca, she said today.
“It’s my style,” the 32-year-old television journalist told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” She’s not trying to elicit leers, she said. “It is my style for all my life.”
And she has no plans to change.
“I’m not trying to provoke anything,” she told Meredith Vieira on NBC’s “Today” show this morning. “I don’t think I need to change. They are going to change.“
Was it boorish and crass behavior on the part of the New York Jets? Sure. But, who ever claimed that professional football players are the epitome of chivalry? You think one would know that, having worked in the sporty field for years. Secondly, it’s not unexpected at all. On this, the science is settled: men like – and like to look at – hot chicks. I’m pretty sure that’s why she’s featured in a bikini on her website.
The Left is still busily trumpeting the fallacy-filled idea of there being a wage gap in favor of men. In fact, the DNC recently sent out an email once again attempting to promulgate this lie, on the 90th Anniversary of Women’s Suffrage, no less. Hey, never waste a Crisis ™, real or imagined, and also never waste a chance to totally use women, right, Lefties? Have to keep those women in line! By in line, I, of course, mean completely shrouded in a veil of nanny state neediness and victim-hood.
As I said in my article about the 90th Anniversary of Women’s Suffrage, the woe-is-us “wage gap” myth has been shattered, despite the Left’s attempt to cover up pesky things like facts and figures and such. Math is hard:
CONSAD found that controlling for career interruption and other factors reduced the pay gap from about 20 percent to about 5 percent. Data limitations prevented it from considering many other factors. For example, the data did not permit an examination of total compensation, which would examine health insurance and other benefits, and instead focused solely on wages paid. The data were also limited with respect to work experience, job tenure, and other factors.
The Labor Department’s conclusion was that the gender pay gap was the result of a multitude of factors and that the “raw wage gap should not be used as the basis for [legislative] correction. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”
What? Individual choice? That’s unheard of. Well, unless the choice is killing an unborn child, natch.Time Magazine is now even admitting the gender wage gap against women is unfounded. And, in fact, that women are presently out-earning men. According to Time, we should think this is super awesome. They even titled the article “At Last, Women On Top“. (I think that’s supposed to be titillating and edgy):
The other day I was busily fomenting extremism and evil by home schooling my child and I ended up having to take a break in order to partake in an even further act of extremism:
Telling the Truth.
I noticed two leftist feminists unwittingly, as always, exposing themselves as being anti-woman useful idiots for the left. They were spreading lies and misinformation regarding the apparently super-frightening Sarah Palin and all women like her: you know (cue ominous music), conservative, pro-life women. I giggled at first, because it was rather amusing that it took two of them to write one tripe-filled article.
The two alleged writers, Anna Holmes of Jezebel and author Rebecca Traister, started from the premise that the left needs a “Palin of their own.” As usual for the left, everything is boiled down to gender identity politics. However, they failed miserably at their goal, due to being the perpetual victims that they are. Instead, they only exposed why leftist feminism is not only unnecessary, but also unwanted.
Let’s break down their idiocy, shall we? See, I’m willing to offer a dose of reality in response to each of their delusions. I’m good and helpful like that because, as a conservative, I believe that charity begins at home. The intelligent-deficient need aid, too.
From the start, the authors exposed their true agenda. A Palin of “our” own. Everything is about the collective with the left. They fail to realize that Sarah Palin is an individual. A person. And individuals support her, for various reasons, none of which have to do with her fancy womb. Rather, they support her for her conservative principles and her willingness to take on issues head on, without couching them in politically correct and “let’s all get along ” meaningless rhetoric. She stands up for things, unlike the current President (who never stands up for anything.) Admittedly, it is hard for him to stand up, because he’s usually too busy bowing down.
Dirty Sexy Politics by Meghan McCain is scheduled for release on August 31. But you don’t have to wait until Tuesday to see what didn’t make the final editorial cut. NewsReal Blog has obtained exclusive excerpts from the chapters rejected by Meggie Mac’s editors.
1. How Dare People Gawk At My Boobs When I Posted Them Publicly On Twitter.
Meghan McCain infamously posted a picture of her, shall we say, “cups over-flowing” on Twitter the very same day that the Balloon Boy hoax went down. Presumably because, as a publicity hound extraordinaire, she couldn’t stand the focus being on some icky kid. From fly-over country, no less. As such, she tried to insert herself, and her massive ta-tas, in the mix. And then feigned indignation when people looked at the picture — that she posted publicly on the Internet. She attempted to make this a pop-up chapter in her book.
OMG! All those meany pantser, objectifiers on twitter didn’t understand that picture was code and a public service! I’m a giver! I was trying to let them know balloon boy was safely hidden, tucked away in my cleavage. Hello? I was holding a book! Everyone knows reading is hard. The purty picture on the book was code, too, obvy. Andy Warhol – a sign that the balloon boy people were just trying to steal MY 15 minutes of fame thunder.
The Andy Warhol book was relevant, seeing that Meghan McCain is well past her 15 minutes. However, sadly, the chapter was omitted because while CNN did not fact check the Balloon Boy story prior to setting the nation in a tizzy, they did fact check Meggie Mac’s ta-tas. Endlessly. Proving once again that journalism is, in fact, as dead as Janeane Garofalo’s career.
As for the Balloon Boy scam and the totally empty hot air balloon? STILL more substantive than Meghan McCain.
2. How I Survived Being Stalked by Über Creepy Karl Rove
In this chapter, Meghan recorded her bizarre cyber stalking fantasy featuring the one, the only, The Architect Karl Rove. Here’s a taste:
Karl Rove is a total creep. You have NO idea. He follows me on Twitter. All the time! How freaky is that? Like I wrote in my groundbreaking Daily Beast column last year (where they PAY ME to write!!), “I’ve never met him in person, which only makes our Twitter relationship even weirder.” I wonder if the other people he Twitter stalks are as freaked out as I am. At first he was all boring and stuff, but then I realized, this pervo hangs on my every word. He knows what I eat, what I wear to bed … he even knows which celebrities totally heart me for being all mavericky like my dad.
I’m sorry, but I’m a liberated progressive Republican woman and I have a constitutional right to tweet about my sex-positivity without creepy Karl in the mix. I swear he was on the verge of sending me stuff like this:
Earlier this week, the media once again displayed why no one can take them seriously. The Fourth Estate is totally insolvent and is declaring bankruptcy, morally and otherwise. In this recent instance, having to do with Tuesday night’s Republican primary in Alaska, it was at least quite hilarious.
You see, Sarah Palin had endorsed Joe Miller over the incumbent alleged Republican Senator, Lisa Murkowski. As Jim Treacher at The Daily Caller lays out, and as Ace of Spades also noted, the media was so hell-bent on a way to discredit Sarah Palin that they indulged in the child-like behavior of squinting your eyes closed to reality and wishing really, really hard that fantasy comes true. First up was Alex Gutierrez at Slate, who was clearly desperately hoping for a way to spin Palin as politically detrimental:
On Tuesday, in her home state, Sarah Palin’s favorite will probably get trounced. Joe Miller is widely expected to lose by a large margin to incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary—an embarrassing defeat for the former governor, who has endorsed Miller, but also to Miller’s other major backer, the Tea Party Express.
Yeah, it’s embarrassing alright. Embarrassing for you, Gutierrez. I suggest that you look in the mirror if you want to see embarrassing defeats. How does that crow taste, by the way? I hope Gutierrez at least shared the crow with her boyfriend, Dave Weigel, who defended her in his column without disclosing their relationship status, in true Weigel form. He has updated his column to make the disclosure now, only after being shamed (surprisingly) into it by The Daily Caller piece. His girlfriend has now attempted to cover up her bias as well, and has removed “Grizzly woman not mama grizzly” from her twitter bio.
Too little, too late. They cannot cover up the obvious fact that the media inevitably tries to pin any defeat at all on Sarah Palin and, in this case, they went so far as to wish for said defeat solely in order to do so. But any wins? …
This past week, Republican South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and Republican Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli displayed how the GOP is the party who is actually For The Children, and not just in the talking points way. First up was Governor Mark Sanford, who signed bill H 3245 into law. The law now requires that women have a 24 hour waiting period before obtaining an abortion. Prior to this law, there was only a one hour waiting period. It also requires that abortionists offer women the ability to see their unborn child on an ultrasound before aborting the baby, but does not require that they view the ultrasound. They must merely be given the choice. Choice is important, right? Next, came Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, who concluded last week that state agencies in Virginia can legally regulate abortion clinics as medical establishments.
This should just be common sense and shouldn’t raise the ire of even the most vociferously pro-abortion, right? I mean, it does not make abortion illegal, but it does make it safer – and hopefully rarer. Safe, legal and rare is the mantra, no? Apparently, by safe, legal and rare, pro-abortionists really only mean one out of the three. They actually want it to be unsafe, legal, and not rare at all. As is indicated by their fierce opposition to such simple, decent and potentially life-saving measures.
“I believe life is sacred, and in the debate over when life begins, I think we as a society should always err on the side of life,” Gov. Sanford said. “Given current federal law, I think it’s imperative that a decision of this magnitude only be made with the fullest and most accurate knowledge available. It’s our hope and expectation that this new law results in a substantial decrease in the number of abortions carried out in South Carolina.
How draconian, huh? I thought knowledge was power? Not so for pro-abortionists. They are infuriated over a mere 24 hour waiting period…
During the 2008 Presidential campaign, we heard relentlessly about how Barack Obama would usher in the era of Post-Racial America. Upon his Presidential nomination and subsequent election, it reached a fever pitch, with every speech he made being lauded as the second coming of Martin Luther King, Jr. In reality, not so much. In fact, the reality was almost the antithesis of Martin Luther King, Jr’s dream – instead of being about character, everything became about the color of one’s skin.
Not a fan of “universal” health care? Racist! Approve of Arizona’s law attempting to stop the tide of illegal immigration? Racist! Disagree with President Obama on economic policy? Racist. Also, George Bush. The demagoguing of American citizens reached heretofore unknown epic levels.
It’s easy to understand why, once you realize it is a case of the Left not only protesting too much, but projecting too much. The Left’s own bigotry came out in full and disgusting display. If you want to understand what the Left believes and what they are doing at any given time, just look toward what they accuse others of doing. With all their crying and moaning about what they ‘ inherited’ from President Bush, there is one thing I do wish they had “inherited” — A desire to get rid of the “soft bigotry of lowered expectations.” Instead, those on the Left foment it.
It’s nearly impossible to narrow the list down, but here are ten remarks made by the “tolerant” left, which exemplify their own underlying bigotry.
1) Harry Reid Shows His True, and Racist, Colors
I don’t know if Harry Reid’s ivory tower is padded, but it should be. In January of this year, the king demagoguer had his own hypocritical mask ripped off upon the release of the book Game Change. An excerpt from the book, detailing a private conversation with Harry Reid, exposes what he truly believes, away from the cover of his public facade:
On page 37, a remark, said “privately” by Sen. Harry Reid, about Barack Obama’s racial appeal. Though Reid would later say that he was neutral in the presidential race, the truth, the authors write, was that his “encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.
“Oh, look! He sure does talk purty! For a black guy and all.” How vile. It also means that your race card is no longer accepted, Harry Reid.
Last year, the Left floated the idea that unemployment is really super fun and tried to pass it off as FUNemployment. That spin eventually failed, because people not living in their parents’ basements and fiddling with their iPods realized it really isn’t all that enjoyable not being able to, you know, pay their bills. So, they are now left with inventing new reasons for why people aren’t getting hired. Specifically, we women-folk. Guess what, ladies? It’s not the fact that President Obama has spent more time creating or saving his own golf handicap than he has spent on the economic situation, that is preventing you from getting a job. It’s your girly parts! According to that bastion of enlightenment, Ms. Magazine, at least. In an article entitled “It Wasn’t Your Resume, It Was Your Vagina”, they attempt to make that case. And fail. Miserably, as always.
They first set it up by regurgitating the tired, old “women earn less money” myth. The article then goes on to, of course, praise so-called liberal legislation, then bemoans that it didn’t accomplish enough because we women are still total victims and gender discrimination is nearly epidemic! It’s funny, coming from people who do nothing but base things entirely upon gender. The article is ridiculous enough on it’s face, but one section in particular exemplifies the reality of the faux-problem; it is the left who discriminates against women and it is the left who thinks that women are lesser. The left dislikes women being the fairer sex (heaven forfend that a woman is smart and attractive), but they actually believe that women are the weaker sex. Evidenced here:
For one thing, men tend to fare better than women on job interviews, particularly in male-dominated fields, where hiring managers tend to value stereotypically “masculine” qualities such as intellectual rigor and mathematical ability. The interviewers may have trouble recognizing talent among women applicants, whom they may assume are naturally less savvy. As Jessica Good, a Rutgers University social psychology doctoral student who studies perceptions of women who are the targets of sexism, explained to me in an e-mail:
The traits that society typically ascribes to men are also the traits that society typically ascribes to a good employee. So, men are already assumed to possess a certain level of competence and agency, whereas women must actively demonstrate their competence in an interview setting.
Oh, my. Where to even begin? Firstly, I hate to break it to the chronically willfully ignorant, but there are certain fields in which those characteristics – like mathematical ability - are required, regardless of gender. It’s called, you know, job qualifications. And while some may like to whine about science and math being only “stereotypically” male, the hard truth is that women are not held back in those fields.
Predictably, this didn’t sit well with the feminist Left. Detecting a mortal threat to their exclusive ownership of the terms “feminist” and “woman,” they lashed out at conservative women politicians and their supporters. They dubbed Sarah Palin an anti-feminist, Jan Brewer a racist, and Meg Whitman a ruthless corporate tyrant. And while they admitted Nikki Haley might technically be a woman, she was deemed the wrong kind of woman.
Jezebel waded in with a list of the ten lowest moments for women in politics. Shockingly, it just happened to focus almost exclusively on unfair treatment of female Democrats and supposedly egregious conservative behavior. Number ten, for example, was “Almost anything Michelle Bachmann has ever said.” Such wit! Such biting commentary!
Perhaps the ladies at Jezebel need a reminder (or ten) of why no one’s declaring 2010 the Year of the Lefty Woman.
1. The Self-Destruction of Anti-Semitic Feminist Icon Helen Thomas
For decades Helen Thomas was embraced by the Left as a trailblazing feminist and “hero of journalism.” And the Left is where the recently retired White House correspondent felt at home. She told an interviewer last year, “I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, I’ll be one ’til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?”
That made it especially difficult for progressive admirers to disassociate themselves from Thomas when a Long Island rabbi recorded her disgusting anti-Semitic remarks about Israeli Jews in June:
“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land…not German and not Poland.”
“So, where should they go?”
“Go home. Poland, Germany.”
“So, you think the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?”
“And America and everywhere else.”
Thomas’ status as a feminist icon couldn’t rescue her from a long overdue retirement. But somehow it managed to save her from a place on Jezebel’s list of lowlights for women in politics. Apparently despicable anti-Semitic moonbats who advocate ethnic cleansing get a pass for all those groundbreaking achievements “in the fight for gender justice.”
2. Tina Brown: ‘Wingnut’ Women A Blow To Feminism
While there was a plethora of up in arms, whining articles bemoaning the rise of conservative women to the forefront, Tina Brown, editor of The Daily Beast, fully exposed the Left’s deep-seated fear of losing their gender identified victim-hood status during an appearance on Good Morning America in June of this year. The segment was discussing primary wins by Republican women, including Carly Fiorina and Nikki Haley. Said Miss Brown:
TINA BROWN: Yeah, I mean, it was. I mean, in some ways, it’s, again, representation that people are looking for otherness. You know, they’re so disgusted with incumbents, they’re looking for something completely different. And, as it happens, of course, women usually are seen as, you know, an alternative because many more men are in there. But, actually, the only trouble with this one is, it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism. Because, each one of them, really, most of them, are, you know, very much, uh, uh, you know, against so many of things that women have fought for such a long time.
Sorry, Miss Brown, but, no. These women do represent true feminism. They also fight for things that I fight for – as a woman and as a person. You see, Miss Brown, some people don’t marginalize themselves into gender boxes only. Unlike the Left, who seeks to diminish women by making them perpetual victims and who wants women to focus on busy work issues only. That whole empowerment deal? It’s impossible to be empowered if one is shrouded in victimization.
Faux Feminism, like that espoused by Femisogynists, is dead. People like Tina Brown are merely throwing themselves on the casket, caterwauling in a desperate bid to keep it alive. They are failing, because their hypocrisy is so blatant. Inventing victimization here, but ignoring true victims, the women in the Muslim world, as we’ll see later..
Barbara Boxer was recently up in arms over some words. No, this time it wasn’t the oh-so horrifying word ma’am. She was up in arms over her own words or, more to the point, the fact that George Will was holding her to her own words – words that expressed a pro-abortion position so extreme, it can only be described, no matter one’s position on abortion, as outright infanticide. So, she pulled the handy old “out of context” card. Only, it was totally in context, with full video documentation.George Will quoted Barbara Boxer’s own words – in context – in a Newsweek article last month. Here is one of the relevant sections:
In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.” Santorum persisted: “Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?” She would not say “yes.” Instead, she said, understandably: “I don’t want to engage in this.”
She didn’t want to engage in it. I wouldn’t want to engage in it either, if I was flagrantly sanctioning infanticide and depriving human beings of Constitutional rights, as Barbara Boxer was. Boxer then tried to back-pedal a bit, as you can see in the video of the C-SPAN posted further below.
Her back-pedaling, however, only served to show how delusional her comments are. Her, and other pro-abortionists’, alleged arguments are nowhere near based in sanity. If a toe is still inside the mother, then, says Boxer, you can’t kill the baby. But, if a whole foot? She chose not to answer. Yet, in a partial birth abortion, only the top of the baby’s head remains inside the mother – the entire body and part of the head is fully delivered. Then, in the part of the skull that is outside of the mother’s body, an instrument is used to stab the skull, creating a puncture from which the baby’s brain is then sucked out. And the baby is left to die.
A video surfaced today of the abysmally-rated Katie Couric rehearsing and taping some segments on the very day that Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain’s running mate for the 2008 election. While her derision isn’t surprising – she made it quite evident in all subsequent alleged reporting as well – it does show that she was already biased on Day One. It also quite clearly shows sneering contempt:
Note the contempt dripping from her voice when talking about Sarah Palin’s town of Wasilla – one of those pesky bitterly clinging small towns, I suppose. She also mocks the names of the Palin children. You see, politicians’ children are only off limits if you dig their sweet, sweet liberal policy. And, if you don’t think their mom is icky, in which case it is then totally cool to mock children and make them the butt of jokes.
She then continues in her oh-so-professional way, perhaps learned from JournoList members, to insult female basketball players. She’s heard jeeringly asking someone off camera “you can be feminine and play basketball, right Jerry?” Perhaps she’s projecting her own insecurities, what with Couric’s own unfortunate hairdo and all. Even her own staff seems to have been taken aback by the volume of her disdain and you can hear someone gasping off camera and another staffer appears to have cut off her sound.
The final product actually wasn’t much better. While it wasn’t outright cattiness, like in the above video, it was still full of veiled disdain….
President Obama gave an interview to CBS on Sunday, wherein he attempted to explain his stance against Arizona’s SB 1070 Immigration bill. Still no word on whether or not he’s actually read the bill yet, but based on his inane murmurings, I’d have to go with No. But, to be fair, during the interview he did display a few things that he does quite well: shameless lying and absolute hypocrisy. You see, President Obama had the utter gall to say that we shouldn’t demagogue nor politicize a national problem like immigration reform. No, really. My jaw dropped too and I thought to myself “could he possibly be that shameless?” Apparently, yes:
In a CBS interview broadcast Sunday, President Obama slammed approaches to immigration reform he said “demagogue” a “national problem.”
He also defended progress in the administration’s suit against Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law — an action that states that the controversial measure flouts the federal government’s imperative under the ’supremacy’ clause of the constitution.
Does the Smartest Man Alive ™ not know the meaning of the word demagogue? He is the Demagoguer In Chief, for goodness sake. And the entire Democrat party falls in demagogue-y lockstep right behind him. Incessant race card playing? Fear mongering? Sound familiar, President? That comes from you and your fellow Democrats who brand anyone who merely disagrees with you on policy – ever- as racist. You also use demagoguing in tandem with fear to politicize every issue and further your own agendas. Remember what you said about the law when first passed, Mr. President?