Another awesome video from Ben Howe (with brother Caleb Howe). First he had “The Last Best Hope.” Next came The Socialist, which was a brilliant take-off of the film The Social Network. He clearly showed the disdain with which the current crop of Democrats treats American citizens. Because, Better Than You ™.
The latest video, via RedState, is entitled Elections Have Consequences:
If there is one characteristic every Democrat in the above video shares, it’s arrogant disdain. They know best, you don’t. Alan Grayson says you’re gullible. Disagree? Let him know. There are two weeks left. First, vote with your money. Then, vote with your time. And finally, vote with your vote.
The disdain and outright contempt for We, The People is evidenced once again in this video. As is the unmitigated, and unfounded, hubris. The stench of Smug ™ is overwhelming. Also overwhelming is the ignorance; Maxine Waters is particularly amusing. The Left has actually become a self-parody. All you need are their own words. The Onion had better watch out; they’ll be out of work soon!
We can now show them that elections do have consequences. Come November 2nd, let’s show them that one such consequence is a the big old boot (I know, so violence foment-y!) in the form of a pink slip for the whole lot.
The result is stunning: an unabashed exercise in Islamic dawa, the “call to Islam” and the manner by which the Brotherhood’s spiritual guide, Yusuf Qaradawi, promises that Islam will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe.” Qaradawi — wonder of wonders — is a trustee of the Roxbury mosque (although he is banned from the U.S. for sanctioning terrorism). As the video relates, “Dawa Net,” one Islamic organization that instructs on how to use the schools to inculcate the young, explains that public schools in America are “fertile grounds where the seeds of Islam can be sowed inside the hearts of non-Muslim students.”
Well, except for the icky girls. Cooties, and all. They were not allowed to take part in the “tolerance” indoctrination. Have to teach these girls how to show respect! And teach them a little about the benefits of misogynistic subjugation in the Muslim world, right? See, they were shockingly told – as they were shuttled off to an area away from males – that Islam is “pro-women” and“Islam was actually very advanced in terms of recognizing women’s rights.” They were also told this:
At the time of the Prophet Muhammad, women were allowed to express their opinions and vote. In this country, women didn’t gain that right until less than a hundred years ago.
Of course. Blame America and try to make some sort of sick moral relativism argument. What’s the matter with you rube Islamophobes? Muhammad let women vote and express their opinions. Of course, they were then beaten for them, but still. In Islam, it is an honor to be beaten by your husband! There is even etiquette and stuff. We honor women by beating the crap out of them. Sheesh!
I mean, just let the cleric S’ad Arafat explain further:
N.O.W., the National Organization of Whores, leaped into the lead for the title of most epically hypocritical organization this week. Whoops, silly me! I mean National Organization for Women. But, as ExJon of Exurban League pointed out to me, they won’t mind being called whores, will they? I mean, they obviously have no problem with that term, otherwise a group who claims to be For the Women™ would not, you know, endorse men who slur women with that term, now would they?
Of course they would. And did.
A mere 24 hours after Jerry Brown was caught calling Meg Whitman, his opponent in the race for California Governor, a “whore,” they endorsed him. Proof positive once again that Leftist feminists, including their cult-like organizations, will stop at nothing, even rewarding sexism, to further their true agenda. An agenda which is not one of concern for women at all. To the contrary; leftist feminists actually use women, solely as a way to further this agenda. And heaven forfend if some women don’t fall for their lies nor allow themselves to be used. Then, they are called whores or brainless sex objects only. If trying to diminish one through sexualization fails, they’ll move onto trying to take her gender away totally by calling her“a big mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” Or “Pat Buchanan in drag.” Or a host of other garbage spewed forth in venom-filled animus meant to demean and dehumanize the offending woman. By offending, I, of course, mean free thinking conservatives.
Like Meg Whitman, an accomplished and smart woman who actually exemplifies “having it all,” yet is called a whore. And NOW gives their approval by endorsing the man who called her that. Perhaps Whitman is not pro-choice enough for them? It has been reported that she supports parental notification laws as well as protections for unborn babies from partial birth abortion. How dare she! If only she was more like the pro-abortion Barbara Boxer, Ma’am, who believes that babies have no rights until a mother chooses to bring him or her home from the hospital.
Surely that can’t be all. Jerry Brown must be a super champion for women, right? Well, except for that whole not believing that health insurance should cover mammograms deal. Preventative Shmentative! I mean, it’s just women, am I right fellas?
When Meghan McCain tweeted the link to her newest Daily Beast “article” on Twitter Tuesday night, my first thought was “How the hell did I get unblocked by her? Why am I seeing this tweet?”
This was disconcerting to say the least. I was afraid that I may have failed to pay my Vast Right Wing Conspiracy dues or that the H8R-Ade I had been drinking had expired and lost its strength. My second thought, upon reading the title, My Palin Problem, was “Oh, dear. This is going to be hilarious.”
I was right. The very first paragraph alone divulges Meghan McCain’s real problem; childish jealousy due to a gigantic, and unwarranted, ego mixed with a delusional persecution complex. She’s like Jan Brady, only not as groovy. The entire time I was reading the alleged article, I heard “Sarah, Sarah, Sarah!” in my head. In valley speak, no less. For that alone, she must pay.
The “Look at ME” attitude was clear right from the start. You know, instead of constantly focusing on the size of her “juicy ass,” as she calls it, she should pay a little more attention to her ballooning juicy ego. Her opening paragraph whined:
“Instead of the media concentrating on my admission of almost overdosing on Xanax the day before the election, or my goal for a new ‘big tent’ direction for the Republican Party, or any of the other racier confessions in my book, they only focused on Sarah Palin. In every interview and review it was all Sarah all the time.”
Perhaps because the ‘racier’ confessions are still pretty banal, nearly as banal as your political analysis, Meghan? Add to that the fact that even your editors apparently couldn’t make it through your entire drivel-filled book. I mean, the editing was non-existent. Which made muddling through your tripe all the more painful; in fact, I think I deserve hazard pay for doing so.
Last week, I attended the Smart Girl Summit in Washington, D.C. The conference was filled with women of strength, of brains, of beauty and of fierce resolve. Women from all walks of life who came together, fighting and trying to do what is best for their children and this country. But, I was struck by something else; to the Left, these women are either whores or some creepy new invention of faux women, worthy of only mocking and ridicule.
Many told of times where they had been, like I have, called “gender traitors” or not real women. I’ve been called a dumb tart, just a rack, and told “I have better meat for her mouth.” I’ve been accused of being a wholly owned subsidiary of male dominated culture, whatever that means. We dumb tarts can’t seem to figure out things like that.
Every woman I met laughed such things off. That part didn’t shock me. See, we don’t relish victim-hood. We are also secure and comfortable in our own skins, breasts and fancy wombs and all. But, another reason it is laughed off did bother me. Because we are “used to it.” The thing is, we shouldn’t be. It shouldn’t be happening. Yet, it does. Over and over.
Kirsten Powers attended the panel I was on, called Feminism 2.0, the New Face of Feminism, with Jenn Q. Public and Pamela Gorman, moderated by Adrienne Royer. While Kirsten is an unabashed liberal and likely disagrees with us on most policy points, she listened and understood the vile hatred toward conservative women that comes out of the Left. Her article at the Daily Beast today reflects that. She touched on some examples, including the most recent one whereby Jerry Brown called Meg Whitman “a whore.” She’s a dame, you see. Thus, anything concerning financial things, which women can’t possibly understand, is whore-y. Am I right, fellas?
Jerry Brown isn’t alone. And it isn’t just coming from men. Alleged feminists are some of the worst offenders, spewing sexist and outright misogynistic garbage at conservative women. Because, abortion. They have grossly tied up equality and “women’s rights” with a legal ability to kill your unborn children. Killing the unborn is a cause to them and women who dare to challenge them by pointing out the vile nature of such a thing must be gender traitors or dehumanized in any way possible.
The Left has used a tactic wherein they ridicule and demean people as a way to dehumanize them. Because, Better Than You. They’ve done this in particularly vile ways to conservative women, despite their false claims of being For the Women ™, with horrifically great success in the past. They are continuing to attempt this now, but something is different this time. You see, Mama Grizzlies aren’t easily cowed. And they bite back.
Citizens United released a film last week, entitled Fire From The Heartland: The Awakening of The Conservative Woman. Heavens to Betsy, the Left did not like that—strong, smart and attractive women are super scary! So they fell back on two tired ploys. Sneering in really lame ways, for one. Which I find particularly offensive. I mean, at least be funny. The second ploy was their totally played out “let’s sexualize conservative women as a way to dehumanize them” card.
First came Wonkette, with an ‘article’ entitled “New Twilight Mashup Features Michele Bachmann and Other Crazy Ladies.” See, they combined both ploys: attempts at funny that are anything but, plus demeaning sexualization with lines like “conservative ladies only want to gossip about how Barack Obama keeps shoving things into their mouth-holes. Ergo: This video is not suitable for work.”
Kudos, fellas! Next came the “feminist” site Jezebel who proved once again, with their screed against Fire From The Heartland, that lefty feminists are actually anti-woman and represent nothing but an agenda. First, there is more of the ridiculous somehow discerning oral sex from any phrase that involves the use of the word throat: “In the trailer, set to apocalyptic music, there’s talk about the New York people ramming their candidate down our throats, and policies being pushed down our throats. Ladies, we know all about that stuff, amirite?”
They also claimed that the word “awakening” in the title has sexual overtones. Well, I suppose that in their defense, as leftists they aren’t allowed to have any other kind of awakening. Awakening of thought? Egads! That’s not possible. All women must think the same and walk in lock-step. Otherwise, gender traitors and shills for men, who are evil, natch. Unless, of course, they are part of Big Daddy government.
[snip]
Some say conservative women are the voice of a movement, the voice of a generation. It’s more than that; conservative women are creating the voices of future generations with our fancy wombs; the very organs which the Left always seeks to use as a way to diminish us. And we are speaking for those unborn babies whose lives were snuffed out mercilessly, never having the chance to be a part of any generation at all.
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.
Virginia Ironside then followed up her insane arguments for eugenics due to “unwantedness” (it’s so crazy, it needs its own word) by being a proponent of killing children, unborn or born, whose health isn’t up to snuff for her standards.
Submitted without commentary, except to say that Ben Howe is fantastic and not just because his wife, Breeanne is made of awesome and one of the sweetest people you’ll ever meet.
Watch, please. It’s goose bumpy and a must see. Via RedState:
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.
Slick, huh?
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:
