“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Feminist icon Gloria Steinem has received America’s highest honor. President Obama bestowed upon Steinem the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In so doing, he honored the work of not only Steinem but Margaret Sanger, liberalism’s iconic racial eugenicist. Celebrating her award at the National Press Club, Steinem said she hoped Obama’s action would be “honoring the work of Margaret Sanger.”
It indeed has done just that.
Margaret Sanger longed for a more enlightened time when birth control would be (as she put it) “part of the regular welfare service of the government.” In this, she was inspired by Stalin’s Soviet Union — literally. In 1934, she undertook a fact-finding pilgrimage to Moscow, where she, like many American progressives, believed the Bolshevik government might well have discovered the Brave New World. Many American progressives — public education father John Dewey among them — thought the Soviets were perhaps merely a few steps ahead of us. We needed to look there. We needed to go there.
Upon her return, Sanger reported her findings in the June 1935 edition of her organization’s flagship publication, Birth Control Review. In an article titled, “Birth Control in Russia,” Sanger noted, “Theoretically, there are no obstacles to birth control in Russia. It is accepted… on the grounds of health and human right.” She said of America: “[W]e could well take example from Russia, where there are no legal restrictions, no religious condemnation, and where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government.”
Sanger could not have known it, but she was speaking of Barack Obama’s America, where birth control is being thrust upon us as a basic “human right” and form of “health care” with no obstacles in its way. In fact, it’s even easier than Sanger could have imagined: Not only do contemporary progressives want no obstacles, but Obama wants all Americans to forcibly pay for birth control. He is even forcing the religious to do so via his HHS mandate. He and his progressive cohorts are rolling right over any “legal restrictions” or “religious condemnation.” If you as a religious believer disagree, they will see you in court. You will be penalized and demonized.
Under Obama, we have arrived at Sanger’s new world, where birth control is a regular service of the federal government.
And thus, Gloria Steinem honoring Margaret Sanger with Obama’s Presidential Medal of Freedom is so perfectly fitting. It really is. In fact, if Obama thought about all this more deeply, perhaps he’d consider a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom for Margaret Sanger. She was way ahead of her time. A veritable progressive prophetess.
But there’s something even more significant and ironic at work here.
Margaret Sanger not only championed Bolshevik birth control services, she also championed racial eugenics. The Planned Parenthood matron wanted to advance what she called “racial health” and “race improvement” in America. She lamented America’s “race of degenerates.” This meant purging the landscape of its “human weeds” and “the dead weight of human waste.” This included the “feeble-minded,” the “imbeciles,” the “morons,” and the “idiots,” but it also included a “Negro Project” that Margaret had in mind for another group of Americans.
The Negro Project was close to Sanger’s heart, as shown by a remarkable December 10, 1939 letter she wrote to Dr. Clarence Gamble of Milton, Massachusetts. (The letter is today held in the Sanger archives at Smith College. I have a photocopy.) The Planned Parenthood foundress alerted the good doctor: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
That eye-opening assertion has been disputed and defended by liberals. And, to be fair, what Sanger meant isn’t entirely clear, though I personally lean to a decidedly negative interpretation. But one group with no ambivalence about Sanger’s intentions with black Americans was the KKK.
Add the Klan to the list of those deeply grateful for Sanger’s work. They were so grateful that the boys in the white hoods invited the progressive heroine to one of their celebrations. They asked her to speak at one of their rallies. Sanger accepted. She addressed her brethren at a KKK rally in Silver Lake, New Jersey, in 1926.
What do Barack Obama and Gloria Steinem think of that? Like most leftists, either they’re totally ignorant of the fact or they look the other way as they extol the magnificence of Sanger’s other “achievements” that outweigh the more sinister ones in their ever-evolving progressive calculus.
Among Sanger’s other achievements is another bitter pill: Her Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion provider, and one of the greatest killers of black Americans. No other organization comes close. Planned Parenthood’s bloodletting of unborn black babies has been in the countless millions.
Author and journalist Natalie Angier begins an article in the New York Times by writing, “Women may not find this surprising, but one of the most persistent and frustrating problems in evolutionary biology is the male. Specifically… why doesn’t he just go away?” (Natalie Angier, “The Male of the Species: Why Is He Needed?” New York Times, May 17, 1994)
In a CNN interview with Maureen Dowd about her 2005 book, Are Men Necessary? Dowd says, “Now that women don’t need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is, ‘You know, we need you in the way we need ice cream—you’ll be more ornamental.” (“Are Men Necessary?” CNN.com, November 15, 2005, http:// www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/books/11/15/dowd.men.necessary/ index.html)
Lisa Belkin, a blogger for the New York Times whose work is provocative but not overly biased, wrote, “We are standing at a moment in time when the role of gender is shifting seismically. At this moment an argument can be made for two separate narrative threads—the first is the retreat of men as this becomes a woman’s world.” (Lisa Belkin, “Are Men Necessary?” Motherlode: Adventures in Parenting blog, New York Times Magazine, June 30, 2010, http:// parenting.blogs. nytimes.com/2010/06/30/are-men-necessary/)
For example, in the January 1988 National NOW Times, the newsletter for the organization, said: “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.” (William D. Gairdner, The War Against the Family: A Parent Speaks Out on the Political, Economic, and Social Policies That Threaten Us All, 295.)
Well-known feminist author and co-founder/editor of Ms. magazine, Gloria Steinem, said the following about feminisms end game: “Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole #@*! patriarch!” Ibid., 300 [How can a civil rights movement be interested in capitalism?] (Ibid)
One sign of an over oppressive movement is illustrated in The Animal Farm, by George Orwell. Napoleon, one of the main characters, concerns himself with the education of the young, and forcefully takes two litters of puppies away as soon as they’re weaned, saying he’ll educate them. In effect the “State” are the ones who are charged with educating and rearing them. Now compare this to a statement made by feminist Mary Jo Bane, assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school’s Center for Research on Woman, and the lesson taught in Animal Farm:
“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.”
(Fr. Robert J. Carr, “No News For You!!” Catholic Online [9-23-2004]. Found at: http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1364 ~ last accessed 7-29-09; Here is the full quote from Father Carr’s article: “Mary Jo Bane, formerly of the Clinton Administration Department of Health and Human Services one of the major voices in the Boston Globe against the average Catholic’s right to freedom of religion. Bane’s most famous quote is ‘We really don’t know how to raise children. If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are raised in families means there’s no equality. … In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.’”)
Alternatively, Gloria Steinem declared: “By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God.” (Angela Howard and Sasha Ranae Adams Tarrant, Reaction to the Modern Women’s Movement, 1963 to the Present: Antifeminism in America: A Collection of Readings from the Literature of the Opponents to U.S. Feminism, 1848 to the Present, 153.)
NEA president/feminist Catherine Barrett wrote likewise that, “Dramatic changes in the way we will raise our children in the year 2000 are indicated, particularly in terms of schooling. … We will need to recognize that the so-called ‘basic skills’, which currently represent nearly the total effort in elementary schools, will be taught in one-quarter of the present school day. … When this happens—and it’s near—the teacher can rise to his true calling. More than a dispenser of information, the teacher will be a conveyor of values, a philosopher. … We will be agents of change.” (Dennis Laurence Cuddy, The Grab for Power: A Chronology of the NEA, 6.)
A Feminist Dictionary, published by the University of Illinois, gives the following definitions:
Male: “… represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants… the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.”
Man: “… an obsolete life form… an ordinary creature who needs to be watched … a contradictory baby-man.”
Testosterone Poisoning: “Until now it has been thought that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from ‘testosterone poisoning.’”
(Cheris Kramarae and Paula A. Treichler, eds., Feminist Dictionary (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1986), cf. male, 242; cf. male, 246; cf. testosterone poisoning, 446.)
Feminist author Ti-Grace Atkinson shows her true autonomy when stating, “the institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.” (Daniel Dervin, Enactments: American Modes and Psychohistorical Models, 244)
Another telling quote comes directly from Atkinson’s own biography, Amazon Odyssey: “The price of clinging to the enemy [a man] is your life. To enter into a relationship with a man who has divested himself as completely and publicly from the male role as much as possible would still be a risk. But to relate to a man who has done any less is suicide…. I, personally, have taken the position that I will not appear with any man publicly, where it could possibly be interpreted that we were friends.” (Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey, 90, 91.)
Marilyn French, feminist author calls all men rapists: “All men are rapists and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.” (Elizabeth Knowles, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 5th ed. [New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999], cf. Freeman, E.A., 324.)
Let us allow Gloria Steinen, feminist extraordinaire, to set the stage with the following praises about her contemporary, Andrea Dworkin, “In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race to evolve. Andrea is one of them.” (David M. Friedman, A Mind of Its Own: A Cultural History of the Penis, 225.) Why preface Andrea Dworkin? Because she has this to say about men in general: “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” (Neil Boyd, Big Sister: How Extreme Feminism has Betrayed the Fight for Sexual Equality, 23.)
Dr. Boyd continues with Dworkin’s quote: “In fucking, as in reproduction, sex and economics are inextricably joined. In male-supremacist cultures, women are believed to embody carnality; women are sex. A man wants what a woman has – sex. He can steal it outright (prostitution), lease it over the long term (marriage in the United States), or own it outright (marriage in most societies). A man can do some or all of the above, over and over again.” (Ibid.)
“What Gloria Steinem, Molly Yard, Patricia Ireland and all the rest have presented to you over the last [30-years] years has not been feminist theory.” …. Tammy Bruce goes on to show that Betty Friedan and Patricia Ireland, ex-presidents of NOW, (and others) are involved with socialist or communist political parties or organizations,
…Betty Friedan, a former Communist Party member, was only the precursor of the hijacking of feminism to serve other political interests. Some consider Gloria Steinem, the founder of Ms. magazine and probably the second most influential feminist leader, after Friedan, of the last 30 years, to be the one who began blurring the lines between gender and race issues. This might be surprising to those who are unaware of Steinem’s involvement in socialist politics. In fact, she serves as an honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, which boasts of being the largest socialist organization in the United States and is the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. Good for her, but we should know this as we explore what factors influence those who are considered feminist leaders. Steinem’s influence, combined with the socialist sympathies of NOW’s immediate past-president, Patricia Ireland, explain the co-opting of NOW by leftist ideologues. A 1996 article in Ms. quoted Ireland as saying that NOW “must offer a clear understanding of what it means to be a feminist organization concerned with ending discrimination based on race, class, and other issues of oppression [emphasis mine] that come from a patriarchal structure.” Steinem then commented, “To be feminist, we have to take on the entire caste system.” Ireland details her support of the Communist Party in her autobiography, What Women Want. She admits that her socialist sympathies and participation in pro-Communist rallies in Miami (of all places!) were due in part to the fact that her friend and future lover, Pat Silverthorn, was an activist in the Socialist Worker’s Party. There were problems, Ireland explains, with Silverthorn and her friends being Communists in Miami. “Later, after we’d become close,” Ireland writes, “[Pat Silverthorn] would confide that she, too, had wondered how much more dangerous she’d made her life by openly professing communist convictions in that volatile, violent, commie-hating city… Working closely with Pat opened my eyes about the reality of living as a political leftist in this country.”
This is point two of three found over at NewsBusters. While the other points are important, this is one I have been confronted with quite a bit in the past that I wish to post here in order to add to the readers and mine learning curve and accessibility: It is in regards to a Maureen Down article in the New York Times:
Dowd also repeated the oft-heard anti-Catholic lie that Pope Pius XII, the World War II-era pontiff, “remained silent about the Holocaust as it happened.”
This grossly false tale has been roundly debunked repeatedly:
In a December 25, 1941, editorial, the New York Times wrote, “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas… he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all… the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism … he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.”
An August 6, 1942, headline in the New York Times read, “Pope is Said to Plead for Jews Listed for Removal from France.”
In his book, Three Popes and the Jews, Israeli diplomat and scholar Pinchas Lapide has asserted, “The Catholic Church under the pontificate of Pius XII was instrumental in saving lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.” Lapide adds that this “figure far exceeds those saved by all other Churches and rescue organizations combined.”
Michael Tagliacozzo, “the foremost survivor on the October 1943 Nazi roundup of Rome’s Jews” and “a survivor of the raid himself,” said Pius’ actions helped rescue 80 percent of Rome’s Jews. Said Tagliacozzo, “Pope Pacelli was the only one who intervened to impede the deportation of Jews on October 16, 1943, and he did very much to hide and save thousands of us.” (Rabbi David G. Dalin, p. 83)
In the June 21, 2009, edition of the Boston Globe, Mordechay Lewy, Israel’s ambassador to the Holy See, is quoted, “It is wrong to look for any affinity between [Pius] and the Nazis. It is also wrong to say that he didn’t save Jews. Everybody who knows the history of those who were saved among Roman Jewry knows that they hid in the church.”
So much for Dowd’s claim of Pope Pius XII “remaining silent.” There have been scores of books, research papers, and articles (list 1, 2) that outline what Pope Pius XII really did during World War II.
NewsBusters comments on the article by Maureen Dowd’s ad hominem attack two-weeks before voting commences:
…The architect of this truly bizarre neo-feminism, Ms. Maureen Dowd, proudly wrote in her October 17 column, “We are in the era of Republican Mean Girls, grown-up versions of those teenage tormentors who would steal your boyfriend, spray-paint your locker and, just for good measure, spread rumors that you were pregnant”:
These women — Jan, Meg, Carly, Sharron, Linda, Michele, Queen Bee Sarah and sweet wannabe Christine — have co-opted and ratcheted up the disgust with the status quo that originally buoyed Barack Obama. Whether they’re mistreating the help or belittling the president’s manhood, making snide comments about a rival’s hair or ripping an opponent for spending money on a men’s fashion show, the Mean Girls have replaced Hope with Spite and Cool with Cold. They are the ideal nihilistic cheerleaders for an angry electorate.
For the record, that’s Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, California senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina, Nevada senatorial candidate Sharron Angle, Connecticut senatorial candidate Linda McMahon, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell.
There was a time when America’s feminists would have celebrated and cheered such successful women entering politics and standing up to male rivals.
When the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute’s “Pretty in Mink” calendar was released, you had a torrent of visceral hatred from the left start in earnest. Here is some commentary on this event:
(get your 2011 calendar)
The ladies are “sexy loudmouth whores” according to a blogger. Another claims the calendar is “an attempt to make erections lean to the right.” The women, they complain, “aren’t even remotely attractive.”
Some insist the calendar women aren’t actually women at all, but are in reality men in drag. Others say they’re not even people. One blogger says the ladies “look like cyborgs trying their best human impersonation.” Another calls them “mutts.”
Still another finds it incredible and “offensive” that “even one person would want to look at all these [expletive] for twelve straight months.”
The overall consensus in the left-wing blogosphere? The calendar is “weird,” “creepy,” “pathetic,” “disturbing,” “repulsive,” “revolting,” “terrifying” and “tacky as sin.” Many simply can’t understand how it wasn’t a “joke.”
Playboy magazine writer Guy Cimbalo released his list of top ten conservative women against whom he’d like to commit violent sexual acts last June. Calling these acts a “hate f—” in his “So Right It’s Wrong” article, Cimbalo explained that he “might despise everything” about women like Michelle Malkin, Fox News’s Megyn Kelly, “The View’s” Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Mary Katherine Ham and Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann, “but g–dammit, they’re hot!”
Cimbalo listed the physical attributes of each woman along with short explanations of why a self-respecting liberal male shouldn’t be attracted to them. A “hate-f— rating,” presumably to tell others just how good the sex would be, accompanied each listing as well.
Hasselbeck was described as “the clean-cut American sweetheart who elicits our filthiest thoughts.” Cimbalo labeled Bachmann the “lusty congresswoman from the Twin Cities who’s got some great twins of her own.”
As for the rating each woman received, they ranged from “chemical castration would begin to sound more appealing” to “you get this one pregnant, she stays pregnant.”
Cimbalo’s list was a disgusting example of low the media will stoop to malign conservative women. And it caused such a firestorm that Playboy removed it from its Web site.
2. Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi Uses Graphic Sexual Language to Discredit Michelle Malkin and the Tea Party Movement
In a Tax Day 2009 blog post, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi claimed “he really enjoying this whole teabag thing” and that “it’s really inspiring some excellent daydreaming.”
Taibbi let his readers in on the nature of his daydreams that involve conservative pundit Michelle Malkin in incredibly vulgar ways.
“[T]his move of hers to spearhead the teabag movement really adds an element to her writing that wasn’t there before,” he wrote. “Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy, set of b—- in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.”
Nothing brings out liberals’ inner juvenile thug like an outspoken conservative woman.
3. U.S News and World Report’s Bonnie Erbe Takes Issue with Playboy List – Except for Inclusion of Michelle Malkin
It’s bad enough that liberal men don’t hesitate to speak of women in offensive, sexualized terms, but it’s beyond outrageous when a woman claims they deserved it.
But that’s just what U.S. News and World Report’s Bonnie Erbe did in the wake of the Playboy “hate f—” list.
“I’m also a firm believer in supporting all members of my gender when attacked due to their gender. I am supporting these women herewith,” Erbe maintained before noting that her “support” carried limits.
Erbe continued, “I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Michelle Malkin. Her posts and her ‘routine’ are so venomous and predictable in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago.”
Malkin struck back at Erbe and explained the true meaning behind Erbe’s words.
“Translation: It’s not okay to talk about “hatef**king” conservative women…unless they are rowdy, incivil conservative women who don’t behave nicely enough to be on my obscure PBS show,” wrote Malkin. “In which case, they deserve all the vulgar misogynist attacks they get!”
4. Keith Olbermann Compares Michelle Malkin to a ‘Mashed-Up Bag of Meat With Lipstick on it”
MSNBC personalities reserve a special level of vitriol for conservative woman, and none more so than Keith Olbermann.
Olbermann compared Michelle Malkin to a “big, mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it” during his Oct. 13 “Countdown” show because he believed she encouraged death threats made to a woman who posted a video of singing their praises to President Barack Obama.
“She received death threats and hate-filled voicemails all thanks to the total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk fascistic hatred, without with Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it,” Olbermann stated.
Olbermann’s comments were deemed offensive enough to warrant a response from editor Megan Carpentier, an editor at liberal and now-defunct Air America Radio.
“A liberal, progressive critique of Malkin need not and should not resort to an attack on her looks or her gender or rely on silly stereotypes or imagery that brings to mind victims of domestic violence,” wrote Carpentier.
You know Olbermann went too far when even liberals are calling him out on his remarks.
5. Comedian Chuck Nice Compares Sarah Palin to Herpes
Sarah Palin is no stranger to negative media attention, but comparing her to a sexually transmitted disease takes the criticisms over the line.
During a June 9 discussion on NBC’s “Today” show about Palin’s role in the GOP, comedian Chuck Nice told his co-panelists, NBC’s chief legal analyst Dan Abrams and Politco’s White House reporter Nia-Malika Henderson, “But, Sarah Palin to the GOP, this is what I’ve got to say, she is very much like herpes, she’s not going away.”
Abrams simply responded, “That’s the advantage of being Chuck Nice. You can say that and there’s no repercussions.” Henderson did not respond. Before hosts Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb moved on to other topics, Nice informed viewers, “Everybody is laughing. I don’t care. The band is cracking up.”
Unfortunately, that’s the typical response when it comes to insulting conservative woman.
6. Toronto Star Columnist Tweets a Death Wish for Michelle Malkin
Unfortunately, as Erbe proved, it’s not only liberal men who have it out for conservative women. Antonia Zerbisias is another one.
The Toronto Star columnist expressed deep hatred for Michelle Malkin in an April 2009 Twitter message that read, “Forget the Marxists, I wish the marksmen would take @MichelleMalkin. I’m thinking Dick Cheney. He’s such a good shot.”
Apparently Zerbisias’s employer is okay with these types of remarks, as evidenced by her bio at the Star.
“Antonia Zerbisias, columnist for the Toronto Star’s Living section, has been telling people what she thinks ever since she could open her mouth,” the bio said. “Her opinionating career dates back to Grade 9 when a cartoon commentary on a teacher resulted in her suspension from high school. The principal sent her home with a note calling her ‘rude, obstreperous and bold.’ Her parents were neither amused, nor surprised. Once she was punished for being that way. Now she makes it pay.”
7. Sarah Palin = Vice-President Barbie?
ABC reporter David Wright couldn’t keep himself from comparing Sarah Palin to Barbie during his Feb. 16 “Nightline” segment on the doll’s 50th birthday.
“[Barbie’s] been an astronaut and a rock star. Pop icons Beyonce and Shakira. She’s won ‘American Idol’ too,” he began. “Some would argue she also ran for vice-president in 2008,” quipped Wright, after showing various clips of Palin.
“Caribou Barbie” was a characterization many in the media used to deride Palin throughout the 2008 election. Wright’s attack on the former Alaskan governor in a segment that had nothing to do with politics and aired three months after the election, illustrated that the media weren’t planning to back off sexist comments about Palin anytime soon.
8. Rosie O’Donnell ‘Humanized’ Conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck
Apparently to Rosie O’Donnell, conservative women are less than human.
The former “View” moderator outlined how she tried to “humanize” her former colleague, Elisabeth Hasselbeck during the Feb. 8 broadcast of her Sirius XM radio show, “Rosie Radio.” O’Donnell’s comments stemmed from a discussion about the conservative backlash to her recent HBO documentary about families, “A Family is a Family is a Family.”
“It’s sort of what I thought about Elisabeth Hasselbeck, too. I’m going to love her, regardless of what she says, I’m gonna love her and the love, then, is going to win through in the end,” O’Donnell explained to her current colleagues. “I was positive of this, and we sort of started to humanize her. Remember, after she came to my house, she actually said on television how she thought our family was so great? Can you imagine the amount of hate mail she got from her constituency?”
9. David Letterman’s “Top Ten” List of Sarah Palin Insults
Late night talk show host David Letterman couldn’t let an opportunity to go by without trashing Sarah Palin during his June 8 show.
The usual “jokes” about Palin’s intellect appeared on Letterman’s “Top Ten Highlights of Sarah Palin’s Trip to New York,” alongside a knock on her looks. “Number Two: Bought make-up from Bloomingdale’s to update her ‘slutty flight attendant look,” read the comedian.
Then he went further, with a crude joke about her 14-year-old daughter being impregnated at Yankee Stadium. Letterman eventually was forced to apologize for that joke, but not for carried on the tradition of painting Palin as a complete bimbo, not a governor or a former vice-presidential candidate.
10. Liz Cheney, Daddy’s Little Girl?
MSNBC and liberal talk radio host Ed Schultz labeled Liz Cheney, daughter of former vice-president Dick Cheney, nothing more than a daddy’s girl during his Sept. 29 MSNBC program, “The Ed Show.”
“There’s a couple of gals who’ve been riding the wave of crazy that’s been sweeping the nation’s right-wingers: ‘Shooter’s little girl, Liz Cheney, has been hitting the lecture circuit, parroting daddy’s fear-mongering rhetoric,” stated Schultz.
Of course, Liz Cheney is no simple “daddy’s girl.” She holds a law degree from the University of Chicago, and served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.
A liberal woman with the same qualifications as Cheney would never be categorized as a “daddy’s girl” but as an empowered woman in her own right.
Which is why SGP (Smart Girl Politics) is asking conservative women to join a list:
But over the next 19 days, the liberal media will do everything in their power to put conservative women in a bad light.
That’s why Concerned Women for America — America’s largest women’s public policy organization — is rallying thousands of women across the nation to say…
“I’m Conservative and I WILL VOTE!”
Already, our campaign has reached tens of thousands of conservative women. But we must do more to counter the efforts of the liberal media and groups like EMILY’s List
that are rolling out multi-million dollar campaigns to sway women voters.
As a first, vital step, I’m asking you to join me in making a simple yet powerful statement. Go here to join me and thousands of conservative women who are taking a stand in this election year: