Phyllis Schlafly

Hawaii Officials’ Focus On Equity and Climate | Not Safety

Published by Papa Giorgio

If there is indeed a social revolution under way, it shouldn’t stop with women’s choice to honor their [own] nature. It must also include a newfound respect for men. It was New York City’s firemen who dared to charge up the stairs of the burning Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The death tally of New York City’s firefighters was:

  • men 343,
  • women 0.

Can anyone honestly say you would have wanted a woman coming to your rescue on that fateful day?

Suzanne Venker & Phyllis Schlafly, The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say (Washington, D.C.: WND Books, 2011), 181-182.

EQUITY

OFF THE PRESS bullet points DAILY CALLER’S story for us:

  • Former Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Michael Brown blasted officials in Hawaii over their focus on “equity” prior to a deadly wildfire.
  • The West Maui Land Company accused M. Kaleo Manuel, an official with the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), of delaying a response to a request to use water to refill reservoirs used by the Maui Fire Department to fight the wildfire, Hawaii News Now reported.
  • A video of Manuel discussing the importance of having conversations about “equity” when it came to water use surfaced Thursday.

BREITBART has more:

A state water agency in Hawaii has been accused of delaying the release of water from a traditional farm that landowners reportedly wanted to use to protect their property as the Maui wildfire spread last week.

According to the Honolulu Civil Beat, the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) initially refused a request from West Maui Land, a real estate development company, to provide water to protect properties that were at risk in the area.

Fingers have been pointed at one official in particular, M. Kaleo Manuel, DLNR’s deputy director for water resource management.

The Honolulu Civil Beat reported:

[….]

According to the sources, Manuel wanted West Maui Land to get permission from a taro, or kalo, farm located downstream from the company’s property. Manuel eventually released water but not until after the fire had spread. It was not clear on Monday how much damage the fire did in the interim or whether homes were damaged.

Manuel participates in the Obama Foundation’s Leaders Asia-Pacific program and prioritizes traditional local views on water.

Honolulu Civil Beat quoted Gov. Josh Green (D) as saying that there had been some local opposition in general to using the state’s scarce water resources to fight fires. A state bill to promote the use of state and private reservoirs for fire safety was proposed in 2022 by legislators from Maui, but was not passed….

Here is this “water official” using woke buzzwords like “holistic” — they just string words together to sound important / compassionate:

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER) ….“Meet M. Kaleo Manuel, the official who refused to release water in Maui, contributing to up to 106 deaths,” Jeremy Kauffman wrote on X, citing the original article. “A Hawaiian Studies major, Kaleo prefers a traditional, holistic ‘One Water’ approach where water is revered, not used. Water requires ‘true conversations about equity.'”

Kauffman, the CEO of a bitcoin company, included a Zoom interview video of Manuel, posted to YouTube about 10 months ago.

“Native Hawaiians treated water as one of the earthly manifestations of a god,” Manuel said in the video. “We’ve become used to looking at water as something that we use and not something that we revere. … We can reconnect to that traditional value set.”….

[….]

[….]

What a douche. The LEFT looks for religion in all the wrong places.

WATER & POWER

NEW YORK  TIMES

The government would rather blame “climate change” for the Hawaii wildfires than take responsibility for their own reckless disregard.

  • This event was not the result of climate change, Hurricane Dora, or an extended drought.  It resulted from an unusually intense mountain wave/downslope windstorm produced by a fairly rare convergence of conditions. (Cliff Mass Weather Blog)

And Steve Milloy points out another NEW YORK TIMES article that missed an opportunity to zero in on the issue:

And THE BLAZE notes the issue with the power companies

A number of Democrats and other leftists have blamed the deadly wildfires in Hawaii on the specter of anthropogenic climate change. They may be right, but only in a perverted sense.

Like the Biden administration, Hawaii’s Gov. Josh Green (D) and both the state’s 88%-Democratic House and 92%-Democratic state Senate are ostensibly keen to “lead the globe on clean energy and climate issues.”

It appears that the efforts by Hawaii’s largest energy provider to follow suit and satisfy a Democrat-mandated transition to renewable energy took priority over alternatively pragmatic efforts to maintain its equipment and deal with the known and documented threat of fuel buildup in the form of flammable vegetation…..

All these useless policies to make politicians fell good through “messianism” [saving the planet] have consequences. Like all the other policies with a stated outcomes by the Left – they hurt those they purport to want to help.

SAINTHOOD

It reminds me of the stellar [extended] quote by David Mamet:

One might say that the politician, the doctor, and the dramatist make their living from human misery; the doctor in attempting to alleviate it, the politician to capitalize on it, and the dramatist, to describe it.

But perhaps that is too epigrammatic.

When I was young, there was a period in American drama in which the writers strove to free themselves of the question of character.

Protagonists of their worthy plays had made no choices, but were afflicted by a condition not of their making; and this condition, homosexuality, illness, being a woman, etc., was the center of the play. As these protagonists had made no choices, they were in a state of innocence. They had not acted, so they could not have sinned.

A play is basically an exercise in the raising, lowering, and altering of expectations (such known, collectively, as the Plot); but these plays dealt not with expectations (how could they, for the state of the protagonist was not going to change?) but with sympathy.

What these audiences were witnessing was not a drama, but a troublesome human condition displayed as an attraction. This was, formerly, known as a freak show.

The subjects of these dramas were bearing burdens not of their choosing, as do we all. But misfortune, in life, we know, deserves forbearance on the part of the unafflicted. For though the display of courage in the face of adversity is worthy of all respect, the display of that respect by the unaffected is presumptuous and patronizing.

One does not gain merit from congratulating an afflicted person for his courage. One only gains entertainment.

Further, endorsement of the courage of the affliction play’s hero was not merely impertinent, but, more basically, spurious, as applause was vouchsafed not to a worthy stoic, but to an actor portraying him.

These plays were an (unfortunate) by-product of the contemporary love-of-the-victim. For a victim, as above, is pure, and cannot have sinned; and one, by endorsing him, may perhaps gain, by magic, part of his incontrovertible status.

[…..]

There is a Liberal sentiment that it should also punish those who take more than their “fair share.” But what is their fair share? (Shakespeare suggests that each should be treated not according to his deserts, but according to God’s mercy, or none of us would escape whipping.)

The concept of Fairness, for all its attractiveness to sentiment, is a dangerous one (cf. quota hiring and enrollment, and talk of “reparations”). Deviations from the Law, which is to say the Constitution, to accommodate specifically alleged identity-group injustices will all inevitably be expanded, universalized, and exploited until there remains no law, but only constant petition of Government.

We cannot live in peace without Law. And though law cannot be perfect, it may be just if it is written in ignorance of the identity of the claimants and applied equally to all. Then it is a possession not only of the claimants but of the society, which may now base its actions upon a reasonable assumption of the law’s treatment.

But “fairness” is not only a nonlegal but an antilegal process, for it deals not with universally applicable principles and strictures, but with specific cases, responding to the perceived or proclaimed needs of individual claimants, and their desire for extralegal preference. And it could be said to substitute fairness (a determination which must always be subjective) for justice (the application of the legislated will of the electorate), is to enshrine greed—the greed, in this case, not for wealth, but for preference. The socialistic spirit of the Left indicts ambition and the pursuit of wealth as Greed, and appeals, supposedly on behalf of “the people,” to the State for “fairness.”….

….But such fairness can only be the non-Constitutional intervention of the State in the legal, Constitutional process—awarding, as it sees fit, money (reparations), preferment (affirmative action), or entertainment (confiscation)….

….“Don’t you care?” is the admonition implicit in the very visage of the Liberals of my acquaintance on their understanding that I have embraced Conservatism. But the Talmud understood of old that good intentions can lead to evil—vide Busing, Urban Renewal, Affirmative Action, Welfare, et cetera, to name the more immediately apparent, and not to mention the, literally, tens of thousands of Federal and State statutes limiting freedom of trade, which is to say, of the right of the individual to make a living, and, so earn that wealth which would, in its necessary expenditure, allow him to provide a living to others….

…. I recognized that though, as a lifelong Liberal, I endorsed and paid lip service to “social justice,” which is to say, to equality of result, I actually based the important decisions of my life—those in which I was personally going to be affected by the outcome—upon the principle of equality of opportunity; and, further, that so did everyone I knew. Many, I saw, were prepared to pay more taxes, as a form of Charity, which is to say, to hand off to the Government the choice of programs and recipients of their hard-earned money, but no one was prepared to be on the short end of the failed Government pro-grams, however well-intentioned. (For example—one might endorse a program giving to minorities preference in award of government contracts; but, as a business owner, one would fight to get the best possible job under the best possible terms regardless of such a program, and would, in fact, work by all legal and, perhaps by semi- or illegal means to subvert any program that enforced upon the pro-prietor a bad business decision.)*

Further, one, in paying the government to relieve him of a feeling of social responsibility, might not be bothered to question what in fact constituted a minority, and whether, in fact, such minority contracts were actually benefiting the minority so enshrined, or were being subverted to shell corporations and straw men. †

PAGE-NOTE  FROM PAGE 154

*No one would say of a firefighter, hired under rules reducing the height requirement, and thus unable to carry one’s child to safety, “Nonetheless, I am glad I voted for that ‘more fair’ law.”

† As, indeed, they are, or, in the best case, to those among the applicants claiming eligibility most capable of framing, supporting, or bribing their claims to the front of the line. All claims cannot be met. The politicians and bureaucrats discriminating between claims will necessarily favor those redounding to their individual or party benefit—so the eternal problem of “Fairness,” supposedly solved by Government distribution of funds, becomes, yet again and inevitably, a question of graft.

David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 134-135; 116-117, 122, 151, 154.

Deadly Altruism Marks the Left | Illiberal Egalitarianism

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Originally Posted May 5, 2015)

UPDATED MEDIA The original file can be found at Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co (HERE). I am uploading it here because there is no insurance that Bearing’s channel will stay up on YouTube. It is for my post, “Deadly Altruism Marks the Left ~ Illiberal Egalitarianism and the NYFD”

SOME COMMENTS FROM THE ABOVE VIDEO:

  • The same thing happened to my Forest Service initial attack crew back in 2001.  We had a 5’0″ 100lbs female who wanted on our crew.  We had physical standards tests we had to pass.  One was a simple three mile “hike” around a high school track with a mere 45lbs and our line gear.  She was simply too small and not strong enough to make the time.  Our overhead wanted more female representation so they passed her anyway.  All summer long she was given the cushy assignments, all while being paid the same as the rest of us.  It put us a person down all summer.  It also created divisions within our crew.  A rookie who got to do all the easy stuff while my squad of ass-kickers had to work even harder because we were a person short (no pun intended).
  • I was a fireman for over 35 years I worked with several woman, most of them did not have the upper body strength to do the job. Also these were younger women. At 35 years old and cannot pass the physical exam she will be pretty much useless on the scene. She will be a burden to her fellow firefighters she will most likely transfer to a job outside of operations where she won’t have to physically fight fires.  She will put other people’s life in danger because she cannot do the job, she sounds like a very selfish and self-centered person.

This comes by way of HOTAIR and makes clear that whatever the left touches, it destroys:

This promises to turn into a sticky wicket for the New York City Fire Department. One of their upcoming graduates is going to be accepted into the ranks and go to work as a firefighter despite having failed a grueling physical test multiple times. This comes as a result of recent changes to the city’s criteria for how graduates are scored.

Rebecca Wax, 33, is set to graduate Tuesday from the Fire Academy without passing the Functional Skills Training test, a grueling obstacle course of job-related tasks performed in full gear with a limited air supply, an insider has revealed.

“They’re going to allow the first person to graduate without passing because this administration has lowered the standard,” said the insider, who is familiar with the training.

Upon graduation, Wax would be assigned to a firehouse and tasked with the full duties of a firefighter. Some FDNY members are angry.

“We’re being asked to go into a fire with someone who isn’t 100 percent qualified,” the source said. “Our job is a team effort. If there’s a weak link in the chain, either civilians or our members can die.”

…..[she] failed to complete… climbing in full gear while carrying heavy equipment, rescuing victims in zero visibility, breaking down doors, and doing it all while breathing oxygen from a tank on a limited timer….

…read more…

This brings to memory two quotes that bring the point home, a point that a reader on my FaceBook blog pointed out:

  • “Hopefully the first person she has to LIFT out of a burning building will be a feminist…because obviously it will not matter, that she is unqualified.”

If there is indeed a social revolution under way, it shouldn’t stop with women’s choice to honor their [own] nature. It must also include a newfound respect for men. It was New York City’s firemen who dared to charge up the stairs of the burning Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The death tally of New York City’s firefighters was: men 343, women 0. Can anyone honestly say you would have wanted a woman coming to your rescue on that fateful day?

Suzanne Venker & Phyllis Schlafly, The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say (Washington, D.C.: WND Books, 2011), 181-182.

Here is the “CS LEWIS” of politics:

There is a Liberal sentiment that it should also punish those who take more than their “fair share.” But what is their fair share? (Shakespeare suggests that each should be treated not according to his deserts, but according to God’s mercy, or none of us would escape whipping.)

The concept of Fairness, for all its attractiveness to sentiment, is a dangerous one (cf. quota hiring and enrollment, and talk of “reparations”). Deviations from the Law, which is to say the Constitution, to accommodate specifically alleged identity-group injustices will all inevitably be expanded, universalized, and exploited until there remains no law, but only constant petition of Government.

We cannot live in peace without Law. And though law cannot be perfect, it may be just if it is written in ignorance of the identity of the claimants and applied equally to all. Then it is a possession not only of the claimants but of the society, which may now base its actions upon a reasonable assumption of the law’s treatment.

But “fairness” is not only a nonlegal but an antilegal process, for it deals not with universally applicable principles and strictures, but with specific cases, responding to the perceived or proclaimed needs of individual claimants, and their desire for extralegal preference. And it could be said to substitute fairness (a determination which must always be subjective) for justice (the application of the legislated will of the electorate), is to enshrine greed—the greed, in this case, not for wealth, but for preference. The socialistic spirit of the Left indicts ambition and the pursuit of wealth as Greed, and appeals, supposedly on behalf of “the people,” to the State for “fairness.”….

….But such fairness can only be the non-Constitutional intervention of the State in the legal, Constitutional process—awarding, as it sees fit, money (reparations), preferment (affirmative action), or entertainment (confiscation)….

….“Don’t you care?” is the admonition implicit in the very visage of the Liberals of my acquaintance on their understanding that I have embraced Conservatism. But the Talmud understood of old that good intentions can lead to evil—vide Busing, Urban Renewal, Affirmative Action, Welfare, et cetera, to name the more immediately apparent, and not to mention the, literally, tens of thousands of Federal and State statutes limiting freedom of trade, which is to say, of the right of the individual to make a living, and, so earn that wealth which would, in its necessary expenditure, allow him to provide a living to others….

…. I recognized that though, as a lifelong Liberal, I endorsed and paid lip service to “social justice,” which is to say, to equality of result, I actually based the important decisions of my life—those in which I was personally going to be affected by the outcome—upon the principle of equality of opportunity; and, further, that so did everyone I knew. Many, I saw, were prepared to pay more taxes, as a form of Charity, which is to say, to hand off to the Government the choice of programs and recipients of their hard-earned money, but no one was prepared to be on the short end of the failed Government pro-grams, however well-intentioned. (For example—one might endorse a program giving to minorities preference in award of government contracts; but, as a business owner, one would fight to get the best possible job under the best possible terms regardless of such a program, and would, in fact, work by all legal and, perhaps by semi- or illegal means to subvert any program that enforced upon the proprietor a bad business decision.)*

Further, one, in paying the government to relieve him of a feeling of social responsibility, might not be bothered to question what in fact constituted a minority, and whether, in fact, such minority contracts were actually benefiting the minority so enshrined, or were being subverted to shell corporations and straw men.†

* No one would say of a firefighter, hired under rules reducing the height requirement, and thus unable to carry one’s child to safety, “Nonetheless, I am glad I voted for that ‘more fair’ law.”

† As, indeed, they are, or, in the best case, to those among the applicants claiming eligibility most capable of framing, supporting, or bribing their claims to the front of the line. All claims cannot be met. The politicians and bureaucrats discriminating between claims will necessarily favor those redounding to their individual or party benefit—so the eternal problem of “Fairness,” supposedly solved by Government distribution of funds, becomes, yet again and inevitably, a question of graft.

David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 116-117, 12

And here is some good commentary by JULIE BOROWSKI:

…The young woman couldn’t complete the job-related obstacle course in that allotted amount of time. She only completed the course once after multiple attempts and it took her 22 minutes.

She failed and she shouldn’t be graduating.

This shouldn’t be about sparing feelings.

Look, nothing against her personally. Being a firefighter clearly isn’t for everyone. It’s physically demanding work. A firefighter who doesn’t meet the stringent physical standards could put other firefighters and civilians in harm’s way.

This comes at a time when the fire department is under pressure by Mayor de Blasio to hire more women. They have even gone so far as making the FST test easier to avoid sex discrimination lawsuits.

Unbelievable….

….It doesn’t help them that the FDNY is hiring women who, frankly, aren’t capable of performing the job because they didn’t pass the test. I’m sure the 44 female firefighters in New York City aren’t too pleased about their work being devalued.

Physical fitness tests are not sexist. It is sexist to hire someone based on their gender, though.

…read it all… (Dead Site)

Pedophilia

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Originally Posted June, 2017)
(UPDATED CONVERSATION [jump] Nov. 2021)

This, for new people here, is an anti-pedophilia/child-abuse post. It shows that the “legalization” of it is coming from the Left side of the aisle. Mostly.

Pedophilia ‘rights’ next civil rights battle

…In 2003, a group of mental health professionals formed B4U-Act to begin a slow but inexorable push to redefine pedophilia as a sexual orientation in the same way homosexuality was in the 1970s.

The organization calls pedophiles “minor attracted people,” and the website states its purpose is to “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma, and fear.”

B4U-Act later held a symposium in which a new definition of pedophilia was proposed for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

In 2010, two psychologists in Canada made national news when they declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say: “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied: “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

Dr. Vernon Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem, saying pedophiles’ sexual interests cause them to prefer children, and “there is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

In July 2010, Harvard Health Publications declared: “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”

If the APA would declare pedophilia a sexual orientation on a par with homosexuality, it would have huge ramifications for existing anti-discrimination laws….

In 1977, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In it, Ginsberg advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. She writes:

  • “Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years” and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. … A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. … [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” (Savage; Schlafly; Schlafly; CNS-News; More)

She was an attorney for the ACLU at the time and later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton. She remains on the Supreme Court today.

MORE…

We need only look at her 230-page book, called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, to see elements of her radical philosophy:

The purpose of this book was to show how the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (for which she was an aggressive advocate) would change federal laws to make them sex-neutral and “eliminate sex-discriminatory provisions.”

  • Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)[.] …
  • Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)
  • She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)
  • She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97) …
  • Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)

[….]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a concurring opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, affirmed the use of racial preferences in university admissions, citing the fact that the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination temporarily allows for the “maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups.” Separate but equal?

(PATRIOT or TRAITOR)

See my post for more context to the above last point:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg co-authored the book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code in 1977 with a feminist, Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, for which they were paid with federal funds under Contract No. CR3AK010. The 230-page book was published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. It was written to identify the federal laws that allegedly discriminate on account of sex and to promote ratification of the then-pending federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), for which Ginsburg was a fervent advocate. Here are some of Ginsburg’s liberal recommendations set forth in her book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.

Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (101) She called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (145) She insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (169) She even cast Constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (146)

Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to persons who are “less than 12 years old.” (102) She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (195) She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (97) Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (98)

Ginsburg said that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle,” (206) and she called for “a comprehensive program of government supported child care.” (214) She demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating that “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (218)

An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel), even though most of these words with the -man suffix date back to Middle English in which it meant “human” and not specifically “male”. (15-16) She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the Memory Hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (52-53)

(CONSERVAPEDIA)

1993 “Homosexual” Platform

  • The implementation of homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
  • The lowering of the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
  • The legalization of homosexual marriage. Custody, adoption, and foster care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.
  • The redefinition of marriage to include the full diversity of all family structures.
  • The access to all programs of the Boys Scouts of America.
  • Affirmative action for homosexuals.
  • The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health care plan.

1972 “Homosexual” Platform

  • Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons, equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.
  • Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.
  • Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one’s personal demesne.
  • Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
  • Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.
  • Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
  • Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

Okay, we know this was a fast transition for polygamy, as I SHOWED and GATEWAY PUNDIT showed:

THE POLITICO reported:

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family…

And one of the leading leftist lawyers who has already won some acceptance in law for polygamy has said this of last weeks same-sex marriage ruling:

Could Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country make polygamous marriage a legal reality nationwide in the near future?

Jonathan Turley, the attorney who won the polygamy marriage case in Utah for Kody Brown and his four “Sister Wives” thinks the majority opinion “resonates” with the arguments he made to the Utah Supreme Court to decriminalize polygamous consensual relationships.

“The cases are actually different in that the Brown case is about the criminalization while today’s case was about recognition.  We have not argued for recognition of plural marriages. Indeed, the Browns have never asked for multiple marriage licenses,” Turley said in an e-mail statement to The Daily Caller.

“Like many plural families, they have one state license for one marriage but chose to live as a plural family with “spiritual marriages.” In that sense, our case is more like Lawrence v. Texas that was handed down ten years ago.”

Turley explained, “Having said that, much of the language of the majority clearly resonates with our arguments against the criminalization of private consensual relations.  It also speaks to the stigma that is borne by families in being excluded in society.  That is an even greater danger when your entire family is declared a criminal enterprise merely because the parents chose to cohabitate as a plural family.”…

But we already have another player in the mix that supports the VERY slippery slope argument.

Excerpted from the Northern Colorado Gazette via ALLEN WEST:

Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.

[….]

“Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”

Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”
Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”

Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”…

…more…

With all of the above, the most egregious is that the Left wants to decriminalize pedophilia along with a myriad of other crimes.

FACEBOOK DISAGREEMENT
Nov 2021

Here is the graphic that kicked it off on a friends FB:

MIKE B. said to the above:

  • Who cares what one nut may or may not think

To which I Said:

  • Many Nuts Mike.

To which MIKE B. responded:

  • I can’t see anyone but a pedophile being pro pedophile

And this is the main point. You will see during the conversation that as it becomes apparent that there has been a legal challenge to drop the age of what would be considered “age of consent” (thus changing the legality of “what is” a pedophile) by one Political Party, partisan attacks start to swirl. But here is the meat of the convo… I reproduce some of the above for MIKE:

In 1977, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In it, Ginsberg advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. She writes:

  • “Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years” and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. … A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. … [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” (Savage; Schlafly; Schlafly; CNS-News; More)

She was an attorney for the ACLU at the time and later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton. She remains on the Supreme Court today.

MORE…

Ruth Bader Ginsburg co-authored the book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code in 1977 with a feminist, Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, for which they were paid with federal funds under Contract No. CR3AK010. The 230-page book was published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. It was written to identify the federal laws that allegedly discriminate on account of sex and to promote ratification of the then-pending federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), for which Ginsburg was a fervent advocate. Here are some of Ginsburg’s liberal recommendations set forth in her book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.

Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (101) She called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (145) She insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (169) She even cast Constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (146)

Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to persons who are “less than 12 years old.” (102) She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (195) She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (97) Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (98)

Ginsburg said that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle,” (206) and she called for “a comprehensive program of government supported child care.” (214) She demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating that “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (218)

An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel), even though most of these words with the -man suffix date back to Middle English in which it meant “human” and not specifically “male”. (15-16) She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the Memory Hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (52-53)

(CONSERVAPEDIA)

Here, as usual MIKE B. punts to others to do the thinking for him:

  • they are lying to you still. (He links to an AP article)

I then posted the pages 101-105 from the aforementioned book so I would not be accused of “ripping out of context” — but he still wasn’t picking up what I was laying down. (Images are loaded upon clicking the choices above the 1st loaded cover page to the 1977 edition):

[wonderplugin_slider id=5]

I added:

MIKE B. responds thus:

  • I read all the legalize stuff you posted. not one mention of any support for lowering the age for consent. these guys continue to lie to you. why do you accept it?

I counter with a post I think needs to be read in full over at AKA CATHOLIC:

Mike B. I will have to update my post with this info… thank you for making me confirm, well, My previous position:

(The bill RBG mentioned did not pass BTW) On page 102 of The Legal Status of Women under Federal Law, the authors make the following straightforward recommendation in reference to U.S. Code, Title 18 §2032, which addresses the crime of rape:

  • Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years” and substitute the offense as set forth in S. 1400, §1633. [Emphasis added]

To exactly what does “S. 1400, §1633” refer, and how is the offense “set forth” therein?

This is a reference to Senate Bill 1400, which, fortunately, was not voted into law. The “offense as set forth” in Section 1633 of the bill, the same text that the “esteemed jurist” Ginsburg wanted to see inserted in the U.S. Code, reads:

  • A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and ( 1 ) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or ( B ) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; ( 2 ) has substantially impaired the other person’s power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or ( 3 ) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old. [Emphasis added]

If you’re wondering where the confusion lies, the answer is that there is none.

Ginsburg and her fellow feminist specifically cited the chapter of the U.S. Code addressing the crime of rape – Title 18 §2032 to be exact – and very plainly stated that one of its descriptions of a rape victim as one who “has not attained the age of sixteen years” should be substituted with language that lowers to age of victimhood to “less than 12 years old;” i.e., making twelve the age of consent.

(READ THE ENTIRE POST!)

I add to the above — the “heres” added for my readers:

  • BTW, who are “they”? You always say that [many past conversations which I disprove his contentions: here, here, here – for instance]. Is it the same people that made the Washington Post remove portions and edit others regarding Trump/Russia Collusion?? After indictments fell and the NYT and WaPo and CNN are -[now] all asking “how the media got it so wrong” (here, here, here, here)

After this all that was posted was essentially, “yeah, but look at these Republicans charged or convicted with some sort of underage assault, proposition, etc.” I made a point that Republicans do not give important committee positions and standing Ovations to those caught in sexual relations with underage assistants via my [RPT’s] post:

  • The openly gay Democrat from Massachusetts [Barney Frank] was once embroiled in his own sex scandal, involving a young male prostitute hired as an aide back in 1987… (TIME)

These are the people who were outraged when a similarly gay “hustler” (Mark Foley) asked a sixteen-year old what he wanted for his birthday, and had PMs (private messages) with an eighteen-year old that were salacious. No sex occurred between either the 16-year old nor the 18-year old. Nancy Pelosi, who marched in lock step with a known pedophile and member of NAMBLA (who wants the age of consent to be 12-years-old) at a Gay Pride parade and then on television mentions how proud she is of this pedophile… she is now the champion of the Democratic movement? (AMERICAN SPECTATOR: When Nancy Met Harry | Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes)…

And this older example I am proud I elucidate others with:

…It was loyalty to that extreme agenda that accounts for Democrats holding back their ire during a far worse underage homosexual scandal: that of Gerry Studds, a Democratic Massachusetts congressman, for more than two decades.

According to the 1983 House ethics committee report, one congressional page allegedly traveled to Europe with Studds and testified that he took him to his apartment in Georgetown three or four times and that there was sexual activity between them each time. The two later took a 2 1/2-week trip together out of the country, according to the page, and “engaged in sexual activity every two or three days.”

According to the ethics panel’s report, “the relationship may have begun when the page was 16…. At that time, Rep. Studds was 36 years old.” What’s more, the underage page had told Studds that he would have preferred not to engage in sexual activity with him. “I mentioned that to him,” the former page testified.

The report added that “two other former pages, both male,” stated under oath that Studds made sexual advances to them. “One was 16 or 17” at the time of the alleged incident, “the other was 17.”

Studds never apologized, and when he was censured by his colleagues, he defiantly stood in the House well looking up at Speaker Tip O’Neill, hands casually folded behind his back. Afterward, Studds not only remained in Congress for more than a decade; the House Democratic leadership allowed him to rise in the congressional ranks and for years hold a full committee chairmanship.

Some of Studds’ Democratic colleagues even voted against the slap on the wrist of censure. Then-Rep. Parren Mitchell of Maryland, for instance, complained of the “absolute humiliation and degradation” Studds had already suffered and said censure would “cannibalize him.”

When Studds returned home to his district, an August 1983 editorial — in the liberal Washington Post of all places — asked with astonishment, “What is it exactly, or even inexactly, that those Massachusetts Democrats were so loudly cheering when they gave Rep. Gerry Studds three standing ovations last weekend? What accounts for this extraordinary response to a man just censured for having taken sexual advantage of a youthful congressional page?”

Why were Democrats cheering? Maybe the answer lies in the causes they support and the ideological company they keep.

MIKE B. responded:

  • read the republican item I posted. I think you picked the wrong party

I respond thus:

  • You miss the point [as usual]. A Supreme Court Justice wanting to change the age of consent. Democrats wanting H.R.5 which would change the course of sexual relations between adults and minors, and take away parental influence in the arena. Standing ovations. Democrats have a legislative means to change this, Republicans do not.

MIKE B. essentially repeated what he said before by saying: you have not shown one document that is from a credible source that shows she said or thinks that – not one. and, in the end, we both are anti-pedophiles. let’s call it a day on this one.

MY CONCLUSION TO THE CONVO

I cannot make people think well, read well, or read at all…. which is why people like MIKE B. will just link to AP news articles and let the MSM (which the bemoan at other times) do their thinking for them. It’s easier.

 

Conservative Lioness, Phyllis Schlafly, Passes (R.I.P.)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly died on Monday afternoon.

The “Sweetheart of the Silent Majority” passed away surrounded by family in her home in Ladue, Missouri just a short 10-minute drive from where she was born in St. Louis on August 15, 1924.

Her death marks a palpable loss for the conservative movement which, just last month,celebrated the grassroots heroine’s 92nd birthday.

An accomplished lawyer, activist, author, and mother of six, Phyllis Schlafly has been described as the embodiment of the ideal American woman.

As Sen. Jeff Sessions wrote in a statement submitted for the Congressional Record, “dynamic, smart, beautiful, and articulate,” Schlafly has “fearlessly” and “tirelessly… championed the American family and American values.”

In 1963, the publisher of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat put it this way: “Phyllis Schlafly stands for everything that has made America great and for those things which will keep it that way.”….

The Sandra Fluke Incident Has Exposed The Left`s Double-Standard ~ Again

Published by Papa Giorgio

I think Rush did the right thing in apologizing. He said it best in saying by talking about them he became them. We need to hold ourselves to a much higher standard in this dialogue (often times a monologue). And point out times of the media and the left holding a double-standard. Kirsten Powers, a liberal I admire, because she is honest as well as being thorough, writes and speaks about the about the issue at hand:

Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist

Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.

Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a “prostitute” who should post her sex tapes. It’s unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn’t want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What’s in order is something more like groveling—and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke—if you ask me.

But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.

Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)

Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.

Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews
“is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don’t show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.

…read more…

Laura Ingraham talks about her example of a double standard with persons like Barabra Walters giving a liberal women the time of day but merely “laughing off” her won mistreatment:

What this shows is a complete lack of concern for women via the left. It is proof that you must be a certain kind of woman in order to engender the National Organization of Women to come to your defense. Alternatively, you have to be a certain type of man in order to engender hatred from feminists and their organizations. Liberal and conservative, respectively.

A great example comes from Bill Clinton. You never heard a peep out of the left in regards to his behavior and all the WOMEN who complained about his behavior. Could you imagine if this were a conservative man, what vitriolic anger we would never hear the end of from the media:

Kathleen Willey

Former White House volunteer Kathleen Willey told CBS’s 60 Minutes that she was groped by the President when she went to ask advice about her financial difficulties. Ms Willey, 51, said he hugged her, touched her breasts, and put her hand on his aroused genitals.

Paula Jones

Mrs Jones is a former Arkansas state clerk who alleged that when Mr Clinton was governor of Arkansas in 1991, she was summoned to his room at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, by a state trooper. She has said he then dropped then his trousers and, alluding to his genitals, asked her to “kiss it.” She claims that she refused his offer and was then told to keep quiet about the incident. She said that she was later demoted at work as a result.

Monica Lewinsky

This 23-year-old former White House aide is the youngest of the President’s women to emerge. Paula Jones’s lawyers discovered her after they spoke to a number of his female aides, in the hope of establishing a pattern of sexual behavior. Ms Lewinsky was an unpaid intern when it is alleged that the President first took an interest in her. It is claimed the two had an affair which lasted a year and that they had sex in the White House.

Gennifer Flowers

Ms Flowers is a former nightclub singer who became the focus of attention during Mr Clinton’s 1992 election campaign. She alleged at the time that the she had an affair with Bill Clinton for 12 years while he was governor of Arkansas. She sold tapes of their telephone conversations and said that he offered her a job in local government in exchange for sexual favours. These accusations prompted Mr and Mrs Clinton to admit on national television that they had experienced problems in their marriage.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, 37 a former Miss America, told the New York Daily News on March 31 1998 that she had had consensual sex with Mr Clinton in 1982. Her statement followed allegations that the President, then Governor of Arkansas, had forced her to have sex with him.

Sally Perdue

Sally Perdue, a former Miss Arkansas, who has alleged that she had a sexual relationship with Mr Clinton in 1983. She said that the Arkansas state troopers used to escort him to her house and then wait outside while the two were meeting.

Dolly Kyle Browning

Finally Dolly Kyle Browning, an old friend of Mr Clinton’s from Arkansas has also said she had an affair with him. She claims he tried to start up another relationship with her in 1994.

This doesn’t matter however. Another example from a recent conversation I was having. I posted on my FaceBook an RIP to Andrew Breitbart and mentioned that attacks were surely soon to follow by the Left. Almost immediately an acquaintance of mine posted that Andrew didn’t deserve the respect afforded to a person after his death because Andrew didn’t afford the same to Senator Ted Kennedy when he passed. To which I had two reactions — an initial response and then one later as an afterthought:

Unlike Ted, however, Breitbart didn’t contribute to the rape of one girl and the drowning of another while for years fighting against the Civil Rights Act that was largely supported by Republicans. One does not deserve a “legacy” (as Think Progress says), the other does — at least as the king of new media.

————–

An afterthought. Layla really is beholden to an ideology rather than care and concern for women. This is in fact the case with her linking to a story about a Kennedy’s “legacy.” Ted and John and other Kennedy’s were chauvinistic monsters (I also reference the wonderful book, “Paper Genders,” documenting of the lobotomy Sr. ordered for their [the Kennedy’s] daughter), forcing themselves on girls 16-year olds. Only someone who reveres modern day feminism (really genderism) can post like this. For instance, I posted a response in Zooey Deschanel blog on Rush this:

There are many things to say about the article, but I will comment on just one of them, quote:

“…SPARK brings together some of the brightest, badass women on the planet (like Women’s Media Center co-founder and feminist royalty, Gloria Steinem).”

This is just another example of the women on the left getting undue rewards for being extremists of the 60′s, to wit: “Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole F*#@+*g patriarchy!” ~ Steinem

It isn’t about women, its about anti-capitalism. There are women in the business world who practice such principles found in business… they are of no consequence however, since, [quoting from my book] these feminists consider heterosexual relations (a male and female marriage) rape:

++++++++++++

Feminist author Ti-Grace Atkinson shows her true autonomy when stating, “the institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.” 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.” 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.” 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.”

(http://www.scribd.com/doc/34407868/Gnostic-Feminism-Empowered-to-Fail)

+++++++++++++

But these are heroes of the left?! Good job. I think with blanket praise of the “Steinems” in the post above is ample proof that the author knows nothing about modern feminist ideology… nor have they read any Christina Hoff Sommers, Tammy Bruce, Suzanne Venker, Phyllis Schlafly, Marybeth Hicks, Kate O’Beirne, and the like.

And I will confidently assert here that Layla, in all her studies, reading of articles on “feminist icons,” and the like – LIKEWISE hasn’t read a single thing from the short list I give. She is concerned, blindly concerned with painting a conservative one way, even if it means using men who rape and kill women. What an odd dichotomy. Which is why — I presume — Republicans chase out of D.C. those who sleep with pages while Democrats give three standing ovations to, and important committee positions to. The Left never ceases to amaze me.

This same thinking applies to this situation. For instance, you see here a few media`ites sounding off on Rush, but they were obviously silent when liberal men attacked women:

All these people are no where to be found when the woman who needs some representation is a conservative or the man attacking the female is a liberal. Ideology IS religion, it IS dogma. It blinds the person to the obvious hypocrisy of how they frame the issue when compared side-by-side with how they frame others. To us it is self-evident, to them, unimaginable.

Judge Robert Bork Says Kagan Is A No-Go

Published by Papa Giorgio

IBD has an article by Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who almost single handily stopped radical feminists from great strides decades ago. Here, she makes a great point about why Kagan shouldn’t be allowed into our judicial system at such a high level:

…Now that Obama is president, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will “break free” from the Constitution and join him in “fundamentally transforming” America. That’s the essence of his choice of Elena Kagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short. But it’s long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court.

The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “all legislative powers” are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should “make” and “create” law, assume “a role in the legislative process” and give statutes “new meaning that suits new social needs.”

Barak wrote that a judge “is subject to no authority” except himself, and he “must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it.” Channel? Does he mean he channels in a trance, as Hillary Clinton supposedly channeled discourse with the long-deceased Eleanor Roosevelt?

Despite Barak’s weirdo writings, or maybe because of them, Kagan called him her “judicial hero.” Judge Robert Bork, a man careful with his words, says Kagan’s praise of Barak is “disqualifying in and of itself.” Bork said that Barak “establishes a world record for judicial hubris.” He wrote that Barak embraces a judicial philosophy that “there is no area of Israeli life that the court may not govern.”

…(read more)…