Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Liberal Sexist Pigs

by Ashley Herzog

Brace yourselves, readers, because it’s not over yet. This year has been Misogyny Mania for liberals who claim to be “pro-woman.”

First there was the character assassination of Miss California Carrie Prejean, in which liberals thought a deft response to her anti-gay marriage comments was to call her a slut. By saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman, Prejean did nothing more than restate the official position of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bill Clinton—and every other male politician liberals adore. There’s no doubt that Prejean’s femininity determined how the media treated her. As Miss USA owner Donald Trump said, “If her beauty wasn’t so great, nobody really would have cared.”

That’s how liberal woman-haters think. Male politicians are allowed to have opinions; young beauty pageant contestants aren’t. Even editor Jessica Valenti acknowledged that they were “fighting homophobia with misogyny.”

Then, last week, the pigs at Playboy magazine published a list of ten conservative women they’d like to “hate f-ck,” because “we may despise everything these women represent, but goddammit they’re hot.”

A “hate f-ck” sounds like rape to me, which I assume was Playboy’s point. The list was filled with leering observations about the women’s “tight bodies” and “saucy looks,” and concluded with each woman’s “hate f-ck rating.”


This is coming from a magazine that claims to respect women. In 2005, Hugh Hefner’s daughter Christie told feminist author Ariel Levy that Playboy works to promote “sexual liberation” for its models, and Hugh himself has declared that women were the main beneficiaries of the sexual revolution. The Playboy Foundation is a major supporter of reproductive rights and other progressive causes.

So Playboy is obviously a cheerleader for gender equality—as long as you’re a naked sex object who needs an abortion. Just don’t express any opinions. Then liberals will openly discuss their desire to put you back in your place with a violent sexual encounter.

It’s no surprise that Michelle Malkin was number one on Playboy’s gross list. Malkin enrages racist liberal woman-haters because she doesn’t conform to their porno fantasies of a passive, compliant Asian woman. As she discussed at length in her 2005 book Unhinged, she is often subjected to racialized sexual denigration from liberals who call her a “mail-order bride” and a “whore” for the Republican Party. Every time Malkin opens her mouth, you can practically see their jaws drop: Who does this little Asian woman think she is? (Playboy referred to her as a “highly f-ckable Filipina.”)

It doesn’t matter whether they’re forbidding Carrie Prejean to say things Joe Biden is allowed to say or fantasizing about raping overly opinionated conservatives. Sexist liberals have always been open about their desire to prevent women from talking. Two years ago, some slobbering loser responded to one of my Townhall columns by writing, “I don't know Ashley Herzog. Never heard of her before today. I would, however, go so far to say that I would date her if she promised not to say anything.”

Nice work. Especially from people who are constantly screaming about the right’s “war on women.”


Obama vs the Pope

by David Goldman ("Spengler")

Obama’s failure to mention the historic tie of the Jewish people to the land of Israel elicited outraged comment from Jewish sources, for example this one from this morning’s editorial in the Jerusalem Post:
In his Cairo address the day before to the Muslim and Arab worlds, the president had justified Israel’s right to exist on the basis of the Holocaust: “The aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted,” he said, “in a tragic history” that culminated in the Shoah.

At Buchenwald, he said: “The nation of Israel [arose] out of the destruction of the Holocaust.” That rationale, standing alone, set the stage for Obama to assert: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinians… have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”

What the Holocaust proved is that the world is too dangerous a place for Jews to be stateless and defenseless. But we Zionists were making that argument long before Hitler came to power.
The same point was made by some prominent American rabbis in Shabbat sermons, and it is absolutely correct. As the cited editorial said,
SO YOU see, Mr. President, long before Christianity and Islam appeared on the world stage, the covenant between the people of Israel and the Land of Israel was entrenched and unwavering. Every day we prayed in our ancient tongue for our return to Zion. Everyday, Mr. President. For 2,000 years

At every Jewish wedding down through the centuries, the bridegroom has crushed a glass beneath his foot while declaring: “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem…”
My memory is not perfect, and I do not read every Jerusalem Post editorial, but this is the first time I recall the newspaper citing Jewish prayer as the basis for a political position. That is encouraging. In the June-July issue of First Things, I argue that Jewish holiness, rather than the Holocaust, must be the foundation of our claim for support from the Christian world. Of course, I had no inkling of Obama’s coming offense when I wrote “Jewish Survival in a Gentile World,” but the President’s speech in Cairo exemplified the point. If all the Jews want is for the rest of the world to abhor the Holocaust, Obama said in effect, I’ll do that all day and all night. What a rotten thing the Holocaust was! And what stinkers are they who deny it happened! Now, you got what you paid for. Get over the barrel.

Pope Benedict XVI also had occasion to irritate the Jews during his trip to Israel and Jordan last month, particularly by complaining that the security barrier that separates Israel from the West Bank and has helped keep Palestinian terrorists away from Israeli targets. The Pope has a Christian Arab constituency on the West Bank who suffer from the same security restrictions that Israel has imposed upon the territories as a matter of sad necessity. It is quite in character for him to deplore the human effects of such measures.

Nonetheless, what should be kept in mind is that the pope went to Israel precisely because of its Biblical significance, and visited the Jewish people in their divinely-appointed homeland precisely because he believes that the Jews were elected by God to comunicate to all humanity knowledge of the true and unique God.

In a May 6 Newsweek column, George Weigel called attention to
the most salient personal fact about the pope’s journey—that it’s a pilgrimage by a man of the Bible to the land of the Bible. While pundits and partisans will interpret Benedict’s comments and actions according to the varying political winds and their own agendas, a real understanding of his pilgrimage must start at the true source of Benedict’s own thinking: Scripture.
Weigel added,
Ratzinger’s intense encounter with the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament over more than half a century has given him both a deep reverence for the Bible and a theologically grounded reverence for living Judaism—which is the most solid basis possible for genuine friendship and mutual regard. Benedict knows that the Hebrew Bible is integral to Christianity.
Benedict believes that the Jews should be in Eretz Yisrael for the same reason that the Jerusalem Post does: because it is divinely mandated. Obama reinforces the Arab claim that Israel is the product of European guilt over the Holocaust. Who is the friend of the Jews, and who is the enemy?

In the cited article in the June-July issue, I argued that Jews should make common cause with the Pope. It won’t be available online for another two months, so if you want to read it now, you will have to subscribe. I suppose I could make it available for free, but sorry — as the conductor Otto Klemperer said to the Israel Philharmonic, I’m too Jewish for that.


Clinton Invites Controversial Muslim Leader on Conference Call

A Virginia legislature candidate who once praised "the jihad way" was invited by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to participate in a conference call of Muslim leaders last week.

A Muslim leader invited by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to participate in a conference call after President Obama's speech in Cairo last week once told a crowd that "the jihad way is the way to liberate your land."

Esam Omeish, a surgeon and community leader who is running for Virginia state assemblyman, made the statements in 2000 at pro-Palestinian rally where he spoke out against Israel and urged Muslims to support the Palestinian liberation movement.

"We the Muslims of the Washington Metropolitan area are here today in sub-freezing temperatures to tell our brothers and sisters in (Palestine) that you have learned the way, that you have known that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land," Omeish said, just three months into the Al-Aqsa uprising that would claim over a thousand lives through Palestinian terrorist attacks. "We are with you, we are supporting you and we will do everything that we can, insha'Allah (God willing), to help your cause."

After footage of the speech was released in 2007, Omeish was forced to resign from a Virginia state immigration commission to which he had been appointed by Gov. Tim Kaine.

Omeish is now running for state assemblyman in a closely-fought primary election to be held Tuesday. On his Web site, he touts the support of influential Muslim politicians and civic leaders, and his presence on the Clinton call.

The State Department has not replied to questions as to whether it was aware of Omeish's past comments when he was selected as one of approximately 100-200 invitees to participate in the conference, which included academics and Muslim leaders.

Jim Hyland, the Republican candidate for the seat Omeish is running for, said Omeish was a poor choice to represent his region's growing Muslim community. "What criteria were they using to select people?" he said. "I think (his views) come from a small-minded perspective -- got to fight Israel and all that sort of rhetoric. Some people have tried move beyond that."

Omeish, who is preparing for the Democratic primary, was not available for comment, but shortly after video of his speech appeared online two years ago he told the Washington Post he had been the victim of a "smear campaign." "It was not a call for violence. It was never any condoning of terrorism or any violent acts," he said. The word "jihad" has multiple meanings, and can be defined as a holy struggle by a Muslim for a spiritual or political goal.

John Carroll, an attorney running against Omeish in the primary, said his opponent's comments were known by many voters in his district, but neither he nor the two other Democratic candidates had used them against Omeish. "I was surprised (when I watched the video). He's about as nice a guy as you can meet," said Carroll. "He's really championed health care for the uninsured."

The Republican Party of Virginia declined to comment on Omeish's comments in 2000. "We'll wait to see who comes out of the primary," said party spokesman Tim Murtaugh.

Omeish was born in Libya but moved to Virginia with his family as a teenager, according to an interview he gave to the Baltimore Muslim Examiner last month. He is the chief of general surgery at INOVA Alexandria Hospital.

When Kaine accepted Omeish's resignation from the Virginia Commission on Immigration in 2007, Kaine commented, "Omeish is a respected physician and community leader, yet I have been made aware of certain statements he has made which concern me."

In the conference call with Clinton last week, which was advertised as a forum to discuss how to bridge the divide between the United States and the Muslim community, Omeish expressed support for President Obama and offered that Muslim-Americans needed to get more involved in politics. "I am hopeful that the my friends on the far right and even some of those in the media, that continue to try and distort my record and my name, and continue to distort public perceptions of the Muslim community, will realize that we have a president and an administration, along with most of the American people, that are ready to move beyond divisive politics," he said on the call, according to a press release from his campaign office.


Obama Nation's Low View of Christianity

President Obama’s comment to French television on June 1 that the United States is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,” plus his Islam-praising speech in Cairo, Egypt on June 4, raise anew questions about his own faith and how he views America.

Questions can also be asked about his math. The CIA Factbook estimates America’s Muslim population at 0.6 percent, or about 1.8 million, which puts it in 58th place among nations’ total Muslim populations. Even if you take the Islamic Information Center’s high estimate of 8 million, that still puts the U.S. at 29th out of 60 nations.

In Cairo, Obama quoted from the Koran, used his middle name of Hussein, and indicated that the United States and Muslim nations have the same commitment to tolerance and freedom. To fathom the absurdity, think about the possibility of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution springing from the pens of Islamic scholars Thomas al-Jefferson and James al-Madison.

Over the past three years, Obama has made it his business to insist that “we are no longer a Christian nation.” He has said it in many places, here and abroad. In 2006, in Washington, D.C., he said, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation. At least, not just.” He posted the same sentiment on his campaign website.

At the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Pennsylvania on April 13, 2008, he said, “We are not just a Christian nation. We are a Jewish nation; we are a Buddhist nation; we are a Muslim nation; Hindu nation; and we are a nation of atheists and nonbelievers.”

In Turkey, at a press conference on April 10, he said: “Although we have a large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. I think modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of values.”

During the presidential campaign, the media pounced on anyone who inquired into Obama’s Muslim upbringing in Indonesia, his two Muslim fathers or his later 20-year attendance at radical pastor Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Now, his Muslim roots are touted as an asset.

No one can say for sure what Obama actually believes, since only God can know the human heart. So we are left examining his words and actions.

The media-enforced line for the past three years has been that he is a self-described mainstream Christian, end of story. Even when Obama badly distorted Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount into a clarion call to accept homosexuality, the press yawned. They yawned (or cheered) when he mocked the Bible’s relevance for politics in that 2006 Washington, D.C. speech:

“Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith, or should we just stick with the Sermon on the Mount, a passage which is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application. Folks haven’t been reading the Bible.”

More cheers came when he spoke the language of unity while taking a shot at his political opponents during a speech at the United Church of Christ convention in 2007:

“Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us.

“We can recognize the truth that's at the heart of the UCC: that the conversation is not over [God needs an editor]; that our roles are not defined [men in dresses, unite]; that through ancient texts and modern voices, God is still speaking [yes, we’re ripping out pages of the Bible daily to suit our appetites], challenging us to change not just our own lives, but the world around us …hate has no place in the hearts of believers.”

Is it not hateful to suggest that people who disagree with you are full of “hate?” Is it unifying to accuse opponents of inventing fights that they didn’t start?

More odd things have been happening since Obama’s election that should give pause to even the most cynical observers. On the Saturday before Obama’s swearing-in, V. Gene Robinson, the openly homosexual Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, gave an invocation at a pre-inaugural event at the Lincoln Memorial. The New York Times interviewed him beforehand: “Bishop Robinson said he had been rereading inaugural prayers through history and was ‘horrified’ at how ‘specifically and aggressively Christian they were.’ Bishop Robinson said, ‘I am very clear that this will not be a Christian prayer, and I won’t be quoting Scripture or anything like that. The texts that I hold as sacred are not sacred texts for all Americans, and I want all people to feel that this is their prayer.’”

As one of his first judicial appointments, Obama named Indiana federal judge David Hamilton to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Hamilton, who had ruled that a pastor could not invoke the name of Jesus in an opening prayer for the Indiana legislature, said that, on the other hand, invoking Allah at a public event is fine.

In April, it was reported that Obama appointed Harry Knox, a Catholic-bashing homosexual activist, to the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Knox, who directs the religion program at the largest gay pressure group, the Human Rights Campaign, described Pope Benedict and other Catholic clergy as “discredited leaders” because of their stand for traditional marriage, and called the Knights of Columbus “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression” because of their support of California’s Proposition 8 marriage amendment.

On April 14, 2009, the Obama team had Georgetown University cover up the Greek letters IHS, which stand for Jesus, so they would not show up when he spoke in front of them.

On May 7, Obama declined to hold any White House event to mark the National Day of Prayer, a decision hailed by Barry Lynn’s hard left Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

In his eloquent commencement speech at Notre Dame on May 17, Obama sounded a conciliatory note, lamented, sort of, the abortions that he wants taxpayers to fund, and gave more clues that Christianity will move over and shrink before a universalist moral relativism: “The size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake [not “reform” or “restore,” but “remake”] our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. “Your generation must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it….. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity -- diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief.”

If diversity in and of itself is god, where does that leave Jesus Christ – the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, the Alpha and the Omega, the Way, the Truth and the Life, through Whom all things were created?

Well, the Obama Nation might just ask Him to change his name to … Allah.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: