Let’s remember how #JamesFoley lived, but also how he was brutally murdered

James Foley

Photojournalist James Foley

For those of you who were under the radar and missed this horrifying news from earlier this week:

In a horrifying act of revenge for U.S. airstrikes in northern Iraq, militants with the Islamic State extremist group have beheaded American journalist James Foley – and are threatening to kill another hostage, U.S. officials say. Even so, the U.S. military pressed ahead, conducting nearly a dozen airstrikes in Iraq since Tuesday.

[…]

Foley, 40, from Rochester, New Hampshire, went missing in northern Syria in November 2012 while freelancing for Agence France-Presse and the Boston-based media company GlobalPost. The car he was riding in was stopped by four militants in a contested battle zone that both Sunni rebel fighters and government forces were trying to control. He had not been heard from since.

The beheading marks the first time the Islamic State has killed an American citizen since the Syrian conflict broke out in March 2011, upping the stakes in an increasingly chaotic and multilayered war. The killing is likely to complicate U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Obama administration’s efforts to contain the group as it expands in both Iraq and Syria.

The group is the heir apparent of the militancy known as al-Qaida in Iraq, which beheaded many of its victims, including American businessman Nicholas Berg in 2004.

The video released on websites Tuesday appears to show the increasing sophistication of the Islamic State group’s media unit and begins with scenes of Obama explaining his decision to order airstrikes.

It then cuts to a balding man in an orange jumpsuit kneeling in the desert, next to a black-clad militant with a knife to his throat. Foley’s name appears in both English and Arabic graphics on screen. After the captive speaks, the masked man is shown apparently beginning to cut at his neck; the video fades to black before the beheading is completed. The next shot appears to show the captive lying dead. The video appears to have been shot in an arid area; there is no vegetation to be seen and the horizon is in the distance where the sand meets the gray-blue sky.

At the end of the video, a militant shows a second man, who was identified as another American journalist, Steven Sotloff, and warns that he could be the next captive killed. Sotloff was kidnapped near the Syrian-Turkish border in August 2013; he had freelanced for Time, the National Interest and MediaLine.

I was on Twitter when news of Foley’s murder broke.  The expressions of outrage towards his killers, the condolences posted to his family – all were understandable. For a brief moment, I joined in with the calls for people to always remember how he lived, and to put out of mind how he died.  It seemed fitting at the time. But as the week went on, and the more I thought about it, the more I concluded that – while it is indeed important to remember Foley’s work as a photojournalist, something he felt called to do in war-torn countries like Syria, Libya and Iraq, it was also vitally important to keep his murder fresh in people’s minds as a reminder of just how radicalized the “religion of peace” has become, and how we simply cannot continue the policy of appeasement towards Islamofascists that has taken place under the Obama administration.

Like many, I have not been impressed AT ALL with the “official response” communicated by the Obama administration to Foley’s brutal murder, because there is a continued insistence by them and other dangerous liberal moral relativists that terrorists like ISIS simply “pervert” the Islamic faith.  There’s the implication that if we stop and try and “understand” these inhumane swine who behead innocents in the name of “Allah” and bury alive rape victims as punishment in countries like Iran then maybe we could all just “get along”, sing “Kumbaya” and all that.

No.  I wrote this in 2010, and I still believe it to this day:

For a brief time long ago, I used to subscribe to the belief that there was a “moderate” element to Islam. I don’t anymore. Yes, there are Muslim Islamists out there who are not hateful, who are respectful of the religious beliefs and faiths of others, etc, but my opinion is that these Muslims are not full-fledged Islamists – and that’s a good thing. There is hope for that minority of Islamists that they can turn away from the evil “religion” we know as Islam.

That is, if they’re not murdered first.

No, Mr. President – I will not be “tolerant” of this religion, not in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Doesn’t mean I’ll get violent, but it DOES mean that I will speak out strongly against it, loudly and often. Islam, which is the law of the land in many Muslim countries via the use of the Koran as their “standard,” stands for everything we’re supposed to be against. Secularists and non-secularists alike can see this. It’s a crying, outrageous shame that you and so many of your fellow “enlightened” liberals do not.

If Foley’s sickening, torturous death does not wake people up as to the horrors of radical Islam, perhaps the ongoing persecution of non-believers by ISIS will:

Reports coming in from Sinjar, a small town that was once home to Iraqi minority community, Yazidis, suggest that the Islamic State militants are carrying out a “genocide” in the town.

For the Sunni militants, the Yazidis are a race of “devil worshipers” and killing them would only amount to a “holy act.”

The 4,000-year-old religious group has faced persecution for centuries for its unique belief and practices.

Earlier on Sunday, the Islamic State captured the town after driving away the Kurdish forces in the region. Witnesses claim that the militants are executing dozens of Yazidis for refusing to convert to Islam.

The Gulf News report claimed that 67 young men were shot dead by the militants. Besides executing the Yazidis, the Al Qaeda offshoot, is also reportedly taking Yazidi women for “jihad” marriage.

Mohammed al-Khuzai, an official with the Iraqi Red Crescent Society told NYTimes that ISIS took more than 100 Yazidi families to the airport at the nearby town of Tal Afar, where it executed the men.

“ISIS killed all the men,” Khuzai said, “and are planning to keep the women for jihad marriage.”

Reports have also come in claiming that the Islamic State militants have forcefully taken away a large number of children from the Yazidi town. A resident told McClatchy DC that militants were taking away young children from their families. 

Several Sinjar local government and municipal workers also have been executed by the ISIS. 

And then there are the Iraqi Christians. And the Syrian Christians.  I could go on and on, but you get the disturbing picture.

It’s time for world leaders to stop being silent, time to stop sitting back hoping the problem will just “go away.” Time for “leaders” here at home to stop largely ignoring the issue or downplaying because it’s “not happening here.”  Time for dangerous left wing moral relativists like the President, Reps. Keith Ellison, and Sheila Jackson Lee to stop playing the religious equivalency games.  Condemn it, call it out, STOP making excuses for it, stop rationalizing it. Stop putting it “in its proper context.”  9/11 wasn’t the first time radical Islam used its might to kill innocents in its quest to punish “infidels”, and James Foley’s beheading won’t be their last radical act of cold, sickening brutality, either. Pretending otherwise on all counts will only ensure that more will die.  

Tweet of the Week: On Obama, the border crisis, & his refusal to visit

Twitter

Never a dull moment in the Twittersphere …

From our very own Phineas:

Any questions?

CNN has more President’s visit to the Lone Star State:

(CNN) — President Barack Obama travels to Texas, the epicenter of the immigrant influx, on Wednesday.

But the trip has come under criticism from Republicans and some Democrats because, while it includes a Democratic Party fundraising event, it doesn’t stop at the border area where the flood of immigrants cross illegally into the United States.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a possible GOP presidential nominee in 2016, called the situation similar to the much-disparaged federal response to Hurricane Katrina by the Bush administration.

“For him to go to Texas and spend two days shaking down donors and never even getting near the border mess he helped create would be like flying into New Orleans in the highest waters of Katrina to eat Creole cooking, but never getting near the 9th Ward, the Superdome, or the Convention Center where thousands languished in squalor,” Huckabee said.

Ouch! Huckabee can be annoying sometimes, but when he’s right, he’s right.

In related news, after back and forth posturing over the specifics, the President and Texas Gov. Rick Perry plan to meet today to discuss the situation. Grab the popcorn … and the video recorders. ;)

Related (via):

Egyptian court sentences Christian to 6 years “for contempt of religion”

Egyptian Christians

Image via democracyandsociety.com.

The Associated Press reports that an Egyptian Christian has been sentenced to six years prison time by an Egyptian court because he “insulted Islam” on Facebook:

A court convicted an Egyptian Christian to six years imprisonment for blasphemy and contempt of religion on Tuesday.

The Luxor court issued its verdict against Kerolos Ghattas, 30, after his arrest earlier this month for posting pictures deemed insulting to Islam on his Facebook page.

Ghattas’ arrest sparked fears of sectarian conflict in his village, where unidentified assailants have hurled molotov cocktails at shops owned by Christians. Local authorities beefed up security in the village on Tuesday.

The verdict can be appealed. Egypt has witnessed a rise in the number of cases of Coptic Christians — estimated as 10 percent of the population — over the past three years.

On Monday, another Christian journalist — a convert — was sentenced to six years in prison over his coverage of recent sectarian strife.

I’m curious to see what the various “COEXIST” factions think about these two disturbing cases. Well, not really …

Rick Perry to Obama: Come visit the Texas/Mexico border, Mr. President

TX Gov. Rick Perry

Texas Governor Rick Perry

Not one to mince words, Texas Governor Rick Perry today issued a written invite to President Obama to come take a look at the Texas/Mexico border himself to see how bad the illegal immigrant influx has become, especially in recent weeks:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is inviting President Obama to visit the U.S.-Mexico border, saying he needs “to see firsthand” the humanitarian crisis from an influx of illegal migrants.

In a letter sent to the White House on Friday, Perry called the president to Texas to survey the areas where tens of thousands of unaccompanied children have illegally crossed the border.

Perry also asked Obama to deploy 1,000 National Guard troops to the border, authorize the use of Predator drones for surveillance flights, and direct the Centers for Disease Control to survey facilities where detained children are being held. 

“There is no doubt that I have disagreed with you and your administration on many policies over the years,” Perry wrote. “This crisis, however, transcends any political differences we may have.

“The safety and security of our border communities is being threatened by this flood of illegal immigration, and the crisis worsens by the day,” he added.

Perry also called on Obama to “modify or rescind policies that serve as a magnet to encourage illegal immigration,” in particular the so-called catch-and-release program. That program releases illegal immigrants into relatives’ care and orders them to appear at a later date for deportation proceedings.

“The complex situation along the border is deteriorating, and it requires a multifaceted approach to resolve, and must begin with border security,” Perry wrote.

Earlier Friday, the White House announced it would send tens of millions of dollars to Central American countries to help them improve security and repatriate immigrants who had attempted to enter the U.S.

How many want to bet that this emerging humanitarian crisis comes as a direct result of the Obama administration’s astonishingly naive and politically motivated executive actions that have relaxed immigration rules and regulations over the last few years? It’s something even they seem to be acknowledging indirectly, if this report from the New York Times is any indication.  

Make sure to read Hot Air’s Noah Rothman for much more on this developing story.  And pray for those children a safe return home, no matter what you think on the issue of illegal immigration. 

QOTD: Cosmo doubles down on the fail in response to “icky” self-defense comment

Women friends toasting with shots at a bar

Ladies, please be safe.
Image via HuffPo.

In case you were thinking that Cosmopolitan magazine was going to dial it down a notch or two in the aftermath of the outrage and disbelief over comments one of their managers made in response to Miss USA’s remarks on self defense in the context of campus rapes, think again. Cosmo sex editor Anna Breslaw stomped her feet and churned out this head-scratcher:

During the question-and-answer portion of the Miss USA pageant, 24-year-old Miss Nevada Nia Sanchez, who took home the crown, said she believed some colleges might sweep campus rape under the rug to prevent bad press. Sanchez, a fourth degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do, added, “more awareness [of the issue] is very important so that women can learn to protect themselves … You need to be confident and be able to defend yourself. That’s something we need to start to implement for a lot of women.” 

[…]

Self defense isn’t icky, and anyone with a fifth-grade reading comprehension level can understand that’s not what Elisa was saying.  

Actually, yeah – it was:

I get that the college sexual assault problem can’t be solved in 30 secs but still icky to pretend like self defense is the answer. ” – Elisa Benson

Can’t get much more plain that that.  And as I noted in my prior piece on this issue, she was far from the only one.

Breslaw went on:

What is icky is the idea that we’d pour the entirety of our time, energy, and federal funding into training every 18-year-old girl in America to be jacked, gun-toting Lara Crofts rather than, oh, I don’t know, teaching boys not to rape or shaming college administrators for not taking sexual assault allegations seriously. 

What’s “icky” is Ms. Breslaw assuming that most people who did a double take at Ms. Benson’s remarks believe there’s only room for one solution.  Also “icky” is her implicit assumption that boys aren’t taught from a very early age to respect women. Disturbing is her obvious belief that if respect is taught then it automatically means that a young man won’t grow up and eventually hurt a woman.   We can and should drill it into the heads of every single one of them that respecting women is not optional, but that doesn’t mean on down the line he’s going to abide by that. 

Which is where self-defense comes into play.  Fortunately, Breslaw is on board with women learning self-defense. Sorta:

Self-defense is a fantastic thing for every woman (or man) to have under their belt — in fact, experts say would-be attackers are often deterred by the confident manner in which women educated in self-defense carry themselves — but this limited view of campus sexual assault prevention perpetuates dangerous myths about sexual assault and shames victims for not adequately “preparing” to defend themselves against rape. It’s the same mentality as blaming sexual assault victims for wearing provocative clothing and therefore “brought it upon themselves,” rather than blaming their attackers for the actual assault. 

Do me a favor and please re-read the bolded part of the above paragraph.  Then digest it.  Self-defense “perpetuates myths about sexual assault” and …. “shames victims” for not preparing to defend themselves?? SAY WHAT? She actually thinks promoting self-defense is the equivalent to those who snidely say “but she was wearing a short skirt so she was asking for it”?   And it “shames” women who have been victims of sexual assault? In what  universe does Ms. Breslaw reside?  One wonders if she’d say that exact thing to victims of sexual assault who take up self-defense training and who tour and give speeches promoting that very thing as a very useful tool in preventing an attacker from doing a woman harm?? Good grief!

She says she believes all this but yet wants you to think that she harbors a “big tent” approach to the issue combating violence against women that includes incorporating self-defense into the mix? I don’t think so.  Here’s the shorter version of Breslaw’s ridiculous argument:  ‘Let’s not emphasize self-defense because we don’t want to risk hurting the feelings of women who have already become victims. In fact, let’s put the onus for trying to stop future assaults entirely on “society” rather than try to educate women on how to better protect themselves.’  Maybe that “solution” would work flawlessly in Breslaw’s Feminist Utopia but here in the real world, the reality is that there are bad people out there and no matter how much we try and communicate that it’s not ok to hurt women, those who want to WILL.

Rape is more of a crime of opportunity than it is some guy hiding in an alleyway waiting for you to walk by. With increasing frequency, a rapist is more likely to be someone you know or are otherwise somewhat acquainted with, perhaps casually, than not.    Either way, it’s best to be prepared for any situation.  Travel in groups.  Hold tight to your beverage of choice at all times.  Don’t binge drink. Do not walk to your car alone at night.  Lock your car doors and windows – and the doors and windows to your house.  Do NOT answer the front door if you don’t know who the person is or if they just make you uncomfortable.   Do not get into a car with a man you don’t know.  Do not be free-flowing with personal information about yourself (such as where you live and your phone number) with guys who you’re just getting to know.  The list goes on and on.

It goes without saying but I’ll repeat it anyway: You could do all of the above and then some and still end up a victim of a sexual assault – and if it does happen, it is imperative that you understand that it is/was NOT your fault. Unfortunately, there is no “fool-proof” way of avoiding the possibility of something happening to you.  But you’ll lessen the chances of it happening if you take precautions.  We tell young kids they can’t walk half a block to the store alone because someone might snatch them.  We instruct teenagers to run away if someone they don’t know approaches them in a vehicle. These are common sense precautions that no one ever thinks twice about. Why would anyone on earth hesitate to make sure women are given the vital tips they need in order to try and avoid becoming a victim of a violent crime, in addition to continuing to educate young men that they must respect women?

Unlike Ms.  Breslaw, I don’t speak out of both sides of my mouth.  I really do believe we should do everything we can to prevent future assaults, not just by continuing to instill values at a young age to boys (and girls) that they should respect each other, but also by trying to ensure that women have every available tool at their disposal – both knowledge and physical power – to protect themselves.  Nothing “icky” or shameful about it. The phony, warped political correctness behind Breslaw’s “but we’re shaming victims by doing this!!” mentality only serves to create more victims of rape down the road. She might be ok with that, but I’m not.

Why Obama’s polls will never tank with limousine liberals

**Posted by Phineas

"My will is enough!"

“Ruler of the New Versailles”

Historian Victor Davis Hanson writes at PJ Media about Obama’s poll numbers and why they’re not likely to hit the dismal late-term numbers of, say, George W. Bush or Harry Truman, in spite of the man’s obvious incompetence. While he discusses Obama’s support among minorities and the cover given him by  a protective media, it’s what he wrote about a third group, wealthy liberals, that I want to share:

 3) The well-off are indifferent to the Obama record, interested only in its symbolic resonance. Doctrinaire liberalism resonates mostly with the very wealthy. We see that by the voting patterns of our bluest counties, or the contributions of the very affluent. In contrast, Republicanism is mostly embedded within the middle class and upper middle class, while liberalism is a coalition of the affluent and the poor.

The result is that the Kerrys, Gores, and Pelosis are dittoed by millions of the affluent in Malibu, Silicon Valley, the Upper West Side, the university towns, Chicago, academia, the arts, highest finance, corporate America, foundations, the media, etc. Their income and accumulated wealth exempt them from worries about economic slowdowns, too much regulation, higher taxes, or the price of gas, electricity, or food. That under Obama gasoline has gone from $1.80 a gallon to $4.10 is as irrelevant as it is relevant that he has so far not built the Keystone Pipeline. That the price of meat has skyrocketed or that power bills are way up means little if global warming is at last addressed by more government.

For the liberal grandee, there is a margin of safety to ensure that the California legislature takes up questions like prohibiting the sale of Confederate insignia or ensuring restrooms for the transgendered or shutting down irrigated acreage to please the delta smelt. In their view, Obama represents their utopian dreams where an anointed technocracy (1), exempt from the messy ramifications of its own ideology, directs from on high a socially just society — diverse, green, non-judgmental, neutral abroad, tribal at home — in which an equality of result is ensured, albeit with proper exemptions for the better educated and more sophisticated, whose perks are necessary to give them proper downtime for their exhausting work on our behalf.

In other words, unlike the rest of us, the liberal elite can actually afford the society they want to impose on us all. For our own good.

And of such times are populist revolts born.

Footnote:
(1) Seems like VDH and I were thinking along the same lines. As usual, though, he says it a lot better than I.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Time for race hustler & Alabama state Rep. Holmes to pay up on $100k offer

Alabama state Rep. Alvin Holmes

Alabama state Rep. Alvin Holmes (D)

I absolutely love it:

A Democratic Alabama state representative is under fire for a racially charged challenge he made last month that has backfired big time. TheBlaze reported that during a legislative session discussion on abortion rights, Rep. Alvin Holmes speculated his Republican counterparts would be in favor of abortion if black men impregnated their daughters. Rep. [Holmes] then offered to pay $100,000 cash to anyone who could show him a “bunch of whites” who have adopted black children in Alabama.

Well, the representative is now being asked to put his money where his mouth is after a Facebook group entitled Faces of Families in Alabama began posting photos of multi-racial families in the state. The Facebook page has already garnered more than 7,000 ‘likes,’ and on Wednesday, the group gathered on the steps of the State House to demonstrate just how many multi-racial, adoptive families reside in Alabama.

The Daily Mail has pictures of some of the beautiful families that were in attendance at the Wednesday rally. Time to put up or shut up on your offer, Rep. Holmes.  But he won’t, and here’s his “official” reason why. In shorter terms, he’s a shameless race-baiting welcher.

Holmes, you may recall, also sneered on the floor of the Alabama state House a couple of months ago that he didn’t like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas because Thomas is “married to a white woman.”  Guy sounds like a real winner, eh? Now just imagine for five seconds Holmes was a Republican …

What do we have to do to win the culture war?

SMH

I read the below series of tweets from my friend @KemberleeKaye on a disturbing experience she had this morning at a local donut shop in Texas when she went to get breakfast. In a nutshell, a nice elderly lady in the store saw a homeless man sitting nearby and bought him a donut. She walked away and he followed her, asked if she was a Christian. She said yes. He said he refused to take charity from Christians because they “hated homosexuals.” She tried to leave the store and he followed her and threw the donut at her.

Yes, obviously the unhinged jerk was extraordinarily rude and disrespectful, and this is just one incident, but I see this attitude a lot – assuming that Christians “hate” gays. And it expands further than that to other social issues, like casual sex, birth control, abortion, and religion. I know there are Christians that give the rest of us a bad name, but I think this belief system has a lot more to do with how the activist left – with help from their liberal allies in the print and online media – have distorted and demagogued the various issues social conservatives have focused on over the years into something they’re not. For example, they paint abortion as being about “women’s health” rather than about the unborn life. Birth control is painted as a “right” and anyone who opposes paying for it on a faith basis is painted is a woman-hating “pig” who wants to “control women.” And on and on.

Honestly, conservatives and Christians haven’t done a very good, effective job at neutralizing the left’s social issues talking points in the context of the culture wars. But you have to keep in mind, too, that some of that has to do not just with how the left routinely portrays us and the issues that are important to us, but it also has to do with the minority of cuckoos on the far right saying the wrong thing and the media completely focusing on them while ignoring those who can much better articulate social/cultural issue positions. So how DO we turn things around and start winning again? Keep in mind I’m not talking about government “solutions” but instead looking for ways we can go about in our daily lives that can reverse the nasty stereotype the left has successfully painted us as. I firmly believe that social issues ARE fiscal issues and that if we don’t reverse the left wing monopoly on them, then we’ll see major socio-economic problems in the future that make the current ones look like a piece of cake to handle by comparison.

Thoughts?

#BanBossy? How about let’s ban #FeministHypocrisy?

Tolerance

Yep.

Much hay has been made over the last week over the campaign launched by Facebook COO and Girl Scouts CEO Anna Maria Chávez called “Ban Bossy” – a movement that supposedly seeks to “empower” young girls by symbolically “banning” so-called hurtful words that allegedly “hold them back” from wanting to take leadership positions when they get older:

Can banning one school-yard word really change the world? Sheryl Sandberg says yes.

Sandberg — the chief operating officer of Facebook and author of the best-selling book “Lean In” — is spearheading the launch of a campaign today to ban the word “bossy,” arguing the negative put-down stops girls from pursuing leadership roles.

“We know that by middle school, more boys than girls want to lead,” Sandberg said, “and if you ask girls why they don’t want to lead, whether it’s the school project all the way on to running for office, they don’t want to be called bossy, and they don’t want to be disliked.”

Sandberg said these attitudes begin early and continue into adulthood.

“We call girls bossy on the playground,” Sandberg said. “We call them too aggressive or other B-words in the workplace. They’re bossy as little girls, and then they’re aggressive, political, shrill, too ambitious as women.”

Sandberg’s organization Lean In is joining forces with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Girl Scouts USA CEO Anna Maria Chávez to launch a public service campaign called “Ban Bossy.” The banbossy.com website gives tips for parents, kids, teachers and others about how to encourage young female leaders.

First, let’s dispense with the myth that “by middle school, more boys than girls want to lead” – it’s simply not true. In fact, the opposite is happening in classrooms all across America as a result of what is now commonly called the “war on boys.”  While attempts at empowering girls starting at a young age are widespread, the push to practically neuter young boys are also going on at a rapid-fire pace … with disastrous results:

Contrary to what you hear in the political campaign broadsides, females are actually doing pretty well. In our elementary, middle and high schools, they earn the best grades, win most of the academic prizes, get suspended less and graduate at very high rates. That success helps explain why women currently dominate higher education, with many college campuses spilling over the 60% female threshold.

Workforce trends favoring women continue to rain down, with record numbers of women in the workforce. Well-educated women living in large cities out-earn their male counterparts. Their biggest challenge: finding equally educated males to marry.

[…]

Here’s why we need politicians to get past the pandering and posturing and propose solutions for the group truly in trouble: Boys account for three out of every five high school students who drop out of school. Boys make up 67% of the 5.8 million kids relegated to special education programs. The likelihood of any boy in special education graduating by age 21 is bleak.

Boys, regardless of race, ethnicity or economic class, are also more likely to struggle in reading. Forty percent of Asian fourth-grade boys who qualified for free or reduced lunch were functionally illiterate versus 32% of their female peers, while 37% of fourth-grade black boys who didn’t qualify for free or reduced lunch read at “below basic” proficiency, versus 26% of their female peers.

Young male high school dropouts are at least five times as likely to land in prison by adulthood than peers who graduate, according to Princeton University researcher Bruce Western, in part because boys who struggle in reading in first grade begin acting out and become discipline problems. They are also less likely to marry by the time they reach middle age because women with higher earnings don’t consider them marriage material. They are also more likely to have children out of wedlock, perpetuating the social ills that plague low-income black, white and Latino communities.

Educational and political leaders have long known the consequences of these boy troubles, yet have done little to address illiteracy and the other underlying factors.

Bingo. We’d rather conduct “feel good” campaigns where words are banned or … “taken back” (like “slut”?)  and wage lopsided,  hypocritical campaigns where girls are made to feel they can do anything while boys are feminized to the point they don’t know what to think or feel and as they grow into adults and become contributing members of society.  Later, these same boys – who have now become men – are told by “society” that they are only allowed to have opinions on certain, select issues, with none of them relating to “feminist” staples like abortion, childcare, and other so-called “women’s rights” issues because, well, they’re not women, you see.

Which is where I call their bluff: Wanna contribute something meaningless to society by banning a word that has been used over the years as derogatory for both men and women? Fine.  Have your little victory.  But here’s what I want in return:   If ridding the public discourse of words like “bossy” because they are “hurtful” to women ultimately makes them feel better about who they are, then let’s also rid society of this sexist notion that grown, educated men are not allowed to voice an opinion about right to life-related issues without unwarranted ridicule on the basis of his sex or … race, a despicable tactic I’ve seen used all too many times in recent history (“all I see is a bunch of old white men in elected positions trying to ban my right to birth control!!” is a common rallying cry). It’s an offensive tactic, not to mention – frankly – unAmerican.   If we were to consistently go by this rule, then straight people in both major parties shouldn’t be allowed to opine on gay rights matters, and white people in both major parties should be told to keep quiet when issues involving the rights of black citizens pop up.

I could go on and on, but you get the point.  Every issue on the table impacts us all – some more so than others, and some more directly than others, but the bottom line is whether or not it directly impacts you or me personally, it DOES directly impact society, and we all have the right to express our opinions without the militant left constantly trying to use ridicule, shame, and other types of intimidation tactics to try and shut people up.    And while radical far leftists do have the right to attempt shutuppery tactics on their political opposition, that doesn’t mean people should back down out of fear from speaking their mind.

Modern “feminists” want people to think they own and control the conversation on women’s issues, and therefore can set the narrative and parameters of the debate.  The only way for guys to dissuade them of such a mindset is to keep talking, keep reaffirming that they won’t let them shut them up, demonstrate the value and (hopefully!) wisdom of their opinions. Men have wives or girlfriends, daughters,  sisters, mothers, grandmothers, and other close female relatives, friends, and colleagues so it’s natural they’re going to have opinions on pro-life issues, birth control, sex education, childcare, dating, etc. To say their opinions aren’t important or relevant on the basis of their sex is to relegate them to the back benches of society, where women once were before the true feminists of yesteryear stood up and said “no more!”

The blatant hypocrisy of modern feminists in this regard is staggering.  If only they’d pause from molding new generations of victim classes long enough so that they might actually be able to see it.

Maria Conchita Alonso loses acting gig after endorsing Tea Party candidate

Tolerance

Yep.

“Wait, there’s no bias against conservatives in Hollywood. Nobody loses a job over their politics, right?” Justified actor Nick Searcy sarcastically asked on Twitter after reading this story from San Francisco’s KPIX (hat tip):

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) — A famed actress is facing backlash in San Francisco’s Latino community, after she voiced support for a conservative candidate for California governor.

Maria Conchita Alonso starred in a campaign ad for Assemblyman Tim Donnelly of San Bernardino County, a Tea Party favorite who is seeking the Republican nomination.

Donnelly has voiced strong views against illegal immigration and was once involved with the Minutemen Project, a group that patrolled the border with Mexico to catch immigrants coming across.

“Politicians and big government are killing our prosperity, pushing welfare costs through the roof and driving our schools into the ground,” Donnelly said in the ad.

Standing next to Donnelly, Alonso jokingly translated in Spanish, “We’re screwed.”

[…]

The actress was to perform next month at the Brava Theater Center in San Francisco’s Mission District in a Spanish-language version of “The Vagina Monologues,” scheduled for a run from February 14th through 17th. The show is being produced by none other than Eliana Lopez, wife of San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi.

“We really cannot have her in the show, unfortunately,” Lopez told KPIX 5. She said Alonso abruptly resigned from the cast on Friday, given the backlash on the immigration issue.

“Of course she has the right to say whatever she wants. But we’re in the middle of the Mission. Doing what she is doing is against what we believe,” Lopez said.

[…]

“We don’t act like that. First of all, that is not a typical Latina,” said Jim Salinas, a long time Mission resident and former president of the San Francisco Latino Democratic Club. Salinas said there probably would have been boycotts if Alonso had stayed on the production.

Protein Wisdom’s Darleen Click sums up succinctly:

… but Leftists cannot have any minority stray off the Leftist plantation, so now Ms. Alonso is officially an inauthentic Latina.

Tolerance!

You betcha!

Sidenote: Maria, please consider better acting gigs in the future. VM is SO not worth it!

Related: