Archive for Feminism

Justice4Barry!

Not to make light of a violent crime, but I’m starting to feel violated myself:

Following the book’s release, some publications, including conservative websites Breitbart and Nation Review, sought to identify the Oberlin alumnus who raped the writer, using details from the book to narrow down the list of possible attackers.

Both Brietbart and National Review were led by their research to a man named Barry, who was a prominent campus Republican when Dunham attended the institution. They looked for men named Barry, since Dunham did not explicitly state that the attacker’s name was changed, as she did for other stories in the book.

The man Breitbart identified as ‘Barry One’ (to protect his real name) vehemently denied ever meeting Dunham, and says his reputation has now been tarnished because of the book.

He told the National Review that the experience of being connected to the attack was the ‘most unfortunate coincidence of my life’.

But in the Buzzfeed article published Tuesday, Dunham confirmed that ‘Barry’ was not the name of her attacker, and that she’s sorry someone else has been falsely tied to the crime.

‘To be very clear, “Barry” is a pseudonym, not the name of the man who assaulted me, and any resemblance to a person with this name is an unfortunate and surreal coincidence. I am sorry about all he has experienced.’

Dunham went on to explain her reason for writing about the rape, saying she never meant for her rapist to be identified and she does not plan to press charges.

‘Speaking out was never about exposing the man who assaulted me. Rather, it was about exposing my shame, letting it dry out in the sun.

‘I did not wish to be contacted by him or to open a criminal investigation. I am in a loving and peaceful place in my life and I am not willing to sacrifice any more of it for this person I do not know, aside from one night I will never forget. That is my choice.’

We’re happy for you, Lena, much as we wish we’d never heard of you.

But…

You don’t explain why you all but named a real person in your exposing your shame. Actually, you did name a real person: the above campus Republican named Barry. You named him as your rapist. You named him not in anger or in haste, but in writing and in rewriting and in editing and in galleys and finally in print—and then even on audiobook! If we had the stomach, we could hear you name a very recognizable Barry (not least because he was named Barry) as your rapist in your own voice.

Only to say never mind? That when you named your brutal assailant “Barry”, and described someone by that name, you were just letting your shame dry out in the sun? No wonder your lawyers and your publisher’s lawyers moved your hand across the page to pen this cringe-inducing apologia. Talk about reckless disregard for the truth.

I believe Lena Dunham was raped—because she says so. And if she wants to let it go, so do I. It’s her unbelievably good fortune that Barry does too. Considering her career, the “kind of girl” she has been is lucky.

Comments

Rape or Rape Rape?

“Hands up, don’t shoot” never happened.

Shouting “I can’t breathe!” means you can.

Whatever happened at University of Virginia, it was nothing like Rolling Stone reported.

Now, Lena Dunham (rather, again Lena Dunham).

I’m starting to believe in the innocence of Bill Cosby:

It has been more than 4 days since Breitbart News published a detailed investigative report debunking Lena Dunham’s claim in her memoir that as an Oberlin college student she had been raped by a mustachioed campus Republican named Barry. Thus far, the reaction from Ms. Dunham and her numerous representatives has been total silence despite inquiries from numerous media outlets.

The afternoon prior to publishing our report, Breitbart News reached out to Dunham and her publisher with a detailed message left for Dunham’s publicist at Random House. We left the same message for the person described as the publicists back-up.

As of yet, no one has responded to those inquiries.

Thursday, the Daily Mail also attempted to reach both Random House and Dunham’s representatives: “Calls to Random House, the publisher of Not That Kind of Girl, and to Dunham’s literary agent by MailOnline were not immediately returned Thursday.” As of Saturday evening, the Daily Mail reports, those calls remain unreturned.

Breitbart News can also confirm that a major entertainment publication has not heard back from the Dunham camp in reference to queries about our investigative report.

It is unusual for Dunham and her representatives to be silent in the wake of negative stories. Recently, Dunham herself publicly lashed out at National Review and Truth Revolt over two separate unflattering stories. In the case of Truth Revolt, within hours of publishing a story about Dunham’s bizarre behavior towards her younger sister, the Website (run by our own Ben Shapiro) received a cease and desist letter and threat of suit from Dunham’s high-powered attorney.

In today’s journalism, fact-checking is denialism. Libel law may be the only check on rampant, unchecked journalistic malpractice.

Dunham received upwards of $3.7 million for Random House for her memoir. According to Saturday’s statement, Barry One, who has a young family, has burned through a large part of his savings due to the legal fees he’s incurred while trying to protect his name.

Barry One is considering filing a libel suit against Dunham.

Lena?

Lena Dunham @lenadunham · 14h
Superpower: she can quickly locate the available Xanax in any foreign country

Looks like you’ll need ‘em, honey. Better Xanax than cake.

God knows why your editor didn’t query your accusation, why Random House’s lawyers didn’t give you the third-degree, why you decided to libel “Barry” in the first place. But it’s going to cost you. We suggest Hostess pastries if you can no longer afford whole cakes.

Comments (1)

Toward a Kinder, Gentler BTL

In an attempt at self-improvement, to drag myself out of the La Brea tar pits of ignorance and prejudice, I have attempted to engage with the contemporary world.

Hence my following of Lena Dunham on Twitter:

Bitch is so stupid she doesn’t even know her favs are public

(Nothing yet on the refutation of her spurious rape charge while in college, but I’ll keep checking!)

And, of course, my ongoing and uphill battle to understand contemporary Islam.

The role of women, for example:

The Jordanian parliament is no stranger to screaming matches but a recent incident was so controversial that it provoked people to poke fun at their MPs online.

Earlier this week, during a heated argument over the Muslim Brotherhood, independent MP Yehia al-Saud was cut off by one of his female colleagues, Hind al-Fayez.

“Sit down Hind!” al-Saud yelled several times.

When al-Fayez ignored him, al-Saud turned his gaze and hands upwards and shouted “May God have his revenge on whoever brought quota to this parliament!” – a reference to female parliamentary quotas.

Local media reported that al-Saud later made another comment that women were created to put on make-up and cook for their husbands.

The earlier, unevolved BTL would have made a juvenile remark about an attractive woman named Hind, but that’s…behind me now.

Good for Jordan, as this al-Saud fellow is now a national joke.

Or is he?

Women’s rights groups responded angrily Tuesday to comments by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that women and men are not equal “because their nature is different.”

Eight groups signed a statement condemning his remarks as violating the national constitution and international agreements, saying he aimed to “denigrate decades of effort by women’s movements for gender equality.”

“Equality is turning the victim into an oppressor by force or vice versa. What women need is to be able to be equivalent, rather than equal, so it is justice. That is what we need,” he said.

“You cannot bring women and men into equal positions; that is against nature because their nature is different.”

Erdogan also told the event, organized by the Women and Democracy Association, that a woman cannot do every job that a man can do because “it is against her delicate nature.”

According to Turkey’s semiofficial Anadolu news agency, Erdogan also insisted his government has always been behind women in their struggle for equal rights….

I’ll bet you have, you randy old goat!

What?! So I made a little joke. There’s only so evolved I can get. You feminists need a sense of humor.

Stay with me for the further adventures of BTL trying to get hep to the modern age. This’ll hurt me more than it will you.

Comments (1)

A Prophylactic Loss

Sandra Fluke ran for Congress in California, and lost—to another Democrat!

The face of the Obamacare contraception mandate has lost her bid for state Senate in California’s 26th Congressional District.

Sandra Fluke was facing off against another Democrat, Ben Allen, who is a board member of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.

The women’s rights activist received 39 percent of the vote while Allen won with 61 percent.

In the War on Women, sweetheart, you just became France! That was a spanking.

I had forgotten she was running for office, as indeed did many liberals.

I wonder what her pitch was?

My career has always been devoted to the public interest and fighting for social justice.

Career? What career? She came to the public eye only because she had the ‘nads to demand that a Catholic institution at which she was a mere student pay for her birth control. If that’s a “career” what box does she check on the census under “Profession” (other than “professional”—sorry, sorry, bad joke)?

I believed it was my responsibility to use the microphone I was given to advocate for the progressive policies I’ve always fought for: affordable health care, access to a quality education, LGBTQ rights and economic justice.

What, no rubbers?

Sandra graduated cum laude [wipe that smirk off your face] from Georgetown University Law Center as a Public Interest Law Scholar with a Certificate in Refugee and Humanitarian Emergencies. In 2003, she received a B.S. [wipe that one off too] from Cornell University in Policy Analysis and Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies [I’ll bet she did]. Sandra and her husband, Adam, live in West Hollywood with their dog, Mr. President.

No kids, huh? Well, give those two lovebirds time. Can’t keep their hands off each other.

For more than two years, Sandra worked with a grassroots coalition to pass the California Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, which was signed into law by Governor Brown in 2013 and is designed to ensure domestic workers have the same protections that other workers enjoy. At the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking in Los Angeles, Sandra is one of the longest running volunteer attorneys representing victims of human trafficking. She has advocated for student loan debt relief, access to early childhood education and for raising the minimum wage.

I stand corrected. If “volunteer attorney” at the “Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking” isn’t partnership track, I don’t know what is. Her dog may be Mr. President, but alas she will not be Congresswoman Fluke.

Comments

Warning: Another Lena Dunham Post

I’m sorry.

This is going to hurt me more than it is you:

Still, to dismiss Lena Dunham as an insulated and spoiled child of Manhattan’s ruling class is to misunderstand her story entirely. If there is such a thing as actually abusing a child through excessive generosity and overindulgence, then Lena Dunham’s parents are child abusers. Her father, Carroll Dunham, is a painter noted for his primitive brand of highbrow pornography, his canvases anchored by puffy neon-pink labia; her photographer mother filled the family home with nude pictures of herself, “legs spread defiantly.” Self-styled radicals from old money, they were not the sort of people inclined to enforce even the most lax of boundaries. And they were, in their daughter’s telling, enablers of some very disturbing behavior that would be considered child abuse in many jurisdictions — Lena Dunham’s sexual abuse, specifically, of her younger sister, Grace, the sort of thing that gets children taken away from non-millionaire families without Andover pedigrees and Manhattanite social connections. Dunham writes of casually masturbating while in bed next to her younger sister, of bribing her with “three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds . . . anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.” At one point, when her sister is a toddler, Lena Dunham pries open her vagina — “my curiosity got the best of me,” she offers, as though that were an explanation. “This was within the spectrum of things I did.”

I limited the damage to one paragraph, though—whew!—what a paragraph. This is Kevin Williams of National Review earning combat pay. He’s read Lena Dunham’s book, and evidently watched her show. I can’t. I won’t.

So why do I care? Why spend time on it? Consider it rubbernecking along the highway of life. Lena Dunham’s exhibitionism may be distasteful, unpleasant, gross, and I try not to look (it’s not that hard), but I can’t completely avoid glimpses of her ample flesh splayed out like a rotting humpback carcass.

Until now, I felt like a prude. A square. A tight-assed old man. You just don’t get it, BTL. She’s not ashamed of her body or her sexuality; what’s your problem? Now I feel sorry, almost, for her. The problems are hers, and they are myriad and messy.

My parents were not hippies themselves, but they counted a few among their friends. When these hygienically-challenged creatures managed to overcome the repulsiveness of their mates to engage in physical relations (sorry! sorry!), and bear offspring (the horror! the horror!), it fell to me, on occasion, to spend time in the company of the little sh*ts. I’ve known Lena Dunhams. They were not happy, they were not nice, they were no fun to be around. They might be smart, even talented, but they were monsters. I wondered what would happen to them when they grew up, if they grew up.

In Lena Dunham, I have my answer, poor girl. I’ve seen enough. Any more is voyeurism.

Comments

But She’s Got a Nice Personality

I must have a fascination for the grotesque, the macabre, the ghastly. I am fascinated by stories of plague (Ebola), raping and pillaging (ISIS and Boko Haram), mass psychosis (everything Palestinian Arab)…

…and Lena Dunham.

Untitled

Strangely, it’s only the last that makes my skin crawl:

Lena Dunham has taken over the internet – at least when it comes to some of her fellow celebrities.

The 28-year-old posted a topless photo of herself to Instagram on Thursday, tying in both her new book Not That Kind Of Girl and a campaign to get people to vote for women’s rights.

The Girls creator’s naked selfie followed a series of pictures posted by some of Hollywood’s biggest leading ladies, who all proudly wore a shirt advertising the dual campaign with the slogan ‘Lena Loves Planned Parenthood’ emblazoned across their chests.

She captioned the montage: ‘These dream women stand for equality and justice. And they encourage you to vote November 4th.’

What Lena really loves is abortion, which is the bulk of Planned Parenthood’s services (as we’ve addressed before).

This is America, and Lena can love any organization she wants. (I love the International Cheer Union, “the recognized world governing body of Cheerleading”, myself.) But what Lena loves even more than abortion is Lena herself, all of her. She claims to be “not that kind of girl”, but I am hard pressed—no, let me rephrase—at a loss to explain what kind of girl she is. Other than dumpy.

And no, that’s not just my quaint Bloodthirstan sexism; it’s Lena herself. She’s a dumpling, and she sells it better than anyone since Joyce Chen. Again, that’s American greatness in action. I just don’t remember male American tubbos using their bodies to promote favorite political causes. Fatty Arbuckle on women’s suffrage? No idea. Chris Farley on gays in the military? Not a clue.

Now that I think of it, however, fat chicks in entertainment can’t shut up about their politics: Roseanne Barr, Rosie O’Donnell, Oprah (at times), Lena. I’m tempted to say it’s because they have their gobs open all the time, but that would be my quaint Bloodthirstan sexism talking. I’ll just leave it as an observation.

And conclude by saying this election can’t come soon enough. The less I see of Lena Dunham, the better. (I don’t want to see anything at all.) God knows what she’ll be tweeting in 2016. [Shudder.]

PS: We now return to more palatable subjects, like genocide and enterovirus.

Comments

Girls Gone Defiled

The debate over abortion is complicated by two undeniable rights: the right to life and the right of a woman to control her own body.

We right-to-lifers (well, this right-to-lifer anyway) weigh the arguments, and come down on the side of the feminists who demand that abortion be safe, legal, and rare. Abortion will continue, but with restrictions. That seems to us (me) the only solution that honors both rights (or dishonors them equally). Does the right-to-terminate crowd make the same intellectual efforts at compromise of the uncompromisable?

You tell me:

If you would like to be filled with despair for the prospects of democracy, spend a few minutes attempting to decipher the psephological musings of Lena Dunham, the distinctly unappealing actress commissioned by Planned Parenthood to share with her presumably illiterate following “5 Reasons Why I Vote (and You Should, Too).” That’s 21st-century U.S. politics in miniature: a half-assed listicle penned by a half-bright celebrity and published by a gang of abortion profiteers.

You think that’s strong? Grab your Ray-Bans (with UVA and UVB protection):

A people mature enough to manage the relationship between procreative input and procreative output without recourse to the surgical dismemberment of living human organisms probably would not find much of interest in the work of Miss Dunham. But we are a nation of adult children so horrified by the prospect of actual children that we put one in five of them to death for such excellent reasons as the desire to fit nicely into a prom dress.

It’s not for nothing that, on the precipice of 30, Miss Dunham is famous for a television series called Girls rather than one called Women. She might have gone one better and called it Thumbsuckers. (The more appropriate title Diapers would terrify her demographic.)

I’m of a generation that went to college with women. If you referred to an 18 year-old coed as a girl, and you had your balls scorched with a blow torch. (Refer to her as a coed and you got away with a warning kick in said scrotum.) One learned to adjust, and those lessons stayed with one for a lifetime.

Have I lived too long?

Miss Dunham and likeminded celebrities think of voting in terms of their sex lives. Miss Dunham, in an earlier endorsement of Barack Obama, compared voting in the presidential election to losing one’s virginity — you want it to be someone special.

“I wore fishnets and a little black dress to vote,” she writes, “then walked around with a spring in my slinky step. It lasted for days. I can summon it when I’m blue. It’s more effective than exercise or ecstasy or cheesecake.” And that of course is the highest purpose of our ancient constitutional order: to provide adult children with pleasures exceeding those of cheesecake or empathogenic phenethylamines.

Miss Dunham’s “all about me!” attitude toward the process of voting inevitably extends to the content of what she votes for, which is, in her telling, mostly about her sex life. Hammering down hard on the Caps Lock key, she writes: “The crazy and depressing truth is that there are people running for office right now who could actually affect your life. PARTICULARLY your sex life. PARTICULARLY if you’re a woman. Yup.”

Yup? Nope.

Those of us who have been working against various mandates imposed by the Affordable Care Act are as a matter of fact attempting to extricate ourselves from involvement in Lena Dunham’s sex life, the details of which we would gratefully leave to her own idiosyncratic management. It is the so-called Affordable Care Act that has involved us in subsidizing birth control, abortifacients, surgical abortions, and who knows what else, for the strong, powerful, self-actualized American woman who cannot figure out how to walk into Walgreens, lay down the price of a latte, and walk out with her own birth-control pills, no federal intervention necessary. The very conservative editors of this magazine are in fact trying to make it easier for them to do so with over-the-counter birth control. I suspect that Miss Dunham does not know very many conservatives, so allow me to pass along the message: We really, truly, sincerely do not wish to be involved in your sex life.

Are you listening Sandra Fluke? (Very doubtful.)

I followed my feminist instructions in no small part because I wanted to get into their feminist pants. As some of my much-desired prey would be grandmothers by now, I am more inclined to be swayed by if not Ms. Dunham, at least some of her castmates:

Yet I am not. Juvenile behavior is never sexy, no matter how “easy” it may be.

Comments (1)

Feminism’s Third Rail

There’s got to be a joke in that title somewhere, but until one suggests itself, we’ll stick with tragedy:

Narinder is one of four sons and only one of his brothers has managed to get married. In his district in the state of Uttar Pradesh, there are only 858 girls born for every 1,000 boys, a ratio that doesn’t occur naturally without medical intervention. The northwestern state of Uttar Pradesh is home to one of the largest skewed sex ratios in India.

“Only the rich and men with government jobs manage to get a bride these days,” he says. “Anyone who earns less cannot find a bride here anymore.”

To be fair, the job doesn’t have a lot to recommend it:

A new bride would help his parents, he says. “They would have had an easier life. They would have had someone to cook and to take care of them.”

She should clean. She should run the household. She should bear children. And Narinder plans to share her with his two unmarried brothers, who live in the same house.

Where do I sign?

On the one hand, they’re snuffing around 15% of unborn girls; on the other, the girls who are permitted to be born grow up to marry rich men, rather than shmoes like Narinder, and his brothers, and his parents, and his children. That’s a decent trade.

Isn’t it?

Decades of sex-selective abortion have created an acute lack of women in certain parts of India. Traffickers capitalize on the shortage by recruiting or kidnapping women ensnared in poverty to sell as brides. It’s a cycle influenced by poverty and medical technologies, but one that ultimately is perpetuated by India’s attitude towards women.

The National Crime Records Bureau estimated in 2012 that about 10 women are kidnapped in Assam every day. Some of these women are found again. Some go missing forever.

Eastern Indian states like Assam, Jharkhand, West Bengal and Odisha turn into source areas for bride trafficking, because they have much more balanced sex ratios. Meanwhile, India’s northwestern states are more conservative and also more affluent, meaning they’re able to afford ultrasound scans and selective abortions.

So, abortion in India effects girl babies overwhelmingly, and leads to such an imbalance between the sexes that teenage girls are routinely kidnapped from their homes and sold as child brides.

Hello? Betty Friedan? Gloria Steinem?

I went to NOW’s website and looked up India. I confess I expected nothing, but I was wrong.

There was one entry on this topic:

Jim Yardley reports for The New York Times: “India’s increasing wealth and improving literacy are apparently contributing to a national crisis of ‘missing girls,’ with the number of sex-selective abortions up sharply among more affluent, educated families during the past two decades, according to a new study.”

Read the original source

That was more than three years ago, and that was it. No comment, no discussion, no nothing. In the meantime, 11,980 girls have been abducted in Assam alone (if the rate is accurate and consistent). I don’t think I can count how many girls were terminated before birth.

To repeat for the thousandth time, I don’t oppose abortion. Though less and less can I morally justify even my limited pro-choice position. Abortion leads to massive abuse against women in India (China’s little better, if not worse) and genocide among African Americans. In a sane world (a fanciful construct if there ever was one), feminists would oppose abortion with every fibroid of their being. Organizations like NOW and Planned Parenthood would be exposed as the brainwashers that they really are.

“Women’s reproductive health”? That’s a locution worthy of Stalin, Mao, or Goebbels. I guess that’s the joke.

Comments

War on Women Update

With all the bloodshed and carnage Muslims are inflicting (mostly) on each other across the world, it’s easy to forget the savagery (mostly) women are putting themselves through. But we have WBTL ace reporter on the scene.

Whaddya got, Scoop?

The Ohio Department of Health has taken action against two Northeast Ohio abortion clinics for staffing problems and other infractions.

The Northeast Ohio Women’s Center in Cuyahoga Falls was denied a license to perform surgical abortions by interim health department director Lance Himes, the agency said Friday. Himes also imposed a $25,000 fine on Planned Parenthood of Bedford Heights.

What sort of health violations, Scoop?

At each of the facilities, health inspectors found expired medical supplies and discovered neither had a director of nursing, as required by the state, according to health department notification letters sent to the clinics on Wednesday.

At the Planned Parenthood clinic, inspectors also reported finding improperly refrigerated tissue specimens, containers of urine in a cupboard and bathroom, and incomplete documentation about patients sent to the hospital.

Scoop, I understand that this is not their first brush with the law:

A northeastern Ohio abortion provider has closed after failing a state health and safety inspection.

The Ohio Department of Health ordered abortion provider Capital Care Network of Cuyahoga Falls to stop operations in an April 16 letter and says it soon will revoke the clinic’s license.

The health department says inspectors found numerous violations during a Feb. 21 inspection, including undertrained staff, failure to maintain a safe and sanitary environment and failure to maintain patient documentation.

The health department gave the clinic a chance to request a hearing about a proposal to revoke its license, but says the clinic did not reply.

Why should they reply, Scoop, when they can just fold up their tents under cover of darkness and reopen somewhere else with their unfrozen tissue samples and plastic cups of stale urine? Scoop…Scoop? I guess we’ve lost contact.

Let’s get comment from the other side of the issue:

“We’re deeply concerned, though admittedly unsurprised, that multiple abortion facilities are jeopardizing the lives and health of women,” said Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life. “The real war on women is being waged everyday in these unsafe and unsanitary abortion mills. These reports shock the conscience and reaffirm our resolve to protect life from Ohio’s abortion industry.”

“The abortion industry”: how apt a word.

I’m a big believer in women’s reproduction and in women’s health. But the minute you start talking about women’s reproductive health, you lose me. Just imagine if women were treated this shabbily in any other setting, the Obama administration, say. You’d never hear the end of it. (Oh wait…they are, and you barely hear a peep.)

Comments

Beverly Shill-Billy

I would have thought that for a person with national political ambitions, languishing in a state senate would feel like exile. But a young political organizer named Barry Sotero, whose “presence” in Springfield, IL for an eternity of eight years must have felt like Elba, showed those with inflated opinions of themselves that state government offered more opportunity than first met the eye.

All you need, beside the outsized ego, is… well, that’s about all you need:

Sandra Fluke has moved on to the general election in the race to represent California’s 26th District in the state Senate, the Associated Press reports.

Fluke finished second in the open primary, following rival Ben Allen. Both will compete in November for the seat being vacated by state Sen. Ted Lieu (D), who’s running for Congress this year.

Fluke came to national prominence in 2012 after testifying before Congress in favor of mandatory contraception coverage. She became the target of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who called the then-Georgetown Law student a “slut.”

The attorney and activist, who spoke at the 2012 Democratic National Convention following Limbaugh’s attacks, briefly weighed running for outgoing Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-Calif.) House seat before deciding to run for the state Senate instead.

That’s the Georgetown Law (and Cornell undergrad) mind on display. Her sister in Socialism, Cindy Sheehan (an ugly step-sister, if I may rudely and honestly observe), shot too high, the California Governorship, but got no closer to that office than her lean-to in Crawford, TX. Sandra knew it wasn’t the office, but the ambition, that defined the office holder—especially when that office represents Beverly Hills and Hollywood.

Forget streetlights, pot holes, and pot dispensaries, Sandra Fluke—Senator Fluke to you, Rush—has higher (or lower) aims:

Protect women’s health care rights!

Any day now, the Supreme Court will announce its decision in the Hobby Lobby case. The case could have far-reaching implications for whether private companies can refuse to offer their employees’ health insurance with contraception coverage.

Plain and simple — A woman’s boss should not have a say in her health care decisions. No one’s boss should. The stakes are too high for us to be silent.

Please join Sandra Fluke and the DCCC and sign this petition declaring that a woman’s boss should not have a say in her health care decisions.

A woman’s boss should not have a say in her health care decisions.

Agreed. But we’re not talking about setting broken bones or treating breast cancer. That’s health care, and irrelevant to an employer. Abortion and contraception (two radically different things, in my view) might also be health care, but hardly irrelevant to an employer being asked to pay for them. Especially an employer with religious objections. Does a woman have a say in her boss’s morality?

The law has to find common sense middle ground between absurd extremes. Could a Christian Science employer withhold insurance that used medicine? Could an employee require his or her employer to add or subtract certain body parts? To mutilate or decorate those remaining?

It’s dishonest of Sandra to disguise abortion as “women’s health care rights”—hence her bright future in politics. I won’t predict what the Supreme Court will say, beyond guessing that it will be a split decision, with strong sentiments on both sides. One side will “win”, without exactly being “right”.

And Sandra Fluke will have gone from “slut” to Senator (albeit State Senator, in Sacramento) in this great nation of ours. Though the difference is less than you might imagine.

Comments

Are the Clintons the Waltons?

Both families may have been dirt poor, but at least the Waltons had a mountain named after them:


Which one’s Roger?

Chelsea Clinton lives a charmed life, but don’t be fooled: secretly, she’s not attached to the oodles of money she and her hedge fund manager husband make each year, the former first daughter said in an interview published over the weekend.

Philanthropy is her true passion, Clinton said, and that’s why she permanently left Wall Street to join the Clinton Foundation, which she runs with her parents, former first couple Bill and Hillary Clinton.

‘I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t,’ Clinton told The Telegraph. ‘That wasn’t the metric of success I wanted in my life.’

Despite Chelsea’s self-proclaimed disinterest in money-making, a report last week surfaced that she was paid $600,000 by NBC last year to do a smattering of reporting.

NBC News has aired two stories by Chelsea Clinton so far in 2014, both on education programs targeting the underprivileged that were shown on Nightly News in January.

By comparison, her salary is higher than both of the last two editors of the New York Times.

The paycheck from her NBC contract has helped Chelsea and her husband Marc Mezvinsky buy a $10.5 million apartment next to New York’s Madison Square Park last spring.

Where does this dingbat get the idea that a $600k no-show job and a mega-millionaire husband is “not caring” about money?

Oh, that’s where:

‘We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt. We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy,’ Hillary said.

Thanks to eight years in the White House and lucrative speaking gigs and book deals afterward, Bill and Hillary were able to pay for Chelsea to attend Sidwell Friends private school as a teenager and Stanford and Oxford universities.

She graduated from Columbia in the spring of 2010 and married Mezvinsky that summer.

A smart and capable woman furthers her own ambitions by marrying an enterprising guy—just like her mom! That’s what makes America great. Who would have heard of Dolly if she hadn’t married James Madison? Eleanor without Franklin? Just about the only historic American woman who earned her renown on her own was Betsy Ross. For sewing.

But that’s not really my point. This is my point:

For starters, she and her husband were obviously well positioned to quickly capitalize on the post-presidential custom of cashing in.
She left that part out.

Hillary Clinton had a massive book advance in the works and, along with the former president, the prospect of making millions. This is what fueled cries of hypocrisy.

After quickly trying to clean up the comments, though, Clinton swung and missed again on Sunday when questioned about her own financial standing and wealth inequality in an interview with The Guardian.

Clinton compared herself to others and noted her situation is different, too.

“We pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work,” she said.

One reason Clinton’s two missteps on wealth are surprising is that questions about the issue are not new and shouldn’t have come as a surprise.

Liberal websites like Mother Jones began asking questions about her speaking fees — upwards of $200,000 — in early May.

Again, America the Beautiful. You don’t want to pay Hillary $200 Gs? You don’t have to. But if you want to hear the Heroine of Herzegovina tell war stories from Tuzla, it’s going to cost you.

But to hear these gold-diggers (and God bless ‘em for it!) claim to be flat busted from their Manhattan penthouses and Scarsdale manses is a bit…rich.

Comments

Dispatches From the Frontlines of the War on Women

Well, girls, actually:

A shocking new video Live Action released today catches the Planned Parenthood abortion business teaching teenagers about S&M-based sexual relationships and concepts such as gagging, whipping and asphyxiation.

In a series of undercover audits, Live Action investigators documented Planned Parenthood counselors and nurses advising our investigators, who the Planned Parenthood staffers thought were minors, on how to practice torture sex.

In the videos, Planned Parenthood counselors encourage undercover investigators posting as 15 and 16-year-old teens, to engage in the sadomasochistic practices, telling the underage teens “if it’s consensual, it’s OK… it’s totally OK.”

The official Planned Parenthood website lists BD (bondage and discipline) and SM (sadomasochism) under its Sex & Sexuality – “Understanding Sexual Activity — at a Glance” page without any warnings or safety objections: “Here are some examples of less common sexual behaviors: SM (sadomasochism) — the use of domination and/or pain for sexual arousal. BD (bondage and discipline) — sexual role play that includes elements of SM.”

I tend to draw the line at the interrogation practices of Uday and Qusay Hussein. But don’t let me stop you. Susie.

“What we’re about to release shows a systemic, institutional problem in America’s largest abortion corporation,” Lila Rose, Live Action’s president, stated. “It’s not a matter of ‘don’t judge,’ but rather explicit endorsement of violent and harmful sexual practices to boys and girls as young as fifteen years old.”

The group complains: “Planned Parenthood consistently fights any law requiring parental consent or involvement for minors seeking sexual and reproductive health care, including abortions. PP’s website encourages teens to circumvent their parents and the law.”

“Taxpayers, and especially parents, need to know where their money is going,” Rose said. “This funding is not optional – it’s a compulsory, government-enforced extraction going toward extremely questionable programs and dangerous advice for our nation’s teens.”

Planned Parenthood receives over $500 million a year from taxpayers, in the name of so-called sex education and health. Furthermore, under ObamaCare, Planned Parenthood has announced that it will receive undisclosed funds through the $75-million-a-year PREP (Personal Responsibility and Education Program), with 15 affiliates already having received grants.

This is how they talk to 15-year-olds, remember. A little whipping, a touch of asphyxiation—don’t knock it till you’ve tried it. Missy.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »