Femisoygnists: The Women Scorned . . . By Women

I was responding to an excellent post [here] at Potluck by our fellow conservative blogger Just A Conservative Girl, and I went on and on.  And on.  So I thought it would be better to simply use that response, expanded a bit, as a post.  While the point of JACG’s post was more to do with the way our society has made “disposable” the idea and sacrament of marriage, my hackles were raised by the part about a Marie Claire (who reads that crap?  Stacy McCain, apparently.  Well, good on him, more men should read magazines whose target audience is women.) article about how women are hoodwinked by fairy tales of Prince Charming and movies about love conquering all and assorted “happily ever after” tales of romantic love.   This is a typical leftist lie, fostered, fomented, and foisted upon women (and men) who dare support traditional gender roles as a matter of choice.

The disposable spouse mentality is a direct result of femisogynists hammering away at traditional gender roles, not with the idea of expanding their scope to make acceptable all sorts of life and career choices for women but with the direct and sole goal of eliminating the woman’s traditional roles.  This is why they attack and belittle women who choose Christian marriages, prefer to be stay-at-home moms, want to fulfill some or part of the traditional roles for women.  They don’t want women to have this choice, and they hold the women who do in utter contempt, accusing them of being brainwashed or otherwise impaired.  Any woman who chooses a traditional female role in the family or society can only be misguided, deluded, and brainwashed.   A thoughtless creature, really, for succumbing to the influence of a misogynist patriarchy.

Is the irony of this indictment lost on them?  Oh, yes, a thousand times yes.

Femisogyny is not about, and never was about, women’s equality or women’s right to choose her own path.  Women are too stupid and may choose the wrong path, a traditional path that doesn’t conform to the femisogynists’ idea of egalitarianism.  If you don’t want to be a butch man- and woman-hater, then there’s clearly something wrong with you.  They want traditional gender role choices for women gone.  Completely.  And to that end, their methodology has long been to attack anything and everything that fosters, romanticizes, or otherwise depicts these roles in a positive light (up to, including, perhaps especially, Judeo-Christian traditions).

Rather than choosing to educate women about myriad choices, they target, demonize, and seek to destroy completely any concept of traditional womanhood. If these femisogynists really cared about women and women’s choices, they’d seek ways to add to the “woman’s sphere,” but they don’t.  Instead, they’ve chosen a path that explicitly belittles, cattily attacks, and brutally diminishes any woman who chooses a traditional role/s for herself.

Feminists, the real ones who sought, fought for, and died for the right for women to vote, own property, etc., would be utterly appalled by this misogynistic band of hyenas who call themselves “feminists” but who actually loathe women and seek to diminish them at every turn.  Those first feminists were intent upon freeing women from being boxed in, being told there was something wrong with them if they didn’t feel maternal or if they felt no desire to keep house or to carry out traditional women’s roles as wife, mother, and helpmate.  These early feminists never intended that there be no other choice but to live their life as pseudo-men, draped in bitterness, envy, and hate, crowned with a sense of superiority and sneering disdain for women who prefer, by choice, to be wives, mothers, helpmates in a more traditional sense.  These early feminists, the real ones, didn’t belittle women who chose to be wives, homemakers, mothers; they simply tried to forge a path for those who didn’t find fulfillment in these roles.

But for today’s femisogynists, it’s still about putting women in a box–but one of their choosing, and then insisting that everyone conform, using the same bullying, belittling, and “othering” tactics that they claim to disparage when used against women by a “patriarchal society.”  Femisogyny is about tearing down, not building up. It’s about shutting doors, not opening them.  It’s about destroying women, hating them, not restoring them and loving them.  It’s about alienating and ridiculing women, not embracing and supporting them.

They say there is nothing worse than a woman scorned, and to femisogynists, there is no one more deserving of scorn than real women who reject their agenda of hate and disunity, of disdain and loathing for other women who refuse to be put into a box in the name of “women’s rights.”  Femisogynists lash out in hatred and condemnation at any woman who refuses to be packaged, labeled, shelved, and marketed in their image.  Our unwillingness to accept this ironic and deeply-flawed thinking makes us the target of their scorn, for no one, no one, feels more scorned than the femisogynist faced with a strong woman who not only chooses but happily embraces one or more of the traditional female gender roles.

Cross-posted at Fuzzy Logic.

Advertisement

The SOTU In a Nutshell:

Every progressive policy and additional governmental agency designed by progressives to “improve” America has made America “lag behind” in every conceivable area, particularly in education (K-12 and college, where we need graduation rate/diploma quotas because quotas mean excellence) and infrastructure (we need shiny trains that whistle!). 

Faced with this reality–America’s lagging position in the world, what we need now are more progressive policies and additional governmental agencies designed by progressives to “fix” absolutely everything . . . from Washington.

Central planning is good.

Long live the king!

Wal-Mart, Obama, and “Fundamental Transformation”

Is anyone else wondering what is going on with Wal-Mart and the leftist BO regime?  All of a sudden, after at least a decade of being the target of leftist vilification and rage, Wal-Mart is being wooed by Obama and his traitorous horde.  DHS and FLOTUS are cuddling up to Wal-Mart . . . and Wal-Mart is spooning them right back.  Let’s not forget how Wal-Mart came out in support of BO’s government takeover of healthcare; that didn’t really seem to make sense at the time, particularly given Wal-Mart’s shaky history with its employees’ health coverage and poverty-level wages.  Oh, sure, the SEIU hasn’t received the memo and that marriage of convenience between the purple shirts and the yellow smiley face over health care is definitely not going well, but something is going on here.

It seems to me, given Wal-Mart’s history of supporting crap legislation (like cap and tax and the aforementioned job-killing healthcare monstrosity), that Wal-Mart is more than happy to support anything that will push their competitors–small businesses–out of business.  Sky-rocketing health care and energy costs?  Sure, that’s wonderful . . . for massive Wal-Mart.

The free market isn’t free (or much of a market) if the biggest players, abetted by the federal government, manipulate it through regulation and assorted under-handed, dishonest machinations that eliminate all (or certainly most) competition.  This seems pretty obvious, right?  And yet, one can’t help but wonder if this isn’t exactly what this regime and Wal-Mart are doing.   Using socialist progressives to further your own business interests at the expense of the middle class?  What can go wrong?

The unanswered question: what’s in it for the Tyrant in Chief and how does this play into his “fundamental transformation” of our beloved country?

The “Perfect” GOP Presidential Candidate for 2012

I recently told one of my fabulous co-Potluck bloggers that I wasn’t looking for the “perfect” 2012 GOP presidential candidate, but I thought it would be fun to imagine what such a creature would like.  Here’s what I came up with (while responding to a post over at Big Government):

We need someone with the mind and manner of Paul Ryan, the fierce patriotism and pride in American exceptionalism of Colonel West (our military certainly deserves a CIC they can be proud of), the principled and no-nonsense leadership of Governor Christie, and the foreign policy knowledge, skills, and experience of Condi Rice.

No problem, right?

Obama’s Chicago-style Politics of Reward, Punish, Blackmail

Karl Rove’s “ObamaCare Rewards Friends, Punishes Enemies” is a must-read.  The title hearkens back to Obama telling Latino voters to “punish our enemies.”  In the rest of that sentence, Obama–perhaps inadvertently–shared his own philosophy of politics:  He told them to think of the election in these terms:  “‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us'” [emphasis in original].  At the time, we all focused on the “punish our enemies” portion of this statement.  But the entire thing reveals a calculating, cynical, and unethical stance.

We know that there had been, by early December, 222 waivers issued (who knows what that’s up to now), and we know that those went mostly to unions and other Obama supporters/contributors.  What Rove suggests is that this administration is likely to cross a line into potentially-illegal and certainly corrupt activities:

The AARP and other Medigap providers can require a waiting period before seniors with pre-existing conditions have to be covered. Insurers covering those under 65 cannot.

The AARP is also exempt from the new law’s $500,000 cap on executive compensation for insurance executives. (The nonprofit’s last CEO received over $1.5 million in compensation in his last full year, 2009.) It won’t pay any of the estimated $14 billion in new taxes on insurance companies, though according to its 2008 consolidated financial statement, it gets more money from its insurance offerings than it does from dues, grants and private contributions combined. Nor will it have to spend at least 85% of its Medigap premium dollars on medical claims, as Medicare Advantage plans must do; the AARP will be held to a far less restrictive 65%.

It’s not hard to connect the dots. The Obama administration is using waivers to reward friends. On the flip side, business executives will be discouraged from contributing to the president’s opponents or from taking any other steps that might upset the White House or its political appointees at HHS.

In light of the past two years of Obama’s horrendous hyper-partisanship, petulant attitude to anyone who disagrees with him (from the U. S. Chamber of Commerce to Fox News to American citizens, up to and including his own “sanctimonious” base), long list of backroom deals/bribes (including illegally offering jobs for political gain), and petty, dishonest attacks on any and all “enemies,” I think that Rove might well be on to something.  Using health care waivers to “leverage” opponents into . . . not being opponents (?!) is a despicable abuse of power.

Mr. Issa may want to add to his already-lengthy investigation list, and I would add an investigation into the long list of illegal foreign contributions that flowed into Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.  How many foreign friends is Obama “rewarding”?  And are these nations and individuals friends of America or only of Obama?

Please Pray for Andrew Lawton (update)

Andrew is absolutely amazing as many of you probably already know.  He’s a Canadian conservative powerhouse (Strictly Right) and true dear, full of wit and wisdom that far exceeds his years.  Now, though, he’s seriously ill and in hospital.  You can get updates from Girl on the Right (also on twitter: @RightGirl )

Andrew’s Twitter: @AndrewLawton

(UPDATE)

From Girl on the Right:

I just spoke with Andrew’s brother. Andrew is still mechanically dependent, and the machines had to be turned up again today. Not to worry, apparently, because it’s natural for the body’s strength to fluctuate.

For those of you asking about flowers, this is what I found out from the hospital:

No flowers are permitted in ICU, but cards are welcomed by the family:

Andrew Lawton, Patient
Victoria Hospital, Critical Care Unit
800 Commissioners Road East
London, Ontario
Canada N6A 5W9

The family has started a separate Facebook page, because they do not have access to his passwords. The link is here. Please show your support. The family will attempt to provide updates, but their schedule is rather harried, as you would expect. Keep checking in with myself here and on Twitter (@RightGirl).

Please continue to pray for this amazing young man (only 23) who blazed trails with the Canadian Tea Party and who worked to bring Ann Coulter to Canada.  He’s funny and wise and wonderful, and it breaks my heart that he is in critical condition.

Obama, Respectable Conservatives, and The Smart Kids’ Club

Jack Cashill offers some fresh insight into the mindset of Obama, his koolaid slurping fan clubs, and the “respectable” conservative media:

Some of the juicier excerpts:

Obama found his game once he hit the mainland, but he had to know that he was flying high only on diversity’s wings. Last [Jonathan Last who wrote last week’s, I’m betting, most-read conservative article “American Narcissus“] does not get this. In recounting Obama’s glide through the worlds of law, literature, academics, and politics, Last accuses Obama not of fraud, but of vanity.

This is something that “regular” Americans understood quite some time ago, many even before the 2008 election. The legendary, bigger than life, better than everyone Obama and what we were seeing and hearing just didn’t add up, something was “off,” even if we weren’t quite sure what it was.

Back to Cashill:

In easily the best moment on the otherwise-unwatchable new CNN show “Parker Spitzer,” documentarian John Ziegler confronted the RCM [respectable conservative media] princess on her pre-election affection for the would-be president. “You were duped by the media,” said the charming pit bull Ziegler.

“No, I’m not going to say I was duped,” said Parker, but of course, she was — if not by the media, then by her own blithering self-esteem. Like so many on the respectable right, she envisioned Obama in the same smart kids’ club in which she saw herself.

[snip snip]

Respectable conservatives allowed themselves to be deceived much as their liberal counterparts were, but without the excuse of political self-interest. For conservatives, the interest has always been personal. By welcoming Obama into their club — and, in the same spirit, by keeping Sarah Palin out — they differentiated themselves from their red-blooded allies in what [Kathleen] Parker dismissed pre-election as “the right-wing blogosphere.”

Intellectual snobbery, is not, after all, the sole province of the left.  Cashill’s final paragraph brings the point home with amusing analogy:

To preserve their respectability, respectable conservatives have chosen to ignore what the blogosphere reports. As a result, when they look at Obama, they still see Michael Jordan and wonder why he is off his game. Out in the blogosphere, we see Stuart Smalley and wonder when the breakdown comes.

Read the whole thing.

The problem with Obama’s incompetence is not that Obama has suddenly, magically become incompetent but that he’s been incompetent all along. And the problem for respectable conservatives (i.e. those who set themselves above the unwashed blogosphere masses) is that to admit this may lead to uncomfortable questions about their smart kids’ club.

Schoen and Caddell Ask For the Impossible

Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell have written a very interesting piece for WaPo. Both men are democrats from the days of yore when being a democrat was still synonymous with being patriotic and supporting fiscal responsibility and denouncing socialism and communism, so it’s not surprising that their appeal to Obama to announce that he will not run for reelection in 2012 includes the following:

This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.

And there’s the problem, Obama has shown again and again that he has no allegiance to America or to her national interests; indeed, he has repeatedly, relentlessly shown that the only allegiance he truly holds is to his over-inflated, baseless view of himself as an outstanding human specimen, truly gifted and better in every conceivable way than any other human being.

Who can forget his bizarre declaration that no one on the left need worry about a repeat of Clinton’s 1994 losses because democrats have one thing now that they didn’t have then: him. Or as I guess that should be “Him.” And who can forget his assurance that placing him at the helm of the most powerful nation in the world will be looked back on as “the moment that the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal.” This is not a man who will put the best interests of the nation, let alone his party, ahead of his own.

Refudiate Liberalism Now!

Bill Kristol responds deliciously to the crowing on the fringe left about Sarah Palin’s “refudiate” tweet.

The case for linguistic innovation is this: We need a word that captures and conjoins the meanings of refutation and repudiation. And we need it now. To save the country from the ravages of contemporary liberalism, we have to refute liberal arguments and see liberal politicians repudiated at the polls.

So the conservative agenda is, in a word, refudiation. Indeed, given the dramatic moment at which we have arrived, one might say that we now have the prospect of a grand refudiation of liberalism.

This is exactly how you do battle with progressives: on their own turf. And better than they do.

Read the rest.

Gynoguilt in Action: Journolist Femisogynist Recommends Bashing McCain’s Sarah Palin Selection as “Sexist”

Reading the recent release of the Journolist discussion on the day of Sarah Palin’s selection to be John McCain’s running mate, I was surprised by how un-surprised I was . . . until I got to the part at which Suzanne Nossel – chief of operations at Human Rights Watch and author of Presumed Equal: What America’s Top Women Lawyers Really Think About Their Firms (1998) – suggests one possible way to attack McCain and discredit Sarah Palin:

“I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.”

To her credit, Nossel asserts that she at least believes this to be true, but her suggestion is met with enthusiastic support from her fellow femisogynist conspirators. Indeed, Jonathan Stein leaps on board by admitting that Palin’s being a woman is “the SINGLE thing that Palin brings to the ticket.” Context matters here, of course, and he’s saying this because a female VP pick would have appealed to feminists, including faux feminists on the left. Another woman being selected for vice president? Isn’t that what feminists should rally behind? Would normally rally behind? Did rally behind when the woman in question was a liberal? Yes, yes, and yes.

So we have a leftist woman suggesting that gynoguilt should immediately be used, strategically so, to discredit Palin and to undermine the selection of a woman to be vice president. In this instance, gynoguilt is leveraging guilt associated with the historic repression of women and using it to cut down a woman to further their own political agenda.

Read the rest.

White Guilt and Gynoguilt: How the Left’s Culture of Victimhood Undermines Equality

As we all know, the Left and particularly its kudzu-like strangling of all aspects of academia is very fond of its “isms.” Feminism, racism, whateverism–all purportedly designed to “call out” the oppressive white male and to tear down sexist walls, crash through glass ceilings, and break out of the cycle of oppression.

So imagine my surprise when, as a graduate student, I learned that I should not be teaching a particular female author in a Modern Literature class. She’s an excellent, if under-read and under-appreciated, modern writer, but the chair of my department explained to me that her work should be taught in “women’s literature” classes. It turns out that faux feminists were happy to perpetuate the idea that the term “modern writer” actually means “white male modern writer” and that because of this, a woman cannot be a “modern writer” at all. She’s a writer of “women’s literature.”

“Women’s literature” classes are chock-full of readings by people whose only qualification as a “writer” is a vagina. The “literature” is often … well, let’s just say, not good. This isn’t always the case, but often enough that you have to wonder why it’s being taught at all (other than to fill in the entire semester’s reading list by dredging up every female writer who ever put pen to paper). This gyno-centric reading list and my being told not to teach a truly outstanding female author in a “traditional” lit class initially unnerved and confused me. But the real reason is actually quite clear, if rather sinister: if we started selecting excellent female writers and started teaching them as if they were “real” literature, we’d end the hate-fueled gravy train.

Who or what would the leftist intellectual elite write their endless, repetitive, belly-button-gazing critical essays about? What would happen to their careers if they had no one to demonize and no one to treat as a perpetual victim?

Read the rest.

When Ideology Meets Reality, All But True Ideologues Adapt

Ross Douthat over at the NYT makes a compelling case for why Rand Paul stumbled on the Civil Rights question posed to him on MSNBC:

No ideology survives the collision with real-world politics perfectly intact. General principles have to bend to accommodate the complexities of history, and justice is sometimes better served by compromise than by zealous intellectual consistency.

So true, Douthat, so true. Too bad Dothat can’t pry open his mind and consider that the president, an ideologue through and through, is almost daily confronted with his leftist ideology colliding with real-world politics. BO should heed Douthat’s advice to Paul:

This was all that Rand Paul needed to admit, after his victory in Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary, when NPR and Rachel Maddow asked about his views of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. “As a principled critic of federal power,” he could have said, “I oppose efforts to impose Washington’s will on states and private institutions. As a student of the history of segregation and slavery, however, I would have made an exception for the Civil Rights Act.”

Gee, if only BO would say something like “I strongly favor adhering to the rule of the law and believe firmly that we are a nation of laws and should not bend our principles in the course of ordinary events. As president of a country that was forever changed on 9/11, however, I would have to make an exception in our handling of terrorists.” Or how about: “While I believe, firmly, that spreading the wealth around is good for everybody, I have studied American history and her economy, and I need to correct course in order to respect and uphold American values and free market principles.”

Douthat’s final paragraph also contains some wisdom that BO would do well to recognize before he’s completely divided this nation and destroyed our economy.

And it shouldn’t come as a shock that [Ron Paul’s] son found himself publicly undone, in what should have been his moment of triumph, because he was too proud to acknowledge the limits of ideology, and to admit that a principle can be pushed too far.

Hear, hear, Douthat. This could well be the final word on BO’s entire presidency, undone in what should have been a moment (or two terms) of triumph that he let slip away through prideful demagoguery. Too bad Douthat’s so busy (I think quite rightly) taking Paul to task that he doesn’t see how very well this applies to the Ideologue in Chief. In everything from ObamaCare to foreign affairs to the KSM trial to the Arizona illegal immigration law, he’s stubbornly (some say insanely) stayed courses that have no relation to reality . . . even in the face of repeated failures. He’s alienating our allies and emboldening our enemies, Iran’s getting nukes despite BO’s magically extending deadlines and empty threats, socialism always fails, and he’s divided this country as it’s not been since the ’60s. Epic fail.

If only BO weren’t too proud to admit the limitations (and the failures) of his fanciful ideological approach to matters that really need a more realistic, more humble, more grounded hand.

Do Dems Intend To Steal Elections to Retain Unprecedented Power?

Scott Swett over at American Thinker addresses a question that has been bothering me for months. Why are BO and his cohorts so completely unconcerned about the will of the people? Why don’t they care that the American people overwhelming think not only that we are on the wrong path but that BO’s entire agenda is bad for this country? Why so flippant with remarks like “that’s what elections are for“?

Lest we forget, Democrats were not given a mandate in 2008 to nationalize General Motors, the insurance industry, and health care. Most Americans want government to be less expensive, less intrusive, and more accountable. Yet despite the looming prospect of electoral dismemberment in November, the Democrats continue pushing a radical agenda: piling up debt and creating new entitlements, with crushing tax increases inevitably to follow. Why the evident lack of concern?

Perhaps they intend to cheat.

Swett then goes on to outline the many and various vote fraud tactics that these people have used in the recent past and will likely use again this November. Read the whole thing, it’s enlightening.

Snatching the Blindfold Off Lady Justice

I haven’t really been that interested in Supreme Court nominees since the Clarence Thomas debacle. Well, not until this current administration. My objections to the Sonia Sotomayer nomination were grounded in her decision in the Connecticut firefighter case and its subsequent overturning by the SCOTUS. That ruling, as we all know, was essentially what people are calling “reverse racism” but is actually just plain old-fashioned racism (where on earth did we get the idea that you can’t be racist against white people?).

And if that’s not troubling enough, her decision reveals that she is not really interested in what people are calling “equal justice” (where on earth did we get the idea that “justice” is inherently “unequal” and needs a redundant qualifier?). That was the heart of the problem with her for me. She met BO’s bizarre “empathy” requirement for a justice of the Supreme Court: don’t be bothered with pesky things like the rule of law . . . when a minority, poor person, or other otherwise socially-, economically- or otherwise-challenged person is involved. In such cases, toss the law out the window and/or “revise” it via wild and faulty interpretation to make it unrecognizable (no minorities passed the firefighter test ergo the entire test must be racist). According to BO and Sotomayer, we are indeed a nation of laws–two sets. One for the white people in “upper income brackets” (like those multi-million dollar firefighters in Connecticut) and one for everyone else. This somehow translates into the epitome of “fairness” for this progressive nightmare of a president.

This brings me to my current problem with the Elena Kagan nomination. Not only is she dismissive and derisive of the original Constitution (that quaint document from the stone ages), but she trumpets Thurgood Marshall’s

declaration that “the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was ‘defective.’ … The Constitution today … contains a great deal to be proud of. ‘(B)ut the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of ‘liberty,’ ‘justice,’ and ‘equality.'” Kagan said, “Our modern Constitution is (Marshall’s).” (source)

Those pesky concepts of liberty, justice, and equality are sooooo outdated. They need to be redefined or “refined” as the progressives would have it. Justice isn’t just if it’s impartial: “Blind justice” is such a sophomoric concept, after all. Yes, she’s another fairness is treating different people/groups differently type who sees the role of the Supreme Court as providing “special solicitude for the despised or disadvantaged.” David Limbaugh quotes her more extensively:

Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall. Following Marshall’s death, Kagan wrote a glowing tribute to him in the Texas Law Review. Two passages from her article deserve particular scrutiny. She wrote, approvingly: “In Justice Marshall’s view, constitutional interpretation demanded, above all else, one thing from the courts: it demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised or disadvantaged. It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government — to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion. The Court existed primarily to fulfill this mission.” Kagan said Marshall told her the other justices had rejected his proposal for a new Supreme Court rule: “When one corporate fat cat sues another corporate fat cat, this Court shall have no jurisdiction,” Kagan wrote. “However much some recent Justices have sniped at that vision, it remains a thing of glory.”

The new definition of “justice”: two rules of law, separate application of the law, “special solicitation” to one group over another.

Limbaugh goes on to warn that we not gloss over or scoff at the “despised and disadvantaged” descriptor of those who should have a special set of laws just for them:

But don’t just gloss over the leftist buzzwords “despised or disadvantaged.” What groups do they mean by “the despised”? Perhaps they mean those who don’t agree with their radical idea of unconstitutional wealth redistribution “despise” recipients of such extreme wealth transfers. Or maybe they’re implying that conservatives “despise” minorities. Don’t scoff. I’ve heard such toxicity before from leftists.

Indeed.

As Jonah Goldberg notes, “Obama and the vast majority of Senate Democrats believe that Lady Justice should peek from under the blindfold every now and then.” So much for being impartial. Or fair. Or just.

Kagan appears to share BO’s vision of a fundamentally transformed America in which those who are not “despised or disadvantaged” (in their eyes) should be and that it’s up to the courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, to ensure that they are.

Obama Gears Up U. S. Army to Fight Tea Party Protesters

Completely unreal.

From MAinfo:

This week, I was contacted by a number of military personnel, enlisted and officer ranks, who expressed concern about a military exercise underway at Ft. Knox, the U.S. Bullion Depository. As with most such exercises, the Ft. Knox alert occurred in stages, as if real time intelligence was being provided at various intervals.

The first intel advisory was issued on Friday, 23 April 2010, and identifies the terrorist threat adversaries as “Local Militia Groups / Anti-Government Protesters / TEA Party.”

You read that right: “TEA Party”!

The alert states that plans for the demonstration may have been interrupted by “Federal and local law enforcement” raids on a “White Supremacists Organization,” but “TEA Party organizers have stated that they will protest at the Gold Vault at a future date.”

Further, the intel advisory states, “Anti-Government – Health Care Protesters have stated that they would join the TEA Party as a sign of solidarity.”

In accordance with the exercise, Ft. Knox post security is placed on high alert because, “these groups are armed, have combative training and some are former Military Snipers. Some may have explosives training / experience,” and “a rally at their compound / training area is scheduled.”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In response to the “immediate threat,” the exercise stipulates, “local detention centers are being made ready for mass arrests.” Both the “QRF I and QRF II” are placed on two hour recall, and the “5-15 CAV” was ordered to “draw weapons from holder and store in most available arms room,” and “coordinate with MASA for immediate ammunition draw; have equipment readied for immediate use, i.e. vehicles staged and loaded IAW 5-15 CAV SOP; LMR’s charged.” (my emphasis)

Read the rest.

More at Infowars.

Simple and Comprehensive with a Side of Historical Exemption

Bill Whittle has offered up a recipe for ensuring the success of the people’s message, one that can be well applied to every new legislative shackle that BO and his traitorous horde try to clamp on us between now and January 2011:

So, to the short term: everybody knows that Reid and Pelosi and The Lightworker himself, obviously, are all hoping to use this bill as the foot in the door for the stuff they really want:  A single-payer National Health System, or at least the “public option,” which is simply single-payer on the installment plan. We can’t let them get that. Going forward, we can’t let them get single-payer, or cap and trade, or amnesty, or any of it.

We can learn some lessons here. We have to. One lesson is message discipline. What is message discipline? I’ll give you an example:

What’s in a Big Mac?  Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun! That’s what’s in a big mac. We have got to understand that saying NO! to this socialism is admirable and essential, but that from now on there has to be a counter-narrative to what these Marxists are selling, because like it or not the human brain is wired for stories — that’s how we learn (and why the real fight is not for Washington but rather Hollywood — but that’s a story for another time.)

If we want to win on health care, or any other issue, we need to have an answer to what they are selling and that answer needs to be as simple and comprehensive as the Big Mac slogan.

Our position on health care?  Two tax incentives, health accounts, crossing state lines, tort reform, competition on an auto insurance bun. And if we don’t learn how to do this we will lose.

Whittle’s final thought is a fine one for those of us who are still working through and toward being what he calls a “nation of steely-eyed missile men” (and women).  Some inspiration to achieve our steely resolve and focused eye on the prize:

A final thought on this darkish day: much is said about the “inevitability” of these kinds of legislation, that once enacted they are impossible to repeal or roll back.

This kind of thinking is self-fulfilling defeatism and has to stop. ANY law enacted can be repealed. We repealed a constitutional amendment, for God’s sake. From now on we must change our message from one of limiting goverment growth and spending and regulation to one of reducing it.

It is true that no nation has in the past ever recovered from the cycle of entitlement, moral decay and aristocratic rot that we find ourselves in. But it is also true that no nation — not one in history — was established precisely in opposition to these cancers. It is also true that never before have common people– otherwise known as the Host Organism — had the means to speak directly to one another, as we are here. It is true that if there is to be an historical exemption to the Cycle of Civilization it is only here that it will occur, and it is also true that the concepts of Free Will and Destiny are antithetical to one another. One of them is true and the other is not. It is my belief that you can chose to abandon Free Will and chose to believe in destiny and historical inevitablity, or you can take the risk to believe instead that there is a new world populated by optimists and dreamers, but dreamers with rifles as well as quills and parchment… People who have never surrendered and for whom the very idea of defeat and dispair is anathema.

That’s a choice I make every day. What we see before us is the result of lost elections and redemption will come from winning elections. Mark these words, my friends: We are going to whip these Marxists out of their little commie boots!

Hear, hear!

Is the White House Sending Healthcare Propaganda to Federal Employees?

From CBS News (no, really):

Federal employees are public servants not partisan foot soldiers for President Obama and shouldn’t have to decide whether a partisan White House request can be ignored without consequences.

DeParle’s solicitation requests federal employees act on behalf of the President’s agenda by making this directive: “You can help raise awareness by sharing this email with your friends, family and online networks,” read the March 11th email from DeParle.

But what would happen if the federal employee doesn’t act in the way The White House is suggesting? Would there be retribution? Has The White House requested that another federal agency monitor who is acting on behalf of Obama’s health reform bill and who is not?

Turning the President’s partisan agenda into White House directives to the federal workforce has crossed the line and should be stopped immediately.

Kuhner’s “Impeach the president?”

The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.

Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life – the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.

Kuhner sums it up neatly:

He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country’s stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.

Read the rest here.

Resistance: Targeting DNC Donors

We, the people, are outraged.  We’ve tried phoning, faxing, marching, and objecting in every peaceful way we can, but it’s not working.  As the delightful HillBuzz boyz lucidly warn their readers:

You need to accept, as we do, that Democrats in Congress have stopped listening to their constituents and the American people.  Nancy Pelosi, Tim Kaine, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama have built up a mental wall between Democrats in the House and reality.  Whatever they are telling these people, it’s working, because they have taken their office phones off the hook, have stopped looking at their mail, and have unplugged their fax machines, deleting all their email and closing the drapes to avoid seeing the mobs outside.

What we are doing is not making enough of a difference, it’s not stopping the bill.  Yes, it’s delayed it a year, but this bill is not dead.  And it needs to be.  Keeping up the pressure on Congress is good, and I think vital, but we need to add more pressure, and where better to do this than on the DNC donors?  The idea was hatched by the HillBuzz boyz:

Please read this article about what REALLY led to former White House Social Secretary (and Queen of her own deluded world) Desiree Rogers’ humiliating, kicking and screaming, ouster:  it wasn’t her incompetence at the Indian state dinner (where she inexplicably showed up dressed as Pocahontas, thinking it was “feather” instead of “dot” or “Cleveland” Indian time “up in there”).  It wasn’t her many trips to fashion shows, or the photos shoots she posed for, where she insisted on wearing “the ugliest clothes possible, so (she) can look completely like a low rent transvestite, which is styling right now”.

No.

She was fired because large, wealthy Democrat donors did not feel they were getting as many perks from the current White House as their donations deserved.

Rogers left important people off the Christmas Card List, and those people then stopped writing checks to the DNC.

We believe, in addition to contacting the Democrats in the House directly, that the public’s ire needs to be directed at the wealthy people who fund the DNC.

The elected officials are just the puppets of these people anyway.

If suddenly, socialites in Chicago start getting thousands of calls, emails, and letters a day, asking them why they are funding the rape of our Constitution and giving money to the DNC so that illegal bribes could be issued by the White House to force socialism on this country, we GUARANTEE you these wealthy women will scoop up their yorkapoos and pomeranians and run racing into their business managers’ offices to tell them to stop writing checks to the DNC.

Read more here and here.

Coffee Party to Repackage Ineffective Leftie Lies?

Left Coast Rebel is fast becoming the go-to place for Coffee Party updates. They’ve located an article from The Korean Times that outlines Annabel Park’s strategy in redirecting and repackaging the initially ineffective 121 Coalition.

The proponents had originally argued that Japan, as a leading nation of the world, must deal with its past abuses against the peoples it had subjugated during WWII. However, such an argument was vulnerable to a counter argument that this issue was all about Japan-bashing by other Asian nations intent on taking some measure of revenge by shaming Japan. Therefore, U.S. lawmakers tended to be easily persuaded that Resolution 121 was not in the interest of the U.S., although the plight of the old comfort women was pitiful.

In response, newly created network members reframed the argument in the following way. They couched the comfort women issue firmly in the language of human trafficking and wartime rape. Mindy Kotler, director of Asia Policy Point, made the following point in her testimony at the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on February 15, 2007: “The most important tool in prosecuting/stopping sexual violence in war in the future is the precedent of past recognition of sexual violence, enslavement, and exploitation.

As LCR notes, sound familiar? The Coffee Party, such as it is, will be searching around for a message that resonates with their bitter beans, something slightly more motivating than “we’re not going to take this tea crap anymore. let’s work for change!” (the delightful Annabel Park’s tweet, via Legal Insurrection).  As William Jacobson at LI notes,”It is very clear from Park’s background, and her own Tweets, that the Coffee Party simply is part of the perpetual Obama campaign, a means by which to subvert the real grassroots Tea Party movement by co-opting part of the message, but in a way which supports keeping Obama in power.”

Now all they have to do is hit on just the right nerve, find just the right spin . . . .