Category: Abortion

You’re #WhyTrumpWon, Nancy Pelosi

Posted on Comments

 

She’s a 76-year-old white woman whose father was the boss of the corrupt Democrat machine in Baltimore during the segregation era, and being married to a multimillionaire California real-estate investor, she’s one of the top 10 richest members of Congress. Democrats in Congress couldn’t have picked a more out-of-touch leader if they had tried. The geriatric liberal, whose political beliefs are like a fossil of the 1988 Dukakis campaign, apparently cannot understand why Democrats keep losing.

In 2010, Pelosi insisted on ramming ObamaCare through Congress: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Eight months later, in the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans scored their biggest congressional gains since 1938. Four years later, Democrats lost the Senate, and their losses have been even worse at the state level.

“Republicans are now in control of a record 67 (68 percent) of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers in the nation,” as Barbara Hollingsworth reported. “In 24 of the 32 states with Republican-controlled legislatures, voters have also elected Republican governors.”

Pelosi can’t seem to grasp why her party has become so unpopular, and instead resorts to scapegoating rationalizations:

While giving a press briefing to reporters, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the GOP’s push to defund the taxpayer funded Planned Parenthood a “manhood thing.”
During her press briefing, Pelosi fielding questions about Republican plans to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and remove taxpayer funding for abortion provider Planned Parenthood.
At the end of her remarks, Pelosi said, “Let me end on this note. Of all the things that they could be doing in a reconciliation bill — job creation, deficit reduction — no, forget that. What are they doing in this bill? Overturning the Affordable Care Act, undermining the health security and financial stability of America’s working families, and defunding Planned Parenthood. That’s their — that’s their manhood thing,” Pelosi said while shaking her hands.
“You know, defunding Planned Parenthood. How can they establish that as a priority unless they’re coming at all of this from a very ideological stand-point?” she asked.

Here, Ms. Pelosi, let me explain briefly: Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion provider. Many millions of Americans (who, not coincidentally, are eligible to vote) believe that abortion is morally wrong and should be illegal. However, even if you aren’t in favor of outlawing abortion, you may not think that giving federal taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood is a good idea. To repeat something that I keep saying, but which no Democrat seems capable of understanding: The national debt is now approaching $20 trillion — that’s trillion with a “T,” meaning $20,000,000,000,000 — and interest payments on the national debt cost $223 billion, or 6 percent of the federal budget, in 2015. So for every dollar the IRS collects from taxpayers, only 94 cents is available for current needs, and the annual budget deficit in fiscal year 2015 was $439 billion out of $3.7 trillion.

When you have a budget deficit of more than $400 billion, why spend half a billion dollars annually to fund Planned Parenthood, an organization whose business is about killing future taxpayers? Also, Planned Parenthood is a major donor to the Democrat Party, and why should Republicans in Congress give money to their worst enemies?

Despite the spectacular failure of ObamaCare, which has driven up health insurance premiums everywhere, Nancy Pelosi still can’t understand why anyone would want to repeal ObamaCare, and her propaganda phrase, “America’s working families,” is the exact opposite of reality. “Working families” — married people with jobs — generally had health insurance before ObamaCare was enacted, and have found themselves paying higher premiums because of the mandates imposed by ObamaCare.

ObamaCare wasn’t about “working families,” it was about mandating and subsidizing coverage for the kind of people who don’t have jobs or don’t have families, i.e., the typical Democrat voter. Republicans officials may not be rude enough to actually say this, but the people who vote Republican are not so stupid they can’t figure it out. What were Democrats really talking about when they invoked “pre-existing conditions” as an urgent cause to change our healthcare system? AIDS? Hepatitis? Cocaine addiction? “Gender dysphoria”?

During the first four years of the Obama administration, the government added nearly 6 million new recipients of federal SSI disability payments, more than doubling the number on the disability lists, while workforce participation rates fell to the lowest in American history. Democrats see nothing wrong with this, because moochers and malingerers tend to vote Democrat, whereas taxpayers with jobs tend to vote Republican.

Like I said, voters aren’t nearly as stupid as Nancy Pelosi assume them to be, and Democrats being the Baby-Killing Welfare Moocher Party is the fundamental cause of Donald Trump’s election. Yet the failure of the Democrat agenda, both as policy and as politics, is not something that the party’s elderly liberal leadership can admit, and therefore Pelosi is compelled by her partisanship to offer scapegoating rationalizations and counterfactual explanations, including blaming George W. Bush (who left the White House eight years ago) for the federal deficit under Obama.

You have failed, Ms. Pelosi. You have lost. You are personally responsible for the Democrat Party’s decline into political irrelevance.

You are #WhyTrumpWon. Congratulations.



 

 

Having a Merry Trump Christmas, Because @Jillboard Hates Jesus

Posted on Comments

Jillian Gutowitz, trying unsuccessfully to become popular on YouTube, July 2013.’

Jill Gutowitz (@Jillboard on Twitter) is a lesbian feminist Democrat from New Jersey who lives in Los Angeles, where she spent Election Night at a gay bar watching her entire world come crashing down in flames:

We thought we’d be able to ring in our first female president together. We were wrong. . . .
As my friends and I stood at The Abbey last night, watching our country slip through our fingers, we saw laughter turn to sadness, sadness turn to fear and finally, fear turn to pain. . . .
“He won,” I muttered as I burst into tears. . . . “How did this happen?”
I’ll tell you how it happened. 58 percent of white people voted for Trump; 53 percent of men, 42 percent of women. White people, what have you done? I had faith that our country was progressive and inclusive; that wasn’t realistic. This wasn’t fear; this was a white lash at the progress we’ve made. People aren’t scared, they are racist and misogynistic. . . .

A Democrat lost, a Republican won — unimaginable, to a 25-year-old lesbian feminist Democrat from New Jersey who was in middle school the last time (2004) a Democrat lost a presidential election.

 

 

This kind of rage/grief reaction by young Democrats is, to a great extent, a result of their having bought into a narrative of “progress,” believing themselves to be On The Right Side Of History and (incorrectly) thinking of the pre-Obama past as a Dark Age of Right-Wing Oppression.

Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have promoted this belief so relentlessly that, if you’re a half-educated 25-year-old, you might actually believe that America was a vast nightmarish concentration camp during the presidency of George W. Bush. Not until Jan. 20, 2009, with the swearing-in of President Obama, did our nation become “progressive and inclusive,” the lesbian feminist Democrat believes. When America failed to elect Hillary Clinton, this meant Jill and her friends in the L.A. gay bar were “watching our country slip through our fingers” and why? Because white people are “racist and misogynistic”!

If this election proved anything, it’s how much we hate women. This was an act of hate. This was selfish. And to those I know personally who voted for Trump; thanks for saying out loud that you don’t care about anyone but yourself. Nothing was at stake for you; our literal lives are at stake. It breaks my heart to see the swarm of wealthy, white men in red hats celebrating today — as if straight white men needed something more to celebrate. Trump gave these people an outlet to behave badly and now they’re being rewarded for their behavior. It feels like America is a social experiment that finally failed.

Jill, honey, we need to talk about your Kool-Aid addiction, OK? Because you’ve had wwaaaayy too much of it, and it’s not good for you.

Maybe you’re wondering why, Ms. Gutowitz, I decided on Christmas Eve to write about your absurdly over-the-top reaction to Donald Trump’s election. In fact, I’d never heard of you before yesterday, when by coincidence I stumbled onto something you wrote back in January:

Start Sleeping with the Same Sex
and Get On With Your Life
This is a call to arms. Straight people, I want you to stop daydreaming about boning your hot same-sex “girl crush” or “man crush” and just do it. I’m tired of your s–t. I don’t want to hear you say, “I totally could be gay but the only thing stopping me is licking a vagina.” Why you thinkin’ bout lickin’ a vagina, huh? Newsflash: lesbians don’t just sit around thinking about cleaning p–y off their face.
You think I wanted to be gay so I could lick vaginas? No. That’s not how it works. I found out I was gay cause I was having extremely close personal attachments to the same sex. So if you’re saying you’re feeling all the emotional sides of a lesbian relationship and you are sitting around thinking about licking a vagina…SEEMS PRETTY GAY.
I used to think the same thing as you: “I can’t go down on a girl!” Turns out, I’m super gay! Do you know how many excuses I’ve made for not being gay? . . .

Jill, you are mentally disturbed. You’re deranged, demented, bonkers, berserk, a few fries short of a Happy Meal and cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

 

Rather than list every synonym for “crazy,” Jill, instead I’ll just let you describe yourself and your life:

I feel like a failure every day. . . .
I don’t like men. They’re mean and rude and I’ve almost always had purely negative experiences by them. . . .
I feel inadequate in everything I do. . . .
I’m not having sex because I’m scared of everyone. I think everyone is garbage.
I wish everyone was LGBTQ: we’re more understanding and open minded and kind. . . .
I feel like my insides are constantly withering and black and twisted and dying. I have anxiety. . . .
I asked my mom if she thought I was bipolar and she said “maybe.” I weaned myself off my anxiety medication over the last month because I was having more panic attacks than ever. I was more depressed than ever. . . .
I have a mental illness. I break down all the time. . . .
My romantic love has been almost unanimously unrequited. . . . I’ve never been fulfilled by a relationship. . . .
I used to believe in right and wrong. I used to believe in the idea of “deserving” something. Now I do not.

Jill, has anyone explained to you that spending too much time on social media is highly correlated to depression in young people? Online interaction becomes a substitute for doing anything useful or productive with your time. You start comparing yourself to other people, imagining yourself in some other life, and your actual life — you know, the one where you stay in your room all day, scrolling Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, etc. — seems even more pathetic when compared to the fantasy alternative in your imagination. So now we will return to your genuinely demented everybody-is-gay column from January:

I, like many in America, had a s–ty 2015, mostly because at the top of the year, I came out. It was f–king hard to deal with . . . because not only did I come out, but also I found out I was gay. It wasn’t a secret I was hiding since my pubes sprouted; it was something I discovered about myself in my 23rd year of life. I was mortified and embarrassed that I, a self-aware and anxiety-ridden Jew (only by blood), could go 23 years without knowing something about myself so crucial to my being. It was because I, like many people in America, dealt with years of internalized homophobia . . .

Oh, yes — “internalized homophobia”! Who invented this? Didn’t it come from the same Bad Idea Factory as “latent homosexual tendencies”?

Back in the Freudian heyday, when all the pop-psych talk was subconscious urges and “complexes” and how-do-you-feel-about-your-mother, the notion that one could harbor “latent tendencies” was one of those pseudo-diagnostic hypotheses that was impossible to disprove. Yes, I’m a middle-aged guy who’s been married 27 years and has six kids, but obviously I’m just overcompensating. Like the Kinsey Scale, the whole point of “latent tendencies” seems to have been to convince us that everybody’s at least a little bit gay. It’s a psychological con game, a sort of gay PUA hustle: “Now that we have determined you have ‘latent tendencies,’ what the heck, why not give it a try?”

Never try to pull that kind of cheap con on me. It insults my intelligence. So let’s get back to Jillian explaining her “internalized homophobia”:

As a kid, I was a tomboy. I was bullied for being boyish and I had no friends that were girls. So I was forced to adapt. I started dressing more “girly,” in the American vernacular sense of the word, but it was too late. I was already friends with all the boys in the school. None of them saw me as a sexual object like they did the girly girls. . . .
I spent high school being basically asexual and unaware of it. I liked boys because I knew I was supposed to. I didn’t have a boyfriend until my senior year and when I finally had one, I didn’t even like him, I just wanted a prom date. . . .

Pardon my interruption, Ms. Gutowitz, but didn’t you grow up in middle-class suburban New Jersey? Weren’t you a “good girl,” the bookish nerdy type, who mainly hung around with your fellow nerds? Weren’t you rather closely supervised by your parents, who emphasized the importance of doing well in school so you could go to college? There was no way you could have gone the tight-skirts-and-heels route, dressing like a jailbait hooker and hanging out downtown with the Bad Boys, right?

The awkward middle-class child, over-directed and over-supervised by well-intentioned parents, often drifts through adolescence without giving any sign of their inner angst. Making good grades, staying out of trouble — no external warning signals, but inside they feel like outcasts or misfits, and wonder why they can’t achieve the kind of popularity and social success that seems to come so easily to others: “What’s wrong with me?”

To which the correct answer is: Nothing, really. Continue reading Having a Merry Trump Christmas, Because @Jillboard Hates Jesus →

War on Women: Democrats Ready to Throw Nancy Pelosi Under the Bus?

Posted on Comments

 

The irony here is rather delicious:

In the aftermath of Democrats’ demoralizing election defeat, Representative Nancy Pelosi’s bid to return as minority leader has been transformed into a larger debate about what has gone wrong with a party that eight years ago controlled Congress and the White House.
Ms. Pelosi, a 76-year-old San Francisco progressive, is expected to easily win re-election when her colleagues vote on Wednesday. But she has become a stand-in for complaints that Democrats have failed to offer a compelling, broad-based economic message to the working-class voters in the Midwest and South who helped them capture the House 10 years ago and made Ms. Pelosi the first woman speaker.
Representative Tim Ryan, who represents a blue-collar district in northeastern Ohio, has mounted an unexpected challenge to Ms. Pelosi and given voice to the message that House Democrats must broaden their appeal beyond the three liberal states — California, Massachusetts and New York — that now account for a third of their members.
Mr. Ryan argues that his party can only rebuild if it re-establishes itself as the party of the working class.
“We’ve lost that brand, and that’s the brand that gets you elected,” said Mr. Ryan, who is also thought by colleagues to be considering running for governor of Ohio in 2018.

Democrats talking about the popular vote — which Clinton won by a margin of more than 2 million votes — fail to acknowledge that this reflects lopsided majorities in a handful of ultra-liberal states. Clinton carried California by 3.4 million votes, New York by 2.5 million votes, Massachusetts by 900,000 votes, and Illinois by 800,000 votes. Pandering to liberal elites, Clinton ran up her totals in urban areas to gain a margin of more than 6 million votes in four states with 115 Electoral College votes. Meanwhile, Trump appealed to those who have spent the past eight years bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles, to paraphrase a certain Harvard Law graduate’s putdown of Americans who have to work for a living. This “basket of deplorables,” to quote a certain Yale Law graduate’s description, turned out to include a surprising number of voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa.

Democrats have become a party for decadent elitists who cannot hide their contempt for the opinions and values of anyone who can’t afford to send their kids to Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Oberlin, Occidental, etc. Donald Trump got the votes of every ordinary American smart enough to understand that limousine liberals like Nancy Pelosi (who “is among the richest members of Congress, with an estimated net worth of approximately $58 million”) don’t give a damn about them.

 

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Noting quite so perfectly demonstrated Hillary Clinton’s absolute disdain for ordinary Americans than her willingness to lie to them about what happened to the four Americans killed in Benghazi. These “little old liberal white ladies,” as Kevin Williamson called them, get plenty of support from commies who burn the American flag, from college kids who love Fidel Castro, and from wealthy celebrity feminists like Gloria Steinem. Democrats are then shocked to discover that this does not endear them to patriotic Americans who work for a living.

“The American flag has represented this imperialist, white supremacist, hegemonic masculinity.”
— Isaiah Young, American University

Exit polls show Trump beat Clinton by a 26-point margin among voters who had served in the U.S. military, and his margin was 14 points among voters who attend church on a weekly basis. Nancy Pelosi received the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood, in recognition of her work to ensure that American taxpayers continue funding America’s largest abortion provider. Do you think that might have something to do with Democrats losing support among Catholic working-class voters in the industrial Midwest? I think maybe it does.

A picture is worth a thousand words, they say. Democrats kill babies. Democrats burn the American flag. Democrats hate Jesus.

Democrats still don’t understand why they keep losing:

“I think a lot of people are unsure if we want the faces of the party to be Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi: liberals from New York and California. It was different with a Democratic president — he was the face of the party, but now they will be,” the Democrat said.
One Democratic member said that while they like and admire Pelosi, they thought the election results meant it was time for her to step aside: “I just don’t think you can look at the election and say we should keep doing what we’ve been doing.”

Fifty-eight million dead babies could not be reached for comment.



 

 


Feminists Hate Donald Trump: The Joys of Happy Fun Victory Week #MAGA

Posted on Comments

 

 

Say what you will about our President-elect, he’s got all the right enemies, especially feminists like Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valenti. Having gone all-in for Hillary Clinton, these partisan Democrats spent months inciting irrational hatred toward the Republican candidate, and now they are seeking to exploit the delusional fears they themselves helped create. Valenti’s post-election column:

Last night, seated between my 68-year-old mother and six-year-old daughter, I expected to watch the first woman get elected president of the United States. We bought champagne and cake, and promised Layla that she could stay up as late as she wanted to watch. My daughter fell asleep on the couch, still wearing a shirt emblazoned with the word “feminist” and an “I voted” sticker.
This morning, I’ll have to tell Layla that Hillary Clinton lost, that a woman won’t be president. Even more difficult, I’ll have to tell her that Donald Trump won. The man she knows as a bully who says terrible things about women, people with disabilities and immigrants — the man who brags about hurting people and separating families — will lead her nation.

Oh, woe to Jessica Valenti’s little girl, living in the posh home of her feminist mother, the bestselling author of Sex Object, and her father, the Harvard-educated publishing executive at Vox.com. How terrible that their child will live in a nation that elected Donald Trump! Let’s all throw a pity party for the children of affluent, influential partisan Democrats!

 

How are those “male tears” tasting now, Ms. Valenti? Are you satisfied with the result of your dishonest career of hateful selfishness? You have spent more than a decade fomenting anti-male hatred, cruelly ridiculing the decent men of this country whose only crime is working hard to support their wives and children. You have become rich and famous from your hate-mongering propaganda campaign against American men. You travel around to university campuses giving speeches to encourage young women to emulate your vicious attitude. Yet now you expect us to feel sorry for you, because the American people have rejected your political idol, Hillary Clinton? “Tell it to the Marines,” as Sherman once said.

Meanwhile, the bloodthirsty monster Amanda Marcotte is afraid that President Trump will interfere with the baby-killing industry:

“We have seen how unconstitutional laws that force women to travel to other states for abortion care make this care essentially unobtainable, and it would be unconscionable to erect even more stringent barriers,” Dr. Willie Parker, the board chair for Physicians for Reproductive Health, said in a statement. “President-elect Trump’s attack on fundamental rights is unacceptable.”
But how much damage will Trump be able to do to this legal right?
Julie Rikelman, the litigation director for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a phone interview, “We should definitely be concerned because obviously there is a threat to women’s constitutional rights, but we at the center continue to believe that Roe v. Wade would not be overturned.” Rikelman’s organization, the Center for Reproductive Rights, led the successful legal challenge that resulted in this year’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision, which struck down a series of restrictive abortion laws in Texas.
“We know that the right [to abortion] has held up for over 40 years, and it’s held up through a variety of administrations, both pro-choice administrations and anti-choice administrations,” Rikelman continued. “But every time the issue has come before the Supreme Court in the last 40 years, it has refused to overrule Roe v. Wade and it has repeatedly upheld the right.”
Because of the legal principle called stare decisis, the court is reluctant to directly overturn precedent.

Killing babies is the only “right” Democrats like Amanda Marcotte really care about. When they’re not bathing in “male tears,” feminists are up to their necks in the blood of innocents whose deaths they celebrate.

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

Feminists are always surprised to discover that their deadly hatred of human life is not popular among ordinary Americans. Democrats can’t understand why most women reject the hateful politics of feminism:

Any woman who has a husband and children is a victim of oppression, according to feminist theory. Abolishing marriage and motherhood have been fundamental goals of the feminist movement for more than 40 years. . . .
Because feminism is a theory of power, originating from the idea that women are oppressed by male power, the pursuit of “equality” requires the destruction of every source of this oppressive power. This radical agenda, essentially destructive in its methods and purposes, is the basis of feminist theory, a major goal of which is eradicating the traditional family. . . .

You can read the rest at The Patriarch Tree.




 

RELATED:

 

 


Democrats Surrender to ‘Fear Itself’

Posted on Comments

 

Republicans are celebrating Happy Fun Victory Week with such amusements as video of Democrats saying Donald Trump would never be president. Democrats, meanwhile, are surrendering to despair. Now that the election is over, liberals are just beginning to notice the extent of losses Democrats have suffered at the state level during the Obama Era:

Let’s be frank. After this week’s electoral explosion, liberalism faces years in the wilderness. It’s not just that the president-elect is Donald Trump. It’s that a Democratic Party that as recently as Monday imagined it had forged an electoral coalition sufficiently solid to stand for decades now lies in shambles. In 2018, the party must defend an astonishing 25 seats in their Senate caucus, many of them in states that Trump carried. “It’s going to be a disaster,” said one Democratic strategist — and that was back when people thought Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in. Republicans control a record 69 of 99 state legislative chambers, and wound up with at least 33 governorships, the most since 1922. In short, the Democrats’ exile is likely to be lengthy.

It would be a stupid blunder for conservative, however, to think that the current “shambles” of the Democrat Party means we’re on our way to the Permanent Republican Majority once envisioned by Karl Rove. Such complacent hubris is exactly how the Bush era ended in political disaster — voters handing Congress over to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s Democrats in 2006, Barack Obama winning the presidency in 2008. Both the Trump administration and GOP leaders in Congress will have to work hard — and be smart — to retain the support of the 60 million Americans who voted Republican on Nov. 8.

Well, these sober-minded reflections should not dampen our good cheer, and Happy Fun Victory Week means we can enjoy the schadenfreude of watching liberals in agony over their unexpected defeat.

This post-election IUD panic is insane — a consequence of Democrat propaganda during the campaign, as I explain in my latest column:

Back in 1984, when I was a young Democrat, I voted for Walter Mondale for president, and wasn’t happy that he lost. Back then, however, we didn’t have Twitter or Facebook, so we couldn’t instantaneously broadcast our expressions of despair to the world. Old folks back then (I was 25) didn’t give a damn about my opinion, but now every young kid with a laptop can play Internet pundit and they’re pushing the panic button: “OMG! Trump! Get an IUD before it’s too late!”
Who told you this? Where did this absurd meme originate? Didn’t your parents warn you against believing everything you read on the Internet? Was it true, as Gabriella Paiella of New York Magazine told readers mere hours after Hillary conceded defeat, that “everyone” was urging women to get IUDs? No, it started with Erin Gloria Ryan, who majored in English at Notre Dame, Class of ’05, and hit the panic button Nov. 2, before Election Day. . . .

Read the whole thing at The Patriarch Tree. Once upon a time, a Democrat told America that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Now the only thing Democrats offer America is . . . fear itself.



 

 

Queer Feminism at Marquette University

Posted on Comments

“To me as a queer activist and young scholar in the early 1990s, the term queer seemed to capture it all — the political urgency of combating heterosexism, my feeling and knowledge that the binaries of gender and sexual orientation were created through forced conformity and repression, the indeterminateness of my own experiences of gender and sexual attraction. . . . For twenty-five years or so, I’ve identified as queer — a queer person, a queer activist, a queer-theoretically informed sociologist.”
— Professor Dawne Moon, Marquette University

Marquette University is allegedly Catholic, and also has one of the worst records for suppressing free speech of any campus in the country. Marquette has a “red light” rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), meaning that the university’s policy “clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech” and “unambiguously infringes on what is or should be protected expression.”

Marquette is being sued by John McAdams, a tenured professor of political science who was threatened with firing because he blogged about the totalitarian climate on campus. FIRE reported in February:

Disregarding freedom of speech, academic freedom, and its own policies, Marquette University will attempt to revoke Professor John McAdams’s tenure and fire him. Marquette is taking action against McAdams, a political conservative and frequent critic of the administration, supposedly in response to his online criticism of a graduate student instructor who told a student not to oppose same-sex marriage in her class. Marquette had previously suspended McAdams without due process, treated him as though he presented a violent threat, and cancelled his current semester’s classes.

Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, compared Marquette’s policy to Stalinism:

“For blogging and defending an undergraduate student, Professor McAdams is being suspended. But it is worse than that. He is being told that he will be fired unless, in the manner of a Soviet show trial, he confesses guilt and admits that his conduct was ‘reckless.’”

To reiterate: Marquette is so committed to promoting a pro-homosexual agenda that students are not allowed to criticize this agenda in their classrooms, and when a faculty member calls attention to this policy, he is treated as a danger to student safety, suspended from his position and threatened with firing. This is happening at an allegedly Catholic school.

Annual tuition at Marquette is $38,470, plus $11,440 for room and board, so that parents are paying $49,910 a year to have this allegedly Catholic school indoctrinate their children with an ideology diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Continue reading Queer Feminism at Marquette University →

No, @Clementine_Ford, Men Don’t Hate Women, But They Definitely Hate You

Posted on Comments

“Like most feminists, I have often been told that I hate men. I’m no longer interested in denying that claim.”
— Clementine Ford, May 2015

Last year, it was reported that the birth rate in Australia had fallen to a 10-year low, and the discouraging demographic situation Down Under has merited the attention of the Australian national government. Perhaps officials should note that this decline has coincided with the career ascent of Australia’s leading professional baby-hater, Clementine Ford:

Clementine Ford’s vehement hatred of babies (or, as she would say, the “clump of unwanted cells,” which has no value whatsoever) is enough to make me glad that she’s 10,000 miles away, so that I don’t have to worry about her sneaking around trying to kill any of my children. Checking the headlines in Australia, I found two cases of babies being murdered this year — one in Melbourne and one in Geraldton — but in both of those cases, the mother was charged. However, if there are any unsolved baby murders in Australia, the police should check Clementine Ford’s alibi.

Notoriously merciless in her hatred toward children, Clementine Ford also has nothing but contempt for the male half of the human race:

My name is Clementine Ford and I’m a writer, speaker and professionally angry person living in Melbourne. . . .
I’m not interested in placating men about their intentions or feminist credentials. . . .
I don’t speak or write about feminism in order to convince men or sway them to my point of view. I do it because I want to let other women know that it’s okay to speak up and to be angry and to tell the truth about their lives. Also, women are f–king funny and rad and I want to hear more from them and less from men.

She has no interest in “placating” any male, nor does she seek to persuade males, but only to incite women to hate males as much as she does, and she never wants to hear anything a male has to say about it. Also, she cannot seem to fathom why she is so unpopular with men:

In the fifteen or so years that I’ve been actively feministing, I’ve never tired of being asked whether or not I hate men. . . . If I could summarise my experience of the anti-feminist backlash into one tedious, repetitive interaction, it would be thus: “Do you hate men? Wait, let me rephrase that. Why do you hate men?”

(Pause, reader, to reflect on why men might not enjoy being constantly insulted and belittled by a “professionally angry person” whose entire career consists of insulting and belittling men. She gets paid to portray men generally as being ignorant monsters, then dismisses all criticism of her anti-male hate rhetoric as “backlash.”)

Although my care factor for whether or not men think I hate them hovers somewhere just below zero . . . the blatant lack of self-awareness on display when this question is asked . . . still manages to astonish me. . . .

(Men are not only ignorant monsters, but they lack self-awareness, and blatantly so. So she insults you, and if you object to her insult, this proves you’re too stupid to understand her point.)

Do feminists hate men? When you consider the level of hostility women are subjected to just for standing up for ourselves, surely the better query is why do so many men seem to hate women so fiercely, so aggressively, so violently and so passionately? . . .

(You see? The feminist insults you, and considers your objection to her insult to be evidence that you “hate women so fiercely,” etc. In other words, no man is allowed to disagree with her. Shut up, you ignorant male worm, while Clementine Ford insults you some more.)

Instead of berating feminists for being misandrists, perhaps these men should start taking responsibility for the abominable, destructive and dehumanising treatment of women throughout all of history up to and including the present day.
Because here’s the thing: at a broad sweep, men have given us countless reasons to hate them. They have certainly provided ample evidence of their hatred for us, and the violence they inflict has more physical, cultural and economic power behind it than women subjugated by a patriarchal system could ever hope to replicate.

You see, you ignorant male worm — yes, you there, so despicable and lowly as to be unworthy of Clementine Ford’s notice — that you are responsible for the “abominable . . treatment of women” not only during your own worthless life, but “throughout all of history.” Clementine Ford gets paid to blame you personally for all those “women subjugated by a patriarchal system” as a consequence of the “physical, cultural and economic power” you possess, merely because you are male.

It’s rather strange that Clementine Ford, “subjugated by a patriarchal system” as she is, gets paid by the publisher Allen & Unwin, a firm founded more than a century ago by Sir Stanley Unwin, which is a division of the publishing conglomerate Harper Collins which, in turn, is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s $15 billion global communications empire NewsCorp. Rather than being “subjugated” by male-owned corporate media, instead Clementine Ford is being subsidized by these powerful men.

What does Clementine Ford think of Allen & Unwin chairman Patrick Gallagher? What is her opinion of Allen & Unwin CEO Robert Gorman? Are her publishing bosses also guilty of “abominable, destructive and dehumanising treatment of women” as she insists men generally are?

Well, while Clementine Ford is gloating about “male tears,” there is more serious reason for concern. In a recent Facebook post, Clementine Ford claimed to be in possession of “a tiny human,” although how this was to be distinguished from a “clump of unwanted cells,” she did not specify.

No one has yet been able to confirm this report, but it is alleged that Australia’s leading professional baby-hater, Clementine Ford, has somehow gotten her hands on an actual living baby.

 

Was this a kidnapping? Did she (or perhaps a lesbian partner) get artificially inseminated? We don’t know, but it’s been nearly six weeks since that rumor was reported, and she’s probably killed it by now.

Thank God I live in America, and Clementine Ford is 10,000 miles away.




 


Sex Facts: Robots Don’t Have Babies and There Is No ‘Teenage Pregnancy Crisis’

Posted on

 

In 1999, Maggie Gallagher published “The Age of Unwed Mothers,” in which she conclusively demonstrated that the panic about teenage pregnancy (“kids having kids”) was fundamentally misguided. Contrary to what the media and politicians were telling Americans, teenage motherhood had significantly declined since the 1960s, and what had actually changed about motherhood was the decline of marriage rates for young women. Gallagher showed that the astonishing increase of unwed motherhood — now 40% of U.S. births are to unmarried women — was largely a phenomenon involving women in their early 20s.

 

Teen motherhood is not a pathology. In fact, the highest rates of teenage motherhood in recent U.S. history were during the 1950s, the Golden Age of “Family Values.” The birth rate for females ages 15-19 was 96.3 per thousand in 1957, and is now a measly 26.6 per thousand. In “The Age of Unwed Mothers” (which you absolutely must read, if you’ve never read it before), Gallagher pointed out that statistics about “teenage pregnancy” had been consistently misrepresented in the media so that births to young adult women (ages 18 and 19) were conflated in the public mind with a negative stereotype, i.e., the 15-year-old girl who was doomed to be a high-school dropout and pass on to her child a legacy of poverty.

Liberals never let facts get in the way of their agenda, however, so the scare campaign about teenage motherhood has been leveraged to promote sex education in schools. Am I the only person in America who sees how redundant “sex education” classes are in the 21st century?

If kids have questions about sex — e.g., “How does pregnancy happen?” — it doesn’t require much skill to Google it. Insofar as teenagers have a problem with sex, it is not because of a lack of information, but a lack of virtue. The basic function of human reproductive organs is not exactly a mystery, and requires no more than a day or two to explain in an eighth-grade biology class. However, teaching kids the Latin names for what’s in their pants (“scrotum,” “labia,” etc.) is less important than teaching them how to keep their pants on. What kids need to be taught are lessons about courtesy, morality, and personal responsibility.

What most Americans don’t realize is that the push for sex education in schools is directly connected to Planned Parenthood’s agenda of promoting contraception and abortion, to reduce the U.S. birth rate as part of deliberate program of population control funded by major tax-exempt foundations and implemented worldwide by the United Nations. This is not a “conspiracy theory,” but is a matter of historic fact best explained in Donald Critchlow’s 2001 book Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America. John D. Rockefeller III and Hugh Moore were among the most influential proponents of what can fairly be described as an anti-motherhood crusade that led to both the development of the contraceptive pill and the legalization of abortion. Considering how contrary this was to the moral and religious beliefs of most Americans, the population-control movement set about to undermine those beliefs with a propaganda campaign, fostering a myth that reached its apogee with the 1968 publication of Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb. Ehrlich wrongly predicted worldwide mass starvation as a result of overpopulation, based on a fallacy of limited resources.

It was this misguided neo-Malthusian anti-baby agenda, rather than any concern for “women’s rights,” which was the driving force behind Planned Parenthood and the politics that led to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. As part of this campaign, Planned Parenthood lobbied for sex education programs to indoctrinate children with beliefs and attitudes that conform to and support the population-control agenda. When parents complained about what their children were being taught about sex at taxpayer expense, defenders of these programs claimed sex-ed classes were necessary to prevent teenage pregnancy. If this “education” is based on falsehood, guess what happens when these programs are implemented?

The lifelike dolls are meant to teach teenage girls what it’s like to raise an infant, warts and all. As part of high school sex-ed programs around the world, teachers give infant simulators to their female students, who care for the robots over the course of a few days.
The babies, which can run about $1,000 apiece, are programmed to cry, scream and sleep. Computers tucked within the dolls register when the babies are changed, burped, fed or — in instances where everything goes drastically wrong — when they “die.”
“We’ve had midnight telephone calls from parents saying: ‘Please tell me how to turn it off, my daughter’s going crazy,’” as Janette Collins, a London-based youth counselor said to the Financial Times last October. “It’s the very few girls who score really well that you have to look out for. In my experience they’re the ones who go off and get pregnant for real — you’ve accidentally taught them they can cope.”
Collins might have been onto something. In fact, according to a study published [Aug. 25] in the journal Lancet, putting a robot baby in the hands of 13- to 15-year-old Australian teens seemed to backfire.
Girls who participated in the virtual infant parenting, or VIP, program were more likely to become pregnant or have an abortion by their early 20s than those who did not, the authors found.
The Australian VIP program is similar to the RealCare babies — formerly, Baby Think It Over dolls — supplied by the U.S.-based company Realityworks. Researchers in the United States had previously criticized the Baby Think It Over dolls, but this marked the first randomized control trial examining the dolls’ efficacy. During the study, 1,267 girls took part in the VIP program, while a comparison group of 1,567 did not.
The trial period represented three years’ worth of robot interventions, from 2003 and 2006, involving 57 schools in Australia. The authors report that 8 percent of the girls who cared for infant dolls had at least one baby by age 20, whereas only 4 percent of the control group did; similarly, 9 percent of the VIP group had at least one abortion, compared with 6 percent of the non-doll group during that time.

You can read the whole thing. As someone who has extensive experience in the field of child care — with six children now ranging in age from 13 to 27 — I have long criticized these robot-baby programs, not because they might encourage pregnancy, but rather because babies are not robots. Children are not objects, but flesh-and-blood human beings.

Caring for our own flesh-and-blood offspring is both a matter of natural instinct and an entirely rational activity, once we understand the benefits of having babies, which no robotic doll can teach. You may not believe, as I do, that children are quite literally a blessing from God, yet the direct personal benefits of parenthood should be obvious to any young person who has the foresight to ask, “What will happen to me when I get old?” Do we want to be lonely, unloved and forgotten, or to be cherished, respected and cared for? This consideration alone should suffice as an incentive to have children, but beyond the purely selfish motives, having babies (and raising them with good values) also provides a benefit to society.

If you think there are “too many” people in the world, you are thinking of people too generally. Are there too many intelligent people in the world? Are there too many well-educated people, too many highly skilled people, too may hard-working people in the world? Are there too many kind people or too many honest people in the world? Most people who are literate enough to read this article probably think of themselves as above-average people, and rightly so. If you are a person of superior quality, doesn’t it make sense that you would have high-quality children? After all, a person as superior as yourself would be a very shrewd judge when it comes to selecting a spouse, so that your child would benefit from the superior qualities of both parents. And since you would instill excellent values in your children, teaching them to live according to the highest moral and ethical principles, the entire world will benefit from your decision to have a baby. Or six babies, as the case may be.

 

Contributing six superior quality offspring toward making the world a better place is not, however, my only philanthropic endeavor. I’m also busy explaining scientific truth to the blog-reading masses. For example, I’ve explained that feminism causes herpes, and now I’ve got some more scientific truth for you: Robots don’t have babies.

In fact, robots don’t have sex. Oh, sure, some people seem suspiciously enthusiastic about the idea of “sex robots,” but ask yourself, “Who is having ‘sex’ in that scenario?” (Hint: Not the robot.)

Really, it’s just robot-assisted onanism. Does anybody really need that kind of assistance? I rather doubt it. However, this technology does give feminists new opportunities to engage in paranoid outbursts: SEX ROBOTS WILL TURN MEN INTO MISOGYNIST MONSTERS! Of course, feminists already think all men are misogynist monsters, so this is not really anything new, not even in terms of blatant hypocrisy (because every feminist’s ideal boyfriend is a Hitachi Magic Wand.)

The best kind of sex is the old-fashioned kind.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply . . .”
— Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)

Feminists hate God even more than they hate men, and feminists hate babies almost as much as they hate God. Basically, feminists hate life, so it’s probably better to have sex with a robot than to have sex with a feminist. At least a robot won’t give you herpes or accuse you of rape.

 

Remember: “PIV is always rape, OK?”