Category: Celebrities

Jake Brewer, R.I.P.

Posted on Comments

 

Mary Katharine Ham’s husband was killed in an accident Saturday while participating in a charity bicycle ride when he lost control of his bike and hit a car head-on. Jake Brewer was 34 and his widow is pregnant with their second child. A memorial fund has been set up for their children. MK issued a statement on Instagram:

We lost our Jake yesterday, and I lost part of my heart and the father of my sweet babies. I don’t have to tell most of you how wonderful he was. It was self-evident. His life was his testimony, and it was powerful and tender and fierce, with an ever-present twinkle in the eye. I will miss him forever, even more than I can know right now. No arms can be her father’s, but my daughter is surrounded by her very favorite people and all the hugs she could imagine. . . . I can never be without him because these babies are half him. They are made of some of the strongest, kindest stuff God had to offer this world. Please pray that he can see us and we’ll all make him proud. God, I love him. Psalm 34:18, Philippians 1:3

(Via Memeorandum.)

 

Solomonic Wisdom Needed

Posted on Comments

Suppose you were a judge, and you were faced with the decision of who should have custody of a 17-year-old girl:

  1. A 25-year-old junkie;
    or
  2. A 53-year-old lesbian?

This is not a hypothetical scenario:

The man who allegedly housed Rosie O’Donnell’s 17-year-old daughter Chelsea for a week while she was missing from home has been charged with child endangerment and communication of obscenity, New Jersey prosecutors announced Saturday.
Steven Sheerer, 25, was arrested Friday night in his Barnegat, New Jersey, home and could face up to five years in prison for each charge (or 10 years total), the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement.
The arrest stems from a Friday search of Chelsea’s phone (with O’Donnell’s consent) which revealed “evidence of inappropriate communications over the last several weeks” between Sheerer and the teen, according to the statement. . . . .
A $40,000 bond has been set for Sheerer, according to jail records. He has been barred from contacting the O’Donnell family, according to the prosecutor’s statement.
O’Donnell’s publicist Cindi Berger commented on Sheerer’s charges in a statement to PEOPLE.
“He was involved with a minor, and Rosie’s concern has been and always will be the health, safety and well-being of her daughter,” Berger said. . . .
Sheerer has previously faced charges of “third-degree possession of heroin with the intent to distribute, third-degree possession of heroin, third-degree endangering the welfare of a child and possession of drug paraphernalia,” a Barnegat police spokesman told PEOPLE.

Chelsea was adopted by O’Donnell when she was married to her first wife, Kelli Carpenter, who left O’Donnell in 2007. In 2012, O’Donnell married Michelle Rounds, but they split in February (“The Tragedy of Lesbian Divorce”) and, at an event at Barnard College shortly afterwards, O’Donnell said, “I felt like a lesbian cougar. All these gorgeous twentysomething girls!” In April, TMZ reported that in her divorce filing, Michelle Rounds claimed “Rosie drinks a bottle of wine nearly every night, regularly smokes weed” and “let their 19-year-old son throw parties where the kids all drink.”

So, obviously, it’s a very good thing 17-year-old Chelsea is back home with Rosie, where she is safe, rather than with a 25-year-old heroin addict, who could be a bad influence. Maybe some day Chelsea O’Donnell will write a tell-all memoir and call it Mommy Queerest.

 

Radical Feminism and the ‘Equality’ Trap

Posted on Comments

 

Radical lesbian activist @EllenPage decided that @TedCruz needed a lecture from her about equality and discrimination:

DES MOINES — Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and actress Ellen Page, of “Juno” fame, got into a testy and free-wheeling discussion Friday over gay rights here at the Iowa State Fair.
“I’m happy to answer your question but not to have a back-and-forth debate,” Cruz told Page, as she pressed him about discrimination against LGBT citizens, approaching him as he flipped pork chops over an open grill. . . .
“Imagine, hypothetically, you had a gay florist and imagine two evangelical Christians wanted to get married and the gay florist decided, ‘You know what, I disagree with your faith, I don’t want to provide flowers,’” Cruz said.
“I would say they should provide the flowers,” said Page, who earlier charged Cruz’s argument was the same used to justify segregation.
“And I would say the gay florist has every right to say, if I disagree with your faith and don’t want to participate…you know what? There are lots of other people to buy flowers from,” Cruz said. “…We are a country that respects pluralism and diversity and there is this liberal intolerance that says that anyone that dares follow a Biblical teaching of marriage, that is the union of one man and one woman must be persecuted, must be fined and must be driven out of business.” . . .
The senator went on to say that the much bigger challenge for gay people comes from the Middle East, where they are deeply persecuted by the Iranian government as well as the leadership of ISIS.
“On the left you hear complete silence” — “That’s not true!” Page interjected — “about Iran hanging homosexuals, and yet the Obama administration is sending over $100 billion to a regime that murders homosexuals,” Cruz continued. . . . .
“Why does the Obama administration not stand against this?” Cruz said.
“I don’t know, I’d love to talk to Obama about it,” Page replied
“Then we’re agreed!” Cruz shot back,
“No, no we’re not, don’t do that,” the actress said.
“We’re agreed! Ma’am, we’ve had a long discussion,” Cruz said.
“Yeah, I appreciate it, yeah,” she said sarcastically, and walked away.

Unsurprisingly, the liberal media tried to spin this attempted ambush as a courageous triumph for the celebrity lesbian, but Ian Tuttle at National Review isn’t buying the spin:

Alternative headline: “Actress from That One Movie about Roller Derby Confronts Princeton Debate Champ — Goes about as You Might Expect.”

Beyond highlighting Cruz’s expert-level debate skills, the exchange exposed Page’s “rejection of conscience protections altogether, and her endorsement of radical government intervention in all such matters,” as Tuttle says. Her arguments are based in the Equality Über Alles mentality that characterizes not only the militant gay movement, but also the radical feminist movement and the Left in general. Grant them what they demand today, and the radicals will return tomorrow with new demands, because “equality” can never be achieved, not even under the absolute tyranny of a totalitarian dictatorship. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek explained that “social justice” is a mirage — it seems to appear up ahead in the distance, but vanishes as soon as you approach it. There will always be someone claiming to be a victim of unfairness, so that to make “equality” (or “social justice” or, more vaguely, “progress”) your goal is to declare war on society itself, to inaugurate what Trotsky called “permanent revolution.”

No such thing as “equality” has ever existed in the history of human civilization, nor will any measure endorsed by the Left bring about “equality” in the future. The insistent demand for “equality” is nothing more than a pretext for political aggression that the Left uses to gain power by pandering to those who hope to gain some advantage from the enactment of radical egalitarian policies.

Despite her celebrity status, Ellen Page ultimately cannot escape the inevitable consequences of inequality, not even in gay-friendly Hollywood. Her high-profile “coming out” in 2014 has damaged her career prospects as an actress because, despite what anyone may imagine, the market demand for gay celebrities is much smaller than the available supply. Denounce the movie-going public as a bunch of bigoted haters, if you like, but the heterosexual majority (97.7% of Americans, according to federal research) expect their entertainment to be entertaining, and tiresome propaganda about The People’s Glorious Democratic Struggle for Gender Equality is not entertaining.

In reporting Ellen Page’s Iowa encounter with Ted Cruz, Politico noted, “Page attended as part of her new show with Vice, called ‘Gaycation,’ where she travels around the world and explores local attitudes about LGBT culture in each place.” What the heck? In August 2014, A&E Networks paid $250 million for a 20% share in Vice Media, rebranding A&E’s lame H2 channel as Vice TV, with Page’s gay travel show as one of the Genius Programming Ideas to justify this investment. Is this just more Hollywood politically correctness run amok? Not necessarily.

In a nation of more than 320 million people, of whom 240 million are 18 and older, if 2.3% of the adult population are LGBT, that’s a potential audience of nearly 6 million gay people in the U.S. alone. If you consider also Canada, Great Britain, Australia and other English-speaking countries in a worldwide digital media marketplace — where everything is online, just a click and a download away — you could easily envision a much larger LGBT audience, not to mention the even larger audience speaking other languages, watching with closed-caption translations.

The Global Gay-o-Sphere, as we might think of it, could be a valuable niche, and there are plenty of perverts in show business who would love nothing more than to get rich celebrating their own favorite fetishes. However, the mass market will always be heterosexual, and there is a limit to how much Happy Hollywood Homo programming the market will bear. Whether or not the LGBT Lobby has already “jumped the shark” Fonzie-style remains to be seen, but at some point people will get tired of seeing Gay! Gay! Gay! everywhere, and a backlash will become evident.

And what’s up with that Donald Trump thing, anyway?

Ellen Page’s militant protest act — “Hey, let’s attack this ignorant Republican bigot in Iowa!” — may please whatever number gay people watch her Vice TV show, but what about the many millions of Americans she implicitly insults? Make no mistake: Ellen Page hates Christians and despises heterosexuality, per se, with the same kind of vindictive sour-grapes resentment of normal people that inspired radical feminists like Charlotte Bunch, Adrienne Rich, Marilyn Frye and Sheila Jeffreys.

“The radical feminist argument is that men have forced women into heterosexuality in order to exploit them, and that lesbians, in rejecting male definitions of sexuality, are undermining the patriarchy. . . .
“Lesbianism is . . . fundamentally a challenge to patriarchal definitions of women.”
— Celia Kitzinger, The Social Construction of Lesbianism(1987)

“Feminist theorists . . . would probably all agree that the pressuring of women into heterosexuality serves the purposes of male supremacy. . . .
“Both heterosexuality as a political system and sexual violence as social control depend upon the construction of heterosexual desire. . . . A feminist analysis would suggest that the reconstruction of sexuality is necessary to undermine the sexual system of male supremacy.”
— Sheila Jeffreys, The Lesbian Heresy: A Feminist Perspective on the Lesbian Sexual Revolution (1993)

“Lesbianism was seen as central to feminism, both as a challenge to male supremacy . . . and as a redefining of the category of women, for women, and by women and outside the male hegemony. . . .
“The feminist point is that sex is central to women’s oppression. . . . Lesbianism within the feminist context was meant as a challenge to the exclusiveness and ‘naturalness’ of heterosexual desire as the only form of intimacy women are allowed.”
— Denise Thompson, Radical Feminism Today (2001)

“In the early 1970s both gay and feminist movements concurred in critiques of patriarchal, heterosexual institutions, such as the family, and there was a sense of common cause. . . . [A]ddressing the patriarchal structures that shaped family life, revealing women’s discontents with heterosexual relationships . . . feminists laid the foundation for a thoroughgoing critique of heterosexuality . . .”
— Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott, Theorizing Sexuality (2010)

Feminists have been trying to destroy the traditional family and eradicate Christian morality for more than 40 years. It is certainly no coincidence that in July 2013, more than six months before she announced her lesbianism, Ellen Page declared her allegiance to radical feminism in an interview with the Guardian:

“I don’t know why people are so reluctant to say they’re feminists. Maybe some women just don’t care. But how could it be any more obvious that we still live in a patriarchal world when feminism is a bad word? . . . Feminism always gets associated with being a radical movement — good. It should be. A lot of what the radical feminists [in the 1970s] were saying, I don’t disagree with it.”

Not content with her career as a Celebrity Lesbian, the radical feminist Ellen Page uses her influence to attack traditional morality and to ridicule Republicans like Ted Cruz for daring to argue that Christians have a right to live according to their religious beliefs.

Maybe the executives at A&E can justify their $250 million investment in this kind of hateful “entertainment” for the LGBT market, but nobody should be surprised if the dividends on that dubious investment in radicalism include an angry backlash from normal people who don’t enjoy being lectured about their alleged “homophobia.”

“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”
— U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker,
Aug. 5, 2010, San Francisco v. Schwarzenegger

“Believe me, sir, those who attempt to level never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground.”
— Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

Do we want “equality” or do we want liberty? This is really the question, and Americans should not be compelled to apologize for our love of liberty. From the Reign of Terror in France to the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia, we have repeatedly seen atrocities radicals have justified in the name of “equality,” and the feminist movement has been forever stained with innocent blood by its advocacy of the abortion holocaust. Why is it that extraordinarily privileged people like Ellen Page believe the rest of us are ignorant bigots in need of their lectures? Do they suppose that we know nothing of history? Do they believe we are incapable of rational judgment? Do they imagine that we cannot justify our opposition to their radical agenda?

Or do they think that we simply lack courage to fight for truth?





 

War on Human Nature: The Celebrity Fantasy Dress-Up With ‘Caitlyn’ Game

Posted on Comments

We now live in a world in which we are required to believe lies, where telling the truth is condemned as “hate,” and where strangers feel qualified to diagnose you as suffering from an irrational “phobia” if you refuse to cooperate with their political agenda. As I remarked a couple of months ago, “Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of ‘normal’ as an achievement.”

Of course, one of the strange things I encountered when I started the research that became the “Sex Trouble” research project is that radical lesbian feminists were being labeled as “transphobic” because they refused to play along with dishonest “gender” games. Today, I woke up and turned on Fox News and was disturbed to see “Fox and Friends” playing along with Bruce Jenner’s ridiculous farce, and why? Because yesterday, when Neal Cavuto snarked at the new Vanity Fair “cover girl,” the Left went into attack mode and, we may presume, Rupert Murdoch’s executives issued a memo commanding everyone on the network to join in the “Caitlyn” charade. The Culture of Lies has become so powerful that we must forfeit respectability if we dare speak truth to perverse power.

Let’s flashback to what I wrote in January 2014:

By the time a feminist reaches the radical point at which normal sexual intercourse is regarded as inherently oppressive, she has already marched a good distance down the Crazyville Road. Sane, normal people become the Enemy and, in order to maintain her delusions, the feminist seeks out the company of her fellow radicals, who share and confirm these extreme beliefs. The maladjusted thereby exile themselves to a sort of voluntary asylum, where they only encounter lunatics like themselves.
So, RadFem 2013 was a conference in London, which resulted in a gigantic controversy because radical feminists insisted on excluding the “transgendered” from their female-only event, and one of the featured speakers, Australian lesbian feminist Professor Sheila Jeffreys, was about to publish a new book, Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism, that was deeply offensive to the “T” people represented in the LGBT acronym.
How crazy did that conflict become? At one point in April, the venue tried to cancel the event after discovering that “certain language was used and some statements were made about transgender people that would go against our equalities and diversity policy.”

This is what you find as you travel down the Crazyville Road: “Diversity” forbids radical feminists to have a women-only conference, because “equality” means that men have a right to be women, too.

Not only are the lunatics running the asylum, but now sane people are diagnosed as crazy for not participating in delusions.

Feminism is now undergoing a sort of nuclear meltdown because the liberal (“pro-sex”) feminists have encouraged men to accept the idea that promiscuity, pornography and prostitution are “empowering” to women. Buying into that liberal lie has a way of transforming men into depraved monsters who crave wicked and perverse thrills. Women who are brutalized by such beastly men — and girls coming of age, horrified by the prospect of being required to conform to the pornified “ideal” of womanhood in this twisted liberal culture — experience psychological trauma. As sex becomes increasingly dehumanized, the minds of both men and women are warped. Human dignity is abandoned. Reason gives way to savage ferocity. Selfishness is celebrated as wisdom and mercy is condemned as weakness. People abandon the ancient faith, and embrace radical ideology with the fanatical certainty of religious zeal.

“In order for men to have a justification for exploiting women and an ability to enforce that exploitation, heterosexuality has to become, not merely an act in relation to impregnation, but the dominant ideology. . . .
“Heterosexual hegemony insures that people think it natural that male and female form a life-long sexual/reproductive unit with the female belonging to the male. . . .
“Male supremacy is what is attacked in lesbian ideology. What we are doing in revolutionary struggle is to make our consciousnesses different. When enough people’s consciousnesses are different, then we make a revolution.”
— Margaret Small, “Lesbians and the Class Position of Women,” in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Bunch and Nancy Myron (1975)

“The view that heterosexuality is a key site of male power is widely accepted within feminism. Within most feminist accounts, heterosexuality is seen not as an individual preference, something we are born like or gradually develop into, but as a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination, in particular through the way it channels women into marriage and motherhood.”
— Diane Richardson, “Theorizing Heterosexuality,” in Rethinking Sexuality (2000)

“Western culture is founded upon . . . the idea that there is an essential difference between men and women. . . .
“The idea of biological sexual difference stands as the major obstacle to the recognition that men and women actually stand in relation to one another in positions of dominance and subordination. . . .
“The category of sex into which humans are placed is the basis of compulsory heterosexuality . . .”
— Sheila Jeffreys, Beauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West (2015)

The devil knows his time is short, you see.

Bob Belvedere at The Camp of the Saints had a very interesting post about the way revolutions impact mental health. The madness now erupting from our culture like a volcano of insanity is a result of the Obama Revolution: ISIS is the Hope and “Caitlyn” Jenner is the Change.




Are we Doomed Beyond All Hope of Redemption? Almost certainly so. People need to be praying. Only a miracle can save us now.





 

In Which @BrittMcHenry Destroys Her Career ‘In the News, Sweetheart’

Posted on Comments

A bad case of “Don’t You Know Who I Am?” Syndrome:

ESPN reporter Britt McHenry has been suspended for a week after video surfaced of her berating a parking lot attendant and telling the attendant to “lose some weight, baby girl,” The New York Post reported Thursday.
Washington-based McHenry was angry about having her car towed on April 6, The Post reports, and began dressing down the attendant despite being told the incident was being captured on security camera.
“I’m in the news, sweetheart, I will (expletive) sue this place,” McHenry said in the video published online by LiveLeak.
“Yep, that’s all you care about, is just taking people’s money,” McHenry said. “With no education, no skillset, just wanted to clarify that. … Do you feel good about your job? So I could be a college dropout and do the same thing? Why, cause I have a brain and you don’t?”
As she walks out of the lot, she tells the attendant to “lose some weight, baby girl.”

More at Fox News and the New York Post.

She posted an online apology, which probably won’t be enough to retrieve her from permanent infamy. Does she really believe that her career at ESPN is because “I have a brain and you don’t?”

She’s from the New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia and attended Stetson University (annual tuition $40,040). She graduated with high honors and attended Northwestern University grad school. So, yes, she’s obviously smart, but does she think the parking lot attendant had those advantages and opportunities? Does Britt McHenry think her looks had nothing at all to do with her getting hired at ESPN?

Look, I’m not an egalitarian. Quite the opposite. To quote John Randolph of Roanoke, “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality.” Yet the true aristocrat does not behave the way Britt McHenry behaved. Certainly, no lady acts the way she acted. Anyone can lose their temper and say regrettable things — certainly I have — but no true aristocrat would treat working people that way. No true aristocrat would flaunt their privilege by attempting to personally humiliate someone for doing their job.

Raised with the values of the Poor But Proud yeomanry, I have a dim view of the Elite University set, the beneficiaries of fortune who assume they are naturally superior to any Ordinary American. And the very worst such creatures are the Daddy’s Precious Darling types, the snooty rich girls who consider their mere existence to be an achievement. If you’ve ever encountered Daddy’s Precious Darling, you know what I’m talking about. Two of my favorite songs — “Like a Rolling Stone” by Bob Dylan and “Rich Girl” by Hall and Oates — are about this type of female. In the Dylan song, he describes an upper-class girl who has fallen on hard times:

Once upon a time you dressed so fine,
You threw the bums a dime in your prime, didn’t you?
People’d call, say, “Beware doll, you’re bound to fall.”
You thought they were all kiddin’ you.
You used to laugh about
Everybody that was hangin’ out.
Now you don’t talk so loud.
Now you don’t seem so proud,
About having to be scrounging for your next meal.

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, and the children of fortune ought to exhibit gracious humility as a becoming expression of gratitude for God’s blessings. Yet so often, they’re the “Rich Girl”:

High and dry, out of the rain.
It’s so easy to hurt others when you can’t feel pain.

This was exactly Britt McHenry’s attitude toward that parking lot attendant. Young, privileged and pretty, an up-and-coming media personality, mocking an obscure working woman as having “no education, no skillset” and boasting “I’m in the news, sweetheart.”

Surely by now some feminist has interpreted the online rage against Britt McHenry as “misogyny,” but that misses the obvious point: Everybody knows her type, and everybody hates her type. A good-looking girl gets all the breaks, especially if she’s a rich good-looking girl, and our universal contempt for the spoiled-rotten Suburban Princess isn’t because we’re sexists, but because everybody who’s ever had to deal with one of those high-maintenance brats knows what vicious, selfish sadists they can be.

The kind of hideous cruelty displayed by Britt McHenry is an unfortunately common consequence of Special Snowflake™ Syndrome. We may contrast Britt McHenry to Justine Sacco of #HasJustineLandedYet infamy. Nobody had ever heard of Justine Sacco. She wasn’t a TV star, but BOOM:

“I cried out my body weight in the first 24 hours,” she told me. “It was incredibly traumatic. You don’t sleep. You wake up in the middle of the night forgetting where you are.”

That’s where Britt McHenry is now. We have to wonder if public disgrace will teach her a lesson, or if other Rich Girls will study that lesson.

 

ISIS in the Ivy League?

Posted on Comments

When last we checked in on Cornell University, they were being sued for expelling a senior chemistry major whose female friend complained that she was too drunk to consent to their sleepover hookup. Punishing drunk college kids for doing what drunk college kids do may seem rather extreme, but nothing is too extreme for some elite university officials:

A video sting operation shows Cornell’s assistant dean for students, Joseph Scaffido, agreeing to everything suggested by an undercover muckraker posing as a Moroccan student.
Scaffido casually endorses inviting an ISIS “freedom fighter” to conduct a “training camp” for students at the upstate Ithaca campus — bizarrely likening the activity to a sports camp.
Is it OK to bring a humanitarian pro-“Islamic State Iraq and Syria” group on campus, the undercover for conservative activist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas asks.
Sure, Scaffido says in the recorded March 16 meeting.
Scaffido doesn’t even blink an eye when the undercover asks about providing material support for terrorists — “care packages, whether it be food, water, electronics.”
How about supporting Hamas?
No problem at all, Scaffido said. . . .

Read the whole thing. It’s amazing how political correctness operates, so that a violent Islamic “freedom fighter” is welcome at Cornell University, but a chemistry major’s penis is not.

(Via Memeorandum.)

 

Patricia Jannuzzi Is Right

Posted on Comments

“We need healthy families with a mother and a father for the sake of the children and humanity,” wrote Patricia Januzzi, in a Facebook post in which she warned that same-sex marriage is part of an “agenda” that aims toward the “slow extinction” of Western civilization.

Ms. Januzzi is a teacher at Immaculata High School, a private Catholic school in New Jersey. While I am not Catholic, I am sufficiently acquainted with their doctrines on marriage and the family to conclude that Ms. Januzzi said nothing in her rant with which the Pope would disagree. And having spent the past several months researching radical feminism, I can say with absolute certainty that the “agenda” is exactly what Ms. Januzzi says it is. But the 21st-Century Thought Police can’t let the truth be spoken:

SOMERVILLE, N.J. — An anti-gay rant by a religion teacher at a Catholic high school in New Jersey is drawing the ire of alumni across the country, including a former Real Housewives of New Jersey cast member and New-Jersey-raised Susan Sarandon.
On her now-deleted Facebook profile earlier this week, the veteran private Catholic school teacher said gays or gay activists “want to reengineer western civ (sic) into a slow extinction” as part of their “agenda.”
“We need healthy families with a mother and a father for the sake of the children and humanity!!!!!” wrote Immaculata High School teacher Patricia Jannuzzi, adding that the argument that gays are protected under the 14th Amendment is “bologna.” . . .

Let me interrupt here to quote more of Ms. Januzzi’s post. She was reacting emotionally to a story (“Crass: Gay Activist Tweets THIS To Ben Carson Following CNN Interview”) that she linked on her Facebook page, and her point was not very clearly made. She said gay activists, after using the “born that way” argument to gain status under the 14th Amendment “equal protection” clause, will then “argue everyone should be able to choose” homosexuality. Anyone familiar with feminist theory knows that radical lesbians have never accepted the “born that way” argument, instead advocating lesbianism as a “challenge to male supremacy and its basic institution of heterosexuality,” to quote Professor Sheila Jeffreys. This feminist perspective was celebrated in a 1973 song by Alix Dobkin, “Every Woman Can Be a Lesbian.”

The radical “choice” view of sexuality advocated by lesbian feminists is seldom heard from gay males, who usually describe their homosexual desires as an uncontrollable urge. However, one finds across the spectrum of the LGBT rainbow a unanimous consensus on what we might call the Compulsory Approval Doctrine:

No one can ever be permitted to express a personal aversion or moral objection to homosexual behavior.

Disapproval is synonymous with “hate,” according to gay activists, and the cultural consequence of the Compulsory Approval Doctrine is to stigmatize heterosexuality as an expression of prejudice. Many gay people have convinced themselves that the “straight” person’s rejection of homosexual behavior is implicit proof of homophobia — an irrational fear — so that all heterosexuals are basically viewed as ignorant bigots afflicted with neurotic sexual repression. And if you dare cite religious injunctions against homosexuality, you thereby prove that you are certainly a hater. Quod erat demonstrandum.

The Compulsory Approval Doctrine of the gay-rights movement is exemplified by the thug mob reaction to Mrs. Januzzi:

The school has since forced Jannuzzi to take down her Facebook page, which was no longer visible Wednesday evening, but not before others took screenshots of the rant and shared it on social media.
Immaculata principal Jean Kline on Wednesday distanced her school from Jannuzzi’s comments and said that “through an investigation, we have determined that the information posted on this social media page has not been reflected in the curriculum content of the classes she teaches.”
In her statement, Kline said the school “takes this situation very seriously.”
“We are dedicated to creating a school environment that promotes mutual respect and provides a challenging academic program, rooted in the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.”
It remains to be seen whether the school’s response will allay reaction by alumni, some of whom remember losing a gay classmate to suicide.
Former Real Housewives cast member Greg Bennett, who graduated from Immaculata in 2004 and who had Jannuzzi as a teacher his senior year, shared the screenshot of Jannuzzi’s post on his Twitter account, asking his 165,000 followers to sign a petition addressed to school administrators calling “for action to be taken and hate speech to stop at Immaculata.” . . .
Earlier on Wednesday, Sarandon, who graduated from Edison High School, shared a letter written by her nephew, Scott Lyons, to Jannuzzi, his former teacher at the high school.
“You have a responsibility as a teacher to lead by example and the words that you have been throwing out there are detrimental to the well being and health of the youth that you inspire,” Lyons, who has an adopted son with his husband, writes. “I am certain that the pope himself would take issue with your extreme point of view on homosexuality.” . . .
“I left this school after being told in religion class I must live a celibate single life if I had gay ‘feelings,’ ” writes Doug Bednarczyk of Marlton, N.J. “Around the same time, a gay classmate committed suicide.”
Lucas Bernardo, of Philadelphia, says he was 16 when he took a class taught by Jannuzzi.
“I didn’t feel comfortable in her class with the negative messages about gay and lesbian people she was preaching to us,” he writes. “I remember arguing with her about such topics and being in total disbelief that such blatant hate could be taught in a religion class.”

Read the whole thing. The Thought Police never bothered to disprove what Ms. Januzzi wrote. They offered no evidence to contradict her claims. Instead, they denounced her for engaging in “hate speech,” having an “extreme point of view,” teaching “blatant hate” and, they insinuated, Ms. Januzzi is responsible for teenagers committing suicide.

Look: I’m old enough to remember when a boy could be suspended from public school if his hair was long enough to touch his shirt collar in back. I remember when a girl could get kicked off the cheerleading squad if she engaged in PDA (public display of affection) by holding hands with her boyfriend. There was a time — and not really that long ago, either — when young people could not demand approval from their elders, and in fact teenagers were constantly subjected to lectures of adult disapproval for their adolescent wildness. Yet we did not commit suicide, nor did we organize petitions to get our teachers fired because they disapproved of us, inter alia, smoking dope and listening to Led Zeppelin.

Our parents and teachers told us we were hellbound heathens and, once we grew up and looked back on our misspent youth, most of us agreed they were right. God forbid any of my kids should ever go wild like I went wild in the ’70s. America was still a free country back then, and adults weren’t expected to tiptoe around lest they bruise the fragile self-esteem of a Special Snowflake. Back then, totalitarianism was a threat posed by the Soviet Union. Now the totalitarians are here among us, organizing to suppress dissent, punishing expression of opinions contrary to those of the progressive elite. It is not yet illegal to speak truth, however, and I will exercise my First Amendment right to say this: Damn the Thought Police. Damn them all to hell.

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786

“If you only stand up for speech you approve of, you’re a hack. If you only stand up for speech that everyone approves of, you’re a coward.”
— Glenn Reynolds, 2015

The “slow extinction” of Western civilization is beginning to accelerate. If a Catholic teacher at a Catholic school is not free to express Catholic teaching, who among us is truly free?

The Thought Police are everywhere now, monitoring our opinions, so we can only think what Our Moral Superiors™ want us to think.

(Hat-tip: Donald Douglas on Twitter.)





 

Called ‘Fat Cow,’ @LenaDunham Has ‘Hired Her Own Personal Tweeter’

Posted on Comments

Her parents are rich and they sent her to Oberlin College (annual tuition $48,682). Through her family’s wealth and influential connections, she scored a deal for an HBO series that is supposed to be a “comedy” but isn’t remotely funny. Almost nobody watches Girls, but it is effusively praised by critics because it’s supposed to express the hip young feminist zeitgeist or something. She wrote a book in which she described molesting her baby sister and also lied about being raped at college, deliberately libeling a Republican student activist named Barry.

Gosh, I wonder why everybody hates Lena Dunham?

Lena Dunham has said that abuse and threats from Twitter trolls left her feeling a “mess” — and she has now hired her own personal tweeter.
The Girls creator admitted that she finds it difficult to deal with the level of abuse that she receives online, despite her reputation for not caring what other people think. . . .
“[You’re] like, ‘oh my god, that’s so funny, somebody called me a fat cow who deserves to be dragged through the street,’ but it does affect you internally,” Dunham said during a Q&A session at the annual PaleyFest in Los Angeles, Variety reported. . . .
The 28-year-old, who spoke alongside her fellow cast members and the executive producers of the HBO series, has now hired a woman to take care of her Twitter account. Dunham said she composes her own tweets but doesn’t log onto the social media site herself, although she is kept abreast if there’s an “important response”.

Lena Dunham is a selfish brat who has been protected all her life from the consequences of her own irresponsibility. Never once in her life has she done anything decent or generous, and instead has made a career of corrupting our culture. She has earned a reputation for dishonest cruelty. Like all such monsters, she cannot stand it when people tell the truth about her. And now she seeks pity as a victim?

She is mean and she does suck. But don’t tell her that on Twitter. You could never hate her as much as she deserves to be hated.

(Hat-tip: Krakatoa in the AOSHQ sidebar headlines.)