Some Thoughts on #FreeStacy, Twitter, SJW’s, Censorship. and All Around Evil

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

too much to think

I wanted to briefly interrupt my blogging retirement to discuss #FreeStacy, Twitter, and censorship.

Imagine that you go to a restaurant, and the following happens…

  • The chef intentionally under-cooks your food
  • The waiter intentionally doesn’t turn in your order
  • The server announces to all the other patrons that you are a racist
  • The pastry chef posts your address, pictures of your children, and your employers home address on the front door of the establishment
  • The dishwasher creates a fake social media account in your name and posts racist content to it
  • The busboy calls the police and states that you harassed him, even though you’ve never seen him before
  • The owner kicks you our before you get your meal for “abuse,” even though you’ve done nothing but speak about the news of the day.

Now, imagine that you not only pay your bill at this restaurant, but you also return every day for the next round!

Well, if you have a Twitter account, and are a Conservative and/or Christian, you might be experiencing this on an increasing basis. And for some inexplicable reason, you continue to go back.

When I was on Twitter, I followed Stacy McCain.   At no point in time did he target or harass others. However, while Stacy had the absolute nerve to call out people for lying, or stalking others. Or, he was a regular critic of feminism, quoting feminists and giving his take on their ideas. At the same time, SJW’s on Twitter were posting people’s addresses, encouraging others to harass them, and even posting pictures their target’s children. We’ve seen the use of scripts to encourage bans, attempts to target sexual abuse victims and their families, the filing of false claims of harassment, and swamping accounts with fake followers. None of the aforementioned SJW’s were banned for their actions, however, Stacy McCain was.

Now, rather than “boo-hoo” and state that it’s “so unfair,” I’ll say we should expect this. Given the SJW’s totalitarian impulse, and their attraction to evil, we should not be surprised when evil people do evil things. The fact is simple; liars lie, cheaters cheat, stalkers stalk, and then laugh at the misfortune of their victims. They are the “crybullies,” who stalk, harass, and otherwise try to destroy the lives of others. However, when they are confronted with their own words and actions, they quickly claim to be the victim and call down the powers that be upon their target. It is a fairly predictable and easily observed pattern. And, when the playing field is Twitter, should we be surprised when this happens? Of course not, all the parties are acting within their own nature.

The real question is; why do Conservative play their game-on their playground?

The recent changes at Twitter have made a bad situation even worse. It was bad when I was on the platform, and even worse since. Since the formation of their “Ministry of Truth,” Conservatives have been banned, had their blue checkmarks removed, and “shadowbanned.” Their sin? Not being SJWs. Or, even worse, telling the truth about SJW’s.

So then, what is the freedom loving, truth telling segment of the population to do?

Before I answer that, let’s take a look at Twitter’s business model. Twitter sells targeted ads that appear in user’s feed…

Twitter (TWTR) earns 85% or more of its revenue from advertising. In the second quarter of 2014, Twitter posted an advertising base of $277 million, which was more than double the amount of revenue the social media site brought in during the same time in 2013. Twitter uses promoted tweets, promoted accounts and promoted trends. Twitter sells promoted tweets to marketers, and these then appear in users’ Twitter feeds. The company creates tailored advertising opportunities by using an algorithm to make sure promoted tweets make it into the right users’ timelines. 

Twitter makes additional money through data licensing. From the first six months of 2012 to the first six months of 2013, Twitter’s data licensing revenue increased by 53% to $32.2 million. Twitter has named four companies “official data resellers,” and these companies have direct access to all tweets. Each company has developed algorithms for data mining that measure consumer response to everything from brands to movies.

Twitter also made a profit in the last quarter, albeit a small one…

Twitter executives and investors would probably like to forget 2015 on the whole, but things aren’t looking much better for the social media company heading into the new year.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Gone are the heady days of 2013, when the San Francisco-based company was signing up new users at a brisk pace and was, literally, the talk of the town. Twitter’s share price soared following its initial public offering to more than US$60 on the New York Stock Exchange on expectations that it would become the next Facebook – an online advertising juggernaut with upwards of a billion users.

Two years later, the company has instead stalled at about 300 million users, with anaemic growth punctuating 2015. Twitter added only four million users in its most recent quarter, which helps explain its share price spiral to about $22 to close out the year, well below its IPO debut of $44.90.

The company fired the chief executive, Dick Costolo, in June and replaced him with Jack Dorsey, its founding chief executive who had himself been axed from the job in 2008. Upon his return, in October, Mr Dorsey had the pleasure of overseeing more than 300 layoffs.

Yet Twitter hasn’t been in free fall. The company finally became profitable last year, posting net income of $7 million in its most recent quarter. Revenue garnered from advertisers has also been climbing steadily, to $569m in the third quarter, up 58 per cent compared with a year earlier.

But, it’s growth has stagnated.

When you look at the business model, Twitter’s primary income comes from ads. Looking at this a bit realistically, you see that being able to publish 140 characters for the privilege of being stalked by SJW’s (and later being banned for it) is not actually Twitter’s product. The users themselves are the product! Twitter sells access to its 300 million users to advertisers, who get to present their ads. Also, they allow data mining for all users and Tweets.  Your abuse is just a bonus-you are the product!

In other words, if you are “Tweeting while Conservative,” not only are you being potentially abused in an environment that clearly does not like or want your company, you are actually feeding it.

Twitter is a private company. As such, they can do as they please. However, this also means that no one is obligated to use Twitter. And, in fact, why would you want to contribute to a business that seeks to harm you?   Twitter is making it clear that truth is not wanted there. They don’t want to hear us. They don’t want us there. They already allow regressive users to target and stalk Conservatives, so why go there at all?

My suggestion is clear. Conservatives are not welcome on Twitter. If Twitter wants to be the SJW hugbox of hate, leave them to it. Stacy McCain cannot go back. Adam Baldwin has already left. Milo has been unverified for being too fabulous. Many others have been banned or are leaving. If you want to call their advertisers and state your dissatisfaction, go for it. But leaving Twitter, and then abandoning to the cold hands of the free market is the best move. If they fail, they fail. If they manage to continue, they can be the regressive zoo of the internet. Just like Stacy McCain critiques Tumblr Feminazis, the regressives of Twitter could be a display of child-like, censorious, totalitarian evil, much like a forensic psychiatric ward of the internet.

Or, consider the old Klingon proverb; “Only a fool fights in a burning house.”

By the way, I don’t have a Twitter account. So the only way this gets on Twitter is for someone else to put it there. And, I’m not keeping the comments open on this, as I don’t have time to moderate. I’ll be getting back to my retirement, and studies, so God bless, and stay away from Twitter.

Matt
And for some informative reading, here are some links…

The #FreeStacy Story: Why Was My @rsmccain Account Suspended?

#FreeStacy: ‘A Girl’s Name’

#FreeStacy: @rsmccain ‘Will Not Be Restored’; @SexTroubleBook Suspended

The Hateful Lies of Feminism

 

 

 

Share

Infuriate a Feminist by Using the Universal Hot/Crazy Matrix to Make Your Relationship Decisions

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

I don’t believe that we’ve ever done a post on dating advise here at the CH 2.0.  However, when I saw a post on the Universal Hot/Crazy Matrix, it confirmed that there is a time and place for everything.   So for your relationship edification, here is the Universal Hot/Crazy Matrix

And, if you have any feminist friends, please show Universal Hot/Crazy Matrix to them!  Preferably, show it to them from a safe distance, but be close enough to see the facial expressions.

 

Share

Kirsten Dunst Infuriates Feminists by Defending Traditional Marriage

Share

Once again, the forces of tolerance are skewering an individual for showing independent thought.  Kirsten Dunst stepped on a Cultural Marxist land mine when she stated that men and women had roles. 

Here’s what she said in an interview with Harper’s Bazaar in the UK:

“I feel like the feminine has been a little undervalued,” she says. “We all have to get our own jobs and make our own money, but staying at home, nurturing, being the mother, cooking – it’s a valuable thing my mum created. And sometimes, you need your knight in shining armour. I’m sorry. You need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman. That’s why relationships work…”

Of course, feminists are freaking out that Dunst suggested that women have an important role in the home as homemakers.  In an age where women who freely choose to be homemakers are demeaned by feminists for not being “strong and independent,” it’s refreshing to see someone in liberal, pro-feminist Hollywood embrace traditional gender roles and reject political correctness.

If you recall, I discussed what the feminists are really thinking just a short time ago…

One way to crush the family is to prevent women from staying home and being mothers.  Feminists recognized that early on, and made it a battle cry. 

Today’s young women are empowered to choose career, family, and all sorts of combinations of both. But the words of Steinem and other liberal feminists revealed what they believed about American women…

Steinem: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”

Simone de Beauvoir: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

Betty Friedan: “[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.”

Steinem has never been a fan of women who didn’t think like her or buy in to her radical feminist political agenda. “Having someone who looks like us but thinks like them (meaning men) is worse than having no one at all.”

So much for tolerance—and the belief that women are individuals who should be free to think and make choices for themselves.(emphasis added)

Kirsten Dunst has to be attacked-she ran counter to the narrative.  You see, feminism isn’t about women actually having a choice, it’s about forcing women to make the choice that the feminists want.  And, like all of the “forces of tolerance,” they have no tolerance for anyone who departs one iota from the plantation.

 

Share

Feminists and the Destruction of the Family: Cultural Marxism at Play

Share

culture war

Feminists have always tried, until recently, to portray their twisted world-view as a means by which for women to achieve equality with men.  Of course, that was a lie.  In reality feminism is a part of an larger overall strategy that we know as Cultural Marxism.  Seeking to create a Marxist revolution by destroying the underpinnings of Western Culture, Cultural Marxists seek, among other things, to destroy the family unit.  As we know all too well, children raised in broken families have every disadvantage thrown their way, and are very susceptible to the type of government plantation/dependency promoted by the regressives.  One way to crush the family is to prevent women from staying home and being mothers.  Feminists recognized that early on, and made it a battle cry. 

Today’s young women are empowered to choose career, family, and all sorts of combinations of both. But the words of Steinem and other liberal feminists revealed what they believed about American women…

Steinem: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”

Simone de Beauvoir: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

Betty Friedan: “[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.”

Steinem has never been a fan of women who didn’t think like her or buy in to her radical feminist political agenda. “Having someone who looks like us but thinks like them (meaning men) is worse than having no one at all.”

So much for tolerance—and the belief that women are individuals who should be free to think and make choices for themselves.(emphasis added)

To adherents of Cultural Marxism, like feminists, tolerance is nothing more than a term to be exploited.  They are the most intolerant of evils, and actively seek to force their will upon others.  Because, after all, you might not chose to go along with them.  In that event, force will be applied.  And, when they can wreck society doing it, and bring forth the Marxist nanny state, they win.

Share

My Take on Belle Knox; AKA Miriam Weeks

Share

Miriam Weeks, a Womyn’s Studies major a Duke, achieved notoriety by being outed as porn actress, Belle Knox. I’ve been following that story at The Other McCain, as Stacy has been adeptly skewering the hypocritical feminazi nonsense that has been spewed in her defense.  I have not written about it until now, as I had nothing to contribute to the story, other than to simply link Stacy, which I will do now.

Also, @Belle_Knox Is a Psycho

Is Everything Feminist ‘Empowerment’ Now? Or Is @Belle_Knox a Sociopath?

On ‘The View,’ @Belle_Knox Says ‘Most People’ Start Watching Porn at Age 12

Is Duke ‘Supportive’ of Teen Porn?

Those, at least, are the most recent.  Again, Stacy has done a fine job with this, and it’s well beyond my ability to  add to it, except to make two brief points:

Is this staged? 

Belle Knox makes money doing porn.  And, if her “stage name” becomes more and more well known, perhaps people will buy her porn?  Don’t get me wrong; this is a story worth telling.  It points to the accelerating decay of our culture.  I speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of the left, and feminists in particular.  At the same time, did Knox “out” herself, or did her and her “management” exploit the exposure for more profit?

Is this hypocrisy?

In reference to feminists; they’re always hypocritical, so that is not a surprise.  But, I have to ask, how is making “simulated rape-porn” “empowering?”  Does that not contribute to the “OMG RAPE CULTURE” that the feminists are always ranting about?  And how can feminists; many of whom think that the mere existence of the penis means “OMG RAAAAAPE,” support a fellow femiazi loving “blowjob porn?” Isn’t a woman, on her knees, and “servicing” an, “evil man” the ultimate symbol of submission to the ever-evil penis?  I know, it’s an exercise of futility to ask them to be internally consistent.

Share

Great Moments in Civil Discourse: Republican Candidate, Marilinda Garcia, Targeted by Hate

Share

civility

In the Liberal Zone, as I like to put it, things are not always what they seem.  See, in that “unreality bubble,” speaking ill of a woman is awful, hateful, evil, and just plain bad.  However, if the woman is a Conservative, it suddenly becomes OK, fine, and good to engage in whatever “hate speech” you prefer at the moment.  It’s fine, go ahead, the feminists won’t say anything, just ask Marilinda Garcia, she got the, “liberal treatment” from her possible democrat opponent, Peter Sullivan

Shortly after Garcia announced her candidacy on Nov. 25, Sullivan posted on Twitter, referencing conservative state Reps. Al Baldasaro of Londonderry and William O’Brien of Mont Vernon, the former New Hampshire House speaker:

“She’s Al Baldassaro (sic) in stiletto heels, a lightweight and O’Brien clone.”

“Bill O’Brien + Kim Kardashian = Marilinda Garcia”

“She is a right-wing, homophobic, anti-worker shill for the Koch Brothers.”

He later wrote, “After careful consideration, I want to apologize to Kim Kardashian for comparing her to a right-wing extremist like Marilinda Garcia.”

The posts began a partisan war of words for a brief time on Twitter, and Garcia said in a statement, “To me, the most unfortunate byproducts of such personal attacks, negativity and vitriol are that they discourage good people from getting involved in politics, cause citizens to be disgusted at the political process, and tarnish the reputations of all elected officials just by virtue of association.”

And the real fly in the ointment is this…

So, here is an intelligent and attractive female candidate, who is being abused by her male opponent.  And the response from the Tammies?  Well, they’re likely too busy, being on their knees in front of the democrat party hierarchy, to notice.

Share

Do All Muslims Agree With Stoning Women for Adultery, or Executing Homosexuals?

Share

who insult islam

Is the idea that stoning women for adultery, and hanging homosexuals of being, well, homosexuals, radical Islam, or is it mainstream?  This video claims to make the point that Muslims like stoning women and hanging homosexuals  just as much as American feminists support killing babies.  Take a look for yourself…

You make the call, if the video is legit, the feminists need to start protesting at Mosques.

Yeah, like that’s going to happen.

H/T: John Hawkins at Right Wing News

Share

Feminists in an Uproar Over Advise to Avoid Being Inebriated?

Share

feministtammy

Feminism has an orthodoxy, and if you had to sum it up in one sentence…

Anything wrong in the world is the fault of people in possession of a penis. 

What feminism probably misses is the simple observation that since the “sexual revolution,” women, instead of being protected from evil penises, have ended up having encounters with many more of them.  And, sadly, many of those encounters are less than voluntary.  After all, if you “liberate” sex from it’s prior status (as a means to propagate the species in the context of monogamous marriage), you have to loosen moral standards.  And, if you do that, you loosen the moral codes about forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do.   But, they’ll ignore that because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

Frankly, a lot of things don’t their narrative, and since their ideology is rather narrow, when facts or events don’t fit, they try to pound it into place.  However, they look really stupid in the process.  We saw that when they opposed gender selection abortion, because their “rights as women” to kill babies mean that they have to specifically target female babies for extermination.  Because to “protect the rights” of women, you have to target and kill them…get it?

Now, for the latest on this narrow and frankly asinine world view, it seems that advising women to not go out and get drunk to the point of incapacitation is apparently bad, very, very, bad. 

Back in August, when I covered “SlutWalk DC,” I observed:

Date rape is an apparently common campus crime that usually involves two drunk young people, one of whom has an erect penis, and the other of whom is unable to avert what the erect penis typically does.

Of course, feminists would denounce such a statement of fact as a misogynistic expression of “rape culture,” but facts are facts: Alcohol is a significant contributing factor in the incidence of date rape. Leslie Eastman at College Insurrection remarks, “Never let it be said that outraged campus feminists confuse themselves with common sense,” as she highlights a Washington Post column about a recent uproar:

The message of Emily Yoffe’s Slate article about binge drinking and sexual assault on college campuses was as important as it was obvious: The best step that young women can take to protect themselves is to stop drinking to excess.
Young women everywhere — not to mention their mothers — ought to be thanking Yoffe. Instead, she’s being pilloried.
A “rape denialism manifesto” full of “plain old victim-blaming,” Lori Adelman wrote on the feminist blog Feministing.com. Erin Gloria Ryan, on Jezebel.com, accused Yoffe of “admonishing women for not doing enough to stop their own rapes.”

Larry Jackson, at Political Realities also has some observations…

There is a real and present danger that is inherent anytime someone drinks alcohol, especially when it is done to such excess, as we see when binge drinking is involved. Emily Yoffe has been severely criticized as someone who is waging a war on women, all because she is trying to point out how many sexual assaults could be prevented. She isn’t saying the victims of sexual assault are to blame for their plight, but does try to explain how they can stop some of these sexual assaults from taking place.

Doesn’t it make more sense to be able to prevent rape and sexual assault, rather than have to catch the perpetrators after the fact? Telling them the facts and warning them of the danger does not constitute a war on women.All it will take is for the young women to realize the danger they are placing themselves in, when they fall into the crowd and start drinking themselves into oblivion.

Both Stacy and Larry point out things that should be blatantly obvious to anyone.  Drinking excessively doesn’t eliminate the ability to consent, but it does drastically reduce one’s ability to enforce that decision.  If you are unconscious, or unable to walk, let alone resist an overly amorous person with a penis, the more chances that the penis in question doing something that you do not want.  Does that excuse the person with a penis?  Of course not.  No means no.  The entire point is to avoid the situation entirely but maintaining control of one’s self.

In reality, this is all about risk-management.  If I tell a woman that a great way to avoid being attacked and raped in a parking lot late at night is to park as close to the store as possible, and under a light, is that some rape-apologist bit?  Of course not!  If I tell her to have her keys out when she leaves the store, so she doesn’t have to take time searching  for them when she arrives at her vehicle, is that facilitating the mythical “rape culture?”  Absolutely not!  If I tell her that not getting p*ss drunk is going to decrease her chances of having an non-consensual encounter with a penis, is that a an evil statement?  It is, if you’re a feminist.  But, then again, their ideology is as divorced from reality as any branch of regressiveism, so we ought not be surprised.

Share

Video Gives Instructions on Beating Wives: Feminists Silent

Share

feministtammy

Feminists love to make noise about equality, getting paid for $9 a month birth control, or making sure that baby killing continues unabated.  But when Muslims do nasty things to women, it seems to not even show up on their radar.  Here is a great example, as we see a Iman instructing men on the finer points on beating their wives…

And there is not a peep about this. But, I bet if this was a Christian pastor or priest that did this, there would be an outrage. I wonder why that is?

Share

War on Women: Muslim Girl Flogged for Being Serially Raped, Feminists Silent

Share

feministtammy

I guess the Tammies are out being fitted for their burqas?  Cry and Howl has this story, found right here on the CH 2.0 blogroll.  Apparently, a 15 year old teen from the Maldives has been sentenced to be flogged by a Sharia court.  Her crime?  Sex outside of marriage.  You see, she was repeatedly raped by her step father….

Atlas Shrugs

Sharia law: 15 year-old girl’s stepdad raped her for years, murdered her baby; Islamic court sentences her to flogging for  “sex outside marriage”

The unimaginable horror of Islamic law — a girl’s stepfather is accused of raping her for years and murdering the baby she bore. Now the court says she must be flogged for “sex outside of marriage.”

“Horror in paradise”  Avaaz.Org

To President Mohammed Waheed Hassan:

As concerned global citizens, we call on you to do more to protect  vulnerable women and children. We welcome your government’s initial  intervention in the case of the 15-year-old rape victim, but real  justice will only be delivered when you end the practice of flogging in  the Maldives, and change the law so that it better protects the victims  of rape and sexual abuse.

It’s hard to believe, but a 15-year-old rape survivor has been sentenced to be whipped 100 times in public! Let’s put an end to this lunacy by hitting the Maldives government where it hurts: the tourism industry.

The story does not indicate  if the step father was punished at all.

So, once again, a quick look at the Tammy website has no reporting of this issue.  Just nice left wing politics.  Of course, it’s Christians and political Conservatives that are waging a war on women.  Perhaps if those two entities would just embrace  Sharia law, and flog and kill women, the Tammies would leave them alone.  After all, they sure as hell have nothing to say about Islam.

Or, maybe its just that they’re spending all of their time on their knee in front of their Democrat masters?

Share

Colorado Democrat State Senator Committed to Disarming College Women: Rapists Rejoice, Feminists Silent

Share

feministtammy

It’s almost hilarious to see how the feminists remain in their typical kneeling position-right in front of the Democrat masters.  Once again, a Democrat has dismissed a woman’s story and testimony, that a gun might have prevented her rape. 

The latest is state Sen. Evie Hudak who, at a hearing on banning concealed carry on college campuses, told rape survivor Amanda Collins that having a gun would not have done her any good. Collins had just shared her story of survival. Democrat Hudak berated her in response.

I just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and was able to overcome you even with your skills, and chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get than from you and possibly use it against you …

Or she could have shot him, or cornered him and called 911 to get the police to come pick him up. A pistol can be a great equalizer in the face of a threat.

Here is the video…

Ironically, the Senator, while suggesting that the she should have been raped, gets the stats wrong, because there was research done on violent crime on college campuses…

campus rape stats 1

So, the Senator lied about the stats, and basically told this woman that she could not have prevented here rape.  And, the feminists are silent.

I’m sure that rapists are applauding this, and the feminists are helping by their silence.

And who is waging a war on women?  Who is making it easier to rape them?  I know the feminists have fallen to their knees for Democrats before, notably Bill Clinton, but to aid and abet rape?  Their silence speaks volumes.

Share

Obama Administration Abuses Female Reporter: Feminists Silent

Share

feministtammy

Ah, the feminists, ever kneeling in front of their Democrat masters.  They even stay in their submissive position when a woman is abused by the Obama administration.  Talk about compliant and knowing your place!  The NY Post, via Weasel Zippers, has more…

Via NY Post:

As coverage of last week’s flare-up between Bob Woodward and the White House devolved into the granular parsing of words and implications and extrapolations and possible intent, the larger point was roundly missed: the increasing pressure that White House correspondents feel when dealing with the Obama administration — to follow their narrative, to be properly deferential (!), to react to push-back by politely sitting down and shutting up. […]

Finally, this week, reporters are pushing back. Even Jonathan Alter — who frequently appears on the Obama-friendly MSNBC — came forward to say he, too, had been treated horribly by the administration for writing something they didn’t like.

“There is a kind of threatening tone that, from time to time — not all the time — comes out of these guys,” Alter said this week. During the 2008 campaign swing through Berlin, Alter said that future White House press secretary Robert Gibbs disinvited him from a dinner between Obama and the press corps over it.

“I was told ‘Don’t come,’ in a fairly abusive e-mail,” he said. “[It] made what Gene Sperling wrote [to Woodward] look like patty-cake.”

“I had a young reporter asking tough, important questions of an Obama Cabinet secretary,” says one DC veteran. “She was doing her job, and they were trying to bully herIn an e-mail, they called her the vilest names — bitch, c–t, a–hole.” He complained and was told the matter would be investigated: “They were hemming and hawing, saying, ‘We’ll look into it.’ Nothing happened.”

He wound up confronting the author of the e-mail directly. “I said, ‘From now on, every e-mail you send this reporter will be on the record, and you will be speaking on behalf of the president of the United States.’ That shut it down.”

I have to applaud the feminists for being silent.  After all, their affiliation to the Democratic party pre-empts any and all actual defence of women and their rights.  They are demonstrating an incredible level of commitment, as they stand by their man, or, in this case, on their knees in front of their man.

Share

Religious Guide to Stoning Women: Feminists Silent

Share

From Soopermexican, via Doug Ross, there is a new, handy-dandy guide for stoning that adulterous woman in your life.  Or, that non-adulterous woman that you want to be rid of, or that rape victim that doesn’t have enough male witnesses to prove that she was raped.  Here is the image…

Soopermexican has a poll where you can guess the religion that supports this tolerant and peaceful solution to adultery and rape.

In related news, the Obama administration has announce that they will be sending tanks, planes, and wads of cash to the makers of this peaceful means to resolve the problems of society

And, just so everyone knows, the Tammies are being very obedient to their democratic masters, and not even a whimper has been heard from the underneath of the bus. Either that, or they’re all out on a slut walk, or protesting at a Christian event, or something like that.

Share

Live Action Releases Second Video: Planned Parenthood Caught Again

Share

Planned Parenthood

As predicted, Live Action has released another video showing that Planned Parenthood workers were more than happy to do abortions based on gender…

It has been reported that a worker was fired in response to the first video.  Will they fire this one as well?  Or, will they fire the workers from the videos that have not yet been released?

And more with the irony, where are the Tammies?  After all, people are offering to kill females!  However, they can’t acknowledge gendercide without attacking their primary sacrament-abortion.  So, they are willing to overlook a war on women, to wage a war on women!

Share

Blog Focus: How Feminism Works

Share

The Other McCain has an incredible post, dissecting feminism, and exposing how the left that uses it for their own rather nasty purposes.

“The quintessential example of this is of course Ted Kennedy, whose career stands for the proposition that you can allegedly assault women and even leave a woman to die and be reelected for eternity so long as you vote the right way.
“That is to say, for all of the left’s bleeding-heart smugness about ‘good intentions,’ they’re remarkably bottom-line on this: So long as you support abortion and the rest of their packet on social issues, your actual intent when calling a woman a ‘mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick’ is irrelevant. It’s an irrebuttable presumption of feminism, a de facto ‘get out of misogyny free’ card.”
– Allahpundit, Hot Air, “Kirsten Powers on Rush and Sandra Fluke: Where’s the outrage at misogynistic liberal men?”

This goes toward confirming my repeated (and strangely controversial) analysis of feminism as a phenomenon deeply rooted in the radical-egalitarian worldview of the Left.

No matter how much historical fact I pile up in support of that analysis,Joy McCann will inevitably come back at me in a raging fury for having trod upon whatever sort of “mainstream feminism” she believes Christina Hoff Sommers has rescued from the leftist ash-heap. But the fact that the Left never stopped defending the contemptible Ted Kennedy — a man who was permitted to shamelessly abuse his inherited privilege simply because of his political posture as a defender of the downtrodden — and that Kennedy was especially a hero to feminists, would seem to demonstrate the validity of my analysis.

Feminism’s embrace of the vile Kennedy very much resembles the way the Left celebrates such monsters as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, et al., who have ruthlessly slaughtered innumerable innocents in pursuit of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That the Left’s heroes butcher (actual) peasants and workers as an alleged means of advancing the (theoretical)rights of peasants and workers is one of those contradictions that the Left can never explain to the satisfaction of any honest observer.

Get over to The Other McCain and read the rest.  It is most impressive.  The premise that the left commits near genocidal acts against the citizenry in the name of helping the citizenry is one of the greatest political paradoxes of all time.  They bring the axiom, “We’re from the government and we’re here to help,” to it’s truly horrific conclusion.  Government does not help- at best, it hinders, at it’s worst, it is a brutally efficient killing machine.  Considering that killing seems to be the only thing that government can do efficiently, should we be running gang-busters to expand it?

Share

Muslim Assaults Atheist in Pennsylvania: Intense Irony Ensues

Share

I usually don’t cover Islamic atrocities. or even malfeasance.  After all, there are other bloggers out there that do that a great deal, and far better than I ever could.  However, I saw a story today that twists reality into a delicious irony sandwich.

Here’s the set up:  During a Halloween Parade, Atheists dressed as parodies of religious figures.  One was a zombie Pope.  Another, who is the sad subject of this story, dressed as zombie Mohammed.  That prompted a quick and violent reaction from a local resident, who is a Muslim.  For the rest of the story, check this out, via Weasel Zippers…

Via Opposing Views:

The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death. Judge Martin’s comments included,

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”

This is ironic and instructive.   And when you can combine fun with learning, it’s a beautiful thing.  First off, if the attacker was a Christian, and the judge was also Christian, would he have gotten off free?  I don’t think so, because Christians believe in law and order, and generally eschew violence.  And, come to think of it, it might have been at least a blurb on the national news, as it makes Chrsitians look bad.  However, since the attacker is a Christian, there is going to be a lot of silence on this story.

Secondly, Atheists, Feminazis, homosexuals, Muslims, and a host of other groups attack Christianity on a regular basis.  They proudly and loudly do so, and are rather persistent at it.  However, those same groups seem to shy away from attacking Muslims.  Of course, the common answer is simple.  A Christian, when attacked, is instructed by scripture to turn the other cheek, and pray for their enemies.  Muslims, on the other hand, are instructed to kill everyone who opposes them.  And, the judge is correct, Mr. Perce would likely be killed for his prank in a Muslim country.   The answer then?  Christians are a soft target, they aren’t likely to fight back.  Islam is a rather violent religion, and their Koran demands the death of infidels.

Mr. Perce was assaulted by one Muslim.  What if there had been twenty?  What if there had been one hundred?  And, what if there were a Muslim judge to declare them all innocent for his eventual murder?  This is something that our Atheist friends might want to consider as more Muslims enter this country, and clearly don’t “get” the religious freedom, or the freedom of speech, that our Constitution protects.

In the end, I cannot take the atheists, feminazis, gays, and other critics of Christianity, at all seriously.  They claim that Christianity is oppressive, yet they mostly ignore that Muslims kill apostates or infidels, commit honor killings of female family members, and hang homosexuals. But, we don’t see them being protested.  We don’t see demonstrations outside of Mosques.  Nothing.  If they were serious about their issues, they would take on the people that would kill them, rather than the ones that would pray for them.  They are cowards and hypocrites, and are not worthy of the tiniest bit of credibility.

Share

Occupy Wall Street: A Microcosm of Their Desired “Alternative Society?”

Share

One of the major themes here at the Conservative Hideout deals with the state, and how much power it has.  The state, to put it mildly, is force.  It is not a scalpel, but a blunt instrument, and the more power one gives it, the more force it can apply.  Therefore, the state is the main enemy of human freedom.  Throughout history, from tribal chieftains to “dear leader” dictators, statists have reduced their subjects to slavery, and have found it convenient to kill hundreds of millions of them.  Those that recognize history, and how the state has abused it’s citizenry, sees many parallels to modern events, which should alarm everyone.

The most recent deadly manifestation of the state has been Communism.  These states control all aspects of human behavior, and economically, it tends to thwart human development, and, in  many cases, starves millions.  Because to enforce “equality,” the government must be invested with the power of life and death itself.  As a consequence, Communism killed nearly 100,000,000 human beings in the last century.  Sadly, even with that track record, OWS, and similar movements around the globe, are embracing Communism to save us all from the “evil corporations.”  I have covered that rather extensively, and the comparisons are shocking.

The latest comparison comes from a feminist blog post from November of this year.  We had covered the large number of sexual assaults that have occurred at Occupy sites, as well as the fact that the “leadership” at those camps have encouraged women to stay silent about them.  This has been discussed, even by members of that  movement.  One is a blogger, named Kate Harris, and the post I will be discussing is titled, De-Occupy Edinburgh.  Kindly consider the content, and my analysis will follow.

Occupy Edinburgh is sexist. Thankfully, unlike Occupy Glasgow, I haven’t heard about any rapes or sexual assaults, but it’s still sexist.

People have said that they feel physically intimidated; that they can’t express their views freely; that certain members of camp, specifically the ‘security team’ have a lot of power (which makes them feel uncomfortable); and even that women have been told that they are not allowed to talk about the rape at Occupy Glasgow.

Intimidation and censorship, if you recall, have been hallmarks of Communist states.  Most all of them had set up security forces that served to control, not to protect.  Intimidation and force are the primary means to maintain order, and more importantly, the power of the ruling elite.

We also know of  internal secrecy, which was meant to keep not only the general population in the dark, but outsiders as well.  If the state allowed their own people, or the rest of the world, know about their failures and weaknesses, the leadership might lose control of the population.

The kitchen team is, according to people on the Facebook group, ALL-WOMEN, or the vast majority women, and thus can’t contribute to the most important meetings because they’re at 6pm, when they’re ‘washing up’. The solution offered for this was not ‘men should do the washing up’ but ‘more people pitch in?’ I can’t express how angry this makes me. What century are we living in that women can’t attend meetings because they’re washing up?! And men who say feminist things are being told to ‘grow a pair’.

At one of the general assemblies in the last couple of days there was a 20:1 male to female ratio. There’s obviously reason for this. I know some women don’t feel like this, but I would venture that a lot of women, myself included, are getting shut down, isolated, told they’re ‘feminazis’ and/or don’t feel safe on camp.

There are two points that I would like to make for this; one is that statists use groups for their own advantage, and when those groups are no longer useful, they are discounted or discarded.  Feminists have been used to help destabilize western culture for decades now.  In the scenario that’s unfolding via OWS, there isn’t a lot of use for feminists, so they aren’t acknowledged.  This has happened with many groups over the ages.  They help to destabilize, or cause disorder, but once “the cause” moved past that, they were discarded.  In many cases, they were exiled, jailed, or even killed by the new order.

The other point that I’d like to make is that “social justice,” in actual practice, is not very social, and completely lacks justice.  Over the years, I have had the pleasure of meeting quite a few exceptional people. Among them is Pastor Terry Collins.  I had the pleasure of being in his congregation for a number of years.  He is as honorable a man that I have ever met. One of his ministries was to supply orphanages in the former Soviet Union will food and supplies.  After one of his trips, he came back with a story about how women are treated.  Apparently, in the Soviet days, it was expected that female secretaries have sexual relationships with their male supervisors, regardless of their marital status.  Failure to do so might result in losing their job, and, of course, being unable to get another.  This chunk of Soviet era injustice has carried over into the modern Russia.  The cause for this abuse is simple, any system that has that much power will always become abusive.  Bureaucrats in any system wield power, in an all-powerful system, those same bureaucrats become all the more powerful.   In spite of the beautiful rhetoric of “social justice,” and “equality” that they state, power becomes and end unto itself, crushing everyone under its oppression.  For a system that bragged about their equality for females, it appears that, in practice, they did far worse than the system that they opposed.

I did meet some nice people, especially someone I won’t name here who had been camping for several days. However I also found that there were some very powerful voices that were shutting down debate.

Within five minutes of starting our meeting, a man from the ‘security team’ asked us what we were doing, criticised us for coming in and trying to change things without having camped there (the irony being that we don’t feel comfortable or safe enough to camp), and was basically very intimidating. He said if someone had concerns they could raise them at a General Assembly. (Incidentally, we couldn’t raise our concerns at the General Assembly that evening since long debates about de-humidifiers were prioritised over talking about making camp less patriarchal.)

It turns out that this man thinks feminism is an evil created by ‘Jewish bankers’. He is also one of the most prominent people at the camp, and people listen to him.

There is a clear hierarchy happening in which members of the ‘security team’, people who have been there for the longest, the loudest people and the most physically powerful people are being afforded more influence than anyone else. It is disturbing. And it is not the model of an alternative society.

A member of camp who was sympathetic to us and raised our concerns has been intimidated, told he wasn’t allowed to talk about it because there was a reporter on site who might overhear. He has since left the camp. I’m completely appalled at the way he’s been treated by some members. Now people are minimising what happened to him, saying it couldn’t have happened, that there are two sides to every story, that it’s just a misunderstanding. I’m sorry but no, the first rule is that when someone has a legitimate complaint like that you listen to them and believe them.

I have stated in prior posts that OWS is a microcosm of the “alternative society” that they want to create.  Ms. Harris is running face first into this, and probably isn’t seeing many historical parallels.  There is the small elite, that dictates most of the group’s activities.  There are “security teams,” that seem to intimidate people.  There is a need for secrecy to cover up the inadequacies of the movement.  And, as Ms. Harris states, dissent is discouraged, discounted, and ignored.  We have seen this before, and it will continue.  In fact, Ms. Harris stated in an update to her post that she had apparently been banned from the Occupy Edinburgh’s Facebook Page, and her links had been removed.  Power at Occupy sites has already been concentrated, and it is already being abused.

Just imagine the abused that would occur if the occupiers actually were able to establish their “alternative society?”  How many would die?  How many would be oppressed?  How would anyone know with all of the secrecy?  History is the greatest teacher. We ignore it at our own peril. Ms. Harris has been discouraged, and if she looked at history, she would understand that she isn’t important to the occupiers, so she will not be taken seriously.  Perhaps she will eventually understand that movements like Occupy seek power first and foremost, and that no matter the rhetoric, they are becoming oppressive.  That will only continue to evolve, or devolve, as the case may be.

I know that Occupy is going into hibernation of sorts.  It’s been thrown out of most of its major encampments, but it will be back, and its organizers will be working on making it more militant.  We’ll see what form it takes in the spring, but rest assured it will be back.

Note:  Some are likely going to say that OWS is not a Communist movement.  The facts are relatively clear in that there are many videos of people openly advocating for Communism at OWS camps.  Also, while the organizers say that they are not Communists, they advocate for the policies of Communism, and simply call them something else.  We also must consider that North Koreans, Cuba, Venezuela, and other dictatorial government around the world have stated their support for OWS.  If OWS were actually in favor of human freedom, I’d think it unlikely that foreign dictators would be flocking to support them.

Share