Tag Archives: sham

Sick

Jay Nordlinger

I am no violet, and I know that politics is an ugly business. But I must say: The attempted destruction of Gov. Sarah Palin — by some of the worst forces in this country — is making me sick. You? For most of our lives, we have heard squawks from the left about civil liberties. Also about the “politics of personal destruction.” I know they hate her, politically and personally. But won’t some of them stand up against what is happening now? Just for the sake of a semblance of integrity?

And, by the way: The argument that Sarah Palin is less prepared than Barack Obama is laughable. It basically comes down to: “I think Barack’s smarter than Sarah. And cooler — less country.” A few days after the Republican convention — before talking points really gelled — I went on Irish radio (from the comfort of my home in New York). A man on the other end was not able to say that Obama had more experience. So he said, “He has a more rounded intelligence.”

This was after he had heard one speech by Sarah Palin. And the obvious core of his objection was: She’s a conservative.

As usual, what is rotten is all the pretending: all the pretending about experience and censored books and whether she has traveled widely enough. If they’d only say, “She’s a conservative, and that is intolerable,” that would be fine. It would even be welcome. But they have to go into all this other, and destroy the woman personally.

And once they stigmatize and caricature a person, that person usually stays stigmatized and caricatured — as with Quayle, as with Bork. Reagan, somehow, managed to escape the noose. How about “our Sarah”? In reality, she is a reformist governor and a heartwarming American success story. Will they — you know: “they” — succeed in making her an extremist dunce?

Stay tuned . . .

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Intolerant Left

Something About Sarah

  Jay Nordlinger

Earlier this morning, I wrote that the attacks on Governor Palin — particularly the breaking into her e-mail — were making me sick. (Here.) One reader wrote, “I, too, have been feeling a physical revulsion over the Left’s determination to destroy Sarah Palin, by any means necessary.” That reader spoke for many.

One of them said, “What would be the general media reaction if Obama’s e-mail were hacked and disseminated? It would be a lot stronger.” That, too, is a common sentiment.

In my earlier post, I wondered whether Palin would be permanently stigmatized and caricatured — à la Bork, Quayle, and Thomas. Or would she escape the noose, like Reagan? Many readers thought she would — given her communication skills, and given the multiplicity of media now: We have websites, talk radio, etc.

Yes, but there were plenty of outlets in the 1980s and ’90s. And no one’s communication skills are better than Bork’s or Thomas’s. Quayle isn’t bad, either — you don’t rise that high in politics without knowing how to communicate.

Other readers said that Palin was finished, done: “I see that the polls have dramatically switched in Obama’s favor within just one week. I guess that the Borking — the destruction — of this governor is complete.” Another reader said, “I thought Sarah Palin would be a superstar. Now, she’ll be nothing more than a national joke. The Republicans haven’t fought back. The MSM has won.”

Then there is continuing amazement over the sheer hatred that Palin has aroused: “I am almost 60 and come from Massachusetts. In all my years, I have never seen anything like this, and don’t want to see it ever again. I have a friend who is both feminist and left-leaning. I asked her why they hate Palin so much. She said, ‘Because she’s had it all: family, career. And she did it without a man like Bill Clinton helping her. She did it on her own.’”

I have said it before: Hillary Clinton’s husband was president of the United States. Sarah Palin’s works the night shift in an oil field. Who is the feminist hero? Bien sûr.

 I myself have a tale to relate. An episode left me kind of shaken, honestly. Last week, I was talking to a friend of mine — a very warm and humane woman. We’ve been friends for years. I had been away, and we hadn’t talked politics — but then, we never do. We never had. She’s a liberal, of course — virtually everyone here in NYC is. And I never, ever bring up politics (with pretty much anyone — not worth the trouble) (and, of course, I do it professionally).

But she said to me, out of the blue, “What do you think of Sarah Palin?” And while I was drawing breath to answer, she said, “I hate her.”

That kind of took my breath away — because this friend of mine is no hater. But she said it with firm, horrible conviction. She said it with true emotion in her eyes. Frankly, I was too taken aback to reply, other than to say, “Well, my feeling is the exact opposite.”

I can see how you might disagree with Governor Palin — she’s a conservative, after all. I can see how you might find her unprepared even for the vice-presidency. But hate? Hate a woman who rose from a modest background to be governor of her state? Who is obviously a warm, civic-minded, talented mother of five?

Hate?

It must be abortion, religion, and culture. If she were pro-choice, went to a mainline church (only on Christmas and Easter), and didn’t hunt, she’d be okay. At least less attacked. But then, she wouldn’t be herself, would she?

I consider myself a very patriotic person, and I have been teased or damned all my life for my pro-American views — particularly in academic settings. But, I’m sorry, this is, in many ways, a sick country.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Intolerant Left

Sarah Palin’s Feminists for Life Membership Points to Pro-Woman, Pro-Life View

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 29
, 2008

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Most Americans heard the name Sarah Palin for the first time on Friday as Senator John McCain named her as his running mate. They’re getting a glimpse of the fact that the Alaska governor is pro-life on abortion, but what they may not know is she takes a unique approach to her position.

Palin is a member of Feminists for Life of America — a venerable but little known pro-life group that focuses on the pro-woman reasons for opposing abortion.

The organization is considered an expert on understand how abortion hurts women and the complications abortion involves from a medical, physical and mental health standpoint.

Beyond that, Feminists for Life has championed the notion that one of the best ways to reduce abortion is to do the kind of work abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood should, but aren’t doing — namely, providing pregnant women with resources they need.

Feminists for Life has spearheaded efforts to make sure pregnant and parenting college students, who have the highest abortion rates in the nation, get tangible help like medical referrals, child-care and assistance in completing their education.

Palin, a mother of five, recognized the need to do more than say she opposes abortion and joined the organization.

In August 2006, she told the Anchorage Daily News, she recognized the struggle young women face in an unplanned pregnancy saying, “no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child.”

For Palin, there is no inconsistency between advocating for women and taking a pro-life position.

“I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,” she said.

Serrin Foster, the president of Feminists for Life, told LifeNews.com “there is a certain excitement” about Palin getting the nod as the second woman on a major party ticket to run for vice president.

She said that, for Palin to join her group, she must recognize the practical ways it is helping women find life-affirming solutions to unexpected pregnancies.

“Feminists for Life is dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion—primarily lack of practical resources and support—through holistic, woman-centered solutions,” she said.

“We recognize that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women and that too often women have settled for less. Women deserve better than abortion,” said Foster.

Though Palin’s pro-woman, pro-life agenda makes sense, she has already come under some attack.

Shortly after McCain unveiled his selection of her as his running mate, CNN anchor John Roberts went after Palin’s parenting in a question to conservative commentator Dan Bash.

“She has a child with Down’s Syndrome, and care for children like that can take a lot of time. Is there any concern about the balance of that?” Roberts asked.

Bash retorted: “The McCain camp is probably wondering if she were a man, whether you would be asking the same question.”

For Palin, as a pro-life woman and “feminist” she’d like say she can accomplish both.

Related web sites:
Feminists for Life – http://www.feministsforlife.org

2 Comments

Filed under Feministsforlife

Feminists don’t speak for women, says Dominican cardinal in blistering reply

.- Cardinal Nicolas de Jesus Lopez Rodriguez of Santo Domingo, responded to criticism by radical feminists this week who accused him of pressuring the country’s legislature not to legalize abortion, saying these groups do not represent the interests of women.

“Women have always had all of my respect,” the cardinal said, “but I have never agreed, nor will I ever agree, with feminists of the bad kind, who are given over to everything except helping women.”

According to the cardinal, feminists, together with the United Nations, are the ones pressuring the governments of the world to legalize abortion.

Feminist groups, he explained, do not fight for the dignity of women, but rather they bring women down with the help of some sectors of society.  “Only an imbecile, a moron, someone ignorant of everything, could defend that position,” he said.

I can’t agree more!  The feminists DON’T represent the real women or our interests. Get a job femicommie’s. Join us in rebelling against the feminists who destroy families, women, feminity, marriage and men.

Leave a comment

Filed under News

Revoke my feminist card — I like Palin

Hmmm. Maybe . . . I am not a feminist after all.

Maybe . . . working in a man’s world for 42 years and busting my butt to beat them up the ladder deletes me from the feminist category.

Perhaps . . . struggling to be a good single mom in a very married world — yet meeting my five-day-a-week column deadline — doesn’t earn me a feminist handle either.

Certainly . . . because I’m not appalled or sickened or shocked by Sarah Palin’s stealing the thunder from Obama the orator, I am not a feminist.

Give me a break.

I’m tired of women working hard for a hammer that never breaks the glass ceiling; disgusted when Hillary Clinton, an incredibly capable, brilliant woman, lost the fight of her life; disheartened by other countries throughout the free world being led by formidable women before America is.

Only this time, it was an amazing orator named Barack Obama who was stealing our thunder . . . and I was . . . well, you know. Pissed.

And then along came Palin, a woman of the tundra who could be America’s next best frontier story — and I was pleasantly surprised.

Hell, I was delighted.

So what if she’s a Republican? I tend to vote for Republican presidents.

So what if she didn’t know the definition of the Bush Doctrine? Her performance was a Western draw. Bravery in tact. But no one shot.

So I asked myself — what fault is there in admiring a woman who is against abortion — even though I believe in freedom of choice?

What’s wrong with huge respect for a woman who chose to give birth to a Down syndrome child knowing full well what was in store for her and her family?

And if appreciating a woman who chose a husband who supports her ladder-climbing skill puts me in the non-feminist category, well maybe that’s where I belong.

To be blunt, Palin is like a zephyr blowing across the prairie with a retro hairdo tied back like a sheaf of wheat.

She is real. She is rural. She may not be a brilliant tactician, but she’s got street sense. Palin is so unlike the very controlled Hillary Clinton, who would never be caught dead in red heels.

Thus, it now appears Palin has emerged as “everywoman” to a huge portion of our female population; a woman never really identified with what we thought was our quintessential role model — a highly educated woman who wears tailored suits, whose voice is never shrill and who has a husband who makes more than she does.

I don’t know what perfume Palin wears, but to me she smells of the soil.

Our huge land once had the call of the frontier for a new start — and Alaska became the last of it.

Palin’s kind of grit and savvy is akin to a frontier story: a young woman who was raised in a land of big sky and the midnight sun, a metaphor of sorts for being able to spot trouble a long way away.

In the next two months, Palin may be able to forge a hammer big enough to crack the glass ceiling. Maybe not.

And no Palin moose gun may be powerful enough to pursue critics of John McCain, who — rightly or wrongly — may be tarnished by our economy.

But McCain did choose a tough and savvy woman as his running mate . . . and it is refreshing to think, at least for a while, a little air from the Alaskan aerie wafted through America.

Leave a comment

Filed under Sham of Feminism

I am a liberal, but I’m blown away by Sarah Palin’

As American women are drawn to the Republican vice-presidential candidate, US writer Rebecca Johnson explains her appeal

When my cell phone rang on vacation, I eyed the phone number wearily. It was my employer, Vogue, calling. My four-year-old, just out of the ocean and covered in sand, was whining for a shower. My three-year-old was thirsty. My hedge-fund husband was upstairs on his BlackBerry making plans to buy Dubai. I picked up the phone.

It was the publicist from the magazine calling to say that CNN wanted to interview me about Sarah Palin. My initial response was cool. “What do they want to talk about?”

“You’re one of the few people who has interviewed her for a national publication,” the publicist answered, referring to an article I had written earlier this year profiling the governor of Alaska for the magazine.

“Is she dead?” I asked worriedly. Alaska is notorious for small plane crashes – that’s how the politician father of the writer and journalist Cokie Roberts died – and I knew Palin owned a float plane.

It never really occurred to me that she might be the vice-presidential candidate.  With so little time in office, even Alaskans hadn’t yet made up their mind about Sarah Palin’s job as governor of the state.

After the publicist set me straight, I ran down to the beach to find my mother. A left-leaning Quaker who is president of the League of Women Voters in her Texas town, my mother is the least likely person to celebrate the election of a Republican to national office.

But as a young woman she had lived in Alaska, teaching English to natives and living on a houseboat. It was the place she had gone to escape her Southern Baptist country club-attending, bridge-playing parents and it loomed large in our family as a mythic paradise, a place where you could escape the chains of civilisation and reinvent yourself.

As soon as my mother retired from her job as a professor at a community college, we drove the Alaska-Canada highway together, revisiting the site of her early bliss. During that month-long trip, I glimpsed what she saw in the state.

A whole day could go by without us seeing another soul: a solitude that complete could scrub the worst personality clean. The people we met were prickly, opinionated and original. Gore Vidal once famously said that California was so full of oddballs it was as if somebody had picked up the country and shook it so that all the loose pieces landed in the west. These days, the pieces are landing in the north.

With so few people around, conventional wisdom seems irrelevant and laws have a way of seeming arbitrary. When we were ready to sleep, we’d pull off the road and pitch a tent. But the harsh calculus of wilderness also reveals what is essential.

You don’t plan well, you don’t make it through the winter. The wood pile outside Sarah Palin’s parents’ house is half a city block long for a reason. Forget New York City. If you can make it in Alaska, you can make it anywhere. When Sarah Palin says she doesn’t care what we east coast liberals think about her, she means it.

“Sarah Palin is the vice-presidential candidate,” I told my mother when I found her under a beach umbrella.

We hugged each other joyfully. Politics be damned, Palin was a woman and she was an Alaskan! Moreover, I had been impressed with her when I interviewed her – not for her politics (I’m one of those east coast liberals she doesn’t care about) but for the other things that people across the country are responding to right now:her warmth, her work ethic, her “can-do” attitude.

  • If life is simply a reprise of high school, Palin was the jock who attended church faithfully, ran the soup kitchen, and organised the bake sale. If her paper on the Lincoln-Douglas debate wasn’t the most nuanced, so be it. Something has to give.

    In my article, I wrote about how hard it is for Palin not to smile. The American media has been dismissive of that beauty-queen smile but Palin really did enter the Miss Wasilla contest for the scholarship money. (To make extra money, her retired parents currently shoo the birds off the runway at the Anchorage airport so the birds’ bodies don’t muck up the engines’ turbine.) Even then, Palin didn’t like the pageant and was appalled when they asked her to turn around and show the judges her behind.

    Once upon a time, I also would have been contemptuous of Palin’s incurable optimism but, having been knocked around by life a bit, I now understand what a gift chronically happy people are given.

    Life hands them difficulties -a Down’s syndrome baby, a 17-year-old daughter pregnant before her life as an adult has even begun, a much-needed job on the oil and gas commission that comes with too many strings – and she is not flummoxed or depressed or angry or self-pitying. She endures.

    My liberal friends were outraged when rumours about Barack Obama attending a Madrassa or being a Muslim surfaced on the internet, but all week they have been gleefully trading emails of Sarah Palin distortions.

    There was the doctored picture of her carrying a rifle, wearing a stars-and-stripes bikini while a man in the background drank Schlitz beer. Or dopey quotes about God, creationism and moose, all of which have been subsequently debunked.

    There have also been snide remarks about Wal-Mart and K-Mart, as if there is something shameful about trying to save money. The week before Palin’s nomination was announced, people were talking about John McCain’s inability to remember precisely how many houses he and his gazillionaire wife own. A few weeks before that, the news was Cindy McCain’s $250,000 American Express bill (those lime-green shifts aren’t free).

    Todd Palin earns an hourly wage at his job on the North Slope oil field; Sarah Palin makes $125,000 a year as governor of Alaska. They’re not poor, but Alaska, where most things have to be flown or shipped in, is an expensive state and they have five mouths to feed.

    Palin isn’t shooting moose for sport; her family eats what she kills. If she shops at Wal-Mart for diapers, the vast majority of American women can relate.

    It’s no wonder the latest Washington Post poll shows an unprecedented shift of 20 points among white women towards McCain since he announced Palin as his running mate. Times are hard and getting harder.

    In a perfect world, people would vote based on issues. Care about a woman’s right to choose her own biological destiny? (so killing a different humanbeing is choice?) Vote pro-choice (vote to kill babies just because it’s in a womens womb? ). Unfortunately, life is still a lot like high school. We vote for people we like, people who make us feel comfortable and heard.

    Having watched folksy George W trounce the patrician Al Gore and John Kerry, you’d think the Democrats would have learned this.

    Deriding Palin’s modest background and lack of Ivy League credentials will only turn voters off. We should celebrate what is groundbreaking about Sarah Palin: a card-carrying member of Feminists for Life is a big step forward from Housewives for Life. And then we should talk about the issues.

  • Rebecca Johnson, Telegraph, UK,11/09/2008

  • Locations of visitors to this page

    1 Comment

    Filed under Liberals Blown Away By Sarah Palin

    Sarah Palin and the Sham of Feminism

    In the eyes of the “women’s movement,” the right woman is never a woman of the right.

    John McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate has energized the right. Conservatives view her as one of their own and are enthralled by her life story. She is a Washington outsider who, unlike the Democratic presidential nominee, impresses as being sincere, fresh, and new. Moreover, in juxtaposition with both Barack Obama and Joe Biden, her deeds suggest that she is an actual reformer rather than a person whose change message is wholly rhetorical. Her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention was a testament to her savvy and appeal. Palin’s inspired talk yielded two of the best lines ever spoken about Barack Obama: “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities,” and “The American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of ‘personal discovery.’”

    The Republican ticket offers the electorate two politicians who possess the courage to act on their convictions, which is something that could never (honestly) be said about the flagships of the left that oppose them; although, to what extent Palin will assist McCain in attracting female voters is a question in open dispute. Hillary Clinton made history this year — garnering 18 million votes and nearly pulling off the comeback of this new century — so one would presuppose that the emergence of “Sarah Barracuda” offered a bit of redemption for those feminists embittered by the results of the Democratic primaries.

    Yet such an assumption would be incorrect. A working knowledge of feminism and the fashion by which the original meaning of the word has been irreversibly traduced by radicalism told observers all they needed to know about the stance acolytes would take in regard to Palin. Those of us for whom feminists are deplorably familiar have known for years that the primary reason for their success is their keeping up the pretense that they are “women’s groups” who advance “women’s rights.” However, both of these contentions are wrong. Big Feminism promotes statism, political correctness, misandry, contempt for our country, anti-Caucasian racism, and a host of other evils.

    Unsurprisingly, the response of feminist activists and their peers in the mainstream media to the news of Sarah Palin’s nomination was immediate. Their disdain was palpable and their maliciousness readily evident. Peter Hitchens’ prediction proved prescient: “Watch as the ultra-feminist sisterhood back away in horror from Sarah Palin, John McCain’s new running mate. Mrs. Palin is technically female, but she’s enthusiastically married, hates abortion, and thinks criminals should not be the only people allowed to own guns. She’s everything Hillary Clinton isn’t. In short, she’s the wrong kind of woman.”

    Indeed, that she is.

    Leftist radicals only support those women who mimic their exact manners and beliefs. They no more respect diversity than they do urinals. The president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) derided McCain’s choice shortly after it was made. Specifically, she said, “Gov. Palin may be the second woman vice-presidential candidate on a major party ticket, but she is not the right woman.” In a follow-up column, Gandy added: “Because we should defeat anti-women’s rights candidates like Sarah Palin based on their merits and their positions, not their gender.”

    Perennial agitator and icon Gloria Steinem proclaimed via an op-ed: “Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton.” Gail Collins weighed in, “I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton.” Obviously she is right. Palin is her own person as opposed to being an appendage of a political party. She possesses a textured personality that greatly surpasses Hillary’s androgenized comet of unwavering ambition.

    Oprah Winfrey followed suit and declared that she will not interview the Republican vice-presidential nominee before November 4. She refuses to use her “show as a platform for any of the candidates” even though Oprah has made it such a mechanism in the past. She had Barack Obama on as a guest and has already given him her endorsement. Her excuse is highly transparent because, at the moment, Palin would be a ratings boast for any television host. That Oprah wants nothing to do with her is a result of her own political bias.

    She might also fear the impact Palin could have on her audience. Her drones may empathize with a lady who is decidedly not a victim, and who knows where such emoting could eventually lead? Before long her flock may suspect that there is more to the world than their own persons, which could effectuate an examination of the nation’s economy and the value of the free market. Eventually, her wards might meander upon the works of Thomas Sowell, which would be an unmitigated disaster. Newly reconstituted viewers would watusi off the Democratic plantation, and, far worse, stop ordering from her book club. In lieu of this impending debacle, one can understand why Oprah couldn’t take any chances. Like so many other feminists, the celebrity had to denounce Palin because she cares far more about her ego and her politics than she does the lives of her sisters.

    Andrew Sullivan declared that the Palin decision was not about feminism, but “a cynical ploy to exploit Democratic divisions over gender.” Personally, I hope he’s right. After all, recent polls attest to the effectiveness of McCain’s pragmatic decision. He has erased Obama’s convention bounce and the Alaskan governor, with her 58 percent favorability rating, is more popular than any of the other principal players in this election. According to Rasmussen Reports, “she earns positive reviews from 65% of men and 52% of women.”

    If over half of American women approve of her then how can feminists continue with the ruse that their incoherent discourse reflects the interests of 51 percent of the population? They do so because it is their nature. If they dropped the pretense of feminism and “women” being one, they would find themselves devoid of funding and legislative support. Most citizens are too busy making money and improving their lives to notice the fallacies endemic to Big Feminism. For those fortunate enough to be ignorant of their ways, that parasitical movement and its “there ought to be a law” mentality have markedly decreased our constitutional freedoms over the past four decades.

    That is why to Kim Gandy Governor Palin can never be the “right woman,” as she is a woman of the right. NOW’s stance, just like those of their socialist conspecifics, exposes the lie that is radical feminism, as feminism is not about women — it’s about leftism. Feminists accrued influence by pretending to be “women’s groups,” but their positions never were indicative of the preferences of your average woman. Their advocates are leftists first, and women somewhere down the road.

    The contention that “feminists” equal “women” was a non-sequitur from the beginning. Broken down into parts, its fallacious quality becomes apparent. The line of reasoning — most feminists are women; therefore, all women are feminists — is both circular and risible. Your run-of-the-mill sixth grader could explain the counter-intuitiveness of the proposition — which places such a student upon a higher cognitive plane than Joe Biden. Over the course of his career, Obama’s number two has swallowed their lies hook, ring ding, burnt bra, and sinker. No, Big Feminism does not advance the needs of women. It exists for the purpose of lobbying politicians to enact legislation that enhances the size of the state while penalizing men for being born. Feminists are more addicted to power than Hugo Chavez.

    Radical organizations like NOW and the Feminist Majority no more embody “women” than communist associations represent the collective views of men. In both cases, proponents of a particular group are predominantly members of one sex, but this reality fails to justify the extrapolation of their opinions to reflect the outlooks of men and women on the whole. Furthermore, only about 25 percent of the country’s women accept the word “feminist” as a self-descriptor, which is very good news. Perhaps resentment by chromosome is not as easy a concept to sell as it used to be.

    Gandy’s condemnation — “But will Palin speak for women? Based on her record and her stated positions, the answer is clearly No” — turns on itself because feminists have never spoken for women on aggregate. Their endless emission of politically correct verbalizations helps no one and, unlike the zealots who man their ranks, Sarah Palin has never pretended to be the voice for all women. The next vice president is unique and not a slave to pernicious dogma. What better illustrates her independence than membership in Feminists for Life of America? Yes, radical feminism is a liberty-eating virus within our culture, but, thanks to the audacity of John McCain, we may now possess a cure for it.

    Bernard Chapin wrote Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island, along with a series of videos called Chapin’s Inferno.

    Locations of visitors to this page

    2 Comments

    Filed under Sham of Feminism