The Hypocrisy of Liberal Feminism

Remember when the GOP was accused of perpetuating a “war on women” because we felt Sandra Fluke should buy her own birth control rather than demand a Christian school disregard its moral imperative and provide contraception/abortion drugs? It seemed a simple enough concept that Fluke could have bought insurance through another provider or simply paid for her drugs out of pocket since she was economically secure enough to attend a law school, but to the liberal left it was deemed sexist to deny Fluke this one avenue of access to birth control amid so many others available to her even if by granting her request she and her champions of feminism trampled on the religious rights of a Christian university.

Then there was that issue that the professional pearl-clutchers of the liberal left had with Mitt’s “binders full of women”, meaning of course the resumes he received upon request because he felt women were under-represented in government and he planned to hire competent, professional women in his administration. The irony of the faux outrage over this particular “war” was that these defenders of female equality petulantly ignored the fact that Obama’s administration was run like a political boys’ club, with women being paid 18% less than their male counterparts. Yet we were expected to believe that the man who wanted to hire women was anti-woman?

The condescending vultures of equality were cackling with glee when along came Akin and his ignorant remarks about women’s bodies being able to “shut down” a pregnancy resulting from rape. They finally had something to be legitimately offended at after all their cries of sexist wolf. They were beyond elated to find that when they flung their political poo, some of it actually stuck, and they increased their cries of HATE!, MISOGYNY!, and SEXISM! while parading around in vagina costumes and pontificating about the plight of the downtrodden American female.

Good times, huh?

One has to wonder where all this passionate feminism retreated to when instead of a Republican politician talking about binders it was a Democrat Senator who was being investigated for a list of offenses, including having sex with underage girls. Amazing how the liberal screeching about “war on women” stops cold in the face of actual abuse.

It is also quite telling that when Akin made his comments about “legitimate rape” he was immediately the target of rape threats and death threats…. not just directed at him, but at his family as well. Such is leftist tolerance. Akin’s point was that children who are the product of rape shouldn’t be punished, but that the rapist should be. His bigger point was lost when he spoke ignorantly, confusing biology and statistics, and he was excoriated by the left.

Enter Democrat Rep. Salazar a few months later. Salazar took a page from Akin’s book and turned it into a novel with even more idiotic embellishments. Rep. Salazar was arguing in favor of the nanny state’s latest assault on freedom, namely gun control, when he condescended to women in the most atrocious way possible short of pulling a Bill Clinton or Kennedy-esque type stunt and personally assaulting them. Rather than physically attacking women himself, the Democrat representative simply wants to make it easier for other men to assault women! You see, Salazar suggested that women attending college are too high strung to be trusted with firearms for self-defense. He said we may “feel” as if we are going to be raped, but that we may not be in any danger of actually being raped. His suggestion? Blow a whistle or hope that your attacker respects a “safe zone.” (Because we all know how rapists respect boundaries. Cue *eyeroll*)

Please just take a moment and let that sink in…

What could possibly go wrong with Salazar’s well-intended attempt to save mankind from the histrionics of confused, unhinged females when, in a show of liberal-grade we-know-better-than-you stupidity, the University of Colorado (UCCS) actually advised women to scream, run away, take your abuse like a good little girl, explain you’re menstruating, and vomit or otherwise soil yourself. Salazar and the UCCS do not feel you should endanger your attacker but should make yourself a less desirable victim.

Less desirable, perhaps, but still a victim.

Yes, the party that fancies themselves champions of women’s rights and equality have a politician who openly stated that he wished to infringe upon the Constitutional rights of women because he feels they may be confused in their tiny female brains about what an actual sexual attack is. After the Akin debacle you would think that Salazar would be debased in equal measure, but the irony is that liberals are less offended at a case of legitimate misogyny than they are at the well-deserved mockery of such sneering idiocy.

Seriously… even if I tried really hard and clicked my heels together 3 times, I couldn’t make this up.

Rather than attack a fellow liberal over insanely stupid comments questioning the emotional stability of women, liberal harpies are attacking people who call out Salazar on his misogyny!

(Solidarity! Or something…)

Liberals have spent so much time chasing victimhood down the rabbit-hole that they can no longer comprehend life without it. While conservatives are saying “Don’t be a victim. Arm yourself; defend yourself! If anyone is going to wet their pants it should be your attacker (after he gets a good look at your Glock),” liberals are incensed at what they call “victim-blaming.”

*HEAD DESK*

Rather than deal with the reality that rape happens, liberals are furious that we would dare suggest that women may need to actually protect themselves against violence. They honestly feel that to prevent rape, you simply shouldn’t rape!

Well, that’s just fantastic advice! If I ever pass by a mirror and feel a sudden urge to rape myself I’ll simply breathe deeply and talk myself out of it! Then I’ll walk to a “safe zone” so that I’m absolutely 100% sure that I won’t assault myself in some way.

Yes, friends, the uproar from those stalwart defenders of women’s rights is directed at those of us who know that there is evil in the world and who would trust women to defend themselves against it rather than suggest that women are simply over-emotional and incapable of recognizing a legitimate threat.

But what do I know? I’m just a woman.

keep criminals guessing

Nice Deb

 Dr. Benjamin S. Carson, a world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital delivered what is being described as one of the more unique speechesdelivered at this morning’s National Prayer Breakfast. Rush Limbaugh raved about it on his show, today, because the good doctor took the opportunity to share his theories about the national debt, deficits, taxation and health care, all in opposition to  Obama’s policies.

(Updated with better video via Freedom’s Lighthouse)

The Blaze reported:

His keynote, while predicated upon the theme of Jesus Christ as his ultimate role model, also took a starkly political tone, advocating against some of the very policies the president has implemented.

At the beginning of his speech, Carson shared an intense disdain for political correctness. Without getting too specific on the issue front, he said that Americans should stop being afraid to speak up and defend their beliefs; he also encouraged people…

View original post 360 more words

Gun Control? I’ll Pass.

I have been unsure how to proceed with this topic of gun control. I think all the arguments that can be made for or against it have been made and we’re now preaching to our own choir. As you are aware, I’m strongly against gun control. Our rights, according to the constitution, shall not be infringed. It worries me when our government begins to say that our rights should be curbed for our own good, and so they begin to chip away at them. You can have a gun, but not a large or scary-looking gun, and you may only have 7 bullets at a time. You may speak, but not in this area, or about this thing, or in this hateful tone. You may smoke, but not here, and your drinks may be only this large, and your children can only attend this school.

Call me paranoid, but this slow erosion of our rights to arms, speech, and the pursuit of happiness seems to be portending greater loss of individual liberty down the road. Perhaps we will only be allowed to own guns that are the minimum for self-defense, say a .380 pistol. What happens when our speech no longer includes forums such as blogs and internet chat rooms? In the interest of doing what’s “best” for you, you may well lose the right of self-determination to your government.

“Oh, that’s silly. our government isn’t going to keep us off the internet.” Really? What’s stopping them? You may not know this, but your speech is already suspect under the guise of “hate crimes.” When in the history of the world has crime been compassionate? Yet champions of big government upheld minority groups who felt they’d been bullied and used that to justify policing speech. You think the internet is one big free playground, but can you then explain how information is kept from citizens in communist China? No? I guess the internet isn’t as unfettered as you imagined.

“But this is America, that’s not going to happen here.” This trusting and childlike argument is about as effective at keeping your government from controlling you as a pillow fight would be. You seem to forget that our rights are intended to keep us free from our government. You only need a small pistol for self-defense? What about when your home invader is wearing a military uniform and carrying a fully automatic machine gun? Do you think any tyrannical government that subverted the will of the people gave its citizens a heads up that they might like more power and intended to take it? Of course not. They need you docile. They need you unconcerned. They need you to help them take power by being afraid to live without their benevolent protection that you will pay for by force if necessary. Doubt me? Try not paying your taxes and see how long you own anything. You are being asked to surrender your right to protect yourself by paying inept and often corrupt leaders to handle that job for you. Now run along and watch those Kardashians! Let the grown-ups decide how many police officers your area needs. We promise to try to get to you before the forensic evidence is corrupted. Oh, you thought we’d save you? Yeah… we aren’t obligated to protect you. Sorry.

Shouldn’t you be wondering why your government feels the need to be more powerfully armed than you?

Abandoning what some consider a paranoid argument based on anti-government rhetoric, let’s consider for a moment what gun control means to us outside of a hypothetical tyrannical power grab.

In the same week that Obama gave his speech on gun control and signed his executive orders in front of his child props, using Sandy Hook as his justification for action, my husband’s brother was shot and killed. I was worried at first that some of the family would buy into the gun control argument after such a personal tragedy, but I only heard questions like “Why didn’t he have a gun on him?” and “Why was he in such a dangerous city.. alone?”

You see, my husband, his brothers, and his friends used to work on the road, going from one construction job to another. They always traveled together through dangerous cities, and they always carried a weapon. They had to. As soon as they’d roll into town for a job, the local riffraff would target them. These dregs of society, rather than getting an honest job themselves, would simply wait until the construction workers had their first paycheck. Then, this scum would try to sell them items they’d stolen from other people or they’d simply rob them. Every city, town, and rural community has these criminal societal leeches. My husband’s friend actually got back home to his rural community before he was robbed and had his throat cut. My husband’s brother was robbed and shot in a city known for its criminal element while between home and work. It doesn’t matter where you live, travel, or work, there are always going to be people who would rather take what you have, even your life, than work for their own.

Cities where liberals have done their worst through policies which were supposed to increase growth, education, and opportunity, are the most heavily populated areas and provide the most criminal activity. Don’t believe me? Look at Detroit and Chicago. That is what a statist utopia looks like. Now consider that the same politicians who would champion the work done in those cities also want to disarm you. Feel safe yet?

“Background checks would keep criminals from getting guns. We need common sense control!” I just love these arguments that assume that CRIMINALS WILL FOLLOW LAWS. That’s just precious. You sweet, innocent, child… Chicago is a gun free zone. You honestly think laws are going to keep criminals from committing crime?! Oh sure, our laws against rape, theft, and murder have practically made those crimes obsolete…

Here’s the truth: criminals will never have to worry about background checks, registration, or permits. They have already proven that they are unconcerned with existing laws, what could possibly make them consider abiding by any other laws? Especially if those laws would hinder their criminal activities? Gun control only serves to bind the hands of the law-abiding citizens whose only concern is to protect themselves from the criminals in this country.

“Well you just hate children, because the guns used at Sandy Hook were legal! Guns should be outlawed!” Right. Again, crimes against murder and theft didn’t stop the psycho killer who got his jollies by targeting children. In fact, the weapon is irrelevant. Bombs have been built by killers who had no regard for law, and resulted in a higher death toll. Do you know what could have saved those children at Sandy Hook? Armed faculty or guards. That psycho might have killed one or two people but he wouldn’t have lived long enough to deprive all those families of their children. A school shooter was stopped in Pearl, MS because the assistant principal had a gun. The Aurora shooter passed over other theaters in his quest to find a place that was “gun-free”, meaning of course “full of helpless victims.”

I don’t know how else to state this: people who have every intent to break existing law and do harm to innocent people will not be stopped by laws that limit the innocent from protecting themselves. The only loser in the gun control scenario are those who need the protection. 

Having said all that, I think the people in these videos make an excellent case.

Sandy Hook father owns Congress

Immigrant gives testimony against gun control