Posts Tagged ‘Meghan Daum’

Why Liberals Are Modern NAZIS: The Death Of Thought And The Demise Of America Through Mindless Emotional ‘Liberal’ Outrage

December 5, 2014

As we speak, I am watching riots.  I am watching burnings and lootings of businesses, I am watching public access points being seized and blockaded, I am watching rabid calls to violence.  All in the name of “demonstrations.”

I am watching what horrified sadly-too-few Germans in the 1930s is what I’m watching.

I ask myself, how many conservative riots have there been?  The answer, of course, is zero.

Is it just black people who riot?  I mean, aside from Ferguson, we can go back to lots of other black riots, such as Watts in ’68 and so on.

But I ask myself, how many conservative black people rioted?  And the answer, of course, is zero.

This behavior isn’t about race.  It’s about a culture that has been led astray by means of an utterly depraved worldview commonly known as “liberalism.”

Interestingly, “liberalism” is about as “liberal” as “ISIS” is “religious.”  Classical liberalism held to the following values:

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

That’s from Princeton.  A strikingly similar definition pins it even better:

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.

… It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

By the classical definition of liberalism, I am a liberal.  I want more freedom for individuals because individuals are held accountable for their actions and therefore I want a limited government that emphasizes that liberty and freedom and corresponding duty of the individual.  Barack Obama, Nazi Pelosi (couldn’t resist) and Harry Reid are fascists bent on expanding government until individuals are free to do what government wants to force them to do by a massive system of laws, policies, rules, regulations, bureaucracies, and of course out-of-control executive orders by a now self-professed king or emperor who has fundamentally abrogated the Constitution and tossed out the Separation of Powers.

True liberals want individual personal liberty and individual personal responsibility that must correspond with individual personal liberty.  Because rights without duties is moral chaos.  And therefore true want limited government, they want a laissez-faire free market economy,  they want the rule of law and they want private property rights.  The “liberals” of today are joyfully running roughshod over all of these values as they seek to impose bigger and bigger and more and more powerful – and more totalitarian and more fascist – government.

What’s the mechanism of the left?  We’re watching it all around us today as liberals riot and burn and loot over a police officer who shot a man who had just strongarm robbed a store and brutally shoved aside its owner ON VIDEO, walked down the middle of a large avenue as if he owned it, physically assaulted a police officer in his car, punched that officer in the face, tried to take the officer’s weapon from him, and then ultimately charged the officer with murderous rage as the officer fired repeatedly at him.  That’s what the witness testimony – of at least half a dozen black people, fwiw – says and that’s what the forensic evidence says.

That was, of course, irrelevant to the left, who raced off to burn and loot and riot the moment they heard there would be no indictment of the police officer without bothering to hear the massive evidence justifying that jury decision (which included three black people).  Some examples of the eyewitness testimony:

  • “Mike Brown continuously came forward in the charging motion and at some point, at one point he started to slow down and he came to a stop. And when he stopped, that’s when the officer ceased fire and when he ceased fired, Mike Brown started to charge once more at him. When he charged once more, the officer returned fire with, I would say, give an estimate of three to four shots. And that’s when Mike Brown finally collapsed right about even with this driveway.”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 6 , page 167

  • “Then Michael turned around and started charging towards the officer and the officer still yelling stop. He did have his firearm drawn, but he was yelling stop, stop, stop. He didn’t so he started shooting him.”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 18, page 27

  • I thought he was trying to charge him at first because the only thing I kept saying was is he crazy? Why don’t he just stop instead of running because if somebody is pulling a gun on you, first thing I would think is to drop down on the ground and not try to look like I’m going to attack ’em, but that was my opinion. ”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 11, page 181

  • “Um, I guess it was like he stopped and he turned around like this, and then he started moving towards the officer and kind of looked like he picked up a little bit of speed, and then he started going down.” Read original – Grand Jury Volume 23, page 137

There were people who saw or claimed they saw something different.  But here was their problem according to the Washington Post:

And once an inaccuracy becomes part of a person’s recollection, it’s almost impossible to dislodge. Even when that person, Tversky wrote, is challenged with direct information that refutes his or her own memory. “Once witnesses state facts in a particular way or identify a particular person as the perpetrator, they are unwilling or even unable — due to the reconstruction of their memory — to reconsider their initial understanding.”

This appears to be what occurred in the Darren Wilson investigation. Even when authorities challenged witnesses with forensic evidence — which McCulloch said “does not change because of public pressure or personal agenda” — they didn’t back down. He gave as an example witnesses who said they saw Wilson pump bullets into Brown’s back, sticking with their story even after autopsies demonstrated that no bullets entered Brown’s back.

They “stood by original statements even through their statements were completely discredited by the physical evidence,”  McCulloch said.

The New York Times acknowledges:

Of the 20 or so eyewitnesses who appeared before the grand jury, most of those who spoke to the issue said they believed Mr. Brown had his hands up. But some accounts were clearly not credible and were recanted under interrogation. And of the credible witnesses whose stories were largely consistent, many were at odds with one another.

The people who claimed that Michael Brown surrendered and had his hands up and was saying “Don’t shoot” but that Officer Wilson shot him in the back, etc, were directly refuted by the physical evidence.  Many of them actually DID recant their previous inflammatory testimony when placed under oath.

There was NO WAY IN HELL A JURY WAS EVER GOING TO CONVICT OFFICER DARREN WILSON.  Just no freaking way.  Juries are loathe to convict or even indict police officers because they are loathe to second-guess men and women who they know have a difficult job which is to protect people and protect society from violent predators.

In short, most citizens agree with something Charles Barkley said:

“The notion that white cops are out there just killing black people is ridiculous. It’s flat-out ridiculous,” he said. “I challenge any black person to make that point. Cops are absolutely awesome. They’re the only thing in the ghetto (separating this place) from this place being the wild, wild west.”

This isn’t about race.  It is easy to document that there are cases of black officers who shot and killed white suspects who were not indicted for their actions, as well.

The worst thing on earth that could happen to black communities is if police officers – stung by leftist hate and violence – stopped patrolling black neighborhoods and allowed the people they are being hated for killing to run the streets.

Those are simply facts.

But the facts simply didn’t matter to the left.

The following – detailing the story of a “rape” and the brutally dismissive culture that refused to respond to the terrible and shocking crime – is manifestly descriptive of the mindset of the left today.

Rolling Stone set off a firestorm – which they breathlessly reported on after creating aforementioned firestorm – when it ran the following story.  I want you to note that the disclaimer was just added today as Rolling Stone all but refuted their own “reporting”:

A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA
Jackie was just starting her freshman year at the University of Virginia when she was brutally assaulted by seven men at a frat party. When she tried to hold them accountable, a whole new kind of abuse began
By Sabrina Rubin Erdely | November 19, 2014

TO OUR READERS:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled “A Rape on Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university’s failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school’s troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone’s editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie’s credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie’s account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn’t confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor

What we find when we begin to examine the “victim’s” story is that there WAS no frat party the night she claimed there was a party, that there is no staircase in the house in refutation of her account, and numerous other details prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this story was a complete and utter lie perpetuated by truly vile, depraved, wicked “liberal” fascist Nazis.

What we find is that the Rolling Stone “reporter” actually went “rape-shopping” to find the perfect story to fit her pre-conceived narrative.  This wasn’t “journalism,” it was LIBERAL journalism, which is another term for “Nazi propaganda.”  Rolling Stone didn’t even bother to do interviews with anyone who could have told the truth or reported the actual facts because the last thing liberalism cares about is the truth or the facts.  Liberals who as postmodernists mock the reality of truth the exact same way that Pontius Pilate mocked the existence of truth as he was turning away from the very embodiment of it and sentencing Him to death somehow hypocritically and dishonestly believe that they are the sole arbiters of the very thing that they deny.  And so they alone are in sole possession of “the truth” and they act accordingly.

The fraternity that was dishonestly slandered by this story was vandalized, its members threatened and ostracized.  Mobs of liberals chanted outside, “Burn this place down” over and over while they huddled inside.  As the University of Virginia, reacting to the mobs and responding to the dictates of liberalism, issued a moratorium that has STILL not been lifted essentially shutting down the frat from the right to do business.

There was a “rape,” all right.  Those young men and that fraternity were raped by progressive liberalism, which is fascism.

This story will soon be purged from the Rolling Stone database, purged from all the leftist hate sites that used it as “evidence” of their viciousness, and it will be like it never happened.

But the fascist feminist PC policies that the fascist PC Nazi university administrators and faculty implemented as a direct result of this lie will go on  forever.

Liberalism is a lie made possible by lies.  Liberalism is pathologically dishonest policies that are implemented as a result of pathologically dishonest lies from leftist liars.  The issues that liberals gin up demonic hate in order to impose their fascist tyranny change as the same people employ the same tactic again and again and again.  But the dishonesty and hypocrisy are always there.

Let’s remember this, also.  Let’s remember how a liberal fellow traveler, Meghan Daum, described the leftist mindset:

Column The University of Virginia rape Rorschach test
SHARELINE
▼Those looking closely at the UVA rape story represent a cross-section of the political spectrum
Questioning the UVA rape story will almost certainly get us dismissed as traitors to the sisterhood
December 3, 2014, 6:02 PM

Are you a “UVA truther”? In other words, are you an abhorrent, woman-hating, “pro-rape Republican”?.

Or are you a “feminazi” guided by “rape crisis fantasy” and driven by emotions over logic?

Those are among the epithets being hurled in the court of public opinion over the explosive allegations of a staggeringly awful rape at the University of Virginia published by Rolling Stone. In the story, a woman identified as Jackie tells of being led into a dark bedroom at a fraternity party, where seven men, with assistance from two others, raped her over a three-hour period.

The 9,000-word article by Sabrina Rubin Erdely set off a tidal wave of horror and outrage. Soon enough, though, came a trickle of inquiries into Erdely’s reporting methods, chiefly the question of why she hadn’t talked to the alleged perpetrators.

And since many of the first askers of that question had conservative or libertarian leanings, the feminist backlash was almost immediate. When The Times’ resident conservative columnist, Jonah Goldberg, examined holes in the story, his usual critics dismissed his conjectures as mere right-wing pushback against political correctness.

When a Reason magazine writer penned an evenhanded article on the case, indicating that he initially believed Jackie’s story, the liberal site Talking Points Memo nonetheless reacted with the headline “Libertarian Magazine Wonders if UVA Rolling Stone Rape Was a ‘Hoax.’” The lively feminist blog Jezebel did TPM one better: “‘Is the UVA Rape Story a Giant Hoax?’ Asks Idiot.”

Such snark is eye-catching and click-generating, but in this case, it’s not just conservatives and purported anti-feminists who are asking questions. In the New Republic, Judith Shulevitz eventually landed on an insight from lawyer and feminist social critic Wendy Kaminer, who told her, “I’d guess that the story is neither entirely fabricated nor entirely true and, in any case, compels a real investigation by investigators with no stake in their findings.”

In an interview on Slate’s feminist-leaning Double X podcast, writer Hanna Rosin confronted Erdely with questions similar to the ones her more libertarian counterparts had raised, with ambiguous results. On Wednesday, after further reporting including talking to several of Jackie’s friends, Rosin and Slate senior editor Allison Benedikt posted an article critical of both Erdely and Rolling Stone.

In the “us versus them” paradigm that so often colors discussions around gender and sexual assault , such a response might be surprising coming from a feminist. After all, it’s supposed to be the Jonah Goldbergs of the world (“idiots,” according to Jezebel) who would dare to question a woman’s account of a rape, or another woman’s account of her account. But the journalists and others who are now looking closely at this story represent a cross-section of the political spectrum.

Rosin and Shulevitz are hardly conservatives. Neither am I. Yet questioning the story will almost certainly get us dismissed as traitors to the sisterhood. If you don’t believe me, wait a few seconds for the rants from “activists” who will insist that asking rational, even obvious questions makes you a rape apologist, someone who dismisses all women’s stories or won’t admit that campus sexual assault is a problem.

Such attacks are not only absurd, they’re also insulting. They’re insulting to journalists, who know the importance of holding themselves and their sources accountable to the truth. Worse, they’re insulting to survivors of sexual assault whose stories should be told without obfuscation and equivocation. It’s that kind of murkiness, after all, that contributes to an undercurrent of suspicion of victims — an undercurrent that, unfortunately, continues to dominate many conversations about rape.

Inquiries into this story should not devolve into battles between truthers and believers, the “idiots” and the “real feminists.” Believe it or not, conservatives don’t have a monopoly on skepticism, just as liberals and feminists aren’t the only ones inclined to believe a story like Jackie’s. If those of us asking questions turn out to be idiots for not believing the story on its face, fair enough.

But last I checked, nothing cures idiocy like asking questions.

Which, ultimately, is another way of saying there’s no cure for modern so-called “liberalism.”  Because to be a “liberal” today is to be a rabid fool who spits out hate and riots over any suggestion of a question.

They are modern Nazis by a euphemistic new name.  But don’t think the tactics of Hitler and Goebbels aren’t alive and well in their demon-possessed souls.

You can’t reason with liberals because their knee-jerk reaction is invariably to demonize your motives – which are beyond anyone’s ability to prove or disprove – and thus demonize everything you think, say or do because you are a “racist” or a “homophobe” or a “misogynist” or a “misanthropist” or whatever label they want to hate you with.  It’s an element of their theology that you are evil and therefore you must obviously be evil.  And good luck talking to the rabid left.

I think of Ferguson.  I remember the left decrying the Gestapo tactics of the police as they showed up in force to prevent rioting.  All the subsequent rioting, of course, was clearly the result of the police for showing up with armored cars to prevent rioting.  So of course after the grand jury verdict was read, the police weren’t out in force.  And of course there was rioting.  And the same cockroach leftists who had decried the police presence now proceeded to blame the lack of police presence for the next wave of rioting and burning and looting.

If the grand jury had decided to indict Officer Darren Wilson, do you know how many conservatives would have rioted?  ZERO.  And that’s because conservatives are decent and liberals are NAZIS and the worst kind of ugliness is always in their hearts 24/7, just waiting to erupt in another riot like all the other riots they’ve called “demonstrations.”

Because to be a liberal is to be morally insane and therefore to be insane in every other way, as well.

Meghan Daum is pointing out that a few liberals like herself were opposed to this fascist liberal mindset.  And I actually take my hat off to Meghan Daum for her courage.  But the fact of the matter is that there are VERY few like her in the worldview of liberalism.  And she herself described the avalanche-of-hate fascist mindset that confronted anyone who tried in any way, shape or form to question this now-openly-revealed lie.

I don’t care what the subject is: ObamaCare?  Yeah, everything that Obama and his rabid supporters said turned out not only to be untrue, but outright lies advanced to deceive the American people who were deemed “stupid.”

Two minutes is all you need to utterly destroy ObamaCare:

You can read transcripts of some of what ObamaCare architect – BECAUSE YES, HE WAS – here.

But you go back and see the hateful charges from Nazis – I mean “liberals” – who accused us of everything from racism (because to not adore absolutely everything about Barack Obama and his entire worldview meant you clearly had to be a racist) to hatred of the poor and literally a desire to kill them.

That “law” was passed by fascists using fascist methodology, pure and simple.  It was passed by those who believe that the American people are stupid – and not deserving of individual liberty and not capable of individual personal responsibility – and therefore these sheep must be steered and guided if not herded by their Utopian masters.

We can talk about Obama’s fascist and tyrannous executive power grab over illegal immigration the same way.

It doesn’t matter that Obama himself personally refuted his own actions on at least 22 separate occasions.

That’s nothing more than a fact.  It’s nothing more than the truth.  And both are totally irrelevant to “liberals” today.

I’m watching another liberal protest going on now as leftist mindlessly chant, “We can’t breathe!” over and over and over and over again.

What they ought to be chanting is “We can’t think.”

They WON’T think.

Advertisements

Liberals Are The Racists And Misogynists. They’re Also Hypocritical Demagogues Who Project Their Own ‘Values’ On Their Opponents.

November 6, 2014

I’m watching a Democrat strategist give his post-mortem on the November 4 elections in which Democrats got their heads handed to them (not that Obama has a clue as he plans his next fascist executive order power-grab between golf rounds.  All we know is that Obama doesn’t feel “repudiated” no matter how much of a toxic pariah he’s become even to his own party).  Why do Democrats tend to fare so badly in midterms, the strategist is asked.  And he says, “We’ve got to do a better job reaching out to white voters.”

This is PRECISELY what Democrat strategists are saying.

You are not a human being to Democrats.  Human beings are created in the image of God and Democrats piss on both God and His image.  No, you are a black voter, or a Hispanic voter, or an Asian voter.  Or you are an enemy who has to be tricked into voting for the party that wants to give the good races all the stuff your family worked so hard to earn because you belong to the wrong race.

Of course, that is racial politics from the PARTY of race politics.  If you want to divide people up by race and play the game of divide and conquer – and to hell with the increasingly incredibly polarizing results you are guaranteed to get as a result – you are a Democrat, pure and simple.

All you have to do is blame your racism and the climate of anger and polarization your racist engineering engenders on the other side.  And your media propaganda will duly report that “fact.”

Republicans are the party of ideas and the party of Americans.  Democrats are the party of racism and the party of bitterness against America.

It’s just the way it is.  And it’s just the way it has been since Democrats realized that if you can’t beat them, join them and then subvert them to the same plantation agenda they’ve always had.  Before you were useful as slave labor; now you’re useful as slave voters.  To wit: if you want your welfare check, you vote for the master party.

All the other party will offer you is the opportunity to get a job because they’re trying to make it easier for employers to build businesses and to learn because they’re trying to provide poor children of ALL races with vouchers for private schools to end the blue line union monopoly over “edyookashun.”

But of course it’s easier to sit at home and blame whitey – or blame whoever the convenient target to be blamed is – than it is to work.  And that’s just human nature.

Which party is the party of racism?  The party that hates Clarence Thomas, the party that hates Allen West, the party that hates Condoleezza Rice, the party that hates Dr. Benjamin Carson, that’s who.

I still remember the racist hate that Clarence Thomas received from the party that presents itself as oh-so-uber-un-racist.

In this election cycle, racist politicking was out full force as Democrats pulled out every trick to fearmonger the black community into getting out and voting against Republicans.  And no lie was too outrageous.

And of course there was the War on Women that Democrats just never got tired of playing.

Misogynists are Republican and Republicans are misogynists.  That’s what we’ve been told for the last how many years now from Democrats?

So I run across this story in the Los Angeles Times.  And it’s written by an uber-liberal named Meghan Daum:

The other thing the catcalling video shows: Our detachment issues
Meghan Daum
Los Angeles Times
November 5, 2014, 5:23 PM

If for some unfathomable reason you’re not among the more than 30 million people who’ve already seen the “catcalling video” that started ricocheting through the zeitgeist last week, I’ll give you a brief rundown.

An actress named Shoshana Roberts, unremarkably dressed, is videotaped with a hidden camera as she walks around a variety of New York City neighborhoods. Over 10 hours, men vied for her attention, asking, “What’s up, beautiful?” and demanding to know why she won’t talk to them. Some seem pretty innocuous. Others, like the one who walks next to Roberts silently for five minutes straight, are downright creepy.

What began as feminist activism from an anti-street harassment organization called Hollaback expanded into a referendum on race, because Roberts is white and the vast majority of the men on the video are black or Latino. For all the video tells us about race, men and the discomfort women can experience on the street, it also tells us something about a different — and relatively new — kind of cultural discomfort: our awkwardness in negotiating public spaces.

When I watch the video, I see not just a woman being objectified by men but also a woman who, presumably at the behest of her director, is totally unwilling to engage in the world around her. She makes no eye contact, responds to no greeting, registers no interest in the people in her midst. I also see in it a filmmaker who hasn’t bothered to parse the difference between a “good morning” and a “hey, baby.” And in reading women’s reactions, I sense a perception that any of these guys could have pulled Roberts into an alley and assaulted her at any time.

Hollaback, which is committed to the message that a “hello” can easily and quickly escalate into violence, certainly seems to share that perception. But in the context of this video at least, it’s a little tone deaf. As she walked, Roberts was surrounded by hundreds of people, many of whom would surely have intervened if she’d needed help. As odd as the creepy companion walker was, does it fit Hollaback founder Emily May’s description of “a terrifying, terrifying experience”?

Obviously only Roberts can say how she felt about any given interaction. Nonetheless, here’s the thing about life in the big city, especially cities whose identities are rooted in the energy of the street: You can’t live in a vacuum. In fact, most residents don’t want to live in a vacuum. They have boundaries, but they still want to share a nod or knowing glance with a stranger on the bus or subway. They want to weave their individual, day-to-day experiences into the larger tapestry. And nothing about Robert’s disconnected, almost zombie-like comportment in the video reflects that spirit.

We all have our zombie-like days, of course. But I suspect that in real life Roberts handles men who talk to her on the street the same way most women eventually learn to: by saying “thank you” or saying something The Times won’t print, or waving a hand in a way that could be taken as either friendly or dismissive. Hollaback might consider these concessions are themselves symptoms of patriarchal oppression — and that is a fair, if not exactly new, point. I would say what’s missing from the video is that making concessions to strangers, sometimes acknowledging their existence, is part of what it means to share the world with other people — at least the real-life, three-dimensional world.

Of course, that world increasingly takes a back seat to the digital sphere, where ignoring unwanted communications is standard protocol, where many, if not most, conversations take place via text or email. Dating and sexual conquest belong largely to the realm of online dating sites and Tinder feeds. Moreover, most people when they do find themselves in public spaces, spend more time looking at their phones than looking at what’s around them. Little by little, we’re losing our instinct for joining the larger tapestry.

And maybe that’s the ultimate lesson of the catcalling video. It’s not just that men can be boorish or that race and class issues can be thorny but that walking down the street can be more complicated than hanging out online. Not to mention a lot more interesting.

And I couldn’t help but wonder: is this the tone this leftie would have decided to take if the woman victim had been a racial minority and the creepy catcallers had been white men???

Daum makes this point early on:

What began as feminist activism from an anti-street harassment organization called Hollaback expanded into a referendum on race, because Roberts is white and the vast majority of the men on the video are black or Latino.

And then proceeds to drop that point entirely as if it were a radioactively hot potato.  You never see the racial angle mentioned again.  It’s almost like she waved her hand at it, and that’s more than enough.  From that moment on, her article actually became a DEFENSE of the black and Latino men – i.e. the core members of the Democrat Party racial constituency – who sexually harassed the white woman for ten hours.

Now, I must confess that there have been a couple of times that Meghan Daum – who in the past was just so over-the-top lefty-moonbeam that she maxed out the measurement apparatus – has surprised me of late.  It’s possible that she actually is able to realize that the identity politics game the left keeps playing is as dangerous as it is toxic.

You know, the way Bill Clinton just did:

“I believe that in ways large and small, peaceful and sometimes violent, that the biggest threat to the future of our children and grandchildren is the poison of identity politics that preaches that our differences are far more important than our common humanity,” he told the crowd of activists, celebrities, and lawmakers.

But no matter: the REST of the Democrat universe plays it as their first card, their second card, their third card, their fourth card and their fifth card in every political game of five-card poker.

And it was, as usual, the central card played in this election.

We had the FIRST female elected to the United States Senate from blue state Iowa in American history.  And not only did this Republican woman have to suffer getting sexually trivialized over how attractive she was (you know, for a bimbo) by a career sexist Democrat male senator, but she had to suffer the booooooring whine of three-term Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu as she complained that she won’t get re-elected to a fourth term because she’s a woman and Louisianans are conservatives who hate women and hate blacks:

“And number two: I’ll be very, very honest with you. The south has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans. It’s been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader,” she said.

“It’s not always been a good place for women to present ourselves,” Ms. Landrieu continued. “It’s more of a conservative place. So we’ve had to work a little harder on that. But the people trust me, I believe — really they do … trust me to do the right thing for the state.”

Ms. Landrieu’s comments come as some Democrats are making direct, often visceral appeals to black voters, notably in southern states like Georgia, in hopes of energizing the party base ahead of Tuesday’s election.

A woman who has been elected to the Senate by her state three times blames her state’s hostility to her on her gender and on racism.

You see, there’s one way to play this game: the Democrat way.  If you try to play it in a way that doesn’t politically help the political exigencies of the Democrat Party, it’s because you’re a racist, or you’re a misogynist, or you’re a racist misogynist.

It’s NEVER fascists when Democrats do it.  It’s ALWAYS fascist when Republicans do it.  Every time.  No matter how much of a pretzel you’ve got to twist your brain into to believe the liberal line.

War veteran Joni Ernst is tired of the “war on women” meme the Democrats constantly play (her male Democrat challenger actually had the complete lack of balls to play it on her):

She didn’t want to hear opponent Bruce Braley’s campaign claims anymore that she wages war on women with her positions because, the war veteran said, “I’ve been to war; this is not a war.”

Of course, it IS a war, because it is a vicious attack strategy from the party of hate and division, from the party that pits race against race, income-level against income level, gender against gender, etc.

It’s a war for the soul of America.  And even Bill Clinton admits that the Democrat Party machine is on the side of Satan in the war.

Abortion isn’t a “woman’s issue.”  It’s a CHILDREN’S issue.  If abortion is only a woman’s issue, then men are to be excluded from having anything to do with children and whether they should live or die.  If abortion is a “woman’s issue” as Democrats believe, and if a man and a woman don’t produce a child at the moment of conception, as Democrats believe, then ANY responsibility men have ought to end the nanosecond they roll off of that woman and go to sleep.  Because he DID NOT FATHER A CHILD according to the left and according to the left he has nothing whatsoever to do with the most critical choice involving the “woman’s choice” involving this non-child.

What Democrats want and what they have largely already achieved is the end of fatherhood.  Fathers are not “fathers” any more; they do NOT procreate a child and they are therefore not to be allowed ANY choice or ANY responsibility whatsoever in the MOST important decision involving a child that somehow mysteriously develops at some later time.

And of course homosexual sodomy marriage is nothing more than an extension of liberal thought: marriage is an institution for families; but the party of militant hatred for fatherhood necessarily becomes the party of militant hatred for the family of which fathers are a necessary component.

So Democrats have this twisted, perverted, hateful view toward any woman who loves her family and loves her children and values families and children.

And so your Sarah Palins and any woman who is pro-marriage and pro-family have to be rabidly attacked in the most hateful wayIt’s FINE for Democrats to call Republican women “whores.”  Just try being a Republican white male who calls a minority female governor a whore and see what happens to your career as the media feeding frenzy goes into beyond-rabid mode.

But like what we see somehow happen in Meghan Daum’s piece with black men and Latino men – in other words with Democrats – the left just strips the narrative of the elements they don’t like and then retells the story according to their ideology.  Just as in Daum’s piece what could have – and WOULD have had the sleazeballs been white men howling over a minority woman – been a piece about the racist and misogynistic attitudes about minorities toward women becomes a piece about the snooty way a woman carries herself which of course apparently invites abuse with aforementioned abuse being no big deal.  In any and every story involving the nastiest and most despicable racist and misogynistic behavior of liberals gets explained away by some “narrative” had the political party or the race or the gender of the person or people engaging in the despicable conduct been the politically incorrect sort (i.e. white men).

I’ll grant Meghan Daum credit for taking on the perennially offended feminist left over what they perceive as such a hostile climate that a man who says “good morning!” is tantamount to a rapist.  Believe it or not, she has courage to take on that group of rabid harpies given the instant media access that band of vermin has.  But we’ll know Meghan is truly courageous when it is WHITE REPUBLICAN MEN who act the way these black and Hispanic men acted that she defends.

Doubt very much that it will ever happen.