Liberals

Naomi Wolf checks into rubber-room

Drew McKissick — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:23:40 -0400

Just in case any of you were unsure, Naomi Wolf is a complete idiot. If you still harbor any doubt, check out her latest insane screed.

Begala likens Obama's supporters to Dukakis'

Drew McKissick — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:09:23 -0400

Normally, these types spend so much time avoiding the truth that it's kind of entertaining when they swerve into it. That's what Paul Begala did on CNN when talking about the coalition of Obama supporters.

BEGALA: We cannot win with egg heads.

Let me finish my point.

We cannot win with egg heads and African-Americans. OK, that is the Dukakis Coalition, which carried ten states and gave us four years of the first George Bush.

President Clinton — reached across to get a whole lot of Republicans and Independents to come. I think Senator Obama and Senator Clinton both have that capacity. They both have a unique ability –well it’s not unique if they both have it. They both have a remarkable ability to reach out to those working-class white folks and Latinos. Senator Clinton has proven it; Barack has not yet, but he can. And I certainly hope he is not shutting the door on expanding the party.

Well, he's at least right about Obama's support resembling that of Dukakis. Blacks and effete liberals. Here's hoping it renders the same result in the fall.

* More: Michelle Malkin

Abortion as art

Drew McKissick — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:24:52 -0400

Just when you think liberals couldn't possibly demean the value of life any further...you get this at Yale:

Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process. ...

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value." ...

"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."

The display of Schvarts' project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room. ...

The official reception for the Undergraduate Senior Art Show will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on April 25. The exhibition will be on public display from April 22 to May 1. The art exhibition is set to premiere alongside the projects of other art seniors this Tuesday, April 22 at the gallery of Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall on Chapel Street.

In other words, what we really have here is using murder to create "art". As I recall, the Nazis took pictures and made movies of many of those they tortured and killed, but I don't recall such documentation being viewed as "art"...more like evidence.

From what I've seen, it costs around $45,000 a year to attend Yale. Her parents must be so proud of their investment.

Gender neutral bathrooms in Vermont

Drew McKissick — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:32:33 -0400

More silly-ness from the world of the "gay rights" agenda:

The University of Vermont's big new student center doesn't just have women's bathrooms and men's bathrooms.
It also has gender-neutral bathrooms, a feature added to accommodate transgendered people, as well as those with some disabilities. The four single bathrooms in the new Dudley H. Davis Center — each with a toilet, sink, shower and lockable door — cost about $2,500 a piece to build. Their wall signs identify each as "gender neutral restroom."
"It's about inclusivity and accessibility and the importance of meeting all people's needs, not just a few," said Annie Stevens, assistant vice president for student and campus life.

"Incusivity"? The last time I checked, "male" and "female" includes all the human beings on the planet. And they're not the only ones engaged in this idiocy:

At least 17 colleges and universities have included gender-neutral bathrooms in their new construction or in retrofitting residence halls, said Stephanie Gordon, director of educational programs at the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
"A multi-use bathroom doesn't necessarily feel safe to transgendered students, because they have concerns about how their gender would be read by others," said Dot Brauer, director of the school's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning and Ally Services.

You don't say.

A woman who identifies as a man, for example, may not feel welcome in a women's rest room. Transgendered people have been the target of verbal and physical abuse in rest rooms and been arrested, or suspected of lewd conduct, according to Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality.
"There are students whose safety and comfort is comprised," Brauer said.
Kelly, a 19-year-old transgendered UVM student who did want her last name published, said she's been made to feel "very uncomfortable" in rest rooms.

Again, you don't say.

The way I see it, we're headed to a world with bath rooms for straight males, females, gay males, gay females, "trans-genered" males and females...and then another set for the thoroughly confused. Which will leave little actual space for classrooms at these colleges...which, considering what they're being taught, might not be such a bad thing.

As a side note, I can just imagine the shrill cries of discrimination if, for instance, some institution had set up such restrooms for the wierdos of the "transgender" set if some straight folks had demanded it.

Moonbats attacking Fox News advertisers

Drew McKissick — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:40:43 -0400

The liberals have coalesced around their latest cause - attacking Fox News. Specifically, targeting companies, (both national and local), that advertise on the cable network.

Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against FOX News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network.
MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. ...
The groups seem particularly angry at FOX's Bill O'Reilly, who has done critical reports on left-wing bloggers. On July 16, O'Reilly said the DailyKos.com Web site is "hate of the worst order," and sent a reporter to question JetBlue Airways Corp. CEO Dave Barger about the airline's sponsorship of a gathering run by DailyKos.
He'll never ride on JetBlue again, O'Reilly said.
FOX said JetBlue has since asked that its name be removed from the DailyKos.com Web site.
MoveOn.org is campaigning against FOX because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization's spokesman.
"We're not trying to silence anybody," Green said. "(Conservative radio talk show host) Rush Limbaugh has a right to be on the air — he admits his point of view. FOX doesn't."

Is it just me, or does this remind anyone of the attitude the liberals had when Limbaugh first went national back in the late '80's? It seems to me that their anger stems from the fact that we now have another medium where liberal thought does not enjoy a virtual monopoly.

How dare someone have a news network that brings people on to talk about both sides of an issue, (other than having a conservative outnumbered by at least 3 to 1 if they did so). You can hear them whine know, "make it stop...they're questioning our ideology!" All I can say is welcome to just a little taste of the world conservatives have been living in since the dawn of television.

I think the real bottom line here is that these groups see something like this as an opportunity to raise money and build their mailing lists. Get the moonbats worked up enough to sign those petitions and send in their money!

The Return of McGovernism

Drew McKissick — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:00:00 -0400

Newly resurgent radical liberals are reasserting control over the Democrat party and are demanding zero tolerance for Democrats (especially high profile ones) who veer away from their pacifist, anti-war party line.

In order to gain compliance with the new policy they found themselves needing to make an example of someone. And no Democrat has been more high profile and more supportive of the ongoing war effort (and displayed more common sense about the true nature of our enemy) than Joe Lieberman.

It was almost comical to watch how soon after Ned Lamont’s victory that “mainstream” Democrats, even those that had previously endorsed Lieberman, jumped on the Lamont bandwagon. They saw the handwriting on the wall writ large by the party’s new radicals. “Conform or else!” Taking Lieberman’s scalp had the desired effect.

And then, less than forty-eight hours later, news breaks that the long dreaded successor attack to 9/11 had been discovered and prevented. That while liberals were demanding fealty to a flaccid foreign policy, Al Qaeda was busy making arrangements to kill several thousand American and British citizens in the skies over the Atlantic.

Moreover, it now appears that some credit for the bust is due to the very type of warrant less, electronic intelligence that many liberals (and some Republicans) have been having public conniption fits over since the NY Times apprised the public and the terrorists of its use by our intelligence services.

Just how many of these fair-weather friends that turned on old Joe would have done so had the plot been discovered a few days earlier? How many of them would have cast their lot with the intellectual heirs of George McGovern, if they had known the terms of the debate and the public’s focus would shift so suddenly?

For the past forty years or so, Democrats have been perceived by the American people as being weak on the issue of national security – or at least less reliable than Republicans.

To get an idea of how far they have fallen, note that the Democrat that liberals tend to lionize most for his massive growth of the welfare state, FDR, is the same President that demanded unconditional surrender by the Germans and Japanese in WWII. Today, most Democrats don’t understand the meaning of unconditional surrender, unless it involves things like defending traditional American values.

At the risk of insulting the feminine population, politically speaking, the American public always has and always will respond to testosterone – and the Democrats are in short supply right now.

Americans understand the importance of having the biggest stick in the global neighborhood. We know this instinctively to begin with, as it is part of our culture, but we also know it by way of over two hundred years of history. And nowhere do we find examples of where it has paid us to be weak, seem weak, or seem unwilling to defend ourselves and our interests with raw naked force if need be.

The fact is that national security is, now more than ever, the central issue of our time. Given current circumstances and the enemies arrayed against us, it is an issue of life and death.

The resurgent liberals are pulling the Democrat party further to the left on the issue, while the vast majority of the American people are to the right of where they are now, let alone where the new radicals want to take them.

The last time this happened in such a major way was in 1972 with the rise of George McGovern and his defeat of former Vice-President Hubert Humphrey for the Democrat presidential nomination. The anti-war left took a scalp then too, (Humphrey’s), and the victory sent the Democrats into a political wilderness that they didn’t begin to exit from until Bill Clinton came along.

The current Democrat leadership is allowing itself to be led into repeating history. Even George McGovern himself recognizes the danger, stating in a recent interview that “For fifty years, (Republicans) used the fear of communism to beat Democrats. I hope we don’t have fifty years of terrorism for them to do the same thing.”

It will be interesting to watch as the Democrat field for 2008 begins to take shape in terms of how the candidates react to the pull of the opposing forces of the resurgent left and its allies in the blogosphere vs. the reality of the world around them.

In the meantime, it seems that no matter how many mistakes, missteps and other problems the Republicans encounter in the run-up to the coming mid-term elections, the Democrats do their best to avoid taking advantage.

Off they go to do political battle in November, armed with a foreign policy that’s been double dipped in estrogen. Somebody pinch me.