The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “Michelle Goldberg”

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 11: Her Support of “Women’s Automony” Means Death To Millions Of Unborn Girls

They call it “gendercide”.  The deliberate killing of an unborn child based on its gender.  In the vast majority of cases that gender is female.  The House of Representatives tried, but failed, to pass a law that would have outlawed this type of abortion.  However, Democrats, virtually all of whom are pro-abortion on demand, blocked passage of the law.  Naturally, all pro-abortion liberal feminists are giddy with sadistic delight over this, including Michelle Goldberg who writes:

Sex-selective abortion is odious. Banning it means allowing the government to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate a pregnancy.”

In other words, so far as “woman’s autonomy” goes, and just how far Michelle Goldberg and all her liberal, pro-abortion feminist ilk are willing to go to preserve that “autonomy, Goldberg, like all pro-abortion liberal feminists, believes the killing of an unborn girl “constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate her pregnancy”.  Goldberg believes abortion on demand, for any reason a woman might dream up, during any time she is pregnant, including up until the very due date, the very moment the baby is about to pop its head out, (crowning) is acceptable enough time to still kill the child before it is legally and technically born.

Goldberg uses an excuse to deflect attention away from this heinous and despicable type of abortion by reminding us that most “gendercide” abortions occur in Asia, in China and India, and are not that common in America.

Reporting on sex-selective abortion in India, where feminists campaign against kanya bhronn hatya—literally, “the killing of young girls”—and patriarchs angrily assert their right to plan their families, I sometimes felt like I’d stepped through a looking glass. Clearly, the American anti-abortion movement would be happy to frame the debate in similar terms.”

We only frame the debate on abortion in one term – the killing of innocent life.  While Goldberg works to protect “woman’s autonomy” over her body by fighting for greater legal protections for woman and girls of all ages to have guaranteed rights to abortion whenever they want, we who are pro-life fight for greater legal protections for the unborn from those women and girls who would seek to end their pregnancies based upon the viscous lies of Michelle Goldberg, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, Cecile Richards, Terri O’Neill and Nancy Keenan, and all liberal pro-abortion feminists.  Their lies have caused the deaths of scores of millions of unborn children over the decades, and over 100 millions unborn girls.

These same undeniably callous and passionately misguided women who dare to claim there is a war on women being waged by the GOP and conservatives are the real terrorists waging a war on women by intentionally deceiving and misleading women and girls into believing that abortion is not the killing of an unborn child but just the removal of a blob of tissue, a “zygote”, a few cells, etc.  They would look us in the eyes and demand we yield to their insanity.  We dare to look back into their eyes and stand tall, stand proud, stand resolute in our courage and conviction that abortion takes the life of an unborn child and we will not back down.

Writes Goldberg:

It’s not surprising that anti-abortion activists see sex-selective abortion as their trump card. The issue puts feminists in a particularly difficult spot, turning reproductive choice into a tool of misogyny.”

Difficult spot?  Where is there a liberal pro-abortion feminist that has come out in support of banning “gendercide”?  If it was a “difficult spot”, if there was any amount of “difficulty” that put feminists in a “spot” that “difficulty” would have derived straight from their own conscience and every single feminist knows it.  In other words, the only way Michelle Goldberg or any liberal pro-abortion feminist could be put in a “difficult spot” is if their own conscience turned against their liberal feminist mindset.

Misogyny?  Michelle Goldberg supports the killing of unborn girls.  the GOP and conservatives support protecting unborn girls from being killed in the womb because they are girls in the womb.  Who is the real misogynist?

Of course, the real “difficult spot” Michelle Goldberg and her ilk have been put in is that they are forced by their own narrow-mindedness to support the killing of unborn girls because if just that one type of abortion is wrong, and they accept that it is wrong, such a move opens up the very real possibility of ending other types of specific abortion like abortion based on race and sexual orientation.

That Michelle Goldberg supports the killing of unborn girls in the womb without reserve, also means she supports the killing of blacks in the womb because they are black, and the killing of gays in the womb because they will be born gay.  And there in lies the rub.  She must support killing blacks and gays in the womb, just as vehemently as she must support the killing of girls in the womb.  Any hesitation, no matter how slight, is indication that abortion, for even one specific reason, may be wrong and immoral when done for other specific reasons.

Can there be any doubt that Michelle Goldberg cringes over the thought of one girl being killed in the womb because of its gender?  Either she cringes, perhaps even weeps, or she has no heart, no conscience, at all.  And yet, Michelle Goldberg must go along with “gendercide”, supporting it and being unapologetic in her pursuit of abortion on demand, deflecting the issue as anti-woman, a war on women and misogynist.

For now, with the failure to pass “gendercide” in the House, a “woman’s autonomy” remains intact.  However, the war on unborn girls continues to be waged, taking a heavy toll and untold casualties all in the name of “pro-choice”.  Does the right to choose to kill an unborn girl in the womb. because it is a girl, in any way really preserve a “woman’s autonomy”?

Concludes Goldberg:

The lesson is clear. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about sex-selective abortion should be working to fight sexism, its underlying cause. Laws that seek to limit women’s autonomy and confine them to traditional roles have it precisely backward. Unless, of course, limiting women’s autonomy and confining them to traditional roles has been the goal all along.”

Fighting sexism by supporting abortion, and supporting the killing of unborn girls in the womb, is counterproductive.  Sexism, in itself, is why unborn girls are being killed in the womb in the first place.  For Goldberg to insinuate, to insist, that sexism will end when women have the right, and so long as they maintain that right, to kill their unborn girls in the womb without government interference would be laughable but for its tragic consequences.  Goldberg wants us to believe that sexism will end when women have the right to abortion, and the right to kill their unborn child for any reason at any time during her pregnancy – on demand, in privacy, without anyone trying to prevent her from going through with it.  Goldberg is deluding herself if she thinks we are that gullible.

We who are pro-life will continue to find ways to ban abortion, at the same time we work to educate woman and girls about the realities of abortion.  Michelle Goldberg expounds the lies of Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, NOW and Terry O’Neill and NARAL and Nancy Keenan.  These women support the killing of girls in the womb, blacks in the womb, gays in the womb any unborn child in the womb.  Either that is moral or that is immoral.  Either that is evil or that is benevolent.  Either that is right or that is wrong.  Either we – who are pro-life – have the courage to continue fighting to save the lives of unborn children or we stand aside and allow the slaughter to go on without stop.  We know where Michelle Goldberg is on this.  Where are we on this?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 10: To Her Justice For Trayvon Martin Means Ignoring Facts, Inventing Myths – And Stirring Racism

Even before all the facts in the Trayvon Martin killing have come out, Michelle Goldberg, in her Daily Beast article has already pronounced Trayvon innocent on all counts, exonerating him of any wrongdoing he may or may not have engaged in that led up to his death at the hands of George Zimmerman.  Perhaps they can use her article as testimony at George Zimmerman’s trial, if he is ever allowed to have one, and if he is still alive to testify on his own behalf before he himself is killed by an angry mob looking for “justice”.  Michelle is more concerned about conservatives waging a smear attack against the reputation of Trayvon than she is for the safety of Zimmerman, who has a $10,000 bounty placed on him by the New Black Panthers – dead or alive, by the way.

Despite the evidence of Trayvon’s sordid past, more of which is coming to light everyday, Michelle, only looking at his youth, and the color of his skin, is positive Trayvon is guiltless.  Sorry to disappoint Michelle, but one’s past does often have a bearing on one’s actions in the present.  And looking into one’s past, to account for events as sketchy and mangled as the ones in this mystery is imperative to understanding more about Trayvon Martin himself.  He does have past criminal dealings.  Although that in of itself does not preclude guilt, it cannot be ignored either.

Michelle is quite comfortable when her liberal press is digging into the past of conservatives, politicians or otherwise, to find any dirt on them with which to smear their reputation.  That the press would delve deeper into the life on Trayvon, to find out if anything in, or about, his past could have resulted in the events that led to his death, Michelle insists, conservatives are waging a “smear” attack.  Michelle, much like the MSM, wants all of us to find George Zimmerman guilty of cold-blooded murder before any facts have been brought to light.  How would she react if it was Trayvon who killed Zimmerman?

Write Michelle:

So why this desire to paint Martin, rather than the man who shot him, as the guilty party? Partly, of course, it’s just a reaction to his death becoming a cause célèbre on the left—it’s the same sort of impulse that leads some conservatives to delight in “Fry Mumia” T-shirts. Beyond that, though, some on the right are deeply invested in the idea that anti-black racism is no longer much of a problem in the United States, and certainly not a problem on the scale of false accusations of racism.

Michelle, perhaps because she harbors her own white-guilt, is willing to pre-judge Zimmerman, but finds any attempt to pre-judge Trayvon as racist.  There is no desire to “paint” Trayvon as anything as of yet.  Conservatives don’t jump to conclusions the way liberals, like Michelle, like to do.  She pretends to be worried about the perceived racism being levied against Trayvon by conservatives all the while she is levying her own racism against Zimmerman, who is a white Hispanic.

Says Michelle:

I’m far from the first to notice the similarities between the way people talk about Martin and the way they talk about rape victims, whose clothes and histories are often subject to scrutiny no matter how cut-and-dried the case seems. Like a rape victim, Martin’s past is being excavated for evidence that he might have provoked the harm done to him. It hardly matters that even if Martin had gotten high every day, it would have had zero relevance; it’s not as if marijuana use is linked to violence.

What Michelle fails to take into account is that drug users have a habit of accosting people and robbing them for whatever money they can get to buy drugs with.  That is not to say Trayvon was an addict, or that was what he was doing when he confronted Zimmerman.  However, it is almost criminal not to look into that simply because Trayvon is black.

The one and only fact of this case that is known is that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.  He claims self-defense.  Millions of blacks, and whites, including Michelle Goldberg, have jumped to the conclusion that he is lying; that because Trayvon is black, and was only seventeen, he could not have possibly been the aggressor in this case.  As if there has never been another instance where a young teenager attacked an adult.

Says Trayvon mother:

“They’ve killed my son, and now they’re trying to kill his reputation,” Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, said after the suspension story broke.

We can sympathize with her.  However, it is peculiar that in trying to protect her son’s reputation, she will see that his name lives on and that she profits from it financially.  Blacks get a pass from this sort of behavior that whites don’t.  Whether for right or wrong that is just the reality we currently in.  We will see, in time, the full purpose of how Trayvon’s mother uses and “protects” her son’s name.  We also have to wonder, but not too hard, why Michelle ignores this and the blatantly racist T-Shirts making their debut on Florida streets.  Michelle Goldberg would not denounce Trayvon’s mother’s action, nor would she denounce the makers, and wearers of these shirts.  But she would, so readily, so eagerly, denounce what she sees as a conservative “smear” attack going on against Trayvon Martin.

Michelle writes a very bizarre, very disturbing ending to her article:

On the surface, it’s odd that Martin’s image would become so politicized. No ideological capitulation would be required for conservatives to mourn his death—one can believe in gun rights and still believe that he shouldn’t have been killed. A real NRA fanatic, after all, might make a case that Martin himself should have been armed, so that he could stand his ground against the paranoid man who was stalking him.

She refers to Zimmerman as “paranoid”, thereby pre-judging him before all the facts are known about this case.  Michelle does to Zimmerman what she accuses conservatives of doing to Trayvon, and for that we are supposed to accept her article as “professionally” written without any hint of bias or impartiality on her part?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 9: To Her, A “Wrongful Birth” Means One Less Abortion

Pro-abortion advocates, and Michelle Goldberg, who frequently cheer-leads for the cause, see no value, no worth, no actual life in any fetus to begin with.  But a fetus which has developed some type of abnormality, such a Downs Syndrome, or where one or more of its body parts is either deformed or missing altogether is even less worth saving, from the pro-abortion perspective.  Many women obviously would want to abort such children “for their own good” – the child’s own good, that is.  But is the mother really aborting the child for its own good, or hers?

Outrage within the pro-abortion community is brewing over whether or not a doctor can intentionally keep information about a woman’s unborn child from her when abnormalities arise, thinking, fearing she might abort it if she found out.  Arizona just passed a bill to protect doctors who lie to pregnant mothers in what has been dubbed “wrongful birth”.  Wrongful birth, because had the mother known of the “malady” ahead of the birth, she might have opted for the abortion instead, thereby “sparing” the child all the “pain” and “hurt” and “psychological” and “emotional” scars it would encounter throughout its life.  Death, advocates Michelle Goldberg, and pro-abortion supporters, is the preferred option.

From The Daily Beast, writes Michelle:

In some states, though, anti-abortion activists are pushing legislation to protect doctors who don’t give women all available information about their pregnancies. Arizona and Kansas are considering bills that would ban lawsuits in cases where doctors fail to warn their patients about birth defects. The Arizona law, which is similar to legislation that exists in a handful of other states, would apply only when doctors make a mistake. But the Kansas provision, part of a sweeping, 69-page anti-abortion bill, would allow physicians to lie to women who might otherwise terminate their pregnancies. It is similar to a law in Oklahoma passed two years ago—in concert, ironically, with mandatory ultrasound legislation.

While Michelle is flabbergasted that a woman would not be given the information about her unborn child’s development, or underdevelopment, so she can quickly abort it if she chooses, interestingly, but not surprisingly, Michelle, and all pro-abortion advocates, would rather deny women the right to know the child they are about to abort is actually a human being by showing the mother an ultrasound image of her child.  This begs the question – if a woman would feel uncomfortable viewing a picture of a healthy child she is about to kill, would a woman want to see the ultrasound picture of her underdeveloped child so she can feel more comfortable killing it?

Michelle argues that doctors who are allowed to lie are also getting away with their own responsibility in the prenatal care of the fetus, and should complications arise, a doctor who knowingly keeps such information from the mother would not be liable, and therefore cannot be sued.  Well, from the pro-abortion point of view, how can any doctor be sued for “negligence” if a fetus is not a human being to begin with?  Michelle’s argument is baseless if she is also taking the position that a fetus is not a human being.  But if a fetus is a human being, then her and the entire pro-abortion position becomes baseless as well as dangerous.  Michelle cannot have it both ways.

Doctors are fearful, and rightfully so, that when they relay the news to the mother her fetus will not be born “normal” she will want to abort her child rather than give it life.  Granted, doctors ought not lie, or feel compelled to lie, in order to protect the life of an unborn fetus.  Nor ought women feel helpless that a child born with an abnormality, disability or deformity is going to automatically have less quality of life than anyone else.  if anything, it is the pro-abortion movement which has placed doctors in the position of having to lie in order to protect the unborn child from being aborted.

We, who are born relatively normal, cannot fathom our lives without arms or legs, without sight or hearing, without a sound mind, etc.  But for those people who are born without arms or legs, who are born blind and/or deaf, who are born with an underdeveloped brain or any type of disability or abnormality – do they actually miss what they never had?  And would they rather their mothers had killed them in womb than give them a life, an opportunity for life, which pro-abortion advocates consider substandard and subhuman, but which they, and millions of others who were given life, consider a better alternative to death?

Millions of people are born with all sorts of disabilities, abnormalities, complications, etc, and do lead normal, healthy, worthwhile and satisfying lives.  Why would Michelle Goldberg and pro-abortion supporters so selfishly deny these people the right to live?

We, who are born relatively normal, are acting selfishly, and for ourselves, when we support abortion over life.  If a woman has a legal right to abort a child for one reason, then rationally she has a right to abort a child for any reason.  And therein lies the crux of the abortion problem and why this is a situation of all or nothing.  In other words, either we allow abortion for any reason, or we don’t allow it at all.  But if we allow abortion for any reason, pro-abortion advocates must accept, and be willing to accept abortion in cases where a child will be born gay, black (non-white) or female.  Can liberals, like Michelle Goldberg, stomach these types of abortions as well as they stomach every other type of abortion?

If we who are pro-life can challenge Michelle, and all pro-abortion advocates on this, we can win this debate faster and easier than arguing abortion from strictly a religious point of view.  Abortion is a moral issue also, and either life has value or it hasn’t.  Force pro-abortion advocates to admit that they support killing black babies, gay babies and female babies in the womb; force them to admit they support killing blind babies, deaf babies, Downs Syndrome babies, and any babies that will be born with any type of abnormalities and they, along with their pro-abortion position, will disintegrate.  Are we up to that challenge?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 8: Contraception,Terri Schiavo And Liberals Who Devote Themselves To The Culture Of Death

Michelle Goldberg, in her Daily Beast piece, proves that liberals have an absolute love affair with death as she compares the fight for a woman’s right for contraception with that of the fight Terri Schiavo‘s husband (Michael) waged to end her life, after many years in a vegetative state.  Liberals have no respect for life.  That includes pro-abortion women (and men) who demand a right to access contraception (free if at all possible) which is intended to end the life of an unborn child already created in the womb, and Michael Schiavo who demanded the right to remove his wife’s feeding tubes and let her die of starvation and dehydration.

Michael won his battle, despise the pleas from Terri’s parents who begged Michael to relinquish his rights over Terri to them.  It has always been troubling as to why he never did.  Michael had insisted all along Terri had once told him that if she was ever to become in such a state of being she would not want to live like that.  However, there was never any actual proof Terri said this.  Just Micheal’s word as her husband.  And because husbands and wives have certain rights in regards to how their spouses are dealt with in such situations, spouses can legally, and literally, make life and death decisions for each other when and if there is not already a living will, or some form of documentation left by either spouse to let the other, and the law, know exactly how they wish to be treated when they can no longer speak, or think, for themselves.

What has always been troubling about Michael and his attitude towards Terri is that it is common knowledge Michael wanted to remarry.  He couldn’t do that so long as Terri was still alive and while he was still legally, in the eyes of the law, her husband.  And that is the most damning, the most disturbing nuance of this whole battle that, for some weeks, surrounded Terri Schiavo.  Her own parents were willing to become her legal guardians, thereby removing Michael from any legal responsibility as her husband – and he could have divorced her as well, paving the way for him to remarry the woman he was seeing while Terri lay in a vegetative state.  That would have ended the drama which played on the news for all the days and weeks this case made national headlines.

Michael didn’t take that opportunity.  He didn’t choose life.  He opted for her death.  And the speculation that surrounded him then, as to why he didn’t, still persists and swells to this day.  Was Michael Schiavo in some way the cause his wife’s condition that left her in a vegetative state for so many years?  And would Terri be able to relate some type of incriminating information against Michael to her parents, and police, if she ever woke from her vegetative state?  Michael has never been able to completely answer why he simply didn’t give up his rights as her husband, and legal guardian, and allow Terri’s parents to assume responsibility.

We can not call Michael a murderer outright because that would be both slander and libel.  But the insinuation, the innuendo, the implication and the accusation is nonetheless embedded within the thought.  Terri did not need to die, she did not have to die, and whether or not she wanted to die is speculative at best.  The same is true with unborn children.  They do not need to die, they do not have to die, and would they want to die any more than Terri would have wanted to die because, as in the case of unborn children, their mothers do not wish to give them life?

Terri might still be alive today.  With medical advancements, she might even have improved.  But because her life was ended in such a brutal, sadistic and inhumane way – a way in which we would never treat a death row inmate or a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, for that matter – we will never have the opportunity to know if Terri might have lived, if she might have improved, if she might have regained enough of her motor skills and speaking skills to relay any words or messages to her parents.  And that probably suits Michael Shiavo just fine.

And it suits all liberals, who have the “culture of death” attitude, just fine.  And it is the reason why Michelle Goldberg uses Terri, her death in particular, as an example and a comparison between contraception and who has what controls over whose body and whose life.  Michelle Goldberg, as with all liberals, do not value the lives of the unborn any more than that valued the life of Terri Schiavo.  Which is interesting, from a feminist point of view, because here you have a man who wanted to end a woman’s life.  One might assume feminists would have been outraged.  They weren’t.

Terri, apparently, was of no use, of no value, to liberal feminists in her vegetative state.  And because liberals, as a body of people, are really nothing more than small collections of people whose ideas are in the minority, the only way they can succeed in their own goals is to band together to thwart conservatism, which as a body, and a percentage of American people, has, if not a majority, a much closer one than do liberals, and a higher percentage of people within its base than have liberals.  In other words, whether feminists approved of how the Terri Schiavo case was handled, feminists, being in a minority, could not risk angering the pro-assisted suicide supporters, another minority, with whom they need on their side as much as the pro-assisted suicide crowd needs the pro-abortion crowd on its side.

Michelle Goldberg asks whether or not, within the contraception debate, this is a “Terry Schiavo moment”.  It is, but not for the liberal, “culture of death” reasoning they give.  The “moment” which may be that in geologic terms, has been an ongoing “moment” for decades.  The “moment” is the ongoing debate in America that will decide whether or not life as any value at all, and who is control of deciding matters of life, and matters of death – and who has the right to decide such matters.  The “moment” is also an ongoing debate to decide exactly what life is and what life means.

The “Terri Schiavo moment”, from the liberal viewpoint, is fertile in the concept that death not only has more value than live, but that death itself is a value; and women who want the right to end their unborn child’s life with whatever contraception they choose must have, and retain, their right to do so.

Death with dignity is one thing.  However, where is the dignity in ending someone’s life, as Michael Schiavo ended his wife’s life, by starvation and dehydration?  Where is the dignity in ending someone’s life by plunging a needle into their skull in order to deflate it enough so it can be pulled from the womb without making its mother too “uncomfortable” in the process; or ripping its body parts into pieces and removing it from the womb piece by piece; or sucking it out entirely if it is small enough?

Conservatives support real “death with dignity”.  We don’t support murder.  And we don’t support redefining murder in legal terms so that murder becomes legally sanctioned by the state, by government and protected by the Constitution.  Morally and ethically abortion is murder.  That the state has legalized it does not change that fact.  What happened to Terri Schiavo was murder.  That the state of Florida sanctioned it does not change that fact.

Equating contraception, and the fight to control access to it, as being a part of a woman’s overall “health”, with that of Terri Schiavo is yet another example of feminists, and liberals, like Michelle Goldberg, acting stupidly and irrationally.  What liberals are fighting for is contraception that ends and removes an unwanted living child from a mother’s womb and her life.  What Michael Schiavo fought for was to end and remove a living woman, an obstacle, from his life so he could live his life anew.  In each case death, and the killing of a life, and a living human being, is the result.

If there is indeed a “Terri Schiavo moment” which there ought to be, it ought to be a teachable moment for all of us.  Liberals, like Michelle Goldberg – like all the usual suspects, Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, Cecile Richards, Terry O’Neill, all liberal feminists, all liberals, the entire American Left, the Democrat Party, including President Barack Obama who himself supports infanticide – all support death more than they support life; support fighting for death more than they support fighting for life; support legal and Constitutional rights which guarantees them the freedom to commit certain and specific acts which lead to death in “privacy”.

What the “Terri Schiavo moment” ought to teach us is what the vast and fundamental differences are in terms of morals and values between liberals (their “culture of death”) and conservatives (their “culture of life”).  Millions of unborn children are not now alive today because of the “culture of death” liberals have waged against life.  Terri Schiavo is not now alive today because of that same success, that same “culture of death” which epitomizes the liberal mindset.

What the “Terri Schiavo moment” ought to teach us is that if we don’t continue to fight the Left, and their “culture of death”, if we don’t continue to oppose them, if we instead give up and give in because it is an exhausting, unending process, particularly with regards to attempting to pass legislation and laws which we know will be challenged in every court in America; because the time, the money invested, often in vain (in terms of having these laws overturned by legislatures and courts) may become too much for us, financially and emotionally, to bear – if we cannot remain strong and courageous in our resolve to fight for a “culture of life”, life itself, and the right to live, will lose all value, all meaning, all rights.

What price are we willing to put on life?  Because we know the Left puts a big fat zero on life.  We know the Left has put, and invested, an enormous price on death.  And we know that the Left wants the price tag, the bill, associated with death to be yours to pay.  Hence the contraception mandate forced on us by Barack Obama.

Someone has to pay for the “culture of death”.  So too, someone has to pay for the “culture of life”.  The question before the American people right now is, what is the price, the worth, and who pays?  And who ultimately “pays” for a “culture of death”?  And what does that “payment” for a “culture of death” ultimately mean to us and to American society?  And once we have finished “paying” for a “culture of death”, can we ever return to a “culture of life”?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 7: Her Christian Deconstructionism Is Poorly Rooted

While Michelle Goldberg sympathizes with Muslim terrorists, Christianity scares the hell out her.  So much so, she has taken to inventing an hysteria surrounding Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Christian Reconstructionism and Christian theocracy, and weaving them all into a single lustful tale of unimaginable things yet to come.  Fear for your lives, so conjures Michelle.

Goldberg is terrified of both Presidential contenders, but Ron Paul more so, as Bachmann’s campaign begins its sunset and her supporters scramble to Paul.  She begins with Michele Bachmann whom she states “frequently warns of the threat of a global caliphate”.   Such unrepentant negativity toward Bachmann, despite the fact that it is Goldberg herself who never misses an opportunity in her articles to “frequently warn” us all of a Christian theocracy coming to America, including her current one.  Bachmann is also critical of Ron Paul, but not for being too Christian, rather for being too soft on foreign policy; in particular, Paul’s anti-war stance and his opposition to any notions of conflict with Iran which Paul states is “American overreaction”.  In one sentence Goldberg quotes from Bachmann her response to Paul saying:

I think I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one that we just heard from Ron Paul.”

In her very next sentence, however, (which is humanly possible for one with good lungs to read in the same breath) Goldberg strays wildly, unevenly, into a rambling non sequitur, strangely writing:

Bachmann built her career crusading against gay marriage, while Paul voted against a 2006 constitutional amendment limiting marriage to partners of the opposite sex. These are extremely different candidates.

Thus, Michelle Goldberg quantifies Bachmann’s reaction to Paul’s “dangerous answer to American security” by attributing to her what Goldberg emphasizes is Bachmann’s “crusading against gay marriage”.  How in the hell can Goldberg go from writing about foreign policy in one sentence to writing about gay marriage in the very next, virtually in the same breath?  What correlation is there between the two?  Iran wants nuclear arms, and may already have developed one.  Gays and lesbians want the right to get married.  Which is more of a contentious, an explosive, issue?  Unless, of course, Goldberg is eluding to both issues, once they become a reality, having the potential of reigning in Armageddon and the end of the world.  Except, nuclear war can bring about the end of the world, and while gay marriage won’t bring about the end of Christian fundamentalism, it may soften its influence.

In Goldberg’s radical feminist mind, perhaps what she is really saying about Bachmann is “I [Michelle Goldberg] have never known a more dangerous person with insecurities towards homosexuality than I have known in Michele Bachmann”.  In other words, Goldberg is insinuating that as “Bachmann has built a career crusading against gay marriage”, Ron Paul has “built a career” crusading against “American overreaction”, particularly in the Middle East.  Ron Paul is less of a Christian apologist, even less of a Christian, than is Michele Bachmann, and therefore less of a perceived threat to Goldberg.  Paul even supports defunding foreign aid to Israel.  But the supporters of Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann, whom Goldberg describes as Christian Reconstructionists and premillennial dispensationalists, are:

one of the strangest coalitions in American political history, bringing together libertarian hipsters with those who want to subject the sexually impure to Taliban-style public stonings. (Stoning is Reconstructionists’ preferred method of execution because it is both biblical and fiscally responsible, rocks being, in North’s words, “cheap, plentiful, and convenient.”)

Goldberg loathes and despises Christianity, for one, because (and never mind the fact some millions of Christians support gay marriage) Christianity, and a sizable bulk of Christians remain opposed to gay marriage.  Well, so does Islam, which is also opposed to homosexuality itself, and under Sharia law puts to death anyone caught engaged in homosexual activity, however slight.  But it is Christianity, not Islam, which deeply affects Goldberg.

American law does not put to death anyone for being homosexual.  But if Sharia law was ever granted legal status in America, it is possible that an American Muslim, having been “outed” could be executed – probably stoned – in America for being gay.  It is also possible, under Sharia law, for a woman or girl accused of infidelity, even falsely, to be put to death.  Have you heard of Soraya Manutchehri?  But because Islam Hates Christianity, Goldberg tolerates Islam.

Goldberg has wrapped herself in heavy layers of, if you will, anti-Christian swaddling.  Or would you prefer the chain of anti-Christianity she wears in life?  Forged link by link of her own free will to include homosexuality, abortion, women’s rights, birth control for very young minors, gender equality and equal rights, illegal immigration and affirmative action.  All of which Goldberg uses to denounce Christianity.  Aside from abortion, which Christianity, and most Christians oppose, Goldberg has created tons of extra hate for a religion which cannot harm or even touch her under the American Constitution.  No wonder why she comes to Ron Paul’s defense over the criticism of Michele Bachmann, a staunchly conservative Christian, although Goldberg would never support Ron Paul in anything other than when he seems to distance himself from Christian values and influence.

Some words of comfort by Ron Paul which Michelle Goldberg hearkens to:

My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain.”

Says Goldberg:

Paul doesn’t demagogue about a putative war on Christianity being waged by the Obama administration.

This is really the kind of Christian Goldberg admires – someone who keeps their faith to themselves, does not hold their religion and their religious values over another person’s head and can accept someone’s religious faith or non belief, their activism, religious or political, without ever interfering.  Imagine telling Goldberg to shut the hell up and mind her own damn business, and to keep her opinions to herself.  She would go ballistic, batty as a feminist and fly into a furious witch-like rage.  But this is exactly what she demands of Christians.

There is indeed a “putative war” being waged by the Obama administration.  A war against Americanism itself, which is, like it or not, deeply rooted in Christianity.  The values and morals of conservatism, whether religious or secular, are being eroded and toppled by lawmakers and overruled by judges who deem them to be unconstitutional.

Goldberg freely expresses her hatred of Christianity because at one time in its history, long before the advent of America, it was violent and used violence very forcibly to hold on to its power and because she sees in today’s Christianity, among some several millions of Christians, that same zeal.  But never mind that Islam is that way now, and has been for hundreds of years.  The Islam of today, Goldberg empathizes and sympathizes with, while the Christianity of old, which cannot legally, constitutionally, function in America, she condemns.  Goldberg worries a right wing President in the White House will usher in a new Christian Theocracy, but has no problem with the increase of Muslims in America and their push for Sharia law.

However, Goldberg is not so enraptured with Ron Paul that she would get in bed with him.  She notes:

Nevertheless, Paul’s support among the country’s most committed theocrats is deep and longstanding, something that’s poorly understood among those who simply see him as a libertarian.

But so long as Paul hammers Bachmann on matters of religion, Goldberg will remain “friendly” towards him.  And yet when interest and support in Bachmann’s campaign wanes, when those same Christians flock to Paul, Goldberg will quickly abandon her “friendliness” with Paul and excoriate and scourge him as she does Michele Bachmann and all Christians.  Ron Paul, to Goldberg, is nothing more than useful tool, the same as with her infatuation with Islam – she uses both Paul and Islam to tweak and ridicule Christianity, never mind how dangerous are the radical elements within Islam she defends.  Goldberg is a liberal, probably socialist, and like all in her camp they are under the false impression that if they can conquer Christianity, they can also conquer Islam and install socialism as the global model.  But first they must conquer Christianity.  They need like-minded politicians in congress and in the White House to assist them with passing a liberal and socialist agenda.  A Republican win thwarts their efforts to push Christian influence aside.  Hence, Goldberg’s constant attacks on Republicans, conservatives, the religious right and all of Christianity.

Michelle writes:

Should Paul win the Iowa caucuses, it will actually be a triumph for a fundamentalist faction that has until now been considered a fringe even on the Christian right.

If it is a “fringe” now, it will remain a “fringe” even with an Iowa win for Paul.  Even if Paul somehow wins the nomination and the Presidency.  What likelihood is there that several millions of people in a “fringe” swell into a hundred million converts in time for the 2012 election?

Michelle continues on for paragraphs – and paragraphs – in a schizophrenic and Christi-phobia rant beginning with:

To understand Paul’s religious-right support, it’s necessary to wade a bit into the theological weeds. Most American evangelicals are premillennial dispensationalists. They believe that God has a special plan for the nation of Israel, which will play a key role in the end of days and the return of Christ.

Thankfully, it is not necessary “to wade” any further into Goldberg’s anti-“theological weeds”.  Her intent is clear and self evident, though her writing is incoherent, muddled and mired in an unrealistic fear of Christianity and exposes a nonsensical, deep-seeded loathing of Christians, Christian values and morals for very wrong and selfish reasons.

Goldberg actually helps Christianity, and thus conservatism, with her unfounded ignorance of it.  The more people of little or no faith see Goldberg and others acting irrationally for their liberal cause, the more apparent it becomes just how unstable, unreliable, unrealistic liberalism is.  The more Christians and conservatives see how intentional her misrepresentations of Christianity are, the stronger their resolve, and their agenda, becomes, and the more people abandon liberalism and liberalism’s empty promises for, if not Christianity, then most certainly secular conservatism.

Would Michelle Goldberg ever comprehend how greatly her insatiable Christi-phobia only weakens the cause of liberalism, or is that over her head?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 6: The “Extreme” Value Of Human Life

Just “how extreme” is personhood, and the idea set forth by pro-life supporters that a fetus in the womb is in fact a human life worth protecting?  To pro-abortion feminist, Michelle Goldberg, who writes of Republican “extremism”, and a teleconference debate sponsored by Personhood U.S.A., any attempt at preventing a woman from ending her pregnancy is an assault on “women’s rights”, and therefore too “extreme”, including and especially the “extreme” anti-abortion positions set down by the four Republican candidates participating:  Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry.

In her article, Michelle Goldberg makes an attempt to redefine what “extreme” means.  Does she?

Michelle writes:

The event demonstrated that a commitment to banning all abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, and threats to a woman’s health, is now the normative position among the party’s presidential contenders.

Do conservatives place too much value on human life and the unborn, too much emphasis on when life begins, we cannot see by putting women in situations which make it harder, illegal, to obtain a life ending medical procedure, an abortion, we are jeopardizing their health, their lives, and devaluing the self-worth of all women, preventing them from going back and living their lives as they once did, shattering their dreams, making it impossible for women to become anything more in their lives than mothers?  What defense do conservatives have against such a reckless abandonment of concern for women’s rights, for equality, for fairness and the right of all women to share in the American Dream; to be free and independent?

This is what liberal feminists posit.  To them, pregnancy changes everything for a woman.  Giving birth reroutes a woman’s destiny.  Caring for and raising an unplanned child takes women down a road different from the one they had hoped to travel.  Women become lost down this unfamiliar, unfriendly terrain.  The bitter coldness, the loneliness, of pregnancy, the hostile, unpredicted conditions and alienation cause her no other choice but to seek out help.  So, they hitchhike a ride on the abortion bandwagon.

She writes of Michele Bachmann:

Bachmann distinguished herself with her dishonesty, claiming at one point that Obama is “putting abortion pills for young minors, girls as young as 8 years of age or 11 years of age, on [the] bubblegum aisle.” (Obama, of course, recently overrode an FDA recommendation to make emergency contraception available over the counter for all ages, infuriating women’s-health activists.)

To be fair, Bachmann was not as dishonest as Goldberg portrays her. If but for the immense amount of pressure anti-abortion groups have been mounting, if but for their successful lobbying efforts, Kathleen Sebelius would have accepted the FDA’s recommendation to allow girls at any age, even as young as ten, to purchase the Morning After pill (Plan B), without their parents knowledge or consent – and Obama likewise would have overwhelming approved and applauded, and supported, the decision.

In other words, neither Sebelius or Obama gave any real consideration to:

  The cultural effects we would all be faced with of having to watch very young girls buy a drug behind her parents backs, to keep secret a sexual act she does not want them to know about.  Something liberal feminists want their parents, and society, to both accept and ignore.

•  The fact that teenagers are engaging in sex and rather than push for responsible programs which help them delay sexual activity, provide them with drugs which make the unwanted results go away, thereby allowing the irresponsibility to continue unhindered.  Something liberal feminists want conservatives to both accept and ignore.

•  The psychological effects all girls, even very young girls, would be forced to deal with, living in a society that does nothing to protect them from engaging in a behavior they are far too young to understand and appreciate.  Something liberal feminists want all girls to discover for themselves when they “feel they are ready”, even if that means at a very young age.

There has been considerable outrage within the pro-abortion and feminist community over what they feel is a betrayal by Sebelius and Obama.  Were they too “extreme” in preventing young girls from obtaining the Morning After Pill?  Michelle Goldberg believes they were.  And so do other feminists.  But don’t expect them to see their views as “extreme”.

Abortion, and the right to have an abortion, for any reason, regardless of the girl’s age or what stage the pregnancy is in, is more than a private choice, it is a fundamental and Constitutional right to Michelle Goldberg and liberal feminists.  Is that “extreme”?

Goldberg was also little impressed with Perry’s explanation for “flip-plopping” his views on abortion.  He now opposes it even in the case of rape and incest.

“This is something that is relatively new,” he said, citing a meeting with Rebecca Kiessling, a spokeswoman for Personhood USA who was adopted after her mother, a rape victim, tried and failed to abort her. “Looking in her eyes, I couldn’t come up with an answer to defend the exemptions for rape and incest,” he said. “And over the course of the last few weeks, the Christmas holidays and reflecting on that…all I can say is that God was working on my heart.”

Is the pro-life position so “extreme”, so stubborn, we cannot accept abortion even in the case of rape and incest?  Even in the case of a woman’s “health”?  Is the pro-life position so “extreme” we adamantly refuse to condone abortion, and fight vigorously to outlaw it, even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman?  Is the pro-life position so “extreme” so narrow-minded that we reject abortion as a means of “family planning” even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman?  Is the pro-life position so “extreme” so hostile, to “women’s rights” that we put her unborn child’s right to live ahead of those “rights” even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman?

Is the pro-life position more “extreme” than the pro-abortion position?  Is Michelle Goldberg right?  Have we “gone extreme on abortion”?

Either life has value, or it hasn’t.  Is there a life inside the womb or not?  Does that life have any value?

Is killing it, even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman less “extreme” than fighting for its life?

Or, has Michelle Goldberg redefined the meaning of “extreme”?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 5 – Her Jewish Love Affair With Islam And Everything Anti-Christian

Cheap feminists like Michelle Goldberg are a dime a dozen.  That aside, here we have a Jewish woman defending a television program, “All American Muslim”, and supporting a religion, Islam, that wants to kill her and all Jews, while at the same time she abhors Christianity, which is an ally of Jews and a defender of Israel.  Her book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, is an attempt at prophecy, a dire “warning” of things yet to come should the grip of Christianity, “dominionism”, tighten its hold on America. 

This is the description of her book as seen on Amazon.com:

Goldberg traveled through the heartland of a country in the grips of a fevered religious radicalism: the America of our time. From the classroom to the mega-church to the federal court, she saw how the growing influence of dominionism-the doctrine that Christians have the right to rule nonbelievers-is threatening the foundations of democracy.

Does this description sound more like Christianity, or Islam?  Isn’t it Islam, the religion of submission, that consistently utters “convert the infidel, or kill him/her?  Is it Christianity or Islam that practices “honor killings”?  Is it Christianity or Islam that is pushing hard to bring Sharia Law to America?  Is it Christianity or Islam that imprisons its women for having been raped and forces her to marry the rapist or remain in prison?  Is it Christianity or Islam that shames women for having been raped?  Is it Christianity or Islam that flogs, stones and murders women who will not cover themselves from head to toe, if they drive a car, if they try to vote, if they talk to a man who is of no relation, if they will not submit to their husband, and even when they are raped?  Is it Christianity or Islam that faults the woman for being raped, and releases the rapist?  Is it Christianity, or Islam, that treats women, in general, in practice, and in reality, like crap?

Is it Christianity, or is it Islam, that wants “dominion” over all the world, and the “right to rule nonbelievers”?

Michelle Goldberg is Jewish by birth, but that is about as far as it goes.  As a feminist, and a socialist, her defense of Islam is not necessarily genuine, because as a feminist, and a socialist – as are all feminists and socialists – she is anti-religion.  Which means she is also anti-Islam.  However, Islam is anti-Christian, and that being the case, she sees an opportunity to weaken Christianity by defending a religion that would otherwise sooner cut off her head than shake her hand in anti-Christian solidarity.

She is playing a very dangerous game all in an effort to weaken the influence of Christianity in America.  She is willing to betray America and her Jewish Heritage, disregarding the violence, the hatred, the obsession radical Muslims have in destroying Israel and killing all the Jews – all to push Christianity’s reach further away from the people who would seek its embrace.

Which is why Michelle writes, in her pro-Muslim article, that:

The boycott against All-American Muslim surely marks the first time that right-wingers have objected to a television program for being too bland and wholesome.

We ought not deny the fact that there are peaceful Muslims.  Indeed, many of them immigrated to America to escape the violence of the Middle East, desiring the freedom only America can offer them.  We ought not lose sight of the fact that many American Muslims are patriots.  But we ought not be blind-sighted either.

The protest against “All American Muslim”, and the reason why advertisers are pulling their sponsorship from this program as stated by The Florida Family Association:

‘All-American Muslim’ is propaganda clearly designed to counter legitimate and present-day concerns about many Muslims who are advancing Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law,” the Florida group asserts in a letter it asks members to send to TLC advertisers.

In other words it had to do with the fact that right now we are at war with a very radical and sadistic, and evil, part of Islam, and have been since 9/11.  The entire concept of this program is engineered to deflect that issue, to push it under the rug, to deny it by casting all American Muslims as peace-loving, pro family, pro Americans.

There is a hidden agenda to “All American Muslim”.  Its creators are hoping to portray Muslims, and Islam, in a positive light while at the same time undermining and mocking our efforts to win the War On Terror.  With this program, the creators are attempting to show how ridiculous it has been, and a waste of time, money and lives fighting against something – Islam – that is clearly, as portrayed on “All American Muslim”, quite peaceful.  It is the creators way of “throwing their shoes” at all Christians, Republicans, conservatives, George W. Bush, and all “right-wingers”, “tea-baggers”, “capitalist pigs”, “pro-lifers”, etc., that are fighting to keep America out of the hands of socialists.

While Michelle Goldberg looks to excoriate and rake over the coals Americans, “right-wingers”, who worry such programming has a deeper, more diabolic intent, what would her reaction be to a program called “All American Christian”?  Isn’t it obvious Michelle would write a scathing critique against it, outlining the “hypocrisy” of such a program.  She has already written many articles condemning Christianity and Christians.  And let’s not forget her book, Kingdom Coming.

Michelle Goldberg hates Christianity, as do all feminists and socialists.  Christianity is in their way of realizing socialism’s dominion, its “dominionism” over America.  If Islam can help Michelle Goldberg accomplish this agenda, she is perfecting willing to bed down with Muslims until that agenda is realized.

But – what happens to America if socialism wins?  And – what happens to Michelle Goldberg’s love affair with Islam after she, and all socialists, succeed in permanently removing Christian influence from America?  What happens to Michelle Goldberg’s pro-Muslim, pro-Islam attitude then?  What happens to all American Muslims?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 4 – And Feminists Acting Stupidly

Ten year old girls have been denied access to over the counter drugs by the Obama Administration and Planned Parenthood feels both betrayed and outraged.  Sharing in this outrage is feminist Michelle Goldberg, who writes in The Daily Beast the decision to prevent little girls (who should not be thinking about, let alone having, sex in the first place) from purchasing a pregnancy ending drug was “politically driven”.

Politics getting in the way of ten year old girls engaging in sex, then “destroying any evidence” before mommy and daddy find out?

Michelle writes:

This controversy was constantly cited in feminist indictments of the previous president. It was usually mentioned in critiques of Bush’s ideological, anti-empirical approach to science. That’s why women’s-health advocates and other progressives were so shocked yesterday when the Obama administration overruled an FDA recommendation to expand over-the-counter access to Plan B One-Step, a type of morning-after pill.

How can revoking insanity be an “anti-empirical approach to science”?  There is, or course, no “controversy”.  Only in the excrement filled minds of Planned Parenthood and feminists, like Michelle Goldberg.  “Feminist indictments” and “critiques” are absolutely irrelevant in the real world, and certainly ought not hold any bearing, any sway, in science and rational thought, or in congress and its role, its ability to make and pass laws.

There is something deeper, more disturbing and diabolical going on than that.  Even by 2011 logic, standards and common sense the very idea we as a civilized society would accept something that is so damaging, so corrupting to anyone, women, teens and especially little girls goes beyond any level of straight forward comprehension.

It is absurdity that we would behave and react with dignified reserve, and with a smile on our face, should we happen to witness a teenage girl, or even a girl as young as ten, walk up to a store counter, plunk down the appropriate fee and declare, “Now may I have that drug which makes my pregnancy go away?”

Honestly, what does Planned Parenthood and Michelle Goldberg take us for?  What does any feminist acting stupidly, endangering the lives of young girls, tampering with their “fragile innocence” take us for?

As parents, and as a society, we have a compelling necessity to instill responsibility in our children.  Although teenagers ought not be engaging in sex to begin with, we know it occurs.  Providing to our young easily accessible drugs (i.e., a pill which provides an easy way out) does not mold character, does not shape a child’s mind or prepare them for adulthood, does not allow them to properly grow into strong, independent adults.  We know why Planned Parenthood supports corrupting young girls.  Why does Michelle Goldberg defend their despicable actions?

The decision to deny girls under the age of 17 the drug nicknamed “The Morning after pill” was in part driven by politics.  Obama, congress, and even radical pro-abortion feminist Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services Secretary, have been feeling the heat from Catholic Bishops and other pro-life groups who have mounted and spearheaded a hugely successful campaign to prevent congress from forcing hospitals and medical staff into providing abortions and abortion inducing drugs against their religious and moral convictions.

In other words – without this pressure, without feeling politically threatened, Sebelius and Obama would have endorsed a law making it legal for girls as young as ten to slink into any store and purchase an over the counter drug, the Morning After Pill, quietly, anonymously, unknowingly, ingest the concoction to end their pregnancy privately, without mom and dad ever knowing.  Planned Parenthood supports – demands – the Morning After Pill be available over the counter to any girl, regardless of age.

Our daughters deserve better than the crap being espoused, promoted and sold by Planned Parenthood and defended by feminists acting stupidly, like Michelle Goldberg.  Our daughters deserve to be raised properly, influenced rightly, taught morally by parents and adult educators who possess incredible strength and fortitude when it comes to ensuring the information provided and disseminated, and put into the hands of young, impressionable girls will help them grow into wise, stable adults – not harm or stunt their intellectuality or corrupt their minds, or turn them into quivering, mush-filled liberal feminists – like Michelle Goldberg.

There is no rationale for even remotely considering a law legalizing any drug to any minor, certainly without their parents knowledge and consent.  Yet, while feminists like Michelle Goldberg would denounce and condemn the idea of young girls working, learning responsibility, preparing for adulthood and earning some extra income – even with their parents knowledge and consent – these same radical feminists, like Michelle Goldberg, would be, and are, flabbergasted when society attempts to step in-between Planned Parenthood’s damnable scheme to infiltrate a parent’s right to raise their own children.

Planned Parenthood, and feminists, like Michelle Goldberg, are perfectly comfortable with young girls engaging in sex, apparently even as young as ten.  It’s part of their whole “sexual liberation” ideology which has brainwashed young girls and women into becoming feminists, who in turn brainwash the next generation of young girls into becoming feminists, and so forth and so on.

Pregnancy often results during “sexual liberation”.  Planned Parenthood and feminists, like Michelle Goldberg, vehemently reject and oppose parental rights.  They support, and are committed to passing, laws which would otherwise allow young girls to be, and to remain, irresponsible; laws that would keep parents from ever knowing their daughters had engaged in sex, had ingested drugs, however “safe”, but without their parents knowledge or consent, and stopped pregnancy from occurring.

Yes, Sebelius and Obama “did the right thing”, contrary to the express wishes of Planned Parenthood, and feminists, like Michelle Goldberg.  But do we give them a pass?  Is credit due to them?  Did Sebelius overrule a law allowing girls even as young as ten year old the right to obtain pregnancy ending drugs without their parents involvement, and did Obama support her overruling, because they both saw the real harm and injury posed to young girls, to society, in passing such a law?  Or did they overrule the law because, as Michelle puts it, they were “politically driven”?

We know Planned Parenthood and Michelle Goldberg are without character.  We don’t have to accept their drivel.  However, can we accept the drivel of a United States President who is also without character, without morals, without question lacking in real leadership?  If this decision made by Sebelius, and supported by Obama, was only “politically driven”, rather than driven by morality, rationality, and a real respect for young women and girls – what does that decision say about their character?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 3, OWS – And Why You “Can” Evict An Idea

Police can’t be “harsh” enough when it comes to arresting “peaceful” abortion protesters outside an abortion clinic, but Michelle Goldberg is having another liberal conniption fit  when it comes to Occupy Wall Street protesters and the recent raid law enforcement made on their not so peaceful little stage-in which had cost the city taxpayers many thousands of dollars up until the time of the arrests, and now will incur many thousands more in the aftermath.  Michelle seems to think the mass arrest of these protesters will “reinvigorate” them.

Says Michelle:

The New York Police Department, with its wildly overwrought response to civil disobedience, may have reinvigorated the movement it meant to crush.

“Wildly overwrought”?  “Civil disobedience”?

How many rapes, murders, suicides and drug overdoses occurred during all the many Tea Party rallies?  How many Tea Party protesters set up tents and camped out all night on public land, and in the morning begged for food from local eateries?  How many Tea Party protesters urinated and defecated on police cars or on other public landscapes?  How much of a “nuisance” were the Tea Party protesters compared to the scum and filth within the OWS movement?  How many taxpayer dollars did the Tea Party rallies siphon away from local governments, compared to the OWS lowlifes and vagrants?  The same type of “lowlifes” and “vagrants” Michelle says were “migrating to Zuccotti Park” and intermingling with the OWS lowlifes and vagrants.

The only difference between these “lowlifes” and “vagrants” and the OWS lowlifes and vagrants?  The OWS  lowlifes and vagrants can go back to all the comforts of their middle and upper class homes, back to mommy and daddy who will take care of them.  Because, obviously, if the OWS lowlifes and vagrants could not take care of themselves at Zuccotti Park, or anywhere else they trashed and left for someone else to clean up, how can they possibly know how to take care of themselves when they return home, where there is undoubtedly someone there to wash their clothes, clean their dirty dishes, throw out their garbage and flush their toilets?

Michelle says:

There reportedly were several rapes and sexual assaults.

Has anyone asked Michelle why she has not bothered to investigate these “several rapes and sexual assaults”?  Has anyone asked Michelle why she seems to be unresponsive when it comes to these “several rapes and assaults”?  Has anyone asked Michelle why she seems to feel it is not worth the time of day to worry about these “several rapes and assaults”?  These “several rapes and assaults” were committed against women, after-all.  And in Michelle’s opening line, she writes, literally mortified:

Before a New York City cop pepper-sprayed peaceful female demonstrators at Occupy Wall Street in September, few were paying attention to the movement.

So “peaceful female demonstrators” were “reportedly” pepper-sprayed and Michelle convulses into another liberal conniption fit.  But when “several rapes and assaults” occur against women, presumably “females”, and somewhat more offensive than being pepper-sprayed – reportedly –  Michelle simply rolls her eyes in the other direction and yawns.

Laments Michelle:

Those who’ve been living in the park will surely mourn the end of the grubby utopia that they built, astonishingly, amid the financial district’s uninviting concrete brutalism. But it couldn’t have lasted, and it’s better for it to end on a note of righteousness than to become increasingly squalid and then peter out.

A “grubby utopia” which local taxpayers will have pay to clean up and restore back to order.  Therein lies the real definition of “utopia” for a liberal like Michelle Goldberg – a place where one might find free food, free lodging, free comforts, free everything, all catered and paid for by someone else.

But Michelle Goldberg is not the only person yawning and rolling their eyes.  So too is liberal agitator Sally Kohn who, according to the Huffington Post “makes the world safe for radical ideas”.   She writes in her piece “You can’t Evict An Idea“:

In the middle of the night, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and hundreds of police in full riot gear crept up on peacefully sleeping American citizens early Tuesday morning and evicted them from Occupy Wall Street, reportedly using pepper spray and aggressive force.

Here is another liberal throwing another liberal conniption fit and using that “peaceful” and “reportedly” crap.  For all we might know, Michelle Goldberg and Sally Kohn are one in the same person, or perhaps share a desk.

Kohn compares the OWS lowlifes and vagrants to the Boston Tea Party.

Think what you will about the protests. Maybe they weren’t your cup of tea. But do know that our forefathers who destroyed private property by dumping crates of tea into the Boston Harbor were not initially praised as heroes but attacked as criminals. But we look back with deep gratitude that they stood up to the fundamental inequity and injustice of the British monarchy and its stranglehold over the colonies. Without their bold action, we would not be a nation.

The protesters are scum and filth fighting against capitalism and for socialism.  And socialism, compared to capitalism is indeed a weak “cup of tea”.  Our forefathers who “destroyed private property by dumping crates of tea into the Boston Harbor” were in and out as quickly as they could.  They didn’t camp outside for weeks on end trashing Boston Harbor, urinating and defecating where they pleased, begging the locals for food, leaving a filthy mess in their wake.  Our forefathers were fighting against the tyranny of the monarchy.  The OWS rabble is fighting for the tyranny of a new monarchy under the guise, the umbrella, of socialism.  The “stranglehold” our forefathers fought against and “stood up to” was the “inequity and injustice” that resulted from an arrogant monarchy which saw the colonies as their own property to do with what they pleased and to tax as they pleased.  How is that different from the Obama Administration, which has been treating Americans in the exact same manner the British Monarchy of old treated our forefathers, and for which they fought against?  And who was it calling our forefathers “criminals”?

There is no such comparison between the actions of our forefathers and the actions of the OWS filth.  There is no “bold action” by them. The OWS protesters, puppets for Soros as they are, have acted with absolute contempt, indignity and disrespect.  Our nation was founded by forefathers who fought against the very ideas and ideals the OWS protesters/puppets are fighting for.  The British Monarchy supported “wealth distribution” just as liberal do.  And just as the British Monarchy supported redistributing that wealth back to themselves, liberals support redistributing wealth back to our federal government, and the people in charge of this over bloated, ever expanding monstrosity – which is liberals themselves.

Our forefathers evicted that idea over two centuries ago when they wrote and passed the Bill of Rights, the bases for our Constitution.  And that never sat well with some people, even back then.  And while the idea of socialism was evicted from the framework of our Constitution, it is true the idea of socialism was never really evicted from the framework of  human minds which has ever sought to reinstate it back into the American landscape and into our Constitution.  They succeeded in 1913 with passage of the 16th amendment, making the income tax, once unconstitutional, now constitutional.

Kohn sums up the arrests by writing:

Time will tell if the end of occupy camps is upon us, but without a doubt, the larger movement for opportunity in America is just beginning. You can evict hundreds of protesters, but you cannot evict an idea whose time has come.

This “idea that has come” is the very idea our forefathers “boldly” fought against.  In other words, this “idea” is nothing new.  It’s merely been reconstituted, repackaged and resold.  And with our “bold action” we, conservatives, will “remain a nation” despite the cowardice of liberals and OWS protesters.

Goldberg writes nearly the same ending as Kohn:

The quixotic little village in Zuccotti Park may be gone. The movement isn’t.

Great.  Invoke Don Quixote, who was an impractical dreamer too.  And for all the impractical dreaming of Don Quixote, after he returned home from his “adventures”, much as with the OWS protesters, he suffered from his “humiliations” and “defeats”.  Of course what happened to Quixote at the end probably will not happen to the OWS protesters themselves after they return home to their posh settings.  But – what happened to Quixote at the end, will indeed happen to their idea.

So, Michelle was inadvertently right comparing Don Quixote to the OWS protesters.  There indeed is much similarity between Quixote, liberalism and the “idea” the OWS movement is pushing.  All of which is, and remains, “impractical”.

How “reinvigorated” was Don Quixote when he returned home?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 2: Her Messy “Pooh-Poohing” Will Take Many “Swipes” To Clean Up

Michelle Goldberg, writing for The Daily Beast, is doing a lot of pooh-poohing of late.  Only earlier this week Goldberg was pooh-poohing the Mississippi Personhood Amendment.  Now, Michelle is pooh-poohing satire, among other things, and a joke, a slight reference Herman Cain made about Anita Hill.  Remember Anita Hill?  Remember the joke she made about Clarence Thomas and the coke can?  Wasn’t that funny back in 1991?  People are still laughing and making jokes about that incident.  Michelle Goldberg is straining like the Dickens to find the right political laxative to use, such as the alleged sexual harassment charges levied against Herman Cain, that will flush him out of the Presidential race.

Michelle pooh-poohs:

Accused of sexual harassment, Herman Cain first played the victim card, then attacked and shamed his alleged victims. Now he’s cracking jokes about Clarence Thomas accuser Anita Hill—and his support keeps growing.

Well, Cain can’t play the “race card”, he’s a conservative black.  And having been “accused” by women of sexual impropriety, occurring way back in the 1990’s, only now, for whatever unexplained reason, do these women come forward.  What is their real motivation for stepping forward now, rather than even two years ago, before anyone else in America had heard of Herman Cain?

Her pooh-poohing goes on:

Politicians accused of sexual impropriety may use all manner of sleazy tactics to undermine their alleged victims, but they don’t usually do so openly or proudly.

Just what “sleazy tactic” did Cain use to “undermine” his “alleged victims”?  Denying the allegation, maybe?

Apparently Michelle, like the rest of us, has already forgotten about Ted Kennedy.  Carrie Fisher hasn’t forgotten about Ted, or his sexual impropriety.   Michelle, like the liberal she is, sees nothing “shameful” when liberal Democrats like Ted Kennedy engage in “sexual impropriety”.  Perhaps it was his support for abortion on demand that was his most charming and alluring aspect; that, to other liberal women like Michelle Goldberg, drove them mad with wild and passionate desires and left them quivering.  Perhaps Ted would whisper in a woman’s ear, “Yeah, sure, I support third trimester abortion.  Now, you support me.  Yeah, Government should keep its hands off a woman’s body, but…”  And you may fill in the dots.

Michelle, still pooh-poohing, writes:

Such attacks are usually leaked to the press or made by surrogates, which made the Cain campaign’s frontal assault extremely unusual. It was meant to send a message: women who come forward can expect to be thoroughly trashed.

Except for two women, Bielek and Kraushaar, the other “women that came forward” did so in a rather Deep Throat-ish sort of manner.  In other words, hiding in the dark, behind the shadows of lawyers – anonymously.  Of course anyone, man or woman, who makes such baseless allegations and doesn’t have the guts to come forward, confront the media head on, is going to be ridiculed.  Especially considering that all of these “alleged” incidents of “sexual impropriety” occurred back in the 1990’s.  Ladies and gentlemen – is it asking too much to demand, “Why now?”

Not yet finished pooh-poohing, Michelle says:

In a normal primary, other candidates might stick up for these women and demand answers. But Cain has so perfectly channeled the conservative base’s sense of victimization that his rivals can’t hit him where he’s potentially vulnerable.

We all “demand answers”.  Namely, why has only one of Cain’s accusers come forward?  (Kraushaar’s name was accidentally leaked.)  Why, again, are they coming forward now?  What exactly are the “sexual improprieties” that are being alleged?  If Cain loses the Republican nomination, will these allegations go away?  If he wins the Republican nomination, how many more women will it take coming out of the woodwork to leach off of Cain’s notoriety and crush his chances against “The One” Barack Obama?

Of “victimization” – who, in the Democrat base has yet to stick up for Herman Cain when he is called an Uncle Tom, a sellout, a traitor, not a real black man?  Liberals do nothing but play the “victimization” and “race card” when it comes to conservatives opposing them.  Have we forgotten the drivel about how conservatives who oppose anything Obama supports must be racists?  Have we forgotten the fact that it was white people and “white guilt” that propelled Obama into the White House?

Michelle concludes her pooh-poohing:

There is, of course, a farcical element to this story. But there’s also something very serious and ugly going on, an escalation of acceptable tactics that can be used against women who make accusations against powerful men.

We get it, Michelle hates “powerful men”.  Especially if they are conservatives.

Michelle, pushing out one last pooh-pooh writes:

That precedent will remain, even after the absurdity of the Cain campaign is over.

Well, it certainly didn’t go away after the “absurdity” that was Bill Clinton was over, did it?  It never went away during the time of Ted Kennedy, did it?  One might even say, about “precedent”, that Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy (both very liberal Democrats) were the ones that made “sexual impropriety” into “acceptable tactics”.  But Bill Clinton, as President, and Ted Kennedy, as Senator, and both “powerful men” in their own right, are liberals.  (Was a liberal, in Kennedy’s case.)

There is indeed something “very serious and ugly going on” here.  Liberals never miss a chance to “channel the liberal base’s sense of victimization” when it comes to Obama, and other black liberals.  Remember – Obama, a black liberal, sat in the church of a racist pastor, Jeremiah Wright, for twenty years and nobody cared.  Obama socializes with anti-American terrorists like Bill Ayers and nobody cared.  Obama brings in people to his Administration, like Anita Dunn, whose hero is Mao Tse-Tung and nobody cared.

Herman Cain, a black conservative, has allegations of “sexual impropriety” levied against him from way, way back in the 1990’s, and everyone in the liberal establishment, Democrats, the media, Michelle Goldberg, have already declared Herman Cain guilty despite the fact there is not a single shred of evidence to date of Cain’s guilt, or that he did anything wrong to begin with.

One thing is for certain – Michelle must have been very satisfied with all her pooh-poohing, as she still has yet to wipe the smile off her face.  Proving Cain’s innocence will do that, if indeed there is no actual proof of sexually harassment, other than the hearsay from his shadowy and mysterious accusers.

And if these women’s stories don’t hold, as they are having a hard time doing now, who will the Democrats and Politico find to be their next “Deep Throat”?  And will Michelle Goldberg have another pooh-pooh over that?

Of Michelle Goldberg: When “Mississippi Women Win” The Unborn Lose, As Does Humanity

Michelle Goldberg has a piece out in the Daily Beast touting victory for the women of Mississippi over the defeat on November 8 of the Personhood Amendment proposition.  “Mississippi Women Win” is the title of her piece, and it illustrates a very important point.  Michelle contends that the women in Mississippi, and probably women all across America, in her view, have won something – the right to continue legally killing their unborn children.  She is right about that.  However, and quite disturbingly, Michelle seems over satisfied with this.

She writes:

It was the latest bit of evidence that the American right has overestimated public support for its agenda.

Our “agenda” is one of life, and of recognizing the value of life, that human life in fact begins at conception, which is a scientific fact, and has been for some time now.  Our “agenda” is to provide legal protection for the unborn, from those women that have been intentionally misled and outright lied to by Planned Parenthood, NARAl, NOW, etc. that killing their unborn child is nothing more than having a mole removed.

She continues:

Until now, most attacks on reproductive rights have been aimed at the margins, eroding Roe v. Wade bit by bit. They’ve affected minors, or poor women, or women needing late-term abortions in situations that most people imagine they’ll never be in.

Notice Michelle Goldberg refers to abortion as “reproductive rights”.  It’s a bit of sleazy and thoughtless manipulation of reality on Michelle’s part.  What does “reproductive rights” conjure in the minds of anyone?  In other words, if one knows little or knowing about abortion, does abortion even come to mind when they hear “reproductive rights”?  Because what Michelle is conveying is that ‘attacks on reproductive rights” are really attacks on the “rights” that women have to kill their unborn children.  But if she said it that way, more women would become suspicious.  For all of Michelle’s feminism, she is intent on keeping women in the dark, and uneducated, when it comes to abortion.

She further says that the attack on Roe vs. Wade has “affected minors”.  How?  In other words, a “minor” who engages in sex and becomes pregnant, a “minor” who desires to kill the child rather than have the courage to face the consequences of her actions – to be a woman – ought to be free simply dispense of the “mistake”?  And we should accept that?

Of “poor women”, Michelle laments that even they are not immune from pro-life responders; that poverty is justification for killing an unborn child.  And who pays for the abortion when a woman is too poor to pay for it herself?  Obviously, we the taxpayers are the ones Michelle and other pro-abortion supporters want paying the price for irresponsibility; a most monstrous lust she and they have in seeing us pay for the killing of an unborn child.

Of “the need for late term abortion”, Michelle does not understand, or is too ignorant to know that there are no “situations most people” can’t “imagine” to justify the killing of a child so late in pregnancy.  Unless there is a real and direct threat to the life of the mother, which, in this day and age, is extremely rare, there are “no women needing late term abortions”, as Michelle passionately, but misguidedly, claims.

Says Goldberg:

Amendment 26 was different. It would have interfered with the health care of middle-class women and crime victims, and even the most conservative voters in the country weren’t willing to do that.

How, perchance, does not having an abortion “interfere” with “the health care of middle class women and crime victims”?  In other words, what Michelle is really conveying here is her feminist belief that pregnancy and motherhood itself, is an interference with middle class women, and that having a child “interferes” with a woman’s status as middle class; that having an abortion is merely a part of “healthcare” which presumably all middle class women ought to have the right to enjoy; that for a woman of  “middle class” status to not have an abortion jeopardizes her “middle class” status, and might drive her into poverty.  So far as the “health” aspect goes, our healthcare system in America is the best in the world.  If a woman has a health issue, and is pregnant, unless it becomes legitimately life threatening for her to continue the pregnancy, there are solutions to protect both mother and child.

Of “crime victims”, Michelle can only be referring to rape.  Is a child less of a human being if it is created by, and a product of, rape?  We who are pro-life contend that even in the case of rape, though we acknowledge the violence involved, the unborn ought to be protected from violence itself.  Women who cannot emotionally or psychologically care for a child, knowing it was created out of lust rather than love, ought not be forced to keep the child, but neither ought she have the right to simply discard it, throw it away as if the child was something not human, something not alive.

Of  “most conservative voters”, Michelle is as well wrong on that count.  “Most conservative voters” in Mississippi and in America are staunchly pro-life.  Unfortunately, it appears that the language in Proposition 26 was too vague and misled people into believing its passage would have created more uncertainly than clarity.  Perhaps it was all the pro-abortion activists that had descended on Mississippi as locusts descend on a field of corn, or wheat, and ate alive that uncertainty of Mississippi voters yet unsure whether this Personhood Amendment reached too far into the lives of women.

So, back to work on redrawing a new proposition that, it is hoped, will be unmistakeably clear in its language and its meaning.  If the pro-life movement in Mississippi has learned anything about this defeat, it ought to have learned that language, clarity and meaning are imperative; that if they attempt to pass another Personhood Amendment in Mississippi, or elsewhere, in other states, using the same language as in Proposition 26, it is very likely to be defeated as well.

And what has Michelle Goldberg learned?  She finishes her column by writing:

They (Mississippi voters) may pay lip service to the idea that a fertilized egg is a human being whose rights trump those of women, but they’re not willing to carry it to its clear, cruel conclusions.

In other words, Michelle has learned nothing.  “Its clear, cruel conclusions” is the violent act of abortion itself, not, as she and other pro-abortion supports contest, the defeated proposition.  And “a fertilized egg” is a human being, as science has already confirmed.  Indeed, life, the sanctity of life, ought to “trump” a woman’s desire to indiscriminately kill it.

But Michelle Goldberg, for all her “feminism” would rather all women remain ignorant and uneducated when it comes to the reality of abortion.

What is it she is afraid women will learn?

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: