TAMPAX Declares War on Womenhood

Fact: Not all women have periods. Also a fact: Not all people with periods are women. Let's celebrate the diversity of all people who bleed! 💙🎨: @gobeeharris #mythbusting #periodtruths #transisbeautiful pic.twitter.com/5s1416cZBw

— Tampax (@Tampax) September 15, 2020

 Tampax re-defines women.   Tampax says that if you bleed, you’re a woman.  If I cut myself, I’m Tampax’s definition of a woman.  If you’ve been female all your life and are over a certain age, Tampax revokes your womanhood.  

This sounds like Procter and Gamble (owner of Tampax) is adopting Joe Biden’s definition of Black.  Biden tells Black people that if they don’t vote for him, they “ain’t Black.”  

Big business and major corporations are very, very comfortable with re-defining personhood.  

Bernie Sanders Female Supporters Are Finally Getting A Taste Of Their Own ‘War On Women’ Medicine

Both Albright’s and Steinem’s comments generated a firestorm of outrage – on the left, where in the past the insinuation has always been accepted: If you’re a woman and you don’t support so-called “progressive feminist leaders,” there is something wrong with you. If you’re critical of them, then you must hate women or something. And, they’ve also said in so many words, men should have no say in “women’s issues” unless they agree with conventional feminist wisdom.

The Democrats War on Women as Demonstrated by Feminist Democrats

 Via Stacy McCain

The implicit assumption of the Democrat Party’s “War on Women” meme is that the sexist misogyny by which all women are allegedly victimized is officially endorsed by The Republican Party. Never mind the fact — as the viral video ironically demonstrated — that women’s victimization is quite often perpetrated by constituencies of the Democrat Party coalition. Feminism is a left-wing political ideology that serves the partisan interests of the Democrat Party and, when feminists aren’t busy offering to provide oral sex to Democrat men, they are busy accusing Republicans of being The Party of Rape.

It does not really matter whether you are male or female, black or white, straight or gay. The only thing liberals really care about is whether you vote Democrat, because the liberal’s sense of self-esteem is dependent on his belief that, by voting Democrat and encouraging you to do likewise, he proves himself worthy as one of Our Moral Superiors. (Thomas Sowell’s book The Vision of the Anointed explains this brilliantly.)

Dick Durbin's War On Women

Is the Republican Party the party of Conservatives?

At National Review Online, Jim Geraghty asks the question: Does the RNC Deserve the Blame for Cuccinelli’s Loss? One of the comments following the essay claims that "all Republicans are Conservatives."

 

Are they?  I strongly disagree.

The national candidates that the Republicans have fielded since Reagan have all claimed to be conservative, talked the talk, but did not walk the walk. They paid lip service to smaller government and lower deficits but did nothing to achieve those objectives while in office, or were rejected at the polls.

 

I remind you that Bush 1 opposed Reagan for the nomination the first time he ran.  And that when he was elected as Reagan’s heir disposed of his followers as quickly as possible and then raised taxes, giving the Democrats their main talking point to defeat him for re-election.  Need I remind you that Bush 2, who I supported because I supported the Iraq war, created a whole new entitlement and was a profligate spender who created TARP? Both Bushes bought into the “Republicans are mean” myth, one creating those “thousand points of light” and the other trying to sell “kindler, gentler?”

 

And how about McCain who pandered to every liberal institution and movement that that he could find: amnesty, global warming, Gitmo. He was the MSM’s picture of the perfect Republican. Of course they only supported him until he was nominated. The only conservative thing he ever did was bring Sarah Palin onto his ticket. The same Sarah Palin whose back still shows the scars of McCain’s handlers’ knives.  It's hard to say who tried to damage Palin more during the 2008 election, Team McCain or Team Obama.

 

George Romney was a truly nice man; moral, upright and no one’s idea of a conservative. When he was questioned about his conservative credentials he said that he was “severely conservative.”  When you have to say that, you are not. He was chosen by the Republican establishment precisely because no one would really identify him as a genuine conservative. Rather, he was the competent alternative to Obama. How did that work out?

Did these people lie? Not in the same way Obama lied when he said that you could keep your health care plan. But they say what they want you to hear. There is a cultural gap between the Republican establishment and the conservative base. The establishment is more comfortable with the reigning orthodoxy as expressed by Obama and less comfortable with the pieties of the Right. Most of them probably agree with Obama about the “bitter clingers.” Most of them don’t really believe that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman; they have “evolved.” Most of them would rather open the borders so that this issue would go away. They have lived with deficit spending so long that it no longer really bothers them as a fact, simply as an issue to be used to win votes. They campaign as conservatives because that’s where their base is, but when they get back to Washington, they shed their conservative disguises like you would take off your jacket except when it’s time to throw a bone to the base.

 

It's very difficult to gain prominence while defying the dominant culture.  This is especially true on the political arena because you are opposed by those who dominate the avenues of communication.  If you say you support traditional marriage, the media tells everyone that you are homophobic.  If you oppose abortion for any reason you are waging a war on women.  If you oppose waste and corruption in welfare programs you are accused of wanting to starve the poor.  If you want to enforce the immigration laws you are accused of hating immigrants and minorities.  If you want to make education more affordable by reducing the cost you are accused of being anti-children.  And the ones making the accusations are not your political opponents, but the supposedly "impartial" media.  One of the interesting statistics coming out of the election in Virginia is that Ken Cuccinelli got the majority of married men and married women.  As one wag put it he got the moral vote.

 

The commenter is wrong about his assertion, but raises a very good question. Who is a real conservative and how can you tell? What is a real conservative? That’s a question worth debating.

Kerry and me.

 

 

Kerry Dougherty is a columnist in the Virginian Pilot and is unquestionably the most mainstream of the ones that the Pilot pays. She’s also a good writer. You feel that you get a chance to know her from her stories about her parents, especially her mom, who was apparently a heavy smoker who liked a cocktail or two. This is the sort of family that people can relate to: neither plaster saints nor “Mommy Dearest” villains.

The other thing to respect about Daugherty is that she’s more than willing to take on the conventional corruption that passes for local government in places like Virginia Beach. Here the big money comes from real estate interests who are always ready to saddle the taxpayers with expensive things like “light rail,” a boondoggle that is designed to enrich only the developers along the line at the cost of a billion dollars.

So I was disappointed to find Kerry using the label “ultraconservative” as a way of smearing Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia. There is no question that Cuccinelli is a conservative, but one of the ways that the MSM uses to demonize people on the Right is to label them and ridicule them rather than engage them in debate.  Cuccinelli is Catholic and opposes abortion. Cuccinelli's opponent has been making the case that he is waging a "war on women"  because he opposes abortion. So is opposition to abortion an "ultraconservative" position outside the American mainstream?  According to the Washington Post, no fan of Republicans,

By 56 percent to 27 percent, more Americans would prefer to impose limits on abortions after the first 20 weeks of pregnancy rather than the 24-week mark established by the Supreme Court, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

An additional 10 percent of those surveyed volunteered that they would prefer to outlaw abortion in the United States altogether or limit it sooner than 20 weeks after fertilization.

The fact is that the country is roughly evenly split between people who oppose abortion and those who support it. But when you ask people to get more granular, you find that only 19% say that abortion should be legal in all cases.  

 

That means that about one in five are in favor of abortion up to the moment of birth: for convenience, for fetal abnormalities, for sex selection, and  - since we’ll soon be able to test for the homosexual gene – to abort babies who may be homosexual. Those who oppose abortion in all cases, 17%, are roughly equal to those who favor it in all cases; neatly balancing the scales. If you remove those who support abortion in all cases and add those who have no opinion (22%), 78% of Americans would like some limits to abortion which puts them at odds with Terry McAuliffe and his supporters at Planned Parenthood as well as with Barack Obama.

We wonder if Kerry Daugherty would like to reconsider who should be tarred with the “Ultra” label, or if she has other issues in mind?

Sex jihad

OK, you may ask: what is sex jihad? 

Last Thursday, during an address to the National Constituent Assembly, Tunisian Interior Minister Lotfi Bin Jeddo announced that Tunisian girls who had traveled to Syria to perform “sex jihad” had returned after being sexually “swapped between 20, 30, and 100 rebels and they come back bearing the fruit of sexual contacts [from pregnancies to diseases] in the name of sexual jihad and we are silent doing nothing and standing idle.”

But isn't this kind of sex forbidden to Muslims? Well, as Bill Clinton might say, it depends.

... the overarching rule of [Islamic] jurisprudence asserts that “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad.

In other words:

Two important points emerge here: first, jihad is the “pinnacle” of Islam—for it makes Islam supreme; and second, the idea that “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” Thus, because making Islam supreme through jihad is the greatest priority, anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible.

So you see, all that straight-laced imagery we get about Muslim women with they heads covered with shawls so that their hair does not incite men to acts of sexual immorality, like these shown in the Virginian Pilot putting on a cooking demonstration is but one of the manifestations of Islam.  The women, by the way are not in Saudi Arabia but are students at ODU in Norfolk, Virginia.

 

But there is a higher duty, like this:

Other interviewed women have told of how they were “fooled,” or how their husbands (they being one of four wives) divorced and sent them to Syria for the sex jihad, with assurances that they would be guaranteed paradise in the afterlife. One 16-year-old explained how her father ordered her to have sex with several jihadi “liberators.”

 

As time passes and people open up, we learn a lot.  And some of it if still surprises us. 

The Sad Fate of Democrat Women

Andrew Klavan doesn't sugar-coat it describing the Democrats.

It’s always a little galling (not to mention hilarious) for those of us on the right to reflect that the Democratic Party — the party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and family-destroying social programs — the party of Detroit, New Orleans, Newark, and Baltimore — the party that facilitates a black abortion rate that would bring a smile to the face of Planned Parenthood’s genocidally racist founder — has somehow managed to sell itself to African Americans as the friend of black people!

But it’s beginning to be equally galling (and equally comic) to reflect that the Democrats have also contrived to present themselves as the party of women.

Here are Democrats and their women

This is the party whose most powerful senator left his probable mistress to drown after a car accident; the party whose most popular living president is a serial philanderer and accused rapist; the party whose most prominent woman rose to that prominence by virtue of her stand-by-your-man loyalty to a louse; and now the party of Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer, two men who have humiliated their wives with truly creepy behavior and yet seek to continue their political careers regardless.

We all make mistakes and it’s not that the GOP hasn’t got its share of sexual shenanigans, but the Republican establishment doesn’t routinely make excuses for its recidivist miscreants or make icons of their victimized spouses. The Dems…? They seem to think their political agenda somehow excuses their personal behavior. I joked on the Ricochet podcast last week that the party’s new slogan should be, ”Women — We Treat You Like Dirt, But At Least You Can Kill Your Unborn Children!”

Well, maybe there is a connection to how much women are willing to degrade themslves and Dmocrat men.

That is, ladies, maybe it’s not a coincidence that the same men who want to ensure your unborn child can be turned into medical waste — or who feel your vote (not to mention your sexual favors) can be bought in exchange for “free” birth control — are the very men who treat you like a collection of damp holes into which they can stick themselves without regard for your feelings, their principles, or basic human decency.

Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

Accused witch tortured, burned alive in Papua New Guinea

Multiculturalism in action.

Someone will find a reason to blame George Bush

No one has been arrested although lots of people took pictures.

Someone actually designed these shoes.

Scary Beautiful (Leanie van der Vyver) from Lyall Coburn on Vimeo.

Behold “front heels,” clothespin-looking shoes that are probably equally as enjoyable (read: painful) to wear. A creation by artist Leanie van der Vyver and Dutch designer René van den Berg, the “Scary Beautiful” shoes require the wearer to bend the knees forward and walk rather ungracefully, like a foal or Forrest Gump before he ran off his leg braces.

 

This is a real war on women.

Romney Rumor: GOP Wants to Ban Tampons

Get ready for this one.  I wonder which juvenile Obama apparatchik dreamed this one up?