Islamonazi Leader Behind Women’s March

There is so much I could say about the Lamentation of the Womyn that occurred on Saturday.  I guess that is an expected ritual of victory…

But the participants in Leftist protest and their actions continue to be disturbing.  Let there be misunderstanding, peaceful protest should be and is protected in America.  But we should be aware of what protesters say and do, and protest and protect ourselves when appropriate.

A particularly disturbing aspect of the Women’s March was their partnership with Islamonazis, who are hardly pro-woman and are definitely anti-freedom among other things.  Organizer Linda Sarsour is a case in point (And it should be said she was one of the organizers.  The headline at the link is not currently well written.):

An outspoken critic of Israel, Sarsour avvidly supports the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) movement, a Hamas-inspired initiative that uses various forms of public protest, economic pressure, and lawsuits to advance the Hamas agenda of permanently destroying Israel as a Jewish nation-state. 

Vis-a-vis the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, Sarsour favors a one-state solution where an Arab majority and a Jewish minority would live together within the borders of a single country. She made clear her opposition to Israel's existence as a Jewish state when she tweeted in October 2012 that “nothing is creepier than Zionism.”

In 2004, Sarsour acknowledged that a friend of hers as well as a cousin were both serving long sentences in Israeli jails because of their efforts to recruit jihadists to murder Jews. Moreover, she revealed that her brother-in-law was serving a 12-year prison term because of his affiliation with Hamas.

Trust me, there is more.

And, trust me – no, heck, look for yourselves – there is far more danger, violence, and, yes, bigotry from the Left in America than from the Right.  To protect ourselves, we must defeat the Left again and again and again.

Fed Judge Rules for Protecting Free Speech from Kamala Harris

Yes, I’ve been quiet this week.  I’ve been fighting off a virus or two, but am doing much better now.

I have some catching up to do, but want to present to you a ruling that protects, for now, the anonymity of donors to Americans for Prosperity.  California Attorney General Kamala Harris – yes, that feminazi again – sought to find out the names.

The ruling is worth reading in part because it itemizes several of the attacks and threats from Leftists against conservatives.  They move the judge to conclude, “this Court is not prepared to wait until an AFP opponent carries out one of the numerous death threats made against its members.”

This episode is quite an eye-opener on the predations of Leftist Brown Shirts . . . and on Leftist politicians like Kamala Harris who enable them.

She, of course, is appealing the ruling to the very liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Her political opposition must be harassed and crushed.

By the way, if you had conservative activists engaged in the numerous instances of attacks and harassment listed in the ruling, do you think the noos media would be so quiet about it?

Kamala Harris’ Feminazi Police (Supported by Trump)

First, I apologize ahead of time for being slow to post on this.  Sometimes a story comes up that is so important I must post on it yet so provokes me to anger I do not entirely trust myself so to do.  But post I must.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris has turned the CA Department of Justice into a Feminazi state police by raiding the home of citizen journalist David Daleiden, the man whose videos exposed the baby butchery operations of Planned Parenthood.

This raid is the stuff of totalitarian police states.  To sic state police on a citizen because he exposes a politically favored industry, which happens to donate very generously to the political campaigns of Harris, is something that cannot be allowed to stand in America or in any free country.

But, of course, most of the noos media is ignoring this.  When Democrats abuse the power of government to attack citizen political opponents, that is not news.  It’s only news if Republicans supposedly do that.  But journalists ought to be concerned.  For Daleiden is being attacked for committing an act of journalism.  As Ed Morrissey points out:

The issue here is the overwhelming demonstration of government force and its outrageously disproportionate relationship to any potential crime resulting from the kind of undercover journalism routinely performed not just by other activists but also by mainstream media outlets for decades.

Pro-life groups have called for Harris to resign and to withdraw from the U. S. Senate race.  But they should not be the only ones doing so.  And yes, you got that right – Kamala Harris is running to replace Barbara Boxer in the U. S. Senate.

It is time to put our foot down.  Totalitarians like Harris do not belong in high office.  And when they abuse the power of government to attack citizen political opponents for committing acts of journalism and other Constitutional freedoms, then the totalitarians belong in prison.  We cannot allow New Totalitarians like Kamala Harris to turn any part of the United States into a totalitarian state.  And we cannot allow law enforcement officials to turn the forces under them into political attack dogs without severe punishment.  Kamala Harris’ attack on Daleiden may be cheerleaded by some other Feminazi Democrats, but it is not something on which good people may disagree.

When office holders act like Nazis, we should treat them like Nazis and give them what they deserve.  Kamala Harris should be shamed, disbarred and prosecuted.

------

P. S.  By the way, Donald Trump has donated to the campaigns of Kamala Harris:

Democratic US Senate candidate and Attorney General Kamala Harris has accepted $6,000 from Donald Trump. pic.twitter.com/OHONCnCOLM

— Phillip (@phillipbalayan) July 24, 2015

The Pro-Abortion Crowd’s Dirty Secret

Decades ago, when I was even more of a political nerd than I am now, I perused the report of the 1981 Human Life Bill hearings.  And in the appendix, I found something shocking.  (And my apologies for not having details. My copy of the report is long lost.  But you may find it and numerous other statements to the subcommittee here.) The leader of a pro-abortion organization wrote opposing the bill, of course.  That is not shocking.  What did appall was her stating that the question of when human life began was “irrelevant.” 

I had already suspected, less than ten years after Roe v Wade, that the pro-abortion crowd did not care whether abortion killed human lives or not.  But I was surprised to see one of their leaders virtually admit it to Congress.

Since then, advances in medical science have made clear that abortion does kill human life, often profoundly developed human life.  Of course, the pro-abortionists do not want attention brought to that.  Just as the Nazis and Soviets labeled their victims as non-persons, lesser life, or less than human, the Feminazis distract from and downplay the lives of unborn children.

Yet, on occasion, the Feminazis’ dirty secret slips out – they know abortion kills . . . but they want to kill anyway:

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

“Our lives are more important than theirs.  Always.”  I will let the reader explore the implications of such logic.  He may find it leads to the death camps and the gulag.  But even if he does not, isn’t the revelations of the Planned Parenthood videos moral horror enough?

MORE: Anne Kennedy puts Mary Elizabeth in her place.

What do Feminazis and the KKK have in common?

Yes, my question might be slightly inflammatory, but if the shoe fits . . . .

The short answer is an undue, even demanding, bias that accusations of rape be believed without question.  Of course, this demand primarily applies when used as a weapon against hated adversaries - heterosexual men in the case of Feminazis and black men in the case of the KKK.

Automatic belief of rape accusations was a central principle of the KKK’s war on rape, too. This was one of the things that most shocked Ida B Wells, the early twentieth-century African-American journalist and civil-rights activist. ‘The word of the accuser is held to be true’, she said, which means that ‘the rule of law [is] reversed, and instead of proving the accused to be guilty, the [accused] must prove himself innocent’. Wells and others were startled by the level of belief in the accusers of black men, and by the damning of anyone who dared to question such accusations, which was taken as an attack on the accuser’s ‘virtue’.

And there are additional parallels, both instructive and disturbing, between the KKK and “rape culture” activists.  So do go read . . . if you can handle it.

Hat tip to Instapundit.

---

NOTE: One reason I use the term “Feminazis” here is that not all feminists buy into “rape culture” witch hunting.  So I did not want to use the latter term.  I do respect those feminists thoughtful enough to defend rightful protections of the accused.

Forgotten Victims of Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone

The University of Virginia rape hoax perpetrated by “journalist” Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone has gotten so thoroughly blown up that attention is beginning to be paid to earlier Erdely Rolling Stone rape stories.

One involved the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  To be fair, Erdely is not the only one taken in by incredible accusations by former altar boy “Billy Doe.”  (Again, why in sexual assault cases are the names of the accused dragged through the mud when the names of accusers are protected?  Either both should be protected before conviction or neither.  But I digress.)  Three priests and a teacher ended up in jail over Doe’s accusations.

And Erdely trumpeted said accusations as truth, doing great damage both to those accused and to the Archdiocese.

But as Ralph Cipriano has tirelessly documented, Doe’s accusations are literally incredible with important details of them changing and/or discredited.  With a WARNING that Cipriano does not make for easy reading, you may find out more here.

Actually, don’t go there.  After all, we should ignore such inconveniences as evidence and facts.  We should always “believe the victims” and, heck, let the lynch mobs have at the accused.  And if you don’t, you are evil opponents of the “narrative” as Leftist “journalists,” Feminazis, and assorted Catholic-bashers will remind you. 

Yes, “. . . to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.”

And if that mentality creates victims . . . well they are soon forgotten . . . or dead, aren’t they?  The “narrative” is so much more important.

Democrats, LGBT Groups, and Feminazis Hate Your Freedom of Religion

If there were any doubts about the intent of the various genres of Leftists to crush religious freedom under their agenda, their reaction to the Hobby Lobby decision should remove those doubts.

Democrats, including Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, and even Patty Murray and Barbara Boxer supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.  No more.  Senate Democrats are pushing a bill to weaken RFRA and undo the Hobby Lobby ruling.  Because free birth control pills and abortifacients for everyone is sooo much more important than your freedom of religion.

And LGBTCQXYZOHHELLIVELOSTTRACKALREADY groups are in such a panic that someone might actually get to exercise their freedom of religion concerning acceptance of the perversion of sex and marriage that they have reversed themselves and are now urging the rejection of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because it actually has language purporting to protect religious freedom.  Horrors!

Meanwhile, the National Organization of Womyn has put the Little Sisters of the Poor on their “Dirty 100” list because they object to providing contraception.  Well, duh, they are a devout Catholic organization.  And many of NOW’s “Dirty 100” are Christian organizations, including Priests for Life and a number of Roman Catholic dioceses and Christian colleges.  One might as well castigate mosques or synagogues as “dirty” for not hosting pig-pickins.

(NOW labels the aforesaid groups as the "Dirty 100" here.)

And if one finds my labeling NOW “Feminazis” offensive, is not their labeling of religious groups that object to participating in their agenda as “dirty” echo the vile use of the epithet “Dirty Jew” by Nazis and other anti-semites?

But what do you expect from people so ethically bankrupt that they put free employer-provided birth control over freedom of religion?

+Ebbsfleet on General Synod

Jonathan Baker, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, has a talent for telling it like it is yet with grace.  Having spent some time with him at Pusey House, he has long impressed me with his gentleness, wit, and perception.

So it comes as no surprise that his comments on General Synod and its aftermath are among the best I’ve come across.  I commend his whole missive to you.  But the following stands out to me as cutting through the fog to explain what really happened:

First, it has been suggested that the draft Measure represented the fruits of work done over many years by representatives of all traditions in the Church of England, and that it was a compromise and the best possible way forward. This is simply not the case, as anyone – myself included – involved in the various processes of preparing the legislation for Final Approval (the legislative drafting group, the revision committee stage, and so on) would have to admit. At every step of the way, provision for the traditionalist minority was withdrawn altogether or significantly watered down. Looking back, we can see a number of decisive forks in the road: when delegation (rather than a transfer of jurisdiction) was adopted as the basis for the legislation; when the Archbishops' amendment for co-ordinate jurisdiction was defeated – by just 5 votes in the House of Clergy – in 2010; when the amendment to Clause 5.1. (c) of the Measure, proposed by the House of Bishops, was withdrawn in the face of pressure from members of WATCH in July of this year. In the light of all this, it seems to me that there is only one analysis of the vote on 20th November which rings true: that the draft Measure was driven 'over the cliff' by those unwilling to agree proper provision for those of us who have conscientious difficulties concerning the ordination of women.

Exactly.  +Ebbsfleet says it much more graciously than I have, but, indeed, WATCH and their ilk have only themselves to blame for the failure of women bishops legislation.  If they only had the grace to give traditionalists the space they needed, women bishops would already be on the way.

CofE Feminists Get What They Deserve, the Defeat of Women Bishops Legislation

If you heard some disquietude (I would say shrill screaming, but I don’t think the English do that.) in the past hour or so, that may be because the proposed legislation on women bishops just failed to pass the Church of England Synod.  Less than 2/3s of the Laity voted for it.

The House of Bishops of the CofE will meet tomorrow morning to “consider the consequences of the vote.”

The irony of all this is women bishops legislation would have likely passed Synod this summer.  But, noooo.  A number of feminists were unhappy with the provisions in it for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops.  So they forced a postponement, which resulted in a weakening of those provisions, which in turn weakened support from the rest of the church.  Hence today’s result.

I can hardly improve on what I posted this summer:

Now the rational proponent of women bishops (and there are many) would see that [many cannot on the basis of scripture and tradition accept the ministry of women bishops] and therefore would propose to allow those of said convictions to have the alternative arrangements they are requesting and otherwise move on with women bishops.  But that is not good enough for the uberfeminists.  Having women bishops is not good enough unless the traditionalists are crushed or driven out or both.

What the heck do these feminists want?  The Principal of Pusey House being forced at the point of a sword to kiss the ring of a woman bishop?  More Anglo-Catholics forced to flee to Rome?  And there is little question some feminists secretly desire the latter.  And it is hard to see how their efforts are any less than attempted persecution of the Faithful.

If the feminists kill women bishops legislation because they refuse to allow orthodox opponents a little space, then they don’t deserve to have their women bishops . . . ever.  Further, their vindictiveness proves themselves unfit to called bishops or ministers of Christ . . . or Christians for that matter.

And most of them have indeed proven themselves, by both their teaching and conduct, more feminist than Christian.  For the sake of Christ’s Church, and for the sake of their own needful repentance, may their utter lack of Christian reasonableness and charity indeed bring about their own defeat again and again.

And, today, the feminists’ lack of reasonableness and grace did indeed bring about their own well-earned defeat.

Now if they really want women bishops along with peace and unity, they will repent and allow traditionalists the space they are requesting.

No, I am not holding my breath on that one.

Honker: A New Biography

No, I am not going to write a book with the above title.  So those excited by the prospect can go away now.  Please.

And if I were to write such a book, I would be considered strange at best, and not fit for serious public discourse, and with good reason. 

In short, men who are overly obsessed with their nether regions, whose brains are in their pants, if you will, are considered in great need of maturity and wisdom.  And society makes needful efforts to protect itself from such men (if “men” is even the appropriate word).

Then why is it that certain women – excuse me – womyn think it a wonderful thing to be obsessed with their nether regions and even to parade them all over the place, literally?  Why do such write Vagina: A New Biography and write and perform again and again and again and again and again and again The Vagina Monologues?

And, more to the point, why doesn’t society consider such with the same disdain it has towards men who are overly obsessed with their nether regions?

I do.

The Vindictiveness of Church of England Feminists

As John Bingham of The Telegraph has been reporting, feminists in the Church of England are so unhappy with bishops’ modest efforts to accommodate traditionalists that they may vote down women bishops legislation altogether in Synod next month, which would set back the cause by at least five years.

I just do not get rock-headed vindictiveness like this.  It gives the old saying “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” new meaning.

Those ready to vote down women bishops legislation because it, as amended by the bishops, now gives traditionalists a little breathing space refuse to deal reasonably with the fact that some in the Church of England cannot conscientiously recognize the ministry of women bishops.  And it has nothing to do with any He-man Woman-haters Club, but with convictions about the teaching of scripture and tradition.  For many, there is no legislation in the world that can change those convictions.

Now the rational proponent of women bishops (and there are many) would see that and therefore would propose to allow those of said convictions to have the alternative arrangements they are requesting and otherwise move on with women bishops.  But that is not good enough for the uberfeminists.  Having women bishops is not good enough unless the traditionalists are crushed or driven out or both.

What the heck do these feminists want?  The Principal of Pusey House being forced at the point of a sword to kiss the ring of a woman bishop?  More Anglo-Catholics forced to flee to Rome?  And there is little question some feminists secretly desire the latter.  And it is hard to see how their efforts are any less than attempted persecution of the Faithful.

If the feminists kill women bishops legislation because they refuse to allow orthodox opponents a little space, then they don’t deserve to have their women bishops . . . ever.  Further, their vindictiveness proves themselves unfit to called bishops or ministers of Christ . . . or Christians for that matter.

And most of them have indeed proven themselves, by both their teaching and conduct, more feminist than Christian.  For the sake of Christ’s Church, and for the sake of their own needful repentance, may their utter lack of Christian reasonableness and charity indeed bring about their own defeat again and again.

And Now . . . Gender-baiting

As if we are not afflicted enough by race-baiting, congressional Democrats are now trying to score political points with gender-baiting.  The excuse for such is that D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton will not be allowed to push babykilling testify in subcommittee for allowing the District of Columbia to allow late term abortions.

But why should the Republicans in charge of the relevant subcommittee invite that Democrat to testify? What, are Republicans supposed to assist Democrats in proclaiming their murderous message?  The Democrats on the subcommittee can call a witness and they chose not to call her.  It is their own fault she will not be testifying. 

But then Democrats turn around and blame and gender-bait Republicans for that.  Incredible.

Feminuns Put in their Place

I’ve got to hand it to the Romans. Sooner or later, those Cartholicks deal with apostates. Whereas mainline Protestants are nice to them . . . and nicely let the apostates take over. (Of course the Romans have at times past gone after “heretics” who were actually faithful to the Faith once delivered, but who’s quibbling?)

What prompts my observation is the happy news that the Vatican has had enough of the enormities from the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) here in the U. S. and is more or less taking them over. A good summary of the situation may be found over at MCJ.

The chief document in question may be found here. Here’s a sample of what the feminuns have been up to:

Addresses given during LCWR annual Assemblies manifest problematic statements and serious theological, even doctrinal errors. The Cardinal offered as an example specific passages of Sr. Laurie Brink’s address about some Religious “moving beyond the Church” or even beyond Jesus. This is a challenge not only to core Catholic beliefs; such a rejection of faith is also a serious source of scandal and is incompatible with religious life. Such unacceptable positions routinely go unchallenged by the LCWR . . .

Radical Feminism. The Cardinal noted a prevalence of certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith in some of the programs and presentations sponsored by the LCWR, including theological interpretations that risk distorting faith in Jesus and his loving Father who sent his Son for the salvation of the world. Moreover, some commentaries on “patriarchy” distort the way in which Jesus has structured sacramental life in the Church; others even undermine the revealed doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the inspiration of Sacred Scripture.

In other words, they’ve been acting like Episcopalians.

Thanks be to God that Pope Benedict, Archbishop Burke, and other faithful bishops have had enough of that and are (Cue holy screaming now.) actually exercising church discipline.

“Let us pray for those against women bishops.”

Peter Mullen sums up well the peril Church of England traditionalists find themselves in as General Synod votes on women bishops.

There is no question there will be women bishops. The issue is whether adequate provision will be made for those who cannot consciously recognize women bishops. And the feminazis and allies would much rather unchurch such bigots orthodox. Hell, they are even marching against providing for traditionalists.

Peter Mullen sums up such wolves well:

Campaigners for women bishops call themselves “liberal” and “inclusive”. But their liberality and inclusiveness extends only as far as those who agree with them. This is not liberalism at all, of course. Those bigots are like Trotskyists who work within an institution to subvert it and to turn it into its opposite. They are the Church Militant Tendency. I have seen (and worse, heard) their raucous and savage triumphalism, sneering and gloating at the discomfiture of traditionalists. These people who began their feminising movement by pleading for tolerance are themselves intolerable.

Indeed, they are “bigots.” And let us indeed pray for the faithful in danger of being unchurched by these shameless wolves.

Blame Righty CCCVIX1/2

You eeeevil pro-life conservatives are not only responsible for the Tucson shooting, but also for abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s butchery.

Just letting you know.

(I’m getting blamed for so much lately, I’m beginning to feel Jewish.)

More Reaction to Vatican Anglican Announcement (with sordid BDS!)

In discussions of the Vatican announcement of provisions for Anglicans, count Christopher Johnson among those who have nailed it. He, too, thinks the Archbishop of Canterbury has only himself to blame:

Consider the irony. Benedict XVI, confronted with a problem (or an opportunity, however you want to look at it), comes up with a bold, innovative and, one might even say, audacious plan for dealing with it.

Rowan Williams, confronted by a problem, constantly falls back on what the “instruments of unity” will or will not permit him to do. Then whenever the current crisis abates for a while, he issues delphic responses that can be interpreted according to the political position of the reader.

What could Dr. Williams have done, Johnson? Quite a bit. He could have not invited the Americans to Lambeth (and that’s when I think the Pope finally made up his mind). He could declare that ACNA recognition is inevitable and that therefore, he was going to be begin inviting Bob Duncan to primates meetings.

He could have insisted that the Americans observe the terms of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué rather than completely cutting the ground out from under it after the New Orleans TEO bishops meeting. At least once, he could have acted as if Katharine Jefferts Schori was not the actual Archbishop of Canterbury.

But he didn’t do any of that. So if thousands of Anglicans in Great Britain and around the world take the Pope up on his offer, he only has himself to blame.

The Bovina Bloviator is even more to the point:

Well, your Grace, you had six-and-a-half years to do something about this mess and dithered all the while. The Pope, who isn't getting any younger, heard a cry for help and helped. It really should not come as a surprise.

Meanwhile, there’s been an outbreak of Benedict Derangement Syndrome. Here’s a predictably virulent case from a uberEpiscopalian. It begins:

There came in this morning's mail an announcement from Lambeth Palace concerning the "special and different" set up of the pseudo-Church that Pope Bennie has set up for "disaffected Anglicans.

More feminista BDS here with this comical headline:

Vatican to Anglicans: Come be bigots with us!

Feel free to post other cases of BDS. Or heck, if you have BDS, vomit away in the comments. Laughter is the best medicine, you know.