A Hijab Is Totally A Feminist Statement Or Something

By William Teach June 27, 2015 – 10:59 am

I wish this was a joke, but, hey, it’s at the far, far left UK Guardian

My hijab has nothing to do with oppression. It’s a feminist statement – video

Hanna Yusuf asks why a simple piece of clothing is seen as the very epitome of oppression. She says many women find empowerment in rejecting the idea that women can be reduced to their sexual allure – and we should not assume that every women who wears the hijab has been forced into it

Sure, not every woman has been “forced” into it. However, most are, even if it is just strongly suggested.

Even the notoriously Progressive readers of the Guardian aren’t buying this explanation

  • …wearing a hijab means using the material manifestation of slut-shaming and victim-blaming (the hijab), quite the opposite of feminism. It is like running aroung with a swastika on your shirt insisting this is a hindu symbol of luck and happiness. It’s deluded.
  • The hijab is a symbol of female repression where it is forced on women and young girls. It may be true that some women in some countries have the choice whether or not to wear it. (leaving aside the more complex question of indoctrination and religious pressure) But if they want to make a feminist statement they should reject it in solidarity with their sisters who have it forced on them.
  • I don’t know any reasonable person who has an issue with somebody covering their head. However to argue that it is part of women’s liberation is a complete falsity and actually rather dangerous. The sexism that exists in islamic societies is a different type to the sexism in the west. The reason given for covering up in islamic tradition is because men cannot help themselves but to sexually violate women unless they are covered up. One cleric even used the outrageous metaphor ‘if a piece of meat is left out in the sun the cats will devour it. Who’s fault is that? The meat’s’. So essentially it justifys rape. The person who made this is conflating very different cultural attitudes to women, both of which are sexist, but in different ways.
  • Hanna Yusuf has the right to wear whatever she likes, and she may well have freely chosen to wear the hijab (at least in her own terms) – but none of that alters the fact that the hijab was introduced as a symbol of oppression, and remains that for most Muslim women, who do not have the choice that Hanna Yusuf claims she has.
  • BTW if Hanna wore that coloured hijab fully displaying her face and that dress, where she’s displaying her arms, in a public place in Saudi she’d last about two minutes tops before she was hauled off by the mutaween (religious police) and possibly end up being soundly thrashed in public for her immodesty after being heavily fined. Feminism is a punishable offence in the Sunni heartland, so have a clear think about that, Hanna.

All good points.

Read: A Hijab Is Totally A Feminist Statement Or Something »

Posted in Dhimmitude, RoP | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

White House Wants Your Doctor To Warn You About “Climate Change”

By William Teach June 27, 2015 – 7:22 am

Does this mean we would get to see the doctor for 6 minutes, instead of the standard breeze in/breeze out?

(Daily Caller) Americans trust their doctors, so the White House wants these medical professionals to be a mouthpiece for President Obama’s global warming agenda.

“We also need doctors, nurses and citizens, like all of you”President Obama said in a taped speech presented to medical professionals gathered at the White House, “to get to work to raise awareness and organize folks for real change.”

The Obama administration has been hard at work trying to draw a link between global warming and public health issues. The summit included the U.S. Surgeon General, top administration officials, and public health experts from around the country telling doctors, nurses and other conference goers how to talk about global warming with their patients.

The central message: doctors should warn their patients that global warming could make their health worse.

So could global cooling. All changes in climate, which is the result of long term weather, can affect our lives and our health. Warmists are really the true Flat Earthers

Speakers at the White House summit didn’t just tell doctors to go out and raise awareness about global warming, but to also promote the Obama administration’s regulatory agenda aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

“We need people, proponents, to talk about it. Make sure that the public is informed,” said Texas Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson. “Stand behind the EPA, because they’re attacked every day, all day by many committees.”

Interestingly, the doctors weren’t told that they should stop using fossil fuels and go carbon neutral. They were just told to spread awareness. More important, this is the start of a push by the Cult of Climastrology to make inroads with the medical profession in order to spread their cultish beliefs, with preaching to a captive audience.

Read: White House Wants Your Doctor To Warn You About “Climate Change” »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

What’s Next For Gay Advocates?

By William Teach June 27, 2015 – 7:01 am

So, the Supreme Court decided to rewrite the definition of marriage. Well, fine, now gays, sorry, LGBTQ whatever, can now get married in all of Obama’s 58 states. What now? Evan Wolfson, the founder and president of Freedom To Marry expounds

(NY Times) The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday, that the Constitution guarantees gay people the freedom to marry, is a monumental and inspiring victory. America got it right. Love won. We all did.

That, indeed, is something to celebrate. And now we must get back to work.

Securing protections from discrimination for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans needs to be our priority. In too many parts of the country, people can still be fired, evicted, refused service or even humiliated at stores or restaurants because of their sexual orientation or gender identity — in other words, just for being who they are. (snip)

Federal law, which already rightly protects people from discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, age and religion, should be updated to expressly include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Ah, but here’s the thing: according to the SCOTUS, all rights are equal, hence, any laws specifically mentioning certain groups would give them extra protections, which would violate that “all are equal” ruling. They don’t want equality, they want extra rights at the expense of other people

In addition to the political and legal work, the movement must focus on cultural acceptance. That includes combating the bullying and homelessness that too many young people endure, as well as ensuring that seniors can age with dignity and not be forced back into the closet. The real goal, after all, is not just good law, but good lives.

Forced acceptance. As Erik Erickson has written several times, you will be made to care. And you will be forced to accept. It will all be couched in touchy feely language, with an overtone of a threat.

(Politico) Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.”

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

Since the start of the gay marriage debate, proponents of gay marriage have said “well, that’s just crazy. Legalizing polygamy will never happen.” Though they never say why. The main arguments for gay marriage are about equality and “hey, if people love each other, why should they be stopped from marriage?” Why should those in multiple love, group relationships, be stopped? If they love each other, why can they not have a polygamist or bigamist marriage? Furthermore, if it is all about love, what about a marriage between a legal adult and a legal minor? You can’t just say “that’s crazy, it could never happen!” You need to provide a rational reasoning. Remember when marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman?

Fredrik Deboer eviscerates any argument against group marriages, arguments that have been and will be given in opposition of group marriage from the gay marriage social justice warriors.

Next up, you can bet that the SSM SJWs will intentionally go to churches and synagogues that do not support SSM, demanding to be married. It would be very easy for them to simply go to churches that decided to forgo the teachings of the Bible on marriage, and get married there. But, many will want to make a statement, and will want to involve the Government in forcing compliance by religion. They and their SJW compadres within government will then push to pull the tax exempt statuses from non-compliant churches, threaten lawsuits and hate crime prosecutions. Don’t think so? Who thought bakers would be forced to bake a cake, and be fined exorbitantly for refusing?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: What’s Next For Gay Advocates? »

Posted in Liberal World | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Calls Droughts, Temperatures, Forest Fires “Climatological Events”

By William Teach June 26, 2015 – 4:20 pm

Things that apparently never happened before fossil fuels. This comes via The Economist

In May India was struck by a deadly heatwave. Temperatures as high as 47°C caused 2,200 deaths. This week a heatwave in Pakistan claimed the lives of hundreds more. As the chart shows, the number of extreme weather- and climate-related events is rising. Serious storms have more than doubled in frequency since the early 1980s. Floods and heatwaves have more than tripled. The human consequences may be serious. A study published this week by the Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change suggests that previous estimates of the future effect of global warming on health, made by the World Health Organisation and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are underestimates because they failed to take into account vulnerabilities caused by ageing, migration and population growth.

So, future doom. Same old same old.

Read: Warmists Calls Droughts, Temperatures, Forest Fires “Climatological Events” »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Hoory! Bill Nye Explains Hotcoldwetdry With Emojis

By William Teach June 26, 2015 – 10:24 am

An unbelievably stupid and dumbed down method of explanation for people who are thoughtless and mental sheep

(The Verge) It seems like the longer that certain elements of society deny the existence of climate change, the more scientists have to use ever-simpler arguments to get their point across. A decade ago we were looking at detailed studies and charts to prove the Earth is getting warmer, and now we’re here: Bill Nye breaking things down with emoji.

Sure, it’s not the most nuanced explainer we’ve seen, but it gets the basics across. There’s way more of us on the planet than there used to be and we’re producing much more carbon dioxide as a result. This warms up the planet, and to mitigate the effects of this warming we need new technologies, like renewable energy sources and new ways of storing electricity in networks of batteries.

I wonder how much electricity was used to produce this video, along with all those watching it?

Of course, this is simply preaching to the choir. It’s not going to influence those who haven’t joined the Cult of Climastrology, who think for themselves.

Read: Hoory! Bill Nye Explains Hotcoldwetdry With Emojis »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

#BlackLivesMatter Defaces Confederate Symbols, Forgets About Black In Origin Crime

By William Teach June 26, 2015 – 7:23 am

Have these monuments actually killed anyone?

(AP) Vandals have targeted monuments dedicated to the leaders and soldiers of the Confederacy, painting the slogan “Black lives matter” on memorials in a half-dozen states where the landmarks stand tall in parks and outside government buildings.

The graffiti reflects the racial tension that permeates post-Ferguson America, more than a week after a white man was accused of shooting and killing nine black congregants at a Charleston, South Carolina, church.

Michael Allen, a lecturer in American culture studies at Washington University in St. Louis, compared the vandalism to the toppling of statues in Russia at the end of the Soviet empire.

“If the monuments are strong statements of past values, defacing them is the easiest and loudest way to rebuke those statements,” Allen said.

So, crime to make a statement. As for post-Ferguson, it’s a movement based on a lie (there was no “hands up don’t shoot” moment), provided by a teen who had just robbed a store, was a moron for walking in the middle of the street, then assaulted a duly sworn officer of the law, and attempted to take his gun, then came back for more.

One of the defaced monuments was the Confederate Memorial in St. Louis’ Forest Park, 10 miles from Ferguson. The same graffiti was reported on memorials in Charleston; Baltimore; Austin, Texas; Asheville, North Carolina; and Richmond, Virginia. No arrests have been made.

Meanwhile, Baltimore has seen 10 homicides in the last 13 days, of which the majority of victims have been Black. There are also plenty of murders in St. Louis county this year. If the pattern holds, the majority of Blacks killed in the U.S. will have been killed by other Blacks, known as “Black in origin” crime. Where’s the concern with these #BlackLivesMatters adherents to all the violence, all the murders, all the rapes, all the assaults, all the property crimes, occurring within the Black community against other Blacks? Why are they not doing something to resolve the heavy violence within their own community? This isn’t being caused by a few old Confederate monuments.

But, hey, someone was Offended.

Read: #BlackLivesMatter Defaces Confederate Symbols, Forgets About Black In Origin Crime »

Posted in Current Affairs | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Republican Introduces Bill Requiring SCOTUS To Enroll In Ocare

By William Teach June 26, 2015 – 6:57 am

An interesting, albeit toothless, piece of legislation

(The Hill) A House Republican on Thursday proposed forcing the Supreme Court justices and their staff to enroll in ObamaCare.

Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) said that his SCOTUScare Act would make all nine justices and their employees join the national healthcare law’s exchanges.

“As the Supreme Court continues to ignore the letter of the law, it’s important that these six individuals understand the full impact of their decisions on the American people,” he said.

“That’s why I introduced the SCOTUScare Act to require the Supreme Court and all of its employees to sign up for ObamaCare,” Babin said.

Babin’s potential legislation would only let the federal government provide healthcare to the Supreme Court and its staff via ObamaCare exchanges.

“By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,” he added.

It’s a little too late, and Obama will never sign it. I feel no need to rehash the despicable and bizarre contortion decision from the court yesterday. There are more suits coming. There will certainly be suits filed over forcing people to pay a tax via the individual mandate, which is what Roberts punted to with the previous big decision. Then we have this

Republicans in Congress are moving toward a plan to use a special budgetary process to repeal ObamaCare, after the Supreme Court ruled for a second time to uphold the controversial law.

Since last year’s elections, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has proposed using budget reconciliation to repeal large chunks of the law.

Again, a little too late, and Obama won’t sign it. Charles Krauthammer says Ocare is here to stay until a Republican wins the White House (and, of course, controls Congress). Even then, it may be too late. The time to destroy Ocare was 2012, prior to any of it being implemented. How often are bad laws repealed, especially big big big ones? Ocare already has its tentacles insinuated with a giant chunk of the economy.

Of course, Ocare is doing a good job in collapsing on its own. Costs are out of control, state implemented Exchanges are way over budget and collapsing, and consumer costs are untenable. What’s the point of health insurance when it’s too expensive (deductibles) to use?

Regardless, it is not “settled law”. Liberals refuse to accept anything as settled when they do not like the rulings/laws. Nor will we. And Ocare, let’s not forget, is still underwater in virtually every poll.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Republican Introduces Bill Requiring SCOTUS To Enroll In Ocare »

Posted in GOP, Healthcare | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

E.J. Dionne Totally Knows How To Free Law Abiding Citizens From Their Guns

By William Teach June 25, 2015 – 5:07 pm

Don’t think gun grabbers will ever give up. Ever. E.J. Dionne comes up with an interesting way to circumvent the 2nd Amendment and get the guns from law abiding citizens. While giving criminals a good chuckle

How America can free itself from guns

Advocates of a saner approach to guns need a new strategy. We cannot go on like this, wringing our hands in frustration after every tragedy involving firearms. We said “enough” after Sandy Hook. We thought the moment for action had come. Yet nothing happened. We are saying “enough” after Charleston. But this time, we don’t even expect anything to happen.

What’s needed is a long-term national effort to change popular attitudes toward handgun ownership. And we need to insist on protecting the rights of Americans who do not want to be anywhere near guns.

OK. So, tell you what. Let’s disarm all police officers in the areas of those Americans who do not want to be near guns. Criminals would love this.

That’s why the nation needs a public service offensive on behalf of the health and safety of us all. It could build on Sandy Hook Promise and other civic endeavors. If you doubt it could succeed, consider how quickly opinion changed on the Confederate battle flag.

Interesting. Using the Power Of Government to force compliance and mental attitudes. To shame citizens who believe in their 2nd Amendment rights. Who believe in protecting themselves and their families. Nothing fascistic about it in the least!

“The best way to disarm the NRA rhetorically is to make the Second Amendment issue moot,” Molyneux said. “This is not about the government saying you cannot own a handgun. This is about society saying you should not have a gun, especially in a home with children.”

I thought shaming people and bullying them was Bad? Gun grabbers know that they can never do away with the 2nd, and won’t even try to amend it, so, hey, Government indoctrination.

“Those of us who want to live, shop, go to school and worship in gun-free spaces also have rights,” Molyneux said. “In what way is ‘freedom’ advanced by telling the owner of a bar or restaurant they cannot ban handguns in their own place of business, as many states now do? Today, it is the NRA that is the enemy of freedom, by seeking to impose its values on everyone else.”

Funny how most of those gun free spaces, as well as those with massive restrictions, are the ones attacked the most and have some of the highest crime rates.

The nation could ring out with the new slogans of liberty: “Not in my house.” “Not in our school.” “Not in my bar.” “Not in our church.” We’d be defending one of our most sacred rights: The right not to bear arms.

Criminals will know exactly where to go. Of course, this is about denying a right embedded in the Constitution.

 

Read: E.J. Dionne Totally Knows How To Free Law Abiding Citizens From Their Guns »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 25, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a world turning into a desert from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post about an LGBT woman being thrown out of the White House.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

House Votes To Allow States To Opt-Out Of Obama’s Climate Change Plans

By William Teach June 25, 2015 – 12:14 pm

Many states have already decided, at the Governors level and/or legislative level, that they will not comply with Obama’s EPA rules. Mike Pence, governor of Indiana, has just stated that Indiana will not comply. And

(National Journal) House Republicans advanced a bill Wednesday that would let states decide whether they want to follow upcoming Obama administration rules aimed at cutting climate pollution from power plants.

In a 247-180 vote, the House cleared a bill from Republican Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky that would let governors opt out of the rules from the Environmental Protection Agency, which require states to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants. The bill would also delay implementation of the rule—set to be finalized this summer—until all legal challenges are settled, a process that could stretch on for years.

Obviously, Democrats are very much against this, and Obama has already threatened a veto. Apparently, they want to skyrocket the cost of electricity, put people out of jobs, and increase the cost of living, which would harm the poor and middle classes.

The House will also debate a fiscal 2016 appropriations bill this week that would limit the EPA’s ability to enforce the rule, although final votes on that bill will come after the July 4 recess.

For all the yammering from Democrats about being the party of the little guy/gal, their support of “climate change” rules, regs, and laws hurts the little guy/gal. Their rich donors won’t notice a thing. Of course, this is exactly why Warmists are stating that “climate change” is a health hazard, in order to say “hey, we’re doing this for your own good”. Which is exactly what is meant by calling Progressivism “nice fascism”. Massive government control of individuals, private entities, and economies for your own good.

Read: House Votes To Allow States To Opt-Out Of Obama’s Climate Change Plans »

Posted in Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove