Tag Archives: Gloria Steinem

The Medal of Freedom Free-for All

presidential_medal_of_freedom

Originally posted at American Thinker

On the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s establishment of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Barack Obama, the guy who’s done more to obstruct freedom than any American president in history, will be the one handing out the medals.  Having Barack Obama dispense freedom medals is on par with Hitler lighting Shabbat candles or Bill Clinton hosting a couples’ seminar on the joys of marital fidelity.

Nonetheless, according to the White House website, the purpose of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is the nation’s highest civilian honor, is to pay tribute to those who’ve made “meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”

President Obama had this to say about the Medal of Freedom:

The Presidential Medal of Freedom goes to men and women who have dedicated their own lives to enriching ours. This year’s honorees have been blessed with extraordinary talent, but what sets them apart is their gift for sharing that talent with the world. It will be my honor to present them with a token of our nation’s gratitude.

The individuals due to receive the medal are supposedly selected by the president or recommended to him by the Distinguished Civilian Service Awards Board.  Judging from the list, it’s easy to see that when choosing the 2013 recipients, Barack Obama was guided by his own personal opinion.

This year’s group is made up of the following luminaries: liberal politicians from the left-of-left wing to the just plain old RINO left wing; one liberal journalist, plus a Berkeley-schooled psychologist; a departed Obama-supporting female astronaut and a living Jimmy Carter-supporting coal miner’s daughter; a Cuban musician; a Berkeley-schooled Mexican scientist; a black athlete; a female Democrat judge; a deceased LGBT activist; and a couple of civil-rights leaders.

Although the group consists of many standouts, three in particular have Barack Obama’s fingerprints all over them, the first being former President Bill Clinton.  If Bill Clinton deserves anything, it would be a medal for freeing the Oval Office from the confines of presidential dignity.

While Commander-in-Chief Clinton cavorted with a chubby intern, lied about it, perjured himself under oath, and was impeached, now that the “vast right-wing conspiracy” has been fully exposed, he’s one of 16 candidates for a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Barack Obama had to be behind giving Bill Clinton a medal.  After all, what better way for the present occupant of the White House to make his sorry self look good than to give a medal to someone just as sorry?

Therefore, Bill Clinton deserves a Medal of Freedom for freeing Barack Obama from a future of indignity associated with being a God-awful president.

Then there’s feminist Gloria Steinem.  How she got on the list is a Ms-tery.  It must be because Obama respects Gloria for dedicating her life to America’s enrichment by fighting for the right to deprive children in the womb of the right to be born.

Seventy-nine-year-old Gloria proudly wears an “I had an abortion” T-shirt, openly boasting about aborting her own child who, had he or she lived, would be 57 years old today.

Ms. Steinem fondly reminisced about that abortion:

I used to sit and try and figure out how old the child would be, trying to make myself feel guilty. But I never could! … Speaking for myself, I knew it was the first time I had taken responsibility for my own life. I wasn’t going to let things happen to me. I was going to direct my life, and therefore it felt positive.

Who can argue with Obama choosing to give a medal to Steinem for being so cold, heartless, and self-serving that she makes a guy who believes in allowing babies born alive in botched abortions to die without warmth, hydration, or oxygen seem like a pillar of compassion?

Hence, Gloria Steinem deserves a Medal of Freedom for decades of freeing fetuses from the wombs of women who refuse to be deterred from directing their own self-absorbed lives.

Last but not least, we have Oprah Winfrey.  Besides being a gazillionaire and a media magnate of gargantuan proportions (shh, don’t you say it), Oprah was one of Barry’s biggest supporters in 2008.  She probably secretly credits herself for singlehandedly catapulting Barack Obama from the mean streets of Chicago into the family residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Among her many achievements, Oprah is an actress, broadcast journalist, and talk show host who, in a similar way to how Gloria Steinem’s dead baby was Gloria’s new lease on life, considered the untimely death of the newborn infant she delivered at 14 years old a “second chance.”

Oprah Winfrey deserves a Medal of Freedom, all right, but not for her varied accomplishments, nor for her outstanding ability to bring home the bacon.  Rather, she should take a medal for involuntarily freeing her false eyelashes from her eyelids during Barack Obama’s 2008 acceptance speech in INVESCO Field.

Anyone who can be so moved by Barack Obama’s “transcendent” oratory that the salty droplets gushing from her tear ducts dissolves her eyelash glue and destroys a perfectly good set of Ardell Demi Lashes deserves a medal.

Couple the eyelash episode with being identified as Oprah, which sort of resembles the name Obama, and Winfrey may very well have shown up the other 15 recipients and earned herself not one, but two Medals of Freedom.

With the award ceremony months away, there’s still time for Commissioner of Liberty Barack Obama to hand out medals to a few more freedom-lovers.

Let’s see…how about Queen of Free Birth Control Sandra Fluke, MSNBC Head Lesbian Rachel Maddow, IRS official Lois Lerner, ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, and the no-longer-closeted basketball player/newly-christened homosexual icon, Jason Collins?  Meanwhile, Barack Obama is probably trying to concoct a way to give one of those medals to his number-one choice — himself.

The Medal of Freedom Free-for-All

Medal-of-FreedomOriginally posted at American Thinker

On the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s establishment of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Barack Obama, the guy who’s done more to obstruct freedom than any American president in history, will be the one handing out the medals.  Having Barack Obama dispense freedom medals is on par with Hitler lighting Shabbat candles or Bill Clinton hosting a couples’ seminar on the joys of marital fidelity.

Nonetheless, according to the White House website, the purpose of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is the nation’s highest civilian honor, is to pay tribute to those who’ve made “meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”

President Obama had this to say about the Medal of Freedom:

The Presidential Medal of Freedom goes to men and women who have dedicated their own lives to enriching ours. This year’s honorees have been blessed with extraordinary talent, but what sets them apart is their gift for sharing that talent with the world. It will be my honor to present them with a token of our nation’s gratitude.

The individuals due to receive the medal are supposedly selected by the president or recommended to him by the Distinguished Civilian Service Awards Board.  Judging from the list, it’s easy to see that when choosing the 2013 recipients, Barack Obama was guided by his own personal opinion.

This year’s group is made up of the following luminaries: liberal politicians from the left-of-left wing to the just plain old RINO left wing; one liberal journalist, plus a Berkeley-schooled psychologist; a departed Obama-supporting female astronaut and a living Jimmy Carter-supporting coal miner’s daughter; a Cuban musician; a Berkeley-schooled Mexican scientist; a black athlete; a female Democrat judge; a deceased LGBT activist; and a couple of civil-rights leaders.

Although the group consists of many standouts, three in particular have Barack Obama’s fingerprints all over them, the first being former President Bill Clinton.  If Bill Clinton deserves anything, it would be a medal for freeing the Oval Office from the confines of presidential dignity.

While Commander-in-Chief Clinton cavorted with a chubby intern, lied about it, perjured himself under oath, and was impeached, now that the “vast right-wing conspiracy” has been fully exposed, he’s one of 16 candidates for a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Barack Obama had to be behind giving Bill Clinton a medal.  After all, what better way for the present occupant of the White House to make his sorry self look good than to give a medal to someone just as sorry?

Therefore, Bill Clinton deserves a Medal of Freedom for freeing Barack Obama from a future of indignity associated with being a God-awful president.

Then there’s feminist Gloria Steinem.  How she got on the list is a Ms-tery.  It must be because Obama respects Gloria for dedicating her life to America’s enrichment by fighting for the right to deprive children in the womb of the right to be born.

Seventy-nine-year-old Gloria proudly wears an “I had an abortion” T-shirt, openly boasting about aborting her own child who, had he or she lived, would be 57 years old today.

Ms. Steinem fondly reminisced about that abortion:

I used to sit and try and figure out how old the child would be, trying to make myself feel guilty. But I never could! … Speaking for myself, I knew it was the first time I had taken responsibility for my own life. I wasn’t going to let things happen to me. I was going to direct my life, and therefore it felt positive.

Who can argue with Obama choosing to give a medal to Steinem for being so cold, heartless, and self-serving that she makes a guy who believes in allowing babies born alive in botched abortions to die without warmth, hydration, or oxygen seem like a pillar of compassion?

Hence, Gloria Steinem deserves a Medal of Freedom for decades of freeing fetuses from the wombs of women who refuse to be deterred from directing their own self-absorbed lives.

Last but not least, we have Oprah Winfrey.  Besides being a gazillionaire and a media magnate of gargantuan proportions (shh, don’t you say it), Oprah was one of Barry’s biggest supporters in 2008.  She probably secretly credits herself for singlehandedly catapulting Barack Obama from the mean streets of Chicago into the family residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Among her many achievements, Oprah is an actress, broadcast journalist, and talk show host who, in a similar way to how Gloria Steinem’s dead baby was Gloria’s new lease on life, considered the untimely death of the newborn infant she delivered at 14 years old a “second chance.”

Oprah Winfrey deserves a Medal of Freedom, all right, but not for her varied accomplishments, nor for her outstanding ability to bring home the bacon.  Rather, she should take a medal for involuntarily freeing her false eyelashes from her eyelids during Barack Obama’s 2008 acceptance speech in INVESCO Field.

Anyone who can be so moved by Barack Obama’s “transcendent” oratory that the salty droplets gushing from her tear ducts dissolves her eyelash glue and destroys a perfectly good set of Ardell Demi Lashes deserves a medal.

Couple the eyelash episode with being identified as Oprah, which sort of resembles the name Obama, and Winfrey may very well have shown up the other 15 recipients and earned herself not one, but two Medals of Freedom.

With the award ceremony months away, there’s still time for Commissioner of Liberty Barack Obama to hand out medals to a few more freedom-lovers.

Let’s see…how about Queen of Free Birth Control Sandra Fluke, MSNBC Head Lesbian Rachel Maddow, IRS official Lois Lerner, ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, and the no-longer-closeted basketball player/newly-christened homosexual icon, Jason Collins?  Meanwhile, Barack Obama is probably trying to concoct a way to give one of those medals to his number-one choice — himself.

Abortion Advocate Gloria Steinem Condemns Violence

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Feminist and reproductive rights activist Gloria Steinem once said, “A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual.”  Similarly, women listening to Gloria Steinem talk about violence toward women should also feel “like a Jew reading a Nazi manual.” Why? Because try as she might to be a voice exposing male violence against women, what Gloria Steinem really is, is an advocate for women being violent toward women.

Recently, while marking the 40th anniversary of Ms. Magazine at the National Press Club, co-founder Gloria Steinem spewed her predictable anti-male animosity.  What Steinem was attempting to sell was the lie that “the home in our country is the single most dangerous place for a woman – not the street” and that ending domestic violence is “the key to world peace.”

Gloria based her premise on a number she gleaned from the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, which stated that from 2001 through 2005 intimate partners killed 5,861 women.

Is Gloria Steinem unaware that mothers abort approximately 3,500 unborn children in America every day? That number amounts to about 1.2 million per year, which totals roughly 4.8 million from 2001 through 2005. Assuming half of those infants were female, that would tally to 2.4 million dead women in the same time frame Ms. Steinem used to make her initial point.

Nice try, Gloria, but the womb is the “single most dangerous place for a woman” in America.

In the 1997 documentary entitled My Feminism, Steinem described the abortion she had at 22 years of age as a “pivotal and constructive experience.” Clearly, what Gloria Steinem suggested was that violence is acceptable, even “positive and constructive,” but only if the woman is committing murder in what Steinem later called an effort to “tak[e] responsibility for her own life.”

In a 2011 article written by Rachel Cook of The Guardian entitled “Gloria Steinem: ‘I think we need to get much angrier,'” the woman with the seared conscience said that “[Abortion] is supposed to make us a bad person. But I must say, I never felt that. I used to sit and try and figure out how old the child would be, trying to make myself feel guilty. But I never could!”

As for how old Gloria’s child would be today, let’s do the math: ironically, if the fetus who was disposed of so coldly 56 years prior was female, she’d be the same age as many of the women applauding Gloria Steinem’s feminist speech exposing male violence against women.

Back at the National Press Club, Gloria’s lamentation continued: “It’s also still true that the average prison sentence for a partner, a male partner who kills his female partner, is less than for a woman who kills in self-defense in the home.”

It was Gloria Steinem who once said, “A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.” Yet while discussing inequities toward women, she failed to mention that without the approval of the father, Roe v. Wade grants violent women the discretion to murder a man’s child without explanation or consequence.

During her remarks, Steinem cited “Sex and World Peace,” a book that claims to “unsettle a variety of assumptions in political and security discourse, demonstrating that the security of women is a vital factor in the security of the state and its incidence of conflict and war.”

Authors Hudson, Ballif-Spanvill, Caprioli, and Emmett maintain that world peace will be impossible to attain until men and women are treated alike and violence against women ends. Steinem concurs that in those areas “[t]here is the very long-term goal of understanding,” and ending violence against the same women that Gloria believes should have the right to be violent against the unborn, “[i]s the key to world peace, hello?”

If it’s really world peace and an end to violence that Ms. Steinem is after, maybe the aging activist should forego the advice given in “Sex and World Peace” and instead take some advice from another elderly female whose saintly life embodied everything Gloria Steinem’s lacks: Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

Mother Teresa understood what Gloria Steinem, despite all her years of fighting for women’s rights, still hasn’t grasped: “If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other?” As for world peace, the beatified nun also taught that “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.”  Hello?

No uncredentialed children on the Democratic convention floor

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Liberal women are funny.  Not in a weird way; in a funny ha-ha way.  Why? Because the Democratic National Committee is sponsoring a convention in Charlotte, N.C. and the same females who applaud the Democrat stand on abortion are now up in arms because organizers are banning children from the pro-choice festivities.

The Charlotte Observer reports that “children will not be allowed access on the floor of the Democratic National Convention,” and that “daycare will not be provided for delegates who bring their kids.”

Do liberal women need to be reminded that the Democratic Party isn’t exactly a child-friendly entity? This is a group of people whose greatest success over the last three decades is managing to promote and assist in the destruction in 60 million tiny human beings.

Hearing pro-choice women’s rights activist Gloria Steinem and a handful of abortion-loving NOW chapters accuse the DNC of “discrimination against mothers with young children” is downright confusing.

Gloria Steinem is the woman who coined the term “reproductive freedom.” Now she’s saying that “Women are the key to a Democratic victory, and sometimes, children are the key to women.” In order to maintain her “reproductive freedom” credibility, Ms. Steinem was careful to insert the word “sometimes.”

Nevertheless, the question that needs to be answered at this late date is: Why is Gloria Steinem suggesting that something besides free contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion is the key to wooing women and ensuring a Democrat victory?

Whatever the answer, Gloria believes “It’s both right and smart for the Democratic Convention to behave as if children exist.”  Lest we forget, this is the woman that insisted that the right to abortion is a bigger health issue than breast cancer. Now she’s asking for an arena full of liberals to “behave as if children exist?”

Delegate Susie Shannon, who likely supports the Democrat pro-choice platform, feels the “DNC is putting her in a tough position because she is bringing her 4-year-old along.”

Shannon said “The Democratic Party shouldn’t put you in a position where you have to choose between your child and participating in a political convention.”  Why not?  Hasn’t the Democratic Party, above all, earned the right to exercise choice?  Think of it this way, the Democrats are aborting children from the convention.

Furthermore, it could be that the DNC, in conjunction with Planned Parenthood, may think that refusing to supply childcare and making delegates “choose between [a] child and participating in a political convention,” might contribute to an uptick in business for the abortion provider prior to September 2016.

A Democrat Convention spokeswoman reminded perturbed delegates that there is a “list of private child care providers on an official vendor directory,” and that “facilities are being provided for nursing mothers.” For those upset about the “anti-mom” amenities, apparently nursing mothers’ accommodations aren’t woman-friendly enough.

Reminiscent of back-alley abortion rhetoric, Zoe Nicholson, president of the Pacific Shore NOW chapter, called for the DNC to end the “outdated practice” of not providing for unaborted youngsters.  That’s a stretch – demanding of a political party whose policy is to dispose of inconvenient babies that they accommodate uninvited children.

Zoe accused Democrats of discrimination, saying, “We believe this practice of discrimination needs to end in 2012.  This is the year for the Democratic leadership to demonstrate comprehensive support of women, ending this outdated practice and to state publicly that it supports true family values.”

Sorry Zoe, but asking the Democratic Party to support family values is like asking a vegan to dig into a juicy steak.

Maybe Steinem and NOW should consider the possibility that having little kiddies merrily running around or tiny cherubs wailing for a bottle, all burping, smiling and waving to convention goers, might make some of the women uneasy.

Let’s face it, listening to NARAL president Nancy Keenan militantly extol the virtues of abortion on demand while infants nap curled up in their mother’s arms would introduce an awkward dynamic into an otherwise festive atmosphere.

It’s bad enough that when Roe v. Wade is celebrated, it may be hard to distract delegates 38-years-old or younger that those born after 1973 stood a chance of missing out on an opportunity in 2012 to nominate a man who would have heartily supported a mother’s decision to abort them.

With that in mind, in lieu of welcoming in the children, a more appropriate idea might be to accommodate the needs of female convention goers by parking a pink Planned Parenthood mobile clinic on the curb outside the Time Warner Cable Arena.

 

Proud to share blog space with the wonderful Ethel Fenig

%d bloggers like this: