Lena Dunham and dad ‘feel good’ about ‘extinction of white men’: Manufactured celeb says what activists really believe

lena-dunham-white-men

Lena Dunham is a woman with a multitude of psychological problems, which why I very rarely write on her antics. However, since she is a manufactured celebrity who is enlisted to make weird pro-Hillary Clinton rap videos, there are times when it is necessary. Her “extinction of white men” video published Wednesday is one such example.

Here is what she and her father said in an animated short regarding their desire for genocide:

Lena Dunham: How are you feeling about the extinction of white men?

Carroll Dunham: Well, white men are a problem. Straight white men are a big problem, that’s for sure. But I actually feel pretty good about it. I think straight white guys have been screwing things up for long enough. [It’s] high-time for straight white males to step back and let some other people do it.

Lena Dunham: That’s my dad!

Lena and Carroll: Hahaha!

As has already been stated, these are troubled souls. Instead of admitting to their own sense of self-loathing and insecurity, they project it into the world through poisonous political activism.

Don’t believe me? Consider the case of Esquire magazine’s Charles Pierce, who appeared on MSNBC in July and said he was optimistic “this is the last time that old white people will command the Republican party’s attention, its platform, its public face.” 

There is a palpable hatred of white people by pundits, politicians, and activists who wield real power and influence. They openly yearn for the “extinction” and cultural castration of straight white men (like your friendly neighborhood blogger), but a defense of white men or Western civilization is immediately shouted down as evidence of racism.

Again, we return to Mr. Pierce’s comment and the response by Iowa Rep. Steve King.

This ‘old white people’ business does get a little tired, Charlie,” the lawmaker said. “I’d ask you to go back through history and figure out: Where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you’re talking about? Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?”

Host Chris Hayes then said, “Than white people?”

“Than Western civilization itself. It’s rooted in Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the United States of America and every place where the footprint of Christianity settled the world. That’s all of Western civilization,” Mr. King responded.

Mr. King was excoriated in by multiple media outlets for the comments as “racist,” despite the fact that he was pushing back against Mr. Pierce’s bizarre racial animus (and, like Ms. Dunham, self-loathing), towards white people.

shaun-king-steve-king

See how it works? Cultural influencers say all white people are responsible for the world’s ills, and when you stand up for yourself then your defiance is decried as proof of bigotry.

What makes the tactics used by Ms. Dunham and her friends so insidious is that it doubles as bait to draw out actual racists and uneducated people. The ignorant come across as racist because they do not know how to properly navigate intellectual minefields.

Who are these non-white people who Carroll Dunham wants running the show?

Could it be the not-so-white guys who throw gay people off tall buildings in Syria?

Islamic State gay execution

Could it be the not-so-white guys who take female sex slaves in Nigeria?

Boko Haram

Could it be the not-so-white people in China who put smiley faces on forced abortions (particularly when it involves little girls)?

China Population Control

Lena Dunham on many levels is an embarrassing joke, but her ideology is very serious. She is but a small cog in an organized machine, which is programed to destroy the pillars of Western civilization and replace them with an authoritarian perversion that “feels good” about genocide.

You can laugh at Ms. Dunham. You can cry for Ms. Dunham. You can pray for her soul, but you would be remiss to dismiss her activism as inconsequential to the the long-term health of our civil society.

RELATED: Lena Dunham and ‘Girls’ crew ‘rage’ on ‘sexist’ reporter — but zip it for Bill Maher

Advertisements

Liz Heron, HuffPo executive editor, shows what’s wrong with modern feminism in one tweet

Liz Heron Twitter

Liz Heron, the executive editor over at HuffPo, did the world a huge favor on Friday — she demonstrated why so many people have a problem with modern feminism.

“Notice anything about this @HuffingtonPost editors meeting” the editor wrote while adding emojis that screamed “girl power!”

The internet responded with predictable snark, but the issue demands more attention than that. What viewers witness in a single tweet is that feminism is a congeries of contradictory rules and regulations, which allow elites to wallow in self-congratulation for behavior that would earn others condemnation.

Ask yourself the following questions about Ms. Heron’s tweet:

  • If women should be judged on their merits, then why is HuffPo essentially asking readers to cheer the amount of estrogen it packed into a room?
  •  Should HuffPo be applauded for its female editors, or scolded for its lack of racial diversity?
  • If feminism is about equal opportunity, then why tweet an image that seems to relish the idea of excluding men?
  • If making an assumption about gender based on physical appearance is frowned upon, then why engage in “you go, girl!” tweets that encourage such behavior?

Personally, I do not care what a room full of editors looks like as long as they produce good content. HuffPo generally reads like it’s run by 25-year-old women, so on some level it’s nice to know my suspicions were correct. If that’s the vibe the website is going for, then great — but those same women should probably zip it when they run across a website that unabashedly celebrates the male minds behind a male-oriented website.

The weird thing about identity politics is that its foot soldiers litter the cultural landscape with social justice mines and then eventually step on their own munitions. Instead of learning a lesson or two after their credibility explodes into a thousands pieces, they go right back to laying mines. Independent voters should keep all of this in mind next time they read a HuffPo political piece that translates: “Vote for Hillary Clinton because she wears a bra.”

George Clooney admits Clinton hypocrisy, Kurt Busiek’s spin further exposes left

George Clooney Meet the Press

Question: What could be better than watching Hollywood actor Leonardo Dicaprio lecture the world on Climate Change when everyone knows he loves to fly around in private jets for pleasure, party on giant yachts, and leave a bigger carbon footprint in one year than the average person would in 10 lifetimes?

Answer: Watching Hollywood actor George Clooney fidget in his seat when he is asked about hosting a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton — couples paid up to $353,400 to attend — while also lecturing Americans on the corruptive nexus between money and politics.

The cherry on top is comic book writer Kurt Busiek inadvertently exposing the left’s rhetoric on unilateral nuclear disarmament while attempting to spin Clooney’s hypocrisy.

First, we have Chuck Todd of “Meet the Press” asking Clooney about his fundraiser for presidential hopeful Clinton and protests by supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

“Do you look at how much is being raised, and I think the cost of the Friday night dinner [was] $350,000 a couple to be a co-chair. Do you look at it yourself and think that’s an obscene amount of money?” Todd asked Saturday.

Clooney’s response was to admit that it is a legitimate gripe, but that he was going to continue being a part of the problem anyway.

“Yes. I think it’s an obscene amount of money. I think that, you know, we had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San Francisco and they’re right to protest. And they’re right to protest. They’re absolutely right. It is an obscene amount of money. The Sanders campaign, when they talk about it, is absolutely right. It’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics.” — George Clooney, April 16, 2016.

In George Clooney’s mind, the National Education Association can raise gobs of money for Democrats and it’s not a problem because they represent Democrat teachers, but a super PAC for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is “ridiculous” — even though guys like me think his ideas represent us.

George Clooney Chuck Todd Meet the Press

Personally, I think money in politics is overrated (just ask…Marco Rubio! — or any number of Republicans who spent millions of dollars and lost the 2016 Republican presidential primary). If George Clooney wanted money to have less influence on the political process, then he would become an advocate for limited government. He cries about cronyism while asking voters to fuel the vehicle that drives it, but I digress.

The point here is that Clooney, like his buddy Leonardo Dicaprio, is a political hypocrite. Sanders, although a self-avowed socialist who thinks bread lines and food shortages are cool, is 100 times more principled than Hillary Clinton and should be given credit for that.

The reason why men like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have attracted millions of supporters is because they are sick of George Clooneys on both sides of the political spectrum. A candidate cannot say, “[insert behavior] is morally wrong, but I will do it anyway if it benefits me politically … and then maybe it will change when I’m elected.”

Here is where it gets interesting. Comic book writer Kurt Busiek decided to weigh in on the issue over at Deadline Hollywood. In his defense of Clooney’s hypocrisy he inadvertently exposed the danger of leftist activists who essentially push for the U.S. to unilaterally disarm when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Kurt Busiek

“Unilateral disarmament leads to losing,” according to Busiek. “[Clooney’s] point is that it’s bad to have this kind of money in politics overall, not that it’s okay for everyone else but his favored candidate shouldn’t get any.”

If unilateral disarmament “leads to losing” when it comes to campaign-finance reform in American elections, then why would the same idea applied to national security not “lead to losing” between the U.S. and nation states that publicly express a desire to see it wiped off the face of the earth?

Every year activist groups like “Global Zero” try to gain the support of Hollywood activists like George Clooney’s buddy Matt Damon. These actors push for massive reductions of U.S. nuclear weapons, despite the fact that such moves would be cheered around the world by rogue nations.

If liberal guy Kurt Busiek is telling the truth, and “unilateral disarmament leads to losing,” then why do so many Hollywood liberals push for unilateral disarmament when it comes to the U.S. military? Are they just dangerously ignorant, or do they really want the U.S. to lose?

The answer is bad no matter how you slice it.

Matt Damon Global Zero

The moral of the story here is that modern-day liberalism is a tangled knot of contradictions:

  • When its activists act on principle, they often do so based upon a gross misreading of human nature that leads to the consequences diametrically opposed to their stated intentions.
  • When its activists do not act on principle, it is because they quixotically believe the world would behave differently if only they had their hands on the levers of power. (Ask Iranian mullahs, Islamic terrorists, and Vladimir Putin how that worked out after the election of President Obama.)

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to sit back and marvel out how Hollywood activists, election-year politics, and comic books all came together for a blogger who loves to write on each issue.

Exit question: What kind of person plops down $353,400 to eat dinner with a politician? Is there anyone alive whose existence would make you say, “I’d spend $350,000 to eat a seared salmon and parsley-caper sauce with that guy,”?

White House: Stripping constitutional rights for gun control ‘common sense’

Trey Gowdy

The San Bernardino terror attack on Dec. 2 has caused gun-control activists to go into hyperdrive. President Obama and his administration have now latched on to using terror watch lists — those same lists once derided by his supporters — to strip Americans of constitutionally-protected rights. Yours truly and others have already mentioned just how dangerous of an idea that is, but it was perfectly illuminated Thursday during a House Oversight Committee hearing.

In one corner we have Kelli Burriesci, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Screening Coordination, Office of Policy of the United States Department of Homeland Security. (Quite a mouthful of a title there, so one would hope she would know her stuff…)

In another corner we have South Carolina Rep. Try Gowdy.

Here is how it all unfolded:

Trey Gowdy: Let me ask you a question about the terrorism list. What process is afforded a U.S. citizen — not someone who overstayed a visa, not someone who crossed a border without permission — but an American citizen?  What process is currently afforded an American citizen before they go on that list?

DHS: I’m sorry, there is not a process afforded the citizen prior to getting on the list. There is a process should someone feel they are and unduly placed on the list.

Gowdy: Yes there is. And when I say ‘process,’ I’m actually using half of the term due process, which is a phrase we find in the Constitution — that you cannot deprive people of certain things without due process.

So I understand Mister Goode’s idea, which is wait until you’re right has been taken from you and then you can petition the government to get it back. I understand that that’s his idea. My question is can you name another constitutional right that we have that is chilled until you find out it’s chilled, and then you have to petition the government to get it back? Is that true of the First Amendment?

DHS: Sir, there are strict criteria before any gets put on the list.

Trey Gowdy:That’s not my question ma’am. That is not my question. My question is what process is afforded a United States citizen before that person’s constitutional right is infringed? He’s fine when do it with the Second Amendment. My question is, ‘How about the First?’ How about we not let them set up a website or Google account? How about we not let him join a church until until they can petition the government to get off the list. How about not get a lawyer? How about the Sixth Amendment?

How about you can’t get a lawyer until you petition the government to get off the list? Or my favorite — how about the Eighth amendment? We’re going to subject you to cruel and unusual punishment until you petitioned the government to get off the list. Is there another constitutional right that we treat the same way for American citizens that we do the Second Amendment? Can you think of one? **pause** Can you think of one?

DHS:I don’t have an answer for you, sir.

She. Doesn’t. Have. An. Answer.

Burriesci

How is it possible for someone at the Department of Homeland Security, who is advocating on behalf of stripping American citizens of constitutionally-protected rights, to not have an answer to those questions?

As Rep. Gowdy points out, the Obama administration’s own logic dictates that if the Second Amendment can be stripped without due process, then there is no reason why any other rights can’t be taken as well.

Listen to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s comments on the issue Friday, and then ask yourself how comfortable you are with giving the federal government a blank check to do whatever it wants under the guise of national security.

Mr Earnest said:

“I think it’s common sense, the president believes it’s common sense and it is in our national security interest to prevent those who are deemed by the government ‘too dangerous to board an airplane’ that we should pass a law that prevents those people from purchasing a gun — until such time as they can resolve the concerns the government has about their  potential links to terrorism. There is a process administered by the Department of Homeland Security for those concerns to be considered and resolved. When it comes to gun safety, that seems like a pretty common sense step.

In response to Sen. Rubio, I guess I would simply say: Is he suggesting we should wait until someone who is on the no-fly list walks into a gun[store], purchases a firearm and kills a whole bunch of Americans before we pass a law preventing it? I don’t think that passes the common sense test either.”

To recap:

  • The Department of Homeland Security does not know how many of your constitutional rights can be stripped without due process.
  • President Obama wants to give women like Kelli “I don’t have an answer for you, sir” Burriesci the ability to deny you constitutionally-protected rights (The Second Amendment…for now.)
  • The Department of Homeland Security officials will “consider” not infringing upon your constitutionally-protected rights if you go through its petition process and it feels like changing its mind.

In the same press briefing where Josh Earnest created a giant Straw Man argument for Sen. Rubio, the White House Press Secretary admitted that none of the recent mass shooters were on the no-fly list. He also stammered and stuttered when a reporter pointed out that none of the current gun-control measures being talked about would have prevented the mass shootings in the first place.

Right now the federal government is asking for power that its own officials don’t know how to justify because they know that what they want to do is unconstitutional.

Whether you are a gun owner or not, it should terrify you that the same argument used in favor of stripping Americans of Second Amendment rights without due process can be applied to any right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. 

If you cannot see the danger this poses to future generations of Americans, then I weep for your children.

Ithaca College students jump on Mizzou race train: Professors now reap what they have sown

Ithaca College

Somewhere in between Gender Studies 101, partying, putting money on meal cards, and sexual exploration, Ithaca College students are allegedly bombarded with racial injustices. Sometimes, people say mean things. It apparently hurts their feelings more than it hurts the skulls and spinal cords of gay men thrown off tall buildings by the Islamic State group in Syria. And so, there must be a “no confidence” vote in Ithaca College president Tom Rochon.

College faculty and staff must now reap what they have sown.

Islamic State gay execution

The Ithaca Journal reported Wednesday:

Members of the campus community walked out Wednesday “for all the injustices students of color face on this campus and other colleges nationally. With University of Missouri’s president stepping down, we demand Rochon to do the same as it is vital to fight against both covert and overt racism in all places of education and empowerment,” according to the event Facebook page.

In a statement issued after the protest, POC at IC said they want to make one thing loud and clear: “We are here, and we demand change.” …

“Diversity and inclusion here at Ithaca College is nothing more than an image,” one protester said into a microphone. Many in the crowd responded with cheers and clapping. …

Those sentiments were echoed by a woman who stood with POC at IC, shouting from Free Speech Rock: “We desire his resignation, not his input.” She went on to list some goals, including Rochon to resign or be removed from his position, a “radical transformative change in government and structure at Ithaca College” and “we want to bring a sense of safety, emotional stability and dignity to the experiences of POC at IC, other marginalized groups and the intersection between us as well as the entire Ithaca College community.”

What is Mr. Rochon’s offense, you ask?

Answer: He is not a member of the Precrime Police Department from “Minority Report.”

There have been several controversial incidents this semester, including a Blue Sky Reimagining Kick Off event in October that was meant to “formulate ideas about the evolution of Ithaca College.” During the event, an alumna on the panel, Tatiana Sy, a woman of color, said she had a “savage hunger” to succeed. However, two other alumni on the panel then referred to Sy as a “savage” throughout the event. Future Blue Sky Reimagining events have been put on hold.

After the Blue Sky event, Rochon issued a statement that he had apologized to Sy and regrets that the event was diminished by “insensitive comments.” He went on to say, “In general, the college cannot prevent the use of hurtful language on campus. Such language, intentional or unintentional, exists in the world and will seep into our community. We can’t promise that the college will never host a speaker who could say something racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or otherwise disrespectful.

Behold, the fragile mind of modern youth — so delicate and brittle that it crumbles with every episodic instance of unwelcome rhetoric. It’s not hard to guess who would be the first to fold in a mainland invasion of America by its future enemies. But I digress.

Tom Rochon Ithaca protest

This is only the beginning. The roller coaster of weird is just pulling out of the gate.

As I said Nov. 9:

The anti-free speech “muscle” of Mizzou had a big win on Monday, which means that its allies on campuses across the country will now seek to duplicate or surpass their ideological peers. I implore any young person attending college to push back twice as hard the next time your wannabe police-state overseers request “muscle” to do their dirty work.

Buckle up, because this roller coaster looks like it will have plenty of twists and turns. And, as always, welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Melissa Harris-Perry: Be ‘super careful’ when calling someone ‘hard worker’ because of slavery

Melissa Harris Perry MSNBC

I recently told a co-worker of mine that I never watch cable news outside of the office because the vast majority of on-air personalities care more about hearing their voices bounce around an ideological echo chamber than giving viewers honest intellectual discourse. It is much healthier to be alone with your own thoughts on a morning walk than to fill your head with partisan super-balls thrown out on cable news. Exhibit A: Melissa Harris-Perry’s bizarre lecture on race Monday night, which she somehow spun out of a guest calling Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan a “hard worker.”

The Washington Free Beacon reported Monday:

ALFONSO AGUILAR: But let’s be fair. If there’s somebody who is a hard worker when he goes to Washington, it’s Paul Ryan. Not only works with the Republicans but Democrats. You know very well that I work on [the] immigration issue, trying to get Republicans to support immigration reform. Paul Ryan is somebody who has supported immigration reform, has worked with somebody like Luis Gutierrez. Luis Gutierrez is very respectful, speaks highly of Paul Ryan. This is somebody who’s trying to govern.

MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY: Alfonso, I feel you. But I just want to pause on one thing. Because I don’t disagree with you that I actually think Mr. Ryan is a great choice for this role. But I want us to be super careful when we use the language “hard worker,” because I actually keep an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like.

One of the reasons why I generally don’t blog on individuals like Melissa Harris-Perry is because it is hard to shake the feeling that she is a very-troubled woman. It seems as though a mind would have to be particularly warped to take the phrase “hard worker” during a conversation on Paul Ryan’s job qualifications, and turn it into a finger-wagging lesson on U.S. slavery.

Guest panelist Mr. Aguilar looked generally confused at the host’s statements. His face said, “Is this happening? What the heck is going on right now? Why did I agree to be on this weird show?”
Alfonso Aguilar

It says something incredibly sad about our culture that a woman as ideologically rabid as Harris-Perry has a bully pulpit on a cable news network. Why would sane, “hard-working” Americans ever enter into politics when media personalities tasked with shaping public opinion are mostly clones of Harris-Perry? Answer: They wouldn’t.

The moral of the story here is this: Turn off your television. Read good books. Get outside and exercise. Spend time with family and friends. 

There are many rabbit holes of stupidity out there, but cable news shows possess large entrances. My suggestion is to glance inside from time to time, but resist the temptation to crawl inside. Once you fall headlong into an abyss of stupidity, it is hard to crawl out.

Obama on community college: ‘Free’ stuff! ‘Free’ stuff! Get your ice-cold ‘free’ stuff!

President Obama has a brand new idea that sounds like most of his old ideas: he wants to make something “free” for millions of people. Even though the U.S. is $18 trillion in debt and money doesn’t grow on “free” trees in Washington, D.C., (the last time I checked, money had to be collected from taxpayers to fund the government, but someone can correct me if I’m wrong), Mr. Obama wants the first two years of community college to be “free” for anyone who chooses to explore that option.

Politico reported Thursday:

President Barack Obama will need the approval of Congress to realize his proposal for making two years of community college free for students.

So far, that plan doesn’t have an official price tag — other than “significant,” according to White House officials. If all 50 states participate, the proposal could benefit 9 million students each year and save students an average of $3,800 in tuition, the White House said. …

“What I’d like to do is to see the first two years of community college free for everybody who’s willing to work for it,” Obama said in a White House video posted Thursday evening. “It’s something we can accomplish, and it’s something that will train our workforce so that we can compete with anybody in the world.”

Here’s a little background on yours truly. When I got out of the military, I wanted to go to the University of Southern California. These days, tuition will cost a student roughly $64,000 per year. In my day, yearly tuition was roughly $35,000. The point is this: it’s expensive.

What did I do? I, as a former infantryman already wrestling with the belief that people thought I was stupid, swallowed my pride and signed up at a local community college. I took a job working the night shift at Target stocking shelves. A counselor at the community college asked me for my goal. When I told her I was going to transfer to USC, she literally burst out laughing. She told me — without having any information on my intelligence or background — that I might want to “reevaluate” my plans. I walked out of her office and vowed that I would get into USC and shove the acceptance letter down her throat. Less than two years later I received an acceptance letter in the mail, but instead of circling back with the woman in dramatic fashion I bought a plane ticket to Los Angeles and never looked back. Regular readers of this blog know where things went from there…

The moral of the story is that sometimes the biggest opportunities for personal growth come from the obstacles we must traverse. I learned valuable life lessons that benefit me to this day from the struggles I faced in my early twenties. Perseverance, fiscal responsibility, the value of hard work, never losing sight of the big picture, endurance, and the ability to apply a laser-like focus when necessary are just some of things that come to mind when I think of that period in my life.

The kind of liberalism espoused by President Obama is insulting. Individuals are supposed to embrace public policy meant for infants and invalids. The soothing salve of another man’s money is supposed to ease an individual’s mind and prepare him for the challenge of becoming who he is truly meant to be, when in fact all that it offers is spiritual atrophy.

Nothing is life is ever “free.” The push for “free” higher education is not an act of kindness, but a surreptitious way to create a soul-sucking umbilical cord around the necks of young voters. The worst part about making community college “free” won’t be the spike in tuition (yes, schools will hike prices on all services if it is established that the federal government will cover three-fourths of each bill), but the changes to the national psyche when individuals view it as the State’s job to clear all major life hurdles from their field of vision.

Baby

Dyed armpits: Absent real oppression, Amercian feminists create new dragons to slay

Dyed ArmpitThe Islamic State group is now passing out pamphlets in Iraq for the “rules” its members are to employ when taking on sex slaves. Women are being “gifted” and young girls are completely unaware that barbaric monsters are figuring out ways to use the Koran to justify rape. Meanwhile, in the United States, American feminists have propelled dyed armpits into a “movement” worthy of write-ups in The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. Absent any real dragons to slay, modern American feminists will create them. Today’s dragon: Armpit oppression. It’s not quite as glorious as the women who are trying not to have their heads chopped off in the Middle East, but it will do.

The Washington Post reported Friday:

There is a new trend sprouting across the country. More specifically, there is a new trend sprouting in women’s armpits across the country, according to the New York Post and others.

Some women, you may have noticed, are growing out their armpit hair — and then dyeing it. …

In her “Free Your Pits Manifesto,” which you can read here, [Roxi] Hunt writes:

“Whether you shave or not, women should be allowed to make decisions about their bodies without judgement from others. And, women making these decisions about their bodies should not be something exploited by the media. What we need is encouragement, not judgment.”

Therein lies the rub. It’s not just about being an individual — it’s about telling others that they don’t have the right to pass any form of judgment on the decisions a woman makes about her body, even if she flaunts those decisions in public with red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet dye jobs that scream, “Look at me!”

Destiny M, who was covered in The Post’s piece, demonstrates quite nicely in a new YouTube video why the “Free Your Pits Manifesto” is inherently flawed:

“A lot of people were like, ‘That’s a cry for attention.’ Maybe it is! I don’t care. For me I know it’s not, but for other people it can be. There’s nothing wrong with that. Most things we do are for attention, so why hate it? And then growing out your body hair is empowering and I recommend it to everyone.”

If a woman wants to make a spectacle of herself, then the rest of us are under no obligation to offer “encouragement, not judgment.”

Ironically, Ms. Hunt’s own statement, “Women should be allowed to make decisions about their bodies without judgement from others,” passes a form of moral judgment. The modern American feminist wants to judge, but not be judged. She wants us to encourage her self-exploration — no matter what that entails — but does not want to encourage those who disagree with her worldview.

In some sense, Americans should view the “dyed armpits” campaign as a good thing: the women’s rights movement has become the women’s encouragement movement. While women in the Middle East are fighting for their right to life, women in America are whining about their preference for approval. The battle for basic human rights is one that is always worth fighting for — and can be won. The fight to be free from judgment for any behavior one deems to be an expression of his or her “true” self is wrongheaded, and should face stiff resistance.

Tattoo your face. Dye your armpit hair. Stick bones through your nose and stretch your earlobes to strange dimensions. Have a ball. It’s your choice, but the rest of society is under no obligation to cheer you on.

Rolling Stone and Lena Dunham liberalism: Feelings are truth until enough shame changes my mind

Lena Dunham APIt’s no secret that individuals who identify as liberals tend to put quite a bit of stock in feelings and emotions. A liberal’s stated intentions have a higher value than the consequences of the policies he supports. However, recent revelations surrounding Rolling Stone’s UVA rape story, Lena Dunham’s rape allegations, and the “Hands up, don’t shoot!” protesters indicate that modern liberals have elevated their feelings to a whole new level: truth” is whatever it is a liberal man or woman is feeling at any specific moment. If it feels true, then it must be true — at least until the shouts of enough people blow the delusional fog of self-righteousness from their eyes and they are forced to acknowledge the lies.

First up we have Rolling Stone’s ‘A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA,’ which turned the lives upside down for an entire campus, a slew of innocent men, and their families. “Rape culture” feels so true that it must be true — so why bother interviewing men accused of gang-rape, right Rolling Stone?

Sabrina Rubin Erdely wrote “Jackie’s” story Nov. 19:

“Shut up,” she heard a man’s voice say as a body barreled into her, tripping her backward and sending them both crashing through a low glass table. There was a heavy person on top of her, spreading open her thighs, and another person kneeling on her hair, hands pinning down her arms, sharp shards digging into her back, and excited male voices rising all around her. When yet another hand clamped over her mouth, Jackie bit it, and the hand became a fist that punched her in the face. The men surrounding her began to laugh. For a hopeful moment Jackie wondered if this wasn’t some collegiate prank. Perhaps at any second someone would flick on the lights and they’d return to the party.

“Grab its motherfucking leg,” she heard a voice say. And that’s when Jackie knew she was going to be raped.

She remembers every moment of the next three hours of agony, during which, she says, seven men took turns raping her, while two more – her date, Drew, and another man – gave instruction and encouragement.

What a horrible experience. Unfortunately, the story is bogus. The reason Rolling Stone didn’t know earlier: feelings.

Rolling Stone’s Will Dana wrote in his “Ooops, did I do that?” apology:

“Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her.”

As The Washington Post pointed out, there wasn’t even an event at the fraternity on the night “Jackie” told Rolling Stone she was gang-raped. But hey, the “larger truth” of “rape culture” needs to be addressed. What’s the big deal? That, of course, brings us to Lena Dunham.

Ms. Dunham wrote in her memoir, “Not That Kind of Girl,” that she was raped by a college Republican named “Barry” when she attended Oberlin College. Breitbart News actually went to the campus to investigate, and found out that her description of the campus “remains the only detail Breitbart News was able to verify.” When Ms. Dunham’s story started to fall apart, Oberlin’s radio station historian suddenly began to sound like she would fit right in with the editors at Rolling Stone.

Sophie Hess: “People here are less interested in justice for this kind of crime and more interested in helping the victim. I’m not psyched to help you do this.”

John Nolte: “You can look at everything I’ve thus far written about this. We just want to know the truth.”

Sophie Hess: “Asking whether or not a victim is telling the truth is irrelevant,” Ms. Hess proclaimed. “It’s just not important if they are telling the truth. If this person had wanted criminal justice they would have pursued it.”

John Nolte: “I’m not just talking about criminal justice,” I responded. “The details in the book point to a specific individual.”

Sophie Hess: “Who graduated years ago.”

John Nolte: “This man is easily found using Google and says he’s innocent. Right now everyone is looking at him and he’s just twisting out there.”

Sophie Hess: “Our archives are private. We have no obligation to share them with anyone. I don’t want our organization to be a part of this. I’m the general manager and the answer is no.”

Again: the truth is “just not that important” if someone feels like a victim. In Ms. Dunham’s book, she says she took alcohol and drugs on the night she was allegedly raped. What is more likely, given Breitbart’s investigation — that Ms. Dunham was raped, or that she’s found a way to turn a drug-fueled experience she regrets into a public service announcement on “rape culture”?

I may feel really gross and dirty for what I did while high on cocaine with some random guy, but at least now I can turn it into a positive experience while damaging Republicans (score!) and dealing a blow to rape culture.

The same mentality also applies to those who feel like racism can only be defeated with lies.

Consider The Associated Press’ coverage on the “Hands up, don’t shoot!” protests that are based on a lie (debunked by forensic evidence and multiple [black] eye-witnesses):

To some, it doesn’t matter whether Brown’s hands literally were raised, because his death has come to symbolize a much bigger movement.

“He wasn’t shot because of the placement of his hands; he was shot because he was a big, black, scary man,” said James Cox, 28, a food server who protested this week in Oakland, California.

The truth “doesn’t matter” because a lie that can sway public opinion in support of a “bigger movement” is — in the minds of many modern liberals — better than a reality that doesn’t move large masses into action for a progressive cause. Sad.

When an ideology becomes so warped that the lies become the truth, that is how you get a.) men like Jonathan Gruber wielding enormous influence in the nation’s capitol, and b.) elected officials like Nancy Pelosi saying she doesn’t know who he is — despite video evidence to the contrary.

We live in interesting times: the truth seems treasonous, the biggest liars are given the bully pulpit, and hard-working Americans are told to sit silently while they’re blamed for the bad behavior of total strangers.

As I’ve said before: It’s been fun, Western Civilization! It’s a shame it had to end this way, but it was grand while it lasted.

Listen to Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber and then think about Obama’s call for Net Neutrality

Jonathan Gruber Obamacare

Most people by now have seen one of Obamacare’s key architects, Jonathan Gruber, admitting on video that the bill was written with as little transparency as possible so that the “stupidity of the American voter” would produce the political cover necessary to pass it (late at night on Sunday, March 21, 2010).

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. So it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — it made explicit the healthy pay in and the and sick people get money — it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

Watch the sick smile on his face as Mr. Gruber discusses the way the Obama administration and its Democratic allies in Congress were able to force a bill upon the American people (with the help of the media) that would have never passed had they actually been honest about its contents. Look at the zeal with which he talks of the deception employed and the Democrats’ contempt for their own voters.

Now, take a step back and think about Mr. Obama’s desire for these very same people — unscrupulous liars — to have more control over the Internet.

CNet reported November 10:

In a statement released Monday, Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce the principle of treating all Internet traffic the same way, known in shorthand as Net neutrality. That means treating broadband services like utilities, the president said, so that Internet service providers would be unable “to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.” …

Proponents argue that Title II regulation would ensure the free and fair flow of traffic across the Internet. Opponents, however, believe the reorientation would mean onerous rules that would limit investment in the infrastructure and in new services, and that toll roads of sorts would provide better service to companies that can support their higher traffic volumes.

Plenty of talking heads on television are already doing their part to sell Net Neutrality to the American people just like they did with Obamacare. It remains to be seen whether or not Millennials have learned their lesson, or whether they will continue to trust the same sort of people who mock them behind closed doors.

Do you remember the old “If you like your healthcare you can keep it” promise? Perhaps this time around Mr. Obama will come out with, “If you like your Internet, you can keep it.”

Most Americans are not stupid. Mr. Gruber’s comments make clear that an overwhelming majority of Americans would not have been in favor of Obamacare if the administration was honest with them. Town hall meetings were packed with conservatives and libertarians who knew exactly what was happening.

It is actually quite amazing that America has been able to survive a modern education system that seeks to create Statist drones, an entertainment industry that encourages the population to place more attention on Kim Kardashian’s butt instead of the erosion of civil liberties, and media personalities who seek to win favor with politicians instead of holding them accountable for their misdeeds.

Net Neutrality Peoples CubeDear Millennials: There are many Jonathan Grubers in Hollywood, on cable news, in Congress, on college campuses, and in the White House. They all think that you are stupid. Will you prove them right, or will you adopt a worldview that seeks to limit their power? The choice is yours.