Feminism, ‘The View’-style: Michelle Collins, Joy Behar mock Fiorina’s face

Carly Fiorina CNBC debate

The great thing about modern “feminists” with a microphone is that they regularly discredit their own brand of feminism. Take the women of “The View,” for instance. They spent Thursday cackling with each other over the face of Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina.

Collins: She looked demented! Her mouth did not downturn one time.  **audience claps and laughs**

Behar: I wish it was a Halloween mask. I’d love that.

Let us flashback to Sept. 10, when they got up on a moral pedestal to lecture Donald Trump for doing the same thing.

Behar: “You talked about Carly Fiorina in Rolling Stone magazine, and you said, “Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president? Are you making fun of her looks, Donald? Because I know you don’t like it…”

Trump: “Not at all, no. I’m talking about the persona, Joy. …”

Behar: “Then why don’t you talk about her brains instead of her face?” **audience claps**

It is interesting how that works: When the (liberal) women of “The View” lecture a man on disparaging a woman’s physical appearance, they are applauded. When the (liberal) women of “The View” say mean and disgusting things about a woman’s physical appearance, they are applauded.

Telling.

Here’s a pop quiz: Do you know who treats women the worst in America?

Answer: Other women.

It is highly ironic watching Joy Behar — caked with 10 pounds of makeup to look her best — say Carly Fiorina’s face looks like a Halloween mask. If you put a mole on Joy’s nose and a broom between her legs, would she look like a witch? You decide.

Joy Behar

Here we have Michelle Collins — after professional makeup artists got her ready for television. What would she look like without makeup? Use your imagination.

Michelle Collins

Finally, we have Whoopi Goldberg of “rape-rape” infamy.

Whoopi Goldberg

These “feminists” do not care about treating women right as much as they care about getting congratulated for whatever they say and do.

When they tear down another woman — they want to cheered. When they chastise a man for tearing down another woman — they wanted to be cheered. They have zero moral authority, and should be relentlessly called out on their hypocrisy every time it rears its ugly head.

Advertisements

Media and Anti-war crowd MIA on Obama’s ‘Terror Tuesdays’

Remember all those anti-war rallies against President George W. Bush? He was accused of all sorts of things, from purposefully killing civilians to shredding the Constitution. There were full page ads taken out in major metropolitan newspapers bashing him, anti-war poetry readings on college campuses, Code Pink hysterics, and a whole slew of other events that usually involved bongo-drums.

Oh, how the times have changed:

Drones strikes were first used by the Americans in 2004, but President George W. Bush was sparing with them. In five years, he authorized only 44 attacks. By the time Obama was into his third year in office, though, he had signed off on more than five times that number (emphasis added).

Suddenly Obama is being depicted as a steely-eyed purveyor of death. This image was reinforced by an exhaustive 6,000-word article in the New York Times, quoting senior White House officials.

The piece was clearly authorized by the White House in the hope of increasing his re-election chances.

Not only has Obama made Bush’s profligate spending look like child’s play, but now ‘W’ comes off like a novice at killing with drones, too!

Imagine what your nightly news coverage would look like if you replaced “Barack Obama” with “George W. Bush” in the following paragraph:

The New York Times has revealed that President Barack Obama hosts a “Terror Tuesday” secure PowerPoint-style teleconference attended weekly by his top 100 intelligence and security officials. After the meeting he goes through a “nominating process” by viewing the “baseball cards” showing suspected terrorists, before personally deciding who is to be assassinated by drones; he also, in some cases, explicitly approves killing the suspect’s family if it should be in the vicinity of the strike.

I can see it now — jokes on light night television where President Bush views baseball cards of terrorists and is mostly concerned about why there isn’t a stick of stale, pink bubble gum that comes with each set. Political cartoons would show the president laughing at “baseball cards” of the dead, bloated bodies of innocent civilians. Code Pink would hold rallies on Tuesday to bring attention to the “Terror” of it all.

But with Barack Obama in the White House … silence.

President Obama’s solution to Guantanamo Bay wasn’t to close down the prison, but to make sure no one else checked in … by killing a whole lot of people. And then he gets around having too many people complain about the drone strikes by … killing the extended family. But don’t ask Jimmy Fallon to ever mention that because he’s too busy yucking it up with the president during a late night “slow jammin'” of the news.

The anti-war movement has zero moral authority. Zero. They played politics with national security, just like Van Jones admits environmentalists played politics with the environment during the Gulf Oil spill.

“You’ve never seen the environmental movement more quiet during an oil spill. I guarantee you if John McCain had been president with oil spill or George Bush had been president with that oil spill, I would have been protesting. I didn’t because of who the president was,” (Van Jones).

Personally, I blame any innocent life lost in Pakistan on Pakistan. They claim to be a sovereign nation, but can’t control Islamic radicals within their own border. They claim to be an ally, but turned a blind eye to bin Laden for years (while taking billions of dollars in U.S. aid). They don’t want U.S. boots on the ground, but they’re unwilling to enter into their tribal areas in any meaningful way.

Regardless, the silence of the anti-war movement speaks volumes. They are a joke, and in many ways the president is a joke; he fed the flames as a candidate, and then when he walked into the White House and got the intelligence briefings he shut up with the anti-war platitudes — fast. National Security briefings tend to do that to a man.

The next time the anti-war movement comes out to play, which should be the moment a guy with an ‘R’ next to his name is elected, just laugh and tell them to go home. Tell them there’s another Kony 2012-ish, flavor-of-the-week cause for them to get worked up about before ultimately doing nothing.

Now if you excuse me, I think I’ll read up on Bashar Assad. I won’t be asking Barbara Walters or her liberal reporter-friends what’s going on in Syria because I know she’s been too busy churning the Rolodex of nepotism for murderous regimes to tell anyone the truth.

Morocco: Where rapists get to marry their victims.

After having covered Syria’s torture chambers, I thought I might as well cover Africa. I was looking for something cheerful and upbeat, but all I found was court-ordered marriages for rapists and their victims. Who would have thought—it ended badly:

A 16-year-old Moroccan girl has committed suicide after a judge ordered her to marry her rapist, according to Moroccan media reports.

Last year Amina’s parents filed charges against their daughter’s rapist, a man 10 years older than her but it was only recently that a judge in the northern city of Tangier decided that instead of punishing him, the two must be married.

The court’s decision to forcibly marry Amina to her rapist was supposed to “resolve” the damage of sexual violation against her, but it led to more suffering in the unwelcoming home of her rapist/husband’s family.

Traumatized by the painful experience of rape, Amina decided to end her life by consuming rat poison in the house of her husband’s family, according to the Moroccan daily al-Massae.

According to the newspaper, this type of forced marriage is rooted in local rural traditions to safeguard the honor of girls who are raped.

Moroccan penal code exempts a rapist from punishment if he agrees to marry his victim.

Question: What kind of culture suggests that rape victims are the ones who lose their “honor” after an attack? In a sane society, wouldn’t the rapist be the one without honor? In vast swathes of the Islamic world, laws are made to shield men from brutish, vile behavior. Meanwhile, the ladies of The View make constipation-faces at Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher worries about the non-existent threat from fundamentalist Christians, and MSNBC worries about the religiosity of a Santorum administration. They’re so busy tearing the country apart that stories like “Amina’s ” go unnoticed and unexamined.

There’s something extremely sick and twisted about a culture that puts the onus on the victim to prove she was wronged, even when the evidence before the court is self-evident. Media shield Americans from the warped reality of these parts of the world because it doesn’t fit into their multi-cultural narrative, the one that posits we’d all be able to get along if we just listened to each other a little harder.  Wrong. Some cultures are incompatible with freedom and liberty, and they must either do away with their scurrilous sides are be banished from dealing with the adults at the table. It speaks volumes that the NAACP would turn to the United Nations for help in American election laws, considering the United Nations gives legitimacy to some of the most vile and disgusting abusers of human rights in existence.

All those rapists in American prisons…and to think, if they had just been born in Morocco they’d get to marry their victims. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to watch Joy Behar complain about the danger posed to the world by white Christian men.

American Twilight Zone: Brought to You by Liberalism

Imagine if you will, a country where in the span of one week a federal judge in San Diego addresses PETA’s charges that SeaWorld violates the human rights of orca whales, while on the east coast The View’s Joy Behar laments “totalitarian” Texans who want women to look at an ultrasound as they decide on an abortion. (How dare we ask someone to confront stark reality before they make a life-or-death decision.)  Meanwhile, the federal government has determined that it will force religious institutions to pay for procedures anathema to their faith. The new Holy Trinity, according to President Obama, might as well be The Father, The Son, and Planned Parenthood. You haven’t crossed over into The Twilight Zone; you are in the United States of America, February 2012.

We reached this point because modern day liberalism isn’t so much an ideology, but a random mish-mash of special interests, each looking to carve out new “rights” for themselves.  Its advocates have embraced the idea that our rights don’t come from a Creator, but of men—small groups of elite men and women with their hands on the levers of power. As a result, federal judges override the will of the people on issues related to traditional marriage, courts are targeted to apply human rights to orca whales (the case was dismissed—this time), and Catholic organizations are strong-armed to violate bedrock tenets of the faith. Coherent public policy can’t be crafted, and paralysis ensues. Citizens get fed up, and the Tea Party and “Occupy” movements materialize.

While conservatives have their fair share of disagreements, overall there is a common set of principles guiding and shaping their behavior. There is a reason why Canadian natural resources are now heading to China instead of America. There is a reason why the Senate hasn’t passed a budget in over 1000 days. There is a reason why we don’t have immigration reform. On issue after issue of import to the American people, principled positions have been put forth by conservatives, only to run headlong into a wall of indecision and contradictions by Congressional Democrats.

A Republican president in 2012 will have a lot of heavy lifting to do. Today’s liberals care more about the livelihood of sea creatures named Corky (one of the “plaintiffs” in the PETA case) than the rights of unborn children. Their pontiffs wear black robes in court houses, and their high priests speak to the clergy through omnibus bills. Legal ease has replaced Latin, and the rights of Shamu supersede the rights of the individual. Common sense can be restored, but at this point reality is often stranger than fiction. For that, we can thank liberalism.

Garafalo: I’m like Churchill…If He Was a Whiner and a Quitter.

Janeane Garofalo refuses to go away. It really doesn’t matter how many times she’s given the Magnum PI treatment, because liberal media outlets will keep anyone with a modicum of “celebrity” status on career life support if they’re willing to spew partisan spittle on cue:

AVC Interviewer: Do you feel like you’ve become better known for the non-funny things you say about politics than for your comedy?

Garafalo: I don’t know. I don’t know how well known, really, I am at all at this point. And I’m not saying that as a “poor me” thing. I’m just saying, you know, I have no web presence, and I don’t know that there’s many people who really do know me that much anymore…

Janeane is partially right. Most people today don’t really know

Janeane Garafalo feels as though she's a "statesmen." She's kind of like Winston Churchill...if he was a perpetual whiner and a quitter.

her for any sort of cinematic or comedic flashes of brilliance, but for her Pavlovian partisan yip yaps at the behest of producers and editors hoping to snag the lowest common denominator of liberal true believers.  Case in point:

AVC Interviewer: …I suppose the presence of minorities in [Tea Party] videos and such is their way of showing that they aren’t racist.

Garofalo: And I would say those people suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

In Garafalo’s mind, people who disagree with her don’t do so because they have legitimate public policy alternatives that might be more beneficial to the country’s long term economic health—they have Stockholm Syndrome! And in Garafalo’s mind, if it gets under your skin listening to someone with no discernible qualifications to offer public policy pronouncements (other than a bottomless quiver of flimsy intellectual arrows), it’s because you’re a misogynist:

Garofalo: The teabagger thing and the right-wing thing—they pick easy targets, and a female in the entertainment industry is low-hanging fruit. It’s very easy to mock and marginalize people in general who are in the entertainment industry, for some reason. But then definitely there’s the double standard and the misogyny that goes through it as well. They’ve got no problem with Will Ferrell or Alec Baldwin or Viggo Mortensen, but they tend to take issue when a female says something.

Actually, Janeane, I’ve mentioned the Funny or Die Liberalism of Will Ferrell before, but he gets less attention because he’s not on Keith Olbermann’s rolodex of reliable liberal guest appearances.  And perhaps that’s because, unlike you, he still has the ability to make people laugh:

AVC Interviewer: How do you deal with situations like what happened at last year’s Latitude Festival while staying sober? [After a poor reception from the audience, Garofalo left the stage 10 minutes into her set. —ed.]

Garafolo: It’s terrible! It’s honestly mortifying. It’s just personal failure. I’ve no one but myself to blame. There is no way around that. I failed, and it wouldn’t have helped to be drinking. Or maybe it actually would have, if I drank beforehand. I might have been like, “Oh, I can do this.” I might have had false confidence…And I am very sorry about it, and I wish that did not happen. I wish that I had had the confidence to do it, and been more mature, and powered through my sense of dread.

I find it interesting that the same person who bailed ten minutes into her failing gig also applied that same mindset to the Iraq War not too long ago…and yet, she’s still perfectly at ease referring to herself as a “statesman”:

AVC Interviewer: There’ s a whole younger generation now that’s been raised on and inspired by your comedy. Do you get that sense that you’ve become an elder statesman? Do you recognize your own impact?

Garafalo: I definitely get the sense that I’m an elder statesman, but I don’t know if there’s an impact—and I’m not saying that in a naïve way. I don’t know. I think anybody who’s been doing it for 25 years is going to be considered an elder statesman. But I don’t know if I’ve impacted anyone.

The last time I checked, most people who are elevated to the level of a “statesman” are also recognized as having some sort of influence over how events unfolded during their tenure. One might say that in this instance Janeane was simply being humble, but I think deep down she knows that she’s a contributor to chattering class white noise and little else. She wants to be considered a statesman of…something…in some field, but the same person who burst on the scene with Ben Stiller has more in common in terms of career-trajectory with liberal guys like Andy Dick. And what do liberal artists turn to when their career heads south? Political pot shots at conservatives. There’s always an opportunity to make waves as long as the ladies of The View and liberal media outlets exist. They’ll give anyone a shot at resuscitating their career if they’ll liken conservatives to dim-witted, racist, homophobic, bigoted boobs. The problems liberals are facing now are little things like the internet, talk radio, social media platforms, and emerging technologies that allow the rest of us to point out how bitter, sad, angry and (most importantly) wrong people like Janeane are.

Janeane Garafalo: a “statesman” in the vein of Winston Churchill…if Winston Churchill was a whiner and a quitter.

Winston Churchill: “We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

Garafalo: “…Teabaggers.”

You rock, Janeane!

Joy Behar: Why read Thomas Sowell When I can Look Perpetually Constipated Pretending to be Smart?

Joy Behar

It’s been awhile, but I finally get to write a post on Joy” I perpetually look constipated” Behar. Today, at long last, the source of her liberalism was revealed:

CBS News anchor: Where did this liberal streak come from?

JOY BEHAR: It comes from, uh, being smart.

But of course! How could I have overlooked something so self-evident! One doesn’t heighten their intellectual horizons by reading Thomas Sowell or Thomas Paine or Adam Smith or Friedrich Hayek and on and on and on… No, dear friend, your liberalism is a gift, God-given genes embedded only in the best and brightest of us. And with that superior grey-matter circuitry liberals possess comes the ability to be “open-minded.”

BEHAR: Listen, I have my prejudices, you know, too. I think that people who are liberal are more open-minded. That’s all. I just believe that. You know, you can argue with that all you want—you can say, ‘Oh, conservative people are open-minded,’ and I don’t agree with that. I don’t.

And Behar’s right. Liberals are more open minded. Look at the “intellectuals” she pals around with on The View—they’re so open minded that they can parse “rape” from “rape rape”! I admit, as a conservative, that I couldn’t look at a guy who pumped up a 13 year old girl with drugs and alcohol before raping her and say that it wasn’t “rape-rape.” Unlike Roman Polanski I’ll admit it: Guilty as charged.

Likewise, liberals are so “open minded” that they can see how complicated the word ‘is’ is. And–they can look at a lying woman willing to destroy the career of life-long NYC cops by claiming she was raped while covered in dog feces…and see a Holocaust victim forced to “sit down in front of Mr. Hitler,” (Yes, I’m talking about liberal “leader” and Joy Behar mind-meld soul mate Al Sharpton).

For further reading, you can see how “open-minded” liberal Supreme Court Justices can find penumbras in emanations, or “hip hop intellectuals” hear phantom racial epithets and calls to violence where only anti-Nanny State rants fill the air.

The funny thing about those who claim to be the most open minded is that most of the time—they’re not.  Read longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer’s fabulous book True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements for a better understanding as to why that happens, or read up on Keith Olbermann if you’re pressed for time.

Joy, I already know you won’t be reading Eric Hoffer anytime soon. Although, that’s probably why you and your friends don’t know what the word ‘suffrage’ means. Or am I just “close-minded” and it really means whatever you want it to mean? Touché, Joy. Touché.