The French, whose cultural and political significance is so often cited by American liberals as worthy of emulation here in the USA, are now actually outlawing the wearing of the burqa and the najib. The cosmopolitan French President described the burqa and the najib as follows: “The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement.”
On the other hand, President Obama addressed the issue through his usual combination of dissimilation and multicultural pander. First, the President indicated that the burqa and the najib were merely a scarf covering a woman’s head. A burqa does indeed cover a woman’s hair so one cannot say the President is lying. However, a burqa also covers the entire body from head to foot with only a mesh screen over the eyes. A najib is a scarf, typically Johnny Cash style (all black for the music neophyte) with slits for the eyes. So, the President was also concealing the whole truth.
The President then panders and implies that burqas and nijabs are welcome in America. President Obama apparently sees nothing wrong with a Seventh Century cult practice, already rejected throughout most of the Islamic world itself, designed to deny women all identity.
One is well led to wonder at the extent of the self-deceptive sophistry that is undertaken by the NOW gang, those aging pants suit wearing and bra burning free lovers of 1968, to reconcile President Obama’s embrace of the ultimate physical symbol of gender repression with their giddy support for President Obama?
The increasingly irrelevant feminist leadership could regain some desperately needed credibility, and possibly self-esteem, by joining the Republicans, the party that gave women the right to vote, in our historical and international battle to vindicate the rights and improves the life of women throughout the world. While the answer is probably “no”, as it was when President Clinton was serving Arkansas red-hot to the interns and volunteers in the White House, the invitation is certainly worth the extending.
Vive la France!
On the other hand, President Obama addressed the issue through his usual combination of dissimilation and multicultural pander. First, the President indicated that the burqa and the najib were merely a scarf covering a woman’s head. A burqa does indeed cover a woman’s hair so one cannot say the President is lying. However, a burqa also covers the entire body from head to foot with only a mesh screen over the eyes. A najib is a scarf, typically Johnny Cash style (all black for the music neophyte) with slits for the eyes. So, the President was also concealing the whole truth.
The President then panders and implies that burqas and nijabs are welcome in America. President Obama apparently sees nothing wrong with a Seventh Century cult practice, already rejected throughout most of the Islamic world itself, designed to deny women all identity.
One is well led to wonder at the extent of the self-deceptive sophistry that is undertaken by the NOW gang, those aging pants suit wearing and bra burning free lovers of 1968, to reconcile President Obama’s embrace of the ultimate physical symbol of gender repression with their giddy support for President Obama?
The increasingly irrelevant feminist leadership could regain some desperately needed credibility, and possibly self-esteem, by joining the Republicans, the party that gave women the right to vote, in our historical and international battle to vindicate the rights and improves the life of women throughout the world. While the answer is probably “no”, as it was when President Clinton was serving Arkansas red-hot to the interns and volunteers in the White House, the invitation is certainly worth the extending.
Vive la France!
9 comments:
TFS:
This is top notch!
You should submit this as an OP ED to every newspaper in the USA.
Great work!
Bravo!
EFJ
I agree, Sporer.
Very good post.
Aside from now wanting to suck some French Ass (remember Freedon Fries) heres another quote from our new leader Sporer:
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford rejected at least parts of the first Obamanomic “stimulus package” (an interesting sobriquet for legislative action that has little to do with economic stimulus and a lot to do with income redistribution, political payoff and long term governmental dependency).
While South Carolina will undoubtedly taking some of the money Governor Sanford’s action demonstrates that he has an important leg up in the 2012 Republican primary: he is listening to the increasingly angry Republican electorate. Sanford knows that no one is looking for perfection but Republicans are everywhere looking for a return to Republican principles of small government, smaller government and the smallest government minimally sufficient to provide a safe and organized society in the 21st Century.
Washington insider Charlie Black, a long time and very high level Republican uber consultant recently said of Sanford "[h]e's very popular," …. "[h]is brand of conservatism emphasizing fiscal conservatism is very popular with our grassroots." That’s right Charlie; fiscal conservatism is very, very popular because fiscal conservatism is often purported to be the one principle upon which all Republicans agree when we are engaged in intra-party condemnation of social conservatives.
Sanford’s move signals an intention to abandon the folly of using government to promote and direct social and economic decisions into which we as Republicans had fallen. If sincere and consistent, Governor Sanford’s policies of solving problems by reducing government will propel him to the forefront of the race for 2012 should he chose to run.
More importantly, if Governor Sanford’s willingness to promote a Republican agenda of less government is sincere and consistent, it also will produce into an even more impressive political bounty in the race for 2012. Governor Sanford will be credibly address the Republican primary electorate’s demand for a small government that efficiently and competently performs and completes the functions that only government can fulfill before tackling anything else.
So maybe Republicans will nominate Mark Sanford for President in 2012.
Hell Yeah, Sporer! Sanford for President, Mark Klein, M.D. for Vice Presidenst!
I knew I could count on you to lead us out of the wilderness, Ted!
By the way Ted - excellent commentary again. I agree with the suggestions for an op ed. I wonder if the asshole that has such a hardon obsession with you can write anything that doesn't involve insulting you. I wonder what you did to him to make him harrass you all the time. Its loaded with jealousy, envy and low self-esteem. You must have bested him at something. Or, maybe you are just taller. Sometimes short fat guys have issues with that.
Ted has his own stalker. That's pretty cool. You've made it Ted. You've got your own actual stalker. I wonder what drives their obsession with you. Your rapier wit? Your sexy eyes? Your fabulous intellect? You sure look nice in a suit too.
Seriously though. This guy is getting out of control and you ought to consider outing him legally. Lots of cases being decided recently that won't let you stay anonymous. He sounds like a guy that desparatly can't leave you alone. I've read his other comments on your other stories and his comments demonstrate a stalker mentality.
Likely, he doesn't have a job because he doesn't interact with others well. He'a clearly easily offended. Too bad he never got those zits handled as a child.
See what happens when they grow up?
Wow. So somebody that disagrees with Sporer is a "stalker" and needs to be destroyed by every legal means? Wow. Can you really do that? If somebody puts up a blog, and somebody posts on there that doesn't agree.....can you really destroy them legally, Ted?
Wow, this freedom of speech thing really is dead!
Ted, ordinarily I support you but, damn, if I stray, your people will want to destroy me? Or sue me? Take legal action against me for not being in lock step with you? Wow. That scares me. That seriously scares me. I don't want these people to hurt me or my family. Again, I am scared of them. I'll never blog in here again, no matter how much I agree with you. I'm scared of you and the people that blog in here! I am scared of you. I'll make a copy of this so that if anything happens to me my family will know.
Anon 20:18.
Thank you for your absence.
You know who you are and you know that the Mark Klein commentary and the very vicious personal attacks demonstrate an obsessive personality. I deal with people like you every day, every single day.
You have my attention. That is not a good thing for you, I can assure you of that fact.
Yes, I can sue you.
Yes, I can have you criminally prosecuted.
Yes, I can have you involuntarily placed in an appropriate mental hospital.
Those are some of my remedies. Just some.
Teddy, I'll bet you've got that guys attention now.
Post a Comment