authoritarian

Authoritarianism – The Ultimate Political Aphrodisiac

So… Here’s my very serious – GIF free – post (co-written by the other – ever brilliant, but not so frequent – Collision writer).

I have been asked why I’ve focused so much on Ted Cruz instead of Donald Trump as of late, here’s why:

I think most of us would like to believe that those who follow after Trump are merely misguided, but for many he appeals to the darker proclivities living within us, the part of us that craves control and power.

The authoritarian.

I’ve found that the vast majority of the men I’ve met who support Trump are authoritarians or, as one Twitter user noted, the embodiment of Dale Gribble (you can laugh, I did). Of course they don’t openly admit this, and many are in a state of delusion in regards to their own condition – yet they indeed mirror the characteristics of an authoritarian. They find themselves to be higher on the food chain, and feel rightfully placed in a position of power over those who are weaker. They don’t see the value in those beneath them, and have a black and white world view. While masked in self-righteous ego driven behavior, they project their own feelings of inadequacy and rage onto one individual or, in this particular case, a scapegoat group of individuals.

Continue reading

00

Feminism: We’re Taking It Back

When people hear the word “Feminist” it is often accompanied by horrific visions of the Vagina Monologues, tampon earrings, pink shoes on Texas politicians, women claiming they’ve been victimized by catcalls, armpit hair, and Hollywood starlets grumbling about a fictitious wage gap as they preach from their ivory towers, built upon the foundations of designer handbags, personal chefs, grass smoothies, and yoga instructors. As a result, conservative women have run from “Feminism” in anger, wanting to be disassociated from the women who fling their topless bodies across the stairs of government buildings, from the women who fight for abortion rights by hurling urine at the opposition, or from the woman who threw a tantrum because they denied the artistic cookies adorned with a variation of different frosting vaginas she tried to send with her child to school. I can’t blame them, I don’t want to be associated with these women either.

The problem: Democrats win elections by waving the Feminist flag.

Continue reading

MLK

Of Mice and Martin Luther King

First and foremost, before I even begin this blog post, I am going to address the fact that I don’t know what happened to Freddie Gray. I’m not privy to information that would give me the definitive answers I would need to make an accurate judgment call. Freddie Gray died in police custody after his spine was severed, and while it sounds questionable, I’m not interested in making assumptions. That said, I have opinions on the debacle that stand regardless of the outcome.

I saw a multitude of Martin Luther King Jr. quotes, but for now I’ll note two in particular:

A riot is the language of the unheard.”

“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.”

The former was by a Baltimore protester; apparently this was some form of approval for her and others to burn, loot, and destroy that which isn’t theirs. The latter was posted by someone who had used their previous 10 tweets to promote the #BlueLivesMatter hashtag, and share other nifty quotes similar to, “Don’t like cops? Next time call a crackhead.” Both individuals backed their personal opinions with the words of Martin Luther King sitting in their proverbial holster. The former seems to forget that the quote contains more than just their choice words, specifically, “I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt.”  The latter clearly skipped that all important day in school when he was supposed to learn that MLK believed that civil disobedience was a responsibility in the face of unjust laws and actions. MLK Jr. wrote some of his greatest words behind jail bars after being hauled away by police officers, and spoke some of his greatest words in an act to diffuse violent uprisings. Ms. Former and Sir. Latter have cherry picked the words of MLK without understanding his message, and as an avid fan of MLK, well; it makes me a wee bit irate.

In both instances I felt shame. I went on to find a multitude of people on Twitter, from both sides, sharing Martin Luther King quotes… The quotes were mere snippets taken out of context by the ignorant, used for their own political gain. In reality, MLK would be shaking his finger at both sides. So, here are the words of Martin Luther King Jr. that desperately need to be heard today (I chose this large quote because it contains many of the lines I saw used today):

“Now I wanted to say something about the fact that we have lived over these last two or three summers with agony and we have seen our cities going up in flames. And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”

It’s time that we embrace his words, all of them. There is a problem, but rioting is not the answer, nor is silence.  This is not a race issue. The majority of the police in Baltimore are black, they aren’t targeting blacks, it just happens to be the case that the majority of crime in Baltimore is perpetrated by blacks. I’m not in the same camp of people who would say that racism is dead. Racism exists, on both sides. If you don’t believe me, take a stroll through East St. Louis with a group of diverse ethnicities. The diversity in the Baltimore PD is exactly what everyone was desperate for in Ferguson, yet Baltimore PD has a history that I suspect few would label as expected. Regardless, the rioters/protesters in Baltimore and Ferguson have no right to compare themselves to the civil rights movement.

When Martin Luther King spoke the words above to those fighting for civil rights, and when Malcolm X spoke his, the individuals their words were geared towards were people facing segregation and prejudice. Law abiding citizens were suffering at the hands of another race simply because of their color. A church was burned to the ground in Alabama, with four innocent girls of color trapped inside; burned alive because of their skin pigmentation. Black men were being brutalized simply for speaking to a white woman, and women of color were being treated as dogs by their employers. They weren’t dealing drugs on the street corner, they weren’t burglarizing homes and assaulting the innocent, the audience they were speaking to were law abiding citizens who were facing persecution for the way God had designed them. The color of your skin determined if you could vote, what restroom you used, and what school you attended. It was inhuman and unfair. Their plight was so astronomically different from those in Ferguson and Baltimore. In fact, King was arrested multiple times for leading non-violent protests. His quote, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” is among my favorite. He believed that civil disobedience is a moral responsibility in the face of unjust laws. One might shake their head at that ideal when they face a law that doesn’t tug on their moral heart strings, i.e., the due process that victims of police brutality have a right to, but then they’ll read the stories of German families who hid Jews in their walls with feelings of admiration. King’s reasoning is and was sound in the face of such disgraceful laws, and he didn’t choose, as many do today, who was worthy of rights based off of which victim he personally liked more.

King found the platform for his stance within The Constitution, and without such platform would have had very little leverage since other countries followed our lead in the civil rights movement. He didn’t take the approach of “This is what other countries are doing,” but instead knew that the United States was unique in that our founding documents gave him the ammunition he needed. King wasn’t fighting to equalize us with other countries; he was fighting to make America the first of its kind. We have been a country that others emulate. In 1963 a young black protester in Britain was moved by the actions of Rosa Parks and staged his own bus boycott, awaking his country to move towards their own equality laws. In 1972 a strict law was put in place that denied immigration to those without a strong heritage in Britain, which wildly limited any increase in a diverse population, hence why in the UK the African American population is 1,148,738 vs. roughly 42,240,000 in the U.S. All over this world we find prejudice against race, religion, and opinion, but America is unique in that we are the first to overcome and support the rights of all people. We all have the same rights in America; the problem is that they are being abused by authority more frequently. That doesn’t negate issues that we need to work on, but it does put things in perspective. So many posts have been talking about the failures that we had in the past, and that we have today, yet they dismiss the fact that every other country has that same horrid history; we are the outlier; we are the country that has done the most about our issues, and it’s because our Constitution demands it.

The very people in the streets of Baltimore screaming for their equality continually vote for politicians that King would be ashamed of, politicians that raise black unemployment, give more power to the government, and fuel race relations. Baltimore has been under Democrat policies for 50+ years. They’re, in essence, paying for their own prison. They do not utter his same cries, nor even relate to the struggles and aspirations of that time period. I’m not one to list the wrongs of those killed in police custody, because as I’ve said before, they deserve due process and I find it ignorant when people justify a wrongful death with a criminal record that involves crimes that do not carry a death penalty… However, the criminal record of King included peaceful protests and civil disobedience, the criminal record of Freddie Gray is made up of 18 arrests; including burglary, drug charges, second-degree assault, etc… Would King have fought for his right to due process? Absolutely. Would he compare their criminal records and act as though their struggle is the same? Not likely. Is that to say that Gray deserved to die? Absolutely not. That is to point out that the struggle of today is not the same as the struggles of the civil rights movement, and the comparisons are DOA to those that know the difference. There is a difference in demanding the right to vote, and demanding the right to confiscate tampons from a burning CVS without police intervention.

To give an example of such outlandish comparisons, I’ll tap into the current feminist movement. I was watching Mad Men the other day, and I found myself getting angry at how the women were treated. Sexual Harassment was rampant, women had little say, and their objectification can only be described as horrific. Don has numerous affairs while Betty gets to be chastised by her philandering husband when his boss is too flirty with her. During that time, women without husbands were to be pitied outcasts, and women with abusive and cheating husbands were expected to smile and cope, and don’t even get me started on the shame that followed you if you divorced your husband. With actual ads stating things like, “It’s true! The harder a wife works, the better she looks!” and “Even a lady can learn….” etc. But I can look around our world today and see that those ideals have changed, that we are treated as equals. The false “pay gap” narrative is perpetuated by those who emulate the vaguely disguised beliefs of the old sexist ads and assume that a lady doesn’t have the ability to think beyond her own body parts, much less research the farce data they used to fool her. If I go running around naked in the streets and complain that men were objectifying me and doubting my sensibilities like they did innocent fully clothed secretaries in the 60s, people would tilt their head and advise me of treatment facilities available in my area, and rightfully so.

However, there is indeed a struggle, a struggle that has been silenced by the acts of obnoxious protesters and looters. They expect those who possess the same rights as them to bend their lives around their own prejudice. The rioters in Baltimore have silenced the sane. In the above quote, King said that a “large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.” While I don’t believe it is just a segment of white society anymore, I believe that there are a disturbingly large number of people in the United States, of all colors, that can see what has happened to many individuals and dismiss both justice and humanity in their reactions. Look at the white man (I can’t even think of his name because he hasn’t been in the news… Imagine that) who was kicked numerous times by a handful of officers, even after he surrendered. 11 officers stood around him as he was needlessly beaten. They dismiss justice and humanity, not because of their color, but because of the custody they were in. I happen to believe that Freddie Gray deserves an investigation, and that Police throughout the U.S. should be subject to external investigations when someone dies in such a horrific manner on their watch, whether it was caused by police or not. Countless cases have been filed under a fancy title for “oops,” well that doesn’t fly when someone ends up 6 feet below. If Freddie Gray was taken on a “rough ride,” and they find that it caused his injuries, action should be taken. Unfortunately, that is where the system fails us so often. The officers involved do not break code on one another, and while they may have witnessed a wrong doing, it is unthinkable to rat on your brethren – especially in Baltimore.

Protests in Baltimore have been necessary for a while now. Actually, I think many of the very public police custody deaths this year and last were worthy of protests. Not because all cops are bad, but because the majority of cops are good and deserving of a better image. Justice should be blind to color, as well as the badge. The city of Baltimore has had to pay out nearly 6 million dollars to victims of brutality since 2011. Civil rights cases are being won; cases involving a Grandmother, church deacon, and even a pregnant woman. The Grandmother had her shoulder broken because she refused to let officers in her home without a warrant; she refused to let officers of the law violate her 4th Amendment rights, and for that she was abused. That could be any of us. The brutality cases towards people and pets, as well as corruption cases during a 4 year span in Baltimore should revolt anyone. We can all be stirred by emotion when we see a photo of an officer lovingly working alongside a black child in the streets of Baltimore (I know I was), but it shouldn’t mute a very large underlying problem. A problem that costs taxpayers millions of dollars in settlements, and a problem that has removed rights away from hundreds of individuals; rights you claim to support.

In one case, a police officer was cooperating with prosecutors on a police brutality case and found a dead rat on his windshield. The good cops can help their image by showing the true nature that we know they possess. Sure, we hear stories all the time of hero cops who help the needy, play with underprivileged kids, and purchase groceries for those struggling. Those are all incredibly commendable acts, and I share their stories… but I would really like to see cops start calling each other out on cases such as those listed above; there are other citizens who desperately need them. When will we stop seeing the police as a group, and start seeing them as individuals? We don’t silence rape cases because the majority of men are decent. We don’t protect soldiers from prosecution because the vast majority of them are selfless heroes. Why do we shield bad cops because the majority are good? It makes no sense, not even in the slightest bit. There are two cops, at minimum, in those police vans during “rough rides,” at least one of them has to know that they’re doing something barbarically inhuman. The fact that “rough rides” is a well known term in the Baltimore PD speaks wonders to the fact that a lot of good cops know what is happening, but remain silent. 16 Baltimore officers were convicted in a kickback scheme with a towing company. Others have been found guilty of lying on search warrants, selling heroin, and protecting drug dealers. Another case involved an officer that threw a man down so hard that his spleen ruptured, Yet good officers are subject to bully tactics, and manipulated into believing that their guilty “brother” is above the law. Gray was allegedly given a “rough ride” in the back of a police van (investigation is pending on whether that caused his death), these same “rough rides” have caused other citizens to become paralyzed. The “rough rides” are not a rare occurrence, hence the coined term. This type of malicious behavior happens in other cities as well, and should not be tolerated. The brave officers who step up should not have to face dead rats on their windshields, yet that is where we are. It reminds me of a quote from The Chicago Code, the officer was telling a story about how he used to be bullied, and says that being bullied is why he “joined the biggest and toughest gang in the world.” That’s the mentality we want to share with kids? What happened to Andy Griffith? I don’t know about you, but I want Andy to show up at my house if I need an officer. I want Andy to be the one that my nephew looks up to and trusts.

Unpopular opinion: If peaceful protests were taking place around our country to curb police brutality, bring in independent investigations (as Republican Scott Walker did), and require all police to wear body cameras, I would be marching along with them. Maybe if Democrat Mayor Rawlings-Blake would have supported body cameras like Republican Sen. Tim Scott, we’d know exactly what happened to Freddie Gray; unfortunately, Blake vetoed a bill that would have made them mandatory. My opinion doesn’t even come close to saying that all police officers are bad people – nor that I’m anti-cop – it is to say that the good need to start speaking out, and the bad need to be stripped of the protection they currently have from our state and fellow officers. If this took place, I guarantee that we would see the relationships between officers and citizens take a positive turn, and it would rebuild trust. Yet, we are so scared to even touch this subject that our friends and families act like we’ve just told them that we’re joining the Nazi party when we demand responsibility from those who deal in life and death situations. Families – white families – in Wisconsin faced persecution for their political leanings, officers rushed into homes following orders for absolutely no reason. One even saying, “Some days I hate my job.” Yet he still did it. Friends – I can’t stress this enough – police officers work for the state. Wonderful, decent, hardworking, heroic, brave men and women in uniform work for the state, and it is our job to control the state.

Now, some have said that there weren’t any peaceful protests in Baltimore… Well, that’s just silly. Of course there were peaceful individuals trying to protest respectfully, but they were muted by the mob of thugs who victimized an entire city with no remorse. They were victimized by a mob that pretends to know the first thing about rights as they trample on the rights of others, and harm officers that did nothing to them. They are wrong, and we’ve been wrong and uncaring. Americans are short sighted; we see the debacles in Ferguson and Baltimore and think that increasing the power of the state is the answer, when really the answer was to decrease the roll of the state long ago.

So, to the point: #BlackLivesMatter perpetuators, King didn’t encourage this kind of “communication,” but instead said it harmed the cause. In addition, #BlueLivesMatter perpetuators, he didn’t preach on supporting police custody “rough rides,” “nickel rides,” etc… His words were the words of a man who wanted justice for all people, punishment for crimes committed against all people, fair investigations for all victims, blind justice for all. #EveryLifeMatters! Refusal to admit that both sides are capable of having issues has annihilated sanity. Yesterday I shared a post that said, “Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus, she didn’t trash the bus.” Rosa Parks didn’t harm the innocent, burn down buildings, attack police officers, etc. but she also had a darn good reason to stand her ground.

Buildings are burning, lives are ruined, and many will accuse me of callously bringing up some of the issues in my post when officers are lying in hospital beds. I will return the favor and accuse you of callously disregarding the rights of individuals which set the stage for innocent people to be maimed or killed and innocent officers to be put in hospital beds. You’re absolutely right, now is not the time to talk about this, the time to talk about this was years ago when we laid the foundation for the destruction, death, and pain we are seeing today. The disaster on the streets of Baltimore is not just the fault of rioters, it is the fault of those who shaped their ideals. Does it make you feel better to blame their parents? Our political silence and refusal to care about a wrong has created a society that devalues human life. What could we have done to avoid this? I’m not letting the rioters off the hook, but I’m not letting you off the hook either. We approach issue in this nation with a new level of cowardice, and if we expect to change our nation, well, that must to change.

I’ve found that if I post something on police brutality I have just as many views in the stats, but the interaction is low. Why? Because people are scared of their friends seeing that they liked or shared a post that hinted at the idea that all of the men and women in uniform patrolling our streets are not gods. That we do have an issue that needs to be taken care of, and that officers of the law are human and still need to be held responsible. I would argue that I support the police more than you do, that I care about their well being more so than you, because I know that to improve the relationship they have with the people, we need to remove the gang mentality and remember that they are all human beings. We are a nation that thrives when we have mutual respect, but we will be a nation that falls if we only govern on fear tactics. I would also argue that those encouraging thugs to loot and harm innocent individuals are as harmful, if not more so, to the black populous than those who fought against equal rights. You are encouraging men and women to degrade themselves, attack the innocent, and embrace the hatred and pain involved in the racial narrative that you have perpetuated for your own gain. You should be ashamed.

Our hearts do not truly bear the resemblance of barbarians when we accept that Freddie Gray was an unrepentant criminal, but they will do so when we accept the idea that he never mattered, when he becomes a number. The hearts of the peaceful protesters that were involved, those who were truly seeking change, will not be hardened because a life was lost, they will be hardened when they see we no longer care.

FYI – Do you know who would be talking about both the obnoxious rioters and police overreach despite the cries of foul from the masses? Martin Luther King Jr… Remember that the next time you quote him.

Of Rubio, Republicans, and voting ‘right’

The political winds taunt some, depress others, and are a wonderful excuse to go do the dishes during commercial breaks for many. I, on the other hand, love nothing more than the sweet scent of political conflict in the air. It’s the breeze of responsible, the reminder that we can all make a difference in our world. I am ready for 18 months, 2 weeks, and 3 days of brutal campaigns, insults, and shouts of joy. That said, It’s only been a few weeks, and I’ve already experienced all of those things. I’m not one to shy away from opinions, nor one to defend someone to the death despite a clear difference in beliefs. I am, however, a realist…  Which brings me to the point of this post:

                                                              Who should you vote for?

 

WARNING: I’m about to discuss points and facts that I don’t, necessarily, even like. I’m about to tell you why some of my favorite people in politics can’t beat Hillary. I don’t like these facts, I despise many of them, yet I can’t get past them. So please don’t assume that I’m attacking your favorite candidate… Unless of course your favorite candidate is Hillary Clinton.

 

Despite the myriad reasons why Hillary shouldn’t be President, including the fact that if she were a Republican she’d more than likely be charged with a few crimes, she will most likely be the Democrat candidate of choice on the ballot in 2016. The woman could punch ducklings on live TV and still be worshipped by the left. They’re doing their best to make her seem human – “look, the elitist eats a burrito” – and they’ll succeed with those who really, really, really want her to be human…. Despite the fact that when she’s in public she looks like she’s either chronically constipated, or counting down the seconds before she is able to run to the nearest bottle of Germ-X so as to cleanse herself of commoner bacteria.

 

Hillary has a really good shot at the White House, because the average American voter is a glutton for punishment. They’re like an abused wife, captive to the idea that they won’t survive without a particular party in power. Yes, I compared the Democrat regime to an abusive husband. Luckily, for some of them, that’s a step up. Talking to you, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner… I digress. So follow me on this journey, let’s chat about what kind of competitor we need on our side to go up against the only “Feminist” to remain married to a womanizer and alleged rapist. I’m going to break down my reasons against/for the current candidates, as well as a few potentials.

 

Ted Cruz – Don’t you feel American when you listen to him? You feel good, you feel like he’s the second coming of Reagan. You just get the feeling like he belongs on a Presidential flashcard. Sometimes you might even accidently say “Ted Reagan” because it sounds fantastic. Wait… Is that just me? This man should have a soundtrack, and it should be Lee Greenwoods’ greatest hit on repeat. I’m pretty sure he smells like Apple Pie and baseball. I love this man, and I love what he stands for, and so do the handful, albeit large handful, of those in the country that land so far right they’ve got a poster of George Washington holding an AR-15 above their bed. So, what’s not to love about him? Well, quite simply, he’s not going to get the votes from the middle ground. If we lived in a sane America, filled with fiscally responsible adults, they’d see that he is the best chance for lowering the debt, elevating the lower class, etc…. Now, the Libertarians might not vote for Hillary, but they also won’t vote for him, they’ll either stay home, or they’ll vote for an Independent… And voting for an Independent is basically like casting your vote for the rich white chick in the pantsuit. If he wins the GOP ticket, I’ll slap a bumper sticker on my car and preach the good word, but he’s not my first choice.

 

Rand Paul – Oh, my heart. I love this man too. He’s a genuinely good person with a heart for his country. I really love the fact that he fights against the militarization of the police. He sees what I see, what many common sense individuals see; it shouldn’t be an us vs. them system, militarizing the police just damages the relationship they should have with the people of this nation. He believes that the warrior cop mentality is toxic. He believes in accountability, regardless of what uniform you wear. I have found myself siding with him on countless occasions where this is concerned. But there are staunch Republicans (I know many personally) that throw anyone who dares to stand for the rights of all people, not just the uniformed, under the bus. So while I may love him, many staunch Republicans will go full liberal and anti-rights if he says Andy Griffith can’t have a tank. That issue aside, I believe foreign policy is one of the most important issues in a Presidential candidate. I also believe that sometimes blood must be shed for the good of the innocent (WWI, WWII, ISIS, etc.), and I believe that America should defend the innocent. Hashtag diplomacy, well wishes, and minding our own business doesn’t always work. Understanding this is not Rand’s strong suit. He sounds like he’s changing his tune a bit on foreign policy, but with everything going on in this world, is it enough? On the plus side, most vehemently Republican voters will not like voting for Rand, but if he goes up against Hillary they’ll smarten up and vote for him because they’re still a step ahead of the Independents who really, really just want their weed, man. Unfortunately, he will garner very few votes from the minorities that Democrats have owned in the last 2 elections. Once again, I’ll buy a cap with his name on it if he makes the ticket, but he’s not my first choice.

 

Jeb Bush – No.

 

Chris Christie – No.

 

No. Stop it. 

 

Seriously? I should not have to explain the faults in either of those choices. Have we not learned our lesson with McCain and Romney? Do we need to revisit the rich white guy camp again to play games with what might be the most important election our generation will see? Stop making me hate you, GOP.  Stop it. Now. You need my generation, why are you bound and determined to push us away? 

 

Scott Walker – Alright, this one pains me… I’m a Wisconsinite, and a proud supporter of Walker. This election is going to require more, it’s going to require someone with a story, someone with charisma, someone that relates. I support most of what Walker has accomplished, including his fight against union thugs. But Walker does not have the story, and he doesn’t  have the charisma it will take to beat Hillary. True or not, her supporters will paint him as a “typical white Republican bully.” This election is going to be a difficult one, and we MUST learn from the past, or we’ll repeat it. If we run the same old campaigns of McCain and Romney, we’ll be listening to a concession speech by our candidate on election night.  If he ends up running against Hillary, once again, I’ll be the first in line to support him… but… Scott Walker is not my first choice. Ouch.

 

Marco Rubio – Ready? Rubio is my first choice. And below is just a peek at why I believe he should be yours too (I will include excerpts from his recent announcement):

 

He’s not an old rich white guy. TMZ once asked him the difference between Lil Wayne and Tupac, and he answered by detailing the difference between the two rappers. He quoted Jay-Z on the House floor. This may mean nothing to you, because it means nothing to me, but it means something to the millions of new voters who can relate. He’s relevant. I know Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and the likes don’t agree, but guess what… this country followed the lead of the Conservative leaders for long enough. We may agree with them, we may have the same opinions, we may own their books and tweet their quotes, but their choices have not given us results for quite a long time. Rubio is not Reagan, but I tend to believe that Reagan would have a difficult time getting elected these days.

 

“Here in America, my father became a bartender, my mother a cashier, a maid, a K-Mart stock clerk.” His parents had to budget, he had to budget. He just paid off his student loans in 2012. Do you know how long it’s been since Hillary Clinton had to worry about a budget? A loan payment? A very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very long time. She can stand in Chipotle until the cows come home, and it doesn’t change the fact that she is still going to walk away with a net worth that the majority of us will never see in a lifetime. This year alone, she’ll spend more on restaurants and clothes than I’ll ever spend on a house. She’s out of touch. Drastically out of touch. Her daughter is out of touch. And her husband needs reminders not to touch. This is where every other candidate fails to compare. Rubio can shoot Hillary’s class warfare back at her via cannon. He can paint her as an elitist who is completely out of touch with the rest of the world, including himself, and then he can drop a quote from Public Enemy and bury her, no other candidate can offer that, and if they tried they’d just look like that weird 50 year-old neighbor who has “JUICY” printed in glitter across the butt of her sweatpants. You don’t want to hear that, Conservatives, but buck up, Buttercup, it’s a fact.

 

“They’re busy looking backwards. So they do not see how jobs and prosperity today depend on our ability to compete in a global economy. And so our leaders put us at a disadvantage by taxing and borrowing and regulating like it was 1999.” In case you didn’t get the point, Marco Rubio is young and relevant. Hillary isn’t. McCain preached on how he could help you, Romney preached on how he could help you, Rubio is not speaking down to you, he is one of you.

 

“If we reform our tax code and reduce regulations and control spending and modernize our immigration laws and repeal and replace Obamacare.”

 

Taxes – I love the opinion of Cruz concerning taxes, I also love the opinion of Paul concerning taxes, and Reagan, and Coolidge, and, and, the list goes on. Guess how much good those views do if Hillary is in the White House? Wishful thinking is grand, and I’ll be a flat tax supporter until I die. *wipes away single tear* However, we are dealing with the struggle of earning votes from individuals who will give their support to a candidate based off of clips of Presidential debates between Lady Gaga and Katy Perry songs on the radio. If you asked the majority of the people in this country what “flat tax” means, they’ll look at you like your finger is glowing and wonder if you need to “phone home.” If Rubio gets in the White House and tax cuts take place, jobs grow, and people see that their livelihood improves, he can then run on even more tax cuts, and other Republicans will have the ability to tout even more drastic ideas without the majority disregarding them. Did you know that in a recent poll, roughly 29% of Americans believe that less taxes on the wealthy will help the economy? That’s it. So, if you and that 29% (which includes myself) think you can magically win an election by touting tax breaks for the rich, then have it. We will have much better luck using someone like Rubio to get our foot in the door and soften opinions.

 

Immigration Laws – Uh oh. There are Conservatives who jumped head first into a rather silly pool of pandemonium the moment that Rubio suggested that a path to citizenship for illegals already in America is the right thing to do, while also saying that the current laws need to be upheld, and that control is needed at the borders. I’ll admit, I wasn’t thrilled myself, but at the time I failed to see how it would benefit him. While you have your breakdown and proclaim your refusal to support him, I’m just going to sit over here sipping my coffee and wonder how many voters the smooth talking Cuban Senator just stole from the Democrats by not fitting into the cold and calculated mold that the liberal narrative has built for Republicans. Go ahead. Pitch your fit, but ol’Marco gained votes that no one else in the GOP will ever touch, like a boss. Besides,  apart from a ‘wetback roundup’ (go ahead, support someone who pushes that ideal and pave the way for Hillary), giving established extended families a conditional chance at staying is almost the only tangible and conservative thing left to do. 

 

Obamacare – He wants to repeal it, most people hate it, and by the time 2016 rolls around even more people will hate it. I really don’t think more needs to be said on this. 

 

“I live in an exceptional country where the son of a bartender and a maid can have the same dreams, and the same future as those who’ve come from power and privilege.” Oh snap. He went there. While popular Democrats have in recent year felt the need to remind us that without immigrants we wouldn’t have proper lawn care (no joke), and even our current President referred to them as “fruit pickers,” Marco Rubio is here to say that they can be President. 

 

He speaks fluent Spanish. “Not a big deal,” you might say? It’s a very big deal. Because while our President is calling immigrants “fruit pickers,” Rubio’s Cuban immigrant father came home from working as a bar tender after midnight most nights and told his son, in Spanish, that “In this country you will achieve all the things we never could.” That’s a substantial difference. “The final verdict on our generation will be written by Americans who have not yet been born. Let us make sure they record that we made the right choice. That in the early years of this century, thanks to the rapidly changing and uncertain world, our generation rose to face the great challenges of our time. And because we did — because we did there was still one place in the world where you — where who you come from does not determine how far you go.” This doesn’t move Ann Coulter, it doesn’t move Glenn Beck, it doesn’t move Hannity, Limbaugh, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. but it does move the kid that grew up in Harlem, it resonates with the woman who grew up translating for her parents, it has the power to move the young voters who feel like the politicians and the media can’t relate to them. Scott Walker can attack the unions, Ted Cruz can tout the NRA and filibuster, and Rand Paul can support liberty like none other, and they all do an outstanding job, but not one of them can relate to the young minority vote in the way Marco Rubio can.

 

Other candidates tend to want to slide their arm across the table, knocking all of the dominoes down in one sweep, and in no particular order. I want to do the same, but what I want will not work. Rubio is very good at being strategic, he plants dominoes to fall at just the right time. We need that.

He’s being asked difficult questions and he answering them in ways that are making the MSM implode. For example, he was asked about Evolution (since he’s a Christian) and he responded with, “It’s a scientific theory that should be taught.” Another example: A reporter recently asked if 43 was old enough to be President, Rubio responded with, “I know 44 is, which is what I turn in May.” People feel that he is inexperienced, but I tend to wonder if those people have been paying attention to politics lately. That’s not going to hurt his chances in anyway whatsoever. Maybe someday when we are back on track we will live in a matured America where people do care about the experience of a Presidential candidate, but it’s time that we face the fact that today is not that day. The left is terrified of Rubio, not so much Cruz and Rand, and that is very evident, and it’s also something we should be watching. This tells us that they confidently have their arguments against Cruz and Rand locked and loaded, guarded by a trigger happy MSNBC lapdog. However, with Rubio they’re scrambling for something, anything!They’re shooting blind and hoping that something hits… And he’s just smooth enough to pull a Matrix and avoid any fatal shots. Unfortunately, many on the right are too busy applying their Ted Cruz bumper stickers to notice.  

Now, after noting all of the obvious pros, here are a few things that I would really like to see from Rubio:

The Republican party isn’t sexist, that’s a fact. I mean come on, the party labeling us as “sexist” has numerous affairs, alleged rapes, and a body count in the war on women (Thanks, Ted…). The important thing to remember is that with Hillary, we aren’t fighting facts, we are fighting a narrative. If Rubio wins the GOP ticket, he needs to pick a woman as his Vice. Nikki Haley, Suzanna Martinez, etc… He needs a calm, smart, and articulate woman who can speak to the importance of the most understated and misunderstood woman’s right; The right to carry.

Democrats are starting to come out of the woodwork concerning Marijuana legalization. They don’t care. Seriously, they don’t care. The only reason we are seeing this – most recently in Wisconsin – and will continue to see this, is because they want Conservative candidates to look old and distant. When questioned, Rubio should default to the Constitution. “It should be left to the states and has nothing to do with the Presidential election.” And then give the, “Why are you even asking me such a silly question” face. It won’t be long before marijuana is legalized nationwide, taking a hardline stance will only push the younger votes away.

When asked about women’s rights, I want him to speak to women. I want him to look at the media and say that he’s sick and tired of politicians and the media insulting the intelligence of women. That equality laws are on the books, and touting additional legislation, and pretending as though women can’t understand any of the real issues that have to do with the Presidential election, is an insult to women. Simply saying, “it’s already illegal to discriminate” only addresses the issue, it doesn’t address the stereotype that Republicans care little about women. We need to turn the tables. We need to show that they are attacking women by assuming that we will believe their nonsense. He needs to speak like an original Feminist. The original Feminists believed that women were an intellectual equal, and showed distain for those who thought we were self-indulged jackwagons that couldn’t handle the difficult topics. Well, we aren’t, and Rubio needs to fight on our behalf against that narrative. Rand Paul has started doing this, Rubio should take note.

I’ve heard the following since expressing my opinions of the above with numerous people: 

“You’re crazy! How can Hillary win with Benghazi in her past?” – How did Obama win reelection with Benghazi in his VERY recent past? Good rule of thumb: Don’t underestimate your enemy, and don’t overestimate the bleeding hearts of their voters. If Hillary Clinton went surfing on a pile of dead puppies, but was wearing a Planned Parenthood t-shirt, she’d still get a disturbingly large number of votes from those who claim to “care.” 

 

“How can Hillary win with Bill as her baggage?” – How was Ted Kennedy’s name mentioned at the 2012 DNC without the large feminist attendance all projectile vomiting as they went running towards the door? He let a woman die slowly in a sinking vehicle to hide his dirty little secret and avoided punishment, yet feminists still get joyfully verklempt when they get the chance to celebrate his glorious name. There really are stupid questions, and we need to stop asking them, and start embracing the truth. We need to all sit down and watch Karate Kid and learn to know the opponent. Embrace the enemy. Be the ignorant whiny underpaid contraceptiveless needy feminist with a degree in gender studies, Grasshopper. 

 

“How can Hillary possibly win with the server debacle?” – Because she has a vagina, and a (D) beside her title. No seriously, that’s why.

 

“Won’t people see her horrible foreign policy?” – This morning I read an article about the guy that served her a burrito at Chipotle, and it wasn’t satirical. The article is not important, hilarious, but not important. However, the existence of this article is important. This woman is a celebrity, and I guarantee you that the majority of the individuals that vote for her will know exactly what she prefers in her burritos, but they will have no idea if she even knows how to point to Iran on a map.

 

Now, we can listen to the Conservative voices that are praising every other candidate, and some are even throwing Rubio under the bus. We can pick one of the other candidates, and I’ll vote for them, support them, and even be positive about the fight… But I sincerely hope that people vote Rubio, because I believe he is our best shot. I hope we all research his position on issues without flying off the handle like we did on Amnesty. Heck, he may do something really stupid before November 2016, I doubt it, but crazier things have happened. If that’s the case, I’ll gladly sit down and cover my words in hot sauce before dining on them. I don’t know the future, and I may be forced to change my tune, but as of right now… well… Rubio has my vote, and he should have yours too. 


There. I think I covered everything. Wait. One more thing. Whatever you do, please don’t pick Bush or Christie, because if you do, this will be me during Hillary’s inauguration:






Birthday

Annie, Seriously… It’s time to get your gun.

First off, I must note that I understand that some men and women do not wish to own a gun. Some do not have the sudden urge to hug fluffy bunnies and spread world peace in a frivolous manner like I do when my fingers are wrapped around a Walther PPK, or when my hands are embracing an H&K VP9. This blog post is in no way an attack on them. Well, truth be known, I may not personally understand their reasoning, but I respect their choice. That said, I do believe that if you label yourself a feminist and fight against gun rights, you’re a blazing hypocrite. If you make the choice to forgo gun ownership, that’s fine… Heck, if you make the choice to arm yourself with a stuffed animal walrus named Peanut, I frankly do not care. However, if you want to say you believe in the equality of women, yet fight to remove the most successful way of making the fight for women’s safety a fair one, your ideals are antithetical and that’s when I care, because your opinions are no longer just making you look silly by carrying around Peanut, it’s putting me in danger too.

Before I get to the meat of the post, I’d like to address something that someone told me this week during a discussion about women and weapons. This kind liberal eluded to the idea that women can’t be trusted with guns… See, liberals might pretend like they think you’re equal, but in reality, you’re a 1920’s housewife pretending to play with grownups in their eyes. My liberal acquaintance then said, “You know, you didn’t strike me as the violent type.” This type of reaction always astounds me. I am gentle in nature, I don’t even hunt (yes, I still support hunters). I cried when my desperate attempts to live trap mice resulted in a reproduction catastrophe that required me to purchase kill traps. I’m not a violent person. I’m also not a stupid person. I know that while I might not be violent, those that might wish to harm me most likely are, and I’m pretty sure we possess contradicting convictions.

I have past blogs that have focused on the failures of gun control, as well as posts directed towards female empowerment, and how the left has destroyed true feminism. This post is like the love child of those previous posts. It is directed towards women, and the urge to write this came after reading quite a few disturbing stories this week, as well as some inspirational news concerning women who are finally standing up and saying that they’ve had enough of being patronized. In addition, after receiving heavy opposition, the Texas Senate approved a bill allowing licensed carriers on government property, including the state’s public college and university campuses. It’s about time. It’s also about time for the rest of us to not shy away from the fact that women should be concerned about gun rights even more so than men, and men who claim to support women should be shouting their support from the roof tops.

One of the disturbing stories that made the contents of my lunch hint at an evacuation was concerning a 17 year-old man who was being charged with kidnapping a 10 year-old girl. He was simply a friend of the family who had developed an unhealthy obsession with the girl, which was followed by stomach turning plans to sexually abuse her before snuffing out her life and photographing her body. Thankfully, the little girl was saved before he was able to finish what he had started. In another startling story, a woman was attacked and had her unborn child cut out of her body.

I bring these stories up because in the last week I have had 3 different conversations concerning women and guns. Fairly heated conversations, to be quite honest. I’m fairly passionate about this topic, and become infuriated when men try to tell me why women (and men, but today we are focusing on women) should not have the right to own a gun. My temper then receives a shot of caffeine when women and men tell me that arming women is somehow feeding a rape culture, that we need to teach men not to rape, not teach women how to protect themselves. They tell me that pens, mace, and using vomit or bodily fluids to “gross out” the offender is the answer; those options aren’t degrading at all, right?! But you see, the 10 year-old little girl in the story above was not the victim of rape culture, she was the victim of a psychopath. She was the victim of a selfish individual with a depraved mind. She was the victim of proclivities that were born in the darkest corners that are located near the pit of hell. She was not the victim of “rape culture,” she was the victim of a certain breed of subhuman that has existed since the dawn of time. She was the victim of a young man that shares a commonality with the monsters that we find in horror movies and nightmares. No, this young 10 year-old girl could not protect herself with a gun, but the point is that the idea that we can purge depraved individuals from society by “teaching them not to rape” is an ideal based in a land born of fairy tales and children’s books.

Bad people exist. Bad people will always exist.

Back in October of 2007, Amanda Collins was attacked in a parking garage after leaving class. This particular parking garage was chosen by a very careful Collins because she felt she would be safe. This garage housed the campus police cruisers, and the campus police were roughly 100 feet away. She was guarded and careful, stating that she had actually taken martial arts classes before attending college. She took every precaution, even down to approaching her car at an angle to ensure that no one was hiding beneath. Even after taking such precautions, she was brutally raped at gun point in that parking garage, and her attacker would go on to make national news after he was found guilty of the highly publicized rape and murder of 19 year-old Brianna Denison, who disappeared in January of 2008.  Denison was stolen as she slept on the couch in her friend’s home. Brianna’s body was found in February, she had been brutally raped and murdered then disposed of carelessly in a field, treated as garbage. During the trial, the defense argued against the death penalty due to the fact that before the crimes her attacker, James Biela, was a productive member of society.

     Side note: I’m left befuddled when people use the “once a productive member of society” excuse in such cases. If you steal a soda, feel free to claim that you were simply desperate and once a productive member of society, not when you kidnap, rape, and murder another human being.

Biela knew that what he was doing was wrong, just as the 17 year-old who had heinous plans for a 10 year-old knew that what he was doing was wrong. They did not broadcast their plans, they did not think themselves innocent of wrong doing. They didn’t stroll into homes saying, “Hey everyone, I’m going to go ahead and take your daughter. Cool?” They did not need to be taught not to rape, they did not need a lesson on why it’s bad to suffocate the life out of another human being, and they did not need to “learn” why it’s bad to pin a woman down and disregard her rights. Lessons on a woman’s worth would have fallen on deaf ears because the facts are, they’re bigger, and they’re more powerful, and well, they’re not playing with a full deck of cards. They did not need a speech on equal rights from Emma Watson, they weren’t simply guys who had failed to see that bureaucrats in their ivory towers protected by armed guards had signed a piece of paper that made laws protecting women against violence, they did not listen as celebrities preached on peace and love. They had evil intentions, and they preyed on those that aren’t guarded in the ivory towers, on those that don’t walk into a room protected by security guards. No, they preyed on women, like myself, who are left to protect themselves. Those of us that are smaller and weaker than the opposite sex, those of us who are not trained in combat techniques, those of us who are the target of sexual crimes over 90% of the time (and remember that the majority of sexual crimes on men happen via prison rape), we are the ones that watch our backs daily. Not the elitist celebs, not the bureaucrats, and not liberal men.

We have to be careful where we park at the mall. Is it by a light? Is it by a popular entrance?

We have to be careful when we leave work at night.

We wait for a large group of people to leave so that we aren’t alone.

We make sure that we are home from our walk or run before dark.

We are the ones that hear a class time and think, “where’s the safest place for me to park.”

We are the sex that walk into empty public bathrooms at night and rush, and that’s after scanning the area for nefarious individuals to begin with.

We are the ones that know a police car isn’t fast enough to stop a psychopath from ruining our lives.

Why? Because we have to, because we are the demographic most likely to be a victim. But there is one important part to the story of Amanda Collins and Brianna Denison that was left out of my rather brief synopsis. Amanda Collins had a handgun in her home that she was trained to use, actually, she was a CCW license holder. Brianna Denison was slaughtered, and Amanda Collins was brutally raped because Amanda Collins was a law abiding citizen and did not carry her weapon in a gun free zone. Amanda Collins was raped at gun point between two vehicles, 100 feet away from campus security, in a gun free zone. Biela went on to rape again, and also murder Denison when – quite possibly – his life and reign of terror could have been ended by a trained Amanda Collins in a parking garage. Amanda Collins was confident in saying that had she been armed, she would have had the opportunity to stop Biela, and Brianna could be alive today in a career, or starting a family, living the life that was stolen from her. Liberals are convincing you to vote for them under the guise that they can take you to some wonderland where birth control flows like a rushing river. A place where all psychopaths have a change of heart and see you as a person, and not as an item. A place where you are paid more than men, and the guy on the corner of the street pays attention to your brain and not the shape of your other features. But that wonderland does not exist, instead, they push agendas that leave Amanda Collins unprotected in a parking garage with a man that violates her, forever changing who she is.

Now, some might argue that in the United States we have a higher number of rapes, which contradicts the idea that guns save women a lifetime of trauma, or a lifetime lost. Then they’ll smugly sit back and act as though they have dealt the fatal blow to your argument. It is at this point that I encourage woman to fully understand the incredibly important differences between the US and the UK. Definitions. Our criminal system encompasses a large variation of crimes under broad descriptions. I actually had a discussion concerning the various criminal definitions on a Facebook thread a couple months ago and realized that I had never blogged about this little detail. So, in the US, you meet a drunk girl at the bar and take her home, if she doesn’t appreciate your savvy pick-up tactics during her inebriated state the next morning, it is defined as rape. If you are 18 and have consensual sex with a girl 1 year younger, and Daddy gets mad, it is rape, and you spend your life on a sexual offender registry. Crime definitions per country are vastly different, and it is almost impossible to get an accurate comparison. By far, the US has more blanketed definitions, which leads to our higher crime rate. Yes, we have a lot of crime, but it’s silly for people in the UK to look down on the US from some high horse, acting as though they live in a crime free utopia.

If you look under the UK legal definition, they are very strict on what they consider to be “rape,” yet the US – as mentioned above – has a much broader definition. I won’t go into incredibly graphic detail (you can research yourself), rape in the UK is defined by simply a forceful penetration of one person on another, the legal definition of rape in the US includes anyone who commits an unwanted sexual attack. This includes threats, coercion, picking up a drunk girl, sexual attack with an item, statutory, etc. If you tell a girl that you love her to coerce her into bed, you’ve committed rape in the US, and if she reports it, it goes in the stats even if you don’t face conviction. The UK has not evolved with other countries in this aspect. Additionally, it’s still difficult to calculate because the vast majority of sexual abuse goes unreported in both countries. Not only is the definition for rape different, so is the definition for murder. Homicides in the UK are calculated differently. Since 1967, the UK calculations exclude any cases that do not result in conviction, nor any cases prosecuted under the grounds of self-defense. We do. If Chicago alone – where MANY homicides go unsolved – were not calculated, we would not have as high of a number either. This goes for self-defense as well. They are both calculated into our numbers. Perspective: in 2012 we had 14,827 homicides, only 7,133 arrests were made for those homicides. The number of convictions are even less. SO, If we JUST went by that one change alone, our murder rate would be easily cut in half.

So you see, if we calculated rape and homicides in the same manner, our stats would be ridiculously lower. Now, consider the fact that the UK has a population of 64.1M, and the US has a population of 316.1M, and suddenly their figures look a lot scarier than ours. I’ve heard of stories where widows in the UK will not place obituaries in papers out of fear that it is basically an invitation for robbers that now know she is alone in a house or flat without a man to protect her. Guess what, I’m alone in my house most of the time, without a man, and I dare someone to disregard my ability to protect myself as they do to women in the UK. To the point, women face a higher risk in countries where guns are not the prime tool of protection. The numbers on paper only serve those who push an agenda, because we do not calculate crimes in the same fashion. If you’re arrested for drunk driving, you could easily walk away with a handful of charges in the US, a handful of different crimes that you have committed. This is why our total crimes are higher, but their number of victims is much higher, and that’s just going with the numbers that they actually include in their statistics. Our crime rate has dropped drastically just in the last 30 years, it has been cut in half in some areas. Gun ownership, on the other hand, is at an all-time high. Women are getting smart, women are realizing that being trained with a weapon is what gives us the edge. Will it save every woman every time? Don’t be silly, no one claims that… But it will save most women most of the time considering sexual offenders themselves say that the very hint that a woman has a gun makes them seek out someone else. Guns are a darn good deterrent, which is reflected in the drop in crime. So why let bureaucrats dangle a fake utopia in front of your face while simultaneously trying to remove the one thing that IS working? It’s good to remember that we are surrounded by good people, but we should also be prepared for the bad…

Women should know the facts, we shouldn’t just smile and nod when someone puts a handy phone up on campus while they pretend like it’s going to do us any good, like women can just say, “Hold that thought, Jeffrey Dahmer, I need to go over there and use the phone that those swell administrators put up for moments like this.” Because we all know that those morally sound psychopaths normally give women a phone-a-friend before making them a statistic. We shouldn’t agree with a man that hands us a ballpoint pen to use as protection against an attacker, and we should ask if that man would give his own daughter a ballpoint pen as a means of protection. We as women should not sit idly by while bureaucrats legislate our safety and have the audacity to tell us to pee ourselves to deter potential rapists. And the women that push such degrading ideals onto other women should have to turn in their feminist card to be burned and buried, never to be resurrected.

Now, speaking to my fellow ladies, the fact that liberals can tell you that we just need to “teach men not to rape” and you believe them, well, it doesn’t speak well for our sex. We can’t be that disjointed from reality, right? Right?! I guess after making you believe that women are paid less, they actually thought they could get away with something so outlandish. We owe it to ourselves, as women, to support one another in the fight for personal protection, even if you yourself decide that carrying a gun is not something you want to do. Now, I want you to think about this: If I know how the UK calculates rape and homicide rates, and I know that those in office must be educated enough to know the same, mull over the fact that they know the truth, yet they blatantly lie to you to push the agenda of disarming you. They know that you are safer with a gun, that you are less likely to be a victim when you are trained with a proper weapon, yet they lie to you in an effort to control you. Isn’t that why real feminism exists?! To fight such ridiculous notions? All over, women are starting to push back, and those opposing them are college presidents, campus police, board members, and liberal bureaucrats… So basically, all of the people that really don’t have to worry about how dark it is when they leave class are fighting to keep women as the demographic most likely to be victimized. Comforting. I guess they figure it wasn’t them that had to go casket shopping for their child, so why should they be concerned with giving potential victims the chance that Amanda and Brianna were robbed of?

Stand up and tell our government that you are more efficient in protecting yourself than they are, that you aren’t going to depend on campus security, that you aren’t going to depend on what you hope will be a fast response time from a police officer. Let our government know that you aren’t going to depend on the tolerance level that rapists might have for urine. Let our government know that you aren’t going to sell your worth for a ballpoint pen that is going to do you little good in a situation with an attacker. Let our government know that they can’t manipulate you into thinking that a phone in a parking garage is going to help you when a depraved – not misguided or unlearned, but depraved – mind has you cornered while you pray that he’s the one attacker in the history of the world that actually allows you to call 911 on him. Doesn’t it bother you that our government continues to push the idea that you should fear what predators are capable of, instead of letting predators fear what you are capable of?

But above all else, please let our government know that screaming “raping isn’t nice” doesn’t stop a predator, but a well-placed bullet does. I don’t live my life in fear, because I am capable of protecting myself. Could things outside of my control happen? Of course. But when I walk around in a parking lot at night, I have an equal chance… And isn’t it time that the feminist movement stops its archaic treatment of women? Shouldn’t they stop treating us like items and starts embracing true equality anyway? I mean, come on… stop trying to drag us back to the days when we needed the protection of a man to survive. EVOLVE already, Feminists…

From One Feminist to Another

I’ve seen a lot of both positive and negative responses to Emma Watson’s UN speech. I was asked for my opinion of her speech by a few people on Facebook and Twitter. So, here I am, typing away.

So, without further ado, here is my bucket of thoughts on the matter –

I didn’t hate it, I didn’t like it, personally I felt it was much like my favorite stuffed bear I had as a child. Not Emma Watson, mind you, but her speech. I loved that bear. My bear was soft, fluffy and comforting. It somehow made me think that the Boogeyman would avoid my room. Well, in reality, the Boogeyman never existed, and my bear would have been completely useless if an intruder broke in to kidnap me. My bear would have just sat there in its adorable clown outfit while I was raped and murdered. Emma’s speech was adorable, and completely useless. It was a teddy bear pretending to be a Rottweiler. Not only that, it furthered the idea that us civilized people are ridiculously narcissistic.

Example: The woman living in the Middle East being stoned to death after she was raped is not so concerned about Obama’s White House paying their female workers less.

Example: The homosexual sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia is, I’m guessing, not so concerned about whether your male friend can feel free to let his emotions floweth.

Example: The little girl suffering through genital mutilation is probably not worried about the fact that Emma was called “bossy.”

To quote Justin Timberlake, “cry me a river” came to mind.

Now, I’m not saying that little issues shouldn’t be addressed, but addressing them in a room with world leaders – a large portion of them still allowing women to be brutalized – is wildly silly. It’s like sitting in a room with Michael Vick and his followers and trying to encourage them to support a Tempur Pedic dog line because your buddy Fido seems to be a bit achy in the morning.

“When I was 8, I was called bossy because I wanted to direct a play we would put on for our parents. When at 14, I started to be sexualized by certain elements of the media. At 15, my girlfriends started dropping out of sports teams because they didn’t want to appear masculine” she boldly proclaims to the man that thinks women should be held down and mutilated so that they don’t feel pleasure during sex.

“At 18, my male friends were unable to express their feelings” she tearfully says while trying to convince a world leader that thinks homosexuals should be beheaded.

“Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive” she says to a world leader who let dogs eat his uncle.

Side note: For people that claim to respect science more than anyone else, those that applaud the idea that men and women should be treated the same emotionally have completely rejected biology so as to create their own overarching moral system. Period. Men and women are different, suicides and depression increased when we started denying this.

So, in the end you can say, “It was meant for the world, not just for the men and women in the room!”, and yet it will still be about as effective as Obama’s hashtag diplomacy in getting anything done. It is ivory tower theatrics, Thurston and Lovey Howell-esque rhetoric. No offense, Emma darling, but the way I feel about your speech is similar to how your side would feel if Romney complained about money. It’s like a pageant contestant saying that they want to end world hunger while standing in a $2000 gown with a cloud of hairspray looming above their head. It’s adorable, it’s predictable, and “powerful” according to a magazine that will spend more than I will make in a lifetime ensuring that they get the first photo of the next celebrity baby named after a piece of fruit. Excuse me if I don’t raise my glass of Dom Perignon to their ability to relate to the little people and decide what is “powerful.”

Sounds harsh? Yes. Yes it does. Life is harsh.

Moving on…

Emma cited Edmund Burke saying, “all that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.” In actuality, that wildly popular quote was never found in his writings, and for the sake of the discussion I’ll post his exact words:

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

Same meaning, but interestingly enough, I doubt that she would use Edmund Burke as a point of reference in any other way. Why? Well, when he was making these statements, he was simultaneously saying that the preservation of citizens and the success of a country are intrinsically linked to Christianity. He spoke on the rights of ALL men, and the need for restraint of passions frequently. Not to put words in his mouth, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that he’d have quite a few words for women dressed in vagina costumes fighting to remove rights from innocent infants. He wouldn’t support the various government programs that are aimed not at equality, but at giving the weaker sex as many handouts as possible so as to keep them enslaved (I didn’t call them weaker, liberals did by their actions). That’s not equality, Emma.

She spent a good portion of time discussing why she believes feminism has lost its zest. She claims that it is all about the false man hating rhetoric. I would challenge that position. I would say that it is because we have stripped feminism of its purpose. We have lost sight, Emma. I would say that we traded principles for weapons grade stupidity. There is a woman that sent her child to school with vagina cookies, Emma. Vagina cookies. Then she told the teacher that didn’t particularly appreciate them that she wished her future husband would abuse her for not happily accepting the vagina cookies. There is a woman who changed into a man, and then fought to teach breastfeeding AS a man. He won. A major part of the 2012 election revolved around the words “free contraception.” We call Beyonce empowering for prancing around in a thong and doing sexual favors for her man because she  “just wanna be the girl you like.” The word “feminism” is rejected by women with brains not only because so called “feminists” act like man haters, but also because they’ve dumbed us down to petty, weak, ignorant, drama loving toys who don’t care about what is happening to our own sex in other countries.

See, Emma, back in the day women’s rights meant something. We started off saying, “WE ARE MORE THAN OBJECTS!!!!” and have now moved to “LOOK, WE ARE SHINY OBJECTS!!!!” and we pretend that it has something to do with loving our bodies. We started off by saying that life in the womb was sacred, now we are just vending machines that can be emptied and reused. The feminist movement started off by saying that we have minds, that we have individual opinions, and that we should have the right to voice those opinions and be taken seriously. Now we have moved towards the idea that if we don’t support Sir Nurses-A-Lot we don’t care about female empowerment. Emma, I can’t take the lady that sent cookies decorated as vaginas to school with her 2nd Grade daughter seriously. Honestly, at this point I wouldn’t be surprised if she finger paints on her walls with peanut butter and calls herself Picasso.

Feminists of today do not deserve the title. Say I take a can of Spam and slap the label “Steak” on it… Would that make the Spam a steak? No. It would make me desperate to sell you Spam under false pretenses so as to get a higher profit that I shouldn’t receive. This is what feminism has done. It has taken what the original feminists believed to be oppression, and labeled it by a familiar name that makes other people think that they are doing something worthy of their accolades.

Emma spoke of being sexualized, as though it was unwelcomed. Yet she took home a paycheck from Burberry and Lancôme. That’s not an issue in need of calling in the feminist brigade to save her from the grimy hands of men, that’s an issue that feminists themselves have created. They are not consistent in their complaints. They don’t want to be sexualized, but when they get paid to be sexualized it is beautiful because then it is somehow taking pride in their body. They have decided when they get to be a victim, and that doesn’t work.

The problem is that feminism works kind of like a 5 year-old child left to clean his room by himself. Mom comes to the door and suddenly he’s cleaning, Mom walks away and then he is playing again. Emma Watson steps up to a microphone and suddenly it’s all about respecting ourselves and equality, Emma steps away from the microphone and it goes back to being reruns of the vagina monologues and genital pastries. They fight phantom monsters because going after the real monsters are too scary. They don’t have the ability to be a voice for brutalized women because they are too scared to step out of line and be labeled an anti-feminist. The feminists I know are only as brave as their edgy t-shirts and tampon earrings will permit them to be. Heaven forbid they say something that Wendy Davis, Sandra Fluke, and Hillary Clinton wouldn’t agree with.

Feminism hasn’t become a negative term because it has been given a bad rap, it has become a negative term because the current leaders and voices of the movement are idiots.

Some people may be reading this and thinking, “Well, Emma never said that she blatantly supported abortion, nor did she go into detail on her own personal beliefs.” I concur, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is who is absorbing her message, and what conclusions they come to. What group did this empower? That matters. As much as I’d love to think that there will simply be a bunch of little girls running around saying, “I’m not bossy” – while I hope they one day grow up into someone that isn’t rendered powerless or weakened by a 5 letter word – I know that it won’t end there.

I know that the people doing a fist bump were the individuals that wish to allow little boys into little girls rooms because they “feel different,” without taking any care to evaluate what that might do to the little girls. Because the child that feeds their rhetoric is important, the other children aren’t. A confused little boy shouldn’t have to use the little boy’s room, but the vast number of little girls who will now be confused just need to “get over it” and learn tolerance.

I know some of the individuals who screamed “AMEN” during her speech are the very people that think slicing an infant’s spine at 8 months along is acceptable.

I know that some of those rejoicing over this speech are the very individuals who have turned their back on women, called Islam the religion of peace, and ignored the screams of the millions of brutalized women. All in the name of the cause though, right?

I know that many of those giving Emma accolades are the very same people that don’t think that I should have a gun to protect myself. They fight on behalf of men that may wish to brutalize me, and yet call themselves feminists.

THAT is what matters.

I would have been more impressed had she pointed to her audience and said something similar to the following:

“We as women will give a voice to the child brides and the victims of sex slavery. We will fight for the women that you have allowed to be brutalized. We will ask good men to join us, and we will stand up to men like you. We will stand strong, we will be powerful, and we will be heard. We will show you that we are not mere objects, that we are not weak, and that those silenced by your governments will be remembered. We will not support a porn industry that has aided in the slavery of women. We will no longer let you insult our intelligence. We will be valued. We will not fall for propaganda that leads to us electing leaders that have empowered you. Leaders that have helped you to continue harming us. We refuse to adapt the victim mentality.”

I know I sound like I’m being hard on Emma. I am. I think she means well, but I don’t agree with her on many points, and I refuse to pretend like I do. I support the original goals of the feminist movement, and I support my ability to come to a conclusion that is not spoon fed to me by the religion of feminism. Because THAT is what feminism was originally about.

– MB