It’s always hard coming out. But it’s even harder not being true to yourself. So, inspired by Bruce Jenner and other intrepid souls, I’ve decided to finally start living the life I was meant to:
Image is courtesy of FreakingNews.com.
I identify as Barack Obama.
Oh, I can hear the cynical statements now. “Duke, your I.Q. is 50 points too high.” “Duke, you can speak fluently without a Teleprompter.” “Duke, you know there aren’t 60 states and can pronounce “corpsman.” “Duke, you’re melanin compromised.” All these things are inconsequential details, the stuff of tiresome prigs — sort of like genitalia on a man.
Given my identity, compassion dictates I be allowed to use the bathroom of my choice. My preferred bathroom happens to be in the White House. The same is true of my preferred bedroom, kitchen, living room, Blue Room, Green Room and Map Room; and my preferred chef, servants and security detail. I’ll have my preferred executive orders, too.
Some backward thinkers will insist I use the facilities appropriate to my station; others, thinking themselves reasonable, will offer to paint my place white and erect four majestic columns at its entrance. To them I will say, you’re insensitive, bigoted, narrow-minded, unscientific, ambition-phobic racists who should be killed with fire. As with the children and youths for whom the Obama administration (my administration) has so courageously taken up the cudgels, it is unconscionable to suggest I shouldn’t be allowed to use the facilities consistent with my identity.
Many, though, in the grip of white “male” (whatever that is) linear thinking, will dismiss my righteous claim by flippantly saying I’m not Barack Obama. Well, this is my reality — not yours. As American Thinker’s James Arlandson recently pointed out, philosopher Immanuel Kant informed that “we can’t know the ‘thing-in-itself’ without our mind filtering it.” Fellow enlightener Friedrich Nietzsche further clarified that “[e]verything is Interpretation: … Against those who say ‘There are only facts,’ I say, ‘No, facts are precisely what there is not, only interpretations.’ We cannot establish any fact in itself.”
And my own personal, provisional fact is that I have strong and persistent feelings I’m really Barack Obama. If you say feelings aren’t facts, you’re not paying attention.
Besides, don’t be an unscientific fascist. When a born-male sentient biped informs us he’s really a girl — which is now old hat and needn’t even be questioned — rightful deference is shown to his reality because, as PsychCentral.com puts it, he has exhibited “gender dysphoria,” which is defined by “strong and persistent cross-gender identification.” Oh, I know you’ve heard that intrauterine anomalies might cause the brain of a developing XY-biped to not be fully masculinized. Ze may then end up with a “female brain.” Of course, a recent scientific study purports to have debunked the very notion of male and female brains, but it doesn’t matter.
There is no brain scan used to confirm the “realness” of a gender dysphoria diagnosis.
There’s no genetic test used.
There’s no hormonal test.
There’s no medical test of any kind.
Rather, the diagnosis is based, again, on strong and persistent cross-gender identification — on strong and persistent feelings — lasting for more than six months, that you’re really, deep down, a member of the social construction fascists call “the opposite sex.”
So don’t waste time telling me a brain scan would reveal that I don’t have the gray matter of a Barack Obama, that my brain is in a considerably more used condition. Don’t tell me that “status dysphoria” is a mental disorder. I have feelings, too. And my feelings say I’m what fascists call “the guy I voted for.”
The point is that, scientifically, there’s every bit as much medical proof a trans-status biped such as me is Barack Obama as there is that a “transgender” person is an opposite-sex member. Ze’s stuck in the wrong body — I’m stuck in the wrong position.
Our trans-status and transgender diagnostic methods would constitute malpractice in any other branch of medicine, you say? You may claim that recommending someone for “sexual-reassignment surgery” based on a gender dysphoria diagnosis is akin to a patient exclaiming to a cardiologist, “Doc, I have strong and persistent feelings I have heart disease! I need a bypass!” and the physician responding, “Have they lasted for more than six months? Yeah? Okay, well, medical tests show no signs of arteriosclerosis. But, what the heck, I’ll cut your chest open.” My response to this line of what fascists call reasoning is, you’re an insensitive, bigoted, narrow-minded, unscientific, ambition-phobic racist who should be killed with fire.
And be warned, we trans-statuses and transgenders will have many allies in our bonfire of the insanities. Psychologists also define something called “species dysphoria,” which is when an individual identifies as a different kind of creature. Examples of people brave enough to live as their true animal selves may be Texas resident Wolfie Blackheart, who insists “I am a canine”; and a Norwegian woman called “Nano” who says she’s a cat. (Question: if Wolfie and Nano met, would they fight like…well, you know? And would they identify it as a catfight?)
Note also, there’s every bit as much scientific evidence of trans-status’ and transgender’s validity as there is of trans-species’ validity.
In our camp also should be those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID). These people insist that one or more body parts, such as their legs or eyes, don’t belong on/in their bodies. Not only have some mutilated or blinded themselves on this basis, but there are enlightened physicians who, respecting these patients’ identity, have agreed to perform amputations. And why not? Remove what’s between your legs — remove your legs — whatever makes you happy.
And remember, there’s every bit as much scientific evidence of trans-status’, transgender’s and trans-species’ validity as there is evidence that a BIID biped really should be a no-ped. Feelings über alles.
So I am Barack Obama. At least, that is, until January 20, 2017, at which time I may identify as Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. And they’re coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-ha. Or are they coming to take you away, bigoted, narrow-minded, unscientific, ambition-phobic racists who should be killed with fire? That all depends on the outcome of these refreshingly fact-free culture wars.
“If you wish to know how civilized a culture is, look at how they treat its women.” Bacha Khan
Treatment of Women Under Islamic Sharia Law
If feminism means: “The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men, and is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities”, why have national feminist organizations in Canada not condemned oppression and atrocities against women living under Islamic Sharia Law?
There has been intensive research and many articles and interviews containing testimonial evidence that women in societies and countries governed by Islamic Sharia Law — a medieval and barbaric legal framework incompatible with modern values and basic human rights – have limited rights and freedoms compared to women in the West.
In countries and societies ruled by Islamic Sharia Law, women essentially have no rights and no equality. Under Sharia Law women have fewer inheritance rights compared to men and lesser status as witnesses. Women in Islamic countries ruled under Sharia Law are subject to harsh penalties for violation of modesty laws and have no choice but follow the modesty laws such as ‘dress modesty’. In Iran modesty law and activities of country’s modesty police has been handed over to Iran’s current president, Hassan Rouhani’s Ministry of the Interior. Failure to comply with modesty laws has been subject to extreme violence from modesty police in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Sudan.
These violations frequently result in state-sponsored violence against women (even death) in Islamic countries. As well, female foreigners travelling to Islamic countries governed by Sharia Law are advised to dress modestly (wearing the hijab, head cover and Islamic garment) and not travel unaccompanied by a man.
A prime example of such embedded inequality is exemplified in marital relations: a man is entitled to have up to four wives. A husband, in divorcing one of his wives, need only make a declaration in front of an Islamic judge without the woman’s consent or even the requirement of her presence. However, if a woman wishes to divorce her husband, his consent is required. Men are allowed to have “temporary” marriages, a form of legal Islamic prostitution where it can even last less than half an hour – a situation allowed by some religious scholars. Temporary marriage is also known as a “pleasure marriage,” called Mutah which was established within Islam by the Muslim prophet Mohammed himself as a way to reward his jihadists for services rendered to Allah. A report by the Gatestone Institute. reveals such occurrences even in the United Kingdom. A minimum marriage age for girls set as young as 12 or 13 is not uncommon in Muslim-majority countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Yemen, to name a few. In Yemen and Afghanistan there are cases where eight-year-old girls died of internal injuries suffered on their wedding night. According to a report by Al Jazeera, “Nearly 14 percent of Yemeni girls married before the age of 15 and 52 percent before the age of 18.”
In Iran, under Sharia Law women are denigrated as second class citizens. Sex outside of the marriage is at times punished by the brutal practice of stoning to death. From the inception of the Islamic republic of Iran in 1979, the women of Iran resisted the Islamic Regime’s introduction of Sharia Law. Iranian women have been demanding changes to the laws that set the legal age of maturity for girls at 13 years old and 15 years old for boys. This means that 13-year-old girls can be married to men decades their senior, with merely the consent of her male guardian, as provided by Article 1041 of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Civil Code.
The Islamic Republic of Iran’s laws limit a girl to receiving only half the inheritance a boy receives. The inheritance that a wife receives from her husband is even less than half. Such laws cannot be condoned by women who, by official counts, occupy 70% of the university seats in Iran.
One case I would like to highlight in order to emphasize the travesty of inequality for women under Sharia is that of Reyhaneh Jabbari. The University student and interior designer, was found guilty of murder in 2009 for killing her rapist in self-defence, and sentenced to death by hanging. She was executed at age 27 after eight years of imprisonment and torture to obtain a confession.
After meeting Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi, a member of the Iranian Intelligence Service, while having coffee one day, her whole life changed forever. Overhearing her phone conversation about her work, he convinced her to meet with him for advice on renovating his office. When he picked her up for their scheduled appointment he instead took her to a rundown house, brought her inside and locked the door telling her she could not escape, then attempted to give her a drink with sedatives so he could rape her. After a struggle she stabbed his shoulder and managed to escape. Regardless of an international outcry and a petition of over 200,000 signatures, proper testimony, evidence, and confession by authorities privately to Reyhaneh that Morteza’s murder was actually set up by them for political reasons, Reyhaneh became their scapegoat, was convicted of the murder by stabbing, and received her sentence.
I was one of four campaigners to stop Reyhaneh’s execution which had been brought to our attention by her family. Our group launched a petition and collected more than 200,000 signatures. We gave media interviews, organized worldwide events and through our campaign, the international community had supported our campaign and tried to pressure the Iranian officials to stop her execution. Unfortunately, the barbaric and undemocratic practices of Sharia Law under the Islamic constitution in Iran allowed this unjust action by the Iran regime. Reyhaneh Jabbari was executed October 25, 2014.
Aside from the notorious executions of Iranian political dissidents, sexual violence is also routinely committed by the Islamic regime in Iran: Rape and gang rape by prison guards and interrogators is a common practice in the Islamic regime’s prisons. In Iranian prisons, it is common for young girls and virgins to be raped, even, as a final indignity, right before being executed. A disturbing finding of a U.N. Report of the Economic and Social Council was that virgin women condemned to death were forcibly and temporary married to officials on the eve of their execution. This continues to be a horrible reality that many women live with every single day in the prisons of Iran.
Officials would rape these women so that they would not be virgins when they die. There is a sinister and malign religious dogma behind this practice: According to the Iranian regime’s Islamic belief system, a Muslim woman who dies a virgin goes to heaven and therefore, they do not permit female political dissidents to be killed without first getting raped and losing their virginity to Iranian officials prior to their execution, to prevent their receiving a heavenly reward.
Iranian Ayatollah Mesbah has declared that if a woman is sentenced to be executed, “raping her would be as rewarding as going to Mecca on the Hajj-Islamic Pilgrimage.” However, he noted that even if she was not given a death penalty, “raping her will be as rewarding as going on a Karbala pilgrimage.” No doubt this Ayatollah is a theocratic savage.
Iranian women have suffered much due to Sharia Law: A 16-year-old girl was hanged for having had sexual relations with a 50-year-old married taxi driver. Under Islamic law in Iran, the cheating husband would be executed by the reprehensible act of stoning; however, he was not punished. Yet, 16-year-old Atefeh Sahaaleh was executed.
Closer to home, according to American gynaecologists Kavita Shah Arora and Allan Jacob, female genital mutilation should be legal in its mildest forms. They say “procedures that slightly changed the look of a girl’s genitalia without damaging them were comparable to male circumcision or cosmetic procedures in Western countries like labiaplasty.” The two American gynaecologists have stated that countries which have banned female genital mutilation (FGM) should allow less invasive practices such as small surgical nicks to girls’ genitalia as a compromise. CBC Canada This proposal was strongly criticized by activists against FGM where they stated that it would undermine global efforts to eradicate the internationally condemned barbaric practice.
According to a report published by CIJ News, “Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, a Canadian and Toronto-based Muslim scholar clarifies the Islamic Law regarding the popular practice in Muslim countries of circumcising the girls. Bilal Philips asserts that Islam prohibits female genital mutilation, but permits female circumcision, which is a “slight” cut that does not affect the ability of women to achieve sexual satisfaction.”
At least 200 million girls and women have been subjected to FGM in over 30 countries, according to U.N. estimates. (For reference, please see the slide show and the Petition concerning FGM in Somalia.)
In Iran, women have resisted for 37 years these very Sharia Laws that are now being incorporated in the West in the name of ‘multiculturalism.’
Activism Against Sharia Law
A few Muslim Feminists have different opinions about the interpretations of Sharia law oppressing women and argue that it has no basis in Islam and basically consists of man-made interpretations of the Qur’anic texts. “I argue that Muslim family laws are the products of sociocultural assumptions and juristic reasoning about the nature of relations between men and women. In other words, they are ‘man-made’ juristic constructs, shaped by the social, cultural and political conditions within which Islam’s sacred texts are understood and turned into law.”
One Muslim imam who is defending violence against women in the name of Islamic law states that laws protecting women from violence are un-Islamic.
Maryam Namazie, an outstanding Iranian Feminist from the UK who is an outspoken activist against Sharia law said in a recent speech: “For me, ‘Islamic feminism’ is an oxymoron like ‘Islamic human rights;’ they are antithetical to each other. If there are better laws for women in some countries where Islam plays a role, it is not because of Islam but because of secular movements calling for the separation of religion from the state and its laws. Why must Maryam Namazie take on the left in her critiques of Islamic extremism?” In an interview podcasted by Feminist Current, “Namaze who is an atheist, a leftist, a feminist, a critic of Islamic extremism, and co-founder of the British Council of Ex-Muslims is routinely attacked and disallowed a platform — not only by Islamic groups, but by feminists and leftists, who call her Islamophobic.” Is there an explanation for why feminists and leftists take this stance?
‘Women on The Front Line’ is a documentary film written and produced by Sheema Kalbasi, an award-winning eminent Iranian-American filmmaker and poet. This documentary, about life under Sharia Law, unveils injustice and focuses on women fighting for equality and freedom in Iran.
Iranian Canadian Homa Arjmand has experienced life under Law in Iran where she was arrested and many of her friends either arrested or executed under Islamic law in Iran. “In 1989 Homa, her husband and their two small children escaped by a grueling trip on horseback through the mountains. Today, she lives in a suburb northeast of Toronto. Her job is helping immigrant Muslim women in distress. And now she is battling the arrival of Sharia Law in Canada.”
In an interview given to Jerusalem Online, Iranian-Canadians Dr. Sima Goel, author of Fleeing the Hijab, Dr. Avideh Motmaen-Far and I explained the plight of Iranian women after Rouhani’s presidency under Islamic law and Iran’s discriminatory laws against women under Islamic Penal Code where woman’s testimony in court is half that of a man’s and a woman’s life is half that of a man’s. I was imprisoned as a teenager in Iran’s most notorious Evin prison and paid the price for not accepting the Sharia Law which enforced by the Khomeinist regime.
I was in my early teens when Khomeini came into power. Overnight, all women, including elementary school girls, were forced to cover their bodies from head to toe and were ordered to only wear dark colors.
We were no longer allowed to attend school with the opposite sex. Our once- praised school curriculum was now replaced by Arabic and Islamic studies, including the Quran, which most of us simply loathed. It was at this time that I had an awakening and started my activism. I was robbed of my teen years by a radical regime that sought to force its values on the masses by devastating force. My childhood memories were replaced by a reality created by a regime where women were now treated as second class citizens, and even the most mundane detail of our lives was strictly controlled by the regime’s Revolutionary Guards Forces and morality police.
Like most teenagers in high school, I spoke my mind about the changes that were happening in my country. In a modern society, teenagers attend school, openly spend time with friends, listen to their favorite music and do all the things that teenagers do. I was arrested by five very large, heavy-set guards. I remember distinctly four vehicles that came to our house to take me away, a 16 year-old girl who barely weighed 90 pounds. The terror I experienced may be unfathomable to the Western imagination, but this was to be my reality for the next 18 months.
In my young mind full of trust, I did not think that a simple conversation — having an opinion and simply expressing it — would put my life in danger. As a teenager, I never considered the possibility of being tortured and that I would be reminded of this torture every time I would look in the mirror and see the scar on my face, a result of being beaten with a very heavy piece of iron while being interrogated. As a teenager, I did not consider that my life would be forever changed.
The United Nations supports equal rights for women and in November 2011 adopted a new campaign aimed at ending violence against women. The UN Declaration of Human Rights includes equal rights for women and calls on Islamic countries to follow these regulations. But the Muslim Brotherhood issued a statement in March 2013 condemning this UN declaration for violating Islamic Sharia Law principles.
In The Name Of ‘Multiculturalism’
The West, instead of fighting against Shariah Law, standing in solidarity with the victims of Islamist oppression and enabling the integration of Muslims into the West, is actually defending misogyny in the name of standing up for the perceived underdog: Even the possibility that Sharia Law could supplant or become part of a two-tiered legal system is a strong indicator that multiculturalism is a huge failure.
It is very important to remember that the entire foundation of multiculturalism was based on the theory that, if we allowed immigrants to keep their culture, (multiculturalism) would end after their generation: their children would obviously want to be Western and would neatly adopt our societal norms. We didn’t count on radical or fundamentalist Islam and closed or isolated Islamic communities that intentionally separate themselves from the rest of society in order to preserve and grow their culture.
Eliminating this type of injustice will only happen if we exert inescapable pressure on local, national, and international governments and organizations. Rights and freedoms are never given, they are taken. Although these rights are inherent, they are not freely honoured, and so strife and relentless effort is the only way to emerge victorious from the ashes of defeat. With the love, dedication and help of people—not men, not women, but human beings—gender equality will be the prevalent principle by which all humanity will abide.
Over the years the mandates of women’s organizations have changed. They started in the 1920s fighting for basic rights in a male-dominated society and in the 1970s fighting for equal rights in the workplace. More recently, with the change of focus from the advancement of women – to networking and supportive fellowship – there seems to have arisen a false sense of security that our right to equality is now static and no longer fragile.
Mass immigration from countries with political and social regimes that increasingly subjugate women creates a highly-visible minority community of women whose understanding of their role is very different than our own North American and western standard. With little to no feminist activity for nearly two generations, our women’s organizations are ill-equipped to stand up for our own culture, to insist on integration and egalitarianism, and speak out against Sharia Law. Instead, they have been groomed to support and nurture the perceived underdog, not realizing that the underdog is now actually us.
Most women’s organizations do not support Sharia Law, and are placing their faith in our government to ensure that it doesn’t pass into fruition by political action or by political stealth. Without a strong feminist backbone or experience strategizing unified messages of assertion, they are extremely uncomfortable speaking out against the political culture of this wave of women, and instead default to being “nice”, “accommodating”, and aligning themselves with the perceived “misunderstood” newcomers. As the newcomers praise them for their understanding and kindness, the women’s organizations feel that they are being “diverse”, “open minded” and “helpful”. They don’t have the capacity to see the big picture, so they focus on the one being shown to them instead.
To defenders of human rights, such as myself, it never occurred that radical or fundamental Islam whose ethics are anathema to ours, would be welcomed by a Canadian government. We have been brainwashed by the concept of “diversity’ and “political correctness” to the point that we can’t find a women’s organization to stand up and take a hard line of Sharia. They’re not used to it. Rather they are used to bending over backwards to accommodate minority groups.
According to a petition written by the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA), Canada was reviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in July 2015. The Committee was assessing Canada’s compliance with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. “The Human Rights Committee has highlighted violations of Women’s Covenant- protected human rights that may result from state-imposed regulations on the clothing women wear in public. It specifically includes among the rights endangered by such regulations, a woman’s rights to freedom of religion, to manifest in public her religious beliefs, and to be considered equal before courts and tribunals.” In their petition FAFIA protests attacks on the rights of Muslim women and states: “Feminists understand well that patriarchy demands or encourages women, depending on differing religions or cultures, to either cover or uncover our bodies, or parts of our bodies. We do not all agree about the implications for equality of covering or uncovering. But we women need to control our own bodies, including what we wear, rather than being dictated to by political leaders, and being punished by losing access to our human rights.”
National Canadian front feminist organizations do little to prevent violence caused by Shari’a Law. Take the Ottawa Hijab Day, World Hijab Day, where such “Feminist” organizations encourage non-Muslims to try on the Islamic covering, almost promoting it. Then there is the attempt to make the hijab a fashion statement by designers and having hijab-wearing dolls for young girls.
Muslim Canadian author, Suhail Kapoor in his book, Balancing Life and Beyond, advocates that within the tenets of Islam, it is permissible to “lightly” strike your spouse if she exhibits serious moral misconduct. In a chapter entitled “Does Islam Allow Wife Beating?” Kapoor outlines the circumstances under which it is appropriate for a man to punish his wife using “light” slaps on the wrist with a small wooden stick.” In a statement to QMI Agency (March 12, 2013) Suhail Kapoor said the permission to reprint his book was granted by the Ottawa-Centre MPP, Yasir Naqvi’s office. (MPP Naqvi is a Pakistani born Canadian and the Ontario Liberal Government House Leader. Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.)
The UN, the world’s most powerful human rights defender NGO, is affiliated with the dictatorships and human rights basket cases in its leadership roles and positions that entail responsibilities diametrically opposed to their qualifications. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is also an adviser or affiliated with many of these commissions. Their view of Human Rights is based on Sharia Law and of course it’s not the same as our understanding of Human Rights and Gender Equality. 28
As a defender and advocate for human rights, I strongly condemn Islamic Sharia Law which is opposed to democracy, having the ultimate purpose to destroy liberty and dominate the world.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/shariah-law-violates-freedoms-e1462272331788.jpg356640Shabnam Assadollahihttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngShabnam Assadollahi2016-05-03 06:45:412016-05-03 06:54:22Islamic Law versus Liberty, Equality and Democracy
In a recent letter to the WSJ Editor (at this date unpublished) David A. Kallman, Sr. Counsel for the Great Lakes Justice Center in Lansing, Michigan, wrote:
In the controversy over bathrooms/LGBT “rights,” it is curious that companies like Dow Chemical, Alcoa and Monsanto have chosen sides (WSJ 4/18/16), along with Disney, the NBA and NFL…The hysteria and lies from opponents of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are outrageous….They claim “RFRA is a license to discriminate.”…. RFRA is not a “license” to do anything. It is merely a defense against attempted infringement of religious rights. The bi-partisan Federal RFRA, co-sponsored by Senators Kennedy and Schumer, was supported by numerous liberal and conservative organizations, including the ACLU, American Jewish Committee, National Association of Evangelicals, Baptist Joint Committee, and National Council of Churches.
In the transgender bathroom “rights” controversy, much is at stake….No tolerance exists for anyone who disagrees with “their truth.” Must we all praise a 40 year old cross-dressing man using the women’s’ bathroom as a hero for justice while condemning a teenage girl as a hateful bigot for simply wanting her privacy and safety protected? You decide.
William Wagner, former Federal Magistrate Judge and Constitutional Law Professor, stated: “All states prohibit criminal sexual conduct, e.g., indecent exposure. No civil law purporting to allow such criminal activity protects a perpetrator from prosecution.” Yet, the moral high ground (funnily enough) is claimed by toxic polluters, Dow , Monsanto, and Alcoa. Disney’s employment of child molesters competes with the NBA and NFL’snasty habit of shielding million-dollar brawny players who beat up women and cheat on child support. The safety of women and children is clearly not the priority of such misogynist bureaucrats. So whose tune are they dancing to? And why? As to the reality of alleged “transgender” persons, lawyers defending the woman suing Planet Fitness did a quick search:
SAN BERNARDINO CO., CA (2013) – A 46- year-old man cross-dressed as a woman to gain access to a women’s dormitory and other female only facilities to take pictures of women with a cell phone hidden in his purse.
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON (2012) – A 45- year-old man, who self-identified as a woman, used all of the woman’s facilities at the Evergreen State College swimming pool. He exposed himself to minor girls from the local area who would use the college’s swimming pool.
PORTLAND, OREGON (2011) – A convicted sex offender for offenses against children claimed to be a transgender woman and wore a dress to access areas where young girls would change, such as locker rooms and swimming pools.
TORONTO, CANADA (2014) – A man claimed to be transgender to stay at a women’s shelter where he then assaulted several women.
PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA (2013) – A 33- year-old man was charged after allegedly dressing as a woman to secretly videotape women using the restroom at Macy’s.
COLUMBUS, OHIO (2014) – A man was claiming to be a woman to use a cell phone to take pictures of women using the restroom.
EVERETT, WASHINGTON (2012) – A nontransgender man wore a bra and wig to gain entry to a women’s bathroom at a local community college to take pictures and admitted to using the women’s showers for sexual gratification.
BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND (2011) – A student wore a mask and wig to gain entry to a women’s bathroom to spy on women and make recordings of a sexual nature.
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA (2010) – A man twice disguised himself as a woman to gain access to the showers of a U.C. Berkeley locker room to take pictures of women.
Instances of cross-dressing men invading women’s privacy illustrates how such obscene conduct threatens the survival instincts of girls and women—normal, real men know this and will protect women and girls at all cost. At this time, the rates of rape of college girls and women in “higher” education is shocking! It is just such mean spirited men who eventually run major businesses, sports groups, banks, entertainers and politicians, demand that females receive all male sociopaths who “feel” they are women. (right, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/10/7/report-sexual-offense-high) Really?!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/misogyny-Google-Search-e1462018866595.png404640Dr. Judith Reismanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Judith Reisman2016-04-30 08:28:502017-08-04 05:53:39Trangenderism — The Hatred of Women Writ Large
Since the announcement by Target that it will allow men to use women’s bathrooms there have been arrests of men secretly filming women. This is the cheap way to make pornographic films, all at the expense of Target customers. Customers violated include women and underage children.
Ashley Lahue from KMOV TV in St. Louis on April 27th reported, “An O’Fallon, Missouri man was arrested on April 23, 2015 after allegedly secretly filming women in a Target dressing room. Matthew Foerstel, 26, faces felony charges for invasion of privacy in the second degree and unlawful possession of a firearm.”
The same is happening on college and university campuses.
Project Veritas did a video expose of a University of North Carolina, Ashville official allowing a man, who self identifies as a sexual predator, to use the women’s bathroom:
Several states, including North Carolina, have restricted access to public bathrooms based upon a person’s birth gender. Most recently a Florida School District has done the same. The Liberty Council reports:
Effective this morning, the Marion County School Board affirmed the constitutional expectation of its student’s privacy by requiring students to use the bathrooms and other facilities based on biological sex, as requested by Liberty Counsel. This 4-1 vote happened late last night. It will allow students of only one gender, that of their birth, into a bathroom or locker room.
Liberty Counsel represented Harrell “Hal” Phillips before the Marion County School Board in support of this commonsense bathroom policy. Phillips and his son are devout Christians who believe strongly in both biblical modesty and constitutional privacy. Last week, Phillips’ son was extremely upset when he encountered a female student in the boy’s bathroom at his high school, Vanguard High School in Ocala, FL. This was a place where he has a reasonable expectation that he will not encounter the opposite sex. Liberty Counsel also offered to defend the school board for free if the board is sued for adopting this policy.
The U.S. Constitution establishes a protection of the privacy of Americans, and our public school students do not give that up when they enter a public school bathroom. This policy protects the privacy rights and safety of all Marion County students. The four board members who voted to approve the policy should be commended for their common sense and courage in the face of threats and intimidation by the ACLU and its allies.
It also appears that Florida is considering a bill similar to that passed by the North Carolina legislature. Pedro Gonzales from The American Thinker reports, “Florida is considering a law which would require men to use men’s bathrooms and women to use women’s bathrooms, and not let them pick and choose.
It seems the majority of U.S companies have suddenly gone berserk, hotly defending the “right” of men to use female restrooms.
But are we to believe all their employees have obediently embraced homosexuality and gender-bending, and are also eager to deny the religious liberties of those who don’t?
Are so-called “LGBT” behaviors being welcomed with open arms by Joe and Jane American Worker at Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Coca-Cola, Target, PayPal, Apple, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, Time-Warner, Marriott, Hilton, Kellogg, First Data, Amazon and SalesForce? How about the NFL, NCAA and ESPN?
Hardly.
In fact, within these companies there may be revolution brewing. People are fed up with management’s blatant support of harmful, depraved lifestyles that apparently compel people to spitefully and deliberately discriminate against faithful Christians.
Last week, I heard from a woman who contacted me after reading my articles. She has quite a story to tell about being fired from her counseling position by a lesbian supervisor. Her termination wasn’t even related to a dispute about homosexuality, but simply because she was known to be a Christian with a desire to sometimes pray with counseling clients, with their consent.
What would you think if famed Hall of Fame NBA player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who stands 7’2, claimed to be five foot tall? What would you think if South African president, Jacob Zuma claimed to be president of the U.S.? What would you think if I told you the Washington Wizards of the NBA was currently playing in the playoffs even though they are not?
Let’s take this a step further. What would you think if Abdul-Jabbar wanted to have all of his legal documents (driver’s license, passport, medical records) made to reflect his contention that he was five foot tall despite all evidence that he is seven two? What would you think if Zuma wanted the United Nations (U.N.) to recognize him as the duly elected president of the U.S.? What would you think if the Wizards went to the commissioner of the NBA and demanded an opponent to play even though they are not eligible to participate in the playoffs?
This type of behavior is the clinical definition of psychosis. According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), psychosis is “a severe mental disorder in which a person loses the ability to recognize reality…having false ideas about what is taking place or who one is, and seeing, hearing or feeling things that are not there.”
So, the point is, no matter what Abdul-Jabbar says he is; there is nothing that can change the fact that he is seven two. Even if the U.N. wanted to recognize Zuma as the U.S. president, there is nothing they can do to make that a reality. The Wizards claiming they “deserve” to be in the playoff won’t change the reality that they are not in the playoffs.
Abdul-Jabbar can insist he is five foot tall until he is blue in the face; but the U.S. government will never “officially” recognize him as such. The American people will never recognize Zuma as our elected president regardless of how vigorously he claims to be. The Wizards can organize protests all across the country, but there is nothing they can do to be included in the NBA playoffs. I am sure most of us would consider it very strange to try to change each of these three situations in the face of established facts to the contrary.
Most of us would consider a person who refused to accept the absolute facts of these situations as having some type of mental issue or psychosis as defined above.
Unfortunately, too many people today are refusing to accept reality; thus an alarming rate of psychosis being revealed not only in the U.S.; but throughout the world.
I recently had a discussion with my doctor about Bruce Jenner, who was born with a penis, and yet “claims” to be a girl. My doctor indicated that even if Jenner were to have a surgical vagina created; biologically and genetically, he would still be a male.
If Jenner’s body was discovered a thousand years from now, my doctor continued, and a DNA test was run; Jenner would be labeled as a male.
So, this whole foolishness about men born with a penis or women born with a vagina being able to “self-identify” as a woman or a man, respectively is the very definition of psychosis.
As in my opening three examples, there is absolutely nothing that can be done or said to change the reality of if you were born with a penis, you are a male; and if you are born with a vagina, you are a female.
You can have all the relevant body parts changed, but biologically and genetically, you still are who you were at birth—male or female.
So if Abdul-Jabbar can’t legally place on his documents that he is five foot tall; Zuma can’t legally be recognized as the U.S. president; and the Wizards can’t be in the NBA playoff simply by saying they are; then simply saying something is true does not make it true. A male who has a penis cannot and should not be allowed to go to the girl’s bathroom simply because they “claim” they are a girl. A female who has a vagina cannot and should not be allowed to go to the boy’s bathroom simply because they “claim” they are a boy.
What would be the legal basis for codifying such an act?
In order to accept the transgender argument; then you must allow Abdul-Jabbar to be listed as five foot tall, Zuma to be recognized as president of the U.S.; and the Wizards to play in the playoffs. Both sets of examples are based strictly on each person’s distorted view of reality in opposition to all the available facts. Both are simply based on a person’s verbally claiming something is reality; even though the verbal statements are without fact or merit.
In the immortal words of Michael McDonald of the Doobie Brothers, “what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away; because what seems to be is always better than nothing at all.”
The Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth as you will” (2:223).
It declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282).
It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly, then only one, or one that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (4:3).
It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah directs you as regards your children’s inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (4:11).
Worst of all, the Qur’an tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property. So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them” (4:34).
It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” (65:4).
Islamic law stipulates that a man’s prayer is annulled if a dog or a woman passes in front of him as he is praying. “Narrated ‘Aisha: The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, ‘You have made us (i.e. women) dogs.’ I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him.” (Sahih Bukhari 1.9.490)
Calvin Woodward
“AP ‘Corrects’ Trump For Saying Islam Treats Women Badly,” by Blake Neff, Daily Caller, March 12, 2016 (thanks to Thomas):
The Associated Press published a “fact check” of Donald Trump’s claim during Thursday’s GOP debate that “Islam treats women horribly,” saying it is untrue, even though there is ample evidence for such a statement.
“No such generalization is supported by the diverse circumstances for women in the Muslim world,” writes the AP’s Calvin Woodward.
Woodward backs up his argument with several statements.
“The United States has yet to see a woman as president, many years after Muslim women achieved national leadership in other countries, most prominently Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto back in the late 1980s and in the 1990s,” he says, glossing over the fact Bhutto was assassinated in 2007, and that her rise was enabled by the fact she was in an extremely powerful political dynasty.
Woodward also dismisses other ways Islamic doctrine leads to women being legally or socially limited, arguing that many women prefer it that way.
“Some Muslim societies are indeed repressive by Western standards, enforcing or pressing for norms such as clothing that covers all but their eyes or faces; bans on driving, voting and education; and restrictions on interacting with the other sex,” he writes. “But many Muslim women adhere to Islamic norms not out of fear or repression, but in observance of faith and their own preference.”…
…a 2012 report by the World Economic Forum ranked 135 countries based on their level of gender equality — measured by women’s level of education, political empowerment, health and economic opportunity. Of the 135 countries on the list, the most highly-ranked one with a Muslim majority was Kyrgyzstan at 35th. Fifteen of the bottom 20 countries are Muslim, while three more have large Muslim minorities.
Several of the world’s most severe violations of women’s rights are most common in Islamic countries. For example, the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) is seen most often in the Islamic world, as the practice occurs frequently in central Africa, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen and Indonesia. Most Muslim countries allow men, but not women, to practice polygamy. Child marriage is a major issue in several Muslim countries because Islam generally allows women to be married off at a very young age. In Pakistan, an effort to ban child marriage was blocked after clerics declared it un-Islamic.
There are many ways in which women are treated as inferior to men under Islamic law (Sharia). In many Muslim countries, a woman’s testimony is treated as one-half of a man’s testimony in certain trials. Women may initiate divorce in Islam, but are at a disadvantage relative to men. When women are murdered or are otherwise the victims of crime, Islamic jurisprudence holds that less blood money be paid out than in the case of a man. Women may collect inheritances, but in most cases their share is half that of men’s….
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is for illustration only. To view graphic images of Muslim women battered under Islamic shariah laws click here. Many Muslim and non-Muslim women are subjected to sexual jihad. Sexual jihad (Arabic: جهاد النكاح, jihad al-nikah) is the practice of women within some Wahhabist groups who are allegedly voluntarily offering themselves in sexual comfort roles to men fighting for the establishment of Islamic rule.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/muslim-woman-violence.jpg337640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2016-03-14 08:09:182016-03-14 08:16:29Associated Press ‘corrects’ Trump for saying Islam treats women badly
School officials in Rochester, New York are getting flak from angry parents and teachers for holding an event in solidarity with World Hijab Day. The event, held at the school and during school hours, encouraged the high school girls to wear the Islamic headscarf for the day. Boys were given carnations to wear in solidarity.
Unsuspecting students put on the 150 headscarves that were brought by teachers before the first bell rang. They were encouraged to participate in the “cultural event” by the school’s principal Sheela Webster, who insisted the headscarf had nothing to do with religion, but rather all about the “experiental” and “was actually around learning about the cloth.”
“Our perspective in it was not religious – it was really about experiential,” she said. “We are an experiential school; we engage kids in all kinds of activities and projects all of the time, so the perspective of being able to learn what a hijab is, why some women choose to wear it and why some women don’t choose to wear it, and we provide the opportunity to experience it; it is well within protocol of experiential learning.”
Unfortunately, learning about “why some women don’t choose to wear it” – or more pointedly, what happens to women in certain Muslim countries and societies who have no choice whether or not to wear it — was not part of the program.
As prominent Muslim human rights activist Asra Nomani writes in the Washington Post, events such as these are a “painful reminder of the well-financed effort by conservative Muslims to dominate modern Muslim societies. This modern-day movement spreads an ideology of political Islam, called ‘Islamism,’ enlisting well-intentioned interfaith do-gooders and the media into promoting the idea that ‘hijab’ is a requirement of Islam.”
Concurrent with the advent Islamism comes the culture of “honor,” the idea that a family’s or a husband’s honor lies in the chastity and modesty of their female members. To the Islamist, the hijab has become the quintessential symbol of that honor.
Stories have, unfortunately, become common in our time of women — both in the West as well in Muslim countries– who have been “honor” killed by their families or societies for not wearing a hijab.
Asra Nomani grew up in India in the 1960s in a conservative Muslim family. Yet, there was no Islamic law at the time that women should cover their hair. “But, starting in the 1980s,” she relates, “following the 1979 Iranian revolution of the minority Shiite sect and the rise of well-funded Saudi clerics from the majority Sunni sect, we have been bullied in an attempt to get us to cover our hair from men and boys.”
On a theological level, it is interesting to note how many prominent Islamic theologians reject the idea that women are required to wear a hijab.
It is likely that high school sophomore Eman Muthana, originally from Yemen, who wears a hijab and requested the event, was unaware of history of the cloth she wears around her head every day.
Commenting on the event, Muthana said, “I just feel proud that I’m sharing my culture and actually not forcing that on them, because everybody has the choice to do that so. I just feel happy that they are supporting me. We are in America; everybody has the freedom of religion, I cannot force anything. And also, I cannot do anything bad to a country that opened its door for me.”
But somewhere, it seems, that was some coercion. A spokesman for the school district said, after consulting with a lawyer, he was told “there would be more of a legal issue if the school said no to the event” than to host it.
Locals took to social media to voice their disapproval. High school teacher Jim Farnholz wrote, “As a high school teacher for over 30 years, let me say that this is wrong on so many levels. All religions are taught in our global studies classes. That being said, that is where understanding, tolerance and the good and bad of religion and history are taught. This, however, is a clear violation of separation of church and state.”
“What lesson will they wear a Yarmulke in? Or the Christian cross? Or the Hindu turban?” Dan Lane posted. “Funny how it always seems to be the Muslims they learn about, even in Common Core.”
“How disgusting and irresponsible for any educator to encourage a child to wear a symbol of oppression, whether it be religious or cultural,” Rebecca Sluman wrote.
Americans, who enjoy, religious freedom, must be wary of becoming unknowing accomplices to the agenda of political Islam. Commenting on events such as these, Nomani pleads, “Do not wear a headscarf in ‘solidarity’ with the ideology that most silences us, equating our bodies with ‘honor.’ Stand with us instead with moral courage against the ideology of Islamism.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/American-Muslim-Women-IP_1-e1455542610809.jpg398640Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2016-02-15 08:25:342017-03-16 07:39:19World Hijab Day Debuts in American Schools
The Honorable Mayor Jim Watson
Ottawa City Hall
110 Laurier Avenue west
Ottawa Ontario K1P 1J1.
Canada
The Honorable Mayor, Jim Watson,
I hope you will take the time to listen to my concerns about “Ottawa Hijab Day” scheduled in Ottawa, Feb 25th, 2016 and that you will give serious consideration to my request outlined below.
I am someone who believes in information and education. What reasonable person could possibly object to an event which promotes “education, acceptance and tolerance”? Unless, of course, the “education” was disinformation; the “acceptance” was acceptance of a superordinate (according to Islamists) legal system (i.e. Sharia Law) that is contrary to our democratic values and human rights; the “tolerance” was tolerance of an extremist ideology that condones honour killings, FGM and treatment of women that is incompatible with Canadian values.
I would ask that you not discount me as a “racist” or an “Islamophobe”. I am a well-educated, patriotic Canadian, who is a strong proponent of diversity and freedom of religion. I am not anti-Muslim, but I do have serious concerns about extremist Islamic ideology that runs counter to the Canadian values I hold dear. I have known and liked many Muslims, who share my Canadian values, and are what could be called secular Muslims. They or their parents may have immigrated here to escape Sharia Law and to embrace Canadian values. (Unfortunately, not all Muslims who immigrate here do so for those reasons.)
One of the ways in which Islam differs from other religions is that, in addition to the individual, religious component, it also has a political component and a judicial component. As a politician, you are likely to have listened to presentations by political groups (or individuals representing those political groups), whose goal it is to present extremist Islamic ideology in a favourable light, for example, by saying that the hijab is just a sign of “modesty” and that it is worn voluntarily by Muslim women. (What Canadian could be against freedom of choice?) Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. In fact, the hijab is a symbol of adherence to an extremist Islamic ideology and in Muslim countries women who wear it do not do so freely. I am attaching a few links for you to videos, articles, etc., which will present you with an alternate view to that which you have likely been presented by members of activist organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, such as the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Muslim Students Associations, and many more. I would ask you to watch these videos – none of them are in any way “racist”. They are thoughtful, educational pieces intended to make people think.
First of all, the idea that the hijab or the niqab are in any way “traditional” Muslim dress is absolute hogwash! They are relatively recent adoptions which are the result of Saudi Arabia having exported its extremist, Wahabbist/Salafist brand of Islam around the world. Along with the clothing come the extremist ideas!
Second, I am attaching a video of a speech by the so-called “Pope” of Sunni Islam (the most populous school of Islam and the school to which Saudi Wahabbism and Salafism belong) in which he argues for the wearing of the hijab. You will note that not once does he mention “modesty” as a reason to wear the hijab, but the reasons that he does give are not in keeping with integration into Canadian society.
I am also attaching a video by Bill Warner, Ph.D., entitled “The Political Side of Hijabs“, which I hope you will find interesting and enlightening.
Third, and related to whether or not the wearing of the hijab is voluntary for all Muslim women, even in Canada, I ask you to remember the unfortunate cases of Aqsa Parvez, a Toronto teen who was strangled by her father and/or brother for not wearing the hijab. You will also remember, no doubt, the horrific case of the Montreal Shafia family “honour killings” of 3 daughters and a second wife by the father/husband and the brother, because they did not adhere to his extremist ideology, but, instead, adopted Canadian values.. These Muslim women were Canadian citizens and their killings were not only criminal; they were motivated by beliefs that are contrary to the values of equality of women and human rights.
Request: I would like to request that you advise CAWI that, while they may continue to hold their hijab day as a privately-sponsored event, they may not call it “Ottawa Hijab Day”, as this gives the incorrect impression that it has been officially proclaimed by the City of Ottawa. In future, events which encourage non-Muslim women to try on or wear the hijab may not be held at City Hall. You may wish to give them any or all of the following reasons:
“While City Council fully endorses activities which increase understanding between cultural and religious groups, so-called “Wear the Hijab” events are a sensitive issue and do not necessarily achieve the aim of increasing inter-faith or inter-cultural understanding. Some women feel that wearing the hijab is their choice, while others see it as a religious obligation; still others see it as cultural, not religious. Some feel strongly about the many Muslim women, including Canadian women, who have been killed for not wearing the hijab and believe that to celebrate the wearing of the hijab would be to do them a disservice. Some women believe that wearing the hijab is a private choice or a religious duty which identifies them as Muslim and find it offensive that non-Muslim women should wear the hijab, for any reason. Some view “Wear the Hijab” days as a form of proselytizing. In closing, while people of all religious faiths are welcome to live and practice their faith in Ottawa, City Council will not proclaim individual days dedicated to the wearing of particular items of religious apparel or accouterments of any faith, nor will it approve the use of “Ottawa” as part of the name of any such private event, or the use of City property to celebrate such private events. ”
In closing, I would like to thank you for reading my letter. I hope you will think very carefully about the message that “Ottawa Hijab Day” sends to Canadians and internationally, particularly to those women who do not have a choice, who may be trying to escape a life of oppression, circumscribed by religious extremism, where their human rights are violated and possibly even their lives are at risk. Ottawa should be known as a city which promotes freedom of religion and equality of men and women. Allowing a private group to advertise an “Ottawa Hijab Day” and to hold an associated event at City Hall may do damage to the City’s reputation by appearing to favour one religion over others (possibly even proselytizing on behalf of that religion) and by being seen to promote the wearing (even by non-Muslims) of a controversial item of clothing such as the hijab, which is associated in many countries with an extremist ideology that devalues women and curtails their human rights. Such events are better held at a mosque, without the assistance of public money, either directly or indirectly.
A better alternative would be to hold an Ottawa Women’s Day (for women of all faiths and cultures) or an Ottawa Human Rights Day or an Ottawa Equality Day, all of which are inclusive and promote the values that Canadians and Ottawans hold dear!
Sincerely,
Shabnam Assadollahi
Iranian Canadian human rights activist, Ottawa
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/hijab-woman-orange-eye-e1455399922408.png355640Shabnam Assadollahihttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngShabnam Assadollahi2016-02-13 16:48:362016-02-18 07:36:49Open Letter to Ottawa’s Mayor RE: ‘Hijab Day’
“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”
It’s one of Madeline Albright’s most famous lines, and she’s brought it out on any number of occasions. Starbucks even put it on a coffee cup. I understand why. It’s eminently quotable and suggests a kind of tough-minded sisterhood that can be appealing. I can see its ready application, for example, when helping a drunk friend get home safely from a party or when holding another mom’s infant so she can use the restroom in peace.
But Albright should have been a lot more careful before she applied her signature line to what she sees as an obligation for women to vote for Hillary Clinton in the democratic primaries. Because the minute that you take her line out of the context of relationships among people and move it to the political context it loses whatever tough-minded charm it has, and it becomes a bullying, sexist, prescriptivist piece of obnoxious nonsense.
I don’t believe in hell, so threatening me with it has never had much purchase. But to the best of my understanding, for religions that do believe in hell, the things that get people sent there are sins against God or against other people. Taking a political action that someone doesn’t agree with (voting for someone other than Hillary Clinton) doesn’t seem to fit that bill in any way. Suggesting that it does mingles church and state in ways that sit uncomfortably with long American traditions.
And even if voting in a way that Albright thinks is wrong is a sin that leads to damnation, if Albright really is a believer in eternal torment and hellfire, she should probably be led by the many New Testament verses that counsel believers to use gentle correction and instruction toward those who have gone astray.
If Albright isn’t a believer in eternal torment and hellfire, she might be well advised to keep theology out of her politics entirely.
But even if we leave aside the myriad objections that arise when a bullying and inaccurate theology is dragged into the political realm, Albright’s insistence that women have a duty to vote for Clinton because she is also a woman remains moronic.
It is sexism of the oldest and most annoying type. With one comment, Albright managed to suggest the following:
Women should shut up and vote the way they are told to vote.
All women should vote the same way.
All women have the same interests and objectives.
Women who have made choices others disagree with have chosen incorrectly and must be brought back into line.
Women cannot be trusted to recognize (and vote in favor of) their best interests.
Women have, over the centuries, gotten quite practiced at responding to these particular bits of idiocy. So while it’s disconcerting, at best, to hear this tosh from a woman of Albright’s stature and experience, it’s not particularly challenging to formulate an intelligent response. In fact, one thing that makes Albright’s comment so maddening is that, to many women, it seems so incredibly retrograde when applied to politics. It ignores the very real progress made by 21st century feminist thinkers in recognizing the different kinds of lives lived by different kinds of women — from different classes, of different colors, with different religions, of different sexualities, and in different bodies. By shouting right over that kind of nuance, Albright’s comment sounds like it’s stuck in the feminism of the 1960s.
But it’s worse than that. In its gender essentialism — its insistence that women are all women and therefore all alike — Albright’s comment could have been ripped right out of the first years of the 20th century. Or the 19th century. Or the 18th.
Happily, we have had Mary Wollstonecraft around for the past nearly 225 years to respond to that kind of nonsense. Albright would do better if, like Wollstonecraft, she would “consider women in the grand light of human creatures, who, in common with men, are placed on this earth to unfold their faculties.”
Telling a woman how she should vote because she is a woman is no less insulting than telling her that she shouldn’t vote because she is a woman. Both approaches deny an individual the opportunity to unfold her unique faculties as she sees fit. Both approaches reduce a complex individual to a single characteristic. Politics routinely does this to all sorts of groups — women, people of color, people of faith, gun owners — and it is in every case an insult to the dignity of the individual.
But Albright’s comment does something even worse. Or perhaps, for our purposes, it does something even better. Albright’s comment reveals the truth about politics. And that truth is that Clinton’s run for the White House, like Sanders’s run, or Trump’s, or Bush’s, or Cruz’s, or anyone’s, is not about serving the people.
We are told to vote for Clinton because we have a special duty to help other women. But Albright and Clinton do not mean that we have a special duty to the women standing next to us in line at the grocery store, or to the women who are suffering from poverty, or out of work, or abused by their spouses, or harassed by their bosses. They mean that we have a special duty to one woman: Hillary Clinton. It is our duty, as women, to help her to a spot in the White House, because no woman has done that before. Seeing her up there proves … something. And it will make us all feel … something.
That’s pretty weak tea, Albright.
But it is, at least, weak tea that exposes the fundamental truth about politics. It’s not about helping women. Or men. Or people of color. Or the unemployed. Or whomever we are told it is about helping.
Sarah Skwireis the poetry editor of the Freeman and a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis. She is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/albright.jpg400640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2016-02-11 16:43:012016-02-11 16:43:23No, Women Are Not Obliged to Vote for Hillary by Sarah Skwire
There is growing controversy about the proposal to force women to register for the draft. It has become a point of contention in the presidential primaries. Jazz Shaw from HotAir.com reports:
Ted Cruz on Sunday [February 7, 2016] said he opposes requiring women to register for a potential draft, breaking with Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, all of whom indicated support for opening up the Selective Service to women during Saturday night’s [GOP] debate.
“I have to admit, as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was, ‘Are you guys nuts?’” Cruz said Sunday, speaking at a town hall here. “Listen, we have had enough with political correctness, especially in the military. Political correctness is dangerous. And the idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think is wrong, it is immoral, and if I am president, we ain’t doing it.”
To applause, Cruz went on to note that he is a father to two daughters, and he wants them to follow their dreams.
U.S. Army Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin
Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, Family Research Council Action’s Executive Vice President, released the following statement regarding comments made during Saturday’s presidential debate in which several candidates expressed support for requiring women to register for Selective Service:
“Some of the presidential candidates appear to be espousing the politically correct position that women should be required to register with Selective Service. In supporting this draft registration policy, these candidates demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of the imperative for combat effectiveness and of the American people. Ask the question of why America, since the passage of the Selective Service Act, has never required women to register for the military draft. Americans do not want the government to send our daughters into battle against their will, and it is frankly shocking that any Republican candidate for president would not oppose the suggestion in the strongest terms.
“The real issue is whether we should place women in Infantry and Special Operations units where the mission is to close with and destroy the enemy. Removing the restrictions on the types of jobs women may hold means necessarily that some women who are drafted will be involuntarily assigned to units that will be directly engaged in combat with enemy ground forces. Every candidate who wants to earn the trust of the American people should oppose the Obama administration’s policy that is paving the way for requiring our daughters to go to war against their will,” concluded Boykin.
The Selective Service website notes:
Women Aren’t Required to Register – Here’s why:
THE LAW
Selective Service law as it’s written now refers specifically to “male persons” in stating who must register and who would be drafted. For women to be required to register with Selective Service, Congress would have to amend the law.
THE SUPREME COURT
The constitutionality of excluding women was tested in the courts. A Supreme Court decision in 1981, Rostker v. Goldberg, held that registering only men did not violate the due process clause of the Constitution.
There are nations that have a universal conscription such as Bolivia, Chad, Eritrea, Israel, Mozambique and North Korea. Israel has universal female conscription, although in practice women can avoid service by claiming a religious exemption and over a third of Israeli women do so. Israeli men are required to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces for 3 years and women for 2 years.
Since the founding of America women have volunteered and played key roles in supporting or serving in the military. With the current all volunteer force women are volunteering to serve and most recently the U.S. Department of Defense announced that combat roles have been opened to allow women to join some of the military’s most elite forces.
Please take this quick and confidential survey on women’s roles in the U.S. military:
Military appeals courts confront sexual activity by HIV-positive troops
Morgan Reese with her dog Gunner.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Morgan Reese. Morgan is pro-military, pro-Second Amendment, a crack shot and certified gun smith. She is an avid reader of books, particularly those written by former U.S. military special operators.
Morgan resides in Texas and is a professional model, appearing in numerous publications such as Recoil Magazine.
To learn more about Morgan please visit her Twitter page @MorganReeseXO.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/morgan-reese-women-in-combat.jpg402640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-02-09 07:11:002016-02-11 07:13:49Online Survey: Should women be forced to register for the draft?
WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, Family Research Council Action’s Executive Vice President, released the following statement regarding comments made during Saturday’s presidential debate in which several candidates expressed support for requiring women to register for Selective Service:
“Some of the presidential candidates appear to be espousing the politically correct position that women should be required to register with Selective Service. In supporting this draft registration policy, these candidates demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of the imperative for combat effectiveness and of the American people. Ask the question of why America, since the passage of the Selective Service Act, has never required women to register for the military draft. Americans do not want the government to send our daughters into battle against their will, and it is frankly shocking that any Republican candidate for president would not oppose the suggestion in the strongest terms.
“The real issue is whether we should place women in Infantry and Special Operations units where the mission is to close with and destroy the enemy. Removing the restrictions on the types of jobs women may hold means necessarily that some women who are drafted will be involuntarily assigned to units that will be directly engaged in combat with enemy ground forces. Every candidate who wants to earn the trust of the American people should oppose the Obama administration’s policy that is paving the way for requiring our daughters to go to war against their will,” concluded Boykin.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/jerry-boykin1.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-02-09 05:48:132016-02-09 05:48:13Presidential Candidates ‘Should Oppose Forcing Women to Register for Selective Service’
U.S. President Barack Obama delivered his first speech from a mosque on February 3. He pushed the Muslim-American community to lead the Muslim world into a better future, but he missed a “tear down this wall” moment by speaking at a mosque with a radical history instead of giving a lift to Muslim reformists who confront Islamism.
Here are three hits and three misses from Obama’s speech in alternating order:
Hit: Using quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, Obama simultaneously countered Islamist preaching that Muslims cannot reconcile their faith identity with American patriotism. This is also a strong rebuttal to those that wish to exempt Muslims from constitutional protections simply for their choice of faith. He said:
Back then, Muslims were often called Mahometans. And Thomas Jefferson explained that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom he wrote was designed to protect all faiths — and I’m quoting Thomas Jefferson now — “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan.” (Applause.)
…Benjamin Franklin wrote that “even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.” (Applause.)
Miss: He implied that Muslim terrorists and extremists purposely “twist” Islamic verses to suit their agendas, as if groups like ISIS do not actually believe in the Islam they practice and impose. He said:
“Right now, there is an organized extremist element that draws selectively from Islamic texts, twists them in an attempt to justify their killing and their terror. Part of what’s happened in the Middle East and North Africa and other places where we see sectarian violence is religion being a tool for another agenda—for power, for control.”
By denying the Islamist ideological root of these threats, President Obama removes the obligation from the Muslim world to directly address, debunk and reform Islamic interpretations that are dangerous and strongly-held. He disarms the chief argument of the best Muslim allies, like those in the Muslim Reform Movement.
Hit: Pressuring Muslim leaders to confront anti-Western propaganda, anti-Semitism in Europe and persecution of Christians.
Obama did not call on Muslim leaders to refute Islamism overall but he did directly tell them that they have an obligation to confront anti-Western views that present the U.S. and its allies as an enemy of their faith. He said:
“Muslim political leaders have to push back on the lie that the West oppresses Muslims, and against conspiracy theories that says America is the cause of every ill in the Middle East. Now, that doesn’t mean Muslim Americans aren’t free to criticize American-U.S. foreign policy. That’s part of being an American.”
“…The fact is, there are Christians who are targeted now in the Middle East, despite having been there for centuries, and there are Jews who’ve lived in places like France for centuries who now feel obliged to leave because they feel themselves under assault—sometimes by Muslims.”
The Islamists’ constant depiction of the U.S. and its allies as evil, including reflexive bashing of the integrity of law enforcement, acts as a trigger for radicals to become violent jihadists. We need genuinely democratic Muslims around the world to hold Islamist propagandists accountable for their incitements.
Miss: The choice of the Islamic Society of Baltimore as a venue, which he described as “an all-American story.”
The ideological war against Islamism is somewhat like a political campaign. The Muslim reformers need positive press, resources and a platform. By praising the Islamic Society of Baltimore, the president gave a helping hand to the Islamist side of the competition.
The Islamic Society of Baltimore, as documented in this impressive expose by the Investigative Project on Terrorism , has a long history of promoting Islamist extremism including the very same views Obama pushed Muslim leaders to confront.
A Muslim Brotherhood leader from Sudan named Mohammed Adam El-Sheikhserved as the imam for a total of 15 years from 1983 to 1989 and 1994 to 2003. He was instrumental in setting up the U.S. branch of the Brotherhood. He also led the radical Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, was regional director for an al-Qaeda-linked charity and said in 2004 suicide bombings are justifiable if authorized by afatwa and if it’s in a situation where “Muslims are to be cornered where they cannot defend themselves, except through these kinds of means.”
A screenshot from 2000 shows the mosque’s chosen resources for Muslims were radicals, including known supporters of terrorism like Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi, Bilal Philips and Jamal Badawi.
Even after El-Sheikh left, the mosque has not been a model for countering Islamist extremism. Its imam preaches against“progressive groups within Muslims” like those that tolerate homosexuals. It has radicals as guest speakers, such as Zaid Shakir in 2008.
The Obama Administration did a better job in selecting the Muslim participants in the preceding roundtable with Obama, but still included Imam Khalid Latif, who was a board member of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2008. The FBI’s official policy prohibits using CAIR as a liaison partner because of evidence linking it to Hamas. The New York chapter has been a particularly radical chapter of CAIR.
Hit: Advising Muslims to respond to negativity by rejecting extremist views and maintaining patriotism.
After ISIS’ attacks in Paris, Clarion Project wrote here and explained on Fox News how the group’s supporters were salivating at the prospect of reprisals against innocent Muslims. ISIS and other jihadists have a separatist view and want Muslims to see democracy as a failed concept for them and to accept Islamism as the alternative.
Obama urged Muslims not to respond to anti-Muslim sentiment by validating these views, decreasing their patriotism or accepting propaganda legitimizing hostility towards the West. He said:
“You’re not Muslim or American. You’re Muslim and American. (Applause). Don’t grow cynical. Don’t respond to ignorance by embracing a worldview that suggests you must choose between your faith and your patriotism. Don’t believe that you have to choose between your best impulses and somewhat embrace a worldview that pits us against each other—or, even worse, glorifies violence.”
Miss: Failing to endorse or at least include the best Muslim allies for this cause, even if they are less resourced and well known.
Imagine what would have happened if Obama gave global coverage to the declaration of the Muslim Reform Movement, putting them on at least equal footing with the Islamists. Imagine the shiver down the spine of the Islamists who have defamed them essentially as “apostates,” all the while touting their own professed inclusiveness and moderation.
Imagine if Obama used the microphone of the White House to form a common thread between Muslim activists against Islamism everywhere: From Malala Yousefzai to the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam who cursed off Islamists promoting separatism in Europe; from the Muslims of the Green Movement who protested against the Iranian regime in 2009 to the Muslims who demonstrated and defeated the Islamists in Egypt and Tunisia; from the Muslims in Libya, who asked for U.S. help in their fight against Islamist militias and held pro-American rallies after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed, to the Syrian protestors who greeted the American ambassador with cheers, roses and olive branches.
Just outside the Islamic Society of Baltimore, Muslim women protested the mosque for its gender separation and inequality. Asra Nomani wrote a powerful op-ed about Obama’s choice of venue. She pointed out how photos from 2010 showed the “second-class conditions women endure in spaces akin to a ‘penalty box.'”
Imagine what a quick photo-op with the Muslim women would have caused. Think of the attention to their cause and productive dialogue that it would have spurred simply due to a choice by the Obama Administration to be inclusive of Muslim reformers and their progressive agenda.
Watch President Barack Obama’s full speech at the Islamic Society of Baltimore:
SAN DIEGO, California /PRNewswire/ — The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) calls on Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and all other candidates to be honest about the gender “pay gap.” Claiming that women “earn less” without explaining why is misleading and dishonest. The Department of Labor funded a study that showed the pay gap is mostly due to choices, not discrimination.
Before women get married and have kids, they earn the same as men, and are also beneficiaries of quality of life choices that favor health and longevity as reflected by statistics on industrial deaths. After having kids, women make additional quality of life choices different from males, such as more flexible hours and less managerial positions. Women have more options than men when it comes to being primary parents. In fact, over half of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce. This is not an option for most men.
Men are either primary breadwinners or on the streets. Consequently, they make the vast majority of homeless adults, job-related deaths, suicides, and incarcerated persons.
Women who were never married and are childless earn more than their male counterparts. And as corporate executives, women now earn more than men.
NCFM calls on the candidates of both parties to be honest and tell the whole truth about the gender pay gap as well as the many gender inequalities that men face in our society, not just in terms of homelessness, workplace deaths, and suicides but also systematic sex discrimination in child custody, criminal sentencing, public health policies, and more.
ABOUT THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR MEN
Operating since 1977, NCFM is the oldest men’s group committed to ending sex discrimination. Throughout our history we have advanced step by step, across three nations, toward our goal of resolving issues which are barriers to progress and freedom. You may quickly realize that you are not alone or that an uncomfortable feeling has been revealingly discussed here. Or you may realize that your insight or skill could dramatically improve our mutual progress. We are not finished. We are a work in progress toward substance, comradeship, and freedom. We are glad that you are here, whether you are seeking help or learning how you can work with us.
Check out our National Advisors , read about our philosophy, make a suggestion, check out our newsletter, join us on FaceBook or come back again and again. We are a select group of serious activists, but we may enjoy your membership and our work could certainly use your support. You may enjoy an event at one of our chapters. You may be interested to know if a chapter is forming in your area. Otherwise there are events at many affiliated organizations.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/clinton-bernie-collage-e1454146435647.jpg320640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-01-30 04:34:392016-01-30 05:11:07Hillary and Bernie Must ‘Stop Spewing the Gender Pay Gap Myths’
Alhamdulilah = thanks be to Allah. Kuffars = unbelievers. But don’t be concerned. John Kerry and Marie Harf are going to visit her and offer her a job at Walmart, and she will give up the jihad forthwith, and hey, Richard Chartres has a beard, which should calm her down considerably.
“EXCLUSIVE: American Female ISIS Member Brags: ‘Finally Got My Hizam [Suicide Belt] Today,’”MEMRI, January 19, 2016 (thanks to Bob):
On January 19, 2016, an American woman who posted a photo and message on her Telegram channel about possessing a suicide belt. Expressing her desire to use it in a suicide operation, she wrote: “Alhamdulilah finally got my Hizam [belt, i.e. suicide belt] today. May Allah Subhana wa ta’ala grant me the opportunity to use it soon, to grant me the honor to sacrifice myself for Him, for His deen [religion] (To kill the kuffars) [infidels]. May Allah subhana wa ta’ala grant us all shahadah [martyrdom] Ameen.” At the time of this writing, her Telegram channel has 451 members
Treatment of Women Under Islamic Sharia Law
Activism Against Sharia Law
Instances of cross-dressing men invading women’s privacy illustrates how such obscene conduct threatens the survival instincts of girls and women—normal, real men know this and will protect women and girls at all cost. At this time, the rates of rape of college girls and women in “higher” education is shocking! It is just such mean spirited men who eventually run major businesses, sports groups, banks, entertainers and politicians, demand that females receive all male sociopaths who “feel” they are women. (right, 
.jpg)
Ryan Mauro is
SAN DIEGO, California /PRNewswire/ — The 
