Gail Dines, professor of women’s studies at Boston’s Wheelock College and author of Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, finds the Slut Walks alarming. She told me, “It is not understanding the context of the world they are living in. The average male today gets his major sex education from porn. And the message they get is that women are sluts.” To the liberal feminists, whom Dines calls porn and prostitution apologists, she asks: “If it’s such a great profession, why aren’t you turning tricks?”

It’s one thing to acknowledge that women are in control of their sexuality and have the intelligence to decide if and when to have sex. It’s a whole other to celebrate a lifestyle that is primarily the result of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse. Anyone who’s been out in the real world for any meaningful period of time has encountered enough “slutty” women to know that primarily only the emotionally damaged choose to have sex with many men. Where do you expect to find a higher incidence of depression, among female doctors and “oppressed” Christian homemakers or the San Fernando valley’s porn stars?

And here’s Cassy’s piece at NRB about the subject today.

And here’s a (censored) video of the hilarious Australian comedian Jim Jeffries talking about the difference between sluts and studs. Note to pseudo-feminists: there are biological reasons why a man who has a lot of sex is highly regarded while a woman is looked down upon for the same behavior. There are different biological results of both lifestyles.

Read the whole article at FrontPage today, here’s a choice excerpt:

There is no doubt that every human being wants to be free.  But free to do what?  Western freedom is based on the notion of individualism – the idea that we should each make our own choices.  But Islamic freedom denounces such freedom as impure and problematic.  Essentially, Islam contends that submission to Islam is the source of freedom – freedom from the un-Islamic parts of human nature.Many in the West wonder why so many would embrace such a restrictive notion of freedom, but the answer is simple: while the human heart desperately wants freedom, it also desperately wants group identity.  We all want to be members of a community: a religious community, an ethnic community, or a national community.  Our deep and abiding need for group identity leads us to join churches and synagogues, to go to group schools, and even to go to movies with others and follow sports teams.  We would rather be part of an arbitrary group – of, say, Lakers fans – than to be part of no group at all.

The Obama speech was clearly wordsmithed to keep Zionists as happy as possible while he slipped in a major US policy change. As far as I can tell, this is the first time that a US president has announced that the solution must be based on the so-called “1967 lines” as opposed to the previous position that the borders must be determined through negotiations.

Now, this has been the Israeli position–or at least the Labor and Kadima position–since 2000, and it is hard to ask the US to be more righteous than the Pope. But it is still a change in policy and it makes it much more difficult for Jews to believe that they will continue to have free access to their holiest sites.

On the other hand, he did have quite a few good things in the speech in regards to Israel. (Of course, my speech for him would have been better!)

It’s not surprising that this would be Obama’s approach. He’s in campaign mode and is trying to walk a careful tightrope to avoid alienating either his anti-Israel leftist base or the more centrist, pro-Israel Democrats who he’ll need to get elected again in 2012. There’s really no politically coherent foreign policy position for Obama to take, hence the only option available to him is to both stick Israel with this “1967 lines” shift while acknowledging that the “Palestinians” need to accept Israel’s right to exist.

If Obama’s foreign policy looks incoherent it’s because it is by design. He knows there’s no way to reconcile his base with the mainstream of the country so he doesn’t attempt to. Instead he just slogs through these irritating foreign policy questions until he can get back to where his heart’s really at — socializing the whole country step by step. Stanley Kurtz’s analysis in Radical-In-Chief very much applies here.

Full text of the speech here, btw.

Last night, after Andrew Breitbart had already left to catch his plane, a few of us hung around to chat and to try to answer one question:  what was the takeaway from Breitbart’s talk?  Eat their eyeballs?  Women’s dominance in the Tea Party means that men are eunuchs?  The fact that the Tea Party needs to sex up a bit (Breitbart suggested cleavage) to attract younger people?  Our responsibility to buy tickets to conservative movies even if we don’t attend, because brave Hollywood conservatives need box office support?  Nope.

Those were all enjoyable motifs that Breitbart interjected repeatedly to liven up his talk, but the real takeaway message was this one:  The true battle today isn’t being fought in the political arena, it’s being fought in the social and culture arena.  It’s there that we need to engage the Left; to out-Alinsky the Alinsky-ites; and to call Leftists on their behavior.  We can’t be afraid of confrontation, unless that confrontation will utterly destroy our lives and our livelihoods.

Bookworm also teases at the end of the post that she’s on chapter 2 of Righteous Indignation — hinting that perhaps a book review is forthcoming. I’m about 800 words into a draft of my review and hope to have something publishable by the end of the week. I will say, though: Bookworm, you’re in for a treat. The book really takes off 100 pages in at chapter 6.

Indeed, I’ve never thought much of all the talk about how Ron Paul is the “Godfather of the tea parties.” I’ve given major speeches at three tea party rallies (including the Cincinnati Tax Day tea party rally last year which was the biggest audience I’ve ever spoken to), and attended a couple tea party related events in the D.C. as a spectator. I  bring that up just to say that I’ve met a lot of tea party folks at the leadership level all the way down. Obviously, Ron Paul has many fans and adherents in those circles. But I never got the sense that, generally speaking, the tea partiers were definitive Ron Paul followers or fans. Among other things, I think the folks I’ve met were generally more in favor of the military, the war on terror, and mainstream conservative foreign policy than anything that could be described as Paul-ism. Moreover, both in e-mail and in person, the enthusiasm for Herman Cain and to a lesser extent Michele Bachmann and, before her, Sarah Palin, was greater than anything I’ve seen for Paul.

In fact, Clinton’s problem arose from the fact that he was exploiting a junior employee and lying about it under oath in the course of a lawsuit. That lawsuit in turn arose from an episode in which he had made use of his political office to “hit on” young women in his employ. Not content with forcing his whole Cabinet to join in the deception, Clinton used his own staff to suggest that Monica Lewinsky was “stalking” him, an accusation that was highly defamatory and damaging and might well have been believed if she had not been in possession of proof. This extremely sordid behavior led to the surfacing of many earlier allegations. These included charges of coerced sex, amounting to rape, from more than one believable witness. (The story of that revolting conduct is told in my book No One Left To Lie To.) But a majority of the country made light of the entire business, regarding it as a “peccadillo” or private matter. Two of Clinton’s hastily recruited spiritual advisors, Jesse Jackson and Billy Graham, even defended the exercise of his special needs as an alpha male, overlooking the crucial fact that his entire defense consisted of denying having done so. Jesse Jackson has gone on to admit the fathering of an out-of-wedlock child, without any noticeable effect on the rate of his pious public appearances. So it seems that the American public is by no mean as censorious either as it believes itself to be or as others believe it to be.

If I get a positive response then I might start posting more images of our dog Maura each day.

In an attempt to defend himself from my exposure of his record and actions, Mosab Hassan Yousef has solicited help from Gonen ben Itzhak – Yousef’s former handler within Shin Bet (Itzhak was fired from the organization). Itzhak intended to write and publicize a letter damaging my name and credibility. I obtained the letter sent by Itzhak prior to its publication, have seen its claims, and can offer proof beyond any doubt defending myself from the spurious charges therein.

It is crucial to note Itzhak’s own background: he was fired from Shin Bet for “financial mismanagement and lying.” Additionally, former deputy head of the Shin Bet (and current Kadima MK) Gideon Ezra has questioned the credibility of Mosab’s story, saying it was all “exaggerated.” Itzhak is also an extremist Greenpeace activist and a pro-Palestine, anti-settlement advocate. This man is now countering my honest, factual reporting of Yousef by claiming he investigated me and found that I was a “fraud.” I can prove he is now lying about my past, and given his current behavior, I am not surprised at the stated reason for his previous firing.

Here’s Shoebat’s original post which is very much worth reading. That Yousef would respond by trying to destroy Shoebat’s credibility is very telling.