Debbie Schlussel: HOprah Watch: Be a Great Mom By Becoming a . . . Stripper?

Debbie Schlussel: HOprah Watch: Be a Great Mom By Becoming a . . . Stripper?

By Debbie Schlussel

The conventional wisdom is that Oprah Winfrey empowers women, teaching them self-esteem (actually, inflating their self-esteem way too much), and telling them to care about themselves before their husbands and families.

But the conventional wisdom is wrong. In yet another example of why the conventional wisdeom is wrong, today, on her daily talk show HRHSBotU [Her Royal Highness Supreme Being of the Universe] Oprah told America’s women that being a stripper is a great job if you’re a mom. You get to spend the whole day with your kids. And you only have to take off your clothes and be ogled by men who are total strangers at night. How convenient and empowering.

stripclub.jpgoprahmagfullofherself.jpg(Oprah Mag Artwork Courtesy of the Talented David Lunde)The 40-something transsexual-looking stripper and mom who was on the Oprah show today told us that she works “an 8-hour shift” as a sexual object, “from 8:00 p.m. to 2:45 a.m.” So, it’s official: Not only are strippers “great moms,” they are also great mathematicians. Well let’s hope this stripper is better at adding the dollars inserted into her g-string and cleavage than she is at figuring out the number of hours she works.

Oprah tells the audience and the rest of the world that we shouldn’t “judge.” Tell it to your mirror girlfriend, as you’ve spent over two decades judging conservatives, marriage, and men on the publicly broadcast airwaves. And everything else you haven’t judged and polluted the airwaves with–like today’s show–actually needed a little judging.

But, no worries, this stripper mom “has great abs,” and works out every morning, so, in Oprah’s eyes, that makes her a good person.

In fact, this stripper mom knows her job is so respectable that, until today, she lied and told people she is a “showroom model.” Oprah is worried that other parents will tell their kids they can’t be around stripper mom’s daughter and again tells America not to judge. I don’t have kids, but if I did, you’d better believe they wouldn’t go near a stripper’s kids. I know the kid didn’t choose her mom, but do you want your kids thinking stripping is a great lifestyle?

Incredibly, Oprah’s resident HAMAS-loving reporter, Lisa Ling, said she was “converted” to the view that stripping is a great way to be a working mom because you get to be with your kids all day. And Oprah said how hard life is for the average working woman and how good a life this seems to be.

Hmmm . . . funny how these died in the wool feminists are suddenly attacking the mandatory working-woman culture they and their movement created. Even more funny what their solution is . . . good old fashion slut-dom . . . for money.

Yup, this is what your kids are seeing on after-school TV and this is Oprah’s message of “empowerment” to women all over the world who see her show. Nothing about the life of drugs, prostitution, and other illicit behavior that many strippers get into. One “redeeming” thing: Most of the women who watch this horrible daily cult show simply are too fat and out of shape to be strippers. Thank Heaven for small favors.

Ironically, the arrogant, conceited Oprah is teaching an “online course” on how to live a better life. Is bumping and grinding part of the gig?

Very sad that American women take lessons and advice of any kind from this demented talk show host cult leader.


Posted by Debbie on February 27, 2008 05:18 PM to Debbie Schlussel

Debbie Schlussel: Not Fit to Wash His Feet: HOprah Watch – Oprah Disses John McCain

Debbie Schlussel: Not Fit to Wash His Feet: HOprah Watch – Oprah Disses John McCain

By Debbie Schlussel

While bragging to USA Today about her worldwide webcast class, in which HRHSBotU (Her Royal Highness, Supreme Being of the Universe) Oprah teaches a new age course to America’s women on how to be a better person and live a better life minus a billion dollars and a daily talk show, Queen Oprah dissed John McCain:

Winfrey says she’s not sure yet whether she’ll have a role in the fall campaign. . . . What about John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee? “Oh, please,” she replies. “Bye-bye.”

I’m really sick of this–these queens of idiocy–first Gloria Steinem, now Oprah–dissing McCain. Please watch this five-minute video from A&E “Biography,” showing John McCain from captivity. Oprah ain’t good enough to wash his feet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIh7eF17ylE

What about Oprah Winfrey?

Oh, please. Bye-Bye. If only. If only she would go away.

European Leaders Agree to Create Eurabia

European Leaders Agree to Create Eurabia

Created 2008-03-05 11:26
Bat Ye’or in her book about Eurabia documented how European leaders have for years been quietly planning to merge Europe with the Islamic world. This has been denounced as a “conspiracy theory.” Only a few months ago the British Foreign Minister David Miliband said openly that the European Union should expand to include the Muslim Middle East and North Africa. Now French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are saying virtually the same thing. The greatest betrayal in European history is fact, not fiction. And to think that many people supported Sarkozy because he should “halt” Islamization. Now he is speeding it up:

Merkel and Sarkozy Find ‘Club Med’ Compromise (Der Spiegel, 4 March 2008)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced jointly that they had reached a compromise regarding Sarkozy’s proposed Mediterranean Union. At a press conference held jointly with Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel added that the ensuing outcome should be called the “Mediterranean Union” and that it “should be a project of all 27 (European Union) member countries.” Merkel was referring to her position that any deal to create a union with the Mediterranean states that border the European Union should be negotiated and drafted in conjunction with all EU member states – not just those that border the sea, as Sarkozy had initially proposed.

The Eurabia Code

How was a project as big as the creation of Eurabia pulled off? I have thought a lot about this question, and come to the conclusion that it succeeded precisely because of its size. St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. “How dare you molest the sea?” asked Alexander. “How dare you molest the whole world?” the pirate replied. “Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are called an emperor.” It’s a matter of scale. If a small group of people sideline the democratic process in one country and start imposing their own laws on the public, it’s called a coup d’état. If they do so on an entire continent, it’s called the European Union.
 
The European Union and the Islamization of Europe

The British Foreign Minister David Miliband in November 2007 stated that the European Union should work towards including Middle Eastern and North African countries. The EU involves the free movement of people across borders. If it expands to the Middle East, hundreds of millions of Muslims will have free access to Germany, Italy, France, Britain, Sweden and the Czech Republic. If Turkey becomes a member, it means that Greeks, Bulgarians and others who have fought against oppression by Ottoman Turks for centuries will now be flooded with Muslims from a rapidly re-Islamizing Turkey. The same goes for Poles, Hungarians, Romanians and others who fought against Muslims for centuries. Appeasement of Islam is so deeply immersed in the structural DNA of the EU that the only way to stop the Islamization of Europe is to dismantle the European Union. All of it.

The Euro-Arab Axis Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis
Author: Bat Ye’Or,Bat Yeor
ASIN: 083864077X

Barack Fuzzies Up On Iran

Barack Fuzzies Up On Iran

Lee Cary

As it pertains to his position on Iran, will the real Barack Obama please stand up!
Thanks to Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light , and to Clarice Freeman, for American Thinker readers, for bringing to our attention a Chicago Tribune article entitled “Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran,” written by David Mendell, September 24, 2004, now available for a small fee through the Tribune’s archives.
The original article quoted a politician who had with a worldview back then that is considerably at odds with the moveon.org folks who endorse him now.
What he called for in September 2004 is exactly what happened.
“Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions.” 
Three-and-a-half years later, on Monday, March 2, 2008, the U.N. passed yet another resolution, their third, imposing economic sanctions on Iran for refusing to stop enriching uranium.  
Back in 2004, Obama told the Tribune,
“But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”
He was correct, then.  But now, he’s a different Obama. In his campaign document concerning U.S. policy toward Iran, his position on Iran has changed. He acknowledges the threat Iran poses, but then accuses the Bush administration of issuing “veiled threats.”  Back in 2004, he told the Tribune,
“[Concerning a response to Iran's effort to gain nuclear capabilities] missile strikes might be a viable option.”
That’s not a threat?
Today, his solution is “new and robust American leadership” (beware of the word “robust” because it isn’t) that executes “tough and sustained diplomacy backed by real pressure.” (The intensifier “real” really carries no real, robust meaning.) His campaign document reads:
It’s time to rally the region and the world to our side. And it’s time to deliver a direct message to Tehran…You can give up your nuclear ambitions and support for terror and rejoin the community of nations.  Or you will face further isolation including much tighter sanction.”
That’s not a threat – albeit hollow to the Mullahs?
Obama argues that “we haven’t even tried direct diplomacy.”  This aligns with his oft repeated promise that he would talk directly to our enemies.  We’ve seen this foreign policy practiced before in the face of tyranny.  And, we know the consequences.
“We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators.”  Neville Chamberlain
Winston Churchill’s take on Chamberlain works for Obama.
“Neville Chamberlain looked at foreign affairs through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe.”

Questions For Obama

Questions For Obama

By Kyle-Anne Shiver & Lee Cary

After watching debates, hearing his speeches, and reading Obama’s policy visions, many questions remain about how he’d change America.  We’d like to see some shot-from-the-hip questions with a few straight answers before we commit to all that hope from a mere mortal, and all that hazy change. Here are just six questions for Obama we hope the MSM will ask him, for a change.
Issue 1: New Brand of Politics
Senator Obama, you promise a new brand of politics to replace the old politics of special interests and lobbyists.  One step to fulfill that pledge would be to complete the 2008 Political Courage Test offered by Project Vote Smart, a lengthy questionnaire that asks you to formally state your precise positions on many national issues of the utmost concern to voters.  Yet, according to the Project Vote Smart website,
“Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.”   
Project Vote Smart and its Political Courage Test exemplify the type of bipartisan effort that you claim to support.  According to the organization’s history
“We are scrupulously non-partisan — our founding board, headed by former presidents Carter and [until his death] Ford, is carefully balanced, and we do not lobby, support or oppose any candidate, issue or cause. To protect the independence and integrity of this Voter’s Self-Defense System of information, Project Vote Smart does not accept funding from government or corporate sources, or any special interest group that lobbies. Our sources of support are entirely individual memberships and foundation grants.”
Question:
  • Why would Americans trust someone who promises “change,” but who does not trust Americans enough to tell them exactly to what kind of change he is committed? 
Issue 2: Education
One goal of your comprehensive education plan for Pre-K to 12 is to “recruit, support, and reward teachers and principals to ensure that every school in America is filled with outstanding educators.”  You advocate “paying teachers as professionals.”  According to the National Education Association (NEA) the average teacher’s salary in 2005-2006 was $49,026; California has the highest pay at $59,825.   
Questions:
  1. What will be the role, and cost, of the Federal Government’s new direct and indirect involvement in recruiting teachers? 
  2. What do you propose be the new, elevated national average teacher’s salary?
  3. What will be the proportional funding of that increase as sustained by local, country, state, and federal taxing entities? 
  4. What will be the expected increase in federal employment headcount required to establish and maintain the new educational initiatives you propose?
Issue 3:  National Defense
Senator Obama, as you know, providing for the common defense of the United States is one of the very few Constitutional requirements placed upon the federal government.  Yet, in your Blueprint for Change, out of a list of 15 separate campaign pledges, you list “foreign policy” and “veterans” at the very bottom of the list.  At the top of your list, you include “ethics,” “healthcare,” “seniors,” “women,” “poverty,” and “service,” among others.  Yet, none of these items can be found in our Constitution.   
Questions:
  1. Do you intend, if you are elected President, to protect and defend these United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic?
  2. If your answer is, “yes,” will you conscientiously follow your own Blueprint, which implies that you sincerely believe diplomacy to be the best tool for our national defense?
  3. You’ve said, “The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don’t like.  Not talking doesn’t make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant.”  Is it your contention, Senator Obama, that the only possible valid reason our current President could have for not sitting down and talking with the Iranians is that we don’t like them? 
Issue 4: Afghanistan
In the Ohio debate, you stated , “I have been very clear in talking to the American people about what I would do with respect to Afghanistan.  I think we have to have more troops there to bolster the NATO effort.”  You also stated that, “…Secretary Gates, our current Defense secretary, indicated that we are getting resistance from our allies to put more troops into Afghanistan because they continue to believe that we made a blunder in Iraq.”   Yet, in a January 19, 2007 speech, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, speaking about the NATO mission in Afghanistan, said,
“The Afghan National Army is doing better and better. As we speak four million refugees have gone back to Afghanistan. Health care is up. Child mortality is down. Two-thirds of the villages in Afghanistan have received development projects worth up to $50,000. The average income of the Afghan has doubled since 2001. The currency is stable. Fourteen new banks are competing with each other. Three million Afghans have mobile phones. Forty percent of the Afghan land seeded with mines has been brought back into use.  In other words, if you look at 2001 and if you look at the beginning of 2008 a lot has happened and a lot of progress has been made…The problem is that we, the international community, we have no patience.”
Also, Scheffer recently noted that NATO sent an additional 8,000 troops to Afghanistan in 2007.  In fact, France and Norway are reported preparing to send troops to participate more aggressively in the NATO mission.
Questions:
  1. If you’re elected President, how may more U.S. troops will you send to Afghanistan? 
  2. At the tactical level, you were against the surge of U.S. troops to Iraq.  Today, though, you favor a surge in Afghanistan for a similar tactical mission.  Is this a contradiction?
  3. In the Ohio debate you acknowledged that, as chairman of Senate subcommittee dealing with Afghanistan since the beginning of 2007, you have not yet called an oversight hearing.  If this issue is so important, how do you justify that?
Issue 5:  Abortion
Senator Obama, you’ve told church audiences that you’re personally opposed to abortion on religious grounds, but that you feel the necessity, within a pluralistic society, of supporting the legality of a “woman’s right to choose.”  However, on the 35th anniversary of the Roe V. Wade decision, you issued a statement, which seems to promise more enthusiastic action regarding abortion.  In this statement, you boast that you have been a “consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL.” 
You call a woman’s access to abortion-on-demand, including partial-birth abortions, a “fundamental right” that is part and parcel of your plans for “justice.”  And, you promise that as President, you will “pass the Freedom of Choice Act,” which enshrines into law absolute access to all abortions up to the moment of live delivery.  You’ve even opposed Infants Born Alive legislation in Illinois that would protect the life of an infant born breathing, despite the efforts to murder him.
Questions:
  1. Do you not consider Planned Parenthood, the number one provider of abortions in the United States, and also a recipient of millions of tax dollars every year, to be a “special-interest lobby” of the very kind which you consistently denounce?
  2. If you are personally opposed to abortion, why do you feel it necessary to promise to bolster and fight for what you term, “reproductive justice”?
  3. How does our failure as a society to protect the life of an innocent, even one born “inadvertently,” define any sort of justice at all?
Issue 6: Poverty
Part of your Plan to Combat Poverty is to “create 20 Promise Neighborhoods in cities across the nation that have high levels of poverty and crime and low levels of student academic achievement.”  You cite the Harlem’s Children’s Zone (HCZ) as the model.  In a 2006 interview aired on CBS News,  HCZ’s founder, Geoffrey Canada (watch his Oprah interview here) described how the HCZ educates 10,000 children on an annual budget of $36 million, of which a third comes from government and the rest from private donations.  In the CBS interview, Canada stated that, “We could not run a school under the current rules and regulations with the unions. It’s impossible.  It’s just impossible. You can’t fire teachers.  Look, we fired three teachers last year.  We fired more teachers than the whole island of Manhattan in all the public schools.”  Clearly, the HCZ is an example of what one highly-motivated entrepreneur can accomplish with private donations supplemented by government assistance.
Questions:
  1. Your plan calls for the federal government to initiate similar “zones” and provide half of the funding, with the rest coming from philanthropies and businesses.  Isn’t this a fundamentally different model than the HCZ?    
  2. Canada is outspoken about how teacher unions are a hindrance to the type of inner city approach to education that makes the HCZ successful.  How would you overcome that hindrance?
  3. How would your administration convince philanthropies and businesses that investing in a government social program would be as cost effective and offer the same accountability as investing in a NGO?
Conclusion
It’s time to ratchet up the intensity level of media questions to Senator Obama.  The MSM inquiry has, to date, been more like a Miss America Contest interview than the thorough vetting of a presidential candidate. His puffy responses to debate questions have been accepted at face value.  And, among the remaining presidential candidates, he has been the least accessible to the press corps.  It’s time, now, for reporters to start asking Obama serious questions, as befits serious journalists. 
Kyle-Anne Shiver and Lee Cary are  frequent contributors to American Thinker.  Kyle-Anne welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@yahoo.com.

Is Obama Sabotaging McCain Through the FEC?

Is Obama Sabotaging McCain Through the FEC?

By Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq.
FrontPageMagazine.com | 3/5/2008

This Commentary on January 9, 17 and 28 discussed the irresponsible and unprecedented understaffing of Presidential appointees in a host of Federal regulatory agencies, including the Federal Election Commission. (The January 17 Commentary follows:  All three are accessible on the Free Congress Foundation Website, http://www.freecongress.org.)  Understaffing alone can cause ineffective functioning in a Federal agency, as elsewhere.  Understaffing to the extent of denying a regulatory agency its quorum necessary to function is, of course, completely debilitating. 

The bulk of this understaffing is the fault of leftist United States Senate activity and inactivity, not of President George W. Bush.  The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) has only two of six authorized Commissioners.  Four are necessary for a quorum.  Thus, FEC as a regulatory agency exists only at the staff, or routine paper-pushing, level.

“Believe it or not,” to borrow the old Ripley phrase, the principal reason why FEC has no quorum is because some Senators, including Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), are blocking the confirmation of Presidential nominee Hans von Spakovsky.  Opponents claim that von Spakovsky, who served 18 months as an FEC Commissioner by recess appointment (that is, without  Senatorial confirmation), supposedly promoted policies while a Department of Justice lawyer adverse to some voters from racial, or possibly ethnic, minorities.  Whether von Spakovsky did so, there is no serious allegation, if any at all, that he acted unacceptably during his 18 months as a recess-appointee FEC Commissioner.  No substantive reason is evident as to why the Senate could not confirm the other two Bush nominees, which would bring FEC to four Commissioners and a functioning quorum.

Might it be sheer coincidence that the Obama hold on the von Spakovsky nomination and the absence of Senatorial confirmation of the other two FEC nominees preclude any FEC approval (or disapproval) of the request of Senator John S. McCain, III to withdraw from the public-financing system?   Or that the impasse, preceding what well may be a McCain – Obama November 8 contest, presently is weakening, and may continue to weaken, the McCain candidacy?



Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers