Feminists Are Running Out Of Causes To Fight For

The first women’s rights convention was held in 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York. It organized an army of civil rights activists who fought for female suffrage and equality under the law. In 1920, after years of struggle and protest, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution came to fruition. The cause was just and worth fighting for.

In 2017, Buzzfeed featured women who painted pictures using only their menstrual blood. The cause: to break the stigma that periods are gross.

How did we get here?

To start off, the video by Ladylike was completely serious (I will add a link to anyone brave enough to watch it, but I won’t be featuring it in this post). The idea of painting with menstrual blood was first thought up as a way to – you guessed it – protest President Trump. The two interviewers, Chantel and Devin, featured a woman who used her blood painting to protest Trump’s treatment of Megyn Kelly. The women then decided to take the idea and run with it. They collected their painting “material” inside a mason jar and kept in a fridge until it was time. Chantel painted chocolate chip cookies and Devin expressed her creativity by painting a bottle of wine. The article goes into extreme detail about the process – even describing the texture and horrid smell as they underwent the process.

After they were done and displayed their artwork, the girls described the experience as “liberating” and “empowering” …Yes, they felt emancipated by smearing period blood on a white canvass.

How could an act such as this become a symbol of female empowerment?

Gone are the days when Susan B. Anthony lobbied Congress to give every woman the right to vote and have a voice in their government. Her work led to real improvements for the lives of women in the workplace and at home. She fought against real injustices and championed causes that have stood the test of time. Even after her death, leaders after her have also made great strides for women… but what happens when you are finally in equal footing with your male counterparts?

This is what happens when you yearn for a cause to fight for – but you are already allotted every civil right in existence. You start making up rights. In the eyes of the writers at Buzzfeed, that right is to make everyone accept period blood as something totally beautiful.

Make no mistake about it – anything related to blood is unsettling. Most everyone finds it to be unpleasant when it’s outside our bodies. I guess I’m allowed to say that because blood (generally speaking) is identifiable to both men and women. But once we specify menstrual blood, it then becomes a connotation of the female gender – and thus becomes a subject of social injustice.

Protesting for a legitimate social cause is something to be proud of. However, committing a gross act for the simple sake of virtue signaling is just ridiculous. I write this as a man, so I can only speak so much in the name of women, but I personally have a very hard time believing women feel oppressed because society finds menstrual blood icky. I just don’t see the subjugation there.

The writers at Buzzfeed need to get a grip.

 

SCANDAL: John Bresnahan and Burgess Everett at The Politico Appear to Have Plagiarized From BuzzFeed

John Bresnahan and Burgess Everett, two reporters at Politico, appear to have copied the work of BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner. In a Politico story that peddles easily refuted Democrat attacks on Neil Gorsuch, Bresnahan and Everitt write:

The documents show that several passages from the tenth chapter of his 2006 book, “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” read nearly verbatim to a 1984 article in the Indiana Law Journal. In several other instances in that book and an academic article published in 2000, Gorsuch borrowed from the ideas, quotes and structures of scholarly and legal works without citing them.

But earlier, BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner covered the same topic and wrote:

The section at issue in his book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, is a brief one: It is a summary of the facts and ruling in the 1982 case of Baby Doe, a baby born in Indiana with Down syndrome. It takes up only two paragraphs and seven endnotes in a book that covers more than 300 pages, including endnotes. The book came out of his 2004 Doctor of Philosophy dissertation from the University of Oxford.

Ruh-roh. Not good. It looks like Politico relied on the Democrats’ talking point sheets they sent over earlier to both BuzzFeed and Politico and did not cite BuzzFeed, which published first.

Oh wait! That is exactly what Neil Gorsuch did. In fact, as if subconsciously admitting their story is bulls**t, the Politico reporters include this:

Yet a review of the documents provided to POLITICO shows Gorsuch parroting other writers’ prose and sourcing without citing them. Instead, Gorsuch often acknowledges the primary sources cited by those writers.

In the most striking example, Gorsuch, in his book, appears to duplicate sentences from an Indiana Law Journal article written by Abigail Lawlis Kuzma without attributing her. Instead, he uses the same sources that Kuzma used: A 1982 Indiana court ruling that was later sealed, a well-known pediatrics textbook, “Rudolph’s Pediatrics,” and a 1983 article in the Bloomington Sunday Herald.

What?! Gorsuch provides citations to primary sources that might have provided the original wording used by someone he did not cite?! How dare he!!

This is such a crap story. The attack on Gorsuch is that he did his own research and cited the original, primary sources, instead of just copying what someone else did.

The reason this is a big story in the press is that this is what the press does. Normally, BuzzFeed runs a story and then Politico runs a story citing BuzzFeed because they are too damn lazy to do their own work.

The outrage here is really that Gorsuch is not a lazy Washington millennial reporter with no sense of history, but actually put in the time to do his own research and cite original sources.

Meanwhile, reporters at Politico and BuzzFeed were both spoonfed the story from Democrats. In fact, Politico even admits they were too damn lazy to do in depth work.

POLITICO did not conduct a full examination of the federal judge’s writings.

So in documents spoonfed by Democrats with talking points supplied by Democrats, it appears Neil Gorsuch failed to cite someone who had previously written about a topic. He had the audacity to, instead, do his own work relying on original sources.

By the way, it is worth noting that the purported victim of the plagiarization denies being plagiarized. She too notes that Gorsuch simply looked at the same primary sources she looked at and there was really only one way to describe them.

Maybe if reporters would actually do what Gorsuch did, they wouldn’t get duped into spoonfed stupidity. John Bresnahan and Burgess Everett did not actually plagiarize BuzzFeed. But using the standard they are holding Gorsuch to, they did. That is why this is a crap story. No one committed plagiarism. They just want to generate controversy, damn the facts.

According to Buzzfeed Journalism is Dead

Yesterday, MSNBC’s Chuck Todd had Ben Smith, Buzzfeed’s editor in chief, on his show “MTP Daily” to discuss Buzzfeed’s controversial release of documents with unverified allegations against President-Elect Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

Todd’s questions seemed to indicate that he’s concerned Buzzfeed’s release of the documents is a poor reflection on journalism – and he should be.

“You just published fake news,” Todd said in the interview. Smith, quoting the note he sent to his staff after releasing the documents, said “Publishing this dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017.” (More on this later.)

On Tuesday, Smith released the documents, in the name of “ferocious reporting.”

Then, many of us were hit with a cloud of confusion – reports that part of the document was proven to be false and none have yet to be proven true. And then the story that the president-elect was debriefed on the documents. We’re all wondering, “why would he be debriefed if it was fake news?”

I’m doing my research (as a good journalist should) to write this article and my head is spinning with all the “he said” “she said.” And that brings me to Jake Tapper of CNN. Thank you, Jake! In a series of tweets this morning, he’s captured the short and sweet version of what you need to know – based on the statement released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Here’s a two tweet summary:

This story doesn’t stop with the Buzzfeed documents. Journalists are on the receiving end of all sorts of juicy gossip. We see (or used to see) them as a filter (or as Smith says “a gatekeeper”). In case we’ve forgotten, journalists are supposed to do their research and only bring us the stories that have substantial evidence. It’s their job to put the stories brought to them into a category – have enough evidence to share, require further investigation or juicy rumors.

To quote a recent piece by David French (because I couldn’t say it better myself):

“So here’s what responsible people say when confronted with claims like that: What’s your evidence? If the answer is ‘an anonymously written and anonymously sourced series of memos that no one has yet been able to substantiate,’ then you either pass on the story or — if you have the time and resources — try to substantiate the claims. If you can’t, then you pass. It’s that simple. Any other action isn’t ‘transparency.’ It’s not ‘reporting.’ It’s malice.”

But according to Smith’s interview with Todd, the reality is the Internet has brought a new era of journalism – when journalists should share with the public all the juicy leads they get, verified and unverified, without doing any research, assessment or qualification.

Journalism, according to Smith, is dead. After all, I can post all sorts of juicy leads on my Facebook page. How is that any different? I have higher standards for my Facebook page than Smith has for Buzzfeed.

As I mentioned yesterday, whether you are President-elect Donald Trump claiming Ted Cruz’s dad assassinated President John F. Kennedy, or BuzzFeed publishing unverified stories – you are WRONG. Fake news is fake news, and neglecting to do (and cite) thorough research isn’t journalism at all. It doesn’t matter what side you’re on.

The American people deserve better. Do your job and don’t publish until you have the facts.

Don’t Lump CNN In With BuzzFeed

CNN is getting blasted by Donald Trump and others for reporting on the sordid business about Trump, intel chiefs, and Russian compromise material. Last night CNN reported that intelligence chiefs had advised Donald Trump that they had reason to believe the Russians had collected or were attempting to collect information that they thought might compromise the President-Elect.

That is true. It is factual. It is not fake news.

BuzzFeed then threw out all that crap about prostitutes, golden showers, etc. and people lumped CNN in with BuzzFeed, arguing that CNN gave BuzzFeed cause to do that.

I do not think that is true. The intelligence story was coming from multiple outlets. CNN beat everyone, but was cautious in its approach and measured in its tone. BuzzFeed set the dumpster on fire and did so with reckless disregard for truth or journalistic integrity and CNN got caught in the blaze.

I have been happy to criticize CNN this past year when I thought they deserved it, but I do not think they deserve it here.

Thanks Buzzfeed For Taking Down The MSM

By releasing the salacious innuendo worthy of any supermarket tabloid just a day before Trump’s first news conference since July 27, the press has effectively killed its own credibility to ask real questions today.

Even the New York Times got in on the act, using the fig leaf that they were covering Trump being warned by the FBI, not the unproven allegations themselves.

The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of Mrs. Clinton. The Times has checked on a number of the details included in the memos but has been unable to substantiate them.

A grab-bag of outlandish and even unbelievable claims, many of which fly in the face of what is publicly known about Trump, is not worthy of newsprint in the legitimate press. Now the legitimate press has sabotaged its legitimacy to ask Trump about Russia.

Everything Trump has claimed about the press being dishonest and biased was proven true by this breach of journalistic standards. They are going to ask him about Russian hacking, conflicts of interest, Obamacare, and immigration. Trump is going to respond by telling them how they are a bunch of lying scumbags. Outside of those in the media, the beltway, and the political elite, who will Americans believe?

They’re going to believe Trump.

For a year and a half, Trump has called the media dishonest, and they’ve proven him right by publishing half-baked, paid opposition research as news. Even reporters who rightly reacted with horror at this orgy of self-indulgent wishing will be rendered less effective by it.

Why? Because the PEOTUS is tweeting Laura Ingraham’s lifezette.com to debunk Buzzfeed. Buzzfeed tried and failed to become mainstream news (“We have always erred on the side of publishing”–Ben Smith), and now they’ve taken down the mainstream news media with them. In the Trump era, there will no longer be such a thing as a news organ of record. It’s going to be every one for him or herself, and Trump will divide and conquer as he always does. The NYT vs. Buzzfeed vs. Ingraham vs. Breitbart (or the National Enquirer); it’s all the same in Trump world.

Instead of a serious examination of what Trump knew about Russian hacking, disinformation, and manipulation, we’ll have a circus today. Instead of questioning Trump’s appointment of his own son-in-law as an official White House adviser, we’ll get to see Trump make mincemeat of his questioners. Instead of getting the truth about Trump’s relationship with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the anti-vaxxers, we’ll get trolled.

It’s certainly possible that Trump will stand up and be completely forthright and transparent today. I hope he is. But nobody really expects that.

Now the press, by being so stupidly and blatantly biased–Erick called them the “resistance”–has emasculated itself and destroyed its own ability to make Trump accountable. They’ve only empowered and encouraged him to cling to his worst attributes.

Buzzfeed Attack on Chip and Joanna Backfires

Ben Smith and Buzzfeed’s relentless anti-Christian bigotry may have over played their hand. Tuesday’s attack post, by Kate Arthur, has been met with denunciation from across the political spectrum. From posts by our own Erick Erickson and Gabby Hoffman to a self-described liberal homosexual, writing for the Washington post.

Not only has this cowardly attack failed to hurt Chip and Joanna, it’s now backfired on Buzzfeed.

While HGTV is spiking the ball and celebrating the record-breaking premier of Fixer-Upper, Buzzfeed is on defense.

Brandon Ambrosino, described the attack by Buzzfeed as dangerous. He believes it’s dangerous for several reasons (and he’s right) but he particularly points out that the attack is actually quite counterproductive for the LGBT community.

Enter Trump — the voice of all of the people liberals and activists have been shutting up for the past eight years. It’s no secret that part of Trump’s success is owed to how skillfully he invalidated the media’s authority in the eyes of his conservative followers. The message was very clearly: The media doesn’t like me because I’m conservative, and they don’t like you because you’re conservative, and they’re going to try to ruin all of us, so let’s just ignore them.

And then, like clockwork, BuzzFeed published a story proving him right.

The old strategy of journalists shaming “hicks” is not going to work anymore because our new president seems to be on their side. Sure, no one really believes Trump is homophobic, and sure, he has given his word that same-sex marriage will not be overturned. But as is very clear by now, Vice President-elect Mike Pence (who is literally one heartbeat away from the presidency) has a political past that rightly scares LGBT people and our allies. Also very clear: Many enthusiastic Trump supporters oppose same-sex marriage. Like it or not, we now have to engage them.

It’s clear that Brandon realizes much more about the state of play (as well as basic persuasion/manners and journalism) than Ben Smith can comprehend.

Watching Ben Smith self-immolating on twitter, trying to defend their bigoted attacks, has been a blast. It seems that responding to reasoned arguments and his own institutional double-standards isn’t something he does well…

Christians are called to shine our light wherever we are. While my exposure to Chip and Joanna is limited to watching their show on Netflix, I see a couple who tries to glorify God ever day. Christianity isn’t just a Sunday thing for them, it’s a lifestyle.

I’m proud that they’ve lived their faith in such a way as to be both blameless of wrongdoing and worthy of being a target.

Stop Bigotry Against Christians in America. Demand Federal Religious Liberty Legislation.

Yesterday, Kate Aurthur at BuzzFeed maliciously targeted Chip and Joanna Gaines because they are Bible believing Christians. Aurthur’s article at BuzzFeed attempted to harm them and their television success because the church they attend supports real marriage, which BuzzFeed’s editorial policy decries as bigotry.

We are going to see this more and more nationally. TAKE ACTION

Over the past several years, the gay mafia has specifically targeted Christian small businesses for harassment. Christian florists, bakers, photographers, t-shirt printers, pizza restauranteurs etc. have seen gay activists come into their businesses, made demands they gay activists knew would put these Christians in conflict with their religious beliefs, then turned to various state governments to punish those Christians who refused to violate their faith.

It is a recurring pattern and the activists are now less and less likely to even deny they are intentionally targeting Christians. SUPPORT FEDERAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY LEGISLATION

In Georgia, when the state legislature attempted to pass religious liberty legislation, Senator Johnny Isakson came out strongly against it stating that we needed a national law, not fifty state laws on religious liberty. Senator Isakson took the position that the Christian small businessman should not be punished for refusing to violate his faith.

That is actually a position held by a majority of Americans.

BuzzFeed’s latest attack on Christians is further evidence that the left intends to attack and punish any Christian who continues to believe in real marriage and who does not accept the anti-science notion that boys can become girls and girls can become boys.

We know, by the way, that states cannot do this anymore. If a state, like North Carolina, passes a law saying men cannot be in our daughters’ bathrooms, the NCAA and major corporations punish the state on behalf of the gay mafia. Only federal legislation will work to avoid that sort of punishment and those boycotts.

Take action now to tell Congress to pass federal religious liberty legislation to protect Christian small businesses and keep men out of our daughters’ bathrooms.

Use the form below to generate an email, tweet, and Facebook message to your senators and members of congress demanding they support legislation to protect Christian small businesses.

Ben Smith, BuzzFeed, and Their Relentless Anti-Christian Bigotry

Ben Smith and BuzzFeed seem intent to remind culturally conservative black, Hispanic, and white Democratic voters who all went for Trump that they made the right decision. While Smith continues to defend the character assassination of Chip and Joanna Gaines written by Kate Aurthur on his site, the reality is that millions and millions of Americans not only support the Gaines family, but voted for Trump because people like Smith and Aurthur made them feel under imminent assault for holding multi-thousand year old beliefs still shared by a majority of people on the planet. To maliciously target a Christian couple in an attempt to ruin their careers merely for holding to orthodox Christian beliefs just affirms the left’s increasing bigotry toward people of faith.

The dictionary defines bigotry as “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.” Kate Aurthur, Ben Smith, and BuzzFeed are showing absolute bigotry toward Chip and Joanna Gaines by publishing an article designed to provoke a reaction against the Gaines family solely for going to an evangelical Christian church.

The title of Aurthur’s article, “Chip And Joanna Gaines’ Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage,” and impetus for targeting them applies to literally any Catholic in the United States who shows up at a church for mass. It applies to any muslim, except that it says “church.” It is a dangerous precedent.

BuzzFeed, under Smith’s leadership, has declared the issue of gay marriage not up for debate. There is no alternate opinion that is acceptable and any of the billion Christians and Muslims worldwide who believe otherwise is a hateful bigot.

Now BuzzFeed has taken their bigotry against orthodox Bible believing Christians and Muslims to the next level. They are now willfully and maliciously targeting them to ruin their careers and livelihoods. That is exactly what BuzzFeed is doing and Ben Smith is being dishonest when he says Aurthur’s article is about HGTV, not the Gaines family.

I am guessing that actual Bible believing Christians are not welcome to work at BuzzFeed because actual Bible believing Christians believe the Bible and the Christian Bible’s New Testament is quite clear about homosexuality though a group of liberals in the country has done their best to pervert the meaning of the scripture.

In Romans 1, Paul wrote,

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Romans 1:26-27

The reason for God giving people up to their dishonorable passions was that they “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” (Romans 1:25)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 contains this language:

Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The footnote in the ESV version of the Bible after the phrase “men who practice homosexuality” helpfully notes that “[t]he two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.”

1 Timothy 1:8-11 reads

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

This is all New Testament scripture and Christians around the world take this to be truth. Homosexuality is a sin, just like adultery, lying, stealing, and drunkenness.

If a Christian believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, that Christian believes this. BuzzFeed and Ben Smith are now taking the position that to believe this is to be unworthy of a job on television. Many, many people voted for Donald Trump because of stuff like this. They felt their faith was up against an existential threat and they fought back with surprising results.

This is not only an illiberal development, it is also very much an un-American concept.