New Orleans Women's March Canceled: lack of support

The January event of the New Orleans Women's March is now canceled due to a "drastic" drop-off in support, The Washington Times reports.

“Due to several issues we have decided it is necessary to cancel the 2019 Women’s March in New Orleans,” the National Organization for Women’s Baton Rouge chapter posted on social media Friday. 

The reason for the cancelation may have to do with the notion that some people, even some on the left, don't want to be associated with a group led by anti-Semites such as Linda Sarsour, Carmen Perez, Tamika Mallory and a woman named Bob Bland, although they did not initially specify the "issues" that led to NOW canceling the New Orleans Women's March.

This march is one of the largest in the country, and a further statement indicated a severe drop-off in both participation and fundraising after two major exposes in Tablet and in The New York Times revealed that the national Women's March's hierarchy was a hotbed of anti-Semitism and a refusal to denounce the loudest anti-Semite in the public eye, Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the hate group Nation of Islam (NOI).

NOW Baton Rouge clearly believes the national Women's March leadership, including organizers Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, and Carmen Perez, should resign.

"Many of the sister marches have asked the leaders of Women’s March, Inc. to resign but as of today, they have yet to do so,” NOW Baton Rouge's statement read. “The controversy is dampening efforts of sister marches to fundraise, enlist involvement, find sponsors and attendee numbers have drastically declined this year. New Orleans is no exception.”

Anti-Semitism is practically the normal cocktail conversation of the EU lately and has become increasingly open and accepted in some circles. Hatred of the Jews is actually part of the Islamic religion, which is why the Middle East is mainly on board with the total annihilation of Israel.

NOW Baton Rouge added that while they will be moving away from the annual marches, they will continue to work on behalf of the "resistance" in Louisiana.

"However, this does not mean the end of our momentum in Louisiana. It’s time to look past the marching and look towards a new stage of the movement," they added. "Going forward, we will re-organize and re-evaluate the momentum that the Women’s March gave all of us the first two years."

To prevent accusations of mismanagement, Baton Rouge NOW noted that they will be refunding donations and t-shirt purchases from unhappy members.

Although conservative organizations have often reported on Women's March leaders like the rodent-face Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory, and their support for Farrakhan, stories published in Tablet and even The New York Times revealed to the mainstream that several of the March's key players associated regularly with the NOI and openly expressed anti-Semitic sentiments, even in the early days of the Women's March organization.

The New York Times and Tablet reports revealed that Sarsour, Mallory, and Perez pushed out Jewish women in leadership positions with the Women's March, and that Mallory -- who only recently attended the Nation of Islam's "Saviors Day" event, where Farrakhan likened Jews to tools of the devil -- "confronted" Jewish Women's March leaders over their role in the "oppression" of minorities.


Mallory, Tablet says, “asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people—and even, according to a close secondhand source, claimed that Jews were proven to have been leaders of the American slave trade.” Which, of course, is bull crap. 

If any country is involve with the slave trade today, it would be Saudi Arabia, and many laborers in the Middle East are treated like slaves, sleeping dozens in one room, being beaten and paid a paupers salary.

And it wasn't the Jews dealing with the American slave trade--there weren't enough Jews, first of all, and the Jews that were in America during slavery were mainly powerless. It was primarily the British and it began in England. But to learn more about Jews and the slave trade, click here .

Instead of apologizing and distancing themselves from the Nation of Islam and its crap weasel leader, the Women's March has issued a series of lukewarm statements on "intersectionality." Mallory herself issued a shocking statement to The New York Times that only made the situation worse and proves the existence of her anti-Semitic sentiments.

The revelations have triggered a wave of Women's March cancellations.

In fact, the New Orleans Women's March is just the latest in a number of Women's Marches that won't be marching this year. Last week, the Chicago Women's March announced that it was canceling its annual event, which drew more than a quarter million people last year, over the same accusations of anti-Semitism. Several other, smaller marches are also canceled.

The anti-Semitic leadership is groveling in its own waste.

The Humboldt County Women's March was also canceled, but for a different reason unrelated to the national March. Northern California will not have a march because the racist organizers believed the march was "too white."

It doesn't get any crazier than this, folks.

Happy New Year fellow conservatives. Health and happiness to all. I hope that you follow Brain Flushings throughout the New Year and comment on any issues within. Please feel free to check out the sponsors on these pages too.


Tweet

A British-Iranian Woman Imprisoned, Goes on Hunger Strike

Ghoncheh Ghavami, 25, a British-Iranian law student was visiting her family back in Iran, or the "old country" and working for a charity organization while there. She made the unforgivable mistake of attempting to attend a men-only volleyball game last June.

She was sent to prison for three months before they charged her with "propaganda against the regime." She is being held in Evin prison, a prison known for its violent volleyball breakers of the rules of the Islamic state.

Ghoncheh is now on a hunger strike but the Iranian government is claiming that she was planning to lose weight anyway, and actually looks marvelous.

She tried, along with about a dozen other volleyball rule breaking women to see the Iran men play Italy. Her brother, Iman (no relation to Imus in the Morning or, the "I Man" as he is often called) said that the charges against Ghoncheh are "ambiguous." What he meant by that remark is unclear.

Naked Iranian Men

But the law is the law and this one was enacted in 2012 when it was deemed that mixed crowds were "un-Islamic" because male athletes are not considered fully dressed, and this may cause women to have sexual fantasies about them and this too is un-Islamic because these athletes may be married and this would make their 9 year old wives very jealous.

Instead, Islam suggests that women who are looking for good Islamic entertainment should join the jihad and partake in a beheading to relieve themselves of pent up blood lust.

Even the word "ball" is questionable as to whether it is okay to say as it often is used to refer to men's testicles. But the Ayatollah is a fair-minded man, (if you're not Jewish, Christian, American, Hindu, a woman, gay or an atheist) and has allowed men to play with balls and other such sports equipment so long as it does not interfere with their five daily prayers to the moon god, Allah.

Practically naked Iranian Women

And while the Ayatollah banned only those people with vaginas from watching men hardly dressed, the International Federation of Volleyball warned Iran about this ban, and this point was brought up by the Iman, Ghoncheh's brother. He said his sister thought the ban was lifted. 

Funny thing, Ghoncheh was originally released after four hours of questioning when she tried getting into the match, but when she tried collecting her belongings days later, she was rearrested once they discovered her dual citizenship.

The Iman gathered half a million signatures to petition the British government to get off their duffs and bring her back to the UK, but nothing has been done as yet. In fact, Hassan Rouhani, Iran's president, told the Communist News Network (CNN) that Ghavami is not recognized by Iran as a UK citizen.

So far, Women for Women International has done for Ghavami what the National Organization for Women has done for women across the world who suffered from Islamic violence such as: genital mutilation, stoning: zip, nada, nothing.



Tweet

Arab Press Can't Believe Muslims Don't Speak Out Against ISIS

The Arab press is attacking the Islamic State terrorists for making the rest of Islam look bad. Many Muslim leaders and Arab pundits are calling the "actions" of IS "cancerous," and that it makes other Islamic jihad terrorism pale in comparison.

Muslim imams and other members of the so-called "religion of peace", such as the the Ayatollah, Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, Imad Mughniyah, Hassan Izz-Al-Din, Ali Atwa, Abdul Rahman Yasin, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ahmed Ibrahim Al-Mughassil, Ali Saed Bin Ali El-Hoorie, Ibrahim Salih Mohammed Al-Yacoub, Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed Al-Nasser, Mohammed Atef, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil, Ahmed Ghailani, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan, Anas al-Liby, Saif al-Adel, Ahmed Mohammed Hamed Ali and Mushin Musa Matwali Atwah, to name just a few, were criticized in the past for not condemning terrorist acts against innocent civilians. 

All these terrorists had to say for themselves was that nobody who refuses to worship Allah is innocent. They added, "How do I know? The Koran tells me so." Okay, I added that--it comes from an old spiritual song.

But an editorial in Al-Quds Al-Arabi based in London (where English soldiers are beheaded on the street and there are 'no go' zones galore) called on moderate Muslims to denounce ISIS. "All we have to do to understand the high price that Muslims pay on all levels [for such actions] is to see how Westerners snatch up [such reports on] ISIS's conquests, invasions and despicable actions, and share them on social media in order to tarnish the image of Islam," the editorial read. "We haven't heard one single voice in the camp of moderate Islam condemning taking women prisoner or expropriating peaceful citizen's property and money of ISL in Mosul, or any who distanced themselves from the shocking fatwas that seem to be carefully formulated for [maximum] service to the enemy."

I take issue on that statement. We Westerners don't "snatch up" reports on "ISIS's conquests, invasions and despicable actions" to share them on social media in order to "tarnish the image of Islam;" we put them on social media to DESCRIBE Islam. Some of us even quote the Koran to show why terrorism is taking place in the world. It's part of jihad and the caliphate. Who spoke out against the fatwah on Salman Rushdie for writing Satanic Verses? The same self-righteous Arab press who wrote this editorial said nothing.


Young Muslims do not stand up against ISIS, many actually leave their family to join the terrorist group. And to refer to ISIS as "militants" gives them credibility of purpose. They are terrorists, plain and simple. They kill people who don't view religion, freedom or democracy the same way as they do, and they are totally intolerant.

But it isn't only Muslims who refuse to make their voices heard, it's all the PC liberals, the gays, the women's organizations who pretend to advocate for women the world over. When GLAAD takes a serious stand against Iran hanging gays, when NOW takes a stand about the stoning of women for myriad reasons, then I'll change my tune.

The Associated Press claims that CAIR, "the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the United States has also rebuked the militants and repudiated those who encourage Americans and others to join extremist groups." But CAIR is as much for civil rights for Muslims as they are for defending Israel's right to exist--not at all.

CAIR has been designated as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trials and many of its leaders are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization whose charter clearly states "It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." Hassan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder.

"American Muslims view the actions of ISIS as un-Islamic and morally repugnant," CAIR said. "No religion condones the murder of civilians, the beheading of religious scholars or the desecration of houses of worship. We condemn the actions of ISIS and reject its assertion that all Muslims are required to pay allegiance to its leader."

But the Koran, Islam's most "holy" book, says: "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." (Koran 2:216) 

Maybe CAIR isn't being straight with us. I don't mean to imply that they're being homosexual with us by not being straight, homosexuality is un-Islamic and merits death.

There are 109 verses that call for Muslims to fight non-believers in Islam. There are also plenty of examples in the Hadith, or biography of Mohammed, the prophet of the religion of peace, but you get the point.

Tweet

HBO Has BO

When I want to see a fictional representation of current events, I turn on MSNBC. When I want to see a disgusting display of political fiction that shamelessly portrays conservatives as racist scum not worthy of even a modicum of respect, I flip over to HBO.

But I'm kidding. I don't watch MSNBC or HBO.

Recently (but not too recently since my computer crashed and I just got it back a few hours ago) I heard that the HBO series "True Blood" played an episode that showed a fundraiser for a fictional Ted Cruz. There was a political fundraiser at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and it insults the GOP and coined the term "Republi-cunt." 

The real Ted Cruz called it "misogynistic and profanity-ridden," and said he was surprised "HBO is suggesting that hard-core leftists are blood-sucking fiends . . ." I believe he was being politically correct in referring to HBO that way--they are much worse and seem to represent what the left is all about.

There were also plans, I heard, to invite Sarah Palin to appear in a cameo where she would be unwittingly depicted as the surly term implies. Governor Palin was wise enough to decline their offer, but you get the picture.

John Nolte from Breitbart News discussed the situation and remarked " . . . pop culture's mean-spirited and degrading cruelty towards Republican women is now the norm, not the exception."

Where is NOW in all this? Do they only defend Democratic women? Do they refuse to defend Republican women or Muslim women who are abused with genital mutilation and other forms of physical assault, not to mention the lack of basic rights?

I imagine they're hiding next to the boys of GLAAD. (Maybe GLAAD will attack Nelsan Ellis instead of Islam--he quit "True Blood" because he didn't want to play a gay part.

When it comes to real civil rights, the left is not really civilized and they have no real courage.


Tweet

Islam and Rape: it's a man's world if you're Muslim

A week has gone by since Easter Sunday and many will look back on the holiest day of the Christian year with good memories. Not so for a 7 year old Pakistani girl and her family.

On Easter Sunday, in the village of Mahly Ki Tehsil, Daska District, Siakot, a 7 year old child was raped by Mohammed Fakhar Ala, a Muslim man of faith.

The child, Saira, bled for 3 days and was not immediately taken to a hospital as two landlords tried to pressure the family not to file a complaint agains Mohammed the child rapist. But thankfully, on April 22nd, the complaint was filed and Mohammed the child rapist was arrested along with another co-accused piece of human feces.

Mohammed, the child rapist (not to be confused with another pedophile who shared the same name centuries before the current scumbag was born) confessed to the rape, the British Pakistani Christian Association reported.

 Saira is currently hospitalized and is said to be in critical condition. Pray for her

This isn't an isolated incident. Muslim men believe they have the right to rape non-Muslim women, it's in the "holy" Koran. "Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please" (2:223). And let us never forget that the prophet of Islam, Muhammed, married Ayisha, when she was 6 years old and still playing with dolls, and consummated the marriage when she was 9, and still playing with dolls--Muhammed was 52. Raping children was all the rage, it seems.

In December 2012, a 6 year old Hindu girl was raped by a Muslim while she played in the street. Last year a 15 year old girl was raped by 2 landlords. And so on.

It's a myster how human rights organizations and the mainstream media have remained silent on the abuse of women in Islam. Women are clearly not as valuable to their god as men. If a woman is raped, she needs 3 male witnesses or risk being found guilty of adultery and subsequently be stoned to death. A woman is only entitled to half the inheritance that her brother gets from the family estate. Women are deemed less intelligent than men, and have less overall worth in the eyes of Allah.

But the fact the NOW does nothing and says nothing, is not surprising. They have bigger fish to fry--like the GOP, for example. Then again, why isn't the organization, Freedom from Religion attacking Islam like they attack Christians?

So many cowards, so many hypocrites.

A New York reporter, is captured by Islamist terrorists who demand the release of three Gitmo prisoners in exchange for him. If the president refuses their demands, they plan to behead the reporter and videotape it for the Internet. But the United States doesn’t give in to terrorist’s demands and he has 24 hours before he is to be executed. 

The clock is ticking . . .                                         

Jihad Joe Soft Cover

click here for ebook version  

My other blog New York Canuck

Tweet

A Dozen Questions by a Conservative

1. If Starbucks can refuse service to gun owners, why can't a photographer refuse service to people they don't want to serve? What about bakery owners? Starbucks is anti-gun and believes that they have the right to refuse people service, even the police who may be carrying guns and simply want a cup of bitter coffee. 

On the other hand, a Catholic parade, Saint Patrick's, lost the sponsorship of Diageo, the parent company of Guinness and Heineken, and Sam Adams Beer, in New York City and Boston, respectively. The parade organizers refused to make the parade an endorsement for gays advertising their sexuality and the beer companies rescinded their sponsorship. Gay banners announcing sexual orientation have nothing to do with the parade.

2. Why do people who attack God, symbols of religion, and Christianity more specifically, fail to attack Islam, and even defend it in some cases? I suspect the answer is simple: our Judeo-Christian practices are peaceful and make for easy targets. Islam, on the other hand, is not so peaceful, especially when even mildly criticized. But maybe I'm misguided. What do you think?

3. How has president Obama's policies made America stronger, safer, and respected by the world community?

4. Why is there no outcry from women's organizations like NOW, against the treatment of women in Islamic countries?

5. Why hasn't gay or lesbian groups like GLAAD spoken out against the treatment of gays in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim nations? They complain like hell when we refuse them the chance to march in our straight parades, but maybe if we did the same thing they do in Iran, hang them from public scaffolding for their crime against Allah, they'd sing a different tune. Maybe a show tune.

6. Why do liberals say the discussion is over about climate change? And why did they change the term to "global warming?" All of the facts are not in, and much of what we know is only theory.

7. Why hasn't congress done anything of substance to Hillary, Holder, and Lerner?

8. Why isn't there a real outcry, a livid response, about the fact that a number of people of the Muslim Brotherhood have visited our White House and met with Obama and nothing was revealed about the substance?

9. Why don't conservatives boycott companies that espouse anti-American and/or anti-Constitutional sentiments?

10.Why do we allow politicians to skirt around the issues and refuse to answer questions?

11. Why do liberals think that blacks should only vote the way they would like blacks to vote? Do they believe that blacks should not have free will?

12. Has Jay Carney ever told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? What about his boss?



Tweet

No to the Gay Life in Russia and other Places

The United Nations (a.k.a. United Nations of Islam) has verbally admonished Russia for its laws against homosexuality. Imagine, if you will, how horrible it must be, for a gay person in Russia getting arrested for a "crime" involving another gay person committing the same "crime" that has no victim. Imagine how terrible it must be for simply expressing your love, or at the very least, your sexual feelings toward someone of your same gender. You could be put in the Russian slammer for five years. And it is in the slammer where homosexual behavior runs rampant and unchecked.

How The Left is Hustling US

Hustler Magazine CEO, Larry-I'm-Just-So-Outrageous-Flynt, has done what the left often does: demeans women. He published a photo of S.E. Cupp with a penis in her mouth, disclaimed the photo as a fake, and the left, as it often does with photos of penises, ate it up, so to speak. 

But no worries--NOW is on the case and has denounced the photo and Flynt's mysoginistic attack on women--wait--they haven't actually denounced it, but maybe, just maybe they will.  If they don't, we know our illustrious President, Barack Hussein Obama, will call Ms. Cupp and comfort her like he did to Sandra Fluke (pronounced like Fluck).  Of course, if you believe that, then I have a health care plan to sell you that begins with a vowel.

Why is it the left only defends women on the left and not womanhood? Because to do so would mean they must defend women in general, left or right.  And the one thing the left cannot stand is fairness and honesty.  It doesn't get any more hypocritical than that.

Beautiful Women of NOW

Wait, it does get more hypocritical than that.  NOW has also quietly stood by in cases where women without political affiliations to the right or left have been mistreated.  I am referring to Muslim women who must answer to the brutality laid upon them by Sharia law.  While most of the inhumane treatment to women is perpetrated in Islamic countries, there are honor killings and other forms of abuse that take place in North America, and NOW has done nothing at all to address this problem.  In fact, they basically refuse to speak about it.  And need I remind you that NOW is a leftist organization that pretends so well to mean well, they actually believe their propaganda?  They attack Rush for calling Sandra Fluke (pronounced Fluck) a slut, but allow Bill-I-Can-Lick-My-Nose-Maher, Chris "Tingles" Matthews, and Ed-Poo-Poo-Pants-Schultz to say worse things about conservative women. 

Their Wish List

But the biggest problem is the fact that conservatives allow these clowns to get away with it.  I have yet to hear Romney or any Republican attack them directly.  All Republicans seem to do is apologize when they're accused of any indiscretion.  Even Rush, who knew he was wrong, apologized about using the "s" word.  Instead, he should have immediately attacked Maher et al and demanded they apologize too.

We live in a world of chronic double-standards and the left has showed us the way.

 

If you want a great read about modern day terrorism and suspense, my latest novel, Jihad Joe, is now available both in soft cover and as an Ebook--see the links below. 

Jihad Joe Soft Cover          

click here for ebook version  

Conservatweets ebook free download

Tweet

Hypocrisy Squared

Change--please change

On January 21, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama welcomed his new senior staff and Cabinet Secretaries to the White House. He made one of his typical flowery speeches but the most important thing he told them was:  

"Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former president wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the white house counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so; it will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well-grounded in the Constitution. Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

Now his Attorney General, Eric Holder, has his own problems, not with transparency, but his lack of it in the now famous, (at least to the conservative media audience), Fast and Furious operation, where weapons were allowed to "walk" into the hand of straw buyers and subsequently, to drug cartels. At least two weapons were responsible for the murder of ICE agent Brian Terry.  Holder denies any knowledge of the operation, the administration is not releasing all the records requested, and the roots of this operation are as transparent as Obama's secret meeting on the actual issue of transparency, back in the same year he took office. Yes, you read this correctly--Obama had a secret meeting on the issue of transparency and how it should be "handled" by his people.  This is known as hypocrisy. At least Holder was not guilty of being hypocritical as he did not call the parents of Brian Terry, nor say to them that he was sorry for the agent's death.


Hypocrisy: the state of pretending and professing to have standards, virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, and the like, that one does not actually possess. It involves deceit, falseness. Hypocrite: one who practices hypocrisy


 Used in the following sentences:
1. Liberals tend to display hypocrisy when attacking conservatives. 2. Who is more of a hypocrite, Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama? 

Let's get specific. Bill-Smoke-This-Clinton could not keep his pants from falling below his knees when he was, in the liberal mind, the greatest president who ever did not have sex with that woman . . . Miss Lewinsky. The media protected him, even after other women came forward. Lots of other women. Instead of looking into Bill's behavior, they attacked the women who were harassed by Bill. On the other hand, when Clarence Thomas, a Republican, was accused by Anita Hill of sexually harassing her, the media was all over him and made her out to be a saintly victim of this oversexed black man. Liberals always see black men as oversexed while they pretend to be the party for racial equality. Tell that to the southern blacks lynched by the Dixiecrats for looking at a white woman.

Now we have Herman Cain, who is being accused of nonspecific inappropriate behavior, by three anonymous women and one woman who seems suspect due to her past and her current need for money. Chris Matthews already labeled Cain as guilty, without a trial, without evidence, and for Matthews, with nothing more than a tingle up his leg for Obama. The liberal rationale is, that if one woman makes a claim of sexual misconduct, well, no big deal. If two, then maybe there's something to it. Three, well he must be guilty. Four is a given. Except that all four women were connected to the National Restaurant Association, all from Chicago, and one even lives in David Axelrod's building. And if you know anything about Axelrod and Chicago politics, you know that having doubts about the authenticity of anything he is involved with, is legitimate.  

Cain only worked for the NRA for 3 years and has decades more time in businesses spent elsewhere, and he has an impeccable record. In America, a man is innocent until proven guilty. That's what separates us from dictatorships. And let's face it, no matter what those morons on the left say about America, you don't have any leftists moving from here to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. They come here because of our freedoms and opportunity.

Killing babies since 1966

Hypocrisy on the left is clearly visible with certain leftist organizations, like the National Organization for Women, "taking no real action for women since 1966." Their claim to fame was burning their bras back in the 60's along with the proud killing of babies, but when it comes to real feminist issues, like those issues where women are stoned to death in certain parts of the world, by their Muslim counterparts for being raped, or for marrying or not marrying those who they wish to marry or not, NOW is as useless as reason at an Occupy protest. NOW should be ashamed of their lack of action where these poor women are concerned, but they dismiss them as irrelevant to their cause. I guess killing innocent babies is what they really stand for.

Sharia law in action

In my next blog, I will discuss more hypocrisy as it involves the left and its take on religion, sharia, and the Constitution. Or maybe I'll just rant about something else.



 

Tweet