The Journolist quotes today released by The Daily Caller are nothing short of astounding. First of all, they confirm the worst paranoia of conservatives: the media has an outright agenda and has conspired to use their soap boxes to manipulate public opinion. Secondly, respected writers and opinion leaders are more than willing to throw their causes and values under the proverbial bus to advance the interests of the Democratic Party and specific liberal leaders.

And liberals call conservatives mindless lemmings…

I disagree with Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. He writes:

There is something to keep in mind in this particular story, which is that the people involved in the specific conversations regarding the smear are all opinion journalists, and not people filling roles in objective reporting.  The Prospect, the (Washington) Independent, and the Nation are all publications with an explicit point of view, although the Independent offers a little more of a pretense of traditional reporting.  That doesn’t relieve them of responsibility for proposing and/or considering an odious smear campaign, but it does make it difficult to tie this to other journalists filling a different role.

Sure, the individuals quoted in Daily Caller fall under “opinion writers,” but their opinions are hugely influential. Cable news channels, looking to fill hours and hours of airtime with commentary, often quote these specific writers or invite them to be interviewed. Their quotes and TV appearances are copied over and over in the blogosphere, effectively proving the words of Joseph Goebbels. Their words may originate as opinion, but they quickly enter the stream of “hard news.”

There’s no way of knowing how their Journolist comments influenced younger writers on the list or those working in nonprofits and think tanks. For example, if a young AP writer looks up to a well-known columnist spouting off opinions on Journolist, how do we know that coverage wasn’t tweaked? Those stories get filtered to smaller media markets and are often the only story presented on national or international news. Is it possible to fully grasp the amount of manipulation caused by influential writers with a political agenda?

This may be an extreme view, but Journolist shows collusion and conspiracy to promote one particular political agenda. Shouldn’t news outlets with any trace of integrity search their archives for similar phrasing to what was written in Journolist?

Journalism has never been an honorable field, but this really is a black mark on the industry. A group of people actively worked together to kill a story that possibly would have altered the 2008 election. What else have they conspired against? What other news have they manipulated and changed so that the American people only hear it from their perspective?

This also calls the entire racism debate into question. What is the exact state of race relations in America? If this was a convenient sleight-of-hand that liberals attempted to shift the focus of Jeremiah Wright and Obama, they had to know it would work. What other times have they tried it? What other stories have been manipulated, and individuals smeared to protect a particular leftist interest?

It’s pretty bad when journalism looks dirtier than public relations. At least folks in my industry are open about their biases.

What an accurate description! However, Feministing is one of the more prominent ones in lefty gal world, so people actually get their information and draw their opinions there. (Does that make you cringe, too?)

It makes my day when kick-ass conservative women bloggers, like Lori Ziganto, take on Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing. Given that Lori actually makes logical arguments and the extent of Jessica’s are typically, “but that’s so f—ing stupid to ME, so THEY are wrong.” (Don’t believe me? Read her books). Apparently Lori ruffled a few feathers, which resulted in Cassy Fiano responding at Hot Air.

What was all the fuss over? A simple ad in NYC subways that states, “abortion changes you.”

For the past few months, I’ve read numerous reports about pro-abortion women angered at the concept that abortion could change you. As John Hawkins described, it’s rather mild. Yet to feminists, this ad was incredibly offensive. No one should dare question their opinion on abortion. As liberal women, they have the final word.

Cassy touches on a subject that I’ve tried to understand:

It’s like they practically salivate over the thought of another woman getting an abortion. I don’t know why, but it’s sickening how much feminists try to actively convince women to have abortions.

I’ve seen that same enthusiasm and find it cold and calculating. Mentally, I’ve started referring to these type of women as the baby killer cheerleaders. You have women reveling in their abortion stories, bowling for abortion, blogging for abortion and tweeting an abortion. It doesn’t quite resonate with the “safe, legal, rare” drumbeat that liberals tried to use in the 90s. I guess the new motto is “YEA! ABORTION!”

As part of the larger liberal movement, feminists completely eliminate the concept of personal responsibility. A group of women doesn’t want to accept responsibilities for their actions and are convinced that women can and should have the same sexual abandon as a frat boy. They don’t want to deal with the consequences, and abortion makes it convenient for them. Don’t want a baby? Poof! Abortion makes the little unwanted mass of tissues disappear.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way, and a majority of Americans agree. Every woman who stands up and says, “this attitude and behavior is not acceptable” only highlights the shallow callousness of pro-abortion women. In order to succeed, they must silence all opposition and bully other women into agreeing with them. That’s the only pro-woman way, right?

Kudos to Cassy and Lori. I wish more women on the right would take on Jessica Valenti and others like her.

Susan B. Anthony List announced that Congressman Marsha Blackburn will be one of the Republicans at the summit. Blackburn is a tough, fiscal and social conservative. It also helps to have a woman articulating pro-life views. Plus she’s from Tennessee. Not that important of a factor, but she’s part of the delegation from my state.

Independent Women’s Forum raises some good points. Let’s scrap this bureaucratic monstrosity and find real answers that actually lower costs, such as tort reform and portability. The only problem is that those two issues directly hurt special interests that are long-time Democratic supporters. Thus, President Obama is at a crossroads. He can pass actual health care reform that will save money and make the market more affordable for all Americans. Or he can grow an increasingly bloated government with money that we don’t have and lower the quality of healthcare for all Americans. Option A actually helps people, while Option B protects his special interests. Sadly, I’m fairly certain that Obama will go with Option B, particularly since unions have been given special consideration.

But can he actually pass something? Can the anointed one, who entered his presidency with approval ratings in the high 70s and majorities in both houses, actually pass some type of major legislation before the mid-term elections? It’s not looking so good for the Dems. I hope that my Democratic friends on the Hill are job hunting.

Hot Air and Daily Caller question if Pelosi has the votes. House numbers have changed since the December vote while outrage over healthcare has only increased. February to November is a much shorter time period to remember a vote than December to November. House Democrats need this vote over and forgotten, and the American people are clearly tired of this debate. A CBS survey reports that 53% of Americans don’t believe we can afford to pass this legislation, which is more expensive than the Senate bill and provides funding for abortions.

Then there’s the problem of the vice president. Perhaps, we should make a new euphemism: out of the mouth of Biden.

It’s nostalgic to read a press release from NOW again. The organization was last seen sinking into the bubbling tar of the Clinton impeachment saga, babbling incomprehensibly about how sexual harassment really isn’t such a big deal when pro-abortion Democrat presidents do it. Like every appendage of the socialist state, NOW has no principle beyond fealty to the political party that grants it power, and the Democrats used to grant them a remarkable amount of power – enough to end the careers of Navy officers and combat pilots, after “investigations” that stopped just short of waterboarding. When NOW talks about “empowering” women, it speaks in the collective sense. Empowerment comes from obedience to feminist organizations, which use that power to drag an oversized chair up to the grim carving table where the Democrat Party wields its redistibutionist cleavers.

As I said earlier this week, feminists desperately need pro-lifers to continue the debate and keep their movement somewhat cohesive. Feminism is such a fractured ideal that abortion, err “women’s rights,” is the only real uniting thread. As long as the abortion debate continues, feminists have one common rallying point. Without it, they descend in to smaller, argumentative groups (lesbians vs. transgendered vs. black women vs. eco-feminists vs. porn stars vs. academics, etc. ).

We saw this in the early days of the radical women’s movement in the 6os. The movement was chaotic and cannibalistic. Every time a leader emerged, the masses destroyed her because they believed an individual female leader would trample the power of the collective. Roe vs. Wade was the only issue that anyone could unite around. After the 1973 decision, radical feminists tried to revive the movement with the Pornography Wars in the 80s but even that was contentious. As Doctor Zero wrote:

Some critics cite unquestioning support for unrestricted abortion rights as the primary demonstration of loyalty power feminists seek from their supporters, but the NOW offensive against the Tebow ad, and their response to Sarah Palin, suggest the true sacrament of radical feminism is not abortion… it’s opposition to the pro-life movement. Power in a collectivist system comes from tribal loyalty, and hatred is a powerful glue for holding collectives together. As with leftist racial groups, NOW has very little positive to offer its supporters these days, so it thrives by pointing fingers at its enemies. Religious people in general, and outspoken pro-life advocates in particular, look very good on the business end of a trembling finger.

Pro-lifers don’t need feminists. We have other issues and religious convictions to keep us motivated. Our movement is tightly defined and is based on absolute truths.We know that as long as abortions are conducted, we have a mission. Feminists derive their mission from fighting us. Resistance to another political force can not sustain a movement. Just look at all the failed third-parties throughout U.S. history.

But what makes feminism so fractured?  I frequently get comments from feminists saying, “If X or Y happens, perhaps all women can unite and vote together.” That simply won’t happen because of the very foundations that feminism is built on condemn it.

This is where things get confusing.  That fundamental opposition is based on the socialistic roots of feminism and the post-modern nature of the movement.

Groups based on post-modernism and moral relativism, the darlings of all left-of-center groups, will always struggle to achieve long-term survival. When truth and reality are different to each of your members, how do you form cohesion that can be multiplied into a strong political force? Dissensions and splintering will always occur. Identity politics ultimately fail. When groups form around superficial qualities rather than tightly defined philosophies, individuals with even more similarities will always join together and break off from the original group. They splinter off into smaller and smaller groups until the multiplier effect is destroyed.

This is why liberalism and progressives have always ebbed and flowed in this country. The movement consists of smaller groups that all believe different things. They were all united in 2008 against George W. Bush, but fell apart after Obama was elected. Just look at the progressive outrage at the health care bill.

Conversely, conservatism has always remained strong. Oh, we’ve achieved political power and lost it, but that is largely due to economic forces, abuse of power, a lack of leadership and the difference between Republicanism and conservatism.  Since the 18th century, the three pillars that unite conservatives have remained largely unchanged. Our labels are different (back then an American conservative would have been a liberal), but our philosophy is consistent.

This is a point that I’ve struggled to formulate for a while. I’ve discussed it terms of gender feminism vs. equity feminism, feminism vs. Feminism and Big Feminism vs. feminism. I continue to write these posts and always feel unsatisfied that I haven’t articulated what I see as the real problem. To go back to my original question, I continue to ask what is female empowerment?

On the surface, feminism is a positive thing. Hardly anyone would disagree that women have been maligned throughout history. Extending equality to cover gender and race was a much-needed step that our country took. I have no issue with this type of feminism known as equity feminism. As I’ve stated before, mainstream society absorbed this level of feminism. There will always be pockets of abuse and misogyny, but we have progressed radically in a few short decades.

To an equity feminist, female empowerment would be defined as providing equal opportunities to men and women. Once women are given the same opportunities as men, it is up to individual women to decide what is best for her life. This is why an educated woman can decide to stay home. Once society ensures the same opportunities for all genders, equality has been established. Equity feminism is built around the individual.

However, the downside is that the political movement that brought about this change has to either radically change, move onto another issue or acquiesce it’s power. It’s a problem of success.

Conversely, we have gender feminists.

Gender feminism is based on socialism. I hate invoking the socialism label, since many conservatives have cried wolf with it for so long. However, it is true. Feminism evolved out the the radical socialist movement that infiltrated the U.S. in the 1920s. Most of the early leaders in the feminist movement were members of the Communist Party or Socialist Party or were children of members.

The 1960s movement literally started when women involved with the civil rights battle were not promoted into leadership. The overwhelming majority were on the far, far left of the political spectrum and believed that capitalism, private property and right of the individual were hurting minorities and women. In order to win, those foundations had to be eliminated.

Look at the beliefs of gender feminism: men need to be suppressed to promote women, the entire patriarchy has to be destroyed to liberate women, in order to destroy the patriarchy, we have to move past capitalism, eliminate personal property and make sure that the rights of the individual do not trample the over-arching rights of the collective community. Is that not the gender version of socialism?

Remember that in socialism, the community is more important that the rights of the individual.Or as the the writers of Grassroots explained a woman can be pro-life and a feminist until she acts on her pro-life views. At that point, she’s placing her individual beliefs above other women and can’t be a feminist.

Go back to what Doctor Zero wrote:

Like every appendage of the socialist state, NOW has no principle beyond fealty to the political party that grants it power, and the Democrats used to grant them a remarkable amount of power – enough to end the careers of Navy officers and combat pilots, after “investigations” that stopped just short of waterboarding. When NOW talks about “empowering” women, it speaks in the collective sense. Empowerment comes from obedience to feminist organizations, which use that power to drag an oversized chair up to the grim carving table where the Democrat Party wields its redistibutionist cleavers.

If feminism is the gender arm of socialism, it answers to the greater political power. This is why when feminism disagrees with the leadership–the Democratic Party–feminism bends. You don’t see this in conservative circles. Many pro-life groups were blasted when they did not oppose the House’s health care bill. It was simply beyond the scope of their mission. After the Stupak Amendment was added, they were satisfied. They did not bend to the larger will of the Republican Party and rouse their members. They stuck to their individual mission.

Since the Democratic Party and the U.S. liberal community are more important than individual groups, feminists can afford to be hypocrites when it comes to defending Bill Clinton or discriminating against Sarah Palin. The collective is more important than the individual.

This is why empowering women to a gender feminist means forcing all women to agree with a checklist of issues and beliefs. Empowerment is not giving a woman the ability to make the best choices for herself, based on individual goals, beliefs and philosophies, but making sure that a woman makes decisions that uphold the collective’s views. Remember what Doctor Zero also said:

…the NOW offensive against the Tebow ad, and their response to Sarah Palin, suggest the true sacrament of radical feminism is not abortion… it’s opposition to the pro-life movement. Power in a collectivist system comes from tribal loyalty, and hatred is a powerful glue for holding collectives together. As with leftist racial groups, NOW has very little positive to offer its supporters these days, so it thrives by pointing fingers at its enemies. Religious people in general, and outspoken pro-life advocates in particular, look very good on the business end of a trembling finger.

Over and over again, I’ve said that feminism only respects liberal women. Even though a woman can reflect the values of equity feminism, that is not enough to entrenched groups like NOW. The minute they liberate their followers to support the promotion of other women, they lose the socialism war. Every Pam Tebow or Sarah Palin that deviates from the collective must be destroyed completely. Otherwise, the community is left open to asserting their own individual views and questioning the greater fight against capitalism.

I realize that this is an extraordinarily long post, but it more adequately covers my objections to feminism. Beyond the moral objections, I simply cannot support a collectivist group. The more I examine politics, the more I believe that the two philosophies of collectivism/community vs. individuals is the true battle. The issues will always change, but some people genuinely believe that their personal rights should be censored in order to make the community better. This is why liberals rarely object to higher taxes. Conservatives believe that when the individual is empowered, it encourages others to build better lives. I guess it could be described as “it takes a village vs. pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.”

One of those things is Net Neutrality.

It may sound harmless, but if enacted Net Neutrality would curtail free speech on the web and expand the power of the FCC over the Internet.

This is a growing concern of mine, and Howard Portnoy at Hot Air shares my concern.

This is not a right-left issue. This is a free speech issue that can harm both the left and right side of the blogosphere. Any time the Federal government attempts to curtail the freedom of expression on any technology, the citizens should be alarmed.