The practice of infant circumcision, which carries particular religious significance for Jews, may be outlawed later this year in San Fransisco. A ballot initiative is underway which would ask voters whether to prohibit the practice in November.
The proposed new law would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a person before they are 18-years-old.
“We don’t come at this from a religious angle,” Lloyd Schofield told the San Francisco Examiner. “We feel this is a very harmful thing. Parents are guardians. They are not owners of children. It’s a felony to tattoo a child.”
The effort is being taken seriously in light of last year’s ban of toys in McDonald’s Happy Meals. That move was enacted by the San Fransisco Board of Supervisors and provoked even leftist commentator Jon Stewart to call the city a “nanny state.”
Is it possible that PETA, an organization which has equated the eating of animals to the lynching of black Americans, has something in common with the Tea Party? I wondered when I received an email from a fellow Tea Partier which had originated from the radical animal rights group.
House File (HF) 1369 and Senate File (SF) 1118, which are currently making their way through the Minnesota State Legislature, could subject whistleblowers to criminal prosecution for their efforts to expose animal abuse on factory farms. If passed, these bills would penalize those who report and expose cruelty to animals and would put them at risk of being charged with a misdemeanor or even a felony, sentenced to pay heavy fines, and ordered to serve jail time. This legislation is a desperate attempt by agriculture industry giants to prevent consumers from learning the truth about how animals on factory farms live and die.
As PETA presents it, these bills appear to attack freedom of speech. By saying they “penalize those who report and expose cruelty to animals,” PETA makes it sound like speaking against a factory farm will become a criminal offense. Were this true, the Tea Party would indeed find itself allied with PETA against these bills.
Are liberal women responsible for neutering men, as Rep. Allen West told a group of Tea Partiers in Boca Raton, FL last week? In a word, yes.
Here’s the statement West made to a group of conservative women that has people on the left riled up:
We need you to come in and lock shields, and strengthen up the men who are going to the fight for you. To let these other women know on the other side — these planned Parenthood women, the Code Pink women, and all of these women that have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness — to let them know that we are not going to have our men become subservient. That’s what we need you to do. Because if you don’t, then the debt will continue to grow…deficits will continue to grow.
I’m sure West’s use of the word “subservient” was like nails on a chalkboard to the left. After all, servitude is the very thing they pride themselves on having saved women from. The notion that men are in any way subservient is laughable to this group — they think men in America have it made.
Yet West is correct: American men have been demoted. They were once respected providers and protectors; today, they’re considered unnecessary, irrelevant, and downright expendable. Men do need lifting up, and conservative women are precisely the ones to do it.
The best example to date of America’s new attitude toward men is a statement actress Jennifer Aniston made in August of last year:
Women are realizing more and more that you don’t have to settle, they don’t have to fiddle with a man to have a child.
Isn’t that just Hollywood talking trash, you ask. Don’t these women live on another planet? Perhaps. But no Hollywood actress would have dared to think, much less say, such a thing forty years ago – whether she was a Republican or a Democrat. One could only feel comfortable making such a statement in a society that’s gone off the deep end.
Here’s another example.
Less than one month ago – after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad began launching his brutal attacks against his own people – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to him as a “reformer.” She was continuing President Obama’s fruitless exercise of “engagement” with Iran’s best friend in the Middle East.
As one resident of the besieged city of Dara’a (the center of the Syrian opposition movement) said, while filming tanks entering the city:
These are the reforms of Bashar al-Assad. He is reforming Dara’a with the tanks of Bashar al-Assad.
The freedom of speech is perhaps the most popular among those cited in the Bill of Rights. The ability to express yourself without fear of fine or incarceration is essential to the maintenance of a free society. Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer, a prolific author on the topic of Islam, has an important article at Human Events suggesting that free speech may be endangered.
On Good Friday in Dearborn, Mich., the notorious Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones was jailed and fined for the crime of refusing to pay a so-called “peace bond” to cover the costs of extra police protection for Jones’ planned demonstration outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn. Judge Mark Somers also ordered Jones to stay away from the massive Dearborn mosque for three years.
Spencer points out that Jones was not the threat to public order that Dearborn authorities treated him as. Rather, the threat to public order was the prospect of violent reaction from Muslims.
… if Jones and his fellow protesters were not being violent themselves, wouldn’t the responsibility for any disturbance be upon those who decided to react to whatever Jones was doing by causing the disturbance?(…)