All Posts By

Penny Nance

Anita Hill is not Hollywood’s answer. Her ‘they all do it’ defense of Clinton doesn’t fly.

By | Blog, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

Aspiring actresses and Hollywood career women may have cheered when they heard Show Biz execs tapped Anita Hill to lead a sexual harassment commission examining issues of sexual misconduct and inequality in the entertainment industry.  As a former victim of an actual physical attack and attempted rape over 20 years ago, all I can say is, “I wish this was truly a win for women.”

Besides the obvious problem of Hollywood big wigs choosing to politicize this problem, the deeper issue is that Ms. Hill is not the advocate for whom women are looking, especially in an industry that is led by many clearly hypocritical men.  The women of Hollywood may have grown up learning about Anita Hill as a heroine, but as we’ve come – all too painfully – to learn, academia and media have painted a picture of her over the past quarter century that is conveniently divorced from reality.

Ms. Hill had the chance to stand up for numerous women who were being sexually mistreated by a powerful man. Instead she chose to defend that man and cast doubt on his accusers.  So much for every woman deserving to be believed.

During President Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct scandals, Ms. Hill was interviewed by Tim Russert and Gwen Ifill of NBC News on Meet the Press.  They asked her directly about accusations made by Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, and others. Her reaction would cause a great deal of shock today, and the women of entertainment need to know what she said then, because it affects how much confidence they should invest in her now.

Kathleen Willey, once an enthusiastic fundraiser for, and supporter of, Bill Clinton’s successful presidential campaigns, came to see him in the Oval Office. She was in financial trouble.  He chose this moment to assault her.  When asked about Willey’s accusations on Meet the PressMs. Hill dismissed them.

“We don’t have Ms. Willey claiming that this behavior was severe and ongoing, or pervasive enough that it became a condition of her employment. She’s not making that claim at all. And, in fact, no one has made that claim. She says in the deposition, I believe, that she was not given any particular favor at the White House because of this incident nor could she say that she suffered any disadvantage because of this incident.”

Russert pushed: “So, do we dismiss the president’s alleged behavior … because he backed off when he was told ‘no?’ It’s acceptable.”

Hill: “Well I’m not sure. I think that we have to evaluate it not on the basis of whether it’s sexual harassment, but evaluate it on the basis of what we would like to see in terms of the behavior and the moral decisions and judgments of the president.”

She then inexplicably launched into the “they all do it” defense, citing Presidents Kennedy and Johnson among others.

“I think the American public has heard so much about the sexual activities and the sex lives of these individuals, and we’ve sort of become cynical and said, ‘Well, if he did it, maybe that’s OK; they all do it.”

If you’re a woman in the entertainment industry – or any victim of sexual misconduct or physical assault – and you’re watching this or reading the transcript, it does not inspire confidence.  Quite the opposite, especially in light of the revelations about Harvey Weinstein and others.

Hill kept going and even more inexplicably compounded the “they all do it” defense with the now unfathomable double-standard reasoning that President Clinton should get a pass because … he’s a liberal and supports so-called “women’s issues.”  Sound familiar?

This is utterly ridiculous given today’s revelations. Before he was outed as a predator, Harvey Weinstein took a back seat to no one as a liberal advocate on what Hill referred to as “women’s issues generally.”

When Ms. Hill had the opportunity to step up and defend the powerless against the most powerful man in the world, her instinct was to defend him, because his politics happened to be liberal. Well, it’ll come as no shock to every woman in Hollywood that their town is replete with countless powerful men whose politics just happen to be liberal.

It doesn’t take a great intellectual leap to posit this is why, in all their insecurity (and condescension), the Hollywood moguls picked her to lead the commission in the first place.  If these leaders truly care about the women in their industry, they’ll find someone way better to lead this effort than Anita Hill.  As it stands, with Anita Hill at the helm, this effort must be viewed as unserious.

Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published by USA Today. Click here to read it.

Passing Tax Reforms Will Benefit America’s Working Families

By | Blog, News and Events | No Comments

As an organization with a long history of advocating for working families, we are pleased to see that Congress is on the verge of passing comprehensive tax reform legislation. Reform is long overdue and will benefit all Americans.

With Senate and House leadership negotiating what will ultimately be included in a final tax reform package, we urge them to take the best aspects of each of their bills to create a pro-investment environment where businesses can grow, innovation can flourish, and more Americans can get and keep good paying jobs.  The future economic prosperity of American families – especially the middle class – depends on it.

To help accelerate economic growth across the country, it is critical for the GOP leadership to lower the corporate tax rate as they are proposing and preserve interest deductibility.  Doing so will create the right incentives for U.S. corporations to invest the billions of dollars in new investments needed to create more jobs and improve America’s infrastructure.

We are encouraged that the Senate and House both recognize the importance of lowering the corporate tax rate to around 20 percent.  With respect to interest deductibility, both chambers rightly adopted “thin cap” approaches to maintaining interest deductibility, but with some differences.  And those differences will have a significant impact on economic growth.  The House approach provides companies with maximum flexibility to deduct interest on loans used to finance capital projects.  This will allow more investment, more innovation, and create more jobs.

Getting tax reform policy right for interest deductibility is critical, especially for much-needed infrastructure improvements and expansions in this country.  For example, the ability of companies to deduct interest paid on debt is what has helped broadband service providers make the multi-billion-dollar investments necessary to create and maintain today’s robust U.S. broadband ecosystem.

To support continued expansion of broadband infrastructure and spur economic growth across the country, it is going to require significant future investment in next-generation broadband networks and technology.  Accordingly, providing incentives for companies to invest new money in future capital projects, particularly broadband service providers, is critical to help ensure America’s global competitiveness for years to come, to create millions of good-paying U.S. jobs, to help companies – large and small alike – grow their businesses, and to provide more Americans with access to the Internet.

Moreover, access to high-speed broadband is a key component to strengthening the U.S. economy and making sure our children have access to a quality education that will enable them to compete for jobs in their field of study and succeed in a modern U.S. workforce. High-speed broadband is the lifeblood to unleashing innovation in numerous industry sectors across the broadband supply chain and creating a better life for all Americans.

Both the Senate and House have advanced extraordinary reform proposals, and we strongly support the bill.  On the important issue of interest deductibility, however, we believe the House bill strikes a better balance and will not inhibit investment in capital projects unnecessarily, thereby spurring investment in ultra-fast broadband networks, as well as our roads and bridges, and energy grid and waterways, while contributing greatly to economic growth.  This will improve commerce and help America’s working families build successful lives with jobs rooted in their local communities.

We’re excited about tax reform and what it means for the American economy.  It takes bold leadership and a strong will to turn big policy ideas into reality.  Thankfully, the Republican Congress is close to doing just that.

We urge both chambers of Congress to come to an agreement and pass a comprehensive tax reform package that President Trump can support and sign into law. Now is the time to get this done. America’s working families are counting on it.

 

 

Sexual Assault: A Free Pass for Congress?

By | Blog, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

Another one bites the dust – this time, “Today Show” host Matt Lauer, whose firing for “inappropriate sexual behavior” in the workplace was announced Wednesday morning. This comes only a week after rival morning show host Charlie Rose of CBS was fired for the same thing.

News reports indicate this is merely the beginning for women who have bided their time, suffered in silence and dealt with sexual harassment or worse in the workplace for decades. Now they are coming forward to finally obtain justice

Matt Lauer is only the latest to be fired from his high-profile job in recent weeks in Hollywood, the news media and elsewhere.

These men were in powerful positions, as were most of the men who have been outed for their gross mistreatment of women.  Predators prey on the weak, not the strong. The cockroaches scatter when the cleansing light illuminates darkness.

NBC, CBS, PBS, Netflix, Nickelodeon, Amazon Studios, Harrah’s New Orleans Casino, MSNBC, ABC, NPR, Fox News and Vox Media are just some of the companies that have moved swiftly to terminate relationships or positions where powerful men were accused of behaving badly towards women (or men, in the case of Netflix and Kevin Spacey).

But what about the U.S. Congress?

The Associated Press reports that “Congress has paid out more than $17 million in taxpayer money over the last 20 years to resolve claims of sexual harassment, overtime pay disputes and other workplace violations filed by employees of Congress.” There were 264 settlements and awards, but the Office of Compliance in Congress did not release a breakdown showing how many involved alleged sexual misconduct, the AP reported.

According to the law that created the slush fund, accusers must go through 90 days of dispute resolution, including counseling.

This is an atrocity and the names of members of Congress reaching settlements need to be released immediately. Congressional leaders can put their members through sexual harassment training all they want, but taxpayers deserve to know who exactly they have been covering for all these years and, further, we deserve restitution.

Who have the American taxpayers been protecting all these years?

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.,  has been credibly accused of sexual harassment, yet he is still in power. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., was pictured with his hands over the breasts of a sleeping woman. He gave a half-baked apology this week, and he has no intention of giving up his seat.

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.,  called Rep. Conyers an “icon” this past Sunday on “Meet the Press” on NBC and had to quickly backtrack her remarks after realizing they were terrible.

But Pelosi is used to defending men who are Democrats and were caught in compromising positions: These are former Reps. David Wu of Oregon, Eric Massa of New York and Anthony Weiner  of New York, plus former San Diego mayor Bob Filner, and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, was in a consensual relationship but deserves a mention for the stupidity for appearing in nude photos.

Even when an ultra-feminist is in charge of her party in Congress, victims didn’t get a fair shake.  Professor Jonathan Turley calls this “transactional ethics,” meaning each party protecting their own. That’s just depressing.

We are still waiting.

Congress should follow the lead of the private sector. Transparency is necessary. The American people can mete out justice at the voting booth if we are told the truth.

How many more women need to come forward to tell their stories before Congress will act?

This Is Why Liberal Women Are So Angry

By | Blog, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

Watching the pitiful story of Harvey Weinstein unfold has been horrifying. The raw power the man wielded over those whom he had authority was surreal. The very fact that he sexually assaulted and possibly raped dozens and dozens of women over decades is almost unbelievable, but the reports surfacing all over the place claim that Weinstein’s actions were an open secret.

Yet because of his position of power over women — even very successful women — he was never held accountable for his crimes.

And still he groped women; he forced them into unwanted sexual situations, and he abused his position of power to degrees that are probably still unknown.

The kicker in this story is that Weinstein cavorted at award shows, fancy dinners, and big fundraisers with the very women he assaulted. He walked with feministsat the Women’s March in January in Park City, Utah. He donated $100,000 to Planned Parenthood last year. He raised millions of dollars for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

He not only paid off the women he assaulted in exchange for this silence, but he paid off, in the way of substantial monetary support, pro-abortion organizations, the Democratic political party, and candidates who have branded themselves as advocates of women.

Liberal women have been told for ages that Planned Parenthood has their backs, that Hillary Clinton would fight for them and their rights, and that the Democratic Party is the only party that will protect women, that cares for them with no judgement.

But where were all of these high-profile people when the Weinstein story broke?

Hillary Clinton took days to respond. The Obamas also took several days to release a statement. Both statements said nothing about the hundreds of thousands of dollars raised for their campaigns by the movie mogul. The Democratic National Committee announced they are only donating a small portion of Weinstein’s contributions — to groups that help elect Democrats and pro-choice women to office.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, has been silent. Women’s March leaders have been tepid in their response.

Feminists have sought for years to break free from the grip of powerful men who take advantage of them, unfairly abuse their control, create impossible hurdles for women to clear to become successful, and then act like everything is all unicorns and rainbows.

Speakers at the Women’s March in January were angry. Ashley Judd, the first celebrity to go on record accusing Harvey Weinstein of gross sexual harassment, was a featured speaker at the Women’s March in Washington, D.C., and she was furious as she read a speech written by a 19-year-old titled “Nasty Woman,” a reference to a line from President Trump.

Liberal feminists put their trust in the very people who covered up criminal actions committed by powerful men over and over again. They were betrayed by a political party that put power over all else.

They were so angry over even the mere thought of paying for their own birth control that they trusted an abortion giant to protect them, one that claimed they aren’t even political, and yet took a ton of money from Harvey Weinstein and threw tens of millions of dollars behind the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

No wonder they are flaming mad.

Hollywood actresses, many of whom built their careers off of Harvey Weinstein’s film, were victims of powerful men and could do nothing without serious repercussions to their careers. (And, yes, I mean “men” — plural. Some reporters have intimated that other “Weinsteins” exist in the darker corners of Hollywood. And how could they not?)

Women’s rights isn’t about abortion. It’s about women getting out from under the thumbs of men exactly like Harvey Weinstein, Hugh Hefner, and no doubt many others who preyed on them, threatened them, and forced them to do horrible acts against their wills. And these same men are the ones claiming to fight for women’s rights, all the while paying those same female actresses less than their male counterparts.

This is why liberal women are so angry. They have every right to succeed because of their own talents and will and determination, but they have been lied to, betrayed, demeaned, and abused by an army of people who told them they were their supporters and advocates.

Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published by the Daily Caller. Click here to read it.

Undocumented pregnant teen seeking an abortion in Texas could set new legal precedents

By | Blog, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

A court case bubbling up in Texas could have huge ramifications on both immigration and abortion in our nation. A 17-year-old was caught crossing the United States-Mexican border and was transferred, as is normal procedure, to the Office of Refugee Resettlement under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. They took custody of the girl, who is pregnant, and have been caring for her and her unborn child.

Entering the drama is the leftist American Civil Liberties Union, who has gone to court to try to force the government to allow her to obtain an abortion. On whose dime the abortion would be provided, we don’t know. Various media reports have said pro-abortion organizations have raised funds to pay for the abortion, but that’s unclear.

A judge in California threw out the case, because it wasn’t in her jurisdiction. The ACLU refiled the case in Washington, D.C. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has said that undocumented immigrants have no constitutional right to abortion and that he does not want Texas to become a “sanctuary state” for abortion. Add to the mix that Texas has parental notification laws. Several states have already filed amicus briefs in support of Texas’ stance.

I’d agree as well.

There are numerous moral and legal issues to this case that must be addressed. First, the girl is a minor, and she was unaccompanied when she crossed the border. We don’t know where her parents are or anything about her family. She is legally under the custody of HHS, who are providing her with the care she needs and is not consenting to take her to have an abortion. It is also worth noting that HHS is actually caring for two patients (the mother and the unborn child). I am told by sources inside HHS that our government has offered to take her back to her home country where she and her parents can decide what to do.

Secondly, an illegal immigrant has no legal right to an abortion in this country. (Actually, there is no legal right to abortion under the Constitution, as the ACLU has argued, but that is another story.) If a court decides this young woman can come to the United States illegally and demand to have an abortion, what’s to stop anyone following her from doing the exact same thing?

And who is going to foot the bill for these abortions? Taxpayers? No way.

Abortion is not healthcare and should not be treated as such, no matter how loudly Planned Parenthood screams that it should be. They profit tremendously off of abortions, as does the entire industry and the elected officials behind whom they throw millions of dollars. There is nothing objective about abortion coming from the ACLU and their abortion-lobby buddies.

There is no question that this teenager is in a difficult situation. Whatever the backstory is, it can’t be pretty to have ended up how she did. But the United States, especially under a demonstrably pro-life president, has no reason to aid her in obtaining an abortion.

A court ordering HHS to take the girl for an abortion is an unreasonable demand on the conscience of the organizations helping the teen right now, taking care of her and her unborn baby.

The precedent for such an action, either voluntarily or by court order, could be the opening for taxpayer-funded abortions for illegal immigrants. There are plenty of good organizations in the country that care for teens just like this young woman, without the added burden of abortion to her life.

The Harvey Weinstein Scandal: Why Are So-Called Feminists Defending This Creep?

By | Blog, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation, Uncategorized | No Comments

Harvey Weinstein should go sign up for the dating website OkCupid and make sure he gets that pink ribbon on his profile, branding him a feminist and supporter of Planned Parenthood. The media mogul is the ultimate bro-choicer, an adoring donor to the Democratic Party, defended by some of the left’s most powerful women.

Weinstein has been accused in a lengthy New York Times story of doing some truly horrendous things to women, totally unsolicited − also known as sexual harassment − over a period of nearly three decades. His alleged victims were talented young actresses and other women who had the potential to build successful careers on their own without some ugly, creepy man coercing them into giving him a massage or worse.

But this is Hollywood, and the feminists are the women who defend creeps like Weinstein.

Anita Dunn, a close associate of President Obama who became his communications director for a time at the White House, has been reported to have counseled Weinstein after the allegations broke in the media.

Even more troubling is that celebrity women’s advocate attorney Lisa Bloom is representing Weinstein. This is a woman who has represented victims in high-profile sexual harassment cases. Throwing that legacy away, she agreed to represent Weinstein, whom she said she has counseled that “times have changed” and he “needs to evolve into a higher standard.” Really?

Bloom’s reasoning regarding Weinstein gets better, though: “He has acknowledged mistakes he has made. He is reading books and going to therapy. He is an old dinosaur learning new ways. He wants to reach out to any of the women who may have issues with him to talk to them in a respectful, peaceful way, with me present if that is acceptable to them.”

I hope Bloom has a better answer for the women who Weinstein is accused of sexually harassing and forcing to look at him half-clothed or with no clothes at all, with tears in their eyes, as he emotionally blackmailed them for sex.

But this is Hollywood. This is Hugh Hefner’s world. This is the liberal paradise of promoting equal rights and justice for women, yet defending the men who use them for their own satisfaction, discarding them for younger versions every year, and then complaining about it years later when the women finally have the courage to say “enough!”

This is not true feminism. Supporting men who tear down women for their own use, supporting free access to taxpayer-funded abortion so men can cover up their own conduct, and mistreating women for decades is nothing for women to get behind.

These powerful women, these self-proclaimed feminists, are only hurting women when they stand up for and promote men who proudly use their own power to harass and demean women.


Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published by Fox News. Click here to read it.

Yes, Hugh Hefner was a pioneer — in the objectification of women and the lie of the Playboy lifestyle

By | Blog, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

While many in the press are hailing Hugh Hefner as a pioneer in his day — championing abortion rights and breaking the shackles of an oppressive sexual culture — the man represented a lifestyle and business that was in no way, shape, or form helpful to women.

It is no surprise celebrities are tripping over themselves to praise the man who gave them a platform to become famous for stripping down to nothing. He will be buried next to Marilyn Monroe, the woman whose nude photograph he published in his first issue of Playboy.

Hefner indeed was a pioneer. He was the force behind the mainstream objectification of women, someone who paid them to take their clothes off and convinced them it was empowering to do so, using the same arguments pornographers use for the same goals.

The harmful effects of pornography are no longer secret. Pornography is violent and has been proven to lead to aggression against women — no surprise since the vast majority of the victims of violence in pornography are women.

Porn is everywhere and easily accessible which is different from the days when boys hid coveted copies of Hefner’s magazine under their beds. An astounding 90 percent of boys and 60 percent of girls have been exposed in some way to pornography before they turn 18. Over half of men look at porn frequently and, sadly, 50 percent of religious men say they are addicted to pornography.

In 2013 traffic to porn sites received more traffic than Netflix, Amazon, and Twitter combined.  According to WebRoot, porn increased marital infidelity by 300 percent, and a study published in Science magazine showed a direct correlation between consuming porn in marriage and a higher divorce rate. Hefner said he never cheated while married, but he confessed that “I had a lot of girlfriends, but it’s not the same as cheating.” And the breakdown of the American family continues.

Holly Madison, who lived in the Playboy Mansion, starred in a television show about her time there and was Hefner’s #1 girlfriend for a time, reveals she contemplated suicide while she lived with Hefner and his girlfriends. The glamourous life was a total lie.

Holly was only one of the many women who bought into Hefner’s lies and suffered the consequences of being bought and paid for.

While I never met Hefner myself, it is beyond my ability to comprehend how Hollywood views a man who walked around in pajamas all day, paid women for sex, brought the objectification of women into the mainstream culture, and became wealthy by creating a magazine for lonely men as some kind of a hero.

Girls, please. We deserve better than this.


Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published by Fox News. Click here to read it.

Planned Parenthood hooks up with OkCupid. Guess what this cynical partnership is really about?

By | Blog, News and Events, Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

It’s about time that Planned Parenthood got involved in the dating market. They have already reaped the benefits of profiting off of the sex toy industry, the genitalia-designed candy industry, and, of course, they make boatloads of money every year as the abortion industry’s leading provider. They have been missing out for years by not jumping headfirst into the online dating world.

But that has finally changed. The dating website OkCupid, which has admitted in the past to doing social experiments on their users, has partnered with Planned Parenthood.  Those who want to find a date on the website will have to answer this question: “Should the government defund Planned Parenthood?” If they answer in the negative, then a cute pink badge will appear on their profile photo along with the hashtag #IStandWithPP.

The partnership’s goal is to solve the problem of finding true feminists on the dating website. Because only true feminists support the right to end innocent lives in the womb. Whoops! Off-topic.

The meetings that preceded this partnership must have been entertaining. It probably went something like this: groups of young women lamenting over drinks about the lack of feminist men, or women perhaps, on online dating, and someone coming up with the brilliant suggestion to screen dating applicants on their support for the nation’s largest abortion provider. Brilliant.

It’s only sad that this idea hadn’t come sooner, because young women could have avoided the losers online who only wanted to hook up with them, maybe pay for their abortion, and move on to the next young thing.

Because, really, that’s what this partnership is about, finding those men who want to use women for unencumbered sex and walk away, no matter the consequences.

The better and more revealing question for OkCupid would be: “Would you support a woman you get pregnant and step up as a father, taking responsibility for the results of your actions?” Or, since 86 percent of most single Americans say they want to get married, what about, “Are you hoping to find a woman to love, marry and remain faithful to you for your entire life?” Those hashtags could have been way more enticing, like #realmen.

The Bro-Choice movement that began in 2013 −  yes, it’s a real thing − out of a Sarah Silverman idea, who probably loves OkCupid for this new partnership, because now they can figure out which girls have such low expectations and low self-esteem that they will require nothing from them.

Bro-choicer Ben Sherman railed against Texas legislation in 2013 that would ban late-term abortions in the state: “Your sex life is at stake. Can you think of anything that kills the vibe faster than a woman fearing a back-alley abortion? Making abortion essentially inaccessible in Texas will add an anxiety to sex that will drastically undercut its joys. And don’t be surprised if casual sex outside of relationships becomes far more difficult to come by,” (emphasis his).

Oh no! Less casual sex, more responsibility, less late-term abortion; better bring in Planned Parenthood to fix that problem!

Knowing Planned Parenthood, this partnership with OkCupid is probably the first of many relationships for the abortion giant. They could easily help further divide the nation by getting involved in partnerships with cell phone companies (have the abortion giant on speed dial just in case of pregnancy), and crayon companies (“pink” is now called “Planned Parenthood Pink”).

The opportunities to embarrass themselves are endless. As for women who want real men − men who take responsibility for their actions and protect women, instead of selfish (you insert the word) that exploit them − watch out for that pink badge. Those aren’t the men who will cherish women. Women deserve better.


Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published by Fox News. Click here to read it.

 

Let the Dogma Live Loudly

By | Blog, News and Events, Religious Liberty | No Comments

There are many issues on which Congress needs to quickly act – spending, disaster relief, the debt ceiling, health care, taxes – yet one key issue that bubbles under the surface is the long-term concern of nominating and confirming judges to federal benches. While many groups unfairly demand litmus tests for judges, one senator recently slammed an accomplished mother of seven, who happens to also be a Christian, imposing an unconstitutional religious requirement on her during a confirmation hearing.

Ironically, a talking point of liberals is that political parties need to do a better job of recruiting women to run for office or to assume public positions of influence. The Women’s March in January made this one of their big goals (well, that and taxpayer-funded abortion).

Yet, when conservative women do rise through the ranks, sacrificing family time, soccer games, and dinner dates, they get publicly slammed for their beliefs.

Why are smart, thoughtful, accomplished, faith-filled women who are also conservative such a threat to liberals?

Mother of seven and Notre Dame law professor, Amy Coney Barrett, was nominated to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by President Trump, which means she needs to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. To Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that means a prime opportunity to ridicule a woman who happens to adhere to her faith and be a nominee to a higher court.

This was her entire quote:

“Whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also claims to be a Catholic. She is an ardent abortion supporter who has been publicly called out by Catholic bishops for doing a horrible job of representing Catholicism. She’s also a friend of Sen. Feinstein. So, according to Sen. Feinstein, women of faith like Nancy Pelosi can be elevated to positions of authority, just not women who actually adhere to their faith.

An editorial in the Los Angeles Times even said that the senator crossed the line in her questioning of Barrett: “But she went too far in raising doubts about whether Barrett would allow her religious views to affect her rulings as a judge (particularly about abortion rights, Feinstein’s priority when it comes to judicial nominations).”

Rev. John Jenkins, the president of the University of Notre Dame, sent a letter to Sen. Feinstein in defense of Amy Barrett, essentially saying that the line of questioning was frightening: “It is chilling to hear from a United States Senator that this might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge. I ask you and your colleagues to respect those in whom ‘dogma lives loudly’ − which is a condition we call faith.”

This line of questioning that Sen. Feinstein and her Democratic colleagues went down with Amy Barrett was shameful. Would they have done the same thing if the nominee was Jewish or Muslim?

Faith isn’t meant to be kept within the walls of a church or a synagogue. Faith − true faith − grips the heart and embodies the person who has accepted that great gift and has chosen to live it out in day-to-day life. Demanding faith be left at the door of one’s place of work is decidedly un-American, yet that is exactly what Sen. Feinstein did.

For Sen. Feinstein and others like her who are adamantly pro-abortion, the view that this supposed right of women needs to be upheld no matter what is a religion unto itself. And it is that religion that the senator deems a must-have for nominees to the judiciary.

Amy Barrett deserves to be confirmed. We need many more nominees like her who uphold the law, are constitutionalists, and adhere to their Christian faith.


Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published by The Washington Examiner. Click here to read it.

Feminists went all-out Mean Girls on Melania and Ivanka Trump

By | Uncategorized | No Comments

Feminists went all-out Mean Girls on Melania and Ivanka Trump, when a Newsweek piece called them out for — wait for it — wearing high heels.

I love a good pair of stilettos, block heels, wedge, you name it, but according to Nina Burleigh over at Newsweek, heels symbolize everything that is wrong with the Trump women. That’s quite a bridge to cross following any kind of logic, none of which exists in the piece.

In fact, it’s downright legit shoe shaming.

According to Ms. Burleigh, whom I picture as a sensible shoes kind of girl, stilettos are not in fashion.  That’s probably news to Jimmy Choo, Christian Louboutin, or any of the other top designers on 5thAvenue.  But so what either way?  If the Trump women enjoy wearing shoes that make them feel good, why berate them for their choices?

High heels were around long before Ms. Burleigh decided to go all puritanical on us.  Her article suggested that those dirty shoes appeared earliest on the feet of Italian prostitutes in the 17th century.  Actually, no, Persian horseback riders first used high heels in the ninth century to help keep their feet from slipping out of the stirrups. The Bata Shoe Museum in Toronto even showcases a 17th century Persian high heel.

And in the 1600s, King Louis XVI decided that red high heels would be a status symbol of nobility (plus, he was on the shorter side so the height helped him out).

While stiletto pumps are not for everyone and do require a certain amount of grace and stability on behalf of the women who dare to don a pair, many women wear them because they make women feel good and look good.  They can bring a certain air of power to women.  While the famous stiletto designer Christian Louboutin has been quoted saying that his work is geared towards pleasing men, women adore those red-soled heels.  Why? Because they look good, and women feel dressed up wearing them.  In fact, according to the Huffington Post, historically, in times of economic downturn, sales of bothlipstick and high heels go up.

So why does any of this have to be political in nature?  Imagine if a conservative writer wrote this piece about any shoe choice of Michelle Obama.  It would be the front-page headline.  Do feminists truly have nothing else to write about these days?

Even liberal women like Hillary Clinton, Cecile Richards, and Nancy Pelosi all wear high heels.  Ms. Burleigh would not dare to casually mention them in the same article as Italian prostitutes.  As much as Ms. Burleigh wants stilettos to reflect character, they do not, but being nasty about those wearing them does

This is just a catty way for a liberal woman to take a swipe at women who not only wear, but profit from, high heels.  Maybe she would change her mind if she tried on a lovely pair of Ivanka Trump shoes.  They not only look nice but are actually pretty comfortable.

Ironically, I first read the Newsweek piece while sitting in my podiatrist’s office.  I wasn’t there because of my stiletto habit, but rather one that stemmed from running (in running shoes).  Left-leaning women and women right of center have serious policy conflicts.  Fashion, Tom Ford aside, is wonderfully neutral.  Let’s keep it that way.