<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Lena Dunham</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/lena-dunham/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:24:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>To the Left, Lying About Rape Is Just Dandy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/to-the-left-lying-about-rape-is-just-dandy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=to-the-left-lying-about-rape-is-just-dandy</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/to-the-left-lying-about-rape-is-just-dandy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2014 05:16:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lena Dunham]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rolling stone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UVA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=247111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How Lena Dunham and the Rolling Stone do harm to actual rape victims. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/720x405-AP811265161227.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-247112" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/720x405-AP811265161227-389x350.jpg" alt="UVa Fraternity" width="319" height="287" /></a>This week, Rolling Stone printed an editor&#8217;s note retracting one of the most highly praised pieces of investigative journalism in its history. That piece, written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, alleged that several members of the University of Virginia fraternity Phi Kappa Psi, had raped a 19-year-old student named Jackie, including with foreign objects, as she lay on a floor covered with broken glass. The article resulted in the university suspending the fraternity&#8217;s activities, and national outrage over the so-called &#8220;rape culture&#8221; on campus.</p>
<p>That rape culture supposedly leads to one in five women being sexually assaulted on campus — a faulty statistic from a poll that didn&#8217;t even ask women if they were raped or sexually assaulted, and instead defined sex while inebriated at any level as rape. With regard to reported rape, the federal government reports a rate of just 1.3 per 1,000 Americans. That is, of course, far too high. But it is not a rape culture by any plausible definition.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, the narrative of women as victims of brutish male society must be forwarded at all costs, for political purposes. If Americans are brutish sexists waiting to rape unsuspecting women, bigger government becomes a necessity. That&#8217;s why President Obama has cited that one-in-five statistic, and suggested that America experiences &#8220;quiet tolerance of sexual assault.&#8221;</p>
<p>In order to forward that narrative, all rape stories are treated as fact sans investigation of any kind. And so Jackie&#8217;s story of gang rape received plaudits across the media landscape.</p>
<p>Then it fell apart.</p>
<p>The Washington Post quickly debunked the story. According to the Post, the fraternity says there was no event the night Jackie was allegedly raped, Jackie&#8217;s friends &#8220;have not been able to verify key points in recent days,&#8221; and one of the men named in Jackie&#8217;s report stated that &#8220;he never met Jackie in person and never took her out on a date.&#8221;</p>
<p>As the Rolling Stone report collapsed, members of the left jumped to defend Jackie.</p>
<p>Sally Kohn of CNN.com tweeted that people should stop questioning Jackie&#8217;s story: &#8220;While aspects of UVA rape story now in question, still unsettles me that pouncing by skeptics mirrored sort of doubt rape victims often face.&#8221; Feminist Melissa McEwan wrote, &#8220;If Jackie&#8217;s story is partially or wholly untrue, it doesn&#8217;t validate the reasons for disbelieving her.&#8221;</p>
<p>Under this logic, Atticus Finch was the villain in &#8220;To Kill a Mockingbird.&#8221; After all, how dare he question the rape allegations of a victimized woman and defend Tom Robinson?</p>
<p>But for the left, it&#8217;s narrative first, facts second.</p>
<p>The same holds true regarding allegations made by HBO star Lena Dunham, who wrote of her own alleged rape at the hands of an Oberlin &#8220;college Republican&#8221; named Barry. When it turned out that Barry, a readily identifiable person from Dunham&#8217;s days at Oberlin, did not rape her, the media largely went silent; Dunham still has not spoken on the issue.</p>
<p>Narrative first. Facts second.</p>
<p>Here is the reality: All decent human beings believe that rape is evil. They also believe that false allegations of rape are wrong. These two positions are not mutually exclusive. They complement one another. False rape allegations do actual rape victims a tremendous disservice: to lump in false accusations of rape with true accusations of rape makes people more skeptical of rape victims generally, a horrible result. Rape should be taken seriously; rape accusations should be taken seriously. That means taking factual questions seriously, not merely throwing the word &#8220;rape&#8221; around casually, without evidence, and without regard for truth.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/to-the-left-lying-about-rape-is-just-dandy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hollywood&#8217;s Perverse &#8216;Feminism&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/hollywoods-perverse-feminism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hollywoods-perverse-feminism</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/hollywoods-perverse-feminism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 04:20:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glamour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lena Dunham]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Object]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ruth bader ginsberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[woman of the year]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=165414</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The independent woman has been cast aside in favor of the sex object. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/hollywoods-perverse-feminism/171-u2spi-st-55-3/" rel="attachment wp-att-165428"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-165428" title="171-u2spi.St.55" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/171-u2spi.St_.552.jpg" alt="" width="284" height="229" /></a>Modern feminists began with the correct observation that men too often see women as sex objects. They opposed the objectification of women by people like Hugh Hefner, whom they felt was a relic of a bygone era – a time in which it was decent to treat women as receptacles for the male sexual impulse.</p>
<p>The goal of modern feminism was to change that perception. Feminists wanted men to see women as more than a set of body parts. They wanted to be perceived as whole human beings, with minds and hearts, not just vaginas.</p>
<p>Here’s how that project has turned out, thanks to Hollywood: the heroes of modern feminism are sleaze artist Chelsea Handler and Lena Dunham, momentarily famous for comparing voting for Obama to having sex for the first time in a recent tv advertisement. This week, <em>Glamour </em>magazine placed Dunham, on its list of Women of the Year, alongside women like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Ethel Kennedy, and Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas. And Dunham was introduced by Chelsea Handler.</p>
<p>So, just what makes Handler and Dunham worthy of being onstage with women who have actually done something? They think with their sex organs. In fact, ask most men what they think of when they think of Handler and Dunham, and they will tell you: sex. That’s not because men are pigs. That’s because that’s what Handler and Dunham do for a living.</p>
<p>Take a look at Handler. She’s a comedienne – but her humor is all about her body parts. Her first book was titled, subtly, <em>My Horizontal Life: A Collection of One-night Stands</em>. She then followed that up with <em>Are You There, Vodka? It’s Me, Chelsea</em>, proving that she wasn’t a one trick pony – she’s a drunk, too. Her third book: <em>Chelsea Chelsea Bang Bang</em>.</p>
<p>Handler’s not untalented. But she’s made her career from her willingness to exploit her body parts.</p>
<p>Handler is an elder stateswoman for people like 26-year-old Lena Dunham. Dunham, the writer of HBO’s <em>Girls</em>, gets naked in virtually every episode, engages in every form of sex, and then talks about it.</p>
<p>All of this makes her, according to <em>Glamour</em> magazine, “incredibly brave, curious, and engaged.” The first season of her show, <em>Glamour </em>raved, dealt largely with “bad sex.” How revolutionary!</p>
<p>And yet these are the new feminist heroes. President Obama won single women in a landslide by telling them that Mitt Romney wanted to stop abortion and do away with free condoms.</p>
<p>But now these are apparently “women’s issues” because “women” can be boiled down to their constituent parts. That’s why the Obama campaign told women to “Vote Like Your Lady Parts Depend On It.” That’s why women at the DNC dressed up as giant vaginas. Make those vaginas happy, win their votes.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, men still aren’t any closer to viewing women as anything but sex objects.</p>
<p>Feminism hasn’t accomplished its objective. In fact, it’s doubled down on men’s perverse view of women. Now even <em>women</em> see themselves as collections of body parts. And they vote like it, too. Women have become the mirror image of what men thought of them back in the bad old days: dependent, fragile sex objects. And then they celebrate their transformation.</p>
<p>This is sick. The independent woman has been cast aside in favor of the sex object. And it’s feminists – and liberals – who have achieved that dubious accomplishment.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/hollywoods-perverse-feminism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>42</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama and the Politics of Contempt</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/obama-and-the-politics-of-contempt/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-and-the-politics-of-contempt</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/obama-and-the-politics-of-contempt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2012 04:49:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caroline Glick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign ad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lena Dunham]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misogynist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[re-election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=163783</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president's campaign strategy has been to promote hatred of the opposition. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/obama-and-the-politics-of-contempt/6a00d83451c45669e2017ee40b53df970d-550wi/" rel="attachment wp-att-163784"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-163784" title="6a00d83451c45669e2017ee40b53df970d-550wi" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/6a00d83451c45669e2017ee40b53df970d-550wi-450x300.jpg" alt="" width="315" height="210" /></a>Originally <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=290189">published</a> in The Jerusalem Post.</em></p>
<p>Your first time shouldn&#8217;t be with just anybody. You want to do it with a great guy.&#8221;</p>
<p>So begins the now famous official Barack Obama for President campaign ad that was released last week. The ad depicts a young woman named Lena Dunham, who is apparently a celebrity among Americans in their teens and 20s.</p>
<p>After that opening line, Ms. Dunham continues on for another minute and a half discussing how having sex for the first time and voting for Barack Obama for president are really the same thing, and how young women don&#8217;t want to be accused of either being virgins or of having passed up on their chance to cast their votes for Obama next Tuesday.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve never been particularly interested in so-called &#8220;women&#8217;s issues.&#8221; It never seemed to me that any party or politician was particularly good or bad for me due to the way they thought of women. That all changed with the Dunham ad for Obama.</p>
<p>With this ad, Obama convinced me he is a misogynist.</p>
<p>The Obama campaign&#8217;s use of a double entendre to compare sex &#8211; the most personal, intimate act we engage in as human beings, with voting &#8211; the most public act we engage in as human beings &#8211; is a scandal.</p>
<p>It is demeaning and contemptuous of women. It reduces us to sexual objects. When called on to vote, as far as Obama is concerned, as slaves to our passions, we make our decisions not based on our capacity for rational choice. Rather we choose our leaders solely on the basis of our sexual desires.</p>
<p>Beyond the ad&#8217;s bald attempt to impersonalize, generalize and cheapen the most personal act human beings engage in, the ad is repulsive because it takes for granted that what happens in our private lives is the government&#8217;s business.</p>
<p>Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a totalitarian position.</p>
<p>THE WHOLE point of liberal democracy is to put a barrier between a person&#8217;s personal life and his or her government. A liberal democracy is founded on the notion of limited government. It assumes there are a lot of places where government has no role to play. And first and foremost among those places is the bedroom.</p>
<p>The theory behind limited government is that if the government is permitted in our private space then we are no longer free. When &#8211; as in the case of the Dunham ad &#8211; a political campaign conveys the message that there is something personally wrong with not actively supporting its candidate, it communicates the message that it sees no distinction between personal and public life, and therefore rejects the basic notion of freedom from government. And this is repugnant, not just for women, but for everyone who values freedom.</p>
<p>One of the oddest aspects of the Obama sex ad is that to believe that this sort of message can be effective, the campaign had to ignore mountains of data about the demographic group the ad targets &#8211; young college-educated women.</p>
<p>According to just about every piece of survey data collected over the past 20 years, young women in America today are more accomplished, more professionally driven, and more intellectually successful than their male counterparts. That the Obama campaign believes the votes of this successful, smart group of women can be won by appealing to their basest urges rather than their capacity to reason is demeaning and perverse and, one would think, counterproductive.</p>
<p>But it isn&#8217;t surprising.</p>
<p>The fact is that the Obama campaign &#8211; and indeed, the Obama presidency &#8211; has treated the American people with unprecedented arrogance and contempt. On issue after issue, Obama and his minions have eschewed intellectual argumentation.</p>
<p>On issue after issue they have preferred instead to attack Obama&#8217;s detractors as stupid, backwards, bigoted, bellicose and evil.</p>
<p>For instance, however one feels about current events in the Middle East, there is a legitimate &#8211; indeed critical &#8211; argument to be had about the nature of the Islamist forces the Obama administration is supporting from Cairo, Egypt, to Alexandria, Virginia.</p>
<p>The Muslim Brotherhood is the most popular movement in the Islamic world. It is also a totalitarian, misogynist, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian and anti-American movement. It seeks Islamic global supremacy, the genocide of Jewry, the subjugation of Christianity and the destruction of the United States.</p>
<p>There is an intellectual case to be made for appeasing these popular, popularly elected forces.</p>
<p>There is a (stronger) intellectual case to be made for opposing them. But rather than make any of the hard arguments for appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama administration has deflected the issue by castigating everyone who opposes its appeasement policies as racist, McCarthyite warmongers.</p>
<p>If women who don&#8217;t support Obama are prudish geeks, Americans who oppose his appeasement policies are bloodthirsty bigots.</p>
<p>Then there was the attack in Benghazi on September 11 and the general Islamic assaults on US embassies throughout the Muslim world that day.</p>
<p>The acts of aggression that Muslims carried out against several US embassies on September 11 and since have all been acts of war against America.</p>
<p>The rioters who stormed the US embassies in Egypt, Tunis and Yemen and replaced the American flag with the flag of al-Qaida all violated sovereign US territory and carried out acts of war. The US had the right, under international law, to repel and respond with military force against the rioters as well as against their governments. Instead the White House blamed the acts of war on a US citizen who posted a video on YouTube.</p>
<p>Then there was Benghazi. In Benghazi, jihadists took this collective aggression a step further. They attacked the US Consulate and a US government safe house with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. Their goal was to murder all the US citizens inside the compounds. In the event, they successfully murdered four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.</p>
<p>In the six weeks that have passed since the attack in Benghazi, despite administration attempts to stonewall, and despite the US&#8217;s media&#8217;s inexcusable lack of interest in the story, information has continuously dribbled out indicating that Obama and his senior advisers knew in real time what was happening on the ground. It has also come out that they rejected multiple requests from multiple sources to employ military power readily available to save the lives of the Americans on the ground.</p>
<p>There may be good reasons that Obama and his top aides denied those repeated requests for assistance and allowed the American citizens pinned down in Benghazi to die. But Obama and his aides have not provided any.</p>
<p>Rather than defend their actions, Obama and his advisers first sought to cover up what happened by blaming the acts of war on that YouTube video.</p>
<p>When that line of argument collapsed of its own absurdity, Obama shifted to blaming the messenger.</p>
<p>His campaign accused everyone asking for facts and truthful explanations about what happened in Benghazi of trying to politicize the attack.</p>
<p>Obama himself has twice struck the Captain Renault pose and declared himself &#8220;Shocked, shocked!&#8221; that anyone would dare to insinuate that he did not do everything in his power to save the lives of the Americans whose lives he failed to save.</p>
<p>The reason specific sectors of a society usually feel compelled to vote on the basis of their sectoral interests rather than their general interests as citizens of their country is that they feel that one candidate or party specifically endangers their sectoral interests. Hence, the Lena Dunham ad, which insults women specifically, compels women to vote as women against Obama.</p>
<p>In the case of Obama&#8217;s appeasement of the Muslim world, there is no specific group that is hurt more than any other group by his policies.</p>
<p>As we saw in Libya, Egypt, Tunis, Yemen and beyond, his appeasement policies endanger all Americans equally.</p>
<p>This is not the case with Obama&#8217;s treatment of Israel and Jews. Obama&#8217;s supporters always highlight statements he has made and actions he has taken in relation to Israel and Jews that are relatively supportive of both.</p>
<p>To be sure, like every other US president, Obama has made some statements, and taken some actions, that have been supportive of Jews and of Israel. But unlike most other US presidents, he has made far more statements and taken far more actions that have been contemptuous and hostile to Israel and Jews. And this is inexcusable.</p>
<p>It is inexcusable that Obama uses coded anti- Semitic language to blame America&#8217;s economic woes on &#8220;fat cat bankers.&#8221; It is inexcusable that his secretary of state and his senior advisers have repeatedly made references to the so-called Israel Lobby to explain why America is supposedly hamstrung in its ability to sell Israel to the wolves.</p>
<p>It is inexcusable that Obama sends his surrogates before the cameras to refer to Israel&#8217;s prime minister as &#8220;ungrateful,&#8221; or to castigate Israel for permitting Jews to build homes in Jerusalem on land they own and for permitting Jews to exercise their legal rights to their property &#8211; simply because they are Jews.</p>
<p>Israel is the US&#8217;s most important ally in the Middle East. As such, it deserves to be treated well by the US &#8211; all the time. Any move to treat Israel with contempt is an unprovoked hostile act and therefore inexcusable.</p>
<p>So, too, US Jews have a right to make an honest living doing anything they wish &#8211; including working on Wall Street or owning a casino in Las Vegas. Jews have a right to be treated with respect by the US government. They should not have to be concerned about having their reputations maligned by politicians who use anti-Semitic tropes to gain political advantage.</p>
<p>Obama&#8217;s contemptuous vilification of Israel and successful American Jews make him bad for Jews specifically. Just as the Dunham ad exposes his underlying hostility towards women and so makes clear that women&#8217;s interests are imperiled by his presidency, so Obama&#8217;s repeated hostile treatment of Israel and American Jews make him a specific danger to Jewish interests.</p>
<p>MANY WOULD-BE deep thinkers have proclaimed that the presidential election is a choice between two competing narratives. But that isn&#8217;t an accurate description of the race.</p>
<p>Only Republican nominee Mitt Romney is presenting a narrative. In his narrative, the US faces very difficult problems in domestic and foreign policy alike. Romney has laid out his priorities for which problems he wishes to contend with, and has presented policies he will adopt to do so if he is elected next Tuesday.</p>
<p>On the other hand, by Obama&#8217;s telling, the real problems America faces are all the result of the empowerment of his political opponents and America&#8217;s allies.</p>
<p>Benghazi wouldn&#8217;t be a problem if his political opponents weren&#8217;t talking about it. Jihadists aren&#8217;t a problem. The problem is the people who say they are a problem. The national debt isn&#8217;t a problem. The problem is the &#8220;fat cat bankers.&#8221;</p>
<p>Women will vote for him because we are dimwitted sex objects. And Jews will vote for him because we are taken in by his occasional Borscht Belt schmaltz platitudes about Hanukka.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/obama-and-the-politics-of-contempt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>108</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Have Sex With Barack Obama</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/have-sex-with-barack-obama/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=have-sex-with-barack-obama</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/have-sex-with-barack-obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 04:26:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lena Dunham]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virginity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=163485</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hollywood makes its pitch.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/have-sex-with-barack-obama/lena_dunham_commercial_screenshot_cna_us_catholic_news_10_26_12/" rel="attachment wp-att-163515"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-163515" title="Lena_Dunham_commercial_screenshot_CNA_US_Catholic_News_10_26_12" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Lena_Dunham_commercial_screenshot_CNA_US_Catholic_News_10_26_12-442x350.gif" alt="" width="309" height="245" /></a>Hollywood has trotted out celebrity after celebrity to back Barack Obama. But none has had a greater impact on the presidential race than Lena Dunham, creator and star of HBO’s repulsive <em>Girls</em>. Dunham cut an ad for Obama in which she likened voting for the first time to losing one’s virginity. “Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody,” she cooed to the camera. “You want to do it with a great guy. It should be with a guy … who really cares about and understands women.”</p>
<p>And who is that cherished lover?</p>
<p>Why, it’s Barack Obama, of course! As Dunham describes Obama, “A guy who cares about whether you get health insurance, and specifically whether you get birth control. The consequences are huge. You want to do it with a guy who brought the troops out of Iraq. You don’t want a guy who says, ‘Oh hey, I’m at the library studying,’ when he’s really out not signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act.” And most importantly of all, Dunham says you don’t want to be caught still being a voting virgin after the election: “it’s super uncool to be out and about and someone says, “Did you vote,’ and ‘No, I didn’t vote, I wasn’t ready.’”</p>
<p>Dunham is widely perceived in Hollywood as the voice of her generation. Which is to say, my generation. To which I say, paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, I’ll sell my bonds.</p>
<p>But this is how the Obama campaign – and the left – views young people. We’re a bunch of sex-obsessed morons who don’t care about the economy. We don’t care about the future of the country. All we care about is condoms now, abortion later, and sexual freedom forever.</p>
<p>But that’s not us. That’s our parents.</p>
<p>The truth is that my generation does care about the economy. Half of us graduate from college without jobs to go to. More and more of us pile up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get degrees in useless majors. Our college choices are rarely geared toward our future careers. We know that our taxes will be jacked up to pay for our parents’ and grandparents’ Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments. And we know that by the time we hit our parents’ age, the chances of us receiving those social welfare benefits are slim and none.</p>
<p>If we’re not getting married at the same rate as our grandparents, that’s our parents’ fault. Back in 1960, 72 percent of all adults were married; by 2010, it was down to 51 percent. Overall, 6.8 out of every 1,000 members of the US population get married each year. In 1960, that number was 8.5. That’s a substantial decline – but that number really began to decline steadily in approximately 1970. Our parents thought marriage was taboo; they celebrated sexual profligacy. That’s why so many more  middle-aged women seem to care about abortion than younger women. Polls show that 59 percent of people aged 18-34 want serious restrictions on abortion; 58 percent of those aged 35-54 say they don’t want serious restrictions. In other words, <em>older people</em> are more concerned with sex, abortion, and the rest of the Democratic social agenda than young people.</p>
<p>The truth is that Lena Dunham isn’t speaking to people of my generation. She’s speaking to post-menopausal women who spent their youths annoyed that they didn’t go to Woodstock, then got married, divorced, and married again – and now vote liberal to maintain a ghostly connection with the good old days they have otherwise severed in their conspicuous consumption. There are few young adults seriously concerned about the availability of condoms. Kids in college know that free condoms are just a dorm resident advisor away. These scare tactics simply don’t work.</p>
<p>And we’re not dumb enough to mistake sex for voting, either. Only our parents, who coined the notion that the personal is political, would make such an idiotic mistake. And only our parents worship politicians to the extent necessary to make decisions based on fantasies of which candidate they’d like to sleep with.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/have-sex-with-barack-obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>107</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Like a Virgin: Obama Ad Sets a New Low</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/like-a-virgin-obama-ad-sets-a-new-low/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=like-a-virgin-obama-ad-sets-a-new-low</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/like-a-virgin-obama-ad-sets-a-new-low/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:45:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Tapson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[birth control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Girls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lena Dunham]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=163168</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’m Barack Obama and I approved the worst political ad ever.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/like-a-virgin-obama-ad-sets-a-new-low/1351193304234-jpg-crop-rectangle3-large/" rel="attachment wp-att-163252"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-163252" title="1351193304234.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1351193304234.jpg.CROP_.rectangle3-large.gif" alt="" width="315" height="217" /></a>You’re Barack Obama. It’s less than two weeks before the election, and your competition Mitt Romney is overtaking you. As with your first election, you depend heavily on new young voters, because grownups know you’re a bull****ter (as you projected onto Romney in your <em>Rolling Stone</em> <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-romneys-bulls_657708.html">interview</a>), so you need to send out a compelling message that wins them over in this final stretch of the race. What do you do? Why naturally, you approve a stunningly ridiculous political message featuring a vapid young woman comparing voting for you to having sex with you.</p>
<p>If you haven’t heard of Lena Dunham before, it’s because you’re not obsessed with the degrading hookup culture among today’s young people as depicted in HBO’s series <em>Girls</em>, a sort of poor woman’s <em>Sex and the City</em>. Dunham, 26, is the creator, writer, and star of the show, which has made her such an icon of her lost generation that her upcoming memoir of sexual experiences just <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/10/lena_dunham_book_deal_people_value_potential_over_achievement_in_books_sports.html">netted</a> a $3.7 million advance from Random House.</p>
<p>The Obama campaign released a one-minute <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6G3nwhPuR4&amp;feature=plcp">video</a> last week featuring Dunham encouraging first-time voters to take the plunge, speaking intimately to the camera as if giving advice to a teenager or fellow twenty-something female about losing her virginity. You read that right. You have to see this video to believe it – and even then, you might not. As <a href="http://twitter.com/keder/statuses/261600069281787904">Kevin Eder</a> at Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center put it, “I’ve now watched it four times. I refuse to believe that it’s a real, actual thing.”</p>
<p>It is a real, actual thing. It is the Obama campaign hitting a new, simultaneously desperate and contemptuous (and contemptible) low.</p>
<p>“Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody,” the tattooed Dunham begins creepily, her head so close to the camera that you find yourself leaning back in your chair as you watch. “You want to do it with a great guy. It should be with a guy with beautiful … somebody who really cares about and understands women.” Obama really cares about and understands women, and Romney doesn’t? Says who? Oh wait, I forgot that Republicans are waging a War on Women.</p>
<p>The video is full of “Huh?” moments like that, such as “You want to do it with a guy who brought the troops out of Iraq.” Huh? The troops left Iraq on a timeline established by George W. Bush. Obama is not responsible for “bringing the troops out of Iraq” any more than he is for <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191021/EXCLUSIVE-Obama-cancelled-missions-kill-bin-Laden-THREE-TIMES-getting-cold-feet--Hillary-Clinton-stepped-claims-explosive-new-book.html">killing Osama bin Laden</a>.</p>
<p>Dunham rambles on: You should do it with “a guy who cares about whether you get health insurance, and specifically whether you get birth control. The consequences are huge.” Huh? The consequences of not having your birth control paid for by the taxpayers are “huge”? Seriously? This is what Obama’s young supporters are concerned about? Under him, our economy is plunging off a cliff. Unemployment and energy prices have skyrocketed. Businesses are leaving the country. Our foreign policy is in a shambles. The country is more divided racially than at any time since the ‘60s. So many Muslim Brotherhood members are passing in and out of the White House, it’s like Grand Central Station. And this woman is horrified that a Romney win will mean she has to pay for her own birth control?</p>
<p>Dunham moves on to address what she apparently believes is another issue of critical importance: gay marriage. Don’t vote, she says, for a guy “who thinks that gay people should never have beautiful, complicated weddings of the kind we see on Bravo or TLC all the time.” The silliness of that comment aside, is she oblivious to the fact that the cynical Obama was <em>opposed</em> to gay marriage until his reelection campaign began and he decided it was politically convenient to claim that he had “evolved”?</p>
<p>Dunham’s not done yet: “It’s a fun game to say, ‘Who are you voting for?’ and they say ‘I don’t want to tell you!’ And you say, ‘No, who are you voting for?’ And they go, ‘Guess!’” This is just beyond embarrassing.</p>
<p>“Also,” Dunham continues, in case you didn’t have the stomach to keep watching, “it’s super uncool to be out and about and someone says, ‘Did you vote,’ and ‘No, I didn’t vote, I wasn’t ready.’” So she’s using peer pressure to get her generation to vote for Obama by telling them it’s uncool not to – like being a virgin. “My first time voting was amazing,” she says. “It was this line in the sand: Before I was a girl. Now I was a woman.” That’s doubtful, considering her juvenile presentation.</p>
<p>Parodies of the ad sprang up online almost immediately, most notably Steven Crowder’s disturbingly good one <a href="http://www.bookwormroom.com/2012/10/26/an-ad-that-invites-parodies/">here</a>, although the Dunham ad is already a parody of itself. Remember, this isn’t the usual pro-Obama celebrity video like one from the perpetually unfunny <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/the-celebrity-left%E2%80%99s-obsession-with-obscenity/">Sarah Silverman</a> or something slapped together for the comedy website “Funny or Die”; this is <em>a political advertisement authorized by the Obama campaign itself</em>. This is how Obama believes he can and should appeal to young Americans.</p>
<p><em>National Review Online</em>’s Jim Geraghty <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/331728/obamas-first-time-ad-layers-upon-layers-creepy">compiled</a> some flabbergasted responses of conservative bloggers. <a href="http://twitter.com/BiasedGirl/statuses/261609934712631296">Biased Girl</a> wonders, “Is that what this administration thinks Real women are like?” <a href="http://twitter.com/StacyOnTheRight/statuses/261616521829285888">Stacy Washington</a> tweeted, “The #MyFirstTime ad is the height of vulgarity. Tell me #Democrat Moms: Is this how you want the president talking to your daughters?” <a href="http://twitter.com/moelane/statuses/261603249520521216">Moe Lane</a> wrote, “I know I’m supposed to be shocked… but instead I’m embarrassed.” <a href="http://twitter.com/nydem49/statuses/261609888453632000">NY Dem49</a> has a word of advice for Obama: “Don’t create an ad you wouldn’t be comfortable with your daughter reciting.” Ace from <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334241.php">Ace of Spades</a> nails it:</p>
<blockquote><p>It’s hideous. It’s not funny, it’s not cute, and it’s not persuasive, unless you think the important issues in this campaign are Binders Full of Birth Control… It continues to be weird that Democrats want so bad to have sex with their cult leader.</p></blockquote>
<p>What this silly travesty of a political ad says is, Obama doesn’t respect young American women at all. He thinks, or hopes, that they’re too ignorant and self-absorbed to understand what the real issues are and to care about them, and that they can be lured to the voting booth with this sleazy trivialization of the voting process and of the state of our union.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/like-a-virgin-obama-ad-sets-a-new-low/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>46</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 608/655 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 11:02:24 by W3 Total Cache -->