Child Sex Trafficking Is Not A Partisan Issue
The sexual exploitation of children is intolerable. This is a moral absolute from which there can be no deviation. Right, left, and center, we know this to be true.
So when a pair of young muckrakers recorded several employees of the tax-subsidized organization ACORN offering advice to help facilitate child prostitution, it was clearly as newsworthy as it was despicable. However, most national media outlets ignored this outrage when the story broke on September 10, 2009.
Posing as a pimp and prostitute trying to set up a child sex slavery operation, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles visited five ACORN offices. During each encounter, they sought guidance on how to obtain financing for a brothel that would house a dozen or so underage girls smuggled in from El Salvador. On at least two or three occasions, Giles mentioned she was in danger from an abusive ex-pimp.
At all five offices, ACORN staff counseled the pair on a combination of tax evasion, money laundering, staying under law enforcement radar, welfare fraud, and human trafficking. One employee in Baltimore even recommended they claim some of the child sex slaves as dependents. “Honesty is not going to get you the house,” advised another in Brooklyn.
Yes, this is the story that most mainstream media outlets refused to cover as it unfolded over the past week.
If not for relentless airing on Fox News, promotion on the Drudge Report, and viral duplication on the right side of the blogosphere, the damning videos released by Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government might not have received wider circulation than any fleeting Internet meme. Fortunately politicians took notice and quickly moved to defund ACORN, the recipient of at least $53 million in federal funds since 1994.
The mainstream media was finally forced to acknowledge the story, but initially did so with headlines like “Census Bureau Drops Acorn From 2010 Effort” and my personal favorite from Reuters, “U.S. Senate Denies Funds For Poverty Group.” To call that burying the lede would be fantastically inadequate.
Then the usual media suspects moved on to playing the blame game. Five days after the release of the first video, the New York Times published Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn, its first original reporting on the scandal. MSNBC ran a segment called “Nuts vs. ACORN.”
Eventually even network television had to admit there was a story. Katie Couric led the national evening news anchors with her broadcast on Tuesday, September 15. NBC’s Meredith Vieira reported the story on Wednesday morning, and after laughing the story off as something better left “to the cables,” ABC World News anchor Charlie Gibson finally aired the story Wednesday evening. His broadcast followed a denouncement of the ACORN staffers by the White House.
Why the delay? Simple. Liberal reporters and producers were unable to ferret out an angle that could exonerate ACORN from culpability. They were stymied. The established media narrative demands ACORN be portrayed as a group of valiant crusaders against poverty. They’re to be hailed as noble community organizers under unfair scrutiny by a racist right wing attack machine.
Even the latest video of a San Diego ACORN employee offering assistance with smuggling child prostitutes into the country hasn’t derailed that narrative. Because the ACORN sting was the brainchild of conservative activists it is considered inherently flawed, unworthy of serious investigation.
BigGovernment.com has released devastating videos of ACORN employees offering to abet child prostitution in five cities – Baltimore, New York, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Washington, D.C. – and more are reportedly on the way. The indecency in these videos is not a fluke.
ACORN doesn’t have just a few bad apples, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested. Incriminating videos have implicated nine employees. If ACORN Housing employs 250, as ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis attests, then we have at least 3.6 percent of the ACORN Housing workforce willing to help facilitate a child prostitution ring. Even if we include all 750 full- and part-time ACORN staffers, nine rotten apples would be a noteworthy 1.2 percent of the paid ACORN workforce. And it may well be that we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
It is by the grace of public funding that ACORN’s doors stay open. An estimated 40 percent of ACORN funding comes from government sources, enough that taxpayers have a right and an obligation to demand transparency, accountability, and rigorous oversight. Both houses of Congress agree, and voted this week to bar ACORN from access to federal money. Several states followed suit, withdrawing funds and launching investigations into the group’s practices.
At best, ACORN is an organization with a toxic corporate culture that attracts or fosters morally reprehensible behavior. At worst, it is as corrupt and contemptible as ongoing allegations of widespread voter registration fraud, tax code violations, and contribution fraud would suggest.
Lashing out at everyone from the filmmakers to George Bush, Karl Rove, and the right in general will not make this scandal disappear. And neither will shameful incidents of media malpractice, feminist silence, and false equivalencies from the liberal blogosphere. Any degree of support for child sex slavery is indefensible. Period.
Perhaps I should have titled this piece, “Child Sex Trafficking Shouldn’t Be A Partisan Issue.” It shouldn’t be, and yet, for some, it’s acceptable to look the other way when it threatens to undermine a liberal organization.
Inconvenient Race? Just Edit Accordingly
Imagine for a moment you’re an MSNBC producer. You’ve worked hard to convince viewers that President Obama’s health care reform is being jeopardized by dangerous gun-toting white supremacists who hate the idea of a black man in the White House.
So what do you do when the facts don’t reinforce your carefully crafted narrative? For example, maybe you’ve got prime video footage of a right wing extremist carrying an assault rifle at a protest. I mean, you can’t honestly be expected to have your on-air talent report that he’s a black man, right? And it’s not like this gun-loving wingnut is an authentic African-American, what with his distasteful conservative politics and dislike of Barack Obama. Everyone knows blacks are supposed to be Democrats.
But then you notice. If you get the editing peons to zoom the footage just so, taking care to make sure no exposed skin is visible, a black man and a white man look awfully similar. Why, it’s almost as if you could get away with …
A crop here, a cut there, and presto! You’ve doctored away the inconvenient truth of a black man’s race.
All will go according to plan if you can roll your whitewashed footage as Contessa Brewer and company analyze the “racial overtones” of “white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists.” Kind of like this:
To continue stoking racial animosity, go to page 24.
To get caught out there by NewsBusters, go here.
Jenn Q. Public, Failed Protester for Hire
I don’t know what I’m doing wrong.
According to an AFL-CIO statement published by The Huffington Post, corporations and lobbyists are bankrolling the militant right wing extremists protesting liberal health care reform. The Democratic National Committee says “‘grassroots protests’ are being organized and largely paid for by Washington special interests and insurance companies,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett says the “mobs” are being “sent by the local Republican and Libertarian parties,” and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs assured the press corps the town halls are rife with the “manufactured anger” of astroturfers.
So why is it that I have yet to see a single paltry dime?
I’ve blogged about my opposition to the way health care reform is being handled. I’ve attended more than one tea party rally. I’m an active member of a conservative women’s organization. I’m even a freakin’ GOP delegate for my precinct. Oh, and I’ve got genuine outrage to spare — no “manufacturing” necessary — but with the value of the dollar so low, I’m willing to pretend my grassroots activism is astroturf if it means I can supplement my income.
So why isn’t my phone ringing off the hook with calls from Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and the RNC? How do I get on the radar of the neocon corporate lobbyists and GOP bigwigs doling out cash for activism?
According to California Senator Barbara Boxer, the astroturfers are well-dressed. Maybe I need to up my fashion game?
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin believes the town hall protests are being orchestrated by birthers. Should I get a “Deport Obama” t-shirt and show up with my birth certificate in a Ziploc bag if I want to grab the ‘turfers’ attention? Or would I not be well-dressed if I did that?
Liberal radio host Bill Press says right wing astroturfers are “taking a page right out of a Nazi playbook” to bus in paid professional protesters. Anyone have the ISBN for that playbook? I was never issued my copy so I’m not familiar with the intricacies of this “Stalinist-style campaign.”
Nancy Pelosi says a sure sign of astroturfers is that “they’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that.” I hadn’t realized Nazi accessories were a notorious tell of paid rabble rousers masquerading as authentic protesters, but hey, I’m not a professional protester (yet) so what do I know?
Perhaps if I could just muster up some of the “racial anxiety” Paul Krugman believes is fueling the health care protests I’d appear more authentic. Then I could really pull off using the “Brown Shirt tactics” being used by “extremists” to prevent Rep. Brian Baird of Washington from holding in-person town hall meetings.
But maybe I’m approaching this all wrong. Instead, I could take my cues from seasoned ‘turfers on the left, like the operatives at MoveOn.org who boast they’ve “hired skilled grassroots organizers” to “fight back against these radical right-wingers.” Or the “ordinary citizens” paid by SEIU to teach health care protesters a Chicago-style lesson. Or the non-English speaking day laborers recruited to hold up slick, professional signs they can’t even read at a Denver protest. Or the grassroots activists who take their marching orders directly from President Obama. As Ed Morrissey points out, “nothing says grassroots like the Obama campaign logo on the top, and Obama’s website URL on the bottom.”
And while I’m at it, maybe I’ll start compiling dossiers on lefties who say “fishy” things about health care reform. But I’m pretty sure I’ll need a bigger hard drive. Anyone know which shady corporate cabal I should hit up for funding?
Confessions of a Lapsed Atheist
I’d like to extend a warm welcome to my new readers from American Thinker. Please take a spin through the links in the sidebars to see more of my writing. If you’re so inclined, you may subscribe via RSS or email.
The following essay first appeared on AmericanThinker.com on June 21, 2009.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you believe in God? Really? And you’re willing to admit it in public?
Oops. Sorry, for a moment I slipped back into the arrogant Atheism of my youth.
Before my parents had children, they decided to raise their kids in a secular home. We had gifts at Christmas time and chocolate covered matzoh during Passover, but there was no religion and certainly no God.
When I was in grade school, God was just a kind of nondescript character who popped up in Little House on the Prairie books from time to time. He seemed like a decent enough fellow, but was more or less a bit player who didn’t have much to say.
After my grandfather died when I was seven, his Baptist minister lifted me up in his arms and told me, “It’s all right, Grandpa’s with God now.” At that moment, I could feel my dress was hiked up in the back and all I could think about was pulling it back down. But later, I asked around and discovered that God was our Heavenly father, whatever that was supposed to mean.
I figured, who better to ask about my Heavenly father than my earthly father, but when I did he laughed.
He wasn’t amused in a “kids say the darnedest things” kind of way. He was laughing derisively at the idea that my mother’s family believed in God. And thus began my introduction to Atheism.
There are people who call themselves atheist who are simply nonbelievers, and then there are the big “A” Atheists for whom Atheism is almost a religion. This quasi-religious doctrine isn’t neutral on the existence of other religions; rather, Atheism is a virulently anti-theistic creed characterized by sneering contempt for religion and a profoundly dogmatic bigotry toward people of faith.
Want to know how Atheists see the rest of us?
And Speaking of Liberal Bigotry …
Kathryn Jean Lopez announced this week she is stepping aside as editor of National Review Online.
I’ll still be contributing to NRO with ideas and content, and if you are an author or reader you might not notice much of a change. I’ll probably still be bugging you for pieces if you’re an author and I’ll still be traffic-copping the Corner. But I will be moving my primary base of operation in the fall from New York to D.C., and will no longer honcho NRO on a day-by-day basis.
Unable to contain their nasty barbs for long, two liberal bloggers offered prime examples of the assumption that liberalism offers a sure-fire defense against accusations of bigotry.
Exhibit A: The Ethnic Slur
In response to K-Lo’s statement that she will “no longer honcho NRO on a day-by-day basis,” Firedoglake blogger TBogg wrote:
Since “honcho” is not a verb, we consulted the Urban Dictionary to see what crazee ways kidz are using “honcho” these days, but to no avail. We did find “hincho“:
a person of latin american descent with poor taste in fashion, music and speaks with a heavy accent
….so, we’re thinking typo.
Exhibit B: The Sexist Photo Manipulation
The Sadly, No blog is keeping feminism alive by portraying Lopez as an out of work prostitute:
What strength and courage it must take to use gender and ethnicity to attack your ideological foes. Are you as blown away as I am?
Hat tip: Ann Athouse
David Letterman and the Culture of Liberal Entitlement
David Letterman feels entitled.
He’s entitled to use spew crude, sexually degrading invective to portray a teenage girl as a sexual object.
Maybe you saw it on one of the highlight reels, one awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game. During the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.
The hardest part of her visit [to New York] was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter
He’s entitled to use a class and gender based slur to demean the most popular sitting governor in the United States.
[Sarah Palin] bought makeup from Bloomingdale’s to update her “slutty flight attendant” look
And he’s entitled to smugly repeat his rank insults while delivering a non-apology to Sarah Palin in painstakingly choreographed deadpan, milking each sexist remark one more time to the delight of a fawning audience.
What gives Dave Letterman license to repeatedly troll the gutter without ever dirtying his Worldwide Pants?
Liberalism.
Didn’t you realize? He can’t be sexist, he’s a liberal. He’s no misogynist – he votes Democrat. Like all liberals, Dave will tell you he loves women. He respects them. Isn’t he pro-choice? Isn’t he sufficiently appalled by breast cancer? Doesn’t he joke all the time about those brutish southerners who beat their wives with Confederate flags? Haven’t you heard? He’s a card carrying liberal. Liberal, I tell you. Liberal!
Among his liberal buddies, Letterman can get away with pretending that he intended to insult Sarah Palin’s 18-year-old daughter Bristol, not her younger child Willow. But Willow was at the ballgame, Bristol was thousands of miles away, and Letterman is the skeevy guy in dress shoes and a tan trench coat who bares it all to a 14-year-old girl on the subway, then swears to the cops, “But I thought she was 18,” as he’s being hauled off to jail.
“Look at my record,” Dave told his audience as he clarified his remarks about Willow. What he means is he’s on record as being liberal. He knows the secret handshake and everything! And as we all know, liberal men are inherently sensitive to sexism in our society.
You see, liberal identity is a bubble that protects those inside from accusations of sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry. It’s considered a nearly unassailable defense against the indefensible. It’s a free pass, a blind eye, and a Get Out of Jail Free card all rolled into one.
Racially and sexually charged jabs are still acceptable in liberal circles because it’s mutually acknowledged that they know better. It’s not like they’re conservatives – you know, the real sexists – so they can say and do as they please without inviting the same consequences a conservative would incur.
And if the target is a conservative woman, well, even better because there’s no chance those pesky feminists will get their panties in a collective bunch. Melissa Clouthier explains why:
Women on the Right, are not considered women. Period. They are considered gender traitors. There simply can be no honest disagreement. This is thought policing and fascistic thinking at it’s worst.
David Letterman is also no stranger to bigoted, elitist one-liners about the Palin family’s middle class roots, and by extension, all people of average means. In addition to the “slutty flight attendant” slur, Michelle Malkin dug up the following examples of Letterman’s oh so enlightened commentary about Sarah Palin:
“You know, she reminds me, she looks like the flight attendant who won’t give you a second can of Pepsi. No, you’ve had enough. We’re landing. Looks like the waitress at the coffee shop who draws a little smiley face on your check. Have a nice day.”
“She looks like the dip sample lady at Safeway. She looks like the nurse who weighs you and then makes you sit alone in your underwear for 20 minutes. She looks like the Olive Garden hostess who says, ‘I’m sorry, your table isn’t ready yet.†She looks like infomercial lady who says she made $64,000 a month flipping condos.”
“[S]he looks like the lady at the bakery who yells out ‘44! 45!’ She looks like a real estate agent whose picture you see on the bus stop bench. That’s who she looks like. She looks like the lady who has a chain of cupcake stores…”
But don’t forget, liberalism absolves Dave from responsibility for the classism he perpetuates when he derides Sarah Palin by comparing her to working class people. Everyone knows liberals are sensitive and open-minded, and that entitles him to say what he wants without ever expecting to be raked over the coals.
As many writers have observed, the feminist silence on Letterman’s sexually inappropriate remarks about Sarah and Willow Palin is predictably deafening. The unwritten rule is that feminism stands for liberal women – authentic women – not conservative women who are, by virtue of their conservatism, anti-woman.
The National Organization for Women (NOW) and Ms. Magazine both declined to send representatives to be interviewed for an On The Record segment about Letterman’s sexually derogatory treatment of the governor and her daughter. Instead, NOW opted to release a statement as critical of conservatives as it was of Dave Letterman.
NOW hopes that all the conservatives who are fired up about sexism in the media lately will join us in calling out sexism when it is directed at women who aren’t professed conservatives.”
NOW also managed to miss the real thrust of Letterman’s remarks about Sarah Palin:
Letterman also joked about what he called Palin’s “slutty flight attendant look” — yet another example of how the media love to focus on a woman politician’s appearance, especially as it relates to her sexual appeal to men.
Yes, the media focus on Sarah Palin’s appearance often delves into sexist territory. But what about the use of the word “slutty,” NOW? Slutty doesn’t speak to “her sexual appeal to men.” It reinforces the belief that by being attractive and fertile, Sarah Palin invites attacks on her virtue as a woman. It says, you can’t be a beautiful woman, a good wife, a loving mother, and a career politician. Pick one.
The response that NOW should have given was instead delivered by a fledgling feminist organization called The New Agenda.
“Letterman’s apology talk last night was cheap,” said The New Agenda co-founder and President Amy Siskind. “True contrition would not invite the Palin’s on his show after publicly humiliating them and their 14-year old daughter. If Letterman’s apology is authentic, he should show it by devoting part of his show to address the national crisis of the sexualization of our teenage daughters.”
The New Agenda was also happy to publish my recent piece on Playboy’s conservative rape fantasy article.
Feminists, that is how it’s done.
Amy Siskind, founder of The New Agenda, took her message to The Huffington Post yesterday in a piece called, “Sexism Against Conservative Women Is Still Sexism.” Think it would be hard to argue with that simple concept? You’d be wrong. Here’s a tiny selection of what the HuffPo commenters had to say about Sarah Palin and sexism:
propitiousmoment: ” She wants to use her sexuality to advance her agenda … might I say, the classic definition of a bimbo.”
andyboy: “To defend a woman from a sexist attack simply because she is a woman is actually the essence of sexism.”
voltaireinexile: “She played the pretty-sexy-mama card all along, undermining what many women have fought so hard against –the objectification of women”
arnray: “Palin and the rest use their sexuality to numb the senses of the dullards and then cry foul when someone throws it back at them.”
Gainsbourg69: “When a woman wants to be considered more than just a sex object she should take steps necessary to avoid being labeled a sex object. Simple.”
Wilson201: “Palin marginalizes her own opinions by dressing the way she does just as Prejeans opinion is by posing barely clothed. If they wish to be taken seriously, then they should dress and behave properly.
Amy’s piece also attracted a host of comments insisting there’s nothing sexist about calling Palin a “slutty flight attendant” if the shoe fits. Right. Palin was practically begging for Dave’s insults just like Michelle Malkin invited the Playboy rape fantasy. Is it any wonder where conservative writers like Kathleen Parker, trying to curry favor with the media elite, pick up ideas like this:
I also think it’s out of line for a woman to sexualize her candidacy, which Palin did. Just ask Rich Lowry, who wrote that he had to sit up a little straighter when she winked during the vp debate. So, maybe when you play the flirt and invite males to see starbursts bouncing off the walls (Lowry again), then maybe you invite the sexual punchline.
It’s clear that sexually demeaning the women with whom we disagree is more mainstream than ever. It’s a cancer that’s metastasized throughout media, politics, and entertainment, rubber stamped by the liberal sentiment that calling oneself a feminist makes it so. And conservative women aren’t the only targets. Just ask Hillary Clinton, who discovered liberal-approved sexism firsthand during her campaign for the Democratic nomination.
Sexism, racism, and all the other -isms aren’t any more acceptable if you happen to dislike or disagree with the target. This shouldn’t need to be said. And it doesn’t matter if you’re a comedian or a liberal. Sexism always matters. And no political affiliation gives you license to hurl sexually inappropriate insults at women and girls without fear of consequences.
-
Recent Posts
-
Read More From Jenn Q. Public at:
-
Recent Twitter Updates
-
Noteworthy Blogs
- A Traditional Life Lived
- Autographed Letter Signed
- Bookworm Room
- Cassy Fiano
- Chris is RIGHT
- David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog
- GayPatriot
- Hennessy’s View
- HoosierAccess
- Hot Air
- Instapundit
- Ironic Surrealism
- Jenny Erikson
- John Goodman’s Health Policy Blog
- Lisa Graas
- Melissa Clouthier
- Michelle Malkin
- Neo-Neocon
- Pink Elephant Pundit
- Racebusters
- Red Alerts
- Run & Gun
- Sister Toldjah
- Smart Girl Nation
- Snark & Boobs
- Tammy Bruce
- The Anchoress
- The DC Trawler with Jim Treacher
- The NeoSexist
- The New Agenda
- The Real Polichick
- The Sundries Shack
- The Truth in Black and Right
- what if?
