Do Sandra Fluke and Lena Dunham know about this?
As we discussed on yesterday’s show with our guest Daniel Greenfield of Sultan Knish, if you’re paying attention, you’ll notice a disturbing pattern in the way that the Obama administration deals with the turmoil in the Middle East. Bottom Line: The One sides with the Islamists. Consider Libya and Egypt. In both countries, the Obama administration kicked allies to the curb to help install Islamist regimes. Iran in June, 2009 was another story. In that case, Barack Obama didn’t want “to be seen as meddling” in another country’s affairs.
It’s indisputable that Obama is on the side of the Islamists. If his foreign policy decisions were not evidence enough, he wrote in his silly, boring, navel-gazing book, The Audacity of Hope, “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” I guess that the bright side is that, for once, he’s keeping a promise.
I picture B. Hussein watching Egyptian President, the Muslim Brotherhood’s own, Mohamed Morsi, deciding that he can dispense with the other two branches of government because he is effectively God, and thinking “That’s what I’m talking about!”
So, it’s no surprise that Barack is a Morsi fan, but I wonder if some of Barry’s biggest boosters, Lena Dunham and Sandra Fluke, and others of their ilk, know that their guy is supporting a regime that finds it intolerable to include a provision in its new constitution that prohibits child marriage and sex slavery. That’s Egypt today. From the British site, Inter Press Service:
An ultraconservative Salafi cleric recently sparked outrage among Egypt’s liberal circles when he attempted to justify his opposition to a proposed constitutional article that would outlaw the trafficking of women for sex.
Speaking on privately-owned Al-Nas satellite channel, Sheikh Mohamed Saad El-Azhary said he feared the proposed article could conflict with the local practice of child marriage. He explained that in Egypt, particularly in rural areas, there is a culture of marrying off girls as soon as they hit puberty.
“The important thing is that the girl is ready and can tolerate marriage,” El-Azhary declared.
He goes on to warn of just how far it could go if this radical, anti-child marriage provision is allowed to go forward.
He went on to protest proposed laws protecting women from violence, warning that if allowed to pass husbands could be prosecuted for beating their child brides or forcing themselves upon them.
“If you have intercourse with your wife against her will, she will be able to file a complaint against you,” he said. “That’s where things are headed.”
What’s next? Women driving? Leaving the house without the permission of a male relative? By the way, this guy is part of the group writing the new Egyptian constitution.
One of the great things about being a liberal is the ability to operate with a high degree of self-righteousness, free of any concern that the positions that you passionately defend are irreconcilably conflicting. You can be a feminist who wants freedom and choice for women, who should be seen as strong and independent, except that they expect someone else to pay for their contraceptives, and you can support a guy for president who endorses an Egyptian regime that doesn’t consider it a “legitimate rape” when a man forces himself on his wife.
No wonder liberalism is so popular among the intellectually lazy and/or challenged.
Also: Women’s equality absent from Egyptian constitution