CODEPINK: Women For Peace

[billm317]

I think there's potential here to pick up a lot of supporters.

I don't know a lot about this group, but from what I've seen, Dr. Paul's message seems to really go along with how they believe.

http://dontvote4.us/2007/08/23/2-weeks-before-the-iraq-invasion-hillary-speaks-in-favor-of-preemptive-war/
Here's a meeting with some of them and Hillary Clinton before the Iraq war. In retrospect, if the country had done what these women were saying, we would be in way less of a mess now. At the end of the interview, Hillary gets pissed. It's worth a watch.

If these women don't know about Dr. Paul, they need to. There's a good chance that they're mainly focusing on Democrats and have overlooked Dr. Paul.

Here is their website: http://www.codepink4peace.org/

EDIT: Here is a list of their founders, along with email addresses: http://codepinkalert.org/section.php?id=14

[LibertyEagle]

We need to make damn sure that CodePink is not a new name for a Socialist or Marxist group. I have not vetted the information, but there certainly are a lot of claims that this is exactly what they are:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={BF17F7E4-09C6-4525-8358-CDA0EEBACE71}


I am not saying that they shouldn't be approached, however, what has alarmed me is seeing talk of approaching them outside of the upcoming REPUBLICAN Texas Straw Poll, because apparently they will be there. This WOULD NOT be a good idea. Please don't be seen wearing Ron Paul attire and standing even NEAR these people.

[cujothekitten]

I know a couple of code pinkers and I suggest everyone approach them with caution. The majority of them are socialists and hard line feminists. That's not to say they're bad people (they're not) but it takes someone familiar with their positions to really turn them to Paul.

Having known quite a few it will probably be a hard sell for most of them... they'll support his position on the war but I'm pretty sure they won't support him for president.

They also happen to be despised by the majority of republicans.

[cujothekitten]

We need to make damn sure that CodePink is not a new name for a Socialist or Marxist group. I have not vetted the information, but there certainly are a lot of claims that this is exactly what they are:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={BF17F7E4-09C6-4525-8358-CDA0EEBACE71}


Many of their members are socialists (anarchists as well) but they're feminists first and foremost. They created their name as a reaction from the war (i.e. Code red a war is coming... oh we're feminists so it should be code pink, it'll be clever).

[billm317]

based on what you guys know about them, who do you feel they're likely to support?

[noxagol]

based on what you guys know about them, who do you feel they're likely to support?

Hitlery. They are feminists first and fore most so they will blindly follow a women to tyranny.

[jj111]

It looks from the clip like they don't like warfare too much but they love the socialistic welfare state.

I don't think they are likely the most fertile ground for Ron Paul support. I think they would prefer Kucinich to Ron Paul in a heartbeat.

[MicroBalrog]

We shoul try anyway and not get carried away by stereotypes.

I'm an 'evil neocon' for Ron, surely we can get some 'pinko feminists' for Ron?

[Razmear]

I just got the Digg Widgets installed on http://DontVote4.us in case you want to bump up the warmongering Hillary story.

eb

[Politeia]

The video is an interesting encounter, given that CodePink's cornerstone is the feminist dogma that men are entirely responsible for war in any form, and wimmin are poor, innocent victims who have nothing to do with it. I doubt any of them will wake up, however; after all, Hillary is a womyn herself, so she must be right somehow. We'll just forget she said any of that.

I seriously doubt that any in CodePink would support a presidential candidate who didn't make a major point of supporting their absolute "right" to commit abortion, any time and place of their choosing, including on the sidewalk in front of the White House, to show their opposition to "patriarchal oppression". (Of course, even this "war against the unborn" is not their responsibility, since as we know "all sex is rape", and thus the only reason a womyn is forced to have an abortion is because some man made her pregnant against her will.)

[Revolution9]

We need to make damn sure that CodePink is not a new name for a Socialist or Marxist group. .

They seem like a bunch of girl and women power activists who are simply against the war and Bush.. I haven't seen much propaganda out of them that was beyond those two issues.. The pink iwas chosen to mock the color coded Fatherland Security alerts. And pink is a very girlie color:)

Best
Randy

[cujothekitten]

based on what you guys know about them, who do you feel they're likely to support?

Kucinich

[1000-points-of-fright]

We'd probably be more successful with the Pink Pistols (http://www.pinkpistols.org/).

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[joeu]

The video is an interesting encounter, given that CodePink's cornerstone is the feminist dogma that men are entirely responsible for war in any form, and wimmin are poor, innocent victims who have nothing to do with it. I doubt any of them will wake up, however; after all, Hillary is a womyn herself, so she must be right somehow. We'll just forget she said any of that.

I seriously doubt that any in CodePink would support a presidential candidate who didn't make a major point of supporting their absolute "right" to commit abortion, any time and place of their choosing, including on the sidewalk in front of the White House, to show their opposition to "patriarchal oppression". (Of course, even this "war against the unborn" is not their responsibility, since as we know "all sex is rape", and thus the only reason a womyn is forced to have an abortion is because some man made her pregnant against her will.)

You hit the nail right about on the head...

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Politeia]

If we are going to wholeheartedly subscribe to basing our actions on sterotypical views, then we might as well strike the tents and go home.

RP is a "wacko," after all, according to conventional wisdom. If we can't be open minded enough to even attempt to state our case to a feminist, then why should we expect even one potential voter to consider supporting RP who is a "nutcase" that "can't win."

Also, I seriously doubt that Cindy Sheehan thought of her son Casey as a rapist. And there ain't nobody in CodePink gonna forget about Hillary's war mongering for votes.

Is CP the most fertile ground for RP support? Probably not. Should we dismiss and insult their members? Probably not.

Sorry, not my intention to offend anyone. If "CodePink" and their ilk would stop insulting me, I'd probably be less annoyed with them. I haven't followed this organization closely, but I do live in one of the most leftist/feminist cities in the country (The Vagina Monologues is a big hit here every year), so I've certainly heard about them.

As I said, their ideology is based on what I call "the myth of female innocence" -- the complementary analog to what Warren Farrell wrote about in The Myth of Male Power (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0425181448) -- and I'm just tired of it. "We're just helpless victim women so nobody listens to us so we have to do outrageous things like baring our boobies in public to get attention so those awful men will stop doing those awful things like having wars."

"Women rule the world; no man ever did anything unless a woman allowed or encouraged him to do it." - Bob Dylan, Rolling Stone interview, late 1980s. The truth is, all these political and other conflicts are conflicts between groups of women, who each use the men they control as front men, cannon fodder, fall guys, whipping boys. If these feminists really wanted to stop the wars, they'd go after the women who control the men who make the wars. But it's easier to blame the men, and not expose the Big Secret.

That so many women appear to be unaware of this basic truth only leads me to suspect their intelligence. Or if they are not unaware, then they are lying. Lying annoys me; I try not to lose sleep over it, since it's so pervasive, but when confronted directly, I will sometimes call it like it is.

From the CodePink "Call to Action": "Women have been the guardians of life - not because we are better or purer or more innately nurturing than men, but because the men have busied themselves making war." Same old same old.

Cindy Sheehan seems like a nice person, and I'm certainly sorry for her suffering. But I have to wonder: Why did her son go into the military in the first place? What did she bring him up to believe? Who has she voted for throughout her adult life? If she hasn't yet figured out that "War is the health of the state", then none of her efforts, no matter how heartfelt, are going to add up to anything of consequence.

As for Hillary, her famous quote that "Women have always been the primary victims of war (http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0429roberts.html)" is pretty much an encapsulation of the CodePink ideology. I see they want to "Talk to Hillary" ... Hey babes, she's not gonna listen; there aren't enough of you to put her in power. The other major feminist myth is the "myth of sisterhood", which pretends that women all get along and sing "Kumbaya" together all night. Not a bit of it: women are far more savage competitors than men, and totally ruthless in pursuit of what they want. Hillary wants power; that's her jones. God help anyone who gets in her way.

It seems women really like to do stuff that makes them feel good, but it doesn't really matter whether these actions have any real effect. If these women really wanted to end the war, they could stop paying for it -- the income tax -- and get the men they control to stop as well. That would put a dent in the war machine.

If you can get some of these feminists to join the RP Revolution, then go for it, and I'll be the first to applaud. I'm tired of talking with feminists, who demand that I pour ashes on my head before they'll listen to me about anything.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Politeia]

I'll be voting for a Republican next year!
I grew up a hereditary liberal Democrat; my parents were Stevenson supporters in the 1950s. I was part of the counterculture in the 1960s, a dealer in "exotic herbs and pharamceuticals" in the Haight-Ashbury 1969-71, a San Francisco Zen Buddhist through the 1970s (still am, tho no longer in San Francisco). My first election was in 1964, when, though I'd read Barry Goldwater's book and liked it, I succumbed to my conditioning and voted for Lyndon Johnson, convinced that "Goldwater would get us into a war."

Three years later I was forced to flee to Canada, into what I thought would be permanent exile from home, family and friends. (As it happened, I was able to return the following year; a year in Canada, the velvet prison, taught me a lot about what being an American -- my ancestors helped found this country, as I told my draft board -- is about.) This lesson was not lost on me, though it took me a while -- and detours through McGovern Democrat, Peace & Freedom, and Citizens' Party territory -- to figure out just what was what.

In 1981 I began to learn about libertarianism, and first heard of Ron Paul, and sent him some money, as I've done now and then since, as he's my only representative in the District of Criminals (I've never lived in Texas). I registered Libertarian, and voted for Ron Paul in 1988. And haven't voted since, though I liked Harry Browne (may he rest in peace); the exercise in futility didn't seem worth the trouble.

And now I, too, will be registering Republican to vote next year in the primary. (After that, I'll vote for Ron Paul whether he's the Republican candidate or not. Then I'll probably rescind my registration, as I don't like to be on record as a "U.S. Citizen" with a slave number.) This is likely to be a considerable shock to family and old friends; I guess even at 64 I'm still young enough to be amused by this.


They don't want to talk to her, so much as scream at her and make her life miserable.

From CP website:
Listen Hillary!
Americans and Iraqis are saying "Troops out." Are you listening, Hillary? CODEPINK launched a nationwide campaign against Hillary Clinton because of her opposition to immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. Join us in telling Hillary to muster some much-needed anti-war energy! Read NY Times latest article!
Yeah, well, okay. "... scream at her and make her life miserable": Is this what we were told, that giving women the vote would elevate politics to a higher plane? This is the best they can do? (It seems clear that Hillary's the best they can offer, which doesn't surprise me.) It's still this feminist "sisterhood" stuff; they still believe they have more in common with Hillary than with someone who honestly wants to end the war. Maybe they do. If Hillary suddenly decides she's against the war, will that make her okay? For CodePink, probably; on every other issue, I expect they're totally agreed -- including, e.g., the need for American "humanitarian intervention" in Darfur, just like Hillary's husband did in the Balkans in the 90s.


Casey Sheehan was an alter boy and a boy scout, to learn more see:
Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Soldiers
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sheehan/sheehan39.html
A sad story, to be sure. But, should her boy have been a rebel, rather than an altar boy and a boy scout? I've always been the rebel; I assure you, it's a lonely life. The question is, why should a boy who does his best to be "good" end up like Casey Sheehan? And where, BTW, was his father in all this? I see no mention of him. Mama's boys will often turn out excessively "good"; fathers can provide a little more perspective.

On a quick reading, it's not exactly clear where Cindy stands on the issue of war per se. The problem is not that men love military decorations, or love war -- as women so often seem to believe. The values men have injected into war have been due to necessity: Because war is sometimes necessary, so we've done what we can to make it bearable. Our Republic was founded in war; if men hadn't answered the call (there was no draft then, as there is none now), we'd still be subjects of the British monarch -- as our Canadian neighbors are.

I've never been in war, nor in the military at all; I was barely even briefly a boy scout. But unlike many in my generation, I recognize the vital role played by those men who do go to war, when necessary, to defend home and hearth -- as my father did, to defend his wife, children, mother, sister, and so on. (Though I've since learned that his war, like Casey Sheehan's, was a trumped up fake, still, he did not lack in honor.)

I highly recommend reading the novel Gates of Fire (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/055338368X) for an exploration of these issues, of why men go to war, and who sends them:


Answer concisely:
Can you envision a world without war?
Can you imagine clemency from an enemy?
Describe the condition of Lakedaemon without her army, without her warriors, to defend her.
Which is better, victory or defeat?
To rule or be ruled?
To make a widow of the enemy’s wife or to have one’s own wife widowed?


The lady Paraleia inquired, who it was who governed the city. The kings and the ephors, I replied at once, and of course the Laws. The lady smiled and glanced, just for a moment, toward the mistress Arete.
"Yes," she said. "Surely this must be so."
This was her way of letting me know that the women ran the show and that if I didn’t want to find myself permanently back in the farmers’ shitfields, I’d better start coughing up a satisfactory dose of information.

The problem, in this case -- indeed in the case of every war the United States has been involved in since 1815 (and even that one I have doubts about) -- is that men's natural skills at war -- selectively bred for millions of years -- have been used to send them into unjustified, unjustifiable wars. It's not that mamas shouldn't raise their boys to be soldiers -- without men capable of being soldiers no nation will survive in a world of predators -- but that they should be more discerning about what wars they send their men into.

"The Battle Hymn of the Republic" ("Mine eyes have seen the glory, etc.") was a major tool in pumping up the population of the Northern states to go to war against the South. It was written by a woman, who only later, after she'd seen some battlefields and devastated countryside, began to have a few little doubts about the part she'd played. After the war she became a pacifist, founding "Mother's Day (http://www.prism.net/user/fcarpenter/howe.html)" as a protest against war. Well, better late than never, I guess.

The recent film The Four Feathers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Feathers_%282002_film%29) also explores this theme; note that the young man finally decides to buck it up and be a man when his fiancée hands him the fourth feather -- symbol of his cowardice for refusing to join an imperial war. A million men died in a single battle in World War I; many of them also were there because they'd been handed feathers by the women in their lives.

The whole question is a lot deeper than anything I see from people (women) like CodePink, who spend their time in narcissistic, superficial posturing rather than seeking and addressing real causes. I just get tired of it sometimes.

[/rant] :)


As for Cindy's own political leanings, there was a rumor that she had an affair with Lew Rockwell, if you can believe it. I'm not sure that I can.
Well, frankly, that's the sort of rumor that's best left unrepeated, true or not; it's neither your nor my business -- though it is the sort of thing women seem to find fascinating. And whether a woman "has an affair" (how we love euphemisms) with a man or not doesn't necessarily tell us anything about her political views. How about Carville & Matalin, last I heard an item? Why do women "sleep with the enemy"? Women do not do such things for reasons which you and I would see as rational.

[constituent]

give your money to who you want.

associate with anyone you desire to associate with!

this is america, right?
it's not about the hardcore 'code pink'ers.... it's about the fellow travelers, stragglers, and tag alongs who will outnumber them 10 to 1. and just b/c you are in ft. worth that day supporting ron paul does

not mean that you cannot also be there protesting w/ the code pink crew against the war. do as you desire. associate with those of your choosing.

[Inflation]

We need to help codepink with their antiwar agenda, and agree to disagree about free markets, etc. Politics makes strange bedfellows!

The Democrat base is not happy with their party elite. That's why codepink infiltrated and disrupted the opening of Hillary HQ in San Francisco.

We need to let the Dem rank-and-file know that they don't have to live on the Democrat Plantation any longer.

See this report for the hillarious details, but beware of the topless hippys if you're sensitive to such things!

Topless Protest by Breasts Not Bombs and Code Pink

http://www.zombietime.com/hillary_sf_office_topless_protest/

[wolv275]

LOL i don't agree with these gals in allot of their methods for getting their point across. but you gotta hand it to them, bare boobs from any woman at any age will get the attention of people LOL :eek:

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Politeia]

That's an interesting personal history. Haven't heard of too many "Draft Dodgers for Paul" (if I understood you correctly), and more power to you, really.
Yeah, I lived in Montréal, where the Québecois folks called me "le Déserteur". They approved, not being keen on American domination.


When my cousin got home from 'Nam he came along, too.
Good he came home; so many did not, and for what? Good he figured it out, too; so many have not, and still excoriate guys like myself. Another cost of "undeclared" wars, which Dr. Paul hasn't mentioned, it what happens to veterans: Even if you survive, being in a war is a devastating trauma, which can be healed only by being fully accepted and honored back home, which Vietnam vets were not. Thus more have died in suicide and similar ends than died in the war. And the same will happen to the Iraq vets. America should not send men to war unless the country is 100% behind them. That can happen, of course, only when the war is fully justified; and the only justifiable war is one of real self-defense -- which as I said hasn't happened since 1812 (if then).

I doubt I would have made a good soldier in any case, but if my country had really been under attack, I would have done my best. In that case, of course, a draft wouldn't have been needed anyway. (I listened to Dr. Paul's speech this afternoon; he traces the draft back to WWI, but actually Lincoln began it.)

My ancestor Philip served under General Washington at Valley Forge and several important battles of the War of Independence, losing an eye at Germantown. His son Solomon fought in the War of 1812, his son Andrew (after whom I was named) in the Mexican War (another totally unjustified aggression, even if I now live in the former capital of the conquered territory), his son Alvin in the "Civil" War, his son Roscoe in WWI, and his son Alvin (my father) in WWII.

So I am the first son in over 200 years not to fight in a war. My father was not happy about my choice -- he told me he thought a citizen army, which he thought was the purpose of conscription, was better than a "volunteer" i.e. mercenary one -- but he knew the war was bogus, so he didn't put me down either. The day I left for Canada, after visiting him in Annapolis, he went to what might have been the biggest antiwar rally of the period, in DC ca. September 1967. Very unlike him to do such a thing. What a world.


Because of those experiences, I always thought of liberals and Democrats as being the party of smaller government, if you can believe it.
Well, I don't guess I was thinking in terms of "smaller government", but I certainly saw the Democrats as the "good guys". Only later did it occur to me that it's been the Democrats who got us into all the major (and most of the minor) wars in the last century, until Bush #1 and Iraq #1. Hmm... "War is the health of the State."


I had the pleasure of meeting Cindy one afternoon and marching beside her. Only spoke a few words with her as we did our thing, but she definitely had this air about her, her prescence seemed almost beatific. Very uplifting and inspiring.
I expect she's a very nice person; the sort of trials she's been through can be very purifying. I don't know what to say about antiwar women ... their hearts are in the right place, but, I'm sorry, that's not enough.

It's like the question of the 19th Amendment, explored on another thread here today: If women are to be "full partners" in political activities, I feel I should be able to expect them to think as clearly and deeply as men do. Yet, even the most intelligent, thoughtful, insightful women, who write for the best libertarian sites and blogs, still don't reach the level of the most intelligent, thoughtful, insightful men. Even Camille Paglia, whom I enjoy immensely, doesn't think like a man: She thinks she thinks like a man (so she says), but really she thinks like a woman who thinks she thinks like a man.

They're different; their minds don't work like men's do. And the vast majority of women hardly seem to think at all; they feel, and respond emotionally and impulsively. That's not "wrong", but it is different. But it's politically incorrect to notice the difference, which creates this weird "Empress's new clothes" situation, where everyone has to pretend the world is different than it really is. And men have to pretend that women are making sense, when all too often they aren't at all.

It's not healthy, and can only continue to prevail unless/until the nation really does come under attack from an enemy who seriously means us harm. Then play time will be over, and suddenly men will be expected to give their lives to protect women again. And a lot of women will suddenly realize that mamas really should raise their boys to be soldiers. When it gets real.

[ThePieSwindler]

i was expecting hot chicks with tops off. I was mistaken. This is a terrible day indeed for all that is good in the world.

[Politeia]

i was expecting hot chicks with tops off. I was mistaken. This is a terrible day indeed for all that is good in the world.

Hey, this is San Francisco; I used to live there, not surprised.

Actually, if this is the best that "anti-war" liberals can come up with, perhaps we should be thankful. Because they really cannot acknowledge, much less confront, the fact that the warfare state is simply the Janus-face (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_%28mythology%29) of the welfare state, all they can do is be silly and throw tantrums. Oh, those grrrls are so mad! If I were a politician, I'd be quaking with fear, I would.

So the only place anyone will hear serious anti-war-ism, based in principle rather than mere sentiment, coupled with real, practical plans to end the war, is from ... you guessed it, Ron Paul. You see, Dr. Paul would be against the war even if we were winning, because it is Constitutionally illegal.

[dsentell]

i was expecting hot chicks with tops off. I was mistaken. This is a terrible day indeed for all that is good in the world.

OMG! I was embarrassed for them..............

[Politeia]

OMG! I was embarrassed for them..............

Yeah, there is that; what a travesty our country has become.

Some years back I had the pleasure of meeting a real woman: an Iroquois shamaness, who came to speak in our town. She was quiet and reserved ... and awesome. Real female power, in person. She never raised her voice, but any man would instinctively bow to her, and be on his best behavior. She respected herself, and so she respected men, and so men respected her. It's that simple.

I looked around the room; a lot of women were there, many of them older than her, but they all seemed like overgrown children. They had no dignity.

[BenIsForRon]

It's like the question of the 19th Amendment, explored on another thread here today: If women are to be "full partners" in political activities, I feel I should be able to expect them to think as clearly and deeply as men do. Yet, even the most intelligent, thoughtful, insightful women, who write for the best libertarian sites and blogs, still don't reach the level of the most intelligent, thoughtful, insightful men. Even Camille Paglia, whom I enjoy immensely, doesn't think like a man: She thinks she thinks like a man (so she says), but really she thinks like a woman who thinks she thinks like a man.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvs201mlLsk

HOLY CRAP POLITEIA IS BORAT! Welcome to the forums!

[Politeia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvs201mlLsk

HOLY CRAP POLITEIA IS BORAT! Welcome to the forums!

Uh, not quite sure how to take this. Borat I gather is some sort of cultural phenomenon these days? Sorry, I'm really out of touch. I'm not sure if the video is funny or what, though the females are certainly typically grim.

Fortunately, I'm old enough, and long single, and far enough disconnected from the mainstream culture, that I can laugh at all this. Unlike my married or otherwise "occupied" male friends, who must simply bear it.

"By midlife and early old age, as the hormones of both genders change, women are in total, despotic control of their marriages." - Camille Paglia, Vamps & Tramps

"Were women to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings, and would surely perish without male protection." - Queen-Empress Victoria, 1870

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[constituent]

darren, that is very insightful.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[Revolution9]

Hard earned knowledge. ;)

OK.. You can park the tiny clown car now and put the propeller beanie in the bottom drawer.. You have demonstrated some kind of thinking prowess.

Best Regards
Randy

[jjschless]

OK.. You can park the tiny clown car now and put the propeller beanie in the bottom drawer.. You have demonstrated some kind of thinking prowess.

Best Regards
Randy

LOL!! Thats a great visual. Reminds me of the Bozo the Clown show.