#imwithher

Senate Democrats take up the fight against the nomination of “XX”

0D16B5F7-6B08-4D1C-A333-05154911DE8B.jpeg

What planet are these people on? Without the pick having even been announced, “XX” was deemed to be sufficient enough for Senate Democrats to launch a campaign and fire up the Women’s March group to commit exactly the same mistake. Trump Derangement Syndrome has hit such epic heights that carelessness seems to be a chronic side effect. Not one person proof-read the document prior to the release? One could almost make the case that their hatred and inability to have a sane conversation about any topic such that even if a clone of Obama appointee Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was nominated they would howl in protest. No wonder the #WalkAway movement is gaining momentum. A party that stands for such flimsy principles will fall for anything.

SC nominees have generally been selected by sitting presidents (no matter how much advice they may have received in making the choice). It is up to the Senate to confirm it. In a democracy if the yea’s beat the nay’s it is pushed ahead. Simple. Could the Democrats truly admit they favour SC justices that prioritize conservative values? Of course not. In principle, SC justices are supposed to be impartial and interpret the constitution. In practice it is not always a safe bet to say personal biases do not come out. We need only look at Sotomayor’s responses to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case to show how she was wilfully criticising the law and interpreting the way she wanted it to be rather rather than defend it for what it is. No doubt one could find evidence to suggest that conservative SCJs have shown personal leanings in the past. In any event, it is not up to the SC to change laws. That is the job of the Hill. It is up to voters to put in those politicians they believe will support their values and change laws to right what they see as wrong.

CM probably has as much read through on SC nominee Brett Kavanaugh as 99.9% of the population i.e. next to none. Yet the expert commentary is everywhere on why every congressman and woman needs to reject this nomination. So unhinged has the left become that the poor kids being stripped from mothers at the border has become seemingly yesterday’s news. If it wasn’t Kavanaugh the identical verbatim would have been spewed at any other nominee set forward. All of them must have been carbon copied. How soon the TDS switches gears from one outrage to the next. This is the type of double standard that infuriates the masses. After the SCJ appointment, what next?

If the Democrats truly have a hope of winning the mid-terms or 2020, they aren’t learning any of the lessons that led to the loss in 2016. The majority of people don’t want to be harassed, screamed at or labeled bigots and racists for holding even uncontroversial personal beliefs. The perpetual outrage is driving normal people to turn off the white noise. Maybe parents want to watch a Disney movie with their kids without having to make their way around an anti-Trump picket march much less be subjected to reviews about Dumbo being safe for kids for not containing racist elements. What on earth would possess Vice Magazine to think that it did?

Democrats alienating GOP voters is a given – after all they are deplorable. Yet for more centrist leaning Democrats, the rattlesnake snapping tail of its left must be causing consternation for a growing number of supporters about whether the party embodies any of the reasons they back it in the first place. The infighting is becoming all too self-evident.

Just think of 28-yo Socialist Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in NY deposing an incumbent Democrat Joe Crowley. She turned on Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on her resounding  nomination win saying, “Unsurprising, but disappointing that @SenGillibrand didn’t even bother to talk to nor consider me before endorsing…You‘d think a progressive leader would at least be interested in how a no-corporate money Bronx Latina triggered the 1st NY-14 primary in 14 years on prog issues.” yet Gillibrand tweeted about Kavanaugh, “President Trump just announced Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee to the Supreme Court. One thing’s already clear from his record: He can’t be trusted to safeguard rights for women, workers or to end the flow of corporate money to campaigns.It is comical.

CM has said repeatedly til blue in the face that the best thing about a Trump win in 2016 is that it has woken people up to how much the vote counts. It doesn’t matter how racist, sexist, nationalist, disgusting or bigoted some may find him or his supporters, the reality is that decades of neglect by both parties has led to his creation. In spite of all the negative media calling into question his intelligence he is still the president and he is likely to get his SCJ picked. Doesn’t sound that incompetent? His opponent had the entire MSM on board, happily hid the fact she had the questions ahead of the debate, hijacked her own party, stole a nomination, buried evidence against her, financed a fake dossier, weaponised the FBI, had her hubby have a chance meeting on a tarmac with the AG ahead of the verdict on her emails and treated the election as a coronation and still lost. Incompetence? If it means enough to a majority of Americans they can exercise their opinions democratically.

If enough people detest his presidency they can cut him off at the knees by restricting his ability to govern at the mid terms and turf him out in 2020. They don’t need to protest on the streets or shout the average punter down. People get the issues. It is on a 24-7 news cycle. They want to vote in peace.

Ironically the Democrats only help him achieve his cause. Some say the mainstream media gave him a $5bn free media campaign in the lead up to the election. One would imagine he gets $10bn in free media every six months now – his tweets are global and when a London Mayor allows a Trump baby balloon to fly around London when POTUS visits only adds to how pathetic the grandstanding has got. A bigger reflection on the juvenile standards of the left than easily winning debates with reason, data and logic.

His defeat is a tragically simple affair – stop giving him hot air and he’ll plummet to earth. Imagine how many XXXX’s Democrats could give to the deplorables then. Sadly Trump is too good for ratings!

Really?

8F6C101A-1A3F-479E-AD44-F24103E3B5B4.jpeg

Really? Does Newsweek honestly believe that 59% of Republicans don’t want a woman president in their lifetime? Could it be GOP supporters don’t want to see a woman made president solely on the basis of gender? Is that irrational?

It is highly conceivable that many Republicans would back someone like US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, if she ever runs given her strength and purpose, regardless of how appalled Democrats might be. Even worse, the Democrats would die a thousand deaths knowing her Native American/Sikh background would singlehandedly outflank almost any identity driven political candidates the DNC could field itself.  To be thrashed at its own game when the opposition party doesn’t even know the rules. The irony!

However Newsweek would not be budged going straight down the line of how poor old Hillary Clinton was the innocent victim of rampant sexism. Aren’t Republicans bigger racists than sexists?

Newsweek’s Tim Marchin wrote,

Clinton’s candidacy was, of course, a big moment for women in U.S. politics. No other woman has ever earned the nomination of one of the major parties. After her loss in the election—to a man accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct—2017 became a year that was, in many ways, defined by women leaders…Millions of people took to the streets across the world in the Women’s March shortly after Trump’s inauguration. More recently, the #MeToo movement has helped shed light on just how many women have suffered from harassment, discrimination and assault. The movement has also revealed accusations against a number of men in positions of power.”

Marchin would have been far better off  conceding that Clinton’s campaign of identity politics (Obama 2.0) was on the ballot paper. It wasn’t wanted. The electorate preferred to place a serial p*ssy grabbing silver back with an agenda that better suited their needs.

Marchin might have reflected that Clinton ran her campaign like a coronation rather than a democratic election and deplorables voted for the guy who actually made the effort to see them. He may have pondered that even having an advantage of getting the questions before hand (aka cheating) saw her lose. To have her husband randomly meet the Attorney General on an airport tarmac days before the FBI testimony. Mere coincidence and who wouldn’t talk about the grandkids? It had nothing to do with her gender. It had nothing to do with those darned white women controlled by their red-necked husbands on voting day. She was an awful candidate.

More shameless clickbait journalism which tries to shame Republicans with a gotcha question bound to have wide interpretation. Here’s an idea for the Democrats – run a better candidate.

Food insecurity & poverty levels by US state & the 2016 election result

Food Insecurity.png

The US Department of Agriculture listed the level of food insecurity by US state as at the end of FY2016. Looking at the data, Deplorables (states that voted Republican (red) in the 2016 election) made up 20 of the 25 states that suffered the most from it. Coincidence? Looking at the % below the poverty line and 19 out of 25 states voted for Trump. Coincidence? There is a touch of irony that the Democrats, which push for citizens to be married to the state, were by and large rejected by those suffering the most and want to be free of the shackles of poverty. So is it any wonder they’d reject the establishment. Should also be a signal for the Democrats to think more widely about what makes the Deplorable tick – not free hand outs. Opportunity!

Below poverty line.png

Playing down a mass suicide note

DBF08B43-5A75-4B8D-879B-AF4EFD3B0204.jpeg

With the release of the Nunes memo, do top Democrats honestly believe that such collusion by the DNC with the nation’s judiciary and intelligence services doesn’t expose the hypocrisy of a party which proclaims its platform is all about equality and liberal ideals? Does it not expose that these politicians are only in it for themselves? Is it any wonder the Democrats are proclaiming this memo is ‘misleading’ or worse that Americans are too stupid to understand the memo? On reflection they probably had wished they’d stood and applauded during the SOTU address instead of childish frowns of bitterness and playing Candy Crush on their smartphones.

While many Americans probably suspected corruption (so brilliantly conveyed in ‘House of Cards’) for decades, they have had it transparently confirmed.  The DNC hope was that the illegal and doctored FISA application would sink Trump as a candidate and lock in a Clinton White House. By then the scam could be lost as easily as 33,000 emails. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Who could forget Bill Clinton’s chance meeting on a Phoenix tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch the day before her testimony on Hillary’s email scandal? Did anyone honestly believe they just talked about grand children? Lynch downplayed the severity of the private server as ‘careless’. Conservative watchdog Judicial Watch has found 30 pages related to the encounter at the FBI, after being caught for hiding them in another lawsuit.

Obama was front and centre of the Clinton campaign. Hillary caught the jump seat on Air Force One numerous times. Are we to believe that this dossier was never discussed on board? That Obama, so obsessed with protecting his legacy,was in no way complicit in making sure Trump wouldn’t get in the Oval Office?

If we go back to mid 2006, news broke that the NSA was tracking the calls and emails of tens of millions of Americans to create  the “largest and most comprehensive database ever assembled in the world.” In the summer of 2007, the Bush administration pushed FISA amendments known as the “Protect America Act” through Congress which authorized the surveillance of any phone call or email by any American suspected of ‘suspicious dealings’ with ‘foreigners’.

As a presidential candidate in the 2008 election, Senator Barack Obama pledged that there would be “no more illegal wiretapping of Americans”. Post the election win, Obama reversed his position and continued the Bush-era surveillance via FISA. Obama’s Department of Justice aggressively defended court challenges from anyone who suspected their phone calls or emails had been illegally traced.

In his last days as president, Obama authorized the NSA to share its volumous databank on Americans with other federal agencies, opening a can of worms for politicians to dig up dirt. Talk about muddying waters in an already dirty swamp. This seems like a move that could badly backfire if a cleaning house of the FBI and DOJ is undertaken. What option has the president but to do it? What better way to talk of transparency to the American people than lop heads of such duplicitous people.

Therein lies the problem. When the state’s own intelligence services are working so closely hand-in-hand with political parties to keep dynasties alive one has to question democracy. Despite Wasserman-Schulz stabbing Sanders in the back, a mainstream media overwhelmingly behind Clinton, a p*ssy grabbing opponent, we now learn that not even a dossier paid for by the DNC in cahoots with the FBI and DOJ to cheat FISA got Democrats across the line – what a hatchet job.

Even Turkish President Erdogan would blush at the level of ‘duplicity’ of this scandal. This is abuse of power on an industrial scale.  One wonders whether the often made claim that the ‘Obama administration was one without scandal’ maybe tarnished with one of the worst. We haven’t heard the last of this.

Hillary only proves how unfit she was for President

2A0A9E17-4A73-47CD-AA3F-DC38B63AC137.jpeg

Clinton’s appearance at the Grammy’s reading ‘Fire & Fury’ only shows she has learnt absolutely nothing. Out of touch liberal hanging with her millionaire mates. No humility and yet again shows how she can’t let go the fact that her coronation fell through. Her appearance would be funny only if it wasn’t so cringingly true. At least she can count on the champagne socialists at the Grammy’s buying a copy of her book so they can read about how one can absolve oneself from all responsibility.  Even better it’s discounted.

Usually a mutually exclusive headline in WaPo

4FDAE793-833B-49FB-A5AF-A534F98129FA.jpeg

Surprising to see such an opinion piece in WaPo. Usually mutually exclusive subject matter with such a title. Admittedly the author said she had incredibly low expectations.

Now Clinton lost the 2016 election because sexual harassers like Matt Lauer were the problem

BFD89AE0-BEFF-4967-A9DC-404A6BF6974B.jpeg

Just when the lame excuses couldn’t get any worse, the NY Times’ Jill Filipovic, in ‘The Men who cost Clinton the Election’ thinks that Clinton lost because of the male journalists (recently fired for claims of sexual harassment) were too tough on her and too easy on Trump. We are 12 months on from the election and despite the 10,000 excuses we’ve heard as to why she lost, this one is truly grasping at straws.

Filipovic wrote,

Many of the male journalists who stand accused of sexual harassment were on the forefront of covering the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Matt Lauer interviewed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump in an official “commander-in-chief forum” for NBC. He notoriously peppered and interrupted Mrs. Clinton with cold, aggressive, condescending questions hyper-focused on her emails, only to pitch softballs at Mr. Trump and treat him with gentle collegiality…Mr. Charlie Rose, after the election, took a tone similar to Mr. Lauer’s with Mrs. Clinton — talking down to her, interrupting her, portraying her as untrustworthy. Mr. Halperin was a harsh critic of Mrs. Clinton, painting her as ruthless and corrupt, while going surprisingly easy on Mr. Trump.”

So Matt Lauer went for the jugular? Isn’t that the point of these debates or commander-in-chief forums – to make the politician squeam under pressure? So her deleting and bleaching 30,000 emails was not a relevant topic?

Mr Halperin painted her as a ruthless and corrupt candidate, when her foundation was exposed for pay to play, the hiring of Debbie Wassermann-Schulz as her campaign director after she brazenly knifed Bernie Sanders during the DNC run-off or receiving the debate questions in advance from Donna Brazile?

Indeed, it is hard to see how Charlie Rose had an impact on the 2016 election when he was tough on her post the event.

Still one can’t escape the fact that for however horrible Trump might have been as a inarticulate, vulgar and bullying GOP candidate, all the more reason she should have smashed it. Had she not taken the election as a coronation, actually visited the areas most in hardship instead of sticking to the $1,000 plate dinner fund raisers in the hubs of NY, LA and San Francisco maybe she would have learnt that it wasn’t a formality. Instead she stuck to identity politics and in the end lost to a candidate who openly stared down the barrel of a camera lens to tens of millions after the ‘grab the p*ssy’ episode and said “no one respects women more than I do” in debate two. Even women saw this and still voted for him.

What Filipovic fails to realize is that gender is an irrelevant benchmark for politics. All that matters is ability in the eyes of the electorate. For Michelle Obama to shame women who voted for Trump is part of the problem. Whether ability is delivered is another question but for millions of struggling Americans not living the dream they took a risk to vote for someone that wasn’t intertwined in the political machine that had failed to get them out of financial squalor. They may not have money but a vote is a great equalizer. Sure, Trump’s complete lack of political experience is telling with the constant cabinet reshuffles and both parties trying to distance themselves from his firebrand style of politics.

So indeed had Lauer been exposed as a sexual harasser before the event then would the outcome of Clinton’s 2016 campaign really have changed? Unlikely as Hillary Clinton was carrying so much baggage that even blind Freddie could have seen through the fact that for as horrible Trump was, she was even worse on so many levels.

Indeed if Filipovic wants to indirectly promote the idea that it was time for a ‘woman’ president, at least give we mere males (and females) some faith that you have a deeper bench than Hillary Clinton. Does a cake store put anything less than its best and delicious looking product in the shop windows on the grand opening day? No. As much as you may wish to point the fingers at a misogynist, sexist bro culture as the blame for her loss, make no mistake that most men (and women) will happily endorse competence over gender because it is in their rational best interests for the long term to do so. So instead of blaming men, perhaps look inside at what women exist in US politics (or any country for that matter) that can carry the torch of freedom on merits alone.

On a final point, while the feminists are at it, where was the outrage at the gushing over the hunky Canadian PM Justin Trudeau when he won his election? How many tweets and messages of teenage crush were seen which focused on his physical characteristics rather than his political acumen (which sadly are missing since being in office). It is a great pity that the Conservative Party in Canada didn’t elect Rona Ambrose over Andrew Scheer as leader. Go on YouTube and watch her decimate Justin Trudeau in every debate. If I was Canadian I would have voted for her given she had raw ability, intelligence and unwavering strength. She just happens to be a woman too.