Thursday, January 03, 2019

The year of trans tyranny

In 2018, trans activism became even more violent and censorious

Who could have guessed, even a decade ago, that in 2018 the word ‘woman’ would be treated as an expletive? It’s become a dangerous word, either erased from public life altogether or discussed in apologetic, hushed tones. Bizarrely, what ‘woman’ signifies now needs explanation. But anyone brave enough to define women in relation to biology, to make reference to ‘sex’ or ‘female’, risks vilification and public shaming. In a very short space of time we have moved from the premise that men and women exist as fundamentally distinct biological entities with tolerance shown to a small minority of people who chose to live differently, to transgenderism as an ideology that insists all aspects of public life must comply with its demands.

2018 was the year the government consulted over proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. The consultation was never intended to question the right of transgender people to exist, still less to threaten legal rights and protections women have won. It did, however, ask about the processes individuals should have to go through in order to be legally recognised as a member of the opposite sex. The proposed changes will do away with the necessity for medical diagnoses, surgery, or living as member of the preferred sex for a substantial period of time. Instead, self-identification, a simple declaration, will be enough for a man to become a woman in the eyes of the law. As many women have pointed out, this erodes all meaning from the concept of sex and permits biological males entry into women-only spaces, such as public toilets, refuges and prisons.

Unsurprisingly, women wanted to discuss the impact that the changes to the Gender Recognition Act might have on their lives. But even having this discussion, just the suggestion that ‘woman’ might mean more than a feeling (however apparently innate or supposedly genetically determined), was seen by activists as denying the right of trans people to exist. All hint of debate had to be wiped out. Women wanting to meet had to plan in secret, revealing venues only at the last minute and risking violent attack if they were discovered. Even then, public meetings, such as one planned to take place at a council building in Leeds, were cancelled following accusations of transphobia. A spokesman said the feminist group’s values were ‘not in line with Leeds City Council’s values and policies on equality and inclusion’.

At every point, public officials, members of the establishment, have acquiesced to the demands of the trans lobby without pause for reflection. When Maria Maclachlan appeared in court to give evidence against Tara Wolf, a young male trans activist who had physically assaulted her ahead of a meeting on the Gender Recognition Act, the judge stopped proceedings to insist Maclachlan refer to the defendant as ‘she’ throughout the trial.

On campus, academics who question trans thinking have found themselves subject to abuse and calls for their research to be shut down. Activists drew up a list of ‘dangerous’ women – people such as Professor Rosa Freedman, an expert in human-rights law who argues males should not have access to women’s refuges, and Professor Kathleen Stock, who has questioned whether the category of woman should be expanded to include men who identify as women. These women are accused of spreading ‘hate speech’ and being a threat to the safety of students. It’s not just in the UK. Brown University in the US withdrew its own study on transgender youth because it found that social media and friends can influence teenagers to change their gender identity following complaints that the research ‘might invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community’.

Meanwhile, in London the Wellcome Collection decided it was best to avoid controversy by entirely removing the word ‘women’ from one of its events. It referred instead to ‘womxn’. Wellcome was following in the footsteps of the National Union of Students, which chose to abolish women’s toilets at its annual trans conference. Organisers boasted of ‘a disabled toilet with a gender-neutral sign, gender-neutral toilets (formerly women’s toilets), another disabled toilet and men’s toilet’. While men clearly still existed, the gender formerly known as women had been effectively neutralised.

New words are created in order to avoid the apparently offensive term ‘women’. In New York, Planned Parenthood celebrated the end of the tampon tax by calling on ‘menstruators’ to #TweetTheReceipt. The Guardian followed suit and, in a now corrected article, asked ‘menstruators’ to comment on their experiences of period pain at work. It is hard to know what is worse: the fact that in 2018 women with busy and successful lives were expected to discuss periods and tampons every two minutes, or that they were labelled solely according to this bodily function.

But it did get worse. The charity Cancer Research decided to remove the word ‘women’ from its cervical cancer campaign. Rather than urging women to go for smear tests, it appealed to ‘anyone with a cervix’. As no woman has ever referred to herself as ‘a person with a cervix’, there’s a real danger that misguided deference to trans activists will mean some women end up missing out on medical check-ups specific to their sex.

Sadly, it seems that the interests of women are always now secondary to the demands of the trans lobby. In 2018 a record number of male prisoners in England and Wales transitioned, with more than 20 men now being detained in women’s jails. Unsurprisingly, there have been reports of a growing number of sexual assaults on female inmates.

When trans activists fail to convince adults of their cause, they simply turn to children as a more docile and captive audience. This week, teachers in Brighton have been advised by the city council to instruct pupils that ‘boys can have periods, too’ in new sex-education classes. How this sits with biology classes on reproduction is anyone’s guess. ‘Menstruation must be inclusive of all genders’ – that is the advice to teachers of baffled 10- and 11-year-olds.

In 2018, trans activists have shown themselves to be violent and censorious. No woman is too vulnerable and no child too young to be spared their campaign of intimidation. Tragically, government ministers and local-council officials, judges, medical professionals and the media and cultural elites have either enthusiastically embraced the trans agenda or are too cowardly to challenge it. Thankfully, the majority of people not in these positions – including many trans people – see through the bullying. In playgrounds and parks, shops and buses, people still refer to each other as men and women, boys and girls, without a second thought. I hope it’s their voice we hear more from next year.


The Other Intersectionality: Victims of Islamism

The term "intersectionality" was coined by an African-American academic, Kimberlé Crenshaw, in 1989 to denote the circumstance of being the target of more than one bias. Crenshaw saw herself as the potential victim of both anti-black racism and misogyny, thereby living at the intersection of the two bigotries. In recent years, the term has gained prominence on many of the nation's campuses to signify something else: the supposed shared, "intersecting," predicaments of racial and ethnic groups -- as well as women and sexual minorities -- victimized by white male racism and its history of imperialism, colonialism, exploitation and slavery.

While one can fully acknowledge the depredations of European imperialism and its exploitation of non-European populations, one can also debate the extent of its current impact on non-European populations, women and sexual minorities. Except that one cannot debate it: In much of Western, including American, academia today, such debate is not permitted.

Similarly censored from today's campuses is discussion of another, in various respects competing, intersectionality: That of the shared, intersecting, predicaments of today's victims of Islamist aggression, including terrorism. Those victims are mainly people of color -- black Africans, Arabs, Kurds, Pakistanis, Afghans and east Asians -- but also many whites. They are mainly Muslims, but also include Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Druze and people professing no religion.

Why should these two intersectionalities, despite their different focuses on perpetrators and victims, be competing? Because allies of the Islamist assault have played a prominent part in promoting the campus version of intersectionality. Consequently, in the campus version, Israel is assigned a role that is the opposite of the one it actually plays in the world, including with regard to the other intersectionality.

The movement to try to destroy Israel by strangling it economically, through boycotts and the like, is largely the creation of supporters of the Islamist group Hamas, listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. Department of State. The goal of the economic assault, often openly acknowledged, is Israel's annihilation. On campuses, the chief promoters of this agenda, members of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), follow the lead of off-campus proponents and cast Israel as a European colonial state supposedly planted in the Middle East by the West to subjugate local populations and advance imperial interests in the region.

SJP and the other drivers of the economic attack on Israel have sought to broaden their ranks by invoking their brand of intersectionality: Members of all victimized populations, particularly people touched by European colonialism, ought to join together and rally to the Palestinian cause as the world's paradigmatic example of victimization. They ought to work for the ostensibly world-repairing fix of Israel's destruction.

Many others have pointed out obvious absurdities in the composition of this anti-Israel alliance: feminist groups supporting a cause whose chief adherents routinely abuse women and subject them to enforced subservience and widespread physical, all too often murderous, assault; LGBT advocates embracing those who uniformly mete out the most horrific treatment to LGBT individuals in their midst. But the disconnects from reality go further. It was the Palestinians who were, in fact, the beneficiaries of Western colonialism.

In the post-World War I break-up of defeated empires and creation of new states on former imperial lands, the League of Nations gave Britain a mandate to oversee re-establishment of a Jewish National Home in the ancestral Jewish homeland, formerly a part of the Ottoman Empire. Yet Britain, pursuing what it saw as its own colonial interests, worked to subvert its Mandate responsibilities to the Jews and instead advance Arab interests. It did so not least because it believed the Arabs would be more accommodating of British colonial policy. Thus, it fostered wide-scale Arab immigration into Mandate territory while repeatedly blocking Jewish access. In the course of doing so, and seeking to prevent Israel's creation, Britain betrayed its commitments to both the League of Nations and, subsequently, the United Nations charter.

Few, however, are aware of this historical reality, or the later history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Campuses have become purveyors of indoctrination rather than education. The promoters of the Hamas-linked effort to try to crush Israel economically, using the campus version of intersectionality as an anti-Israel tool, need not fear being confronted by an informed audience. In contrast, the other intersectionality, that of the shared, intersecting predicaments of the victims of Islamist aggression, is not a matter of history but of current affairs, of events that seep into public awareness despite efforts to downplay them. It therefore presents a potentially greater challenge to those on campus seeking to advance an anti-Israel agenda.

The head of the Islamist regime in Sudan, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, was first indicted by the International Criminal Court in 2009 on charges of genocide for his nation's mass murder of the Muslim -- but black, not Arab -- population of Sudan's Darfur region. Sudanese crimes against the people of Darfur continue, and al-Bashir remains Sudan's president and has been supported by the Arab League over the years since his initial indictment. Hamas, however, has done more than simply give political support to al-Bashir. Its operatives have trained in Sudan and worked with Sudanese forces, including those that have been engaged in the Darfur genocide. This is the organization whose supporters are leading movers behind the campus intersectionality/boycott campaign and have become the moral arbiters of campus political correctness.

Sudan, for more than half a century after gaining its independence, also waged an on-again, off-again genocidal war against the black, predominantly Christian and animist, peoples of southern Sudan. The Khartoum regime killed some two million of them before southern Sudan became a separate country in 2011. Through the last decades of this genocidal war, Hamas was again there supporting the Sudanese government.

Perhaps "Black Lives Matter," which has joined the Hamas-inspired anti-Israel/intersectionality bandwagon, ought to enlarge its name to "Black Lives Matter, Except When Snuffed Out by Islamists."

Israel, in contrast, supported the southern Sudanese during the years of their struggle to stave off the Islamist onslaught from Khartoum and has continued to help them as they address the difficult challenges facing their new nation.

As Islamist threats in sub-Saharan Africa have increased, other black African states, some with long connections to Israel, some with newer relations, have turned to Israel for help in their fight against Islamist terror. In recent years, these include, among east African nations, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, and Tanzania.

In 2015, a government spokesman in Nigeria, by far the most populous country in Africa, stated, "Israel has been a crucial and loyal ally in our fight against Boko Haram [the Islamist group that has murdered thousands of Nigerian Christians]. It is a sad reality that Israel has a great deal of experience confronting terrorism."

Of course, much of that terror confronted by Israel has been perpetrated by Hamas.

The United States experienced its own encounter with massive Islamist terrorism on September 11, 2001. The majority of victims were white Christians, but also among the murdered were blacks, Hispanics and Asians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and followers of other faiths.

Shortly after 9/11, American officials, including representatives of local, state and federal law enforcement bodies, began reaching out to Israel in order -- like leaders in Nigeria and the nations of east Africa mentioned above -- to learn from Israel's painfully acquired experience in dealing with terror. This is another facet of the intersectionality that connects victims of Islamism.

To this day, groups of law enforcement officers, other American officials and emergency medical personnel travel to Israel or attend conferences in the United States addressed by Israeli anti-terror and emergency medicine experts. They do so to sharpen their own skills as they seek to anticipate and prevent terror attacks, to respond effectively when attacks occur, and to deal not only with policing challenges but also the emergency medical and other challenges presented by terrorist assaults.

As those in America who have participated in such programs attest, they have proven extremely valuable in actual responses to terror threats and terror events.

However, Students for Justice in Palestine, and other Hamas-linked groups and defenders of Islamism, particularly on campuses but beyond campuses as well -- in their efforts to defame and isolate Israel as a step in pursuit of the Jewish state's annihilation -- have sought to end such contacts and exchanges. As always, they turn truth on its head by asserting that Israeli police and military forces wantonly target innocent Palestinians and, invoking intersectionality, they declare that the aim and effect of cooperation between Israeli and American law enforcement bodies is not to help in the struggle against terrorism but to train American police to better target American minorities, particularly young black men.

SJP's camp followers in the intersectionality scam have embraced this line and also campaigned for an end to cooperation between Israeli and American anti-terror groups. Among those doing so is, again, Black Lives Matter. Of those killed at the Twin Towers on 9/11, 215 were black (136 men, 79 women). Additional African Americans were killed on the planes commandeered by the terrorists and at the Pentagon and were among the heroic first-responders who subsequently lost their lives due to medical problems contracted at the World Trade Center site on that day and in the days that followed.

Other African Americans were murdered in subsequent Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks in California and Florida and elsewhere, and are as likely to be victims of future such terror attacks as anyone else. But work to prevent, and minimize the impact, of such assaults apparently counts for no more to Black Lives Matter, when weighed against promoting an anti-Israel agenda, than it does to SJP and other Hamas-linked groups.

Similarly campaigning for an end to Israeli and American cooperation in fighting terrorism has been, shamefully, the organization Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), which advocates the dissolution of Israel. Illustrative is the role played by members of JVP in leading a campaign in Durham, North Carolina, that resulted in the city council passing a resolution prohibiting any participation of the city's police force in joint programs with Israeli law enforcement bodies.

The Islamist assault is not going away. It will continue to claim its victims in large numbers across the globe. At the same time, the intersectionality of its victims, the shared, intersecting predicaments of its targeted groups, will continue to be reflected in nations working with Israel to learn from the Jewish state's painfully acquired expertise in dealing with terrorism.

The "intersectionality" promoted on campuses and beyond by Hamas/SJP and their fellow travelers seeks, in pursuit of its anti-Israel agenda, to distract attention from the Islamist onslaught, its ongoing savaging of populations in Africa, Asia and America, and the alliances with Israel formed by its victims. In doing so, the intersectionality of the campuses has become, in effect, an enabler and abettor of Islamism's depredations, including mass murder.


After Airport Run-In with TSA and Muslim, Model Blasts ‘Bulls***’ Political Correctness

Political correctness ruins everything that it comes into contact with. And if a story that’s making waves on social media involving a model and television personality is true, security at America’s airports is a casualty of political correctness, too.

In a Twitter post published Dec. 10, Daisy Fuentes Marx, a former MTV VJ and current Telemundo star, complained that she underwent scrutiny by the Transportation Security Administration at an airport, but a Muslim woman in line with her did not.

And the frustration in Fuentes’ post is clear.

“The fact I HAVE to remove my sweater (which was only covering a tank top), but the woman in front of me was NOT required to remove any part of her full burka or head wrap (which covered her entire head & face) is absolute bulls—,” Fuentes wrote on Twitter. “How are we all ok with this?” she asked.

This situation sounds like political correctness at its finest. Obviously, a burqa that covers one’s entire head and face is more concealing and hides more potential danger than a sweater.

Judging by Fuentes’ description, it’s seems as though airport security, by not addressing the burqa, wanted to avoid being politically incorrect.

The TSA’s website suggests agents have discretion when dealing with “head coverings and other religious, cultural or ceremonial items” worn during screening.

“Persons wearing head coverings, loose fitting or bulky garments may undergo additional security screening, which may include a pat-down. … If an alarm cannot be resolved through a pat-down, you may ask to remove the head covering in a private screening area,” the agency says.

Fuentes’ frustration is understandable. It sure seems like a double standard was in play here.

One man responded by trying to make the disgusting argument that women must cover themselves to avoid sexual assault.

“If the women didn’t cover themselves, the bad men will have sexual desire on them and sometimes they will get ready to rape the women,” he tweeted.

Fuentes shot back by bluntly saying women don’t have to cover themselves. “No, women do not have to cover themselves. This is the kind of thinking that must not be tolerated. It’s dangerous & reprehensible,” she tweeted. “If your God tells you to rape women if they’re not covered up you’re a rapist, delusional & clearly following the wrong God,” Fuentes added.

Of course, the TSA and airport security aren’t the only issues touched by political correctness.

This Christmas season, classics like “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” and “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” have been under siege by liberals. The left’s PC culture is also affecting television shows, sports and civil discussion.

It’s safe to say that political correctness has gone too far and must be stopped.


Toxic Femininity and the #MeToo Mob: Weaponizing Emotional Distress

The manifestation of anger and hatred that defines toxic femininity is increasingly on shameful public display.

Did you noticed in the Supreme Court nominee hearings that some women harbor unresolved anger toward men?

In 2017, the most angry of the lot emerged under the #MeToo identity-politics banner — with legitimate allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace. Most notable were those that brought down Harvey Weinstein’s Hollywood empire and forced the resignations of Rep. John Conyers, Sen. Al Franken, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and NBC’s Matt Lauer.

Not coincidentally, each of these deviants belonged to or supported the party of unrepentant serial sexual assailant Bill Clinton and his chief defender and enabler Hillary Clinton.

That feminist anger coalesced after the election of Donald Trump and metastasized with his nomination of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, thanks to a disgraceful character assassination charade scripted and calculated by Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer.

As I have written previously, the Feinstein/Schumer strategy was to make Christine Ford, who alleged that Kavanaugh groped her 36 years ago, the poster proxy for every woman who has ever suffered any offending sexual encounter along a full spectrum — from romantic rejection, to a sense of being objectified, to sexual harassment, to regrets about encounters resulting from alcohol- or drug-impaired cognitive ability, to actual sexual assault. For some women who’ve been swept up into the #MeToo mob, Ford embodies their collective anger, grief, and desire for justice — despite the fact that her allegations were unsupported, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and utterly refuted by the alleged witnesses she named.

To complete the political pretense, Feinstein, et al., fraudulently framed Kavanaugh as the poster proxy for every male who has ever offended a woman.

However, by politicizing this allegation to create a victimization collective in order to convert that constituency into midterm votes, Democrats have effectively devalued legitimate assault claims.

Women should be outraged by that, but the Feinstein/Schumer strategy was all about optics, not facts.

But no matter. Demo leaders think they will get away with it, believing — in fact depending on — their assumption that women are emotionally incontinent and thus can be stirred into a frenzy, then manipulated into voting blocs for election cycles. Women are their largest constituent group, and they’re already counting the midterm votes.

Sen. Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren (D-MA) declared, “Take your pain and turn it into power on November 6th.” Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), who nobody other than a few people on the Big Island had ever heard of until her Kavanaugh rants, added, “All these angry people are out there … [and] they’re going to go to the polls and vote.” Former senior Obama spokesperson Marie Harf elucidated that strategy: “[28] days from now we go into a midterm election, and [Kavanaugh] will help Democrats at the polls. Women will be fired up.”

In an analysis column from December of last year, “The Democrats’ Strategy to Take Down Republicans,” I wrote, Democrats “are going to make the #MeToo ‘epidemic of sexual assault’ the centerpiece of the 2018 and 2020 elections, inciting female voter outrage to overturn Republican majorities in the House and Senate in the 2018 midterm election, and then to defeat Trump in 2020.”

That was an easy prediction, but I had no idea how successful Democrats and their Leftmedia propaganda machine would be toward this end.

The #MeToo movement has become the increasingly confrontational female wing of the mostly male “antifa movement” of self-proclaimed anti-fascist fascists.

So, what’s the source of all this toxic femininity?

Coinciding with the emergence of the ever-expanding #MeToo mob is a common reference to “toxic masculinity.”

In essence, toxic masculinity is street language for hegemonic masculinity, defined as legitimizing the dominant role of men in American culture, and thus justifying the subordination of women. At its core, toxic masculinity embraces the sexist generalization that most men are aggressive sexual predators who constantly objectify and prey on women.

Of course, all men exhibit differing degrees of sexual interest and pursuit. This is natural and instinctual, and in this day and age of sexual licentiousness, women should be fully aware of this. There is also a subset of men who objectify women, and lure them into situations and circumstances for sexual encounters that these women may regret later. And then there is a much smaller subset of those men who are, in fact, predators — those who sexually assault women.

But the simple statistical fact is that the vast majority of men are not the sexual predators the #MeToo movement and its likeminded feminist adherents claim they are.

This brings us to the parallel of toxic masculinity — toxic femininity.

The manifestation of anger and hatred that defines toxic femininity is increasingly on shameful public display.

I believe the source of most (not all) of this toxic anger is attributable to one primary factor — an epidemic of absent or ineffectual fathers in American homes, which is at the root of just about every social and cultural problem in our nation. Yes, I know that assertion will upset feminists because they believe fathers are dispensable.

Bear with me.

Women who’ve been abandoned or inadequately cared for and protected by their father early in life often exhibit what psychologists call transference neurosis — deep-seated anger resulting from deep-seated fear. For the record, anger is often associated with an underlying fear.

In the case of toxic femininity, this transference is directed toward men in general and is often combined with other factors associated with abandonment, a poor self-image for lack of affirmation, and narcissistic personality disorder. Often these women are more vulnerable to poor relationship choices, which makes them more susceptible to male predation. This exacerbates their inability to trust men, which plays into an unfortunate spiraling cycle of, at best, failed relationships, anger, and resentment.

In an article by University of Southern California professors Shoba Sreenivasan and Linda Weinberger, they write, “‘Toxic femininity’ refers to women who are hostile to nurturance and cooperation, opting instead for aggression and backstabbing to get ahead.” While they were writing about toxic women in the workplace, the underlying causes of this toxicity are similar, and the same can be said for women who exhibit these traits in other social groups.

For the record, toxic femininity is not the expression of anger about legitimate offenses. The frequency of sexual assault should not be understated, though there is significant dissent on the CDC report’s definitions of assault, according to Time magazine and The Washington Post.

I know women who have been sexually assaulted, and others who have had regrettable sexual encounters, and I have empathy and compassion for them, and by extension, even those toxic feminists who are victims of assault.

I should add that toxic masculinity is often also the result of absent or ineffectual fathers in the home. Sexual offenders most often come from homes with no father.

All that being said, when men and women rally in groups based on common and wide-ranging offenses, their victimhood is both affirmed and amplified. And that has resulted in the now-familiar unhinged mob protest scenes around Washington and around the nation.

When considering those scenes, I’m reminded of the movie “As Good as It Gets,” in which Jack Nicholson is asked about his successful fictionalization of female characters. He responds, “I think of a man, and then I take away reason and accountability.” That was a funny line, but there’s nothing funny about the toxicity that infects certain women and men. It accounts for the increasingly uncivil, irrational, and virulent #MeToo mob, which has been co-opted by the Left for its political agenda, and it has falsely framed both Justice Kavanaugh particularly and the Republican Party generally.

As for mob rule, Hillary Clinton told CNN this week: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength [a.k.a.: ‘incivility’].”

So, according to Clinton, there will be no civility until Democrats are returned at least partially to power.

Answering Clinton’s unconscionable remark, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who was critically wounded by a Bernie Sanders supporter last year, responded, “Seriously, Hillary?”

Rand Paul, who was shot at by the same leftist assailant, and who was severely beaten after being ambushed by a man in his hometown, warned, “I fear that there’s going to be an assassination. I really worry that somebody is going to be killed, and that those who are ratcheting up the conversation … they have to realize they bear some responsibility if this elevates to violence.”

I suppose we should be grateful to Clinton for unwittingly admitting what most rational observers already know: Fomenting and inflaming mobs is dangerous.

As for the next SCOTUS nomination…

By standing firmly with then-Judge Kavanaugh, and by keeping his powder mostly dry amid all the unhinged leftist protests, Donald Trump effectively gave Republicans a strong midterm campaign rally theme — a choice between steadfast Republicans or an angry leftist mob.

After the Senate vote, Trump declared, “You don’t hand matches to an arsonist, and you don’t give power to an angry left-wing mob. Democrats have become too EXTREME and TOO DANGEROUS to govern. Republicans advocate the Rule of Law — not the rule of the mob. VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

But the current bump Republicans are experiencing in the wake of the Feinstein/Schumer charade is certainly perishable.

If Trump gets another SCOTUS nomination, regardless of who holds the Senate after November, it’s likely to be a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat. I anticipate that he’ll nominate Amy Coney Barrett, whom he held back for precisely this reason.

As I wrote in July, “While some conservatives are lamenting the choice of Kavanaugh over Barrett, I believe Trump’s strategy is to hold Barrett in the wings until Ruth Bader Ginsburg vacates the seat she barely occupies now.”

And if you think the Demos were triggered by the Kavanaugh nomination, you can expect a full frontal assault when Trump attempts to replace the first Democrat-appointed SCOTUS justice in almost 30 years.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: