Dem Nadler’s Fascistic Democrats’ Attack on Corey Lewandowski

Dems Turning to Ditsy Liz of Mouth and Massachusetts!?

Desperate Dems turning to fatally flawed Warren

By Thomas Lifson

Okay, so Joe Biden is proving such an embarrassment that he can’t be trusted to remain plausibly coherent for the 14 long months until the election.  And Kamala Harris, the Great Intersectional Hope, is so transparently phony that voters are abandoning her.  Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is no longer the anti-Hillary alternative that he was in 2016, and his cranky persona is wearing thin.

So what’s a member of the Democrats’ gentry — the educated professional classes — to do?  Steven Hayward of Powerline, an astute observer, thinks Elizabeth Warren is the next candidate who will take the lead.

Twitter video screen grab (cropped).

Pollster Mark Murray points out that only 9 percent of Democrats say their mind is made up; Warren has emerged as the leading second-choice candidate if Biden stumbles, and Warren’s supporters show the highest intensity/enthusiasm level, which is always something successful campaigns build on. You can almost sense the media starting to get behind her. Biden has the look of Bob Dole in 1996: an old party warhorse that Democrats might accept, but without great enthusiasm[.]

She’s lefty like Bernie, but with an intellectual veneer that comes with having been a tenured professor at Harvard Law School.  That she snagged that prestigious job by faking Native American heritage is her first fatal flaw.  Blacks, who constitute a quarter of the Democrats’ vote in presidential elections, are simply not going to turn out for someone who appropriated victim status and the preferences that accompany it today.  It’s not just an “uphill” struggle, as The Hill delicately puts it; it’s a futile struggle.

Black turnout either makes or breaks a Democrat running for president.  This skinny, white, old lady is just not going to inspire a lot of African-Americans.

And now, seeking feminist credibility, she is turning on the male half of the population:

“We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men. In fact, we’re not here because of men at all.”

Miranda Device elaborates in The New York Post:

Elizabeth Warren made the political calculation this week that she doesn’t need men to win the presidency.

“We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men,” she told a rally in Washington Square Park Monday night.

“In fact, we’re not here because of men at all,” she said, emphasizing the “m” word like an expletive.

Great. Then she won’t mind if men don’t vote for her, nor women who like men.

It’s a losing strategy, taken straight out of the playbook of Hillary Clinton, from whom, reportedly and inexplicably, Warren has been taking advice.

Millions of American women showed in 2016 that they weren’t prepared to vote for Clinton just because she had a second X chromosome.  White, non-college-educated women in particular voted almost 2-to-1 for Donald Trump in 2016.

Most likely, they didn’t approve of the denigration of their menfolk as “deplorables” abusing “white male privilege” when the truth is that the males they love are doing their best, even if jobs are scarce and they’re dying of overdoses.

But Warren does play well with the elites of the Democratic Party.  She’s almost certainly popular in faculty lounges across America.  But while the educated elites control a lot of the levers of power in the party, they don’t vote in numbers sufficient to elect a president.  The media love her because she’s well spoken and is a woman.  But I don’t think she can win without the enthusiastic support of blacks.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/desperate_dems_turning_to_fatally_flawed_warren.html

Long Time New York Dem, “Fats” Nadler, Leads Impeachment Action!

Nadler’s House committee holds a faux hearing in search of a false crime

BY ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR

The House Judiciary Committee’s faux impeachment hearing on Tuesday was an exercise in legal obfuscation about obstruction. 

It is a curious exercise, because the House does not need a criminal obstruction offense in order to impeach the president. But it is a telling exercise, too: Democrats are pretending they have an actual crime, just as they are pretending to engage in an actual impeachment inquiry. Acknowledging the absence of a crime would demonstrate that Chairman Jerry Nadler’s hearings are nakedly political.

As their first witness since Nadler (D-N.Y.) outlined his impeachment investigation without a House vote endorsing one, committee Democrats called Corey Lewandowski, the president’s confidant and one-time campaign manager. The purpose was not to plumb new ground. Congressional Democrats and the White House are arguing over executive privilege; the committee was on notice that Lewandowski — who already had cooperated with the special counsel and testified before Congress three times — would not answer questions about his communications with the president beyond what is laid out in the Mueller report.

Consequently, the purpose of the hearing was to read, again and again, a portion of that report that Democrats deem terribly damaging. To wit, in June-July 2017, Trump instructed Lewandowski — who was not formally on the White House staff — to urge then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit his recusal from the Russia investigation, so that Sessions then could narrow the scope of Mueller’s investigation. The idea was that Mueller would be permitted to continue investigating in order to prevent Russian interference in future elections, but drop the investigation of whether Trump’s campaign interfered in the 2016 election.

Lewandowski never carried out the president’s directive. Yet, by the Democrats’ lights, Trump’s actions amount to felony obstruction of justice. On these facts, however, there can be no such crime.

Insofar as Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign is concerned, Mueller, by order of then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, inherited the investigation described in March 2017 by the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, in House Intelligence Committee testimony. Comey explicitly said that the FBI was conducting a counterintelligence investigation of Russia’s election meddling, which would include examination of any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation. This is a critical distinction.

Federal obstruction law relates to corrupt interference with the due administration of law in an official proceeding. The crime is called obstruction of justice for a reason. Under federal law, an FBI investigation is not a proceeding that can be obstructed. It is neither a judicial process nor a proceeding (such as a congressional or agency hearing) of the type that the obstruction laws reach.

That is not the end of the matter. The law also says a proceeding can be obstructed even if it is not pending at the time the obstruction takes place. For example, if a person corruptly destroys incriminating evidence or tampers with witnesses out of concern over the possibility that he could be prosecuted in the future, that can amount to obstruction. Naturally, if that kind of corrupt behavior occurs in the context of an FBI investigation, an obstruction crime can occur — but only because the conduct affects the contemplated future proceeding (e.g., the eventual criminal trial), not the FBI investigation itself.

Democrats keep saying Trump obstructed the investigation. He did not, but even if he had, a counterintelligence investigation is not a proceeding that can be obstructed.

Regarding Donald Trump (as candidate, president-elect, and president), the FBI director told him, on multiple occasions, that he was not under investigation.

Now, I happen to believe that was misleading. As I outline in my book, “Ball of Collusion,” I believe the Obama Justice Department and the FBI pretextually used counterintelligence powers against Trump and his campaign — such as surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA — in the hope of finding a crime, or some impeachable offense, even though they lacked a factual basis to believe he had committed a crime. Regardless of whether I am right about that, though, the fact remains that Trump was led to believe there was no criminal investigation.

To summarize, then, on the matter of Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign, the FBI and, later, Mueller, were not conducting a criminal investigation, and Trump was told he was not a criminal suspect. The FBI and, later, Mueller, were conducting a counterintelligence investigation. Counterintelligence is not a proceeding for purposes of the obstruction laws. Unlike a criminal investigation, counterintelligence does not even contemplate an eventual proceeding; its aim is to gather information about the activities and intentions of foreign powers in order to protect the nation, not to build courtroom prosecutions.

Notice the difference. Criminal investigations are done in order to vindicate the rule of law — i.e., to enforce in judicial proceedings the criminal statutes enacted by Congress. Consequently, we do not want political interference in it — we don’t want partisanship deciding who gets investigated and indicted; we don’t want politics dictating who gets punished and how severely.

By contrast, counterintelligence is unrelated to judicial proceedings. It has nothing to do with the rule of law. It is conducted solely to support the president’s constitutional duty to protect the United States from foreign threats. Consequently, it is completely within the president’s discretion. It is the president, elected by the people whose lives are at stake, who gets to decide what intelligence the country needs — it is not the FBI’s call, much less a determination to be made by a prosecutor dubiously appointed to run a counterintelligence investigation. (The special counsel regulations do not authorize the appointment of a special counsel for counterintelligence purposes. And the Justice Department norm is that counterintelligence cases are not assigned to prosecutors because, to repeat, the objective is not to build a legal case.)

It is certainly true that a president can obstruct justice by corruptly tampering with evidence or witnesses. But a president cannot obstruct justice by shutting down a counterintelligence investigation, or by threatening to shut it down, or by redirecting counterintelligence resources to focus on some threats rather than others. We elect a president to make such judgments, which do involve judicial proceedings that can be obstructed.

Would the lack of an obstruction crime mean Congress lacks legitimate power to consider impeachment? Not at all.

As I observed at the start, Congress does not need a penal crime to impeach a president. If lawmakers believed that the president had irresponsibly endangered the nation by directing the FBI not to collect intelligence on a profound security threat posed by a foreign power, the House would be completely within its legitimate power to file articles of impeachment.

But notice the difference: Under those circumstances, the House would not be impeaching the president over a purported felony obstruction of justice offense. It would be impeaching over abuse of power — what Hamilton described as a political offense, in the sense that it would be a betrayal of the president’s duty to protect the nation.

Of course, even House Democrats would have a hard time leveling that charge against President Trump.

Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign was thoroughly investigated. The Obama administration knew it was happening in real time, and the intelligence agencies compiled a report about it in January 2017. By the time President Trump spoke with Corey Lewandowski about the Mueller investigation in summer 2017, Russia’s meddling had been under scrutiny by U.S. intelligence agencies for more than two years. Trump never took any action to limit the inquiry into Russia’s activities. Moreover, he expressly stated that he had no problem with a probe of Russia’s potential to threaten future elections, which naturally would have required an understanding of what they’d done in 2016.

The only thing Trump wanted was public clarification that he was not suspected of wrongdoing in connection with Russia’s 2016 espionage activities. Under the circumstances, that was entirely reasonable, even if the president went about it ham-handedly. The FBI repeatedly told him he was not a suspect; the then-FBI director nevertheless made public statements in March 2017 that led to media and public speculation that the president was a suspect — and Mueller has now concluded that there was no Trump-Russia conspiracy.

Even for the Democrats’ faux impeachment gambit, that record is a non-starter. So, they will continue talking about obstruction of justice — even though what they are talking about is not obstruction of justice.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, a contributing editor at National Review, and a Fox News contributor. His latest bestselling book is “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.” Follow him on Twitter @AndrewCMcCarthy.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/461914-nadlers-house-committee-holds-a-faux-hearing-in-search-of-a-false-crime

Why Do Our Conservative Supreme Court Judges so often “Judge” with the Fascist Left?

THE LIBERAL SUPREME COURT BLOC STANDS FIRM

by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Liberals constantly worry about conservative domination of the Supreme Court. Would that it were true: the Court’s conservatives have long been a diverse bunch, and, unlike the liberals, they have never formed a consistent voting bloc. I have sometimes wondered whether Democratic nominees go through a secret ceremony in which they pledge to vote the Democratic Party line in any case where the party demands their vote. Probably not, I suppose, but it often seems that way.

Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute has done the math:

There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times, while the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times. And of the 20 cases where the court split 5-4, only seven had the “expected” ideological divide of conservatives over liberals. By the end of the term, each conservative justice had joined the liberals as the deciding vote at least once.

That dynamic isn’t something that sprang up in the Trump era or with the court’s newest personnel. In the 2014-15 term, with Kennedy at the height of his “swing vote” power —the last full term before Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and resulting year-long vacancy — the four liberals stuck together in 55 of 66 cases, while the four conservatives (not counting Kennedy) voted as a unit in 39.

Shapiro makes this obvious point:

Speaking of politically fraught cases that end up 5-4, it’s notable that there’s never a question of how the liberal justices will vote. Speculation runs rampant over whether one of the conservatives will go wobbly — whether out of unpredictable moderation, minimalistic pragmatism or idiosyncratic theory — but the liberals are guaranteed to please their constituency.

While the liberal justices vote together in political solidarity, the more conservative justices have divergent approaches to jurisprudence which they actually try to apply with intellectual rigor. That may be commendable, but it explains why the Court as a body is more liberal than one might expect.

 

The Liberal Supreme Court Bloc Stands Firm

Answer seems rather obvious….For the past generation and a half Dems have chosen lefty leftists to the Supreme Court BAR…..the more Ginsberg-extreme, the better.

Half of today’s GOP Conservatives are only half Conservative and of the Big Business kind, the ones close to lots of $$$ and/or like majority Dems, never had to work for a living!

Pocahontas’ Fundraising Tactics’ Story!

WHO IS ELIZABETH WARREN? HER FUNDRAISING TACTICS PROVIDE A CLUE

by Paul Mirengoff  at PowerLine:

It’s not easy to distinguish the policy positions of Elizabeth Warren from those of avowed socialist Bernie Sanders. Yet, the establishment fears Sanders and seems comfortable enough with Warren.

Why? I think it’s because they suspect that Warren’s radicalism isn’t nearly as sincere as Sanders’s.

This New York Times article about Warren’s fundraising confirms both the establishment’s comfort with Warren and her lack of sincerity. The Times documents that Warren raised large amounts of money from establishment donors during her campaign for reelection to the Senate in 2018:

On the highest floor of the tallest building in Boston, Senator Elizabeth Warren was busy collecting big checks from some of the city’s politically connected insiders. It was April 2018 and Ms. Warren, up for re-election, was at a breakfast fund-raiser hosted for her by John M. Connors Jr., one of the old-guard power brokers of Massachusetts.

Soon after, Ms. Warren was in Manhattan doing the same. There would be trips to Hollywood and Silicon Valley, Martha’s Vineyard and Philadelphia — all with fund-raisers on the agenda. She collected campaign funds at the private home of at least one California mega donor, and was hosted by another in Florida. She held finance events until two weeks before her all-but-assured re-election last November.

Bernie Sanders has never raised that kind of money from this donor class. He hasn’t wanted to, and couldn’t if he did.

Soon after securing reelection, Warren announced her bid for the presidency. She funded her campaign, in the first instance, with the money she had raised from big donors when running for the Senate. At the same time, Warren made a splash with the Democratic left by announcing that her presidential campaign would not raise money from big donors:

The open secret of Ms. Warren’s campaign is that her big-money fund-raising through 2018 helped lay the foundation for her anti-big-money run for the presidency. Last winter and spring, she transferred $10.4 million in leftover funds from her 2018 Senate campaign to underwrite her 2020 run, a portion of which was raised from the same donor class she is now running against.

The early money Warren transferred to her presidential campaign has made a big difference. According to the Times, Warren was able to invest early in a massive political organization — spending 87 cents of every dollar she raised in early 2019 — without fear of bankrupting her bid. The money also gave her a financial backstop to lessen the risk of forgoing traditional fundraisers.

Ed Rendell, the epitome of an establishment insider, says of Warren: “Can you spell hypocrite?” Rendell recruited donors to attend an intimate fund-raising dinner for Warren last year at a Philadelphia steakhouse where the famed cheese steak goes for $120. He said he received a “glowing thank-you letter” from Warren afterward.

But when Rendell co-hosted a fundraiser for Joe Biden this spring, the Warren campaign derided the affair as “a swanky private fund-raiser for wealthy donors.” Says Rendell:

She didn’t have any trouble taking our money the year before. All of a sudden, we were bad guys and power brokers and influence-peddlers. In 2018, we were wonderful.

Warren’s hypocrisy bothers Rendell and, I assume, certain other donors who are supporting Biden. But there’s little evidence that they fear what she would do in the White House.

Sure, they would prefer Biden, whom they see as safer and more likely to defeat Trump. But Warren doesn’t alarm them the way Sanders does. Otherwise, presumably, they would not have been so generous to her in 2018.

Who is the real Elizabeth Warren, the friend of the Democratic establishment or its scourge? To me, she’s just an ambitious pol who, if elected president, will try to straddle the line. Just as she has with her fundraising.

 

Who is Elizabeth Warren? Her fundraising tactics provide a clue

The Disappearance of American Human Female Animal

I’ll be 85 next month.   I was raised by an American mother in St. Paul, Minnesota during the Great Depression and World War II.

My Father was the financial provider who loved my Mother and worked 48 to 54 hours a week managing a Liggett Drug Company Store downtown St. Paul.

Mothers were real mothers then.   Whether poor or not so poor,  they were the principal teachers, feeders, caretakers, problem solvers, and clothing makers for their off-spring, while the human male animal labored except on Sunday to keep the family fed, clothed, and housed together!

With the exception of Hollywood’s movie creatures, divorces rarely existed in our nation’s family homes then.   Reno, Nevada was too remote, too pricey, and the mood of American culture too overwhelming to destroy the JudeoChristian U.S.  family.

Nearly everyone in America was Godfearing in those days before the 1950s.

Death within our families was not uncommon.   My grandparents were dead before I was 13.   My grandpa, Frank Lawrence Ray was born in Cherryfield, Maine before our nation’s Civil War began.   He died from a horrible cancer in 1917.   Mom’s mom also died of cancer seven years before I arrived.  Yet, my German speaking Great Grandma Kraft,  was the last of our older generation to pass on, lucid to the very end  in 1948.   She was born in 1850.

It was in the 1960s America’s  females began to disappear as real Mothers.   Divorcing became easier.   Church was attended lesser.   Marriage became more and more meaningless.  It began to disappear.   The sexes began to change.   The American female began to leave motherhood for a career.   With the exception of some old fashioned Christian families,  she began to check her child into a ‘caring’ children’s  ‘home’, abandoning  Motherhood except for nights and Saturdays and Sundays.

There is a pretense today in America that there are no real differences anymore between male and female.   One is now “free” to select their sex….sexes, depending upon moods or types of ‘mothers’.   Is the She  really as equal to the HE, in our now feminized American military?    Are men and women of today really identical?  Are we that ignorant?

The American family has about disappeared.   The nation had become leftist in its persuasion.   One sex, free for all, everyone….except the Google, Amazon, and such, and the feminization of schools and universities and the Dem newspapers  rule the roost.

What does “Nature” have to say with all of this?

I am still in the landscape business.  Creating beautiful landscape gardens has been  my drug of choice since childhood.    I have lived on  a half acre the past 45 years artistically  planting and caring  for  countless trees and shrubs, all of which I have planted or are progeny of what I have planted creating  my Garden of Paradise.   Its paths are  both beautiful,  mysterious, tempting the visitor to explore further.

Few or  perhaps no human female animal is so driven.   Which leads to my lesson of this day I pass on to the female tolerant regarding a major difference between the human male, a natural warrior, builder, inventor, problem solver,  and the human female child producer, who in America no longer is her child’s real Mother!

Sorry, today’s leftist feminist fascists of all sexes.   There is a difference….countless differences, between the human female and human male animal!!!  I often use my garden as an example.    Suppose an adult female and I or most any adult male happen to be prowling not too far away  from each other in my Garden but alone.

Suppose a violent, terrifying,  lion-like animal roar is heard suddenly but unseen  by both visitors somewhat separated  in the garden.   What is the natural animal instinct of the human female and human male as animals?

Both become terrorized!    ONE AUTOMATICALLY SCREAMS AS POWERFULLY AS SHE CAN announcing she is in serious trouble and needs protection!

The other automatically shouts “Shut-up”, freezing as an animal he is  to gather  some reality, some Truth and consequences to what he just heard…..Should he  engage in fight,  flight, or freeze to protect and save the both if possible.

I don’t think today’s American college students and graduates have enough learnings to know some of the overwhelming differences between the human female and human male animal especially those automatic in the animals we are.

 

Ditsy Pocahontas Pow-ows Well in Iowa?

ELIZABETH WARREN PULLING AWAY IN IOWA?

by  John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

This Iowa-based poll shows Elizabeth Warren jumping out to a commanding lead among Iowa caucus goers:

Elizabeth Warren’s early investment in Iowa is paying off.

A new Iowa Starting Line-Change Research poll shows the senator opening up a commanding lead in the Iowa Caucus. Warren was the top pick of 28% of likely Iowa Caucus-goers in the poll, an 11-point lead over the nearest competitor. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were both tied for second with 17% each. Pete Buttigieg came in fourth at 13% and Kamala Harris has the backing of 8%.

The Iowa caucuses are five and a half months away, so we shouldn’t get too excited about early polls. Still, this one shows Warren with a 16-point jump from her support in May, while Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are both down 7 percent since May.

This doesn’t strike me as surprising. Early campaign polls are largely tests of name recognition, and Biden and Sanders are very familiar to Democratic voters. But I am pretty sure that Democratic caucus-goers aren’t really hoping to nominate an elderly white man.

Why has Warren jumped in this poll? She is spending a lot of time in Iowa, and voters in early primary and caucus states like to be courted. Beyond that, Warren has some advantages over the rest of the field. For one thing, she isn’t stupid. That distinguishes her from a number of her competitors, most notably Slow Joe Biden. For another, she is a far-left true believer. She would have made a good wife for, say, Vladimir Lenin. Democrats like that quality these days–or the small minority who go to caucuses do, anyway.

Some people think Warren is a serious threat to President Trump. I have a friend who believes that Warren can match Trump when it comes to economic populism, moderate her views on immigration enough to fool some voters, and cruise to victory with the help of the press. Maybe. But Warren makes Hillary Clinton seem warm and huggable. She might have made a good wife for Lenin, but for the rest of us? Not so much. I think she is a lot more formidable as a Democratic Party primary candidate than as a general election contender.

One more comment: Amy Klobuchar sits at 2 percent in this Iowa poll, tied with Tom Steyer, Tulsi Gabbard, and Steve Bullock. Klobuchar hails from next-door Minnesota, and her name must long have been well known to Iowa Democrats–unlike, say, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Beto O’Rourke, all of whom currently outpoll her. Tim Pawlenty ended his 2012 presidential bid in August 2011, when he finished third not in the caucuses, but in the Iowa straw poll. As a popular former two-term governor of next-door Minnesota, Pawlenty needed to do better. Amy Klobuchar needs to do a heck of a lot better than her current standing with Iowa caucus-goers, or her presidential bid will be over.

Elizabeth Warren Pulling Away In Iowa?

What Are Our Today’s Rising Big Business Dem Fascists Really Up To?

THE LEFT’S EXCLUSIONARY LANGUAGE

by  John Hinderaker   at  PowerLine:

A reader points out this article by a liberal in the Atlantic. It is titled “The Left Needs a Language Potent Enough to Counter Trump.” The writer, George Packer, is mostly intent on denouncing President Trump’s “dangerously populist” speech. As usual, the author goes off on Nazi, Hitler, and fascist tropes without acknowledging that the reason why the things Trump says are “populist” is that they make sense to most people, based on their experiences and observations. That part of the article is too foolish and boring to be worthy of comment.

But when the writer moves on to a topic he understands better, the shortcomings of his fellow leftists, he makes some good points–points that are especially noteworthy because they come from inside the leftists’ closed world:

“[T]he language of the contemporary left is anti-populist. Its vocabulary, much of it taken from academia, is the opposite of accessible—it has to be decoded and learned. Terms such as centered, marginalized, intersectional, non-binary, and Eurocentric gender discipline separate outsiders from insiders—that’s part of their intent, as is the insistence on declaring one’s personal pronouns and showing an ability to use them accordingly. Even common words like ally and privilege acquire a resonance that takes them out of the realm of ordinary usage, because the point of this discourse is to create a sense of special virtue. The language of the left also demands continuous refreshing and can change literally overnight: A writer is told that the phrase born male is no longer okay to use and has to be replaced with assigned male at birth. Many of these changes happen by ambush—suddenly and irrevocably, with no visible trail of discussion and decision, and with quick condemnation of holdouts—which gives them a powerful mystique.

The language of the left creates a hierarchy of those who get it and those who don’t. Mastering the vocabulary is a way of signaling entry into a select world of the knowing and the just. The system is closed—there’s an internal logic that can be accepted or rejected but isn’t open to argument or question. In this sense, though much of the language of the left has academic origins, its use in the public square is almost religious.

Italics in the original, bold added. “Almost religious” understates the case, but the author sums up quite well the bizarre world of public discourse in which we find ourselves. I think that Democratic Party politicians are lucky that most people pay no attention to the strange things they say.

 

The Left’s Exclusionary Language

When American Women Were Real Mothers

I was seven years old when Pearl Harbor was bombed bringing our USA into World War II.   I was a child of the Great Depression up to that point.   American men  worked.   American women were homemaking Mothers.   Motherhood was highly honored in American society looking back where I lived.   Women as a class were highly regarded in the culture where I lived,  very, very Christian raising children at home and married!  Family incomes were the fathers’ responsibilities.  In my relatively newish urban neighborhood they took in about $5,000 or slightly less annually.    We moved into our newly built “five room bungalow” in 1936 about the time our neighborhood grade school was built.   Television didn’t arrive until 1947.   Of the 16 homes on both sides of our block, all but  two families had one or two kids.   The Jahnke’s across the street had three girls in their older teens who  baby sat at ten cents an hour when needed.

Nearly all, if not all, of the kids under age twelve were dressed with family hand-me-downs as all of my clothes were.    Mother made most of my sister’s dresses.

On good weather days, spring through September, washable clothes or curtains and such would be drying out on clothes’ lines hooked to garage and a clothes pole.  Moms also gardened both flower and food plants near the alleys by the backyard.

During the War nearly every house hold had tomato plants growing among the  flower gardens.   Boys learned to play kick ball or kick the can in the street.   Girls were all tied up playing dolls or paper dolls or jump rope in someone’s back yard, which gave Mothers  time to gather, chat, chuckle,  share Victory Garden produce, and often  butter or milk,  salt or sugar they had fallen short of.

My dad was head pharmacist and  manager at a Liggett Drugstore downtown St. Paul on Seventh and Robert.      Although gasoline was rationed during the War, most dad’s like mine,  stored their autos in their garages until the War was over.   Most guys too old to join the military during the War worked at least 48 hours a week always  away from home.

All of us kids had real Mothers all day long  Summers, weekends,  and vacations usually Saturday’s as well governing family children and the home nearly the entire week.    Such women had a right to claim Motherhood.

Today’s Mother is overwhelmingly  an entirely different animal.   With the exception of several religious groups, most American females who enter Motherhood are mothers for only  a week or two past delivery of any child.  She may prefer her career.    She might not be married.   She may  dump her offspring upon her jobless Mother or Grandmother.   There may be no Father.

Well, there’s always Saturday and Sunday for child rearing  Lefties might say.  But most leftist  feminazis usually ignore motherhood.  They prefer to teach at universities these days.

The vast majority of today’s American  family women are something other than Mothers these days….at best, only on weekends or during summer vacation.

No wonder our current Americana under age 30 have become so interested in our today’s Democrat Party fascism they absorb in school and at university!!

There’s no real Mother around.   Fatherhood majority disappeared decades ago!

The Magnificent Ditsy Dem, Kristen Gillibrand!

Two plus two don’t necessarily make four among today’s  American  Leftist Feminist crowd.   These “women” are superior to truth and reality!   After all, they  are magnificently ditsy,  governed  by FEELINGS!!

Get to know Kristen Gillibrand better!

Kristen Gillibrand’s Tangled Web

by Christopher Skeet   at  American Thinker:

.

During the second Democratic debate, New York senator and political weathervane Kristen Gillibrand bragged that she could explain to white suburban women who voted for Trump “what white privilege actually is.”  No doubt.  When you presume to lecture Joe Biden about being a single father, anything is possible.  Still, I question the strategy of scything a path to the White House by arrogantly condescending to a voting bloc whose overriding motive for their previous presidential vote was a stern disavowal of arrogant condescension.

But Gillibrand wasn’t finished.  “When their son is walking down the street with a bag of M&Ms in his pocket, wearing a hoodie,” she scolded, “his whiteness is what protects him from not being shot.”  From not being shot?  Gillibrand is a lawyer, presumably schooled in the art of courtroom rhetoric, but I’m not sure I would trust her to defend me against shoplifting at Wal-Mart, much less to defend America as president.  Mr. Skeet, isn’t it true that you didn’t not steal that inflatable Judy doll?  Please keep in mind that you aren’t not under oath.

But the point that Gillibrand was clumsily trying to make was entwined in a rehash of the Trayvon Martin shooting.  According to accepted mythology, Trayvon was walking down the street, having recently purchased candy and iced tea from a nearby 7-11.  Having been spotted and followed by the local Grand Wizard and ethnically pretzeled “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman, the black Trayvon found himself running from, brawling with, and tragically being shot by the Afro-Peruvian Klansman.

For the umpteenth time, the facts of this case belie the myth.  Trayvon was not shot for wearing a hoodie, or for carrying candy, or for being black.  He was shot because he was on top of Zimmerman, pummeling his head off the pavement with MMA-style punches.  Attorney General Eric Holder, who haughtily fancied himself John Shaft of the DoJ, left no stone thrice unturned in its investigation.  If there was even a shred of a legal case against Zimmerman, you can bet Holder would have pounced on it.

But Gillibrand takes the myth an extra step.  In her scenario, the hypothetical white son is walking down the street with a bag of M&Ms.  But Trayvon wasn’t carrying a bag of M&Ms.  He was carrying a bag of Skittles and an Arizona brand beverage.  OK, so what’s the big deal? you might ask.  She made an honest mistake with the brand of candy. 

But she didn’t make a mistake.  She deliberately substituted M&Ms for Skittles.  Anyone following the case knew that the nationwide pro-Trayvon demonstrations in the aftermath of the shooting featured Skittles as a central tenet.  Protestors carried Skittles packages, attached them to signs, and taped them over their mouths.  The Guardian ran a storyabout how Skittles symbolized Trayvon’s alleged innocence.

But as the case unfolded, it emerged that Trayvon’s Arizona Iced Tea wasn’t iced tea, but in fact was Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail.  Again, what’s the big deal?  The big deal is that M&Ms and Arizona Iced Tea are what a normal American teenager, black or white, might be expected to be carrying on any given evening.  On the other hand, Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail are what an experienced drug abuser might be expected to be carrying on any given evening (during his third school suspension of the year for vandalism and illegal drugs).

Popular in hip hop culture is a drug called Lean (a.k.a. Purple Drank, Sizzurp, Dirty Sprite, etc.).  Lean is made by mixing cough syrup, Skittles, and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail.  The result is a codeine-based concoction, one effect of which causes its abuser to lean (hence the name).  Trayvon chatted extensively on Facebook about his abuse of codeine, among other drugs, as well as about the ingredients needed to make lean.

The evening Zimmerman spotted him, Trayvon was carrying two of these three ingredients.  In Zimmerman’s 911 call, he stated that Trayvon appeared to be “on drugs”.  Is it possible that a sober Trayvon, pondering his dreams of being a brain surgeon, just happened to be in the mood for Skittles and juice that day?  Yes, it’s possible.  And it’s possible that the local moonshiner just bought some yeast, sugar, and a large vat because he wants to bake hot cross buns for the new congregants at his church.

One of many long-term effects of codeine abuse is liver damage.  Trayvon’s autopsy revealed a patchy yellow discoloration of the liver, due to mild fatty metamorphosis.  Such fatty buildup is one early indication of drug abuse, though it admittedly could also be the result of a number of other perfectly legitimate medical factors.  What it is most definitely not indicative of is M&M overdoses.

Notice what Gillibrand did not say.  She did not say that Trayvon was carrying M&Ms.  She only used M&Ms in her hypothetical “white son” scenario.  So she technically never lied, and she left herself wiggle room in case the CNN debate “moderators” called her out on it (no laughing, please).  Her very lawyerly intention was to lie by false equivalence and, by doing so, score a notch for the white privilege polemic.

If white privilege was so axiomatic, one would think its opponents would have stockpiles of evidentiary ammunition with which to batter down the ramparts of American society.  As it stands, their most flaunted example of such institutionalized bigotry was built on deliberate falsehoods from its inception.  It has long since been exposed as such, yet it continues to be exploited by ambulance chasers like Gillibrand.

My intention here is not to change anyone’s mind about the Trayvon shooting, race relations, or stand-your-ground laws.  My intention is to reiterate an important fact underpinning a controversial incident.  In the larger picture, this fact may seem irrelevant.  But this fact was intentionally distorted by Gillibrand to alter the narrative of the Trayvon shooting, which in turn has been touted as evidence of systemic racism in America, which in turn is being used to peddle untenable theories of white privilege, which in turn is being used to cultivate support for reparations.  The attempted implementation of reparations would be nothing short of catastrophic, and would leave in its wake an unbridgeable schism between black and white Americans.

I don’t imagine Gillibrand gave much thought, and even less concern, about the accuracy or effects of her words.  As evident from her shameless flip-flopping over every conceivable issue, her ambition is the presidency at whatever cost.  In the grand scheme of things, her ambiguous M&M duplicity is small fry compared to the If you like your health care plan whoppers.  But if we concede the singular facts on which these individual incidents are grounded, we eventually concede the overall narrative.  The facts of these incidents are on our side, and we have no reason to surrender them.

We’ve locked horns with the Left for almost a decade over the Trayvon shooting and its underlying causes, and after struggling for so long, it’s tempting to throw our hands up in exasperation and say Ah screw it, let them have this one.  But there is too much at stake to succumb to battle fatigue.  Call the Left out on every single lie, no matter how insignificant it may seem.  The small lies are constructed into guard towers from which the big lies are imposed.  Fight for every inch and don’t back down a centimeter, because that’s what the socialists who very well might take power in 2020 are doing.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/kristen_gillibrands_tangled_web.html