Mob Rule

Describing the feral left as a mob has been trending hard over the last week, and with good reason.  While most of the left contracted Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) 2-3 years ago it has moved into a more worrying stage the past few months.  Throughout the election cycle and all of Trump’s presidency the left has been violent.  Far more violent than the right.  As I mentioned recently the leaders of the left have even begun to call for mob rule and violence.  And their calls are coming to fruition.

This clip below surfaced from Portland, Oregon over the weekend.  They are trying to direct traffic and claim that it’s their first amendment right to do so.  I know you’re looking for a logical explanation of their thinking here but I cannot provide that.

These are disgusting people both inside and out.  The democratic party has shamelessly weaponized and mobilized these cretins and it’s going to blow up in their faces.  They’ve lost control.  And I think they realize it.  You can only try and group up so many disparate races, religions, and political ideologies before the obvious differences between them erupt into in-fighting and outward violence as well.  A large portion of their constituency has gone too far.  The leaders know they cannot win on a platform of abolishing ICE.  They know the childish behavior at the Kavanaugh hearings doesn’t look good.  But when you’ve encouraged this sort of behavior for so long it is hard to turn it off like a light switch.  Especially when the people you are weaponizing are heavily medicated and mentally unstable.

But no matter.  The Democratic leaders, mostly white, have created a monster that will eventually vote them all out of office anyways.  We’ve seen this in New York with Alexandria Octavio-Cortez and even stalwarts like Diane Feinstein face serious opposition from Kevin de León (born Kevin Alexander Leon but that doesn’t sound foreign enough to garner the minority vote).  The tricky balance is allowing the Democratic party to devour itself while minimizing the collateral damage to the rest of the country.  Thankfully, we have the only possible Commander in Chief strong enough and prepared enough to deal with it.

Planned Parenthood looking for new judicial nominations director

PlannedParenthoodJudge

It looks like Planned Parenthood is looking for a new judicial nominations director.  What does that entail, you ask?  For those interested in applying:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) seeks a dynamic and effective Director, Judicial Nominations who will report to the National Director of Legislative Affairs in the Office of the Vice President of Policy and Government Relations. The Director will be responsible for the development and execution of all related campaigns’ priorities and goals, the facilitation of internal cross-departmental alignment, the execution of all program components by both Government Relations staff and other PPFA teams, and the reporting process to internal and external PPFA audiences. The Director will also oversee the formulation and execution of critical programmatic work and be responsible for executing a strategic, intense campaign that educates members of the Senate on the harmful records of nominees, elevates for Planned Parenthood supporters and affiliates what is at stake for reproductive health and rights.

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

  • Develop and execute year-long national and state advocacy plans focused on high impact, high priority judicial nominations in the lower courts.
  • Work closely with the National Director of Legislative Affairs, consultants, and team members to create a clear path for defeat and delay of targeted nominations.
  • Direct day-to-day work of key cross-team campaigns, including leading regular meetings with key staff and consultants, facilitating ally engagement, working with targeted states and affiliates, ensuring resource production, and capturing successes and lessons learned.
  • Ensure productive collaboration and broad integration between Government Relations, Organizing & Electoral Campaigns, Communications, Litigation & Law and other key PPFA departments and divisions.
  • Identify new areas of partnership on initiatives that will help further Federation-wide priorities.
  • Work with cross-functional teams to design and execute in-state 360 campaigns that hold Senators accountable for appointing judges that value and protect access to abortion.
  • Drive high-visibility efforts like phone calls, media, letter-writing campaigns, grassroots actions, storytelling, engaging grasstop influencers, etc.
  • Lead in-depth research in consultation with Litigation & Law including review and analysis of nominee’s case law and writings; interrogation of nominee’s personal and professional beliefs, associations, and memberships; as well as general opposition research in order to identify each nominee’s vulnerabilities and be able to drive a cohesive national narrative that informs in-state target Senator campaigns.
  • Create grassroots strategies that build movement and leverage the Planned Parenthood base to link the importance of judicial nomination fights to the security of the issues we value.
  • Develop tactics that tie harmful nominees to cross-movement issues, to the overall Trump agenda, and to the consequences of lifetime appointments of extremist judges to the future of progressive rights.
  • Maintain circuit court nominations tracker including the development of fact sheet and reference materials.
  • Develop a scoring mechanism to rate harmful nominations and draft public-facing oppositions.

So the Supreme Court nomination decision didn’t go their way and now they want to hire somebody new to lobby for judges that will decide in their favor.  As a friendly reminder, we as taxpayers give Planned Parenthood on average $500 million dollars a year, which is spent on who knows what.  Remind me again how it’s legal that a company that receives tax payer money can lobby like this?  Aren’t these supposed to be apolitical organizations?  We get zero choice in whether we give money to a company caught selling aborted baby parts for profit.  And now we get no choice in giving them money even though they very clearly have a political agenda.

Thank God Brett Kavanaugh was nominated.  He was the crucial Kennedy swing vote replacement in the conservative/liberal Supreme Court breakdown.  Hopefully President Trump can get in at least one more with Ginsberg shuffling off this mortal coil soon.  Make no mistake about this, the Supreme Court nominations were probably the single most important issue during the presidential election.  It shapes the country for decades.  President Trump, at least temporarily, has stemmed that tide.  It’s why they pushed so hard during this nomination process.  The Constitution is being attacked more now than ever.  Imagine what of it would be left if Hillary Clinton had been given the opportunity to nominate two Supreme Court judges.  The second amendment could’ve been abolished entirely in her first term, and that is hardly an exaggeration.

What’s next for the left?

Now that the Kavanuagh circus is over and they’ve lost yet another battle what is next for the left?  In the past two years of the stellar presidency of Donald J. Trump all they have done is obstructed.  Their only policy issues to date it appears are abolishing ICE completely and giving out free healthcare and education to everyone.  How this will be paid for is unclear.  How open borders will affect things like welfare and social security benefits is unclear.  You’re wasting your time if you ever expect to hear explanations from anyone on the left on how these things will rectify themselves.

What once started out as “simple” obstruction has turned into angry mob protests and violence.  What’s worse, the leaders of the Democratic party are encouraging this sort of behavior.  As always, they are projecting.  Here’s HRC recently:

Hillary Clinton says the time for civility is over.

After the bitter and partisan fight over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the former secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate declared that President Donald Trump has undermined the integrity of the nation’s highest court and that it’s time for Democrats to be “tougher” with their opponents, in an interview with CNN published Tuesday

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “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.”

Or how about Eric Holder?

“It is time for us, as Democrats, to be as tough as they are, to be as dedicated as they are, to be as committed as they are,” Holder told a crowd of campaign volunteers and candidates. “Michelle always says — I love her; she and my wife are like, really tight, which always scares me and Barack — but Michelle always says, ‘When they go low, we go high.’ No. When they go low, we kick ’em.”

We already know about the BS Maxine Waters was spreading not long ago either.

And the zombified left is reacting as they always do, obediently.  Their leaders will channel their lemmings to obstruct, protest, and get violent to push their agenda.  Scream, whine, and complain.  Because when you don’t have any actual ideas or policies other than expressing your disdain for the president, all you’re left with is screaming, whining, and complaining.

The Kavanaugh issue really hurt the left.  Anyone remotely closer to the political center found their reaction to be off-putting.  Too far.  The only concern is can the momentum be kept up until the mid-terms?  Will the right’s base remain charged up?

Don’t be fooled by the economy wavering here for a little bit.  The left will try and pounce on that for the mid-terms.  But the decline has largely been in the tech sector, which if you haven’t been paying attention is at odds with the president.  It wouldn’t even shock me at this point if they purposely absorbed temporary losses to make the President look bad in the leadup to the mid-terms.  Really, would any low ball dirty tactic surprise you at this point?

We shall see what direction they turn at this point.  The violence will only increase.  I’m sure Russia will come up again.  So will abolishing ICE.  And gun control.  The democrats haven’t demonstrated they’ve learned anything since President Trump was elected so I don’t expect anything new.  Just stay vigilant, take care of yourselves, and vote in November.

This is what your kids are learning in school

More indoctrination in the schools that I’m sure parents have zero idea about.  This is from the heart of the Western suicide movement, the UK.  In this episode, 6-year olds are being taught about gay marriage.  Here, the students are told they are Prince Henry, and they are to write a love letter to their servant, Thomas, about why it would be a “brilliant” idea for Thomas to marry him.  Watch the video for yourself here.

gender1

Most people in this country are of the mindset that anyone can do whatever they want that makes them happy so long as it’s not impinging on the happiness or freedoms of anyone else.  “Do not do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you” is something most people can agree with.  That said, I think most reasonable people would ALSO agree that it’s probably not healthy or normal or right to be indoctrinating kids in this way at such a young age when their minds are so malleable.  Make no mistake that’s what they are doing, indoctrinating these children.  I have no doubt the teacher thinks she is doing admirable, honorable work.  But the reality is what you’re doing is confusing children at a young age about what’s normal.  Yes, normal.  If they really wanted to teach inclusivity you could teach this story without forcing the child to assume the role of a homosexual.  You could just say “some people prefer people of the same sex” and leave it at that.  What they’re doing is deeper and darker.

gender2

If you don’t think they’re trying to indoctrinate the children read the screen captures posted from the video.  No boy or girl uniforms, again along the mindset of gender fluidity and “be whatever you want to be”.  All ages are forced to take part in these lessons.  I just have a hard time believing LGBT lessons are an essential part of a child’s curriculum at that juncture of their life.  Literally anything else from a classical education would be preferable to this.  Though something tells me these kids won’t be taught Shakespeare because he was part of the patriarchy or something.

If you’ve wondered why it feels like the times are more frenzied now, or that people are losing their minds, it’s because it’s true.  The communists took control of our education system a generation or two ago and we’re seeing the fruits of their labor.  College campuses were at the heart of all the social justice warrior nonsense that has sprung up.  It came to a head in 2014 and has only gotten worse now.  You think it’ll stop at LGBT?  Wait until they normalize pedophilia.  If you don’t think they’ll try and teach how it’s okay in some cases for a child to have a sexual relationship with an adult you haven’t been paying attention for the past few years.

 

California forces boards to have women members

California continues its crusade to social engineer.  In their latest battle nobody asked for, they are now making it a requirement to have at least one board member that is female by the end of 2019.  Via Reuters:

The law would mandate at least two female directors by the end of 2021 if the company has five directors and three women if the company has six or more directors. Violators face fines of at least $100,000 and up to $300,000 for multiple violations of the statute.

“Given all the special privileges that corporations have enjoyed for so long, it’s high time corporate boards include the people who constitute more than half the ‘persons’ in America,” California Governor Jerry Brown said in a statement announcing the bill’s signing.

Silicon Valley tech companies started disclosing workforce diversity figures in 2014, but progress at the top has been slow, underscoring the challenge of transforming cultures that critics say are too homogenous, white and male dominated.

Yes, the ever dangerous and terrible position of having a board that’s too white and male dominated in a country that was founded and cultivated largely by white males.  Definitely can’t have that!

They aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.  They want to replace white men.  Period.  Not that is has to be said, but deliberately placing arbitrary quotas that have nothing to do with job performance or logic is a dangerous precedent, and ultimately fruitless and destructive.  And why is this only a problem in corporate board rooms?  I notice a rather large absence of diversity of NBA basketball teams.  Should we place quotas to require more white people on NBA teams?  After all, they are not proportionally represented on a NBA roster as compared to their proportion of the population.

No, of course that would never happen.  Nor should it.  The free market, or what small idea of the free market we think we have is, only works when it’s allowed to run naturally.  Which means allowing companies to hire whomever they want and put whomever they want on their boards.  If women feel so slighted, here’s an idea, how about start more companies?  Yes, I know, patriarchy.  Privilege.  Victim mindset.

This will not end at corporate board rooms, nor will it end with just a quota for women on corporate boards.  Eventually boards will need to be 20, 50, 100 people large to accomodate all of the requirements to have x amount of women, x amount of Native Americans, x amount of African-Americans, etc etc etc.  Micro-managing into oblivion.

You can get a mastectomy at 13 in California

“Professional guidelines and clinical practice should recommend patients for chest surgery based on individual need rather than chronologic age.”  That is the conclusion the authors of this study have drawn after surgically removing the breasts of 2 13-year old transmales (girls) and 5 14-year olds.  Via bioedge.org:

According to the authors, who are based at the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, “All postsurgical participants (68 of 68; 100%) affirmed the statement, ‘It was a good decision to undergo chest reconstruction.’”

Since the girls were overwhelmingly positive about their operation, the authors contend that “Professional guidelines and clinical practice should recommend patients for chest surgery based on individual need rather than chronologic age.”

However, it’s unclear whether the girls (transmales) had enough time for a mature evaluation of their life-changing decision. For nearly all the 68 participants in the survey, only two years had passed. To affirm that there were “very low rates of regret” among minors seems a bit premature. For instance, a study of women who had a single or double mastectomy found that they were quite unrealistic about life after surgery. “Patients generally thought mastectomy would be worse than it was, and they thought reconstruction would be better than it was,” said the lead author.

The other side of the coin is that the “chest dysphoria” of “transmasculine minors” was said to be so severe that it affected their health. They often resorted to chest binding, which is associated with “pain, rib fractures, light-headedness, weakness, skin infection” and other ailments.

This seems to be the justification for the authors’ conclusion that “Youth should be referred for chest surgery based on their individual needs, rather than their age or time spent taking medication. Individualized, patient-centered care plans should be considered the standard of care for all transgender adolescents, and referrals should be made accordingly.”

So the conclusion of these “professionals” is that we should listen to what children think is the best thing for them regardless of their age.  If a girl thinks she’s a boy and thinks she should have her breasts remove we should listen to her.  Given that you can already lose custody of your child if you refuse hormone treatment it shouldn’t come as a surprise that California is allowing this.  California, forever on the bleeding edge of all things twisted and decadent.

It cannot be stated often enough that children need time to mature and grow and figure themselves out before making drastic, permanent, life-altering decisions like this.   Teens going through puberty are never sure about what they want or who they are.  That’s the entire thrust of what going through puberty is all about, figuring yourself out.  To jump to the conclusion that you are really the opposite sex before even going through this process is premature and downright dangerous.  And don’t think that this isn’t deliberate.  What they teach in schools today, and how they indoctrinate our children, all ties into this increase in transgender surgeries and dysphoria in general.

Primum non nocere, first do no harm, should especially be the primary objective when dealing with teens who have their entire lives ahead of them.  Instead of addressing the root cause of why teens may be this confused about their gender, primarily the Marxist indoctrination they’re receiving in schools, these physicians seem to be skipping all of that and jumping to extreme conclusions and recommendations.  They’d rather prescribe all sorts of psychotropic medications or perform irreversible surgeries than try milder, less intrusive, methods first.  Or, here’s an idea, how about prescribing “watchful waiting” and see if the patient doesn’t have second thoughts a few years down the road?

As the article rightly points out, the follow up for these patients is not nearly long enough out, 2 years or less, for them to see if they’re truly happy or not.  I’d be interested to see a follow up 5, 10, 20 years from now, if the patients are still alive.  Sadly, transgender regret is a very real thing, and their suicide rates are also much higher than the rest of the population.

The Judicial System in 2018

As we wait for the results of the 7th Kavanaugh investigation it gives time to reflect on the proceedings and the future implications going forward.  Without a doubt this has forever marred future Supreme Court Justice nominations.  Not surprisingly, only when a Republican president nominates a Supreme Court Justice is it ever this divided on party lines.  Once again the double standard reveals itself.  Consider for a moment that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, arguably the most extreme and liberal Supreme Court Justice ever and nominated by Bill Clinton, was voted in 96-3.  Only when a Republican nominates a justice is it ever this painful and close.  You can make arguments both ways regarding Garland but the decision seemed pretty reasonable given the timing of it.

A larger thought as the country becomes ever more divided and diverse.  Would you still want to be judged by a jury of your peers in 2018?  Consider the case of Kavanaugh.  He was accused without any evidence from a woman who can’t even remember the year that she claims this happened.  And yet, half of the country is completely okay with this kangaroo court fiasco.  Would you really feel comfortable with them if you were on the stand for a rape accusation and there was zero evidence whatsoever against you?  Could you be that confident that they’d rule in your favor when we know that half the country makes the bulk of their decisions purely based on feelings and not facts?

Or how about a case where a person of color is on stand for a crime where there is a lot of evidence supporting the accusation.  Would it be that far fetched to see a jury of mostly people of color vote on racial lines and claim something ridiculous like institutional racism for validation of letting him or her off?  Or even just a run of the mill immigration case.  Where half the country doesn’t even want laws or borders I wouldn’t be confident they’d judge the case dispassionately and purely rationally.

Diversity here, as pretty much everywhere else, is not our strength.  We’ve seen this even with those who are supposedly held to a higher standard.  How many judges of color made ridiculous decisions, usually politically motivated, which is supposed to NEVER happen?  President Trump was entirely justified in his travel ban in 2017.  Obama did a similar ban in office with little resistance.  How many times was Trump’s ban shut down on absolutely ridiculous grounds?  They held the country hostage on political motivations in decisions they should never have had the power to make in the first place.

As the country becomes more diverse these are serious issues that need to be addressed.  I honestly don’t know how to proceed going forward if we’re to continue diversifying our country into extinction.  I do not have an answer for how to fix this in those conditions.  I’m skeptical it can be fixed under those conditions.