Trump calls out Faux-ahontas, gets her mad…but she really needs to come fully clean on her claims of Native ancestry.
Keith Olbermann has decided to call it quits on anti-Trump rants.
In case you’re keeping score, the gender wars are now up to “LGGBDTTTIQQAAP“.
Joy Behar, who some years back said she didn’t believe in God, is now saying that God is calling her to save our country.
There are reports that black Africans are being sold in slave markets in Libya – another of Hillary’s grand legacies.
Europeans are decorating anti-terror barriers for the Christmas holidays. I suggest if they’d actually become Christian and rediscover bravery, they wouldn’t need the barriers…but, that’s just me.
Leandra English, a Progressive hack holding an Obama-era sinecure at the CFPB, is suing President Trump in an attempt to prevent him from replacing her as director of the CFPB. The level of absurdity on the left just keeps growing.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called on Nevada Rep. Ruben Kihuen to resign just after midnight Saturday morning in the wake of allegations he sexually harassed his former campaign finance director.
Kihuen reportedly put his hand on the knee of a female staffer on two occasions and made her feel uncomfortable. Sounds reasonable, right?
I wonder how women would react if men just completely ignored them. Maybe it’s time that happens.
The problem is, there are a lot of men out there who are just complete pigs, and I empathize with women who work for such men.
From a woman’s point of view:
If the allegations are true, and there seems to be acceptance of them, then yes, the guy ought to resign. In articles about the issue, the claims are that he did more than just “put his hand on her knee on two occasions and made her feel uncomfortable”. It appears that he touched her more aggressively, not just “on her knee”, and that she was uncomfortable because of his repeated comments on wanting to go out with her, asking if she was ever unfaithful to her boyfriend, and suggesting that they get a hotel room together.
Bad behavior, and a woman had to quit her job to get away from it. It should be punished,
BUT……there is the element of changing the rules after the fact that kind of bothers me. This is the kind of behavior that Dems, in particular, have not only ignored but in many cases rewarded with vociferous defenses and repeated reelections.
Acting like a creep because your party says it’s OK to act like a creep and there will be no repercussions doesn’t excuse acting like a creep. Not everyone who knew this kind of behavior was sanctioned by the Left engaged in it. But the fact is, this kind of thing WAS sanctioned by the Left, and if men of poor character took advantage of it they should be exposed for their poor character but should they be held a standard that did not exist when they did what they did?
I say yes, because the standard existed outside of the Democrat Party, and it is a good standard and an important standard. But we need to be fully aware of the fact that the party has been complicit in this kind of behavior, and by its complicity enabled it if not actually overtly encouraged it (see reelections of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton for proof of this) and now those who put their faith in the party are having the rugs pulled out from under them.
I suggest they see it as an object lesson in what happens when you trust a Lefty. A movement, and a party, that simply rewrites history as it goes along will also rewrite the rules, if it suits them and they see a political advantage in it.
There is a fascinating and informative article in National Review that I strongly recommend.
It is academic and a little dense in places, calling for careful reading and even re-reading, but its points are so powerful and relevant, I think the whole thing is worth archiving.
Some quotes, from an article that deserves to be cited in its entirety:
”Rabelais, Swift, Daumier, and Stent all give us the old but true, orthodox tradition of Western and world ethics, as against modernist, “progressive,” libertine, and reductionist departures from and denials or violations of it. The vindication and transmission of this orthodox tradition is the greatest aim and achievement of much of our literature, art, political thought, laws, social customs, and religion.
But powerful cultural, social, and economic forces, which Walter Lippmann called “the acids of modernity,” deform, reduce, or destroy the trajectory and momentum of this tradition in the interest of the “will to power” that Stent deplored and the nihilistic, post-moral “enlightenment” that Daumier mocked. “
“The current reductionist rampage and regime is an obscene, transgressive violation of the greatest insights and products of the Western (and world) mind, spirit, and imagination in philosophy, ethics, literature, architecture, sculpture, painting, music, and humanistic discourse itself. It justifies the worry of the great Dutch cultural historian Johan Huizinga (1872–1945) that the anti-metaphysical animus of modernist culture is fundamentally dehumanizing and disintegrative, an “abolition of man” (to use Lewis’s phrase).”
Glenn’s crucial distinction is between procedural “secularity, rightly understood as a legal and political arrangement of neutrality toward religious and other convictions, consistent with a pluralistic society,” and secularism as a militant, intolerant, essentially totalitarian ideology and belief system.
The militant partisans of “the secular border patrol” would do well to consider that when the metaphysical or religious dimension and horizon of human persons, societies, and cultures are denied, ignored, scorned, or attacked, there is no clear warrant for peace and goodwill on earth, which are hardly the “natural” attributes of human beings. Glenn quotes the English Labour-party politician Roy Hattersley (an atheist) as adding that “if suffering human beings have to wait for atheists and agnostics rather than religious believers for help, they are likely to wait a very long time.”