California passed a bill to require all corporate boards to have at least one woman – because you tender, little ladies just can’t get there on your own, I guess.
Robert Stacy McCain notes the “wilding” problem in Chicago – and links to this article:
After spending the day at Oak Street Beach, the girlfriend claims she and her boyfriend were walking back to their car at around 6 p.m. in the vicinity of the 900 block of North Lake Shore Drive when they were surrounded by “20-to-25 offenders who gathered around them,” Hopkins said.
“She described a completely unprovoked attack with no warning. Her and her boyfriend were enjoying the day on the beach. They were walking back to their car minding their own business and, with no warning at all, they were surrounded by this large group and they did absolutely nothing to provoke it,” Hopkins said.
“They started a confrontation and, at some point, the victim was struck in the head and fell to the ground.”
Civilization is a thing veneer, folks. And lots of very bad people figured that out a long time ago – mostly notable Lenin, Hitler and Stalin. You rip the lid off, and people will do the most astonishingly savage things. Not all of them – but enough will. People just take peace for granted – security of life and property. But the general security we enjoyed in our cities wasn’t a natural event. It grew over a thousand years during which time everyone went around armed and punishments for even relatively minor crimes were brutal: in 18th century London, most men carried a sword and you could be flogged for petty theft. The idea that one shouldn’t commit a crime didn’t come naturally: it was literally beaten into the population. Its been a long time since the pound of flesh has really been extracted and, meanwhile, we’ve been essentially telling the rising generations that being a criminal is cool. What happened in that article is the natural result – and the natural result of that will be everyone eventually going around armed and a return to savage punishments for even minor offenses. And don’t think this all “just happened”…as I said, bad people long ago figured out that civilization is a weak reed…and those who hate our civilization (and they are legion among us) see things like the “wilding” as just another means of tearing down the hated civilization.
What is the Trump/Russia thing? Don Surber puts it all in a very complete nutshell:
The real news was the breakfast itself, which was relegated to Paragraph 14: “One of the meetings he recounted was a Washington breakfast attended by Steele, a Steele associate and Ohr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, who worked for Fusion GPS, the political research firm that hired Steele, attended at least part of it.”
Ohr was not only married to a woman who worked for the company Hillary and the DNC hired to get dirt on Donald John Trump, but Ohr was meeting with the man in charge of delivering the dossier.
The only collusion with Russians was Steele and his sources at the Kremlin getting together to put together a dossier aimed at bringing down a duly elected American president.
It is all anyone needs to know – the Trump/Russia thing was cooked up by people determined to get Trump. The end. Shut it down – fire Mueller.
The reason we don’t have a Democracy is because our Founders knew that a full Democracy was too risky – remember, all the Athenians had to do to win the Peloponnesian War was not vote to execute a batch of successful admirals. The Founders kept the people away from full power, and that is a good thing, because popular passions can get out of hand. On the other hand, those yapping about “saving Democracy” under Trump dislike Democracy as much as the Founders did…especially as a fully functioning Democracy would probably force into exile most of those now claiming to be Democracy’s defenders.
Great…now Affirmative Action has been extended to women,meaning that any successful woman on a Board of Directors will automatically be assumed to have been handed the position because of gender, not due to merit or accomplishment.
But…..this is in CALIFORNIA. What do they mean by “women”? If there is an opening and four equally qualified men would like the position, does this mean one can show up in heels and lipstick and get the job?
If “he” does, would “he” have to “feel like a woman” all the time, or just during the selection process? Given the whole gender fluidity thing, I guess he could identify as a woman when being considered for the position,then just wander through the various categories at will.
I just don’t understand why a bill like this could pass in CALIFORNIA, of all all places! Isn’t that, like, the home gender-whatevers?
The Trollirverse is touting the theme that anyone who does not hate Trump is a Russian troll.
I had to leave a trail of breadcrumbs when trying to find my way through this thought process, but it seems to go like this:
If you hate and despise Trump and dedicate your life to not just hating him but swamping online forums with nonstop screeds against him, not just against HIM but identifying anyone who voted for him or even just fails to share your pathology as a deplorable disgusting excuse for humanity with no moral principles, working to divide the nation, and actively promoting the toppling of an elected president, thereby subverting our Constitution and eroding our electoral process, you are an American. But if you set aside personal dislike for the man in favor of promoting societal stability and smooth functioning of our government, in the interest of the welfare of the nation, you are a Russian.
It is fascinating, in a sad and pathetic way, to see the flooding of the internet by subversives openly acting in favor of turning the United States into a banana republic by unseating a president, aided and abetted by people who truly think of themselves as patriotic Americans but who can’t, or won’t, rise above their petty emotional temper tantrums for the good of the nation.
We used to have trolls here, but they were simply Leftist trolls, or at least I thought of them as domestic morons recruited by the American Left as intellectual cannon fodder because they liked having some pathological hatred going after conservatives. But this is universes beyond this, and I have come to think these are actually working for the International Left. It’s really getting crazy out there.
And then there are the people like Robert Reich, whose insane fantasy I dissected here. He’s not a Russian (though we could have some fun with his last name) and he presumably has some educational credits to his name. He WAS a cabinet member, after all. But his proud strutting of so much abject ignorance, based on so much pathological hatred, is bizarre.
Trump has been keeping a lot of his election promises. A lot of people have been wondering if he’ll keep this one?
JDGE1, as a certified cockeyed optimist, I have not given up on Trump’s promise.
It is hard to believe that anyone in his administration has the will, much less the ability, to do anything without running to the press to blab about it, but I have read a couple of quiet comments to the effect that investigations are underway. Politically, it makes sense to keep these quiet till after the midterms, as the last thing Trump wants to do is hand what looks like a loaded gun to the opposition, even it it later turns out to be loaded with blanks.
As I have said here, a couple of times, I want the whole thing, when it blows open, to go far beyond just Hillary. Yes, she violated the Espionage Act. Read Gregg Jarrett’s excellent book—he’s got all the laws, all the regulations, all the statutes, whatever the terminology might be, laid out in detail.
But Hillary did not act in a vacuum. She acted in the open, regarding other Dems in office, and anyone who communicated with her on her illegal server became, at that moment, a co-conspirator in her lawbreaking. Worse, in her reckless endangerment of national security.
So in my fantasy, there are hundreds of people working their way through what emails we DO have, making lists of senders and recipients and cross-referencing those names with people who signed the same security agreement Hillary did. While I did think they should all be questioned, that would open up all sorts of cans of various worms, including failure to Mirandize people under suspicion, the taking of the 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate, etc.
I would start with the announcement that he has agreed to accept the resignation of Jeff Sessions, a very nice and decent and likable man who was simply overwhelmed by the scope of the job, and appointing ________, and that the following indictments have been issued for—–and name Comey, Mueller, and so on for a list of crimes including misuse of government funds to pay Christopher Steele while he was conspiring with Russian agents to compile a dossier intended to be used to influence an American election, committing fraud on the court by perjuring themselves to get warrants to spy on American citizens for the purpose of illegally influencing an election, and so on. Each of these people, if still employed by the government, will be removed from his or her position, and have all security clearances revoked.
I would state that the corruption within the FBI and its abuses of power and betrayal of the trust of the American public goes deeper than the people named, and investigations will continue. Action will never be taken on the grounds of political affiliation or belief, but only if abuses or crimes are discovered.
I would then announce that as of that moment Hillary Clinton was being arrested and charged with——-and name the various complaints, at this time probably limited to her use of an unsecured server. AND, the following people are being investigated for complicity in these crimes, by communicating with her, in violation of their own security agreements, on what was clearly not a government server. The list should be in alphabetical order, so the name of Barack Obama is not at the top. Each of these people will be receiving notice to appear for questioning. They will be given their Miranda rights and may be accompanied by their attorneys. Each of these people will have his or her security clearance revoked, to possibly be reinstated if further investigation warrants it. Prosecutions may follow.
I would go on to talk about the Awan scandal, which hasn’t been much of a scandal as the Complicit Agenda Media have tried very hard to tone down coverage of it and quickly move away from it. This part of the speech might touch on the arrest of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for her violations of her security agreement, and then it would go on to mention, by name, every single Representative who failed, at the very least, to do due diligence regarding confirmation that their communications and records were being handled properly. Each of these people will have his or her security clearance revoked, if there is one, to possibly be reinstated if further investigation warrants it. Prosecution for violation of the security agreement and possible endangerment of national security will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
I might end the speech with something like “When I leave office, whenever that might be, I will leave behind me an FBI worthy of the trust of the nation and which lives up to the expectations of the members of the FBI who serve with distinction and honor in service of their country. And I will have done my best to ensure Americans that those entrusted with their security and that of the nation will take that trust seriously.”
I think that a clean sweep, taken all at once instead of trickling out a little at a time, would be very effective, especially if it is clearly and coherently explained. Yank the band-aid off all at once, and concentrate the outrage and hysteria in one time period. I might do it early in December, so the hubbub of the holiday season might compete with hysterical coverage of what would inevitably be compared to a Stalinist purge, etc.
So I would have a carefully written and detailed press release ready to hand out to all media, and available on a couple of government web sites. I would ask that every state make it available on state web sites. And I would state that this is happening, and go on to say “The full text of this explanation to the American public of what is happening and why is available. If you see an altered or edited or partial version of this in any newspaper or on any TV show, you should ask yourself why the whole truth is not being portrayed, and question the honesty and agenda of whoever is trying to give you only part of the truth or even a very different version of what is happening and why.”
Oh, if only………
Amazona, thanks for your well thought out answer. If the events were to unfold as you mentioned, do you think people like Bill Clinton would be among those charged with a crime? How do you think the general public will react to such wide sweeping action?
Obviously there would be a lot of people on the Left that would be apoplectic, but I think the applause across middle America would be so thunderous the ground would shake. What Amazona describes is what I and millions like me are hoping is actually going to happen. The only downside is that we might actually find out if the Left is capable of mounting the civil war they keep threatening.
At this juncture do you feel a Civil War would be a downside or a needed course correction? IMHO I think it depends on how much Trump is able to change the direction of anti-American actions initiated by the previous administrations and whether future elected congress critters side for or against America’s interest, and to the extent the judicial branch rules within or outside the confines of the Constitution. Guess we’ll see.
At this juncture do you feel a Civil War would be a downside
As much as I detest Progressives, anytime we start shooting at each other there’s no upside. The last thing I want to do in this life is take someone else’s. I just hope saner minds on the Left prevail and realize what a catastrophic mistake it would be to attempt to take over this country by force.
A civil war will not necessarily spill blood, even though that is still a considerable potential. The lunacy and acidic hatred of the left is now being thrust to an enormous level, even those in elected positions. Just look at the current Supreme Court hearings. I believe the lefts’ lust for power has always been there but since losing the Presidency and losing many of the control reins they fought so hard and long to acquire, I think they feel there’s little left but to go all in – whatever that means to them. As I’ve mentioned before, those one the front line of the left are nothing more than emotional puppet triggers of the madmen who operate in the background seemingly out of harm’s way. This is where we will determine whether our republic survives or not. There MUST be prosecution and punishment for the many characters who so blatantly ignore our laws with regular impunity. If this does not happen within the next few years, I don’t see how we can avoid some level of a civil war. The stronger the likelihood of the guilty and corrupt facing prosecution, the harder they will fight to strip away our Constitutional rights, in particular the 1st & 2nd amendments. This is in part where they’ve staked out their plans to skate out of harms way. To them, it doesn’t matter who or what is harmed or destroyed as long as they survive.
Fortunately, I believe in a just God. They will pay for their sins one way or another. The tricky part seems to be ready and willing to fight, while at the same time, taking a step back and allowing His plan to unfold.
I agree with Amazona – that’s a very confusing California policy and sexist I might add. What if a woman “feels” like a man but is perfect for the job. Does she still count as a woman?
Keep this in mind – The Democrat party created the KKK and Black Lives Matter ………. and yet Republicans are the racists.
If Republicans are smart (no guarantee) they will exploit the gender conundrum the Dems have created. It could actually be done with a bit of humor, using scenarios like the one you describe, ie., does a woman who “feels” like a man still get gender points for being a woman in any situation (hiring, female-owned business, etc.) where women get preferential treatment? Kind of reminds me of a coffee cup my wife got from a female co-worker years ago. The caption read, “The best man for the job is usually a woman.”
Spook, I like your version. I had only thought of a man saying he felt like a woman, and hadn’t considered the complication of a woman who is genetically a woman but emotionally a man, or however that works. If she cuts off her hair and wears a suit and tie to work and calls herself “Glen” instead of “Glenda” and demands to be allowed to use the men’s locker room, does she still qualify as a woman for board appointment purposes if she passes a gynecological exam?
I’m waiting for a lawsuit from the LGBTQRSTUV “community” for gender discrimination—in this case, for claiming there is such a thing as gender.
It is so much fun to watch the Left devour itself.
Here’s Andrew Gillum blaming rising healthcare costs on Trump:
…….as governor of the state of Florida, I would work to bring a number of the larger states into a conversation around how it is together we might be able to negotiate prices and access healthcare to cover more people. And ensure those of us who are insured, who are right now paying premium increases year over year over year all because Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump —
I just don’t remember Trump saying “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it” …… Gillum either has no brains or no shame ……..
“…Gillum either has no brains or no shame ………..”
So what’s with this either/or conundrum? It’s “no brains AND no shame..”
But wait a minute—haven’t Republicans always said that allowing insurance companies to work across state lines would increase coverage and decrease premiums?
DeSantis needs to pull up the many discussions of that as an alternative to Obamacare, even going back to the fight against Hillarycare, to point out that while is is nice to see a Democrat agreeing that a Republican solution is the right one is it is wrong to simply “appropriate” it as his own idea.
And then point out, perhaps, that in spite of this he is still clinging to the basic structure of the Left, that of a massively powerful Central Authority, in proposing that these “larger states” create and impose regulations that, while being an improvement, are still confining insurance companies to government control. The Republican solution is to simply remove restrictions that prohibit insurance companies from selling across many state lines, expanding the risk pool and therefore reducing individual risk, leading to decreased cost of coverage.
He might even go on to explain that this could, and probably should, eventually lead to separating health insurance from employment, so people could buy insurance at a young age while they are still healthy and then own those policies, no matter where they live or who they work for, meaning that the whole problem of pre-existing conditions goes away because the policy was bought before the condition arose.
This would also mean people would have more freedom to decide where to work, and who to work for, not feeling tied to jobs or companies they don’t like because they fear losing their health insurance coverage. I think that would resonate with a lot of people.
But it should start with the joking claim of “cultural appropriation” as Gillum is appropriating a conservative approach to a problem—-and trying to take credit for it. It could lead to some funny political ads.
Why do companies insist on getting political when it’s highly likely to negatively affect their bottom line?
Payback’s a bitch
Here’s an excerpt from Chuck Todd’s most recent article:
These are real issues, and most journalists labor to correct them. At the other extreme, critics may be accusing journalists of having deliberately and consciously shaped their reporting to serve some political end. That sort of overt bias is far rarer. Ironically, the best example of this kind of bias airs regularly in prime time on Fox News.
And another one:
Figures such as Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and the trio of Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham have attained wealth and power by exploiting the fears of older white people.
Isn’t Todd an “older white person” ……. in fact isn’t the nearly entire line up of MSNBC and CNN pundits “older white people”? Are they immune to Fox’s spell?
After watching the opening minutes of Kavanaugh’s hearing I have one question:
Should we continue to allow progressive Democrats to live in this country?
As I watch the Democrats bitch and moan at the Kavanaugh hearings – I am reminded of how the healthcare bill was passed by Democrats in 2009
Payback IS a bitch
And re: the “woman” the Capital police just led out of the hearing …. I don’t think she will ever have to worry about getting an abortion