Pocahontas wants to be an a"tent"tive attorney.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Last night a "Big Buck" gave a speech. The audience was filled with other deer who seemed to be caught in the headlights of the occasion. They seemed confused and did not know what to do so they sat glumly on their hands, seldom applauded, and/or stood. A large number of the Democrat Doe's were dressed conspicuously in white to bring even more attention to themselves. One even wore a red scarf to signify she belonged to a certain religious order.
These deer seemed to take their cues from another Doe, also dressed in white, who sat behind the "Big Buck." She was engaged, the entire evening, in rattling a raft of papers. This same doe is addressed as Speaker but said very little and remained rather distraught by the entire affair.
As previously noted, these deer belong to a political party called Democrats and currently they are out of sorts with "Big Buck" who gave the speech and is known as America's President. Big Buck belongs to another group called Republicans.
Why are the Democrat Deer angry?
Mainly because "Big Buck" beat their "Big Doe" in a 2016 contest. His behaviour is often crude, unorthodox and his ideas are unique and, worst of all, he wants to build a costly wall. This makes the Democrat Deer very unhappy so they have been attacking him and would like nothing better than to rid America of "Big Buck." Their desires/efforts are supported by a group called the "mass media" and another deer named Mueller
I hope this explanation of what took place in "Deer Park" last night is enlightening. (See 1 and 1a below.)
Based on post speech poling apparently 70 plus% of Americans, who listened, were favorably inclined. More Republicans than Democrats listened, naturally.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Other articles on both sides you can read on your own. Just Google:
By David Freedlander, Politico
b) Offer free health and a college education and eliminate all debt owed by those who have already received an education.
c) Eliminate ICE, allow open borders and take down immoral walls.
d) Retain the stationing of troops in The Middle East and continue fighting the wars in Syria and Afghanistan.
e) Consider reparations to blacks whose families were once enslaved.
f) Eliminate Charter Schools.
g) Withdraw aid to Israel.
h) Eliminate all efforts to rely upon current energy sources and begin the shutting down of oil, gas and coal drilling and shutter all nuclear facilities.
i) Embrace socialism and substitute it for capitalism
j) Approve Federal use of Cannabis, allow illegal immigrants to vote (starting with local matters) and make all abortions legal.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Booker throws the book at an imminently qualified judge. http://
And: (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Trump’s Bipartisan Pitch
1) Trump’s Bipartisan Pitch
Alas, on immigration the President keeps preaching to the converted.
President Trump used his State of the Union address Tuesday to highlight his achievements and make a pitch for bipartisan cooperation in Congress. Overall it was an effective piece of political rhetoric, especially his defense of his tax and deregulation policies and their results. But we doubt he re-framed the political debate in a way that will give Democrats much pause going forward this year.
Amid the daily distractions of Robert Mueller and his Twitter blasts, our guess is that this is the first time millions of Americans heard anything at all about the First Step Act and prison reform. The emotional high point of the speech was his introduction of the two former inmates who became productive in prison and earned their reduced sentences. The political groundwork for criminal-justice reform was laid by others, but it wouldn’t have happened without Mr. Trump’s endorsement.
The biggest disappointment was his failure to re-frame the immigration debate. He faces another government shutdown deadline at the end of next week over funding for the border. Yet, he merely repeated his familiar parade of horribles about the border, the caravans moving north, and illegal immigrants who commit crimes. He is preaching to the converted and persuading no one else.
At least he added a grace note about legal immigrants and said they could come “in the largest numbers ever,” without any details. But he offered Democrats nothing about the Dreamers or anything else on immigration that would make them want to bend on funding “the wall.”
Mr. Trump sounded like someone who expects no compromise on immigration and thinks it will remain a stalemate through the next election. We may be headed to another pointless shutdown next week, or Mr. Trump’s declaration of a “national emergency” that would unite Democrats in opposition but divide Republicans. Mr. Trump will probably be talking about the wall for two more long years, which is not where he wants to be politically.
Mr. Trump made bipartisan offers to Democrats on some of their priorities—controlling drug prices, public works, family leave. But the divide on details between the two parties is so large on these issues that they are unlikely to become law. That’s just as well because anything that could pass this Democratic House is likely to do more harm to businesses than good for consumers and workers.
Our vote for the self-discipline prize goes to Bernie Sanders, the socialist Vermont Senator, who betrayed merely the hint of a wry smile when Mr. Trump said the U.S. “will never be a socialist country.” The 2020 campaign begins.
1a) Democrats Just Can't Stop Playing Their 'Woman Card'
According to the legion of leftist pundits, America has suffered a loss due to Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the 2016 Presidential elections. According to them, and Mrs. Clinton herself, one of the reasons this gruesome mishap has happened, is a sexism of Americans.
“I started the campaign knowing that I would have to work extra hard to make women and men feel comfortable with the idea of a woman president,” Mrs. Clinton told CBS’s Jane Pauley, when reflecting on the causes of her defeat.
Many feminists agree that it was a rampant sexism of voters that cost her the presidency. “What actually happened to Hillary Clinton reeks of misogyny,” wrote Rachael Revesz in The Independent. “It reeks so badly that you can smell it stronger than a sniffer dog can suss out crack cocaine.” Later, Hillary complained that women don’t support each other as much as ethnic minorities do – which allowed for Obama’s election, but not hers. The other problem, as indicated by Mrs. Clinton, was that women let themselves be pushed around by their husbands, fathers, boyfriends and male bosses “not to vote for the ‘girl’.”
Hillary, who deliberately emphasized her gender during the campaign and positioned herself as a champion of women’s rights and vigorously played the “woman card,” found herself a victim of negative gender stereotypes. Undoubtedly, in the heated struggle of 2016, Hillary was judged by her “woman” attributes – such as style, facial expressions, and “shrill” voice – but does it mean that it was the primal factor that “stole an election” from her in favor of “toxically masculine” Donald Trump?
Political scientists will tell you that women do just fine at the ballot box. “Being a woman doesn’t hurt you in an election,” says Kathleen Dolan, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. When women run for political office, they win at about the same rate men do. Likewise, a candidate’s gender doesn’t seem to affect the amount of money she is able to raise for her campaign – and Hillary proved it herself. And, should she fumble in her leadership, she isn’t judged more harshly than her male counterparts.
Monica Schneider, associate professor of political science at Miami University, points out at that numerous studies that found that, while Americans hold gender stereotypes about women’s traits and they hold gendered ideas about certain political issues, neither of those things seem to affect the way people vote. “On the whole, sexism doesn’t have a huge impact on whether women get elected,” Schneider says, “Instead, political party is the primary factor people consider when voting, followed by incumbency.”
Thus, it wasn’t Hillary being a “girl” that made her lose, even despite her outraising and outspending her opponent by hundreds of millions of dollars and having commercial airwaves practically all for herself – it was her being a deeply corrupt and power-hungry Beltway insider. She lost as a candidate, not as a woman-candidate. Americans, those pitiful deplorables, were wiser than Hillary thought of them and saw her through.
Now, less than two years prior to 2020 elections, the left continues to play the “woman card.”
In the recent Huff Post’s op-ed “She’s not ‘The One’: the antidote to sexism in the race toward the presidency,” Emma Gray argues that being the only woman running for the America’s highest office hurt Hillary Clinton. But now, there are several potential female candidates, -- including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) who have launched serious presidential campaigns, along with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii); Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is also reportedly mulling over a bid. Thus, chances of a woman to become a president are much higher. “These women span the ideological spectrum of the Democratic Party — and just maybe in 2020, the sheer number of them out on the campaign trail and on the debate stage, expressing a variety of political views, even arguing with each other while displaying a variety of demeanors, will force voters to look at women politicians as individual candidates, rather than as avatars for 52 percent of the population,” assumes Gray.
However, even a brief study of the key issues raised by the candidates are strikingly identical -- they do not “span the ideological spectrum of the Democratic Party” much. “Medicare For All”; ban assault weapons; open borders and elimination of ICE; free college education; expansion of abortion access – “reproductive rights,” as they deceivingly put it; fight the “climate change”; groundless criticism of the Trump’s economic policies despite their proven efficiency. The candidates have some differences over taxation, although most of them lean towards higher rates; and over foreign policy – whether or not we should withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan. Clearly, a diversity of thought is not a virtue in the Democratic camp!
There may be five, ten, twenty Democratic women candidates – what would matter for the sane voter, is their ability to be an effective leader of the country, not their private parts.
Identity politics that is so widely promoted by the left, or the expectation of the certain groups divided on the basis on their gender, skin color, sexual orientation, etc., to vote blue, keeps failing. It fails not because people are ignorant and can’t see how Democrats champion their rights, -- they don’t! – but simply because most people refuse to embrace a victim mentality. The #WalkAway campaign that encouraged people to leave the divisive Democratic Party was a stark example of it.
The left seems to be too stubborn to learn the lesson that it is not gender, race or any other “minority” card that wins the elections. It is respect and proven ability to defend and promote basic American values – personal freedom, individualism, and free market. That is what made America the greatest nation of Earth. And if a candidate who truly believes in it happens to wear a lipstick, so be it, she may count on my vote just as much as a candidate who wears a tie. But until the Democrats come to their senses and quit adopting unnatural and purely dangerous socialist rhetoric and policies, no number of beautiful ladies on the stage can change my mind.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) The Kavanaughing of Neomi Rao By Jeremy Carl
By Ruth King
Rao is an outstanding nominee who, like many other conservatives, is not being attacked for her faults, but for her virtues.
If you were to design a perfect judge for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a laboratory, that judge would look like Neomi Rao. The D.C. Circuit, the nation’s second most important court, is the leading court in which administrative-law decisions are made and one that has exclusive jurisdiction over many federal regulatory agencies. As it happens, Rao currently serves as an extraordinarily effective head of the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), from which she spearheads the Trump administration’s approach to regulatory policy.
Rao came to OIRA with deep expertise in regulatory policy, having founded the Center for the Study for the Administrative State at George Mason. A graduate of Yale and the University of Chicago Law School, she clerked for Justice Thomas and the highly respected appeals-court judge J. Harvie Wilkinson.
Rao can view legal issues not just from the perspective of her current perch, but also as a former counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) on the Senate Judiciary committee and as a counselor to former president George W. Bush. Furthermore, she has valuable experience in private practice both domestically and internationally.
But beyond her sterling qualifications and background, I have a bit of a different perspective on her nomination, as I have known Neomi Rao since we were 18-year-old freshmen at Yale. We were both very active in the Yale Political Union, the often-fractious central clearinghouse for campus politics where Neomi was the opposite of a bomb thrower. As a political conservative on a predominantly liberal campus (a tribe I wouldn’t join until after my college years), Neomi stood out. But while there were no shortage of liberals and conservatives at Yale who enjoyed being provocative, even obnoxiously so, Neomi was not among them.
Instead Neomi, who even as an 18-year-old was serious and interested in ideas, was unfailingly collegial to students of all different backgrounds, experiences, and political perspectives. Unlike so many of my classmates, I never saw her lose her temper or composure in a political disagreement.
While Rao is unanimously supported by all of her conservative campus contemporaries of whom I am aware, it is notable that a letter in support of her nomination among our classmates was circulated to me by a confirmed Trump-hater who has given to the Democrats in six figures, and was also signed by many other students who may not share Neomi’s political views, but appreciate her fundamental decency and integrity.
Little surprise that, faced with the possibility of having a supremely qualified 45-year-old Indian-American woman in such a prominent position, D.C.’s left-wing groups are waging an all-out campaign to stop her nomination.
For this reason, the hit pieces came out early in an explicit political strategy, as noted in a recent article in Politico and elsewhere. Left-wing organizations such as People for the American Way accused Rao of having a “dangerously reactionary view of the Constitution,” while the hyperventilating NAACP called her nomination “an insult to all Americans,” inventing a nonexistent history of Rao’s supposed “years of vile comments against our most vulnerable communities” that seemed to focus particularly on Rao’s opposition to affirmative action and other race-based preferences.
Having little of substance to actually attack in Neomi’s professional career and legal writings, most of these shameless hit pieces target Rao’s student writings as a Yale undergraduate for various campus newspapers, ridiculously mischaracterizing them in the process and declaring her, inter alia, “an apologist for sexual assault.”
While one hesitates to even treat such obviously political attacks as representing something intellectually serious, It is rather remarkable that these alleged “feminists” leveling such critiques seem to feel that young women are incapable of taking any sort of responsibility for their own actions and thus must be heavily protected, an attitude toward women that is more Victorian than it is modern and is certainly the antithesis of the message of female empowerment I want to teach my daughters as they grow up.
“A man who rapes a drunk girl should be prosecuted. At the same time, a good way to avoid a potential date rape is to stay reasonably sober.” — reads one allegedly offensive passage. For the extreme leftists in our media and academia, such statements may signify that the world of The Handmaid’s Tale is nigh. But if you’re a sane or normal person, this is exactly the sort of common sense you’d like your own kids to embrace.
Further, examining Rao’s other allegedly “controversial” college writings on subjects like affirmative action and feminism, one simply encounters a thoughtful and unapologetic conservative, one who was brave enough to ask difficult questions and question liberal orthodoxies that prevailed at Yale, then as now. In these campus publications, we were students writing for other students, discussing our views, and trying to convince our friends of our positions. Even for those who might find an occasional sophomore opinion of Rao’s to be sophomoric — well, if everyone who wrote anything disagreeable in a student publication was banned from public office, we’d lose almost everyone to public life who wrote anything interesting at all and be stuck with hopeless bores and hackish careerists who were so busy plotting their world takeover at age 18 that, like Bill Clinton, they were already parsing every word and action to ensure their “political viability within the system.”
In contrast, the sort of willingness to participate in intellectual give and take with those who think differently, such as Neomi did constantly in college, is exactly what we should be looking for from a federal judge.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page understands the stakes of Rao’s nomination, which is why they have weighed in in strong support of her and against the Left’s thuggish tactics. The Journal is absolutely right that “If the Senate rejects a nominee as qualified as Ms. Rao, it will have descended one rung lower in the confirmation inferno.” Conservatives need to be paying attention — Rao is an outstanding nominee who, like many other conservatives, is not being attacked for her faults, but for her virtues.
More important, failure to confirm Rao will be yet another blow against political civility in D.C. As Fox’s Stuart Varney noted in his take on Rao for Fox News, “How long are we going to tolerate the sliming of decent people?”
I can testify first-hand that Neomi, besides having an outstanding professional background and judicial temperament, is a thoroughly decent person.
The entire country will benefit from her intellect — and her decency, if the GOP Senate caucus stays strong and confirms her to the D.C. Circuit.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment