Femi-Nazi

Took the XY 46 Seconds | #WarOnWomen

Published by Papa Giorgio

Damon Imani on Angela Carini losing to Imane Khelif in just 46 seconds in a women’s boxing match at the 2024 Olympics in Paris.

Here are some of my pics I cobbled together:

What is the response by the Left?

  • This is VOX’s [read here, typical Democrat] use of the race card to dismiss nature or nature’s God. It is all the Left has, per their modus operandi: demean and slander in order to dismiss without having to encounter sound evidences/arguments.

HOT-AIR has this:

Everybody I don’t like is Hitler, and every opinion I don’t like is Nazism. 

That, my friends, is what leftists think, and there are no limits to their weirdness. 

Are you a Nazi? Even if you don’t think you are, you are simply fooling yourself. Everybody who hasn’t rioted, looted, chopped off anybody’s genitals, or supported those who have had it done is a Nazi too. 

A you not a member of the Communist Party or at least the Democratic Socialists? You are likely a Nazi. Have you kissed a person of the opposite sex? Do you have a coherent answer to the question “what is a woman?”

Nazi. 

Nazi Nazi Nazi.

That, my friends, is the state of our discourse, or at least it is when you are talking with a leftist. …..

(Read It All)

SOUTH PARK

One NCAA Coach’s Battle to Protect Women’s Sports

Published by Papa Giorgio

Everyone expects the “Spanish Inquisition” nowadays because this is the tactic of the Left to silence common sense and disagreement. And science… biology.

In fact, I am sure more people [by far] have been affected — burned at the stake in todays modern parlance — in 10-years than the real Spanish Inquisition in it’s entirety. During the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, between 3,000-5,000* people were sentenced to death (about 1 per month). The Church executed no one. Still horrible, but the Left has literally killed thru “communal governments” [communism and fascism] many [many] more people in 100 years; and now through modern-day witch hunts.

Kim Russell was gaslit, chastised into silence, and forced to express remorse by college administrators for opposing males competing in women’s sports. Here’s why she refuses to apologize.

The DAILY CALLER has more:

Kim Russell, the head women’s lacrosse team coach at Oberlin College in Ohio, spoke out against the college for retaliating against her after she shared a social media post critical of male athletes participating in women’s sports, according to a video released by Independent Women’s Forum on Tuesday.

Russell shared a social media post on her personal Instagram account in support of Emma Weyant, who had placed second behind former transgender athlete Lia Thomas during the 500-yard freestyle at the 2022 NCAA women’s swimming championship, after the competition took place, she said in a video interview with Independent Women’s Forum. A student athlete forwarded the post to the college’s athletic director, who brought Russell in for several meetings with administrators and students where she was chastised for her views.

“I felt like I was burned at the stake. I felt like I was stoned and hanged all at the same time,” Russell said in the video, recalling a meeting held with the team. “It was what I would call the mob mentality . . . That meeting turned into anybody being able to say anything they didn’t like about my coaching style or my assistant’s coaching, anything.”

[….]

Russell still works at Oberlin College, but is unsure of how long she will continue to have a job at the college, according to USA TODAY. She admitted that going public with her story might result in negative repercussions, but wanted to speak out so that other women would feel empowered to stand up for themselves, she told the outlet.

“Right now I feel like women are afraid to speak up for women because they’re afraid to be canceled and afraid to be looked at as a part of a hate group when this is not about hate,” Russell told USA Today.

A 2023 survey found that nearly 70% of Americans do not support transgender athletes competing in categories outside of their biological gender, according to NBC News.

* In recent years, however, the Vatican opened up its secret archives for historical investigation. Inquisition records that were made by and for the Inquisition were allowed to be researched for the first time in history. Since then, the above facts have been generally discoverable in modern history books (whether Catholic or not). Corrected Inquisition history can be found in sources such as Inquisition by Edward Peters and The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision by Henry Kamen. Comparative secular documentaries include The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition (BBC) and the more sensationalistic The Spanish Inquisition (History Channel).

The years in which the Inquisition was extremely active was between 1480 and 1530. Henry Kamen estimates about 2,000 executed, based on the documentation of the autos-da-fé, the great majority being conversos of Jewish origin. He offers striking statistics: 91.6% of those judged in Valencia between 1484 and 1530 and 99.3% of those judged in Barcelona between 1484 and 1505 were of Jewish origin. (WIKI, and Kamen’s book).

converso, (Spanish: “converted”), one of the Spanish Jews who adopted the Christian religion after a severe persecution in the late 14th and early 15th centuries and the expulsion of religious Jews from Spain in the 1490s. In the minds of many Roman Catholic churchmen the conversos were still identified as Jews, partly because they remained within the Jewish communities in the cities and partly because their occupations (merchants, doctors, tailors) had been monopolized by the Spanish Jewish people. Such identification caused many Christians to regard conversos as a subversive force within the church.

In 1499 a staunch and somewhat fanatical Roman Catholic, Pedro Sarmiento, wrote the anti-Semitic Sentencia-Estatuto, which prohibited conversos from holding public or ecclesiastical offices and from testifying against Spanish Christians in courts of law. That statute was followed by the 16th-century laws of purity of blood (limpieza de sangre) which further strengthened the laws against anyone of Jewish ancestry and were more racial than religious in nature. It was not until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that some of the legalized prejudice against Jews in Spain was modified.

(ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA) 

Here is Kamen’s commentary on the death toll:

In Castile the incidence of executions was probably higher. In the auto de fe at Ciudad Real on 23 February 1484, thirty people were burnt alive and forty in effigy; in the auto at Valladolid on 5 January 1492, thirty-two were burnt alive. The executions were, however, sporadic and concentrated only in the early years. In rounded terms, it is likely that over three-quarters of all those who perished under the Inquisition in the three centuries of its existence, did so in the first half-century. Lack of documentation, however, makes it impossible to arrive at totally reliable figures.  One good estimate, based on documentation of the autos de fe, is that 250 people were burnt in person in the Toledo tribunal between 1485 and 1501 . Since this tribunal and that of Seville and Jaen were among the few in Castile to have had an intense level of activity, it would not be improbable to suggest a figure five times higher, around one thousand persons, as a rough total for those executed in the tribunals of Castile in the early period. Taking into account all the tribunals of Spain up to about 1530, it is unlikely that more than two thousand people were executed for heresy by the Inquisition.

Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (London, England: Yale University Press, 1997), 59-60.

Deadly Altruism Marks the Left | Illiberal Egalitarianism

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Originally Posted May 5, 2015)

UPDATED MEDIA The original file can be found at Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co (HERE). I am uploading it here because there is no insurance that Bearing’s channel will stay up on YouTube. It is for my post, “Deadly Altruism Marks the Left ~ Illiberal Egalitarianism and the NYFD”

SOME COMMENTS FROM THE ABOVE VIDEO:

  • The same thing happened to my Forest Service initial attack crew back in 2001.  We had a 5’0″ 100lbs female who wanted on our crew.  We had physical standards tests we had to pass.  One was a simple three mile “hike” around a high school track with a mere 45lbs and our line gear.  She was simply too small and not strong enough to make the time.  Our overhead wanted more female representation so they passed her anyway.  All summer long she was given the cushy assignments, all while being paid the same as the rest of us.  It put us a person down all summer.  It also created divisions within our crew.  A rookie who got to do all the easy stuff while my squad of ass-kickers had to work even harder because we were a person short (no pun intended).
  • I was a fireman for over 35 years I worked with several woman, most of them did not have the upper body strength to do the job. Also these were younger women. At 35 years old and cannot pass the physical exam she will be pretty much useless on the scene. She will be a burden to her fellow firefighters she will most likely transfer to a job outside of operations where she won’t have to physically fight fires.  She will put other people’s life in danger because she cannot do the job, she sounds like a very selfish and self-centered person.

This comes by way of HOTAIR and makes clear that whatever the left touches, it destroys:

This promises to turn into a sticky wicket for the New York City Fire Department. One of their upcoming graduates is going to be accepted into the ranks and go to work as a firefighter despite having failed a grueling physical test multiple times. This comes as a result of recent changes to the city’s criteria for how graduates are scored.

Rebecca Wax, 33, is set to graduate Tuesday from the Fire Academy without passing the Functional Skills Training test, a grueling obstacle course of job-related tasks performed in full gear with a limited air supply, an insider has revealed.

“They’re going to allow the first person to graduate without passing because this administration has lowered the standard,” said the insider, who is familiar with the training.

Upon graduation, Wax would be assigned to a firehouse and tasked with the full duties of a firefighter. Some FDNY members are angry.

“We’re being asked to go into a fire with someone who isn’t 100 percent qualified,” the source said. “Our job is a team effort. If there’s a weak link in the chain, either civilians or our members can die.”

…..[she] failed to complete… climbing in full gear while carrying heavy equipment, rescuing victims in zero visibility, breaking down doors, and doing it all while breathing oxygen from a tank on a limited timer….

…read more…

This brings to memory two quotes that bring the point home, a point that a reader on my FaceBook blog pointed out:

  • “Hopefully the first person she has to LIFT out of a burning building will be a feminist…because obviously it will not matter, that she is unqualified.”

If there is indeed a social revolution under way, it shouldn’t stop with women’s choice to honor their [own] nature. It must also include a newfound respect for men. It was New York City’s firemen who dared to charge up the stairs of the burning Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The death tally of New York City’s firefighters was: men 343, women 0. Can anyone honestly say you would have wanted a woman coming to your rescue on that fateful day?

Suzanne Venker & Phyllis Schlafly, The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say (Washington, D.C.: WND Books, 2011), 181-182.

Here is the “CS LEWIS” of politics:

There is a Liberal sentiment that it should also punish those who take more than their “fair share.” But what is their fair share? (Shakespeare suggests that each should be treated not according to his deserts, but according to God’s mercy, or none of us would escape whipping.)

The concept of Fairness, for all its attractiveness to sentiment, is a dangerous one (cf. quota hiring and enrollment, and talk of “reparations”). Deviations from the Law, which is to say the Constitution, to accommodate specifically alleged identity-group injustices will all inevitably be expanded, universalized, and exploited until there remains no law, but only constant petition of Government.

We cannot live in peace without Law. And though law cannot be perfect, it may be just if it is written in ignorance of the identity of the claimants and applied equally to all. Then it is a possession not only of the claimants but of the society, which may now base its actions upon a reasonable assumption of the law’s treatment.

But “fairness” is not only a nonlegal but an antilegal process, for it deals not with universally applicable principles and strictures, but with specific cases, responding to the perceived or proclaimed needs of individual claimants, and their desire for extralegal preference. And it could be said to substitute fairness (a determination which must always be subjective) for justice (the application of the legislated will of the electorate), is to enshrine greed—the greed, in this case, not for wealth, but for preference. The socialistic spirit of the Left indicts ambition and the pursuit of wealth as Greed, and appeals, supposedly on behalf of “the people,” to the State for “fairness.”….

….But such fairness can only be the non-Constitutional intervention of the State in the legal, Constitutional process—awarding, as it sees fit, money (reparations), preferment (affirmative action), or entertainment (confiscation)….

….“Don’t you care?” is the admonition implicit in the very visage of the Liberals of my acquaintance on their understanding that I have embraced Conservatism. But the Talmud understood of old that good intentions can lead to evil—vide Busing, Urban Renewal, Affirmative Action, Welfare, et cetera, to name the more immediately apparent, and not to mention the, literally, tens of thousands of Federal and State statutes limiting freedom of trade, which is to say, of the right of the individual to make a living, and, so earn that wealth which would, in its necessary expenditure, allow him to provide a living to others….

…. I recognized that though, as a lifelong Liberal, I endorsed and paid lip service to “social justice,” which is to say, to equality of result, I actually based the important decisions of my life—those in which I was personally going to be affected by the outcome—upon the principle of equality of opportunity; and, further, that so did everyone I knew. Many, I saw, were prepared to pay more taxes, as a form of Charity, which is to say, to hand off to the Government the choice of programs and recipients of their hard-earned money, but no one was prepared to be on the short end of the failed Government pro-grams, however well-intentioned. (For example—one might endorse a program giving to minorities preference in award of government contracts; but, as a business owner, one would fight to get the best possible job under the best possible terms regardless of such a program, and would, in fact, work by all legal and, perhaps by semi- or illegal means to subvert any program that enforced upon the proprietor a bad business decision.)*

Further, one, in paying the government to relieve him of a feeling of social responsibility, might not be bothered to question what in fact constituted a minority, and whether, in fact, such minority contracts were actually benefiting the minority so enshrined, or were being subverted to shell corporations and straw men.†

* No one would say of a firefighter, hired under rules reducing the height requirement, and thus unable to carry one’s child to safety, “Nonetheless, I am glad I voted for that ‘more fair’ law.”

† As, indeed, they are, or, in the best case, to those among the applicants claiming eligibility most capable of framing, supporting, or bribing their claims to the front of the line. All claims cannot be met. The politicians and bureaucrats discriminating between claims will necessarily favor those redounding to their individual or party benefit—so the eternal problem of “Fairness,” supposedly solved by Government distribution of funds, becomes, yet again and inevitably, a question of graft.

David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 116-117, 12

And here is some good commentary by JULIE BOROWSKI:

…The young woman couldn’t complete the job-related obstacle course in that allotted amount of time. She only completed the course once after multiple attempts and it took her 22 minutes.

She failed and she shouldn’t be graduating.

This shouldn’t be about sparing feelings.

Look, nothing against her personally. Being a firefighter clearly isn’t for everyone. It’s physically demanding work. A firefighter who doesn’t meet the stringent physical standards could put other firefighters and civilians in harm’s way.

This comes at a time when the fire department is under pressure by Mayor de Blasio to hire more women. They have even gone so far as making the FST test easier to avoid sex discrimination lawsuits.

Unbelievable….

….It doesn’t help them that the FDNY is hiring women who, frankly, aren’t capable of performing the job because they didn’t pass the test. I’m sure the 44 female firefighters in New York City aren’t too pleased about their work being devalued.

Physical fitness tests are not sexist. It is sexist to hire someone based on their gender, though.

…read it all… (Dead Site)

Narcissists Use Government To “Act Out” Their Malcontent

Published by Papa Giorgio

This first part is really a set up to add context to the more important aspect of the conversation I listened to between Scott Adams and Dr. Drew. While I do not subscribe to everything discussed herein, I believe that what is discussed can help pastors and people who disciple others better note and respond to our cultural “rumblings.” The Bible calls it pride, but yes, “everyone else is to blame and the battle is not me and my sin nature.” Excellent conversation. (The full Dr. Drew episode can be found HERE)

I would not have uploaded that portion to my RUMBLE if it weren’t for this “2nd PART” I isolated by itself. This is a major explanation in my mind’s eye and even the noting of the majority women is something Prager notes that it is predominantly women destroying education and leading the #WOKE mobs.

(THE PIC IS JUST FOR LAUGHS, IT ADDS NO INSIGHT OR CONSTRUCTIVE VALUE OTHER THAN AN LOL — THE LINK IN THE PIC IS SERIOUS HOWEVER)

….Feminist groups describe the state of American women in dire terms. Young middle-class and upper-class women, many attending the most expensive universities — paid for by their parents — are among the greatest malcontents in American life.

In fact, women today, including young women, who lead lives the very opposite of those described in “The Feminine Mystique,” are about twice as likely to be depressed as men. And that statistic is true for women across all economic, racial and ethnic groups.

So, then, what was my big and troubling thought?

If women are as likely — perhaps more likely — to complain about being oppressed today when they aren’t oppressed as they did when they were oppressed, and if women today are nearly twice as likely as men to be depressed, and if women at elite colleges — where they are pampered and more assured a financially successful future than most men living now or who lived in the past — are particularly angry and malcontented, simple logic suggests two choices: Either women remain as oppressed as in the past, or women tend to be malcontents.

Given that the reality is that American women — especially the ones who do the most complaining — are not oppressed, we are left to conclude that the female of the human species may tend toward being malcontents. The simple-minded will respond to this exactly as they were indoctrinated to respond — not by asking, “Is it true?” but by accusing the person who offers this suggestion of sexism and misogyny.

So, allow me to respond in advance: This is no more an attack on women than describing men’s nature as aggressive is an attack on men. Each sex has built-in issues that an individual has to overcome in order to develop into a mature and good person. Men have to deal with aggression and the sexual predatory aspect of male nature in order to develop into mature and good men. Women have to overcome the power of their emotions and their chronic malcontentedness in order to mature into good women. But in our disordered society — a society that has rejected wisdom — in raising their children, two generations of Americans have told only their sons, not their daughters, that they had to fight their nature. The feminization of society has brought with it the destructive notion that only males have to suppress their nature. Feminists really believe females are superior, so why would women have to fight any aspect of their inherently beautiful nature?……

(DENNIS PRAGER, “Are Women Malcontents?”)

SEE MORE HERE:

Be A Man They Said (Blue Collar Logic)

Published by Papa Giorgio

If you saw the video titled ‘Be A Lady They said,’ you need to watch this. If you haven’t, you still need to watch this. Here’s the Simple Truth.

Star Wars Failing | A Female Thor (and More)

Published by Papa Giorgio

So between the failure of Solo, the divisiveness of The Last Jedi and the falling interest in Galaxy’s Edge, our good friends in the news media have concluded that Disney Star Wars isn’t doing too well. And I for one am shocked!

Great news! I was so pleased to learn that we’ll finally be getting what we all wanted in Marvel Phase 4 – a female Thor.

So I was excited to hear that talks between Sony and Marvel have broken down, and as a result there will be no more Spider-Man movies in the MCU. This can only be good news, right?

Star Wars: The Last Jedi, what a truly incredible trainwreck. Rian Johnson’s complete inability to craft anything even resembling meaningful (or coherent) plotline is truly remarkable to behold. Six months out from this farce, let’s take a closer look at everything that went wrong.

RED LETTER MEDIA

FLASHBACK

(RED LETTER MEDIA) Finally it’s here! The truly epic review/critique/analysis/film making educational video of the 1999 film “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace” There was so much to discuss with this film it had to be long so please don’t complain. If you think it’s too long then don’t watch it. In this opening segment I discuss the major flaw of The Phantom Menace which is the characters and the lack of connection with the audience.

Silencing Women… Conservative Women

Published by Papa Giorgio

In the mainstream media, women on the left are almost always portrayed as paragons of compassion and virtue. But when it comes to conservative women, it’s a different story. Why is this? Heather Higgins, chairman of Independent Women’s Forum and CEO of Independent Women’s Voice, explains the reasons behind the double standard.

Naomi Wolf Realizes Her Book Is #Fakenews (UPDATE)

Published by Papa Giorgio

DAILY CALLER has the story:

A former advisor to Bill Clinton and Al Gore may have set a record for fastest discrediting of a book when a BBC interviewer showed her the central thesis was based on a misreading of legal terminology.

Naomi Wolf’s book, “Outrages: Sex, Censorship, and the Criminalization of Love,” which is not even out for another month, makes the claim that the British government continued to execute people for sodomy long after it was previously thought the practice ended. Wolf looked at records from the Old Bailey and saw the term “death recorded,” a term she realizes in this interview actually refers to cases in which a sentence of death is passed but suspended.

Wolf claims to have found “several dozen executions.” Her research, she claims, “corrects a misapprehension that is in every website that the last man was executed for sodomy in Britain in 1835.”

“I don’t think you’re right about this,” the BBC’s Matthew Sweet replied to her in the interview.

The presenter pointed to the case of Thomas Silver in 1859. Wolf claims in her book that Silver was executed, but he was not. “Death recorded” meant that a judge used judicial discretion to suspend a death sentence, a practice in use since the 1820s.

“I don’t think any of the executions you’ve identified here actually happened,” Sweet added.

“That’s a really important thing to investigate,” Wolf replied

Sweet also added that the offense in question hardly makes a good example of same-sex love being criminalized, as it involved a 14 year-old’s “indecent assault” on a six year-old boy……..

Same As Above – Just YouTube

MORE…

Naomi Wolf’S New Book A Complete Misunderstanding | An Author’s Greatest Nightmare Unfolded On Live Radio.

…Wow. That’s simply mortifying. It is, I suppose, a peril of being the sort of author that Wolf represents: a talented writer who lights on a topic of interest and then cranks out a book, rather than an expert in a subject that writes within their field.

Her publisher is standing by her in the most bizarre way possible:

The book hits U.S. stands on June 18, according to the Amazon listing. A Houghton Mifflin Harcourt spokesperson offered this statement: “While HMH employs professional editors, copyeditors, and proofreaders for each book project, we rely ultimately on authors for the integrity of their research and fact-checking. Despite this unfortunate error we believe the overall thesis of the book Outrages still holds. We are discussing corrections with the author.”

The entire premise of the book is wrong. Now, it remains true that homosexuals have been treated horribly over a span of centuries, including by the medical community and the legal system. But it’s not true that we were until recently executing people for it in the West….

UPDATE…

PJ-MEDIA has a great story on two fabricating authors, Wolf and Wolff in sheep’s clothing:

Let’s turn our attention for a moment to two authors, Wolf and Wolff. Feminist icon Naomi Wolf is reeling from a nonfiction fiasco that has caused her horrible and very public embarrassment. Irresponsible fictionalizer Michael Wolff is apparently incapable of shame.

What do they have in common? Not much, beyond the fact that they’re both bi-coastal elites who share a loathing for President Donald Trump.

In Wolf’s case, a perfect encapsulation of the PR nightmare befalling her latest work is presented by the Post Millennial’s Libby Emmons in “Naomi Wolf Was Destroyed by Her Research Bias.” While an author is ultimately responsible for fact-checking content, in this case, the “research bias” runs deep. The book started out as a thesis paper, which means it had to have been green-lit by both academia and New York publishing to ever see the light of day. These gatekeepers, steeped in leftist bias, failed to catch the monumental error that serves as the premise of Wolf’s book: the assertion that homosexuals were executed in Victorian England.

As for Wolff, how Trump could have allowed such an individual to plant himself on a couch in the West Wing for an extended period of time in quest of a truth-challenged tell-all is something that heartland Trumpservatives will never understand. Steve Bannon had a lot to do with it, and we all know how that turned out.

Unlike the chattering classes who would see traditionalist, sovereign America overrun and enervated in the name of globalism, Trump’s ardent supporters are not interested in gossipy, inconsequential trash-talk among members of the so-called cultural and managerial elite. Who gives a damn what Omarosa Newman or Rupert Murdoch think of the president or vice versa?  That Mr. Trump has kept promises and keeps trying to keep promises on issues they care about is what matters.

Trump’s base had no use or respect for Wolff’s first anti-Trump effort, Fire and Fury, an admittedly fictionalized, preventable screed that earned for the unverifiable muckraker a place in the earnings stratosphere with authors like Stephen King and J.K. Rowling.

Wolff’s latest, the sure-to-be wildly imagined Siege: Trump Under Fire, has already been called out for bold-faced prevarication by, of all entities, Robert Mueller’s team. Wolff knew he would be denied access to the White House for his “sequel,” (like he should have been the first time) but that didn’t stop him (why should it?) from penning another alleged tome full of cowardly hearsay from a collection of anonymous sources.

Flip the script: an almost-famous conservative author gathers salacious dirt from unnamed sources who claim to have firsthand knowledge that former President Barack Obama had numerous homosexual liaisons while in college, and then puts it in a book.

When asked to back up his reporting, the conservative author says, “I’m not a journalist, and such journalistic strictures do not apply to me. Besides, it seems like it could be true, right?”

That’s Michael Wolff. That’s what he does to earn his multi-million-dollar living…..

(READ IT ALL)

Women for Kavanaugh (The Red Wave)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Hugh Hewitt this morning asked only for first time women callers to call in — he had over 30 women chime in. A truck driver (widow) with 6-children. A couple psychologists as well as a few prosecutors, lawyers, house wives etc. They were all for Kavanaugh, and many said they would be horrified if this happened to their sons. Others had only girls and are in full support of Kavanaugh. Some said they were never interested in politics like they are after a good man had his life destroyed.

PJ-MEDIA has an excellent post and video:

Fallout from the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and the now-debunked allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford has expanded the divide not only between Republicans and Democrats, but among women — the very group Democrats hoped to motivate for this year’s midterms.

As I’ve covered the hearings and the circus surrounding them, I’ve heard a constant refrain — conservative women are furious about the false allegations leveled against Kavanaugh. They resent the feminist call to believe the woman and thereby assume the man’s guilt simply because he is a member of the male collective.

Feminists have made a mistake assuming that they speak for all women. They don’t.

Many of us are mothers. We have sons whom we love and would defend to our last drop of blood.

We have husbands, fathers, brothers, and male friends we hold in high esteem. Kavanaugh referenced these relationships during his testimony when he pleaded with the committee to consider how they would respond if this happened to a man they loved.

Women across the country applauded, identifying more with Kavanaugh than Ford’s tearless, detached performance laced with inconsistencies, contradictions, and uncorroborated evidence….

  • “A majority of voters believe that Kavanaugh’s confirmation process was politicized and mishandled, with 69% calling it a ‘national disgrace,’” a poll from the respected Harvard CAPS – Harris group just found.

Voters are surprisingly unified when it comes to one thing: Chastising Feinstein for her role in the debacle.

  • “75% of voters believe that Senator Diana Feinstein (sic) should have immediately turned over the letter from Christine Ford to the Senate Judiciary committee in July, when she received it,” the Harvard CAPS – Harris poll found.

(CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE)

Even the Leftist rag SLATE has to admit November is looking like a “red wave”:

The accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh are widely perceived to be a boon to Democrats heading into the midterm elections in November. “The women of this country identify with Dr. Ford and will not forget what is happening here,” Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, told NBC News over the weekend. “They are not angry, they are furious, and I expect the largest women’s turnout in a midterm—ever.”

In fact, however, the Kavanaugh spectacle seems to have evaporated the Democrats’ enthusiasm edge, according to a poll conducted Monday by NPR, PBS NewsHour, and Marist. In July Democrats were likelier, by 10 percentage points, to say the November elections were “very important.” That gap has now narrowed to a statistical tie. “The result of the hearings, at least in the short run, is the Republican base was awakened,” Marist head Lee Miringoff told NPR.

The change is particularly striking when comparing women in the two parties. Of all the cohorts measured by the poll (including Independent men and women), Democratic women are the only group to display less enthusiasm for the midterms this week than they did in July. Meanwhile, Republican women seem invigorated. In July, 81 percent of Democratic women said the November elections were very important, compared to 71 percent of Republican women. Now, Republican women are 4 percentage points likelier to view the midterms that way (83 percent to 79 percent). That’s a 14-point swing in female voters’ interest in the midterms—after the hearings, and in Republicans’ favor.

The titanic anger of progressive women has been a dominant theme in the media since President Trump’s surprise victory over Hillary Clinton two years ago. Two major books about female rage have been published this fall, including Good and Mad by writer and reporter Rebecca Traister. “This political moment has provoked a period in which more and more women have been in no mood to dress their fury up as anything other than raw and burning rage,” Traister wrote in the New York Times on Saturday. “Many women are yelling, shouting, using Sharpies to etch sharply worded slogans onto protest signs, making furious phone calls to representatives.”

But women’s rage is not a chorus performed in unison. Atlantic reporter Emma Green talked with about a dozen female conservative leaders across the country for a story this week that puts flesh on the Marist poll’s finding: that the Kavanaugh hearings have electrified conservative women too. “I’ve got women in my church who were not politically active at all who were incensed with this,” the chairwoman of the West Virginia Republican Party told Green. The Indiana state director for the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, Jodi Smith, told Green that “people in Indiana are angry.” In her view, the hearings are “one of the best things that could happen to us” as she looks forward to a hotly contested Senate election in the state in November.

The Marist poll is just one poll. And conservative women plugged into state and local politics were already very likely to vote (and vote Republican) before the Senate hearings. Their new outrage over Kavanaugh’s supposed mistreatment won’t make their votes count more. But their reactions may indicate that less-engaged Republican women are feeling similarly outraged, or even just ambivalent, about the Kavanaugh accusations.

The Kavanaugh hearings have riveted the country in a way that few news stories have the power to do. Almost 20 percent of American households watched portions of the testimony last week; that figure does not include people who streamed the hearings online or listened on the radio. In my own anecdotal observation, my evangelical-heavy Facebook feed has been taken over by posts about accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s credibility, often written by women, including those who rarely post about politics. “There is total manipulation of this process—it’s disgusting,” one woman wrote on an evangelical friend’s post that proposed it was impossible to know who was lying. “I believe she was assaulted [but] I simply refuse to believe it was him.” Others argue that Ford’s evidence is too thin, that Kavanaugh’s good name has been permanently smeared, that his family is suffering unjustly.…

Here are the children of children, being brainwashed by the university to be the violent Democrats we are becoming familiar with:

This topic of violence made it to outnumbered on FOX where the Democrat strategist was, well, OUTNUMBERED (DAILY CALLER h-t)

Just a few of my own posts on this:

The DAILY WIRE concludes similar to Slate:

In the space of three weeks, Democratic fortunes have turned in a shocking way. Just three weeks ago, on September 13, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) came forward with an allegation of sexual abuse against Brett Kavanaugh; just three days later, Christine Blasey Ford herself came forward in an interview with The Washington Post. At that time, Kavanaugh’s nomination fell into severe jeopardy. Democrats held an eight-point lead on the generic Congressional ballot according to the RealClearPolitics poll average. According to the latest Economist, Marist, and IBD polls, those numbers are now below six points. IBD has the race inside the margin of error; Rasmussen does as well. The enthusiasm gap for Democrats has essentially disappeared.

So, what happened?

Democrats woke the sleeping giant.

In 2016, Republicans showed up to vote because they were afraid of Hillary Clinton. But that concern pales next to the concern Republicans now have about the possibility of Democratic governance. Republicans have been treated to a front-row seat in a display of Democratic willingness to do anything to damage conservatives. Anything.

Republicans have known about lack of Democratic decency since at least 2012, when Mitt Romney was characterized as a potential slaver by Joe Biden and an emotionless, cruel sexist by many in the media. It’s one of the reasons so many Republicans voted for Donald Trump, a blunt instrument unwilling to back down in the face of threats, to face off against Hillary Clinton.

But Kavanaugh was one step further. Kavanaugh wasn’t up for election — he was a career judge, on one of the most prestigious circuits in America. He was a political moderate, with the support of many of his liberal colleagues. He was establishment. What’s more, he was a devout Catholic and a father of two.

And Democrats decided to ruin his life. Feinstein decided to hold back Ford’s allegations until the last minute, then drop them. Democrats decided to play up every weak, uncorroborated allegation, no matter how disgusting; they decided to promote the insane speculation of professional publicity whore Michael Avenatti. The media decided to endorse the idea that Kavanaugh, a respected federal public servant, was actually a secret gambler, alcoholic, ice-thrower, and gang rapist, throwing out their basic standards of journalism in the process.

And Republicans watched. So did independents.

What they saw scared the bejeezus out of them: a militant Left willing to ruin a man’s life based on unverifiable and uncorroborated allegations, for purely partisan purposes. And those Americans began to think: would the Democrats do that to me?…

(H. Wayne House hat-tip)

Women ARE More Emotion… And?

Published by Papa Giorgio

In an almost “reality is better than fiction” moment, feminists in the West are outraged (emotional) that the idea of women being more emotional is even considered with a grain of salt. Dennis Prager uses some recent articles/stories to show the outrage from the Left to the ideas of difference and their attempt to make totalitarianism (total thought) the norm. I liken it to people saying “Islam is a violent religion,” and Muslims being soo offended that they murder people to prove it isn’t. I thank GOD my wife is more emotional that I with my kids… I would HATE for “two me’s” to raise them.

Feminist Reductionism and Leftist Fantasies (cuckoo-cuckoo)

Published by Papa Giorgio

“When a Man [Woman] stops believing in God he [she] doesn’t then believe in nothing, he [she] believes anything.” — G. K. Chesterton

Dennis Prager discusses a couple articles about “feminist science” and Leftists having sex with nature. You read that right. Here are the two articles in order of Dennis reading them:

Again, the left ruins quite a bit, here are two more examples to add to the quiver:

French Actresses Reject #MeToo As “War on Men”

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dennis Prager discusses an article (see USA TODAY) that discusses some well known French actresses rejecting the #MeToo movement as going too far in it’s war against men. Discussed as well is feminism’s deleterious affect on femininity — with a clip from Curb Your Enthusiasm that Dennis enjoyed.

See other related audios: