Why Should Women be More Liberal Than Men?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/28/a-closer-look-at-the-gender-gap-in-presidential-voting/

Whenever I hear stats that show women are more liberal than men, I am ashamed for my own gender which, for those who don’t know me, is female.  After nearly a century of fighting for the right to be seen as equals to men, too many of us have traded subjugation in the home and the work place for subjugation of our minds and souls to a political Party whose only objective is to grow their own power.  It is the worst of ironies to see women work so hard for a seat at the table in America’s boardrooms and government only to foolishly vote away their own liberty and autonomy at the ballot box.

The Democrat Party has turned women into children, or at least it’s trying to.  Democrats seduce women with promises of securing special treatment and insulating them from the consequences of their own life choices (by abortion on demand, for instance), but the price is steep.  The government handouts and freedom to be irresponsible are crumbs – to borrow a word from the inane Nancy Pelosi – compared to what is lost.  Yes, you might get more family leave – at the expense of others - or preference over men in occupations that are male-dominated so your company can meet some arbitrary quota forced upon them by your government, or birth control subsidized by your fellow citizens; but you sacrifice the character of your country in the process.  Justice is supposed to be blind, not weighted in favor of one race or gender over another.  Speech is supposed to be free, not denied to those with whom we disagree.  Slavery is something that we are supposed to reject, not suborn through targeted taxation.  And with each passing day it gets worse.  Are women so childishly shortsighted and selfish now that they will throw away the ingenious protections passed on to us all in our Constitution – at great sacrifice by our forefathers – for the scraps promised by the Democrat Party if you just help them secure the power they want?  It’s demoralizing to think that this is the case, but the reality speaks for itself.

I suspect that any liberal women who have the balls to read this post (hey – you wanted to be treated like men!) will scoff and sneer that what they’ve gotten in exchange for selling us out to the Democrat Party has been worth the while because it couldn’t otherwise be attained.  My response to that is:  Really???  You can’t compete with men based upon your own skills and intelligence?  You – strong, independent woman - can’t find a way to afford your own birth control, and you’re unwilling to personally sacrifice for the sake of raising your own family?  Is this what you want us all to believe?  If so, that’s truly pathetic.

I’d like to remind liberal women that George Soros is a male (only in a technical sense, of course).  So is Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, Keith Ellison and the majority of Democrats in congress.  They’ve used you to secure their own power, and Hillary Clinton tried to do so as well.  You are a pawn in the Democrat’s game of chess, when you could instead be the master of your own game if only you would find the self-discipline and character to resist the temptation to get what you can at others’ expense. 

Am I being too hard on liberal women? Is it possible they actually believe the Democrat Party has the pure-of-heart agenda they purport to have?  To believe that is to willfully disregard the evidence.  The party for “the environment” flies hither and thither in their corporate jets to their multiple homes and Martha’s Vineyard vacations, showing their true colors when it comes to environmental concern.  The party for “racial equality” now talks disdainfully about “old, white men,” hobnobs unapologetically with anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan and cheers on groups like Black Lives Matter.  The party for “women’s rights” and #MeToo partied hardy with Harvey Weinstein, tried to elect for POTUS the loyal wife of a man with serious sex-related charges against him from multiple women, and leaked Christine Ford’s letter to the media with zero regard for how it would affect her.  That’s the reality of the Democrat Party.  That’s who they are, and if you can’t see it it’s because you are choosing not to. 

None of this is to say Republicans are perfect.  Far from it, usually.  But the critical ideals that this country was built upon – individual liberty, equal justice for all, the rule of law, free market capitalism, states’ rights, American sovereignty and autonomy – these are what must be sacrificed in order for the Democrat Party to thrive.  Are we to believe that men value these gifts more than we do?   If that’s the case then the “progressive” movement has failed women, because we’ve gone backwards.

~CW

To comment on this post please visit The Pesky Truth where it is reposted.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.

FYI: The Deep-Staters Are NOT Heroes

Liberals are getting out their checkbooks.  Even though they can’t afford to pay for their healthcare, their birth control or their own college debt, they have reached deep into their cookie jars and under their mattresses and thus far scratched together more than $440,000 to help someone in need.  Who is the beneficiary of this great humanitarian sacrifice by the nation’s Left?  The poor?  The elderly?  The sick?  No.  It’s Peter Strozk, the Trump-hating ex-FBI official who disgraced the organization and was fired for reasons that should be obvious to any person with an ounce of intellect.  Peter Strozk, apparently, is the American liberal’s idea of a noble cause.  That should put things in perspective for the rest of us. 

The story that accompanied the GoFundMe page set up for Strozk amazed me for its rose-colored view of the man who is now infamous for his unprofessional conduct as an agent of the FBI.  Below is the delusional appeal, with my own responses in bold:

Peter Strzok, a man who has spent his entire life working to help keep us and our nation safe, has been fired.  He needs your help.

Fact:  Strzok, along with James Comey, was instrumental in shielding Hillary Clinton from the legal consequences of her mishandling of classified information.  Per CNN on 12/4/17: 

“Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as ‘grossly negligent’ to ‘extremely careless,’ the sources said.” 

CNN goes on to explain: 

“The shift from ‘grossly negligent’ to ‘extremely careless,’ which may appear pedestrian at first glance, reflected a decision by the FBI that could have had potentially significant legal implications, as the federal law governing the mishandling of classified material establishes criminal penalties for ‘gross negligence.’"

Is there even one soul out there naïve enough to believe that Strzok’s own bias did not influence his surgical editing of Comey’s draft?  How does getting your favorite candidate off the hook for mishandling classified information “help keep us and our nation safe?” I’d honestly like to know.

For the last year, Pete, his work, and his character have been the target of highly politicized attacks, including frequent slanderous statements from President Trump, who actively—and apparently successfully—pressured FBI officials to fire Pete.

LOL.  It was the politicized nature of Peter Strzok’s own behavior in the FBI that put him in the spotlight to begin with and, as is often the case, the only reason the criticism against him appears “politicized” is because only one side cares enough about Americans getting equal treatment by the FBI to make an issue of it.  Democrats not only don’t care if agents like Strzok abuse the power entrusted to them, they reward it handsomely!  So which side is really politicizing this?

Peter Strzok is a proud husband and father, a veteran of the U.S. Army and counterintelligence Special Agent who spent more than two decades in a job he loved at the FBI.

Oh please spare me.  I can’t even imagine how ashamed his family must be after what was revealed in his text messages. 

Pete handled some of the agency’s most important cases, thwarting numerous attacks by foreign and domestic adversaries while being consistently promoted and frequently recognized for his skillful and independent work. In describing his 21 years at the FBI, The New York Times said, “He rose quickly through its ranks, earning a reputation within the bureau as one of its most savvy and reliable counterintelligence agents.zz”

I’ll see your New York Times and raise you one CNN analyst/25-year veteran of the FBI who said:

 “Strzok was the epitome of a ‘blue-flamer,’ FBI parlance for a ruthless promotion-seeker.” 

That description certainly seems more in keeping with the picture painted by Strzok’s own text messages, doesn’t it? 

But last week, in a decision apparently driven by political pressure, a senior FBI official chose to fire Pete — overruling the agency’s normal and independent process by rejecting the decision of the career professionals in the FBI’s disciplinary division. This has left him without income and facing considerable legal bills.

Again, given Stzok’s behavior and the damage he caused to the reputation of the FBI, anyone NOT inclined to fire Strzok would have to be motivated by politics, not the other way around.  It was his own bad behavior and abuse of power that “left him without income and facing considerable legal bills.”

The nation saw Pete’s true character when he voluntarily testified before Congress on July 12th, 2018. Facing an inquisition that even a Fox News anchor said “felt like a public lynching,” he expressed regret for the pain he caused his family and for the harm caused by the weaponization of his words and, as reported by The Daily Beast, “issued a ringing defense of himself and his agency.”

Strzok’s true character showed in his text messages, not in his scripted speech for congress that was probably written by his lawyers.  Furthermore, expressing regret for the “weaponization of his words” is to suggest that others are responsible for what Strzok’s done and to refuse accountability.

Following his repeated Congressional testimony and a lengthy investigation, one thing is clear: Pete’s personal views never once influenced his professional actions. As The Washington Post reported, “Republicans have not been able to produce any evidence that Strzok or anyone else took any official action that was biased, unfair or inappropriate…” The Weekly Standard, a leading conservative magazine, declared that the “overwrought tale of bias” surrounding Pete is “just sound and fury.”

It is not clear to me, whatsoever, that Strzok’s personal views didn’t influence his actions at the FBI.  By the FBI’s own admission Strzok’s favored candidate, Hillary Clinton, mishandled classified information but was cleared by the FBI.  Contrast this with the ongoing investigation of Strzok’s object of hate, Donald Trump, that began and persists despite the absence of evidence.  How does one explain this perplexing reality if not for the influence of bias inside the FBI?

The real story behind this episode was made clear in an analysis by Slate, which said that “Peter Strzok is the hero we need.” The author wrote that Pete is an “honest law enforcement officer standing up to a corrupt president. And that’s why Trump attacked him. Trump doesn’t want Americans to...see what backbone looks like. I’ll tell you what it looks like: Republicans tried to put Strzok on trial, and Strzok put Trump on trial instead.”

How cute is it that this person refers to an opinion in Slate as “an analysis,” or that they think anyone who writes for Slate could possibly be objective when it comes to Donald Trump?  To suggest that Strzok was “standing up to a corrupt president” is absurd given that (1) Trump wasn’t even president when Strzok first abused his position at the FBI to help Hillary Clinton and falsely tie Trump to Russia; and (2) no corruption has been demonstrated whatsoever, except by Strzok & Co.  How are you “heroic” when you misuse the power of your position to thwart the law and the legitimate will of the people?  To think this way is to subscribe to the Left’s golden rule:   It’s all good unless it happens to us.  Some principle to live by, eh?

Unlike those who typically become the focus of partisan investigations in Washington, Pete is not politically connected, he’s not a wealthy lobbyist and he’s not interested in using his notoriety for personal gain. Because of this, he doesn’t have deep pockets that allow him to pay for the significant legal bills he has incurred to defend himself and the FBI against these political attacks, or to easily cover the expenses incurred by his lost income.

Again I would scold the writer that good old “Pete” is only the subject of a “partisan investigation” because he acted as a partisan himself and because Democrats’ refusal to hold Strzok accountable has left the job solely to Republicans.  That’s their partisan problem, not ours.

We are asking you to support a man who has dedicated his life to defending America; to stand up for the freedoms on which this country was built and a government that truly serves the people by protecting all Americans, including dedicated government employees, from constantly being subjected to the whims and influence of politicians.

Apparently it is okay if the rest of us are subjected to the “whims and influence” of unelected FBI agents like Peter Strzok. 

Here’s my question for the writer of this appeal: 

I am an American.  How is my freedom served when someone like Strzok abuses the power entrusted in him to tilt the scales of justice for his favored candidate and to help set up road blocks against the preferred candidate of many of his fellow citizens (you know, the ones who pay his salary)?  That behavior is as unAmerican as it gets, so your attempts to paint Strzok as some kind of patriotic hero are pathetic.  Peter Strzok is a weak, self-centered man who put himself before his country and his family.

The liberal donors who have contributed to Peter Strzok could have put their money into food for hungry children, shelters for the homeless or college funds for children orphaned by the opioid epidemic.  Instead their priority was to reward a man who cast a pall on the FBI and abused the power entrusted to him by the American People.  In doing so they not only revealed to us who they really are, but they have ensured that America will continue to come under attack by the Deep State.  That may feel like a victory now, but remember:  It’s all good until it happens to you.

~CW

To Leave a comment on this post please follow this link to The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.

Hilary Shor: This is Who the Left REALLY is

Liberals are the nicest, most non-bullying people.  That’s the reason they so despise Republicans, who are “mean-spirited” and “hateful,” as we are reminded on an almost daily basis (just in case the absence of any actual hate or mean-spiritedness causes people to forget what they’ve been programmed to believe).   As one who has long resented this charade it always gives me great pleasure to share the stories of liberals showing the world who they really are, thus I give you Hilary Shor.  Shor, apparently, is a movie producer who was vacationing in Cabo San Lucas with singer/actress Katherine McPhee when the two either accidentally (according to the story) or intentionally (according to my gut) crashed a wedding.  The bride, it seems, did not take kindly to the crashing of her special day and kicked them out.  Here’s how things went from there, according to this story at “Page Six:”

Shor posted their snarky commentary about the incident in a series of publicly available Instagram stories on her feed, calling the poor bride who denied them entry to her nuptials a “loser.”

 One video seen by Page Six and captioned “Bride Bitch” shows McPhee in her room snottily noting, “What bride does her own wedding security? If you’re doing your own security, you have a problem.”

 A second clip’s titled “dead bride #rude bride,” and a third’s called “loser bride bouncer” — in which Shor quips to McPhee off-camera, “She could have had a Page Six, New York Post [article] of us coming and dancing the night away . . . By the way, I was ready to rock ’n’ roll.”

 McPhee is shown in bed giggling and chiming in: “I was ready to show some serious moves.”  McPhee also says in a video on the vacation: “Hi everyone, it’s late-night shenanigans.”

 Shor also posted captions of their wedding crash fail: “That bride voted for Trump I can feel it,” and “Rise above the rude bride. She should be so lucky to dance with me, I got moves.”

Yes, it’s hard to understand why this ungrateful bride wouldn’t want such gracious ladies crashing her wedding party.

The snarky Trump comment takes away any question as to which way Ms. Shor leans politically, so now the only question is this:

What kind of a woman thinks it’s okay to crash another woman’s wedding party and then gets so vicious when she isn’t allowed to?

Maybe since marriage means so little to liberals it wouldn’t occur to someone like Shor that this day and this party was special to that bride, and she wanted to share it with friends and family, not with arrogant strangers who feel entitled to crash other people’s special events.  Whatever her reasons, she doesn’t owe Shor or McPhee an explanation.  And how did this lovely leftist from the Party of Women treat a sister on her wedding day?  She used her high profile social media account to publically bully her, calling her “rude, bitch,” and “dead,” whatever that means.  Nice.   Move over Ashley Judd and Elizabeth Warren.  Here are some more “nasty women” for your club.

I have long made the case that liberals are merely children in adult bodies, and Ms. Shor is the living proof of it.  She acts like a spoiled brat who has no clue why she shouldn’t be allowed to crash a stranger’s wedding if she wants to amuse herself, even though both she and McPhee probably wouldn’t tolerate strangers crashing their weddings.

Maybe we should start a “#Me too” campaign for victims of liberal bullies.

Stayed tuned for the next episode of “This is Who the Left REALLY is…”

  

~CW

To leave a comment please visit this post at The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.  Thanks.

White Privilege or Black Self-Destructiveness…..?

What do you do when you’ve built a lucrative cottage industry around a product but you’ve saturated the market and your product has not lived up to its hype?  Well, when you’re a liberal and the product you’re selling is indignation over phony racism, you repackage your phony racism as a new and improved product and you call it, “White privilege.”

A handout in a Wisconsin school’s “American Diversity” course defined white privilege as follows:

In critical race theory, white privilege is a set of advantages that are believed to be enjoyed by white people beyond those commonly experienced by non-white people in the same social, political, and economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.). Theorists differentiate it from racism or prejudice because, they say, a person who may benefit from white privilege is not necessarily racist or prejudiced and may be unaware of having any privileges reserved only for whites.

“Critical race theory.”  Boy that sounds very intellectual, doesn’t it?  You’re supposed to be impressed.

As charming as it is that “theorists” are attempting to differentiate “white privilege” from plain old fashioned racism it’s clearly just double-talk.  If the theory is that whites benefit from privilege strictly on the basis of skin color alone (see the definition above), that’s racism – period.  So why are we changing “racism” to “white privilege?”  Maybe it’s because you can stop being racist but you can never stop being white.  Maybe it’s because blacks can be racists, but they can’t have “white privilege.”  Maybe it’s because the “racism” claim has lost its luster thanks to the race hustlers who have gratuitously invoked it as an excuse for each and every black failure, and enough whites have finally caught on so as to weaken its effectiveness for extorting sympathy and public money.  Not ready to give up their golden goose, the hustlers have re-packaged it as “white privilege,” secure in the knowledge that the liberal sheep can be counted on to buy their revamped product.  As long as there’s money in it and as long as liberals abound to act as enablers we can look forward to a new variation of this same old game for as long as we live.  So let’s talk about “white privilege,” shall we?

If there’s one thing I don’t understand about the concept of “white privilege” it’s the success of people of color in fields like sports or entertainment.  I love football, and it’s been my observation that the vast majority of teams at the college level and in the pros consist largely of black players despite the smaller number of blacks in the general population.  But how can this be, I wonder, if whites are the ones with the privilege?  These are high-paying gigs, after all, and can set people up for a lifetime of great earning potential.  Why don’t whites want these jobs if they are entitled, via their privilege, to have them?  Ditto the same question for basketball.  And how did Will Smith and Oprah Winfrey become so rich and influential in a world where only whites are entitled to such privilege?  How did Dwayne Johnson overcome “white privilege” to become the highest paid actor in the world in 2016?

These realities alone dispel the whole “white privilege” theory as far as I’m concerned, because it represents concrete evidence that businesses will embrace the people who can best help them succeed regardless of race or gender.  Therefore, if there are other industries where blacks are underrepresented, there must logically be other explanations besides “white privilege.”  Here are a few facts to consider when reflecting on what some of those reasons might be:

·         Blacks graduate from high school at significantly lower rates than white (75% vs. 88%) or Asian students (90%).¹

·         According to the latest government census report, 46.9% of whites had an associate’s degree or more compared to just 32.4% of blacks.²

·         In 2015 66% of black children lived in single-parent households while just 25% of white children lived in single-parent households.³

·         As of 2014 the teen birth rate for blacks was 34.9 per 1,000, or double that of whites (17.3 per 1,000).⁴

Is “white privilege” to blame for the high incidence of teen pregnancy and fatherless households in the black community?  Is “white privilege” to blame for the lower graduation rate among black high school students?  Consider the top reasons cited by blacks for dropping out:

1. Becoming a parent
2. Being suspended or expelled even once
3. Having several friends drop out
4. Feeling academically unprepared for school
5. Experiencing a significant mental health problem
6. Homelessness, and moving to a new home.

From Black Enterprise, September 2015

You have to stretch pretty hard to assign blame for this to “white privilege.”  Bad choices and poor patterns of behavior are the reasons blacks fall behind academically, and this ultimately manifests itself in lower college graduation rates and, of course, reduced representation in areas of employment that require a higher level of education.  Employers in those fields then have fewer positive experiences to draw upon when evaluating black job candidates and they instinctively go with what’s familiar and what’s brought them the most success in the past.  Is that bias?  Perhaps; but it’s not bias based on malice or “privilege.”   It’s bias based on experience, history and observation.  Most importantly, the ONLY way to cure it is to change experience, history and observation, and this is something only blacks have the power to do.  Let me reiterate:

“White privilege” can only be cured by positive self-change in the black community.

This is why, whenever I read the usual drivel on “white privilege,” I think:  “So what?”  “Privilege,” if that’s the word the race hustlers want to use, is around us all the time and it’s not reserved to race, though if it was we would have to shift our focus to privilege among the Asian race since they kick everyone’s butt when it comes to success as measured by education and earnings.  If we’re going to obsess over “privilege” why aren’t we also talking about the privileges that come from being taller, smarter, better looking, more talented, luckier, more creative, healthier or happier, etc.?  And who is more “privileged,” the white child born to wealthy but abusive parents or the black child born to poor but nurturing parents?  These questions take our thinking where the race hustlers don’t want us to go, because only race – or to be more specific, whiteness – lends itself easily to the prospect of wealth transfer and that, not equality, is the hustler’s ultimate objective. 

I want to close with an appeal to those who’ve bought into the message of “white privilege,” for they know not what they do.  The peddlers of “white privilege” have only two goals in mind: 

1.  To take something from you;

2.  To make you an enabler for taking from others, including your children.

That’s it.  And the question is:  Are you so desperate for a cause that you’ll allow it?  Will you be an enabler to a scam that rewards the industry of victimhood when it threatens the future of not just your own children but also the black children who are being robbed of life’s critical lessons and the chance for self-driven success?  No one in this world, white or black, is born with an automatic pass for anything, as evidenced by those born to one form of privilege or another who nevertheless end up experiencing poverty, hardship or injustice, or those born without any privilege who nevertheless come to experience great wealth or success.  Life is what you choose to make it.  Let that be the message you share in this life.

~CW

To leave a comment on this post please visit The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.  Thanks!

¹ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_coi.asp

² https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf

3 http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by#detailed/1/any/false/573,869,36,868,867/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/432,431

4 http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/04/28/476017134/teen-births-rate-plummet-for-hispanic-and-black-girls

The Conscience of a Progressive

This page intentionally left blank.








~CW


I'd love to know your thoughts.  Please leave a comment at The Pesky Truth.  Thanks!