Sexist Pandering

Senator Cory “Spartacus” Booker (D, NJ) says the first criterion he has for his Vice President candidate, should he get the Progressive-Democratic Party nomination, is that the person be a woman.

I’m not going to box myself in, but should I come to it, you know I’ll be looking to women first.

Think about that.  Booker won’t be looking to the best qualified first, and if that turns out to be a woman, great.  He’ll be looking to a woman first because she’s a woman.  How pandering is that?

Think about another implication of that criterion.  His looking to pick a woman because she’s a woman means he doesn’t think women are capable of competing on their own merit.  Women, he’s implying, are just incapable, and the only way they can aspire to the White House is by being selected on the basis of their gender.  How bigoted is that?

A Premature Impeachment

No, I’m not talking about the Progressive-Democrats’ efforts against President Donald Trump in the Federal Government’s House of Representatives.

This is about Virginia State Delegate Patrick Hope’s (D) move in the House of Delegates to impeach (and presumably get a State Senate conviction) Virginia Lieutenant Government Justin Fairfax over two women’s accusations of sexual assault.  Even though Hope has decided to HIA his push pending additional conversations that need to take place before anything is filed, it’s worth considering some implications of this rush to judgment.

What, exactly, has Fairfax done? Don’t waste bandwidth repeating those two accusations; say what he’s actually done.  The accusations are serious, and they should be seriously investigated, and depending on results, Fairfax certainly should face trial, and if convicted he should face criminal and political sanction.  Nothing has been shown, yet, though.

Thus: hang a man on the basis of accusation?  Skip the whole investigation and trial bit?

Aren’t Progressive-Democrats supposed to be better than that?  Oh, wait—the Kavanaugh hearing.

An Inquisition

The “hearing” by the House Judiciary Committee of Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker on Friday was just that.

It was more than that, too.  The number of times the Committee’s Progressive-Democrats talked over and interrupted Whitaker’s answers, even dictating what his answers must be (“Answer yes or no”), before he could complete them was breathtaking.  Not a single Progressive-Democrat let him complete his answers to each of their questions; most of them wouldn’t let him complete any of them.  Here’s the 6-hour C-SPAN video of the hearing; see for yourself.

When Whitaker protested his being blocked from answering, Committee Chairman Jerold Nadler (D, NY) insisted that the time allotted to each member is that member’s to do with as he sees fit: “The gentleman [the committee member] controls the time.”  That’s true, as far as it goes.

However.

Whitaker, as are all witnesses testifying before any House committee (or Senate committee, come to that), was sworn to tell the truth.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help you God?

It’s impossible to tell the truth, to be correct, without complete answers containing all the truth, all the facts, as understood by the witness.  The Progressive-Democrats’ repeated prevention of Whitaker from telling all of the truth, stating all the facts, in answer to the question put before him comes perilously close to suborning perjury, if not outright do so.

Flexible Genders and (Modern) Feminism

A generally satirical piece by Bill Walsh on The Daily Wire concluded with this straight-up bit of logic:

This [the concept of “identifying as…”] is their own logic. I’m just accepting it. For the sake of argument, anyway. Liberals still have not faced the fact that their progressive gender theory completely undermines, negates, and rules out, all of the feminist “girl power” stuff. They want to have their gender cake and eat it, too. One minute they want us to believe that gender is fluid and a person’s body parts have nothing at all to do with the matter, the next minute they want us to jump for joy because a bunch of people with vaginas were elected to Congress. The two ideas stand in obvious conflict. They must choose. Or else they will have to face the fact that every time they go off on a feminist tangent, they are, according their own ideology, guilty of transphobic bigotry.

What Walsh said.

Projection

Here’s CNN commentator Van Jones on President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday:

My first take: “A psychotically incoherent speech mixing cookies with dog poop.” #SOTU #peoplesSOTU #cookiesanddogpoop pic.twitter.com/phYf4PFb0E
— Van Jones (@VanJones68) February 6, 2019

It’s a minute-20 excerpt from Anderson Cooper’s show at the link in the tweet, and Jones went on throughout his tirade in that vein.

That’s all consistent, though, with Jones’ wholly balanced position while he was in the Obama administration that Republicans are “assholes” because they didn’t agree with Obama’s policies and policy proposals.

His projection, it’s clear to see, has gotten even more irrational.