The Democrats Offer “A Better Deal” That’s Just More of the Same

Today, the shambling husk known as the Democrat Party has revealed that it has a plan to counter the Trumpocalypse, which dashed their hopes, dreams, and ambitions of stamping its collectivist boot on the face of the American people forever. They refer to it as “A Better Deal.” In reality, it is more of the same bureaucratic command economy that has been the signature of Democrat rule for nearly a century.

Democratic leaders believe they lost to President Donald Trump partly because voters don’t know what the party stands for. So they’re trying to rebrand themselves with a new slogan and a populist new agenda as they look ahead to the 2018 midterms.

The fatal conceit of Democrats is that there is never a problem with their policies, but their publicity. They conclude, wrongly, that if the public votes against them, it’s not because there is any defect in what they do, it’s just that the electorate was too stupid to understand their brilliance.

It’s called “A Better Deal” and House and Senate Democratic leaders are rolling it out Monday afternoon in Berryville, Virginia. They’re intentionally traveling outside the Beltway, and into the district of one of the GOP House members they hope to defeat next year, Barbara Comstock.

Have the Democrats learned their lesson after the Jon Ossoff debacle in Georgia? Oh, the Democrats tried to spin it as a “win” because they got within 6 percent of Karen Handel. The problem? Democrats had to spend $30 million to GET that 6 percent loss.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, along with other top House and Senate Democrats, are making the presentation after months of internal debate and analysis of polling and focus groups.

God forbid that Schumer and Nancy Pelosi actually leave the Democrat cloister of wisdom and talk to some actual voters. But then, the voters would tell them the same thing they said via the 2016 election: We want jobs, we want prices to go down, we want immigration (legal and illegal) halted, we want the debt paid down, we want the foreign wars ceased.

Democrats think of themselves as the party of working people and were surprised when Trump was able to steal working-class voters from them. They subsequently figured out that voters don’t know what the party stands for, and the new effort is aimed at changing that.

If Democrats think of themselves as the party of working people, then they have bought their own hype because that’s all the “party of working people” ever was: HYPE. The Democrats are the party of unions who enrich themselves at working people’s expense. They are the party of academic sophists who enrich themselves at the public’s expense. They are the party of corporate financiers who enrich themselves at the nation’s expense. But the Democrats are not the party of “working people.”

Schumer acknowledged on Sunday that Democrats were partially to blame for the American people not knowing what the party stands for.
“When you lose an election with someone who has, say, 40 percent popularity, you look in the mirror and say what did we do wrong? And the number one thing that we did wrong is we didn’t have — we didn’t tell people what we stood for,” Schumer said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Oh, Chuck. The problem is, you told the people EXACTLY what you stood for: You are anti-Republican, pro-social justice, pro-feminist, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-war, pro-debt, and pro-union. And the people heard you loud and clear.

The full title of the agenda is “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future.” (After an earlier and incomplete version leaked on Thursday, Twitter users mocked the similarity to the slogan for Papa John’s pizza, “Better Ingredients, Better Pizza.”)

And just think: Some overpaid PR hack probably made over $100,000 to come up with that slogan for the Democrats.

“The Democratic Party’s mission is to help build an America in which working people know that somebody has their back,” say documents accompanying the roll-out.
There are three overarching goals: raising wages, lowering costs for families, and giving working Americans better skills for the 21st century economy.
Detailed planks will be rolled out over time. On Monday, three are being unveiled:
—Lowering prescription drug prices. Suggestions include a new agency that could investigate drug manufacturer price hikes, and they would allow Medicare to negotiate directly for the best drug prices.

Another federal bureaucracy? To be funded out of public debt? And staffed with well-connected Ivy League boys and girls whose mommies and daddies are Democrat donors? I can’t wait to see how that turns out.

—Cracking down on corporate monopolies. Democrats would enact new standards to limit large mergers, and create a new consumer competition advocate.

I’m glad to see that the Democrats have finally repudiated the mantra of “too big to fail.” I might be wrong, but aren’t there already a dearth of anti-trust laws that could be applied to corporations RIGHT NOW. But then, they would probably stop donating to the Democrats if Democrats actively pushed to enforce the existing anti-trust laws.

—Creating millions more jobs. The agenda includes proposals for expanding apprenticeships and providing a tax credit to employers to train and hire new workers.

And this is why the tax code is over 60,000 pages. The U.S. tax code is not about collecting revenue. If it was, it would be, at most, 20 pages. The U.S. tax code is a handbook of social engineering, to try and control the economy by controlling the actions of the people who make up the economy.

Democrats hope to make gains in next year’s midterm elections, and perhaps even flip the 24 GOP-held seats necessary to regain the majority in the House.
Yet they are mostly playing defense in the Senate where 10 Democrats are trying to retain seats in states won by Trump, including Republican strongholds like West Virginia, Missouri and North Dakota. Party strategists say that for most Senate candidates, in particular, a national party message has little value and instead each candidate must fight on their own terms and issues.

Democrats who are not privy to the inner sanctum of the national party realize that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are secure in their coastal political fortresses of New York and California respectively. Democrats in the flyover states understand that the ground has shifted underneath their feet and that if they want to keep their cushy political sinecures, they have to separate themselves from the DNC and the DCCC.


Stephen Marche Tries to Shame Men into Being Feminists and Fails Miserably…AGAIN

I gave Stephen Marche some treatment last year after he took a swipe at the Manosphere in general and TRP in particular. Much as I dislike having to defend TRP, I will do it when confronted with Feminist acolytes clucking their tongues and wagging their fingers at men.

But Marche is back and like most of the Progressives, he is struggling through early-onset Trump Derangement Syndrome. Combined with his pre-existing Feminist sickness results in a very aggressive and likely untreatable form of TDS. He wants to shame men into his particular brand of politics.

Let me knock down a beer and get to business.

The situation has, in one sense, simplified enormously. The elaborate labyrinths of identity politics have crumbled and left behind basic questions of fundamental human decency. Trump’s actions as president, more than his demeaning behavior on the campaign trail, are deliberately keeping women from power and attacking programs that promote their health, both in the US and globally. Feminism as humanism – the very basic idea that women are people – is now under threat. Any man who claims to possess a shared sense of humanity with women must stand with them.

Demeaning behavior on the campaign trail, including calling one-quarter of the electorate “deplorable”? Demeaning behavior like firing up a rumor that the front-runner in your party’s primary isn’t a natural-born American citizen in order to undermine his entire campaign? Or circulating a photo of Obama in a turban to emphasize the point? Demeaning behavior on the campaign trail like using party apparatus to limit debate and sandbag Bernie Sanders’ efforts? Spare me the disingenous gasping and clutching of pearls. Hillary Clinton is one of the dirtiest, most hardball campaigners in American history.

The Mexico City Policy is much simpler: He who pays the piper calls the tune. If you want Big Daddy Government’s money, guess what? You dance to the tune he calls. Don’t like it? Get your private money donation game up so that you don’t have to live and eat off of federal grants. Simple, yes? I guess it’s not simple for Progressives. They have this peculiar idea that they are entitled to spend other’s money on things they don’t support (Americans are split on abortion), to say nothing of the propriety of taking money from Americans and sending it abroad.

The evidence has become too glaringly obvious. Who could embody more perfectly “rape culture” than a man who was elected president of the United States while boasting about sexual predation?

Let’s see: A choice between a guy who said that “And when you’re a star they LET you do it. You can do anything.”

Notice the words of permission, there.

On the other side, we have a woman who brags about destabilizing foreign nations (Libya), resulting in the deaths of thousands, and exacerbated the “refugee crisis” by adding Libya to the mix.

President Warmonger vs. President Consensual Pussy-Grabber.

Not even a close choice.

What more proof do you need that women face structural disadvantages in their work lives than Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and still losing?

Today I learned that Andrew Jackson, Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland, and Al Gore were women who faced “structural disadvantages.”

Two contradictory processes are at work. One is the rise of women to dominance of the middle class; the other is the intractable continuation of male power at the top. Since 2000, women have increased their workplace participation in most countries in the world. Across the OECD, the pay gap declined significantly between 2000 and 2011. In the United States, the number of households led by women has been increasing since the 60s and currently stands at around 40%.


But I thought dominance was a bad thing? I thought “Feminism means equality”?

Oh that’s right, dominance is only bad when men do it.

Got it.

At the same time, women are kept from the top positions. There are any number of ways to register this fact, from a comparison of the salaries of male and female movie stars, to the number of women who are full professors, to the scandalously few women who are equity partners in law firms.

Women are kept from the bottom positions. There are any number of ways to register this fact, from a comparison of the sex-ratio of workplace fatalities, to the number of women in dangerous or high-risk occupations, to the scandalously few women who are loggers.

But what am I saying? “Feminism means equality” and “equality” only matters in the C-suite, not on the back of a garbage truck.

We cannot shape men until we have some kind of critical understanding of the mechanisms of masculinity. And simply put, we do not have that understanding. The first graduate program devoted to masculinity studies in the US began in 2015.

Here’s the money quote, right here. For the last 50 years, Feminists have raised a mighty howl, that no man should even dare to entertain the idea of telling a woman what she ought to do. Meanwhile, Feminists have waged a campaign by which they not only have the privilege, but the duty to alter, shape, mold and change men into something that suits their purposes: New Soviet Man…I mean, NEW FEMINIST MAN.

There have been calls for men to join in the feminist movement from its beginning, with two main difficulties: the first is that feminism is inherently about women. And so feminism’s message to men has always been pretty simple: behave better to women.

While creating no similar obligation of women to behave better to men.

The other problem is that men do not talk explicitly about their own gender.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Is this guy for real?

Men talk about their sex. We talk about it and matters pertaining to it. The problem that Feminists like Marche have is that when we talk about it, we proceed down lines of thinking towards conclusions are in no way useful to Feminism.

See Men’s Rights.


See The Red Pill.

And to Feminists, men discussing manhood in the absence of Feminist supervision is not acceptable. Can’t have the proles engaging in Wrongthink or the slaves discussing freedom.

Those facts, in themselves, reveal how far the way we talk about gender has deviated from its reality in American life. During a campaign stop for Hillary Clinton early in 2016, Madeleine Albright declared: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” – a line that has appeared on Starbucks cups. Forty-two percent of American women felt otherwise, as did 62% of non-college educated women.

A comment for which Albright was roundly and rightly blistered. Albright reserved her own seat in hell by sponsoring a war that led to thousands of deaths and the raping of hundreds of women.

Gloria Steinem famously declared that women’s liberation will be men’s liberation, too. Trump has clarified that the opposite – women’s bondage, men’s bondage – is also true. It is men who need to say “this is not us.” But then we would have to think about who we are.

“Liberation” from what?

Women don’t owe men anything. Conversely, men don’t owe women anything. Not time, not attention, not labor, not blood, and not happiness. Consequently, I don’t “need” to do anything on the behalf of any woman.

They are our equals. Let them do for themselves.

Archived Source

The Women’s March: Feminist Eunuch Zach Stafford Would Like To Remind You That Good Men Are to Be Seen and Not Heard

The projected 900,000 attendance at tomorrow’s inauguration of the Avatar of Kek, the Great Wall-Builder, the Master of the Deal, the Slayer of Clinton the Terrible, Donald J. Trump, has the Feminist ignorati a little nervous.

While Feminists are, as they have taken great pains to inform us, “Strong and Independent and Don’t Need No Man,” they still feel the need to send out Eunuchs to try and drum up male support for their pity party, I mean, Women’s March.

Enter Zach Stafford.

As the Women’s March on Washington, D.C. now looks to have participation in the hundreds of thousands, eyes have begun to shift from the inauguration of the president-elect, who has struggled to secure A-list talent, and onto this massive, grassroots-led response to his unpopular election. And it should surprise no one that this overwhelming response is coming from women.

Oh noez! Trump can’t secure A-list talent for the inauguration! What a tragedy!

I am sincerely glad. This is the United States. We have a President, duly elected to a term of office. He is inaugurated into the office, not coronated as king.

This past election cycle was rough on all of us, but for many women even more so. From never-ending news cycles that gave archaic thoughts on women’s reproductive rights and in turn gave fresh hope to the Right to the never-ending allegations of sexual assault surrounding reality-TV star Donald Trump to even how we treated Hillary Clinton as a woman, it was an 18-month attack on women’s bodies – a successful one that in the end got a man elected.

Now, after we’ve enjoyed a moment of feminist hyperbole (NEVERENDING ALLEGATIONS), let’s look at some facts.

Thousands of people (and a few women) are transported annually through the area of the Clintons’ last “humanitarian war,” Kosovo.

Compare and contrast with a dozen accusations, none of which has been adjudicated, one of whom, Summer Zervos, has enough balls to sue Trump for DENYING her accusation, seemingly oblivious to the fact that falsely accusing someone of a felony is defamation per se.

But we’re getting lost in the trees here.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton has a history of warmongering; Trump is not.

Hillary Clinton has a history of lying under oath; Trump does not.

Hillary Clinton has a history of abusing the power of public office; Trump does not.

Hillary Clinton has a history of bribe-taking; Trump does not.

If Hillary Clinton is the best “Women’s candidate” you can bring to the election, if that’s the Feminists’ best shot, then I will happily never, ever vote for a woman for President.

While women walking shoulder to shoulder and yelling truths they’ve always known this Saturday does seem like the correct response to this very unfortunate chain of events, it is not, however, going to be enough to create the systematic change needed to redirect us out of the Twilight Zone we enter on January 20th. And as we now work to figure out what that ‘enough’ is as we enter this new presidency, where that work begins for men is standing with women on Saturday and beginning to own the fact that we’ve become far too great at taking women’s rights away and not great enough at fighting for them.

What rights do I, as an American citizen, possess that a woman, also an American citizen, does not?

I’ll go ahead and answer that: NONE.

But Feminists aren’t concerned with “rights,” as that term is conventionally understood. Their concerned with privileges and licenses, namely their “privilege” to live at the expense of many men through taxes and subsidies, as opposed to the privilege to live at the expense of one man (marriage).

The reluctance of so many men to get behind an event that doesn’t mention them is striking proof of that fact.

Ever since ideas around a march began to percolate after the November election, there was immediately an obvious lack of men signing up on Facebook groups and other organizing pages. The reason many have come to admit is because organizers have been unapologetic in the ways in which they marketed: “This is a movement that is led by women, but it is not just for women. It’s for all people,” Linda Sarsour, one of the march’s lead organizers, recently told the Washington Post. “You have to be okay with being led by women.”

I’ll repeat my earlier response here and add to it:

I’m okay with being led by a competent leader, man, woman, or Dalek. But because Feminism is a female-supremacist movement, its members are expected to submit only to female leadership, but never male leadership.

As for the addition, I find it interesting that Feminists are quick to offer advice to those outside of their group that they would never accept if given to them.

Hypothetically, let’s say a political group, a hypothetical Democrat Party one day came together and issued a statement containing the following:

“This is a PARTY that is led by men, but it is not just for men. It’s for all people. You have to be okay with being led by men.”

Don’t like that one? Try this one out:

“This is a CORPORATION that is led by men, but it is not just for men. It’s for all people. You have to be okay with being led by men.”

Let’s go with one more:

“This is a COLLEGE that is led by men, but it is not just for men. It’s for all people. You have to be okay with being led by men.”

Now, does anyone believe Feminists sit still for that? Of course not. They would shit enough bricks build Trump a new hotel. But this is the hypocrisy of the people who are supposedly in favor of “equality.” They don’t favor equality; they favor female supremacy.

Due to the justified centering of women and their bodies in what could be the largest singular political protest we’ve ever seen in the U.S., many men critiqued the movement with worries around this tactic. Men like New York magazine writer Johnathan Chait who tweeted out worries about the branding of the event and stated many have concluded “it’s a march for women, not for all Trump critics.”

I have to confess, I get a little wood when Progressives/Socialists/Feminists/SJWs start slitting each other’s throats in the name of ideological purity.

And while he is right that these reasons may contribute to men not wanting to participate, it is these reasons like “branding” that, at the end of the day, are the same misogyny that got a reality television star elected. So it’s here where men can and should work to create radical change by moving past their feelings of being left out that somehow always arise even though the entire history of the world has always been more focused on their bodies over women’s.

Here again, Feminists offer men “advice” that they would never accept themselves.

“Men need to move past their feelings”?

Translation: “Fuck your feelings.”

This is just another example of Feminist hypocrisy run amok. Feminist cry out that men don’t express their own feelings enough or in a manner women deem “appropriate” (by binge eating and crying, I suppose). But when men do articulate their feelings of being dismissed or left out, Feminists say “Man Up,” “Move Past Your Feelings,” or “Fuck Your Feelings.”

Feminists demand better treatment from you than they are ever willing to give to you.

As we’ve come to learn through the power of social media over years: #masculinitysofragile, and many men must feel explicitly included in anything in order to participate or take part. This habit even trickles down to having close relationships with other men (bro-mance) or even the toiletries they use in the shower. It’s a habit that exists due to us living in a patriarchal society that values men over women, even though women bear our children and participate in more free labor that keeps us all alive, while facing rates of higher discrimination in every way across the board.

And its maintenance is not because there is a true difference in the sexes that justifies men being paid more on the dollar than woman, for instance, but because men don’t want to let go of the privilege they’ve taken unjustly. The strength of this stubbornness in male privilege is clear through the fact that the potentially largest demonstration in U.S. history pulled together against a demagogue is led by women and is ignored by men even as democracy begins to sway.


Men do, and have done more, to preserve the lives and comfort of women, than women have ever done for men.

Waste management? 81.4% men.

Sewage treatement? 88.9% men.

Water and irrigation systems? 79.6% men.

Agriculture across the board? 75.4% men.

Construction? 90.7% men.

Mineral, oil, and gas extraction? 86.9% men.

Want “society” to be less “Patriarchal”? Try putting 50% of the “privilege of carrying civilization on your backs. Feeding babies and wiping asses doesn’t keep the lights on, the shelves stocked, or the water running.

But I forget myself. Feminists are so narcissistic and delusional and so blind to the existence of most men, that they believe the only “equality” that matters is among men who hold financial, political, or social power.

Taking part in the Women’s March this weekend would not just be powerful in regards to the optics of droves of men coming out and supporting half the population of the world in efforts that are connected to their lives, but in what men will learn while there. Things like how to take part in change and not think a man has to be the hero for once; things like being in a space with women and not talking over them; things like learning how to stand with women and not stand in front of them; things like acknowledging that women are powerful beyond measure and are punished for that daily.

Every man is the hero of his own life, if he chooses to be.

Sorry, buddy, but I have better things to do than hang around Feminists and be a prop for their public agitation.

Because it is these things that all men must learn if we want to not just stop Trump from creating the damage many fear, but also ensure we never elect another version of him again. And this is possible — I saw a version of this done the day after Donald Trump was elected president and I was at the Chicago rally outside of his tower. It was one of the numerous that erupted out of the pain of his win. As activists and citizens who had never been to a protest before sat on the street and chanted, a well-known women’s protest call-and-repeat began that left me almost in tears.

I don’t give a fuck about your tears or your pain or fears.

Guess why?

Because I am offering you the same advice you offered men not a few paragraphs ago:

“Move past your feelings.”

No, let me go ahead and hit the quote I like.

“Fuck Your Feelings.”

While women yelled at the tower “Our bodies, our choice” the men stayed quiet and once the women finished they responded “Their bodies, their choice”, and this went on for some time. And it was in that moment that I knew that we, men, had it in us to allow women to lead.

I agree. Your body, your choice.

But my money should stay safely away from your body and not finance any of those your choices.

As long as we show up in support and get out of their way.

Oh, I play to stay out of their way. Far out of their way. About as far out of their way as time and geography reasonably permit.

As for support, you can just pretend I do. Feminists are delusional in all other respects. Might as well add one more delusion to the pile.

Archived Source

Marxist Sambo Marc Lamont Hill Denounces Black Men and Women as “A Bunch of Mediocre Negroes”

CNN in the course of its continuing its death-spiral into irrelevance, brought a blue-ribbon panel of talking heads and Beltway insiders to punch it out on the Don Lemon show.

The topic?

What other topic is there?

The Avatar of Kek. The Great Wall-Builder. The King of New York. The Master of the Deal. Slayer of Clinton the Terrible.

Donald J. Trump. Specifically, various people meeting with Donald Trump as part of his National Diversity Coalition.

One of those panelists was professional academic, Marxist gadfly, and “social justice enthusiast” Marc Lamont Hill.

For an example of Hill’s commitment to academic rigor and intellectual honesty, see Politifact about his (false) claim that every 28 hours, a black man is shot and killed by the police.

Anyway, in the course of the event, this happened:

“You should have “experts” at the table.”

What he means is, you should have “academics” at the table, or, put more bluntly, you should have MARC LAMONT HILL at the table, and other professional race hustlers rattling their tin cups and crying:

“White daddy, white daddy, give me something!”

“To keep bringing up comedians and actors and athletes to represent black interests is demeaning, its disrespectful, its condescending. Bring some people up there with some expertise Donald Trump, don’t just bring people to entertain.”

It was a bunch of mediocre Negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo op for Donald Trump.

I’m going to give Marc Lamont Hill his fair shake right now. Based on the question that preceded his statement, he was addressing the National Diversity Coalition of the Trump campaign, not Steve Harvey, Kanye West, Jim Brown, et al.

It doesn’t make the substance of the comment any better.

Having meetings with black men who aren’t Hill’s particular clique is “demeaning, disrespectful, and condescending.”

Calling an entire segment of black men and women “mediocre” for associating with Donald J. Trump is not demeaning, disrespectful, or condescending, in the peculiar reasoning of Mr. Hill.

Got it.

I made a statement in regard to Feminists and their fetishizing of Hillary Clinton as president, ignoring the previous two cycles of Republican women running for president and vice-president respectively:

They don’t actually want a woman president; they want a president who, first and foremost, toes the party line, THEN, just happens to be a woman.

This is the same thing. Marc Lamont Hill and Negroes of his ilk don’t actually want to see black people in power; they want people who agree with them in power, then, if they happen to be black, so much the better because then, they can smear dissent as “racists.”

“Identity politics” is about using using “identity” as a shield for “politics.”

What are the politics being protected?

Internationalism, socialism, militarism, statism, and bureaucracy.

May God have mercy on you if you have the “identity” but not the “politics.” Then a Sambo like Marc Lamont Hill, at the behest of Master Legree (the international socialists), will appear and he will (rhetorically) whip you to death for your defiance.

Bruce LaVell, to his credit, called Hill on the bullshit remark, which Hill responded to by saying.

I didn’t name call.

This is how Progressives/Socialists/SJWs/The Political Left, in Hill’s case, Marxist, whatever you want to call them, do their business. They demand that you treat them with courtesy while they hurl bricks and bombs from the cheap seats. They get to call you “mediocre” and then when you stop them, they claim “I didn’t name-call.” These people are either fundamentally dishonest, or they are insane and don’t recognize the disconnect between their rhetoric and their actions.



Look at this goofy bitch grinning like an idiot. I swear on a stack of Bibles, there is nothing black females love more than watching two black men cut into each other. She might have had to go home, reach between her legs and knock one out after watch LeVell and Hill go at it.

It doesn’t matter how “educated” black females are, it doesn’t matter what their resumes look like, the majority of black American women are filled with a desire for chaos and strife and discord.

Occutards Redux: DisruptJ20

After a five year nap, the Occutards have arisen from their torpor in much the same fashion as that pale, coffin-dwelling bloodsucker made famous by Bram Stoker. They have dusted off their signs, recharged their IPhones, gotten another credit card from mommy and daddy, and are ready to stick it to The Man in the form of the Avatar of Kek, the Great Wall-Builder, the Conductor of the Trump-Train, and Milo Yiannopolous’ play-daddy, Donald Trump.

Except this time, they are calling themselves DisruptJ20.

Because that’s what they do: disrupt things.

They don’t produce. They don’t repair. They don’t create. They don’t build.

They show up, fuck up, and leave.

DisruptJ20: Call for a bold mobilization against the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017

On Friday, January 20, 2017, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as President of the United States.

More importantly, Barack Obama will no longer be President of the United States of America, which will come as a relief to all freedom-loving Americans and Yemeni wedding planners.

We call on all people of good conscience to join in disrupting the ceremonies. If Trump is to be inaugurated at all, let it happen behind closed doors, showing the true face of the security state Trump will preside over.

How did we get to this “security state” I wonder? And who helped get us here?

Oh right, The United States’ first Mulatto President when he signed the NDAA in 2012 allowing for indefinite detention of those “suspected” of “associating” with terrorists.

Constitutional scholarship and/or protection of same is not ordinarily understood as symbolically wiping one’s ass with said document.

It must be made clear to the whole world that the vast majority of people in the United States do not support his presidency or consent to his rule.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, #NotMyPresident. I was present for that particular temper tantrum 16 years ago.

Get some new schtick.

Trump stands for tyranny, greed, and misogyny. He is the champion of neo-nazis…

Well, those Nazi LARPers are going to be super-salty when they discover that Trump has a Jewish son-in-law and his eldest daughter is a convert to Judaism.

…and white Nationalists,

What is it that “white Nationalists” think Trump is going to do for their cause? And isn’t Hillary Clinton just as white as Donald Trump? Or does she get honorary “color” points for being on Team Blue?

I still don’t have all the minutae of how the Oppression Olympics are scored.

…of the police who kill the Black, Brown and poor on a daily basis…

Not nearly as effectively as they kill each other.

…of racist border agents…

If they are, it’s understandable. Canadians are pretty much the worst people to ever exist.


…and sadistic prison guards…

The same prison guards that endorsed Barack Obama in 2007?

Or maybe you mean the same lobbyists who work for the private prisons also worked on the Clinton campaign?

…of the FBI and NSA who tap your phone and read your email.

Hillary Clinton calls for more surveillance after Brussels attack

Obama’s Illusory NSA “Reforms”

He is the harbinger of even more climate catastrophe, deportation, discrimination, and endless war.

How so?

He continues to deny the existence of climate change…


But buy some carbon credits to make sure it’s a carbon-neutral witchburning!

…in spite of all the evidence, putting the future of the whole human race at stake.

“We’re super-serious this time, guys! The sky really is falling!”

The KKK, Vladimir Putin, Golden Dawn, and the Islamic State all cheered his victory. If we let his inauguration go unchallenged, we are opening the door to the future they envision.

So…the American segregationists, the Russian president, the Greek nationalists, and the Muslim jihadists, are all in the same camp?

Trump’s success confirms the bankruptcy of representative democracy. Rather than using the democratic process as an alibi for inaction, we must show that no election could legitimize his agenda.

“Elections rocks…so long as we get the outcome we want!”

These people are beyond parody.

Neither the Democrats nor any other political party or politician will save us—they just offer a weaker version of the same thing. If there is going to be a positive change in this society, we have to make it ourselves, together, through direct action.

Now we get to real agenda, which I have bolded.

“Direct action,” in the Social Justice/Socialist/Communist vocabulary, seeks to conflate “civil disobedience,” such as protest, non-violent resistance of civil authorities, sit-ins, and the like, with violent thuggery, such as Antifa beatings of those they deem “fascists,” destruction of property (see Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, Anti-globalists at the WTO) sabotage (see the Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front), and riots (see the Black Friday Riot of 1910).

The political left (the left-right political spectrum is absolute nonsense, but for the sake of the reader, I use the term “Left” for common understanding) uses the term “direct action” to conflate non-violence with violence, and by doing so, preemptively justify any act of violence committed by their allies and followers.

From day one, the Trump presidency will be a disaster. #DisruptJ20 will be the start of the resistance. We must take to the streets and protest, blockade, disrupt, intervene, sit in, walk out, rise up, and make more noise and good trouble than the establishment can bear. The parade must be stopped. We must delegitimize Trump and all he represents. It’s time to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and the world that sustains us as if our lives depend on it—because they do.


In Washington, DC

DC will not be hospitable to the Trump administration. Every corporation must openly declare whether they side with him or with the people who will suffer at his hands. Thousands will converge and demonstrate resistance to the Trump regime. Save the date. #DisruptJ20

You’re either with us, or you are with Trump.

I’m pleased to see people are doing their best impersonations of George W. Bush.

Principled dissenters need not apply in in either case.

Around the US

If you can’t make it to Washington, DC on January 20, take to the streets wherever you are. We call on our comrades to organize demonstrations and other actions for the night of January 20. There is also a call for a general strike to take place. Organize a walkout at your school now. Workers: call out sick and take the day off. No work, no school, no shopping, no housework. #DisruptJ20

Three-day weekend!

Around the World

If you are living outside the US, you can take action at US embassies, borders, or other symbols of neocolonial power. Our allegiance is not to “making America great again,” but to all of humanity and the planet. #DisruptJ20

Spread the word. Join the fight. #DisruptJ20

What DisruptJ20 Thinks It Looks Like:

What DisruptJ20 Actually Looks Like:

Archived Source

Hoes Gon Be Hoes: Featuring Erin Keane

Yeah. You already know what it is.

More nonsense about the “Women’s March” on Washington. It’s pretty typical fare. A Feminist showing open disdain for men while demanding that men offer up themselves to serve Feminism.

The Women’s March on Washington, like all responses to the election that made Donald Trump our next president, has incurred no shortage of close readings as Americans and those watching us attempt to make sense of where we are culturally and politically in the wake of 2016 and in the dawn of the Trump presidency.

Nothing suggests rationally trying to make sense of a fact like putting pink wool cat ears on your heads and waving signs around. In fact, this is the very height of reason.

It began, as things do these days, on social media. Facebook drove its early momentum much in the same way that activists galvanized protests against police brutality in Ferguson and Baltimore on Twitter in 2014 and 2015 as the Black Lives Matter movement took shape.

Which has accomplished approximately…NOTHING.

What started with a couple of unrelated posts tapped into widespread desire for a show of solidarity and strength in opposition to Trump’s inauguration. Now organizers are bringing thousands of people together to descend on Washington on Jan. 21, with concurrent sister marches planned in cities across the country.

Bus rental companies across America are rejoicing.

And as with any initiative that begins with individuals and not with a focus group, there have already been growing pains. On Jan. 9, the New York Times examined the “contentious racial dialogue” that the march’s organization has sparked, somewhat along generational lines between “the personal is political” approach, which often ends up benefiting affluent white women the most, and those who highlight more intersectional concerns. Among other internal clashes over feminism, race and class, a quote posted on the organizing page by feminist scholar bell hooks about “confronting the ways women — through sex, class and race — dominated and exploited other women” apparently put some white women off the march and the movement around it.

Nothing says “solidarity” like accusing your supposed allies of inherent moral defect based on their ancestry and/or race.

Conversations like this are necessary — painful, perhaps, for women on all sides of the discussion, but very necessary — as the brand of female empowerment that Hillary Clinton came to symbolize for the women she most visibly represents (and I resemble that remark myself) is interrogated and expanded and refined for the more inclusive and, we can only hope, more successful feminist future. If the march is going to organize an effective feminist response to the current political and cultural climate, it’s good to start off on a less self-indulgent foot than Pantsuit Nation, another Facebook-grown collective now turned into a puzzling publishing endeavor, did.

“Conversation” being the latest Progressive/Social Justice buzzword for a Struggle Session, wherein you stand in the circle as Feminists accuse you of various unspeakable privilege-crimes like being

1) White

2) Male

3) Wealthy


It would be great if activists didn’t have to pause their work to have these conversations with women whose feelings are hurt by an intersectional focus to help them figure out how to move past their personal responses. But if we were already there as a country, we probably wouldn’t be in this position to begin with. As it is, women definitely have enough on their plates without having to make sure that men also feel sufficiently included and excited by the event to join in with their full and active support.

It would be equally great if Feminists didn’t excuse themselves from civil discourse while on their Holy Pussy Jihad. But in intersectional feminist la-la land, when you are an “oppressed class” you are free to behave in any way you deem fit against an “oppressor class,” no matter how personally accusatory or objectively offensive that behavior may be.

But heaven forfend that you even suggest that a woman let you grab her by the pussy.

The people who profess that they are working for “equality” have one set of rules for themselves, and another set of rules for those not in their tribe.

Might I suggest — lightly, so I don’t hurt any men’s feelings and give them another excuse for opting out — that this is not an invitation to a second cousin’s wedding, but an opportunity to participate in an organized effort to salvage our ravaged democracy? And that there is a certain amount of “get over it” they need to hear and act upon?

1. I cannot “opt out” of something I was never a participant in to begin with.

2. America is not a democracy; it is a republic. No matter how much you and your ochlocratic ilk would like to put individual rights up on the altar of the howling mobs, you cannot wish the Constitution away.

3. Donald Trump won. Get over it. Donald Trump defeated the warmongering, lying, corrupt, plutocrat, Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Gosh. I love “get over it.” It’s such a brief, yet clear exercise in sneering contempt and handwaving in place of good faith argumentation.

Perfect for a Feminist.

Dear men of America: If you have been waiting for your engraved invitation to participate in this march, please consider it delivered. Imagine me slipping an envelope under your door late at night, like a bid to an exclusive social club instead of a public protest. There are conditions on this invitation, however. You will not automatically be put in charge, which might be a shock to some of your systems. You are being invited instead to do what women have done for generations: Show up and ask “What can I do?” You will be put to work.

You can offer up all of the imaginary invitations, engraved, verbal, written, you like. What you, nor anyone associated with this overwrought hen party has done is offered up a good reason why I, or any other man, should be involved this.

You have nothing going on that entitles you to any man showing up and asking “What can I do?” Your cause is not worthy of any honest or decent man’s contribution of time, intellect, or strength.

I am truly sorry that our culture has conditioned you to automatically reject anything branded as a “woman thing,” out of fear of violence and/or social rejection.

This is a highly compressed nugget of bullshit.

First, Keane has spent the last three paragraphs laying the snide condescension men like a cement mixer. Now, she has switched gears to phony sympathy with a bit of shaming (I’m sorry you’re “scared” of violence/rejection i.e. less than a REAL MAN(tm)).

A “Real Man” to any particular female, is one who does what is most useful to her at the particular moment in which said female challenges your manhood.

The only “rejection” that Western culture has trained men to fear is rejection by women.

But now is not the time to be a quiet and passive supporter of women. Perhaps after this march you can have your own painful and necessary dialogues about why you waited for women to organize a powerful show of resistance and then, instead of being grateful for the opportunity to participate, some of you pouted about not having a seat at the planning table.

Because females are “Strong and Independent and Don’t Need No Man.” I am a man. I do not render aid or service where it is not needed. I don’t waste my time or effort on the demonstrably ungrateful or the outright spiteful.

Perhaps you can have your own painful and necessary dialogues about being in thrall to superficial branding over substance, because this march and the movement it is galvanizing are about women’s lives, not our lifestyles, and deserve to be treated with accordant gravity.

I’ll pass, thanks. I don’t fetishize hurt feelings quite like Feminists do.

Please, do talk amongst yourselves on these issues. But don’t lean on women to educate you, unless you are hiring them in a professional capacity to do so. Women are busy; they don’t have time to lead you gently by the hand through this process.

I’d rather talk to other men about how fucking daffy and arrogant Feminists are to expect men to come and accept second-class status, based on sex, in the Feminist milieu as “Equality.” I would rather laugh at the outright hypocrisy Keane displays in expecting men to voluntary surrender their time and labor to Feminist idiocy while demanding that men hire Feminists to defend their ideology against questioning.

Men are busy. We don’t have time to listen to you, follow you, or lead you gently by the hand ANYWHERE. (I hope you noticed the pivot back to snide condescension.)

In the meantime, if you believe the ideals a Trump presidency is sure to shore up will be toxic for the country, show up. March alongside and behind your partners, mothers, daughters, sisters, neighbors, colleagues and fellow citizens. I assure you that your masculinity will remain fully intact — it may well be enhanced! — even if you slip on a pussy hat for the event.

So wait, is this the pro-Women March? Or the anti-Trump march? Didn’t a bunch of females vote for Trump? Did they get their V-cards pulled for voting the wrong way?

But, on the topic of cards, I know what card you won’t be pulling; my masculinity card for your own petty political benefit.

Archived Source

The Women’s March on Washington; Guiding Vision and Definitions of Principles with Commentary

The Women’s March group has released its terrorist demands…I mean guiding vision and definitions of principles (which offers no guidance, defines nothing in any meaningful way and appears to contain no principles at all).

Because I’m stuck inside thanks to all of that global warming going on outside today, I’m going to try and pick apart this nonsense.

Light a candle for me as I stare into the heart of feminist darkness.


The Women’s March on Washington is a women-led movement bringing together people of all genders, ages, races, cultures, political affiliations and backgrounds in our nation’s capital on January 21, 2017, to affirm our shared humanity and pronounce our bold message of resistance and self-determination.

Recognizing that women have intersecting identities and are therefore impacted by a multitude of social justice and human rights issues, we have outlined a representative vision for a government that is based on the principles of liberty and justice for all. As Dr. King said, “We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.”

Our liberation is bound in each other’s.

Liberation from what?

The Women’s March on Washington includes leaders of organizations and communities that have been building the foundation for social progress for generations. We welcome vibrant collaboration and honor the legacy of the movements before us – the suffragists and abolitionists, the Civil Rights Movement, the feminist movement, the American Indian Movement, Occupy Wall Street, Marriage Equality, Black Lives Matter, and more – by employing a decentralized, leader-full structure and focusing on an ambitious, fundamental and comprehensive agenda.

We are empowered by the legions of revolutionary leaders who paved the way for us to march, and acknowledge those around the globe who fight for our freedoms. We honor these women and so many more. They are #WHYWEMARCH.

Bella Abzug • Corazon Aquino • Ella Baker • Grace Lee Boggs
Berta Cáceres • Rachel Carson • Shirley Chisholm
Angela Davis • Miss Major Griffin Gracy • LaDonna Harris
Dorothy I. Height • bell hooks • Dolores Huerta • Marsha P. Johnson Barbara Jordan • Yuri Kochiyama • Winona LaDuke
Audre Lorde • Wilma Mankiller • Diane Nash • Sylvia Rivera
Barbara Smith • Gloria Steinem • Hannah G. Solomon
Harriet Tubman • Edith Windsor • Malala Yousafzai

The pantheon of the Feminist Saints. I can’t help but notice that Valerie Solanas is conspicuously absent from this list.

Must have been a typo.

● We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights. This is the basic and original tenet from which all our values stem.

A pithy little piece of sloganeering which ably forecloses the rights of Men from being considered “Human Rights.”

It also neglects to mention what “Women’s Rights” are specifically.

● We believe Gender Justice is Racial Justice is Economic Justice. We must create a society in which women, in particular women—in particular Black women, Native women, poor women, immigrant women, Muslim women, and queer and trans women—are free and able to care for and nurture their families, however they are formed, in safe and healthy environments free from structural impediments.

To begin, this hyphenated/qualified Justice is not Justice. “Social Justice” is not justice. “Gender Justice” is not justice. “Racial Justice” is not justice. “Economic Justice” is not justice. Justice, by its very nature, takes no notice of the race, sex, wealth, poverty, or culture of the parties in conflict, but seeks to give both parties such treatment and outcomes as their actions deserve.

The Oppression Olympics promoted by “intersectionality” on full display. All women are the victims of all men in the form of “The Patriarchy.” However, some women are just a little more “oppressed” than other women. Black women are always more “oppressed” than White women. Poor women are always more “oppressed” than middle-class women who are more “oppressed” than rich women. Muslim women are always more “oppressed” than Christian women. immigrant women are always more “oppressed” than native women. Lesbians are always more “oppressed” than heterosexuals.

● Women deserve to live full and healthy lives, free of violence against our bodies.

How so, when men do not “live full and healthy lives, free of violence against their bodies?”

One in three women have been victims of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime;

Men, across time and geography are the primary victims of violence. Even narrowed to the sliver of violence feminists obsess as “domestic violence,” the numbers of men and women who are the victims of such violence are about 60-40.

and one in five women have been raped.

An outright lie, as pointed out by the researcher WHO COLLECTED THE DATA.

Further, each year, thousands of women and girls, particularly Black, indigenous and transgender women and girls, are kidnapped,



Male sex trafficking is widely underreported and fewer services are available for boys who have been forced into prostitution.

or murdered.

Pick a year. ANY year. The number of male homicide victims (10,608 in 2015) will not even be close to the number of female homicide victims (2,818 in 2015).

We honor the lives of those women who were taken before their time and we affirm that we work for a day when all forms of violence against women are eliminated.

Meanwhile, the amount of violence against men is just fine where it is.

Now, tell me again how “Feminism means equality.”

● We believe in accountability and justice for police brutality and ending racial profiling and targeting of communities of color. Women of color are killed in police custody at greater rates than white women, and are more likely to be sexually assaulted by police.

Intersectionality. In the Killed in Police Custody event, black women take the gold medal, “women of color” take the silver, white women take the bronze medal.

We also call for an immediate end to arming police with the military grade weapons and military tactics that are wreaking havoc on communities of color.

Fucking feminists. Even when they approach a good point (military surplus and federal grants as an end-run around the Posse Comitatus Act) screw it up by stating that it is the police “wreaking havoc on communities of color” (code for Black people).

No, it isn’t the police wreaking havoc in the black community, it’s thugs and the Black Matriarchy that is wreaking havoc in the black community.

There were over 700 murders in the city of Chicago in 2016. Chicago is ground zero of the Black Matriarchy. The CPD is damn near a criminal enterprise, but not even the most successfully sued police department in America killed over 700 people in 2016. Most of those 700 were black people. Most of them were killed by other black people. And most of those, both the killers and the victims, were raised by Black Matriarchs, single black females, chanting the holy, head-wagging, finger-shaking “sassy” mantra of “I don’t need no man” ever since LBJ offered them a nice government teat to suck off of. AFDC. TANF. Section 8. Housing Vouchers. SNAP. WIC. Black Matriarchs have been wards of the state for damn near 60 years and the results are in:

“Communities” without Men in general, and fathers in particular, are complete shit. No need to add cops to the mix, single mothers can wreak havoc on communities without any help from John Law.

No woman or mother should have to fear that her loved ones will be harmed at the hands of those sworn to protect.

The police have no legal duty to protect you as an individual or keep you alive. See Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1,3 (U.S. App. D.C. 1981)

● We believe it is our moral imperative to dismantle the gender and racial inequities within the criminal justice system. The rate of imprisonment has grown faster for women than men, increasing by 700% since 1980, and the majority of women in prison have a child under the age of 18.

Oh my God, stop the presses! Women are actually being punished for their crimes! It’s the end of civilization as we know it!

But I like the part that the majority of women in prison have a child, as if popping out a baby, before or after committing a felony somehow sanctifies a felon.

If there is to be no leniency in sentencing or parole for fatherhood, then why should there be any for motherhood?

Incarcerated women also face a high rate of violence and sexual assault.

And yet, prison is one of the places where a man is more likely to be raped than a woman.

But, “Feminism means equality.”

We are committed to ensuring access to gender-responsive programming and dedicated healthcare including substance abuse treatment, mental and maternal health services for women in prison.

Translation: Send more money.

We believe in the promise of restorative justice and alternatives to incarceration.

Once again, “Qualified Justice” is not justice; it is an unjustifiable bias in favor of one person over another.

We are also committed to disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline that prioritizes incarceration over education by systematically funneling our children—particularly children of color, queer and trans youth, foster care children, and girls—into the justice system.

The State subsidizes the irresponsible Black Matriarch to breed with the worst mates she can select. The State subsidizes the Public Miseducation System to warehouse and “Socially Promote” the products of the Black Matriarchy and acclimate them to a prison-like environment.

Feminists are now surprised that all of this subsidization of mediocrity as produced felons and miscreants.

● We believe in Reproductive Freedom. We do not accept any federal, state or local rollbacks, cuts or restrictions on our ability to access quality reproductive healthcare services, birth control, HIV/AIDS care and prevention, or medically accurate sexuality education. This means open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people, regardless of income, location or education. We understand that we can only have reproductive justice when reproductive health care is accessible to all people regardless of income, location or education.

Translation: White Daddy, we’re broke. Send more money.

● We believe in Gender Justice. We must have the power to control our bodies and be free from gender norms, expectations and stereotypes. We must free ourselves and our society from the institution of awarding power, agency and resources disproportionately to masculinity to the exclusion of others.

Once again, “Qualified Justice” is not justice; it is an unjustifiable bias in favor of one person over another.

As for the rest of this insidious gibberish about gender norms, how does one free themselves from “expectations” or “stereotypes”? By stamping out dissent, perhaps? With the power of the State?

Feminists are the handmaidens of tyranny. They would rather deprive you of your right to speak than exercise their right to not listen.

● We firmly declare that LGBTQIA Rights are Human Rights and that it is our obligation to uplift, expand and protect the rights of our gay, lesbian, bi, queer, trans or gender non-conforming brothers, sisters and siblings. This includes access to non-judgmental, comprehensive healthcare with no exceptions or limitations; access to name and gender changes on identity documents; full antidiscrimination protections; access to education, employment, housing and benefits; and an end to police and state violence.

Healthcare with no exceptions or limitations? Even if the provider of healthcare disagrees with doing so?

So not only do Feminists want the State to “send more money,” and free them from “expectations and stereotypes” (through the use of force), but now, the State must corral and enslave some medical professionals for the unfettered and unlimited use of the LGBTQWTFROFLMAOBBQ people (Note: I don’t care what hole you stick what in [consensually], but you got too many damn letters and they change frequently).

● We believe in an economy powered by transparency, accountability, security and equity.

Which rock have you been hiding under for the last eight years during the most transparently opaque Presidency in history?

We believe that creating workforce opportunities that reduce discrimination against women and mothers allow economies to thrive.

Glad you think so.

Nations and industries that support and invest in caregiving and basic workplace protections—including benefits like paid family leave, access to affordable childcare, sick days, healthcare, fair pay, vacation time, and healthy work environments—have shown growth and increased capacity.

Translation: Send more money.

I hope, dear reader, that you’ve noticed a recurring theme by now.

● We believe in equal pay for equal work and the right of all women to be paid equitably. We must end the pay and hiring discrimination that women, particularly mothers, women of color, lesbian, queer and trans women still face each day in our nation. Many mothers have always worked and in our modern labor force; and women are now 50% of all family breadwinners. We stand for the 82% of women who become moms, particularly moms of color, being paid, judged, and treated fairly. Equal pay for equal work will lift families out of poverty and boost our nation’s economy.

The Labor Theory of Value in a pair of panties with “Equal Pay for Equal Work” printed across the butt, rearing its ugly, Marxist head. The value of a product is not determined by the amount of work that went into producing it, but by its value to a purchaser.

Two people with the same job requirements may not produce equal or same results in doing the same job.

● We recognize that women of color carry the heaviest burden in the global and domestic economic landscape, particularly in the care economy.

In the Oppression Olympics, Black women take another gold medal in the Care Economy Event! I tell you, Bob, if they keep this up, this year’s Oppression Olympics will be a clean sweep!

We further affirm that all care work–caring for the elderly, caring for the chronically ill, caring for children and supporting independence for people with disabilities–is work, and that the burden of care falls disproportionately on the shoulders of women, particularly women of color.


We stand for the rights, dignity, and fair treatment of all unpaid and paid caregivers. We must repair and replace the systemic disparities that permeate caregiving at every level of society.

Moralistic horseshit.

● We believe that all workers – including domestic and farm workers – must have the right to
organize and fight for a living minimum wage, and that unions and other labor associations are critical to a healthy and thriving economy for all.

A cartel is a cartel.

No cartel, whether it be a cartel of labor sellers or a cartel of licorice sellers is good for an economy.

Undocumented and migrant workers must be included in our labor protections, and we stand in solidarity with sex workers’ rights movements.

Compound sentences make for bad drafting.

● We believe Civil Rights are our birthright.

You believe wrongly. “Civil rights” (a misnomer) are purely statutory are entirely dependent on your choice of domicillary. “Civil rights” would more accurately be categorized as “privileges and licenses.”

“Natural rights” are your birthright as a human being and which all human beings should recognize in one another.

Our Constitutional government establishes a framework to provide and expand rights and freedoms–not restrict them.

The federal government does not “provide” rights. It recognizes certain individual rights and refrains from interfering with those individual rights.

It does not subsidize the exercise of individual rights.

To this end, we must protect and restore all the Constitutionally-mandated rights to all our citizens, including voting rights, freedom to worship without fear of intimidation or harassment, freedom of speech, and protections for all citizens regardless of race, gender, age or disability.

Great. Have fun with that.

● We believe it is time for an all-inclusive Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Most Americans believe the Constitution guarantees equal rights, but it does not. The 14th Amendment has been undermined by courts and cannot produce real equity on the basis of race and/or sex.

Ah, now we get to some real Feminist saltiness. For the sake of analysis, I’m going to assume that the authors of this document are referring to 14th Amendment Equal Protection jurisprudence.

For those not in the know, here’s a super-abbreviated version of 14th Amendment Equal Protection Doctrine:

U.S.Const. Amend. XIV Sec. 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…No state shall…deny any person equal protection of the laws.

In the wisdom of our nine Nazgul aka the United States Supreme Court, different classifications of parties receive different scrutiny. For example, in Korematsu v. U.S., the court said that “all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect.” For the law in question to be held constitutional, the government would have to prove that the law was passed for an extremely important reason and that reason could not be achieved through less discriminatory means, otherwise known as The Strict Scrutiny Test, which is applied in all instances of racial/national origin cases alleging violation of the Equal Protection clause.

When it comes to sex/gender, a lower standard is used, known as “Intermediate Scrutiny,” which is something more than “Rational Basis” but less than “Strict Scrutiny.” Intermediate Scrutiny, as described in Craig v. Boren requires that the law in question “serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to those objectives.”

What chaps the collective ass of Feminists is the argument against Strict Scrutiny for sex/gender cases. Feminists argue (wrongly) that women have been just as put upon by the law in America as black men (ignoring the distinction between femme sole and femme covert). One arguments against is the intent of the government in passing the 14th Amendment (to protect the newly freed former slaves). Another is that women are not now, nor have they ever been, a discrete and insular minority as laid out in footnote 4 of the Carolene Products case.

Interestingly, Intermediate Scrutiny has helped the feminist cause. The Equal Protection Clause is a double-edged sword. Laws passed in favor of a particular classification (race or sex) must meet the same level of scrutiny as those passed against that classification. For examples, see Michael M. v. Superior Court (upheld CA statutory rape law that allowed prosecution of the 17-year-old boy who had sex but not the 16-year-old girl); Rostker v. Goldberg (Men must register for Selective Service, but not women); Califano v. Webster (Social Security calculation can be used for “redressing our society’s longstanding disparate treatment of women.”); Nguyen v. INS (Unmarried citizen fathers face harder requirements when seeking to nationalize their foreign-born children)

Warning: That was the super-abbreviated version. 14th Amendment jurisprudence has a lot more wrinkles than described above. For more information, take your ass to law school.

And in a true democracy, each citizen’s vote should count equally.

Good thing the United States isn’t a democracy. It’s a republic.

All Americans deserve equality guarantees in the Constitution that cannot be taken away or disregarded, recognizing the reality that inequalities intersect, interconnect and overlap.

Didn’t the 22nd Amendment take away the right of the American people to vote to elect the same candidate to the Presidency more than twice?

● Rooted in the promise of America’s call for huddled masses yearning to breathe free, we believe
in immigrant and refugee rights regardless of status or country of origin.

“The New Colossus” is a sonnet used as an advertising slogan to raise funds for the Statue of Liberty (written by wealthy Jewish women, OF PRIVILEGE). It is not now, nor has it ever been, government policy.

It is our moral duty…

Everytime someone argues “moral duty” to me, I put a protective hand over my wallet.

…to keep families together…


…and empower all aspiring Americans to fully participate in, and contribute to, our economy and society.

And as for the migrants who don’t aspire to be Americans? Or contribute to America?

We reject mass deportation, family detention, violations of due process and violence against queer and trans migrants.

Good for you.

Immigration reform must establish a roadmap to citizenship…

You can strike this one from the list. I have a roadmap to citizenship right here.

…and provide equal opportunities and workplace protections for all. We recognize that the call to action to love our neighbor is not limited to the United States, because there is a global migration crisis.

No, you have a welfare state crisis, as in people are leaving countries that are not welfare states, and MIGRATING to countries that are welfare states.

We believe migration is a human right and that no human being is illegal.

But certain actions are illegal, such as migrating to a country in violation of its statutes.

● We believe that every person and every community in our nation has the right to clean water, clean air, and access to and enjoyment of public lands. We believe that our environment and our climate must be protected, and that our land and natural resources cannot be exploited for corporate gain or greed—especially at the risk of public safety and health.

Translation: Send more money.

The guiding vision and definition of principles were prepared by a broad and diverse group of leaders. The Women’s March on Washington is grateful to all contributors, listed and unlisted, for their dedication in shaping this agenda.

Monifa Bandele, Vice President, MomsRising

Zahra Billoo, Council on American Islamic Relations – San Francisco Bay Area

Gaylynn Burroughs, Director of Policy & Research, Feminist Majority Foundation

Melanie L. Campbell, Convener, Black Women’s Roundtable, President & CEO, NCBCP

Sung Yeon Choimorrow, Interim Executive Director, National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum

Alida Garcia, Immigrant Rights & Diversity Advocate

Alicia Garza, National Domestic Workers Alliance

Carol Jenkins, Board of Directors, ERA Coalition

Dr. Avis Jones-DeWeever, President, Incite Unlimited, LLC

Carol Joyner, Director, Labor Project for Working Families, Family Values @ Work

Janet Mock, Activist and author of Redefining Realness and Surpassing Certainty

Jessica Neuwirth, President, ERA Coalition

Terry O’Neill, President, National Organization for Women (NOW)

Carmen Perez, Executive Director, The Gathering for Justice

Jody Rabhan, Director of Washington Operations, National Coucnil of Jewish Women

Kelley Robinson, Deputy National Organizing Director, Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Executive Director and Co-Founder, MomsRising

Linda Sarsour, Founder, MPower Change

Heidi L. Sieck, Co-Founder/CEO, #VOTEPROCHOICE

Emily Tisch Sussman, Campaign Director, Center for American Progress

Jennifer Tucker, Senior Policy Advisor, Black Women’s Roundtable

Winnie Wong, Activist, Organizer and Co-Founder, People for Bernie

And I’m grateful that this shit was just five pages.

What to make of all of this ballyhoo?

This is a funeral of sorts.

It’s a funeral for Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions and all of the carnage she intended to continue from Bill Clinton’s term as president. All of these idiots are mourners, wailing and gnashing their teeth that their chosen female president’s career was sacrificed on the Altar of Kek by Donald Trump.

Let the feminists cry out and shake their fists impotently at the heavens. Let them rend their garments. Let them weep and sob and chant and whatever other meaningless gestures assist in their catharsis.

While you have your solemnities, I’ll probably be having pizza.