Trump to Decide Whether to Continue Obama’s Unconstitutional ObamaCare Subsidies

During an appearance on this week’s edition of “Fox News Sunday,” White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said that President Donald J. Trump would decide this week if his administration will continue to make cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies.

The payments, called CSRs, subsidize insurers for reducing co-pays and deductibles for low-income Obamacare customers.

When asked by moderator Chris Wallace if Trump was going to cut off those payments, Conway said, “He’s going to make that decision this week and that’s a decision that only he can make.” Here’s the exchange from the Fox News transcript:

WALLACE: Is the present going to cut off the CSR payments, the out-of-pocket payments? He can do it starting next month, this week.

CONWAY: Yes, he can. He can — he’s going to make that decision this week, and that’s the decision that only he can make.

But let’s go back to what we are really talking about here. When he said yesterday in the same tweet, I believe, about the bailout — the insurance companies’ bailout from members of Congress, he’s talked about the CSR payments. He’s also talking about this really sweet deal that members of Congress and their staffers have where they are not beholden to the same health healthcare that so many Americans say is unaffordable and unsustainable and untenable.

And this is exactly what so many Americans hate about Washington, D.C. They feel like they have their nose pressed up against the glass, peering into the special interests, the swamp, these lobbyists, the folks on Capitol Hill. They want people to live under the same rules they do. And, frankly, if people had the same rules on Capitol Hill, maybe they would have a stronger taste of what it feels like to be in a short — what it feels like —

WALLACE: Kellyanne —

CONWAY: — to have to choose between paying your premiums and paying your grocery bill.

President Obama’s CSR payments have been found unconstitutional. On May 12, 2016, United States District Judge Rosemary Collyer of the federal district court for the District of Columbia decided that the Obama administration could not constitutionally reimburse insurers for the costs they incur in fulfilling their ObamaCare obligation to reduce cost sharing because Congress had not appropriated money to cover the CSR payments.

As Timothy Jost explains, the lawsuit was an attempt by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to hold President Obama responsible for his abuses of presidential power. On July 30, 2014, the House voted to file a lawsuit challenging the President’s implementation of the law. The complaint, filed on November 21, 2014, focused on two issues: the decision by the Obama administration in 2013 to delay the implementation of the employer mandate for a year, and the funding by the administration of the Affordable Care Act’s CSR payments, without an explicit appropriation.

Judge Collyer’s decision was a clear victory for the House of Representatives.

The Washington Examiner reports that President Trump has threatened to allow Obamacare to collapse and implode after Congress failed to pass legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. President Trump also said on Twitter that he wants the Senate to keep working on healthcare after Republicans were unable to get the votes for a “skinny repeal” bill last week.

As Conway told Wallace, President Trump isn’t willing to move on to other legislative priorities just yet:

CONWAY: The president will not accept those who said it’s, quote, time to move on. He wants to help the millions of Americans who have suffered with no coverage. They were lied to by the last president. They couldn’t keep the doctor. They couldn’t keep their plan.

We’ve met with the ObamaCare victims at the White House several times now. They’re real people, they’re suffering.

And when he talks about the 51 votes, the president is basically making the case that so many of the components of real healthcare reform, Chris, requires 60 votes — the drug pricing, the selling of insurance across state lines, the associated health plans that allow those who don’t get their health insurance to the employers like you and I do, or to government benefits, who have been left out because the premiums are too high.

Premiums have doubled. We see in some states that there are no insurers —


WALLACE: Let’s talk about that. Kellyanne —

CONWAY: So, he will. He will stick with it.

If President Trump refuses to continue Obama’s unconstitutional CSR payments, Obamacare will have even more problems.

LIberals: ‘Women’ is Always a Euphemism for Eugenics So They Can Be Little gods

A woman who doesn’t support eugenics isn’t worth celebrating, because “women” must accept their role as little gods who decide who lives and dies.

There’s no doubt, when liberals refer to “women” as in “women’s rights” or “standing up for women” or “code pink” for abortion, they are always talking about eugenics.

Examples abound, and they’re not even hard to find. Here are a few current cases of women who achieved success but aren’t worth celebrating because they can’t accept eugenics.

Kellyanne Conway: loves being a mother and a successful woman

When Kellyanne Conway became the first woman in history to manage a successful presidential campaign, liberals offered pretzeled arguments of Conway “using her femininity as a tool.” Catch this from Vogue:

But when she is called out for looking tired, or when she’s belittled for purportedly using her femininity as a tool, Conway wins—especially when the attacks come from her political opponents. Aside from reifying the notion that public misogyny is acceptable under any circumstances, when feminists and progressives attack Trump’s interlocutor in sexist terms, they leave themselves vulnerable to what could well be carefully plotted manipulation on Conway’s part.

What does that even mean? That Conway is somehow doing a double-secret manipulation by being a feminine, yet powerful woman, to somehow undercut arguments by feminists that she doesn’t do enough for women?

In feminist circles, merely being a woman who achieves something doesn’t make your achievement count unless you do it for a particular cause. That cause is reproductive rights, although it’s wrapped like a tamale in other “intersectional” issues like LGBTQ, support of the poor, and of course immigration and racism. But it’s really the right to birth control of all means, including abortion–even late term abortion.

Karen Handel: fought against breast cancer, pro-life

Conway, and now Rep-elect Karen Handel, are subject to withering attacks because they aren’t supporting “women.”

And they don’t even know what they’re talking (tweeting) about.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure gave grant money to Planned Parenthood. It was a completely political arrangement, since PP doesn’t do mammograms. When Handel, who was a senior vice president with Komen, was given the task of cutting those grants, she took the fall when the political feces hit the fan.

According to Komen’s website, 252,710 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in 2017, along with 40,610 breast cancer deaths. I don’t think any sane person could argue that Handel’s work for Komen was somehow against women’s health. That is, unless you define women’s health strictly as reproductive rights.

And liberals do exactly that (Cosmopolitan).

Though Handel, a devout Catholic, denied that the decision had to do with “political beliefs or ideology,” Planned Parenthood has been part of Handel’s politics since she was on the Fulton County board of commissioners in the early 2000s and voted to grant $400,000 to Planned Parenthood. When she ran unsuccessfully for governor of Georgia in 2010, she was criticized for that vote, and accused by her opponent for not being conservative enough. By the time she was running for governor, Handel included cutting state aid to Planned Parenthood in her gubernatorial platform. At that time, though, she still thought abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest, or threat to a mother’s life. In 2017, Handel listed abortion as one of eight major issues on her campaign website, stating that she believes “life begins at conception.”

Who cares about breast cancer or mammograms? It’s all about abortion, which is itself a euphemism for eugenics.

Eugenics makes women into little gods

Eugenics means “good birth.” It was the founding principle of the American Birth Control League, which is now known as Planned Parenthood. In the early 20th century, eugenics was all the rage. Herr Hitler was a huge fan, as were many in the U.S. After all, improving the human race, and eliminating unwanted babies that were a drag on society was considered to be a virtue.

Eugenics was not only the purview of academics, and it became a popular social movement that peaked in the 1920s and 30s. During this period, the American Eugenics Society was founded, in addition to many local societies and groups around the country (PBS 1998). Members competed in “fitter family” and “better baby” competitions at fairs and exhibitions (Remsberg 2011). Movies and books promoting eugenic principles were popular. A film called The Black Stork (1917), based on a true story, depicted as heroic a doctor that allowed a syphilitic infant to die after convincing the child’s parents that it was better to spare society one more outcast.

The cold logic is simple. An unwanted baby should be spared living, and a parent who doesn’t want to be one should be spared having to care for the unwanted child. Society therefore has a responsibility to eliminate those children or be faced with the task of finding suitable care.

Couching the decision in the veil of “rights” of the mother–in rape and incest cases, in cases of chromosomal damage, or just because the mother took a “Plan B” pill–makes the euphemism more comfortable. What they’re really doing is ridding society of a burden.

For feminist liberals, a woman who doesn’t support eugenics isn’t worth celebrating for any achievement, because “women” must accept their role as the arbiters of life, little gods who decide who lives and dies based on their own womanly intuition and needs.

This is, stripped of all the “causes” and “rights” talk, what liberals are fighting for. In their view, women can only be empowered when they achieve power over life, instead of simply being nurturers of life regardless of the circumstances of its origin.

Katy Talento: fights AIDS, criticized after-conception birth control

They’ve tied this to economics (How the Pill Made the American Economy Great), and they’ve tied it to AIDS. One of the reasons six members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS quit, saying Trump “simply does not care” about the topic, is because they don’t like Katy Talento, Trump’s health policy adviser (and an HIV/AIDS expert) on the Domestic Policy Council.

From the Washington Post:

[Council member Scott Schoettes] also criticized Talento for making inaccurate claims about birth control in the past. “This administration has shown themselves to be anti-science in multiple areas. I don’t know how we can argue policy positions if they don’t use facts.”

The “inaccurate claims” he referred to was a piece Talento published in The Federalist about the dangers of chemical birth control. The article is chock-full of science, and even gives space to opposing views. It cites a 2012 study published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

But Schoettes claims it’s “anti-science.” Not because it’s claiming AIDS isn’t a health problem, but because it deals with birth control, especially the pills that prevent “a fertilized egg (i.e. after conception) from hunkering down in the wall of the uterus, where it can grow normally.” Talento, a high achieving women with a high-profile administration position, can’t be trusted because her views on birth control don’t line up with eugenics.

To liberals, when you get past all their deflections, it’s very clear that their first cause is making women into little gods, and that, to them, is the meaning of feminism, and of “standing up for women.” Any woman’s achievement, without the first cause, is not a cause they will celebrate.

Refilling the Swamp: Trump Issues 5 Times As Many Ethics Waivers As Obama

“Draining the swamp” was a major theme of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign last year. The phrase became a rallying cry for ethics reform and for stopping the “revolving door” that allowed government officials to go to work as lobbyists and vice versa. To much fanfare, Trump signed an Executive Order that modified the Obama Administration policy on lobbying by former government officials as one of his first acts.

Now it seems that the Trump ethics policy is not as stringent as it first seemed. On Wednesday, the White House finally issued a list of “ethics pledge waivers” for the White House staff. The White House had fought the Office of Government Ethics on whether to make the waivers public after initially granting them in secret.

The list, which includes only members of the presidential and vice-presidential staffs, includes a number of former lobbyists and members of the media. The New York Times notes that the 16 known waivers issued by the Trump Administration is “more than five times the number granted in the first four months of the Obama administration.”

Some of the waivers were granted because the White House employees had to have contact with their former employers to do their current jobs. For example, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus had to be able to communicate with the Republican National Committee, the organization that he once ran. Likewise, Kellyanne Conway, a senior advisor to President Trump and a former Republican pollster, “may participate in communications and meetings involving former clients which are political, advocacy, trade, or non-profit organizations” per her waiver.

Other waivers are more problematic for Mr. Trump’s “drain the swamp” pledge. Politico points out that Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, who previously headed the right-wing website,, is covered under a waiver that allows White House aides to interact with news outlets in spite of previous ties to those organizations. According to Politico, Bannon can legally engage with Breitbart even when other organizations are excluded. Before the waiver was made public, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington had filed a complaint against Bannon for repeated contacts with Breitbart employees in apparent violation of the ethics pledge.

It is uncertain how many lobbyists have been granted approval to work in other departments within the Trump Administration, but at least four former lobbyists are known to have been granted waivers to work within the Trump White House on policy areas that could present a conflict of interests:

  • Michael Catanzaro, a former oil and gas lobbyist, was granted approval to work on energy policy.
  • Shahira Knight, a former Fidelity executive who had lobbied on tax, retirement and financial issues, was approved to work on those policy areas.
  • Andrew Olmem, a bank and insurance lobbyist, is allowed to work with former clients on financial policy.
  • Joshua Pitcock, a former lobbyist for the State of Indiana, is allowed to work with Indiana officials on issues on which he previously lobbied.

Additionally, six former attorneys for the Jones Day law firm were granted a waiver to “participate in communications and meetings where Jones Day represents the President, his campaign, the transition, or political entities supporting the President.” Donald Trump was a client of Jones Day before he became president and White Counsel Don McGahn, along with 11 other Trump Administration lawyers, are alumni of the firm. Jones Day, which is not a lobbying firm, ran ads touting its “insights on the new Administration” in April.

Watchdog groups were critical of the extent of the waivers. “The ethics waivers the White House finally released reveal what we already suspected: that this administration is chock full of senior officials working on issues on which they lobbied, meeting with companies in which they have a financial interest, or working closely with former employers,” said a spokesman for the nonpartisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The Obama Administration issued about 16 waivers in eight years. The Trump Administration has issued 16 waivers after four months. At this point in the Obama Administration, three waivers had been issued per the Times.

A White House spokesman told the New York Times that the Trump Administration tried to avoid conflicts of interest when possible. The administration also asked its employees not to work on policy areas in which they had worked in the private sector.


You Can’t Make This Stuff Up: Sean Spicer Responds To Comey Firing By Hiding In The Bushes

If you ever think that the Trump White House resembles a sitcom, you have to acknowledge that even the best comedy writers can’t top reality. Case in point: after the president fired FBI Director James Comey, Press Secretary Sean Spicer ducked behind a hedge to avoid the scrum of reporters ready to tackle any staffer with questions about the Comey situation.

Now, here’s a little more context to what went down: Spicer had just wrapped up an interview with Fox Business, and he needed an update on what was going on before he faced the rush of journalists. So he dropped behind the bushes for a quick convo with staffers, including Kellyanne Conway and Spicer’s deputy, Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

After Spicer spent several minutes hidden in the bushes behind these sets, Janet Montesi, an executive assistant in the press office, emerged and told reporters that Spicer would answer some questions, as long as he was not filmed doing so. Spicer then emerged.

Spicer wound up speaking for about ten minutes off camera, trying to keep his tone light but expressing his annoyance and having to answer the same questions over and over. He referred reporters to the Department of Justice for details and timelines before walking back into the White House.

It’s just one more facet of the odd sequence of events that took place this week.

“Another Tuesday at the White House,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders quipped as she finished speaking on Fox News from its outdoor set, as the voice of Kellyanne Conway continued to spar with CNN’s Anderson Cooper from the next booth over.

I’m still waiting on Spicer to announce either a real-life version of Veep or a political version of The Office. (The Oval Office, anyone?) Because obviously the Trump White House will never cease to be fascinating and entertaining.

Theaters Plan To Show ‘1984’ Film Because…You Know…Trump, Or Something

In this age where everything is a protest against Trump, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that about 200 theaters across the country and in other nations plan to show the film version of George Orwell’s 1984 as – you guessed it – a global protest against the Trump presidency.

The “Global Screening Day” protest involved cinemas not only here in the States, but in Canada, Croatia, Sweden, and the UK, according to The Hill – who, interestingly enough sourced Al Jazeera for their report. Dylan Skolnick, co-director of the Cinema Arts Centre on Long Island, and Adam Birnbaum, director of film programing at Connecticut’s Avon Theatre Film Centre are the organizers of this brave protest.

“In particular, this undermining of the concept of facts and the demonization of foreign enemies [by the Trump administration] really resonate in ‘1984,’” Skolnick said.
The event is scheduled for April 4 as a nod to the date Winston Smith, the protagonist of George Orwell’s novel, begins resisting the Inner Party and Big Brother.

“No one is suggesting that we’re living in Orwell’s world. But the road to that world is people just becoming disengaged and allowing their government to do whatever it wants,” Skolnick said.

Skolnick’s assertion is in contrast to the Obama years, when Leftists…you know…allowed the government to do whatever it wanted.

Oddly enough, the only parallel between the Orwell novel and the Trump administration that The Hill could come up with was the “doublethink” concept echoing Kellyanne Conway’s idiotic “alternative facts” statement.

The Left apparently doesn’t realize that the Orwellian notions that point to their side of the aisle. The idea of “thoughtcrimes” in the book mirror political correctness, which is an obvious tool of the Left. The concept of “2 + 2 = 5” rears its head in ongoing debates on gender and climate – not to mention Leftists’ dismissal of objective truth. Orwell’s “unperson” concept comes straight out of the Communists’ removal of subversive persons from photographs and historical accounts.

“Big Brother” has its parallels in both political parties; look at both the Patriot Act birthed during the George W. Bush years along with the current controversy surrounding Obama administration officials seeking to unmask American names in foreign surveillance records. But the whole idea of the government looking over everybody’s shoulders goes back to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson at the height of the Progressive era.

Here’s the thing: 1984 does have some eerie parallels in the 21st century, but the Left doesn’t realize how badly it is engaging in projection when it tries to pin all of the novel-turned-film’s concepts on the Trump White House. If they engaged in a little self-examination, they just might decide to put Orwell back on the bookshelf for a while.

No Laughing Matter

In Milan Kundera’s 1967 novel The Joke, a student named Ludvik in Communist-era Czechoslovakia tries to impress a girl by writing her a postcard that pokes a bit of fun at the super-dreary slogans of the regime.  Since he’s an enthusiastic socialist, he figures that everyone will totally get that he’s kidding–until the ruling party kicks him out, subjects him to public scorn and basically ruins his life.  Communism, apparently, doesn’t appreciate a sense of humor.

Which brings us to 2017, where life seems to imitate satire more and more each day.  Take the Kellyanne Conway Couch Caper, for instance.  After being called out for inappropriate leg-tucking whilst in the Oval Office, the presendetial adviser soon became the subject of a joke told by one Cedric Richmond, a Democrat representative from Louisiana:

I really just want to know what was going on there, because, you know, I won’t tell anybody. And you can just explain to me that circumstance, because she really looked kind of familiar in that position there. But, don’t answer, and I don’t want you to refer back to the 1990s.

If this elicited guffaws, they must have come from a sympathetic audience.  The joke here is buried so deep that Indiana Jones would have a tough time digging it out of the tomb in which it had been encased.  “You know, the 1990s.  Bill and Monica?  On her knees, on the couch? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.”

Yeah, Cedric.  We get it.

Of course Richmond later denied it, using an excuse so lame that Tiny Tim could have run circles around it–but we all know what he meant, and so did he.  So did Conway, who had this to say about it:

Asked over text if she thought there would be more media outrage about the comment if she were a liberal woman, Conway told The Daily Caller, “Yes.” She added: “And it is not just if I were a liberal woman, but if I were a pro-abortion one.”

After which Richmond slinked away, his singed tail between his legs.

Now I appreciate a sick burn, probably more than is healthy, but there is also something a bit sad that this is the state we’ve come to in our politics.

So much of what’s wrong can be encapsulated in this particular incident, starting with why Richmond thought it would ever be appropriate to crack such a sexist joke in the first place.  It’s simple, really:  Like our pal Ludvik, he figured he’d be protected from criticism because he’s a member of the right party.  As long as you’re a liberal in good standing, you can feel free to unload all the misogyny that you like–so long as it’s on a conservative woman.

But there’s the complete inability to make any jokes at all (even good ones).  We’ve all become so conditioned not to give anything that could even be perceived as offense that we’ve lost alove ability to laugh at ourselves, much less each other.  Instead, we’re reduced to policing each other’s statements like spies in our own little Stasi, hoping to intercept some screwup we can use to score cheap political points.  It’s all so tedious and exhausting.

Unfortunately, this is what it’s all come to.  I wish it weren’t so, but the Left hasn’t given us much choice.  With their social media Two-Minute-Hates and demanding the head of anyone who dares utter an off-color remark in an unguarded moment, we as conservatives would be foolish not to make them play by their own rules.

Welcome to the new normal.

Couch Potatoes

Time and again, Twitter has proven itself to be a powerful social media platform–perhaps the most powerful of all, what with its ability to instantly document breaking news and shape perceptions of the world around us.  But, like Peter Parker’s uncle once warned, with great power comes great stupidity (or something to that effect).  That’s how you get viral sensations like the Great Kellyanne Conway Couch Caper.

Don’t know what that is?  Neither did I–until I foolishly checked Tweetbot before turning in last night, and saw my timeline lit up with the kind of outrage you usually associate with some story that’ll get debunked in a couple of hours.  Apparently, someone snapped a pic of White House adviser (and Trump campiagn manager) Kellyanne Conway committing some serious faux pas while sitting on a couch in the Oval Office:

Oops, sorry–wrong picture!  But, from the tone of the tweets, you’d have thought it was something just as naughty.  Turns out it was something more like your old Auntie Gin–the one who had plastic covering all the furniture–might have chided you for that time you tried to eat cookies in bed:

That’s right.  Shoes on the couch.  In the Oval Office.  The horror!

Of course, this rather daft bit of criticism invited even more daft replies, and pretty soon there was a veritable tweetstorm showing various pics of Barack Obama with his feet propped up on the Oval Office desk–truly, whataboutism sinking to levels not thought scientifically possible.  I thought Twitter might actually collapse under the sheer weight of its own density.

Quick tip to you Blue Bird Warriors out there:  Nobody cares.

Another tip:  Get some help or get a hobby, because you either have serious problems or too much time on your hands.

Mansplaining Kellyanne Conway On Feminism

Okay, now listen up. I’m going to mansplain what Kellyanne Conway meant when she said she’s not a feminist “in a classic sense,” in her remarks made at CPAC.

The Washington Post reported what she said; I’ll quote it so there’s no misunderstanding.

“It’s difficult for me to call myself a feminist in a classic sense because it seems to be very anti-male, and it certainly is very pro-abortion, and I’m neither anti-male or pro-abortion,” Conway said during a conversation onstage with conservative commentator Mercedes Schlapp. “So, there’s an individual feminism, if you will, that you make your own choices. … I look at myself as a product of my choices, not a victim of my circumstances.”

Since I’m a man, that automatically means I surely can’t understand two women talking to each other, and since I’m a man, I certainly have no way to communicate their thoughts in a way women can understand. I get that.

But as a man (presumably speaking only to other men by this point, since all women rolled their eyes and clicked away at “listen up”), here’s what I hear Conway saying:

She defines “Classic feminism” as the result of the sexual revolution, where Christian morals were rejected in favor of “do what feels good.” Its the logical extension of the 50s housewife in an apron, cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the kids being thrown out as anachronistic and oppressive. It’s Mary Tyler Moore, Maude, and Murphy Brown. It’s not Martha Stewart fluffing pillows and roasting a turkey–it’s Stewart as she was as a federal prisoner, like “Orange is the New Black.”

Therefore, any woman, regardless of her social status, achievements, education, or position, who is okay with a housewife raising kids, taking them to Sunday School, doing the PTA thing, cleaning and cooking for her family (without the frenetic career juggling–a real housewife), is not, by her definition, a “classic feminist.”

“Classic feminists” are fully invested in “intersectionality.” Here, let me mansplain that too.

Intersectionality is a concept often used in critical theories to describe the ways in which oppressive institutions (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, classism, etc.) are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from one another. The concept first came from legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 and is largely used in critical theories, especially Feminist theory, when discussing systematic oppression. When possible, credit Kimberlé Crenshaw for coining the term “intersectionality” and bringing the concept to wider attention.

We can skip the “-isms” and get right to the point, like men do. “Intersectionality” is that Pale Penis People are everyone’s oppressors, the Patriarchy is evil, and everyone who isn’t a straight, white, male with proper genitalia is automatically an oppressed class, entitled to reparations, social justice, and support in the battle against “The Man.”

Conway continued:

“You know, this whole sisterhood, this whole ‘let’s go march for women’s rights’ and, you know, just constantly talking about what women look like or what they wear or making fun of their choices or presuming that they’re not as powerful as the men around,” Conway said. “This presumptive negativity about women in power, I think, is very unfortunate.”

Since I’m a man, I had to get a gut-check on this, so I asked the nearest woman to me (my wife). She told me that when she hears the word “feminism” she thinks of man-haters. She thinks of television shows where the men are portrayed as buffoons, where women call their husbands a “moron.” Imagine if the TV dad called his wife a “moron.” Yeah, that was some good wifesplaining.

A “classic feminist” is one who thinks men need to come down a notch in order for themselves to succeed. This is why you get things like “menstrual equity.” (Sorry, that one defies mansplaining.) This kind of feminist (who is not necessarily a woman, mind you) thinks that women can and should do everything men do, including impregnate themselves, fight wars, play in the NFL, and grow beards.

It’s not enough that women can occupy any high position like CEO or senator or President of the United States. Women must also be gods (“goddesses” is sexist). They must have the exclusive and irrevocable power of life and death over each and every new addition to Planet Earth.

Because they have uteruses.

Although if you have a uterus and don’t agree with that position, you can’t be a “classic feminist,” even if you are the first woman in history to manage a successful presidential campaign.  Even if you’re president.

Conway agrees. “I would tell my three daughters and your daughters, or you, that the job for first female president of the United States remains open, so go for it.” She forgot to tell her daughters that they can’t be the first feminist president.

Consider this mansplained.