Does Elizabeth Warren discriminate against women?

Senator Elizabeth Warren is considered one of the champions of women’s rights in Washington. In January she participated in the Women’s March in Boston, electrifying the crowd with these words:

“We’re here today because of the power of women — the power of women to come up with good ideas, like this rally,” she said. “The power of women to organize, like this rally. And the power of women to make sure that as our country enters a new political era that the voices of the people will be heard.”

In the issues section of her website, Sen. Warren says this about women and equal pay:

“Across the country, women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, and over their careers, that means they take home hundreds of thousands of dollars less than men … Women deserve equal pay for equal work.”

No doubt the vision millions of her pink-capped minions have of Sen. Warren is of the lone warrior striking out across the plain on her white stallion roan gelding, eagle feathers whipping in the wind as she heads into battle against straight white male Christian capitalistic (did I miss anything?) greed.

Unfortunately the truth looks nothing like that vision.

Case in point:  A report in the Washington Free Beacon tells us that women on Warren’s staff earn approximately 70% of the amount earned by her male employees. Income for multi-gendered, gender-neutral, and non-gendered employees were not mentioned in the report.

The findings were compiled using data from fiscal year 2016, in which just one female staffer earned a six-figure income, while five men did so.

The story concludes by saying that “Warren’s office did not respond to inquiries regarding the disparity,” and understandably so. What exactly would she say?

In fact, what would any of the left’s great champions of women’s rights say to such inequity? Perhaps we should call upon Andrew Cuomo. Barack Obama? Ooh, how about that champion of champions, Hillary Clinton?

Nope. All three have previously been guilty of the same inequity.

The truth is, there is no adequate response Senator Speaks With Two Tongues could give us for her hypocrisy on this issue.

However – despite the absence of a response, we here at The Resurgent will leave the last word for Sen. Warren. This quote – also mentioned in the Washington Free Beacon story – is from a year ago:

“The game is rigged against women and families, and it has to stop.”

Despite Liberal Squealing, Meals On Wheels Proves Private Charity Works Best

The essential difference between liberals and conservatives comes down to the role of government versus the social responsibility of individuals. Conservatives see government as a necessary intrusion into individual liberty, but in no way supplanting individual responsibility to be productive, charitable, and useful members of society. Liberals see individuals as servants of the government’s ends, to enforce arbitrary social contracts in the name of so-called “progress.”

Meals on Wheels serves as an almost perfect example of this division, and why liberals have it so wrong in America. CNN reported Monday that last Thursday, the organization received 50 times the typical amount of daily donations after liberals reacted in outrage over President Trump’s proposed budget cuts.

I’d bet that the average American wouldn’t have known whether Meals on Wheels was a government organization or a private charity before the while brouhaha began. But in fact, the national office of the organization only receives 3 percent of its funding from the government, according to CNN.

Local offices, of which there are more than 5,000, receive varying levels of government funding through the HHS Community Development Block Grant program which the Trump budget proposes to eliminate. Some offices, such as one CNN cited outside Detroit, up to 30 percent of the budget comes from CDBG money.

But now, the public has stepped up and given, both their money and their time. Jenny Bartolette, a spokeswoman for Meals on Wheels America told CNN that volunteer sign-ups increased by 500 percent.

Several local Meals on Wheels organizations said they had received similar support. Metro Meals on Wheels, which covers Minneapolis and St. Paul, said the group received about 40 donations in the past 24 hours, well over the usual average of three or four donations a day.

“The good news that it has rallied folks around the cause and reminded folks that they can’t really take these kinds of services for granted,” said Patrick Rowan, executive director of Metro Meals on Wheels. “It’s reassuring that the public has stepped up.”

Similarly, Ellen Horwitz of Meals on Wheels of West Los Angeles said there’s been an “abundance of people calling in the last two days saying, ‘Can we help?'”

Liberals would like to claim that this increased support somehow validates the argument that the government should continue to fund such a critical organization. But that’s simply not true. Public reaction points us to precisely the opposite conclusion.

When a charity organization doing good works is allowed to share its message wide and far, Americans respond quickly and effectively–and privately. Americans are giving people, and support all kinds of charities from Compassion International, to World Vision, Southern Baptist Disaster Relief, Nechama and Convoy of Hope. And those are just the religious organizations.

The problem is when charities become too reliant on government funding. Then they start jumping through hoops to get grants rather than presenting their needs to the community they serve. When those needs are brought to the forefront, people respond.

Trump’s OMB Director Mike Mulvaney got it right.

“I think it’s probably one of the most compassionate things we can do,” he said. “I think it’s fairly compassionate to go to [taxpayers] and say, look we’re not gonna ask you for your hard-earned money anymore … unless we can guarantee to you that that money is going to be used in a proper function.”

Liberals want taxpayers to fund everything, and let government to decide who is worthy of help. Conservatives realize that we all have a responsibility to help our neighbors, the poor, sick, widows and orphans.

Liberals believe that government is a panacea because they believe the worst about people and therefore lower expectations of society. Conservatives believe that individuals will rise to expectations if they are given the truth and an opportunity. Meals on Wheels is the Rorschach test for both, but in reality proves the latter.

Here’s What You Need to Know About the Left’s Overwhelming Outrage

If you dared to check my twitter mentions right now, you would find leftwing activists enraged that I accurately pointed out the phrase “least of these” in Matthew 25 refers to Christians, not the poor in general. In fact, there is wide consensus on this point through church history. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, the Venerable Bede, Augustine, Anselm of Laon, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus, Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, and many other Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant church fathers all agree. But the left is in an absolute meltdown over me pointing it out.

Their meltdown is very similar to their meltdown when Betsy Devos mentioned historically black colleges and when Ben Carson mentioned slaves were immigrants — a claim made several times by Barack Obama.

What you need to remember when you see all this outrage coming so fast and seemingly at a coordinated scale is that the surface issue has little to do with their outrage. There are ulterior motives to the outrage in all these case.

The primary motive is silence. They want to ensure that I never speak up on Christian aid to the poor again. They want to ensure that Betsy Devos self-censors on black education. They want to ensure Ben Carson self-censors on black opportunity. They want to impose self-censorship to prevent competing ideas that they resent having to rebut.

They want to be able to set narratives without challenge and rewrite facts without question.

In my case, as my twitter mentions are overflowing with leftwing outrage, it is worth noting that the reaction indicates that the other side at least instinctively understands two things: 1) they have to keep Christianity from asserting exclusivist claims, and 2) they need to keep Christianity endorsing their social and political ends. As soon as they fail at either or both, the Church becomes their most dire enemy again.

The left needs churches to demand government intervention to help the poor. If churches reasserted themselves in this area and competed against the government, they would more likely than not succeed and show that government aid in its present form is not needed. Additionally, as long as the left shuts out any voice challenging the interpretation of the social gospel derived from the willful misinterpreting of Matthew 25 they will not have to answer a host of questions about their contradictions. First and foremost, they will not have to answer for how they think the church has nebulous sexual ethics, but a precise plan for government intervention for the poor.

All the wailing and moaning over my statement, Devos’s statement, Carson’s statement, or the many statements Trump has made are all attempts to get us to shut up lest the left have to mount actual argument. They know their arguments cannot withstand the truth so they would rather never have to deal with it.

Feeling Blue: Vox’s Inauguration Emotion Tracker

No, this isn’t some form of self-parody: Vox has actually set up an “emotion tracker” for their readers during Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Visitors to the site are encouraged to, “submit up to five emotions, and we’ll tell you the most common emotion other readers are feeling, as well as how many other people are feeling the way you do.” The tracker also maps out a graph of all the emotions submitted so far (image via screenshot):

As expected, “sad” is the most common emotion so far. Personally, I feel like the “crybaby” tag is applied to the Left a little too often, but this is ridiculous, and stunts like this justify the ridicule liberals receive. Is it okay to be disappointed by an election result? Of course, but it doesn’t mean you put your life on hold and have a group therapy session. It’s a shame that the Left can’t see how foolish their behavior looks to the rest of the country.

End Campaign Finance Disclosures

I have come to the conclusion that Republicans in Congress need to ban campaign finance disclosures. That does not mean they should not report them to the FEC, just that the names and addresses of contributors should be redacted and prohibited from public disclosure.

We are seeing a new front open up in the culture war and it is the ugliest yet.

A large part of the left and even some on the right have decided to harass and boycott contributors to those they disagree with. This stifles freedom.

Right now LL Bean is under boycott and its employees are being harassed because one of the family heirs personally gave money to Donald Trump and set up a PAC to support him.

We’ve seen the Mozilla CEO driven from his job because of the public disclosure that he supported Proposition 8. During the Proposition 8 campaign, there were waitresses and others who saw people come into their places of business and demand they be fired.

People used to be able to politely disagree on the politics of the day and the candidates they support. But in an age where progressivism declares all things political and all political things are engaged like trench warfare, we need to rethink public disclosures.

It opens American citizens up to harassment and discrimination based on their political views. It stifles participation in the American political system. It will only, over time, build up greater resentment.

Congressional Republicans should act quickly and prohibit the public disclosure of donors to political campaigns.

Liberals Were Bluffing All Along

There’s more wind and tears coming from the left now that we’re mere days away from President Trump being a reality. But we know now what we should have always known: They were bluffing all along.

Rosie O’Donnell’s latest tweet provides the tell.

She would rather have everyone in the country subject to military law, suspension of Habeas Corpus, quarantines, curfews, and shoot-on-sight orders than she herself having to accept Donald Trump as president.


If she really meant it, she’d be fine with herself going to jail to do whatever it took to keep Trump out of the White House. And we know she wouldn’t be willing to suffer the inconvenience of prison–maybe a ride to the police station on Jan. 20th is about all she’ll do, mugging for the cameras the whole way.

Rosie isn’t the only one who’s bluffing. The whole liberal apparatus and the Democratic Party has been bluffing as they move along the five stages of grief from denial, through anger, bargaining, depression and finally into acceptance.

There’s Meryl Streep’s totally unshocking and fully expected potshots from the safety of a liberal bubble at the Golden Globes. Then there’s the full-page ad taken out by Rosie O’Donnell, Debra Messing, Ed Asner and a bunch of other leftist celebrities in the New York Times last week in which they call Trump a Fascist. I don’t know if that’s a particularly productive use of money, but it’s probably cathartic for them. And I’m not sure where catharsis fits in the grief stages.

And in the acceptance phase is the sad video of Emma Stone, Natalie Portman and Amy Adams singing Gloria Gaynor’s “I Will Survive.”

Presumably, there are many liberals in the government who also oppose Trump with all their being. My question is, if these liberals were so vehemently opposed to Trump all this time, why haven’t any of them in government actually, you know, blown the whistle on him? Why haven’t they risked jail, like Edward Snowden, to expose something so heinous about soon-to-be President Donald Trump that the country would absolutely reject him?

All the opposition files dumped on America, which ruined 2016 for so many, didn’t stop Trump. In fact, I think it strengthened him.

Not that they haven’t tried to stop Trump, but they were just bluffing.

For instance, Trump never released his tax returns. Speculation ran that they must be so awful, and full of smoking guns, that they couldn’t possibly be made public or Trump would be run out of the country.  But the privacy of tax returns is sacrosanct, at least according to the lawyer I asked (who isn’t an expert, and I’m not a lawyer).

The law, 26 U.S.C. § 6103, is pretty clear about the government not disclosing tax information. Even the president, currently Barack Obama, could not order Trump’s tax return to be disclosed. He’d even have a hard time getting his hands on it at all, unless he had a reason that stood up to public scrutiny (but he does have the authority to order a copy for the White House, just not without a specific reason). “So Trump will lose the election” is not a good reason.

I suppose if there were enough smoking guns, someone at the IRS (remember Lois Lerner?) might “leak” the information or otherwise brief Obama. They might “leak” the information to the press, also. But then what? Go to jail to stop Trump? Would a reporter rot in jail when a judge orders her to disclose sources (there’s no way the New York Times would not publish Trump’s tax returns if they got a verifiable actual copy, no matter who broke the law)?

Or would they take an unverifiable copy of a purported tax return from an anonymous source and publish it, a la Buzzfeed? I don’t think most legitimate press would do that.

If Trump is truly the despot these people say he is (“a Fascist America!”) then I hope to God someone has the temerity, courage, and conviction to expose it in 2017, 2018, or beyond. I would actually respect that. Even if it failed, at least they put their liberal heinies where their mouths are. But they don’t really care about that, only their own relevance.

I am the first to tell you I’m not the biggest fan of Trump. I opposed him in the Republican primaries. I would rather not have had the choice of Trump vs. Clinton in the general election. I didn’t vote for either. But I fully understand that making useless protest gestures, mocking, and spending money on anti-Trump advertising after the election is settled, is just dumb.

Trump exhibits some characteristics, even days from the Oval Office, that I find troubling. I find his dismissal of the legitimate press, along with the “fake news” press, to be self-serving and unstatesmanlike. I disagree with his positions on many issues. But I don’t pledge myself to his failure. But neither do the liberals who pretend to call for martial law and such idiotic sentiments. They just want to be heard, and to remain relevant. It’s really pathetic.

If the liberals who sign their names to newspaper ads, and appear in hastily-made desperation videos, were as serious as the founders of our country, they’d all risk arrest, even death, to stop the person they believe is a tyrant worse than King George III. Obviously, none of them, in or out of the government, believe that it’s worth their sacred honor, or their lives, to stop Trump.

They were bluffing because they thought people agreed with them and now they’re angry to find that people agreed with Trump more.

Liberals Always Swallow the Blue Pill

One day after John Ekdahl set Twitter on fire by daring to ask reporters if they knew anyone who owned a pickup truck (since pickup trucks are the most popular vehicles sold in America), the New York Times almost preternaturally published the answer.

“Why Rural America Voted for Trump.” It’s got to the the biggest head-scratcher the Gray Lady has ever encountered. Either flyover country is filled with sheet-wearing, toothless bigots who “cling to guns and religion,” or maybe there’s another explanation. But first, they had to find a reporter who, you know, actually knows rural people who own pickup trucks.

They found Robert Leonard, who describes himself as “a native Iowan and reporter in rural Marion County, Iowa,” and a liberal. President-elect Trump took Marion County 61.5 percent to 30.7 percent for Clinton, so Leonard either lives as a hermit or he knows some pickup-truck-owning actual conservatives and (gasp!) Christians.

Leonard quoted Baptist minister J.C. Watts:

“The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good,” said Mr. Watts, who was in the area to campaign for Senator Rand Paul. “We are born bad,” he said and added that children did not need to be taught to behave badly — they are born knowing how to do that.

“We teach them how to be good,” he said. “We become good by being reborn — born again.”

He continued: “Democrats believe that we are born good, that we create God, not that he created us. If we are our own God, as the Democrats say, then we need to look at something else to blame when things go wrong — not us.”

Upon hearing Christianity 101, “we are sinners,” Leonard described it as an “epiphany.”

I thought, no wonder Republicans and Democrats can’t agree on things like gun control, regulations or the value of social programs. We live in different philosophical worlds, with different foundational principles.

It hit him like Neo swallowing the red pill. Most liberals swallow the blue pill and remain in their safe, self-affirming bubble where everyone agrees with them. But Leonard swallowed the red pill and achieved self-awareness.

Reading Leonard’s account is like me swallowing the red pill for conservatives. Who actually wouldn’t know this? Who wouldn’t know that Christians–even lapsed, social, shallow Christians–believe that we are born sinners, with no good in us? Who would think that conservatives believe what we believe because we agree that man tends toward good if left alone?

I wouldn’t have believed it had Ekdahl’s question not exposed liberals to the “Real World” yesterday. They reacted with what I see now is predictable denial.

“The blue pill! Swallow the blue pill!”

Erick Erickson wondered in a tweet how reporters would react if they were asked something truly offensive.

And here’s the thing. City-dwelling liberals, who have never had contact with anyone who owns a pickup truck, or goes to church, or believes man is basically reprobate in heart, capable of all kinds of evil, can offer no explanation for people who do. They feel they have to invent reasons to explain to themselves so they can go back to the blue pill.

Case in point, Vanity Fair interviewing Chris Pratt on his faith in Jesus Christ (the ultimate red pill). Kira Davis notes in RedState:

Of course, Vanity Fair just couldn’t just let Pratt tell his own story of salvation. God forbid (literally) they simply respect his story and his faith without judgment. Author Rich Cohen feels the deep responsibility to soothe his obviously more evolved readers who might be horrifically shocked to find out their favorite Hollywood actor actually believes in…gasp…JESUS.

Here’s how VF’s Rich Cohen handled that dose of red pill…with an overdose of blue pills.

“Quick! The whole bottle! Now!”

O.K. Let’s stop for a moment. Because this is strange and so distant from what we expect of a movie star, especially of the clever, slapdash, wise-guy variety. But everyone needs a story to make sense of their life. Even the most successful. The extreme demands explanation. For Pratt, success, so extreme it scared him, is explained by metaphysical intervention. Which caused him to take control. In that moment, he yielded. His path has been clear ever since.

There couldn’t actually be a white-bearded guy in the sky controlling everything to whom one can yield one’s life, so Pratt must have invented this Jesus person to “make sense” of his life. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

“More blue pills! Mmmf! Gulp!”

Perhaps Cohen should talk to Leonard, who actually knows some real red pill-swallowing, work-a-day Christians who own pickup trucks. Between the two of them, I’m sure they can put the experience in proper perspective so that liberals are not disturbed from their self-deluding groupthink meetings.

They really don’t get it. They’re so far from getting it that they don’t even want to know why they don’t get it.

Meanwhile, somewhere at the New York Times, they’re passing around the bottle.

“Please! More blue pills! Someone tweeted asking if I’ve read Hillbilly Elegy!”

If America Falls To Despotism, We Can Blame Liberals For Making It Possible

Liberals love to attack transcendent truths like God, absolute morality, and even truth itself. But their hatred of diversity of thought and dissent leave America wide open for what our founding fathers feared most: despotism and corruption.

The proper attitude of an American is to welcome dissent, to celebrate diversity of thought, and to swim upstream of the great moral leveling of society. The attitude of the modern left is to abolish diversity of thought, and to organize a great downstream flood where all issues devolve into what is seen with the eye, not believed as truth.

The great Malcolm Muggeridge said “never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.”

American liberty is truly based on our motto of “e pluribus unum,” meaning, “from diversity, unity.” That unity is that we are Americans, neither one governed nation, nor fifty independent states, but a country that recognizes differences while building on transcendent ideas that support truth. When the deeper truths are knocked out, then everything becomes unmoored.

Liberals’ focus on engineering the shallow things that can be seen in perfect equality has drawn them away from the deeper things that must be true in order that our society can prosper. When nobody has “too much” money, and every decision is property submitted to a committee with equal representation from every skin tone and language, and every historical injustice is fuel for another balancing injustice today, we will live in a world where thought itself is abolished in favor of hive behavior.

Muggeridge saw this downfall years ago:

So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over–a weary, battered old brontosaurus–and became extinct.

Far from a group of same-thinking white men who wanted to create a country of white Europeans, our founding fathers were a body in tension, with very different ideas of what the United States should be and how it should be governed. They settled on the middle ground, not as much out of compromise as out of necessity that America must cultivate a diversity of thought in order to endure. The biggest error our country could make is to expel all dissenters from our midst, but that’s exactly what liberals want.

One example of this diversity is little-known founding father Elbridge Gerry, the namesake of the term “gerrymander.” He hated anything that smacked of a political class, a powerful military, or a weak central government. But he also hated extreme nationalism, and direct democracy, as prone to produce despots and corruption. Gerry helped craft the middle-ground where the House and the Senate balanced federal legislative power.

“If we do not come to some agreement among ourselves,” he maintained, “some foreign sword will probably do the work for us.” Addressing the central government-state relationship, he informed his colleagues, “We were neither the same Nation nor different Nations. . . . We ought not therefore pursue the one or the other of these ideas too closely.” He argued that the committee compromise provided the best solution, a government that would be “partly national, partly federal.”

Our government is supposed to be a balance between liberty and power. But that balance is rested on the fulcrum of common beliefs in a transcendent truth and morality, along with the idea of tolerance of dissent. Tolerance of dissent is such a powerful idea that it was the very first item in the Bill of Rights.

Over the past half-century, liberals have created an administrative state so powerful that it overshadows the power/liberty balance of the rest of government. The fact that these bureaucracies quake in fear over President-elect Donald Trump’s taking the reins over the executive branch is clear evidence of a kind of unity of thought and intolerance of diversity at those agencies.

The sad state of American universities, research institutions, and the press is further evidence of our corruption. And that corruption leads to taking things which are properly sacred, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and replacing them with relativist measures like “happiness” and “quality of life.”

When God and an absolute, transcendent morality is expunged from our society, educational institutions, and government, we are left with a dehumanizing concept which reduces men to mere animals, and ideals to mere impulses. When ideals are subjugated to the hive mentality and dissent is no longer tolerated or heard, our society is in great danger of committing atrocities.

Viktor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor who endured the horrors of Auschwitz, astutely commented on the way that modern European thought had helped prepare the way for Nazi atrocities (and his own misery). He stated, “If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted,” Frankl continued, “with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment–or, as the Nazi liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.

These “blood and soil” nationalists exist here in America. They’ve always existed. But they’ve been held in check by our elevation of ideals, our tolerance of dissent, and our celebration of diversity of thought as the cornerstone of American liberty.

Liberals have done their best to remove those cornerstones. They (rightly should) fear demagogues like Trump and his cultlike followers, and now that Trump will be president, they will retreat behind “dissent” in full defilade. But if the next demagogue is more like President Obama, they’ll go right back to work blasting the right to disagree or to think differently.

America must return to our roots and values from our founding. We fought a war 150 years ago to make those whose skin color made them 3/4s of a person into citizens. Now we’re in danger of making those whose ideals don’t line up with liberal sensibilities into second-class citizens.

Liberals intent on having the world their way should look to history before they are so quick to condemn. Even Trump supporters should be heard and given latitude to express their beliefs, because diversity of thought is a pre-requisite for liberty.