And the Sign Says, “White Cisgender Males Need Not Apply”

With all the histrionics that Democrats have used to scare people into voting against Republicans over the years, there was always a danger that members of the party elite might forget their cynicism and actually start buying into their own propaganda.  Even Barack Obama, the community organizer extraordinaire, wasn’t immune, having once  remarked to a reporter that he sometimes thought his bullsh*t was the real deal.  Surprising?  Not so much.  It’s actually the most natural thing in the world, when you lie so often that it’s the truth that sounds farfetched.  Or, as Rose McGowan put it in the movie Scream, there’s only so many times you can hear that Richard Gere gerbil story before you have to start believing it.

Well, now it seems that the infection has spread to the ranks of the Democrat National Committee’s IT department, where the ironically named Madeleine Leader has sounded the battle cry of the social justice warrior in her capacity as a data services manager.  Unlike the Marines, though, she’s not looking for a few good men.  Point of fact, she’s looking for anybody but men—at least not men of a certain persuasion.

The Daily Wire has the story, which includes a lovely memo that details Ms. Leader’s requirements for the positions she currently has open:

And yes, just in case you’re rubbing your eyes and wondering if you read it correctly, Ms. Leader does indeed make a blatantly discriminatory request:

I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they’re already in the majority.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that they’re not a majority in the DNC’s IT shop.  I also have to wonder how Ms. Leader treats the wascally white guys under her supervision.  Are they allowed out of their cubicles during office hours—or does that create a hostile an environment?  Can they talk about football, or is that too heteronormative?  Perhaps it would just be best if they were confined to their own table at the back of the cafeteria where they can’t make any trouble.  You know those cisgender types—if they don’t know their place, they’ll think they own the place.

Somebody please pass the duct tape.  I need to wrap some around my noggin before it explodes.

Why Do The Liberals Rage?

“All of civility depends on being able to contain the rage of individuals.”  Joshua Lederburg

That America is in the midst of turmoil seems an obvious understatement. Anger, resentment and vitriol is escalating exponentially, rumor,  conspiracy and scandal appear to lurk around every corner.

As summer recedes into a gloriously beautiful fall, a look back at the last six months shows a time of hostility not seen in our country for some time. That the conservative populist community on the right is angry is undeniable. This anger isn’t new, it has grown from a simmer to a full boil over the last decade or so.

This is anger grown from frustration, frustration of the common U.S. citizen over excessive government regulation, and over the growing stench from the swamp in our nation’s capital. It is anger that comes when hope for the future dims, and when aspirations for one’s children seem too much of a mountain to climb.

Where many writers have erred is in conflating this anger with the happenings on the liberal social justice progressive left. Since the election of President Trump, liberals have morphed from resentment, resistance and anger into rage. Boundless, unlimited full-blown rage.

A rage which has manifested itself into physical violence against those who disagree, judicial violence against the constitution, and immoral violence against centuries of our closely held and cherished Judeo-Christian ethic. It is this rage which is so bewildering at times.

It’s high time to ask ponder the origins of this rage. It is a gross oversimplification to cast this as an anti-Trump thing. The White House changes hands every eight years, and we’re all accustomed to that change, in fact we expect it.

I believe this rage emanated from the hope based on the previous presidency. Former President Obama attempted to fundamentally change America as we know it. He made no secret of it, he bowed to foreign leaders, he fomented racial and class divides, his administration flouted the rule of law and the constitution in a myriad of ways, not the least of which was open borders, and socialized medicine.

The liberal mindset coming into the 2016 election cycle was one of a predetermined path for our country. Hillary would win, and would continue the America leftward movement, would continue to build upon the liberal’s hostility to conservatives, and use a heavy hand to protect any and all liberal gains.

Liberals believe they are better then conservatives and the common citizen. They believe we are a bible-thumping, football loving, tobacco chewing basket of deplorables who lack the intellect to understand what is best for us. They burn with white-hot anger over losing power, and the privileges that go with it. Their belief in central government is all-encompassing, and they believe we ought to trust their hand at the helm of the federal ship. Which means the following:

Their rage is understandable once you realize their God is the federal government. They bow down to the alter of an all-knowing, all-seeing federal seat of power upon which their Queen Bee was supposed to reign.

It wasn’t and isn’t President Trump the person, it is President Trump the Destructor.  It is Justice Gorsuch tilting the court to the right, it is Tillerson reforming the State Department, it is Scott Pruitt completely revamping the EPA, Rick Perry righting the Energy Department ship, Betsy DeVos championing charter schools, and Jeff Sessions’s insistence on the rule of law and a secure southern border.

The liberals see their gains in abortion, and gay and trans rights being thwarted in legislation and in the courtroom, they understand fraud at the ballot box is being challenged, and they no longer have access to the easy money Obama illegally provided via the Treasury Department.

It is as if a crowd has thrown a rope over the statute of their god and has toppled it to the ground. Make no mistake, they hate us for this rebellion against their god. They bubble over with a malevolent rage, and will stop at nothing to stem the conservative populist tide before its too late.

This is why Antifa is allowed to thrive regardless of their thuggish violent activities. This is why the MSM or Democratic Congressional leaders won’t condemn this terrorist group. Don’t be misled, Antifa is actually their military arm. It attacks without reason, accuses all who resist and believes only in their cause.

This is why Hillary was so protected and worshipped, even though she and Bill are so very flawed. It is why Hillary never understood “Its my turn” was such a losing proposition. They can’t fathom the deplorable not comprehending the role of federal government and in turn worshiping at its throne as well.

This is also why Democratic leaders continue to appease the fringe left even though poll after poll shows that to be a losing solution. No longer are they content to hide their true colors, no longer are they interested in compromise, instead they take pride in being “The Resistance”, and as a result have obstructed in every way imaginable.

King David in Psalm 2: 1 ask this simple question:

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?”

You see, the people’s rage, and the devising of futile and empty schemes isn’t new. When through several generations, a people trade respect for God’s law and His church, and a genuine sense of shame, for a false god and overt lawlessness; this rage is inevitable.

1 Kings 18 details the wonderful story of Elijah challenging the false prophets of King Ahab, pitting them against the one true God. Just as the false prophets were worked into a rage as the impotence of their false god Baal was exposed, so liberals today burn with the same rage at all who would deny the omnipotence of their federal god.

This rage exist where there is no grace and ultimately no hope. It is a rage built upon the importance of self, and is woefully lacking in love for others. It is the prideful hubris of social justice rather than the works of kind and faithful stewardship. It is joyless, empty and dark, built upon shifting sands presenting a perilous future.

Yes it’s true, we are in an age of rage. But we don’t have to succumb to that same destructive rage. We can be angry and yet have hope and love. We can demand change and yet have patience. Also, and most importantly, we can preach truth to power and still have love.

It would be far better to have civility in our political discourse, sadly though for now, the people rage. However, as the Psalmist King David answered in verse 4:

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

In the NFL’s Suicide Drama, the Media Play Dr. Kevorkian

After Donald Trump’s rather colorful admonition last week to fire any football player who takes a knee during the national anthem—and after Sunday’s entirely predictable snit fit thrown by said players in response—one can only come to the sad conclusion that the words “professional” and “athlete,” when placed next to one another, form quite the oxymoron, at least in the NFL context.  How else do you explain why, when faced with being called out as punks by the president of the United States, these giants of the gridiron can’t wait to dogpile each other to prove his point?  Never in the history of sticking it to the man has the stick been wielded with such incompetence.  Roger Goodell must be the only man in America right now getting pity from Hillary Clinton.

And for what?  To whom exactly is the NFL trying to pander?  It’s certainly not their fans.  Half empty stadiums and a steady ratings slide have made their feelings on the subject abundantly clear.  Even my own dad, who has been a professional football addict all his life and used to spend his Sundays in a room with three TV sets watching games, told me yesterday that he’d had it with the NFL.  Why spend three and a half hours with a slow-moving showcase for beer and Viagra commercials played by a bunch of prima donnas who complain about the injustice of a country in which they became millionaires for moving a ball up and down a field—particularly when they can’t even move that ball more than five yards without a penalty flag?  NASCAR is a lot more fun anyway, and as an added bonus they try not to piss off their fans.

Or is the NFL just trying to placate the social justice warriors?  That’s a possibility—but the kind of man who talks about health care in his pajamas while sipping hot cocoa isn’t exactly their target demographic, so that theory might have a few holes.  And while the gals who marched on Washington in their p*ssy hats could certainly be rowdy, I don’t think that’s what ol’ Hank had in mind when he sang about his friends coming over to watch some football.

So who’s left from the usual suspects?

The institution that fuels the fire, of course:  The American media.

It was the media, recall, that first called attention to all this business with Colin Kaepernick, who may have really been sincere in his belief that the police target minorities with excessive force and took a knee during the national anthem to raise awareness of an injustice.  On the other hand, Kaepernick may have also been a quarterback in a slump who had been riding a bench and knew his days were numbered, and so he decided to insulate himself by engaging in some social justice warrioring of his own.  That way, when he got dumped, he could say the 49ers cut him for his activism and not because he stank on ice.

Guess which way the media decided to cover the story?

This was the same media, by the way, that stoked Kaepernick’s grievances with myths like “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” and basically painted a target on the backs of cops across the country.  So it only made sense that they would rally to Kaepernick’s side and give him all kinds of attention, which naturally led to copycats dropping to their knees faster faster than the intern pool at Bill Clinton’s White House.

And poof!  Just like that, football got political.  Never mind that the fans didn’t want it that way.  Never mind that they just wanted to open a few tailgates, grill a few burgers, pound some suds and escape the dreary day-to-day for a few hours.  They had to be made to care, for in the progressive mindset there is nothing outside politics.  And with ESPN acting as an enforcer, there was no getting away from it.

So the NFL did what most linguini-spined institutions do, and took the path of least resistance.  They allowed the problem to fester.  Even as the fans began peeling away, they insisted that their players had every right to alienate those fans with their antics.  As long as the progressive media continued to fawn, that’s all that mattered.

There’s thing that seems to have escaped the NFL’s notice, though:  progressives hate football.  They hate the attitude that winning is everything.  They hate the competition that creates losers.  They hate that football is a boys-only club filled with locker room talk that demeans and degrades women.  Most of all, though, they detest football’s toxic masculinity.  For that reason alone, they’d just as soon end the sport—and they’re well on their way to destroying it, what with their breathless coverage of head trauma and other dangers that are keeping more and more boys from taking up football in the first place.

So ask me again, why is the NFL trying to appease this beast at the expense of its fans?

That kind of behavior can only be described as suicidal—but if the NFL is determined to take that path, they’ll find that the media will be only too happy to play Dr. Kevorkian for them.

SJW Newsletter Advocates Banning Veterans From Colleges

There are some ideas that are so inane that only an academic would believe them, which is probably why the modern American college campus has become the incubator for a lot of stupidity.  Fortunately, we have websites like Campus Reform that do the yeoman’s work of keeping up with all the tomfoolery, so that those of us out here in the real world understand exactly where all those tutition dollars we spend on our kids are going.

As you can imagine, there’s never a shortage of material.  The latest comes to us via the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, where an organization billing itself as the Social Justice Collective recently posted a flyer featuring an article that asks the burning question, “Should Veterans Be Banned From UCCS and Other Universities?”

And no, I’m not making this up:

A four-year, traditional university is supposed to be a place of learning, of understanding, of safety, and security. However, there is an element among us who may be frustrating those goals: Veterans.

In the immortal words of Butt Head, “Uhhh, okay.”

First off, many veterans openly mock the ideas of diversity and safe spaces for vulnerable members of society.

By “vulnerable,” the author apparently means, “unable to emotionally process opinions to the right of Mao Tse Tung.”

This is directly in contradiction to the mission of UCCS.

A mission to explore new experiences and new ideas–kind of like Romper Room, but less triggering.

Many veterans utter the mantra that they “do not see color”. But the problem lies in their socialization into the military culture that is that of a white supremacist organization.

I knew white supremacy would figure into the argument somehow.  But no sexism?  No patriarchy?  Sorely disappointing.

They have been permanently tainted, and are no long (sic) fit for a four-year university.

Not to worry, though.  We can still find a place for our veterans that befits their second-class status in society.

That is not to say that veterans should not be allowed an education.  Veterans should be allowed to attend trade schools, or maybe even community college.

Such generosity to our men and women in uniform!  To whom should they send a thank you card?

But, in order to protect our academic institutions, we must ban veterans from four-year universities.

If it saves them from the likes of this drivel, that’s probably a good thing.  Besides, I imagine that trade school diploma will be worth a lot more than the author’s forthcoming degree in oppressor’s studies.

UCCS, of course, has disavowed the content of the article, while at the same time offering a largely pro-forma defense of speech rights.  My guess is that most of this is just butt-covering while the university figures out who the hell approved posting the flyer in the first place, especially considering that Colorado Springs also happens to be the home of the United States Air Force Academy.  It wouldn’t do for the local branch of the University of Colorado system to appear as if it’s dissing veterans, no matter what the First Amendment says.

Still, something about this affair smells a tad fishy to me.  Perhaps it’s how the group involved bills itself as the Social Justice Collective, or the fact that this flyer is the first communication they’ve ever put out–the whole thing almost feels like a parody of left wingers cobbled together by right-wing pranksters.  Then there’s the article’s supposed author, a guy named Terry Steinawitz.  There’s no record of him as a student at UCCS, and a quick internet search doesn’t turn up a Twitter feed or a Facebook account for him either.  The “Collective” has supposedly stated that the name is actually a pseudonym meant to protect the author’s true identity, but I don’t know.  I wouldn’t be surprised if this was all just a hoax that got more attention than anyone thought it would.

Then again, this is a college campus we’re talking about…

Joss Whedon’s Feminism Indulgence




Joss Whedon used to be a fun follow on Twitter.  Oh sure, we all knew he was a lefty and you’d have to put up with the occasional political aside, but for the most part his tweets were a lot like the dialogue he gave to his iconic creations like Buffy Summers and Jayne Cobb:  smart, snarky and laced with the kind of wit that made you wish you’d written them yourself.  Then came Avengers: Age of Ultron, in which Whedon had the temerity to portray Natasha Romanov (aka Black Widow) as emotionally vulnerable, ready for a loving relationship with Bruce Banner and regretful that her Russian handlers from her days as an assassin had rendered her unable to have children.  Of course the feminist trolls descended upon Whedon after that, accusing him of marginalizing a strong woman and making her weak.  In their view, you see, women don’t need men and they sure as hell don’t need kids, and by showing Romanov as wanting those things Whedon might as well have written her as spending the whole movie in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.  He had betrayed the cause, and there was no forgiving that.

You see that sort of thing a lot on social media, internet nobodies trying to make a name for themselves by claiming the scalp of a celebrity.  In Whedon’s case, though, the criticism obviously stung.  Disillusioned, he dropped off Twitter completely, another victim of the internet thought police.  Most of his fans thought he was gone for good, and although they were sad nobody could blame him.  After all, if a guy with the progressive bona fides of Joss Whedon could be forced out by the social justice horde, how could anyone be safe?



Well, the self-imposed Twitter exile was only temporary–and when Whedon came back, it really looked like he was out to reclaim his spot among the leftist elite.  His tweets got more and more political, and with that his bitterness only seemed to grow.  It got so bad that at one point, he even cracked a tasteless joke suggesting that some teenage girls who had been photographed meeting with Paul Ryan were “not a 10”–only to find out later that the girls were, in fact, cancer survivors.  He later issued a half-hearted apology for the gaffe, but it never slowed him down.  If there was an opportunity to demonize Republicans for their misogyny or praise Planned Parenthood for elevating women, you could be sure that Whedon would be there with a tweet.  He might as well have taken out a full-page ad in Variety that said, “See?  Look at how much of a woke feminist I am!  Won’t you take me back, pretty please?”

The tactic must have worked, because I haven’t heard much lately about Whedon getting attacked for the way he wrote a Marvel Comics character in a movie that the feminists who came after him probably didn’t see.  But there is another piece of news that suggests that Whedon’s feminist pose actually had another purpose–one far more personal.  Kai Cole, who recently divorced Whedon, felt that it was important enough to make public, and so she took to the pages of The Wrap earlier this week to explain why:

There were times in our relationship that I was uncomfortable with the attention Joss paid other women. He always had a lot of female friends, but he told me it was because his mother raised him as a feminist, so he just liked women better. He said he admired and respected females, he didn’t lust after them. I believed him and trusted him. On the set of “Buffy,” Joss decided to have his first secret affair.

Fifteen years later, when he was done with our marriage and finally ready to tell the truth, he wrote me, “When I was running ‘Buffy,’ I was surrounded by beautiful, needy, aggressive young women. It felt like I had a disease, like something from a Greek myth. Suddenly I am a powerful producer and the world is laid out at my feet and I can’t touch it.” But he did touch it. He said he understood, “I would have to lie — or conceal some part of the truth — for the rest of my life,” but he did it anyway, hoping that first affair, “would be ENOUGH, that THEN we could move on and outlast it.”

Joss admitted that for the next decade and a half, he hid multiple affairs and a number of inappropriate emotional ones that he had with his actresses, co-workers, fans and friends, while he stayed married to me. He wrote me a letter when our marriage was falling apart, but I still didn’t know the whole truth, and said, “I’ve never loved anyone or wanted to be with anyone in any real or long-term way except for you ever. And I love our life. I love how you are, how we are, who you are and what we’ve done both separately and together, how much fun we have…” He wanted it all; he didn’t want to choose, so he accepted the duality as a part of his life…

Despite understanding, on some level, that what he was doing was wrong, he never conceded the hypocrisy of being out in the world preaching feminist ideals, while at the same time, taking away my right to make choices for my life and my body based on the truth. He deceived me for 15 years, so he could have everything he wanted. I believed, everyone believed, that he was one of the good guys, committed to fighting for women’s rights, committed to our marriage, and to the women he worked with. But I now see how he used his relationship with me as a shield, both during and after our marriage, so no one would question his relationships with other women or scrutinize his writing as anything other than feminist.

So basically, Whedon’s ex-wife is saying that when it came right down to it, he was no different from any of the casting-couch producers and directors that we’ve heard so much about in Hollywood–men who, because of their influential positions, leverage their power to get sex from beautiful young women who see that as the quickest way to rise to stardom.  That is not the mark of a man who respects women.  No true feminist male would allow a woman to debase herself that way, not even if she’s “needy” and “aggressive” as Whedon describes.  And no true feminist male would humiliate his wife that way, breaking his marriage vows simply because infidelity is there for easy plucking.

In that context, it’s easy to see why Whedon has struck such a radical feminist pose on Twitter.  Centuries ago, sinners would go to the Church to be granted an indulgence:  for a sum of money, they would be forgiven their sin–sometimes in advance–and would thus believe themselves forgiven in the eyes of God, even if there was no repentance.  If what his ex-wife is saying is true, Joss Whedon’s feminism sounds a lot like the same thing.  By professing all the correct beliefs, and proclaiming them loudly at the altar of social media, he buys off responsibility for his own bad behavior.  More than that, he can feel free to continue with that behavior while keeping a clear conscience.

Except that life doesn’t work that way.  When hearts get broken, when love is betrayed, there’s always a reckoning.  With his penchant for drama, Whedon of all people should understand that.