A Day Without Overly Privileged Leftist Women is a Great Idea

“For all the outrage over Donald Trump not honoring civil rights, these people do not even honor the basic constitutional laws upon which their civil rights are premised.”

Continuing their behavior as aggrieved sore losers without any actual grievances other than they lost, the so called “Women’s March” has announced a general strike. On a date to be determined, they will call on all women everywhere to stop making sandwiches and stay out of the kitchen or where ever else they work, not that all of them have real jobs. They want the world to see what it would be like if leftwing women did not show up to work. What they will really show is what sore losers they continue to be and how good they really have it.

These leftwing women, many of whom have already gone on strike from shaving their legs and general hygiene, will simply not show up for work. Keep in mind that, according to the adjusted exit polling, Donald Trump won white married women, only lost non-party affiliated women by 5%, won Republican women’s votes with 88% of the vote, and won the middle class.

In other words, the women marching are not so much indicative of America, so much as they are the left in America. This group, after all, excluded pro-life and evangelical women. They are more likely to consider men to be women than to consider a Bible believing actual woman to be a woman.

They are sore losers. Ironically, in their announcement, they declared, “The will of the people will stand.” The will of the people was for Donald Trump to be President. While they may argue that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only did so because of California and that is not how our system of government works. For all the outrage over Donald Trump not honoring civil rights, these people do not even honor the basic constitutional laws upon which their civil rights are premised.

On top of it all, what we are going to witness with this strike is an overwhelming show of privilege and how well off these women have it. Were I to go on strike tomorrow, not taking a holiday or sick day, I would lose my job and would consequently lose my home and probably my wife because she has cancer and my insurance would evaporate. Their precious Obamacare would not cover the cost of my wife’s medicine that my current insurance will.

These women, on the other hand, will be hailed by the press as heroines, many of them will be given an extra vacation day by their employers to take that day off, the rest will neither lose their jobs or benefits for “striking.” They’ll really just be getting an extra day off.

There is zero risk to any of them. They will lose nothing. Why? Because they are extraordinarily privileged. They would have you believe that their rights are being curtailed, their ability to murder children is being encroached, and the state itself is forcing them to spread mayonnaise on white bread for a group of men.

The truth is that they have no jobs of consequence that require their absolute presence. They are all, like everyone who will not join the strike, dispensable while they immodestly hide under the delusion of being indispensable. Their employers will accommodate them, if they even have jobs. They will then go right back to their jobs and the very next day will be able to murder their children if they want.

And Donald Trump will still be President.

These women have no real grievance other than one: they thought they would never again have to compete in the marketplace of ideas with conservatives, and instead lost. Now they’re just sore losers hell bent on protesting their loss. They have no intention of making a persuasive case against Donald Trump. They just want to scream and make us think they are really needed.

They are not. And taking a day off work with zero risk and no chance of loss is a great way of reminding everyone of that fact.

Chris Murphy Claims that Anti-Trump Protests Have Been “Peaceful Without Exception”

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) must live in some sort of alternate universe. On MSNBC, the senator went on record claiming that there has been no violence at anti-Trump protests:

Let’s make it clear: these marches that happened all over the country have been peaceful without exception, and when there’s a deviation, we call it out.

Well that’s just precious. I wonder when he and his leftist ilk are planning on calling out the deviations? Because here’s a partial list.

Going back to the days after the election, protests erupted all over the country, including some violent acts by rioters. From USA Today on November 11:

For the third night in a row, anti-Donald Trump demonstrators took to the streets in several big cities and on college campuses across the United States, including an outburst of smashed windows and a dumpster fire in Portland that police countered with pepper spray and flash-bang devices.

About 4,000 protesters assembled downtown late Thursday chanting “we reject the president-elect!” the Associated Press reported. Some among the crowd vandalized 19 cars at a dealership in Northeast Portland, according to a sales manager, Oregonlive.com reports. Protesters then headed west, over the Broadway Bridge and into the Pearl District, where the windows of several businesses were smashed.

And how can we forget the protests in the aftermath of the inauguration? CNN reported on January 21:

Six police officers were injured and 217 protesters arrested Friday after a morning of peaceful protests and coordinated disruptions of Donald Trump’s inauguration ceremony gave way to ugly street clashes in downtown Washington.

At least two DC police officers and one other person were taken to the hospital after run-ins with protesters, DC Fire Spokesman Vito Maggiolo told CNN.


Anti-Trump protests also broke out Friday in US cities, including New York, Seattle, Dallas, Chicago and Portland, Oregon. Authorities in Seattle say one person was in critical condition at a hospital with a gunshot wound. Demonstrations also took place overseas in Hong Kong, Berlin and London.

And how about the Women’s March on Washington? Some pro-life women were verbally harassed, and another woman reported being spat upon by abortion rights advocates. Of course we can’t forget Madonna telling a crowd, “I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House, but I know that this won’t change anything.”

The most recent example took place at the campus of the University of California at Berkeley, where a protest against a planned speech by provocateur and Trump enthusiast Milo Yiannopoulos turned violent. In the New York Times, writer Malini Ramaiyer wrote an opinion piece entitled, “How Violence Undermined the Berkeley Protest” in which she wrote, “Until Wednesday, I never felt in danger during a protest.” How is this a peaceful demonstration?

Senator Murphy, when are you going to call these violent rioters out, to use your phrasing? We’re waiting.

Women’s March Covered 3.4 Times More Than March for Life

The 2017 Pro-Choice, Anti-Gender Norms, Pro-Illegal Immigration, Anti-Trump Women’s March on Washington was covered 3.4 times more than the 2017 March for Life.

Is anyone surprised?

The numbers are in. Among the three major broadcast news networks (ABC, CBS and NBC), the Women’s March was given one hour, 15 minutes and 18 seconds – and the March for Life was only given 21 minutes and 52 seconds.

It’s worth noting that these three networks significantly increased their coverage of the March for Life from last year – 21 minute and 52 seconds compared to 35 seconds in 2016. This year, all three networks covered the event, whereas last year only ABC even mentioned the March for Life.

What’s the reason for the increased coverage? We can’t say for sure, but many are speculating that President Trump’s interview with ABC’s David Muir may have had something to do with it. In the interview, when asked about the Women’s March on Washington, President Trump emphasize the then upcoming March for Life, saying:

“And I will say this, and I didn’t realize this, but I was told you will have a very large crowd of people — I don’t know as large or larger, some people said it will be larger — pro-life people, and they say the press doesn’t cover them.”

March for Life President Jeanne Mancini addressed the issue of numbers in her remarks at the March for Life, emphasizing that the number she’s focused on isn’t that of attendees.

“People keep asking me about our numbers for the March for Life. Well, it is hard to add up how many have come here over the last 44 years, but that really isn’t the point. The only number I care about, and the only number that we all care about is – 58 million. Since 1973, 58 million Americans have died as a result of abortion. We stand here today for them – for the little innocent children who have lost their lives to abortion. We also stand here for the mothers who regret their abortion decision.”

While it’s easy for us to get discouraged by media coverage comparison, Mancini’s comments put things into perspective – 58 million lives. That’s a number that puts them all to shame.

Madonna, You Can’t Turn What You Said Into a Virtue

You really can’t brush over this one, Madonna.

1980s Pop music icon, Madonna, made an appearance at Saturday’s pro-abortion temper tantrum, billed as a Women’s March on Washington.

The singer performed several songs for the crowd, then made one of those self-aggrandizing, tedious speeches, including this bit of lovely:

“Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House, but I know that this won’t change anything. We cannot fall into despair,” she said at the march.

Pull it together, Nana.

On Sunday, however, after the despicable comment hit the news and social media, Madonna tried to clarify.

“Yesterday’s Rally. was an amazing and beautiful experience. I came and performed ‘Express Yourself’ and that’s exactly what I did,” Madonna wrote on Instagram. “However I want to clarify some very important things. I am not a violent person, I do not promote violence and it’s important people hear and understand my speech in its entirety rather than one phrase taken wildly out of context.”

Actually, to put everything in perspective, she came to promote herself. Everything she does these days is self-promotion with little thought of the consequences.

She began her statement saying “I want to start a revolution of love.” She’s been using some variation of that line since just before her last album released.

And while she may have added “…but I know that this won’t change anything” as a qualifier to her statement about blowing up the White House, she’s been around long enough to know that if someone of her stature puts that sort of statement out, at a time when tensions are as high as they are, somebody will only hear, “I have though an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”

The last thing we need is another John Hinkley Jr.

I get that there are a lot of people upset.

These days, it’s just so vogue to find things to be insulted and outraged about.

I’m not even saying all those women didn’t have a right to express their outrage by taking to the streets.

Even when the cause is disgusting, they have a right to protest or speak out. Nobody is stopping them.

What you don’t have the right to do, Madonna, is passive-aggressively broach the topic of committing some kind of destructive act against the current occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and then say you’re not a violent person.

You’re the worst kind of partisan.

You’re no better than the man you were out there protesting.

The Women’s March Is a Reminder of How Much More Diverse the Republican Party Is

As the left marches on Washington in the name of women, it is worth reminding everyone how much more diverse the Republican Party is than the Democrats.

Sure, if your view of diversity is only superficial and skin deep, no one can argue that the Democrats have greater diversity. But real diversity is of the mind and the Democrats are, again today, proving they are the most intolerant of diversity of either political party

You are far more likely to find pro-abortion Republicans than pro-life Democrats.

You are far more likely to find gun-restriction advocates in the GOP than you are to find second amendment purists in the Democratic Party.

You are far more likely to find Republicans who support gay marriage than Democrats who support traditional marriage.

You are far more likely to find Republicans skeptical of evangelical Christianity than you are Democrats who are evangelical Christians.

You are far more likely to find pro-union Republicans than you are pro-free market Democrats.

On just about every major issue of the day, the Republican Party is the party wherein the struggle of ideas and the free market of ideas have clashes. The Democrats are lockstep on policies, even when those policies, like abortion and gun rights opposition, are outside the mainstream of American thought.

Democrats can look on all of this and smugly think they are right on all their issues so there is no need for diversity of opinion. But then I hope they will glance over at the White House today as they march are realize half the country disagrees.

Statistically, in this country, conservatives are far more likely to encounter liberals on a daily basis than liberals are to encounter conservatives. Liberals have walled themselves off from the rest of society while demanding the rest of society adhere to liberal amorality.

That’s not going to cut it for at least the next four years. Maybe by then they’ll realize getting in people’s faces and calling them bigots for disagreeing and persecuting Christians for wanting to live their faith in the public square are not good ways to advance their agenda.

The Women’s March

Unlike the vandals yesterday, the Women’s March is a proper exercise of the First Amendment. It is drawing attention from the media, there is no violence, and the people have united around a common theme.

Good for them.

It is worth noting that many supposedly objective reporters seem awfully joyful about this march. It is also worth noting that this march is not so much about women’s rights as it is about sore losers. This march would never have happened had Hillary Clinton gotten elected. It is only happening in response to Donald Trump as a protest against him.

It is very relevant that liberals have protested every Republican inauguration since Richard Nixon in 1969. They even protested Ronald Reagan’s landslide win in 1985, or at least would have done so more aggressively except for the blizzard that kept people off the streets. This is what the left does when they lose. They cannot help themselves. They may invent and imagine new grievances and excuses each time, but it happens every time.

That’s all well and good, but I think there is a mistaken premise underlying this march. These people may pat themselves on the back that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but she won the popular vote because of major urban areas in a handful of states that always go Democrat. In fact, if both Hillary Clinton’s vote total and Donald Trump’s vote total did not contain California, Trump would lead the popular vote.

In addition to the fact that this nation relies on an Electoral College to pick the President, thereby ensuring widespread support, it is also means that this Women’s March, though large in number, does not really related to a vast array of people in the country. Polling suggested one reason Democrats switched from Barack Obama to Donald Trump was because these Democrats thought Hillary Clinton cared more about bathrooms than jobs.

The Women’s March only perpetuates this by fixating on one size fits all social issues — abortion on demand in every state, men in women’s bathrooms in every state, massive burdens on the taxpayers of every state, etc. I dare say a lot of these people would find common ground with the right if they argued for their lifestyles in their states, without a one size fits all federal approach.

But the won’t.

This march is not so much about affecting an agenda or even changing minds. It is about convincing the left that there is nothing wrong, they are not out of touch, and they should block and obstruct everything possible. Of course there is something wrong. Hillary Clinton lost states no Democrat has lost since Ronald Reagan. Blaming the Russians or emails provides false comfort, prevents a real examination of the loss, and works to Donald Trump’s advantage.

For many, many Americas, 62.98 million of them at least, the Women’s March just reinforces their support for President Trump and for many of us who supported neither major party candidate, it makes us thankful we wound up being wrong.

“Women’s” March Welcomes Sex Workers

As thousands are marching on Washington today, it’s important to note what a busy week it’s been for the “Pro-Prostitution, Pro-Choice, Anti-Gender Norms, Pro-Illegal Immigration, Anti-Trump Women’s March on Washington.” (I’m sorry – were you under the impression this was an event for women? That “all-inclusive” group has a very specific target audience.)

In a mere three days, the March has gone from kicking out pro-life women to dropping and then reinstating their encouragement of sex workers to participate.

A freelance writer covering the Women’s March noticed that their statement regarding sex workers had changed. Originally, the statement read “in solidarity with the sex workers’ rights movement,” but was replaced with a general statement of support for “those exploited for labor and sex.”

The change insinuated that sex workers are not a part of the group, and the word “exploited” portrays them as weak – both very unwelcome revisions to the sex workers.

The coordinator for Sex Workers Alliance Ireland, Kate McGrew, reportedly noticed the replacement first. (She cried tears of joy for the sex workers’ inclusion when she saw the original statement, so obviously this replacement was probably a trigger for her.)

Needless to say, she was “flooded with relief” when the statement was reinstated. After all, the so-called “women’s rights” group hasn’t always welcomed the sex workers with open arms in the past.

Janet Mock, a transgender rights activist, claimed the original statement that ended up being reinstated was hers. On her Tumblr account, she wrote:

“I cannot speak to the internal conflicts at the Women’s March that have led to the erasure of the line I wrote for our collective vision but I have been assured that the line will remain in OUR document.”

She continued:

“I know that underground economies are essential parts of the lived realities of women and folk. I know sex work to be work. It’s not something I need to tiptoe around. It’s not a radical statement. It’s a fact.”

It’s also a fact that prostitution is illegal in this country, with the exception of a few counties in Nevada. As a true feminist, I want something better for women. Yes – that’s right – I’m insinuating that sex work isn’t an ideal career. Assuming there are others that share the views expressed in Mock’s post – these activists see this as being a career that’s preferred by some women and was to encourage them – despite the fact that it’s illegal in almost every part of the country.

The group claims their unity statement is a “living, breathing document” – and it has to be to keep up with their very specific target audience. They also note their organization is “committed to being bridge-builders” – however, given their actions with the pro-life women, that statement does not apply to all groups.

Pro-Choice, Anti-Gender Norms, Pro-Illegal Immigration, Anti-Trump Women’s March on Washington

The anticipated Women’s March on Washington is expected to kick off this Saturday in D.C., but don’t let the title of the event fool you, as not all anti-Trump women are welcome.

A pro-life group, New Wave Feminists, opposes President-elect Donald Trump and was listed as an official sponsor of the event. But after an article written by Emma Green, one of the march’s co-chairs, was published in The Atlantic, sharing pro-life women’s involvement, stating “We must not just talk about feminism as one issue, like access to reproductive care,” a tweet storm ensued and they were abruptly kicked out.

The reason for kicking these women out? “The right to choose is a fundamental part of feminism.”

Here’s the statement from Women’s March on Washington regarding their “error”:

Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa of New Wave Feminists told LifeSiteNews that the group will still be attending the march on Saturday, with a statement that I just love:

“It appears that the [Women’s March on Washington] only wants to include a ‘diverse’ array of women who think exactly like them,” she said. “That’s unfortunate, but we will not be deterred.”

I’ve often wondered where the modern-day definition of feminism has come from. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, feminism is:

“The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes”

Last time I checked, men didn’t have the ability to terminate their pregnancies, so I guess I’m a little confused as to how abortion has any effect on how much of a feminist you are – let alone being a “fundamental part of feminism.”

Curious if you qualify for the Women’s March on Washington? Review their unity statements to get a feel for what they’re looking for in a woman. (Note: Having female genitalia, believing in equal women’s rights and not supporting President-elect Trump’s divisive language isn’t enough.)

Modern-day feminists joke about, and embrace, their stereotype of being “nasty women,” but claim the reality is that they only want equal rights for women. They claim it’s us, the conservatives, that paint them in such a negative light.

Perhaps I’m shining a light by writing this article, but they are definitely doing all the painting.