March to Nowhere

Ladies' Day Out, Bigtime

The big news of the weekend, besides the inauguration, was the women’s march on Washington on Saturday, the 21st.  There were similar marches throughout the country and reportedly throughout the world, according to media, although that’s a bit of a stretch.  The U.S. march was led by some foul-mouthed female entertainers, who have been anything but oppressed as they’ve basked in their millions, some mostly just by being naughty and nude. Actress Ashley Judd performed hysterically.  

I surfed to it for maybe a total of ten minutes or less and caught Gloria Steinmen, the arch-feminist, do her screech.  Some ladies of the Congress participated, no doubt to show how they’ve been mistreated by the voters by landing them in Congress, where, despite their participation in this silly “girls day out,” will still be treated as serious.  

I suspect the verbiage was all about equal pay, equal rights…the usual stuff about the glass ceiling, but the only issue that mattered had to do with abortion.  The girls are desperately afraid that the right of abortion-on-demand will slip away somehow even though it’s that proverbial “settled law.”  The irony is sorta cruel, protesting to save the “right” that allows for the murder of vulnerable infants before they’re born.

In some nations women have a legitimate reason for protesting (any Muslim country, for instance), but not in the U.S., where there are 27 female CEOs listed in the S&P 500 companies. That's only 5.4% of the total but it represents the fact that women can compete successfully with the evil men, who besides not denying women the opportunity simply are more successful at working all the angles for the big-money jobs.

The CEO of General Motors is a woman, Mary Barra. Unsuccessful presidential candidate Carly Fiorina was CEO of massive Hewlett-Packard and even joined male CEOs in being fired, with a great golden parachute ($40 million), but the protesting gals' goals are that these positions should be handed to women just because they're women.

Before leaving office, Obama made sure women are eligible now for combat roles in the military, even allowing that they should become Navy SEALS. People with common sense know this is nutty, something not earned but awarded anyway, thus endangering the actual SEALs, who must perform at physical and emotional levels far beyond those of women but whose main concern would be protecting women-colleagues instead of accomplishing their missions, which are designed to break things and kill or rescue people.  

In the U.S., women are gradually taking over the court systems, enrolling in colleges and universities in numbers greater than men, and achieving parity in enrollments in both medical and law schools. They are anything but deprived in the matter of heading for the big-green.

So...the issue of the protest, besides ginning up support for Hillary's next foray into politics after not shattering the prized presidential glass-ceiling, is abortion, pure and simple. They call it privacy rights and the SCOTUS adhered to that privacy, whether or not in the Constitution, in Roe/Wade in 1973.

According to U.S. Data & Trends, there have been 58,586,256 U.S. abortions since 1973. Over the 40+ years since then, the earlier murdered fetuses would have had children and grandchildren, so the actual effect on population could be close to minus-75,000,000...but who knows? Murdered fetuses create no birth records.

The whole nine yards resulted from the election of Trump, and the ladies, as well as the mainstream and mostly discredited media, have as a main goal somehow squeezing Trump out of office but lacking the power of impeachment, much less charging criminal activity. The ladies have latched on parasitically to other victim-movements such as “black lives matter” to prove their point even though they form more than half the populace but consider themselves a protected minority, which automatically admits to denigrating themselves, the most poignant observation concerning the grand march to nowhere.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Congressman Lewis & Inaugurations

Congressman John Lewis announced the other day that for the first time he would not attend the inauguration because he considered Trump an illegitimate president. He lied. He also skipped the Bush-43 Inauguration in 2001 because...yep...he considered Bush illegitimately elected. Both Bush and Trump were elected according to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. He has been joined in his attention-grab by some 35 or so House colleagues, all of whom have become big news in the mainstream media...that 15-minutes-of-fame thing, or maybe they just didn't want to fight the cold weather. Who knows?

Lewis, along with Senator Booker (black democrat, NJ) and House black caucus leader Cedric Richmond, were given the privilege of addressing the Senate hearing after the official hearing was concluded in order to express their opposition to Jeff Sessions, the AG nominee, something the media said was unprecedented. They heaped humongous vitriol upon Sessions, not that it mattered for anything but exposing them for the racists-in-reverse that they are. Only whites are actual racists, of course.

Their performance was by way of piling more guilt-trip upon white citizens account slavery, as if any white person living now or for generations past had anything to do with it. Lewis, as usual, brought up Selma, where he was unjustifiably beaten in 1965 but Sessions was just a 19-year-old college kid then, so the connection is nonexistent, except that Sessions is white and therefore fair game for racists-in-reverse.

I resent this constant victimization approach of Jackson and Sharpton not least because my great-grandfather and two great-uncles fought in the Union Army and, perhaps miraculously, survived though great-grandfather was wounded once and nearly died of disease once. No Lewis bio I’ve seen indicates that he ever served in the military, though he was draft-age during the Vietnam era as well as in the late 1950s. Notwithstanding that, the navy will name a ship (construction to be started in 2018) for Lewis. Perhaps he was 4-F or had deferments of some sort, the same as Trump.

Predictably, the media has gone ape over the fact that Trump has tweeted a not-too-complimentary response to Lewis’s charge of illegitimacy, which actually meant that Trump is a fraud. Categorizing Lewis as an “icon,” the liberal gurus (nearly all of the media) have castigated Trump for having the audacity to challenge the insult to himself or lack-of-worship of such an icon, but do not mention that Lewis began the whole affair with a public temper-tantrum, a profound insult vis-à-vis the voters, whom he implied as dumber than the Russians…the deplorables like me.

Lewis represents the culmination of the Obama terms, to wit, deepening the chasms among different racial groups, all in the name of diversity. This represents the penultimate oxymoron, making the nation a one-people thing by constantly remarking how they are different, the definition of diversity. Obama has approached everything within the context of race, even to the point of having his attorney general expend tremendous resources and manpower in a futile attempt to crucify an innocent policeman in Missouri.

Perhaps the saddest thing in the whole “Lewis matter” is the exposure of the degree of hatred the liberal establishment had/has not only for Trump but for the “ignorant deplorables” who voted their consciences, just as the liberals insist they did. A sad thing, also, is the fact that the first black to be elected by a vast majority of whites has wallowed in a sort of mediocrity when he could actually have made a difference. He has presided over the Divided States of America, whether through intent or incompetence.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Intel Flap

I watched Senator McCain’s Intel hearing the other day involving the top honchos connected to the DNI.  McCain considers the Russian hacking (assuming it took place) as an act of war, never mind that such an act could be answered with military means, not just counter-cyber activity.   

DNI Director Clapper made it clear that he considers the hacking (if it took place) as an act of espionage and mentioned that it’s dangerous to throw rocks if one lives in a glass house, i.e., that the U.S does the same thing regarding hacking into anything it can worldwide.  The point was made, apparently more or less consensually, that any hacking had nothing to do with the election.   

The hacking that took place, whether from Russia or anywhere else, affected the DNC in exposing its corruption, which, of course, had to do with stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders in favor of guaranteeing that Hillary would crack the glass ceiling. Just the possibility of that happening is chilling if not scary.   

Clapper, a former general, also indicated that it would be well for the U.S. and Russia to find “mutual interests,” another way of saying he agrees with Trump in establishing a friendship with Russia, opposite a strictly adversarial arrangement, which has been the Obama/Clinton position even to the extent of Hillary meddling in the Russian election involving Putin’s presidency.  This is not to say that governments must not meddle in the elections in other countries when their own interests are involved.  This world is not Camelot and all governments do not play by the same rules, meaning that taking the the low road (if that can be defined internationally) is always a possibility.  

McCain’s position is hypocritical, of course, in that he, along with Senators Graham and Lieberman, fomented the unprovoked U.S. unilateral attack (NATO not a significant factor) against Libya, totally unauthorized either legally or Constitutionally.  It was a monstrous war-crime that cost thousands of lives over a seven-month period.  McCain and Graham also tried to get Obama to attack Syria, which he almost did, though he provided weaponry against both of those sovereign nations, meddling in their civil wars.   

Putin saved Obama's bacon (those silly red lines) when he took over the affairs of the Middle East, essentially telling Obama to bug out, which he did, and wisely so.  So, when McCain complains about the actual espionage as an act of war, he condemns himself and his position by his own actions, which, as opposed to espionage, actually did involve acts of war.  

A large segment of the current issue of TIME magazine is devoted to this subject, probably because of all the ballyhoo generated by democrats to make a big deal out of nothing.  Supposedly, WikiLeaks guru Julian Assange received hacker-info from the Russians and made it public, thus somehow hurting Clinton's campaign, which she deep-sixed herself account just opening her mouth and posturing, especially as a woman whose time had come.  Assange disavows any Russian connection and folks may believe him or not.  

On page 26 of TIME is a description of this country's efforts to ferret out the private actors linked to the Russian hacking, in which is this phrase: “...which the U.S. spies believed was the main organization behind the influence operation.”  The obvious inference is that the CIA and perhaps the NSA participate in clandestine cyber-activity all the time, not just the Russians.  One hopes this is true and that U.S. intel agencies know even more about Russian secrets than the Russkies know about those of the U.S.  

In the Senate hearing on 11 January of Rex Tillerson as the next State Secretary, the democrats came out with fangs bared, some especially concerned about the Russian hacking, particularly relative to Putin’s authorization of it, as if Tillerson knows more than anyone else or could do much about what the current administration as well as Clinton’s private server-operators were not able to do, though the president said in a recent press conference that he told Putin to “cut it out.”  

And so it goes.
Jim Clark