New and Improved Political Weapon Armed – Doug Jones Defeats Roy Moore

Posted by Tina

Radical feminist won the Alabama election for Doug Jones with a targeting scheme. The political witch hunt that included targeting Roy Moore in Alabama worked very well to stifle Moore’s voter turnout. The proof is in the numbers, as Gateway Pundit reported yesterday: “GOP Turnout 50% of 2016; Democrat Turnout 92% of 2016.” Many Republican voters in Alabama chose to stay home rather than vote for a morally compromised candidate. Democrat voters smelled blood in the water and turned out in droves.

The left now has a new and improved version of an already very powerful weapon. The improvement cost them dearly since high profile members of their own party had to be sacrificed to make it effective. And that’s no small thing, the list of abusers is extensive. The more egregious and disgusting accusations have been leveled against liberal males in politics, media, and entertainment. But this is a price radical feminists are finally willing to pay…their fawning support of Bill Clinton has hung like an anchor around their necks.

If the idea that “women should always be believed” provides a pathway to victory and dominance in politics, liberal women are willing to walk that path…even if it means stomping on civil rights…even if it means due process is ignored…even if it means free speech is blunted…and in some cases, even if it means making things up. I find it more than unsettling that women, who’ve used the Salem witch hunts in their battle cry for justice, have now chosen to make the court of emotional public outrage a conflagration point to eliminate political opponents. Every Republican that steps up to serve in future should know that he will become a target. This shiny improved weapon will have a very chilling effect. Sexual harassment accusations can include anything from asking for a phone number to rape. When a woman claims she’s been “traumatized” a guilty public opinion verdict usually follows. There are no bright defining lines anymore. Good people will choose not to risk running for office rather than place their families, their jobs, their lives and assets in the cross hairs of politically motivated corrupt women.

Should potential Democrat candidates worry? I predict, no. Now that these radicals have purged their ranks they have eliminated the hypocrisy that plagued them in the past. They can go back to selectively accusing only those with an “R” behind their names. And yes, that means I don’t believe the women that organized this witch hunt against Roy Moore or the feminist movement. Lives, careers, and the rule of law are being sacrificed on a politically motivated sexual harassment pyre.

Now the decks have been cleared. Radical women with politically motivated stories have used their weapon and won. Sacrificed heads have rolled. It’s a brand new day. But this shift requires an adjustment for women as well as for men. Women will have to grow up and learn how to to deal with men. They will have to establish rules and then live by them. There are dignified ways to rebuff unwanted advances. There are ways to create an atmosphere in which respect and admiration follow. Women will do what is required when they wake up and acknowledge, respect, and embrace the inherent male nature:

All previous generations of human beings of which we are aware knew that male sexual nature is predatory. Without strong moral values working to inhibit their sexual nature, men will follow their natural impulse to grab women to whom they are attracted and use them sexually — just as males in the animal world grab the females of their species for sex. Ironically, the people who most insist that human beings are just another animal are the ones most likely to deny the animal aspect of male nature. Instead they argue that men are “socially conditioned” to see women as sex objects — by our “Playboy culture,” by sexist ads, by pornography, or some other elements of “patriarchy.”

Women have been trying to change men since the sixties. It will never work. Instead they have to set standards. The way women conduct their lives matters. Some of the women, in Hollywood in particular, will have to seriously consider the things they wear, say, and do if they want things to change. Pushing the “I’m so sexy envelope” on the red carpet (or as a guest of a talk show) matters, not just for them but for all women in every profession and relationship. If there’s a culture that cultivates male predators there is also a culture that cultivates female as prey and that makes women stupidly vulnerable:

And we thought Paris Hilton’s panty-less gown was risque. “Real Housewives of Miami” star Joanna Krupa attended two events Friday night (Jan. 24) in one very, very sheer dress. Krupa showed up…wearing a black and mesh floor-length number reminiscent of Jaimie Alexander’s head-turning piece, only … with more cleavage (yeah, we didn’t think that was possible, either). … In 2012, she wore a beaded shirt sans bra to a night on the town.

Pretty lady…but what message does her outfit convey? And what does the gushing commentary at HuffPo say about attitudes that encourage an “anything goes” atmosphere in the workplace and at social gatherings?

I love Drew Barrymore but question a choice she made to flash David Letterman for his birthday on national television:

…Barrymore, as cute and outgoing as she’s ever been, asked if, for his birthday, she could do a dance for him. Letterman relented and Barrymore leapt up on his desk. After a few sways of her hips, Barrymore spontaneously flashed Dave. The cameras caught it all (from behind). Barrymore, giggling innocently and blushing visibly, raised her hands to the cheering crowd. Letterman sat stunned behind his desk. Barrymore gave him a sweet kiss on the cheek and hopped off the desk. Letterman later said it was “the best birthday present I’ve ever received.”

I’m not a prude. I’m not offended by Drew’s display or by a dress that leaves little to the imagination. I am concerned with the mixed messages women convey with these images. I’m concerned, in this culture of sexual freedom, that women can’t see the ways they’ve helped to create an age of egregious sexual harassment. Media psychologist Stuart Fischoff, Ph.D addressed this issue in an article in Psychology today:

To audience applause, Geraldo Rivera runs down the center aisle of the studio. Three women are seated next to me on stage, ready to talk…They listen as Geraldo details their shocking biographies to the audience. My pulse accelerates as Geraldo moves beside me, his hype escalating: “Dr. Stuart Fischoff, a clinical psychologist from Los Angeles, is here to help answer the $64,000 question: Why would a woman marry her rapist?” …

…I offer only general comments, about low self-esteem (it’s always about low self-esteem, isn’t it?) and about the illusory bond between rape and the romantic myth of being taken because one is so needed, so desirable … They don’t hear me. They can’t hear me. They are not there to be helped. They have come to be validated.

The focus shifts. The studio mikes are activated. The tension rises. The women in the audience are openly furious. Validation is not on their agenda. Their questions and accusations speak of betrayal, of pandering to the odious stereotype that women secretly want to be raped. The women on stage try to defend the indefensible. It is a battle they cannot win. It’s another rape. Only this time it’s by a gang of women, people who are angry and want to dominate.

Women say they want to be taken seriously…they say they want to be respected…but do they behave as if this is what they want? Have they stood up for their own dignity by living dignified lives and reporting abuses…or have they conveyed that they are available for fun…sexy…”private business.” The willingness to compromise on morality helps to convey the message that everything is allowed.

Men are pretty simple. They know that their natural inclination is to pursue the female. Most civilized men are willing to play by established rules but the rules that once formed fixed and reliable guardrails have been smashed.

Radical feminists have a lot of work to do if this sudden outcry is about real change and not just winning elections, maintaining a lethal political weapon and preserving abortion. Their shiny new weapon has no chance of impressing me in the political arena or elsewhere without a complete transformation of attitudes, values, and behaviors in life.

Maybe the first lesson should be that women are not victims. Women set the terms and conditions for how they will be treated. They already have the power to make men behave like gentlemen they just need to set the rules and live by them. Ladies?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to New and Improved Political Weapon Armed – Doug Jones Defeats Roy Moore

  1. J. Soden says:

    The GOP Establishment Ruling Class is congratulating itself on the defeat of Moore. That’ll last until the next election when they will find those same kind of accusations by the Demwits against them.
    Buckle up, America. Wild sexual accusations against men and claims of promiscuous behavior against women just have been officially added to the Demwit Political Playbook.

    • Tina says:

      Next year will be brutal, J, you got that right.

      • J. Soden says:

        Last night (Thursday) Tucker Carlson and Mark Stein had a great discussion regarding the accusations issue. Upshot is that a single accusation without any proof is now weaponized and can destroy a career even if the accusation is false.
        These days, even touching a shoulder between the sexes is tatamount to rape once the media gets hold of the story.
        Where is the PROOF, people??????????????

  2. Peggy Harrington says:

    LISTEN: Bill O’Reilly: Secret Tape Exists Of Woman Offered $200K To Falsely Accuse Trump Of Sexual Misconduct:

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/24646/listen-bill-oreilly-secret-tape-exists-woman-amanda-prestigiacomo#

    • Tina says:

      Wow, Peggy, that’s quite a find. I suppose whoever has it is holding onto it and waiting for a more opportune time to release it. Wonder if the lawyer is Gloria Allred.

      • Libby says:

        Yeah, but it’s not as good as the tens of thousands of black folk bussed into Alabama to throw the election!

        You guys are freakin’ pathetic.

        • Tina says:

          No Libby you guys are. Dirty tricks are all you know.

          You’ve lied to the black community and treated them like $#&^…you use them and abuse them, you don;t address their issues, and you make them dance (bused in) for votes. Shameful abuse!!!

          Wait till the word gets out that there is more opportunity under Trump and the Republicans. We have media too now.

          Even under a black president

          …The Joint Center for Economic and Political Studies did a fascinating study on this issue last year. The Joint Center used to be the premiere Black think tank in the U.S., until they decided to become a radical liberal group and tool of the Democratic National Committee.

          The report is titled, “Racial Diversity Among Top Senate Staff,” conducted by James R. Jones. This is one of the most explosive, damning reports of the Democratic Party’s racism I have ever read. Some of the highlights of the report are: …

          … Top Democratic Senate staff members are much less diverse than the Democratic voting base. While those who self-identified as Democrats nationwide were 22 percent African-American and 13 percent Latino, top Democratic U.S. Senate staff as a group is 0.7 percent African-American and 2.0 percent Latino. There is no African-American chief of staff, legislative director, or communications director in the Washington, D.C. personal office of any Democratic Senator, according to the Joint Center’s 2015 study.

          According to table 3 of this same report, “While people of color make up approximately 37 percent of those who identify as Democrats, they account for 8.1 percent of top Democratic Senate staff. In comparison, people of color make up 9 percent of those who identify as Republicans and 6.7 percent of top Republican Senate staff, the Republicans’ percentage of key staffers of color is closer to the share of their party’s voters who are people of color.”

          December 2017, NewsMax:

          … Leftists believe that good intentions are more important than results. If you mean well and your heart is in the right place, that’s what really matters, according to this creed. …

          No one cared more about the plight of black Americans than Barack Obama — our first African-American president — who won more than 90 percent of the black vote. But the sad paradox is that a president who was expected to lift up black America economically didn’t deliver. From 2009 to 2015 the incomes of black Americans fell by more than $900 per family, adjusted for inflation.

          Under Trump so far, median family incomes have risen by more than $1,000, according to Sentier Research and based on Census Bureau numbers. …

          … The black unemployment rate has fallen by a full percentage point in the last year; black labor-force participation is up; and the number of black Americans with a job has risen by 600,000 from last year. Preliminary data show black wages and incomes are up since the election.

          So far, under Trump, the rate of job growth per month for blacks has been 40 percent higher than the monthly average under Obama. Trump has averaged nearly 30,000 new black jobs per month. That’s especially remarkable because Obama was elected when employment was way down and had only one direction to go.

          The other issue that is critically important to black and Hispanic economic progress is good schools. No president has done more to advance school choice so that every child can attend a quality school — public or private. In cities such as Washington, D.C., and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 90 percent of the children who benefit from these programs are black. Trump wants to increase these vouchers and scholarships tenfold.

          The goal here is to give every poor child the same range of education choices that wealthy families have. As black parents in D.C. who participate in these scholarship programs have told me, “Why does Barack Obama get to send his kids to private schools, but we don’t?” Good question, one that no liberal has ever been able to answer.

          The same people who denounce Trump for being racist hypocritically oppose Trump’s plan for better school options for black children. I have heard many liberal commentators compare Donald Trump to George Wallace, the former governor of Alabama who defended school segregation and stood in front of white public schools with armed guards to keep the black children out.

          Now we have liberals and teachers unions figuratively standing, like modern-day George Wallaces, in front of high-quality private schools, trying to keep black children out.

          Trump also wants more infrastructure spending, more energy jobs and more apprenticeship programs so our youth have access to better jobs and better training. Disproportionately, blacks and other minorities will benefit from these programs, because fewer have the financial capability to go to a four-year college.

          Stick that in your bus!

        • Pie Guevara says:

          Libby, did your parents have any children that lived?

        • Tina says:

          What a legal slut! She demands commissions for selling the stories up to 33%!

          From your link: “The Hill reported Friday that Bloom worked with campaign donors and tabloid media outlets to arrange compensation for the alleged victims and a commission for herself, offering to sell their stories. In one case, Bloom reportedly arranged for a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempted to score a six-figure payment for another woman. The former ultimately declined to come forward after being offered $750,000, the clients told The Hill.”

          Democrat elites are slime!

  3. Pie Guevara says:

    Re Tina: “Democrat elites are slime!”

    I am shocked, SHOCKED AND DISAPPOINTED! How could Tina make such a blanket, fallacious assertion. This is simply untrue and very unfair to the vast majority of Democrats, be they politicians, volunteer activists, or registered voters.

    ALL Democrats are slime. Every damn one.

  4. Pie Guevara says:

    Re: “Men are pretty simple. They know that their natural inclination is to pursue the female. Most civilized men are willing to play by established rules but the rules that once formed fixed and reliable guardrails have been smashed.”

    Oh, thanks a lot, dear heart. Us men are “simple.” (Actually, we are, but that is beside the point.) In my experience women also have a natural inclination to pursue men. Are women considered “simple?” Heck no. They are as confusing and as complex as hell and there is at least 3000 years of history and literature to support this fact.

    It may be a part of the design, this complexity of women, to perplex men and give them as much grief as possible as a biological counterweight to men’s more (in broad spectrum) massive bodies and bones. Brain against brawn. We men may be stupid, but we are not simple.

    (Aside to social anthropologists: compare Gloria Becker’s “Sixteen Pounds” to Tennessee Ernie Ford’s “Sixteen Tons.” Discuss.)

    Feminists and even sane women in general complain ad nauseam about men’s “power” over them. This is just a ruse. Women have all the power, they just are not so stupid as to admit it or call attention to it.

    P.S.
    To any man or woman who gets their teats in a tangle over the above commentary, I am being a bit facetious and satirical in order to inspire in the mind of the reader a possible (if not probable) underlying truth. It is not my fault you are to damn dim to get it. Thank you Samuel Clemens. Of course, none of the above applies to Muslims and Islam. They are a different case entirely.

  5. Tina says:

    Pie, dear heart, thank you for nudging me to clarify. I did not mean to say or imply that men are “simple” as in simple minded, for instance. I meant that men have few demands and requirements and as you wrote women are “as confusing and as complex as hell.”

    I was also referring to rules of comportment. The lines are very blurry when someone can be accused of harassment simply for asking for a phone number or complimenting a woman on her looks. And the nonsense going on at America’s colleges is insane…men are guilty and the facts be damned.

    Men just want to know the rules of engagement and pursuit… a pretty simple requirement if a destroyed life hangs in the balance.

    “women also have a natural inclination to pursue men”

    Ah but for very different reasons. Women seek relationship…always. The exception is sadly dysfunctional.

    “Feminists and even sane women in general complain ad nauseam about men’s “power” over them. This is just a ruse. Women have all the power, they just are not so stupid as to admit it or call attention to it.”

    Agree! Although I think there are women who honestly don’t get or understand their own power. Too many of them believe that symbolic achievement is the path to (finally) being/feeling powerful…or worthy. (Thus Hillary dissolved into a pile of tears on election night…and has made ridiculous excuses ever since)

    I’ll leave you with this:

    Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she laid an asteroid. – Samuel L. Clemens |

  6. Tina says:

    The NYT features an article announcing the retirement (?) of Sheila Nevins , the documentary “high priestess” at HBO. Nevins talks about her own experiences in the workplace and then about the advice Cosmo was handing out to women as a means of discussing the current abuse scandals:

    …who better to talk about this winter’s Waterloo in the battle of the sexes than the woman who won the first Peabody awarded to a cable program, for “She’s Nobody’s Baby: The History of American Women in the 20th Century,” produced in 1981 with Ms. Magazine, and who brought shows with a sexual edge to HBO … Ms. Nevins does not think that sexual dynamics can be expurgated from the workplace. She just hopes that women can become more direct, and less frightened, in how they deal with men who cross the line, and that a hierarchy of sins can be identified.

    “I mean, there’s Harvey and then there’s poking,” she says. “Harvey is a criminal. He deserves to be put away. The stuff I read about Matt Lauer was horrifying. I’ve never had that happen. But I’ve certainly sat in editing rooms and had well-known people kiss my neck and put their hands on me. But I pulled it away or let it happen or said, ‘Eww!’ I was not fired up.

    “I read Cosmo. No one’s brought Helen Gurley Brown into it for older women. We were brought up by her. The younger women were brought up by Gloria Steinem. I think I was a Girlie by Helen. I read Cosmo like it was Spock for babies and I dressed and did everything she told me. I bought cosmetics. I bought a push-up bra. I unbuttoned the second button where you see the cleavage. She also said you should listen to your boss’s sad stories about how his wife doesn’t love him. And make sure you look very good and then throw yourself in front of his car, waving, when he’s leaving work. …

    … Half a century before the current revolution on sexual transgressions, the late Ms. Brown spurred her own revolution, coaching women on how to be temptresses at the office. Her books and her groundbreaking version of Cosmopolitan, coinciding with the advent of the contraceptive pill, preached sex without shame for single women. The Cosmo gospel was about “snagging guys” and achieving the “Big O,” blithely coaching “girls,” as Ms. Brown always called them, on how to seduce their married bosses and please their boyfriends by chilling satin sheets in the fridge in the summer.

    Once in the early ’80s, I went to Cosmo looking for freelance work. They handed me a bunch of red binders with story suggestions such as “I Had an Affair With My Father’s Best Friend” and “I Had an Affair With My Best Friend’s Father.” And the all-purpose
    “My Fling With My Gynecologist/Psychiatrist/Dentist.”

    Ms. Brown was a pioneer who abruptly became an anachronism during the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings when she wrote a Wall Street Journal article in praise of sexual electricity in the office, fondly recalling “a dandy game” called “Scuttle,” in which men chased secretaries around the office and pulled down their panties

    I always found it a bit deranged that these accomplished women (Helen Gurley Brown and Gloria Steinem) debased housewives and their own mothers by criticizing them for using “feminine wiles” to get what they wanted from their husbands and then thought they were better when they coached young women to do the same in the workforce (as sluts!). They brought all of the dysfunction from their own lives into our culture, pretending all the while to be mature sophisticates. What a scam and a whole generation of women bought into it and thought they were advancing.

    When you look at the trajectory of Hillary’s rise you can see it all. She rode to prominence on her husbands coattails and positioned herself thereafter on the merits of being his first lady…even that was a bit of a ruse…and a feminist.

    Ugh!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.