Bad News For the Resistance: Trump’s Re-Elect Numbers Similar to Obama and Clinton

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign town hall at Ocean Center, Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2016, in Daytona Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

As midterm elections approach, many in D.C. and around the country eagerly look toward the 2020 presidential election.

President Trump has been clear about his desire to run for re-election. In March, the White House announced that the Trump campaign had hired Brad Parscale to run his 2020 bid. Parscale was the digital media director for his winning 2016 campaign.

Though a campaign hire may seem a bit premature, it indicates a strong confidence in both the voters who supported his initial rise and in the populist message. In fact, President Trump officially filed for re-election with the FEC on January 20, 2017; the date of his inauguration.

Talk about wasting no time.

Some may scoff at this preparedness, but according to a recent Gallup poll, President Trump has every right to feel secure. The latest figures place him in the same territory as Clinton and Obama in terms of re-election hopes.

The percentage of voters who say Trump deserves re-election is essentially identical to that of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama at the time of the 1994 and 2010 midterm elections, respectively. More voters said George W. Bush deserved re-election at the time of the midterm elections in his first term, in 2002.

Still, there is some concern this far out from midterms.

Trump’s approval ratings have been significantly worse than those of his predecessors at similar points in their presidencies. And his re-elect figures do not match those of Clinton (40% in April 1994) and Obama (46% in March 2010) in the spring of their first midterm election years. However, by the time voters cast ballots in those presidents’ first midterms that fall, the percentage of voters believing Clinton and Obama deserved to be re-elected had fallen to the same level Trump is at now.

It remains to be seen just how much impact this fall’s election results will have on President Trump’s plans for the future.

Democrats are certainly unhappy with the majority in Congress. If a blue wave crushes Republican midterm plans, that will only increase the desire among GOP voters to keep the White House safely in Trump’s hands. Conversely, it will further fuel Democrat passion at the polls in order to complete a sweep and regain control in 2020.

The Gallup results have Trump virtually tied with former presidents of the opposite political persuasion. This says much about perception versus reality in this toxic climate. Clearly, the president has many consistent detractors on both sides of the aisle. However, when faced with whether he deserves re-election, voters give him the Clinton and Obama treatment. That’s not exactly in line with the popular “he is the devil and no one likes him” narrative.

Trump’s standing with independents and supporters of the opposition party is similar to that of Clinton and Obama at the time of the 1994 and 2010 midterm elections. About one in three independents believed each deserved re-election, and fewer than one in 10 Republicans did. Trump’s numbers among Republicans are essentially the same as Obama’s among his fellow Democrats in 2010, but slightly better than those of Clinton among Democrats in 1994. Trump would need to see a recovery in his support over the next two years to successfully win re-election, as Clinton and Obama did.

This is not to say that an incumbent win for President Trump is even close to certain. November 3, 2020 is still a long way off.

As it stands right now, though, the p***y hat-wearing members of the Resistance should feel uneasy as they march against a leader whose re-election chances fall in line with two-term presidents of the recent past.

Follow Kimberly Ross on Twitter: @southernkeeks.

The post Bad News For the Resistance: Trump’s Re-Elect Numbers Similar to Obama and Clinton appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Who Cares About Gender “Inequality” Among Airline Pilots (Or Anyone Else)?

Amelia Earhart, famous, skilled PILOT.

On April 17th, after Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 experienced engine failure not long after takeoff, pilot Tammie Jo Shults safely guided the plane to an emergency landing in Philadelphia.

Unfortunately, debris from the failed engine struck a window causing rapid decompression. Passenger Jennifer Riordan was partially pulled out of said window by the force, and later passed away as a result of severe trauma to her head, neck, and torso.

The tragedy could have been much worse if not for the skilled maneuvering of Captain Shults who saved the lives of 143 passengers and 3 crew members that day. It’s easy to think of flying as routine, but the experienced men and women at the helm are prepared for the worst. We owe them much as they safely take us from one destination to the next.

Most anyone would look at the incident with an appreciation for what Shults did with no regard for the fact that she is female. In January 2009, Captain Chesley Sullenberger – a male – landed US Airways Flight 1549 on the freezing Hudson River, after geese struck both engines and disabled the plane. His expertise, not his gender, was praised. He had saved the lives of all on board.

When skilled men and women, whatever their profession, become examples of bravery and focus, they should be commended. Their biological makeup is of no consequence. But that doesn’t stop some who are preoccupied with gender disparity in career fields to point it out.

Eliott C. McLaughlin over at CNN did just that as he attempted to make the Southwest story more of a gender issue with his piece entitled, There are nearly 160,000 pilots in America. Fewer than 7,000 are women.

Of the 159,825 pilots flying for airlines last year, only 6,994 were women, about 4.37%. Both the number and percentage have been on a slow ascent since 2008.

The number of women flying in other commercial capacities is also low — 6,267 of 98,161 last year — and that number is down since 2008, perhaps as part of a general decline in commercial pilots during that time frame. Still, the percentage has basically been static for the past decade.

More than 19,000 women are learning to fly. While only a small fraction of these women will go on to fly for airlines, the number of female students has more than doubled in the past decade.

These statistics are fine, but do they really matter? If women have the equality of opportunity to pursue a career in any given field, not just as pilots, then why shine a spotlight on the disparity as if it is a problem?

Because what really matters to these crusaders is one thing: equality of outcome.

To them, it’s not fair that there are more male pilots than female ones. They cannot rest so long as an imbalance exists. That is absurd.

Women are not barred from pursuing a pilot’s license because they have a vagina. Ovaries do not disqualify them from commercial aviation. To recoil in disgust at the gap between men and women – in any field – is nothing short of sexism disguised as social justice.

If SJWs really desire to have conversations about the “unfair” reality we live in, they should look at all career fields, and not just particular and more prestigious ones.

Madison Breshears at the Washington Examiner made this point perfectly in her recent article about the tech field.

The selective outrage of feminists over disparities like the one in tech is revealing. There is a conspicuous shortage of school programs, campaigns, marches, and hashtags to end the gender gap in, say, teaching, or counseling, which according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics are professions overwhelmingly dominated by women. Nursing is a pretty good gig — it pays well, is flexible, and nurses can find work anywhere. So, where should we look for the anti-male bias that made it so that more than 90 percent of nurses are women?

Meanwhile, you will search in vain for the calls to eliminate the overrepresentation of men in mining, trucking, sewage, and garbage collecting. The reason for all this is that the feminist Left isn’t so much a political movement for equality with a consistent philosophy as much as it is an expression of rage over the fact that men and women tend to make different career decisions.

Where is all the outrage about lack of men in elementary school settings? Or the shortage of women on construction sites? Why don’t we see articles about how there are too few women rumbling down neighborhood streets in garbage trucks?

Because those don’t matter. They’re not sexy careers. They’re a bit too regular.

If women were kept from tech or aviation careers, that would be cause for actual outrage. But they’re not. Once more, the reason for the disparity in these and other fields comes down to choice. More women pursue nursing. More women pursue careers as elementary school teachers.

It’s ironic that the first wave feminist demand for choice has been shoved aside in favor of advancing a narrative that says women aren’t given enough options. In reality, women have quite a selection in front of them.

We should be thankful for Captain Tammie Jo Shults and her quick thinking on that fateful day. Her choices directly affected the lives of the men and women on board her plane.

And gender had not a thing to do with it.

Follow Kimberly Ross on Twitter: @southernkeeks.

The post Who Cares About Gender “Inequality” Among Airline Pilots (Or Anyone Else)? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


The Left Continues to Wonder Why NeverTrumpers Won’t Join Their Side. Seriously.

It’s been nearly eighteen months since the presidential election, and many are still left wondering what happened.

Despite often wishing that the reality before us looked quite different, Donald J. Trump is our president. He is the leader of a nation made up of staunch supporters, hostile opponents, and those resting upon some awkward middle ground who actively reject much of what comes from either side.

During campaign season, the #NeverTrump crowd became a powerful voice of pushback against the Republican candidate. While it’s true that all individuals within that camp weren’t current or former Republicans, many were. Because of that, the term is generally defined as those on the Right who took a very personal and principled stance against the party nominee and eventual president.

Early on, I subscribed to the #NeverTrump movement. There was no way I could support the GOP nominee. The rejection had many layers to it. Through election day I held my stance, voted third party, and – to this day – am still pleased with my decision. I am more of a conservative independent than anything.

Since January 20, 2017, I’ve done my best to give the president credit when due and have never shied away from calling him out when necessary. While I’m often not happy with the commander-in-chief, I no longer use #NeverTrump to define myself, because there have been times when I support his words or actions. There will be in the future, too. I find this is the only way to approach this or any future administration.

Possessing a one-size-fits-all mentality is really just a failure to be honest.

The designation #NeverTrump is still confusing to Leftists, though. Apparently, rejecting the president is supposed to mean acceptance of everything else. Or at least that’s the hope among some on the other side.

Jonathan Chait, proud Progressive, formerly of The New Republic, wondered aloud why more of the #NeverTrump persuasion aren’t joining his team?

Really? Is this all so difficult to understand?

Being anti-Trump, in any capacity or for any length of time, has never for one moment meant running into the arms of the ideological enemy. Progressives and social conservatives don’t see eye-to-eye, and a common dislike of Trump isn’t enough to establish a bond. Thankfully, Trump is a temporary feature of the Republican party. After he is out of the political spotlight, the party itself must scrub the residue left over from his tenure.

This won’t be an easy task and is sure to cause even more growing pains, but it must be done.

Still, at present, even Trump’s most egregious behavior isn’t enough to propel disgusted voters to the far side where people like Jonathan Chait hang out. This inability to gauge how disgruntled #NeverTrumpers and their allies are with both parties doesn’t bode well for Democrats, or even Republicans, looking to gain ground in the midterm elections.

Anti-Trump, in the #NeverTrump sense, has never meant pro-anything on the bigger, well-defined political scale. At its heart, those holding fast to the moniker have their own very personal reasons for choosing to withhold support from the man who hijacked the GOP.

And remember, those like Chait who are now wondering why current or former #NeverTrumpers won’t join them are the same individuals who have rejected our kind – the scary social conservatives –  for years.

As someone on the other side of the political spectrum, I can appreciate Chait’s frustration. However, mine is for an entirely different reason surrounding the Trump phenomenon; the existence of poisonous tribalism within the GOP. Desire to win has replaced common sense within plenty of figures I used to admire. He is correct that the only want root out this sickness is through pain.

There comes a time when trying to patch things up and hoping for better days ceases to be a responsible choice, and one must conclude that the Republican Party’s straightest path to salvation runs through a cleansing fire of electoral destruction.

On that point, I agree.

NeverTrumpers on the Right wish for things to change, but they won’t be joining the other side. Instead, they’ll have to work through what is to come even while actively rejecting a man who now leads the party they once knew.

Follow Kimberly Ross on Twitter: @southernkeeks.

The post The Left Continues to Wonder Why NeverTrumpers Won’t Join Their Side. Seriously. appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Extremists on the Left Like Senator Cory Booker Only Endear Voters to the GOP in an Election Year

You don’t have to be a fan of President Donald Trump to understand why many in the electorate chose him over Hillary Clinton on November 8, 2016.

Trump, the billionaire playboy, managed to represent the regular folks throughout the nation. Like many in flyover country, he is an outsider. Supporters were enchanted by the non-politician. They didn’t appreciate the continued Leftist assault on traditional, home-grown values, and made this clear at the polls.

If you are an objective observer of American politics, no matter your political persuasion, you have not missed these crucial elements.

In this era, there is extremism on both sides. Often, what we see emanating from The Left only serves to remind us of two things:

1. Why Trump was elected in the first place

2. Why he has a great shot at getting reelected

Many on The Left can’t help themselves. They’re like children. Even if they know they shouldn’t do something, they do it anyway. It’s an underlying feature of their mentality. Short-term pleasure or gain replaces any long-term progress in the direction they’d like to head.

What do they want? To take back Congress and eventually the White House. What do they want right now? To score points against Republicans on the national stage and appear to be the tolerant individuals they believe themselves to be.

Senator Cory Booker’s behavior during Mike Pompeo’s confirmation hearing on Thursday is a perfect example of when The Left’s actions only help The Right. Booker grilled Pompeo on his personal feelings about…gay sex. At a confirmation hearing. For secretary of state.

What do Pompeo’s personal convictions about homosexuality have to do with the position he was being considered for? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. But Booker, ever the hysterical politician, had to get a few digs in as he spat all over the microphone.

Check out this exchange…

Much to his credit, Pompeo remained calm as Booker repeated himself and his asinine line of questioning.

How utterly normal that Pompeo would hold personal views that might conflict with someone else’s opinion or actual lifestyle, but not allow that to impact his treatment of others. Respecting individuals who you might personally disagree with is an actual thing, but people like Cory Booker, a card-carrying member of The Thought Police, refuse to accept that.

And you know what? That only helps the entity he is battling against; The Right.

When regular Americans see an exchange such as this, it confirms the assault on their freedoms no matter what their personal opinion is on the subject matter. The topic is almost beside the point. What they take away from Booker grilling Pompeo, or any other version of the same, is that the murky D.C. swamp is filled to the brim with people who want to take away your rights and hold you accountable for what goes on inside your brain. In these voters’ minds, we don’t need less of Donald Trump, we need more of him. And since President Trump is the head of the GOP, whether that’s literally true or not, the likelihood of supporting Republicans in November grows stronger.

Passion truly fuels action. And even those on the other side notice that the continuing Leftist trend toward extremism only improves chances for Republicans.

In his New York Times op-ed entitled When Liberals Become Progressives, Much Is Lost, Greg Weiner states the following:

In recent decades, the label “progressive” has been resurrected to replace “liberal,” a once vaunted term so successfully maligned by Republicans that it fell out of use. Both etymologically and ideologically, the switch to “progressive” carries historical freight that augurs poorly for Democrats and for the nation’s polarized politics.

Because progress is an unadulterated good, it supersedes the rights of its opponents…

This is one reason progressives have alienated moderate voters who turned to Donald Trump in 2016. The ideology of progress tends to regard the traditions that have customarily bound communities and which mattered to Trump voters alarmed by the rapid transformation of society, as a fatuous rejection of progress. Trump supporters’ denunciation of “political correctness” is just as often a reaction to progressive condescension as it is to identity politics.

Politicians like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, and actress-turned-candidate Cynthia Nixon, all represent the Progressive side of The Left. They are all caught up in political correctness, identity politics, and thought-policing. They are not the more moderate members of the party. They are extreme in their views, and those viewpoints do much to help their opponents.

The full, election-year impact of this brand of extremism remains to be seen. But writhing about on screen as you berate an American citizen (nominee or not) for holding personal opinions that do not impact his job can’t be good for The Left’s cause.

And that’s just fine with Republicans.

Follow Kimberly Ross on Twitter: @southernkeeks.

The post Extremists on the Left Like Senator Cory Booker Only Endear Voters to the GOP in an Election Year appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


The Case for Civility

When the 2016 presidential election cycle finally concluded, a portion of the country seemed to breathe a collective sigh of relief. Finally, an exhausting, nearly eighteen-month saga was over. A new president had been chosen and the nation could finally move forward.

Even those like myself who didn’t vote for the victor (or even the second place loser) were ready to close the door on what had turned into one of the most divisive campaign seasons in recent memory.

Of course, that idealistic pause didn’t last for too long.

Once Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States, The Resistance went into a full panic mode. As in “the apocalypse is just around the corner.” Media types began spouting their journalistic standard of “now, more than ever” in relation to fact-finding and honest delivery of the news, admitting that they had been on auto-pilot for eight years and suddenly woke up to the serious nature of their influence.

At the grassroots, family, friends, and neighbors became even more entrenched in their ways, taking their pre-election sympathies and convictions to the next level. Political disagreements, especially on social media, somehow grew worse and an already powerful strain of partisanship grew stronger.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. The campaign season is always a foretaste of the presidency and political atmosphere to come, no matter who ends up in the Oval Office. And in 2016, that sampling was downright brutal.

Now, well into Year Two of Trump, we find that things have further degraded. No, it’s not the policy shifts. The United States hasn’t descended into totalitarianism, though some in the media would have you believe that. No, it’s not the ideological makeup of our land. Despite the constant battle between the coastal privileged and the regulars, we’re fairly evenly split. There is no significant uptick in either a liberal or conservative mentality as a whole.

What is worse? Our discourse.

It is almost impossible to have a reasonable conversation with someone who resides on the other side of the political spectrum. And why? Simple. They’re either a soy boy, Mueller-loving Leftist who wants to see our president impeached or a Kool-aid drinking cult member of the Orange Messiah.

These are the worst kinds of people. Disgusting tribalists. Inhuman. That’s what 2018, a product of its previous years, has told us.

But what if we chose to look at these rivals as people: our fellow Americans who live and breathe next to us, down the street, the next city over, in another state, or on the far side of the country. Is that even possible?

Charlie Skyes said it best.

Consider that, just for a moment. The idea that the individual who absolutely despises your politician or positions is a decent person. Yes, even while still holding a belief that you wholeheartedly oppose.

Last week, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic announced the magazine was parting ways with conservative firebrand Kevin Williamson. The uproar from his hiring, which then quickly led to his firing, stemmed from his stated belief that women who have abortions should be punished. Naturally, this means if abortion were to be made illegal one day, women receiving abortions could be prosecuted under the law.

While I personally disagree with his position, I didn’t find it too controversial given clarifications that had been made. But many who did disagree with him fully believe him to be a bad person. Not just a decent person who holds a different belief, an actual horrible creature.

Unfair? I think so.

Now take Skyes’ statement, turn it around, apply it to a near-unlimited set of circumstances, and put yourself on both sides. Like a high-definition mirror, it becomes a bit uncomfortable.

I have my own hang-ups with this exercise because there are issues I absolutely refuse to budge on. However, that’s not really what is being suggested. Instead, realize that another person who resides far across the political landscape may be a decent person, as imperfect beings go.

  • Like that guy who loves the idea of universal healthcare.
  • Or that woman who hopes they build a wall to keep those illegals out.
  • Don’t forget that young, impressionable skull on a certain West Coast college campus who can’t stand Ben Shapiro.
  • Or that Evangelical lady who loves everything Trump says and considers him anointed by God.

Where does all this toxicity come from? Not believing that the aforementioned individuals could just be decent, fellow Americans who hold a different view. Oh, the horror.

Believe me, I am in need of this reminder as anyone else. I share my opinions daily. I get into disagreements and passionate discussions, too. And it is far too easy to paint everyone with a broad brushstroke just because of our differences.

In the big picture, I don’t know how long this cycle of incivility will last. It may never improve as a whole. However, I do know that in our owns little corners of the country this toxic culture can be lessened by choosing to see people as fellow citizens and not just distant foes.

No, I didn’t say you have to go out for a cup of coffee with them. No, I didn’t say you have to dilute your worldview. And please, don’t excuse actual racism, sexism, or threatening speech. That’s common sense.

Just consider that how you look at them is probably the exact way they look at you.

Time to act accordingly.

Follow Kimberly Ross on Twitter: @southernkeeks.

The post The Case for Civility appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


RESIST! Democrats Continue Their Hysterical March Toward Midterms

In this midterm election year, the Democrats are showing themselves to be a hot mess.

On November 8, 2016, the woman who had spent her whole adult life reaching for the presidency failed in spectacular fashion. Remember, she wasn’t supposed to lose. It was her year. Her time.

“Finally, a woman president!” Or so they all thought.

While Republicans have certainly had an, uh, interesting, often contentious time since that election night, it has been nothing compared to the hysteria coming from the Left.

They call themselves The Resistance. The wear pu**y hats. They view everything coming from the White House through apocalyptic lenses. There is no room for rational observation; all must be extreme. While this would certainly be an exhausting way to proceed through life, it is the normal mode for those who are still reeling from Hillary’s loss and utterly consumed with apprehension as they look toward the near future.

As Iraq war veteran Jesse Kelly said on Twitter, “All Democrats have to do is not be insane. And they can’t do it.”

And we’ve seen more than one example recently.

Last Saturday, youth and adults around the nation gathered for the March for Our Lives. The hundreds of thousands assembled in D.C. listened to speeches from impassioned teenagers whose own experiences at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School had started a movement. While peaceful protesting is the right of every American, this one was solely about reducing Americans’ access to guns, as if the weapon was the actual problem on that fateful February day.

On Tuesday, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens published an op-ed in The New York Times calling for full repeal of the Second Amendment. Stevens, and I’m sure the NYT, wanted to show how student-led protests were beginning a revolution. But as one columnist at The Washington Post explained, Stevens’ column did not help the cause.

…rarely do we see such an unhelpful, untimely and fanciful idea as the one put forward by retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens.

In a New York Times op-ed on Tuesday, Stevens calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment. The move might as well be considered an in-kind contribution to the National Rifle Association, to Republicans’ efforts to keep the House and Senate in 2018, and to President Trump’s 2020 reelection bid. In one fell swoop, Stevens has lent credence to the talking point that the left really just wants to get rid of gun ownership and reasserted the need for gun-rights supporters to prevent his ilk from ever being appointed again (with the most obvious answer being: Vote Republican).

Stevens just signaled that at least one liberal appointee who inhabited the bench that could decide such matters really does want to take away one of those rights. And that’s about the best Republicans could have hoped for.

Backfire, indeed.

The former justice was playing off of the message from the march three days earlier. Instead of building on the momentum, his article came across as too honest (grab those guns!) and yet another reason to vote Republican in November.

The RNC should thank the man.

Another example occurred on social media. On Tuesday, Congresswoman Grace Meng of New York took over the Democrat Party Twitter account and shared the following message:

You…want to talk about “economic fairness” for women by discussing access to tampon and pads? On the official Democratic Party Twitter account? As if these products are not available everywhere all the time?

Again, the RNC should thank Grace.

There’s a thing called overcorrection where one goes far beyond what is necessary in response to something they consider to be negative. It is plain to see that Democrats are doing this very thing at present. It is a reaction to everything that has transpired since November 2016. They cannot abide a Donald Trump presidency and are working hard to fill Congress back up with Democrats.

But it is backfiring.

This week, I wrote of the Democratic shrinkage in the polls in regards to midterm chances. Certainly, this could be due to several factors, including Trump’s recent legislative successes, however unpopular they are to some. It is also very likely due to the Democrats and their hysterical reactions to everything all the time.

Take the guns! We need period equality!

Have they learned nothing in the intervening months since Hillary Clinton bumped her head on that glass ceiling? Apparently, not. But Republicans don’t mind. In fact, they should be asking for more and stepping aside to let the Left writhe around in the public square.

Remember, all the Democrats have to do is keep from insanity.

As of right now, they’re failing miserably at holding it all together.

Follow Kimberly Ross on Twitter: @southernkeeks.

The post RESIST! Democrats Continue Their Hysterical March Toward Midterms appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


There Is an Expiration Date on the Hysterical Activism By Parkland Students, and It’s Long Overdue

It has been something to see the student activism in the days since the February 14th massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that took seventeen innocent lives.

That activism is an unfettered free-for-all praised by gun-grabbing Leftists and slobbered over by adults and children, alike.

I cringe at the use of the word “victim” to describe high school students who were on school grounds during the shooting but not directly involved. While I have no doubt that these teenagers were terrified during and deeply shaken after the horror, I do not think they qualify as casualties, unlike fellow students who were actually injured by a madman.

They are victims by association, but not victims themselves.

In the media aftermath, I have seen utterly absurd behavior from both sides. From the Left, there is a thirst to promote mere children to a place of prominence within an ongoing debate. Somehow, the connection to a tragedy confers upon a select few the title of “leader” no matter if their arguments are substantive and goal-oriented or not. From the Right, there has been an underlying theme of ridicule against these individuals and who they are as people with no mention of the subject matter. Thankfully, the latter isn’t coming from everyone, but that matters little. Even in just the minority, it still has no place and should be swiftly called out.

But the real problem with the Parkland student activism involves the Leftists and their creating pseudo-celebrities out of affected teenagers. Never have I seen such a glossy, hashtagged display from self-described victims and their handlers.

It is becoming a monstrous, trendy, flashy thing.

Worst of all? These youths are allowed to say whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

No more.

Cameron Kasky, Emma Gonzalez, David Hogg and a few others have outstayed their welcome. Their hysterical activism is well-past its expiration date. This is not because we are unable to hear opposing viewpoints. It is entirely because these teens have been given a free pass to do as they please. When we in the audience dare to question them we’re told that victim-shaming has no place.

Well, I’m (not) sorry. Experiencing trauma of some kind does not give anyone a license to lie, accuse, and demean their fellow Americans. Period.

It is immoral to label Senator Marco Rubio a “kid killer” for his stance on the Second Amendment. It is immoral to claim Dana Loesch doesn’t care about her own children simply because she’s a proud pro-2A supporter and spokeswoman for the NRA. It is immoral to conclude that gun owners care more about their rights than they do people’s lives.

It. Is. Immoral. And it remains so despite Emma Gonzalez’s tearful display, David Hogg’s impassioned, fist-pumping nonsense, or Cameron Kasky’s loudmouth antics.

In the midst of this immorality, it is near-impossible to spread the truth. This is because the adults on the “guns are bad!” side are caught up in a masturbatory display. What these moral cowards have always wanted most of all is their own, newly-hatched band of social justice warriors poised to lead an army of kids forward into battle against so-called evil.

This is why they’ll issue no correction when these youngsters lie about people or policy while standing in the public square. The handlers, parents and other adults who know better, are only concerned with elevating them to mega-star status.

Celebrity sells. Truth does not.

And with a wave of feelings behind them, these “victims” can do no wrong. At least that’s what their side likes to think.

Saturday’s anti-gun March for Our Lives, which took place at various locations and was led by these teens, is a prime example of a message gone way too far. As Sarah Rumpf (and others) pointed out, the gun-grabbing, anti-NRA frenzy is all the movement has become.

It is not about protecting rights of fellow citizens while identifying problem individuals and keeping firearms out of their maniacal hands. In fact, it never was.

Right now, we have a teen-led movement that is rotten because of who it fails to represent: everyone.

Without that inclusivity, it is but a flash in the pan. With uninhibited students in the lead and with no accountability required, it is destined to fail.

Pointing this out is not victim-shaming, it is placing blame where it rightly belongs.

Sure, march and protest. It is your right. But you are not taken seriously any longer, young ones. Time to move along.

Follow Kimberly Ross on Twitter: @southernkeeks.

The post There Is an Expiration Date on the Hysterical Activism By Parkland Students, and It’s Long Overdue appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


REALITY CHECK: The GOP Congress & Swampy President Have No Problem With State-Funded Death

It’s no laughing matter that a president who ran on eliminating debt and politicians who did the same had no problem with the omnibus bill.

They’re politicians. They like to say one thing on the campaign trail and act another way entirely once safely in office.

Or, if you’re President Trump, you declare that you might veto the omnibus bill because it doesn’t spend enough money. In the end, you sign it anyway because you’re Trump, and the words you use quite often don’t line up very well with your actions.

Donald J. Trump used to say that he was going to drain the D.C. swamp. Now he is splashing around in that fetid marsh, happy to have a “win.”

Worst of all, the omnibus bill funds Planned Parenthood. They continue to get half a billion dollars from the federal government. The largest abortion provider in the country, which does not need taxpayer funds, will keep getting taxpayer funds.

This is egregious. Shame on the spineless GOP leaders in Congress and their spineless president for funding the abortion mill yet again.

If you’ve forgotten just how monstrous Planned Parenthood is in the midst of your elation at a legislative victory, here is a reminder from Alexandra DeSanctis of National Review. On Friday, she tweeted out fact after stomach-churning fact.

It should sicken you. Remember, a GOP-controlled Congress and Republican president say this is no problem.

Yes, pro-aborts. I know that the Hyde Amendment exists. I am well aware that it is in place to keep federal funds from going to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother.

But don’t forget, money is fungible.

Put that aside, though. It does not matter. I don’t care if taxpayer funds go to buy fish tanks for PP waiting rooms. The funds are still being used to support an organization that willfully takes the life of the innocent unborn – by the thousands – every single day. Oh, taxpayer funds keep the lights on? Still evil. Taxpayer funds by non-abortive supplies? Still evil.

Because Planned Parenthood is evil. It will never shake that designation so long as it commits legal homicide.

Speaking of willfully doing what one wants, look at the GOPers in Congress and the one sitting in the White House. They passed a bill that funds the above atrocities. He signed the same.

It is unacceptable.

But don’t mind me, continue feeling great about the omnibus bill. Keep saying, “Well, there was nothing the president could do” or “anyone else would have done the same.”

Meanwhile, down the street, taxpayer-funded death continues.

Follow Kimberly Ross on Twitter: @southernkeeks.

The post REALITY CHECK: The GOP Congress & Swampy President Have No Problem With State-Funded Death appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


REALITY CHECK: The GOP Congress & Swampy President Have No Problem With State-Funded Death

It’s no laughing matter that a president who ran on eliminating debt and politicians who did the same had no problem with the omnibus bill.

They’re politicians. They like to say one thing on the campaign trail and act another way entirely once safely in office.

Or, if you’re President Trump, you declare that you might veto the omnibus bill because it doesn’t spend enough money. In the end, you sign it anyway because you’re Trump, and the words you use quite often don’t line up very well with your actions.

Donald J. Trump used to say that he was going to drain the D.C. swamp. Now he is splashing around in that fetid marsh, happy to have a “win.”

Worst of all, the omnibus bill funds Planned Parenthood. They continue to get half a billion dollars from the federal government. The largest abortion provider in the country, which does not need taxpayer funds, will keep getting taxpayer funds.

This is egregious. Shame on the spineless GOP leaders in Congress and their spineless president for funding the abortion mill yet again.

If you’ve forgotten just how monstrous Planned Parenthood is in the midst of your elation at a legislative victory, here is a reminder from Alexandra DeSanctis of National Review. On Friday, she tweeted out fact after stomach-churning fact.

It should sicken you. Remember, a GOP-controlled Congress and Republican president say this is no problem.

Yes, pro-aborts. I know that the Hyde Amendment exists. I am well aware that it is in place to keep federal funds from going to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother.

But don’t forget, money is fungible.

Put that aside, though. It does not matter. I don’t care if taxpayer funds go to buy fish tanks for PP waiting rooms. The funds are still being used to support an organization that willfully takes the life of the innocent unborn – by the thousands – every single day. Oh, taxpayer funds keep the lights on? Still evil. Taxpayer funds by non-abortive supplies? Still evil.

Because Planned Parenthood is evil. It will never shake that designation so long as it commits legal homicide.

Speaking of willfully doing what one wants, look at the GOPers in Congress and the one sitting in the White House. They passed a bill that funds the above atrocities. He signed the same.

It is unacceptable.

But don’t mind me, continue feeling great about the omnibus bill. Keep saying, “Well, there was nothing the president could do” or “anyone else would have done the same.”

Meanwhile, down the street, taxpayer-funded death continues.

Follow Kimberly Ross on Twitter: @southernkeeks.

The post REALITY CHECK: The GOP Congress & Swampy President Have No Problem With State-Funded Death appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


I’m Pro-Death Penalty, but Trump’s Idea to Put Drug Dealers to Death Is Shockingly Bad

As we’ve seen time and again, President Trump likes to say things in public that don’t become policy in private.

Thankfully.

One “brilliant” idea he had as candidate Trump way back on the 2016 campaign trail involved punishing women who have abortions. Like many things that come spewing out of his mouth, he didn’t really think about what he was saying. The idea was sure to resonate well with his starry-eyed audience, though, so he went forth and proclaimed it.

Not long after, Trump went back on his statement and announced that abortionists should receive punishment, not the women; they are victims. Unfortunately, the damage had already been done. Trump had harmed the pro-life movement, one that truly takes a compassionate pro-woman and pro-baby approach.

In his fourteen months in office, President Trump has said many things that made for outrageous soundbites but didn’t really become reality. Again, this is a good thing.

On Monday, the president spoke in New Hampshire about the ongoing opioid crisis. We can all agree that it is ravaging our nation. Overdose deaths are at an all-time high, from both prescription and illegal drugs, and it is reaching into every corner of the country. All ages and races are affected, and economic status means nothing. There are addicts everywhere and unfortunately, a portion of them will die because of their addiction.

During his speech, the president proposed the death penalty for drug dealers. He spoke of “getting tough” on these vile individuals who help to destroy lives. He said he doesn’t want this problem at the end of seven years (following his expected second term).

That sounds wonderful. After all, none of us wants a drug crisis, overdose deaths, and broken communities and families. But the president is way off base.

Proposing the death penalty for drug dealers feels great when you say it, like you’re almost sticking it to the bad guy. “Ha! You want to do that? You’ll get death.” Many in the New Hampshire crowd agreed as they gave him a standing ovation at the end of his remarks.

But this idea is not based in reality, for several reasons.

As my title states, I am pro-death penalty. I truly believe that if you commit murder and take the life of another individual, willingly and knowingly, that your life should be taken. Forensic science has advanced enough to where DNA evidence often convicts in cases that may have been questionable years before. This is a good thing. There is no way to get around the scientific proof that places someone at the scene of the crime, on the body, with blood or fluid, and guilty of murder. However, I’m aware that plenty of conservatives feel differently than I do.

Let’s be honest, though. Drug dealing is not a violent crime. You are not ending the life of another person in that instant. Buyers are fully aware of what they’re doing as they purchase drugs to meet their “need” of addiction. Drug dealing is a heinous, immoral practice. So is taking drugs. Both sides are at fault for engaging in it.

This is one reason that death penalty shouldn’t be handed down to drug dealers. Instead, they should rot in prison for an appropriate amount of time.

This second reason is perhaps the biggest of all. Actual medical doctors may be more at fault for the current crisis than we care to admit. It’s much easier to look at the drug dealing thug on the street corner and conclude he is ruining communities than it is the clean-cut, educated guy in a white coat who tests you at the local clinic.

The former director of the CDC said as much in 2016, emphasis mine.

This crisis was caused, in large part, by decades of prescribing too many opioids for too many conditions where they provide minimal benefit and is now made worse by wide availability of cheap, potent, and easily available illegal opioids: heroin, illicitly made fentanyl, and other, newer illicit synthetic opioids. These deadly drugs have found a ready market in people primed for addiction by misuse of prescription opioids.

While we implement these emergency response strategies, it is also important that we look upstream and prevent opioid use disorder in the first place —this starts with improving how providers prescribe opioids for pain treatment. CDC’s Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain is an excellent starting point. There are safer drugs and treatment approaches that can control pain as well or better than opioids for the vast majority of patients. We must reduce the number of Americans exposed to opioids for the first time, especially for conditions where the risks of opioids outweigh the benefits. In addition, state policies should facilitate better use of prescription drug monitoring programs.

The source of the problem is upstream, not down. Keeping patients from getting addicted in the first place is an absolute necessity. They will not seek illegal options to feed their habit if their habit never began in the first place.

Common sense. But Trump doesn’t focus on medical providers, only illegal drug users.

The president has some support in the GOP corner of Congress for his idea, but it remains to be seen whether it would become actual policy. Enough Republicans are either against it completely or rightly leery of such an extreme – and off base – tactic for dealing with this rising crisis.

I sympathize with the broken communities around our nation. There are far too many lives that have been destroyed by drug use and abuse. It is truly an epidemic.

However, while being a supporter of the dealth penalty for violent crimes and airtight, proven cases, I cannot support the same for drug dealers.

It will do nothing to stem the tide, as many executions are not carried out. In that case, why not harsh prison sentences?

It does not address the real source of the problem, prescription abuse by doctors. Why not hold them accountable and prosecute?

It is yet another bad idea from a president whose words often don’t become actions.

We can do better than blanket statements that lack real depth and won’t touch the problem. Our neighborhoods, communities, towns, and cities depend on it.

The post I’m Pro-Death Penalty, but Trump’s Idea to Put Drug Dealers to Death Is Shockingly Bad appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State