There are persons who constantly clamor. They complain of oppression, speculation, and pernicious influence of wealth. They cry out loudly against all banks and corporations, and a means by which small capitalists become united in order to produce important and beneficial results. They carry on mad hostility against all established institutions. They would choke the fountain of industry and dry all streams.
Sadly, we’re forced to hear the womyn of the current, toxic wave of Feminists rant, rail, scream, and whine about sexism and “The Patriarchy.” While sane people understand that these strident complaints are both groundless and merely the desperate demand for attention by failed women, they may have a point within the narrow context of public housing. The rules governing which housing the state will provide for those unable to support their children is highly gendered.
Gendered Public Housing In America
You see, there is something akin to “The Patriarchy.” We as a society certainly do hold women to lower standard than men in some ways and in some contexts. 😉
Of course, we’re we to treat women who are unable or unwilling to support their children as we do the males – I won’t call them men – who behave in this way, the Feminists would strap on their pussy hats and go crazy in the streets. This is simply because Feminism isn’t about sexual equality; it’s about garnering more, and more, and more special privileges, protections, and monies for females.
As is the case with almost all the Bikini Interlude posts, thereâ€™s really no real purpose to this post beyond providing myself and any who come here a brief interlude of beauty.
This particular interlude is just a bit counterintuitive, at least to my mind. It’s still cold here and, on top of that, it’s at the moment raining a particularly cold and nasty rain as I post this. Hence, bikinis aren’t the first, second, or tenth thing that comes to my mind. That’s why these bikini babes are all indoors. 😉
Neil Gorsuch proved this week during his US Supreme Court confirmation hearings that heâ€™s a fine, smart judge, a better than decent man, and a fine American patriot. None of that, however, matters in the least in these degenerate times.
Dems’ “Views” On Gorsuch Have Changed A Lot In 11 Years
Gorsuch emerged from more than 20 hours of grueling interrogation largely unscathed and barely ruffled, having politely but firmly schooled most Senate Democrats who invented excuses to paint him as some sort of villain out to destroy “marginalized” people.
Many would see this as an odd and completely hypocritical turnaround by Senate Democrats since, in 2007 not one of them complained about his appointment to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In my opinion, however, this is less than perfectly true.
Dems Are Just Getting Back To Their Roots
The titular adults of Democrat party don’t really have views on Neil Gorsuch. They don’t even have that strong of views on his being President Trump’s current SCOTUS nominee. All the Dems can see is an appointee that they fully expect the Senate Republicans to support. Therefor, they automatically will throw tantrums and take any steps that they can to block Gorsuch’s nomination or, at the very least, attempt to make it look to their constituencies that they did everything and anything in their power to do so. In all truth, they’re just getting back to their roots and their original position on nominees. That’s why on Thursday, March 23, 2017 Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that he would lead a filibuster against Gorsuch’s confirmation.
Again though, None of that matters in the least in these degenerate times. After eight years of Democrats blocking any and all of President Bush Jr.’s appointees, Senate Republican chose to return the favor – with interest – whenever Obama tried to appoint someone to office, judicial or otherwise. This, in turn, led to Harry Reid’s now infamous 2013 decision to enact the “Nuclear Option,” which Republicans have also been more than happy to return with interest.
So really, on the topic of Gorsuch’s nomination – which will happen – ignore all the ranting; ignore all claims of taking the high rode and the complaints about all the ranting; and ignore any possible benefit or detriment to we, the People. This is all and only about two groups of children with adult authority having a protracted slap fight.
A Muslim jihadi, Khalid Masood, enacted a terrorist attack in London that killed four pedestrians and injured about 50 others as he mowed down members of the public with a car on Westminster Bridge, on Wednesday, March 22, 2017. Masood then crashed his SUV into the railings in front of Parliament Yard before bursting through the gate to the Palace of Westminster with two large knives where he fatally stabbed an unarmed police constable. But, of course the five dead and the forty injured aren’t the real victims.
As We Can See, The Real Victims Are The Muslims
No, as we can see from stark fear and concern on this Muslim bint’s face as she chats away on her phone while passing Brits trying to tend to one of Masood’s wounded, the real victims are the Muslim communities inside England’s borders.
London’s Metropolitan Police Serviceâ€™s Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations, Mark Rowley made that eminently and immediately clear in his statement to the British people.
We must recognize now that our Muslim communities will feel anxious at this time, given the past behavior of extreme right wing groups, and we will continue to work with all community leaders over the coming days.
— Asst. Commissioner Mark Rowley
Of course, there’s actually no record of any attacks by “extreme right wing groups” in England. They’ve probably “said mean things” and they certainly voted to have Britain leave the EU, but actual violence on their part seems to be statistically nonexistent. Not that this lack of evidence will affect the narrative. It seems to felt to be necessary to promulgate the idea that Westerners are always just a hair’s breadth away from enacting anti-Muslim pogroms.