Somali Gangs Target Whites in Beatings, Robberies in Ilhan Omar’s District

Posted on | September 16, 2019 | 2 Comments

In the past year, there has been a 46% increase in robberies in downtown Minneapolis, a violent crime wave that police blame on Somali gangs in a district represented by Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar. Police say the gangs focused on stealing smartphones, and released video of an August incident near Target Field, home of the Minnesota Twins baseball team. That video showed more than a dozen Somalis — half of whom police say were juveniles — brutally attack a white man, continuing to kick him after he was already lying motionless on the ground.

Minneapolis. pic.twitter.com/7J9jhkZGjw

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 13, 2019

Minnesota is home to the largest Somali immigrant population in the U.S., with more than 50,000 living in the state. This has made Minneapolis the No. 1 location for Islamic terrorist recruitment. Last year, the district elected as its congressional representative Ilhan Omar, a Somali Muslim with ties to pro-terrorist anti-Semitic organizations.

Category: Crime, Minnesota

What Is the Kavanaugh Smear About?

Posted on | September 16, 2019 | Comments Off on What Is the Kavanaugh Smear About?

The New York Time revived its smear campaign against Justice Brett Kavanaugh in an article that had to be immediately corrected:

The New York Times suddenly made a major revision to a supposed bombshell piece late Sunday concerning a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — hours after virtually all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates had cited the original article as a reason to impeach Kavanaugh.
The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the supposed sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no comment about the episode.
The only first-hand statement concerning the supposed attack in the original piece, which was published on Saturday, came from a Clinton-connected lawyer who claimed to have witnessed it.
The Times’ revision says: “Editors’ Note: An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”
The update came only after The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway, who reviewed an advance copy of the book, first flagged the article’s omission on Twitter — prompting other commentators to press the issue.

Let’s be clear on who is peddling this tale:

The man telling the story, Max Stier, represented Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was accused of exposing himself to a woman in a hotel room.
Stier’s story appears in the forthcoming book The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly. “A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student,” the authors wrote in a New York Times article teasing the book.
As for Max Stier, he has a long history with sexual assault claims, but from the other side. Stier, a Democrat, represented President Bill Clinton after Paula Jones accused him of exposing himself to her in a hotel room. Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000 and lost his law license for five years.
Stier also worked closely with David Kendall, representing Hillary Clinton against allegations of illegally handling classified information in the Whitewater investigation. Kavanaugh worked with Ken Starr on the other side of the Clinton impeachment battle. During his confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh had accused his opponents of being motivated by “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.” This allegation seems to confirm that.

It’s a straight-up partisan hit job. Professor William Jacobson weighs in:

Donald Trump was elected president. But it wasn’t over.
There immediately launched an attempt to pressure Electors to change their votes, then an FBI-Democrat collusive attempt to undermine the presidency before it began, and a slow-motion coup to prevent the administration from governing. It’s still not over, as Democrats hurl themselves towards the cliff of impeachment.
Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court after a brutal smear campaign which saw accusation after accusation fall apart when subjected to scrutiny. But it wasn’t over.
After confirmation, but before the midterms, Dianne Feinstein promised to reopen the investigation of Kavanaugh if Democrats retook the Senate (they didn’t). Soon after the 2018 midterms after Democrats gained control of the House, incoming House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler signaled an intention to impeach Kavanaugh.
There have been organized attempts by Democratic operatives to get him fired from a law teaching position, and by Democrats in Congress to dig up old National Archive records in an attempt to create a public relations campaign to get him to recuse from future abortion decisions.
Today’s NY Times hit piece, which left out key details about a new accusation and the old discredited Ramirez accusation casting doubt on the reporting, has ignited calls from several leading Democrat presidential candidates and the social media mob to impeach Kavanaugh.
It’s never over.

Well, what is this really about?

Elizabeth Warren Joins Harris, Castro
in Calling for Kavanaugh’s Impeachment
— Slate

Democrats call for Kavanaugh impeachment
over new sexual misconduct claims
— NBC News

2020 Democrats call for Kavanaugh
to be impeached
— The Hill

New Brett Kavanaugh sexual misconduct accusation sets off calls for Supreme Court impeachment
— CBS News

It’s about creating a new “scandal” to replace “Russian collusion” as an excuse for Democrats to run an impeachment inquiry. And also, it’s battlespace preparation for next year’s presidential campaign. Ruth Bader Ginsburg obviously isn’t getting any younger, and Democrats want to campaign in 2020 on the idea that allowing Trump to appoint Ginsburg’s replacement would endanger “a woman’s right to choose.”

Rule 5 Sunday: Paulina Porizkova

Posted on | September 16, 2019 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Well, RIP Ric Ocasek of the Cars, who died this weekend at the age of 75. Turned out a lot of fine music with the Cars, produced a lot more, and most pertinently from our point of view, was married to supermodel Paulina Porizkova for 28 years. Here’s Paulina in a shoot for Victoria’s Secret.

You can see why they wanted her for their video.

Ninety Miles From Tyranny starts us off with Hot Pick Of The Late Night, The 90 Miles Mystery Box Episode #741, Morning Mistress, and Girls With Guns. At Animal Magnetism, it’s Rule Five Relative Poverty Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon.

EBL brings us Aishwarya Rai, Amanda Cunningham, Get Girls With Garlic, Caroline Callaway & Natalie Beach, Jolie King, Felicity Huffman 14 Days A Prisoner, and Jenny Agutter.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Nicole Weider and his Vintage Babe is Katharine Hepburn. Bacon Time serves up Rule 5 Crossing The Bridge.

Thanks to everyone for all the luscious linkagery!

Amazon Warehouse Deals
Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop
Shop Sex & Sensuality Gifts

Category: Rule 5

Who Is Raping Whom?

Posted on | September 15, 2019 | 1 Comment

The feminist discourse surrounding “rape culture,” particularly on college and university campuses, claimed that sexual assault was so prevalent as to suggest all men were complicit. University administrators imposed mandatory “consent training” as part of student orientation, male students were demonized as predatory monsters, and subjected to a systematic denial of due-process rights in tribunals where the mere accusation of sexual misconduct was taken as proof of guilt. Inciting a climate of fear (and anti-male prejudice) among impressionable college girls created what K.C. Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr. called The Campus Rape Frenzy, the focal point of a feminist narrative of harassment, misogyny, objectification, etc. Every form of male misbehavior was added to an indictment in which everything and anything a man did wrong was construed as part of the overall system of heteropatriarchal oppression, of which rape was the conclusive proof of universal male guilt.

Intelligent observers could see how politics was controlling this narrative, principally as a result of The White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, launched in January 2014. Obama administration officials partnered with feminist groups to sponsor campus activism that inspired such travesties as the “Mattress Girl” protest at Columbia University and the University of Virginia rape hoax. Central to this “rape culture” propaganda were two claims:

That sexual assault on university campuses was an “epidemic” — an emergency, a crisis — requiring drastic intervention;
and
Approximately 20% of female students — 1-in-5 — were raped during their undergraduate years.

These remarkable claims attracted critical scrutiny, and were rather swiftly debunked by competent researchers. In fact, data from the federal Justice Department showed that the rate of sexual assault had significantly decreased since the mid-1900s, and the female students ages 18-24 were actually less likely to be victims of rape than non-students in the same age group. So there was no “epidemic” of sexual assault on campus, and as for the “1-in-5” statistic (promoted by Joe Biden, among others), analysis of available reports indicted that this was at least a tenfold exaggeration. It is certainly a bad thing if 1-in-50 female students are victims of rape, but to exaggerate this number to 1-in-5 is dishonest and irresponsible. Yet those who called attention to the actual facts about sexual assault on campus — including Ashe Schow and Christina Hoff Sommers — were attacked by feminists, who denounced them as “rape apologists.” Anyone who disputed the feminist narrative was treated as persona non grata in academia and journalism.

My own cynical suspicion was that the “campus rape epidemic” narrative had been orchestrated for a particular partisan purpose, i.e., to “energize” female voters in crucial 2014 mid-term elections (when Democrats were defending their Senate majority) and also to prepare the ground for Hillary Clinton’s widely anticipated 2016 presidential campaign.

What struck me as most suspicious about feminist “rape culture” claims (beyond the politically convenient timing of this crusade) was that they contradicted what we know about crime in general. Academic achievement is inversely correlated with violent crime, which is to say, the higher a young person’s SAT score, the less likely they are to commit assault, robbery, murder or rape. While this doesn’t mean that valedictorians never commit crime, or that all criminals are low-IQ dimwits, the general pattern is quite clear. Given this well-known fact, how could it be that male university students — the “best and brightest” of America’s young men — were perpetrating sexual assault with such frequency as to constitute a rape “epidemic”? And there was something else apparent in the feminist narrative circa 2014: The high-profile cases cited by activists, and the loudest outcry against “rape culture,” tended to be on elite university campuses, which are most selective in their admissions policies. This alleged “epidemic” didn’t seem to be happening at second-tier state schools, but rather at prestigious (and extraordinarily expensive) private universities like Columbia, Brown and Yale. Again, this would seem to contradict what we know about violent crime in general. Americans were expected to believe that our 18-year-old daughters were in more danger of rape at Harvard or Stanford than they would be in West Baltimore or the South Bronx.

There was something else missing from the narrative:

An Obama-era subsidy for clearing rape kit backlogs, combined with DNA testing, has completely upended the conventional wisdom on rapists and how they commit their crimes.
The first insight is that serial rapists are very common and very prolific. Police departments had assumed that rapes with different types of victims and different techniques were committed by different men, but it turns out that serial rapists aren’t meticulous and careful repeaters of patterns: they’re chaotic and impatient and even if they’re looking for a specific kind of woman to attack, if they can’t find someone who matches their desires, they’ll just attack any handy woman.
So rapists also aren’t very smart about their crimes: their poor impulse control leaves behind plenty of physical evidence that can be used to convict them (Former Cuyahoga County prosecutor Tim McGinty: “These are not the Napoleons of crime. They’re morons. We were letting morons beat us”). . . .
They’re also not discriminating as to the kind of crimes they commit: as the old rape kits are subjected to DNA tests, we’re learning that many men who’ve been committed for petty property crimes or non-sexual assaults have also committed strings of rapes. . . .
Finally, though stranger rape is very rare (most rape survivors are assaulted by acquaintances), these rapists also frequently assault strangers: “When Cleveland investigators uploaded the DNA from the acquaintance-rape kits, they were surprised by how often the results also matched DNA from unsolved stranger rapes.”

Well, I don’t know whose “conventional wisdom” is being debunked here, because this data confirm everything I already knew about criminals. Of course, the typical rapist is not very smart; of course, the same criminals who commit rape also commit other types of crime; of course, sexual violence is mostly committed by men with “poor impulse control.”

Most of all, of course a disproportionate number of rapes are committed by serial offenders. This well-known fact was ignored or downplayed during the “campus rape epidemic” hysteria that erupted in 2014. Over and over, our attention was called to “he-said/she-said” incidents on university campuses, usually involving freshmen or sophomores (i.e., 18- or 19-year-olds) who were heavily intoxicated at the time of a sexual encounter which subsequently resulted in an accusation that the drunk female student hadn’t been fully consenting to whatever the drunk male student had done. Sometimes these accusations happened many months after the incident; in more than one case, a male student on the verge of graduation was expelled because of a boozy hookup that happened his sophomore year. Such cases were alarming to anyone familiar with American college life. If it’s “rape” every time two drunk teenagers have sex on campus, well, you’re gonna have to expel a whole lot of students.

Almost without exception, the male students in these “he-said/she-said” drunken hookup situations were accused only once, and had no other criminal history; that is to say, without regard to whether we believed any specific accusation in such a scenario, there was seldom any reason to believe that the accused student was a serial sexual predator. Yet in response to the Obama administration’s 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter, universities had enacted procedures that reversed the “presumed innocent” standard (which would have been extended to any criminal suspect in a court of law) and treated accusations as tantamount to proof of guilt, so that male students were expelled on the basis of star-chamber proceedings reminiscent of the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials.

When we consider what can be learned from DNA testing of rape kits about patterns of criminal behavior, we see that repeat offenders — who typically commit a variety of crimes, not just sexual assault — are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of all rapes, a crime which the vast majority of men never commit in their lives.

What is true of rape in general is also likely true of rape on university campuses. Contrary to all the “no means no” lectures and all the demonizing anti-male rhetoric of feminists, very few male university students pose any real danger to their female classmates. Instead, most of the rape risk on campus involves a small number of male students — a single-digit percentage — who exhibit personality traits (“chaotic and impatient . . . poor impulse control”) typical of rapists in general.

Last year, the city of Detroit finished DNA testing on a backlog of more than 10,000 rape kits: “So far, the kits have led to the conviction of 130 sex offenders. They’ve led to the identification of more than 800 suspected serial sex offenders alleged to have committed sex crimes across 40 states.” Among the serial rapists convicted:

Reginald Holland: Serving a life sentence; abducted and raped four women before being identified through DNA testing.
Shelly Andre Brooks: Serving a life sentence; raped and murdered seven women.
Gabriel Cooper: Serving a sentence of 30-70 years; raped three women.
Eric Eugene Wilkes: Serving a sentence of 32-75 years; raped four women.
Deshawn Starks: Serving a sentence of 45-90 years; raped four women.

In case you lost count, that’s 22 rapes by five perpetrators, but none of them were Yale-educated Catholic Republicans, so don’t expect to read about these serial rapists in the New York Times.

Category: Sex Trouble, Violence Against Women

Poulos, You Magnificent Bastard!

Posted on | September 15, 2019 | 1 Comment

James Poulos has perhaps forgotten our first email exchange, many years ago, in which I offered him some sage advice, but whether or not he remembers that exchange, he has certainly followed my advice, and has thus risen to become Executive Editor of The American Mind. Poulos has never written anything that the Thought Police could brandish as evidence of his wrongthink, and is indeed on friendly terms with many liberals. Poulos is ideologically opaque, and I think deliberately so, in keeping with my long-ago advice to him, so that his affinities are rather mysterious to all but his most intimate friends.

At any rate, Poulos has weighed in on the French-Ahmari controversy and, in doing so, accomplishes something remarkable: Lending intellectual credibility to the slur “cuck” as used by pro-Trump conservatives against such #NeverTrump types as David French. With a clever title — “Genealogy of Cuckery,” echoing Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals (1887) — Poulos coolly examines whether this psychosexual metaphor represents something true about the pathetic fate of #NeverTrump:

Because there is just no question that the aim of [the Left’s] institutional vanguard is to choke off America’s production of a certain kind of adult male and the architecture of social order that radiates upward from him toward the heights of authority. This project is out in the open and the reams of academic and ideological writing about its details and justifications are widely available.
The metaphor of cuckoldry is selected to the exclusion of all others because nothing else quite as effectively sharpens the charge that your obsession with the details of honor and principle has in fact become fatally abstract: you are being kicked out of your own house by a rival power actively working to take away everything that is yours, your children included. You are becoming the end of your line, forever, in every respect. Yet you won’t even evacuate from your breached defenses before it’s too late. Only the heights of spiritual snobbery can explain such a choice.

You can read the whole thing.

Ace of Spades points out that Poulos took from him the phrase “the shame is part of the kink,” and that is just so brilliant! Like, I’m sure Ace would have preferred a hat-tip, but what’s cool is how Poulos employs Ace’s language (e.g., “muh principles”) as if every Serious Political Intellectual is reading AOSHQ on a daily basis (which they should).

And yet his enemies cannot point to anything in Poulos’s work and say, “A-ha!” He is as elusive as the Scarlet Pimpernel. And if you have not read his book The Art of Being Free: How Alexis de Tocqueville Can Save Us from Ourselves, you certainly should buy it now.

Category: Intellectuals

FMJRA 2.0: Baby, Hold On To Me

Posted on | September 14, 2019 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Eddie Money, RIP

Atheist Vegan YouTuber ‘Onision’ Accused of Being a Creepy Sexual Predator
EBL

Nigerian Immigrant Ayoola Ajayi Now Charged in Another Sex Crime
EBL

FMJRA 2.0: A Day Late & A Dollar Short
EBL

Ace Is Sick and Tired of Jim Swift
Dark Brightness
EBL

Rule 5 Sunday: All Hail KBDaBear
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
Proof Positive
EBL

No, the KKK Hasn’t Taken Over Arkansas (and Never Trust the SPLC Anyway)
Animal Magnetism
EBL

She’s Crazy and Married to a Democrat
357 Magnum
EBL

In The Mailbox: 09.10.19 (Morning Edition)
357 Magnum
Proof Positive
EBL

He Was the Walrus, Goo Goo Ga Joob
357 Magnum
EBL

Oluwakayode Adewole Adebusuyi
Proof Positive
EBL

CNN Story ‘Simply False,’ CIA Says
Bacon Time
EBL

UPDATE: GOP’s Dan Bishop Wins Special Election in North Carolina’s 9th District
EBL

Brain Candy
EBL

In The Mailbox: 09.10.19 (Evening Edition)
Proof Positive
EBL

Eighteen Years Ago Today
Pushing Rubber Downhill
EBL

In The Mailbox: 09.11.19
Proof Positive
EBL

The Instagram Influencer Grift: What Is Caroline Calloway’s ‘Brand’ Value Now?
Rotten Chestnuts
Dark Brightness
EBL

Beto in Democrat Debate: ‘Hell Yes, We’re Going to Take Your AR-15, Your AK-47!’
EBL

In The Mailbox: 09.12.19
Proof Positive
EBL

The Family Business
EBL

In The Mailbox: 09.13.19
357 Magnum
Proof Positive
EBL

Top linkers for the week ending September 13:

EBL (20)
Proof Positive (7)

Honorable mention to 357 Magnum

Amazon Warehouse Deals

Try Amazon Music Unlimited Free Trial Kindle Unlimited Membership Plans Try Amazon Prime 30-Day Free Trial

Category: FMJRA Award

Fascism or Feminism? Amanda Marcotte Says We Have Only Two Choices, So …

Posted on | September 14, 2019 | 1 Comment

It’s been a while since we’ve taken notice of Amanda Marcotte, but the living embodiment of evil has not been idle, nor has she been less ridiculous than usual, it’s just that Trump Derangement Syndrome has produced so much craziness on the Left that Amanda is less obtrusive nowadays. This week, however, Ms. Marcotte wrote a column at Salon-dot-com which she then publicized with an extended Twitter rant:

There are many reasons, no doubt, for the rising worldwide rejection of liberal democracy. But I suspect the biggest reason — and interestingly, the one that tends to be downplayed — is misogyny. It’s an international tantrum in reaction to feminism. . . .
It’s clear to me that a lot of men will choose fascism over feminism.
In sum, men around the world would rather burn down democracy than do the dishes.
I’ll add that I think one reason a lot of liberals, including feminists, downplay the centrality of misogyny to rising fascism is because of liberal sexism. We don’t want to admit that women are important enough to inspire a worldwide rise of fascism.
A lot of people, especially men, on the left want to relegate “women’s issues” to a boutique concern. They can’t allow the thought that women’s issues are actually central concerns that dictate the rise and fall of civilizations.

You can read the rest of that, but the place to begin debunking it is with Ms. Marcotte’s first premise, i.e., that we are witnessing a “worldwide rejection of liberal democracy” and “a worldwide rise of fascism.”

You will have difficulty finding any pundit who asserted such a thing prior to Nov. 8, 2016. America came this close (picture me holding my thumb and forefinger half an inch apart) to the Triumph of Hillary, who would have become President had she not lost a handful of Rust Belt states by quite narrow margins, and yet Hillary’s defeat has been treated by many in the media as a catastrophic omen of incipient fascism.

Quite frankly, Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) are guilty of believing their own bulls–t. Every four years, the two major parties try to convince Americans that we are facing the Most Important Election in History, a stark choice between Good and Evil. If you’re a Republican who lived through the Obama years, you welcomed Trump’s election as a return to a pro-business agenda in Washington — lower taxes, less regulation, an emphasis on economic growth. Whatever else a Republican might vote for, and whatever else Trump might do, at least we could expect him to act on the basic pro-business sentiment of the GOP, and in this expectation we have not been disappointed. But Democrats have other ideas, and to them Trump’s victory signified the dawn of a new Dark Age, an era of evil worse than anything in all human history.

Ask yourself why we spent more than two years being bombarded with the phony “Russian collusion” narrative. Wasn’t this bizarre conspiracy theory part of the justifying rationale of the #Resistance? If Trump had not been legally elected, but instead had stolen the election from Hillary with the clandestine assistance of nefarious Russians, didn’t this justify the Left in treating Trump’s presidency as illegitimate?

The rioting mobs of masked Antifa thugs were condoned by liberals as an authentic expression of democracy, whereas the man who won the election — 62.9 million votes, and an Electoral College majority of 304-227 — was an enemy of democracy. This weird reversal of reality, where “democracy” is no longer about who wins elections, and where violent street thugs are celebrated as exemplifying liberal values, is symptomatic of many things, but mainly it shows what happens when the media bubble generates a pervasive echo-chamber within which liberals can wallow endlessly in a warm bath of confirmation bias.

“TRUMP IS HITLER! ORANGE MAN BAD!” This was the essential premise upon which Democrats and their media allies constructed an alternative reality in the aftermath of Hillary’s defeat, and viewers of CNN and MSNBC were immersed in that distorted worldview.

As I say, Amanda Marcotte’s Twitter rant this week was publicity for her Salon-dot-com column, which begins thus:

What if the reason democracy is collapsing around the world is because men really don’t want to do the dishes?
That might sound a bit silly, but it was a thought that kept creeping up on me while reading this excellent and thoughtful examination of the rise of anti-liberalism around the globe by Zack Beauchamp at Vox. By “anti-liberalism,” Beauchamp doesn’t mean a rejection of the narrowly defined liberalism of the Democratic Party, but the “school of thought that takes freedom, consent, and autonomy as foundational moral values” that is traditionally understood to have been defined by Enlightenment philosophers, particularly John Locke, and underpins the institution of democracy itself.
As Beauchamp explains, the political compromises necessitated by liberal democracies frustrate radicals on both the left and the right, but especially the right, and so there’s increasing talk — again, mostly on the right — of abandoning liberal democracy and turning to authoritarian governments that will foist radical ideologies on the public, whether they like it or not. Politicians like Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Viktor Orbán of Hungary, Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and, yes, Donald Trump of the United States are all hostile to the core values of liberal democracy, Beauchamp argues, which include “democracy, the rule of law, individual rights, and equality.”

Wow. It’s fair to make analogies between Trump and Orban or Bolsonaro, but Erdogan? Is there an opposition in Turkey that supports “the core values of liberal democracy”? Or is it rather the case, as I suspect, that if Erdogan is overthrown, it will be by radical Muslims who don’t give a damn for “democracy, the rule of law, individual rights, and equality”?

To compare Trump to Erdogan is such an apples-and-oranges comparison that it boggles the mind, for in what sense is Turkey like the United States? Yet this is not even the worst idea that Marcotte borrows from Zack Beauchamp, to wit: In what sense does the opposition to Trump — the Democratic Party of the 21st century — represent the Enlightenment values of John Locke, et al.? It’s been a few years since I’ve read Locke, but as I recall, the author of such works as The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina and Two Treatises on Government never wrote a word in favor of legalized abortion, same-sex marriage or banning plastic straws. This objection is relevant, because what Marcotte and Beauchamp are really upset about is not any actual threat to liberal democracy as described by Locke, either here or abroad, but rather Trump’s threat to the policy agenda of the Democratic Party.

Let us not pretend that Amanda Marcotte actually knows anything about Turkey, Hungary or Brazil, or that she actually cares about Turks, Hungarians and Brazilians. Ms. Marcotte is a Democrat, and like all other Democrats, she is committed to maintaining the propaganda claim that Donald Trump is analogous to Hitler, and that all 62.9 million Americans who voted for Trump are a “basket of deplorables.”

Mere partisanship does not a political philosophy make, and anyone who mistakes Amanda Marcotte for a philosopher is a fool. How she dares even to speak of “the rule of law” is astonishing, given her commitment to fictional “rights” found nowhere in our Constitution, but imposed upon the nation in the name of imaginary “penumbras and emanations.”

We can be amused by Ms. Marcotte’s assertion that “fascism” is on the rise, both here and abroad, because men don’t want to wash dishes. But were men washing more dishes under Obama’s presidency? Would men have washed more dishes had Hillary won the election? Is the equitable division of household chores the best measure of “liberal democracy”? Was such a proposition ever entertained by John Locke?

It’s humorous to think so, and I don’t want to argue too strongly against Ms. Marcotte on this point, because I think it might help Trump’s prospects for re-election if men were to be convinced that voting for Trump would permanently exempt them from dishwashing duty.

Welcome to fascism, sweetheart. Now fix me a sandwich.

Category: Sex Trouble