To ensure victory next year the Republicans desperately need to learn how to fight

The Republican party on a national level has one great failing; most of the members elected to office are spineless.  This failure has plagued the Republican party for decades.  In order to comfortably retake the House of Representatives and retain the Senate this must be fixed soon.

I’m by no means the first to bemoan the Repulican party members for being spineless.  It has been an all too frequent topic of discussion on conservative websites.  Check out this American Thinker article When will the timid GOP wussy boys step up to the plate?

As the Democrats plow ahead in their hollow quest to bring President Trump down, the absurdity of their pitiful scheme becomes ever more pathetic.  But we can say this for the Dems: they stick together, and they stick to their plan, no matter how futile it is.

The Republicans?  Not so much.  They do not stick together; they don’t stick to any plan.  They seem to barely agree on what conservatism is, let alone be true to it, to their party’s basic principles.  They cower.

The Democrats, on the other hand, will lie, cheat, and expose their monstrous hypocrisy for all to see while the Republicans quake in their boots and go wobbly for fear of being spoken of negatively by our moonbat lefty pseudo- journos in the media.  There are of course a few truly great, courageous Republicans in Congress: Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Doug Collins, Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, and Ron Johnson come to mind.  Others who we thought would be great — Ted Cruz, Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee, and Tom Cotton — are sitting on their hands as though they are scared to death of bad press. 

I am not advocating that the Republicans embrace the Democrats tactics of cheating, lying, or using strong arm tactics.  I am suggesting very strenuously that they stand up and fight back, something they seem loath to do.  The period leading up to the public impeachment hearings is a perfect example of this.

The faint-of-heart Republicans have decided to be bystanders in the passing parade of democrat chicanery in service to their goal of exorcising Donald Trump.  All of this points to the essential difference between left and right. 

The Left has no scruples, no allegiance to its constituents.  Leftists seek power above all else, and Trump is an impediment to that power.  The Republicans want to be nice, always nice.  They loathe the confrontation the Left purposefully generates and try to avoid it.

Why did no Republican jump to his feet in a rage when Schiff read his false narrative of Trump’s conversation with Zelensky of Ukraine?  Because they are always polite.  No Republican would ever bring fried chicken to eat in a House committee hearing room. Not in a million years.

There is hope.  During the public impeachment farce last week several Republicans demonstrated real fighting spirit and it made quite a difference.  This was noted by the Washington Examiner in this article When Republicans fight back.

Republicans grew a backbone in the hearing and pushed back against House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff’s impeachment narrative. This is the sort of thing we’ve come to expect from Rep. Jim Jordan, but the fact that Reps. Elise Stefanik and John Ratcliffe also came out swinging speak volumes. These three are all quite different breeds of Republican, but for once, disparate House Republicans all brought the same level of intensity to a high stakes hearing.

Republicans challenged the Left’s narrative not only on the facts but the process as well. They’ve done good work to expose this investigation as the sham impeachment hearing it really is. We haven’t seen this sort of energy and poise from Republicans since the Kavanaugh saga, and we have rarely seen it at all throughout President Trump’s time in office.

For so long, the GOP has been afraid of its shadow. When things get tough, they turn tail and run. We’ve seen it on budget votes, shutdown standoffs, and stunningly, Obamacare — the single issue they railed against for years on the campaign trail but failed to repeal under unified government.

The Republicans really need to build on the uncharacteristic performance that they showed last week.  They need to stand up to the Democrats in congress and they absolutely need to stand up to the corrupt and biased liberal media.  The Republicans need to learn that any coverage of them will always be negative no matter what they say.  They should just say what they believe to be right and say it loudly.  It has worked exceptionally well for President Trump. 

Tom Brady’s Disappointment Easily Explained

Why don’t we just kick the field goal?…40 yarder and the game’s over. 

Tom Brady to Bill Belichick Superbowl LIII

Everyone in the sports world seems to want to psychoanalyze Tom Brady’s disappointment in the play of the offense after their 17-10 win over the Eagles last week and are all reading a million things into it when it all boils down to simple offensive math. Plus Nine.

If you hold a lead of 9 points or more, then as an offense you have more room for risk. You can try a running play or a short pass that consumes time simply for the sake of clock management, or risk a pass play to a receiver who is less sure or reliable because you don’t risk losing the lead,

With such a lead the need for opposing defense to recover the ball or generate a score is large and gains urgency as the game continues. Such a lead forces a defense to take risks that might turn one of those short time consuming plays into a big score.

Finally with such a lead even if the ball is turned over due to an interception or a punt the need to score twice forces an offence into situations that favors your defense and if worst comes to worse and they score anyway after the ensuing kickoff your offense in general and the Quarterback in particular still has control their own destiny.

If however your lead is 8 or less then any mistake has the potential of costing you the lead. If you throw into coverage the ball is intercepted the ball can at worst be run back for a lead changing score and at best gives the ball back to the other side with a chance to take the lead or win the game while you have to sit on the bench, completely helpless relying on your defense to make the stop.

Brady isn’t frustrated because of ego, he’s not frustrated because he wants to be the star, he’s frustrated because he knows what it’s like to sit on a bench and watch a game slip away due to a mistake (think Miami miracle) , or an impossible catch. (think Superbowl XLII) or even just an offense on a roll (Superbowl LII). Sure your defense might hold like last week against the Eagles or even make an impossible play to preserve the win (think Superbowl XLIX).

It’s not that he doesn’t have trust in his defense, he’s frustrated because the offense, his offense, is placing a burden on the defense that has the potential to cost them wins in the short run and a championship in the long run and he takes that responsibility seriously.

If you doubt this for one moment compare the reaction of Tom Brady after he put up spectacular MVP class numbers while losing Superbowl 52

And his reaction after being held to 13 points and one touchdown in winning Superbowl 53

This isn’t about ego, it’s not about money, it’s not about a contract. Tom Brady wants to win. That what it’s all about.

Robert Spencer Nails It, Kruiser Nails it, Byron York Nails it, Jazz Shaw Nails it and Devin Nunes Nails it too Under The Fedora

To say “Robert Spencer Nails It” is a rather redundant thing as he has made a career of “Nailing it” when it comes to Islam but if you read only one paragraph this month from him, this is it

What is noteworthy also about The History of Jihad is something that it does not contain. As the jihadis move against non-Muslim states without any letup, pause, period of coexistence, period of tolerance, reformation, or reconsideration, there never appears any force of Muslims to oppose them. While it is undoubtedly true that not all Muslims in any given age have ever waged jihad, there has never been in Islamic history an Islamic entity or organization that was opposed to waging jihad and dedicated to stopping those who were waging it.

In fairness for a Muslim to oppose these things would likely prove hazardous to their health and the health of their immediate family.


On hearing the Chick-Fil-A had decided to cut off the Salvation Army at a time when the left is going after them I tweeted my displeasure along with many other conservatives. Chick-Fil-A insists that they are simply refocusing their giving, but some are suspicious. Steven Kruiser explains why:

Many conservatives remained unmoved because, while Chick-fil-A said donating money to help homelessness, they had cut off funding to the Salvation Army, which is huge, nationwide, and helps the homeless. It seemed to them that the move was made purely due to Salvation Army’s stance on LGBTQ issues.
There are any number of reasons that Chick-fil-A could have for cutting ties with the Salvation Army. We will only know if this was truly a capitulation to the rabid wokesters when we see who the company gives money to going forward.

The irony of course is that the primary reason that Chick-Fil-A’s incredible growth over the last few years to this point was because it was a delicious way to hit back in the culture wars. And they should know that if you pay the danegeld you never get rid of the dane. So until I know for sure which way their wind is blowing, I’ll stick to the better tasting Wendy’s Chicken sandwich, although I’ll miss their 1st rate soup until they do


Like Robert Spencer Byron York regularly nails it and his explanation as to why the Democrats have been very careful to shut down GOP members who has difficult questions at the impeachment hearings is spot on:

Should the whistleblower have connections to prominent Democrats, exposure of his identity could be embarrassing to the party. And perhaps most of all, reading through the impeachment investigation depositions that have been released so far, it’s clear that cutting off questions that could possibly relate to the whistleblower has also allowed Democrats to shut off any look at how the Trump-Ukraine investigation started. Who was involved? What actions did they take? Why did some government employees think President Trump’s July 25 call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky represented a lost opportunity, or poor judgment, while others thought it represented wrongdoing requiring congressional investigation?
Democrats do not want the public to know. And in that, their position is familiar to anyone who has watched Washington for the last two years: The Democrats’ determination to cut off questions about the origins of the Trump-Ukraine investigation is strikingly similar to their determination to cut off questions about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. In both cases, they fought hard to keep secret the origins of investigations that have shaken the nation, deeply divided the electorate, and affected the future of the presidency.

I think Glenn Reynolds has been right from day one. The entire impeachment farce is not about getting rid of Trump but about forestalling any investigation of their activities to keep him from being elected.


Jazz Shaw did not explicitly quote any of DaTechGuy’s Laws of Media Outrage in this piece on a Mass shooting in California but all those principles are there when he notes how fast it went down the memory hole:

 this mass shooting is uninteresting to much of the media because it fails all the normal tests and doesn’t fit in with the narrative. Had the men at least been using “assault rifles” they might have merited a bit more coverage. But those events are vanishingly rare because most gang members are well aware that it’s tough to hide a long gun when walking down the street to attack someone or while fleeing the scene afterward.
Further, if initial reports prove accurate, this was an incident of adult Asian people shooting other adult Asian people. And most of the press has about as much interest in that story as one where black gang members are shooting other black people. In short… basically none. It’s reminiscent of 
the Bunny Friend Park shooting in New Orleans back in 2015. It was the second-largest mass shooting of the year in the United States.
Seventeen people were shot in the middle of a public festival but if you didn’t live in New Orleans or subscribe to the Times-Picayune, you probably never heard about it. Why? Because it was two rival gangs composed primarily of African-Americans settling a turf war. Unfortunately, they were such poor marksmen that almost all of the victims were bystanders, including a young boy who was shot through the spine and will likely spend his life in a wheelchair.

Unless the right people are shooting or being shot the media has no interest in mass shootings, period!


Finally if you want to know what impeachment is you won’t do better than Rep Devin Nunes

“But if the Democrats in the media are suddenly so deeply concerned about bribery, you would think they would take some interest in Burisma paying Hunter Biden $83,000 a month. And you think they would be interested in Joe Biden threatening to withhold U.S. loan guarantees unless the Ukrainians fired a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. That would be a textbook example of bribery. The media, of course, are free to act as Democrat puppets and they’re free to lurch from the Russia hoax to the Ukraine hoax at the direction of their puppet masters. But they cannot reasonably expect to do so without alienating half the country who voted for the president they’re trying to expel. Americans have learned to recognize fake news when they see it. And if the mainstream press won’t give it to them straight, they’ll go elsewhere to find it, which is exactly what the American people are doing.”

This is why most people actually seek political power, to get those perks

Gang Warfare

by baldilocks

I estimate that everything we’ve seen since the assassination of President Kennedy has been Government-by-The-People Theater. No doubt, this charade goes much further back than that point in time, however, let’s call that event a conflagration – a reminder to all observers of who really runs things. Yes, I’m aware of the implication that I’m making: that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy by unseen actors, but don’t get it twisted; I’ve seen all the other conspiracy theories about it and I don’t subscribe to any of them. And it’s not my point anyway.

This is: I contend that every president from Lyndon B. Johnson to Barack H. Obama has walked in step with and/or been controlled by the bureaucracy, the secret cabals, the military-industrial complex (thank you, President Eisenhower), and the various other gangs that undergird this country. Yes, even Ronald Reagan.

And yet, somehow, we managed to elect one that refuses to walk in that path.

The gangs that began conspiring against him even before he won the nomination knew that he was the most dangerous choice for president — dangerous to them. He had made his money outside of government, had been in the public eye for decades and had a checkered private life that he didn’t try to hide. And, most frightening of all, he had claimed to be one of them: a Democrat. He entertained them, partied with them, listened to them.  He had probably seen and heard all manner of foul things that his “friends” prefer to remain private. And he had done so while drinking no alcohol and doing no drugs.

They had given him awards and begged him for jobs and for money.

Then, “out of the blue” he runs for president. In reality, he signaled what he was going to do back in the 1980s and did so again in 2012.

So, the gangs had to have something prepared just for him. However, it appears that he was ready for this, and for the next attack, and the next one and the one after that.

One of his missions is to expose the various means which the gangs have of enriching themselves on monies gotten from the pockets of the tax-payers. Ukraine seems to be both a means of thievery and a huge storage space for the loot.

This is why the government gangs will do anything to get him out of office. But before that happens, his reputation must be blasted to smithereens.

He knows this, which is why he will not be silent about it. As they use to say about a totally unrelated topic, silence equals death.

But he also keeps talking because it distracts the gangs from his more meaningful action against the gangs. While they continue to attempt to ruin his legacy before driving him out — or worse — he is on offense as well.

Everything will come to a head in one year or less.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

Bribery and the Constitution

By Christopher Harper

Bribery?

That’s the latest means the Democrats have tried to get rid of Donald Trump.

But there’s a Democrat congressman, Alcee Hastings, who might make a useful addition to the witness list because he’s only one of three federal officials who’s been charged with bribery under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Hastings, who is one of the longest-serving representatives in Congress, was elected in Florida in 1992. In fact, he almost got elected in 2006 as head of the House Intelligence Committee now holding the impeachment hearings.

But here’s what Hastings doesn’t want everyone to remember.

In 1981, Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence against two defendants when he was a federal judge in Florida. He also was accused of perjury in his testimony about the case. 

In 1983, Hastings was acquitted by a jury after his co-conspirator refused to testify in court. 

In 1988, the Democrat-controlled House took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury a vote of 413–3. He was then convicted on October 20, 1989, by the U.S. Senate on eight articles of impeachment. 

His co-conspirator, attorney William Borders, went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled in Nixon v. United States that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, so Hastings’s conviction and removal were upheld.

Hastings’s impeachment and removal had to do with an out-and-out bribe. No similar comparison can be made with the current investigation of Trump.

Nancy Pelosi and some Obama lawyers are trying to peddle the notion that the founding fathers had some other definition of bribery, but I’ve been unable to find the distinctions in my research of sources on the Constitution.

The past precedents for bribery under the impeachment clause, particularly that of Democrat Hastings, were clear cut examples of taking money for doing something that was illegal. 

Hastings would make an excellent example of what bribery really is under the U.S. Constitution!

Kaepernick’s Plan “B” as in Bullshit proceeds

Dr. Raymond Stantz: Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything! You’ve never been out of college! You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve WORKED in the private sector. They expect results.

Ghostbusters 1984

A few days ago I wrote that Colin Kaepernick was the person most affected by the Miles Garrett situation because before he swung that helmet the entire NFL was talking about the Kaepernick workout, but once that helmet was swung Garrett was the only topic in sports but the only NFL story that the national media cared about.

I also noted that it was a great litmus test to measure if Kaepernick actually wanted to play in the NFL to wit:

If Kaepernick’s goal is to be signed by an NFL team then he should send Miles Garrett and gold plated helmet in thanks for getting him under the radar.
If, as I suspect, Kaepernick’s goal is to be the center of attention as the ultimate media martyr he’s just been screwed.

Well we found out which goal he had didn’t we,? Not only did he managed to play the drama queen but did so in a way to garner maximum press while minimizing his prospects of being signed.

Even Stephen A Smith isn’t buying this routine anymore:

Now in one respect Kaepernick is being smart. After all as long as he is not signed he can play the Martyr game and continue to collect good money as a poster boy for the left and Nike and other woke companies or companies desiring to be woke. That is a source of income that can go on for decades.

But the moment he is signed by an NFL team suddenly, not only is his status as a martyr lessened considerably but he instantly is put in an environment where instead of being judged by the content of his character he will be judged by the objective standard of:

Can you as a quarterback take an NFL offence down the field to score against an NFL defense that is determined to stop you?

If the answer to that question is “No” than Kaepernick return to the NFL would be rather short lived and even if the answer is “yes” it’s likely for a very short time and he risks injury every moment he’s trying to prove it.

Much easier to be a symbol and a martyr, the pay is better, the job has less physical risk and you don’t have to prove yourself against anyone else.

Kaepernick isn’t training to be an NFL quarterback he’s in training to be the next Al Sharpton.

Report from Louisiana: Four more years of decline

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – I saw a meme on social media Sunday morning:  “Waiting for election results is like waiting for a grade on a group project. I know I did my part right but I’m scared the rest of you screwed it up.”

Well, they did.

We’ve got four more years of John Bel Edwards. Pete wrote about this yesterday.  It’s true, as he says, that Edwards is a pro-life Democrat and to a state that is heavily Catholic, especially in the southern regions, that matters.

However, I’d hardly say that his re-election is a mandate. The race was very close and for a lot of us who would like to see business returning to Louisiana, this is not really good news. It means:

Four more years of high taxes.

Four more years of trial lawyers running businesses out of the state.

Four more years of last-in-everything.

Four more years of shackles on the oil and gas industry.

Four more years of decline.

The race was close: Edwards received 774,469 votes and Rispone received 734,128, giving Edwards about 51% of the vote. Voter turnout was about 50% and it is worth noting that Orleans Parish went 90% for Edwards. 

The days leading up to the election were insane: Donald Trump lobbied throughout Louisiana for Eddie Rispone and his rallies drew literally thousands. In the Shreveport/Bossier City area here in northwest Louisiana, Trump visited on Thursday, before the Saturday election.

Interestingly, just days before Trump’s visit, the Shreveport mayor Adrian Perkins (D) issued a “stand-down” order, telling Shreveport police and fire responders to offer no assistance to the security of the President during his visit. Shreveport’s first responders had been in planning meetings and had assignments to assist Bossier City (we are divided only by a river). This stand-down order met with a backlash against Mayor Perkins that resulted in a local defeat of the Mayor’s bond election that was also on the ballot.

The only good news here is that this runoff election granted Louisiana Republicans a supermajority in both the House and Senate, and so Edwards will have a tougher time this term.

Looking at the numbers, it is interesting to consider for example that voters reinstated the Republican Secretary of State overwhelmingly over the Democrat candidate (59% to 40%), but only 51% of those same voters went for Edwards.

I think a lot of the problem for Republicans in this election can be placed on two things: a lot of people see Edwards as just moderate enough that they can take him. The second thing is that Republicans just did not offer up a top tier candidate. Rispone’s name recognition was zero coming into this election and he had no political experience. He’d just made lots of money in the private sector. He knows business and he touted himself as the Louisiana Donald Trump.

If Senator John Kennedy had run, we might be having a very different conversation right now.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport and is the author of Cane River Bohemia: Cammie Henry and her Circle at Melrose Plantation. Follow her on Instagram @patbecker25 and Twitter @paustin110.

Profiles in cowardice: The Democrats’ push to impeach Trump

Andrew Johnson statue on the grounds of the Tennessee state capitol

By John Ruberry

One of the heroes in the Pulitzer Prize winning book, Profiles in Courage, which was credited to John F. Kennedy but largely written by Ted Sorensen, was Edmund G. Ross, a Radical Republican senator from Kansas who is credited as the deciding vote against the removal from office of President Andrew Johnson, who had been impeached by the House of Representatives.

Ross was appointed to the Senate in 1866, when, Sorensen wrote, “the two branches of government were at each other’s throats.” Such as it is now between the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and President Donald J. Trump.

Johnson, like the man he succeeded, Abraham Lincoln, favored a quick readmission of the former Confederate states into the Union. But Johnson had few of the political skills of the Great Emancipator, and compared to the Radical Republicans, Johnson was very weak on the Civil Rights. Johnson was impeached in 1868–an election year–for violating the recently enacted Tenure of Office Act for firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. The president deemed that law as unconstitutional, it was repealed a few years later and the courts later proved Johnson correct.

Ross, along with six other Republican senators voted to acquit Johnson. Sorensen, in Profiles in Courage notes Ross’ words, written years after the impeachment trial.

In a large sense, the independence of the executive office as a coordinate branch of the government was on trial…If…the president must step down…a disgraced man and a political outcast…upon insufficient proofs and from partisan considerations…the office of the president would be degraded, cease to be a coordinate branch of the government, and ever after subordinated to the legislative will.

If Johnson had been removed from office America would have seen a weakened office of the presidency. One subject to the whims of an emboldened Congress.

Trump’s crimes in regards to the Ukraine call, if any–and I don’t believe there are any–are subject to interpretation. Say what you will about the only other president to be impeached, Bill Clinton, but he clearly perjured himself when testifying about Monica Lewinsky.

If Trump is impeached by the House, the likelihood of his being convicted by the Senate and removed from office is remote. But a precedent could be set by future Congresses to impeach presidents, well, simply because member of the “loyal opposition” opposes him. Or her, of course.

As Wikipedia writes about the Johnson impeachment:

The impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson had important political implications for the balance of federal legislative–executive power. It maintained the principle that Congress should not remove the President from office simply because its members disagreed with him over policy, style, and administration of the office. It also resulted in diminished presidential influence on public policy and overall governing power, fostering a system of governance which Woodrow Wilson referred to in the 1870s as “Congressional Government”.

But most of the current crop of Democrat members of the House don’t care about history. They simply want to, in the crass words of freshman congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, “Impeach the motherf—er.”

When impeachment comes to a full vote in the House, will any Democrats–and not just those from districts that are overwhelmingly pro-Trump–offer a profile in courage?

It seems right now that most House Democrats have profiles in cowardice–they answer only to the MSNBC–incited mob who fill their campaign coffers. 

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Pro-Life Democrat wins in Louisiana

Yesterday Jon Bell Edwards managed to do something a lot of people didn’t expect, he won re-election to the Governorship of Louisiana even after president Trump came down to support his opponent.

A lot of people on the left and in the media are publicly spinning this as a rejection of the president but there is one simple reason why Edwards was able to win, and it had nothing to do with Donald Trump, impeachment or anything else. Edwards won re-election because he is a creature even more rare than an honest journalist…a pro-life democrat who doesn’t equivocate when it comes to supporting life:

Edwards signed into law one of the most restrictive anti-abortion laws in the country, earning praise from groups like the Susan B. Anthony List, which applauded him for “leading the way in the bipartisan effort to bring our nation’s laws into line with basic human decency.”Edwards said, “The pro-life ethos has to mean more than just the abortion issue. It’s got to go beyond that. The job isn’t over when the baby’s born if you’ve got poor people who need access to health care.”
Source: America Magazine on 2019 Louisiana gubernatorial race , Dec 14, 2018

Unblemished anti-abortion voting record
John Bel Edwards says, “We need the exact opposite of what we’ve gotten from Bobby Jindal; he has sacrificed the state’s well-being to further his own self-ambition.” But in some ways, Edwards is more like Jindal than many might think. Like the governor, he is an anti-abortion, pro-gun rights Catholic; his voting record is unblemished on both issues.

It’s worth noting that the left hasn’t been shy about attacking him for it either:

A rarity in his party, Edwards’ anti-abortion stance provokes angry outcries on social media from Democratic voters and disappointment within the party’s broader ranks across the country.
“When Republicans are taking away women’s rights at every step, it’s on the Democrats to show that we are the party that will protect women. When we fail to do that, we make it absolutely hopeless for women around the country,” said Rebecca Katz, a progressive Democratic consultant.

Many Democrat candidates for president and national leaders hit him for the heartbeat bill, NARAL hit him particularly hard:

“Women are the base of the Democratic Party, leading the charge for equality by fighting for reproductive freedom,” NARAL Pro-Choice America Political Director Nicole Brener-Schmitz said in a statement. “Governor Edwards, and any other elected official attempting to use political overreach to roll back our rights, is mistaken to think our fundamental freedoms are up for debate….He won’t get a pass just because he is a Democrat.”

But in the end Edwards didn’t flinch from his position and as a result Democrats kept the governor’s mansion in a race where they lost the secretary of state candidate lost by almost 20 points.

Now the reality is that both candidates in the race were very pro-life and there are plenty of other reasons why a Republican victory in Louisiana would have been a better thing for the state, but I also think that if Edwards’ victory gives Democrats both in the south and elsewhere the courage to stand up for life when the national party and the left demand they abandon it if they want statewide or national office it is a fine thing.

the Democrats / left / media can spin this anyway they want, but today was a victory for life and I suspect the knowledge that they owe that victory to Edwards’ stance against them galls them almost as much as a GOP victory would have.

Closing thought: Abortion is a sine non qua for me. If I have the choice between a pro-life democrat like Edwards and a pro-abortion republican like Brown or Baker or even one who was with me on any other issue, the pro-life Democrat would get my vote every single time.

Nothing trumps life at the ballot box for me, NOTHING.

Democrat Women Candidates Think Nagging Will Win Them Votes

Good luck with that

by baldilocks

Weaklings.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar wants you to think her struggles to gain momentum in her presidential bid are due to her sex — and the bias of the American public.

The Democrat took a swipe at fellow White House contender Pete Buttigieg, who leads her, by saying the South Bend mayor likely wouldn’t have garnered the support he has — given his light resume (in her opinion) — if he were a woman. (…)

California Sen. Kamala Harris raised similar claims to explain her single digit showings in the polls, questioning whether Americans are ready to elect a woman as their commander in chief.

“Essentially, is America ready for a woman and a woman of color to be president of the United States?” Harris posited in an Axios interview in late October. (…)

And let’s not forget that Hillary Clinton has spent the years following her loss to Donald Trump trying to blame sexism and other character flaws among Americans for why she isn’t the first female president. Perhaps she’s forgotten she did get 3 million more votes than Trump. But thanks to the Electoral College, Trump outplayed her.

The writer doesn’t mention any complaints from Elizabeth Warren on the topic, and for a good reason; she’s polling right behind the front-runner — Joe Biden — as the potential Democratic Party nominee.

Okay, let’s pretend that America’s goose isn’t cooked if President Trump is removed from office or if he loses the 2020 election. Could you imagine being hectored and scolded for your “sexism” every time someone opposes a distaff President of the United States? I mean, it was bad enough being called racist for opposing the 44th president or for supporting the 45th.

What these women are doing is as old as the oldest profession: turning their deficiencies as candidates into someone else’s fault.

Some advice from the cheap seats: suck less, ladies. Suck it up, drive on, and quit your complaining. After all, your purses are still being filled and that’s something for which to be grateful.

Wait … gratitude? From leftist women? Never mind.

Now. We return you to your regularly scheduled Impeachment Theater, featuring another Democrat woman whining.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!