Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Kirsten Gillibrand’

Senators Who Fought Kavanaugh Found Stumping for Biden Morning After Allegation Evidence Discovered

Commentary By Andrew J. Sciascia | Published April 26, 2020 at 6:41am

It was a shocking news-break Friday as reports indicated evidence had emerged supporting former Senate aide Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations against presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential primary nominee Joe Biden. Potentially more shocking, however, were Saturday morning developments that seemed to suggest that — just like that — the American left’s zero-tolerance, “Believe All Women” approach to sexual assault allegations against prominent figures in the D.C. political establishment had been put to rest.

According to The Intercept, video was found this week in the archives of CNN’s “Larry King Live” revealing an on-air phone call in 1993 in which a female caller complained that her daughter had had nowhere to turn for help with unspecified “problems” while working for a “prominent senator.” The caller is believed to have been Reade’s now-deceased mother.

Receiving incredibly little attention from the establishment media, Reade came forward in March with allegations Biden had, while she was a staffer in his office in 1993, forced himself upon her in private in a hallway in the Capitol complex, kissing her and penetrating her with his fingers.

Confirmation the “Larry King Live” caller was, in fact, Reade’s mother would support Reade’s claims that she had confided in others and considered coming forward shortly after the alleged assault would have taken place.

Still, the news about the phone call wasn’t enough to stop Democratic senators, and former bitter primary opponents, from expressing support for Biden just 24 hours later on social media. Likely still vying for a vice presidential nod, the senators were eager Saturday morning to kiss the boots of their good friend Biden, joining him in promoting a campaign event titled S.O.U.L. of the Nation Saturday.

Coming on the one-year anniversary of Biden’s campaign announcement, “SOUL Saturday” — for service, outreach, unity and leadership — is described as a day dedicated to celebrating American “communities’ heroes” in a time of crisis.

Coincidentally, the event also plays on Biden’s running narrative regarding his candidacy — which he describes as an attempt to “reclaim” the soul of America from the hands of mean, old President Donald Trump.

And wouldn’t you know it, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker had no problem slapping on fake smiles, painting their former opponent with rehearsed compliments and quoting his campaign slogans.

“I’m so grateful to be teaming up with [Joe Biden] to recognize all of the heroes fighting for us on the front lines,” Booker wrote in a Twitter post alongside a promotional video. “The biggest thing you can do today is a small act of kindness for someone else — so please, join us in this day of service.”

“Today I’m joining my friend [Joe Biden] and people across our nation who are coming together to take part in #SOULSaturday,” wrote Harris, whose most notable moment of campaign popularity came from insinuating Biden was an old racist.

“Let’s use this moment to show our appreciation for those on the front lines and connect with our friends and neighbors. We’re all in this together.”

Of course, no such pleasantries were made regarding then-D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh by any of the aforementioned senators at the time of his 2018 Supreme Court confirmation. In fact, Booker, Harris and Klobuchar were all clearly using their positions on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time of the Kavanaugh proceedings as a springboard for their eventual failed White House bids.

This is not to say sexual assault allegations should be taken lightly or ignored. To the contrary, they should be heard and investigated with the utmost seriousness and empathy. But presumption of innocence and all manner of due process were flung to the wind when Christine Blasey Ford, Ph.D., came forward with consistently uncorroborated claims Kavanaugh had assaulted her at a party in high school. One allegation led to more and more still, each one less credible than the last.

Stories of a high school-aged Kavanaugh taking part in methodically planned date-rape rings and thrusting his genitals upon an unsuspecting woman at a Yale University party were all welcomed by Democrats and the media as though they were equally valid — because, once again, you had to “Believe All Women.” That is why Gillibrand repeatedly told the media and the nation that Ford had “no reason to lie,” according to CNN. That is why Klobuchar used her time questioning the judge as an opportunity to grandstand, assassinating his character with implications that his collegiate drinking habits somehow made him a sex criminal as well.

But I guess it’s too much to ask the same level of scrutiny be applied to Biden, even hours after the allegations against him seem to have taken on teeth.


The Modern Democratic Party: 2020 Candidate Throws Support Behind ‘Third Gender’ at Federal Level

Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published February 17, 2019 at 10:36am

Presidential races never shape up the way you think they’re going to. For instance, at this moment in time back in 2015, we were all talking about how Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio were going to be duking it out for the Republican nomination.

That being said, the official wisdom for the Democrat nomination in 2020 is that Joe Biden will be sucking up all the air in the establishment and Bernie Sanders will have solidified the socialist segment of the party, so the key is staking out a position somewhere on the not-quite-socialist identity politics left.

The problem is that’s a crowded market segment. Democrat Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand — all of whom fit in that political niche — have already declared their intentions to run. And then there’s Beto O’Rourke — an insanely rich, insanely privileged white guy the Democrats still seem to believe is an identity politics hero because he livestreams himself skateboarding an awful lot, or something — who will probably end up in the race, too.

How, then, to differentiate one’s brand in such a crowded field?

Elizabeth Warren has called for an ultra-millionaire tax which is probably unconstitutional and a bad idea even if it weren’t.

Kamala Harris seems to be on board for doing something about legalizing marijuana at the national level, telling interviewers, according to Politico, that “it gives a lot of people joy. And we need more joy.”

Cory Booker has been talking about his vegan diet as if it were an actual campaign issue, even though he swears “whatever you eat is a very personal decision and everybody should what eat what they want to eat.”

So, taxing the heck out of the rich is taken. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris have both taken plant advocacy off the table, albeit in very different ways. What’s left for Kirsten Gillibrand?

Well, how about endorsing the legal recognition of a third gender classification at the federal level?

“New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a 2020 candidate, endorsed federal implementation of a third gender listing for Americans who identify as non-binary. Speaking at an LGBTQ-focused meet and greet in New Hampshire on Friday, Gillibrand emphatically said ‘yes’ about recognizing ‘X’ as a third gender marker,” CBS News reported.

“Palana Belken, a transgender woman and organizer for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, asked Gillibrand the question and applauded her quick answer.”

The ball’s in your court now, Kamala.

The “X” identification is currently available in a number of states as well as individual cities, but no move has been made to implement it on a federal level.

“Belken said her question originated from the efforts of New Hampshire State Rep. Gerri Cannon, a transgender lawmaker who recently introduced two similar identification bills at the state level to present this third option on birth certificates and driver’s licenses,” CBS News continued.

Cannon believes federal recognition is important because of confusion involving what the “X” means when traveling in other states.

“Right now, especially non-binary people, when they go to one state to another, some state trooper may take a look at a license with an ‘X’ on it and go, ‘What is this?’” Cannon said.

First, let’s state the obvious: There’s not a particularly large body of science that proves identifying as non-binary is in any way biological. While there’s an incredibly small number of individuals who are born with intersex traits, that’s definitely not what this is addressing. Instead, this is mostly about individuals who identify as a sex different from the one they were born — people who claim they’re demigender, third-gender, genderfluid, whatever the case may be. Nobody particularly has to care about this third-gender identification in almost any other aspect of life. When dealing with the government, however, these individuals are either biologically male or female. Putting an X on their driver’s license doesn’t change this very salient fact.

But that isn’t really the point, is it? For the segment of the Democrat field that Sen. Gillibrand finds herself in, the next few months will look increasingly like a leftist political version of “Survivor.”

If all of the aforementioned candidates stay in the race, you’re pretty much guaranteed to see a Biden-Sanders showdown with almost none of these individuals having a shot.

As The Hiill reported Friday, a new poll by the Morning Consult shows that those two men are not only the most popular potential Democratic contenders for 2020 (29 percent of Democrats for Biden, 22 percent for Sanders), but each is backed by the other’s supporters as a second choice. That means they have support that’s both wide and deep.

So, for one of the non-Biden-Sanders candidates to be viable, the others need to get voted off the island. If you want immunity, you need to get yourself noticed, and the best way to do that is conspicuously getting behind something the left will love. Massive taxes! Lettuce! Hippie lettuce! A third gender!

If your pet issue doesn’t catch on, well, the tribe has spoken.

All of this nonsense will either be inconsequential to or deleterious for most of us, mind you. In Gillibrand’s case, I don’t think that individuals who choose to identify as something other than a man or a woman are going to be profoundly validated by seeing an “X” on their driver’s license. In the meantime, we’ll have committed our government to supporting an unscientific-yet-trendy gender movement.

Perhaps most telling is the fact that this idea would have been considered insanely radical just five years ago.

Now we have Gillibrand — arguably the most vanilla of the candidates jockeying to be the not-Biden-not-Sanders torch-bearer — supporting this without a second thought.  In fact, if any Democratic candidates disagreed with this, you can imagine the political firestorm they’d find themselves in. Such is the state of the Democrats in 2019, a party which is more concerned with third genders than the security of the United States.

With all of this posturing, I can’t wait to see what the next few weeks bring.

Kamala Harris livestreaming herself smoking some “joy?” Cory Booker announcing his support for massive kale subsidies, calling it the Very Green New Deal? Beto O’Rourke entering the race and declaring, in a Vermin Supreme-esque move, that he’s going to give everyone a free skateboard? The imagination reels at the possibilities.

Presidential races are unpredictable, of course, and I can’t tell you who the winner will be, but  among the losers will be a) common sense and b) America.



More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Mattis’s views on women in combat takes center stage

Gen. Mattis’s views on women in combat takes center stage / © Getty Images

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis’s stance on women in combat and LGBT troops will be thrust into the spotlight Thursday when he faces senators for his confirmation hearing to be the next secretary of Defense. The man whom Mattis is in line to replace, Defense Secretary Ash Carter, opened all combat jobs to women with no exceptions in late 2015 over the objection of the Marine Corps. This summer, Carter also lifted the ban on transgender troops serving openly.

Supporters of the changes have been worried since Election Day that President-elect Donald Trump‘s administration will roll them back.  Mattis has expressed skepticism in the past about whether women are suited for what he called “intimate killing” and has blasted civilian leaders with a “progressive agenda” pushing “social change” on the military.


Though Mattis is highly respected for his military service and is expected to be confirmed, wary senators will likely push Mattis to answer for his past comments when he faces the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“I would have a concern if he wasn’t committed to supporting the policy going forward,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a member of the committee. Death of a nation

In a 2014 speech at the Marines’ Memorial Club in San Francisco, Mattis questioned whether women can handle the “atavistic primitive world” of the infantry. “The idea of putting women in there is not setting them up for success,” he said. “It would only be someone who never crossed the line of departure into close quarters fighting that would ever even promote such an idea.”

He stressed that his concerns were not about individual women’s ability to meet physical requirements. The point, he said, was mixing “Eros,” the Greek god of love, with the trenches.

“Some of us aren’t so old that we’ve forgotten that at times it was like heaven on earth just to hold a certain girl’s hand,” he said, to laughter and applause from the audience.

In a 2016 book Mattis co-edited with Hoover Institution colleague Kori Schake, the pair warned about the dangers of imposing social issues on the military, such as female combat troops and openly LGBT service members.

“We fear that an uninformed public is permitting political leaders to impose an accretion of social conventions that are diminishing the combat power of our military,” they wrote.

It’s a sentiment Mattis reiterated in a September interview with the Military Times.

“We have to be very careful that we do not undercut the military battlefield effectiveness with shortsighted social programs,” he said.AMEN

Concerns about Mattis’s statements are compounded by Trump’s own comments on the campaign trail. Trump blasted “political correctness” when asked during an October town hall about “social engineering” in the military. In September, he said he wanted to crack down on the “massive problem” of military sexual assault, but defended a 2013 tweet that blamed mixing men and women for the issue.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he expects Mattis to echo what many Republicans have said about the issue of women in combat roles.

“I haven’t asked him about it, but I’m sure he will say that he supports the role of women in combat as long as we don’t lower standards,” McCain said. “That’s my view, and that I think is the majority of the committee’s view.”

But Democrats aren’t so sure. Asked if she has concerns about Mattis’s views on women in combat and transgender troops, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), a committee member, firmly said, “Yes,” without elaborating.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), a vocal advocate of women in the military, said she plans to ask Mattis for clarity on his views at the hearing. Gillibrand has already said she opposes Mattis for an unrelated issue: He needs a waiver from Congress to bypass a law that says Defense secretaries must be out of uniform for at least seven years.

“I do have concerns about women in the military and how sexual assault in the military is being addressed,” she said after meeting Mattis last week. “I’ll ask those questions specifically in the hearing so he can answer them for the record.”

Kate Germano, chief operating officer of the Women’s Service Action Network, said even if Mattis doesn’t outright reverse the decision to open all combat jobs to women, he could allow the Marines to slow-roll implementation, which she has accused them of doing already.

“I think this could absolutely exacerbate that,” said Germano, a recently retired Marine Corps officer. “The fact is that for women who want to pursue those jobs, that’s a letdown for them.” 

Having a leader who doesn’t support women in combat could also hinder other efforts to fight gender bias, Germano added, such as integrating male and female Marines’ basic training and improving the military’s family policies.Leftist Propagandist

As of Monday, her group had met with all but one member of the Senate Armed Services Committee to talk about Mattis, she said. Germano said she’s worried that Gillibrand’s concerns about Mattis are being overshadowed by her opposition to his waiver. She also added that staffers for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who joined the Armed Services Committee this year, have told the group she has concerns about Mattis’s positions as well.

Warren’s office did not return requests for comment.

Germano additionally highlighted Mattis’s close working relationship with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, who as commandant of the Marines recommended Carter keep some jobs closed. Asked this week whether he expects the women in combat policy to stay the same in the next administration, Dunford said he “can’t comment on anything that might happen in the future.”

The Palm Center, an independent think tank that researches issues of gender and sexuality and has been active on the military’s LGBT policies, has also been reaching out to senators ahead of Thursday’s hearing. The group has been circulating a sheet of questions for senators to ask Mattis, including whether he supports the existing Pentagon policies, directives and implementation guidelines regarding open service by LGBT troops, what a reversal of the policy would consist of and what effect a reversal would have readiness, unit cohesion and morale.

“I expect Gen. Mattis, if he is confirmed, to take aim at LGBT troops and women and to politicize military personnel policy on the basis of outdated moral beliefs,” said Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm

Republicans mostly did not support the transgender policy, saying the Pentagon did not provide adequate evidence that readiness would not be affected by allowing troops to transition in-service.

A RAND Corp. study commissioned by the Pentagon estimated about 65 troops per year would seek to transition and anticipated “minimal impact” on readiness.Leftist Propagandist

Republicans were more divided on allowing women in combat, with some outright opposing any change, some upset Carter overruled the Marines’ request to keep some jobs closed and others supportive of the idea so long as standards aren’t lowered to ensure women make it into the newly opened jobs. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), a member of the committee and a combat veteran of the Iraq War, supported the change with the caveat about standards. When asked whether she’s looking for something specific from Mattis on the issue, she demurred.

I just look forward to having a great conversation with him about it on Thursday during the hearing,” she said.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: