Friday, February 10, 2017

The Claws Out For Ivanka Trump Show That Liberals 'Love For Women' Is A Total Absolute Sham

The Federalist ^ | 2/10/17 | Denise C. McAllister 

Women can be vicious. Just ask men. Better yet, ask other women. If they’re honest, they’ll tell you. Women can be harsh to their own kind, especially liberal women. That’s what makes feminist campaigns like the “Women’s March” a bit of a joke. It’s not about women sticking up for one another. It’s about liberal women advancing their own liberal agenda, and if you’re not on board, you’re attacked, viciously.
Just look at how Ivanka Trump is being treated. After she posted an adorable photo with her son, comedian Ilana Glazer of “Broad City” unfurled her claws.
Ivanka’s tweet didn’t mock other women. In fact, many women could identify with her. Plenty of working moms have taken their kids to work, and women who are homemakers or work from home appreciate a mom who is active in their children’s lives.
I can bet if any liberal celebrity or politician tweeted the same thing, they’d be praised for it. But not Ivanka. Because she’s her father’s daughter, she is unfairly attacked by other women.
The Double Standards Are Obvious The same goes for all the stores that are pulling or downplaying her clothing line—Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, T.J. Maxx, and Marshalls. Ivanka was shocked, of course. Why would they boycott her clothing line just because of her dad’s politics? Aren’t women supposed to be treated independently, separate from their male relatives?
Isn’t this what we were told repeatedly about Hillary Clinton? It didn’t matter what Bill did. Hillary was her own woman. She didn’t have to answer for her husband’s shortcomings and immoral behavior, particularly toward women. Yet this is what we get about Ivanka: “While she is not her dad, she is complicit in his actions, especially considering her husband is her dad’s advisor.”
Complicit in his actions? Which illegal or immoral actions is she involved in, exactly? Unlike Hillary, who actually took active steps to silence her husband’s accusers of sexual assault and rape, Ivanka has done nothing even remotely similar. She has supported her dad’s candidacy, and she continues to support him, but she is not actively “complicit” in anything. Women are independent of men, right?
Or is that true only for liberal women? Only they are seen as individuals with identities of their own, but Republican women, well, they have no independent identities. They’re appendages of the men in their lives. I call BS on that one.
People See the Hypocrisy and They’re Sick of It It’s this kind of hypocrisy from the Left that got Donald Trump elected. People are tired of it. They see behind the veil where petty, insecure people are pulling the levers. This is especially true of the feminist movement: Madonna, Ashley Judd, Scarlett Johannsson, Sarah Silverman, and all the rest of the liberal celebrities who are in meltdown mode right now are being exposed for the frauds they are.
Just like the organizers who refused to let pro-life women participate in the Woman’s March, and the conga line of liberal elites who bash conservative female pundits and politicians as if they’re Sarah Palin beating a halibut, women who attack Ivanka are backstabbing harpies. That’s all. They’re not principled. They don’t care about women’s rights. They don’t care about the dignity of all women. They care about one thing—their own egos, which are wrapped up in their liberal politics. They don’t care about you. They care about themselves.
Instead of engaging in rational debate, they attack, boycott, politicize, and propagandize. They bastardize their art and their platforms to perpetuate an ideology that undermines our republic, our freedom, the American people, and the very women they say they represent.
It’s time we said “Enough!” Enough of the double standards. Enough of the vicious attacks on Republican women or anyone who dares to challenge the Left and their ideology, which isn’t about empowering women at all. It’s about empowering the state, the political elites, and their handmaidens in Hollywood.
Ivanka Trump is a successful, beautiful, strong woman who should be celebrated and supported for the example she sets for young women as a wife, mother, business woman, and, yes, even daughter. Is she perfect? No, none of us are. But to put a target on her merely because she loves and supports her father is the opposite of what feminism represents. Feminism is supposed to be about respecting a woman’s choices, seeing her independent of a man, and celebrating her on her own merit. Ivanka deserves that. We all do.
Correction: An earlier version of this article included TJ Maxx and Marshall’s in a list of retailers that have pulled Ivanka Trump’s clothing line. The two have so far kept her clothes on the shelves but removed them from special displays and signs.
Denise C. McAllister is a journalist based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a senior contributor to The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @McAllisterDen

Ninth Circuit Court Now Demands It Be Protected From Itself…

The Conservative Treehouse ^ | Feb. 10. 2017 | Sundance 

Oh, the winning… it’s often too funny. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is now independently, on its own impetus, requesting an internal vote on a full panel en blanc hearing to review its own decision.

Additionally, the full ninth are asking the Trump administration to file an additional brief telling the court why the three member original appeals ruling authority was wrong. In essence, the smart judges know what wasn’t considered, and are now looking for an out.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Travel Ban: Why Trump Will Win This One

American Thinker ^ | 02/10/2017 | Ronald Tinnell 

Liberals are making a big deal out of the temporary travel ban controversy. Why? Somehow I doubt that they really care about the "rights" of several hundred or thousand foreigners to enter the U.S. The real reason is that it is the only place where they are winning against the President.
The President has the Constitution and the Law on his side, while the liberals have a judge in Washington, a bunch of liberal judges on the Ninth Circuit, and four steadfast liberals on the Supreme Court. Liberals are thinking: "Great! We'll win on this one."
Not so fast. In a fairly adjudicated case, it's an open and shut case for the President. A decision to uphold the Ninth Circuit, places a big question mark on the competence of any judge that rules in favor of it. He or she would be going against the Constitution and the Law and endangering national security all at the same time.
Decisions like this are common as dirt in the Ninth Circuit, but the Supremes are usually a little more careful. Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned in the Supreme Court so often that lawyers say that if you lose in the Ninth Circuit, you are guaranteed a win in the Supreme Court.
Due to the stupidity of the Liberals, the President is now in a no lose situation. If he gets the injunction lifted at the Supreme Court, he wins. If he does not, he has this case to use as an example of the Judiciary's bias. He can say: "Look, they ignored the Constitution and the Law, invented rights for foreigners, and put the whole American public at risk." Even if he loses in court, he will win in the court of public opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Democrats pillory Kellyanne Conway for boosting Ivanka Trump's clothing line in an innocent remark

American Thinker ^ | 02/10/2017 | J. Marsolo 

The Washington Post, speaking for the Opposition Party consisting of the Democrats and mainstream media, on February 9, 2017, blared the headline: "White House says Conway has been 'counseled' after touting Ivanka Trump's products"
As usual, there is always a Republican ready, willing, and able to attack the Trump administration and help the Democrats. Jason Chaffetz, congressman from Utah, who was a NeverTrump, stepped up to say Conway's statement was "clearly over the line" and "unacceptable."
The facts are simple. Nordstrom canceled the line of clothing of Ivanka Trump. The cancelation and timing are suspicious, given the uproar by the usual suspects about Trump's temporary ban on immigration from seven countries. So Conway said on TV, "I'm going to give it a free commercial here. Go buy it today."
It was an innocent remark said on the spur of the moment in answer to a question. But the D.C. crowd considers this a violation of the ethics regulations that prohibit federal employees from "endorsing" products. There is no charge that Conway endorsed a product for financial gain.
The Opposition Party considers the Conway statement a major ethics violation. The Opposition Party considers the Conway statement much more serious than:
1) Hillary Clinton selling access to the State Department;
2) using State Department to line up speaking fees for her husband Bill at about $500,000 per gig;
3) Attorney General Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton the day before Hillary was questioned by the FBI and Director Comey's decision to not recommend prosecution;
4) using a private email server in violation of government regulations that left the email system subject to hacking by foreign hostile actors; and
5) Hillary's friend, Terry McAuliffe, giving over $700,000 to the political campaign of the FBI chief investigating Hillary. These are only the major examples.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump’s Court Battle in Perspective

Canada Free Press ^ | 02/10/17 | Roger Aronoff 

Media are unwilling to acknowledge their blatant double standard on executive action and criticism of the courts.

Now that a federal appeals court panel has upheld the freeze on President Donald Trump’s executive order on refugees and immigration, he will likely have his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court in the not too distant future. This may have been an unforced error on the part of the President.

While I believe it was wrong and counter-productive for President Trump to belittle the Washington state judge and suggest that even a “bad high school student” would understand the law, the media, in their hyper-hostility toward Trump, are demonstrating their complete double standard.

Where was their criticism of Obama when he attacked and pressured the courts to rule in his favor, or condemned them after rulings went against him? The press was missing in action.

The Ninth Circuit’s Power Grab

National Review ^ | 2/10/2017 | The Editors 

The Ninth Circuit’s decision against President Trump’s immigration order is worse than wrong. It is dangerous.
To review, Trump issued an executive order blocking entry by refugees and aliens from seven Muslim-majority countries. The travel restriction is to be short-lived: a period of months while better vetting procedures are developed. The administration, moreover, did not pluck the seven countries from its allegedly anti-Muslim imagination. They were cited in a statute enacted by Congress and signed by President Obama, based on the richly supported conclusion that these countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan — are riven by anti-American jihadism, besides having governments that are either non-functional or implacably hostile to the U.S., rendering any efforts to screen their citizens uniquely difficult.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Democrats Are Losing Their War With Trump

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 2/9/2017 | Staff 

Politics: Leaders in the Democratic Party probably should have thought twice before deciding to mount a scorched-earth campaign against President Trump. So far, they've failed to stop any of Trump's picks, or gain public support for their cause. They have, however, succeeded in making themselves look unhinged.
As we write this, not a single Trump Cabinet pick has withdrawn or failed to secure confirmation, which puts him well ahead of President Obama, who was forced to withdraw several of his initial appointments due to scandals. That included Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for Health and Human Services, who'd failed to pay taxes, and his Commerce pick, Bill Richardson, who was being investigated for allegedly doling out government contracts in exchange for campaign contributions while governor of New Mexico.
The best Democrats have been able to accomplish was to force Vice President Pence to cast the tiebreaking vote to confirm Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
They've also failed to convince a majority — or even a plurality — of the public to oppose any of Trump's executive orders, according to a Morning Consult/Politico poll, which asked about 11 of his most controversial ones.
In fact, the orders Democrats invested the most time and energy in attacking get the strongest public support.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Ask an Attorney, February 9 (YES! Trump should take travel ban to the FISA Court)

FOX40 ^ | 2/9/17 

Attorney Ken Rosenfeld is in the studio to talk wit Mae and Simone about the latest legal cases in the media.
The "travel ban" arguments in Court were fascinating. As a legal expert, Rosenfeld is puzzled as to why the Administration is even wasting their time in the Circuit Court. The Government has a "secret" Court that has authority to overrule the Judge in this case. The Court is known as the FISA Court and many have no idea that this Court exists. The Court has more Federal Authority than any Court and it can be argued that its authority exceeds the US Sup Ct. The Court meets in secret (though there is a website) and hears cases based on only the request/arguments of the government. In other words, the ACLU would never get in the door.

Some Balls




Lost and Found


Can you believe?




No Wonder




No Evidence


Scrambled Brains


Executive Orders






Feel Better?


Starbucks Flavors