CNN: 'Ted Cruz Accused of 'Mansplaining' As Hearing Goes Off The Rails'

Source:CNN- Ted Cruz vs Mazie Hirono on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"A Senate Judiciary Hearing considering the nomination of Judge Gustavo Gelpí to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals got heated as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) lashed out at chair Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), who accused Cruz of misrepresenting her line of questioning." 

From CNN 

"Mansplaining (a blend word of man and the informal form splaining of the gerund explaining) is a pejorative term meaning "(of a man) to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".[1][2][3][4] Author Rebecca Solnit ascribed the phenomenon to a combination of "overconfidence and cluelessness".[5] Lily Rothman, of The Atlantic, defined it as "explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman." 

From Wikipedia 

  So according to Senator Mazie Hirono (Democrat, Hawaii) who I’m sure I tend to agree with her more often that I disagree with her (or at least more often than Flyin Ted Cruz, which ain’t saying anything) Senator Cruz was mansplaining her because he disagreed with her on originalism?

If this mansplaining claim is true, this is just one case, one example of why Congress has fewer fans than skunks at weddings. Apparently according to militant feminists, you’re not allowed to contradict a woman in public without someone throwing an insult at you. And oh by the way: I’m not sticking up for Senator Cruz. I don’t call him Flying Ted because I think he’s a great pilot. I’m just pointing out that political bullshit is nonpartisan.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Michael Smerconish: 'Democracy or Security?: The Question That Will Re-Elect Donald Trump'

Source:Michael Smerconish- arguing that if Democrats turn against law enforcement, Donald Trump will come back to power.

"(YT EXCLUSIVE) What's more important to you and your family? Democracy, or security? Are we instinctively inclined to protect our own safety and family first?

Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman argues in today’s New York Times that dismantling the police could sink Democrats and lead “way too many” to choose Donald Trump." 

From Michael Smerconish 

Michael Smerconish is right in the sense that too many Americans get their news from the people and organizations that they trust politically. But that’s American political world of reality TV where it’s not the truth which is what matters in America for perhaps 40% of the country (Democrats and Republicans) but what’s believable for the hyper-partisans in America, (the Far-Right and Far-Left) and what sounds good to them politically, that they can use as their talking points on social media and perhaps their own personal blogs.

According to Michael Smerconish, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman argued that if the Democratic Party (the current party in power) turns against law enforcement and crime continues to rise in America, that Donald Trump will be elected President again in 2024.

Rising crime will hurt the Democrats, especially if they’re seen as against law enforcement. But I believe a better question will be whether The Donald will even be eligible to run for President or not in 2024. Not just the criminal investigations, but the personal bankruptcies, he may decide to leave the country, perhaps even give up his American citizenship to avoid being prosecuted and facing prison time before 2024 rolls around. Maybe he”ll find his own deserted country and create the State of Donald J. Trump and be put into power there. Hard to lose elections when only your voters are allowed to vote.

Yes, rising crime and attitude that seems anti-law enforcement will hurt Democrats especially in the Midwest in 2022 and 2024. But whether The Donald will even be eligible to run for President, let alone, be physically up to in in 3 years, are questions that are going to have to be answered first well more than half of the country has to worry about another national nightmare known as the Donald Trump Presidency happening again. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'About Young People in Communism'

Source:Clowns In My Coffee- S.E. Cupp must work real hard to look adorable wearing thick glasses. And that work has paid off. 

"Young people’s respect for elders, poll results on communism and defunding the police." 

From Clowns In My Coffee 

"The Lost Generation was the social generational cohort that came of age during World War I. "Lost" in this context refers to the "disoriented, wandering, directionless" spirit of many of the war's survivors in the early postwar period.[1] The term is also particularly used to refer to a group of American expatriate writers living in Paris during the 1920s.[2][3][4] Gertrude Stein is credited with coining the term, and it was subsequently popularized by Ernest Hemingway who used it in the epigraph for his 1926 novel The Sun Also Rises: "You are all a lost generation".[5][6]

In a more general sense, the Lost Generation is considered to be made up of individuals born between 1883 and 1900.[7] The last surviving person that was known to have been born in the 19th century, Nabi Tajima, died in 2018... 

From Wikipedia 

The Wikipedia link I believe could easily be transferred over to the Millennial Generation, because I believe we're talking about a generation of Americans that don't seem to know what they want (other than being cool and popular) and don't seem to know where they are going. 

I mean we're talking about a generation of Americans that thinks socialism is cool and claim to hate capitalism (even as they are the biggest subsidizers and customers of American capitalism in American history) while they're staking out electronics stores to get whatever the latest gadgets are. Millennials seem to live in coffee houses, (perhaps because they can't afford their own place to live) who claim the they can't get though the day without their Starbucks, (or whatever their coffee house of choice is) get into car accidents because they can't put their I-phones downs. I mean at risking of sounding old (which to a Millennial is anyone 40 or over) if this isn't a lost generation, that term has no meaning. 

I believe every large generation (at least in my lifetime) has a period like this and I believe new technology makes it more obvious. Baby Boomers thought socialism and communism were cool in the 1960s. But then parents kicked them out, because they were stinking up their basements and it suddenly occurred to them that they need real jobs and that maybe communism isn't so cool or groovy anymore and that capitalism and liberal democracy is still way to go. 

The Boomers finally mentally grew up in the 1970s and 80s and turned out to be one of, if not the most productive generations that we've ever had. Hopefully the light will go on with Millennials as well as they get smarter with more experience.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'New Rule: Progressophobia'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- on left-wing bedwetters and doom and gloomers.

"Where progress has been made, it’s not a sin – and it’s certainly not inaccurate – to say we’ve come a long way, baby. Not mission accomplished. Just a long way. " 

From Real Time With Bill Maher 

 The only thing that I disagree with Bill Maher’s editorial here is the word Liberal. Replace Liberal with leftist, hippie, hipster, left-wing propagandist, faddist, and of course the usual suspects, Socialist and Communist and I believe his editorial is perfect and damn right.

Back in the 1980s, there was a term for Far-Left Democrats who viewed the perfect as the enemy of the good and could never accept real progress in America, because whatever the situation was, it wasn’t perfect in their view. I believe Democratic political strategist Bob Beckel (speaking of lefties) coined the term Doom and Gloom Democrats as the term for hyper-partisan, Far-Left Democrats who could never admit to real progress, because the situation wasn’t perfect in their view.

The more modern term for Doom and Gloom Democrats is bedwetting liberals. I call them bedwetting leftists, but you’re talking about folks who always find that one cloud in the sky on a gorgeous, warm day.

If leftists liked sports (other than soccer and figure skating) and were head coaches, their team could win a game 28-0 and instead talking about that, they would mention the 5 penalties that their team made or the fact that their opponent almost scored on the last possession of the game. And not the mention that their team won 28-0 and played a great game on both sides of the ball.

As far as Kevin Hart: I rarely talk about entertainers at all when it comes to current affairs and politics, but only because they are entertainers. Except when these so-called Hollywood leftists or rightists are being hypocritical.

Entertainers whether it’s Kevin Hart or anyone else, are in the business of popularity and when they’re successful, they have large followings generally of young hipsters, who tend to be pretty left-wing (at least publicly) and for entertainers to keep their followers, they always have to bee seen as cool with those folks. Even if that means saying ridiculous things (to be overly generous on a good day) and risk giving up their credibility to keep or add to their popularity. So I don’t tend to take Kevin Hart or any other entertainer seriously when it comes to current affairs.

But other than the word Liberal, I believe that Bill Maher make a great point here and delivers a great editorial. And some might say he’s an entertainer and I would give them an A for being obvious on that one, but he has a long track record of consistency when it comes to his own politics and uses humor very well to make his serious points.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Secretary Dean Rusk- 'The Revisionist Historians (1974)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- with former Secretary of State Dean Rusk (1961-69)

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Revisionist Historians. Episode S0123, Recorded on January 23, 1974."

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley

"Dean Rusk is, I suppose," Mr. Buckley begins, "by everyone's reckoning the

principal historical victim of the Vietnam War"--reviled by the elite press and the

revisionist historians and exiled, as his Ivy League friends see it, to the wilds of Georgia. He is, however, unbowed: "Well, legitimate historians are always in the process of revising history, whether it's based upon new archaeological finds or some documents of the 19th century that crop up. But I don't believe that we should roll over and play dead just because someone writes a political tract and calls it history." A rich discussion starting with the beginnings of the Cold War, moving to the early days of the Kennedy Administration--when Cuba and Berlin and, soon, Vietnam were all clamoring for attention--and on to the American campus of today."

From The Hoover Institution

I think what I'm getting from Bill Buckley in this interview here with former JFK and LBJ Secretary of State Dean Rusk (1961-69) is that he's interested in what I guess left-wing (Far-Left, really historians) historians takes on important and controversial events in American history. And he was trying to get Secretary Dean Rusk to talk about that and what the Secretary was doing was essentially trying to dodge Buckley's jabs about these left-wing historians.

A good case to talk about when you're talking about so-called left-wing historians and leftists (Socialists and Communists) in America, as well as anti-government Libertarians (if not Anarchists) and their take on a major historical event in America, is of course the JFK assassination. Almost 60 years later you still have a faction of leftist Americans and anti-government Libertarians who'll never accept the official report of the Warren Report about the JFK assassination, no matter how many facts and how much evidence you throw at these people.

You literally have leftists in America who can't accept that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of President John F. Kennedy, simply because L.H. Oswald was a Socialist. And they say that Socialists don't murder people. Apparently unaware and perhaps never heard of Soviet Russia or Communist China or Communist Korea, Nazi Germany, etc. Even though it was Oswald's gun that shot President Kennedy. The bullets that killed JFK came from Oswald's gun. The shots came from where Oswald was and where he was working at the time of the assassination. Oswald had motive, opportunity, and the ability to assassinate JFK when he was in Dallas that day in 1963.

As long as there is money to be made and fame to gain off the backs of controversial, historic events in American history, you're going to have people try to make as much money and gain as much fame as they can off of those events regardless of the facts and they'll let the facts be dammed. Roger Stone on the Right and his own bullshit (to be frank) book at the JFK assassination is a perfect example of that, where he argues that Vice President Lyndon Johnson ordered the JFK assassination, is a perfect example of that.

This is just one of the consequences of having a First Amendment and a constitutional right to free speech in America, as well as a private enterprise economic system. And I wouldn't have it any other way as a Liberal. What honest Americans need to do and our educators need to do is separate the facts from the fiction and make sure as many Americans are aware of them as possible. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Anne Bancroft: The Graduate (1967)

Source:Elle- Hollywood Goddess Anne Bancroft, as Mrs. Robinson in The Graduate (1967)

"The TV and movie characters whose closets we want to raid."

From Elle

"We've selected the most iconic scenes from Mike Nichols' The Graduate starring Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft - including THAT Mrs. Robinson scene.

Nominated for 7 Academy Awards and Winner for Best Directing, this groundbreaking film classic launched the career of two-time Oscar Winner Dustin Hoffman. During a party given by his parents to celebrate his graduation, Benjamin Braddock (Hoffman) is seduced by the sexy Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft), the wife of his father's business partner and closes friends. Although Benjamin is shy and inexperienced, they have an affair. But then, when Benjamin falls in love with Mrs. Robinson's daughter, Elaine (Katharine Ross), a jealous and angry Mrs. Robinson does everything in her power to keep the young couple apart."

Source:Studio Canal UK- Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft in The Graduate (1967)

From Studio Canal UK

I believe the best way for me to describe Mrs. Robinson (played by Hollywood Goddess Anne Bancroft) is that she plays a very lonely and unhappy woman stuck in a loveless marriage, or a marriage that just doesn't have any spark, but where the couple doesn't even sleep with each other anymore and doesn't socialize with each other anymore. And Benjamin Braddock (played by Dustin Hoffman) comes along (so to speak) who is somewhat lost, lonely, bored, and comes off as very inexperienced when it comes to romance (Mrs. Robinson thinks he's a virgin) and she sees him as an easy target and fling.

Mrs. Robinson, isn't looking for a relationship with Ben, but perhaps what she would an innocent fling, a sexual partner to make her happy, especially when her husband is away. I guess she wants her husband's financial security and doesn't want to divorce him, but she wants Ben to make her happy emotionally and physically, to make her feel like an attractive woman again. And the first scene in this video is where she starts to try to seduce him, but Ben being like the little boy that he was gets scared and runs away. 

The scene in the hotel bar is pretty much what I'm talking about here. Ben decides that he would like to get involved with Mrs. Robinson: not like he's got a long line of woman, especially woman his age standing outside waiting to be with him and Mrs. Robinson is obviously a very attractive, beautiful, sexy woman, really cute with that sweet, sexy voice and face and decides to call her up from the hotel and to invite her to join him. She jumps at the opportunity like a dog would jump for food when you're about to feed him or her and meets him at the hotel bar.

I didn't realize how cute and beautiful Anne Bancroft was until I saw her in The Graduate ten years ago or so (thanks to TCM) and have now seen the movie probably 10 more times since and have it on DVD. She had a great face and voice especially when she's smiling and has one of the best naughty, up to no good looks that I've ever seen, as well as smirks that I've ever seen. People have said that she was overrated in The Graduate and that Mrs. Robinson wasn't as attractive and sexy as she was, but I don't think those understand this movie that well and perhaps just don't like Anne Bancroft to begin with.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Bite Sized History: Governor Nelson Rockefeller- Addresses The 1964 RNC

Source:Bite Sized History- I guess people that Governor Nelson Rockefeller would call extremists in the Republican Party, in 1964.

"Nelson Rockefeller denounces Republican "extremists" at the 1964 Republican National Convention. Nelson Rockefeller denounces Republican "extremists" at the 1964 Republican National Convention."

From Bite Sized History

Just on a personal not first: if the Republican Party today was made up of Nelson Rockefeller and Dwight Eisenhower Progressive Republicans (yes, Progressive Republican is not an Oxymoron) and Barry Goldwater Conservative Libertarians, instead of the Christian-Protestant-Nationalist cult and all of their escaped mental patients that they got going on in what was once the Grand Ole Party, I could probably be a Republican today. I would probably be more liberal than they are on social issues and it might take a real socialist takeover of the Democratic Party for me to do that, but I could see me making that move.

As far as Nelson Rockefeller's speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention: Barry Goldwater and his Conservative-Libertarians (they probably weren't called Conservative-Libertarians back then) took over the Republican Party that year and nominated Senator Goldwater, instead of a Progressive Republican like a Nelson Rockefeller or a Governor George Romney from Michigan. The people that Governor Rockefeller was calling extremists in the Republican Party, were the Goldwater Conservatives: Constitutional-Conservative-Libertarians.

The Republican Party under President Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, was essentially a Progressive Republican Party that believed in civil rights, equal rights and justice, public infrastructure, a public safety net for people who truly needed it to help the less-fortunate get on their feet, etc.

But the GOP also had a conservative-libertarian faction in it in the 1950s led by Senator Goldwater and others. By the 1960s, the Republican Party is out-of-power all together at the national level and Governor Rockefeller comes in and wants to take the Progressive Republican mantle from President Eisenhower and lead the Republicans back to power. But Goldwater and his Conservative-Libertarians obviously had other ideas.   

You can also see this post on WordPress.