Why White Women Like Me Voted for Trump

Over at some blog, a clearly indignant leftist puppet has penned an open letter to her “white friends” in which she proceeds to get everything wrong as she attempts to shame and attack white women who voted for Trump.

As you know, Trump was not my first choice . . . he wasn’t my any choice.  I didn’t want him at all, but as election day neared, I knew that I had no choice but to vote for Trump.  I live in Florida, and Trump needed to win our state, and the polls looked gloomy for him here.  There was no way in hell I was going to have any tiny bit of Hillary being elected president.  She is a horrible human being from her inner soullessness on out.

So I voted for Trump, and since then, I’ve done nothing but feel more confident about his presidency.  He’s making good picks for most cabinet positions (I’m not thrilled with his Secretary of State pick, but he can be gone in a flash if he doesn’t work out).

So, I read that open letter to white women who voted for Trump. As I am one, and I want to respond.

Shabazz writes:

So, you voted for Trump. You don’t have to admit it, I know you did. Granted, I think the fact that some of you won’t admit it is telling. Some of you have said that you have stayed silent because you didn’t want to get dragged for voting for him. If you’re standing by your choice, why won’t you defend it? And to those of you who have been open with your admiration…what exactly do you admire about him?

The choice here, of course, is false.  First, who on earth is not admitting it (except maybe people in ultra-blue areas who understand that the “tolerance” of their leftist lunatic neighbors might land them in the morgue)?  And second, why do I have to defend my vote to anyone?  Anyone. At. All.. Anywhere.

She then blathers through a few old standards before landing on her real point: anyone who voted for Trump is, in her eyes, a fascist, racist, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, blah blah blah.

“But I’m not…” You’re not what? Racist? Misogynistic? Anti-semitic? Homophobic? Ableist? Well, you may not think so but you supported someone who has used language suggesting that he is all of the above. And by supporting him, you’ve said that it is okay to be all of the above. The president-elect has elevated hate into a prominent position in the current American landscape. So, you may not feel that way because you know or love someone who falls into one of those categories, but what you’re indirectly saying is that you don’t really care about them.

This sort of thinking is exactly what created the conditions for Trump to win . . . and to win educated white female voters like myself.  We’re the ones who see our and our families’ jobs shipped overseas, we’re the ones whom Obama’s policies trampled and ignored, we’re the ones Hillary Clinton promised to bankrupt and leave jobless in her America-wrecking wake.

Standing up for our own culture, our own country, our own principles and values does not make us any “ist” or “phobe.”  It makes us smart, savvy, independent thinkers who can see what is happening around us and how our country is being decimated while progressives obsess about gender pronouns and letting men in girls’ showers.  That they feel they have the luxury to focus on such things is emblematic of their complete lack of connection to real Americans.  Jobs, family, church, community, America . . . these things take a back seat to social, environmental, and cultural “justice.”

They leave more than half of America behind, and they hope to get away with it by hammering us as bigots and rubes and xenophobes who hate progress.  It’s insulting, it’s wrong, and we’ve had enough.

I’m not privileged because I’m white, and I’m not a racist because I’m white.  I’m not your whipping boy, your scapegoat, your excuse for horrific policy and mind-boggling intolerance and hate.  I’m not your robot with a vagina who will walk in lockstep with your crazy ideas or with your candidate who also happened to have a vagina.  Having a vagina is not an accomplishment.  Being black, Hispanic, Muslim, gay, transgender, or whatever other sacred cow you worship is not an accomplishment.  I reject your worldview resoundingly and completely, and that is why I voted for Trump.

Shabazz  concludes her open letter with:

So, you still voted for Trump. Don’t come trying to get me to see your side of this or convince me to play nice and accept what you had a hand in doing. This isn’t something that I can forgive and forget.

I may still be your friend, but our relationship will never be the same.

I won’t waste my time trying to make you see my side, Shabazz.  You are an intolerant, close-minded leftist parody of a useful idiot and are incapable of understanding anything, including your own worldview, which you vomit out as if you knew what the words meant.

If the election were held today, I would be ten times more confident in my vote for Trump than I was on election day.  And frankly, I don’t care if you forgive, forget, or never want to be my friend.  You mean nothing to me.  What does matter to me is God, America and my family (okay, maybe not in that order).  Trump was absolutely the better choice for this country on November 8th,and he is even more so today.

How Breitbart News Began the Mainstreaming of the Alt-right

With Trump placing Breitbart News chair, Steve Bannon, in charge of his campaign and with the resignation of Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign is signalling an embrace of the alt-right base. This is an unprecedented move by a Republican presidential candidate and is itself tied to Breitbart News‘ shift from conservative Andrew Breitbart’s vision for his conservative media empire to Bannon’s recently evolved alt-right vision.  The story of Breitbart News‘ evolution from Tea Party conservative powerhouse under the direction of the late Andrew Breitbart to the home of the alt-right is reflected in The Hill‘s recent article entitled “How Breitbart turned on Ted Cruz.”

While Bannon began as a supporter of Ted Cruz, he reportedly became enraged with Cruz and began to shift his support toward Trump, while trying to “destroy” Cruz along the way.

The Hill reports:

In late January, Breitbart News chairman Steve Bannon was tipped off about a story that he hoped would damage Ted Cruz.

Bannon, who this week became CEO of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, was told that a radio advertisement would be landing in Iowa aimed at hurting Cruz with evangelical voters — the very constituency the senator was depending on to win the state’s caucuses on Feb. 1.

The line of attack, which was being pushed by Cruz’s presidential rival Mike Huckabee, was that Cruz had donated only a small fraction of his income to his church, not enough to fulfill his tithing duties of 10 percent.

Bannon was excited by the story, stating that it could spell the end of Cruz’s candidacy. He told his reporters to chase the story hard, though their efforts turned up nothing new.

Bannon didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment from The Hill, but a spokeswoman for the conservative news sight downplayed any work Breitbart’s reporters did on the tithing story.

“With regards to your question on Ted Cruz: Breitbart did virtually zero reporting on this,” Breitbart spokeswoman Alexandra Preate said.

Preate would not comment further, however, and did not deny that Bannon was pushing reporters to pursue the storyline.

In the early stretch of the presidential campaign, Breitbart was seen as a staunch supporter of Cruz, with Bannon leading the charge. Coverage of the Texas senator was favorable, with Breitbart at one point getting an exclusive look at Cruz getting his children ready for bed.

But Breitbart’s allegiances shifted as Trump’s campaign caught fire.

The Hill notes that “the story of how that happened, which has never before been told in such detail, provides a vivid illustration of how Trump’s rise has changed the balance of power in the conservative media, and by extension, the entire Republican Party.”  And it does so, additionally, because it helps illuminate the power shift we’ve seen from limited government Tea Party conservatives to the nihilistic, “burn it all down,” racist and anti-Semitic alt-right.

As Bannon himself moved more towards Trump, his directives to subordinates indicated that Breitbart News would follow suit.  While this caused a lot of Andrew Breitbart’s original team to leave the site, the new focus on Trump—and on relentlessly attacking Ted Cruz, as Trump’s most formidable challenger—transformed the former conservative powerhouse site into what has been disparagingly called “Trumpbart” or “Trump Pravda.”

The move was not instantaneous.  Initially bristling at a couple of Cruz’s moves, Bannon began to seethe with resentment and anger towards the senator from Texas.

The Hill continues:

The first strike against Cruz came in July 2014, when Cruz joined Bannon’s sworn enemy, the conservative radio host Glenn Beck, on a trip to the U.S.-Mexico border. Cruz’s staff described the trip as a “humanitarian” mission to help a church provide supplies to needy families.

Bannon thought the trip painted Cruz as soft on illegal immigration, and Breitbart ran a story titled, “Ted Cruz Joins Glenn Beck for ‘Soccer Balls and Teddy Bears’ Event.”

“Steve was still ranting about that trip six months later,” said a source who worked with Bannon at the time.

Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier declined to comment for this story.

The second strike against Cruz came in April 2015, when the senator signaled his support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and the fast-track legislation needed to push it through Congress.

Making matters worse, Cruz promoted his support for fast-track authority in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed with Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

Bannon made clear to Breitbart staffers that he wanted to destroy Ryan’s political career and what he called his “globalist” agenda. Shortly after Ryan became Speaker last October, Bannon began instructing reporters to look for ways to take him down. That effort culminated earlier this month in an unsuccessful bid to unseat Ryan in his Wisconsin primary, with the challenger heavily promoted in Breitbart coverage.

Cruz ultimately walked back his support for trade promotion authority, voting against fast-track legislation and explaining his decision in an exclusive for Breitbart News. But that conciliatory gesture wasn’t enough to win back Bannon, or at least not enough to overcome his growing affection for Trump.

“Steve has always been basically an anti-trade guy,” said a second source who worked closely with Bannon at the time. “That’s one of the fissures with the Trump and Cruz support.

As this unfolded, Breitbart News began running with the invented “issue” of Cruz’s status as a natural-born citizen.  Although Trump himself had stated earlier that he didn’t think there was an issue, that’s exactly the rabbit hole Trump’s band of merry conspiracy theorists went down to the raucous cheers of the formerly-fringe alt-right who had been nursing conspiracy theories and wild-eyed ideas about Obama’s eligibility for the better part of a decade.

This is an alt-right meme Trump very famously tried to parlay into a viable presidential campaign in 2011.  To quote Amanda Carpenter, Trump in 2011 was “an Alt-Right internet troll who appeared in human form on cable TV.”  And he was quickly dispatched.  Trump didn’t have a venue in 2011 for his alt-right ass hattery.

By 2016, however, there were a handful of conservative outlets willing to listen to the alt-right message . . . and to get on board with it.  Among them, Bannon’s Breitbart News.  Dragged out of the dark corners of the internet usually reserved for Alex Jones and his anti-Semitic, white nationalist, tin-foil hat-wearing ilk, the alt-right subculture suddenly had an accepted “right stream” media outlet.  Even the alt-right knew that only their fellow fringe true believers listened to Alex Jones or spewed their venomous bile on obscure internet discussion boards, but the entire conservative movement read Breitbart News.  In Bannon’s Breitbart News, they had a legitimate voice, and in Trump, they had a candidate they could get behind.

Again from the Hill:

In January, When Trump began raising questions about Cruz’s Canadian birthplace and his eligibility to be president, Breitbart jumped on the storyline.

Bannon ultimately scored a concession out of the Cruz camp. When the Cruz campaign decided to release the birth certificate of the senator’s mother, it did so by giving it exclusively to Breitbart.

. . . .  The same source defending Bannon pointed out that Breitbart never supported the “birther” movement questioning President Obama’s birthplace. The source defended the coverage of Cruz’s citizenship and said that the Breitbart chairman simply wanted Cruz to explain the issue to voters.

Bannon’s antipathy for Cruz was apparently fueled by Cruz’s counter attacks against Trump.

Bannon’s underlings felt that he’d hitched his wagon to Trump by the time of the first Fox News debate in August — the one where Trump had a famous confrontation with co-moderator Megyn Kelly.

And by January 2016, when Cruz stopped praising Trump and started attacking him as a liberal, Bannon became increasingly enraged and instructed his reporters to hammer Cruz.

Throughout this period, Breitbart staff made no secrets of their close ties to the Trump campaign.

Bannon kept colleagues abreast of his near constant contact with Trump and Corey Lewandowski, who was then Trump’s campaign manager.

This is not a case of as goes Breitbart News, so goes the conservative movement because the alt-right is proudly and avowedly not conservative.  This is, to use former Breitbart News editor-at-large Ben Shapiro’s words, a “take over of the GOP” that was enabled, in part, by Breitbart News and Trump’s own existing, if shifting, alt-right positions on a handful of issues dear to the alt-right movement.

Shapiro pinpoints a day when Breitbart News‘ seismic shift to and embrace of the alt-right became crystal clear.  He writes:

But it wasn’t until March 29 that Breitbart’s full embrace of the alt-right became clear. That’s the day the site featured Yiannopoulos’s lengthy piece glorifying the alt-right. Yiannopoulos had already given interviews in which he stated that “Jews run the banks” and “Jews run the media,” dismissing anti-Semitic memes as merely “mischievous, dissident, trolly.” He wrote, along with co-author Allum Bokhari, this insane sentence: “There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence.”

. . . . If Republicans aren’t careful, [Bannon]’ll inflict similar damage on their party now that he’s the top man running their standard-bearer’s campaign. If they don’t know it yet, the alt-right surely does. As one of its own, Richard Spencer, explained: “Breitbart has elective affinities with the alt-right, and the alt-right has clearly influenced Breitbart. In this way, Breitbart has acted as a ‘gateway’ to alt-right ideas and writers.” There’s now a path for this same kind of thinking to infiltrate the GOP.

This “gateway” to alt-right ideas is a gateway to everything that conservatives stand against.  The alt-right, like any segment of a political party or movement isn’t monolithic, but there are some key elements beyond rampant anti-Semiticism and white nationalist isolationism that compose the majority of the alt-right’s ideology and agenda.  For example, they almost unanimously sneer at conservatives for being “principled,” for supporting legal immigration, for focusing on the Constitution (a document they see as a barrier to their own white nationalist-isolationist agenda), and for working to change the GOP from within rather than “blowing it up.”

Warning that one of the primary goals of the alt-right is to crush conservatism, Shapiro writes:

Constitutional conservatives can’t stand the alt-right. Conservatives — real conservatives — believe that only a philosophy of limited government, God-given rights and personal responsibility can save the country. And that creed is not bound to race or ethnicity. Broad swaths of the alt-right, by contrast, believe in a creed-free, race-based nationalism, insisting, among other things, that birth on American soil confers superiority. The alt-right sees limited-government constitutionalism as passé; it holds that only nationalist populism on the basis of shared tribal identity can save the country. It’s a movement shot through with racism and anti-Semitism.

Bannon, ensconced apparently in alt-right ideology, has an agenda that he thinks Trump has missed.

Ken Stern, writing for Vanity Fair, explains:

On the surface, Bannon at least has the benefit of being politically sympathetic with Trump; Breitbart, under his leadership, after all, has become “Trump Pravda,” as one former staffer described it to me. But when I talked with Bannon, he expressed a wariness about the political genuineness of the Trump campaign persona. Trump is a “blunt instrument for us,” he told me earlier this summer. “I don’t know whether he really gets it or not.”  It is likely that Bannon’s political calculus here, if not Trump’s, will be less about winning an election that seems a bit out of hand and more about cementing an American nationalist movement.

The Hill concludes by noting that Bannon has not given up on Cruz and his “future” (presumably in the new alt-right nationalist party—with or without Trump) and that he hopes Cruz “will come around.”

My guess is that Cruz will most certainly not come around to the Bannon-Trump alt-right worldview . . . even as we see many former Tea Party members and conservatives tentatively embrace the rising alt-right.

Is calling Carly “Carly” sexist or something else?

Back in April, there was a bit of debate about how sexist it is to call Hillary “Hillary” rather than, as is the usual case in politics, by her last name. I thought the whole thing was ridiculous . . . more perpetually outraged loons looking for something to be outraged about. Luckily, it quickly died away.

But now I’m seeing the same thing come up in discussion of Carly Fiorina.  Why does the right insist on adopting the language and culture of the far left?  Are we so steeped in this faux feminist madness that we don’t even realize how we are beginning to sound just like leftists?  Trump, for example, has lately been hammering how the rich need to “pay their fair share” in his latest impression of failed president and well-known socialist Obama, and Jeb! . . . well, almost everything he says is straight of the regressive playbook.

Then we start it up about the one female Republican candidate for president, trying to out left the left in shrieks of faux feminist faux outrage.  This is not to say that Carly doesn’t face actual sexism from both the left and the right.  On the left, we expect it because we know their only interest is in division; they aren’t “for” women, blacks, or anything else, and we know this because leftist feminists are among the first to attack conservative women, leftist blacks are the first to attack conservative black people, and on and on.  They could care less about women, minorities, or anything, really, but increasing government power and ensuring that the middle class in America disappears into the third world hell hole they envision for our nation’s future.

And on the right, she is faced with questions like that from what’s-his-face on the Fox Sunday show when he asked if she was really running for VP.  That, my friends, is sexist.  However, Carly’s campaign is centered, as is Hillary’s, on her first name.  They both have invited us to think of them by their first name and for the same reason.  They “get” that this is a sign of positive feeling . . . well, for the most part.  Clearly, it is not working for Hillary.

This strategy, I think, is because of Sarah.  They want to draw on the feelings that we have for Sarah, and that’s actually pretty smart.  Sarah is almost always “Sarah” to me because there’s really only the one, and we all saw what happened to her, that “Palinization” that makes her a figure not only of respect but of a type of kinship that I feel toward her as a conservative first and as a conservative woman second.  When I use her last name, it’s usually as a show of a different kind of respect as “Governor Palin,” but mostly, she’s “Sarah” to me: one of us, mama grizzly extraordinaire, conservative warrior.

This doesn’t work for Hillary, at least not for conservatives because when you say “Clinton,” you mean and evoke Bill Clinton, not his shrill, nasty, corrupt, paranoid, and evil wife.  No amount of selling herself as “one of us” or as anything other than the lunatic leftist Alinskyite that she is will change that.  She’s “Hillary” not because she’s one of us but because she’s isn’t her husband.

Likewise, calling Jeb! anything other than Jeb! doesn’t work: “Bush” means President George W. Bush to me, or maybe, in some specific cases, their father, so that leaves Jeb as Jeb!.  The exclamation point is just for fun; his stupid logo makes it amusing to me.  The same rule, sans exclamation point, applies to Rand because “Paul” means Ron, not Rand.

Marco Rubio, whom I cannot abide after his Gang of Ocho shenanigans as Chuck Schumer’s butt monkey and pet Republican, is always a sneer in my brain, whether I call him “Marco” or “Rubio,” it’s always with a mentally curved lip and a kind of mental spit.

Then there are the titled pols or would be pols: Dr. Carson, Governor Walker, President Bush (meaning W.), Colonel West, et al.  This, I think, is more about respect for me than much else.  Using only their last name would work, but for some reason, their title works better.

Then there are those whom I think of as both first and last name.  Ted Cruz, for example, is always “Ted Cruz” in my brain, though when I write about him, I often will use only his last name.  I can’t really explain it, but considering that he is currently–barring some horrible revelation of secret progressive leanings–my favorite for the GOP nomination, it may be that I am already mentally preparing for him to have a title other than “Senator” before his name.

I hope that the people on the right who are attempting to defend Carly by whining that she is being called “Carly” will . . . just stop it.  There’s no there there.

Curt Schilling, ESPN, and Sarah

ESPN has done it again!  Remember when they pulled Hank Williams Jr.’s theme song from its Monday Night Football broadcast for making the following off-the-cuff comment on “Fox and Friends”?

Obama and Boehner played side by side that day against Vice President Joe Biden and Republican Ohio Governor John Kasich at the height of the congressional budget debate.

Asked what he did not like about the friendly bipartisan golf match, Williams replied, “Come on! It’d be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu.”

“They’re the enemy! Obama! And Biden!” he added.

Williams was quick to respond to the move with his song “Keep the Change.”

I so love that song!

Now they’ve suspended former major league baseball pitcher, Curt Schilling, for posting the following tweet (since deleted):

curt-schilling-tweet[h/t SooperMexican]

The Washington Post reports:

Curt Schilling, the former major league pitcher who is now an ESPN analyst, posted a tweet Tuesday in which he shared a meme that compares Muslim extremists to Nazis.

. . . . ESPN, in a statement emailed to The Post, said: “Curt’s tweet was completely unacceptable, and in no way represents our company’s perspective. We made that point very strongly to Curt and have removed him from his current Little League assignment pending further consideration.”

Sarah Palin is incensed by ESPN’s treatment of Schilling and has posted a response on Facebook:

ESPN IS A JOURNALISTIC EMBARRASSMENT

ESPN – what happened to you? Your intolerant PC police are running amok and making a joke out of you!

. . . . By denying the accuracy of Schilling’s tweet, ESPN shows its weakness as it buys into the propaganda of ISIS and other terror organizations, helping mislead the public about the very real threat of terrorism. It shows once again that ESPN would rather concentrate on liberal global politics instead of report well on our beloved sports.

From those of us who used to LOVE the network (to the point of addiction, some would confess!), I say to ESPN – you are awful in this. Stick to sports.

She also responded on her show, On Point with Sarah Palin. Watch:

Palin and her guest make the point that this type of action has a chilling effect on anyone who might make statements that are deemed unacceptable not only by ESPN but by other media and even private or political interests.  Of course, that’s the goal of these moves: go along with our agenda or we’ll ruin you.

Schilling has tweeted the following in response to his suspension:

Pure class.  But a shame he has to say that stating his true thoughts is a bad decision.  I guess in Obama’s America it is . . . if you have the “wrong” thoughts.

Vietor’s Attempt to Mock Trump for Praising Mercedes-Benz in Alabama Backfires

Former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor is back in the news. You may remember his bizarre “dude, that was two years ago!” exchange about Benghazi with Bret Baier.

Watch:

Having moved up from a press van driver for Obama to National Security Spokesman, one might imagine that Vietor would be sympathetic to the plight of the American worker or at least understand how much auto manufacturing matters to a great many American workers, including those in Alabama.

Maybe he does, but it wouldn’t seem so given his response to Trump’s speech in Alabama yesterday in which Trump praised Mercedes-Benz. Vietor, apparently eager to undermine Trump, tweeted:

The responses on Twitter show that while Vietor may not know how important Mercedes manufacturing is to Alabama and its workers, the Twitterverse does.

DUDE! Mercedes has plant in Alabama.NEXT! @TVietor08: “Who has a Mercedes Benz? Anybody? A lot of people” – Donald Trump man of the people” — SeldenGADawgs (@SeldenGADawgs) August 22, 2015

@TVietor08 Looking down your nose at people who make cars, have success in life and can afford nice things are we?

Twitchy has more.

To that last point by David Adams, Mercedes-Benz is the largest private sector employer in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. According to the Tuscaloosa Chamber of Commerce website:

Tuscaloosa remains the company’s only factory in the United States. From a 1.1 million square foot facility built in 1995, it will soon expand to 6.4 million square feet with a capacity of producing 350,000 cars per year. Over 8,000 people go to work on the MBUSI site every day and the local automotive supplier base continues to expand.

Presumably, Vietor is supporting Hillary for president, and if anyone’s a woman of the people, it is she. Granted, she hasn’t driven a car since 1996, and I’m not sure how often Trump drives, but he at least knows where Mercedes-Benz is located and whom it employs: the people.