Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Thank goodness for Democrats! They are so much smarter than normal Americans, and they’re happy to inform us all about it, as PJ Media reports:

Mazie Hirono
credit: twitter

On Tuesday, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) tried to explain why Democrats have trouble convincing their base to care that much about the Supreme Court. She suggested that Democrats are too smart to connect to voters, while Republicans just channel their rage and connect with their base. In other words, all those darned ‘deplorables’ just don’t think.

She argued that Democrats cannot connect with people because ‘we Democrats know so much. That is true. We have to … tell everybody how smart we are. So we have a tendency to be very left-brain.’

Tragically, she argued, ‘That is not how people make decisions.

It has always been my experience, gentle readers, if one is actually smart, they don’t have to tell people about it; it’s obvious.  Perhaps Hirono should take to heart the advice of Abraham Lincoln, a man of some small intelligence, who said: 

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt.

And speaking of Democrat intelligence, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) speaks, via Fox News:

The future may be female, but critics say Kirsten Gillibrand’s role may be limited.

The Democratic U.S. senator from New York was widely mocked Wednesday after saying the future is ‘female’ and ‘intersectional,’ in a wink to the progressive wing of her party.

‘Our future is: Female, Intersectional, Powered by our belief in one another. And we’re just getting started,’ Gillibrand wrote in a tweet.

Once again, we males, particularly the white, normal variety, are pretty much screwed. Maybe if I turned trans and identified as something other than white?  Perhaps a new pronoun would help!  Please refer to me from now on as “glork.”

And speaking of screwed, the DC City council has taken a bold step toward pushing DC further downhill into the normal squalor of Democrat-ruled cities.  Powerline reports:

The City Council of Washington, D.C. has approveda measure decriminalizing fare evasion in its public transportation system. In D.C., ‘fare-jumping’ will become a civil offense punishable only by a $50 fine.

The legislation was originally introduced by dumb-as-a-rock anti-Semite Trayon White. It passed by a vote of 10-2.

Fare-jumping is, of course, a form of theft. And not an innocuous form. The local transit authority loses more than $25 million a year due to fare evasion.

Reducing the penalty to a $50 fine with no possibility of arrest and/or fail time will mean even more lost revenue. The fine is light and unlikely to be collected in many cases. Jack Evans, chairman of the transit authority and one of the two city counsel members to vote against decriminalization, points out that unlike with parking tickets, where the city can block vehicle registration for unpaid citations, there is no good mechanism for mandating payment of a civil citation for fare-jumping.

What, then, is the argument for going so lightly on fare-jumpers? It’s a familiar one: Blacks disproportionately refuse to comply with the requirement of paying their fare.

Let me see if I understand this reasoning: black people are inherently criminals, and can’t be expected to obey the law or pay minimal fares for public transportation. We know this because most fare-jumpers are black people.  So we must acknowledge their criminality. their refusal to acknowledge the criminal justice system, and their lack of ability to function in a civilized society and decriminalize their crimes so they’re not committing so many crimes.  Why do Democrats think black people are that dumb and uncivilized?  Makes sense—if you’re stupid.

And in the “why would anyone think that was a good idea?” department, we visit the hilarious antics of that all-American fun couple, the Clintons, via Redstate.com

The Clinton’s aren’t doing so hot in the popularity category, and have apparently had to lower the ticket prices to their tour by such a vast degree that they now cost about the same as a trip to your favorite fast food joint.

According to the Daily Wire, former President Bill and never-was President Hillary Clinton are showing up to lackluster receptions at events called ‘An Evening With the Clintons.’ Once the Clintons got to Texas, the tickets for the event dipped to only $6…

I dunno.  “An Evening With The Clintons” is on the same level of desirability as “a Week of Painful Rectal Itch,” but that’s just me. Actually, it appears to be most people–including Canadians:

The former first couple opened a 13-city speaking tour late last month with a premiere event in Toronto (why they think anyone in Canada wants to hear them whine about Hillary’s crushing defeat in the 2016 presidential election is anybody’s guess). They pulled just 3,000 people to an arena that seats 19,000.

Then they took their road show, ‘An Evening With the Clintons,’ to Montreal, but they fared little better (and not for lack of trying: In a case of classic Clinton pandering, each said that Canada was superior to America).

And things kept getting worse. Ticket prices for their event in Texas plunged to just $6. Seems no one is interested in hearing them tell ‘stories and inspiring anecdotes that shaped their historic careers in public service, while also discussing issues of the day and looking toward the future,’ which a press release promised.

One would think the dramatic drought of Clinton Foundation donations since the Clintons no longer have any power to reward—or punish—anyone might have served as a sort of clue that “An Evening With The Clintons” might not be terribly well received.  It might also serve as a sort of clue that Bill’s future opportunities for travel might be limited to Jeffrey’s Epstein’s Lolita Express, and Hillary’s future is likely going to be limited to wandering drunkenly in the woods about their New York estate, but to apprehend this, one must not be stupid, like a Satanist professor, as Campus Reform reports:

A Minnesota professor suggested in a series of tweets that the Virgin Mary did not consent to the conception of Jesus Christ and suggested that God may have acted in a ‘predatory’ manner.

Minnesota State University, Mankato psychology professor and sex therapist Dr. Eric Sprankle critiqued the story of the Virgin Mary in a tweet Monday, suggesting that the Virgin Mary did not consent to being impregnated by God.

‘The virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen. There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario.

‘The virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen. There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario. Happy Holidays,’ Sprankle said.

Another Twitter user called the professor’s claim into question, noting that the Bible states that the Virgin Mary did, indeed, agree to God’s plan for her.

The Adoration of the Shepherds by Gerhard van Honhorst, 1622
Said Mary never…

Well yes. One might also recall that Mary was humbled and honored by the Almighty, and was more than glad to do His will, but that’s only what the Bible says.  Who you gonna believe?  The Word of God or a satanist professor?

The biblical god regularly punished disobedience,’ Sprankle rebutted. ‘The power difference (deity vs mortal) and the potential for violence for saying ‘no’ negates her ‘yes.’ To put someone in this position is an unethical abuse of power at best and grossly predatory at worst.

And if that wasn’t sufficiently stupid:

Sprankle is public with his anti-religious views and endorses ‘secularism’ in his Twitter biography. Earlier in December, he tweeted a photoof a toy Christmas elf with his arm around a statue of what appears to be Baphomet, an occult depiction of an entity regularly associated with Satanism, according to The Church of Satan’s website.

Sprankle also decorated his Christmas tree with Satanic decor, as shown in another tweet he sent this past weekend.

Hmm. It would appear Prof. Sprankle has gone a bit beyond secularism.  I was going to point out the error of his ways, but I suspect God will take eventually care of that for me.  I’m sure the good professor will have a warm reception.

Too stupid to survive.