Why Can’t You Say It, Tucker Carlson? Katie Hill Is A Slut

Conservatism, Feminism, Gender, Political Correctness, Political Philosophy, Sex

It’s always curious to see how conservatives will twist into pretzels in order to, well, eat their philosophical cake and have it, too.

A traditionalist (check) would come out and call Rep. Katie Hill a self-adoring slut.

Who else takes nude selfies of her three-way (“throuple”) indiscretions, flaunting the iron cross tattooed on her crotch, and then frames her slut-like sexual frolicking as sacred sexuality disrespected? Katie Hill did.

When a male does the same, he, too, should be dissed by conservatives as a priapic pig. And he has been over these pixelated pages. Anthony Weiner I called “an engorged organism indigenous to D.C., who was in the habit of exposing himself as often as the Kardashians do.”

But Tammy Bruce, on Tucker Carlson’s show, no less, takes the tack taken in the leftist Atlantic:

Hill engaged in a profound breach of responsibility by engaging in a sexual relationship with someone who was working for her—and by doing so while running for public office. “The mistakes I made that brought me to this moment will haunt me for the rest of my life,” she said this afternoon in her final speech on the House floor.

“Nobody is judging her personally,” reiterated Tucker Carlson.

But why not? Katie Hill is a repulsive slut.

Likewise, Bruce was careful to emphasize she was not being a prude. The Hill indiscretion Bruce was decrying was purely a violation of labor law, or something.

Both Bruce and Carlson refuse to be cast as “prudes” who reject public promiscuity. It’s Hill’s conduct in the “work place” that bothers both these Fox News hosts. Oh Buddha!

Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Vindman’s REAL Concern, In His Own Words

Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, Intelligence, Nationhood

“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a US citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the US government’s support of Ukraine.”

So said Colonel Vindman in his opening statement before impeachment investigators, during testimony given “privately to three House committees—on Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Reform.”

The words of Army Lt.-Col. Vindman in the first sentence, “I did not think it was proper,” sound like an afterthought to the second:

“I was worried about the implications for the US government’s support of Ukraine.”

Just saying …

MORE: “The Ukraine affair: A soldier’s word against Donald Trump’s in impeachment inquiry.”

* Image courtesy of MSNBC

UPDATED:

On CNN, former congressman Sean P. Duffy (R-Wis.) suggested that Vindman’s birthplace was important. “It seems very clear that he is incredibly concerned about Ukrainian defense,” Duffy said. “I don’t know that he’s concerned about American policy, but his main mission was to make sure that Ukraine got those weapons.”

The Pushy Kushners Go To Camp David

Celebrity, Donald Trump, Ethics, Family

The Kushners have ridden President Trump’s coattails into the White House.

Nobody voted for them; nobody worthwhile wants to see their fingerprints on policy, or their presence anywhere near the People’s House.

But the two, driven by the ambitious First Lady In-Waiting (Ivanka Trump is purported to have political “ambitions”), are intent on cementing their Camelot-like status as political movers-and-shakers.

This most ambitious and empty-headed of couples, both presidential advisers (yes, anything goes in America), is now insisting on celebrating a wedding anniversary at Camp David.

I have no attachment to the place. Nevertheless, I do not wish to see the two interlopers, Ivanka and Jared, frolic about as though they have anything more than a shameful place in presidential history.

Free Speech: When It’s ILLEGAL To Say ‘ILLEGAL Immigrant’

Constitution, Free Speech, Law, Natural Law, Regulation

This is a case of a city’s anti-discrimination ordinance overriding the U.S. Constitution.

Most of us are unaware that the First Amendment to the Constitution has been flagrantly compromised by a city’s anti-discrimination ordinance. In this case, the New York City Human Rights Law.

Last week, New York City’s Commission on Human Rights declared that using the term “illegal alien” pejoratively to describe an undocumented person violates laws designed to protect employees and tenants from discrimination, and could result in fines of up to $250,000.

How long before “merely calling someone an illegal alien on the street, or threatening to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement on them, [becomes] illegal”?

The author at Reason seems to have confidence the above won’t occur, writing that, “It’s important to note that this guidance does not affect all kinds of speech: The law covers workplace harassment, tenants’ rights, and public accommodation.”

More moderate fluff from Reason:

The government cannot simply prohibit people from making politically incorrect statements about undocumented people—it must limit the scope of anti-discrimination mandates in order to satisfy the broad free speech guarantees enjoyed by all people.

Just you wait.

A way more principled analysis—as principled as the positive law can be—is Eugene Volokh’s. He has determined that “constitutionally protected speech [does not] lose its protection because of the speaker’s supposedly improper purpose.”

Also way better than the milquetoast Reason Magazine is “NYC Seeks to Curb Speech About Illegal Aliens” by Hans Bader.

Thinking of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is just silly. Any vestiges of the natural law in the Constitution have long since been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.