Megyn Kelly & The Dr. Phil Pop-Therapy Idiom

Donald Trump, Feminism, Gender, Media, Psychology & Pop-Psychology

Bossy bimbo Megyn Kelly ordered Newt Gingrich to work on his “anger issues,” when he scolded her over her tilted and salacious coverage of Donald Trump. (See: “For Once, Trump Surrogate Gets Aggressive With Mainstream Media’s Megalo-Megyn.”)

Paul Joseph Watson of Prison Planet tweets: “All disagreement = anger. Anger card.”

I see it differently. The “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” covers the destructive role played by showgirl Megyn Kelly in anti-Trump feminist agitprop. As I point out in the book, by her own admission, “the anchoring ‘philosopher’ in Kelly’s life is Oprah Winfry’s protégé TV pop-psychologist Dr. Phil.” So she naturally gravitates to pop-psychology as her explanatory idiom.

Megyn Kelly’s a pop tart. That’s all.

For Once, Trump Surrogate Gets Aggressive With Mainstream Media’s Megalo-Megyn

Donald Trump, Feminism, Media, Propaganda

“I’m sick and tired of people like YOU using inflammatory indefensible language. You cannot defend calling Donald Trump a ‘sexual predator.’ When you use the words ‘sexual predator, you took an indefensible position. You are fascinated with sex and don’t care about public policy.”Newt Gingrich to Megyn Kelly.

Punished on June 29, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” covers the destructive role played by showgirl Megyn Kelly in anti-Trump feminist agitprop.

I’ve also covered how, instead of hitting the enemy with brute force; Trump’s chosen surrogates, with few exceptions, have worked harder to ingratiate themselves on CNN or MSNBC hosts.

A bully needs to be brutalized back.

Via Gateway Pundit:

Megyn Kelly: he had a rough first debate. He took the bait on Alicia Machado. He stayed in that trap for a week. The Access Hollywood tape came out. Which was not produced by Hillary Clinton. (Does she have proof of that?) That was Trump on camera talking…

Newt Gingrich: Megyn, I just heard you go through this with Governor Pence. I get it. I know where you’re coming from. Let me point out something to you. The three major networks spent 23 minutes attacking Donald Trump that night and 57 seconds Hillary Clinton’s secret speeches. You don’t think this is a scale of bias worthy of Pravda and Izvestia?

Megyn Kelly: If Trump is a sexual predator that is…

Newt Gingrich: He’s not a sexual predator.

Megyn Kelly: OK that’s your opinion.

Newt Gingrich: You cannot defend that statement…

Megyn Kelly: I think your defensiveness on this may speak volumes, sir.

Poor Whites Will Be Further Disenfranchised Under Hillary

Affirmative Action, Constitution, Hillary Clinton, IMMIGRATION, Race, Racism

Disenfranchisement Of Poor Whites Under Hillary” is the new column, now on  Townhall.com America’s “top source for conservative commentary.” An excerpt:

“Strengthening families” is big in Hillary Clinton’s immigration platform—not American families, but families of undocumented Democrats. To that end—and “within her first 100 days in office”—Hillary has vowed to “introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship.” These newly minted Democrats will be speedily naturalized (likely in time for Hillary’s second term). “All families” will be granted “affordable health care,” a privilege very many Americans are without.

Yet another political grant of privilege Americans don’t have, unless pigmentally endowed, is affirmative action. The throngs of immigrants and refugees—whose entry into the US Mrs. Clinton will accelerate, and whose numbers she’ll increase, should she become the next president—will benefit from affirmative action.  

Although the federal bureaucratic behemoth acts otherwise, the American Constitution “gave the government no license to set quotas for hiring personnel by private enterprise or admitting students to institutions of higher learning,” remarked Richard Pipes in “Property and Freedom: The Story of How Through The Centuries Private Ownership has Promoted Liberty and the Rule of Law” (2000). The institutionalized American quota culture has been imposed by administrative fiat, courtesy of “The Power Elite” and the engorged administrative state under which Americans labor.  

For the purposes of conferring affirmative-action privileges, civil servants have compiled over the decades an ever-accreting list of protected groups, “as distinct from whites.” In addition to blacks, the list entails mainly minorities such as Hispanics—Chileans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Dominicans, and Mexicans—Pacific Islanders, American Indians, Asian/Indians, Filipinos, Vietnamese and Cambodians.  

Affirmative action was ostensibly crafted to correct “the injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government … not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed.” The policy took a very different turn, starting in 1965, “when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.” In short, the policies of racial redress were extended to all “people of color,” shifting “from remediation toward discrimination, this time against whites.” 

It goes without saying that “those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs,” averred Senator Jim Webb, in a 2010 Wall Street Journal article, titled “Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege.” “The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.”  …

… Read the rest. Disenfranchisement Of Poor Whites Under Hillary” is  now on Townhall.com 

The Neoconservative & Left-Libertarian Positions: Liberty Is Universal

Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Liberty, Neoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism

Judge Andrew Napolitano, courted by libertarians on the Right, articulates the essence of left-libertarianism, left-liberalism and neoconservatism. (The “What if?” style of writing is hard to stomach, too.)

What if liberty really is attached to humanity? What if all rational people yearn for personal freedom? What if the government — in order to stay in power — has detached liberty from humanity and made it a gift of the state instead of a gift of God? What if government knows that by restricting and then expanding liberty, it can command loyalty?

Essentially, liberty has no cultural or historical or religious dimension; it’s a universal quest. Inside every Afghani or Yemeni is a Jeffersonian waiting to break free. Blame governments, not the people, for barbarism in certain parts of the world (which is what I call a form of social determinism, “the state made me do it”).

Napolitano’s position is not paleolibertarianism, but it’s a position inherent in left-libertarianism, left-liberalism and neoconservatism.