Kellyanne Conway Supporting Kavanaugh on CNN: ‘I’m a Victim of Sexual Assault’

Kellyanne Conway Supporting Kavanaugh on CNN: ‘I’m a Victim of Sexual Assault’

While defending Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, Kellyanne Conway delivered a rather startling revelation: she is a victim of sexual assault.

“I feel very empathetic for victims of sexual assault, sexual harassment and rape. I’m a victim of sexual assault.”

As we saw in the video of Jeff Flake’s elevator attack (covered here), some Democrats charge that supporting Kavanaugh means victims don’t matter, despite a complete lack of evidence that Kavanaugh committed any wrongdoing. It’s nice to see a victim speak up with a “me too” coupled with critical thinking (as I wrote about here).

Conway explained why she decided to reveal something so personal:

“I’ve just had it. … Let’s not compare Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, and a few others, to what’s happened here. If we’re going to have a national conversation, stop judging the victims and perpetrators according to their politics.”


She noted that the Kavanaugh hearings aren’t a “meeting of the #MeToo movement.” (Precisely — as described here, some have accused Democrats of “weaponizing” the movement for political gain.)

Anticipating Trump fallout due to her confession, Kellyanne told the waiting trolls to sit on a tack:

“People on Twitter and elsewhere are saying right now, ‘Oh how can she work for Donald Trump?’ I work for President Trump because he’s so good to the women who work for him. I don’t want to hear it from anybody.”

It seems that nearly all those who have cited #MeToo as victims have been outspoken Democrats. Perhaps it would do the world some good to hear from Republican victims, thereby rendering the hashtag relatively politically innocuous.

When movements proclaiming decency as their foundation are utilized only by the Left, it sends a wrong message. Kellyanne can be commended for adding her voice on CNN, even though it’s unlikely to radically change the State of the Union.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.

In case you missed the relevant RedState links in this article, please go herehere, and here.

For something totally different, please check out my write-ups of a transgender governor, Chris Matthews hating Trump, and the best milkshake.

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

That’s Not Funny!

That’s Not Funny!

Swedes are known for a number of things, but a sense of humor is not one of them. You are no doubt familiar with this meme, which has been put to any number of humorous uses:

The meme reflects well-known phenomena of human nature and is endlessly adaptable. But not in Sweden:

For anyone unfamiliar with the story so far, Stockholm-based internet service provider Bahnhof shared the meme, officially titled ‘Disloyal man walking with his girlfriend and looking amazed at another seductive girl’ as part of a recruitment advert. It labelled the boyfriend “you”, the girlfriend “your current workplace” and the second girl “Bahnhof”, prompting hundreds of accusations of sexism from commenters on Facebook and Instagram.

A total of 15 private individuals reported the advert to RO, and the watchdog’s jury came to a unanimous decision that it was “gender-discriminatory”. Not only were women presented as “interchangeable sex objects”, the RO judgment claimed, with some of its members arguing that the ad also showed a stereotypical and “degrading” image of men.

The “watchdog” RO is an industry group that has no power to ban the ad, but seeks to “ensure that trust in advertising is retained and to show that no further legislation is needed.” It found unpersuasive the suggestion that the ad was intended to be funny:

In its judgment, the RO acknowledged that humour and exaggeration could serve to “mitigate gender-discriminatory impressions”, but also noted that “there is a risk that what you want to ironize or make fun of is instead reinforced”.

The totalitarian tendencies of the Left advance steadily.


Do boys face more dating violence than girls?

Do boys face more dating violence than girls?

All of the Kavanaugh vs. Ford debate, whether the original incident happened as described or not, has once again reminded us that violence, both sexual and otherwise, doesn’t just happen among adults. High school children entering into the complications of the dating world can encounter violence as well. We generally tend to think of such incidents resulting in harm to young girls, but a recent study in Canada suggests that the numbers are more evenly spread out than I would have guessed. In fact, they’re reporting more incidents of boys suffering “dating violence” at the hands of girls than the reverse. (Though the margin of difference is minimal.) This report comes to us from Science Daily.

Overall, fewer teens are experiencing physical abuse from their dating partners, with five per cent of teens reporting dating violence in 2013, down from six per cent in 2003.

However, the researchers found 5.8 per cent of boys and 4.2 per cent of girls said they had experienced dating violence in the past year.

First author Catherine Shaffer, a PhD student from SFU who was involved in the study, says more research is needed to understand why boys are reporting more dating violence.

“It could be that it’s still socially acceptable for girls to hit or slap boys in dating relationships,” she said. “This has been found in studies of adolescents in other countries as well.”

Those numbers were a surprise to me. They’re also a bit different from studies done in the United States. A 2015 CDC study on teen dating violence found that among girls, 12% reported physical violence and 16% reported sexual violence from a dating partner. Among boys, the numbers were lower, with 7% reporting physical violence and 5% saying they had encountered sexual violence.

There are a couple of elements missing from these studies which we should be aware of. First of all, they don’t specify how many of the “dating partners” were of the opposite sex, so we can’t say for certain how many offenders are coming from each gender. We can safely assume that at least some of these instances took place among gay dating partners.

Second, we aren’t told the type or extent of the violence. Obviously, if you’ve been raped or beaten to the point where you’ve sustained injuries, you are the victim of violence. But how about if one partner is closing in hoping for a kiss and is physically shoved away with a push to the chest or shoulders? Is that violence? The list of possible examples goes on.

The linked article speculates that female on male dating violence may be more common than you thought because it has, for a long time, been accepted that girls will slap boys in the face if they come down with a case of wandering hands. I can remember that happening to me twice when I was younger. (And if we’re being honest here, I heartily deserved it both times. Particularly the one where it resulted from me trying to explain to a girl why I had asked her sister out on a date.) Women slapping men has been a staple of Hollywood for as long as there’s been film.

Perhaps that’s part of it. But it’s clear that teen dating violence is very real and needs to be addressed by parents. If your kid (of either gender) is out there beating up or sexually assaulting somebody they’re supposed to be on a date with, you have failed in your duties as a mother or father.


Elizabeth Warren finally admits she’s focused on 2020 presidential run

Elizabeth Warren finally admits she’s focused on 2020 presidential run

Warren is 69, so she can’t sit out too many more election cycles.  She only sat out the last one, in 2016, in deference to (or, alternately, in fear of) Hillary Clinton or to her desire to remain in the public eye as an in-speculation-only contender or whatever nonsense.  That’s all laughable.  She didn’t run because, as the invisible wannabe shadow to both Hillary and Bernie, she had no backing, no clout, no donors.

That’s all changed since Hillary’s second humiliating presidential campaign loss.

Given that Warren’s message is a hokey mix of socialist policies with which she doesn’t even agree and countless variations on “I hate Trump,” it seems unlikely she’ll get very far.  Essentially, when she’s not parroting Bernie, she’s parroting Hillary.  Nothing says “winner” like trotting out the money quotes of failed Democrat presidential candidates.

As an aside, there is no way Warrens think single-payer or Medicare for all are viable; as much as I dislike her, I have to admit that she’s no idiot in these matters.  Further, it should be noted that Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) himself doesn’t even think Medicare for all is viable.  He’s just smart enough to ignore that inconvenient reality; Warren, by contrast, will babble on for days, annoying and confusing the Democrat base and annoying and amusing the Republican base.

One of Warren’s campaign strategies appears to be bashing President Trump . . . maybe because it worked so well for Hillary?

Senator Elizabeth Warren isn’t ready to announce a presidential bid just yet, but she could be soon. Per the Boston Globe, the Massachusetts Democrat told a town hall crowd that she’s now focused on her re-election bid, but bets are off thereafter. “After Nov. 6 I will take a hard look at running for president,” Warren said after railing against Republican colleagues she characterized as “powerful men helping a powerful man make it to an even more powerful position” who were “too chicken” to personally question Christine Blasey Ford during her testimony regarding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

As she does frequently, Warren took this opportunity of her 36th meeting with constituents since President Trump took office to attack the current White House occupant, per the AP.

“Trump is taking this country in the wrong direction,” said Warren, who also tipped her hat to the #TimesUp movement and said the time is now “for women to go to Washington to fix our broken government, and that includes a woman at the top.”

So it’s not “official-official,” but it looks not only as though Warren does indeed intend to run in 2020 but that she has been running for quite some time.

The prof so nailed this one.


Saudi-led coalition reportedly foils Houthi attack on port city Jizan

Saudi-led coalition reportedly foils Houthi attack on port city Jizan

A Saudi-led military coalition fighting against Yemen’s Houthi movement foiled an attack by two explosives-laden remote controlled boats deployed by the Houthis against Saudi Arabia’s Jizan port, Saudi state news agency SPA reported on Sunday.

 “The Royal Saudi Navy Forces detected the movement of two remote control explosive boats headed to the port of Jizan. They were intercepted and destroyed… which has led to minimal damage,” the coalition’s spokesman Colonel Turki al-Malki said in a statement carried by SPA. The attack occurred in the early hours of the morning on Sunday, he said. 

The Houthis say their attacks on the kingdom are in retaliation for air raids on Yemen by the Western-backed coalition, which entered Yemen’s war in 2015 to try to restore President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Hadi was ousted from the capital Sanaa by the Houthis in 2015.