Abortion, Trump Derangement Syndrome, and the Women's March in DC | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Last week, I drove to our nation's capital from North Carolina to witness the swearing-in of the 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, and to celebrate with like-minded Americans his inauguration. It was a great day - an electric day!! The next, Saturday, I woke up in my hotel room and prepared for a full day of walking around the national mall, visiting all the monuments and memorials, and then finishing up at the Supreme Court building, a place I've never been able to visit on all my prior visits to DC. I had no idea that a bunch of protesters were beginning to assemble. I had not heard about the Women's March on DC.

    But I soon found out. Heading out of the hotel, I saw some women with crazy-looking knitted pink hats on their heads. And then I saw some men with the same hats on. What was going on? A lady walking down the street with me told me the story. There was going to be a big march - Women's March - down Pennsylvania Ave. to the Capitol, to protest Trump's inauguration and to "stand up for their rights" and their issues. The organizers of the event, including Linda Sarsour (executive director of the Arab American Organization of New York and an activist seeking Sharia Law in the US), encouraged participants to wear pink hats to show solidarity and hence, to feel empowered. The pink hats are "pussyhats" - a sartorial reference to a comment that Mr. Trump made, which was captured in an audio, about Hollywood women being so loose that you can "grab them by the ***** (genitals)." The comment was made 12-13 years ago.

    We both asked each other the same question: "Where were the marches and the protests years ago when Democratic president Bill Clinton was serially objectifying women and sexually harassing them? Why weren't women outraged then?" Clinton actually put his hands and mouth on women and using his position of power as president of the most powerful nation in the world, coerced women for sexual favors such as oral sex in the Oval Office while Donald Trump merely talked about it in a moment of male bravado with another man.

    So, it couldn't be Trump's treatment of women that worked these women up in a frenzy. They were clearly content to look the other way when the conduct came from someone of their own political party. They were clearly content to look the other way when the conduct was far more objectifying and harassing. And they were perfectly fine voting for and then supporting via protest the day after Trump's inauguration for a woman (Hillary Clinton) who used her power as the president's wife to further harass, intimidate, slander, and otherwise destroy the victims' reputation and credibility. When women did not readily submit, offer their body parts and "services" to her husband and then remain quiet about it, she took the active role in protecting her husband's position rather than standing up for the very rights and dignity women in the march were so vocally protesting for. Again, the march could not be simply about Trump's use of a crass term.

    Walking further into the Lion's den, I noticed signs that read "We Stand for Women's Rights" and "Equality for Women." And so, I thought about the rights that these women might be referring to. Women can vote (19th Amendment), they cannot be discriminated in hiring (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), and they cannot be paid differently for the same job under the same conditions (again, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Not only are women's rights protected under the law, but if they believe they are discriminated against, they have a cause of action to sue and seek justice.

    What about LGBT rights? In 2015, the Supreme Court, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court handed its opinion down that homosexuals and lesbians have the right marry. If heterosexuals can marry, then under an equal protection argument, homosexuals and lesbians have that right too. Donald Trump doesn't have a problem with same-sex marriage but he believes the Supreme Court over-stepped his authority by making it a national policy when the decision should have been left to each state independently. I believe Trump is absolutely correct in this position. Marriage is historically a state issue only, pursuant to its police powers.

    My guess is that the LGBT participants were just protesting because they don't like Trump, don't like what he stands for (ie, not a progressive), and don't want him as the president.

    Once I got to Jefferson Ave and then Independence Ave (heading to the Jefferson Memorial), and trying to navigate through the crowds coalescing closer towards Pennsylvania Ave, there was one theme that rang out more loudly than the others. The countless signs speaking to the unfettered right of women over her body and fertility, abortion rights, and the right to have healthcare cover it all was all I needed to see to understand that one of the main purposes of the Women's March was to show their joint support for their right to an abortion. According to these "Women's Rights" protesters, Roe v. Wade was a great decision which essentially gave women the right to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason without any government interference. It's their body, they claim, and they are entitled to have complete control over what is done with it. They also want their health insurance to cover their abortions. That is, they want taxpayers to pay for them. "It's My Body; My Choice. But I want YOU to Pay for It!" They are in full panic mode because of Trump's promise to repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which among other things requires health insurers to cover birth control, and his very vocal position on the future make-up of the Supreme Court so that it values the life of the unborn.

    By the way, when did "Women's Rights" become synonymous with the right to terminate the life of a living but yet unborn child? That logic seems to boils down to this: "My life would be easier without this baby in it and I have the right over my own life and destiny. And besides, that baby's life is inconsequential and not valuable." And so, the woman terminates that baby's life for her ease and comfort.

    Perhaps it was the March for Life that was going to take place in six days (Friday, January 27), in concert with the President's inauguration, that convinced the protesters to march when they did. Perhaps it was a brilliant plan to invite women holding any of a myriad of grievances against Donald Trump to march at the same time. This way, they could claim on January 21 that the march was in protest of his election and then claim for purposes of the national debate on abortion (v. the Right to Life) that the rally was in support of abortion and was larger than the March for Life. There is power in numbers. And we all know how the liberal media loves numbers (and loves to misrepresent them too!). To see how the organizers reached out to all groups who oppose Trump, simply read their manifesto - their "Guiding Vision and Principles of the Women's March on Washington." *

    While the protest was officially designed to be an anti-Trump event, the sea of pink hats sent the equally-collective message that the march was in support of abortion rights. The march therefore served two purposes for the Left.

    As it turns out, the organizers of the march refused to recognize and allow any groups who are not in favor of abortion to be officially part of the march. The biggest sponsor of the march was Planned Parenthood and other support flowed from none other than George Soros. According to the mission statement for the march ("Overview & Purpose" *), the purpose of the march is to demonstrate for a particular vision of government which recognizes their views. The first of these reads: "We believe that Women's Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women's Rights. This is the basic and original tenet for which we unite to March on Washington." In other words, it was a protest against President Trump and his new administration. The statement or manifesto goes on to elaborate other reasons for rallying against Trump, including that "the rhetoric of the past election cycle has insulted, demonized, and threatened" women of all different communities. According to the website listing the groups affiliated with the march, what united the groups was their demand for "open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people." This, apparently, summed up what they considered their essential "Women's Rights." The other themes - equality in the workplace, open immigration, non-registry for immigrants and refugees from Islamic countries - were just peripheral; just additional scenery; just another ruse to get as many warm bodies to march in what would ultimately be a show of hatred of Donald Trump. Women who did not vote for Trump but were pro-life were taken off the official list of marchers and not recognized. And they were made to feel that they are not "woman enough" because somehow they have sold out the gender. In fact, organizer Linda Sarsour had this message for them - If you show up, you better understand that you are going to be counted as among those who support a woman's right to choose. The only women who were officially associated with the march and listed as part of the event were those who oppose President Trump AND who are pro-abortion. The Women's March essentially declared that pro-life women do not have a place at the event, even if a woman is an ally on every other issue that the protest claims to fight for.

    Any pretext that the march would present an intelligent articulation of the protesters' grievances was thrown out the window when the actress Ashley Judd took the stage. She said that she, and other protesters, who want to terminate a pregnancy up until the day before delivery, are "nasty women," but "not as nasty as the man in the White House." She read a thrash poem written by a 19-year-old community college student Nina Donovan who was enraged that Donald Trump referred to Hillary Clinton as a "nasty woman" during the campaign.

    It was a vile poem by a young girl who has been brainwashed and stupefied by the rantings of progressives who have long turned a blind eye to the misdeeds of Democrats and who have tied themselves to the party of every group seeking to erode and destroy the fabric of the United States or otherwise parasitize and weaken everything good that we once stood for and the party that seeks to destroy everything good and decent in our society for the greater goal of absolute personal freedom without any accountability or consequence.

    Any pretext that the march would be civil and dignified was thrown out the window when Madonna, the skanky, sex-obsessed star of the 80's, took the podium. She talked about the march being the start of a revolution. "We refuse as women to accept this new age of tyranny. Where not just women are in danger but all marginalized people. It took us this darkness to wake us the fuck up.... It seems as though we had all slipped into a false sense of comfort. That justice would prevail and that good would win in the end. Well, good did not win this election... Let's march together through this darkness and with each step. Know that we are not afraid. That we are not alone, that we will not back down. That there is power in our unity... To our detractors that insist that this March will never add up to anything, fuck you. Fuck you." She concluded by saying: "Yes, I'm angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot of blowing up the White House...." Apparently, she also performed, torturing thousands. During her so-called performance of "Human Nature," she cheerfully told President Trump to "suck a d--k." Always the epitome of grace and class, Madonna didn't disappoint.

    Madonna is washed-up and used-up. She may not want to give up, but sure wish she would shut up.

    And I wish all of Hollywood would too. I mean, where does anyone in Hollywood or in the sex industry (I mean, pop music industry), have the moral high ground to criticize the conduct of anyone? Hollywood and cinema oozes sexual exploitation. Movies are filled with nudity, sex scenes, inappropriate attitudes towards sexuality, and cheapened roles of women in society. Pop singers dress provocatively and dance suggestively. Their music videos are glorified soft porn videos. Sex sells. I can't even begin to describe what rappers and the women they associate with sing about, dance about, and do in their videos. All of these entertainers, most of who associate with the types who protest Donald Trump and who support the Women's March, are hypocrites. Their personal lives are rife with scandal, affairs, drugs, children out-of-wedlock, marriages that barely last a year, boob jobs, liposuction, and plastic surgery. In other words, they live their lives without consequence and display a total lack of morals. They wouldn't know what the inside of a church looks like or understand why the family unit is important to society. They would do well to look in the mirror and understand that their conduct and immorality has done more to undermine the legitimacy and status of women in our society than any comment that Trump has made. It is their conduct that has led to the current trend where young women put themselves out there to be objectified and cheapened. They cheapen themselves through the way they act. And when men happen to take notice, they clamor for the so-called right to be treated with "dignity" and not as sex objects.

    The feminazis (a term used here to denote their use of propaganda to deceive and breed hatred) certainly worked themselves up into in a frenzy feeding on their collective disdain for Trump and then diluted their followers into believing that he will use his presidency to strip them of their "Women's Rights." I'm sure they believe that. Perhaps they believe that if they make enough noise and show enough numbers that Trump will rethink his position, rethink his policies, and abandon his choices for the high court.

    Putting aside the vulgarity and the hate and the incendiary language and the hype that women will be losing their rights under a Trump presidency, and putting aside the obvious solidarity the protesters showed for their right to an abortion ahead of the March for Life, the march was held for one reason and one reason only - to lash out at the fact that they LOST the election and to show their disdain for the great man who won the election. It wasn't so much a march for women as it was a march against President Trump. The march, first and foremost, was intended to stain Trump's perfect inaugural week-end, and through its numbers, attempt to make the case (thru the liberal media) that Trump's election was somehow illegitimate and that he is a threat to the rights of so many citizens. It was intended to embarrass him, to emphasize the point of the liberal media that Trump is a divider and not a unifier, and provide fodder for the liberal media so that they didn't have to provide coverage of the exciting day that he had being sworn in as our new president. In fact, one of the most common signs was one that read: "NOT MY PRESIDENT." [And "Pussies Against Trump!"]

    I'm not saying the March for Women was not enormous and imposing in its scope. It was. It was clearly well-organized and fueled by a deep hatred by most groups comprising the Left for our new president... a hatred that no protester could articulate rationally. In the days following the rally, critics have made this point over and over again. Why was the Communist Party marching with the Women's March? Why were groups supporting Sharia Law marching? Surely, Sharia Law can't be compatible with the rights articulated by the March's mission statement. Hypocrisy and offensive conduct defeated the impact of the protest. Where were the protests when Democrats were objectifying women? Why wasn't Joe Biden vilified and called a racist when he said that then-Sen. Barack Obama was the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Rather, he was embraced as the choice for vice-president. What is so unbecoming a woman who wants to express the view that her body be respected for the life it can bring forth that she was unwelcome to march alongside the others?

    How glaring was the irony in removing a pro-life sponsor from the Women's March? In doing so, they showcased the same divisiveness, intolerance, and discrimination as the claims they wheeled against the man who now sits in the White House and whose election they so energetically protested against. How ironic is it that the Women's March organizers chose the famous quote by African-American poet Audre Lorde to close their mission statement: "It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences"?

    Perhaps liberals and progressives will never be able to understand conservatives and vice-versa. Perhaps the differences in ideology and lifestyle expectations are just too extreme from one another. Maybe it is true that a second Civil War is upon us and that right now, we are fighting ideologically rather than physically. And maybe that is why Donald Trump has advocated that on certain issues, the policy should be left to the individual states and should not lie with the federal government.

    Conservatives never approved of Barack Obama and his politics or agenda but they never protested in the street claiming that he was not their president. They may have protested his ramming of Obamacare down the nation's throat, despite the majority of the people not in favor of it and despite a great majority of legal scholars believing national healthcare was unconstitutional. They may have protested how he pushed for that legislation and the backdoor politics involved that so completely went against his campaign promise of complete transparency. But they never behaved as if he was not the president of all of America. They never held themselves out as being a segment of the population that was entitled to something different than the rest of the country or that their voices were more important than others.

    If you live in the United States and consider yourself an American, then the election process outlined in the US Constitution dictates how our presidents are chosen. Because we are not a monolithic society, the candidate with the most electoral votes becomes the president. He (or she) is elected because he represents the prevailing view across the entire country, recognizing the fact that people in different states have different views, different concerns, and different issues that need to be addressed equally by the government that sits in DC. In a federal system as we have, the constituents (the states) are represented equally and fairly and not the individual citizens as a whole. Donald Trump was elected fairly by the people. He may not have been elected by any of the people who marched in any of the Women's Marches that took place across the country on the day after the election, but he was elected fairly and legally.

    The country spoke through Donald Trump and they were quite clear on one thing - they were rejecting the progressive agenda of the Democratic Party on the national level. They endured eight years of an extremely progressive president, and based on what they saw him do, what they watched on TV and read in the news regarding the state of the nation and the world, what they learned the courts were doing, what they noticed in the conduct of our youth, and what they experienced on a personal and economic level, they concluded that the country was heading in the wrong direction, including the government's ability to interpret the Constitution.