This is about @AmandaEnsing. 👇🏻She’s a Christian Republican. She’s being “cancelled” by @Sephora & the beauty/lifestyle influencer world. As far as I can tell it’s only because she’s conservative & supported Trump. E.g., she’s a “racist” because of it (she’s herself Latina). /1
This is the link to her Instagram post explaining the situation. The complaint comment Sephora is responding to is so generic -as it usually is in these situations. Amanda thinks it’s because of her religious & political beliefs. See for yourself./2
For context there’s this YouTube video from another beauty influencer who disputes Amanda is being mistreated, but after listening to her, it seems to me she just proves that it’s only support for Trump that’s the “problem.” Judge for yourself. /3
I’m persuaded tho after listening to both & looking at Amanda’s feeds that she’s simply a conservative who listened to what was being preached post-election, never advocated/condoned violence, is Christian, dislikes the left’s agenda & is being vilified for her political views./4
I have now followed her channels -here, YouTube & Instagram- & will be disassociating from Sephora. The left needs to learn to tolerate right of center views & stop making EVERYTHING (makeup?!) political. Their inability to do so is a significant cause of our current problems. /5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So hubs & I were coming home from Europe from our vacation one time (we go every year) & we’re seated in a row with two ladies who’ve been on a trip to Africa & are now in France for the last leg of their trip home to the good ole US of A. 🇺🇸 /2
And they are looking at the world maps on the screens on the backs of the seats in front of us showing our flight path back from Paris, which makes a big loop up along the Normandy/Britain/Iceland/Greenland/Newfoundland/East Coast path to NY/Philly, I can’t remember which now./3
She was a contract editor at the Times & was apparently fired after that tweet got criticism. Now folks on the left are claiming Glenn Greenwald & a “right wing mob” got her fired & that’s cancel culture, esp they say since other Times people didn’t get fired for misconduct./1
So the controversy over the “gendered” language in the new House Rules is as follows.
1. The House Rules contain an anti-nepotism (you can’t hire your own relatives) provision.
2. To make that make sense, there’s a definition of who is included in the meaning of a relative.
/1
3. That definition is found in Rule XXIII, clause 8(c)(3). This👇🏻is what the definition said in the Rules for the last Congress (the 116th). It uses words like mother, father, wife, husband, daughter, son, etc. Words that convey gender. /2
One of the values we need to return to is self-reliance.
You can build self-reliance by first doing it in small ways. Once you start doing it, you realize other ways you can do it & you feel more comfortable & confident in it & you can build more of it into your life. /1
Being self-reliant makes you freer. It gives you options & flexibility when things outside your control go wrong. You’re also less dependent on others & their potential failure, betrayals, mistakes, etc. I’m not recommending isolationism, of course. Just more self-reliance. /2
It becomes a mindset & if you make sure you don’t go overboard either, it’s healthy. Some examples to start with:
1. Spend less; save more & give more to charity. 2. Eat & drink less; walk or play or exercise more. 3. Watch less tv; read more. 4. Be online less; sleep more.
So if the Congress is really going to impeach DJT again, here’s the thing on an “incitement” charge. As I’ve been saying, there is no basis for “incitement” as a matter of criminal law, based on his speech or his conduct overall. It’s not a legitimately indictable case. /1
Like many,(& probably most actually), lawyers, I do not believe impeachment requires that the conduct satisfy the criminal law to be impeachable. That is, just because it’s not a crime doesn’t mean it’s not impeachable. The criminal law is certainly a guide to use, however. /2
So for an impeachment on “incitement,” I suppose you look at the situation a bit more broadly than the criminal law does & say DJT created the environment that led to the storming. I personally think there are too many contributing factors to hold him responsible that way. /3