In contrast to her smearing liberals as extreme and violent, WorldNetDaily columnist Rachel Alexander had nothing but nice things to say about the Republican presidential ticket of Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. She used her Sept. 2 column to cheer Vance’s smear of liberal women as “childless cat ladies” by inserting caveats to the statement that were never originally stated:
Since Donald Trump chose J.D. Vance as his vice presidential running mate, Democrats have been eagerly digging up every remark he’s ever said, looking for phrases to distort and take out of context. They’ve pounced on statements he’s made praising women for choosing to have children, trying to use it as a wedge issue to alienate career women.
But there’s not actually a conflict. Everyone knows that children bring parents joy. Everyone knows that children turn out better on average if there is a parent at home raising them – even better if homeschooled. You can be a career woman and admit this; there is no contradiction.
Vance said during a 2021 interview with Tucker Carlson that the U.S. is run by people that include “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.” He criticized people without children running the country since they “don’t really have a direct stake in it.”
In an interview with American Moment, Vance said, “You have women who think that truly the liberationist path is to spend 90 hours a week working in a cubicle … instead of starting a family and having children.” He called the former a “path to misery.”
There is nothing wrong with either of those statements. We have all worked with an unhappy childless feminist who takes her rage out on the rest of her co-workers. A job that requires 90 hours a week working in a cubicle is horrible for life happiness. And parents with children are more in tune about political issues related to children than non-parents. The problem is the left is taking Vance’s remarks way out of context.
Vance is only referring to women who have a clear choice whether or not to raise children, who instead abort them or refuse to change their minds about children even though their husbands really want them, etc. He’s not referring to all of the alternative scenarios out there that do not involve selfish reasons. Many women don’t have children because they can’t afford them: They have a lazy husband who can’t hold a job; they have aging relatives who take up all their money and time caring for them; or they’ve married a man who already has children of his own and so there is not enough money left over to have more children. Maybe they’ve just been unsuccessful dating.
Alexander somehow worked DEI into her defense:
Much of the irritation with childless cat ladies – it’s not just feminists’ prickly personalities – is due to their poor career choices. Many of them take out huge student loans they’ll never be able to pay back (taxpayers bail out government-backed loans), majoring in fields like Women’s Studies, Ethnic Studies, Sexuality and Gender Identity. The left whines about the so-called gender pay gap, claiming that women only make 86% of what men do, but continue to funnel women into those useless majors.
Since employers are trying to fill quotas, they hire them over more qualified white males who have applicable college degrees or work experience. And since those degrees are obtained by progressives with an ax to grind, their colleagues are stuck in a work environment being preached at. We’ve all received those inappropriate mass emails, inserting leftist politics into the professional environment. They pretend that promoting DEI is not political.
If Alexander assumes that promoting DEI is political, will she also admit that the right-wing anti-DEI crusade is also political and driven to increase the percentage of white males in the workforce?
Alexander used her Oct. 14 column to desperately try to minimize Trump’s amorality and criminality. First, she compared him to biblical heroes:
Many Christians are declining to vote in the presidential race this year, with a considerable number citing what they find as inappropriate behavior by Donald Trump. But is this attitude biblical? The Apostle Paul, considered one of the greatest men in history and revered in the church for spreading fledgling Christianity throughout the Middle East, murdered Christians under his former name, Saul, before he became a believer.
King David ordered the husband of a woman he lusted over and impregnated to the front lines of battle in order to kill him, which happened. After repenting, God still allowed David to remain king, but four of his sons suffered untimely deaths. David was considered one of the greatest leaders in biblical times. He defeated the Philistines, founded the Judaean dynasty and united all the tribes of Israel under a single monarch.
David’s son King Solomon had 1,000 wives and concubines, which he knew was wrong. He made sacrifices to Molech for them, a god that required “detestable” acts to be performed. God punished Solomon by giving him war with the Edomites and Arameans, and dividing up his kingdom after his death. However, Solomon was still allowed to rule as king.
Moses committed murder yet went on to become as legendary as David. He led the Jews out of captivity in Egypt and received the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai from God.
From there, Alexander insisted Trump’s crimes and immorality are irrelevant because they happened before he became president:
Some evangelicals are quick to point to rumors of Trump allegedly having extramarital affairs as their reason for not supporting him. Never mind that most Democrats and Republicans – including evangelicals – revere JFK, who was notorious for multiple extramarital affairs while president.
In contrast, none of these rumors about Trump occurred when he was president. The most recent alleged affairs, with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, were in 2006. Trump wasn’t even a Republican at the time; he was a Democrat from 2001 to 2009. Nor was he a born-again Christian.
She then portrayed Trump surrounding himself with evangelical leaders as a sign that he’s the chosen one, not that those leaders are selling out to gain political access:
Trump is regularly surrounded by the top evangelical leaders in the country, including Franklin Graham and Robert Jeffress. I know since I used to work for one of them, who told us about their regular meetings. They would not risk their names and reputations if he refused to atone for any sinful conduct. Trump is evangelical, not Catholic, so he’s not required to confess his sins to clergy; that is between him and God.
He’s also not a church leader; he’s a secular leader, so he’s not subject to the same accountability standards. For example, Christian leaders cannot be recent converts, so Trump wasn’t even eligible. But the MSM just glosses over this distinction.
[…]Trump did so much for Christians during his presidency that an argument can be made that God is using him to accomplish good. Even in 2018, just over halfway through his term, the mainstream media acknowledged that he’d likely done more for Christians than any president ever.
Even if you don’t buy that God has chosen to use him, it’s still readily apparent that Trump has done incredible things for Christians and intends to continue to do so, unlike Kamala Harris, whose agenda appears to be about stopping “hate” from Christians and promoting abortion as “women’s health.” And it doesn’t mean that Trump’s evangelical supporters “worship” him, either. as the left constantly lies about. That would also be blasphemous.
Actually, Alexander’s insistence on whitewashing Trump’s crimes and immorality could very well be seen as a sign of worship.
In her Oct. 21 column, Alexander cheered Republican’s focus on early voting: “The early voter turnout is due in large part to the GOP shifting its focus to early voting, afraid of turmoil on Election Day causing disenfranchisement of Republican voters as happened in Maricopa County in 2022.” But she didn’t mention that until earlier this year, Trump himself opposed early voting, and of course failed to explain the flip-flop.
Alexander has been a big promoter of bogus election fraud conspiracy theories in Arizona, so it’s curious that she has gone silent on the issue — perhaps it’s a tacit acknowledgment that her concern was never about “election integrity” and always about pushing a partisan agenda she knew was false all along.