Stacey Abrams posts 'Future Governor' meme, and people are comparing it to Hillary Clinton's notorious 'Happy Birthday to this future president' post from 2016



A bit less than six years ago, then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton posted a childhood photo on social media and declared, "Happy birthday to this future president" — the post did not age well, as Clinton went on to lose the 2016 contest to Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Well, this week, Democrat Stacey Abrams, who is running to defeat incumbent Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp during the Peach State's 2022 gubernatorial contest, posted a meme featuring a childhood photo along with the message "Little Miss Future Governor Of The Great State of Georgia," and people have pointed out the similarity between Abrams' recent post and Clinton's 2016 post.

"Same vibe. Same result," Erick Erickson tweeted.

"Same posts. Same inevitable outcome," tweeted Ryan Saavedra of the Daily Wire.

"Same energy," Republican National Committee director of strategic communications Gates McGavick tweeted.

\u201cSame energy\u201d
— Gates McGavick (@Gates McGavick) 1658921861

"Stacey Abrams just pulled a Hillary Clinton lol. I'm dead," someone else tweeted.

\u201cStacey Abrams just pulled a Hillary Clinton lol. I'm dead \ud83d\ude02\u201d
— Jessica \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@Jessica \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8) 1658890261

Commenting about Abrams' meme, X Strategies digital strategist Logan Hall tweeted, "hillary 2.0."

"I am literally begging Democrats to stop posting childhood pictures of themselves with 'future [political office that they’re seeking]' captions. It will always end badly," tweeted Abigail Marone, press secretary for GOP Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri.

\u201cI am literally begging Democrats to stop posting childhood pictures of themselves with \u201cfuture [political office that they\u2019re seeking]\u201d captions. It will always end badly.\u201d
— Abigail Marone \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@Abigail Marone \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8) 1658890312

Abrams included the phrase "A few facts" on the social media posts, and also shared several other memes. One photo featured Abrams holding a gay pride flag in one hand and a transgender flag in the other — text on the photo read, "Little Miss One Georgia For All." Another picture of Abrams included text that said, "Little Miss Yale Trained Tax Attorney."

Abrams previously lost the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election to Brian Kemp. Clinton backed Abrams in 2018 and has expressed support for Abrams during this election cycle as well. "I'm with @StaceyAbrams. Are you?" Clinton tweeted last year.

\u201cI\u2019m with @StaceyAbrams. Are you?\u201d
— Hillary Clinton (@Hillary Clinton) 1638398105

'Trans women are women': Comically, the Women's March is all in on radical leftist gender ideology



The Women's March claims that the word "women" includes transgender women.

A transgender woman is a biological man who identifies as a woman.

"We got some transphobes BIG mad the other day so let us spell it out for you: 'Women' is a term that encompasses cis & trans women. When we talk about 'people who can give birth,' it's because those people aren't all women! They're girls, trans men, & non-binary ppl," Women's March tweeted on Tuesday.

\u201cSome of y'all really struggle with the concept of "assigned sex\u201d vs "gender identity" and it shows!!\u201d
— Women's March (@Women's March) 1658849743

"Some of y'all really struggle with the concept of 'assigned sex' vs 'gender identity' and it shows!!" the group added. "Women's March is committed to creating equality for women & a feminist future for all. We fight for rights that primarily (but not exclusively!) impact women. We fight for a world where ALL women are safe from gender-based violence, discrimination, and hate."

The Women's March received significant pushback after it declared in a tweet last week that "Trans women are women."

"The point of tweets like this is to demoralize actual feminists, so that we stop fighting for women and girls. Don't let it demoralize you," Abigail Shrier tweeted last week in response to the Women's March's claim.

\u201cThe point of tweets like this is to demoralize actual feminists, so that we stop fighting for women and girls. \n\nDon\u2019t let it demoralize you.\u201d
— Abigail Shrier (@Abigail Shrier) 1658434760

"Misinformation," Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon tweeted.

"No they aren't. There are massive differences between women and trans women. We can be respectful to trans people while not abandoning reality," Megyn Kelly tweeted.

"If the point of this slogan is to reject treating 'trans women' and 'women' as separate or distinct categories of people, then the slogan undermines itself, because it refers to them as separate categories... thus implying some distinction. Otherwise they'd say 'women are women'" Michael Tracey commented.

\u201cIf the point of this slogan is to reject treating "trans women" and "women" as separate or distinct categories of people, then the slogan undermines itself, because it refers to them as separate categories... thus implying some distinction. Otherwise they'd say "women are women"\u201d
— Michael Tracey (@Michael Tracey) 1658474612

The Women's March's tweets reflect the dogmas of radical leftist gender ideology.

Vice President Kamala Harris did her part to promote the ideology this week by announcing her pronouns at the beginning of a roundtable event.

Amazon deplatforms book on transgenderism by conservative author without explanation



Amazon's web store has removed a best-selling book by a conservative author on the science and politics of transgenderism without notifying the author or giving him a reason why the book was deplatformed.

Ethics & Public Policy Center President Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., on Sunday discovered that his book, "When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment" had been removed from Amazon's online store.

The book, which was an Amazon and Washington Post best-seller, surveys the debate on gender dysphoria, sex reassignment surgeries, and anti-discrimination law and considers biology, psychology, and philosophy to address what the public policy response should be for individuals who struggle to accept their bodies.

Anderson told TheBlaze that Amazon did not provide him with notice or an explanation for why his book was made unavailable to purchase. He only found out after people attempting to buy the book told him the listings on Amazon were taken down. Customers cannot purchase a used copy, the Kindle edition, or even the Audible version of Anderson's book.

I hope you’ve already bought your copy, cause Amazon just removed my book “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to t… https://t.co/Mr35GE61oS
— Ryan T. Anderson (@Ryan T. Anderson)1613939645.0
While you can’t buy the book on Amazon, you can still get it (for now?) at Barnes and Noble. Given the aggressive p… https://t.co/QkuuyEusV4
— Ryan T. Anderson (@Ryan T. Anderson)1613941172.0

"When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment was released exactly three years ago (Feb 20, 2018 to be precise). It was attacked twice on the New York Times op-ed page. The Washington Post ran a hit piece on it that they then had to entirely rewrite to fix all their errors. It was obvious the critics hadn't read the book," Anderson said. "People who have actually read my book discovered that it was a thoughtful and accessible presentation of the state of the scientific, medical, philosophical and legal debates. Yes, it advances an argument from a certain viewpoint. No, it didn't get any facts wrong, and it didn't engage in any name-calling."

He noted that his book received widespread praise from various medical and psychology academics and professionals.

"It was praised by a who's who of experts: the former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, a longtime psychology professor at NYU, a professor of medical ethics at Columbia Medical School, a professor of psychological and brain sciences at Boston University, a professor of neurobiology at the University of Utah, a distinguished professor at Harvard Law School, an eminent legal philosopher at Oxford, and a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton," said Anderson.

"None of that matters. It's not about how you say it, it's not about how rigorously you argue it, it's not about how charitably you present it. It's about whether you dissent from a new orthodoxy. Three years after publication, in the very same week that the House of Representatives is going to ram through a radical transgender bill amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Amazon erases my book opposing gender ideology from their cyber shelves. Make no mistake, both Big Government and Big Tech can undermine human dignity and liberty, human flourishing and the common good."

Anderson said that his publisher had contacted Amazon but had not yet received an explanation for why the book was deplatformed.

The timing of Amazon’s disappearing of my transgender book is, uh, timely... My op-ed in today’s @nypost is on the… https://t.co/elqpyAdV3O
— Ryan T. Anderson (@Ryan T. Anderson)1613996492.0

TheBlaze also reached out to Amazon, but comment for this article was not made available prior to publication.

Amazon was widely criticized by conservatives on social media for deplatforming the book.

Amazon accounts for over 83% of books sold in the US. When @amazon decides to stop selling a best-selling book, it… https://t.co/4mhOyB3qa9
— Abigail Shrier (@Abigail Shrier)1613942169.0
Hey @JeffBezos, why will you let Americans read Hitler on his Kampf, but not let us read @RyanTAnd on gender ideolo… https://t.co/cf9qsNhjP1
— Rod Dreher (@Rod Dreher)1613943245.0
This is ridiculous. @amazon please fix this error and restore @RyanTAnd’s book immediately. Unless this was intenti… https://t.co/6ftH01CNJ6
— Lila Rose (@Lila Rose)1613947651.0
I am transgender and this book is enlightening, thoughtful and well-researched. It provides necessary and important… https://t.co/203UuIIxOC
— Chad Felix Greene (@Chad Felix Greene)1613950082.0
Bear in mind Amazon has approaching 50% of the entire ecommerce market. One out of five books sold is a Kindle book… https://t.co/LNN0hSNHY7
— Mark Hemingway (@Mark Hemingway)1614002728.0
Some mid-level censor at Amazon appears to be conducting an experiment in what they can get away with:https://t.co/uQTf8XIxbr
— Ross Douthat (@Ross Douthat)1614002207.0
Progressive corporations banning books seems bad. https://t.co/UUOYEJN4Yo
— J.D. Vance (@J.D. Vance)1613952102.0

Amy Coney Barrett invokes Ginsburg rule, refuses to answer questions on specific court cases



Judge Amy Coney Barrett followed in the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's footsteps Tuesday during the second round of her confirmation hearings, refusing to answer questions from senators about how she would rule on particular cases that may come before the Supreme Court.

Barrett faced questions from Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats on abortion and Roe v. Wade, pending court cases on the Affordable Care Act, and hypothetical scenarios about the election being resolved by the Supreme Court. In each answer, Barrett reiterated her position that it would be inappropriate to give her opinion about a specific case, citing Justices Ginsburg and Elena Kagan who gave similar answers during their confirmation hearings.

In one exchange with committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Roe v. Wade, Barrett said that expressing her personal opinion on that landmark abortion rights case would tell potential litigants "that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case."

"Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided?" Feinstein asked.

"Senator, I do want to be forthright and answer every question so far as I can," Barrett answered. "I think on that question, you know, I'm going to invoke Justice Kagan's description, which I think is perfectly put. When she was in her confirmation hearing, she said that she was not going to grade precedent, or give it a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. And I think that in an area where precedent continues to be pressed and litigated … it would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge."

"If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case," Barrett explained.

Barrett's answer is modeled after the so-called "Ginsburg rule," which was a standard established in the 1993 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Ginsburg by then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.). Biden asked that senators refrain from asking questions about "how [Ginsburg] will decide any specific case that may come before her." His rule established that Ginsburg had no obligation to answer questions about cases that might come before the Supreme Court or her personal views on court precedent.

As Ginsburg herself explained during her hearing, "a judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process."

The Ginsburg Rule: "A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not o… https://t.co/McIwDE0mE9
— Abigail Marone 🇺🇸 (@Abigail Marone 🇺🇸)1602599951.0

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Barrett if she agreed with Ginsburg's standard.

"Yes, I agree the Ginsburg rule reinforces judicial independence," Barrett replied.

Judge Barrett: “Yes, I agree the Ginsburg rule reinforces judicial independence”https://t.co/oArvVLgRyz https://t.co/3O6NZItsJY
— RNC Research (@RNC Research)1602600024.0

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) also cited the Ginsburg rule during his time to speak, responding to one of his Democratic colleagues who accused Barrett of using a "political talking point" by invoking Ginsburg and Kagan's precedential refusal to answer questions on specific cases.

"To the extent that that's what any colleague has suggested, I'd remind that colleague that's just wildly incorrect," Lee said.

Sen. Lee: " Justice Ginsburg did say it well.... A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecast, no hint… https://t.co/oEe9ltdaKr
— ForAmerica (@ForAmerica)1602603646.0

Barrett also repeatedly made clear that she has not made any promises or commitments to either the executive branch or the legislative branch about how she would rule on specific cases as a justice on the Supreme Court.

Judge Barrett: “I want to be very, very clear…I didn’t make any precommitments and was not asked to make any commit… https://t.co/i7ncyqQns9
— RNC Research (@RNC Research)1602600220.0

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) questioned Barrett on the Affordable Care Act and a hypothetical election dispute, inquiring as to whether Barrett would recuse herself if the election did come before the court.

WATCH: Sen. Patrick Leahy questions Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett youtu.be

"Sen. Leahy, I want to begin by making two very important points, and they have to do with the ACA and with any election dispute that may or may not arise," Barrett said. "I have had no conversation with the president or any of his staff on how I might rule in that case. It would be a gross violation of judicial independence for me to make any such commitment or for me to be asked about that case and how I would rule."

"I also think it would be a complete violation of the independence of the judiciary for anyone to put a justice on the court as a means of obtaining a particular result," she added.