Nothing beats foreigners telling you what you really think.
Former Texas Democratic Rep. [Bob] O'Rourke offered sweeping criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday, outright calling him "racist" and an obstacle to peace.
"That relationship, if it is to be successful, must transcend partisanship in the United States, and it must be able to transcend a prime minister who is racist,
Because he thinks that just maybe it's a good idea that the Jewish citizens of his country aren't indiscriminately slaughtered?
as he warns about Arabs coming to the polls, who wants to defy any prospect for peace as he threatens to annex the West Bank, and who has sided with a far-right, racist party in order to maintain his hold on power," O'Rourke said.
Or someone who has lived in Israel for most of his life, who lives there now and who sees things as they actually are a damned lot clearer than some leftist Texan who thinks in bumper stickers.
O'Rourke continued, saying he did not believe Netanyahu "represents the true will of the Israeli people" or the "best interests" of the relationship between the US and Israel. He went on to endorse a two-state solution to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Bob? The "true will" of the Israeli people is for their Muslim neighbors not to want to kill every Jew they possibly can. Until that happens, what say we let the Israelis decide how best to defend themselves and you sit this one out?
Airhead.
Monday, April 8, 2019
DONKEY BONG
I really don't think this idea is the winning issue the Democrats think it is. How on Earth do you think that those of us who got college degrees and then spent years and years and years paying off tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt are going to take it when students can suddenly go to college for free? Do you honestly believe that we're going to say, "Hey, that's just great for those kids. Gosh darn it, I'm voting Democratic?" Because I've got news for you morons. There isn't that much magnanimity in the entire universe and there never has been.
Sunday, April 7, 2019
CAUSE?
Meet Effect.
New York City restaurants are eliminating jobs, reducing employee hours and raising prices due to the higher costs of the $15-per-hour minimum wage.
A once-growing industry is contracting, according to an online survey conducted by the New York City Hospitality Alliance, an association representing restaurants in the city.
Last year, “full-service restaurants recorded a 1.6 percent job loss, which is the first recorded annual loss in two decades,” said Andrew Rigie, executive director of the trade group.
The survey also said about a third of respondents will eliminate jobs and most will raise prices this year because of the new $15-an-hour law backed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other state officials, which took effect on Dec. 31, 2018.
"Business costs?" asks local economic illiterate. "What the hell are business costs?"
The governor, through a spokeswoman, defended state policies: “All New Yorkers deserve to make a living wage and under the governor’s leadership, more minimum-wage workers than ever before have received an increase in their wages. The fact is that increasing the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of hardworking New Yorkers, which creates more demand for local businesses and increases economic activity.”
New York City restaurants are eliminating jobs, reducing employee hours and raising prices due to the higher costs of the $15-per-hour minimum wage.
A once-growing industry is contracting, according to an online survey conducted by the New York City Hospitality Alliance, an association representing restaurants in the city.
Last year, “full-service restaurants recorded a 1.6 percent job loss, which is the first recorded annual loss in two decades,” said Andrew Rigie, executive director of the trade group.
The survey also said about a third of respondents will eliminate jobs and most will raise prices this year because of the new $15-an-hour law backed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other state officials, which took effect on Dec. 31, 2018.
"Business costs?" asks local economic illiterate. "What the hell are business costs?"
The governor, through a spokeswoman, defended state policies: “All New Yorkers deserve to make a living wage and under the governor’s leadership, more minimum-wage workers than ever before have received an increase in their wages. The fact is that increasing the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of hardworking New Yorkers, which creates more demand for local businesses and increases economic activity.”
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THE MACY'S THANKSGIVING DAY PARADE
When you look like ropes need to be hanging from you, it's time to mix in a salad now and then.
Saturday, April 6, 2019
LORD?
Is there any chance that You could bring all this to a close any time soon?
Two women drugged themselves and their six ADOPTED children before intentionally killing the entire family by driving off a California cliff last year, a special coroner’s jury has ruled.
A jury of eight women and six men unanimously found Thursday that Jennifer and Sarah Hart, both 38, committed suicide and that their six children — ages 12 to 19 — died “at the hands of another, other than an accident” in the Mendocino County murder-suicide on March 26, 2018, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
The jury’s verdict came after eight investigators and one pathologist testified that the women took steps in advance to intentionally kill their entire family by driving off a 100-foot cliff along Highway 1 near Westport with their drugged children inside their 2003 GMC Yukon.
ME: Because I'm old and just playing out the string here, waiting to die. And I can't see how this world can possibly get any more depraved than incidents like this.
GOD: You might want to let Me hold your beer.
Two women drugged themselves and their six ADOPTED children before intentionally killing the entire family by driving off a California cliff last year, a special coroner’s jury has ruled.
A jury of eight women and six men unanimously found Thursday that Jennifer and Sarah Hart, both 38, committed suicide and that their six children — ages 12 to 19 — died “at the hands of another, other than an accident” in the Mendocino County murder-suicide on March 26, 2018, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
The jury’s verdict came after eight investigators and one pathologist testified that the women took steps in advance to intentionally kill their entire family by driving off a 100-foot cliff along Highway 1 near Westport with their drugged children inside their 2003 GMC Yukon.
ME: Because I'm old and just playing out the string here, waiting to die. And I can't see how this world can possibly get any more depraved than incidents like this.
GOD: You might want to let Me hold your beer.
Friday, April 5, 2019
FREEDOM FRIES
French woman wants the right to vote in American elections.
I was nine years old when I first seriously pondered the result of a US presidential election. It was 2000 and my father suggested we bet on who would win the 2000 vote – George W Bush or Al Gore. In the kitchen of our apartment in the Paris suburbs, I bet a piece of gum that it would be Gore. Two months later, the Supreme Court decided otherwise, and I didn’t realise until many years later how close I had come to being right.
Boy, that takes me back. I still remember all the international political discussions my family and I used to have just about every night when I was nine. We'd sit around for hours at a time arguing about whether the Progressive Conservatives could hold on to Alberta, whether the Tories would ever be competitive in Wales or Scotland, how that new conservative government in Italy would work out, things like that.
The single worst row my dad and I ever had was when I disagreed with his assertion that Germany's Christian Democrats would lose Baden-Württemberg big-time in some German state election or other. He and I loudly went at it hammer-and-tongs and when I turned out to be right, he didn't talk to me for about a month after that.
I'll take "Things That Never Happened" for $2000, Alex.
One election after the next, we have seen how much the results of the US presidential vote impact not just the 50 states, but the rest of the planet too. And if the future of foreign countries is shaped to a significant extent by what goes on on US Election Day, shouldn’t they get a say in who gets to lead the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years?
Unless you want to officially become a US citizen, I'll go with "HELLS NO!!"
Perhaps it helps to imagine America as the pot
A "melting pot?" No?
in which tomorrow’s ideas are brewed, for better or worse. Perhaps it helps, too, to look at the more tangible signs of how US politics contribute to shaping all of our lives. The most convincing example may be global warming, and Donald Trump’s overt skepticism when it comes to climate change.
It goes without saying that whatever the US does or does not do to limit the effects of global warming impacts every single being, human or otherwise, on this planet.
Perhaps it also helps to imagine those statements as yet another example of Europe expecting the US to do the heavy lifting, keep its mouth shut and enter the house only by the servants' entrance. Gosh, you bail a continent out of two world wars and this is the thanks you get.
Then comes the economy: in June last year, we were warned that tensions between the US and its main trading partners could precipitate global trade turmoil similar in scale to the 2008 financial crisis. Whoever gets to sit in the Oval Office, then, plays a major role in shaping the state of our wallets as well as the state of the planet. Is it really that outrageous that people around the world might want to have a say on who runs the show?
Uh...yeah? Is this a trick question?
I am, of course, aware that the US is extremely unlikely to go along with my idea.
If "extremely unlikely" means "snowball in Hell," good observation.
This isn’t a country that’s particularly known for avidly seeking external input.
Kind of why we're who we are and France is Monaco with delusions of believing that anybody still gives a crap what it thinks about anything.
And of course, there’s the idea that the right to vote is intrinsically tied to residence,
You spelled "citizenship" wrong.
and that those who don’t live in a given country aren’t qualified to make a call on what goes in said country.
Which you've pretty much proved.
Except things are more complicated, and more nuanced than that.
I thought they might be.
Take, for example, the idea that living in a country is a condition to having the right to vote there. Permanent residents such as myself, also known as green card holders (also known as people who aren’t US citizens but live and work in the US full-time) pay the same income tax as US citizens, but don’t get to vote.
What part of the concept of "citizenship" is tripping you up?
Naturally, US citizens (like citizens of many other countries) still get to vote for their president even if they permanently move to a different country. All this to say: there is an established disequilibrium between who gets to vote in the US presidential election and who arguably has the most skin in the game.
Napoleon sold us Louisiana, you know, so in a way, all this is kind of your own fault. If you'd kept all that land and all those natural resources west of the Mississippi, I'd have to tell people that I lived in Sawn LooEE and France might still amount to something. Damn Corsicans, amirite? So if you want to complain, go throw escargot all over Bonaparte's grave or something.
How would it work, then? If the US were to entertain the possibility of letting foreigners participate in the presidential vote (and again, I’m not holding my breath), how would we make it happen? Does each foreign country get the same weight as each of the 50 states? Surely, that would be giving too much weight to the outside world. Do we restrict the vote to member states of NATO and/or historical allies? This seems slightly more realistic – as realistic as it gets in this purely hypothetical scenario – but also somewhat unfair to those whose voices would be left out.
I have clearly disclosed my status as a French citizen, so I know the question will be raised: how would I react if someone proposed to let other countries vote in the French presidential election? Well, France is currently about five spots behind the US in the ranking of the world’s most powerful nations,
Who came up with those rankings? France Doesn't Suck Quarterly? White Flag Review?
and its GDP is more than seven times lower.
Ever stop and ask yourself why we matter and France doesn't?
But sure, should France ever have the kind of political and cultural influence the US currently yields, then I’d be inclined to let others have a say. In fact, I might even vote in favour of it.
The word is spelled "favor."
What if we start here? If the French want to vote in American elections, Paris has to give the US total veto power over French legislation as well as the power to change or discard any French laws it doesn't like, the power to establish French tax rates and what that revenue is spent on and the power to change the French constitution in any way Washington sees fit. And the same goes for any other country in the world that wants the same thing.
Deal? Thought not. But it's actually nice to know that even to many modern Europeans, Americans are still thought of as Europeans who couldn't make it in decent society.
I was nine years old when I first seriously pondered the result of a US presidential election. It was 2000 and my father suggested we bet on who would win the 2000 vote – George W Bush or Al Gore. In the kitchen of our apartment in the Paris suburbs, I bet a piece of gum that it would be Gore. Two months later, the Supreme Court decided otherwise, and I didn’t realise until many years later how close I had come to being right.
Boy, that takes me back. I still remember all the international political discussions my family and I used to have just about every night when I was nine. We'd sit around for hours at a time arguing about whether the Progressive Conservatives could hold on to Alberta, whether the Tories would ever be competitive in Wales or Scotland, how that new conservative government in Italy would work out, things like that.
The single worst row my dad and I ever had was when I disagreed with his assertion that Germany's Christian Democrats would lose Baden-Württemberg big-time in some German state election or other. He and I loudly went at it hammer-and-tongs and when I turned out to be right, he didn't talk to me for about a month after that.
I'll take "Things That Never Happened" for $2000, Alex.
One election after the next, we have seen how much the results of the US presidential vote impact not just the 50 states, but the rest of the planet too. And if the future of foreign countries is shaped to a significant extent by what goes on on US Election Day, shouldn’t they get a say in who gets to lead the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years?
Unless you want to officially become a US citizen, I'll go with "HELLS NO!!"
Perhaps it helps to imagine America as the pot
A "melting pot?" No?
in which tomorrow’s ideas are brewed, for better or worse. Perhaps it helps, too, to look at the more tangible signs of how US politics contribute to shaping all of our lives. The most convincing example may be global warming, and Donald Trump’s overt skepticism when it comes to climate change.
It goes without saying that whatever the US does or does not do to limit the effects of global warming impacts every single being, human or otherwise, on this planet.
Perhaps it also helps to imagine those statements as yet another example of Europe expecting the US to do the heavy lifting, keep its mouth shut and enter the house only by the servants' entrance. Gosh, you bail a continent out of two world wars and this is the thanks you get.
Then comes the economy: in June last year, we were warned that tensions between the US and its main trading partners could precipitate global trade turmoil similar in scale to the 2008 financial crisis. Whoever gets to sit in the Oval Office, then, plays a major role in shaping the state of our wallets as well as the state of the planet. Is it really that outrageous that people around the world might want to have a say on who runs the show?
Uh...yeah? Is this a trick question?
I am, of course, aware that the US is extremely unlikely to go along with my idea.
If "extremely unlikely" means "snowball in Hell," good observation.
This isn’t a country that’s particularly known for avidly seeking external input.
Kind of why we're who we are and France is Monaco with delusions of believing that anybody still gives a crap what it thinks about anything.
And of course, there’s the idea that the right to vote is intrinsically tied to residence,
You spelled "citizenship" wrong.
and that those who don’t live in a given country aren’t qualified to make a call on what goes in said country.
Which you've pretty much proved.
Except things are more complicated, and more nuanced than that.
I thought they might be.
Take, for example, the idea that living in a country is a condition to having the right to vote there. Permanent residents such as myself, also known as green card holders (also known as people who aren’t US citizens but live and work in the US full-time) pay the same income tax as US citizens, but don’t get to vote.
What part of the concept of "citizenship" is tripping you up?
Naturally, US citizens (like citizens of many other countries) still get to vote for their president even if they permanently move to a different country. All this to say: there is an established disequilibrium between who gets to vote in the US presidential election and who arguably has the most skin in the game.
Napoleon sold us Louisiana, you know, so in a way, all this is kind of your own fault. If you'd kept all that land and all those natural resources west of the Mississippi, I'd have to tell people that I lived in Sawn LooEE and France might still amount to something. Damn Corsicans, amirite? So if you want to complain, go throw escargot all over Bonaparte's grave or something.
How would it work, then? If the US were to entertain the possibility of letting foreigners participate in the presidential vote (and again, I’m not holding my breath), how would we make it happen? Does each foreign country get the same weight as each of the 50 states? Surely, that would be giving too much weight to the outside world. Do we restrict the vote to member states of NATO and/or historical allies? This seems slightly more realistic – as realistic as it gets in this purely hypothetical scenario – but also somewhat unfair to those whose voices would be left out.
I have clearly disclosed my status as a French citizen, so I know the question will be raised: how would I react if someone proposed to let other countries vote in the French presidential election? Well, France is currently about five spots behind the US in the ranking of the world’s most powerful nations,
Who came up with those rankings? France Doesn't Suck Quarterly? White Flag Review?
and its GDP is more than seven times lower.
Ever stop and ask yourself why we matter and France doesn't?
But sure, should France ever have the kind of political and cultural influence the US currently yields, then I’d be inclined to let others have a say. In fact, I might even vote in favour of it.
The word is spelled "favor."
What if we start here? If the French want to vote in American elections, Paris has to give the US total veto power over French legislation as well as the power to change or discard any French laws it doesn't like, the power to establish French tax rates and what that revenue is spent on and the power to change the French constitution in any way Washington sees fit. And the same goes for any other country in the world that wants the same thing.
Deal? Thought not. But it's actually nice to know that even to many modern Europeans, Americans are still thought of as Europeans who couldn't make it in decent society.
JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI?
It may save you a lot of trouble down the road if you start picking out sites for the refugee camps right now. Because Illinois is SCREWED.
A union lobbyist who worked just one day as a substitute teacher is entitled to a pension worth potentially tens of thousands of dollars annually, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday in an opinion reinforcing its position that retirement benefits promised to public workers can’t be “diminished or impaired.”
David Piccioli was a lobbyist for the Illinois Federation of Teachers from 1997 to 2012. A 2007 law allowed officers of the IFT and the Illinois Education Association to receive teachers’ pensions for service in the union by qualifying for a teacher’s certificate, working in a classroom and paying past-owed employee contributions with interest.
Piccioli earned a certificate, worked as a substitute teacher in a Springfield elementary school for one day in January 2007, and paid $193,000 to TRS for contributions he owed for the previous 10 years, qualifying him for the pension
Justice Anne Burke, writing for the majority, said the fact that the General Assembly reversed the law in 2012 following reports by the Chicago Tribune and WGN-TV is immaterial. The constitution bars action that would cause established pensions to be “diminished or impaired” and Piccioli followed the law as it stood.
Piccioli said Thursday he was uncertain how much the additional TRS pension would be. He already receives a $35,436 TRS pension for work after his certification. In 2017, when a Sangamon County circuit judge declared the prior-service pension unconstitutional, Piccioli estimated it was worth about $36,000 annually. He also receives a $33,780 annual pension for 10 years’ work on the Illinois House staff.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker has proposed raising extra money for pensions by borrowing, selling state assets, and using additional revenue from a progressive tax system which would require a constitutional amendment. Even then, he wants to stretch the payoff date to 2052.
Fat man? You do realize that you're on your own here, right? Whenever Illinois finally goes belly-up, don't expect any of the rest of us to care. And whatever you do, don't expect federal help; none of the rest of us will ever agree to pony up to bail your lazy asses out and any non-Illinois politician who does should make sure that his or her resume is up-to-date.
This is all on you, Springfield. You made this bed; lie in it.
A union lobbyist who worked just one day as a substitute teacher is entitled to a pension worth potentially tens of thousands of dollars annually, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday in an opinion reinforcing its position that retirement benefits promised to public workers can’t be “diminished or impaired.”
David Piccioli was a lobbyist for the Illinois Federation of Teachers from 1997 to 2012. A 2007 law allowed officers of the IFT and the Illinois Education Association to receive teachers’ pensions for service in the union by qualifying for a teacher’s certificate, working in a classroom and paying past-owed employee contributions with interest.
Piccioli earned a certificate, worked as a substitute teacher in a Springfield elementary school for one day in January 2007, and paid $193,000 to TRS for contributions he owed for the previous 10 years, qualifying him for the pension
Justice Anne Burke, writing for the majority, said the fact that the General Assembly reversed the law in 2012 following reports by the Chicago Tribune and WGN-TV is immaterial. The constitution bars action that would cause established pensions to be “diminished or impaired” and Piccioli followed the law as it stood.
Piccioli said Thursday he was uncertain how much the additional TRS pension would be. He already receives a $35,436 TRS pension for work after his certification. In 2017, when a Sangamon County circuit judge declared the prior-service pension unconstitutional, Piccioli estimated it was worth about $36,000 annually. He also receives a $33,780 annual pension for 10 years’ work on the Illinois House staff.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker has proposed raising extra money for pensions by borrowing, selling state assets, and using additional revenue from a progressive tax system which would require a constitutional amendment. Even then, he wants to stretch the payoff date to 2052.
Fat man? You do realize that you're on your own here, right? Whenever Illinois finally goes belly-up, don't expect any of the rest of us to care. And whatever you do, don't expect federal help; none of the rest of us will ever agree to pony up to bail your lazy asses out and any non-Illinois politician who does should make sure that his or her resume is up-to-date.
This is all on you, Springfield. You made this bed; lie in it.
Thursday, April 4, 2019
THE BANGALOREAN CANDIDATE
Indian-born Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) enthusiastically supports a proposed piece of legislation in the Congress.
The federal government must regulate behavior by 330 million Americans to protect the freedom of transgender people, says progressive Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Why is that?
“My beautiful, now 22-year-old child told me last year that they were gender nonconforming,” she tearfully said Tuesday. She described how her son claims to be neither male nor female.
Did you catch it? As Daffy Duck once said, "Pronoun trouble." But what needs to be done?
Jayapal’s demand and her tearful celebration for her adult son’s “freedom” came during a hearing about H.R. 5, the Democrat-drafted bill that would require federal agencies to pressure Americans into agreeing that men and women can change their sex by declaring an opposite-sex “gender identity.”
This bill is not a stretch for Indian-born Jayapal, because she is a progressive who favors top-down direction of Americans’ economy, civic life, culture, and population. For example, she justifies this demand for government authority over sexual identity with a claim that progressives can maximize people’s freedom by imposing intensive regulation on thoughts and words.
I don't know if Jayapal is an Episcopalian or not but she sure sounds like one.
Like other progressives at the hearing, Jayapal paired her support for government-controlled culture with her dismissal of Americans’ evolved culture of self-government and local autonomy. For example, Jayapal dismissed objections to the transgender ideology as mere fear. “We are talking about fear versus love; we are talking about fear versus freedom,” she said.
And I hope a lot of leftists realize what is at stake.
But the Democrats’ legislation would force all women to submit whenever men claimed the legal right to take women’s places in sports and showers, in shelters, scholarships, and business set-asides; in culture, commerce, and language, such as in the use of male or female pronouns.
Didn't make the boys basketball team or track team? Change your "gender identity."
The biological differences between the sexes remain scientific and certain … H.R. 5 nullifies “women and girls as a coherent legal category worthy of civil rights protection.” The bill privileges the rights of men who identify as women over biological women and girls … Allowing men to compete against women in women’s sports isn’t demoralizing because female athletes … aren’t talented; it’s demoralizing because it makes their talent irrelevant. Martina Navratilova explained the threat H.R. 5 poses to women’s sports: “Unless you want to completely remake what Women’s Sports means, there can be no blanket inclusion rule. There is nothing stereotypical about this – it’s about fairness and it’s about science.”
Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert highlighted data which shows how males have a huge advantage over females in sports. Top-ranked “women would lose to literally thousands of boys and men,” and also lose athletic scholarships if men change their sex, he said.
Arizona GOP Rep. Debra Lesko said the Democrats’ legislation would “prioritize the rights of biological males over biological women."
You'll never guess who else isn't crazy about this idea.
Collins also invited Julia Beck, a left-wing lesbian, to present the shared argument that men and women need to maintain single-sex civic options to help them make the best of their physical bodies in relationships, competition, work, recreation, and sports. Beck describes herself as a “radical lesbian feminist,” and is a former co-chair of the Baltimore City Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Commission, a civic advisory group. She said:
"Female survivors of rape will be unable to contest male presence in shelters. Men will dominate women’s sports. Girls who would have taken first place will be denied scholastic opportunity. Women who use male pronouns to talk about men may be arrested, fined, and banned from social media platforms. Girls will stay home from school when they have their periods to avoid harassment by boys in mixed-sex toilets. Girls and women will no longer have a right to ask for female medical staff or intimate care providers, including elderly or disabled women, who are at serious risk for sexual abuse …
So we're switching it to LGBQ now?
Everything I just listed is already happening, and it’s only going to get worse if gender identity is recognized in federal law. I urge my fellow Democrats to wake up. Please acknowledge biological reality."
Even Sully thinks this is a horrible idea.
This “biology matters” argument is being made by Andrew Sullivan, a British-born gay advocate who led the political push to allow single-sex marriages. In a February article titled “The Nature of Sex,” Sullivan argues that a pending Democratic-drafted bill which provides legal recognition and rights to people who try to live as members of the opposite sex:
"…could put all single-sex institutions, events, or groups in legal jeopardy. It could deny lesbians their own unique safe space, free from any trace of men. The bill, in other words, 'undermines the fundamental legal groundwork for recognizing and combating sex-based oppression and sex discrimination against women and girls.
If you abandon biology in the matter of sex and gender altogether, you may help trans people live fuller, less conflicted lives; but you also undermine the very meaning of homosexuality. If you follow the current ideology of gender as entirely fluid, you actually subvert and undermine core arguments in defense of gay rights. 'A gay man loves and desires other men, and a lesbian desires and loves other women,' explains Sky Gilbert, a drag queen. 'This defines the existential state of being gay. If there is no such thing as ‘male’ or ‘female,’ the entire self-definition of gay identity, which we have spent generations seeking to validate and protect from bigots, collapses.' Contemporary transgender ideology is not a complement to gay rights; in some ways it is in active opposition to them."
I'm pretty sure that this idiotic proposal will never see the light of day although considering modern Democratic ultra-radicalism, you never want to say never. But if it does, Rep. Jayapal will have made a major contribution to making her adopted country a one-party state.
And that party won't be hers.
UPDATE: Make yourself some popcorn, pull up a chair and watch the Democratic Party fly apart. Seems the Democratic Radicleft thinks this is a winning issue.
The federal government must regulate behavior by 330 million Americans to protect the freedom of transgender people, says progressive Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Why is that?
“My beautiful, now 22-year-old child told me last year that they were gender nonconforming,” she tearfully said Tuesday. She described how her son claims to be neither male nor female.
Did you catch it? As Daffy Duck once said, "Pronoun trouble." But what needs to be done?
Jayapal’s demand and her tearful celebration for her adult son’s “freedom” came during a hearing about H.R. 5, the Democrat-drafted bill that would require federal agencies to pressure Americans into agreeing that men and women can change their sex by declaring an opposite-sex “gender identity.”
This bill is not a stretch for Indian-born Jayapal, because she is a progressive who favors top-down direction of Americans’ economy, civic life, culture, and population. For example, she justifies this demand for government authority over sexual identity with a claim that progressives can maximize people’s freedom by imposing intensive regulation on thoughts and words.
I don't know if Jayapal is an Episcopalian or not but she sure sounds like one.
Like other progressives at the hearing, Jayapal paired her support for government-controlled culture with her dismissal of Americans’ evolved culture of self-government and local autonomy. For example, Jayapal dismissed objections to the transgender ideology as mere fear. “We are talking about fear versus love; we are talking about fear versus freedom,” she said.
And I hope a lot of leftists realize what is at stake.
But the Democrats’ legislation would force all women to submit whenever men claimed the legal right to take women’s places in sports and showers, in shelters, scholarships, and business set-asides; in culture, commerce, and language, such as in the use of male or female pronouns.
Didn't make the boys basketball team or track team? Change your "gender identity."
The biological differences between the sexes remain scientific and certain … H.R. 5 nullifies “women and girls as a coherent legal category worthy of civil rights protection.” The bill privileges the rights of men who identify as women over biological women and girls … Allowing men to compete against women in women’s sports isn’t demoralizing because female athletes … aren’t talented; it’s demoralizing because it makes their talent irrelevant. Martina Navratilova explained the threat H.R. 5 poses to women’s sports: “Unless you want to completely remake what Women’s Sports means, there can be no blanket inclusion rule. There is nothing stereotypical about this – it’s about fairness and it’s about science.”
Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert highlighted data which shows how males have a huge advantage over females in sports. Top-ranked “women would lose to literally thousands of boys and men,” and also lose athletic scholarships if men change their sex, he said.
Arizona GOP Rep. Debra Lesko said the Democrats’ legislation would “prioritize the rights of biological males over biological women."
You'll never guess who else isn't crazy about this idea.
Collins also invited Julia Beck, a left-wing lesbian, to present the shared argument that men and women need to maintain single-sex civic options to help them make the best of their physical bodies in relationships, competition, work, recreation, and sports. Beck describes herself as a “radical lesbian feminist,” and is a former co-chair of the Baltimore City Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Commission, a civic advisory group. She said:
"Female survivors of rape will be unable to contest male presence in shelters. Men will dominate women’s sports. Girls who would have taken first place will be denied scholastic opportunity. Women who use male pronouns to talk about men may be arrested, fined, and banned from social media platforms. Girls will stay home from school when they have their periods to avoid harassment by boys in mixed-sex toilets. Girls and women will no longer have a right to ask for female medical staff or intimate care providers, including elderly or disabled women, who are at serious risk for sexual abuse …
So we're switching it to LGBQ now?
Everything I just listed is already happening, and it’s only going to get worse if gender identity is recognized in federal law. I urge my fellow Democrats to wake up. Please acknowledge biological reality."
Even Sully thinks this is a horrible idea.
This “biology matters” argument is being made by Andrew Sullivan, a British-born gay advocate who led the political push to allow single-sex marriages. In a February article titled “The Nature of Sex,” Sullivan argues that a pending Democratic-drafted bill which provides legal recognition and rights to people who try to live as members of the opposite sex:
"…could put all single-sex institutions, events, or groups in legal jeopardy. It could deny lesbians their own unique safe space, free from any trace of men. The bill, in other words, 'undermines the fundamental legal groundwork for recognizing and combating sex-based oppression and sex discrimination against women and girls.
If you abandon biology in the matter of sex and gender altogether, you may help trans people live fuller, less conflicted lives; but you also undermine the very meaning of homosexuality. If you follow the current ideology of gender as entirely fluid, you actually subvert and undermine core arguments in defense of gay rights. 'A gay man loves and desires other men, and a lesbian desires and loves other women,' explains Sky Gilbert, a drag queen. 'This defines the existential state of being gay. If there is no such thing as ‘male’ or ‘female,’ the entire self-definition of gay identity, which we have spent generations seeking to validate and protect from bigots, collapses.' Contemporary transgender ideology is not a complement to gay rights; in some ways it is in active opposition to them."
I'm pretty sure that this idiotic proposal will never see the light of day although considering modern Democratic ultra-radicalism, you never want to say never. But if it does, Rep. Jayapal will have made a major contribution to making her adopted country a one-party state.
And that party won't be hers.
UPDATE: Make yourself some popcorn, pull up a chair and watch the Democratic Party fly apart. Seems the Democratic Radicleft thinks this is a winning issue.
REMINDER
At Aretha Franklin's memorial service, Bill Clinton didn't mind sharing a stage with this tool. Barack Obama was photographed with him more than once and there isn't a radical Democrat anywhere in the country who would turn down a similar photo-op with the blithering idiot.
Monday, April 1, 2019
EPISCOPALIANIZATION
Why I'm not a Roman Catholic and why I can never be one. Francis is a joke.
Pope Francis and Morocco’s King Mohammed VI called on Saturday for the protection of Jerusalem’s multi-religious character, saying the city’s sacred sites must be accessible to worshippers of all faiths.
In a joint appeal signed on the first day of Francis’ visit to Rabat, the pope and the monarch said they were “deeply concerned for its spiritual significance and its special vocation as a city of peace”.
“We consider it important to preserve the Holy City of Jerusalem / Al-Quds Acharif as the common patrimony of humanity and especially for the followers of the three monotheistic religions, as a place of encounter and as a symbol of peaceful coexistence, where mutual respect and dialogue can be cultivated,” said the joint appeal, using the Arab name for Jerusalem.
It called for “full freedom of access” for Jews, Muslims and Christians and a guarantee of their right to worship there.
Guess what, Holiness. They have it.
Right now.
The mere fact that Israel has Christian residents at all is, considering our mutual history, one of the greatest miracles ever. But if what you actually mean, and I suspect that you do, is that we want freedom of access and worship THAT'S NOT CONTROLLED BY THE JEWS, that's not ever going to happen again.
Nor should it.
You had your chance.
Shut up and sit this one out until Jesus returns.
UPDATE: Yup.
Pope Francis and Morocco’s King Mohammed VI called on Saturday for the protection of Jerusalem’s multi-religious character, saying the city’s sacred sites must be accessible to worshippers of all faiths.
In a joint appeal signed on the first day of Francis’ visit to Rabat, the pope and the monarch said they were “deeply concerned for its spiritual significance and its special vocation as a city of peace”.
“We consider it important to preserve the Holy City of Jerusalem / Al-Quds Acharif as the common patrimony of humanity and especially for the followers of the three monotheistic religions, as a place of encounter and as a symbol of peaceful coexistence, where mutual respect and dialogue can be cultivated,” said the joint appeal, using the Arab name for Jerusalem.
It called for “full freedom of access” for Jews, Muslims and Christians and a guarantee of their right to worship there.
Guess what, Holiness. They have it.
Right now.
The mere fact that Israel has Christian residents at all is, considering our mutual history, one of the greatest miracles ever. But if what you actually mean, and I suspect that you do, is that we want freedom of access and worship THAT'S NOT CONTROLLED BY THE JEWS, that's not ever going to happen again.
Nor should it.
You had your chance.
Shut up and sit this one out until Jesus returns.
UPDATE: Yup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)