Thursday, December 20, 2018
Even as Theresa May stood in front of the nation and lied about the abject surrender to EU bullying that she is trying to see to British voters as a good deal when it will mean surrendering our sovereignty and lawmaking powers to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, it looks as if the EU itself is … Continue reading
Monday, December 17, 2018
If you rely on fake news services like the BBC, ITN/Sky and the traditional newspapers for news you will probably have believed the Gilet's Jaunes protests against the elitist government of Emmanuel Macron are dying down. With unrest stirring in Britan over the Brexit shambles, the government and government - friendly news media are desperate to reinforce the message, "If you challenge authority, you will be crushed.
This the weekends news bulletins showed Marcron's paramilitary thugs, The Gendarmerie, driving protesors including bare breasted women dressed as Marianne, Goddess of Liberty, off the streets. In truth there were smaller numbers on the streets in central Paris this week because the government had closed many routes into the city and the railways were on strike. This blog and our twin, The Daily Stirrer, focused on protests in provincial cities, Toulouse, bordeaux, Lyon and Marseilles but we missed the best news of the week for lovers of liberty and enemies of authoritarianism.
Live leaks had this:
French farmers dump hundreds of tonnes of manure on the streets and spray city building with slurry in day of protest (video). It is well known of course that when the French farmers turn against their government, that government is finished. They may hold on to power for a while, but they can forget any ideas about getting their programme through.
As unofficial reports claim it was pig slurry the farmers sprayed, let's hope they gave the Muslim ghettoes where French women are afraid to go out alone, a good soaking.
'Yellow Vests' Protests Becoming A Revolution - 10th Weekend of Civil Unrest in France
Yellow vest demonstrators gathered in the French capital on Saturday for the 10th consecutive weekend of anti-government protests titled "Act 10". Protesters filled the streets of Paris and other cities in France, with thousands of police standing guard. Earlier, President Emmanuel Macron launched his “national debates” on the crisis.
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Ironinc isn't it. Until the war monger Obama arrived on the top flight of American politics, Democrats were known as the anti - war all-join-hands-and-sing-kumbaya party ...
from Hot Air
Since Donald Trump succeeded Barack Obama as president in 2017, he has drawn the ire of Democrats for his aggressive actions to reverse U.S. foreign policy on several fronts. Trump’s “America First” approach to foreign policy has led to the withdrawal of the U.S. from multinational agreements signed during Obama’s presidency and has caused conflict with other nations over trade and other issues. A November Gallup poll finds Democrats nearly unanimous (92%) in their disapproval of Trump’s handling of foreign affairs.
Republicans, who have a much more positive view (85% approval) in this month’s poll of Trump’s handling of foreign affairs, are slightly more likely now (79%) than in 2010 (73%) to say the U.S. should be the leading nation in world affairs, while support for the idea among independents has stayed about the same.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
US President Donald Trump has warned Britain “may not be able to trade with the US” because of Theresa May’s Brexit deal in comments that could torpedo her hopes of winning Parliament’s backing.
Mr Trump said the agreement Mrs May reached with Brussels on Sunday “sounds like a great deal for the EU” as he urged the Prime Minister to think again.
The President’s intervention flies in the face of Mrs May’s claims that Britain will be able to strike free trade deals around the world after Brexit despite her concessions to the EU.
The timing could hardly have been worse for Mrs May, coming after she had spent hours in the Commons trying to convince MPs that her deal was the right one for Britain.
It hands her critics a powerful weapon as she begins a two-week election-style campaign to sell her deal to the public and save her premiership.
Love him or hate him, (and I'm indifferent,) Trump is right. Theresa May keeps talking aout 'after Brexit,' but her deal does not deliver Brexit, it simply moves the most contentious isues, fishing waters, the Irish border and Gibraltar out of the picture until after (appropriately) April 1, 2019. We cease to be members of the EU on Friday 29 March and on Monday 1 April we open for business as an EU vassal state.
And a vassal state we will continue to be until those three issues are resolved on terms the EU is willing to accept (i.e. total surrender.)
And if one reads the current draft agreement that parliament must vote on, as a vassal state we can't even fart without the EU's permission, let alone make bilateral trade deals.
Having said that, nobody should build up hopes of a favourable trade deal with the USA, nations that make "fair and equitable" trade deals with the US government generally find themselves holding the brown, smelly end of the stick.
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
One of the long running but most ludicrous stories to dominate mainstream media in the USA has been the investigation, inspired by the campaign team of defeated presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, of alleged collusion between the camaign of victorious candidate Donald Trump and the Russian government to rob Mrs. Clinton of the presidency. In parallel with that but reported with far less diligence by liberal dominated mainstream media has been the violations of state security laws by Mrs Clinton when she was secretary of State. Not only are these charges sibstantiated, it is know that the State Department and Department of Justice collaborated with the FBI, CIA and courts to protect Clinton and her associates from investigation.
But things seem to be changing.
According to a report by the Dallas Observer last November, the Clinton Foundation has been under investigation by the IRS since July, 2016.
Meadows says that it's time for Huber to update Congress concerning his findings, and "expects him to be one of the witnesses at the hearing," per The Hill. Additionally Meadows said that his committee is trying to secure testimonies from whistleblowers who can provide more information about potential wrongdoing surrounding the Clinton Foundation.
"We’re just now starting to work with a couple of whistleblowers that would indicate that there is a great probability, of significant improper activity that’s happening in and around the Clinton Foundation," he added.
The Clinton Foundation - also under FBI investigation out of the Arkansas field office, has denied any wrongdoing.
Launched in January, the Arkansas FBI probe, is focused on pay-for-play schemes and tax code violations, according to The Hill at the time, citing law enforcement officials and a witness who wishes to remain anonymous.
The Clinton Foundation saw contributions dry up approximately 90% over a three-year period between 2014 and 2017, according to financial statements.
The global charity is currently under investigation by the DOJ, FBI and IRS for a variety of allegations - including whether favors were handed out while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, also known as "pay for play."
The Clinton-led State Department authorized $151 billion in Pentagon-brokered deals to 16 countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation - a 145% increase in completed sales to those nations ove teh same time frame during the Bush administration, according to IBTimes.
American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012. -IBTimes
Monday, November 19, 2018
The Wire is simply a metaphor for the transmission of information. The Wire takes many forms. And if you aren’t sure whether something is The Wire just ask if you have control over it or not.
The Internet? The Wire.
Electricity? The Wire
Roads? The Wire.
Media? The Wire.
Money? The Wire.
In short, The Wire is the main conduit through which we communicate with each other.
Money? Really? Yes, really. What are prices if not information about what we are willing to part with our money in exchange for? And the push to dump banknotes and coins and move to a cashless society. A ploy for greater control, that's all. Cashless will mean every financial transaction with be tracked and recoded via, you guessed it, The Wire.
Without The Wire modern society fails. So, government can’t shut it down but neither can it allow unconstrained access to it. In other words we have been duped into handing control of our lives to the people who control The Wire. And they're not nice people.
Electricity, commerce, communications, entertainment, everything, goes over The Wire.
This isn’t a radical concept but like all important ideas, once it is presented to you you can’t unsee it.
But, identifying The Wire isn’t the important thing. What’s important is knowing who controls The Wire and what they are willing to do to maintain that control.
If you look at the lists above you will see massive government intervention into these markets. They need control of them to maintain the illusion they have control over you.
They sell you on the idea that speech, speed, education, commerce, defense, information, etc. all need to have sensible limits placed on them. But do they really or is this just yet another example of some control freak bureaucrat expanding his or her empire?
Look around you today and tell me what all the fighting is about. Geopolitics, domestic policy, censorship, money, advertising, ideologies, etc. They are all about the existential threat posed by a loss of control of The Wire.
Monday, November 12, 2018
Mainstream media and left wing politicians like to show how they are up with modern trends and developments by heaping praise on psychopathic Silicon Valley, virtue-signaling, shadowbanning, conservative - censoring, fake news generating social media billionaires. Thus, though the political bias towards the left / liberal parties and causes is blatantly obvious, they are allowed, when they appear before US Congressional committees to answer questions on abuse of privacy, or respond to accusations of bias by devising PR campaigns to show to the world they are truly impartial, with zero liberal bias. Unfortunately, every time they try to pull such a stunt, it backfires as their true ideological face quickly emerges from behind a fake, hypocritical mask.
A case in point is that of former Facebook executive, Oculus co-founder and virtual-reality wunderkind Palmer Luckey, who was a rising star of Silicon Valley when, at the height of the 2016 presidential contest, he donated a modest $10,000 to an anti-Hillary Clinton group. His donation sparked a backlash from his colleagues, which then led to him being put on leave, and six months later he was fired.
What stinks about Luckey's termination, is that when testifying before Congress about data privacy earlier this year, Mark Zuckerberg denied, or rather lied that the departure had anything to do with politics. In fact, neither Facebook nor Mr. Luckey ever gave a reason why he left the social-media giant.
Now however, disgusted perhaps by Zuckerberg's continued hypocrisy in claiming Facebook is a totally neutral platform politically: according to a report from the WSJ, Luckey revealed to asociates the reason for his termination from that bastion of apolitical impartiality Facebook, was his support for Donald Trump and the furor that his political beliefs sparked within his employer, and Silicon Valley, some of those people say.
We should perhaps remind you here that support for Trump does not necessarily imply agreement with Trump's policies or admiration of his abrasive style. Post election analysis showed many people supported Trump because they were horrified at the prospect of corrupt, crooked, warmongering, morally dysfunctional Hillary Clinton, who in her campaign had effectively promised war with Russia by committing herself to attacking the Assad regime in Syria as soon as she took office.
Luckey's attack on Facebook and Zuckerberg is not just sour grapes either:leaked internal Facebook emails suggest the matter was discussed at the highest levels of the company. In the fall of 2016, as anger over his modest political donation to a candidate the boss didn't like simmered, executives at Facebook - which according to Open Secrets has spent over $60 million on lobbying in the past decade - including Zuckerberg pressured Mr. Luckey to publicly voice support for libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, despite Mr. Luckey’s years long support of Trump.
At that point Luckey, 26, allegedly hired an employment lawyer who argued to Facebook that it had violated California law in pressuring the executive to voice support for Johnson and for punishing an employee for political activity.
Which, we have to say is pretty typical behaviour among Silicon Valley billionires. Go against the 'corporate culture' as dictated by the billionaire boss, and you are dead
Luckey and his lawyer are not as stupid as Zuckerberg is arrogant and megalomaniacal, and negotiated a payout of at least $100 million, representing an acceleration of stock awards and bonuses he would have received through July 2019, plus cash, according to the people familiar with the case. The stock awards and bonuses were a result of selling his virtual-reality company, Oculus VR, to Facebook in 2014 for more than $2 billion, a deal that netted him a total of about $600 million.
In other words, Facebook can claim it was Trump's "fault" that a $10,000 donation resulted in a $100,000,000 payout just a few months later. What a bunch of wankers.
Friday, November 09, 2018
This corporate virtue-signaling is needed in reaction to a New York Times report that the Department of Health and Human Services is proposing to "establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX." The proposed definition, "[s]ex means a person's status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth," has become necessary to undo the legal havoc caused by former president Obama's decision to reinterpret "the legal concept of gender in federal programs ... [to recognize] gender largely as an individual's choice and not determined by the sex assigned at birth."
To no one's surprise, any attempt at clarifying that Title IX's exact language prohibiting discrimination "on the basis of sex" refers to "protections to women and girls" has been met with wails that transgenders and "non-binaries" are being "erased." Catherine E. Lhamon, one of the people who helped Obama formulate his sex-as-choice expansion of Title IX, says "the proposed definition 'quite simply negates the humanity of people.'"
But that's quite simply nonsense. It's nonsense not least because Trump's interpretation of Title IX can no more negate transgenders' humanity than it was Barack Obama's muddying up of Title IX that beneficently bestowed humanity on them. Their humanity is not in question.
(Right. It's only their sanity we need to worry about - Jenny Greenteeth)
READ MORE AT AMERICAN THINKER
Friday, November 02, 2018
This blog has been telling you for fifteen years we are at war, not with Russia, China or Iran as mainstream media would have you believe but with the ruling elites of our own nations.
from Gates of Vienna
RTL is the only major independent broadcaster in Germany. In the following clip from RTL, the commentator Jörg Zajonc expresses doubleplus ungood thoughts about the United Nations’ proposed migration pact.
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
|00:00||The U.N. Migration Pact, a wish-list detached from reality. Convolutedly|
|00:04||written, difficult to read and even more difficult to understand except for one claim:|
|00:08||Migration is good. It is always good and should never be restricted. Why?|
|00:12||No answer is given. The doubters are assured that it is just a consensus paper,|
|00:16||not legally binding. Officially that might be the case, but it IS binding — in a political and|
|00:22||moral sense. That can have legal consequences. That would mean anyone|
|00:26||can make a claim based on the Pact and take their case to court. What judge would|
|00:30||dare make a decision against the consensus? It comes from the U.N.|
|00:34||Additionally, it is noted in the pact that national laws should be taken into account,|
|00:38||but also encouraged that these national laws be adapted according to the interests|
|00:42||of the U.N. Then there’s the matter of “information”. There should be an open,|
|00:47||Fact-based discussion concerning this matter, but I ask how?|
|00:51||If the results are already established, the perception to be created should be more|
|00:55||realistic, humane, and more constructive. The media should involved in steering the|
|00:59||immigration. It says that — literally. And those who don’t play along, they will have|
|01:04||their financial support taken away. That’s written in there too!|
|01:08||There one thing that’s not explained in the Pact. If immigration is so great, then why|
|01:12||does it require a controlled information campaign or such a pact?|
More on Islam
Councils Sack Immigration Control Officers After Pressure from Open Borders Left
The Finns fight back – after multiple cases of child rape Soldiers of Odin patrol the streets of Oulu
In response to government failure to deal with rising numbers of rapes and assaults on Finnish children by immigrant men, a vigilante group Soldiers of Odin has started patrolling streets the streets and public places in Oulu, the most northerly city in the world outside Russia, in response to multiple cases of rape and sexual assault committed against Finnish children by immigrant men
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Most British people agree police have lost control of the streets because of politically correct government policies
One of the UK’s highest ranking police officers has attacked the government's policy of prioritising “hate crimes,” over serious crimes such as theft, vandalism, violence and fraud, calling for officers to be reassigned to investigate more burglaries and violent attacks by focusing on “core policing.”
National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Chair Sara Thornton CBE also said she did not want to see “misogyny” and offensive comments about women specified in law as hate crimes. One can only hope she feels the same about truthful criticisms of Islam, which glorifies misogyny, violence and rape.
Thornton suggested political pressure is being put on police to record “hate incidents” that do not qualify as crimes when resources are stretched, many traditional crimes against people or property are not being investigated and violent crimes has risen to record levels.
She said “investigating gender-based hate crime… cannot be a priority for a service that is overstretched” and that “core policing” has not “received enough attention in recent years.”
The outburst was on the same day as the government revealed plans to encourage reporting of even more trivial incidents as hate crime by launching a “new nationwide hate crime campaign aimed at increasing awareness and understanding of what constitutes a hate crime.”
This blog will tell them what constitutes hate crime. Nothing, that's what. If some straight guy kicks the crap out of a homosexual because he's homosexual, is it worse than if a thug kicks the crap out of a man who might or might not be homosexual, for the purpose of stealing his wallet and watch? Both are terrible crimes for which the perp should be punished equally severely.
However, beating someone up should not be put on a par with saying homosexuals should be pushed back in the closet because they are perverts. That is mildly offensive but can only hurt someone's feelings. And in the great scheme of things, an individual's feelings are no more significant than a gnat's fart in a hurricane.
Speaking at the NPCC nation annual conference, Ms Thornton said: “We do really need to refocus on core policing. The public expects an effective response to organised crime, to terrorism, to the focus on the vunerable.
“But, they also expect the basics: responding to emergencies, investigating and solving crimes, and neighbourhood policing. It is this core policing that is seriously stretched – This is surely part of the police covenant with the public. We are, however, asked to provide more and more bespoke services that are all desirable. But the simple fact is, there are too many desirable and deserving issues.
“For example, treating misogyny as a ‘hate crime’ is a concern for some well-organised campaigning organisations."
Some police forces already began treating “misogyny” and making offensive comments to women as hate incidents back in 2016 and London’s Metropolitan force revealed last year they are considering following suit. In violation of every long establishedd principle of British justice, “no evidence” is needed to report a hate incident. An accusation by a member of one of the anointed minorities is sufficient to establish guilt.
Ms Thornton appeared to suggest that certain “well organised” political activist groups and some officers with personal agendas (members of the Gay BLT police association?) wanted “non-crime” incidents recorded for political reasons and to pressure the government.
It has frequently been reported that some UK police forces are urging people to report “non-crime hate incidents” and “offensive” online comments to “re-emphasises the need” for officers to “tackle hate.” And they thick plods wonder why they have lost the trust of the public. Still that's what happens when you make a vocation into a degree entry profession - you end up only being able to recruit university brainwashed idiots.
Sunday, October 28, 2018
The most undemocratic democratically elected body in the world, The European Union Parliament this week passed a resolution demanding that member-states ban ‘neo-fascist’ parties and groups and have intelligence agencies fully co-operate with ‘anti-racism’ NGOs. Ironically the 'anti - racism NGOs they mention are all offshots of globalist, anti - democracy organisations such as Open Society Institute and the Immigrant Defence Project.
Image source: Christof Stache, AFP
The motion, which was introduced at the request of Italian MEP Eleonora Forenza, was passed by a vote of 355 MEPs. Many MEPs were not present in the 751-seat chamber for the vote.
The resolution cited several high-profile acts of violence including the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox in 2016, the murder rampage of Norwegian extremist Anders Brevik, along with other cases like the recent arrest this year of members of the Action des Forces Opérationnelles (AFO), who allegedly plotted to attack Muslims they deemed extremists. NOTE: MEPs, like the 'anti-racist NGOs' they voted to support do not seem in the least concerned about attacks on European Jews, Christians and secular citizens, or hate speech inciting such violence, by Muslims.
While most of the incidents listed in the report were acts of violence, the authors also added the French branch of the Identitarian movement Generation Identitaire, as members had been taken to court and convicted of ‘hate speech’, apparently for the heinous crime of arguing that the french government should protect French culture and values rather than pandering to Muslim extremists .
The EP not only the banning of groups like the far-right Italian group Casapound whose members attacked Ms Forenza in September but also recommended anti-hate crime units be set up in police forces across the EU, and that intelligence and law enforcement agencies should fully co-operate with anti-racism NGOs. We should remember that it is almost impossible to legally define what constitutes 'hate speech' when Muslim and leftist groups regularly call for violence to be used to suppress criticism of their ideals, and yet do not apply the same standards to their own supporters and fellow travellers.
The motion also calls for “the protection of community groups and civil society organisations that fight against fascism, racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance.” Again we run up against the issue of hard legal definitions, fascism has no legal definition and is usually taken to mean hard line authoritarianism, but more recently has been used to mean any criticism of left wing ideology or Muslim theology.
In fact the only organisation in Europe of any significance that could be described as fascist is the European Union.
British independent MEP Janice Atkinson, vice-president of the populist Europe for Nations and Freedom (ENF) parliamentary group, who commented that the motion was “a very disturbing example of the growing tendency of shutting down free speech under the guise of claiming that the European Parliament is concerned about the growing acceptance of fascism, racism, and xenophobia.”
Friday, October 26, 2018
The Mueller probe into President Trump's alleged collaboration with Russian government agencies, (which Democrats claim enabled his to steal the election from Hillary Clinton,) has now been running for two years and has so far failed to produce a single piece of evidence supporting the case against Trump.
All sorts of rumours are circulating in Washington, from the wishful thinking od Trump haters who believe Mueller will produce a bombshell piece of evidence and move to impeach Trump before the mid term elections (now only 6 days away,) across the pond to Republican hopes that Trump will fire Mueller and wind up the inquiry in the same timescale.
A player named Rod Rosenstein, an inhabitant of the swamp Trump pleadged to drain as now emerged as a key figure, but nobody seems to know which side he is playing for.
Judicial Watch offer perhaps the most intelligent view of the farrago in this video:
One has to remember that Rod Rosenstein was chosen for his job by President Trump. Therefore it’s not surprising that Trump invited Rod to his Air Force One, which Rod accepted. Inside that presidential jet is a very secure environment against any wiretapping. Maybe they were discussing some sensitive issues. ... such as the flimsy evidence that the special counsel Mueller has produced through all his efforts, for example by making a deal with former national security advisor Flynn.
Did we say Trump was supposed to be ... um ... draining the swamp?
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
This seemingly innocuous proposal has sparked a firestorm with hate speech spewing from the mouths and through the fingers of university brainwashed idiots and their even more idiotic professors and lecturers as they leap to the decence of terminally confused individuals who believe people with testicles can be women and people with ovaries can be men.
First, a brief background.
Title IX prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” in federally funded programs. It was passed in 1972 as part of the Education Amendments Act to ensure that women have access to educational programs equivalent to men’s programs.
In 2016, in a blatant act of executive overreach, the Obama administration issued a guidance letter reinterpreting “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The letter required schools to “‘treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX.” This drastic reinterpretation was done without an act of Congress or even the normal rule-making process for regulations. In other words the president who told Americans they must believe ‘the science’ on climate change, even though its conclusions are very dubious, was telling them in matters of biology they must inore thousands of years of scientific evidence and follow the diktat ofchicks-with dicks (like his ‘wife’?) or men who think having their dicks lopped off makes them women.
So ‘the science is settled’ on carbon dioxide, but not on what defines us as men and women. Well if certain rumours about Obama are true, there might be room for doubt in his case, but obviously Donald Trump has a better grasp of science.
Obama’s blurring of the lines that separate men from women spurred a frenzy of disputes over trans-sanity students claiming access to spaces restricted to the opposite sex—bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, dormitories, sports teams, and so on.
Then, in 2017, the Trump administration rescinded the Obama guidelines. But it left unclear just what the law does require. Hence the administration’s current effort to provide a clear, uniform definition of the term “sex.”
The memo suggests that “the sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.” In this way, sex will be determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.”
Who could object to science and objectivity? Lots of people, apparently, and most of them are among the demographic that claims to ‘believe’ in science and reason (the trouble with reason, I always find, is that it’s so irrational. The New York Times reported the story with the overheated headline “Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence.”
The New York Times reported the story with the overheated headline “Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence.”
Actually, no. The administration is merely saying that Title IX does not apply to trans people. No one is being defined “out of existence.” There are lots of laws that do not apply to you or me, and that fact does not deny our existence.
Jonathan Weisman, deputy Washington editor of The NYT, likewise indulged in histrionic overstatement, tweeting, “The Trump Admin has a new definition of sex that would render 1.4 million transgendered people legally nonexistent.”
Not exactly. The administration is saying that discrimination “on the basis of sex” means biological sex, not gender identity. Trans people still enjoy all the ordinary protections of other citizens, including the Bill of Rights and all other constitutional rights.
George Takei, the “Star Trek” actor, tweeted, “The Trump administration is trying to make trans people disappear by defining gender as only male and female, determined by genitalia at birth.”
Come back to earth, Mr. Takei. The administration is not trying to make people “disappear.” The fact is that Title IX was originally intended to apply to biological sex — which, by the way, is established not at birth but long before birth. Most parents use ultrasound to discover their babies’ sex before they are born.
Planned Parenthood panicked, tweeting, “This is horrifying. These inhumane, cruel, and discriminatory policies are dangerous.” (Ironic, considering that words like “inhumane” and “cruel” describe what Planned Parenthood itself does — tearing apart tiny babies.)
If we ignore the dramatics and the hissy fits of the Gay BLT lobby, the current administration is seeking to correct the Obama administration’s overreach. The lawmakers who passed Title IX in 1972 did not mean sexual orientation and gender identity. They wanted to protect women’s rights. Period. Including women’s rights to have periods withouty being sneered at by leering men. Privacy.
Ironically, Obama’s reinterpretation had precisely the opposite outcome. It undercut women’s rights by reducing biological sex to a social construct.
Trans ideologues claim what counts are not objective facts based on irefutable scientific evidence but subjective feelings although, scientific evidence shows that in the great scheme of things an individual’s feelings are no more significant than a gnat’s fart in a hurricane. They insist that people with penises and prostate glands are “women” if they feel like women. Or that people with uteruses are “men” if they feel like men.
That’s why we see misleading headlines like “Man Gives Birth to Healthy Baby” (in reality, a woman living as a man (with a facsimile willie) whose ovaries and womb is still intact). We should perhaps tell such people to go and fuck themselves. Watching the outcome could be hysterically funny.
If we can no longer define women by objective, scientific criteria, then we can no longer legally protect women as a class, which renders feminism redundant (this blog has always said feminism is a synonym of stupid,) and throws into chaos most of the equality laws passed in the lest few decades. We cannot legally protect a category of people if we cannot identify that category.
This was proved in a recent case with came to court in England, of a ‘transgender’ man who by claiming that on the basis of his feeling he is a woman was sent to a women’s prison, where he was soon arrested on several charges of rape and sexual molestation. He may have ‘felt’ like a woman but he looked like a man (an ugly man at that, and he raped like a man by forcing himself on his victims and penetrating them.
An individual’s feelings are important, but the law must apply to all equally, and therefore it must be based on scientific facts, not the half arsed whims of politically correct idiots..