What Is Gender?

Posted on by
Reply

The Left and their Progressive-Democratic Party won’t say, as demonstrated in Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee on abortion rights.

Congressman Dan Bishop (R, NC) asked Dr Yashica Robinson, OBGYN and Alabama Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives Medical Director, to define “woman.” She chose not to, saying instead

I think it’s important that we educate people like you about why we’re doing the things that we do. And so the reason that I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way. And I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called.
…
That’s as comprehensive a definition as I will give you today[.]

Then Bishop asked Aimee Arrambide, Avow Texas Executive Director to define what a woman is. She responded

I believe that everyone can identify for themselves.

When he asked whether men could get pregnant and get abortions, Arrambide was unequivocal.

Yes.

It’s not just these two radicals who are typical of what the Center Left has become, either. President Joe Biden (D), in his budget proposal for this year,

replaced the word “mothers” [with] “birthing people[.]”

Congresswoman Cori Bush (D, MO) also says mothers are birthing people. Apple Inc even has pushed a brand new pregnant man emoji on us.

So, what is a woman? What is gender? They’re whatever, man. That is, whatever, woman. Or something. Or just, whatever.

Still Waiting

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D), ‘way last summer, in the middle of his panicky running out of Afghanistan, promised those Afghanis who had worked with the US and with US forces there over the preceding 20 years that they would find welcome in the US.

He lied.

Afghan citizens who worked with the US are still waiting in third-party countries for their promised American visas eight months after leaving Afghanistan.

And this from Biden’s State Department:

After taking office, we worked to reduce the processing time for SIV [Special Immigrant Visa] eligible Afghans, while keeping in place our robust security and medical screening processes[.]

Eight months. Vetting certainly needs to be done thoroughly, but there’s no reason to dither about it. These folks already have been vetted to a considerable degree over those years that they had worked with/for us.

This is just more of Biden’s betrayal of those who helped us.

Just Be Quiet

Posted on by
Reply

…and do what you’re told. We wouldn’t have accused you if you weren’t guilty.

The SEC’s Director of the Division of Enforcement, Gurbir Grewal, doesn’t like it when lawyers defending their clients from SEC accusations get too much in his way.

The SEC also is seeing instances where lawyers repeatedly interrupt witness testimony to lodge frivolous objections….

Of course, it’s Grewal’s definition of frivolous. If he were serious, he’d be in court getting the frivolity sanctioned. And this:

In some instances, lawyers are representing companies and individuals in cases where they have a conflict of interest[.]

If that were true, he’d be objecting in court. Where are his objections?

And some lawyers are asserting legal privilege to shield documents from the eyes of SEC staff in cases where that privilege doesn’t apply[.]

Again, that’s Grewal’s position. And he asserts it as if, because he’s asserted it, it must be so.

And this:

Mr Grewal said he had recently learned about an entity with billions of dollars in assets that produced a mere 200 documents in a six-month period, after being served with a request for customer account and trading data.

Grewal is being disingenuous on two counts with this bellyache. One is that he’s been the Enforcement Director for nearly a year; how is it that he’s only just “recently” learning of this situation? Is he in charge, or isn’t he? If he is, does he read his staff’s input, or doesn’t he?

The other count is his beef that this represents an accused company’s delaying tactic. If he didn’t like it the slow production, why did he allow it to persist for so long? Why wasn’t he trying to force the pace—in court if necessary?

Grewal gave the SEC’s game away with these, as cited by the WSJ:

…[he] called on lawyers to work more cooperatively with the agency….

And

Lawyers who do cooperate in a genuine way with the SEC are better positioned to win credit for their clients in the form of a more lenient resolution of the agency’s investigation

This is one more reason the SEC cannot be trusted. I’ve mentioned another earlier.

Putin Threatens Again

Posted on by
Reply

Now he’s “advising” the Swedish government that if they join NATO—or merely apply to join—it’ll be too bad for their nice little country:

Sweden’s accession to NATO will inflict considerable damage to the security of Northern Europe and Europe as a whole. The Russian Federation will have to take response measures, both military-technical and others, to curb the threats to its national security which arise in this context.

Because moving to defend itself against a threat is itself threatening. Putin is projecting. If he truly has no designs against Sweden (or Finland, come to that, or Europe), then there is nothing to fear from an alliance that is defensive in nature.

And this implied threat:

[M]uch will depend on the specific conditions of Sweden’s integration into the North Atlantic Alliance, including the potential deployment of strike systems of this military bloc on its territory[.]

Attempting to dictate the domestic military policy of a sovereign nation: “no foreign troops or systems on your soil are allowed by me.”

Putin continues to demonstrate clearly why a defensive buildup by free and sovereign nations is necessary.

So Will All Americans

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board is concerned about the House of Representatives’ abuse of its subpoena power. Rightly so, but they’re too narrow in their concern.

Republicans are sure to see the subpoenas [of five Republican Representatives, by the January 6 Committee] as a case of turning the investigative power of the House against the opposition party.

So are will Americans see this abuse.

Republicans will argue that any such effort [to hold Representatives refusing to answer the subpoenas in contempt and seek their prosecution] is a violation of the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause.

So will Americans see this abuse.