The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

How White Is Elizabeth Warren?

Posted on | October 16, 2018 | Comments Off on How White Is Elizabeth Warren?

 

She is at least 98.4% Caucasian:

Senator Elizabeth Warren has released a DNA test that provides “strong evidence’’ she had a Native American in her family tree dating back 6 to 10 generations, an unprecedented move by one of the top possible contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president.
Warren, whose claims to Native American blood have been mocked by President Trump and other Republicans, provided the test results to the Globe on Sunday in an effort to defuse questions about her ancestry that have persisted for years. She planned an elaborate rollout Monday of the results as she aimed for widespread attention.
The analysis of Warren’s DNA was done by Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor and expert in the field who won a 2010 MacArthur fellowship, also known as a genius grant, for his work on tracking population migration via DNA analysis.
He concluded that “the vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European, but he added that “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor.”
Bustamante calculated that Warren’s pure Native American ancestor appears in her family tree “in the range of 6-10 generations ago.” That timing fits Warren’s family lore, passed down during her Oklahoma upbringing, that her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American.
Smith was born in the late 1700s. . . .
The inherent imprecision of the six-page DNA analysis could provide fodder for Warren’s critics. If O.C. Sarah Smith were fully Native American, that would make Warren up to 1/32nd native. But the generational range based on the ancestor that the report identified suggests she’s between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American.

Notice the word “suggests.” At most, Warren has less than 1.6% Native American ancestry and, as for “family lore,” this test indicating the possibility of a very distant non-white ancestor — she’s so white, she would have qualified for membership in the Bund Deutscher Mädel — absolutely does not confirm the tales Warren has told. She claims that her parents eloped because of anti-Indian prejudice in Oklahoma: “My daddy’s parents, the Herrings, were bitterly opposed to their marrying because my mother’s family, the Reeds, was part native American.” Whether or not her paternal grandparents were “bitterly opposed” to her father marrying her mother, it could not have been because the Reeds were “part native American,” as a 1/32nd non-white ancestry (i.e., 96.9% white) would not be apparent and, contrary to her telling, the remote ancestor she claimed was Cherokee was identified as white in census records. If the Senator is asserting that her father’s parents were extraordinarily ignorant, we’ll take her word for it, but this tells us nothing about the alleged ancestry of her mother’s side of the family.

Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has covered this dispute longer and in more detail than anyone else:

Elizabeth Warren is not Native American. Her ancestry has been traced by Cherokee genealogists back to the early 1800s, as far back as there are records, and there are no Native American ancestors.
The one potential Native American ancestor was Warren’s great great great grandmother, Sarah O.C. Smith, but an initial 2012 report about that was debunked and The Boston Globe was forced to issue a retraction. . . .
Trump and others have been demanding Warren take a DNA test. I wrote previously that this was not dispositive. . . . There is more to being Native American than DNA, both legally and from a tribal point of view:

This claim that all Warren need do is show any Native American DNA, no matter how small, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Warren’s claim to be Native American for employment purposes. Under clear EEOC and Harvard standards, Native American ancestry would not be sufficient to claim Native American status for employment purposes, which is what Warren did. . . .
Regardless of DNA, Warren cannot show cultural identification. . . . Warren never associated with Native Americans. . . .
A negative result would completely eliminate her claim to be Native American.
But a positive DNA result would not retroactively justify Warren misusing Native American identification to try to advance her career.

For more than five years, Professor Jacobson has focused on this central point of the controversy: Warren’s DNA is irrelevant both to her claims of being a Cherokee and to the indisputable evidence that she exploited this claim to have herself listed as a “woman of color” for employment purposes, “to advance her career.” By checking the box for “Native American” on her employment forms, the blue-eyed blonde Warren unintentionally called into question the entire purpose of “diversity” quotas in academia. Going back to 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson first used the phrase “affirmative action” to describe federal policy to require employers to take measures to remediate past policies of discrimination against African-Americans, the idea was to compensate for past wrongdoing. Elizabeth Warren cannot show that she herself, or her parents or grandparents, suffered employment discrimination on the basis of alleged Native American ancestry and, because none of her known ancestors was ever officially enrolled as a member of the Cherokee Nation (or any other recognized Native American group), she could not lawfully check that box on employment forms.

The mere possibility that, at some point prior to the 1790 Census, one of Warren’s ancestors was non-white, does nothing to confirm her claim to a specifically Cherokee ancestry — there were many different native tribes in the Eastern U.S. — and it certainly doesn’t show that this blonde woman suffered any discrimination, in Oklahoma or anywhere else.

Cherokee Nation officials are angry at Warren, and rightly so, and she has no one but herself to blame, as David Harsanyi points out:

It was Warren who made it all an issue. We don’t fully know how important Warren’s claims were in her career. There is, however, much evidence that her self-driven minority claims in the 1990s were helpful. Warren . . . was listed as a “minority faculty member” by The University of Pennsylvania. She had the school switch her designation from white to Native American. Warren self-identified as a “minority” in the legal directory, and Harvard Law School preposterously listed her as one of the “women of color” the school had hired. On job applications, Warren was very specific in claiming that she had Cherokee and Delaware Indian ancestry.
When her supposed Native American heritage came under scrutiny during her first Senate bid, Warren presented a recipe she had published in her cousin’s cookbook as evidence of her background. It was signed “Elizabeth Warren — Cherokee.” Later we learned that even the recipe was taken verbatim from an article in The New York Times five years earlier.

She plagiarized a recipe in an effort to “prove” her Cherokee ancestry!

By the way, it’s important to realize that the only reason this story is making headlines now is because Elizabeth Warren intends to pursue the 2020 Democrat Party nomination for president. If she were successful in that pursuit, she would then take on President Trump in the general election and, even the staunchest Republican must admit, Trump has an unfortunate tendency to boast and brag in a manner as dishonest as Warren’s. The difference is, Warren’s lying was about claiming victimhood in order to exploit affirmative-action policies, whereas Trump lies about things like sexual affairs with Playboy models. Can you guess whose lies the average American is more likely to shrug off?

Here is video of Professor Jacobson on Tucker Carlson last night:

 

“She tried to get an advantage over other people by claiming a status to which she’s not entitled. It’s the worst form of cultural appropriation, or misappropriation, which is a very hot topic in progressive circles. She tried to misappropriate the identity of one of the most victimized people in history, or at least in recent history, which is Native Americans. And progressives seem not to care.”

Will Democrats nominate this liar in 2020? Let’s hope so.



 

Category: Democrats, Racism

In The Mailbox: 10.15.18

Posted on | October 15, 2018 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 10.15.18

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Petting Zoo Conservatives – S.E. Cupp
Twitchy: Benny Johnson Lays Out Every Time Elizabeth Warren Has Lied About Her Heritage In Epic Thread
Louder With Crowder: Podcast #402 – Democrats Push Mob Rule

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Friday Hawt Chicks & Links – Slippery Slope Edition, also, A Woman’s Greatest Enemy Is Other Women
American Power: Why China’s Rise Won’t Happen, also, What The Establishment Misses About Trump’s Foreign Policy
American Thinker: Blacks Like Trump? Don’t Blame Kanye
Animal Magnetism: Hunting Season Totty I
BattleSwarm: The Project Veritas Deep State Videos, also, Gosnell Opened Yesterday
CDR Salamander: Maritime Insurgency & Counterinsurgency With Hunter Stires – On Midrats
Da Tech Guy: My First Race In Eight Years Might Offer A Lesson To You, also, That Prepper Mentality
Don Surber: Trump Owns 60 Minutes, also, You Are #FakeNews And You Bore Me
Dustbury: Strange Search Engine Queries, also, Nobody Puts Shetland In A Corner
First Street Journal: The Gender Gap May Not Go Quite The Way The Democrats Like
The Geller Report: Canadiam PM Justin Trudeau Pledges $38 Million To Pro-Jihad UNRWA, also, Letter Threatens Rape, Murder Of Female Republican Candidate
Hogewash: The Other Podcast, Team Kimberlin Post Of The Day, and Fauxcahontas’ DNA Test
JustOneMinute: We March To War, also, Red Storm Rising
Legal Insurrection: Fauxcahontas’ DNA Test Does Not Prove She’s Native American, also, Betomania Is Sucking The Life Out Of The Blue Wave
The PanAm Post: In Peru, Odebrecht Strikes Again As Fujimori Dynasty Teeters On Brink Of Collapse
Power Line: Who Wants A Pro-Crime Attorney General? also, The Khashoggi Slaying, The Anti-Trump Media, And American Foreign Policy
Shark Tank: Broward Sheriff’s Deputies Union Breaks With Sheriff, Endorses DeSantis
Shot In The Dark: Why We Need Money In Politics, also, The Twin Cities Media Won’t Cover This…
STUMP: What Percentage Of Public Pension Income Is From Investment Returns?
The Political Hat: The Coming Judicial Unswitching
This Ain’t Hell: Six EOD Soldiers Awarded For Actions In Afghanistan, also, The North Had Hanoi Jane, But We Had Chris Noel
Victory Girls: Mayor Ted Wheeler Backs Antifa In The People’s Republic Of Portland
Volokh Conspiracy: Don’t Take Too Much Comfort In Surveys Showing Widespread Opposition To “Political Correctness”
Weasel Zippers: Cherokee Nation Official Says Fauxcahontas’ DNA Test Is “Useless, Inappropriate, & Wrong”, also, Antifa Thug Tries To Sucker Punch Patriot Prayer Member – It Doesn’t Go As Planned
Megan McArdle: The Best Sears Product Was Its Gift For Reinvention, With A 126-Year Warranty
Mark Steyn: Strangers On A Train, also, For Whom The Dog Tolls


Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals
Outlet Deals

Category: Linkagery

Arizona Democrat ‘Summoned Witches’ to Attend 2003 Anti-War Protest Event

Posted on | October 15, 2018 | Comments Off on Arizona Democrat ‘Summoned Witches’ to Attend 2003 Anti-War Protest Event

 

Further evidence that Democrats are servants of the forces of darkness:

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Arizona], is not a witch. But she has been known to hang out with witches. It was during the height of the Iraq War when Sinema, then a far-left protest organizer, summoned supernatural help to stop the Iraq War.
Emails obtained by the Washington Examiner show Sinema inviting a prominent coven of feminist witches in Arizona called Pagan Cluster to celebrate International Women’s Day and to protest the war in March of 2003. Code Pink protesters wore pink, obviously enough, and the Women in Black wore black. But Sinema encouraged the witches to wear “colorful clothing and come ready to dance, twirl, and stay in touch with your inner creativity and with the Earth.”
The Sinema campaign would not say why she invited the witches or clarify why she thought members of the occult deserved a seat at the table during discussions concerning war and peace. . . .
Out of the broom closet and into the public square, the Pagan Cluster focuses “sharing spiritual insights and participating in direct democracy.” Their visions are decidedly liberal and many of their coven “have roots in the Reclaiming Tradition of feminist Witchcraft.” . . .
Later that year, in November, Sinema attended a similar anti-war rally, this one in Miami and with other pagans. In emails . . . she writes about “singing and spiraling in the pagan’s circle only 5 rows back from the police line.”

The “Reclaiming Tradition” was started in San Francisco circa 1979 by Miriam Simos, a/k/a “Starhawk,” an associate and disciple of lesbian feminist witch Zsuzsanna Emese Mokcsay, a/k/a, “Z Budapest.”

The significance of Sinema’s association with neopagan witches is as an expression of her anti-Christian worldview. Democrats hate Jesus.

(Hat-tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.)



 

RELATED:

 

Category: Arizona, Democrats, Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: Salma Hayek

Posted on | October 14, 2018 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

While I’m waiting to move into my new place, I’m shuttling between a lot of Las Vegas hotels; for the next couple of days, I’m at the El Cortez, the oldest continually-operating hotel here. It’s a pretty nice place, with its own unique vibe, and for no good reason I can think of, it reminds me of Mexican actress Salma Hayek, also known for her work in Austrian school economics…oh, wait. Wrong Hayek. Anyway, here she is in a Quentin Tarantino movie that doesn’t suck (at least not that way) because she kills Mr. Tarantino’s character about a minute after this shot, From Dusk Till Dawn.

Right after the snake dance, which is pretty awesome.

Leading of we have Ninety Miles From Tyranny with Hot Pick of the Late Night, The 90 Miles Mystery Box Episode #405, Morning Mistress, and Girls With Guns.

EBL’s herd this week includes Alexa Davalos, National Farmers Day Rule 5, Louise Bourgoin, Martha McSally, Claire Foy & Olivia Hamilton, and Ines Melab.

A View From The Beach offers Marathon Woman – Chase Carter, Trick Shot Friday, Can Natty Boh Save the Bay?, High Fashion Thursday, Taylor Swift Gets Political, So This Is a Hoot!, Wind Power Linked to Warming, Just In Time for the Kavanaugh Court and Fat Comedienne, Nasty Grandmothers and Topless Dancer Fail to Stop Kavanaugh

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Hannah Lee Fowler, his Vintage Babe is Janet Munro, and Sex in Advertising is covered by Calvin Klein. At Dustbury, it’s Annika Sorenstam and and Tisha Campbell-Martin.

Thanks to everyone for the luscious linkagery!

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop
Amazon Fashion – Jewelry For Women

Category: Rule 5

9 Second Explanation Of US Politics

Posted on | October 14, 2018 | Comments Off on 9 Second Explanation Of US Politics

by Smitty

This has been all over Twitter:


I don’t know who or where these guys were, but the guy catching the punch looks like he’s straight out of Parris Island, the land of enchantment.

If these guys weren’t there to proclaim the Gospel, then doing unto Lefty dorkwad as he would do unto Guy on the Right would have been completely appropriate.

Category: Uncategorized

The TrigglyPuff Party: How Democrats Created Insane ‘Social Justice’ Mobs

Posted on | October 14, 2018 | 2 Comments

 

Commenting on the irrational female rage unleashed by the Kavanaugh confirmation circus, Stephen Green remarks: “The Democrats have worked hard to lock down the Trigglypuff vote, but at what cost of even slightly more moderate voters?” But do such voters really exist?

We are more than 25 years into a cycle of increasing polarization that arguably began with Bill Clinton’s election as president. Clinton’s radicalism — remember the so-called “assault weapons” ban? — sparked a backlash that cost Democrats the control of the House that they’d held for 40 years. Everything thereafter increased the partisan divide: The budget standoff that led to the government shutdown, the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment crisis, the Florida recount in 2000, the Iraq War, the recapture of Congress by Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats, Obama’s election in 2008, the Tea Party movement, on and on.

It is not the case that America’s politics have become more divisive because the Republican Party has moved further right. Liberal pundits, commenting from within their ideological cocoons, habitually apply labels — “far right,” “extremist,” “white nationalist,” etc. — to depict the GOP as beholden to a dangerous fringe, but this is just paranoid propaganda. The typical Republican voter in 2018 is actually no more “extreme” than his father was in 1988. Nor is the policy agenda of the GOP now any more “far right” than it was in the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The cause of the increased partisan divide is not that the Republicans have moved right, but that Democrats have moved left.

What happened, when did it happen and why did it happen?

Go back to George W. Bush’s presidency. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, there was a surge of patriotic sentiment that was politically beneficial to Republicans, who won the 2002 midterms and were able to re-elect Bush in 2004, when Democrats nominated the anti-war candidate John Kerry. Unfortunately for the GOP, Bush’s premature “Mission Accomplished” claim about Iraq proved false. As the insurgency raged and the death toll among U.S. troops mounted, the anti-war protests on university campuses radicalized many students, who went seeking for a Democrat messiah, and embraced Barack Obama as their savior. The collapse of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign in the Democrat primaries — which I witnessed firsthand on the campaign trail — was culturally significant in ways that were perhaps not entirely apparent at the time.

Who was it that enabled Obama to defeat Hillary? Young people radicalized by the Iraq War, in quite the same way as George McGovern’s 1972 campaign was driven by youth radicalized by Vietnam. While Obama also benefited from increased turnout by black voters, the true audience for his message of “Hope” and “Change” were under-30 voters, including a lot of white college kids who had no other frame of reference for politics and policy than the previous eight years of the Bush administration. Think about it: Those born in 1988 knew nothing of Reagan, and Newt Gingrich’s heyday occurred when they were in first or second grade. They were fourth-graders when the Lewinsky scandal made headlines, and barely into adolescence when 9/11 happened.

Given the notorious inadequacy of K-12 education in America, and the left-wing prejudice of university professors, were these young people ever taught anything about budget deficits or the actuarial problems of federal entitlement programs? Did their teachers ever expose them to any cogent criticisms of ObamaCare? I doubt it. The generation of youth who cast their first presidential vote for Barack Obama in 2008 were not motivated by any substantial knowledge of the public policy issues at stake. Rather, they were inspired by a sentimental attraction to an idea — Obama as the progressive Messiah who would save them from those evil Republicans, the party of war, greed, racism and homophobia.

 

Everything that has happened in politics in the decade since Obama’s election has been shaped by this messianic belief system fostered among young people, who don’t seem to comprehend how a national debt of $20 trillion — yes, trillion, with a “T” — imposes limitations on the ability of the federal government to provide them “Hope” and “Change.”

Because their political beliefs are fundamentally irrational — sorry, kids, there’s not enough money to pay for all that free stuff you want — these young people are prone to behave like spoiled children throwing a tantrum when they encounter any opposition or criticism. This explains the infamous frenzy of student rage at UM-Amherst two years ago:

Does everyone remember “TrigglyPuff,” the obnoxious feminist who repeatedly disrupted a 2016 event at the University of Massachusetts? While claiming to be a victim of oppression, Cora Segal was attending elite private Hampshire College ($63,512 a year, including room and board) and is, in fact, the daughter of a Harvard professor. Her sole claim to victimhood is her evident inability to say “no” to second helpings. . . .
Feminism is always a lecture, never a debate. Accusations of “harassment” are automatic as soon as anyone tries to engage a feminist in debate. However, when a feminist like “TrigglyPuff” deliberately disrupts a conservative event, this is justified as a protest against sexism, so that the claim of oppressed victimhood — the premise of the feminist syllogism — always serves the same rhetorical function: “Shut up!”

Having worked so hard to lock down the TrigglyPuff vote, as Stephen Green says, Democrats are now held hostage by the mob mentality of the identity-politics “social justice” coalition they’ve built.

 

This is what the Kavanaugh confirmation circus confirmed: Democrats are now the party of TrigglyPuff, of angry college girls driven to fits of insanity — a deranged mob clawing at the doors of the Supreme Court — by the irrationality of their “progressive” belief system.

What about those “slightly more moderate voters” who might be alienated by the Democrats’ surrender to extremism? They don’t seem to exist. Polls indicate that the Democrats’ advantage in the generic congressional ballot is holding firm around 7 or 8 points. Why?

Bias in the new media is more prevalent than ever — more than 90% negative coverage of Trump, nearly ignoring the good economic news — so if there are still persuadable voters out there, they have no information that would cause them to prefer Republicans to Democrats.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that Democrats may be rewarded for their insane mob behavior by voters who elect enough seemingly “moderate” Democrat candidates in swing districts to return the House Speaker’s gavel to Nancy Pelosi. As John Hoge and I discussed Saturday night on The Other Podcast, the polls now apparently indicate that Republicans will maintain their majority in the Senate, but what will this mean if Democrats control the House? Perhaps our only hope to prevent such a congressional gridlock is that some combination of GOP attack ads and a well-organized get-out-the-vote drive by Republicans will be able to turn back the “blue wave” Democrats are hoping for.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! As always, we ask readers to remember the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!



 

 

Category: Democrats, Election, History, Politics

FMJRA 2.0: Turn Your Radio On

Posted on | October 13, 2018 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

ConFFFFFirmed!
Daily Pundit
Trump’s Minutemen
Constitutional News Network
Freedom’s Back
The Deplorable Patriots
EBL

FMJRA 2.0: Away From Home
The Pirate’s Cove
357 Magnum
EBL
A View From The Beach

Rule 5 Sunday: Brennschluss
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
A View From The Beach
EBL

Author of Smear Against Conservative Journalists Exposed as Foreign Agent
EBL

Those Karlie Kloss Rumors Were True?
EBL

The Last Kavanaugh Post, Ever
A View From The Beach
EBL

Anti-Male Georgetown Professor Uses Tumblr Blog to ‘Dox’ Her Critics
EBL

Taylor Swift, SJW
EBL

What Media Bias Looks Like
Catallaxy Files

In The Mailbox: 10.10.18
A View From The Beach
EBL

Darwinian Terrorist: Feds Arrest N.Y. Man in Election Day Suicide Bomb Plot
A View From The Beach
EBL

Coming Out as … MOGAI? The Weird and Dangerous World of Queer Feminism
Living In Anglo-America
Pushing Rubber Downhill
EBL

Late Night With In The Mailbox: 10.11.18
357 Magnum
EBL

Party of Science™ Update: Democrats Now Actively Consorting With Satan
Pushing Rubber Downhill
EBL

Top linkers for the week ending October 12:

  1.  EBL (13)
  2.  A View From The Beach (5)


Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: FMJRA Award

Arielle Scarcella: Gay People Are ‘F–king Terrified’ to Criticize Trans Ideology

Posted on | October 13, 2018 | Comments Off on Arielle Scarcella: Gay People Are ‘F–king Terrified’ to Criticize Trans Ideology

 

Arielle Scarcella has 550,000 subscribers to her YouTube channel, which makes her one of the most popular lesbian YouTubers. Some of her videos have more viewers than the average program at CNN (but let’s be honest, CNN is barely more popular than the Hallmark Channel). Her popularity is the only reason Ms. Scarcella has been able to survive telling the truth about transgender activists, who have harassed her viciously for months because of her criticism of their bizarre ideology.

In a video this week, Ms. Scarcella explained that most gay and lesbian YouTubers are “f–king terrified to even touch on an trans topics — about the blatant misogyny that the SJW trans activists promote, about how the Left is so far left at this point that they are suggesting conversion therapy and hiding it behind the agenda of ‘queer’ progressiveness, about how some bisexual YouTubers have made videos and public statements saying that our ‘genital preference’ is a whole bias, when in reality it’s not a bias, it’s not a preference, it’s our sexual orientation and it’s not something we can help, about how little gay men are actually policed for their sexual orientation in comparison to lesbians — not very much at all.”

Fear of being labelled a “TERF” (trans-exclusive radical feminist) causes many lesbian YouTubers to avoid the topic of transgenderism entirely, Ms. Scarcella explains, because SJWs (social justice warriors) like Riley Dennis have specifically targeted the lesbian community as “bigots” for rejecting relationships with men who think they’re women.

 

Gay men are not similarly criticized for their own preferences, Ms. Scarcella explains, and remain silent about the abusive and misogynistic rhetoric of transgender activists “because they’re f–king terrified to stand up for lesbian and bisexual women.” She says many in the LGBT community fear the consequences of speaking out.

“How often do other LGBT YouTubers agree with what I have to say, but divert their eyes and don’t say anything on Twitter publicly because they’re terrified of being labeled a transphobe?” Ms. Scarcella asks. “How many of them are worried that corporate brands won’t want to work with someone who has the label of ‘transphobe,’ when that label isn’t even accurate? Nobody wants to talk about the fact that trans activists are literally making shirts and Tumblr and Twitter accounts with slogans like ‘Kill All TERFS’ and being praised by the media for doing so.”

 

When I first started covering the conflict between transgender activists and their radical feminist critics in 2014, it seemed to me that this was a fight between two camps of crazy extremists. Soon, however, I realized that (a) the radical feminists at least had the facts of biology on their side — e.g., women don’t have penises — and (b) transgender activists were exploiting “social justice” rhetoric in an attempt to bully women into having sex with them. Ms. Scarcella is exactly right when she says that it is only women, and particularly lesbians, who are being targeted by these intimidation tactics — sexual terrorism in the name of “inclusion.” Because gay men are not being “policed” for their preferences, as Ms. Scarcella observes, and because many corporate sponsors of LGBT activism wish to avoid intra-community controversy, the few personalities like Ms. Scarcella who do speak out are isolated as targets for the social media mobs of SJW Thought Police.

As a Christian, of course, I do not approve of homosexuality, and as a conservative, I reject the entire “social justice” ideology and its totalitarian jargon of “inclusion,” “diversity,” etc. However, as an American, I have a fundamental duty to defend the principles of ordered liberty (cf., Russell Kirk) enshrined in our Constitution, including the principle of freedom of association. If I am not invited to your home, I would be guilty of trespassing — and might lawfully be shot to death — if I tried to barge in your front door against your wishes. By similar reasoning, if a person declares that they do not desire romantic intimacy with any particular category of their fellow citizens, we are obligated to respect their rights in this regard even if (a) the basis of their choice is in some way offensive to our beliefs or (b) we are ourselves personally affected by the exclusionary nature of their choice.

Go back and read Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), in which he warned against the potential consequences of the Supreme Court striking down state laws against sodomy. While the bullying of lesbians by transgender activists was not among the outcomes that Justice Scalia enumerated, we can see how the majority opinion’s “Emerging Awareness” Doctrine (as I have called it) is deeply implicated in controversies like this. When the nation’s highest court declared that the ancient precedents of Anglo-American common law were somehow invalidated by the Fourteenth Amendment (a claim that certainly would have shocked the state legislators who ratified that amendment), it had the effect of opening Pandora’s Box, unleashing the destructive forces of what Matt Barber has called “Sexual Anarchy.”

We are now gradually discovering that, once a society begins destroying its own traditions, imposing new laws and redefining words in pursuit of vague abstractions of “equality” and “progress,” the harmful effects of this radicalism cannot be limited, and that the victims of the resulting chaos will include many radicals who had expected to benefit from the destruction of the traditional social order. Selah.

By the way, it would be the height of presumption for me to claim to speak on behalf of the lesbian community, but my own observations and experience indicate that, insofar as lesbians find any males attractive, their preferences are more or less normal. That is to say, it is only the confident, athletic, masculine man who can arouse in them any erotic interest at all. Like other women, the lesbian generally views effeminate males as weak and pathetic. So while a lesbian might, in a discussion of hypothetical scenarios, admit she’d be willing to give Channing Tatum a chance, she would be offended at the suggestion that she could (or should) be attracted to such a pitiable joke as Riley Dennis.



 

 

Category: Sex Trouble, The Transgender Cult
« go back — keep looking »