Ever since the Obama Administration made it its mission to force transgender bathroom rights onto schools, I’ve been warning about how this trend would negatively impact women’s rights. For some reason, many feminists made a choice of siding with the leftist trend and betraying their own gender. Now, even some feminist leaders are being targeted and ostracized for daring to point out the obvious: hormones, psychology and (optionally) surgery do not turn a male into a 100% female, and denying reality is destroying women’s sports.
All over America, girls who have worked hard for years to win athletic scholarships are being left in the dust by trans competitors who were born male and now “identify” as female. In many cases, the frustrated girls and their parents have been shamed into silence if they dare complain. But anyone who doesn’t live in fantasyland can tell that students who go through puberty as males develop muscle tone, upper body strength and stamina that gives them an unfair advantage over girls. Pretending otherwise has resulted in stories like this one, about the top two finishers in girls' high school track in Connecticut both being trans students who identify as female. I’ll let the photo speak for itself:
Growing complaints about the unfairness of this are rejected by politically-correct athletic officials, who seem so concerned with diversity and non-discrimination that they have flushed all common sense down the gender-nonspecific toilet. If you complain that these “girls” are not really girls, you’re “uninformed.” Again, I refer you to the photo. Would they also claim it was “discriminatory” not to allow heavyweight boxers to compete against featherweight boxers?
At least in track, the girls only lose to the trans males. There’s not a chance of them suffering serious injury, as they can and have when forced to compete against trans boxers or wrestlers.
The latest famous victim of this national, politically-enforced mass delusion is tennis great Martina Navratilova. She’s a feminist heroine and a gay rights activist, but she’s been blasted and the LGBTQ group Athletes Ally has severed ties with her over a tweet and column in which she wrote, “You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women,” that it’s insane and it’s “cheating.”
Since Martina was a professional tennis player, I guess this means we’re supposed to let men who “identify” as women play professional tennis as well, just as women’s boxing has had to accept them, with predictably bloody results. Anyone with a brain can guess what will happen. In fact, you don’t even have to guess.
Not that long ago, John McEnroe was blasted when he said that if Serena Williams were compared to male players, she wouldn’t rank in the top 700. He was accused of denigrating the best and most powerful female player in the world. But he was simply stating biological reality.
In 1998, Venus and Serena Williams were so hot at the Australian Open that they declared they could beat any male tennis player ranked around 200th in the world. German player Karsten Braasch was ranked 203rd so he took them up on it. He beat them both handily, one after the other. He later wrote that it was just for fun, and none of them took it seriously. But I’ll bet women players would take it seriously if they were forced to do it in competition.
Want to hear some more shockingly transphobic talk from female sports stars? In 2013, when some were pushing for Serena to accept a challenge from the male Wimbledon champion, she replied, “If I were to play Andy Murray, I would lose 6–0, 6–0, in 5 to 6 minutes.”
The ultimate female tennis icon Billie Jean King agreed, saying it wouldn’t be like her beating Bobby Riggs: “I mean, Bobby was a lot older than I was. The women have never said we’re better than the men, and yet, the men always come back to us, ‘Oh, you think you’re as good or better.’ No, not at all…Men have androgens that we don’t have. You’re stronger, you’re faster—we don’t argue that at all. So to be honest, Serena against Andy Murray would not work. He would win. And he knows it. She knows it.”
Who doesn’t know it? The people in charge of girls’ high school sports. Or at least, they pretend not to know it. Serena, Billie Jean and Martina used to be cool, but now, they'll have to be erased from history for their non-PC honesty. What’s cool now is denying biological reality and insisting that people with male bodies are girls, even if it destroys women’s sports.
Won’t someone please do something about the epidemic of hoax hate crimes that President Trump is obviously to blame for? On that subject, meet the alleged Jussie Smollett of Jackson, Michigan...
The American Action Forum (a think tank led by Republican Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who used to lead the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office) has a new, more complete estimate of the cost of implementing the Democrats’ “Green New Deal.” The good news: the initial estimate of more than $30 trillion over ten years was wrong. The bad news: the actual cost would range between $51 and $93 trillion.
Backers of the plan responded that not implementing it will cost more. How is that even possible? The entire US gross domestic product is only around $20 trillion a year. That’s everything produced in the USA. You could take an Uber to the sun and back 250 billion times for $93 trillion, which is a more plausible plan than the Green New Deal.
Sponsoring Sen. Ed Markey claims the AAF estimate is based on “lazy assumptions.” Lazier than thinking you can get cows to stop passing gas or rebuild every structure in America or replace all planes with trains in 10 years? Someone needs to spend more time in a “think tank,” and it’s not the people from AAF.
Speaking of lazy assumptions, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s latest pearl of wisdom is that, with the environmental apocalypse just 12 years away (as she’s convinced a lot of terrified children is true; see Dianne Feinstein’s frustrating experience), people should consider not having children.
In response, Ed Driscoll at Instapundit makes the following observation:
“AOC was born in 1989, the same year that AP reported that ‘A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000,’ and the New York Times published a column by Al Gore headlined, ‘An Ecological Kristallnacht. Listen.’ Presumably, she’s glad that her parents ignored such apocalyptic scaremongering.”
Maybe we could strike a compromise: anyone who thinks it’s a good idea to make major life decisions based on the wisdom of “Democratic” socialists is free to consider not reproducing. The rest of us will decline to commit generational suicide based on the chances that UN computer climate models are correct and go on enjoying our children and grandchildren, who will live in a world without the added government oppression and tens of trillions of dollars in debt that will not exist if socialists stop reproducing.
The Governor responds to two astute readers
Great point from reader Alan in response to my commentary on James Baker:
“In other words, Hillary Clinton and Obama were ok with sharing their privileged and confidential communications with the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans and Iranians –- but not with American conservatives who might invoke their Freedom of Information privileges. Hence, their 'friends' were their global comrades happy to tear America down in order to bring about international unity and their real 'enemies' were Republican conservatives seeking as patriots to preserve the distinct [attributes] of the American Republic.”
From the Gov:
Exactly right! And the people around them were so politicized, they must have seen it the same way. To them, the WORST enemy isn’t China or Russia –- it’s here in America, on the right. It’s us. Why, we want to be able to keep tabs on them, to know what they’re doing and what strings they’re pulling behind the scenes to abuse---I mean exercise, their power. What impudence! It must be stopped.
In their view, we’re a bunch of rubes who have no business knowing that the President sent a planeload of cash to Iran. We have no business knowing about the foreign influence likely obtained by donors to the Clinton Global Initiative. And we CERTAINLY have no business knowing what the FBI was doing to cover for Hillary and go after Donald Trump. So, in their minds, anything they do to cover it up is justified. Drag their feet forever on FOIA requests, create an investigation on a sitting President, fly planes under cover of night taking money to people who chant 'Death to America'...and set up a private email server that bypasses official reporting requirements but risks easy hacking of classified material by dangerous foreign entities. It was all for a good cause: to keep YOU AND ME in the dark and out of the way.
Most of the mainstream media “collude” with them by simply ignoring what Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, John Solomon, Sara A. Carter and a few others manage to uncover, which is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Nothing we have reported here on any of this has been shown to be wrong --- it just hasn’t reached a wider, mainstream audience, at least not yet. We’re working on that. And you can help, by passing along solid reporting and analysis from trusted sources.
This situation is why I love the joke Trump made about Russia looking for Hillary’s 33,000 emails. Leftists showed they have no sense of humor by taking him literally, but this was a very pointed public jab at Hillary, her destruction of subpoenaed documents, and the ease with which Russia (and other governments) could have hacked her server. I’ll bet those Ruskies do have every email she ever wrote –- and received –- as Secretary of State. Whether they do or not, the chance of that happening must have been fine with her, and apparently fine even with Obama, as long as we didn’t see them.
Reader Wallace sums it up well:
"Remember that President Obama knew nothing about classified information or the security system until he was elected president. He could not have received a security clearance under the traditional CARL (citizenship, associates, reliability, loyalty) guidelines. President Obama was just as guilty of violating security protocol as Secretary of State Clinton. Perhaps even worse...using a pseudonym instead of his own name or position. If Hillary Clinton was charged with any criminal activity, it would have been necessary to charge President Obama with the same or greater criminal activity. How do you charge the sitting President, the commander--in-chief, with a crime that typically involved an imprisonment of ten years?"
From the Gov:
I have such smart readers. Thanks, Wallace, for bringing up the security clearance process, specifically “CARL.” No, Obama would not have passed that, especially the "associates" part. While researching it, I came across this excerpt from Gary Aldrich’s book, UNLIMITED ACCESS, about how it was to work inside the Clinton White House and the security problems he encountered there. It’ll take you back. When the book came out, the Washington Post actually printed the first chapter, which makes great reading...
Say, remember when some people on the right were conjecturing that President Obama might declare martial law and refuse to leave office? They were roundly ridiculed by the mainstream media as crazy, tinfoil hat-wearing, paranoid conspiracy lunatics.
Well, CNN just published a serious op-ed by a Georgetown University law professor titled, “What if Trump refuses to accept defeat in 2020?” Yes, it's the exact same premise.
Here’s a more realistic question: “What if liberals refused to accept defeat in 2016 and it drove them absolutely batty?” Because I think that’s how we got articles like this. Here’s another question to ponder: “How far around the bend are they going to go after their unending public displays of brain-drooling lunacy insure that Trump wins again in 2020?”
(In fairness, CNN adds a disclaimer that the views expressed in op-eds do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CNN or its employees. But I think it’s safe to say this one does.)
How about a big salute to Illinois Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger? He’s not only fighting to secure the border in Congress, he’s literally fighting for border security on the border…as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Wisconsin Air National Guard, currently deployed to Arizona.
Rather than complaining about having to do his duty, Kinzinger says he loves it and is proud to serve: “When drugs come into Arizona, they end up in Illinois. To protect this country from, frankly, all the drugs that are coming over, is awesome.”
In a time when far too many Congress members prefer to put on blinders and deny reality, it’s great to know that there is at least one person in Washington who has hands-on experience at protecting our borders. Now, if only his colleagues would at least visit the border and ask the people living there if they think border security is a “manufactured crisis.”
Must-See Video: Saturday was the 74th anniversary of the historic moment in World War II when US Marines on Iwo Jima raised the American flag atop Mount Suribachi. Click this link to see the video the Marines shared to commemorate it. And share it with your kids and grandkids, who probably won’t learn about it in school.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!