Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Chelsea Clinton Paid Over $1,000 a Minute to Appear at a College


Townhall.com:
After discovering that Hillary Clinton charges exorbitant amounts to appear at events (actual quote: "Yikes!"), administrators from the University of Missouri at Kansas City decided to go with a slightly cheaper member of the Clinton family to headline their lunchtime gala for the opening of a women's hall of fame: Chelsea. Chelsea, a relative bargain at $65,000 compared to her mother's fee of $275,000, spoke for a whole 10 minutes, did a moderated Q&A for 20 minutes, and took pictures with VIPs for a half hour.
$65,000/60 = $1,083.33. Chelsea Clinton was paid over a thousand dollars per minute. 

The event raised $38,500, but organizers claim fundraising was not the goal of the event. 

While a spokesperson for Chelsea stated that the money went to the Clinton Foundation, there is apparently no reference to this in any email communication between UMKC and Chelsea's representatives nor was there any reference to this in the contract for the speech.

Is it really a question why college costs are skyrocketing?
Scandal after scandal after scandal with the Clinton's and people in this country are still dumb enough to want to vote for them come 2016. Shm.

RELATED: Records show Clinton withheld emails about oil, terrorism

15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality


TheFederalist.com:
Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.
Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.

Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.
The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

The Rainbow’s Arc

Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.
Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.
Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.

1. The Kids Are Not Alright

In March, six adult children from LGBT households filed amicus briefs opposing genderless marriage: see here, here, and here. You can read testimonials of many such children in a newly released anthology by Robert Oscar Lopez and Rivka Edelman, “Jephthah’s Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family ‘Equality.’”
Whenever a parent is missing—for whatever reason—a child feels a primal wound. In this respect, parents belong to their children more than children belong to their parents. We ought to recognize that privileges of civil marriage should ultimately exist for children, not for adults. Children have the right to know their origins and not to be treated as commodities. Same-sex parenting—which increasingly involves human trafficking, particularly with artificial reproductive technologies (see number eight)—deliberately deprives a child of a mother and/or a father. The “marriage equality” agenda requires that such children bear that burden alone and repress their primal wound in silence.
RELATED:  Limbaugh on SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling: ‘Cultural Depravity’ Will Spread

Monday, June 29, 2015

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore: ‘Welcome to the New World’ of Christian Persecution


Mediaite.com:
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, known for his fiercely religious beliefs, railed against the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage and declared, “Welcome to the new world.”

“It’s just changed for you Christians,” he declared to a church congregation yesterday. “It’s the time now where you’re going to be persecuted, according to the United States Supreme Court.”

ADVERTISEMENT
He went off on the damage done to religious liberty and asked, “Is there such a thing as morality anymore?… Have we elevated morality to immorality? Do we call good ‘bad’? What are we Christians to do?”

And Moore, of course, is doing all he can to fight back against the Supreme Court ruling, with an order he said means no state probate judge “has to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple.”
RELATED:  Ted Cruz: States should ignore gay-marriage ruling

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Far-Left NYC Politician Scott Stringer Wants Businesses To Have Unisex Bathrooms


NYPost.com:
New York City businesses could soon need to convert some of their bathrooms to gender-neutral facilities.

Comptroller Scott Stringer has proposed new legislation that would require all single-occupancy, publicly available restrooms to be designed as gender-neutral.

It would also change the wording of some city codes to remove regulations that require plumbers to create separate washrooms for each sex.

The law would mainly require businesses to change the signage on single-occupancy restrooms. It does not affect multistall lavatories.

The legislation comes after a report by Stringer’s office found that transgender people experience harassment in public bathrooms. Advocates say it is a common-sense step to tackling gender bias and harassment.

New York’s proposal follows similar measures in Philadelphia, West Hollywood and the District of Columbia.
RELATED:  Rosenberg urges support for transgender rights bill

Texas Governor Greg Abbott Defies Supreme Court Ruling On Gay Marriage; Issues Directive Protecting Religious Freedom


Chron.com:
Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage across the country on Friday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott told his department directors to not take action against any state officials who act or refuse to act on account of their "sincere religious belief."

"This order applies to any agency decision, including but not limited to granting or denying benefits, managing agency employees, entering or enforcing agency contracts, licensing and permitting decisions, or enforcing state laws and regulations," Abbott wrote.

The directive appeared to open the door to allow state agencies to refuse to give employee benefits to same-sex couples.

Hours later, however, Abbott spokesman John Wittman issued a statement to clarify the governor's directive.

"The Governor's directive does not authorize or order state agencies to deny benefits to same-sex couples," Wittman said in an email. "The directive ensures that individuals doing business with the state cannot be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs."
Of course, this is the right thing to do as the facts remain that the next step for the Gay Mafia will be to force churches/priests to marry homosexuals. After all, these morally bankrupt souls have long shown that compromise is not an option in their playbook.

RELATED: Politico: Has not the time come for polygamy, social liberals?

Thursday, June 25, 2015

‘You’re in My House!': Barack Obama Kicks Trans Woman Activist Out of LGBT Event


Mediaite.com:
President Barack Obama was delivering remarks at an LGBT Pride Month reception at the White House Wednesday afternoon when a transgender woman interrupted him, shouting “President Obama, release all LGBTQ immigrants from detention!” Judging by the cell phone video of the confrontation that was quickly uploaded to YouTube, the woman is connected to the Not One More Deportation movement. 

ADVERTISEMENT
“You’re in my house,” Obama said in response as the crowd tried to shush the activist. As security attempted to escort her out, the president said that heckling was not the way to get a “good response” from him on this issue. “Shame on you, you shouldn’t be doing this,” he added. The crowd chanted the president’s name as the woman repeated, “Not one more deportation” over and over again.

ADVERTISING
Fusion’s Jorge Rivas identified the woman as Jennicet GutiĆ©rrez, a founding member of the immigrant rights organization FAMILIA TQLM. She said in a statement:
“There is no pride in how LGBTQ and transgender immigrants are treated in this country. If the president wants to celebrate with us, he should release the LGBTQ immigrants locked up in detention centers immediately. The White House gets to make the decision whether it keeps us safe.”
Funny how just about every heckler who has ever heckled Barack Obama while he was trying to give some speech has been some rude, white liberal unsatisfied with Barry, by far the most socially liberal POTUS ever, not moving the country Left enough. But the media never seems to have time to bring up that little racial anecdote.

RELATED: A progressive panic attack begins as the Obama era wanes.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Bobby Jindal Announces Run for President


NYTimes.com:
Gov. Bobby Jindal, who became Louisiana’s first nonwhite governor since Reconstruction but whose popularity has plummeted as the state struggled with a $1.6 billion shortfall, announced on Wednesday that he is running for president in 2016.

Mr. Jindal, 44, who became the nation’s first Indian-American governor when he took office in 2008, joins the crowded field of Republican contenders in what even his supporters call a long-shot candidacy in which he faces several disadvantages.

“My name is Bobby Jindal,” he told a cheering crowd outside New Orleans. “I am running for president of the greatest country in the world - the United States of America.”



Mr. Jindal has kept a low profile on the national stage compared with Jeb Bush, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and other Republican candidates and likely candidates being closely watched by analysts and the news media. And his poll numbers have fallen sharply in his home state as he nears the end of his eight-year tenure, amid criticism that he has been more focused on laying the groundwork for a presidential run than on Louisiana’s fiscal troubles.
Jindal certainly has the credentials to run, but too many candidates running for GOP ticket could hurt him as it'll even be more of a struggle for him to stand out from the rest of the field.

RELATED: The Media’s Despicable, Racist Attack on Bobby Jindal

Pluralities of Whites, Blacks, Latinos Think SCOTUS Should Not Declare a Constitutional Right to Gay Marriage


HotAir.com:
All three of these groups should be boycotted immediately and mercilessly, needless to say.

Quite a week for unity in America. First the two parties come together in opposition to the Confederate flag, now the races come together in opposition to constitutionalizing SSM. Maybe this is the key to healing the nation, finding things that everyone dislikes. Like the new “True Detective,” or that hot-dog pizza abortion from Pizza Hut.

The opposition is mild, obviously, but it’s there. Interestingly, when you remove the Court from the equation, those numbers tilt the other way. Here’s what happens when you ask people if they support letting gays marry legally:

Overall it’s 49/41 in favor, with whites and Latinos both supportive on balance and blacks very narrowly split in favor of H8. Refine the question to ask whether gay couples specifically have a constitutional right to marry (as opposed to whether they should have a “legal” right) and you get this:

There’s still a plurality in favor and whites still support the idea on balance, but blacks and Latinos have now flipped in opposite directions. Blacks support a constitutional right to marry, 46/40, even they oppose the legal right generally while Latinos oppose it narrowly, 42/44, even though they support legal gay marriage in principle. I can understand the Latino position — it’s one thing to acknowledge a right by statute, it’s another to place it beyond Congress’s reach by reading it into the Constitution — but the numbers among blacks are harder to figure. Maybe they see the baseline question about whether SSM should be legalized as more of a moral one while the constitutional question is more of a legal one. Or maybe framing the matter as a constitutional issue holds special appeal given the Warren Court’s civil-rights legacy. Go figure that blacks might feel warmly about constitutional arguments after rulings like Brown vs. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.

In that case, though, why should blacks, white, and Latinos all flip towards opposition when you refine the question further to ask whether the Supreme Court should rule that gays have a constitutional right to marry? The answer, I think, lies in another part of YouGov’s question, where they stress that if the Court rules that way, “same-sex marriages will be allowed in states whose laws currently forbid them.” There are doubtless people in all three groups who didn’t realize until that question was put to them that that’s what a SCOTUS ruling on this subject would mean on the ground. Each state’s ability to set its own law on marriage will go out the window; it’ll be one uniform rule for the entire country by judicial decree. Turns out Americans aren’t crazy about that, which may signal a backlash brewing if the Court rules as everyone expects this week. But then, never underestimate the media’s ability to shape opinion. The coverage of a ruling that constitutionalizes SSM will be greeted with undisguised euphoria. That ought to tamp down some of the complaints afterward. (And if it doesn’t, boycott threats against the complainers will.)
RELATED:  Why scoffers can't understand the Bible

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Associated Press Publishes Photos Of Pistol Pointed At Ted Cruz's Head


Mediaite.com:
The Associated Press found itself in hot water late Sunday evening when it published a photograph of Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) with a background poster depicting a handgun coincidentally pointed in the direction of the senator’s face.

According to Politico, the photograph was taken by the AP’s Charlie Neibergall during Cruz’s Saturday appearance at CrossRoads Shooting Sports in Johnston, Iowa. See the image below:

Of course, that set off conservative commentators and social media users: Breitbart News and others suggested such an image would never be taken of a Democrat.

And so, last night, the AP’s director of media relations Paul Colford released a statement explaining the photograph, but not apologizing:
Presidential candidate Ted Cruz was shown in a series of 14 photos taken by an Associated Press photographer at a ‘Celebrate the 2nd Amendment’ event Saturday afternoon, held at a shooting range in Johnston, Iowa. Five of the photos published by AP included images of guns seen on a wall in the background so that it appeared a pistol was pointed at Sen. Cruz’s head. The images were not intended to portray Sen. Cruz in a negative light.
This was clearly intentional and politically motivated.

RELATED: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul Give Away Donations from Supremacist Group Linked to Charleston Murder Suspect

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley Calls for Confederate Flag to Come Down


NBCNews.com:
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley called for the removal of the Confederate flag from the grounds of the state Capitol Monday, less than a week after a 21-year-old white man gunned down nine people at a historic African American church. 

Support for the flag to come down from leaders around the state and around the country has been steadily growing in the wake of the devastating attack. 

"Today, we are here in a moment of unity in our state, without ill will, to say it is time to move the flag from the Capitol grounds," Haley said during a news conference attended by Republican senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott, along with other state leaders. 

The announcement was met by applause and cheers from those in attendance. 

The flag wasn't lowered to half-staff along with the other flags at the Statehouse after the shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church Wednesday because doing so is under the authority of the state's General Assembly — and so is taking it down. 

Authorities have said the shooting was a hate crime, and a white supremacist website that may be linked to the shooter, Dylann Roof, has images that apparently show him holding the Confederate battle flag.
RELATED: Limbaugh on Confederate Flag: ‘When Did All This Become a Republican Problem?’

Monday, June 22, 2015

Flashback: As Governor, Bill Clinton Honored Confederacy On Arkansas Flag






DailyCaller.com:

As the fight to remove the Confederate flag from the state House grounds in South Carolina heats up, politicians are weighing in on the debate. 
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham defended displaying the flag, while former presidential candidate Mitt Romney called for its removal. Carly Fiorina called it a “symbol of racial hatred,” but stopped short of saying it should be removed. Sen. Ted Cruz said South Carolinians should decide what their state does. President Barack Obama’s spokesman said the flag belongs in a museum.

But while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has weighed in on the gun control aspect of the national discussion, the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination has remained silent on the flag controversy.

In 1987, when her husband was governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton signed Act 116 that stated “The blue star above the word “ARKANSAS” is to commemorate the Confederate States of America.”

Don Lemon Quote of the Day!


“What the hell is he talking about?”

- CNN Anchor Don Lemon on SC Judge Calling Mass Murderer Dylann Roof’s Family ‘Victims’

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Ain't The Devil Happy: In The News 6/21/15


The Insufferable, but Occasionally Right, Donald Trump

The Supreme Court Prepares to Scramble the 2016 Race

Federal Judge Reopens Suit to Obtain Huma Abedin’s Clinton E-Mails

Rachel Dolezal and Cultural Nihilism

Karl Rove: Ignore Donald Trump Until He Files Paperwork

Media Critic David Zurawik on Brian Williams: ‘A Liar Is A Liar’

WashPost, NBC Tout How Pope's Paper 'Puts GOP Candidates on the Spot'

Emanuel AME: Evil Cannot Close Our Doors

Transgender Actor Laverne Cox Appears as Statue of Liberty on ‘Entertainment Weekly’ Cover

Friday, June 19, 2015

Barack Obama Went to Fundraise Immediately After Statement on Charleston Massacre


Townhall.com:
The mass shooting that took place in Charleston, South Carolina Wednesday night is tragic beyond belief and the nation mourns for the victims and their families. While President Obama shared his grief in a press conference this afternoon, he also couldn’t resist turning the statement into a call for gun control.
 
And then, quite predictably, he was off to fundraise and play golf. 
Pres Obama wheels up en route Los Angeles. He has two DNC fundraisers there today. pic.twitter.com/vPnG2OtNvw
— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) June 18, 2015
If this sounds familiar it’s because it is. The president also went to fundraise the day after the Benghazi attack that left four Americans dead, including a sitting ambassador; he hit the links minutes after a somber address about American journalist James Foley’s beheading by ISIS; and went fundraising after giving a brief statement about the Fort Hood mass shooting. We could go on and on and on

Optics matter, and Obama still hasn’t learned that, or just doesn’t care. 
RELATED:  Lindsey Graham: Charleston Shooter May Have Been ‘Looking for Christians to Kill’

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Brian Williams 'Demoted' To MSNBC, Gets New Role at Lower Salary


NYTimes.com:
NBC said on Thursday that Brian Williams would stay with the network but was being removed as the evening news anchor after he made numerous “inaccurate statements” about his experiences in the field.

Mr. Williams will join MSNBC as anchor of breaking news and special reports. The move is a humbling blow for him both professionally and financially. Mr. Williams will earn less money in his new role than he was as anchor of the “Nightly News,’’ according to an NBC executive with knowledge of the agreement, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The person characterized it as “substantially’’ less money, but would not be more specific.

Under a contract Mr. Williams signed in December, he was reported to be making at least $10 million a year over five years.

Lester Holt, 56, an NBC veteran who has been filling in for Mr. Williams, will become chief anchor of the “Nightly News.’’ He is the first African-American to serve as solo anchor of a weekday evening newscast.
The network said that Mr. William’s embellishments, discovered through an internal investigation, “did not for the most part occur on NBC News platforms or in the immediate aftermath of the news events, but rather on late-night programs and during public appearances, usually years after the news events in question.”

RELATED: Ann Coulter Burns Brian Williams and MSNBC with One Tweet

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Why is Rachel Dolezal Any Different from Caitlyn Jenner?


TheFederalist.com:
Osamudia James has written a thought-provoking article at The Washington Post, saying Rachel Dolezal doesn’t understand what it means to be African American. Ironically, what James wrote can be applied to Bruce Jenner. While Dolezal appropriated blackness—a mere social construct that’s fluid—Jenner appropriated femaleness—a biological construct that’s fixed. When you compare the two, Jenner’s is the most egregious. Yet Jenner is defended in his delusion while Dolezal is excoriated.

To see the hypocrisy of those who say transgender is legitimate, even normal, but transracial is not, simply insert “woman” for “black” and “Jenner” for “Dolezal” and rework the relevant content in James’s article. Here’s what that would sound like.

As a woman, what should I make of Bruce Jenner? Is Jenner a woman because he successfully duped people into seeing him as a woman? And what do his ideas about womanhood tell us about how men understand being a woman?

These are tricky questions.

Jenner has appropriated a female identity to film a reality television show and become part of a community that isn’t actually his own. Pictures of him feature thick, flowing hair. His nails are long and brightly colored; his clothes sultry and fashionable. In photos, he arranges his very glossy lips into a pout, as if to present them as full and sexy.

In interviews about his background, he tells stories about wearing his sister’s dresses and his mother’s scarves; choosing to be unfair to his first wives regarding his true sexual identity; telling his first wife that he was just into cross-dressing, that they’d work it all out; getting caught by his daughter wearing one of her dresses; and worrying about what he’s going to wear to receive his courage award.

In these stories and images, I see ladyface—he gathered limited and stereotypical notions about female aesthetics, using them to inform a “woman costume”—including getting fake breasts—to wear out into the world.

In peddling this narrative, Jenner misses the actual day-to-day psychic tolls that accompany womanhood. Not every woman likes fashion, getting her nails done, shopping, or tweeting about what she’s going to wear to an awards show. Rather, the experience of womanhood more often includes subtle, but more indelible, phenomena: the learning, as a child, of gender narratives of inferiority; the frustration of navigating a society where women are not treated equally to men; the labor of female caregivers who cultivate resiliency and pride in their little ones despite the experience of discrimination against women.

Womanhood is also an intergenerational experience and a historical consciousness borne out of feminist struggles, but one that has also produced valuable cultural and intellectual expression, human ingenuity and reinvention, and importantly, pride. Our resilience is borne out of childhood that yes, presents challenges and exposes us to discrimination, but also results in a lived, day-to-day feminist experience that enriches our lives and informs the world; an experience to which Jenner may not fraudulently lay claim, whether or not people have believed his farce. He has engaged in a superficial deployment of womanhood, but his choice does not legitimate his anemic hold on a biological construct neither assigned to nor actually experienced by him before his lies began.

To label his assumed identity acceptable or authentic because he effectively played into extreme stereotypes about clothing and experiences is to buy into the flawed assumption that womanhood is only about how one looks and behaves. And if womanhood, and the female experience, is only performance, then what follows is the dangerous and incorrect assumption that women would be better off if they performed differently; if, in fact, they performed more like men.

For Jenner and, I fear, many other men, womanhood is mere stereotypical performance: jewelry, nails, clothing, and hair. It is not exposure to a sexually hostile world, or the mental work of cultivating dignity, fortitude and hope in the face of that hostility. Nevertheless, I hope the conversations we will surely have in the upcoming days about his “transgender status” will help us understand that there is no difference between pretending to be black and pretending to be a woman. Both are lies.
RELATED: Left Resorts To ‘Gaslighting’ Tactics In Transgender Debate

Donald Trump Officially Running for POTUS, Reports Net Worth at $8.7 Billion


CNN.com:
Donald Trump finally took the plunge.

The real estate mogul and TV reality star launched his presidential campaign Tuesday, ending more than two decades of persistent flirtation with the idea of running for the Oval Office.

"So, ladies and gentlemen, I am officially running for president of the United States, and we are going to make our country great again," Trump told the crowd in a lengthy and meandering 45-minute speech that hit on his signature issues like currency manipulation from China and job creation, while also taking shots at the president and his competitors on the Republican side.

"Sadly the American dream is dead," Trump said at the end of his speech. "But if I get elected president I will bring it back bigger and better and stronger than ever before."

Just over four years after he came closer than ever to launching a campaign before bowing out, Trump made his announcement at the lavish Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York, laying out a vision to match his incoming campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again."
Funny how the liberal media already has a full-out assault alert on him.

RELATED: We Are All Donald Trump Now

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

121 Murders Attributed to Illegals Released by Obama Administration


Townhall.com:
This revelation came as a result of an inquiry from Senators Chuck Grassley and Jeff Flake about Apolinar Altamirano, an illegal alien charged with murdering Arizona convenience store clerk Grant Ronnebeck. Altamirano was supposed to be deported after racking up a previous criminal history. Instead, he was able to stay and took the life of an innocent American. 

As a result of ICE providing this information, Grassley and Senator Jeff Sessions have a sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson demanding answers. 

"According to information provided by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), up to 121 homicides in the U.S. could have been avoided between Fiscal Year 2010 and FY 2014 had this administration removed from our borders aliens with criminal convictions instead of releasing them back into society where they could commit more crimes," the letter states. "I am writing to ask whether the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the State Department, and the Justice Department are fully leveraging existing tools and resources to prevent these dangerous outcomes."

Lynch, Kerry and Johnson have until July 6 to respond.


In January, legislation was introduced in the Senate to stop Homeland Security's "catch and release" program.
The Department of Homeland Security currently has a policy in place known as "catch and release," meaning violent illegal aliens are arrested, processed and put back onto American streets if their home countries won't take them back.

According to Judicary Comimittee Chairman Chuck Grassley's office, the policy was "created by a 2001 Supreme Court decision (Zadvydas v. Davis), which prohibits immigrants who had been ordered removed from being detained for more than six months. The Court expanded this decision to apply to all illegal immigrants in Clark v. Martinez in 2005."

This catch and release policy is not only demoralizing to Immigration and Border Patrol Agents, but it's dangerous and deadly. There are countless examples of violent assault and murders committed by illegal aliens after being arrested and released by federal authorities.
In 2013, DHS admitted to releasing 36,000 violent criminal aliens charged and convicted of crimes like assault with a deadly weapon, child-rape, rape, participating in street gangs, aggravated assault and murder onto American streets. 
RELATED:  Jeb Bush's Stance On Immigration Is Surprisingly Progressive But Also A Bit Contradictory

Why Feminists Largely Ignore The Insane Misogyny In ISIS


NationalPost.com:
A year ago this week, time stopped for most of the million people living in Mosul, the second city of Iraq, when the Islamic State took control.

As one of the residents said, there was suddenly nowhere to go home to. Fear paralysed every move. American-trained Iraqi soldiers hid their uniforms and their gear while the rest of the people resigned themselves to their new status as prisoners. Their enemies had become their jailers.

They often call the invaders Daesh, an unflattering Arabic acronym for “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.” Overwhelming Mosul was the biggest Daesh victory so far and the worst loss of the U.S.-led alliance. It won’t soon be reversed: Washington’s most optimistic plans call for an offensive against Mosul sometime in 2016.

This week the BBC and other news services marked the anniversary of the conquest by releasing interviews with refugees from Mosul who have provided moving accounts of intimate life under Daesh. And Phyllis Chesler, a feminist psychologist and author in the U.S., has responded by lamenting the fact that Western feminists have offered no support to the women who are Daesh’s victims.

This is not a new theme for Chesler. A few years ago, in her book The Death of Feminism, she argued that feminism had abandoned women in Muslim-majority countries. Kate Millett said that Chesler was “sounding a warning to the West that it ignores to its peril.” But it was largely ignored.

Chesler now says, in a statement issued by the Middle East Forum, that feminists have lost their way. They need to rekindle their original passion for universal justice. Fifty years ago, they launched a campaign for freedom and equality. That inspired a revolution in the West and a fresh vision for girls and women everywhere.

But today feminists ignore the ISIL crimes against women. “An astounding public silence has prevailed,” Chesler says. “The National Organization for Women (NOW) apparently doesn’t think ISIL is a problem.” NOW’s upcoming annual conference doesn’t list ISIL or Boko Haram on its agenda. The most recent conference dedicated to women’s studies dealt with foreign policy but considered only Palestine.

Today’s feminists, she adds, are disproportionately focussed on Western imperialism, colonialism and capitalism while ignoring Islam’s long history of imperialism, colonialism, anti-black racism, slavery and forced conversion.
RELATED: Here’s How Carly Fiorina Wants to Redefine Feminism

Monday, June 15, 2015

Far-Left Actress Susan Sarandon Tells Oprah: So Excited 'By the Fluidity of Gender That's Happening'


Newsbusters.org:
Actress Susan Sarandon has long lurched to the radical left, so maybe it’s not surprising that she would express excitement at the Trans-sexual revolution under way. She told Oprah Winfrey that she’s all for this “gender fluidity” trend in identity politics.

"I'm so excited these days by the fluidity of gender that's happening," she said on the show Oprah’s Master Class. "I think once all those 'boxes' are gone, it's going to be so much more interesting and so much less energy spent on those 'boxes.' We can get down to the nitty-gritty of, really, what a person is."

As if gender isn’t in the “nitty gritty”?

Sarandon declared that she would love to see gender stereotypes dissipate in childhood, especially those that expect boys and girls to behave more differently as they grow older.

"I always knew what I had to do for my daughter to give her a fair shake in the world... But the socialization problem for guys is so ruthless. Having two sons just made me experience that so much more," she says.

"Guys just can't feel and can't cry and... all this stuff just gets pounded out of them."  

As an actress, Sarandon has explored “fluidity” in films, like Cloud Atlas, a box-office stink-bomb she appeared in back in 2012. "Everybody plays different genders and different colors and [in] different time periods, kind of suggesting that the essence of a person is so much more than whatever a person is wrapped in," Sarandon recalled. "I love that notion."

It’s apparently becoming more “mainstream” to be extreme. "I see it more and more, in just the way people are dressing or refusing to dress, or the breaking down of very strict sexual orientation definitions, or even what it means to be a woman," she said.
RELATED:  Jaden Smith wears gender fluid dress to high school prom with Hunger Games actress

S.E. Cupp Quote of the Day!

"Ben Carson Fails to Sound Believable as a President or a Doctor"

- conservative pundit S.E. Cupp on 2016 GOP President candidate Ben Carson

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Ain't The Devil Happy: In The News 6/14/15

Melissa Harris-Perry on Rachel Dolezal: ‘It Is Possible That She Might Actually Be Black?’

CNN’s Fredricka Whitfield Apologizes For Calling Dallas Police Shooters ‘Courageous’ And ‘Brave’

God Bless Trans-merica

Hillary: Obama Should Listen to Pelosi on Trade Bill

New York Times Encourages Student Loan Defaults, But Darkly Questions Rubio's Finances  

Why Hillary Clinton Will Be Hard to Beat 

Ignoring Terrorism But Celebrating Gay Pride 

High School Implants IUDs in Teen Girls Without Their Parents’ Knowledge or Consent

North Carolina House Overrides Magistrate Same-sex Marriage Veto

Friday, June 12, 2015

Radio Host Charlamagne Tha God: If Bruce Jenner Can 'Feel' Like A Woman, Why Can't Rachel Dolezal 'Feel' Like She's Black?


HollywoodLife.com:

As critics attacked NAACP leader Rachel Dolezal for allegedly lying about her race, Charlamagne Tha God quickly rose to her defense. The radio personality made it very clear that he feels Rachel is just like transgender woman Caitlyn Jenner — but transracial.

Charlamagne Tha God, 34, has caused quite the stir on social media after comparing the recently open transgender woman, Caitlyn Jenner, 65, with Rachel Dolezal, 37 — the leader of the NAACP who was allegedly caught lying about having a black father. Now, he’s slamming society for accepting Caitlyn as a transgender woman but refusing to accept Rachel as a “transracial” woman who identifies with being a different race.

This is a pretty touchy subject, and unfortunately it’s being taken as more of a joke on social media than anything else. It all started when Charlamagne Tha God sounded off on NAACP leader Rachel Dolezal on Friday morning, June 12. The radio host, whose real name is Lenard McKelvey, had some very strong words about the situation and the critics who are slamming Rachel for allegedly lying.

“If Bruce Jenner can be a woman Rachel Dolezal can be black,” the Power 105.1 Breakfast Club co-host tweeted. “So how can Bruce Jenner identify with what he wants to identify with but Rachel Dolezal can’t? I’m confused about this… Hold up so you can be transgender in America but not transracial?”

Do you believe being transracial is real?
Although his tweets started out with a very serious intonation, he then went on to make jokes about the situation. His jokes were not only about the ongoing situation with Rachel, but seemingly directed towards the transgender community for being privileged enough to be accepted.

“I want Rachel Dolezal on the front ofEbony!!!! Call Me Raquel,” he tweeted as a follow up. He also posted a photo of singer Robin Thicke on Instagram with the caption, “Let People Be who they really are!!!!!” The photo had “#TRANSRACIALLIVESMATTER” written across Robin’s face.
RELATED: Rachel Dolezal: ‘I Don’t Give Two Sh*ts What You Guys Think’

Thursday, June 11, 2015

New FemiNazi Spiel: “You Guys” Now Too Sexist To Tolerate


HotAir.com:
And here I assumed that the valid objection to “you guys” was its lazy construction. Fortunately we have Vox’s JenĆ©e Desmond-Harris to instruct the English-speaking world on the insult this “gendered” word imposes on women in the workplace, and everywhere else. Never mind the difficulty people would have in finding a workable and politically suitable replacement. It all pales in comparison with the need to address linguistic inequality.

By the way, it’s still cool to use “pales,” right? I may need to update my scorecard:
I’m a big user of “guys,” and when it was first brought to my attention that the phrase was frowned upon among leading feminist thinkers and people concerned with equality — especially in male-dominated workplaces — my reaction was “Oh, come on. It’s inaccurate, but it’s not actually hurting anyone.”
But I’ve changed my mind. As I read up on the issue, I realized that my kneejerk response (“but it doesn’t seem like that big a deal to me, personally, and changing would require effort on my part and that’s hard and tiring”) is nothing more than a very typical lazy excuse for avoiding the tiny tweaks to our lives that can, as a whole, make society more equal. …
You can think of the push to drop “guys” as political correctness run amok, or you can think of it as making a tiny change that doesn’t cost you anything and will keep you from being a jerk to half the population — and help you make the world just a tiny bit more fair.
That doesn’t mean it will be quick or easy: I’ve probably typed and deleted “you guys” (it turns out I loved to begin tweets and Facebook posts this way) about 15 times since I decided to write this piece a couple of weeks ago. But I’m going to keep working on it.
Yes, because linguistic equity is such a useful project. It obviously far surpasses issues like urban decay, education-system failure, and the breakdown of the family structure that leaves single mothers far more disadvantaged than men. Every y’all allows social-justice warriors to rejoice that they don’t have to do any actual work other than finger-wagging people who have no animus in using an ingrained and innocuous bit of slang.

National Review’s Charles Cooke offers this timely reminder that English is in fact one of the least-gendered languages in widespread use:
RELATED: CNN’s Don Lemon on ‘Political Correctness': Liberals the ‘Least Tolerant’

Satan's Favorite Stepchild Miley Cyrus Announces That She's Bisexual


HollywoodLife.com:

After months of speculation that Miley Cyrus might also be into the girls, the singer has finally revealed that she came out as bisexual to her mom, Tish Cyrus, when she was just 14-years-old.

Miley Cyrus, 22,has always made it clear that she’s very comfortable with her sexuality, but for the first time she’s revealing that she realized at just 14 years old that she was bisexual. Inside her telling new interview with Paper magazine, Miley reveals that she realized she was sexually attracted to girls as well as boys when she was still filming her hit television series, Hannah Montana. When she actually explained to her mom, Tish Cyrus, what she was feeling at the time, it took the mother of three by complete and total surprise.

Although the confession may seem just as surprising to those who are only used to seeing Miley date men, the truth is that she is also down with women. Throughout her revealing new interview with Paper magazine she never once uses the word “bisexual,” but she makes it very clear that she is sexually attracted to both men and women equally in her own very chill, laid back way.
No surprise here, she'll probably be 'transitioning' to become a man in 5 years anyway, either that or screwing animals.

RELATED: Miley Cyrus submitted a bondage video to NYC Porn Film Festival

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Caitlyn Jenner Brought Out the Left’s ‘Speech Police’ in Full Force


Mediaite.com:
Of all the many aspects of the “Caitlyn” Jenner story which bother conservatives, the one which causes me the most agitation is how the liberal “thought police” have attempted to censor any debate over the many issues related to this extraordinary tale.

It’s not just that the vast majority of media coverage has been overwhelmingly celebratory. That alone is annoying by default. What is flat-out scary is that the many forces of the left have used media intimidation and political correctness to enforce the notion that enthusiastically honoring Jenner’s transformation is the only acceptable reaction.

ADVERTISEMENT
I have written here before about how this very same tactic is used by media to eradicate debate over the issue of global warming. To me, when liberals (who used to believe in free expression until they realized that was unnecessary since they control almost all media) feel the need to disallow the other side to speak without fear of retribution, it is a sure sign that they are exceedingly insecure.

This has obviously been the case during the week since the new Jenner graced the cover of Vanity Fair magazine.

Numerous celebrities who dared to even slightly hesitate to join the “All Praise Caitlyn” bandwagon were roundly castigated and forced to recant at point of verbal bayonets. Snoop Dogg, Chris Brown, Drake Bell, Conner Cruise, and even Clint Eastwood have all experienced the wrath of the liberal speech policing. 

Making this even more disturbing is that none of them committed a “crime” any more serious than minor blasphemy against the accepted media religion, which dictates any remote criticism of a transgender person is an inherently grievous sin.

Let’s be clear here: I don’t believe these guys directly said anything remotely bigoted about Jenner. Snoop Dogg and Brown committed the worst thought crime by simply sharing a meme which referred to Jenner as a “science project” (a phrase, which it should be pointed out, has been often used to describe those who have undergone dramatic plastic surgery).

What I found interesting about the attacks on those two is that they both possess three layers of usually strong armor under the politically-correct rules of engagement: They are black, are big celebrities, and have been inoculated by past “controversies.” And yet even such usually strong defenses were no match for the blowtorch of backlash they faced via the wrath of Jenner supporters.

Conner Cruise is also black — the adopted son of a celebrity (Tom Cruise) — but his weaker force field was unable to protect him even when he was 100% correct in blasting ESPN for its absurd, insulting, purely commercial decision to award Jenner their Arthur Ashe Award for courage — a decision even Bob Costas found “crass” and “exploitative.” What is truly amazing about this is that, in the world of liberal PC rules, usually nothing trumps standing up for the legacy of a black man who faced real discrimination. But here even that was somehow trumped by the desire to honor a biological man for looking like a woman, while she still possesses the sexual equipment of a man.

Of all the many aspects of the “Caitlyn” Jenner story which bother conservatives, the one which causes me the most agitation is how the liberal “thought police” have attempted to censor any debate over the many issues related to this extraordinary tale.
It’s not just that the vast majority of media coverage has been overwhelmingly celebratory. That alone is annoying by default. What is flat-out scary is that the many forces of the left have used media intimidation and political correctness to enforce the notion that enthusiastically honoring Jenner’s transformation is the only acceptable reaction.
ADVERTISEMENT
I have written here before about how this very same tactic is used by media to eradicate debate over the issue of global warming. To me, when liberals (who used to believe in free expression until they realized that was unnecessary since they control almost all media) feel the need to disallow the other side to speak without fear of retribution, it is a sure sign that they are exceedingly insecure.

This has obviously been the case during the week since the new Jenner graced the cover of Vanity Fair magazine.

Numerous celebrities who dared to even slightly hesitate to join the “All Praise Caitlyn” bandwagon were roundly castigated and forced to recant at point of verbal bayonets. Snoop Dogg, Chris Brown, Drake Bell, Conner Cruise, and even Clint Eastwood have all experienced the wrath of the liberal speech policing. 

Making this even more disturbing is that none of them committed a “crime” any more serious than minor blasphemy against the accepted media religion, which dictates any remote criticism of a transgender person is an inherently grievous sin.

Let’s be clear here: I don’t believe these guys directly said anything remotely bigoted about Jenner. Snoop Dogg and Brown committed the worst thought crime by simply sharing a meme which referred to Jenner as a “science project” (a phrase, which it should be pointed out, has been often used to describe those who have undergone dramatic plastic surgery).

What I found interesting about the attacks on those two is that they both possess three layers of usually strong armor under the politically-correct rules of engagement: They are black, are big celebrities, and have been inoculated by past “controversies.” And yet even such usually strong defenses were no match for the blowtorch of backlash they faced via the wrath of Jenner supporters.

Conner Cruise is also black — the adopted son of a celebrity (Tom Cruise) — but his weaker force field was unable to protect him even when he was 100% correct in blasting ESPN for its absurd, insulting, purely commercial decision to award Jenner their Arthur Ashe Award for courage — a decision even Bob Costas found “crass” and “exploitative.” What is truly amazing about this is that, in the world of liberal PC rules, usually nothing trumps standing up for the legacy of a black man who faced real discrimination. But here even that was somehow trumped by the desire to honor a biological man for looking like a woman, while she still possesses the sexual equipment of a man.
Great piece by Ziegler, couldn't have expressed my feelings about 'Caitlyn Jenner' any better myself.

RELATED: Jerry Seinfeld Rants Against ‘Creepy PC’ Culture with Seth Meyers

New York Times: Marco Rubio Is Totally 'Irresponsible' Because He Bought a Fishing Boat in Florida


Townhall.com:
After doing a deep dive on the Rubio's traffic violation history last week (just kidding, it wasn't a deep dive but instead information handed over by the far left American Bridge), the New York Times is back for more...publishing of American Bridge material. This time, the NYT is letting everyone know just how broke the Rubio's were when they were young(er), just like everyone else in America. Oh, and that he's had trouble with his finances...like every other person in America. And, he likes fun toys...like any good man in America. 
For years, Senator Marco Rubio struggled under the weight of student debt, mortgages and an extra loan against the value of his home totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. But in 2012, financial salvation seemed to have arrived: A publisher paid him $800,000 to write a book about growing up as the son of Cuban immigrants.

In speeches, Mr. Rubio, a Florida Republican, spoke of his prudent plan for using the cash to finally pay off his law school loans, expressing relief that he no longer owed “a lady named Sallie Mae,” as he once called the lender.
Oh, and guess what guys? Marco Rubio had the nerve to buy a speed boat...in Florida. How irresponsible. 

UPDATE: It was a fishing boat for his family, not an "extravagant" "luxury speedboat" as the NYT claims.
But at the same time, he splurged on an extravagant purchase: $80,000 for a luxury speedboat, state records show. At the time, Mr. Rubio confided to a friend that it was a potentially inadvisable outlay that he could not resist. The 24-foot boat, he said, fulfilled a dream.
This is so ridiculous I'm actually laughing at my computer right now. Rubio had student loan debt? Yeah, so? A lot of people do. The Rubios had trouble balancing their spending? Who doesn't? Rubio took out a loan on his home to make ends meet? Good for him, lots of people do. He was paid a hefty amount of money to write a book about his upbringing that he used to pay off debt? Even better. He had more than one home now? Cool, wish I did too. He spent $80,000 on a speed fishing boat in ocean surrounded Florida after paying off his debt? How could he?! 
 
Marco Rubio and his family are normal people chasing the American Dream and that scares the hell out of "dead broke so we could pay mortgages" Hillary Clinton supporters. The different between Rubio and Clinton is that Rubio embraces success and policies that allow every American to own multiple homes and a speed boat someday. Clinton, however, relishes in wealth instead of encouraging Americans to become wealthy themselves to live the good life. According to Clinton, not everyone can be queen.
RELATED:  Did the New York Times Just Make Marco Rubio a Lot More Relatable?

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Bruce Jenner Faces a Second Lawsuit for February Car Crash


Mediaite.com:
In May, Caitlyn Jenner was slapped with a wrongful death lawsuit for the car crash in February that caused the death of Kim Howe. Talent manager Jessica Steindorff was driving the second car that was caught in the accident, and on Monday, she filed a suit of her own.

Jenner rear-ended Steindorff’s Prius on the Pacific Coast Highway at the end of the chain-reaction that sent Howe’s car towards oncoming traffic. Though Steindorff’s suit didn’t specify the nature of her injuries from the crash, her statement alleges that Jenner’s “negligent” driving resulted in physical harm, lost wages, and $25,000 worth of property damage and medical expenses.

ADVERTISEMENT
The suit filed by Howe’s step-children remains separate from Steindorff’s, though they also place blame for the accident on Jenner’s “careless and negligent” speeding. Jenner previously expressed her regrets for Howe’s death, but has asked for the case to be thrown out.

Jenner made her debut as Caitlyn last week with a photo spread in Vanity Fair.
Until Bruce Jenner officially does the paperwork to change his name to 'Caitlyn', I'm still calling him by the name his mama gave him.

RELATED: Bruce Jenner Caught On His Cell Phone While Driving Just 3 Days After Deadly Car Crash

What’s Loving Got to Do with It? Gay-Marriage Supporters Misuse a Precedent


NationalReview.com:
In the same-sex-marriage case recently argued in the Supreme Court, the petitioners have claimed a “fundamental right to marry” protected by the Constitution and unmoored from biology, the complementarity of the sexes, or the universal understanding of what “marriage” has meant in every culture in human history until the last 15 years. Their most persistent and compelling comparison of their legal situation has been to the laws that once banned interracial marriage in many states, until they were overturned by the Supreme Court 48 years ago in Loving v. Virginia. But a closer look at that precedent reveals that it is no help at all to their case — quite the contrary. And the advocates of same-sex marriage are deluding themselves if they think that a judicial victory for their side would be widely greeted as a triumph for justice, as the Loving decision was.

As Robert P. George and Ryan T. Anderson, among others, have pointed out, America’s shameful record of “anti-miscegenation” laws is a historical anomaly. Rooted in slavery and codified during the Jim Crow era after the Civil War, legal prohibitions on interracial marriage spread ultimately to 30 states by the second quarter of the 20th century. These laws had nothing as such to do with defining marriage or regulating what was a legitimate marital union. They had everything — and only — to do with paranoid racial theories entertained by a white power elite obsessed with the “purity” of their own race.
Consider the law struck down in Loving – Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act, passed at the same session in 1924 as another on “sexual sterilization of inmates of state institutions,” upheld by the Supreme Court in its 1927 Buck v. Bell ruling. These laws were of a piece in their eugenic purpose of maintaining white supremacy; the Racial Integrity Act forbade the marriage of “any white person” with someone of another race, defining “white person” as one “who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian.” Such marriages were declared void without need of a divorce or any other process; the parties to the marriage were guilty of a criminal offense, as was anyone who solemnized their union; out-of-state interracial marriages were subject to the same strictures for any Virginia resident; and cohabitation and extramarital sex across racial lines were forbidden.
Clearly the makers of these laws understood that marriage was naturally possible for interracial couples. Ironically, these laws were premised exactly on a recognition of childbearing’s centrality to the meaning of marriage; they were all about “mongrelization” and the “amalgamation” of the races. The Supreme Court that struck them down recognized them as a white-supremacist intrusion on a fundamental right to marry of couples who could marry, and who would marry if the law let them alone. Contrast this with the “bans” on same-sex marriage enacted by many states in the past two decades. They actually prohibit nothing on the part of same-sex couples — forestalling only state recognition of their relationships as marriages. No act is criminalized, and no relationships of adults with each other or with children are targeted for disruption. 
 
In our entire legal history, no one bothered to legislate a restriction of marriage to sexually complementary couples until the day before yesterday because everyone understood what “marriage” meant and would (if asked) have thought it naturally impossible for two men or two women to marry. No injustice to anyone was ever the intent or purpose of American marriage laws where same-sex couples are concerned — in stark contrast to the purposeful Jim Crow attack on men and women of different races. When states began in the 1990s and 2000s to legislate the man–woman definition of marriage, it was to protect the conjugal meaning from redefinition by culture warriors and judicial activists — not to interfere with marriages everyone recognized as actual ones but wished to prevent for the sake of a racist ideology. And this time the law’s salute to children’s centrality to marriage was embodied merely in the elementary recognition that the institution should be restricted to those who can be mother and father to a family built on their union.
 
Consider next the circumstances of the legal challenge to the Jim Crow anti-miscegenation laws. From a peak of 30 states with such laws in the 1920s and ’30s, the number declined to just 16 states by the time of the Loving case, only one of those states (California) doing away with its law by a judicial decree. After Brown v. Board of Education, the struggles of the civil-rights movement, and the passage of the federal Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the Loving case can be viewed as a mopping-up operation to fulfill the long-frustrated promise of the Reconstruction amendments and Lincoln’s new birth of freedom. Make no mistake: The remaining anti-miscegenation laws still had a lot of social inertia backing them in 1960s white America, where sentiment against interracial marriage ran high. But the legal prohibitions were already an embarrassment even to their residual supporters. As Peggy Pascoe notes in her 2009 history What Comes Naturally, only one state — North Carolina — submitted an amicus brief in support of Virginia’s defense of its law in the Supreme Court. 
Of course, anyone who's been paying attention knows that homosexuals and their Godless advocates on the Left have been using Blacks and race for decades to not only garner empathy, but to equate race with homosexuality in order to push the lie that because they're born that way their sexual attraction to the same sex is immutable.

RELATED: Why I, Unlike Senator Rubio, Would Not Attend a Gay Wedding

Monday, June 8, 2015

Why Bruce Jenner Can Never Be A Woman


NYTimes.com:
Do women and men have different brains?

Back when Lawrence H. Summers was president of Harvard and suggested that they did, the reaction was swift and merciless. Pundits branded him sexist. Faculty members deemed him a troglodyte. Alumni withheld donations.

But when Bruce Jenner said much the same thing in an April interview with Diane Sawyer, he was lionized for his bravery, even for his progressivism.

“My brain is much more female than it is male,” he told her, explaining how he knew that he was transgender.

This was the prelude to a new photo spread and interview in Vanity Fair that offered us a glimpse into Caitlyn Jenner’s idea of a woman: a cleavage-boosting corset, sultry poses, thick mascara and the prospect of regular “girls’ nights” of banter about hair and makeup. Ms. Jenner was greeted with even more thunderous applause. ESPN announced it would give Ms. Jenner an award for courage. President Obama also praised her. Not to be outdone, Chelsea Manning hopped on Ms. Jenner’s gender train on Twitter, gushing, “I am so much more aware of my emotions; much more sensitive emotionally (and physically).”

A part of me winced.

I have fought for many of my 68 years against efforts to put women — our brains, our hearts, our bodies, even our moods — into tidy boxes, to reduce us to hoary stereotypes. Suddenly, I find that many of the people I think of as being on my side — people who proudly call themselves progressive and fervently support the human need for self-determination — are buying into the notion that minor differences in male and female brains lead to major forks in the road and that some sort of gendered destiny is encoded in us.

That’s the kind of nonsense that was used to repress women for centuries. But the desire to support people like Ms. Jenner and their journey toward their truest selves has strangely and unwittingly brought it back.
People who haven’t lived their whole lives as women, whether Ms. Jenner or Mr. Summers, shouldn’t get to define us. That’s something men have been doing for much too long. And as much as I recognize and endorse the right of men to throw off the mantle of maleness, they cannot stake their claim to dignity as transgender people by trampling on mine as a woman.

Their truth is not my truth. Their female identities are not my female identity. They haven’t traveled through the world as women and been shaped by all that this entails. They haven’t suffered through business meetings with men talking to their breasts or woken up after sex terrified they’d forgotten to take their birth control pills the day before. They haven’t had to cope with the onset of their periods in the middle of a crowded subway, the humiliation of discovering that their male work partners’ checks were far larger than theirs, or the fear of being too weak to ward off rapists.

For me and many women, feminist and otherwise, one of the difficult parts of witnessing and wanting to rally behind the movement for transgender rights is the language that a growing number of trans individuals insist on, the notions of femininity that they’re articulating, and their disregard for the fact that being a woman means having accrued certain experiences, endured certain indignities and relished certain courtesies in a culture that reacted to you as one.
Brains are a good place to begin because one thing that science has learned about them is that they’re in fact shaped by experience, cultural and otherwise. The part of the brain that deals with navigation is enlarged in London taxi drivers, as is the region dealing with the movement of the fingers of the left hand in right-handed violinists.

“You can’t pick up a brain and say ‘that’s a girl’s brain’ or ‘that’s a boy’s brain,’ ” Gina Rippon, a neuroscientist at Britain’s Aston University, told The Telegraph last year. The differences between male and female brains are caused by the “drip, drip, drip” of the gendered environment, she said.

THE drip, drip, drip of Ms. Jenner’s experience included a hefty dose of male privilege few women could possibly imagine. While young “Bruiser,” as Bruce Jenner was called as a child, was being cheered on toward a university athletic scholarship, few female athletes could dare hope for such largess since universities offered little funding for women’s sports. When Mr. Jenner looked for a job to support himself during his training for the 1976 Olympics, he didn’t have to turn to the meager “Help Wanted – Female” ads in the newspapers, and he could get by on the $9,000 he earned annually, unlike young women whose median pay was little more than half that of men. Tall and strong, he never had to figure out how to walk streets safely at night.

Those are realities that shape women’s brains.
RELATED:  Why Bruce Jenner Can Never Be A Woman