Male Transjacking Will Ultimately End Women’s Sports

The Federalist

Transgender males are increasingly entering and dominating women's sports at all levels, taking away opportunities that women have fought years to win.

"This Friday, the top four NCAA Division III women’s soccer teams face off in the national semifinals. One of the final four teams’ goalkeepers, Isa Berardo, is a male transgender playing as a female for Pomona-Pitzer Colleges.
"Not surprisingly, the male goalie has dominated the field against opposing female players, giving his own a chance to win the national championship thanks to his physical advantages in a key position. This is increasingly happening throughout women’s sports, at all levels from elementary school through professional competitions. It’s creating not equality, but inequality.  
"In 2016, Therese Johaug, a Norwegian three-time Olympic cross-country skiing champion, received an 18-month suspension from the sport she loved after it was discovered that the team-approved lip balm she was using to treat her badly sunburned lips contained a performance-enhancing steroid.
"A devastated Johaug lamented, “I feel I did everything right. I went to an expert who gave me the ointment, and I asked him if the cream was on a doping list. The answer I got was ‘no.’”
"But the powers that be were undeterred from their well-established hard line of fairness, and Johaug was forced to watch the 2018 winter Olympics from the sidelines.
"It’s an unfortunate set of circumstances that raises the question: If chemicals from a necessary, medicated lip balm can be construed as such an unjust physical advantage, how on Earth can athletic authorities continue to turn a blind eye to the litany of physical advantages the transgender men increasingly competing in women’s sports so obviously possess in their male bodies?
"The ‘Standards’ for Trans Athletes Are Ludicrous" . . .

After the Obama disappointment, black voters want more than empty symbolism

The Guardian

Obama made me feel hopeful … until he didn’t. That’s why when Kamala Harris announced her race, I had to look carefully at what she represented

. . . "At a campus watch party – among the generation that would later be identified as hapless, capitalism-killing millennials – we felt unadulterated joy. Media outlets circled around what they considered the epicenter of black life on 125th Street in Harlem, capturing the thousands of people who descended on to the streets to dance. We blocked traffic and exchanged high-fives with strangers, ignoring the mist that was industry operatives. We saw a bailout for banks and big business that dwarfed the stimulus of American households. Despite middle-class trappings, economic insecurity hit me and much of our generation hard. Back home, my mother and I struggled to pay for a home that mortgage lenders targeted with a subprime mortgage. We saw Trayvon Martin, Sandra Bland, Michael Brown and Rekia Boyd shot and killed. We saw the beer summit and respectability politics. Despite doing many things “right”, it wasn’t enough. Homes in our mostly black neighborhood outside of Atlanta still have not recovered. Justice for most of the families of police and vigilante violence has still been unserved. Banks are still being bailed out.swelling our straightened hair. The hope Obama promised was omnipresent and lasted for days. Then 2009 happened.

"We graduated into the worst job market in a generation, threatening our ability to pay back our college and post-graduate debts. Obama filled his cabinet with financial industry operatives." . . .

"So when the California senator Kamala Harris announced her bid for the presidency, women at the intersections of a marginalized race and class had to consider what this meant for us." . . . 

Trump’s Commonsensical Food-Stamp Rule

National Review

"Our food-stamp program has some bizarre loopholes in it, and the Trump administration is trying to close them. A new rule finalized today attacks one in particular.

"In theory, the program has a strict time limit for “ABAWDs,” or able-bodied adults without dependents: If they don’t meet their work requirement or receive a case-by-case exemption from their state, they may receive food stamps for at most three months in any 36-month period. But in practice, the executive branch has broad discretion to waive the limit for large geographic areas with weak labor markets — and previous administrations used that discretion promiscuously. As of 2017, about a third of the U.S. population lived in waived areas.

"Under the old rule, any place with an unemployment rate one-fifth above the national average was eligible for a waiver. (Places could — and still can — also establish eligibility by having an absolute rate over 10 percent.) This meant that when unemployment was low throughout the country, areas with good labor markets could still receive waivers, simply because unemployment wasn’t quite as low there as it was elsewhere.

"The old rule also allowed states to effectively gerrymander their waiver requests, combining high- and low-unemployment counties to maximize the number of people exempted. All told, states such as Illinois and California were able to obtain waivers for all but a few of their counties.

"In short, the system was unfair and arbitrary, imposing time limits on some recipients but not others based on where they happened to live, failing to target the waivers toward truly needy areas, and allowing states to abuse the rules to draw in more federally funded benefits." . . .

Pelosi-Schiff-Nadler hearings are a classroom on the quality of law schools.

 People like this are not educating kids, they are numbing their brains with destructive Marxist nonsense.  Nadler did us all a favor, actually: He exposed for all to see just how far gone the American left is.  Not one of those three extreme partisans has any knowledge of the actual Constitution nor do they have any respect for it. Patricia McCarthy

 William Buckley: “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory than by the Harvard University faculty.”

http://www.terrellaftermath.com/

Pamela Karlan lays an egg  "The impeachment hearings are on, with a spotlight on the three anti-Trump law professors who ranted before Rep. Jerry Nadler's House Judiciary committee on Wednesday.  

"Their testimonies were a disaster for the Democrats.  They proved they were anything but constitutionalists. It took the fourth "witness," the eloquent Jonathan Turley, to drive that home.  These other three were quite the opposite, fans of abrogating most of our founding document.  

"What will be remembered forever is the condescending arrogance of the professors -- Pamela Karlan, Noah Feldman and Michael Gerhardt.  If there were ever an expose of the kind of people who inhabit the ivory towers of academia, this was it.  These three law professors were a flashing neon warning:  Do not send your kids to prestigious law schools.  People like this are not educating kids, they are numbing their brains with destructive Marxist nonsense.  Nadler did us all a favor, actually: He exposed for all to see just how far gone the American left is.  Not one of those three extreme partisans has any knowledge of the actual Constitution nor do they have any respect for it. " . . .

[Karlan] was on a short list of Hillary's picks for SCOTUS so it is a safe bet that she is angry that HRC lost. 

Nadler blew his big chance in the Judiciary Committee yesterday
. . . "Nadler’s first mistake was to start with law professors lecturing us on their hatred and contempt for Donald Trump." . . .

From Breitbart: "Gaetz also got Feldman to admit that he once wrote an article entitled, “It’s Hard to Take Impeachment Seriously Now' ”

Rep. Gaetz Leaves Dem Witnesses SPEECHLESS at Impeachment Hearing

Kellyanne Conway slams Pamela Karlan: 'Who the hell are you lady'

Gregg Jarrett: Impeachment-obsessed Democrats ignore logic and law as 4 professors testify at hearing

. . . "With Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. at the helm of the Judiciary Committee, there was no real chance that President Trump would be treated equitably. After all, Nadler’s confederate and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., had already obliterated any semblance of due process in impeachment hearings before his committee." . . .

FYI From Hillary: I Am Not A Lesbian

Hot Air

"A little something to cleanse the palate. She said this in an interview today with Howard Stern, which makes it slightly less weird since chatter about lesbians is like 40 percent of the content on that show. Or at least it was when I was a regular listener a million years ago. (In fairness to Stern, she’s the one who brings it up.)
"He went easy on her by not asking the obvious follow-up: What were you doing at Epstein’s ranch, then?
. . . 
"All she needs to do is flip a few hundred thousand votes in the right states. If the economy tanks or Trump behaves even Trumpier than usual, he might hand those votes to her without her needing to lift a finger to earn them.
"Good lord, what if she does jump in? What is she even doing showing up on the Howard Stern show anyway? Is Hillary 3.0 happening?
"Exit question: She could win a national election with the entirety of progressive America staying home next November to protest her nomination, right?"

The Wages of Trump Fixation

The strange case of a reborn Max Boot and the folly of impeachment.

Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson  "Max Boot recently wrote that my arguments against the impeachment inquiry are prima facie proof of why the Democrats should, in fact, impeach Trump: “If even the great historian Victor Davis Hanson can’t make a single convincing argument against impeachment, I am forced to conclude that no such argument exists.”
"In fact, I made 10 such arguments, all of which Boot attempted, but has failed, to refute. In this context, Boot’s intellectual erosion as a historian and analyst is a valuable warning of stage-four Trump Derangement Syndrome. I offer that diagnosis with regret given I once knew and liked Boot. But his commentary over the last three years has become sadly unhinged.
"Most recently Boot declared—and then quickly retracted it only in embarrassment after popular outrage—that chief ISIS mass-murdering psychopathic Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi did not kill himself in cowardly fashion as Trump had described: “The assertion that Baghdadi died as a coward was, in any case, contradicted by the fact that rather than be captured, he blew himself up.”
"When Baghdadi was cornered by American forces, he chose to murder three innocent children rather than surrender—consistent with his entire venomous career of ordering the beheading, burning, and mutilating of innocent captives from a safe distance. The murder of defenseless children is cowardly.
"No one should know better the horrific crimes of a mass-murdering Josef Stalin than the Russian-born Boot. Stalin’s purges, orchestrated famines, gulags, show trials, liquidation of the officer class, and atrocities during World War II perhaps accounted for over 20 million Russian deaths. So how could Boot write, “I would sooner vote for Josef Stalin than I would vote for Donald Trump”? Twenty million dead souls don’t quite match Boot’s hatred of Trump.
"After the former Republican Boot saw Trump elected, by defeating his own particular favored Republican primary candidate, and Hillary Clinton, he seemed a bit embittered: “For the health of our republic, I think we need to destroy the Republican Party. ' ” . . .

This is pretty much all Pelosi and the Democrats are accomplishing this term

Nancy Pelosi just announced that impeachment proceedings will go forward.

Jerrold Nadler has been given marching orders, not so much by Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi as by the 11-syllabled Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. If you impeach Trump, then we do not run a primary challenger to replace your Judiciary butt. But if Trump escapes impeachment because your committee fails to nail down Schiff’s dirty work, then we primary you and run you out of town. Quid. Quo. In 11 syllables.

Post-Thanksgiving reflections

'Snarky' Stanford Impeachment Witness Apologizes After Outrage Over Barron Trump Comment.

Zero Hedge  Update: Stanford University Professor Pamela Karlan apologized on Wednesday after receiving sharp rebuke for mentioning President Trump's 13-year-old son, Barron Trump.

No apology from an angry partisan would be complete, however, without a new attack in the same breath...

"I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president's son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he's done that's wrong, but I do regret having said that," she said.

"In response to Karlan's comments, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-CA) slammed Karlan, first asking her about contributions to Hillary Clinton - before calling her out for obvious contempt towards conservatives - including Barron Trump. Gaetz suggested she may not recognize how insulting she's being "from the ivory towers of your law school," adding "when you invoke the president's son's name here. When you try to make a little joke out of referencing Barron Trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument. It makes you look mean. It makes you look like you're attacking someone's family ... the minor child of the President of the United States." . . .

First:  Melania’s Christmas Decorations and Outfit Once Again Trashed  

"The liberal tradition for the last three years has been to criticize pretty much everything First Lady Melania Trump does or says. And the Christmas season is no different.

"Like every first lady before her and many throughout the US, Melania puts a lot of effort into how her home is decorated for the holiday. And every year, she gives a video tour of her staff’s hard work, which, nearly as soon as it is released, is pounced on by the heartless liberal left and every detail, including Melania’s outfit, is labeled as somehow less than acceptable" . . .

The anti-Trump Washington Post sniffed,  Melania Trump’s Christmas decorations are lovely, but that coat looks ridiculous

Racist Liberals Furious Over ‘Hidden Message’ Melania Snuck Into WH Christmas Decor  . . . "As it turns out, the left is downright furious over the “hidden message” that Melania snuck into her Christmas décor. In fact, it wasn’t long before enraged liberals were coming out of the woodwork to complain that the decorations seen were, frankly, “too white.”

On Monday, First Lady Melania Trump unveiled the White House’s Christmas theme — “Time-Honored Traditions.” And, judging by the looks of the White House’s decorations, those “traditions” are white. Very, very white. [Source: Splinter]

Then the Media Attacks Melania’s Christmas Decorations, But Praised Michelle Obama. . .

Remember the Obama's Chairman Mao Christmas tree decoration?

And the Obama drag queen ornament featuring "Hedda Lettuce". So in tune with the Christmas season.

CNN Just Hit With A $435 Million Lawsuit For ‘Demonstrably False’ News Story

Analyzing America

"Rep. Devin Nunes filed a defamation lawsuit Tuesday against CNN.
"The complaint is related to CNN’s published article on Nov. 22, which Nunes argues is a “demonstrably false hit piece.”
"It alleged that Nunes, who lives in California, traveled to Vienna in 2018 to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joseph R. Biden.
"The lawsuit reads, “Devin Nunes did not go to Vienna or anywhere else in Austria in 2018.”
Nunes says he visited two countries: Libya and Malta on a congressional delegation, or “codel.”
"The lawsuit seeks $435 million in damages. The CNN claimed Nunes met with former Ukrainian chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin. The complaint goes on to say, “Devin Nunes has never met Viktor Shokin. This meeting never took place. Viktor Shokin doesn’t know and hasn’t even heard of Devin Nunes.” . . .

Multiple War Heroes Slam ‘Prissy’ and ‘Disgraceful’ Lt. Col. Vindman Following Testimony

Multiple military vets made biting comments on Twitter about Vindman during and after his testimony. Tim Kennedy, an active, Green Beret, Special Forces Sniper with tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, said “correcting a civilian about how to be addressed is for sure a way to make everyone in the military think you’re a douche bag.”

The Minnesota Sun

"A number of famed military heroes blasted Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman on Tuesday, calling him “prissy,” a “disgrace,” and “an operative with an agenda.”
"Vindman on Tuesday earned their scorn for testifying against his commander-in-chief in uniform before the House Intelligence Committee as part of the Democrats’ unraveling impeachment inquisition.
"Early in the hearing, Vindman tersely corrected Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the top Republican on the Intel Committee, when the congressman referred to him as “Mr. Vindman.”
"The awkward moment came amid a back-and-forth over the identity of one of an unnamed official Vindman briefed about President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
"Vindman’s lawyer and House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) objected to the questioning because they said it would lead to the disclosure of the so-called “whistleblower’s” identity.
“ 'Mr. Vindman, you testified in your deposition that you did not know the whistleblower,” Nunes stated.
“ 'Ranking member, it’s Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please,” the witness scolded." . . .

. . . Lt. Col (Ret.) Jim Hickman, who remembers Vindman as an anti-American partisan, was particularly irked by Vindman’s decision to wear his full military uniform, telling American Greatness that he did it “to again make him beyond reproach, and to make a political statement against the President. He should’ve worn his daily uniform, which is a civilian suit, period.”

"The Iraq/Afghanistan war vet said that civilians are under no obligation to refer to officers by their rank but it’s considered proper etiquette to do so while they are in uniform. However, he told American Greatness that Vindman shouldn’t have been in uniform.

“ 'LTC Vindman showed his pompous, arrogant side in today’s hearing by demanding Congressman Nunes address him as Lieutenant Colonel Vindman,” Hickman said. “The same arrogance he showed by advising the Ukrainians to do just the opposite of what President Trump’s policy was. The same arrogance that has him working against the President as a partisan in Congressman Adam Schiff’s sham impeachment.”

"He added, “I witnessed this partisanship back in 2013 at Atlas Vision 13, and he hasn’t changed a bit.' ” . . .

REVEALING: MILITARY OFFICIAL WHO WORKED WITH TOP SCHIFF WITNESS ALEX VINDMAN REPRIMANDED HIM FOR INAPPROPRIATE AND PARTISAN BEHAVIOR IN MILITARY

LTC (R) Jim Hickman@Jim_Hickman13

 · Oct 31, 2019

Replying to @Jim_Hickman13

...verbally reprimanded him for his actions, & I'll leave it at that, so as not to be unprofessional myself. The bottom-line is LTC Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as 2012. So much so, junior officers & soldiers felt uncomfortable around him. This is..

LTC (R) Jim Hickman@Jim_Hickman13

...not your professional, field-grade officer, who has the character & integrity to do the right thing. Do not let the uniform fool you...he is a political activist in uniform. I pray our nation will drop this hate, vitriol & division, & unite as our founding fathers intended!

Are Facts White Nationalist?

By now, race discrimination against whites is de rigueur. Forget being embarrassed, this is race discrimination with attitude. And it’s all justified by the nonsensical phrase: “white privilege.”

"I hate my whiteness"

Ann Coulter "I gather it would be proof positive of “white nationalism” to point out that the only group discriminated against in college admissions is white people.
"We’ve heard a lot about discrimination against Asians lately, which reminds me: Asians are SO lucky they’re not white! Otherwise, America’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, would be churning out reports on the worrying rise in Asian Supremacy.
"In fact, however, a recent study by Georgetown University (probably White Nationalist), funded by the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation (presumed hate group), found that if colleges admitted students based solely on SAT scores, every single ethnic group would decline, except one: whites.
. . . 
"Obviously, this was NOT the purpose of the study. I’m pretty sure it was supposed to ferret out some small pocket of racism that had somehow passed undenounced. But when the only race being discriminated against turned out to be whites, the study was locked in a lead casket and dropped to the bottom of the sea." . . .