Home - About -Advertise - Contact Us - Forums - Site Maps - Survival PDF Files - Donate

The week’s news that wasn’t

Posted 10/25/2017 3:39 am by

Miscarrying, assaulting, verifying and grabbing the least biological, most unpredictable, mendacious and unconstitutional fakeries in fake news.

 

Trust us, it’s women

 

This transgender thing and its supporters are getting more unhinged with each passing day. This week’s Sunday Times of London headlined an article: “It’s not women who get pregnant – it’s people.”

 

The excerpt of the paywalled article explained that the British government is objecting to a UN treaty because it “excludes” transgender people and stated:

 

The statement comes in Britain’s official submission on proposed amendments to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the UK has been a signatory since 1976. The UN treaty says a “pregnant woman” must be protected, including not being subject to the death penalty.

 

Yet in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office submission, Britain opposes the term “pregnant woman” because it may “exclude transgender people who have given birth”. The suggested term is “pregnant people”.

 

I didn’t bother to pay the 1£ needed to read the whole article because the premise is absolutely absurd , as we demonstrated a few weeks ago in this very space. (Plus, I don’t have a single £ to my name.) It’s women and only women who can get pregnant. And women are people. But they are not all people because there are men, much to the chagrin of most leftists, trans people and feminists.

 

Men can’t get pregnant. No amount of female hormones or surgeries will create a man who can get pregnant. And no amount of testosterone and surgeries can make a woman into a man.

 

Did these people skip biology class?

 

It seems as if the British government is merely trying to placate the perpetually aggrieved class of mentally ill malcontents who live in an alternate reality and believe sex (not “gender,” which as Bob Livingston has explained, is a grammar term) is fluid and a person can be whatever he/she wants to be at any given moment.

 

But alas, in doing so they’ve upset another perpetually aggrieved class of mentally ill malcontents: the nation’s feminists. The article explains that feminists reacted with outrage to what they said was the latest example of “making women unmentionable” in the name of transgender equality.

 

But that’s what you get when you perpetuate fake news.

 

But they said this couldn’t happen

 

Back when the sudden “grassroots” movement – that term is used entirely in jest — began to push for a “right” for men dressed as women to use the women’s restroom and vice versa, many of us objected because, among other reasons, we knew it would put our children in danger from criminals who would sexually assault them.

 

We were assured this wouldn’t happen; the reason being, that if a man was dressing as a woman then he thought he was a woman and wouldn’t be attracted to girls – because no woman has ever been attracted to girls before. And of course they told us the opposite was true about women dressing as men. Therefore our children were safe, they assured us. So what follows is obviously “fake news.”

 

Just last week a man named Miguel Martinez was convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl inside a bathroom while he was “identifying” and dressed as a woman and going by the name Michelle. Martinez was said to be a friend of the girl’s family. He apparently invited the girl into the bathroom with him, touched her breasts and genitalia and then penetrated her.

 

The girl went straight to her mother to report the assault, who then called the police. A subsequent medical exam revealed evidence an assault had occurred.

 

Martinez’s conviction of first- and second-degree sex abuse of a minor violations carries a combined prison term of up to 70 years. No word on whether Martinez will go to the prison for the Miguels or the Michelles.

 

Even the leftwing Hartford Courant gave him 3 Pinocchios

 

If lies didn’t exist, politicians would be mutes. It’s a shame we don’t get to vote that premise into law. Take Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy. No, really, Connecticut voters, please take him aside and tell him to stop making such a fool of himself.

 

In the inevitable and predictable pile-on for more gun control laws in the wake of the Las Vegas music festival massacre, Murphy appeared on “fake news” CNN to regale us with his wisdom and pontificate on making Americans “safer.” Among the tidbits he offered was this gem:

 

What we know is that states that have tougher gun laws, that keep criminals from getting guns, that keep those dangerous weapons like AR-15s out of the hands of civilians, have dramatically lower rates of gun violence.

 

Of course we know no such thing because research showing that to be true does not exist. But not from want of trying.

 

No body of research showed that the 1994 “assault weapons” ban (a manufactured term) reduced “gun violence,” which is a specious and meaningless term anyway. Guns themselves are not violent. And “those dangerous weapons like AR-15s” are rarely ever used to commit crimes. In fact, according to FBI crime statistics, rifles of all types are used in fewer than 275 of the 12,000+ annual homicides in America. This means fewer people are killed by rifles of all types – which includes AR-15 and similar weapons – than by handguns, shotguns, knives or cutting instruments, blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) or personal weapons (hands, feet, fists, etc.).

 

The Hartford Courant does an adequate job of refuting Murphy’s smooth-tongued claim, so there’s no need to rehash what they wrote. But I’ll add this. Most murders using a gun are committed by blacks against other blacks even though blacks make up just 13.3 percent of the U.S. population. And these happen whether cities or states have strong gun laws or not. For instance, each month in Chicago the death and injury toll from people using firearms to commit crimes almost equals the toll from the Las Vegas shooting.

 

If you are not a black person living in a majority black neighborhood, the likelihood of you being shot to death is almost infinitesimal. This is the uncomfortable truth the gun grabbers don’t want to face – and don’t want you to know about.

 

Yes, people really do want to take our guns

 

It’s inevitable that when I mention in conversation or in a social media post that such-and-such politician is a gun grabber and dangerous to the 2nd Amendment, one or more leftist gun grabber apologist will chime in and tell me that “no one wants to take away” my gun.

 

Of course, to believe that one has to dismiss the words and deeds of a number of national and local politicians who are actively working to do just that and express that desire in open forums from time to time. And one would also have to have missed this news out of Oregon.

 

A new law will take effect on January 1 that allows family or household members and law enforcement officials to seek an order from a judge to temporarily remove the gun rights of someone they believe poses an extreme risk of violence. Under one of these orders, police can remove guns from someone who refuses to surrender his arms.

 

This is a blatant violation of  the 4th and 5th Amendment rights of gun owners. The law was approved by the legislature over the summer and signed by Governor Kate Brown on August 15. Gun rights groups tried but failed by the deadline to gather enough signatures for a petition to put the law on the November 2018 ballot, meaning the law will take effect as scheduled.

 

Such a law makes a mockery of due process and shows that yes, there are those who want to take our guns and they will stop at nothing to do so.

 

PERSONAL LIBERTY

Home - About -Advertise - Contact Us - Newsletter - Site Maps - Survival PDF Files - Donate