University Of Virginia Law Class Rewrites State Constitution Because, Well, You Know

 

Students enrolled in a “Comparative Gender Equality” class at the University of Virginia School of Law have proposed major changes to Virginia’s state constitution,  the school recently reported. Those changes included abortion on demand and redefining marriage as “a union between any two persons.” Any two persons? A sister and brother? A 60-year-old and a 10-year-old?

Can’t afford an abortion? Not to worry, students also added a provision to ensure taxpayer funding of abortions for women “who can’t afford one.”

UVA’s law school was founded in 1819 and is consistently ranked among the top law schools in the nation. In a news release titled “Class Examines Virginia Constitution Through Feminist Lens,” it pointed out that the last time the state constitution was revised was in 1968.

The news release stated that the “Virginia constitution does not address some of the most pressing issues for many women today, such as access to reproductive health care, abortion or universal pre-K education.” Really? Well, it does not address some of the most pressing issues for many men today, either, such as access to our sexual and wellness care (pornography), the difficulty of constructing a truly impressive “man cave,” and the rising costs of beer and liquor.

Here is one possible Bill of Rights if/as proposed by women:

1)      The right to talk incessantly about inane objects and people.

2)      The right to question everything your husband does.

3)      The right to shop at Target and Kohl’s without any budgetary constraints whatsoever.

4)      The right to own an unlimited number of shoes.

5)      The right to bare arms (i.e. sleeveless dresses and blouses, etc.).

6)      The right to be right about everything, whether or not you’re right.

7)      The right to have the toilet seat left down at all times.

8)      The right to wear practically nothing and expect men not to stare at you.

9)      The right to bitch about relatively minor or frivolous things shall not be infringed!

10)   The right to be considered as strong as men in every way, yet still expect them to physically protect you.

But, seriously, why not rewrite our Constitution for every group that currently claims victim or minority status? Indeed, why have one unifying Constitution when everyone could have their own? Forget majority rule. We know that people are now incapable of thinking of the greater good, though, oddly, they are, as leftists believe, ultimately perfectible. (Which is why they think there is no need for religion.)

Think of the possibilities! We could have the gay Constitution, the lesbian Constitution, the bisexual Constitution, the transgender Constitution, the Pansexual Constitution, the Muslim Constitution, the Buddhist Constitution, the Asian-American Constitution, the middle-class Constitution, the Constitution for Virgos, the…you get the picture.

In fact, screw it, each and every individual should have a right to their own Constitution!

 

 

State Governors Praise Abortion At WEF

 

Arizona’s new (and likely illegitimate) Democratic governor Katie Hobbs wants to defund a center that provides housing and support for homeless pregnant women and redirect the money towards funding abortion providers. According to an analysis by Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy: “Hobbs’ budget proposal takes $500,000 from pregnant, homeless women and provides $6.1 million in Title X contributions, generating millions in federal funding for abortion clinics.” Hobbs wants to take half a million dollars from pregnant and homeless women? She seems nice!

Michigan’s Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer, recently told a World Economic Forum audience that her state’s enactment of a pro-abortion constitutional amendment is one of the things that gives her hope for women’s representation in the future, along with Democrats’ relative success in the 2022 midterm elections, of course. Abortion equals “hope?” Whitmer seems nice!

And Illinois’ Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker touted his state’s support for “a woman’s right to choose” at that self-same World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Pritzker was on a panel with six other U.S. lawmakers when he told moderator and current WEF president Børge Brende that he was deeply proud of expanding abortion in Illinois. He seems nice!

Whitmer’s state is experiencing rising crime rates. Detroit is a shambles. Pritzker’s Illinois is in the same boat. Chicago is a hellhole of surging violent crime and poverty, like most other cities run by “progressive” Democrats. Yet they don’t seem to care about the destitution, destruction, and death. They don’t even seem mildly chagrined by the plight of the places and citizens for which they are responsible. They are too busy paving the way for unfettered abortion—and then bragging about doing so.

It wasn’t that many years ago that Democrats like Bill Clinton wanted to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare.”

But the statements by Hobbs, Whitmer, and Pritzker were sure to be a hit with the WEF crowd. After all, they won’t have to try to implement so many policies designed to kill us rubes if they can keep us from being born in the first place. Plus, should they knock up a hooker or two-- or get knocked up themselves-- while in Davos for the Big Meeting of Masters and Morons, they don’t want to have to worry about the consequences.

WEF Speaker: Society Should Want Mind Reading Devices

 

Nita Farahany, recently speaking at the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, touted the “extraordinary promise” of the use of mind-reading devices in the workplace and elsewhere. Farahany noted that the devices, in some forms, are already here. The legal ethicist and author of “The Battle for Your Brain,” gave a talk titled “Ready for Brain Transparency?” She cited existing consumer-wearable devices such as “headbands, hats that have sensors that can pick up your brain wave activity, earbuds, headphones, tiny tattoos that you can wear behind your ear — we can pick up emotional states.” Kinda creepy if you ask me.

During a WEF “Transforming Medicine, Redefining Life” panel discussion, Farahany said that this technology will soon be integrated into “multi-functional devices,” so that-- for example-- the same earbuds used to take conference calls and listen to music would be laced with EEG sensors to pick up brain waves. The “legal ethicist” stated that it would then be possible to “pick up and decode faces that you’re seeing in your mind, simple shapes, numbers, your pin number.” What could go wrong?

Farahany predicted that in the “near-term future,” such devices will become “the primary way with which we interact with all of the rest of our technology,” and pointed out that major tech companies like Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta are already “investigating ways to make these devices universally applicable.” She claimed this would allow a person to, for example, “simply swipe with your mind” instead of with a mouse or keyboard.

Farahany stressed the potential such technology has to solve workplace problems and cited as an example truckers who can inadvertently take lives by falling asleep on the road. She noted that such tragic outcomes could be prevented if their employers provided them with a “simple wearable hat” that, via “embedded electro-sensors,” could measure brain wave activity and therefore determine “what stage of alertness the person was experiencing and whether or not they are starting to fall asleep.” She further argued that, despite the existence of driver-assist technology designed to prevent such accidents, such brain-reading wearables are necessary because they intervene “much sooner” and “much more accurately.” And, she said, “We as a society should want that.” Well, that’s debatable…at the very least.

Farahany also stated: “In over 5,000 companies across the world, employees are already having their brain activity monitored to test for their fatigue levels.”

Farahany did acknowledge that these mind-reading devices could be “the most oppressive technology” ever used at “large scale across society,” and that it is possible they could give others access to “your bank account.” No matter. On balance, she’s all for them.

Mind reading devices? Not overly personal and intrusive at all, right? What could be wrong with this technology? What could go wrong? I mean, shouldn’t your employer be entitled to know every thought that flickers in-- and floats through-- your brain? Your teacher? Spouse? (Can you say “D-I-V-O-R-C-E.?”) The government?  Every tyrant in history would have loved this ability. “You are not thinking correctly! We must help you adjust your thoughts!”  

And what if you were “hacked” and your thoughts altered or replaced by someone else’s? Where’s the transparency or “extraordinary promise” in that?

Bodily autonomy is a vital human right. It is even more critical that we control our own minds.

There is a battle for our brains going on. And our humanity. And our freedom.

If we don’t win this one, nothing else will matter.

 

 

The WEF, Hate Speech, And Virtue Signaling

 

Vera Jourova is the current vice president of a body ironically called the “European Commission for Values and Transparency.” Recently, while speaking at a World Economic Forum (WEF) panel, Jourova stated that the United States will “soon” have “illegal hate speech laws.” (Hate speech laws themselves should be illegal, and, in fact, are in the United States, due to protections afforded Americans by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, this hasn’t deterred Democrats, wokesters, and other would-be authoritarians from trying to ban speech they find distasteful and/or against their interests.)

The Daily Caller recently reported that Jourova “participated in Tuesday’s WEF panel on ‘the clear and present danger of disinformation,’ alongside former CNN Host Brian Stelter, Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton, New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and media executive Jeanne Bourgault.”

Stelter and Sulzberger on a panel bemoaning “disinformation?” That would be akin to putting Michael Moore and Joy Behar on a panel chronicling the evils of obesity. Would the WEF ask Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping to head a panel on international relations and “how to treat one’s neighbors?” On second thought, in United Nations fashion, it probably would.   

No sooner had Nostradamus ECVT vice president Vera Jourova predicted that the U.S. would soon embrace hate speech laws, than Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) came along and proved her right. Jackson Lee just introduced a bill in the House dubbed the “Leading Against White Supremacy Act of 2023,” or LAWS Act. Get it?

Jackson Lee’s bill would criminalize “hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group.” (Hate speech that vilifies white people would still be perfectly acceptable as it’s not hate speech. Duh.)

Her bill, were it to become law, would certainly be used by Democrats, the Deep State, social media giants-- and others aligned with them-- as a pretext and excuse for the persecution of people who express views that they dislike. Those in power would label anyone who engages in such speech as “white supremacists,” “far-right ideologues,” “insurrectionists,” and “terrorists” who must be prevented from destroying “our democracy.” Of course, were her bill to become law, that actually would destroy our democracy.

Jackson Lee would be wise to consider changing her last name as it is an amalgam of Andrew Jackson’s and Robert E. Lee’s last names, both sons of the South and persona non-grata in 2023. But she is anything but wise and has proven that repeatedly over the years. She supposedly/allegedly once asked a NASA employee if she could see the flag Neil Armstrong planted on Mars. (Today the only flag that would be approved to be planted on another planet would be that of the LGBTQIIA+ community.)

Mars or the moon, what does it matter? No big whoop. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) was never of our world anyway.

And our rulers in the WEF? They want to rule the Earth (and probably the cosmos, too). Which will be much easier to do if its population is closer to that of Mars and the moon.

As John Kerry said, “When you stop and think about it, it’s pretty extraordinary that we select group of human beings, because of whatever touched us at some point in our lives, are able to sit in a room and come together and actually talk about saving the planet.”

“Talk” being the operative word, as they fly around the world on private planes and are chauffeured in limousines. Talk about baseless virtue signaling! They consider themselves public servants, and planet servants. “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” they shout, though most of them didn’t invent anything and never ran a business that produced goods and/or services-- and employed people to everyone’s benefit. Yet they believe there is no end to their brilliance, service, and sacrifice.

Let me offer them some advice: get over yourselves.

And don’t try to tell us how to live.

 

 

 

 

Focus On Emotion Over Rational Thinking Says Washington Department Of Health

 

The Washington state Department of Health’s climate curriculum instructs teachers to focus on “emotions” over “rational thinking,” according to curriculum lesson plans. The department recently released a five-part curriculum to help students learn about the “intersections of biological, societal, and environmental issues.” The second phase of the curriculum, “Climate Change & Pregnancy,” tells educators and students to “pay attention” to their emotions as “for too long” science has caused “rational thinking” to be prioritized. (Rational thinking? Good God, no! What has science to do with rational thinking?!)

“Climate change and pregnancy?” Pray tell, “educators,” does climate change cause pregnancy? Prevent it? Or both at the same time? In any case, man caused climate change is causing “pregnancy change,” right? (The hell with rational thinking, we feel that’s the case! We want it to be the case!)

Prioritizing emotion over reason would be a disaster for virtually every vocation, industry, government department-- and endeavor. Picture NASA astronauts in space experiencing a major system failure. Should they eschew rational thinking, forget their protocols and recommended emergency procedures and just panic, throw their hands up, and scream “Ahhhhh, we’re all gonna die?” Doctors, lawyers, firemen, soldiers…surely we’d all be better off if we just let our base emotions control us. Forget logic and reason. Those are just relics of a white patriarchal society! Give yourself over to lust, fear, anger, and panic!

Health and government officials have tried to prey on our emotions in recent years to get us to comply with their wishes and become good little obedient subjects.

This is just more proof that our government-- and virtually every institution-- have been completely taken over by crazed ideologues and assorted other asshats and whack jobs. Most “experts” and “scientists” are now nothing more than agenda-driven pseudo-preachers.

Soon, emoticons will replace mathematical formulas, algebraic expressions, and calculus theorems.

Emotion replacing reason?

That is truly scary.

 

 

Excerpts From The Democrat-To-English Dictionary

 

Excerpts From the Democrat-to-English Dictionary: Updated For 2023!

 

Ableism: the idea that ability, competence, achievement, and merit are somehow better than their opposites. A disgusting remnant of a white, patriarchal society that must be eviscerated with all due haste.     

Bigotry: opposition to any belief or opinion held by a “progressive.”

Conservatism: an existential threat to our democracy, practiced by bad people. Must not be tolerated.

Diversity: the lifeblood of our democracy, enriching all of us.

Dr. Fauci: a God-like figure who actually exists, and selflessly serves humanity in the blessed name of “science.” Hallowed be His name and peace be upon Him forever and ever. Amen.

Extremist: someone who disagrees with a Democrat.

Fairness: when progressive ideas and/or candidates carry the day. (Antonym, unfairness: when conservative ideas and/or candidates carry the day.)

Far-right: this term is rightfully applied to any individuals or groups who oppose Democratic/woke policies and talking points.

Fascist: someone who disagrees with a Democrat.

God: a mythical figure, created by conservatives to impose their arbitrary version of morality on sexual minorities and non-conformists.

Heterosexual: a boring, old, unhip, and often intolerant group of individuals that cling to outmoded ideas of sexual relationships and complementarity.

Illegal aliens (more properly called “undocumented immigrant”): downtrodden and oppressed, these people must be allowed free access into our country and the freedom to go wherever they like, in any quantity, without restraint. They bring much needed diversity and skill sets to our land.

Invasive species: a dire threat to our land, whose spread must be stopped at all costs. These insidious invaders often overwhelm and supplant indigenous species.

Justice: when Democrats prevail. (Antonym, injustice: when conservatives prevail.)

LGBTQIIA+: a diverse and loving community of tolerant individuals who have been the victims of bigotry and injustice in this country due to systemic homophobia and misogyny.

Man: though there is no currently agreed on definition for this amorphous term, all can agree that testosterone-fueled toxic masculinity-- and the patriarchy --are very bad things indeed.

Mentally challenged individual: someone who disagrees with a Democrat.

Misinformation: any report, data, or information, regardless of veracity and legitimacy, that does not confirm/affirm Democrats’ talking points and advance their agenda.

PRIDE!: what everyone who isn’t heterosexual should have…and should shove in heterosexuals faces at every opportunity.

Queer: another term for homosexual. Synonymous with PRIDE!.

Riot: a mostly peaceful demonstration by the oppressed against their oppressors. (As opposed to an “insurrection,” which is when conservatives and patriots question their rightful rulers.)

Terrorist: someone who disagrees with a Democrat.

Threat to our democracy: someone who disagrees with a Democrat.

Tolerance: the highest virtue, one that affords respect to all of us, regardless of our differences.

Uniparty: used to describe the bipartisanship and unity to which we all aspire. Achieved when Republicans cave to our demands. (Which, fortunately, is nearly always.)

Woman: there is no currently agreed on definition for this amorphous term.

 

 

 

Democratic Congressperson Proposes Bill Criminalizing Political Criticism Of Minorities

 

Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) has introduced a bill that could make political criticism of non-white individuals by white people a federal crime. You read that correctly.

The convoluted-- yet potentially extremely dangerous-- bill proposes that a white person who “vilifies” any non-white person, and whose words subsequently end up on social media, could themselves be guilty of committing a federal crime if those words were accessible by “persons who are predisposed to engaging in any action in furtherance of a white supremacy inspired hate crime.” Huh?

Who decides what constitutes a “white supremacy-inspired hate crime” under this proposed statute? Sheila Jackson Lee? Adam Schiffhead? If the left considers words themselves “violence” now, might saying “Sheila Jackson Lee is an ignoramus” be considered a “white supremacy-inspired hate crime” on a stand-alone basis? What constitutes “vilification” or political criticism? You can bet it will only and always fall to “progressives” to decide, with no agreed upon limiting principle.

The proposed legislation, H.R. 61, is labeled the “Leading Against White Supremacy Act of 2023.” The LAWS Act, get it?

If someone were, unbeknownst to me, to commit a “white supremacy-inspired hate crime” against a person that I have “politically criticized” on social media (such as a post on American Thinker) at some point in the past, however justifiably, would I then have committed a federal crime myself? It appears that would be the case.

So, if I were to state that “The Squad” is to Congress as “The View” cohosts are to intelligent dialogue, or that Sheila Jackson Lee is a vile, race-baiting, authoritarian, I could be brought up on federal charges. For telling the truth. Screw the First Amendment. Yet the vile, race-baiting authoritarian—and her ilk--  can say whatever the hell they want about Donald Trump (and family), Republicans, conservatives, Christians, and “white people,” also called “honkeys,” “deplorables,” etc., in general with no repercussions? That seems fair, just, equitable, inclusive, and anti-racist, does it not?

Yet if I were to call Adam Schiff, Larry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Chuck Schumer, Eric Swalwell, Peter Strzok, John Brennan, et. al., “vile lying traitorous scum”—in other words if I were to tell the truth again —I would be okay under this proposed law. (Though I’d likely be savaged—or worse-- by those I just named.)

This proposed bill, were it to become law, would be used by leftists to prohibit valid political criticism of any non-white person or group-- such as Black Lives Matter or Sheila Jackson Lee-- because such criticism could leave those levying it liable to federal charges. 

Free speech? Freedom of the press? Quaint, anachronistic notions of a bygone era.

Many revile the occasional gridlock of a two-party system. Well, your time may have arrived. If this bill passes, welcome to a one-party state.

I wonder when the rest of us will feel “vilified” enough to successfully push back on this blatantly hypocritical, racist, authoritarian attack on democracy and sanity.

 

 

 

 

 

Student Suspended For Opposing Letting Biological Males Into Girls Bathrooms

 

Josh Alexander is a 16-year-old boy who went to bat for girls in his catholic high school in Renfrew County, Ontario. He heroically stuck up for his female schoolmates who do not want to have biological males in their bathrooms. Incredibly, he was suspended from Saint Joseph’s High School for his actions.

Still more incredibly, the school reportedly told him he would be arrested for trespassing the next time he comes in. So he and his lawyer are taking the school to court.

Arrested for trespassing?! It can’t get more ironic and insane than that. If anyone should be arrested for trespassing, it should be the males who use female bathrooms.

When young Mr. Alexander informed the school that he was going to do a walkout in protest, school authorities threatened any students who considered joining him with cutting off their transportation to the school, a serious problem as many kids live long distances from the educational institution.

Moreover, a young female student told Lifesitenews reporter John-Henry Weston that one of the school’s teachers told them that, should they support Josh, “Your reputations will be ruined. You don’t want to associate with those people.”

“Those people?” Sounds awfully intolerant and exclusionary to me.

Since when do Catholic authorities and educators want young males and females in the same bathrooms?

Oh well, who could be uncomfortable right? What could go wrong?

Pope Pius IX considered Saint Joseph to be the protector of the Catholic church.

Considering the lack of piousness in our society now, the church could use some protecting.

 

"The View's" Joy Behar Disparages "Heterosexual Men" And "Conservatives" For Supporting The NFL

 

During a conversation about the tragic injury to Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin, Joy Behar angrily denounced "heterosexual men" and "conservatives" for supporting tackle football. Leftists enjoy nothing more than virtue-signaling in the wake of tragedies. The more frequent the tragedies, the more they get to preen and show off their moral superiority.

In a discussion with the co-hosts of "The View,” Behar stated, "45% of Americans think that tackle football is appropriate. Heterosexual men voted the most support for kids doing football.” The Remarkably Repulsive One sneeringly added, "And conservatives were more likely to support youth tackle football. Just saying.”

And liberals are more likely to support soccer, defunding the police, and abortion. Just saying.

Hamlin, thank God, is in the midst of a miraculous recovery, while every innocent baby ever aborted is still dead. As are those whose lives were taken by criminals undeterred by police presence.

What a pathetic attempt to appear more moral-than-thou. Does the radically liberal Behar ever think about all the lives ruined or ended by abortion, puberty blockers, chemical castration, fentanyl coming across an open border, and skyrocketing violent crime in Democrat-run cities…due to Democrat policies?! HIV? Monkey Pox?

By contrast, the NFL has suffered one on-field death in 50 years.

Tackle football, like many other sports, rewards and/or imbues values of discipline, teamwork, maximum effort, toughness, planning, perseverance, and optimism. And it makes multi-millionaires of those who play it professionally, a high percentage of whom are minorities.

Behar probably thinks of herself as intelligent—even witty-- which is frightening. She definitely strives to be “woke.” In reality, she’s just an ignorant skank.  

There is no Joy in watching The View. In its own way, it attempts to foster the continuing infantilization and feminization of America and its citizens. Virtue-signaling doesn’t—or shouldn’t—work when one is trafficking in amorality…or worse.

Only “45% of Americans think that tackle football is appropriate,” according to Behar.

Well, I think that 0% of sane, heterosexual Americans should watch “The View.”

But conservatives don’t tell other people what they should—or should not-- do.

Roughly three million idiots people watch The View on any given day. An average NFL broadcast attracts more than five times that number.

Just saying.

 

German Authorities Want To Put Jewish Holocaust Survivor Into Psychiatric Clinic, Force Her To Accept COVID Injection

 

German authorities want to put a famous Jewish composer and Holocaust survivor into a psychiatric clinic and force her to take the COVID injection.

According to the news outlet Report24, Inna Zhvanetskaya, who lives in Stuttgart, Germany, was supposed to be taken to a psychiatric institution and forcefully injected with the COVID vaccines on January 11. (Report24 says it has been in personal contact with Zhvanetskaya.) However, according to several reports, she has been transferred to a safe place by sympathetic activists who wanted to prevent her from being detained and vaccinated against her will.

Zhvanetskaya, 85, sent a video message to Report24 saying that “music is my life, and if they take away music from me then they take my life.” The news outlet also received a copy of the court order, which authorizes her forceful transfer to a psychiatric institution and for her to be forcefully injected with the COVID-19 shots “for her own good.” The order was initiated by her professional guardian, which is strange given that the German national federation of professional guardians is officially against forced vaccinations of patients against their wishes, according to statements on their own website.

Is this the Fourth Reich? What monumental evil.

But before we fully pass judgement on the Nazis Germans perhaps we should take a look at the current U.S. government, as well. Good old Uncle Sam, and in particular the Department of Defense (DOD), fully sponsored and controlled the COVID-19 gene-based vaccine program from the start, avoiding nearly all regulations applicable to medical and pharmaceutical products while orchestrating a deceptive public relations campaign to convince the population that customary testing and production safeguards were firmly in place, according to lifesitenews.com.

Analysis of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) conducted by retired pharmaceutical industry executive Alexandra Latypova reveal that the DOD utilized multiple legal maneuvers to establish injectables that avoided nearly all applicable regulations while ensuring the process of their production and their contents would be virtually untraceable. Nice.

And Big Pharma has been quietly working for years on methods to inject livestock with mRNA gene therapies marketed as “vaccines.” Don’t wish to allow the mRNA gene therapies into your body? Better be a vegan. (At least until they figure out how to introduce these “vaccines” into produce.)

And we recently learned that Facebook not only suppressed so-called “misinformation” but also took action against the “virality” of “often true” content on the COVID-19 vaccines. Well, we wouldn’t want to have the truth “go viral” now, would we? That information was contained in an email obtained through the Missouri court case Missouri VS. Biden which alleges that top Biden administration officials “colluded with Big Tech social media companies to violate Americans’ right to free speech under the First Amendment.”

What is really behind authorities incessant, diabolical, maniacal attempts to force every man, woman, and child on Earth to allow the experimental COVID-1984 vaccines to permeate their bodies? Even after we all know they don’t work?

Our rulers can’t keep us from speculating. But they will never cease trying to control us. Or worse.