Posted on 03/07/2021 7:46:14 AM PST by RandFan
This is an excellent example - a teaching case - about why Republicans always lose.
What they oppose are EFFECTS of bad ideas. They do not oppose (and transgenderism is todays’s exhibit #1) - they do not oppose the CAUSES of the EFFECTS they complain about.
The other team, meanwhile, is busy locking down the inviolability of the CAUSES. If you accept that men can become women, or at least you don’t oppose the belief in all public spheres where it is being carried forward - then it is INEVITABLE that men either pretending to be women or actually having the delusion that they are IN FACT women will dominate women’s sports WHILE THEY ALSO GET EVERYTHING ELSE THEY ARE DEMANDING.
Forget women’s sports. They are insignificant next to the requirement that your children adopt and further someone’s delusion. They are also insignificant to the requirement that you believe 2+2=5 if the Party says so.
The GOP is slowly being ground to dust because they NEVER fight for first principles.
Guam is tipping?
It helps when the establishments of BOTH parties abandon their own candidates in order to drag the cow across the finish line.
Murkowski voted against Title 9 and to kill women’s sports? Not surprised.
Just remember that Murkowski was fraudulently installed by the deep state regime by miraculously coming up with enough “write-in” votes to beat the “people elected” republican candidate.
And we’ve done nothing to fix this process! In fact election fraud is being legitimized across the country.
Yes.. I know. Typo/confusion in my post.
Wish I could edit!
She is terrible.
Soon there will be transgender mandates in the board room too and women will be kicked out.
Are you serious?
If said suburban women are liberals, they are brainwashed into believing their daughters must accept the abuse in the name of tolerance. Said women are terrified of being accused of bigotry/racism/conservatism/nazism ..
I have no problem with this. But if they are going to allow men to compete with women, then go all the way. Sports like ice hockey, field hockey, softball, basketball, lacrosse, and any other sport should be declared open to all genders that were formally only women’s opportunities. And that has to be for all sports. And that will open up the sports for men in college as women have never been denied the opportunity to play in historical men’s sports. As long as they could compete. But men are. Roll the dice. It never had anything to do with competition....just money.
wy69
Soon there will be transgender mandates in the board room too and women will be kicked out.
Because. Equality., you know, thething.
No power and control are far more important than their daughters
Allow NBA players to play in the NBA and the problem solves itself
Now if he could just get John Elway or Mike Shanahan to run for that senate seat in Colorado.
“Murkowski voted NO. She gave the Dems their 50th vote.”
This is the extension of allowing women the right to vote, and then feminism after that.
There would have been to POTUS Clinton, Obama, or Biden.
Women started voting for this faggotry business to be accepted. Women started by f’ing up our military, and they were pushing for faggotry to be normalized.
Just an extension of the 19th...
WNBA, sorry
From related threads…
Simply put, the states have never expressly constitutionally given the unconstitutional big federal government the specific powers to dictate policy, or tax and spend in the name of either INTRAstate schooling, or deal with sex-related discrimination outside the scope of voting rights issues.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that that the Founding States had left the care of the people uniquely to the states, not the federal government.
”[…] the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
Regarding intrastate education for example, both President Thomas Jefferson, in a State of the Union address, and Justice Joseph Story, had indicated that the states would first need to appropriately amend the Constitution before the feds could dictate policy, tax and spend in the name of intrastate schooling, something that the states have never done.
"On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphases added].”—Thomas Jefferson : Sixth Annual Message to Congress
"The power to regulate manufactures, not having been confided to congress, they have no more right to act upon it, than they have to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws, of the states [emphases added]. Congress is empowered to lay taxes for revenue, it is true; but there is no power to encourage, protect, or meddle with manufactures." —Joseph Story, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 2
And it remains that the only constitutionally express power that the states have given Congress to deal with sex-related discrimination actually limits Congress's power to voting related discrimination evidenced by the 19th Amendment.
"19th Amendment:The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
Again, powers not granted are prohibited.
Possibly the best example of no express powers for the feds to deal with a certain issue that patriots can be arguing is based on the 2nd Amendment (2A) imo.
Please consider the following from a related thread.
Probably the main reason that elite Democrats and RINOs have been getting away with foul play regarding their unconstitutionally big federal government for the last 70+ years is the following.
Probably few patriots have a grip on the significance of the requirement for constitutionally enumerated powers for the feds to justify anything that they do. From above…
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Pro-2A patriots, in addition to continuing to support 2A, also need to argue that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make peacetime restrictive gun laws, and many other laws and actions that they make and do.
Ironically, the 14th Amendment gives Congress the specific power only to STRENGTHEN constitutionally enumerated rights, including 2A.
Pro-2A patriots who accept this challenge, please report blank look responses to no federal power to make peacetime restrictive gun laws back to FR.
Correct. Ron/Rand want to abolish the Education Dept because of what you wrote along with many others!
I want to see the trans thing in the UFC. Trans man v. woman. Watch ‘em scream about “fair” then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.