{ americanthinker.com } ~ For decades, commie-Bernie Sanders has proclaimed that he is a socialist, but is he a communist?... A common definition of communism is a system in which all means of production are owned, and all workers employed, by the state. A familiar definition of socialism is a system in which all means of production are owned or regulated by the state and all workers, therefore, employed or regulated by the state. Except for the qualification of "owned or regulated," there is no difference between socialism and communism. Some might view socialism as "communism lite," but there is nothing "lite" about the government takeover of all major industries that commie-Bernie and other leading Democrats advocate. The Left has already socialized America's educational system, with SAT scores declining since their peak in 1964 and declining markedly since 2006. From what was traditionally local schools governed by local school boards, the American system of education became increasingly regulated by the federal government beginning in the 1960s as stipulations on curricula, standards, and treatment of race and sex were attached to the explosive rise in federal funding of education. By shifting funding away from state and local sources, the federal government was able to gain control of nearly every aspect of public education. At the center of the socialist movement is the demand for health care "as a right" with Medicare for All as the solution. Medicare for All is a disarmingly neutral phrase, but it masks a plan for the elimination, and outlawing, of private health insurance. This would mean government control of the entire process of treatment, including office visits, hospitalization, emergency care, and drug delivery. With Medicare, Medicaid, and scumbag/liar-nObamacare already "serving" 116.5 million patients, this process is well underway, but a complete takeover would transform expectations about standards and timeliness of care. Imagine calling HHS to schedule a heart bypass operation and finding yourself on an endless menu runaround. That's the reality of Medicare for All. The financial crisis of 2008 made possible a vast expansion in federal control of the financial sector, along with the automotive and housing sectors. Financial firms were forced to accept "bailouts" to which stringent conditions were attached. Many of those conditions are still in place, and radicals like commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advocate the renewal of affordable housing policies such as loan quotas for low-income and illegal alien borrowers — the same behavior that caused the financial crisis to begin with...
by E. Donald Elliott
On March 13, Democrats introduced the Equality Act — a moniker that camouflages the deception involved — legislation that would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes under federal law on civil rights. Americans, however, know that not everything is equal. Nevertheless, Democrats plan to engage in their transformational role to use the power of law as their tool to bludgeon their secular beliefs into the masses to enforce their social-justice garbage as the norm.
Exactly what does this Equality Act do, you might ask, and why would anyone oppose equality? Glad you asked.
This radical legislation takes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and amends it. That’s right. Dr. King, a reverend and minister whose teaching came from the very same Bible that calls sexual immorality and perversion a sin, fought to have this landmark legislation passed into law to protect Americans from racism and discrimination based on the amount of melanin in one’s skin at birth. Democrats hope to commandeer this very same vehicle in attempts to align identity and gender confusion, which runs counter to biology, science, psychology, and, yes, God’s Holy Word, with the Civil Rights Movement. It’s not much more complex than that.
Race is a trait that is objective and can be confirmed through various markers present in biology. Sex, too, is an objective trait that can be validated via chromosomal confirmation, anatomy at birth, along with hormonal ratios in the blood. “Gender,” however, has become the darling of the militant LGBTQIA+ crowd, since they’ve redefined a perfectly good word to be about “identity” — a subjective identifier that can change according to an individual’s whim. Cosmopolitan magazine, in a May 2018 article, declares: “Gender is a social construct. Gender is someone’s own internal understanding about whether they are a man or a woman, something in between, [or] none of those things.”
Therein lies the problem. Putting into U.S. Code severe punishments that protect someone’s identity as they view themselves at a given moment and how a segment of society intends to normalize confusion or deviancy, not according to the fixed, measurable characteristics assigned to them at birth, is not just unconstitutional. It’s dangerous.
But, goes the argument, no one should experience discrimination. It’s a fact that hatred has no role of value in a decent society. Acts of hate, violence, and deception are indeed unacceptable. However, the confrontational Left is equating and making equal one’s racial composition, especially in law, to the ever-growing list of “genders.” This same group of activists treats gender as a “spectrum,” not a trait. This is supported by the list of 112 genders aggregated by Tumblr. A few are:
- Cisgender: the feeling of being the gender you were assigned at birth, all the time (assigned (fe)male/feeling (fe)male).
- Demigender: a gender that is partially one gender and partially another.
- Gender Neutral: the feeling of having a neutral gender, whether somewhere in between masculine and feminine or a third gender that is separate from the binary; often paired with neutrois.
- Neutrois: the feeling of having a neutral gender; sometimes a lack of gender that leads to feeling neutral.
- Transgender: any gender identity that transcends or does not align with your assigned gender or society’s idea of gender; the feeling of being any gender that does not match your assigned gender.
- Verangender: a gender that seems to shift/change the moment it is identified.
By protecting the subjective view of gender, thanks to the “tolerant” Left, as equal to race, there are several groups who’ll be harmed by the reach of this potential law. Employers and workers, nonprofits, medical professionals, parents and children, and women will experience harm due to the consequences, intentional or not, resulting from this proposal. Clearly, the magnitude of impact with small businesses can’t be measured but it can certainly be anticipated since the vacillating identity of gender could create a jackpot of fake justice with a surge of lawsuits and regulatory entanglements.
Parents are already experiencing court and legal intervention when they don’t permit their confused minor child to begin hormone-replacement therapy on the pathway to have a sex-change. Research records that as high as 90% of children with gender dysphoria have the distress resolved after puberty. With the Equality Act, courts and lawyers will find themselves in the role to permit the whims of hormonal teenagers to become costly realities.
Medical professionals, attempting to intervene on behalf of the health — both physical and mental — of confused patients have already come under assault. In Washington, the ACLU sued a Catholic hospital for refusing to do a double mastectomy on a 16-year-old girl struggling with gender dysphoria. In both New Jersey and California, Catholic hospitals have been taken to court for refusing to perform hysterectomies on otherwise healthy women wanting to surgically change to identify as a male. This is not health — this is Frankenstein-like medicine harming mixed-up victims.
An unusual victim in this new version of the Civil Rights Movement is that of women. Why, you ask? Well, as men identifying as women are accepted into sports, business, and academia, biological women will likely be displaced and replaced by their transgender, tragender (spanning across all genders), trigender, or whatever their identified qualifier in meeting diversity quotas in these areas that come with scholarships, hiring preferences, and access to placement in top institutions of learning.
This is no hypothetical fret that drew out the House hearing for a total of four hours with testimony from Julie Beck, a lesbian and former law and policy co-chair for Baltimore City’s LGBTQ Commission. Beck argued against the Equality Act with particular opposition to transgender women in sports, noting that men would dominate women’s sports, which would keep biological girls from scholastic opportunities and attainment.
There are countless other arguments that can and should be made opposing this legislation. For example, it endangers the First Amendment protections of Americans who do more than practice their faith on occasion, but, instead, live their lives around and supported by the teachings of Holy Scripture.
Democrats’ investment in identity politics and division are at the very root of this very wrong-headed proposal. American Patriots, engage to defeat this and other proposals that are part of the destruction of our great nation presented by the Left as their idea of equality to achieve their very costly political victory. ~The Patriot Post
Comments