All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
News

House Democrats pass bill to repeal all state-level protections for unborn children

5 Comments

You might be wondering why Never Trump people like David French and Russell Moore were so opposed to Donald Trump. Well, look at what Joe Biden is doing about abortion, and then remember what Trump did when he was President.

Here’s the latest on Joe Biden’s war against unborn children, from Life News:

The U.S. House passed a radical pro-abortion bill Friday that would force states to legalize the killing of unborn babies in abortions without limits up to birth nation-wide.

The deceptively named Women’s Health Protection Act passed in a 218-211 vote with one Democrat joining Republicans in voting against it. No Republicans supported the pro-abortion legislation.

Democrat leaders portrayed the bill as the “codification” of Roe v. Wade into federal law, but the legislation goes far beyond Roe.

Pro-life leaders said the Abortion Without Limits Up to Birth Act is a more accurate name for the bill. The legislation would erase basically all restrictions on abortion and prevent states from enacting even modest protections for unborn babies. Limits on late-term abortions and bans on sex-selection abortions would be gone.

The legislation would get rid of laws that protect women and girls, too, including parental consent for minors and informed consent laws that ensure mothers receive basic facts about their unborn baby’s development before going through with an abortion.

Now, the Evangelicals for Biden might like to say “well, it’s not our fault, we didn’t know this would happen”. But the bill had been passed many times before by the Democrat House, only to die in the Republican Senate. The difference now is that the Democrats have the Senate – and the White House. That’s what Evangelicals for Biden wanted.

Now, let’s look at Trump’s record, from an article posted by the Susan B. Anthony List – the pro-life group that is most concerned with law, policy and judicial appointments:

Appointed Pro-Life Judges

In April, 2017, Judge Neil Gorsuch was successfully confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And in October, 2018, Judge Brett Kavanaugh was successfully confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. To date, 157 of President Trump’s judicial nominees have been confirmed, including two Supreme Court justices, forty-three U.S. Courts of Appeals judges, and one hundred thirteen District Court judges.

Permitted States to Defund Planned Parenthood of Title X Funds

In April 2017, Congress sent a bill to President Trump’s desk that permits states to defund Planned Parenthood of Title X family planning funds passed in Congress. President Trump signed the bill which reverses an Obama-era rule that disbarred states from doing so. Because this was passed using the Congressional Review Act, future Administrations cannot enact a similar rule to Obama’s.

Stopped Tax Dollars Funding Abortion Overseas

President Trump not only reinstated the Mexico City Policy, but expanded it to the new Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance program. This new policy ensures that our tax dollars are protected from funding the abortion industry overseas across ALL global health spending, not just family planning dollars. The Bush-era Mexico City Policy protected roughly $500 million in spending – the new Trump policy protects over $8.8 billion overseas aid from funding abortion.

Defunded the Pro-Abortion UNFPA

The UNFPA has long been complicit in China’s oppressive population control activities, including birth limitation policies and forced abortions. President Trump’s State Department cut U.S. Taxpayer funding to the UNFPA.

Required Health Insurance Companies to Disclose if Plans Cover Abortion

The Trump Administration Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) issued a rule requiring that insurers specify in each plan Summary of Benefits whether the plan covers abortion.

Settlements & New Rule Regarding HHS Mandate

The Departments of HHS, Treasury, and Labor issued two interim final rules, which means they took effect immediately, while allowing a comment period, that provide permanent, enforceable relief from the previous HHS mandate for both religious objectors, such as Little Sisters of the Poor, and moral objectors, such as Susan B. Anthony List. The new rule also exempts private employers and educational institutions that have sincerely held religious beliefs or moral objections against providing contraceptives or abortifacient drugs.

New Office for Conscience Protection at HHS

In May 2019, the Trump administration finalized new regulations to strengthen enforcement of federal laws protecting the conscience rights of health care workers who do not want to participate in abortion. The regulations clarify what recourse is available to victims of discrimination under the law and what penalties the HHS Office of Civil Rights may enforce for violations. Additionally, in January 2018, the Department of Health & Human Services announced the creation of the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division within the Office for Civil Rights. This new office works to protect health care professionals who do not want to participate in abortion. In May, 2019, HHS issued a proposed rule amending Obama-era regulations, clarifying that Section 1557 shall not force a recipient of federal funding to provide or pay for an abortion. It shall also be consistent with the First Amendment and with pro-life provisions, conscience provisions and religious liberty protections in current law.

Allowed States to Defund Planned Parenthood of Medicaid Funds

The Obama administration attempted to prevent states from defunding Planned Parenthood of Medicaid dollars, issuing guidance claiming this may be a violation of federal law. In January 2018, the Trump administration rescinded this guidance, allowing states to defund Planned Parenthood of Medicaid dollars as they see fit.

Cut Planned Parenthood’s Tax Funding by up to $60 Million

In February, 2019, the Trump administration finalized the Protect Life Rule to redirect Title X family planning program funds away from the abortion industry. The rule advances President Trump’s promise to stop taxpayer funding of abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood, who will no longer receive Title X funding if they choose not to comply.

Canceled Huge Contract for Taxpayer-Funded Experimentation with Body Parts of Aborted Babies

In June, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced they would not renew a major contract with the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) to fund research using the body parts of aborted babies. (learn more)

I think it’s very important for pro-life voters of all parties to understand that Trump DID take action on pro-life concerns. He listened to pro-life leaders, and did far more than other Republican presidents who were pro-life in name only. Americans often have this annoying habit of forming their opinions based on what they feel and what they hear in the culture. But we need to be informed voters. Let’s look at the facts and decide based on actions.

News

Can feminism be defended with reason and evidence? Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman

5 Comments
Can radical feminism be defended rationally and evidentially?
Can radical feminism be defended rationally and evidentially?

There was a short discussion recently on UK Channel 4 between Canadian university professor named Jordan Peterson, and a radical feminist with an undergraduate degree in English named Cathy Newman. While you watch, imagine that she is teaching some non-STEM course that you’ve enrolled in. Would you dare to disagree with her?

First, the video, which has over 33 million views:

And here is an article from the UK Spectator: (paywalled)

Whatever else anybody might think of him, Professor Peterson is a man of remarkable learning and experience, and does not appear to have arrived at any of his views by the now common means of ‘I reckon’. Yet Newman, who approaches the interview with the trademark sourness she employs for everyone she expects to disagree with, treats this is just another chance to burnish her own social justice credentials and expose her guest as a bigot. Big mistake.

Storming straight in with the differences between the sexes, in the opening minutes it is clear that Professor Peterson is willing to back up all his views with references, data and calm analysis. 

By 11 minutes in she is saying ‘I think I take issue with (that)’, before demonstrating that she can’t. Soon she is reduced to dropping the bombshell observation that ‘all women are different’. By 16.45 there is a palpable win, as Peterson points out that Newman has exactly the disagreeable and aggressive qualities that allow certain types of people to succeed. By 19.30 she is having to throw out things to him that he hasn’t even said, such as ‘You’re saying women aren’t intelligent enough to run top companies’. A minute later and she is reduced to countering empirical evidence with anecdote. Peterson presents the data about men in general and Newman responds with the ‘I know plenty of men who aren’t (like that)’ card. Shortly after that (at 22.25) Newman is reduced to spluttering and then silence. She tries to pull herself together. But she can think of nothing to say.

To be honest, Cathy Newman is nothing like the women I’m friends with. All of my closest friends are Christian women. All of them are anti-feminist to some degree, with the most successful one professionally (Dina) being the wisest and most anti-feminist of all. When I think of my panel of wise Christian women advisors – each with one or more STEM degrees – I don’t recognize Cathy Newman in them. But Cathy Newman does remind me of the radical feminists I encountered when I was doing my BS and MS degrees in computer science at the university.

In my experience, radical feminists debate using six tactics:

  1. Deny facts or evidence because men were involved in researching them or discovering them
  2. Countering empirical data with anecdotes and personal experiences
  3. Taking arguments and evidence as if they are personal attacks
  4. Becoming hysterical and crying
  5. Claiming that disagreement with feminism will produce violence against women and women committing suicide, etc.
  6. Trying to get you expelled, fired or silenced – often by making false accusations or faking hate crimes against themselves

It’s important for everyone to understand the views of others in order to know how defensible our own views are. In order to get the best scholarly case for radical feminism, I like to read feminist academics like Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia, Jennifer Roback Morse, etc. who evaluate and critique radical feminist scholarship. That’s how I encounter the ideas of those I disagree with (as well as listening to and watching debates).

Here’s a short Factual Feminist video:

I understand the claims that are made by radical feminists, but I am also aware of what the evidence says. I don’t try to stop feminists from making claims, I just study how to refute their claims.

But what about the radical feminists? Do they do a good job of understanding those who disagree with them? Let’s take a look at an example which I think is representative of feminist tolerance and open-mindedness.

The Toronto Sun reports on a sociology professor who gave her students an assignment – an assignment with some very peculiar constraints.

Excerpt:

A Ryerson University student who wanted to write a paper on the “myth” of the male-female wage gap was told by her prof that not only was she wrong, she should only rely on feminist journals for her assignment instead of business sources which “blame women,” her sister says.

Josephine Mathias, 21, a fourth-year political science student at University of Toronto, took to YouTube Wednesday to criticize the assignment given her twin Jane for a sociology class.

[…]After Jane sent an email describing her intention to write about the wag gap, her instructor replied that her premise was wrong, Josephine said.

Here’s what the professor said:

“Perhaps you want to write your paper on the glass ceiling. You need to look at feminist sources on this issue…Do NOT use business sources. They blame women. The reality is patriarchy,” says the instructor’s email, posted online.

In a copy of the assignment provided to the Toronto Sun by Josephine, the instructor also notes that Ontario and Canada government websites and Statistics Canada will not be considered scholarly sources.

“Government websites state government policy that is devoid of analysis, and usually reproduces mainstream stereotypes, assumptions and misconceptions,” the assignment says.

What is interesting is that the professor makes about $167,000 a year – higher than the average professor’s salary. And she’s not teaching computer science or petroleum engineering. I find it interesting that another Canadian university reprimanded a grad student for showing a debate clip that offered both sides of the transgenderism debate. Leftist tolerance. Leftist open-mindedness.

Once you’ve paid your tuition, and the leftist has the grading pen, you lose every argument. Either you get an F, or you get expelled. If you’re in the workplace, you get fired. False charges are often made. Hate crimes are faked. Anything to play the victim, rather than address the arguments and evidence. This is how people on the left “debate”.

As I wrote previously, the more women embrace radical feminism, the more toxic they become to men. Not just in the classroom or the workplace, but in relationships. Who wants to marry someone whose only response to reason is fury? Men might be OK with temporary arrangements with abusive women. At least while those women have youth and beauty. But men don’t marry abusive women. At least, not if they have any wisdom.

(Image source: Independent Man)

News

Can you count on the Democrats to protect you from criminals and terrorists?

7 Comments

I noticed a number of stories this week showing that the Democrats are more interested in rewarding evildoers than protecting the taxpayers who pay their salaries. Sadly, when I tried to share them on Facebook, Facebook didn’t let ANYONE see them. And I mean zero likes, zero clicks. I’m hoping that I can link to the stories in this post and they won’t notice.

Here’s the first one from Daily Wire:

Two Afghan refugees who were brought into the United States following Democrat President Joe Biden’s disastrous pullout from the country are facing federal charges related to allegedly trying to rape a minor and suffocate a woman.

“Bahrullah Noori, 20, is charged with attempting to engage in a sexual act with a minor using force against that person, and with three counts of engaging in a sexual act with a minor, with one count alleging the use of force,” the Department of Justice said in a statement. “The indictment alleges that the victims had not attained the age of 16 years and were at least four years younger than the defendant.”

“Mohammad Haroon Imaad, 32, is charged with assaulting his spouse by strangling and suffocating her,” the statement continued. “The indictment alleges that the assault occurred on September 7, 2021.”

Not sure why these guys are being charged by the Democrats, as they were very anxious to let them into the country, and they sound like they would be more conservative than some people like AOC and Ilhan Omar. These two refugees are the future of the Democrat party — they’d make great Democrat legislators.

Here’s story number two, from CNS News:

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced Thursday that Border Patrol agents will no longer be using horses in Del Rio, Texas, to protect the border against people illegally trying to enter the United States.

Psaki said that DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told civil rights leaders Thursday morning about the decision ahead of the results of an investigation into Border Patrol agents handling of Haitian migrants attempting to cross the Rio Grande River into Texas.

[…]Mayorkas on Tuesday condemned the actions of Border Patrol agents who were accused of using horse reins to “whip” Haitians trying to illegally enter the U.S., saying Tuesday, “We do not condone, we do not tolerate any mistreatment of any migrant. The actions we’re taking are swift and strong, and we will take further action as the facts adduced in the investigation compel.”

Now, you’ll note that Democrat politicians are typically very wealthy, live in gated communities, and have taxpayer-funded armed security to guard them. They aren’t going to be affected by their “compassion” and “inclusion” policies. You will be. In fact, Democrats say that their blue states are too expensive for illegals to live in, because of all the taxes. So where do you think they ship them?

Here’s story number three, from Daily Wire:

The sister of a murder victim in upstate New York is speaking out after Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul (NY) signed and boasted of progressive legislation that releases convicts who violate their parole.

From the Monroe Country jail alone, 17 felons were released this week pursuant to the “Less is More” Act signed by Hochul on Friday. One of the men released was 21-year-old murder suspect Joseph Rivera, who’s accused of killing 47-year-old Heather Majors at her home in July.

Rivera allegedly used a hatchet to kill Majors, striking her some 30-plus times as she held her hands in a defensive position to fight off the attack, local radio host Bob Lonsberry outlined Thursday. It’s suspected that Rivera, a neighbor of the well-liked Majors, was attempting to rob her, though the motive is unknown.

After Rivera was suspected of the crime, he was snagged on a parole violation from an earlier felony conviction and put in jail while authorities worked to formally charge him in the murder.

On Tuesday, though, Rivera was released.

“On Tuesday, though, Rivera was released.” Released by Democrats. And why not? Like I said, they have gated communities, armored cars, taxpayer-funded armed guards, etc. They’re rich. They don’t have to care about their decisions. You do. You’re the one who is affected by their kindness and tolerance and diversity.

Last story from Fox News:

Chicago’s weekend bloodshed included nine murders and 56 shooting victims – but the violence didn’t stop there, as an alderman visiting a known “problem corner” was assaulted by a group of men who appeared intoxicated and high on illicit drugs.

From 6 p.m. Friday to just before midnight Sunday night, Chicago police recorded 46 shooting incidents, involving 56 victims. Nine murders were recorded during that time.

A 3-year-old boy was among the shooting victims. The child was shot in the back at 10:45 a.m. Saturday in the 9300 block of South Escanaba Avenue on the South Side in what police believe to be an accident, the Chicago Sun Times reported. The child was hospitalized in good condition.

Now, you might recall that the Democrat mayor of Chicago is strongly opposed to law-abiding citizens defending themselves from criminals. Chicago has some of the toughest taxes and regulations on gun ownership and self-defense in the nation. They don’t like law-abiding people owning guns. But you know what Democrats say about criminals with guns? Defund the police. That’s their solution to everything criminals do.

And of course, if you want to know what Democrats think about terrorists, just look at how they coddle and appease Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are wrong across the board on national security and foreign policy. Don’t you think that Al-Qaeda is back in Afghanistan already, planning the next 9/11 attack? I do. And it’s because Democrats are running the federal government.