The Democrat Party rejected, maybe cancelled is a better word, Tulsi Gabbard’s 2020 presidential campaign. Why would the Democrat Party reject a candidate that fits their demographic criteria? She is attractive, photogenic, well spoken, ethnically brown and liberal. Could it be that her character is intolerable to The Party’s cause; ethical, honest, with a belief in the US Constitution and outspoken against military intervention.
After the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021 was introduced in the House earlier this week, (to prevent future coups?) Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic representative from Hawaii, expressed her concerns about the proposed legislation. The following text, taken from a recent interview, reveals one of her obvious Democrat Party flaws.
“This is an issue that all Democrats, Republicans, independents, Libertarians should be extremely concerned about, especially because we don’t have to guess about where this goes or how this ends,” Gabbard said.
She continued: “When you have people like former CIA Director John Brennan openly talking about how he’s spoken with or heard from appointees and nominees in the Biden administration who are already starting to look across our country for these types of movements similar to the insurgencies they’ve seen overseas, that in his words, he says make up this unholy alliance of religious extremists, racists, bigots, he lists a few others and at the end, even libertarians.”
She said her concern lies in how officials will define the characteristics they are searching for in potential threats. “What characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of a potential extremist, what are we talking about? Religious extremists, are we talking about Christians, evangelical Christians, what is a religious extremist? Is it somebody who is pro-life? Where do you take this?” Gabbard said.
She said the proposed legislation could create “a very dangerous undermining of our civil liberties, our freedoms in our Constitution, and a targeting of almost half of the country.”
“You start looking at obviously, have to be a white person, obviously likely male, libertarians, anyone who loves freedom, liberty, maybe has an American flag outside their house, or people who, you know, attended a Trump rally,” Gabbard said.
In December 2020, then Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii), introduced the “Protect Women’s Sports Act” into the U.S. House of Representatives, (the Oklahoma Republican, Representative Markwayne Mullin, is a co-sponsor). Gabbard’s proposed legislation attracted some interesting responses from LGBTQ advocates, with claims of exposing, “her right-wing credentials with attacks on transgender student athletes”. Some have pigeonholed her as, “opportunistic people, like Rep. Gabbard who, under false pretense, claim to be protecting girl’s sports to justify discrimination.”
Gabbard says that her “Act” is to protect the intent of the 1972 Title IX amendment, that prohibited “discrimination on the basis of sex.” When Title IX was applied to the funding of athletic programs it increased the athletic opportunities for millions of female athletes. Today the definition of “Sex” is under scrutiny. This bill attempts to define “Sex” requirement for female sports.
The Supreme Court’s decision in, Bostock v. Clayton County, demonstrated, the logic of discrimination “on the basis of sex” can be defined in various ways. In Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC (the transgender case in the Bostock package), the majority of the Court was convinced that “gender identity” is an offshoot of sex and that, in the context of employment, distinctions between the sexes can amount to discrimination.
When applied to Title IX, “gender identity” males will be permitted to compete against females when they claim transgender or a male gender identity status. This could end women’s sports as we know it.
In education, the collapsing of sex-based distinctions began in 2016 under the Obama administration’s “guidance” to schools and colleges, telling them to expand the definition of sex to include “gender identity.” The Equality Act, which Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have promised to pass within 100 days of office, would overwrite sex with “gender identity” in federal anti-discrimination law.
In a statement, Gabbard said that the Protect Women’s Sports Act actually “protects Title IX’s original intent which was based on the general biological distinction between men and women athletes based on sex.” The Bill would preserve an “equal opportunity for women and girls in high school and college sports,” as well as holding to account those “states who are misinterpreting Title IX, creating uncertainty, undue hardship and lost opportunities for female athletes” by allowing males to dominate and displace them.
Male elevated testosterone levels and androgenized bodies make them generally stronger and faster than females; research indicates 10 to 30 percent performance gap in elite sports. This advantage holds true in non-elite sports where male athletes can dominate the female field. In Connecticut two high-school-aged males (mediocre athletes in comparison with their male peers) deprived female competitors of 15 state championship titles and more than 85 opportunities to participate. https://4w.pub/three-connecticut-girls-sue-to-protect-womens-sports/
“And I ain’t no Communist and I ain’t no Capitalist
And I ain’t no Socialist and I ain’t no Imperialist
And I ain’t no Democrat so I ain’t no Republican
I only know one party and it is freedom I am, I am, I am
I am a patriot and I love my country
Because my county is all I know” Jackson Browne