Mayor Pete (But, But, Buttigieg), was in New Hampshire. At Colby Sawyer College. Pandering to women. He chose a great place. New London Police Chief David Seastrand was relieved of duty after years of letting Colby-Sawyer Co-Eds avoid charges in exchange for pictures of them in their panties.
Seastrand got off thanks to Democrat Gov. Maggie Hassan’s Attorney General then retired (on a full pension), after years of “service.” All without much outrage from Democrat women, including the governor. (Only The insurance company that paid off on one civil suit was likely vexed.)
The retired David Seastrand is earning more doing nothing than most people make working. And it is here, in New London, and at Colby-Sawyer, that Mayor Pete focused on a plan to empower women!
Among the policies to which he would commit, if elected, are nominating women for at least half of the posts in his Cabinet and at least half of openings in the federal judiciary, providing government support for family leave and caregiving, requiring equal pay for equal work, renewing the Violence Against Women Act — which the Republican-majority Senate is holding up — and “enshrining” the right to choose abortion.
Nothing about predatory police chiefs snapping candids of drunk college girls in their undies but Pete probably didn’t know that story. Not that it much matters, women and Colby Sawyer have bigger issues.
Which women? By that, I mean, what do you mean by women?
Colby-Sawyer follows the NCAA’s definition of women (in sports). Men who say they are women can compete as women. Win their spots on teams, dominate events, use their biological advantages from birth not just to compete but defeat female opponents and bring “women’s” sports glory to Colby-Sawyer College.
And then, if they want, they can go back to being men.
Making ‘Women’ meaningless
The same thinking is valid for the whole campus community. Gender has no definition But, But, Buttigieg!
So, without any clarification, Mayor Pete’s plan, “Building Power: A Women’s Agenda for the 21st Century” (That’s what he calls it), has to include anyone. Half his cabinet could be men who say they are men, and the other half could be men who say they are women (at least to get the job).
Big Whoop mayor Pete! But deliciously ironic when he says,
“The point is that with policies that empower women in these ways, 100% of voters would be better off.”
Because all voters could be women, depending on the day or the mood. So, here’s another question. What if you have met your quota of self-identified men (biological) and a biological woman who says she’s a man wants a shot at an available job opening? Would it violate your vision to turn her away?
Or what if you hire a bunch of ‘women’ with man-parts and some decide they are men again. Or, men more often than women thanks to the Left’s definition of ‘women’ in the 21st century?
But, But, Buttigieg
It is problematic that your party has backed itself and you into a corner of your making from which you cannot easily escape, or is this (as I suspect) empty campaign-trail-mix rhetoric?
After all, the latest version of the Violence Against Women’s Act, which you note as a priority for passage, would expose biological women in prisons and Shelters (for abused women) to predatory men claiming to be women by force of law. Like David Seastrand? Isn’t that empowering men to have access to potentially vulnerable women?
Did you mention any of this to the fawning co-eds and Colby-Sawyer?
Probably not. And what else does that say about you?