an uninspiring Black woman who's floated effortlessly upward through affirmative action and fealty to leftism.
I'd spent the day mentally writing an attack on her, only to see Tucker Carlson hold forth with an incendiary monologue that attacked her "I'm not a biologist" lunacy,
the whole transgender madness that the left is advancing,
and the real agenda of remaking society in an ugly way, especially through the death of free speech.
As you watch it, keep in mind a point I've made repeatedly: the giveaway that this whole transgender thing is a con is the word "transgender."
If swimmer Will Thomas really were a woman (and really believed he is a woman), he wouldn't call himself a "transgender woman."
He'd just say, "I'm a woman."
The same is true for Richard Levine, the assistant secretary for health.
The moment that word "transgender" comes out, it's a tell that this isn't a real gender.
Indeed, if you get confused as to whether a "transgender woman" is someone born female and claiming to be male, or vice versa, simply substitute the word "fake" for "trans."
Will Thomas is a fake woman who is stealing swimming awards and accolades from real women.
Richard Levine is a fake woman who stole the title of first female admiral in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps from a future real woman.
Again, trans = fake.
And that gets us to why the left is encouraging people like Thomas and Levine.
Tucker helps us understand this with his exhilarating attack on Brown Jackson,
the lie of transgenderism,
the leftist turnaround on what constitutes a woman,
and the frightening role of social media,
especially Twitter,
in ending free speech as a way
to push these lies throughout society.
... Tucker covers Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal's express attacks on free speech, which he considers a danger to a "healthy" society, a danger that he and others like him must destroy.
Here's a different way of thinking about the social media sites' role in America.
Combing the principles behind the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes what Agrawal is saying and doing unconstitutional and unlawful — as in, attorneys general need to step in to stop them.
The Civil Rights Act arose because private businesses were shutting their doors to people based on race.
One could argue that freedom of association gave these businesses the right to choose who was allowed to enter.
But that's not the path Congress chose.
Instead, in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress stated:
(a) Equal access All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
In a way, social media are places of public accommodation.
Today's censorious tech giants, rather than being in the business of selling food, lodging, or entertainment (the targets of the Civil Rights Act), are in the business of selling and re-selling ideas.
If they close their doors to classes of people they dislike, their monopolistic status means that the targeted class is out in the ideological cold.
Perhaps the most basic premise of the United States is that the free exchange of ideas is essential to a free country.
If the government can break up monopolies in oil, transport, lodging, and dining, it's inconceivable that it cannot break up a monopoly on the most important thing that matters: the free exchange of ideas and information.
Indeed, I would argue that there's a powerful argument to be made that we need not update the Civil Rights Act or create new laws directed at the tech tyrants.
Because the Constitution is about the spread of ideas, and because the tech giants are impairing the 21st-century method of spreading ideas,
their behavior is a prima facie violation of the Constitution that can be barred without any legislative acts — although it's certainly helpful to use the Civil Rights Act by way of analogy.
