Culture

Black Woman SCOTUS Nominee, Who Is A Black Woman, Doesn’t Know What A Woman Is

SEN. BLACKBURN: “Can you provide a definition of the word ‘woman’?”

JACKSON: “No, I can’t”

BLACKBURN: “You can’t?”

JACKSON: “I’m not a biologist”

Let’s think carefully about everything that has gone wrong with this answer.

First, let’s get out of the way the most important point: Jackson is a black woman, nominated to SCOTUS because she is a black woman. She therefore possesses the key trait—being a black woman—required for the job. No answer can ever take this from her.

Second, even if this black woman doesn’t make it through these tear-inducing (yes, she cried) questions, another will rise up to take her place. And will likely give the same answers.

So we’re stuck with her, or with whoever follows. The left will not be surprised, as “conservatives” are, by their nominee making rulings that accord with Reality or common sense. The left vets their nominees too well, and whoever they get will be woke and will vote according to party line. Thus, there’s not much profit in getting too excited about Jackson herself.

With that out of the way, let’s move to the black woman’s (did I mentioned she was nominated because she was a black woman?) answer.

Jackson (a) was lying, (b) is genuinely ignorant, or (c) is a zealot. Any situation is disqualifying. None will disqualify her.

A. LYING:

As we saw yesterday, the majority of people who claim to say they do not know the difference between men and women are lying.

They lie because they see other elites are lying and they want to belong to the club; they want to get along; they want to get ahead; they sacrifice their souls for material gain. They lie because they see what happens to people who tell the truth; they are afraid, and are cowards.

Ours is an Age of Lies. We expect our elite and rulers to lie, and are glad of the lies when they provide comfort to “our” side.

B. IGNORANCE:

Jackson may, in fact, be as stupid as her answer indicates. This is a mighty level of dumb. But then we recall she wasn’t chosen for her intelligence, but for those other two characteristics you’re sick of hearing about. So it remains a possibility her intellect is dull.

But I don’t believe it. This level of sheer invincible ignorance is more theoretical than actual.

What she could be is academic-ignorant. This is the false puzzlement of academics who pretend not to know clear answers in situations which afford them an opportunity to signal their credentialed intelligence.

Yes, this is a form of lying, but it’s not the usual kind of lie of the type covered above. It’s instead a kind of hubris married to arrogance, the desire to appear smart by claiming intricacies where none obtain. I’m so smart I know nothing, taken to a ridiculous literal extreme.

That’s usually only found on campuses, think tanks, and NPR.

Jackson, if she is in the ignorance category, and is not lying (which I think she is), has instead fallen prey to scientism. Specifically of the first kind. This is the false belief that we cannot know anything until it has been certified by credentialed scientists. It is academic-ignorant once removed.

This is a live possibility. Our culture is saturated in not just lies, but scientism. Science, which cannot explain itself, nor mathematics, nor logic, nor morals, is somehow taken as the epitome of all thought. Strange. Science has a terrific PR agency.

Jackson can sit in her black robes and pretend not to know what she knows because scientists have not yet ruled. Yet this implies she’d have to wait for Science to rule on all questions. That being so, there is no point to have judges. We can make do with panels of credentialed scientists.

C. ZEALOTRY:

Zealots are those who chimp out when questioned on these simple topics. If they are students or in the public, they resort to flinging their arms and objects. They launch screechbombs and remind you that you are in the Current Year. If they are academics, they do the same, but with words on paper or screens.

There is no reasoning with zealots. They are lost. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

I do not believe Jackson is a zealot.

Knowing that none of what we do here today will change anything, what’s your guess why she gave this answer?

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here; Or go to PayPal directly. For Zelle, use my email.

Categories: Culture

54 replies »

  1. Perhaps the question is another way of asking, “What do women want?” There is no simple answer; heck there is no answer. ?

  2. Her words are a flag signaling she belongs to the proper Marxist vanguard.

  3. “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” -Voltaire

    And that’s the point, really, isn’t it? Such and such is so, because The State says it’s so. Believing absurdities is an exercise in obedience.

    Voltaire was quoted by Jason Whitlock, on Tucker Carlson’s show last night. Tucker was discussing Judge Brown’s apparent ignorance of basic biology, and was kind enough to provide a diagram of the female reproductive system, which even “non-biologists” may remember from primary school, to help illustrate how women are different from men.

    Tucker showed a phone video someone had taken, of a female spectator who was watching Lia Thompson crush it during a swim meet, and the spectator kept saying “That’s a man! That’s a man!” At which point, a bearded man in the row in front of her turned around and pointedly asked, “Are you a biologist?”

    I now watch only two shows on Fox News: Tucker Carlson and Greg Gutfeld. I’m about done with Gutfeld though, partly because I’m tired of his homo-jokes (pretending to come on to male guests) and partly because even he has gone over to the dark side of political correctness. Two nights ago, they were discussing Lia Thompson, and Gutfeld kept referring to Thompson as “she”. When a guest, reporter Trace Gallagher, while describing Thompson’s superior strength, referred to Thompson as “he”, Gutfeld quickly corrected him: “You have to say ‘she’”, said he. At the time, I wondered if this was Fox News policy, but after watching Tucker, I think this is Gutfeld policy. Bye, Greg, it was nice while it lasted.

    This is an attempt by the Father of Lies, Satan, to dissolve Womanhood. It’s fundamentally an attack on “The Woman”, the Mother of Christ, the New Eve, the New Ark of the Covenant.

    This is how the Father of Lies, who hates humanity (because he hates God, and we are made in the image and likeness of God), attempts to usher in “trans-humanism”, his most destructive egoistic project.

    Our best response is to just say NO, and to pray the rosary, our greatest weapon. Our Lady of the Holy Trinity will do the rest. She will crush Satan’s head under her heel; that’s not just a threat, it’s a promise.

  4. Until she gave the “not a biologist” response, I thought she was using the ambiguous “can’t” as in 1) incapable of, or 2) constrained in some manner.

    But then she added the unnecessary biologist comment, so she is both lying (she knows how to define a women) and ignorant (doesn’t know when to keep quiet).

    However, if she were telling the “truth” (i.e., her lived experience) and actually did not know how to define a women, as a person of principle she had to decline the nomination as Biden clearly described his requirements for the position. So, she may also be a grifter.

  5. Everything passing under my lens so far exposes Judge Jackson as a raging progressive/leftist. Not my bowl of political chowder ~ but it isn’t a disqualification factor. What really reeks of recrudescent conspiring however – is lofting this special candidate into confirmation hearings as: A Black Woman ~ rather than simply as A Plain-Vanilla judicial activist. If the Senate Committee rejects her now (which they still might) it can only be because of their WHITE SUPREMACIST bigotry. Quite “predictably” this would re-invigorate BLM/AntiFA during the hot summer months leading towards November mid-terms. Mixing political party agendas with judicial qualification hearings produces a highly volatile compound. [She (Judge Jackson) gave the answer she gave because that is The Answer; just as science is now The Science. Know this: Only The Experts can tell us anything.]

  6. The black chick is dodging questions hoping to present a smaller target. Standard lawyer trick, and standard practice in confirmation hearings for those hoping to rise in the Empire of Lies. They want a black chick because that is more humiliating for white men. Humiliating white men makes them weak, demoralized, and less likely to resist. The Empire of Lies is satanic inversion and feeds on men’s sin. It starves in Christian virtue. The Empire won’t end until whitey stops playing the part of faithless coward.

  7. Good one Briggs it’s all about turning the world upside down, rattling the cage, sowing
    uncertainty in the mass population. It’s great for dividing people and launching them
    at each others throats. It’s a lot like child abuse exploitation and it seems to be working,
    given the childlike mentality that’ been cultivated in general public. It hurts my brain
    too much to think is the common retort. The herd wants to be told what to think so they
    can get back to Netflix and fantasize.

    Have we reached peak trans?
    https://unherd.com/2022/03/have-we-reached-peak-trans/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups%5B0%5D=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=a724661732

  8. Jackson (a) was lying, (b) is genuinely ignorant, or (c) is a zealot.

    There could also be (d) Jackson recognised a disengenuous question and refused to play along with it. Blackburn is the pig-ignorant senator who said that the line “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is in the US Constitution.

  9. “… what’s your guess why she gave this answer?”

    She’s saying: “I’m going to be confirmed and there’s nothing you can do to stop it!”

  10. “…what’s your guess why she gave this answer?”

    She’s lying.

    It’s a requirement of her political belief system, PC-Progressivism. The entire system is based on lies, and requires adherents to publicly profess belief in its unreal lies.

    Reality is not allowed to intrude into PC-Prog public pronouncements.

    They are allowed to live and act according to reality (the nominee lives as a woman, and clearly knows what a woman is): “In 1996, Jackson married surgeon Patrick Graves Jackson, whose family is considered Boston Brahmins. Through her marriage, she is related to former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Patrick Jackson is descended from Jonathan Jackson, a delegate to the Continental Congress, and is related to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. The couple have two daughters.”

    But PC-Prog does NOT allow public acknowledgement of reality. There are quick, harsh, and required punishments for any PC-Prog (and targeted Normals) who voice a real fact.

    So, she lies.

    And these lies lead to really, really bad results for our society.

  11. Academic-ignorant….aka ‘expert-ignorant’, indeed! Of course she is!

    We are wrong, though, if we believe that this deliberate idiocy (like some malign fungus) is limited to scaly, itchy toes, NPR, think-tanks, and ivy-lined campuses. Nooooo. It’s everywhere. Spread well beyond the Bog which once was Higher Education, it inhabits not just the professional talking heads, but has equally body-snatched all the Woke and Woke Wannabes: generations gobbled!

    In the absence of Expert Certification of ANYTHING, nothing could possibly be known by anyone, ever.

    Talk to a brand new mother with a crying babe and suggest that perhaps the wee infant might need to be fed. The answer, borne in the elite mouths of Experts (pediatric and otherwise) is that the baby just had 80 ml of formula 127 minutes ago and her feeding is not scheduled for another 13 minutes. So no — the baby, as per expert, does not NEED to be fed. The child herself, crying frantically, is still too young to realize her error in believing herself hungry when she is obviously expert-certified NOT to be hungry. She will learn to ‘make better choices’, you can be sure.

    This insanity is everywhere. “Are you hungry?” I don’t know — let me check my Smart Watch Calorie Burner Expert. Did you like the movie? Of course I did; it’s an expert certified Academy Award Nominee. It’s like a giant, endless game of Simon Sez, except the only permissible Simon in every single game must be the man? woman? zebra? (who can tell, I’m no biologist!) who wears the Degreed Expert Bonnet. Whaddya want for lunch? Good question, I was just reading this Expert in Lunch nutrition and THEY say…(I don’t know what they say cause I’m no Nutitionist!)

    And Experts always know and very clearly understand that if their own idiosyncratic expertise (in Jackson’s case, knowing what the Law SHOULD be) is to be recognized and adulated, that they in turn must recognize and adulate all other Expert’s Expertise. It’s as wrong for Judge Jackson to opine on what is and is not a ‘woman’ as it would be for an Expert in Women to opine on whether it’s legal to murder your wife (“I’m no lawyer!”). Neither could she offer an opinion on whether or not it’s hot outside (I’m no meteorologist!).

    Why are we driving towards Miami when we want to go to Chicago? Hey, that’s what my in-dash expert says to do! Rejoice and Be Glad!

  12. Thanks for the bio Kent so she’s attached herself to a long line of grifters.
    Who wudda thunk…

    “Jonathan Jackson, a delegate to the Continental Congress”, He was around for the Revolutionary
    War Script Scandal. Revolutionary war soldiers were paid in script with the promise of redemption
    after the war by the government. The government did not redeem the script for nearly six years
    after the war ended and many of the front line soldiers were impoverished and forced to sell their
    script to unscrupulous speculators for a fraction of it’s value. This sparked Shay’s Rebellion in
    Massachusetts because many of the farmers were veterans losing their land to taxes, it was brutally suppressed. The government then tried to stiff the speculators by reducing the scripts full face value the reasoning being that they had already robbed the veterans and turnabout was fair play. But the
    government was sued and forced to pay the full value of the script the speculators held, thus America
    was born.

  13. There could also be (d) Jackson recognised a disengenuous question and refused to play along with it. Blackburn is the pig-ignorant senator who said that the line “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is in the US Constitution.

    Like clockwork, we knew you’d show up!

    Jackson is no zealot! Trombone here, is a zealot! Compare his arm waving screech to hers! That’s how you know!

    Isn’t it nice how whenever the zealots cannot answer a question the option is to either slur you and declare that your entirely sensible questions are disengenous?

    I believe the question is very relevant in light of fishyfreak’s friends contaminating women’s spaces, raping them, and kicking their asses in sports, for which several challenges are heading to the courts. But fishy is not only a zealot, he is not only a liar, he is also totally dense and ignorant, which is why he hilariously thinks that a) effort and b) commitment through surgery, are enough to qualify sex-changes scientifically and morally, because it makes the patient “happy”, yet the data and the whole ex-trans movement is largely made up of those same effort-putting post-op people that are unhappy with their efforts and commitments, and especially the pressure apparatus of liberal trumboneys out there encouraging them to make irreversible decisions for the sake of their lefty-crusading religion, and they therefore “go back” to identifying as their real sex.

    Observe, the people SJWfish doesn’t want to admit exist:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-0ePl1AGx2g

    Back to Jackson, what she is… is an impressionable groomed hack who will follow lefty orders like a good house negro. She doesn’t need to answer or pass the test, because her lucrative future is ensured! Also little wonder that she is soft on pedophiles, just like swordfish, where despite the front they put up about protecting children from predators, in practice they commit themselves to supporting everything else that helps make more of it possible.

    THE PARTY (inc) doesn’t care about the facts or logic or reality. They only require that you obey them above your own senses to believe whatever they need you to believe for expediency. You need to be flexible just like their mathematics, accounting, and especially THE SCIENCE ™. Also you must yield to the EXPERTS. If you are not an accredited biologist who is also a credible member of THE SYSTEM, which often means TV appearences, then you cannot know what a woman is, and it would be “disingenuous” to claim you know one when you see her.

    This is why swordytrumbone cannot recognize a dog, because he is not an accredited veterinarian, and also cannot presume that someone is a child in order to have sex with them, because he is not a pediatrician, and also must recognize that he has no grounds to criticize Blackburn’s line of questioning, because he is neither a) a qualified senator, b) a judge, nor c) a Constitutional scholar.

    So it is best that fishy refrain from now on from making any more unqualified remarks, because he is behaving disingenously and possesses no qualifications for much of anything he attempts to discuss and it is evident in every statement he attempts to put forward.

    Jackson recognizes this, hence her thinking will always be outsourced and she will “just follow orders” sent down by THE SYSTEM, THE PARTY (inc), and THE SCIENCE ™.

  14. 1 – while her answer was incredibly stupid, it is defensible.. -really – vide: “as that question may soon be coming before the court I’m going to have to say that I don’t know.” Who knew absurdity could be recursive?

    2 – The nicer question to have asked would have been: Mr.Biden nominated you because he had committed to nominating a black woman. So are you (a) black; and, (b) a woman? Defend your answer using definitions..

    3 – enjoy this while you can because the price of popcorn going up

  15. Ann Cherry: “At which point, a bearded man in the row in front of her turned around and pointedly asked, “Are you a biologist?””

    How was he able to talk to her? Is he a linguist?

  16. Isn’t it nice how whenever the zealots cannot answer a question the option is to either slur you and declare that your entirely sensible questions are disengenous?
    No, just logically false, there are more than three options
    That was the point, I also thought similar, she, who I don’t know who she is, as haven’t seen or heard, but ‘she’ might have been intimidated or just ducking trouble, list a whole lot of other possibilities. sides are being Disingenuous on part of the questioner and the answerer, probably.

    Why don’t they just have an open debate about the subject?
    Same reason both sides of the ‘game’ are trying to catch each other out.
     
    As for the real answer? They could have asked her in a way that would mean she couldn’t have dodged. That would have been more bright. It would have also left a decline to respond looking more ridiculous without the excuse

  17. The fatuous fascist Biden is a committed polylogist

    https://mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/pp/657

    As was pointed out in a piece at Lou Rockwell – which had an internal link to this –
    Sotomayor (Pronounced Soda Mayor) – claimed she would come to better answers on questions presented to The SOTUS because she was a wise latin woman and, thus, mo’betta than a white man.

    White man, if you have not yet figured out the government hates you (yes, the GOP too) then you are as stoopid and reprehensible as the establishment thinks you are.

  18. “I’m not a biologist…”
    “can you tell us in your own words, as far as you understand?”
    “are you a woman? If so how can you tell?”
    “what do you think children understand by the word ‘woman’?”
    They asked a closed question.
    “Can you…”
    “define woman as you understand the word”

  19. No, just logically false, there are more than three options

    Oh? What are they? You just kind of trailed off there without explanation…

    Sure, they could, you know… answer the question. But as we’ve established, they can’t, because:
    a) They know they would have to lie so that the maw doesn’t devour them.
    b) If they consider themselves true believers, they know they will sound stupid, which means their base premises are stupid, which means they are not true believers, which leads them back to a)

    So instead they slur the questioner and dismiss the question of being not worthy of an answer they pretend is there but refuse to give least the slurred questioner be given “legitimacy” and by association that makes the question “legitimate”, and that is dangerous! It’s almost terrorism! Probably straight up murder if some fragile trans somewhere feels bad and the needle on their mental meter moves on step closer to suicide… That the misery and complications of drugs and surgery also move that needle 10 points further is however conveniently dismissed. Do NOT ask questions. Questions are for science, not THE SCIENCE ™. Media-recognized Professionals know never to ask questions in public, least they scandalize the impressionable little ones.

  20. Ketanji Brown Jackson is a pro-pedophile progressive, the perfect pick for the promotion of the perverted philosophy of polylogism. (Is there a prize or a plaque for alliteration?)

    She and Soda Mayor will be stars on the court and we all know there will be stories of them telling their stories to the progressive story lovers.

  21. Jackson is clearly not fit for SCOTUS. This sounds like another political game here like the last (fraudulent) election where Biden and Harris wouldn’t answer many of the questions while running for the presidency and vice presidency. Same game plan. Same bullshine. Dodge as much questions as possible, and then show your leftist-cultural-Marxist-corporatist-oligarchist bias later.

  22. I know a lot of folks are saying “It could be worse” it could shave been Hilary who was nominating a woman to the SCOTUS:

    Hillary’s meltdown included throwing a water glass at a staffer- narrowly missing her head, and demanding Matt Lauer be fired! She was overheard threatening executives at NBC saying “If I lose, we all go down and that Fascist F**k will have us swinging from nooses! What the f**k is wrong with you idiots?”

    Donna Brazile was singled out by Hillary during the rant. Donna was told “You stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo, while letting fucking Lauer get away with this betrayal? Get the fuck to work janitoring this mess- do I make myself clear?

    OK, who could argue with her about Brazile but I don’t think Hilary would have performed a marriage of two women like Biden publicly performed a marriage of two men back when he was VP.

    After ll, Pope Benedict XVI assured us Catholics that Biden is a committed Catholic.

  23. How sad for her daughters. Probably they are being trained up in the fullness of wokeism, where what is declared to be, is, until the next time around. Praying that Jesus rescues the daughters and their mother and dad, to Himself.

    God bless, C-Marie

  24. Anyone who supports murder (and abortion is always murder), in any way, even if “hiding” the support behind job requirements, is not actually living Catholicism, though certain requirements are being observed.
    As God said, “Thou shalt not murder.” There is no getting around the fact, that abortion is the killing, the murder, of one or more unborn children in the womb, who are fully human beings from conception forwards.

    God bless, C-Marie

  25. C Marie, it is killing.
    The problem, with calling it murder is that it does have a legal definition.
    Killing has a clear definition. Now
    I’ve done the same as you but if you want to be honest you have to be accurate.
    “Though shalt not kill”
    (As far as I know)
    If it said “though shalt not commit murder”. Then you’re in atrouble.
    That’s why the Spirit of the Law is really what counts.

    “The written law kills the Spirit gives life”
    Put that on a sign over your bed.

    A man who’s a Reverend who you don’t like.
    The sign in my room says,
    “make tea not war”
    (Given to me as a leaving present when I left an military base)
    The other one says,
    “the more I learn about people, the more I love my dog”
    AlSo true

  26. Johnno,

    Oh? What are they? You just kind of trailed off there without explanation…

    It’s the fallacy of the false trichotomy.
    Maybe any list of theories presented as the only possible reasons are known as false polychotomies, who knows? who cares? Removal of the polly from where she has no business being lodged.
    Anyway, that’s for philosophers and other experts about such things to work out.
    Can you seriously not think of any other reasons why she might have answered that way?
    I’m not claiming that the three offered aren’t reasonable suggestions.
    I’m making a statement of the rather obvious. Read second comment about asking open questions.

  27. If I write a list for you on why she might not have wanted to answer, but chose the/a, party line,
    You’re simply going to categorise those reasons under one of the three headings. What a silly waste of time!
    Here’s a few:
    She is trying to irritate the right of politics
    She is trying to win a bet
    She is feeling listless?
    She is trying to give material to the newspapers so they don’t talk about Biden’s son’s laptop
    She is trying to make a bigger splash than she already seems to have*haven’t been following
    She was feeling unwell
    She didn’t hear the question and was trying to cover it up
    She was trying to stop any further questions on the subject by blocking further questions, so used what she thought was a get out

  28. Maybe Biden’s offering up Jackson to take the heat then withdraw so he can get his real nominee in place without getting accused of going back on his word. The way Bush used Harriet Miers to pave the way for Samuel Alito to take O’Connor’s seat.

  29. The usual response is thou shalt not kill, but here is explained the difference, and why “kill” became so used. And so, the word murder is correct.

    “Yet, the truth is the quite the opposite. This is probably the least well understood of the Ten Commandments. The reason is that the Hebrew original does not say, “Do not kill.” It says, “Do not murder.” Both Hebrew and English have two words for taking a life — one is “kill” (harag, in Hebrew) and the other is “murder” (ratzach in Hebrew).
    The difference between the two is enormous. Kill means:
    1) Taking any life — whether of a human being or an animal.
    2) Taking a human life deliberately or by accident.
    3) Taking a human life legally or illegally, morally or immorally.
    On the other hand, murder can only mean one thing: The illegal or immoral taking of a human life. That’s why we say, “I killed a mosquito,” not, “I murdered a mosquito.” And that’s why we would say that “the worker was accidentally killed,” not that “the worker was accidentally murdered.”
    So why did the King James translation of the Bible use the word “kill” rather than “murder”? Because 400 years ago, when the translation was made, “kill” was synonymous with “murder.” As a result, some people don’t realize that English has changed since 1610 and therefore think that the Ten Commandments prohibits all killing.
    But, of course, it doesn’t. If the Ten Commandments forbade killing, we would all have to be vegetarians, as killing animals would be prohibited. And we would all have to be pacifists — since we could not kill even in self-defense.”

    13 Thou shalt not kill. Exodus 20:13. King Kames
    13 Thou shalt do no murder. Exodus 20: 13. NASB

    God bless, C-Marie

  30. C Marie:
    So the problem is as my comment above allowed for, or so I thought you might understand. It’s even worse a tangle. Here’s why:

    1 if scripture, (the written jewish law) demands that only ‘murder’ is illegal, or against God’s commandment, the conditions (here on earth) are more narrow in case of the term ‘murder’ due to its definition.

    2 Due to the contemporary written law, (again) Abortion does not satisfy the legal definition of ‘murder’.

    Here is the legal definition of murder in the UK:

    ‘the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen’s peace, with malice aforethought’.
     
    It’s that second clause which means that abortion, under the law cannot be considered ‘murder’.

    So do you see what Is the problem here?

    The Spirit is telling you that it is wrong, the law says something else. Your conscience is telling you something else.

    “though shalt not kill” is also problematic for the reasons above in my first comment.

    Hence the quote:
    2 Corinthians 3: 6

    (Aramaic Bible in plain English)
    “He who made us worthy to be Ministers of The New Covenant, not in The Scripture, but in The Spirit, for The Scripture kills, but The Spirit gives life.”

    (KJV)
    “4And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the [a]Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”

    (USCB)Such confidence we have through Christ toward God.
    5Not that of ourselves we are qualified to take credit for anything as coming from us; rather, our qualification comes from God,c
    6
    who has indeed qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit;d for the letter brings death, but the Spirit gives life.

    There’s also this symmetry in the chapters:
    1 Corinthians 3:
    19: “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God for it is written he taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”
    Wrote the above in white on black so hope there are no areas of non edited text which appear, if so that’s why.

  31. I think her handlers still believe that even in 2022 you have to be careful in what you say because the woke situation is still not totally bought by the Public School educated.

  32. If only the follow up question had been
    “So you agree that the definition of a woman is a question of biology ?” The contortions would have been interesting.

  33. Even sadder than her ridiculous answer is that the entire Senate didn’t bust out laughing until she slinked out of the room in shame.

  34. Johnno,

    Like clockwork, we knew you’d show up!

    Ditto you and your pathetic reply. (BTW, you ran away from me on that recent ‘gladiators’ thread. What happened to you?)

    Also little wonder that she is soft on pedophiles, just like swordfish

    You are a dishonourable liar. Back up your claim about me or retract it. I’ll wait.

  35. The key to the ending began at the lousy quality of question:
    SEN. BLACKBURN: “CAN you provide a definition of the word ‘woman’?”
    The answer in kind, is a can or cannot. (ability or disability to…)
    The more incisive question is:
    WOULD you provide a definition of the word “woman”? (reason for)
    The word “would” is an embedded command which displays power and necessitates a yes or no answer–followed by an explanation exposing her thinking. Arguably, a softball question by design and subsequent planned media distraction…

    https://is.gd/IK2er3

  36. I think there’s a funny skit in there somewhere.

    Senator: Judge Jackson, is Emperor Biden wearing any clothes, or is he actually running around stark naked?

    Ketanji Brown Jackson: I don’t know, I’m not an optometrist.

    swordfishtrombone: OBJECTION!! Disingenuous question!

    I used to greatly fear the boil-the-frog incrementalism of the libs, they seemed so danged good at it. But now I realize that there really isn’t any great talent or deep thought behind it, they are just always pushing for everything they can get. When they aren’t in charge, it looks like incrementalism, but when they are in charge, it’s 1000% petal-to-the-metal way-too-far-too-fast, to their extreme detriment. In this vein, I find myself wondering if Lia Thomas is part of a false-flag operation – it’s hard to imagine a more effective way to convince the public that the emperor is indeed naked. I couldn’t have imagined a few years ago that “He’s got a damn penis, you moron!” would be the new catch phrase.

  37. Guess what everyone! Science can no longer tell us what a woman is! The corporate press has spoken! Adjust everything yoy’ve ever know as they command!
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J1MqTOzbUqE

    Ditto you and your pathetic reply. (BTW, you ran away from me on that recent ‘gladiators’ thread. What happened to you?)

    Oh that, I was busy for a week, think I’ll rectify that right after this…

    You are a dishonourable liar. Back up your claim about me or retract it. I’ll wait.

    Don’t remember? It was when I highlighted the hypocrisy and consequences of your stances. Let’s demonstrate that again for everyone in real-time:

    Questions for swordsy:

    Do you support the indoctrination of LGBTQ2+ETC topics to children in elementary schools… for tolerance and education?

    Do you support that children have a right to access these materials and other related topics and LGBTQ2+ services at their own descretiin without parental oversight?

    Do you support that children have a right to access medical treatments, vaccinatuons and drugs without parental oversight at the discretion of school and government and medical personnel?

    Do you still hold to the premise that whatever consenting adults choose to do in their bedroom, regardless of personal risks or conseqences to each other is acceptable?

    Answer these and we’ll move on to step 2 to demonstrate how despire the posturing you put up regarding adukt-chikd relations, you pave the way for their legitimacy, trapped by your own logic.

    If you have changed your answers to these questions from your stances before, then I’ll readily admit that you therefore no longer foolishly aid in propping up pedophilic progress.

  38. Absolutely perfect, Keen S!!!

    ( Keen S comment: “If only the follow up question had been
    “So you agree that the definition of a woman is a question of biology ?” The contortions would have been interesting.).

    And I add, Poor, poor woman …. to apparently desire the position of power so much …..
    God bless, C-Marie

  39. Left out .. here for a refresher as to why the comment of Keen S is so perfectly apropo.

    SEN. BLACKBURN: “Can you provide a definition of the word ‘woman’?”

    JACKSON: “No, I can’t”

    BLACKBURN: “You can’t?”

    JACKSON: “I’m not a biologist”

    God bless, C-Marie

  40. How many readers here can provide a definition of ‘number’?

    Just a gotcha question. No matter what answer she gives, she will be criticized anyway.

  41. When Kavanaugh was accused of sexual misconduct, you were quiet. Now Jackson’s answer to a silly question calls for a post to trash her. Why?

  42. JH,
    How would you have answered the question?
    Why is the woman crying in the picture? Asking you as nobody else’s ing to answer properly
    How would you have worded the question? if you like?
    The QI clip didn’t work see if this does;
    https://youtu.be/BfDCwP2SnI4
    Works over here

  43. re: “But the government was sued and forced to pay the full value of the script the speculators held, thus America was born.”

    WHICH party was central to this? As we found out during the Civil War, the dems were central to it as well as other ‘events’ in ‘our’ so-called common history …

  44. Johnno,

    Piling on more BS won’t help you. Do the honourable thing. Retract your lie and apologise for lying.

  45. How many readers here can provide a definition of ‘number’?
    I can but you’d say it doesn’t count.
    Not everything that counts can be counted?
    Here’s “one”

    “A number is an amount, tally, or quantity of any measured (real or abstract) field of observation
    commonly expressed in integers.
    Example:
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 ”
    “a number is an amount”
    “a number is. aletter”
    “A number two is twice as big as a number one”
    JH, can you give a definition of a number, save me googling, they might think I’m some kind of maths junky

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.