“I think you are an ignorant bigot, lady.”

A friend in Washington, D.C. sent me a link to the above video just a little while ago. Don’t watch the whole thing. Fast forward to the 1:27 mark and watch for about 3 minutes. What you will see is a congresswoman of the United States berating a witness for disagreeing with the Obama administration’s transgender directive. The congresswoman says to the witness, “I think you are an ignorant bigot, lady.” And then she shouts her down until the committee chairman tells her to stop attacking the witness.

What is chilling about this video is that the congresswoman has no compunction whatsoever about attacking the witness. Her animus and contempt for the witness are obvious. She believes she is justified in shaming and shouting her down. The witness’s views don’t deserve respect or a fair hearing. They just need to be silenced.

Isn’t it precisely this kind of thinking that gave us the directive in the first place? Conservative views don’t need to be considered. Even if local school administrators and parents disagree, all must bow to the bureaucratic directive.


  • Joel DeVinney

    Witness: “So you think I am a Russian princess?”
    Congresswoman: “I have no idea.”

    Really? You can’t make that determination? It would seem pretty obvious. The irrationality of this movement is astounding.

    • Brandon Barnes

      Agreed. Their commitment to “self-identification” necessarily leads to absurdities like this, but they must resort to it lest their arguments be considered arbitrary. Of course, eventually they won’t care whether their arguments are absurd or arbitrary, and I’m afraid that they will use the power of the state to silence those who attempt to bring them to rationality.

  • bobbistowellbrown

    Maybe it should all be chalked up to false guilt. In the past some people did not treat those who were different with respect. So now we are to treat anything including a man thinking he is a woman with respect. White men are afraid to wear a hoody and walk in the woods because somebody might think they are a serial killer. Black men are afraid to walk a certain way wearing a hoody because they will be mistaken for a criminal. Women are taking classes on being more like a man because they are told they are not paid enough or respected enough. I remember after Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment I didn’t trust men for awhile after that. I will pray for this congresswoman and the whole situation. We need God!

  • Andrew Alladin

    At times like this I almost feel sorry for Progressive Evangelicals like David Gushee, Rachel Held Evans, and Jonathan Merritt who bravely came out for gay marriage just recently and now find, sadly, that the circus has left town and the next stop is the Transgenderville. So much revolution, so little time! They’ll come round to supporting things like this after disagreeing with the tone of course: Obama’s right but he should have consulted more, asked for input, etc.

    Can anyone doubt that Zoe Lofgren would have no hesitancy about revoking tax exemptions for churches that do not perform gay marriages. Something like this needs to be gradually done and it starts with getting people to deny what their eyes tell them. Humor works well – “So you think I am a Russian princess?” “I have no idea.” – until the mask needs to be pulled off.

    • Ryan Clark

      “Can anyone doubt that Zoe Lofgren would have no hesitancy about revoking tax exemptions for churches that do not perform gay marriages.”

      No, I don’t doubt that for a moment, and the contempt for the law that Mississippi passed recently that protected these churches from state penalty is only further confirmation of this. Lofgren types hate every part of that law and have every intention of seeing the whole of it dismantled and ruled unconstitutional.

      Also, tax exempt status is not hardly the only concern churches face. They are also adamant that even churches…in fact especially churches…be made to adhere to “anti-discrimination” laws involving sexual orientation and gender identity. If they get their way, they will have a wide open door to dictate what is said and taught within the walls of a church. Any church that adheres to traditional views of marriage and sexual morality will be very vulnerable to be sued for employment discrimination for fostering a hostile workplace for LGBT identifying persons.

  • David Shane

    As they say, Christians didn’t lose the argument on gay marriage – it was made sure there wouldn’t be one. We aren’t going to lose the argument about transgenderism either.

  • steve hays

    Aside from the merits of the issue, the edict of the Obama administration is simply lawless. It has no statutory authority.

    We have people in gov’t who don’t believe in representative democracy. They repudiate the consent of the governed.

    Under our system of gov’t, laws are made by elected officials. They are accountable to voters.

    But we have people in the executive and judiciary branches who imagine that if they think something ought to be the case, that gives them the right to force their views on everyone else, using gov’t as a club.

    That’s utterly dictatorial. That’s the antithesis of gov’t “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

  • Ian Shaw

    “So you think I’m a Russian princess?”

    The guy behind the congresswoman puts his face in his hands and shakes his head. He knows the logic being used is a joke.

    This congresswoman clearly took offense to the witness personally as a result of not being able to refute the logic of her argument. Madam, in order to call someone an ignorant bigot, you must define your terms. Instead, you only spewed inflammatory rhetoric to talk down a witness.

    Classy lady, I must say.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.