Friday, December 30, 2022

‘I hope more shootings happen’: The rise of anti-LGBTQ extremism in America

It's true in physics that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It's largely true in psychology and sociology too. As someone trained in psychology who taught sociology for a number of years, I am well aware of that. And what we read below is an example of it.

The excessive valorization of homosexuality by the Left is only too evident. You can even lose your job by saying skeptical things about homoxsexuals. It has forced even some of the more more fundamentist religions -- such as the Salvation Army -- to abandon loyalty to the Bible -- which calls homoxsexuality "an abomination unto the Lord"

And that runs against justice for a start. Where is the equality or "equity" that Leftists are always preaching? Why must homosexuals get privileged treatment? Additionally, it runs against the instinctive distaste that many men have for the very idea of homosexuality.

And so we should not be surprised that Leftist extremism and imbalance sometimes produces an "equal and opposite reaction". There are of course reasons for unequal treatment of homosexuality but we must expect that to come at a price

First came the carnage, then came the vitriol. As a shattered community in Colorado Springs grieved the victims of last month’s mass shooting at gay hotspot Club Q, it didn’t take long for the condolences to be offset by hundreds of hateful, homophobic messages.

“The shooter was doing God’s work: five less faggots,” said one.

“I hope more shootings happen. Have a blessed day!” said another.

Club Q founder Matthew Haynes was saddened but hardly surprised as he saw the comments flash up on his screen. After all, LGBTQ people represent about 7 per cent of the US population, but make up 20 per cent of the nation’s hate crimes, according to the latest FBI data.

As a congressional hearing in Washington was told this month, the horrific attack that killed five people in Colorado Springs was merely emblematic of a growing trend of anti-LGBTQ extremism, fuelled in part by a rise in hostile public rhetoric - on social media, among some right-wing commentators or by politicians attempting to rile up their base.

Coupled with access to military-style assault weapons, Haynes said, “we were lucky that night that the casualties were not much higher.”

Demonstrators gather on the step of the Montana State Capitol in 2021 after the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance two bills targeting transgender youth despite overwhelming testimony opposing the measures.

According to tracking data by LGBTQ lobby group GLAAD, more than 300 anti-LGBTQ bills have been considered by state legislatures this year - from blocking trans participation in sports, to barring access to gender-affirming care, to removing books about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Among the most high profile has been Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” laws, enshrined by Donald Trump’s Republican rival Ron Desantis, which bans classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through to the third grade.

Reverend Paula Stecker of the Christ the King Lutheran Church stands in front of a memorial set up outside Club Q.
Reverend Paula Stecker of the Christ the King Lutheran Church stands in front of a memorial set up outside Club Q. CREDIT:AP

Twenty children’s hospitals that provide trans medical care to minors have also received bomb threats - prompting calls by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association for the Justice Department to intervene – and nearly 150 attacks on LGBTQ events have been reported publicly.

In Oklahoma last month, for instance, a doughnut shop was firebombed with a Molotov cocktail after hosting a drag event - its second attack in less than two months.

In Texas, an inclusive church’s drag bingo night was mobbed by hundreds of far-right extremists in September after Trump ally Steve Bannon amplified a call for the event to be protested.

And in Massachusetts, a man was charged two weeks ago for making a death threat against a physician who cares for gender-nonconforming children.

Both sides of politics accept that violence is a growing concern. About 7300 hate crimes were reported to the FBI in 2021, including nearly 1400 offences targeting LGBTQ people. However, due to under-reporting, varying definitions of hate crimes in different states and the patchy nature of the FBI’s hate crime data in general, these figures are widely accepted to be far worse.

But what both sides can’t agree on is what should be done about it. Republicans blame Democrats for “soft on crime” policies, particularly the push by some progressives to “defund the police” - a contentious slogan used to describe reallocating funds from police departments for other forms of public safety and community support, such as mental health services, youth services, housing and education.

They have also highlighted violent attacks by the left: such as the Bernie Sanders supporter who shot Republican whip Steve Scalise in 2017, or the dozens of church organisations attacked after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn federal abortion rights in June.

“It’s easier to blame Republicans than have a serious discussion about the rise of violent crimes across the nation,” says deputy chair James Comer.


Spain passes law allowing children 16 and over to change legally registered gender without medical supervision

Lawmakers in Spain have approved a bill allowing people over 16 years of age to change their legally registered gender without any medical supervision or parent supervision.

The measure, strongly backed by Spain’s left-wing Podemos party, was approved in the lower house of parliament on Thursday by a vote of 188 to 150 and means that anyone over the age of 16 can change their legally registered gender without consulting with a doctor, which was previously required.

Additionally, minors ages 12 and 13 will be able to change legally registered genders with a judge’s authorization, and people between 14 and 16 will have to be accompanied by their parents or legal guardians in order to make the gender I.D. change.

Up to now, Spaniards who identified as transgender needed a diagnosis by several doctors of gender dysphoria, which is the psychological condition of not feeling a match between one’s biological sex and gender identity. In some cases, they also needed proof they had been living for two years as the gender they identified with — or even records showing that they had taken hormones.

The legislation was not only fiercely opposed by conservatives in the Spanish government but also caused a rift between leftist factions of the feminist movement in Spain, BBC reported.

Equality Minister Irene Montero, a Podemos party member, said the law "de-pathologizes" individuals who identify as transgender.

"Trans women are women," Montero said.

Meanwhile, some members of the coalition government within the socialist party of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez have opposed the move, fearing that it will erode women’s rights.

"When gender is asserted over biological sex, it does not seem to me to be a step forward in a progressive direction; it seems to be a step backwards," Carmen Calvo, a former deputy prime minister Sanchez, said. "The state has to provide answers for transgender people, but gender is neither voluntary nor optional."

The bill will become law once it is passed by the Senate, which is a step expected by the end of the year.


Christian Actor Reveals He Was Blacklisted by Hollywood Because He Wouldn't Abandon His Faith

It isn’t too often you find a successful, outspoken Christian in Hollywood. Perhaps that’s because many such actors are blacklisted in the industry.

According to veteran actor Neal McDonough, that was certainly what happened in his case.

McDonough is far from a Hollywood lightweight. The actor has starred in many highly regarded shows and movies, including “Minority Report,” “Captain America: The First Avenger,” “The Flash,” “American Horror Story” and, perhaps most notably, the hit television series “Yellowstone,” per IMDB.

Nevertheless, for a period of time, McDonough was blacklisted for refusing to do sex scenes.

“I couldn’t get a job because people thought I was this crazy religious guy. But that wasn’t the case. I love my wife, but I love my acting, too. I was hopeful that, at some point, someone would give me a chance again,” the actor told Fox News Digital.

McDonough, a devout Catholic, didn’t only have a no-sex scene rule. He also had a rule against kissing other co-stars because, according to him, “these lips are meant for one woman.”

The actor married his current wife, Ruvé, back in 2003. They have five children together, according to Fox.

McDonough’s no kissing rule caused some problems for him on “Desperate Housewives.” But at that time, he was still able to keep his job.

When it came to the 2010 series “Scoundrels,” however, McDonough’s refusal to act in sex scenes got him booted from the show. “I remember falling to my knees and saying, ‘God, why have you forgotten about me? Why am I being punished so much?’” McDonough said.

“And as soon as those words came out of my mouth, I realized what self-absorbed questions those were. God has given me so much. We all experience challenges in our lives. I should be grateful — and thankful — for all the blessings I’m given.”

But then he was given a chance with the show “Justified.” Apparently, unlike most Hollywood elites, the men and women behind the 2010 neo-Western were tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

The showrunners also casted Nick Searcy, an openly conservative Christian.

“And after ‘Justified,’ everything was kind of forgotten. I was determined to give a really great performance, and I did. And, you know, I realized that perhaps I was taking some of my acting for granted. I was working all the time, but perhaps I wasn’t dialed in enough in terms of what I could really do as an actor,” McDonough said.

More recently, the Catholic actor appeared in another Hollywood project that some argue goes against the political grain of Hollywood, “Yellowstone.”

If he could have one gift for Christmas, McDonough would want to appear yet again on “Yellowstone.” But whether or not that happens is up to showrunner Taylor Sheridan.

“Taylor’s a mighty busy guy right now,” McDonough said, according to Fox. “And you know, [my wife] and I are so busy doing our films that I’m not sure we’ll ever have the time to … get it done. But I certainly would love to do that for sure — get back in the saddle one more time against Kevin [Costner].”


Australia: Christian couple who were banned from adopting after saying they would force their child to 'fight the sin' of homosexuality win payout

A devout Christian couple denied the chance to have a foster child because they believe homosexuality is a sin, have been awarded hefty compensation for their 'humiliation and hurt feelings'.

Byron and Keira Hordyk, from Perth, sued the Western Australian government for religious discrimination and received a $3000 payout each, after Wanslea Family Services denied their application in 2017.

The independent agency contracted by the state refused their request after the couple, who have kids of their own, said they would tell a child who says they are gay to 'fight the sin'.

The Hordyks are members of the conservative Free Reformed Church, a denomination that told the Tasmanian law reform institute in February 2021 that they practiced 'conversion therapy' for which they issued 'no apologies'.

Conversion therapy, which has been banned in the ACT, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia, attempts to change a person's identified sexual orientation through Bible study and prayer.

The Hordyks had responded to a theoretical question about fostering a gay child by saying they would try to convert them to heterosexuality and that if this was unsuccessful the placement would have to be terminated, the State Administrative Tribunal heard.

'We certainly would not drop them off that day to another home,' the Hordyks said. 'However, we are taught and do believe that all LGBTQ identities are wrong and sinful but there will be people who have to fight against this sin,' they wrote in their answer.

'We will therefore offer our help and try and do what we can to help this child, but if the child continues to be gay and goes on to date etc. the placement will not work as this goes against our beliefs.'

Wanslea denied the Hordyks a foster child on the grounds that they could not provide a physically or emotionally safe environment for a young person who might identify as LGBTIQ+.

In response the Hordyks took the agency to the State Administrative Tribunal claiming religious discrimination. They asked for $3000 each in compensation 'for hurt feelings and humiliation'. Mrs Hordyk told the tribunal she felt 'gutted' and 'devastated' that her beliefs were labelled 'dangerous'.

In his testimony Mr Hordyk said the rejection of the core principles of his life left him feeling 'deflated'.

'It feels unfair for me to have to throw away my beliefs on these issues just so I can be acceptable to Wanslea. My religious convictions take centre stage in all aspects of my life,' Mr Hordyk told the hearing.

Wanslea argued that the couple's rigidity on issues of homosexuality and gender did not flow from their religious convictions.

However, the tribunal did not agree and ordered both the Hordyks be paid 'for the loss and damage they suffered as a result of Wanslea's discrimination'.

At the time they were knocked back by Wanslea, the Hordyks said they were speaking up for other people of faith.

'We do feel we have been discriminated against and also we felt that if we were quiet about this and didn't say anything about it, it could potentially harm or limit any people with the same Christian values as ours from fostering,' Mr Hordyk told The West Australian.

'We hold traditional Christian views on how the Bible teaches us on sexuality and marriage.




Thursday, December 29, 2022

“Distrust of Government” is Bad for You, Claims Study

Ach! This is just a speculation not based in the evidence. In my usual pesky way I have looked at the underlying journal article and the study had NO data on political orientation.

There is clearly a significant connection between unvaccinated Canadians and a high rate of traffic accidents but what the mechanism is nobody knows. A good range of demographics was examined but nothing there was informative

I think the connection is in fact obvious. You have to be a real scofflaw to remain unvaccinated in authoritarian Canada so those who defy one law might well defy others, including traffic law. And defying traffic laws is likely to be dangerous. We are looking mainly at chronic scofflaws, would be my speculation.

And despite my own record of demon-driving, I am pretty sure that most conservatives are law-abiding drivers. Fitting in with the existing systtem is what conservatives do.

“One possibility relates to a distrust of government or belief in freedom that contributes to both vaccination preferences and increased traffic risks,” say the authors of COVID Vaccine Hesitancy and Risk of a Traffic Crash, published by the American Journal of Medicine but authored by a trio in Canada.

Donald A. Redelmeier, MD FRCPC MSHSR, FACP, works in “evaluative clinical sciences” at the Sunnybrook Research Institute in Toronto. Jonathan Wang, MMASc, is with the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) and the department of medicine at the University of Toronto. Deva Thiruchelvam, MSc, is also with the ICES and the Sunnybrook Institute in Toronto. The trio tested whether COVID vaccination was associated with the risks of a traffic crash.

A total of 11,270,763 individuals were included, of whom 16 percent had not received a COVID vaccine and 84 percent had received a COVID vaccine. The cohort accounted for 6682 traffic crashes. Unvaccinated individuals accounted for 1682 traffic crashes (25 percent), equal to a 72 percent increased relative risk compared with those vaccinated.

“These data suggest that COVID vaccine hesitancy is associated with significant increased risks of a traffic crash,” the authors contend. On the other hand, “distrust of government or belief in freedom,” is another possibility, along with “antipathy toward regulation” exposure to misinformation, insufficient resources, or other personal beliefs.

“Alternative factors” include “political identity” and “social networks that lead to misgivings around public health guidelines.” These and other factors “remain topics for more research.”

The authors don’t specify the political identity that could be a problem or define what constitutes “misinformation.” The study mentions the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which do not prevent infection or transmission of COVID and can cause harmful side effects. The study could use a discussion of how that reality contributes to “vaccine hesitancy.” In a similar style, the authors show little interest in how governments’ coercive promotion of ineffective vaccines contributes to “distrust of government.”

No word of specific test results from those excessively trustful of government, those believing in dictatorship or totalitarianism, or people worshipful of government regulation. Without conducting further research, those dangerous believers in freedom could easily conclude that this study is junk science.


What do British people think about Corbyn's plan for the Falklands?

The comments below by Matt Taylor are from 3 years ago but are still very relevant

I am a very socially liberal person, I’m about as gay friendly as it is possible to be without routinely pleasuring male sailors.

I am not judgmental, and I think everyone should be free to live their lives however they see fit.

With that in mind, I have some regard for Corbyn as a human being, but he does seem to view the world through a naive and simplistic lens.

Anybody with any regard for democracy surely must side with the Islanders.

The simple fact is, we do not judge the living descendants of people who committed crimes to be morally accountable. We do not hold grudges against the living Japanese or Germans, and WWII was relatively recently.

You can certainly argue that there were many immoral actions committed by the British Empire, ironically there was almost no fighting involved in the taking of the Falklands, but that is entirely by the bye.

If more than three or four generations has passed, it is beyond ludicrous to hold young people accountable for the questionable actions of their forebears.

“Well you never stole anything, but your great great great great granddad did.. TO THE SALT-MINES YOU GO!”

The Islanders have committed no crimes, and now, rightly or wrongly, passionately wish to remain British, their wishes must be respected. Geography is utterly irrelevant.

If the British had taken the Islands by force in 1925, they might have had a case of a kind. Unfortunately for Argentina, that never happened. The families that live there now have been there for literally hundreds of years, some of them have lived there for 11 generations.

Anybody with regard for democracy and self determination HAS to side with them, and the actions of the Argentinian Government is reprehensible with regards to trade embargoes and saber rattling.

Short answer, Corbyn is a decent man at heart, but he is still just another self-loathing white man. I find it baffling that he doesn't see the paradox in telling everyone about the evils of identity politics and judging people based on the color of their skin or their religion or their sexual identity, while simultaneously judging people who happen to have long distant ancestors who took part in immoral actions before any of us, or even our grandparents were born.

This cringing self-loathing seems to be popular with the far left, they hate American and European colonialism so they judge living Americans and Europeans, but rail against judging people from everywhere else on anything but the content of their character.

I find it truly baffling.


‘Avatar’ Is Little More Than a Hive of Left-Wing Tropes

“Avatar: The Way of Water” is floating atop the box office, but the sequel is facing an undertow for its alleged bigotries — no doubt a surprise to its director, James Cameron, who’s finding the leftist tropes of yesteryear are grounds for cancelation today.

Yuè Begay, “a Native American influencer,” urged a boycott of “this horrible and racist film,” describing the characters as wearing “blue face” and portraying a “white savior complex.” called the film “a Sappy Valentine to the Myth of the ‘Ecological Indian.’”

Critic Kathia Woods indicted the movie for “cultural appropriation and white actors cosplaying as” people of color with its noble savage stereotype, once sacred to the left. All are big changes for Hollywood’s answer to Rip Van Winkle, who took a 13-year snooze from filmmaking.

In 2009, the political left sang the praises of Mr. Cameron’s epic, which clubbed its audience over the head with its green message. That alone was enough to earn a pass for a plot so unoriginal, it was called plagiarism.

A 2010 Huffington Post column, “‘Avatar’ = ‘Pocahontas’ in Space” showed how one could produce the script by swapping new nouns into the Disney classic. But the villains in “Avatar” remained common ones to leftists of the era: The military, colonialism, miners, and corporations.

Moviegoers couldn’t help rooting for his idealized heroes, the Na’vi — an anagram of “natives” — with their big eyes playing to the human affection for infants. Los Angeles Times wrote, “The film offers a blatantly pro-environmental message; it portrays U.S. military contractors in a decidedly negative light; and it clearly evokes the can’t-we-all-get along vibe of the 1960s counterculture.”

In an interview with AFP, Mr. Cameron shared standard hippie rhetoric. “There’s a sense of entitlement,” he said. “‘We’re here, we’re big, we’ve got the guns, we’ve got the technology, we’ve got the brains. We, therefore, are entitled to every damn thing on this planet.’”

He then scolded Americans to “wise up and start seeking a life that’s in balance with the natural cycles of life on earth.” Politics, though, have shifted since those days when, say, Presidents Obama and Biden both opposed gay marriage.

Democrats have “evolved” on militarism, too. After winning a Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. Obama learned to stop worrying and love the drone, ordering ten times as many strikes as his Republican predecessor. The liberal columnist Joe Klein — pressed about Mr. Obama killing children of suspected terrorists — shrugged and responded that “the bottom line is: ‘whose 4-year-olds get killed?’”

Just last week, Democrats feted the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, without a peep from the anti-war movement about fattening the military-industrial complex or giving peace a chance. When the House Republican Leader, Kevin McCarthy of California, opposed a “blank check” for military aid, he was met with cries that verged on “Better dead than red.”

As for corporations, the most powerful ones today are Amazon, Apple, and social media giants which support the left. While digging for coal is still demonized by leftists, they welcome the strip mining required to produce rare earth minerals for green technology such as electric car batteries. Windmills and solar panels, which are killing birds by the millions, are praised as the wave of the future.

Causes such as clean oceans, land, and air have also been replaced on today’s leftist agenda by a singular focus on global warming, replacing slogans like “Save the Whales,” such hunting having been all but banned in any case.

YouTube’s Critical Drinker, Scottish thriller novelist Will Jordan, points out this anachronism in his review of the sequel to Avatar. “It just feels weird for this movie to make it such a thematic focal point,” and yet “Avatar 2” does just that with blue sea creatures standing in for blue whales.

“Avatar 2” may be a beautiful movie, as described by the Sun’s A.R. Hoffman in his review. Moviegoers, though, have come to expect CGI magic. They require a little social consciousness and plot along with their visual spectacle, and no longer applaud Mr. Cameron’s outdated tropes like the trained seals of 2009. Take it from Mr. Van Winkle.


Former trial lawyer who claims he was thrown off his master's degree for gender critical views insists dysphoria should be treated as a mental health condition

A former barrister who hit headlines earlier this year for after alleging he was thrown off his degree course over gender critical views, says gender dysphoria should be treated in the same way as a condition like anorexia to protect children.

James Esses, 30, who lives in London, claims he was ousted from his master's degree in psychotherapy at the Metanoia Institute in west London after speaking out against the 'medicalisation of children and the infiltration of gender ideology into the mental health profession'.

Speaking to FEMAIL, the campaigner insists he 'isn't anti-trans for believing in biology' and calls for alternative treatment for gender dysphoria.

'You wouldn't treat anorexia with liposuction,' he explained. 'At its core, people need to understand that gender dysphoria is a mental health condition. There are those who say that being trans should not be pathologised, but in the same breath request irreversible medication and surgery.'

'This is fundamentally inconsistent. We should be treating gender dysphoria in the same way that we treat all other mental health conditions - with explorative therapy, not with automatic affirmation down a pathway of physically modifying one’s body, fraught with risk, harm and regret.'

James, who was on the cusp of setting up his own private therapy practice prior to his expulsion from university, says that he gets 'abuse and vitriol' for being 'anti-trans'.

This comes after he called for more thorough counselling for those with gender dysphoria - something he says would be standard practice for sufferers of other forms of dysphoria, such as anorexia and body dysmorphia.

Scotland's new gender laws: What is the Gender Recognition Reform Bill? Why is it so controversial? Who has been opposing it? And will it definitely come into force?

'Once members of the public are made aware of the potentially irreversible damage being caused to children and hear the stories of those left with lifelong regret, they tend to empathise with what I and others are speaking out about.

'To parents who face a child struggling with gender dysphoria, I always recommend trying to strike the right balance, which is often easier said than done.

'It is important that children feel listened to, respected and empathised with. At the same time, it is important to emphasise to children what is real and what isn’t and to support explorative reflection (including through counselling or therapy) of why a young person feels the way they do.

'Often, gender dysphoria is a symptom of wider unease within a young person and most cases of gender dysphoria resolve themselves with time.'


UK woman arrested for silently praying across from abortion clinic: ‘Terrifying’

Conservatives and free speech activists on Twitter railed against a recent video depicting police interrogating and ultimately arresting a pro-life woman who was silently praying outside a U.K. abortion clinic.

Those who watched the woman’s arrest after admitting she was “praying in my head” were appalled. Some claimed this was proof that Great Britain had become a dystopia.

The woman who was arrested, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, is the director of the U.K. March for Life.

According to Alliance Defending Freedom UK (ADF UK), Vaughan-Spruce “was standing near the BPAS Robert Clinic in Kings Norton, Birmingham in an area ADF UK called a ‘censorship zone,’ when police approached her after an onlooker complained she might be praying outside the abortion facility.”

According to ADF UK, Birmingham authorities have established buffer zones near abortion clinics, making it illegal for people to engage in behavior disapproving or approving of abortion. This includes “graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counseling.”

The clip shows the woman silently standing on a curb across from an abortion clinic as British law enforcement officers approach her. One asks why she is standing there and responds that she’s there because of the abortion clinic. She denies that she is part of any protest.

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, is the director of the U.K. March for Life.

Police interrogated and ultimately arrested a pro-life woman who was silently praying outside a U.K. abortion clinic.
The officer then asks, “Are you praying?” to which she responds, “I might be praying in my head.” The officer then asks her if she’d be willing to go to the station for questioning about her actions. “If I’ve got a choice, then no,” she responds, after which the officer states, “You’re under arrest” and claims she’s charged with “suspicion of failing to comply with Public Spaces Protection Order.”

Anglican priest Rev. Calvin Robinson slammed what he saw in the footage, saying, “This is terrifying. What have we become?! Under a Conservative government, too.”

Catholic author and Compact Magazine founder Sohrab Ahmari tweeted, “OY YOU GO’ A LICENSE TO PRAY IN YOUR ’EAD MA’AM?”

Pro-life advocate Emily Rarick wrote, “This is absolute madness. How can someone be arrested for praying?”

Virginia GOP delegate Nick Freitas took the opportunity to remind users of George Orwell’s dystopia, tweeting, “1984 was a warning, not a guide.”

RedState deputy managing editor Brandon Morse made the point, “If abortion advocates don’t believe in God and think prayer is actually silly then what are they so afraid of?”

Conservative pundit Lauren Chen tweeted, “People are literally being arrested for thought crimes in the UK. Free speech is NOT a western value, it’s a uniquely American one.”

Nile Gardiner, a former aide to the late former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, remarked, “This is appalling. Disgraceful to see a woman arrested for simply praying on a British street. This should not be happening under a Conservative Govt, and action should be taken by the Home Secretary to ensure that scenes like this are not repeated.”

National Review staff writer Nate Hochman tweeted, “Sorry but imagine not having a First Amendment.”




Wednesday, December 28, 2022

Assisted suicide in Canada

I have mixed feelings about this. As a libertarian, I think any individual is entitled to commit suicide if they want that and anything done to help people get what they want is benign. And depression can be very painful so I understand people wanting to end their suffering.

I have had depressed times -- mostly connected with relationship breakdowns and illness -- so I know how it feels. I have of course thought about suicide at such times but have been deterred from it by a certainty that there will be better times ahead. I know that life delivers ups and downs and I have mostly had long "ups". I am still enjoying my life as much as ever even though I am now in my 80th year.

But some people can be in situations from which no betterment can reasonably be expected and I think it is simple mercy to help them to get what they want.

When governments get involved, however, precautions should be taken to ensure that no coercion is involved. Putting some delay in front of assisted suicide is also common sense. Depressive feelings do often pass with time

But Canada does seem to be ENCOURAGING suicide and that is oboxious -- but not unexpected from the Leftist culture of death. Communism has shown that Leftists can destroy millions without a second thought

Remember when the idea that government-run health care could lead to “death panels” was scoffed at as absurd?

Well, the absurd is coming closer to reality as Canada—which has a universal, publicly funded health care system—extends medical assistance in dying (MAiD) laws to include a wider variety of conditions.

Since Canada passed its law in 2016, more than 30,000 people have died as a result, and those numbers are accelerating.

MAiD is set to expand in March and will then allow people with mental illness to seek medically assisted death, too. It’s not just going to be the sick and the poor being eliminated, but those who are depressed. How progressive.

In Nazi Germany, they might have called these people “undesirables” or some other mean, nasty epithet before exterminating them. But in liberal, tolerant, modern Canada, they are above such sordid terminology.

Under the current law, only Canadians over 18 years of age are eligible. However, the Canadian government has put together a commission to study whether it should be extended to “mature minors,” who could be allowed to seek euthanasia without parental consent.

There is no set definition of what exactly a “mature minor” is, but presumably it would be for Canadians under the current age threshold.

Given the speed at which the law is expanding, it’s hard to see that option for minors not being on the table in the near future. What we are talking about isn’t really a slippery slope at this point, it’s a free fall to perdition. Certainly, it wouldn’t be the first time a medically assisted death program in an “advanced” country rapidly expanded to a point many would consider unimaginable when it began.

What makes the societal sanction of assisted-suicide laws particularly disturbing is how they are wound up with the government and its collective incentives.

While assisted-suicide laws have generally been sold as a means to empower individual choice, in reality it’s almost impossible to separate that choice from the interests of society. That’s especially the case when there is massive government involvement in medical care and cost.

A few stories from Canada in the past few years highlight the problem.

In 2017, the Canadian Medical Association Journal estimated that medically assisted death could save the government between $34.7 million and $136.8 million per year. One assumes that expanding the law could provide even more “savings” of this nature.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported the story in a way that made it sound like it was discussing the cost of a new highway or infrastructure project, not something with immense ethical implications.

Somehow, it gets even worse.

In 2020, the Ottawa Citizen reported that medically assisted death provided a “boon” to organ donation.

“In the first 11 months of 2019, MAiD patients in the province accounted for 18 organ [donors] and 95 tissue donors, a [14%] increase over 2018 and a [109%] increase over 2017,” the Ottawa Citizen reported.

It seems there are many in the managerial health-expert class who desperately want to normalize the idea that perhaps society should find ways to simply get rid of the sick and old (and harvest their organs for the healthy and useful). They look at the financial numbers and see that a stretched health care system—where aging societies and plunging birthrates are accelerating the problem—would really benefit if some people were taken off the books.

Right now, the Canadian system is in the aggressive promotion phase, where “offing” the old, the sick, the poor, and the mentally ill is advertised as humane and compassionate. But it’s already moving toward the next phase in the process, where suicide is the initial option given to patients by doctors and medical institutions looking to save money.

It’s like going from “do no harm” to “take this pill, and begone.”

For instance, a 52-year-old retired corporal who had competed in the 2016 Paralympics for Canada was provided a medically assisted suicide kit when she requested a wheelchair lift for her home. The incident prompted the Canadian government to review and change its protocols, but is there any doubt that this will become a more frequent occurrence?

And given the trend, it doesn’t seem at all unthinkable that in the future—especially when governments that bear most of the cost of health care and medically assisted death is normalized—government agencies will offer suicide as the only option for patients with various ailments.

This exposes one of the biggest problems with “socialized” medicine and why many Americans fear it, especially in a time of radicalized government agencies. Not only could government agencies work ruthlessly to cut costs, promoting policies that even Nazi Germany tried to hide from its people, but they could make financial decisions based on ideology.

Who is worthy of care, and who is deserving of life or death? These decisions will increasingly be made by woke institutions.

This is all to say that the increasing government approval of medically assisted death is leading Western societies into dangerous, morally repugnant territory. Massive government involvement makes it an even thornier issue.

Canada’s fast track to universal euthanasia is a warning to America, where medically assisted suicide is still limited to 10 states and the District of Columbia. For that, we should be thankful for federalism.

In the meantime, however, we must do what we can to promote a culture of life.


Law firm Calls Out Washington State County for Banning Employees From Having Religious Decorations

On Tuesday, Becket Law released their 2022 Ebenezer Award for the worst offender to the holidays during this year's Christmas and Hanukkah season. The winner, King County in Washington state, holds the distinction for meddling into the religious affairs of county employees in their own homes, by telling them not to display religious holiday decorations, such as a Nativity scene or a menorah, in their remote video backgrounds.

A press release from Becket highlights a piece from Jason Rantz for 770 KTTH, a local conservative talk radio station. In addition to Rantz's own commentary about such an absurd war on Christmas and religion overall, more information about the directive is included:

King County Human Resources warned employees not to decorate their workspaces with overtly Christmas or Hanukkah decorations. They fear decorations may offend employees.

Gloria Ngezaho, Workforce Equity Manager for the Department of Human Resources, authored a memo titled “Guidelines for Holiday Decorations for King County Employees” to outline expectations. It says the county “remains committed to honoring the diversity in its workforce and is fortunate to have employees from many diverse backgrounds.”

The fact that the county has an "Equity Manager for the Department of Human Resources" is enough on its own to raise eyebrows. Ngezaho's claims also highlights the poison that is so often spewed from these so-called "equity" managers. Adding insult to injury, though, is the claim that the county supposedly "remains committed to honoring the diversity in its workforce" and that they are supposedly "fortunate to have employees from many diverse backgrounds."

It's all nonsense, though, given that the county won't allow employees to express their religious beliefs during the holiday season.

As Rantz goes on to write:

“Before adding any decorations to your workspace (including your virtual workspace), consider the likely effect of such decorations on all of the employees in and outside your work group,” reads the memo obtained by the Jason Rantz Show on KTTH by a county staffer who found it posted internally last week.


“Some employees may not share your religion, practice any religion, or share your enthusiasm for holiday decorations. Displays of religious symbols may only be displayed in an employee’s personal workspace. Religious symbols should not be displayed in or as a background to an employee’s virtual workspace,” the memo explains.

The memo says you cannot include Nativity sets or menorahs. But the list of symbols banned from virtual display extends well beyond what you would display for the holidays: stars of David, a cross or a crucifix, and images of Jesus or Mary.

To ensure that HR isn’t accused of focusing exclusively on Christians and Jews, even though that appears to be the intent, the memo warns against the dharma wheel, crescent and star, aum, khanda, and a nine-pointed star. None of these symbols are displayed for the holiday season.


“For those who are not teleworking, common areas within work units are considered a public area. These spaces are shared by multiple employees in the performance of their jobs. Such areas would include breakrooms, conference rooms, and reception areas. Religious symbols are not appropriate in these areas, because it may cause disruption to co-workers or members of the public that do not share that particular religion,” the memo claims.

The memo states that, as a public institution, it “cannot appear to support any particular religion.” And the guidelines apply to holiday gatherings.

The county appears to have long been engaged in a war on Christmas and religious holidays


The workers are fleeing the Democratic Party

Democrats know they have a working-class voter issue but can’t address it since their base views these people as anathema. It’s partially due to the snobbish attitude liberal Americans have towards those who don’t act or think like them. They view this voter bloc, which numbers in the tens of millions, as uneducated country bumpkins. The lack of education disqualifies these people in their eyes. There’s also a racial component. Democrats won elections big when they got a healthy share of the white working-class vote—it was the backbone of the Democratic Party.

Now, these folks are viewed as quasi-Nazis and eschewed aggressively by the white progressive professional elite that dominates the coasts and cities. Affluent, liberal, and overwhelmingly white Democratic voters would instead double down on nonwhite voters in the cities. For two election cycles, the hordes of white college-educated voters have provided something of a buffer, but that won’t hold: nonwhite working-class voters are now veering into the GOP camp—big league.

When both sets of the working class vote support Republicans, Democrats should take notice, but all evidence from past cycles shows that they won’t. So, the GOP can run the table here, but it cannot be apathetic or carry a ‘run-through the motions’ aura regarding voter outreach with these folks. They must understand daily that the GOP will be the party for them, protecting their jobs and creating new opportunities—things the Democrats are no longer good at accomplishing.

Ruy Teixeira at American Enterprise Institute crunched the numbers. Ruy isn’t a conservative either—he was a former long-time fixture at the left-wing Center for American Progress before being cast out by the woke and unhinged youngsters at the think tank. His work on demographics has been well-cited on both sides, though he concedes the conclusions have been misconstrued, especially by liberals who have taken his “permanent political majority” thesis as gospel. Teixeira always says they didn’t read the fine print, which is that Democrats need significant white working voter class support to maintain this winning Democratic coalition. Based on the numbers he crunched from the midterms, not only do Democrats have the aforementioned white working-class deficit, but the dip in nonwhite working-class voter support also represents a second front in an electoral war the Left will be ill-equipped to counter if they focus on woke lefty initiatives. These include pronoun policing and enforcing an authoritarian ethos on political correctness that does little to help Americans find work:

With all the Democratic back-patting going on, I’m not sure they’re really facing up to an emerging problem that severely undermines their electoral theory of the case. I speak of their declining margins with the nonwhite working class. That’s not to say they don’t still carry the nonwhite working class vote, it’s just they carry it by a lot less. That wasn’t in the “rising American electorate” battle plan.

As I have previously noted, AP/NORC VoteCast estimates the decline in Democrats’ advantage among the nonwhite working class as 14 points between 2020 and 2022, 23 points between 2018 and 2022 and (splicing in some Catalist data, which are consistent with VoteCast data where they overlap) an astonishing 33 point drop between 2012 and 2022.


Arizona. The 2020 Presidential election and 2022 gubernatorial election were both extremely close. Interestingly, while Democrat Katie Hobbs ran quite a bit ahead of Biden among white college voters, she actually ran 3 points behind among nonwhite working class voters.

California. Gavin Newson in 2022 ran considerably behind Biden in 2020. One place where he kept almost all of Biden’s support from 2020 was among white college voters. In contrast, he lost a lot of support among nonwhite working class voters: 14 points.

Florida. Ron DeSantis of course ran way ahead of Trump in his 2022 gubernatorial race—about 16 points. But he ran 27 points ahead among nonwhite working class voters. And he did 38 points (!) better among nonwhite working class voters this year than he did in his initial 2018 gubernatorial race.

Georgia. Brian Kemp ran ahead of Trump in his 2022 re-election, albeit not on DeSantis’ level. But he did 16 margin points better among nonwhite working class voters and, compared to his initial election bid in 2018, also against Stacey Abrams, did 27 points better among those voters.

Republicans still have a chance to seize these voters to win a landslide victory, but they can’t take anything for granted, even if things seem inevitable.


'Women are right to fear their spaces will be invaded': JK Rowling condemns Scotland's new gender law

JK Rowling has condemned the Scottish National Party's new self-identification law that makes it easier for people as young as 16 to change gender without seeing a doctor.

The author and women's rights campaigner, 57, retweeted an article which argued that the Labour Party would pay for supporting Nicola Sturgeon's 'trans crusade'.

In The Telegraph piece, former member of Scottish Labour Tom Harris wrote: 'Let us be clear. Women are right to fear that their spaces will be invaded; that their privacy and safety will be tragically compromised.'

The Bill could lead to gender tourism to Scotland and transgender people in England demanding the same rights, it emerged today.

The vote in Edinburgh yesterday sparked huge protests and puts MSPs on a constitutional collision course with Westminster, where there are deep concerns about the 'divergence' in gender laws across the UK.

UK ministers are plotting how to prevent trans people from across the UK heading to Scotland for as little as three months so they can self-identify as male or female without a diagnosis from a doctor.

Government sources told The Times that they feared the new law could be used to allow biologically male Scottish prisoners in English jails to demand to be placed in women's prisons.

Scottish transgender women could also demand their new rights are mirrored in England, such as access to female-only spaces.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also warned that there could now be an impact on sex discrimination laws across the UK, including equal pay.

Tory MSP Rachael Hamilton said the Bill would 'let criminal men exploit the system' and put women in jeopardy in single-sex spaces.

What does the Bill do?

The Bill makes it easier for trans people to obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC) by removing the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. It also lowers the minimum age for applicants to 16 and drops the time required for an applicant to live in their acquired gender to three months, or six months for people aged 16 and 17 - although with a subsequent three-month reflection period.

How does this compare to UK-wide rules?

Current laws mean a person can apply for a gender recognition certificate only if they are aged 18 or over, have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the UK and have been living in their affirmed gender for at least two years. A person can apply even if they have not had any gender affirming surgery or treatments or do not plan to have any.

What do opponents say?

Opponents fear the Bill will impact the safety of women and single-sex spaces. Campaigners say there are insufficient safeguards to protect women and girls from predatory men, raising concerns about environments such as women's prisons. There are also constitutional concerns, and fears of 'gender tourism' across the border.

How about supporters?

Those in favour of the Bill say a move to make trans people's lives easier is long overdue. A group of LGBTQ+ groups recently issued a joint letter saying the Bill was a 'historic opportunity to continue Scotland's journey towards full social and legal equality'. They disagree that an expansion of trans people's rights comes at the expense of women's rights, saying the Bill will have little impact outside the trans community.

What issues need to be ironed out?

If the legislation becomes law, it is unclear whether any GRCs issued under the new Scottish rules would be recognised in England. Westminster has signalled it will not recognise them. GRCs allow someone to change their gender on legal documents such as their passport, which is issued by the UK rather than individual nations, or birth certificate, but it can also affect their entitlements to benefits and pensions. Practical difficulties are likely to arise in cross-border situations.

Could Westminster stop the legislation?

Scottish Secretary Alister Jack issued a statement yesterday after the Bill cleared Holyrood saying he was considering blocking it from becoming law. He said the Government would look at the ramifications for the Equality Act and could use a so-called Section 35 order to stop the Bill going for Royal Assent.

After Ms Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister, slashed the minimum period for adults to obtain a gender recognition certificate from two years, in theory someone could now rent a property north of the border for just three months and legally change their gender without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

However, the UK Government is preparing to step in after Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch wrote to Ms Sturgeon to warn her it was 'not possible' for the legislation to be 'fully contained' within Scotland.

Scottish Secretary Alister Jack issued a statement yesterday after the Bill cleared the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood saying he was considering blocking it from becoming law.

Ahead of yesterday's vote, Mrs Badenoch said: 'I am concerned about the impact [of] having divergent regimes in the different parts of the UK.

Rishi Sunak has said it is 'completely reasonable' to consider blocking new gender legislation in Scotland.

Visiting a homeless shelter in London, the Prime Minister said: 'Lots of people have got concerns about this new Bill in Scotland, about the impact it will have on women's and children's safety.

'So I think it is completely reasonable for the UK Government to have a look at it, understand what the consequences are for women and children's safety in the rest of the UK, and then decide on what the appropriate course of action is.'

The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed yesterday to both applause and jeers of 'shame on you' in Holyrood.

Westminster has signalled it will not accept Scottish gender recognition certificates south of the border.

The SNP's Bill lets a person self-identify as transgender without medical checks, lowers the age limit to legally change gender from 18 to 16 and cuts the time a trans person must live in their acquired gender before they can switch.

The UK Government is so concerned about divergence in gender laws across the UK that it is set to overhaul how transgender people from other countries can legally change gender in England and Wales so Scotland does not claim to be discriminated against.

Whitehall sources said that to stop people travelling to Scotland to obtain a gender recognition certificate more easily before travelling back to England, they intend to update the entire list of approved countries to exclude some of those that allow self-identification.

After Mr Jack warned that he was considering blocking the Bill completely, Ms Sturgeon's SNP administration said it would 'vigorously contest' any such move.

Mr Jack said: 'We share the concerns that many people have regarding certain aspects of this Bill, and in particular the safety issues for women and children.

'We will look closely at that, and also the ramifications for the 2010 Equality Act and other UK-wide legislation, in the coming weeks – up to and including a Section 35 order stopping the Bill going for royal assent if necessary.'

Ms Badenoch has raised concerns about the impact of the legislation.

A source close to her said she 'didn't believe the Scottish Government had considered the full impacts of this Bill – particularly on women and girls'.

The insider added: 'She shares the strong concerns raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, and other civic groups and ministers regarding the impact this Bill will have on the functioning of the Equality Act, which is designed to protect all UK citizens.'

Under the Scotland Act, the UK Government can challenge devolved legislation if it feels it affects national security or 'reserved matters' - decisions taken by the UK Parliament even though they affect Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the regions of England.

Gender recognition is a devolved matter, but the Government is concerned about the impact of the Bill on equalities laws, which are the preserve of Westminster.

The Bill has also provoked fears that abusive men could take advantage of the new system to change gender, with critics, including JK Rowling, claiming that 'all a man needs to "become a woman" is to say he's one'.

Any action to block the legislation, which is expected to come into force next year, would be unprecedented – and would likely be subject to judicial review. Ministers have four weeks to decide whether to intervene.




Friday, December 23, 2022

Is exercise good for you?

The study below concludes that it is. That is rather surprising. Past studies have concluded that there is little lifespan advantage from lifestyle changes.

But this study has large holes. For a start, does lots of excercise cause you to live longer or do people with good survival genes exercise more? There were of course no controls for genetic factors

And were the advantages one poeople who had aleways excercised a lor or were they people who had just taken it up? That could be a big difference with significant implications. Taking up excercise late in life might not help you

Estimated Number of Deaths Prevented Through Increased Physical Activity Among US Adults

Previous studies suggest that a substantial number of deaths could be prevented annually by increasing population levels of physical activity.1-3 However, previous estimates have relied on convenience samples,2,3 used self-reported physical activity data,1-3 and assumed relatively large increases in activity levels (eg, more than 30 minutes per day).1-3 The potential public health benefit of changing daily physical activity by a manageable amount is not yet known. In this study, we used accelerometer measurements (1) to examine the association of physical activity and mortality in a population-based sample of US adults and (2) to estimate the number of deaths prevented annually with modest increases in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity intensity (MVPA).

This cohort study was approved by the National Center for Health Statistics Ethics Review Board. This study used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), and written informed consent was obtained for all NHANES participants. The study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.

The NHANES is a representative survey of the US civilian, noninstitutionalized population, including oversampling for non-Hispanic Black participants and Mexican American participants. Race and ethnicity was determined by self-report and classified using preferred terminology from the National Center for Health Statistics as Mexican American, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, or other. Race and ethnicity was included in this study to better characterize the US population. In 2003 to 2006, NHANES participants aged 6 years or older were asked to wear an accelerometer for 7 days. For this study, we evaluated 4840 of 6355 adults aged 40 to 85 years or older with accelerometer data. The remaining 1515 individuals were excluded because they were not eligible or refused to participate in the monitoring protocol (853 [13%]), had monitors that malfunctioned or lost calibration (360 [6%]), or had no valid days with monitor data (302 [5%]). Mortality follow-up was completed via National Death Index linkage through December 31, 2015. We estimated MVPA by summing accelerometer minutes at or above an established cutpoint4 and creating 8 physical activity categories (0-19, 20-39, 40-59, 60-79, 80-99, 100-119, 120-139, or ≥140 minutes per day).

The number of deaths per year prevented with increased physical activity was estimated as the adjusted population attributable fraction (PAF)5 multiplied by the US population annual number of deaths for 2003 (for individuals aged 40-84 years). To calculate the PAFs, we used population prevalence estimates and hazard ratios adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education level, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), diet, alcohol use, smoking status, and self-reported chronic conditions, mobility limitations, and general health. Hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazard regression models, and the proportional hazards assumption was confirmed for our main exposure (ie, MVPA). Counterfactuals for increased activity were set to 10, 20, and 30 minutes per day higher than participants’ observed values. Those classified as frail6 or who required equipment to walk were assumed to be unable to increase their activity (eMethods in the Supplement); when PAFs were calculated, physical activity levels for these participants were held constant. Data were analyzed with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc), accounting for the NHANES complex sample design.

This analysis included 4840 participants. Of these, 2435 (53%) were women, 993 (10.4%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 887 (5.1%) were Mexican American (Table). A total of 1165 deaths occurred during a mean (SEM) follow-up of 10.1 (0.1) years.

Adjusted hazard ratios changed from 0.69 to 0.28 across increasing activity categories (vs 0-19 minutes per day). Hazard ratios used to generate the PAFs for the 8 activity categories were as follows: 1.00 (reference) for 0 to 19 (548 [7.9%]), 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.85) for 20 to 39 (616 [10.0%]), 0.51 (95% CI, 0.42-0.63) for 40 to 59 (635 [11.8%]), 0.40 (95% CI, 0.29-0.55) for 60 to 79 (614 [12.7%]), 0.34 (95% CI, 0.25-0.47) for 80-99 (633 [14.4%]), 0.32 (95% CI, 0.21-0.48) for 100 to 119 (508 [12.1%]), 0.30 (95% CI, 0.19-0.48) for 120-139 (384 [9.3%]), and 0.28 (95% CI, 0.18-0.42) for 140 or more (902 [21.7%]) minutes per day. The number of participants with frailty or needing special equipment was 280 (49.4%) for 0 to 19, 164 (26.3%) for 20 to 39, 94 (12.4%) for 40 to 59, 66 (9.5%) for 60 to 79, 42 (5.1%) for 80 to 99, 31 (4.7%) for 100 to 119, 20 (2.9%) for 120 to 139, and 35 (2.7%) for 140 or more minutes per day.

Increasing MVPA by 10, 20, or 30 minutes per day was associated with a 6.9%, 13.0%, and 16.9% decrease in the number of deaths per year, respectively. Adding 10 minutes per day of physical activity resulted in an estimated 111 174 preventable deaths per year (95% CI, 79 594-142 754), with greater benefits associated with the addition of more physical activity (209 459 preventable deaths [95% CI, 146 299-272 619] for 20 minutes and 272 297 preventable deaths [95% CI, 177 557-367 037] for 30 minutes) (Figure).

The PAFs indicate that the addition of 10 minutes per day of MVPA was associated with the prevention of 8.0% (95% CI, 6.0-10.0) of total deaths per year among men, 5.9% (95% CI, 2.0-9.8) among women, 4.8% (95% CI, 0.0-10.7) among Mexican American individuals, 6.1% (95% CI, 2.2-10.0) among non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 7.3% (95% CI, 5.3-9.3) among non-Hispanic White individuals.

In this cohort study, we estimated that approximately 110 000 deaths per year could be prevented if US adults aged 40 to 85 years or older increased their MVPA by a small amount (ie, 10 minutes per day). Similar benefits were observed for men and women and for Mexican American, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White adults. To our knowledge, this is the first study to estimate the number of preventable deaths through physical activity using accelerometer-based measurements among US adults while recognizing that increasing activity may not be possible for everyone. However, 1 week of monitoring may not reflect changes in activity over time, and the observational study design limits the direct determination of causality.

These findings support implementing evidence-based strategies to improve physical activity for adults and potentially reduce deaths in the US. ?


Targeting the ‘Imperial’ Supreme Court

The typical Leftist tendency to invert reality. Roe v. Wade was the imperial decision, not its repeal. There is something wrong in the brain of Leftists. Their hatreds distort their contact with reality

It might be scant surprise that the Supreme Court is the target of broadsides these days, but it could come as a shock to see one such potshot launched from the pages of the Harvard Law Review. Its author is a Stanford Law professor, Mark Lemley, whom the school touts as the most cited professor in the law of intellectual property and “one of the ten most cited legal scholars of all time.” The sage accuses the court of being a Machiavellian hoarder of power.

Professor Lemley’s “The Imperial Supreme Court”* strikes us as inaccurate. He spots the “emergence of the imperial Supreme Court” engaged in a “radical restructuring” of American law. The justices, he asserts, are working at “stripping power from every political entity except the Supreme Court itself” to “concentrate power” at the high court. He essentially doubts the justices’ integrity, accusing them of, in effect, a coup.

We, too, detect a shift in the balance of power, but where Mr. Lemley sees a gathering of power, we see its dispersal. In case after case, this conservative court has insisted on returning constitutional authority to what Justice Samuel Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health calls the “people and their elected representatives.” Abortion is just one issue where decision making authority now resides within the democratic process, rather than beyond it.

Mr. Lemley concedes that “this in turn might seem to shift power to the states” and that Dobbs does “give power to state governments, albeit at the expense of individual rights.” That is exactly right, and in the wake of Dobbs there has been in respect of abortion an efflorescence of decision making from ‘We the People,’ from Kentucky to Michigan to California. By all accounts, Dobbs spurred voter passion, reminding Americans of the force of their franchise.

The professor cites another case from last term, West Virginia v. EPA, which held that on “major questions” agencies like the EPA are required to point to “clear congressional authorization” for regulatory authority. Mr. Lemley labels this a “powerful step to limit agency power” — and it is that — but if constitutional capital is being reallocated, it is to Congress, not the court. If the legislature does not quite know what to do with it, that is its failing.

Mr. Lemley also invokes a case from this term, Moore v. Harper, which turns on whether the national parchment assigns exclusive responsibility over federal elections to state legislatures. If that position, argued by Republican state lawmakers, triumphs, it is state courts that will be sidelined. Mr. Lemley calls that possibility “remarkable intrusion on state legal process.” Fair enough, but it is certainly not an aggrandizement of the high court, or any court.

To cut the “imperial” court down to size, Mr. Lemley expresses a willingness to entertain “radical fixes,” including curtailing its jurisdiction and packing its ranks. The “ship has sailed” on its legitimacy, he claims, and so anything goes. It appears as if it is Mr. Lemley and the liberal legal establishment who are preparing to wheel on the court. It would be an irony if this court’s returning power to the people is read as an invitation to aggression. ?


When Did “Patriotism” Become A Dirty Word?

Like so many other things these days, patriotism as a value that was once held regardless of political affiliation has now been rebranded as the calling card of extremism. This wasn’t always the case. But with tensions high and ever-increasing political division, is patriotism really outdated in our modern discourse? And when did it become a dirty word?

The Death Knell of Patriotism

There’s a common realization often observed by the critical thinkers of today: What was once a moderate or centrist viewpoint a decade ago has now somehow become a hallmark of the right-wing. Once-average opinions on topics like immigration, gay marriage, abortion, and other controversial stances widely accepted by the notable figures of progressivism years ago are now predominantly branded as the stamp of authenticity for the new right wing.

Patriotism wasn’t always a partisan issue. But it’s evolved into one as our culture demands that we adhere to an increasingly ridiculous standard of political correctness. Something as innocuous as celebrating Independence Day is now an offensive act to the thousands of marginalized people who were targeted by the creation of our country. Columbus Day is now Indigenous Peoples’ Day. We have fully committed to letting our past actions dictate our current and future behavior as citizens with convictions.

It’s hard to pinpoint when exactly patriotism became synonymous with other buzzword-y concepts like the ever-threatening “death of democracy” and the apparent rise of a new alt-right, led by fascist theocratic white males. But over time, as truth has become entirely subjective and identity has evolved into whatever feels good to the individual (regardless of reality), we’ve come to associate the concept of patriotism as something else that should be quashed, along with sexism, racism, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, and all the rest.

54% of Americans believe that truth is subjective.

A survey of 2,000 participants by a cultural research institution found that 54% of Americans believe that truth is subjective. This belief thereby indicates that there are no moral absolutes in this world and no distinction between right and wrong besides what each individual decides for himself or herself. This is not just a talking point circulated on Twitter or hypotheticals that we posit among our peers. Truth has now become a postmodern concept dictated by the self and not by reality. Because this overhaul in rationalism, consciousness, and identity has been permitted, we’re now subject to whatever you or I deem politically correct, and equally subject to punishment if we transgress into what is (subjectively) offensive.

Judging the Past by Today’s Standards

Many Americans today may be able to trace their ancestry back to the early beginnings of America. This enables us to see how our own forebears made their way to this country and often failed to thrive but merely survived on their own labors. This might fill us with pride at the thought of our own predecessors playing a role in the formation of our society, paving the way so that one day we, too, could celebrate the fruits of their hard work. But some would never dream of taking part in such a shameful act.

The possibility of having forebears who defended the South during the Civil War or who sustained the practice of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries is enough to fill some of us with an overwhelming sense of indignity and remorse. But because we live in a politically correct society, that will never be enough.

This obligation of white guilt now not only includes just Americans. The United Kingdom, even in the immediate wake of the death of a long beloved monarch, was branded as the most contemptible colonizing force on earth. All of the advancements in health, science, medicine, technology, art, politics, economics, and education, to name a few, are to be patently ignored as cheap byproducts of imperialism.

We constantly judge the past by today’s standards, even though it’s not only an exercise in futility but egotism and arrogance as well. Though we might believe we have the innermost motivations of our oppressive forebears down to a science, we will never truly understand the forces at work within them. But that isn’t good enough – they must be subject to today’s standards, no matter how absurd or ridiculous. In becoming increasingly obsessed with rewriting or “re-contextualizing” the past, we waste considerable energy on the pursuit of folly rather than dedicating our interests to the present and the future.

Patriotism Is the New Intolerance

Patriotism used to signify a healthy sense of loyalty to your country. It doesn’t mean a blanket approval of its past actions, however deplorable or horrendous they might be, but gratitude for the sacrifices that have been made to secure our freedoms, freedoms which even some of the most developed nations don’t get to enjoy. Today, the most we can hope for in terms of patriotism is fundamental gratitude and a basic appreciation for the opportunities we’re offered here, though even those sentiments are few and far between.

The patriotism of the individual can drive the vision of a better future and make it a reality.

Many would equate patriotism with nationalism or intolerance, though in its purest form, patriotism is what the founders of our nation stood for, even when they were unsure it would survive. Patriotism now to many is equated with intolerance, whether related to race, gender, socioeconomic status, or any other prejudice. Patriotism, now known as intolerance to others’ backgrounds or lived experiences, has become intolerable.

A devotion to your country, which is the fundamental definition of patriotism, suggests a loyalty and a vested interest in the future and success of our society as we know it. In this manner, patriotism is absolutely indispensable to our identity as Americans who want to build our lives and raise our families here. This doesn’t mean that we condone far overreaching government actions or that we sanction every action of the politicians we most agree with. It could even be argued that the function of government today is directly in opposition to the true objectives of patriotism. But the patriotism of the individual, instead of cynicism and pessimism, can drive the vision of a better future and make it a reality.

Closing Thoughts

Patriotism is branded as many things that it isn’t, especially today. But when the majority of the politically correct’s most dogged adherents tell us to forgo patriotism as a sentiment and as a component of our individual and national identity, we’d likely be better off doing the opposite.


The tiny Australian town gripped by a child sexual abuse crisis: 'If this was happening in Melbourne or Sydney it'd be front page news'

Reading between the lines, the offenders were Aboriginal. Aborigines (blacks) tend to be treated leniently by the courts. It's "the soft bigotry of low expectations"

The tiny Northern Territory town of Tenant Creek has been rocked by the actions of two vile rapists who are set to be released from detention mere months after they were convicted of their horrific crimes.

Ezekial James, 28, who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl in a community near Tennant Creek in the Top End in 2017, causing her to fall pregnant, is eligible for parole only four months after he pleaded guilty to the grisly crime.

In another case close by, a teenager who raped a seven-year-old girl while he was out on parole for arson back in May last year is set to be released less than two months after conviction.

Both cases have sparked outrage over the leniency given to the rapists.

Sky News Australia's Rita Panahi, who spoke to the network's Darwin Bureau Chief Matt Cunningham who covered both crimes, relayed her shock. 'Frankly, if this was happening in Melbourne or Sydney it'd be front page news,' she said. 'It'd be leading the news service for a week.' 'How can such horrific crimes see such lenient sentences?' she asked Cunningham.

Panahi claimed there was difficulty in speaking out against these cases due to fears of being labelled 'racist'. 'How can we elevate these issues?' she continued.

'We'll talk about it on this program, we'll talk about it on Sky News but it seems so many people are terrified to broach this subject because there can be blowback.'

The pair referred to comments made by senator Jacinta Price on the network who suggested that 'until there's an end to domestic and family violence, there won't be an end to these sorts of issues'.

Ezekial James pleaded guilty to raping a 12-year-old girl when he was 23-years-old in 2017. He approached the child near a football ground at night and lured her back to his family's residence where he assaulted her.

The victim returned to her grandfather's home after the traumatising incident and discovered later on that she was pregnant. The girl gave birth at Alice Springs Hospital in August 2018 after being in an 'extremely anxious' state.

Justice Barr described the girl's situation as 'horrible' and the birth as 'very traumatic for a young teenager who did not have the psychological resources to deal with the very stressful situation'.

James was taken into custody by police in December 2021, four years after the 2017 rape, when DNA evidence linked him to the child. He has previously been in prison for multiple offences including two cases of aggravated assault against women and recklessly endangering life.

Justice Barr said it was unlikely he would reoffend before his sentence was suspended.

In the other case, a 16-year-old boy groped a seven-year-old girl while she was watching TV at a house in the Top End.

The teen, who was out on parole for arson, then forced the child into a bedroom where he raped her.

The girl was later flown by the Royal Flying Doctor Service to a clinic in Alice Springs for treatment. She currently struggles to sleep, is too scared to go outside and wants to leave Tennant Creek.

The boy was arrested four days later and was sent to a youth detention centre. He pleaded guilty to the assault and was sentenced in the Northern Territory Supreme Court on November 30.

The boy, who is now 18, is set to be released from detention less than two months after his conviction.




Thursday, December 22, 2022

The Separation of Church And Christmas

The article below is well-motivated and devout but it is theologically naive. Both Sunday (the day of the sun) and Christmas were originally pagan celebrations so one more or less is surely trivial in a Christian life. And we should note Paul's advice in Romans 14:

"One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord"

So specific days do not matter. Only your attitude to the Lord matters. So a devout pastor might well transfer his Sabbath observances to Saturdays when Sunday is inconvenient. A holy Saturday has at least as much scriptural warrant as Sunday

Christmas is a bit tricky for Christians this year. Because of the cyclical nature of the Georgian calendar, Christmas Day will fall on a Sunday. In response to this periodic quirk, many churches are canceling weekly worship services because of Christmas.

This is not satire. The New York Times reports that, according to a survey by Lifeway Research, only 61 percent of nondenominational evangelical pastors will conduct church services on Christmas Day.

The Times article quotes Lutheran Pastor Laura Bostrom saying, “For me, there was a theological decision but also a practical decision,” in deciding not to conduct worship services on Christmas.

Bostrom recalled that very few people attended Sunday services on December 25, 2016, the last time Christmas fell on a Sunday. According to the Times, it didn’t seem right to her “to get home at 9:30 and have everyone wake up and say we have to do this again for such low attendance.”

The Times also quotes StoneBridge Christian Church Executive Pastor Mitch Chitwood, who told the newspaper, “We have to meet people where they are. And where they are on Christmas Day is usually at home in their pajamas.”

Nothing in the Bible instructs us to celebrate Christmas on December 25 (or any day at all for that matter), but that is what Christians have done for nearly 1,700 years. In contrast, we have been called to gather and observe the Sabbath, which is Sunday in Christendom, for roughly 3,500 years.

The net net is that this year, an alarming number of Protestant ministers are consciously forsaking the Lord’s Day, prescribed by God when he gave Moses the 10 Commandments, because they fear low attendance. Is it just me or does this sound nuts?

Christianity in America faces plenty of threats, most coming from the political Left, and ideologues who despise God and the people who worship him. But this particular threat - canceling worship services because Christmas happens to fall on a Sunday - is coming from the Protestant clergy itself.

This year, Christmas Eve services will be held on Saturday night, and church pews will be filled with people holding tiny candles and singing Silent Night, wanting to experience this connection with the Christian faith. But on Sunday, Christmas Day, many people will want to spend their morning opening presents, precluding their attendance at Sunday worship services.

This is unsurprising. People go to church when they want to go to church, and the fact that they go at all is a good thing. But pastors have a higher calling which presumably includes leading their congregation in abiding by God’s commandments and millennia of biblical instruction. Since when did we start cancelling church just because of low attendance on a particular Sunday?

I’ve been going to church long enough to know that attendance ebbs and flows. It typically dips around Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day and other holidays that entice people to take long weekends away from home.

As a boy growing up in rural Minnesota, I remember church attendance dropping off a bit when the Vikings were playing an early game on the road against an NFL rival on the east coast. The opening of deer season was also cause for decreased church attendance. In spite of these distractions, we still had church on Sunday.

Church ministers have a difficult job. It’s not easy being shepherd to a flock of Christians, and parishioners need a lot of pastoral care so they’re never really off the clock. This includes preparing for Sunday services, which is labor intensive for a lot of churches. Whether they be small mission churches that share a physical space for services or mega-churches with sophisticated audio/video systems and thousands of chairs, it’s hard work.

But if there is one duty above all that pastors are called to do, it is to conduct Sunday worship services. Of course there are legitimate reasons to cancel church; blizzards, ice storms and natural disasters can and do result in church closures from time to time. Arbitrary government edicts also closed a lot of churches during the COVID pandemic.

Local pastors aren’t responsible for the appetites of power hungry politicians any more than they are responsible for the weather or the rhythm of the calendar. But they are responsible for how they react to such events. Canceling worship services because Christmas falls on a Sunday drips with irony and must surely delight critics of Christianity. They are laughing at us because a subset of Christian ministers is doing their work for them.

Christmas won’t fall on a Sunday again until 2033. Over the next 11 years, more churches may come to realize the importance of conducting Sunday worship despite the fact that it coincides with celebrating the birth of Christ. They might if enough people have this conversation with their pastors.


SPLC Targets Conservative Jewish Journalist, Suggesting He Supports White Nationalism

In the past two months, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch project has turned its ire to Josh Hammer, the opinion editor at Newsweek, suggesting he supports white nationalism and should be a pariah in polite society. In three articles featuring Hammer, the leftist SPLC repeatedly mentions white nationalism but omits the fact that Hammer is a religiously traditional Jew from a Jewish background.

“Newsweek Embraces the Anti-Democracy Hard Right,” ran the first SPLC headline Nov. 4. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Michael Edison Hayden slammed Hammer for publishing conservative opinion pieces, noting that Newsweek’s op-ed page published what the SPLC condemned as “bigoted views, like appearing to call for the state to deny adults access to trans-affirming medical care and supporting a ban on all legal immigration into the U.S.”

Hayden went on to condemn Hammer’s support for Blake Masters, Arizona’s unsuccessful Republican candidate for U.S. Senate this year, asserting that Masters “emerged as a favored candidate of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other admirers of fascism.”

The article does not once mention Hammer’s Jewish faith or heritage.

Similarly, the SPLC attacked Hammer in a Dec. 11 story about the New York Young Republican Club’s annual gala. The organization drew attention to a small interaction between “a Hatewatch reporter” and Hammer, in which the reporter asked the Newsweek editor if he knew Peter Brimelow, founder of the anti-immigration blog VDARE, whom the article describes as a “white nationalist.”

According to the SPLC, Hammer asked, “He’s right here, right now?” and added, “I didn’t even know he was here! I’m going to say ‘Hi.’”

The SPLC claims Hammer expressed “excitement” about the “infamous white nationalist publisher,” but the article does not include a video that would demonstrate just how “excited” Hammer may have been. The article goes on, however, to claim that when the reporter identified his SPLC affiliation to Hammer, the Newsweek editor “quickly claimed he did not know Peter Brimelow and left.”

Again, the story did not mention Hammer’s Jewish faith or heritage.

The SPLC’s Hatewatch ran another article, “Newsweek’s Place in Radical Right on Display at Gala,” on Dec. 14. This article mentioned that the New York Young Republican Club published a special guest list including the Austrian Freedom Party, which former Nazi Party SS officers founded. The article then recounted the claim about Hammer’s excitement about Brimelow, and raised questions about “Newsweek’s legitimacy.”

Once more, the SPLC omitted Hammer’s Jewish faith and heritage.

Although Hammer is a conservative, Newsweek’s opinion section publishes a broad range of political commentary from both the Left and the Right. For instance, Newsweek published dueling views on Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files,” one highlighting the “throttling of conservative voices” and the other claiming that “Twitter suppressed a story that wasn’t damaging.” One of Hammer’s deputy opinion editors, Jason Fields, suggested to his “liberal brothers and sisters” that they may want to leave the country in an article claiming that “It May Be Too Late to Save America.”

Laura Goldberg, founder and principal of LBG Public Relations, sent The Daily Signal a statement on behalf of Hammer and Newsweek.

“Josh Hammer does not share nor endorse the views of those published in the opinion section of Newsweek, nor those who participate in events he attends,” she wrote. “Josh Hammer has denounced white supremacist and antisemitic views, such as in a recent podcast episode where he vehemently rejected the views of Nick Fuentes. Any attempt to assign these views to Josh is without merit.”

“Newsweek’s mission is to be a platform for diverse voices and Josh’s work supports that mission,” Goldberg added.

Rabbi Yaakov Menken, managing director at the Coalition for Jewish Values, condemned the Southern Poverty Law Center’s attacks on Hammer. Critics such as Menken argue that the SPLC brands mainstream conservative and Christian organizations as “hate groups,” putting them on a “hate map” with the Ku Klux Klan.

My book “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center” lays out the history of the SPLC and how its program to monitor the Klan and other white supremacist groups, Klanwatch, morphed into Hatewatch, the project that attacked Hammer and manages the SPLC’s “hate group” accusations. A former SPLC staffer has claimed that the SPLC’s accusations of “hate” are a “cynical fundraising scam” aimed at “bilking northern liberals.”

“The SPLC’s hate map was used to commit a terrorist act over a decade ago, yet the organization continues as it was—targeting conservatives, whitewashing Islamic terrorism, making Jews less safe,” Menken said, referencing a terrorist attack at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Family Research Council.

The rabbi also faulted the SPLC for having “repeatedly partnered with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas that accuses Jews of ‘Islamophobia’ when they oppose terrorism.”

“That the SPLC would target Josh Hammer should surprise no one: He’s both a conservative and a Jew, and the SPLC has evinced bias against both,” Menken said.

The SPLC did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment on why its Hatewatch repeatedly omitted Hammer’s Jewish faith and heritage.


Woke Comic Books

Did you know that Superman's son is bisexual? So is Batman's sidekick, Robin, and lots of other superheroes created by Marvel and DC Comics.

The author of the bisexual Superman story says gay people write to say they "burst into tears" when they saw that the characters had become gay.

While it's nice to make LGBTIQ+ people feel more welcome in the world, not everyone is happy.

They became bisexual "out of nowhere!" complains comic creator Eric July in my new video. "They make it seem as if the only way that you can relate to a character is because you're gay and that character's gay, which is nonsense!"

July, who is Black, says you don't have to share the same traits as a superhero to enjoy the character. His favorite was Batman. "I ain't got Bruce Wayne money, and I'm not rich! And I'm certainly not white."

July points out that there have long been gay comic superheroes, like Northstar. But what's new and dumb is that DC and Marvel are changing the identity of established characters.

A new Batman is Black. There's a new Spiderman-like character, except she's a lesbian who uses a wheelchair. Iron Man is now a Black teenage girl. Really.

Maybe this is progress.

"When I was a kid," I say to July, "all the characters were white. It's a good thing more are non-white."

"But they've been just reduced to being an item to pander to certain audiences that aren't really buying into it," July responds.

No, they sure aren't. Marvel and DC had the bestselling graphic novels. Now the best sellers are from Japan. Often, they aren't even in color, yet they outsell Marvel and DC. The American-made books aren't even in the top 20.

"They turned off their audience by ... hyper emphasizing the social justice element." says July.

Marvel made its evil character M.O.D.A.A.K. resemble Donald Trump. They hired leftist writer Ta-Nehisi Coates to create a Captain America series. Coates made the villain, Red Skull, a bizarre version of Jordan Peterson.

Instead of just saving lives, today's comic superheroes lead protests. The cover of a Superman comic shows Superman's son leading a school "strike for climate."

It's so stupid! Superman, with all his powers, could solve climate change all by himself. But now he holds a protest sign.

"These guys are writing material for their peers," says July. "So even if the Son of Superman falls completely off the charts like it did, right? It's still a win in their mind."

I thought that capitalism would be a break on the silliest of the woke world. But in this case, they're just sabotaging their own projects. The bisexual Superman series was cancelled after 18 issues.

Marvel came up with two not-so-super heroes named "Snowflake" and "Safespace." Really.

"Snowflake is nonbinary and goes by they-them," says the writer in Marvel's video introducing the characters. Fan reaction to the preview video was pretty bad. Marvel decided not to release Snowflake and Safespace.

I wanted to ask Marvel and DC why they seem fine with losing market share. Aren't their investors angry? Neither company would talk to me.

At least their stupidity gives new opportunities to independent creators like Eric July. He's raised $3.7 million to fund a new superhero comic book, "Isom."

The market will decide if people want to pay for new characters like him.

But July understands something that Marvel and DC apparently no longer do: Capitalism means giving people what they want.


More Racism from the Non-Racist Left

The Left, of course, shouts “racism” shriller than anyone, but their actions speak much louder than their big mouths. The loudest voice is always the one people hear. But that doesn’t mean it speaks the truth. Look at what people do, not what they say. There is the true measure, and that measure, for the Left, is undeniable racism.

Rachel Maddow recently made the following observation: The GOP wants to "go back to the good old days where everybody was the same color."

Rachel, which was the party of slavery and Jim Crow? But you say we don't want a color-blind society?

No, the Democratic Party, the Left, does not want that. And they are doing everything they can to prevent it, to divide America along racial, and other, lines. The Left’s “identity politics” is inherently racist, and thus they deal with people differently based upon skin color. But such is the source of much of their political power, and if they started treating everybody equally, instead of treating some groups differently, they would immediately lose much of their political influence. And they know it.

Maddow's statement is demonstrably false on several grounds. First, America never had a society "where everybody was the same color," and even in whatever timeframe she is trying to reference, nobody thought such a ludicrous thing. America has always been multi-racial, and minority races were, indeed, considered second-class citizens for much of our history.

That was wrong, but it happened in every multi-racial society in history, and is still the rule, not the exception, around the world today. America isn't unique in its discriminatory history, except that the United States led the world in realizing that discrimination IS wrong and that “all men are created equal.” It took us awhile to get there—overturning thousands of years of historical traditions and customs rarely happens overnight, the rest of the world right now is proof of that—but we did, and far more quickly than Leftist cesspools who have never arrived. Places like Communist China still have gross human rights abuses, and always will, because they ARE Leftist elitists who believe some people, by nature, are superior to others. Go to China and let them call you a "barbarian" or "hairy foreign devil," which is exactly what they think of you, and the way they will treat you.

But treating people unfairly is called "discrimination." We thought we agreed that people should not be judged "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." But we do not. Conservatives believe that; liberals do not.

Our Congress passed (and a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for it) the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That law made segregation and discrimination illegal in America. The idea was, indeed, that everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law, that we wouldn't treat people differently based on their skin color. That remains the law of the land. Some people today (white, black, brown, yellow, red, purple, green, polka-dot) violate that law, but then, some people don't obey our laws against murder, either. We will never cure evil from the human heart.

But, it would indeed be very nice if every citizen in America were, legally, treated as if we were all the same color, instead of giving special privileges to people BECAUSE of their color. White people used to get those privileges before the Civil Rights Act. Again, we call that "discrimination" and some of us now believe that such is wrong. But, from their actions (not their words), Leftists obviously do not believe it is wrong because they continue to give special privileges, or (more often) stay completely away from (see Martha's Vineyard) people of non-white skin color. Who are the racists here?

As is common among hypocrites, Leftists point fingers and shout “racism” in order to cover their own. And when they are exposed, hell’s fury doesn’t equal theirs.

Racism isn't defined by who can shout "racist!" the loudest. Nobody can outshout a left-wing bigot. Racism is defined by actions, and it isn't the Republican Party who is attempting to identify Americans by color today. Yes, it would be very nice if we could have a society where all citizens were treated as if we were the same color, all treated like Americans, all given the same rights and privileges based on law and not on color.

But that would destroy the Democratic Party and the Left.

Sometimes these Leftists--by mistake--expose what they actually think, and Rachel Maddow said we don't want a color-blind society. This is not the least surprising to anyone who listens to what they really say and observe what they really do. The Democratic Party hasn't changed in 200 years. They still believe they are superior to black people and that blacks cannot survive without their help. There is nothing more racist than that.

We need to unite on culture, on all of us being Americans, and quit dividing the country along racial and ethnic lines as the Democratic Party is doing. Joe Biden, by letting all the riffraff of the world across our borders, will continue the racial destruction of the nation, and further, there will soon be no more “America” because there will be nothing that unites us as a people. This is totally in harmony with what Leftism wants.