The Truth That Dare Not Be Uttered About Trump
CONRAD BLACK
The reason the United States reached its present astonishing condition is that a not wholly inadequate but complacent bipartisan consensus was moving the country slowly to the left and appeared to a large number of citizens to be favoring the educated middle-class and the scientifically and financially innovative higher income groups over the traditional working and middle classes and substantial numbers of the traditional minorities.
For some unexplained reason, few of the polls disclosed the vulnerability of the bipartisan governing majority. Donald Trump, long one of America’s most famous and controversial businessmen and celebrities, had been polling comprehensively for many years by 2015. He had developed the theory, after a near-death financial experience, that he could generate a large income by levering on and hyping his own name.
This process was commercially successful, and he suspected that it could be politically successful, also. To this end, he changed his official party designation seven times in 13 years waiting for an opportunity to take an open nomination in a year when the White House would not be defended by an incumbent president.
All will remember the howls of mockery and incredulity that greeted his descent on the escalator at Trump Tower in June 2015 to announce his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. It became clear as soon as the primaries began that he had tapped into an unsuspected vein of electoral resentment.
The bipartisan arrangement that Mr. Trump called “the swamp” is best illustrated by the fact that in the eight terms, 32 years, ending in 2012, one member or another of the Bush and Clinton families had been president, vice president, or Secretary of State, and a member of each family was seeking the presidency in 2016.
Mr. Trump won almost all of the Republican primaries in every region, but incredulity rose and defied unfolding events. The Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, wrote of dropping “him like a hot rock.” The Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, was the overwhelming favorite to win even though the polls started fairly close and narrowed steadily toward election day.
As Mr. Trump alleged in his powerful and measured speech on the evening of April 4, after his indictment, Mr. Trump’s enemies had begun even before he was inaugurated, the unconstitutional process of using the intelligence agencies, the FBI, and other parts of the Justice Department to persecute and defame him.
We now know that the heads of the national and central intelligence agencies and the FBI lied or disassembled under oath and that senior officials of the Justice Department knowingly signed false affidavits to justify illegal intercepts on the Trump campaign and transition team. We now know that the strenuous effort to pretend that concerns about the Biden family’s financial relations with Ukraine and China were unfounded was an outright fraud that was conducted even though a grand jury had been investigating the same matters for many months.
We now know that President Biden has lied repeatedly to the public about his knowledge of these activities. The failure of the United States attorney in Delaware to produce any findings at all on an investigation of more than three years into the Biden family’s questionable finances is as disquieting about the failure of justice to operate impartially as is its failure to be roused to any action at all about then candidate Hillary Clinton’s destruction of subpoenaed evidence.
We now know that neither President Trump nor his organization had any involvement in encouraging illegalities at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. We also know that then-Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Mayor Bowser of the District of Columbia declined President Trump’s urgings that they accept 20,000 national guardsmen that he was prepared to provide as reinforcements because of his concern that hooligans could infiltrate the large crowd of his supporters that he had invited to Washington to object legally to voting irregularities in the late election.
We now know that both of the Trump impeachments were completely unwarranted. We also know that it is unlikely that he would have been defeated in the 2020 election if there were not millions of unverifiable, unsolicited, mailed ballots voted anonymously in drop boxes; or that he would have been defeated if the public’s awareness of the proportions of the Bidens’ overseas financial dealings had not been improperly suppressed by the FBI’s partisan collusion with major social media platforms.
We now know how feeble and frivolous is the New York district attorney’s spurious indictment of Mr. Trump and we know, because Mr. Trump told us, that the special counsel looking into the preposterous FBI raid at Trump’s home in August and the classified document incident that was invoked as the pretext for it, and into the January 6, 2021 events, is engaging in the United States prosecutors’ customary threat to indict those who do not, with full guarantees against prosecution for perjury, ransack their memories successfully to find inculpatory evidence against the former president.
It is all a disgraceful picture of systematic lawlessness by one of two national political factions of almost equal strength against the other: an act of usurpation and perversion of the institutions of justice accompanied by a total collapse of professionalism and integrity in the national political media, all with no precedent in American history.
His supporters, and the few uncommitted people in the middle, are deeply concerned that this abuse of the justice system and failure of the free press could destroy constitutional government in the United States.
The only positive elements in this crisis are that the vigorous reaction of the old establishment shows that it is not decadent and easily defeated: it has fought tooth and nail with an early and constant recourse to rank illegalities to defend its position. A vigorously abusive governing class is preferable to a defeatist one.
The other positive element is that the forces for change are equally determined; even the most inflamed Trump-hater will acknowledge that he has proved to be a foe of undreamed-of formidability. Nothing in his prior career with its frequent instances of outright hucksterism would have prepared those who did not know him well to expect that Donald Trump would be so indefatigable.
In a phrase of third-party candidate George Wallace, much more accurately applied here, Trump has “shaken the American political establishment by the eye-teeth,” and he has already received more votes for president than anyone in American history.
Now one of these two protagonists must win. For the sake of all the goals identified by Mr. Trump’s opponents, particularly the preservation of the Constitution and the integrity of the American political system, it is Donald Trump that must prevail.
The truth that dare not be uttered, is that he is now leading all the polls. His enemies, in their blind and mindless outlawry, are turning him into the last man standing, the only recourse and salvation for those who believe in the Constitution and in the continued greatness and moral distinction of the United States of America.
https://www.nysun.com/article/the-truth-that-dare-not-be-uttered-about-trump
****************************************************Doctors Expose Just How Experimental ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Truly Is in Florida Medicaid Case
Psychiatrists, endocrinologists, neurologists, and other doctors testified in support of a Florida health agency’s rule preventing Medicaid from funding various forms of “gender-affirming care,” such as “puberty-blockers,” cross-sex hormones, and transgender surgeries.
“Patients suffering from gender dysphoria or related issues have a right to be protected from experimental, potentially harmful treatments lacking reliable, valid, peer-reviewed, published, long-term scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness,” Dr. Paul Hruz, an endocrinology researcher and clinician at Washington University School of Medicine, wrote in a sworn affidavit provided exclusively to The Daily Signal. (Endocrinologists treat the endocrine system, which uses hormones to control metabolism, reproduction, growth, and more.)
Hruz joined with other doctors in testifying in support of Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration, which finalized a rule in August 2022, declaring that Medicaid would not cover “puberty blockers,” cross-sex hormones, “sex-reassignment” surgeries, or other procedures that alter primary or secondary sex characteristics.
LGBT and health activist groups led by Lambda Legal represent four young people who identify as transgender and who filed a lawsuit in September aiming to block the rule. As part of their lawsuit, the LGBT groups asked the court to temporarily block the rule while it considers the full case. In denying that temporary injunction, the court ruled in October that the case centers on whether Florida’s determination that the transgender interventions are “experimental” is “reasonable.”
The AHCA filed a motion for summary judgment on Friday, urging the court to close the case and make a final judgment supporting the rule. In that motion, exclusively provided to The Daily Signal, AHCA referenced the testimony of many doctors warning about “gender-affirming care.”
Hruz and other doctors argue that the medical interventions often described as “gender-affirming care” are experimental and that the organizations that present standards of care supporting them—the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the Endocrine Society—represent more a political and advocacy effort than an objective analysis supporting these alleged treatments.
AHCA asked WPATH and the Endocrine Society to hand over the documents they used to craft their treatment protocols, but the organizations at first declined, then handed over a limited selection of documents that AHCA found insufficient. AHCA calls “the continued reluctance” of these organizations “significant, especially when [the LGBT groups] and their experts rely extensively on the WPATH standards of care and the Endocrine Society’s guidelines.”
Dr. Stephen B. Levine, a psychiatrist and early proponent of transgender medical interventions, joined and briefly helped lead the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, which later became WPATH. A member from 1974 to 2001, he served as the chairman of the eight-person International Standards of Care Committee that issued the fifth version of the standards of care.
In his affidavit, Levine notes that he resigned his membership in 2002 due to “my regretful conclusion that the organization and its recommendations had become dominated by politics and ideology, rather than by scientific process, as it was years earlier.” He condemns the WPATH standards of care as “not an impartial or evidence-based document.”
Levine notes that “WPATH explicitly views itself as not merely a scientific organization, but also as an advocacy organization.” He notes that WPATH welcomes non-doctors into its membership, so long as they identify as transgender. “Skepticism as to the benefits of [‘sex-reassignment surgery’] to patients, and strong alternate views, are not well-tolerated in discussions within the organization or their educational outreach programs,” he said.
While “WPATH claims to speak for the medical profession,” it “represents a self-selected subset of the profession along with its many non-professional members” and it “does not welcome skepticism and therefore deviates from the philosophical core of medical science,” Levine writes.
The psychiatrist explains that “there is no consensus or agreed ‘standard of care’ concerning therapeutic approaches to child or adolescent gender dysphoria.” He notes that gender identity “is not biologically based” and “empirically not fixed for many individuals.” He also warns that social transition “is a powerful psychotherapeutic intervention that radically changes outcomes” and makes it far less likely that young children will “desist” from a transgender identity.
Levine explicitly calls transition and affirmation “experimental therapies that have not been shown to improve mental or physical health outcomes by young adulthood,” and warns that these therapies “do not decrease, and may increase, the risk of suicide.”
He further warns that hormonal interventions “are experimental procedures that have not been proven safe.” So-called puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones can have negative effects on fertility, bone density, brain development, and psychosocial well-being.
Levine concludes that support for childhood medical interventions “is currently being reinforced by an echo chamber of approval from other like-minded, child-oriented professionals who do not sufficiently consider the known negative medical and psychiatric outcomes of trans adults.”
“Rather than recommend social transition in grade school, the [mental health professional] must focus attention on the child’s underlying internal and familial issues,” he concludes.
Endocrinologists Hruz, Michael Laidlaw, and Quentin Van Meter also testify to the problems with “puberty blockers” and cross-sex hormones. Hruz warns that after “an extended period of pubertal suppression,” patients can’t “turn back the clock” and “reverse changes in the normal coordinated pattern of adolescent psychological development and puberty.”
Hruz notes that “there are no long-term, peer-reviewed published, reliable and valid research studies” documenting the percentage of patients helped or harmed by transgender medical interventions. He also notes that attempts to block puberty followed by cross-sex hormones not only impact fertility, but also pose risks such as low bone density, “disfiguring acne, high blood pressure, weight gain, abnormal glucose tolerance, breast cancer, liver disease, thrombosis, and cardiovascular disease.”
In the absence of transgender interventions, children often grow to reject a transgender identity, he observes.
For these reasons, Hruz concludes that “administering hormones to a child whose gender dysphoria is highly likely to resolve is risky, unscientific, and unethical.”
************************************************
Want a politically-correct life partner? There’s an app for that
China’s “social credit score” system has taken a dark new twist. What you do, drink, buy and say could now determine whom you are allowed to date.
The Chinese Communist Party commissars of Jinan city in Shandong province are pulling everything they know about the 650,000 citizens under their control into one State-controlled singles dating app.
It’s called Palm Guixi. And it’s the regional response to Chairman Xi Jinping’s order to turn around the nation’s collapsing marriage and birth rates.
The idea is simple. Build comprehensive profiles about eligible young men and women’s personalities, habits, preferences, behaviours - and affiliations. Boil these down to scores. Run them through an AI. Then organise a blind date for the resulting ideal match.
Put simply, the Communist Party of China has got a math problem. There were 7.6 million first-time marriages in 2021. That’s 500,000 fewer than the year before and 5 million less than in 2013.
And marriages are needed to produce future party members.
That’s not happening. Since abandoning a long-standing one-child policy in 2016, national birth rates have plummeted. Only 6.8 children were born for every 1000 people in 2022.
And that’s despite Beijing having mandated three children for every household.
While demographers believe recent birth declines are a statistical anomaly brought about by Beijing’s draconian COVID-19 lockdown policies, it underscores long-standing fears for the nation’s future.
Now the Party has renewed its efforts to bring more of the right kinds of people together to generate more marriages and, therefore, more babies.
But it doesn’t think young unmarried Party members can work it out for themselves.
Chairman Xi Jinping’s tenure as chief of the Chinese Communist Party wants the role of women within Chinese society revisited.
The idea of the People’s Revolution was for gender equality in all things. But Xi wants to bring back elements of traditional Confucian philosophy.
In 2013, during one of his first speeches as a national leader, Xi proclaimed it was crucial for women to be “good wives and mothers” to ensure the “healthy growth of the next generation”.
Ten years later, that idea is being turned into law.
As of January, the updated Women’s Rights and Interests Protection Law formally demands “women should respect and obey national laws, respect social morals, professional ethics and family values.”
And Xi has repeated his expectation that Chinese society must “give full play to the unique role of women in promoting the family virtues of the Chinese nation.”
Those virtues and values have yet to be clearly defined. But the message comes amid loud calls to “pass on the red gene from generation to generation”.
That means young women focused on their studies and careers are now officially out of step with Communist Party policy.
‘Leftover women’
Marriage in China has traditionally been a community affair.
Parents, village elders and business leaders regularly gather to identify suitable pairings. Then the full weight of peer pressure would be brought to bear.
But an emphasis on advanced education in the 1990s and the arrival of internet dating in the 2000s have pushed this practice aside.
Young men and women have become used to finding partners that suit their tastes, needs and styles. And women have chosen careers ahead of children.
The Ministry of Education now considers these to be “leftover women”.
It has instructed schools to teach girl students that not marrying was “self-serving and oblivious to family morality and imperatives of national development”.
“Leftover women” have since embraced the label in ironic protest.
Women, however, aren’t the only target. Beijing is raging against “foreign influences”. It has formally banned men from appearing “too effeminate” in an effort to reinforce what it calls China’s “revolutionary culture.”
The Chinese Communist Party can’t afford such loose ends.
The one-child policy of 1979 resulted in parents choosing boys over girls. While the central government-enforced quota was abandoned in 2016, up to 16 per cent of the Chinese population now has little hope of finding a marriage partner.
And most of them are now of marriageable age.
********************************************************
Posting memes with black people in them is considered “digital blackface” – a term that only applies to white people
The liberal media and Democrats continue to push to divide the nation, and a prime example of this is the latest nonsensical claim from CNN.com senior writer John Blake, who wrote a column on why posting memes with black people in them is considered “digital blackface” – a term that only applies to white people.
The piece, titled “What’s ‘digital blackface?’ And why is it wrong when White people use it?”, lists examples of possible memes that people online have posted over the years.
These include a viral video of Kimberly “Sweet Brown” Wilkins telling a reporter after narrowly escaping an apartment fire, “Ain’t nobody got time for that!”, a meme of supermodel Tyra Banks exploding in anger on “America’s Next Top Model”, and popular GIFs such as the one of NBA great Michael Jordan crying, or of drag queen RuPaul declaring, “Guuuurl…”
According to Blake, “If you’re Black and you’ve shared such images online, you get a pass. But if you’re White, you may have inadvertently perpetuated one of the most insidious forms of contemporary racism. You may be wearing digital blackface.”
He then quotes from Lauren Michele Jackson, a cultural critic, and author who bought into this latest made-up grievance from the radical left: “Many white people choose images of black people when it comes to expressing exaggerated emotions on social media – a burden that black people didn’t ask for.”
Blake attempts to explain why the made-up term “digital blackface” is wrong, citing critics who say it is a modern-day repackaging of minstrel shows, a racist form of entertainment popular in the 19th century.
He then goes on to explain that this form of racism is when white people co-opt online expressions of black imagery, slang, catchphrases or culture to convey comic relief or express emotions.
The problem is that John Blake himself has a hard time defining “digital blackface”, admitting that “In trying to define digital blackface, it depends on who you talk to.
The standard for some is comparable to what one Supreme Court Justice once said when asked his test for pornography: ‘I know it when I see it”.
This is yet another example of the liberal media and Democrats trying to divide the country. The concept of “digital blackface” is made-up nonsense, and it is outrageous that people are being accused of racism for simply posting memes.
It’s time for people to wake up and realize that the far left’s woke ideology is nothing more than a ploy to control people’s thoughts and actions. Their goal is to stifle free speech and divide the nation. We must not let that happen.
https://libertyonenews.com/media-declare-memes-racists-digital-blackface/
****************************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment