Pro-Abortion Extremists Attacking Churches Around The U.S.

 

Pro-abortion extremists recently struck St. Joseph’s Priory, a Catholic church in Armada, Michigan, spray-painting a pentagram and “666” on one of the sanctuary’s walls. Classy. Rational. That will be sure to gain converts to their cause.

And that was just one of many attacks on churches and crisis pregnancy centers around the U.S. since the Supreme Court rightfully overturned Roe v. Wade.

To wit: the Christian Post reported that suspects recently defaced a pregnancy resource center in Denton, Texas. The vandals utilized graffiti to declare “Forced birth is murder.” Vandals also recently broke into the Sacred Heart of Mary Church in Boulder, Colorado, smashing windows and spray-painting messages such as “Abortion Saves Lives.”

It is impossible to spray-paint, write, type-- or utter-- a phrase more self-evidently opposite of the truth than “forced birth is murder” or “abortion saves lives.”

Forced birth is not, in fact, murder. Much like “forced murder” is not birth. Saying that “abortion saves lives” is akin to saying, “murder saves lives.” It is preposterous, absurd, nonsensical, offensive.

While I’m on the subject, the “pro-choice” claim that “abortion is love,” a slogan often found on hastily constructed placards, is equally preposterous and despicable. Abortion is not love, just as love is not abortion.”

Love is not hate, hate is not love. Men are not women, women are not men.

Truth is not a lie, as lying is not truthfulness. Slavery is not freedom. Freedom is not slavery.

Democrats (and progressives and leftists, though these are essentially all now one and the same) have been conducting a Euphemism and Prevarication Festival for years now. It has grown old. It is time for it to end.

Calling someone a “pregnant man” doesn’t make her one. No matter how much she/he/they may wish it to be so.  

And, to quote former Biden administration press secretary Jen Psaki, let me “circle back” to the idea of “forced birth.” Pro-life people do not want to force anyone to be pregnant and therefore face the prospect of giving birth. No pro-life person to my knowledge has ever demanded that anyone have intercourse, let alone unprotected intercourse. In fact, we’d much prefer that most pro-abortion folks never bear children! The term “forced birth” is preposterous prevarication and makes the person employing it appear ridiculous and pathetic. It is one thing that should be aborted.

There are simple solutions to a number of modern problems, though one may sadly risk being “cancelled” for stating them. Don’t want to have a baby? Don’t engage in the behavior that could lead to that result. Want to dramatically lessen the chance you’ll contract the monkeypox? Don’t engage in the behavior that puts you at dramatically heightened risk of doing so.

That said, we all fervently hope that monkeypox runs its course without affecting a measurable percentage of the population.

Donkeypox, however, is now a scourge upon the land, and one that will be exceedingly hard to eradicate. In fact, if we cannot do so by the end of 2022 or 2024, we may be plagued by it forever.   

 

 

 

 

 

Joe Biden Rejects Urgent Phone Call From Israeli Prime Minister

 

According to reports in Israeli media, Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid’s urgent request to hold an emergency telephone conversation with U.S. President Joe Biden to discuss the looming nuclear deal with Iran was rebuffed-- with the excuse that the American president was “on vacation.”

According to Israel’s Channel 13, Lapid sought to speak with Biden in an attempt to prevent a return to the 2015 JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) nuclear pact, but U.S. officials denied the request, simply informing Lapid that Biden “is on vacation.” End of story, I guess. But this makes it difficult for the poor souls who, for whatever reason, need to speak to the current American Commander-in-Chief, as Biden is almost always “on vacation.”

Is this the right way to treat arguably your closest ally and the only representative democracy in the Middle East? This administration has a history of feting our enemies and non-citizens while simultaneously screwing over our allies and natural citizens alike. Weird…and one would think counterintuitive to anyone hoping to remain in office.

I wonder how the White House phone message tree is set up now, what messages and prompts various incoming calls receive. Perhaps:

*”Press 1 if you’d like to speak to ‘The Big Guy.’” BEEP. “Sorry, the president is on vacation. Good-bye.”

*”Press 2 if your nation is about to be attacked by Russia or Iran.” BEEP. “We’re sorry, but President Biden is away from his desk right now. He may be back in a week or two. Please press the pound sign to leave a message.”

*”Press 3 if you are inquiring about Hunter.” BEEP. “He’s the smartest guy we know, so go take a long walk off a short pier, loser.”

*”Press 4 if you have concerns about China, its policies, treatment of the Uyghurs, threats to its neighbors, etc..” BEEP. “We’re sorry, but your call cannot be completed as dialed. Good-bye.”

*”Press 5 if you’d like to complain about the president’s decision to forgive student loan debt or to add 87,000 new IRS employees.” BEEP. “Your call is very important to us, which is why we can’t answer it now. Please stay on the line. Your expected hold time is…18,257 minutes.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pat Benatar Will No Longer Perform "Hit Me With Your Best Shot"

 

Pat Benatar will no longer perform her most famous song during her live concerts. The diminutive female rocker told USA Today in a recently published interview: "We're not doing 'Hit Me With Your Best Shot' and fans are having a heart attack. And I'm like, 'I'm sorry, in deference to the victims of the families of these mass shootings, I'm not singing it.' I tell them, 'If you want to hear the song, go home and listen to it.'"

What ridiculous virtue-signaling. She knows better than anyone that the song has nothing to do with a gun being fired. And saying fans are “having a heart attack” over her decision is insensitive in itself, especially to those who have suffered one.

If we can no longer use the word “shot,” or any phrase containing it, our rapidly shrinking ability to communicate effectively will take another hit. Oops, am I allowed to say “hit?”

Will Billy Joel stop performing “Big Shot,” or perhaps even demand that it be removed from his CDs and albums going forward? Obviously, Bon Jovi’s “Shot Through The Heart” will have to be banned. Etc., etc.

Must “hotshot,” “cheap shot,” “give it a shot,” and “shot-glass” also all be expunged from the lexicon?

Who’s calling the shots here? After all we’ve been through in the past couple of years, we could all use a shot in the arm about now. Maybe we’d feel better if we all stopped kowtowing to the whims of the woke and the radical left.

Will we do so?

I’d say it’s a long shot.

 

 

 

 

World Economic Forum Attacks Private Property, Natural Rights

 

The World Economic Forum is pushing for a global transition away from private ownership of vehicles and other "idle equipment" as part of a "clean energy revolution,” itself part of the Great Reset.

In a recently released report, the Swiss-based international lobbying group stated that "transition from fossil fuels to renewables will need large supplies of critical metals such as cobalt, lithium, nickel." But the report noted that shortages of these critical metals are likely to make renewable fuel technologies prohibitively expensive.

The report highlighted a couple of options, but downplayed both as essentially unworkable, saying: "One obvious route is to mine more virgin material, but this comes with its own costs and potentially unintended consequences. Another solution commonly discussed is to recycle more and use the metals already in circulation. The complication is that we do not currently have enough metals in circulation, and even with recycling taken into consideration, mineral production is still forecasted to increase by nearly 500%." (Which, in my opinion, would be a low estimate.)

Having set the parameters of any debate, the WEF report got down to the heart of the matter, its raison d’être. It listed three proposals geared toward building a "fully circular economy" in order to reduce demand for critical metals, which are used in cellphones, electric vehicles, wind turbines, and many other technologies.

The first of these is the most important, and surely the most arousing to the likes of Klaus Schwab (son of a former member of several National Socialist, i.e. Nazi, organizations) and his ilk. The report argues that private ownership of vehicles and electronic devices, et. al., is wasteful and inefficient, and that we must “go from owning to using.”

It further notes, "The average car or van in England is driven just 4% of the time,” and adds, “While most already have a personal phone, 39% of workers globally have employer-provided laptops and mobile phones. This is not at all resource efficient." Right. No one should be allowed to own more than one of anything.

Memo to the WEF: one doesn’t live in one’s house, condo or apartment every hour of every day, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t own one…or that it is “resource inefficient.” And how often do we use our toasters? Five minutes a day? That would be about three-tenths of one percent of the time. Our blenders? Washing machines, dryers? Televisions? Most folks don’t use their heat for several months out of the year. The same goes for air-conditioning. I guess we should get rid of all these “idle, wasteful, and inefficient items,” too. Maybe we could call for a toaster, washing machine or T.V.-- if and when we need one.

Precisely the thing, the report states! For example, it suggests the dramatically expanded use of "car sharing platforms" that let users briefly rent vehicles rather than own them. And it says a fundamental transformation of the way things and systems-- including entire cities-- are designed is a necessary part of this “revolution.”

To wit: "To enable a broader transition from ownership to usership, the way we design things and systems need to change too. For example, car sharing is made possible by new keyless unlocking features. Similarly, user profiles that create a distinction for work and personal use on the same device is needed to reduce the number of devices per person. A design process that focuses on fulfilling the underlying need instead of designing for product purchasing is fundamental to this transition. This is the mindset needed to redesign cities to reduce private vehicles and other usages.”

And that was just the first proposal.

The second proposal was to have consumers keep things longer before buying a new one to replace them. For example, the report observed that keeping a smart phone for five years instead of three could reduce the phone's annual carbon footprint by 31%.

The third proposal? The WEF wants to encourage the repurposing of technologies that no longer can perform their original function into doing something else. For example, a retired battery from an electric vehicle could be refurbished to power streetlights.

The report acknowledges that implementing these solutions would require a dramatic upheaval of worldwide economies but claims that failing to make them would harm the environment.    

You know what else would harm the environment? Non-elites’ environment? The utter devastation of worldwide economies and the resulting poverty, illness, disease, chaos, conflict, and hopelessness that would be sure to follow.  

Transitioning from fossil fuels to “sustainable” energy, at least via proposals like the WEF’s, will require those of us that aren’t wealthy and famous to give up our rights to private ownership…and probably everything else. That’s not sustainable. Or shouldn’t be. Will we meekly go along with this—or fight back? At this late stage, even if we fight back, we may lose and be forced to comply. But “this dude doesn’t abide.”

The WEF thinks we all need to get rid of everything we own. Per Herr Schwab, we are supposed to own nothing and be happy about it. WEF types purport to believe that, rather than being a key to liberty, private property is evil…and reeks of white supremacy! Can’t we all just share our things?

I will share one thing with these tyrannical Marxist asshats who would run—and ruin—our lives: they can kiss my ass any time they want to.

Marvel Comics To Introduce New Gay Spider-Man

 

Marvel comics recently announced that it will soon introduce a variant character of a gay Spider-Man with a “fearlessly femme” identity. Just in time. The plain old garden variety gay Spider-Man was getting tiresome.

Steve Foxe, the writer of one of the Spider-Man comics, tweeted out the name of the gay Spider-Man and some fabulous character costume designs on July 14^th. Foxe said, "Something I realized immediately when conceiving Web-Weaver is that he can't — and shouldn't — represent ALL gay men. No single character can.”

Apparently, “Web-Weaver” should not even represent all gay Spider-Men.

Foxe added, "His fearlessly femme identity is central to who he is, but it's not the STORY--- which you can experience for yourself in September!" I’m all atingle.

Web-Weaver is scheduled to make his first appearance in “Edge of the Spider-Verse” #5 in September. Marvel is touting the character as a “not-so-mild mannered fashion designer at Van Dyne” who gets spider-powers and “shows us a very different kind of Spider-Slayer.” Dreamy.

Marvel might not be pushing the envelope far enough here. Think of the possibilities if Web-Weaver was also trans. A fearlessly femme, gay, trans Spider-Man would be awesome! He might have to eat himself after sex. How delicious would that be?! In today’s “cultural climate,” they couldn’t make enough copies to keep up with the demand.

This might engender a surge of newly reimagined super-heroes. Who wouldn’t want to follow the exploits of a polyamorous Batman or a Superman who was secretly addicted to auto-erotica?

Marvel comics, like almost every other entity in America, has been captured by radical progressives. And, while that may be darkly entertaining, it is certainly not funny.

 

 

NEA Proposal Would Have Substituted "Birthing Parent" For "Mother"

 

The National Education Association (NEA) recently put forward a resolution that would have seen the term "mother" be changed to “birthing parent” in contracts to promote stupidity diversity.

Fortunately, the resolution is now dead, at least for this year. In an email sent to The Washington Times, the NEA stated: “NBI 63 [New Business Item 63] was not considered on the floor of NEA’s 2022 Representative Assembly.” This, perhaps coincidentally, came after the proposal was roundly mocked by parents and others.

The proposal was preposterous on its face, but perfectly in keeping with the growing tide of insanity being pushed by many of our formerly respected institutions. And The Left’s War on Women.

It would have been yet another blow to the English language, already diluted and abused, awash in vagary, group speak, and euphemism.

When such important words are replaced to assuage the feelings of a handful of loonies, countless excellent phrases, cliches and idioms become nonsensical or are rendered impotent.

For example, consider the phrase, “a face only a mother could love.” Does “a face only a birthing parent could love” similarly resonate with you?

She’s such a “birthing parent hen” simply doesn’t work at all. “Hello, my ‘brother from another birthing parent’” loses much in translation, as well.

“Birthing parent of God! I’ve hit the birthing parent lode!” just doesn’t cut it. Nor do any of the following:

*”the birthing parent of all evils”

*”birthing parent nature”

*”birthing parent of pearl”

*”necessity is the birthing parent of invention”

*”step-birthing parent”

*”birthing parent country”

 

Sweet Mary, birthing parent of Jesus, this is ridiculous!

I’d like to tell those birthingparentf*ckers at the NEA: “your birthing parents wear army boots!”

              (And, no, I don’t kiss my birthing parent with that mouth!)

Virginia State Employees Not Eager To Return To Offices

 

On May 5^th, Virginia’s Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin updated the telework policy for all state employees. The change would have had them begin working in-person full-time by July 5, which Youngkin’s office stressed would still provide “options for and supports the use of telework where appropriate.” Youngkin said that bringing many employees back to the office would help “balance the demands of government services with the needs of our public servants.”

How did the illustrious public servants react to Youngkin’s updated policy? Well, according to Richmond’s WRIC-TV, well over 300 of them have resigned since the change was announced.

              How quickly times change. How fast expectations—and standards—can change/fall. In the blink of an eye, sloth sets in.

              Prior to the pandemic, most people didn’t give any thought to working from home, at least not on a regular basis, and certainly not all of the time. And people typically wore a suit, dress-- or at least a shirt and pants—during working hours. Now, many of us work from home, on the couch, in our pajamas. Some, like CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, cannot even abstain from rubbing one out during a work zoom call.

              How times have changed. Suck it up, people. Is it really that hard to go back to your cushy, climate-controlled offices and your ergonomic leather swivel chairs? To your free coffee and donut breaks? Where twice a week or so you stop work for an hour to celebrate somebody’s birthday, anniversary, promotion, or retirement?

              I mean, you are not being asked to join the Lewis & Clark Expedition, cross the Rocky Mountains on foot and traverse the Oregon Trail-- hoping to somehow escape death at the hands of Indigenous people, wild animals, exhaustion, starvation, or disease. 

              Neither are you being asked to potentially sacrifice your life while fighting to establish independence, abolish slavery, or free peoples from the totalitarian grip of Fascism or Communism.

              So, sit up, put on your pants, and get back to work. Go back to the office if necessary. This is America.

              Don’t embarrass those who came before you and gifted you your ease.

              And have another donut if you wish.

             

 

 

 

Elizabeth Warren Claims "Everyone" Would Have Voted For Her If She Had A Penis

 

NBC News' Capitol Hill correspondent Ali Vitali has a new book out, "Electable: Why America Hasn't Put a Woman in the White House...Yet." In it she says that Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts claimed that many people told her during the 2020  presidential primary campaign that they would have voted for her except for her lack of a penis. (Possibly even more hilariously, Warren argued that she could have beaten then-President Donald Trump in the general election.)

Vitali wrote: We’d talked about the dynamics of Iowa, her competitors, and the pressure she put on herself not “to screw this up.” But here and now she offered her plainest view of the landscape yet: “Everyone comes up to me and says, ‘I would vote for you, if you had a penis.’”

That may be more preposterous than Warren’s long-time claim that she was of native American descent. Not only does “everyone” not talk like that, no one does. If anything, a handful of folks might be dumb enough to come up to her—or another female candidate-- and say, “You know, I would vote for you, if you were a man.” But even that is doubtful. The fact that Warren is a woman is not going to matter to someone who likes her policies. And no one is going to walk up to her and say, “I would vote for you, if you had a penis.”

Similarly, I don’t believe even the most radical, hardened feminist would walk up to, say, Pete Buttigieg or Beto O’Rourke and exclaim, “I would vote for you, if you didn’t have a penis,” or “I would vote for you, if you only had boobs and a vagina.” They might say, “I won’t vote for you because you’re a man,” but would probably just vote for whoever has the most pro-feminist views… or for whichever female candidate they prefer.

But back to poor old Sen. Warren. If she could have run as a Native American gal with a penis, she might have won in a landslide.

This intersectionality thing has gone too far. Who’s more oppressed, Black lesbians or white trans “women?” We have reversed the old concept of the melting pot, e pluribus unum, to our existential peril. Black versus white, male versus female, poor versus rich, straights versus gays, the religious versus the hyper-secular, red states versus blue states, coastal elites versus the rubes in “flyover country,” and on and on it goes…”progressives” pitting each group against every other group, atomizing society yet no longer recognizing the value and primacy of the individual.

It is no longer enough to simply be an “American,” we must be described as something like: “an agnostic, non-binary, African-American, Sagittarius trans woman whose pronouns are they/them.”

Whether one sports a penis or not, it should be obvious to all that this is a recipe for societal disaster.

Lincoln said, “A house divided cannot stand.”

A house divided umpteen ways is destined to collapse utterly…and soon.

 

 

Biden Administration Imposing New Intolerable Acts On Americans

 

In 1774, the British imposed the Intolerable Acts on the American colonies. These acts, also called the Coercive Acts, were punishment for the Americans’ disobedience to the crown, particularly as symbolized by the Boston Tea Party, a rebellion against a (relatively mild) increase on the tax on tea.

My fellow Americans, we have recently been subjected to a second set of Coercive Acts, call them the Intolerable Acts 2.0.

These acts have been imposed on American citizens by their own supposedly representative government, the Biden Administration, as punishment for disobedience to the Democratic Party and the Deep State, as symbolized by the MAGA movement and the election of Donald Trump.

What are the new Intolerable Acts? I will list a number of them here for you now, many of them a result of executive fiat, not unlike those directed at the colonists by King George III.

*Rescinding the Keystone Pipeline permit, depriving his country’s citizens of vast quantities of oil and cancelling countless well-paying jobs at the same time.

*Withdrawing oil and gas leases across the nation and its coastal waters, depriving his country’s citizens of vast quantities of oil and gas and cancelling countless well-paying jobs at the same time.

*Dramatically restricting fracking and preventing all new extraction of oil or gas on federal lands, depriving his country’s citizens of vast quantities of oil and cancelling countless well-paying jobs at the same time.

* Proposing and fostering other policies guaranteed to dramatically worsen inflation, adversely affecting all Americans lives, especially those with lower incomes and less leverage and opportunities.

*Refusing to close or even effectively monitor or police our southern border, condemning Americans to suffer significant increases in violent crime, drug overdoses, sex trafficking, and the proliferation of diseases like COVID-19.

*Treating illegal aliens far better than citizens in fly-over country, in many cases putting them up in hotels and then granting them sanctuary status, driver’s licenses and free education and health care…all paid for by taxpayers, including those dolts in fly-over country.

*Instituting policies guaranteed to worsen crime and supporting groups like Antifa and BLM that routinely burn and loot American cities-- and sometimes kill innocent people and police officers.

*Jailing January 6 protesters, nearly all of whom were actually peaceful, in many cases indefinitely and without charging them, because, well, January 6 was, in some ways, the MAGA movements Tea Party.

* Sending the FBI and/or DOJ after individual political opponents, raiding their houses in the wee hours with preposterously overwhelming force, dragging them out in their underclothes-- and making a spectacle of them for the media.

*Targeting legal firearm owners and attempting to repeal the God-given right to self-defense, a right more important now than ever before…due to the very policies of so-called progressives like those in the Biden administration that want to strip you of this inalienable right.

*Attempting to repeal the First Amendment and strip all of us of our right to free speech, religion and assembly. Labeling speech with which they disagree as “hate speech.”

*Telling us that there is no way to definitively ascertain sex at birth…or any other time for that matter.

*Attempting to force us to take an experimental gene therapy “vaccine” into our bodies against our will, while simultaneously saying everyone should have the right to decide whether or not to kill their unborn babies because it’s “your body, and therefore your choice.”

There were five original Intolerable Acts. Those acts were the proximate cause of the First Continental Congress…and the American Revolution.

I have listed nearly three times that number of (what should effectively be considered to be) “intolerable Acts” the American government has imposed on its citizens in the past 18 months.

What say you, Americans?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Hershey Company Can't Meet Demand For Halloween Candy

 

The Hershey Company, makers of chocolate-- and other-- candies, recently said it won’t be able to meet the demand for its Halloween-themed candy this fall. Hershey CEO Michele Buck noted that fact in prepared remarks about the company's second-quarter results issued July 28th. Buck simply stated "We will not be able to fully meet consumer demand" in referring to the October holiday.

What is the problem, you ask? Consumers are demanding more regular and Halloween-themed candy than Hershey can make, at least right now. As was the case with certain other consumer goods, demand for sweets surged during the pandemic. And that demand has remained high. Moreover, interest in all things Halloween seems to be at an all-time high, as well. This, coupled with ever-worsening supply chain issues, has forced Hershey to make some production sacrifices. Like many other manufacturers, they've been forced to reduce production of certain less popular items or cut them out altogether.

Biden administration policy decisions are resulting in skyrocketing inflation. Food processing plants are burning down or otherwise being taken out of commission nearly every week in America. Retailers and other businesses are being forced to close formerly profitable stores due to out-of-control theft and the threat of violence against their employees and customers.

Many who voted for Biden now feel tricked. Almost no one, other than a handful of elites, has gotten a treat.

If these trends continue much longer, our descendants won’t have a ghost of a chance to lead relatively safe, fulfilling, and productive lives.

And that is truly scary.

New York Times Publishes Piece Stating Cannibalism's Time Might Have Arrived

 

The New York Times recently published a piece by Alex Beggs titled "A Taste for Cannibalism?" in its Style section. (Where else would you put it?) The piece noted cannibalism’s growing relevance in pop culture and even pondered whether cannibalism’s “time is now.”

You know how gruesome the article was when Twitter users thought it beyond the pale, and savaged the piece for apparently claiming there could be a "time and a place" for cannibalism. Apparently, even many denizens of the Twitter-verse are not comfortable with the seeming normalization of eating other humans’ flesh.  Perhaps The Times should have cannibalized the article.

The piece Beggs one to question the paper’s “All the News That’s Fit to Print” motto. If that’s fit to print…what isn’t?

It may henceforth behoove us all to use caution before imploring anyone to “eat me!” And I am sure there are those who will now modify other phrases, as well.

“Save a horse, eat a cowboy!”

“Beefcake…it’s what’s for dinner.”

“Eat, drink, and pee Mary?”

The old “Gray Lady” ain’t what she used to be.

 

Global Warming Making Children Fatter And Less Physically Fit, Study Finds

 

A new study purports to have found that warming global temperatures, fueled by man-caused climate change, are making children less physically fit and more obese than ever before. Which, in turn, makes them less able to tolerate higher temperatures.

The aptly named journal “Temperature” recently published the study results, which claimed that higher temperatures cause children to be less active, putting them at greater risk of suffering from heat-related health problems, including dehydration, heat cramps, heat exhaustion and heat stroke. (Well, actually, in the short-term, kids are less at risk of suffering those maladies if they are less active during exceedingly high temperatures. But I digress.)

Shawnda Morrison, an “environmental exercise physiologist” at Slovenia’s University of Ljubljana, is the author of the study. She stated, “As the world warms, children are the least fit they have ever been,” adding, “It is imperative that children are encouraged to do daily physical activity to build up, and maintain, their fitness, so that they enjoy moving their bodies and it doesn’t feel like ‘work’ or ‘a chore’ to them.”

 

Morrison noted previous research indicating that emergency departments at children’s hospitals in the U.S. were busier than normal on hotter days. Yes, and I’m sure they are busier during dangerously cold days, too, than they typically would be on, say, a partly cloudy day with moderate temperatures. Duh. Did we really need a study to “discover” that?

 

Morrison says that, as temperatures rise around the planet, parents may increasingly decide that it’s “too hot to play” outside. And in many cities in the northern climes, it is too cold for kids to play outside in the winter. Schools close because they don’t want kids to have to wait outside for a bus, lest they get frostbite…or worse. But Morrison thinks rising temperatures may explain why she found that children’s aerobic fitness is 30 percent lower than that of their parents at the same age.

Really? Could there be other factors, like, say, the fact that kids are glued to their smartphones, computer screens and video game consoles for many hours each day now, in addition to television sets? And perhaps the fact that many neighborhoods, especially in urban areas, are far less safe than they used to be even a few short years ago? (I’m sure “marginalized peoples” and communities of color are most affected by the decline in childhood fitness.)

The study did find that there was less physical activity during the coronavirus pandemic. You think? When experts and rulers shut down schools, closed playgrounds and fitness centers, and locked everyone in their houses for nearly two straight years?  

In light of all this, experts still have the nerve to tell us man-caused global warming/climate change is responsible for kids declining physical (and mental) health?!

I am sick and damn tired of experts telling us that the COVID-1984 vaccines are safe and effective. And mandatory. I am sick and damn tired of being told that all white people are (inherently!) racist, that men can be women and vice-versa, and that “abortion is health care.” Or “love.” And that I am a “domestic terrorist” simply for holding these views.

And I am sick and damn tired of being told that-- in addition to floods, droughts, extreme heat, and extreme cold-- man-caused climate change/global warming is demonstrably responsible for: the coronavirus, Monkeypox, cedar apple rust, inflation, Russia invading Ukraine, the sudden rise in polio cases, distrust of our institutions, Jan. 6, supply chain issues, food shortages, Liz Cheney’s defeat, falling spermatozoa levels in males in Western nations, Chinese aggression, stock market volatility, homelessness, painful rectal itch, loneliness, the opioid crisis, the decline in the popularity of Major League Baseball (MLB), Lyme disease, solar flares, and acid reflux.

Is climate change also to blame for Joy Behar, Jerry Nadler, MSNBC, the Impossible Whopper®, and Nicki Minaj?

And for…studies like this one?

 

 

 

 

Jeffrey Toobin Finished At CNN

 

Jeffrey Toobin is finished at CNN. At a stroke.

The longtime cable TV legal analyst recently announced that his time with the network had cum come to an end. Toobin made the sad announcement on Twitter, writing, "Friends, I’ve decided that, after 20 years, I’m leaving @cnn after my vacation. Was great to spend my last day on air with pals Wolf, Anderson, and Don. Love all my former colleagues." All-in-all, not much of a climax.

Toobin did not disclose his future plans, but Reliable Sources say he has stocked up on Jurgens and Kleenex.

Something called Radar Online reported that Toobin hadn’t received much exposure recently and had last appeared on the network on August 3^rd. (And we all know that Toobin likes exposure.) The outlet also claimed that CNN head Chris Licht prefers to feature Elie Honig, who was the Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 2004 to 2012. Toobin, who had been CNN's chief legal analyst, was not even asked to help cover the FBI raid of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence. Shoot, I’m sure that, in light of these abuses, Toobin felt like he was being jacked around.  

Toobin was famously fired from his job at the New Yorker in 2020 for masturbating during a Zoom call with his colleagues at the magazine as well as employees from WNYC radio. (Could happen to any of us, no?) CNN granted him a “leave of absence” to deal with “a personal issue.”

Unwilling to be seen as dicks, CNN heads issued a touching statement on Toobin's departure, saying, "We are grateful for Jeffrey’s contributions to the network over the years and wish him all the best in his future endeavors." You can almost hear the giggles and guffaws.  

Toobin had been a hands-on presence at CNN for two decades, so leaving has to be hard on him. But no one can say that he doesn’t have balls, so I’m sure he will leave with his head held high and bearing erect as a proud member of the legacy media.  

 

 

 

 

Atlantic Writer Says The Rosary Is An Extremist Symbol

 

Atlantic contributor Daniel Panneton recently wrote an op-ed in which he stated: “just as the AR-15 rifle has become a sacred object for Christian nationalists in general, the Rosary has acquired a militaristic meaning for radical-traditional (or ‘rad trad’) Catholics.” Say what? Radical traditionalists? “Rad trads?” Apparently, Panneton thinks he’s clever.

In the article titled, “How the Rosary Became an Extremist Symbol,” Panneton claimed that “on this extremist fringe, rosary beads have been woven into a conspiratorial politics and absolutist gun culture. These armed radical traditionalists have taken up a spiritual notion that the rosary can be a weapon in the fight against evil and turned it into something dangerously literal.” Yes, only “extremists,” clinging to their God and guns, believe in free speech and assembly and the right to defend one’ self and one’s family. And the fight against evil.

Panneton went on to claim, “the rosary—in these hands—is anything but holy.” Thanks for clearing that up, pal. Being a little judgy, aren’t we Panneton?

He added, “The militarism also glorifies a warrior mentality and notions of manliness and male strength. This conflation of the masculine and the military is rooted in wider anxieties about Catholic manhood—the idea that it is in crisis has some currency among senior Church figures and lay organizations.”

Courage, discipline, sacrifice, and strength are virtues. A military cannot properly fulfill its role of defending the nation it serves if it is not masculine in nature. Would we have been better served if the Continental Army had been more feminine at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78? If the marines in World War II had been more feminine in nature at places such as Guadalcanal, Corregidor, and Iwo Jima?

Memo to Panneton: manhood-- not just Catholic manhood—is in crisis. In fact, this is one of the biggest issues of our time. We have the rise of the metrosexual, the bisexual, and the non-binary. We have men who don’t want to work and put bread on the table for their families. We have men who don’t want families, who won’t face their responsibilities if they get a woman pregnant. We need more G.I. Joes and fewer “walkaway Joes.”

We have too many “men” like Adam Schiff, Peter Strzok, and Eric Swalwell, hypocritical, pathetic, lying cowards who take pleasure in trying to ruin others’ lives.

As if that’s not enough, many men are deciding that they are, in fact, women—and should therefore be entitled to use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms…and compete on their sports teams.  

Panneton is nothing more than a traditional radical. In the name of Our Father, we should all pray the Rosary that real men don’t become extinct.

Hail Mary.

Glory Be.

 

 

Minneapolis Teachers' Union Contract Mandates That White Teachers Be Laid Off First

 

The latest Minneapolis teachers' union contract stipulates that white teachers will be laid off or reassigned before “educators of color” in the event Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) needs to reduce staff. The agreement between the union and the Minneapolis Public Schools stipulates that White teachers will be laid off before teachers of color, regardless of their seniority.

The Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT) and MPS struck a deal back on March 25 to end a 14-day teacher strike, after which the two sides drew up and ratified a new collective bargaining agreement complete with various proposals. One of those proposals dealt with “educators of color protections.” The two bodies reached an agreement stating that if a non-white teacher is subject to excess, MPS must excess a white teacher with the “next least” seniority. (According to the United Federation of Teachers, “excessing” means “reducing staff in a particular school when there is a reduction in the number of available positions in a title or license area in that school.”)

 

The agreement reads: “Starting with the Spring 2023 Budget Tie-Out Cycle, if excessing a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population.” (Whites are a minority in various parts of Minneapolis.)

That agreement clearly violates the Civil Rights Act, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. But no matter, let’s not quibble over the details.

I would like to know who gets “excessed” after white teachers. Are Mexican educators next on the list? Jewish? Would Black males be let go before lesbian females of Asian descent, or vice-versa?

But it’s not just white teachers that are being thinned out in Western nations. In formerly Jolly Olde England, the Royal Air Force (RAF) has announced it is suspending job offers to white men in order to meet its diversity targets. That’s right, for the time being, no more white men will be hired to pilot the RAF’s planes. They are the wrong color and gender. Persona non-grata. And—egads!—some of them might even be Christian.

Ironically, the head of RAF recruitment, a female, has reportedly resigned over the “impossible” to meet diversity targets.

When you need a teacher, doctor, lawyer, fireman…or someone to defend you and your country…do you say to yourself something like, “I really need a non-binary, agnostic, person of color” to help me out here?”

When “diversity” trumps merit—and sanity—we are all losers.

 

 

Every Senate Democrat Votes Against Defining Pregnancy As Unique To Biological Females

 

All 50 Senate Democrats recently voted against an amendment to the Inflation Reduction Act that would have federally defined pregnancy as a condition unique to biological females. (Obviously—if ironically-- every Democrat was okay with artificially inflating the ranks of those who are capable of pregnancy.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced the measure to the Democrats’ preposterously named bill in a lengthy voting session in which Republicans introduced dozens of provisions that never had a chance to be enacted simply to force Democrats to take a stance on controversial issues. (The GOP was only successful on one issue. No shock there.)

In introducing the proposal, Rubio stated that he had “looked back across 5,500 years of human history” and found that “so far every single human pregnancy has been biological female." He added, “since every pregnancy that's ever existed has been in a biological female,” he believes that “federal laws [should] reflect that pregnancy programs are available to the only people who are capable of getting pregnant: biological females." What a silly man.

In all honesty, if Democrats (or anyone else for that matter) purport to believe that men can get pregnant and women can be men, there isn’t any way to reason with them. Dialogue is pointless.

The fact that Democrats believe sex and gender are entirely fungible does, however, allow for casting numerous previous Democrat indiscretions/scandals in a new—and perhaps more understandable—light. To wit: Bill Clinton wasn’t just the first Black president, he was a male lesbian, or perhaps even a female lesbian, a proud member of the LGBTQ community. He didn’t use Monica Lewinsky, he was empowering her in a bold statement against the patriarchy!

Democrats would no doubt also vote against any proposal attempting to link penises to biological males. (Well, Hillary Clinton is a dick.) Or averring there is any connection whatsoever between having a backbone and being a vertebrate.

As the likes of Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, and Adam Kinzinger, et. al., have clearly demonstrated, there is obviously no connection between being a Republican and having a spine.