The AMA Labels BMI "Racist"

 

“Delegates at the Annual Meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates adopted [a] policy aimed at clarifying how body mass index (BMI) can be used as a measure in medicine,” the group announced. Apparently, a council within the AMA researched the “problematic history with BMI” and subsequently issued a report detailing a new policy on how BMI should and shouldn’t be applied.

The report “Outlined the harms and benefits of using BMI” and characterized BMI as “an imperfect way to measure body fat in multiple groups given that it does not account for differences across race/ethnic groups, sexes, genders, and age-span.” The report’s findings, of course, support the new policy—and the AMA’s desire to educate physicians “on the issues with BMI and alternative measures for diagnosing obesity.”

The organization released a statement reading: “Under the newly adopted policy, the AMA recognizes issues with using BMI as a measurement due to its historical harm, its use for racist exclusion, and because BMI is based primarily on data collected from previous generations of non-Hispanic white populations. Due to significant limitations associated with the widespread use of BMI in clinical settings, the AMA suggests that it be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference and genetic/metabolic factors.” (Will the AMA soon consider, say, blood pressure guidelines “problematic” or “racist,” too?)

 

AMA Immediate Past President Jack Resneck noted: “There are numerous concerns with the way BMI has been used to measure body fat and diagnose obesity, yet some physicians find it to be a helpful measure in certain scenarios.” (“Immediate Past President?” What the hell is that? Can we make Joe Biden one?)

A few medical professionals have previously called BMI “racist” and linked it to “body terrorism.” In 2021, for example, University of Louisville medical students were subjected to a seminar on “the impact of body terrorism on fat LGBTQ+ people.”

“Terrorism” isn’t what it used to be. It is dramatically more inclusive. (Yay!) Today, anyone who entertains any notion-- or incontrovertible fact—that in any way deviates from leftist dogma…is branded a “terrorist.”

As we all know, the use of BMI disproportionately affects the BIPOC and LGBTQIIA+ communities, because, well, everything does. Somehow. Acid rain, monkeypox, COVID-19, inflation, Lyme Disease, droughts, floods, tornadoes, supply chain issues, painful rectal itch, cedar apple rust, E.D., poor air quality, stock market fluctuations—and every other conceivable (and inconceivable) measurement, standard, affliction, and malady-- boldly and doggedly target these communities for no reason other than sheer hatred and bigotry.

A reasonable and logical conclusion, no?

 

 

Insanity And Immorality Reign. Why?

 

In most schools, parental consent is required for students to take a field trip-- or ingest a Tylenol. But, in many of these same schools, kids as young as 8, 9, and 10-years-old are allowed to “change” their names and genders without the school informing parents or guardians in any way.

No one, regardless of their education level or credentials, can reasonably or satisfactorily explain such a bizarre dichotomy. Tucker Carlson weighed in on such absurdities by noting that we have experienced a “moral inversion.” So true.

Many—nee most—of us may decry the open borders, rising rates of inflation, substance abuse, hopelessness, crime, depression, and suicide. We may resent the unchecked growth of government, and particularly the Deep State. And we may chafe at the elites’ plans for us vis-à-vis climate change and the Agenda 2030, which seek to track—and restrict-- our movements, limit what we own, and force us to eat bugs.

But, as President Biden frequently implies, what can we do about it? Biden has, on multiple occasions, gone out of his way to note that, “You don’t need an AR-15 to take on the government, you need an F-15,” referring to a stalwart American fighter plane. He has also made reference to nuclear weapons in this regard. What a guy! A decent fellow, and a “uniter,” right?

Sadly, most of the Republicans that get elected—often on promises of taking on the establishment—do no such thing, probably because they never intended to do so. This is not an entreaty to no longer vote for Republicans, who on a few marginal issues are usually marginally less totalitarian than any Democrat, but a cautionary tale to do due diligence before casting a vote for anyone.

Most Republicans are Deep State-tolerating, open borders tolerating, abortion tolerating, bribe-susceptible, spineless eunuchs intent on not being uninvited from the best Beltway soirées…much like their Democratic counterparts.

And you always get what you tolerate.

Unless they—and we—begin to defend our republic with the same kind of moral fervor that the left employs to destroy it, it will be nought but a fond memory in the relative blink of an eye.

And then what?

I am truly sorry to say, that, however dire you may believe our situation to be…in reality, it is worse.

The time to act is now. With commitment, boldness, decisiveness, discipline, and élan.

And courage. Great courage.

But, you say, are you calling for violence or revolution?

I am not calling for violence, but a rigid inflexibility to shamelessly pander to evil and a steadfast refusal to pretend that demonstrable lies are “lived truths.” If we as a society are unable to even rise to this level, we deserve what we get.

And, if some version of a “revolution” is needed to halt the current devolution of the West…count me in.

In fact, this is largely why I go to the trouble of putting pen to paper and fingertips to keyboard.

Speaking of revolutions, Thomas Jefferson stated: “I have sworn, on the altar of God, eternal hostility to all forms of tyranny over the minds of man.” No clearer statement has ever been uttered. By contrast, today’s Democrat-media-academia complex has sworn eternal hostility to anyone who strays from its agenda or harbors an independent mind or thought. Moreover, it claims anyone dissenting from its monolithic views is a “threat to our democracy.” LOL.  

As Orwell once noted, “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher Calls Student "Despicable" For Questioning Classmates Claim She's A Cat

 

Recently, a 13-year-old girl was called “despicable” by her progressive, tolerant, inclusive, and nonjudgmental teacher at a Church of England school in the United Kingdom after asking a classmate how she could identify as a cat.

The schoolgirl-- and her friend-- were reprimanded by the Rye College teacher near the end of an eighth grade “life education” class, in which they were told: “Be who you want to be and how you identify is up to you,” according to The Telegraph.

Following the “lesson,” one of the students asked a classmate: “How can you identify as a cat when you’re a girl?” Good question. Inquiring minds want to know.

But not the teacher’s, who then informed the students they were being reported to school administrators and would no longer be welcome at the school if they continued to express radical beliefs such as that one can’t become another sex-- or species—simply by claiming to be one.  

A video clip, taken by one of the students, shows the teacher remarking, “How dare you, you’ve just really upset someone” by “questioning their identity.”

To which the student replies: “If they want to identify as a cat or something then they are genuinely unwell – crazy.” The teacher then proceeds to ask the young girls where they got the preposterous notion that there are only two genders. The indoctrinator educator avers: “Gender is not linked to the parts that you were born with, gender is how you identify, which is what I said right from the very beginning of the lesson.” Right. Gender in no way correlates to the “parts that you were born with,” which are randomly distributed-- for some reason. Or, more likely, no reason at all.

The teacher stated: “There is actually three biological sexes because you can be born with male and female body parts or hormones,” and added, “there are lots of genders – there is transgender, there is a gender who are people who don’t believe that they have a gender at all.” There “is” three biological sexes? Good thing the English teacher isn’t an English teacher. As for “male and female body parts,” she just got through saying that body parts have no relevance to one’s sex, so she promptly—if accidentally—contradicted herself.

The students, far wiser, disagreed, telling the teacher, “If you have a vagina you’re a girl and if you have a penis you’re a boy.” 

This, predictably, caused the teacher to wig out. She/they/it/kitty exclaimed: “You are talking about the fact that cisgender is the norm, that you identify with the sexual organ you were born with. That’s basically what you’re saying, which is really despicable.” It is “despicable” to identify with the sexual organ you were born with?! That view is rigid, intolerant, hateful, unscientific…and insane.

The teacher, referring to the girl’s stubborn adherence to reality, also told the students that they “need to have a proper educational conversation about equality, diversity and inclusion because I’m not having that expressed in my lesson.” Because a “proper” education means no debate, no dialogue, and no dissent! Or else! “Sieg Heil!”

Almost anything can hurt a progressive’s feelings and cause them to run for a “safe space.” Microaggressions and hate speech allegedly abound. “Misgender” somebody or “dead name” them and you are deemed to be a monster. Words are now frequently construed as “literally violence” by those on the left. Yet, the unimpeachably progressive “educator” finds it okay—necessary even—to label a young student “despicable” for her failure to believe a person who claims to be a cat…actually is one. Wow.

Fellow Westerners, one question: Just how much intolerance (disguised as tolerance), authoritarianism, amorality-- and insanity --are you willing to put up with?

My fellow Americans, perhaps it is time we listened to our founding fathers……rather than obeying the Marxist/Fascist whackos who would be our masters.

 

 

 

PETA Says "Supremacy" Is Why People Think It's "Okay" To Eat Other Animals

 

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals recently tweeted: “Supremacy is at the root of why people think it’s okay to eat other animals.”

Okay. And why does PETA think it's okay for animals to eat other animals?

The organization was certainly well prepared for that query, and replied via tweet: “Most of the animals who kill for food could not survive if they didn’t. That's not the case for us. We are capable of making ethical decisions.”

Yes, because, as you just admitted, we are superior.

Although, given their tweets on this matter, PETA bigwigs might be an exception. Perhaps we should be able to eat them, too?

Just kidding. I totally reject all unprovoked violence against fellow humans. (Plus, they’d taste bad.)

The jokesters wokesters insist we have to get rid of “white supremacy,” gender supremacy, sexual orientation supremacy, and now species supremacy. In fact, they say, we have to get rid of the very notions of “supremacy,” “excellence”-- and even “judgement” and “differentiation.”

To a true progressive, amoeba, ant, cockroach, carp, lion, elephant, male, female, skilled, incompetent, heterosexual, pansexual, Joy Behar, Donald Trump…we’re all the same. There is no recognizable difference. Nor should there be. Except, of course, that Donald Trump is clearly evil. And inferior. As are men. And Christians. And heterosexuals.

On that, no doubt, the science is settled.

Insect Populations Collapsing?

 

Recently, articles and posts have popped up purporting to aver that habitat loss, pesticides and climate change are threatening insect populations worldwide. As far back as 2019, something called Biological Conservation reportedly reported that 40% of all insect species are declining globally-- and that a third of them are actually “endangered.”

Environmental writer Oliver Milman is, apparently, a believer of the “insect populations are rapidly collapsing around the globe” hypothesis, and he says that human beings would be in big trouble sans insects. Milman notes that insects play critical roles in pollinating plants we eat, breaking down waste in forest soil and forming the base of a food chain that other, larger animals — including humans — rely upon.

Insects are so important, Milman stated, that a world without them “Would be an extremely dire place to live in — and certainly not something we should ever aim for. You would certainly have mass starvation [and] societal unrest…”

And yet: Nevada residents are locking themselves inside their homes due to a recent infestation of Mormon crickets. Countless millions…billions?... of the cannibalistic insects have descended on their homes, lawns, businesses—and, well, everything else. Check out the videos in the link embedded in the first sentence of this paragraph.

I myself have never seen so many bugs where I live. On warm fall or spring days teeming masses of boxelder bugs grotesquely writhe on our siding and sidewalk. Stink bugs penetrate home, garage, and grill like never before. (And you do not want to barbecue them.) There are often clouds of gnats so thick, usually head high, that you literally can’t open your mouth without inhaling some. At times, mosquitoes are so thick that when you swing your bare arms, you feel many at a time deflecting off of them. On a more positive note, dragonfly numbers have increased to match the bounty of mosquitoes.

And ants? Ants have colonized every square foot of ground. Literally. One or more “ant houses” protrudes from every crack in every sidewalk. Ant mounds bubble up from every yard-- and in the center islands of highways and parking lots. Etc., etc. Ants are everywhere, including inside our houses! Silverfish, centipedes, millipedes, spiders…ubiquitous all. Then there are roaches, flies-- and assorted other insects that we don’t recognize and can’t name.

Is this just anecdotal? I think not. Tell me your stories.

And who labeled these particular insects “Mormon crickets?” Why Mormon? Seems like a slur to me. A clear case of bigotry. These crickets invaded Nevada, not Utah.  Our leaders told us-- in no uncertain terms—that we couldn’t say “Wuhan Flu” or the “Chinese Virus” when referring to COVID-19, so why is the term “Mormon crickets” okay with them?

I can see why our earthly overlords, who want us to have a diet heavy on insects going forward, would be upset if insect populations were actually collapsing. Globalist types like Klaus Schwab are trying to cancel farms and steer us away from eating meat and dairy. And compel us to “Eat ze bugs.” But, if insect populations are collapsing, what then will we eat?

 I don’t know about you, but when our leaders try to compel the rest of us to eat insects and bike to work while they fly around the world on private jets dining on prime rib and caviar, saying it bugs me would be an understatement.

 

 

RFK Jr. A "Threat To Our Democracy" Proclaims The Los Angeles Times

 

The Pfizer fanatics, deep-state devotees, and assorted other wannabe Stalinists in the government-corporate media complex do not appear to like the cut of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s jib. At first blush, this seems odd, as Bobby’s son is a fairly radical environmentalist-- and a True Believer in man-caused climate change.

Yet, the problem, according to conventional far-left Democrat mouth organs such as the Los Angeles Times, is that RFK Jr.’s presidential bid is essentially “the second coming of Donald Trump.” Seriously. WTH? How can this be, you ask? Well, columnist Robin Abcarian wrote an opinion piece in which she stated that “Kennedy wants to seal our southern border ‘permanently.’” (We should have control of our own borders?  Egads!) And, that he believes antidepressants are responsible for mass shootings. (Well, there does seem to be a connection, at least anecdotally.)

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Abcarian noted that RFK Jr. has written a book-- one that sold quite well, in fact-- demonizing Saint Dr. Anthony Fauci. More damning yet to Abcarian, was the fact that, in one Facebook post, Kennedy claimed-- ”without evidence”-- that the COVID-19 vaccines were/are not safe for pregnant women. Not only do some studies suggest support for that statement, but the COVID-19 vaccines are, inarguably, not entirely “safe” for anyone. The reports of adverse reactions to them are legion.

But Abcarian wrote that Kennedy’s views are “dangerous,” and that “he belongs nowhere near the White House, or any position of real political power.” She stated of Kennedy: “When he opens his mouth, as he did for more than three hours on Joe Rogan’s podcast the other day, the inanities that come out are positively Trump-esque.” She also tolerantly—and in a fair and balanced manner befitting a “journalist”— remarked, “Robert Kennedy Jr. is off his rocker.”

Not to be outdone, Times writer Michael Hiltzik—in the paper’s business section—proclaimed that “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not only a threat to your health — but a threat to our democracy.” This is unusual, in that, heretofore, Democrats and the mass media only characterized Republicans as “threats to our democracy.”

Well, we aren’t a democracy, we’re a republic, though ostensibly a democratic one. And how, exactly, is choice a threat to our democratic republic, especially one between a doddering old fool being thoroughly and shamelessly used by far-left radicals to further their Marxist agenda…and someone who appears to think for himself and have the wellbeing of middle-class Americans in “flyover country” in mind.

Oh, I guess that’s where the comparison to Trump comes in. And why the elites seemingly already despise Kennedy almost as much as Trump, despite the fact that he’s a “Democrat.” Both potentially threaten their stranglehold on power. And that scares them. And pisses them off to no end.

Because when they assert something or someone is a “threat to our democracy,” what they really mean is quite the opposite. Projection, thy name is Democrat.

 

U.S. Military Leaders Now Prioritizing Protecting Themselves Rather Than The Nation

 

The Intercept recently revealed that high-ranking U.S. military officials have intelligence resources charged with protecting their physical well-being…and also their egos…from criticism and potential subsequent “embarrassment,” in particular due to comments posted on social media. This is not a joke. (Okay, it is in one sense, but not literally.)

Yes, according to the left-leaning online newspaper, a new U.S. military unit has apparently been tasked with monitoring social media for mean posts about current and former high-ranking officers.

This fairly reeks of dictatorships, juntas, and other authoritarian regimes.

Forget defending against China, Iran, North Korea, et. al., the Obiden administration has fundamentally transformed what was previously the world’s most powerful and capable fighting force. It has emasculated it—and tasked it with defending against nationalism, climate change, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, misgendering, “disinformation,” “domestic terrorists” (i.e. patriots and parents)…and now posts critical of military heads themselves.

Somewhere, George Washington weeps. And Patton rages.

America: Then Versus Now

 

“Progressive” young people often dismiss anyone, anything, and everything that came before themselves as somehow unenlightened, inferior, and insufficiently inclusive and tolerant.

In contrast, conservatives, who naturally tend to be older, typically wish to conserve the best aspects of the past—and do not reflexively assume that anything newer must be better.

Since politics is downstream from culture, as the late, great Andrew Breitbart astutely noted, let’s compare various figures, achievements, attitudes, items, art forms, and institutions from a younger America to what we have today.

America: then vs. now:

In an earlier America, “muscle cars” abounded. Not just big, fast, and powerful, they were nearly indestructible. In the U.S. today, Prius hybrids abound, and electric vehicles are being forced upon us. Bump an object at 5 miles-an-hour and it will cost many thousands of dollars to repair the dainty automobile.

At roughly the same time as muscle cars rapidly traversed this hallowed ground from sea to shining sea, John Wayne and the Marlboro Man loomed large as pillars of manhood. Today we have the likes of Pete Buttigieg and “metrosexuals.” In days of yore, Grace Kelly and Sophia Loren were peerless examples of feminine mystique and pulchritude. Today? Madonna and Dylan Mulvaney.

What about music? Several decades ago, immensely talented bands like The Doors, The Rolling Stones, and Fleetwood Mac reigned. Today? Well, we have Weezer and Megan Thee Stallion. (And, admittedly, The Rolling Stones.)

Shall I go on? Okay.

Literature? Mark Twain vs. Stephen King. Journalism? Walter Cronkite vs. Rachel Maddow. Leading actors? Jimmy Stewart vs. Alec Baldwin. Movies? “It’s A Wonderful Life” and “Casablanca” vs. “American Pie” and “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.” Network television? Shows like Gunsmoke, Mary Tyler Moore, The Waltons, and The Rockford Files-- as opposed to Two Broke Girls, The Real Housewives of (Whatever City), The Bachelorette, and The View. Have we been feminized much?

What about exploration and the last frontier? Well, we have Apollo 17 vs., um, oh wait…we haven’t been back to the moon since that mission was completed more than 50 years ago. Speaking of flying, compare the relative comfort and convenience of air travel just 25—or even 5—years ago to that often experienced today.

Compare the morale, competence, overall effectiveness-- and lethality-- of the American military circa 1992 to that of the American military circa 2023. Which would be likely to instill more fear in our enemies?

And it isn’t just America that has lost its way-- and moral clarity. Most Western nations have forgotten their raison d'etre, have forgotten how Rome fell. Even the Vatican isn’t what it used to be. Consider, say, Pope John Paul II as opposed to Pope Francis.

Freedom-loving citizens of the West, it is time to realize that, while we were sleeping—or were hyper-focused on being tolerant and inclusive—those that refuse to tolerate or include us have dramatically changed the world…and not for the better.

           We should have done more conserving and less tolerating.

Lesson learned?

 

 

 

Schoolkids Tiring Of Incessant LGBTQ Propaganda, Indoctrination?

 

Today’s ray of hope number one:

Students at Edison High School in Huntington Beach, California, audibly groaned in protest of their teacher foisting a LGBTQ Pride video on them-- in math class. The students told their indoctrinator instructor to “stop,” and “turn it off.” One even asked the “educator,” “Why are you showing this to kids?”

Sadly, yet predictably, the “teacher” then tells the students to be quiet-- and warns them that they will be forced to come back and watch the video on Saturday if they continued to express their opinions and feelings. According to reports, the unnamed teacher said: "Hey, I’ll warn you guys now, if you’re going to be inappropriate, I will have supervision down and give all of you Saturday school for [indiscernible]. So knock it off.”

The tolerant, inclusive “educator” essentially snarls, Stop it! Stop with your input! Or we will compel you to come back and watch this important video again this weekend!

This happened in math class? That is shockingly “inappropriate.” “Supervision?” “Saturday school?” Sounds a little Nazi-like if you ask me. “Vee haff vays of, how you say, making you comply with our wishes, ya?”

If a teacher forced his or her kids to watch an explicitly pro-heterosexual-- or Christian-- video in his or her math class, I would also say that would be inappropriate.

In California, stealing from retail stores is all but sanctioned, but one can’t question a pro-LGBTQ video being played in math class. Kiss California good-bye. And America, too?

Maybe not just yet.

Today’s ray of hope number two:

Students at Marshall Simonds Middle School in the Boston suburb of Burlington, Massachusetts, revolted against the school’s over-the-top “Pride” month spirit day indoctrination celebration on Friday June 2. The kids reportedly glared at their indoctrinators teachers, tore down posters, and chanted “U.S.A. are my pronouns!” while wearing red, white and blue clothing and face paint. The protest was reported to be, in part, a response to the school totally ignoring Memorial Day two weeks prior while going all in on LGBTQI+ propaganda. So much so, the entire school had been decorated with “Pride” signs and stickers, including the “Progress Pride” flag. Moreover, students were encouraged to wear rainbow colored clothing.

What’s more, a sign with a quote from gay playwright Tennessee Williams’ play, A Streetcar Named Desire, itself adorned with “Pride” flags, hung on the walls of the school. The quote mocks heterosexual folks, reading: “What is straight? A line can be straight, or a street, but the human heart, oh, no, it’s curved like a road through mountains.”

Good one. Just kidding. What an idiot. A blight on the great state of Tennessee. Had Williams ever heard of linear thinking vs. circular? Or a roundabout way of getting to a conclusion vs. getting straight to the point? Etc.? Unless one is talking about the difference between women and men, curved isn’t necessarily better than straight. But T.W. probably would’ve disagreed.  

That even (a relatively few) young people are, finally, pushing back against the ubiquitous, overwhelming, incessant, violently aggressive and ultimately dangerous LGBTQ indoctrination they are being exposed to-- in everything, everywhere, all at once-- is a good sign.

Indeed, it is possibly the most rebellious, revolutionary, hip, courageous, decent, and important thing they will ever do.

Sic semper tyrannis. Whatever their pronouns are.

 

 

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center Releases Its Annual "Year In Hate And Extremism Report"

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) recently released its annual report, “Year in Hate and Extremism.” The SPLC listed a dozen organizations as “extremist groups,” Moms for Liberty among them. How/why did the liberty-loving ladies make the list, you ask? Simple. They had the audacity to insist that schools stock age appropriate books and material in their libraries. 

Monsters!

In an emailed response to the Guardian’s request for comment, Moms for Liberty founders Tina Descovich and Tiffany Justice wrote: “Name-calling parents who want to be a part of their child’s education as ‘hate groups’ or ‘bigoted’ just further exposes what this battle is all about: Who fundamentally gets to decide what is taught to our kids in school – parents or government employees?” The dedicated duo added: “We believe that parental rights do not stop at the classroom door and no amount of hate from groups like this is going to stop that.”

The SPLC itself, were it not such a preposterously, laughably biased group of moronically evil asshats, would be the nation’s most dangerous and extreme “hate group.” The SPLC considers virtually any entity to the right of Mao Zedong a “hate group.” It’s not just “Moms for Liberty” who are smeared as such. The SPLC would consider “The Sons of Liberty” a hate group, as well. “Daughters of the American Revolution?” Hate group. The Founders? Hate group, of course. I mean, duh!

And it’s not just freedom and independence that the SPLC abhors. It disdains religion, as well. At least Christianity. Lutherans? Hate group. Catholics? Hate group. Essentially anything that has ties to tradition or Americana is utterly despised by the ostensibly hate-hating SPLC.

Baseball? A hate sport. Apple pie? A hate food. Moms? A hate group…as we have already seen.

But is Antifa on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s most recent list of extremist/hate groups? Perish the thought! Antifa tolerantly and inclusively attempts to assault police officers and burn and loot large swaths of American cities, particularly those run by Democrats. Why would it make the list? Neither do groups that inclusively chase conservative speakers off campus or lovingly fire-bomb Christian churches and pregnancy centers. Understandably.

And, naturally, none of those that make traditional, cis-gendered, Christian, heterosexuals feel safe and welcomed by incessantly mocking them and their beliefs-- and labeling them “Nazis,” “extremists,” “far-right,” and “domestic terrorists” make the list, either.

The SPLC branded the group “White Lives Matter” (which I didn’t even know existed) a hate group. Did it similarly smear the group Black Lives Matter, despite its many acts of violence and its leaders’ extreme misuse of funds? Ha, ha! Good one!

The SPLC was founded by a leftist who sought out like-minded donors to enrich himself…as Rosslyn Smith explained in a 2012 post right here at American Thinker.

The SPLC gleefully announced that Fox News had parted ways with “extremist host Tucker Carlson,” who it asserted promulgated “false assertions” that Ray Epps was a government plant and provocateur during the Jan. 6 “insurrection” at the Capitol. How did the SPLC know Carlson’s assertions were false, despite the fact there is video of Epps urging the crowd to enter the Capitol and he, almost alone among the protesters, has never been charged? Why, because those assertions “were debunked in a segment on CBS’s ‘60 Minutes.’” Absolutely debunked. Don’t question that assertion.

You see, you can’t trust Fox News. Or Tucker Carlson. Or Republicans. Or patriots. Or Christians. Or Christ, for that matter. Obviously. But, we all know that CBS’s ’60 Minutes’ is a trustworthy, unimpeachable source, alone among all other entities gracing the cosmos.

 

 

New York Mayor Eric Adams Perfectly Illustrates Progressive Hypocrisy, Fraudulence

 

Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams recently backtracked on his vow to house migrants in Gracie Mansion, saying that the “symbolism” of his offer spoke volumes. Earlier this month, Adams stated that he’d welcome migrants into the governor’s mansion if city lawyers approved it but took back the offer in a June 15^th press conference with reporters.

“Leading the challenge of the migrant problem is both substantive and symbolic and as I always said, ‘Good generals lead from the front,'” Adams said, according to the New York Post. “They don’t send their troops into battle and ask, ‘How was the war?’ They lead them into battle. The symbolism of saying, ‘I’m willing to put a homeless family in Gracie’ is that symbolism.” Huh? Reneging on your promise to share your enormous abode with migrants is “leading from the front,” and/or “leading them into battle?”

Adams noted that he could not allow migrants to stay at his mansion due to “legal issues.” According to the New York Post, Adams said: “We are never going to break the law. And so, we’d be able to know what we can’t do and what we can’t do as a symbolism of saying, ‘I’m willing to open up the people’s house to the people of the city.’”

Huh?!

“We are never going to break the law?” New York broke federal law by declaring itself a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. Crime has skyrocketed in the city specifically because the Rotten Apple’s D.A. refuses to prosecute criminals. The city is all about crime.

Gotham City has sued more than 30 counties across New York State for issuing emergency executive orders that prohibit local hotels from hosting migrants. Migrants Adams bussed out of New York and into those counties. The suits ask courts to declare all the executive orders “null and void.” Talk about chutzpah!

Adam’s statement is an open-- and near perfect-- example of symbolism over substance.

And a pretty good definition of today’s Democratic Party.

Study Claims Christianity Associated With Belief In Conspiracy Theories

 

A new study, published in something called the Journal for The Scientific Study of Religion, claims that both Christian nationalism and biblical literalism are independently associated with a greater tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. More to the progressive point, that study purportedly found when people believed in both Christian nationalism and biblical literalism, their distrust of government officials increased significantly. Egads!

 In other words, they were more astute and less naive.

Yet leftists believe the findings provide insight into the sociocultural factors that contribute to the inexplicable spread and persistence of “misinformation”—amongst certain groups of people.

Study researchers claimed to be motivated by a growing concern over the allegedly harmful effects of “conspiracy theories,” such as those surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine and the belief that the 2020 election may have been stolen from Donald Trump. They supposedly also sought to better understand the factors that contribute to the endorsement of what they consider to be conspiracy theories within specific religious and ideological contexts, according to some online reports.

LOL! “Conspiracy theories” such as COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan Virology Lab or that the Russian-collusion theory was a hoax perpetrated by Trump’s political opponents? Oh wait, those were both absolutely true. Or that the vaccines didn’t prevent transmission and, in fact, caused a great many serious harm? Oh wait, those are each factual statements, as well. Or maybe that…oh, never mind. It is abundantly clear that leftists proactively label any and all inconvenient facts-- and anything with which they disagree-- as “conspiracy theories.”

I can’t state this emphatically enough: to leftists, a “conspiracy theory” is literally anything-- no matter how fact-based, empirically obvious, or rational—that doesn’t support their ideological agenda (which is specifically intended to grant them power over infidels like us for perpetuity). You can bet the “researchers” were “motivated” by nothing more than this. Period.

If you believe that the United States has demonstrably, historically done more good for the world than other countries you are trafficking in a “conspiracy theory.” Doubt that the reported/purported 2020 election results were anything but the beatific offspring of the most fair, honest, open, accurate, and integrity-laden election in U.S. history? You are guilty of advancing a “conspiracy theory.” And of “threatening our democracy.” And participating in “The Big Lie.”

To many “progressives”/Democrats/Marxists/Communists—and there is sadly little difference among these now—belief in Christ is a “conspiracy theory.” As is belief in God or any higher power. Because they are who they’ve been waiting for. They are the higher power and the One True God. And a remarkably jealous deity at that. Do not dare to cross them. Or else.

God help you if you dare to differ with them. But, if you bend a knee and pledge eternal fealty to them, they may let you exist. Ain’t democracy grand?

“Certain groups” of people do seem to espouse conspiracy theories, traffic in hoaxes, routinely obfuscate-- and push “The Big Lie.” Those groups include our elected officials, so-called “experts,” the Deep State, and those in “entertainment,” academia and the mainstream media. And far too many “scientists,” like, for example, Dr. Fauci-- and those in bed with Climate Change hucksters.

Journal for The Scientific Study of Religion? If progressives are serious about diversity, equity, and inclusion, perhaps there should also be a Journal for The Religious Study of Science.

 

 

California Democrats Propose Bill To Confiscate Parents' Children If They Oppose Gender Change

 

Incredibly, California Democrats are now considering a bill that would cause parents to lose their children in custody disputes if they are against their offspring having irreversible sex changes.

The bill currently being considered in the legislature would include “a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity” as a factor in “the health, safety, and welfare” of a child in a custody dispute. The bill is being pushed by state Sen. Scott Wiener, who previously introduced the “sanctuary state” law for child sex changes. The aptly named Wiener also led the push to lessen the state’s penalty for intentionally exposing people to HIV. Quite a guy.

The bill is coauthored by Assemblywoman Lori Wilson, who is said to be simultaneously pushing a different but related bill that would mandate that foster parents pledge to help their children change genders. Wilson says that a 7-year-old who is “able to articulate that they believe that they are not the same gender as they are biologically” should then have that notion confirmed by their parents. Or guardians. And their teachers. And the world at large.

So, progressives don’t want to inform parents if say, their seven-year-old son wants to have his penis lopped off on a whim, but, of course, would report to parents if their child was found with a pack of smokes. Could anyone imagine this being the case even just ten or twenty years ago?

How is not a crime—indeed a heinous one—for the government to forcibly take your young kids away from you if you don’t like that government encouraging them to “change” genders?!! How could it possibly be the reverse, except in one of the Nine Circles of Hell?

What about the 4^th Amendment? Talk about “unreasonable seizures!” (And toss out the 5^th and 6^th Amendments, too, while you’re at it, Wiener and Wilson.) Can you imagine what the Founders would have done, if, instead of taxation without proper representation (in the form of a relatively minor increase on the tax on tea) or the imposition of the Stamp Act, King George III would’ve proposed confiscating their children if they were insufficiently supportive of their supposed desire to “change sexes?!” Instead of the Boston Tea Party, history might have recorded the “Boston Sex/Gender Party.” The Founders might have been so incredulous, so angry-- and therefore so inspired—the Revolutionary War might have been won sooner, despite the odds. (Hell, they might have invented nuclear weapons, 170 years before their time.)

There are many, even amongst Republicans, that refuse to characterize any policy or law proposed or enacted by Democrats as “evil,” no matter their ultimate effects. This is simply a refusal to acknowledge reality— and an admission that one doesn’t believe in standards, morality, or objective truth.

It’s one thing to, say, propose taxing certain groups of people at a much higher rate than others, simply because of their income. But, vandalizing or burning down pregnancy centers and churches? The wholesale slaughter of babies for one’s own convenience? Not indicative of good vs. evil? Patronizing stores that sell apparel or accessories designed by avowed Satanists? Nothing to do with good vs. evil?   Encouraging crime and making discouraging crime a punishable offense? Not good vs. evil? Refusing to recognize biological and physical reality…and God’s plan? Not good vs. evil? Encouraging young kids to do the impossible and change their gender…without input from their parents and with the knowledge that they may well rue their decision a few years hence? Not good vs. evil? Criminalizing parents’ concern for the well-being of their children, both in terms of what they are taught and their physical integrity? Not good vs. evil?

Speaking of the Nine Circles of Hell, places like California, Illinois, New York, and Minnesota are in various stages of physical, spiritual, and moral decay. Power hungry, hypocritical, unfeeling, utterly intolerant, close-minded, ignorant, ass-hats are in the process of destroying them, whether their citizens (and burgeoning illegal alien populations) know it or not.

And, speaking of power hungry, hypocritical, unfeeling, utterly intolerant, close-minded, ignorant, attention-seeking, ass-hats-- those such as Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, and Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez have repeatedly made apocalyptic predictions that have—in every case thus far —been proven to be untrue, many wildly so. Back in 2019, AOC claimed that we only had 12 years left to seriously address climate change…or it will be too late…the damage will be irreversible. In his 2006 global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Gore predicted that the global sea level could rise as much as 20 feet "in the near future." And that, "Within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro." Both predictions proved spectacularly untrue. (I wonder if Al would have minded if the government took his kids from him for making such preposterous and potentially damaging claims.)

12 years left to save the planet? That’s obviously bullshit.

However, what should be clear to every sentient citizen is that we have less than 12 years left to save America. That is not hyperbole. It is an actual “inconvenient truth.” It is already almost unrecognizable to many of us “seasoned citizens.”

It is time—past time actually—for us to channel our inner Founder and reaffirm our fidelity to the words in the Declaration of Independence, to the rule of law, to limited government…of, by, and for the people…and to inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator.

No matter what.

 

Johns Hopkins University Erases Women

 

Johns Hopkins University, that revered medical research school, is now referring to lesbians as “non-men,” at least in its updated glossary of LGBTQ terms. The recently updated "LGBTQ Glossary" can be found on the prestigious university’s "Gender and Sexuality Resources" webpage.

The comprehensive A-Z list features a series of LGBTQ-related terms and their definitions – from "AFAB (Assigned Female at Birth)" to "WSW," an acronym for “women (who have) sex (with) women."

The entry for those formerly called lesbians noted that the reason why the school guide isn’t using “lesbian” to define women who prefer sexual relationships with other "women," is because that definition isn’t inclusive enough. It added, "While past definitions refer to ‘lesbian’ as a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to other women, this updated definition includes non-binary people who may also identify with the label." Most men are sexually attracted to other women. Does that make us lesbians? Or “non-men?”

The formerly iconic school’s LGBTQ Glossary’s entry for "Gay Man," however, referred explicitly to "men" and didn’t provide a more “inclusive” term for the label. (Ignoring most women.)

The “Gay Man” definition reads: "A man who is emotionally, romantically, sexually, affectionately, or relationally attracted to other men, or who identifies as a member of the gay community. At times, ‘gay’ is used to refer to all people, regardless of gender, who have their primary sexual and or romantic attractions to people of the same gender. ‘Gay’ is an adjective (not a noun) as in ‘He is a gay man.’"

Alrighty then.

If you can’t define “woman,” then you can’t define “man.” And if you can’t define “man,” you can’t define a “woman” as a “non-man.”

The transgender movement is incredibly insulting—and dangerous—to women. (And I can define “woman” quite easily, by the way. Let me know if you’d like me to.)

The bottom line? Women are being virtually-- and summarily—erased.

Even from the lexicon.

And that is a tragedy for both sexes. And the future of human life.