Biden Administration Summarily Eliminating Opponents

            They aren’t hiding it anymore. They know they don’t have to.

              The Biden administration and its attack-dog political arm, the laughingly named Department of Justice (DOJ), has been trying to throw Donald Trump-- Biden’s once and future general election opponent-- in prison for months now. And may well still achieve that banana-republic-like goal. More recently, it also pushed for Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s former business partner, to go to prison…just two days before he was expected to give “bombshell” testimony before the House Oversight Committee. On Saturday, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York sent a letter to trial judge Ronnie Abrams calling for a date for when Archer must report to prison for a 2018 conviction.

Calling for Archer to be sent to prison ASAP for a 2018 conviction? Just two days before he was widely expected to give damaging testimony against Hunter Biden? On a Saturday, yet?

Probably a coincidence.

Or maybe not, given that Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo, "This is the first time I have ever heard of the Department of Justice doing anything on a Saturday."

(Back in 2013, Archer and Biden partnered with Chinese private equity investor Jonathan Li to establish a China-backed fund called BHR Partners. The investment firm is supported by some of China’s largest financial institutions, including the Bank of China, all of which are tied to the Chinese Communist Party which rules the erstwhile Middle Kingdom.)

As if this weren’t enough, the Biden administration rejected RFK, Jr.—Biden’s main challenger for the 2024 Democratic nomination-- in his request for Secret Service protection. Kennedy said he received a message from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that read, "I have determined that Secret Service protection for Robert F Kennedy Jr is not warranted at this time." This is darkly amusing given the fact that RFK, Jr.’s father and uncle were assassinated.

Now that’s cancel culture!

 

 

School Board Prohibits Students From Dressing Like Animals...And Progressives Pounce

 

Florida’s Brevard County school board recently passed a new dress code policy that prohibits students from dressing like animals. Citing complaints by fellow students about "furries," the board forbade attire emulating "non-human characteristics.” Cat ears and dog collars, for example.

However, some claim that the county’s new dress code violates President Joe Biden’s proposed Title IX regulations. The controversy over the proposed regulations apparently centers on the redefinition of "sex" to mean "gender identity." What, exactly, does "gender identity" mean?

Well, the New York State Department of Education defines "gender identity" as "a mental, emotional, and spiritual state that is not determined by a person’s anatomy." (Sure. Now tell me you’ll still respect me in the morning.) Yet, if gender identity is nothing more than a "mental, emotional, and spiritual state," in no way determined by reproductive anatomy, why should it be confined to human anatomy? Why couldn’t a girl—or boy—legitimately decide to identify as a kitten?

Who’s to say that little Johnny or Joanie can’t claim to be a kitten, a skunk—or a lake trout for that matter? Are we that intolerant, that bigoted, that closed-minded? Anatomy is entirely inconsequential, arbitrary…moot. We don’t even know what it is there for, or if there ever was a reason for sexual differentiation or complementarity. Is not the science “settled” on that? Who would deny furries their inalienable rights? Their fight must become our fight. And it just might become the most important civil rights movement of our time. Unless the righteous drive for pansexual acceptance does. Or the push for the legalization of polyamory. Or bestiality. Or necrophilia.

There is so much work yet to do if we are to achieve that most precious and laudable goal of becoming a judgement-free society with equal outcomes for all! The fact that man-caused global warming currently--  and disproportionately-- affects non-binary, pansexual furries is a stain on our nation. Shame! Shame, I say!

The preposterous claim that the ridiculous gender identity movement also somehow encompasses animal identification has been promulgated by Gender Spectrum, a gender identity advocacy organization that purports to have "trained thousands of schools and school districts … building the capacities of tens of thousands of teachers, administrators … and other leaders to create gender inclusive environments." The group has apparently partnered with the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National PTA, the American School Counselors Association, and the School Superintendents Association, among others. Moreover, in 2015, Gender Spectrum co-authored a report titled "Schools in Transition," which was sponsored and promoted by none other than the National Education Association itself… and may well have been the first major policy paper arguing that schools should socially gender-transition students without their parents’ knowledge.

Why not stand in solidarity with Gender Spectrum? I mean, if a young student wants to identify as—or should I say actually become—a mouse, moose, or beaver, why should schools be allowed to prohibit them from wearing the outfits that match their species identity? And there is certainly no need to inform the parents.

Title IX doesn’t go far enough. It’s okay to prohibit sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity that receives funding from the federal government, but why not ban species-based discrimination, as well?

Meow!

Woof!

 

Startup To Try To Turn Stem Cells Into Eggs, Sperm

 

Conception, a Berkeley based biotech startup, is trying to accelerate-- and subsequently commercialize-- a field of biomedical research known as in vitro gametogenesis (IVG).

Matt Krisiloff, one of the company’s founders, recently stated: "Basically, we're trying to turn a type of stem cell called an induced pluripotent stem into a human egg.”

One of Conception’s goals is to utilize IVG to create eggs from the cell of a man. That egg could then be fertilized with sperm from his partner, at which point a surrogate mother could then carry the resulting embryo through to birth. This would result in a baby genetically related to both men. IVG could also be used to create sperm for lesbian couples, allowing them to have babies with genes from both women. And, of course, transgender couples could also use IVG to have biologically related babies.

This would render heterosexual couplings utterly unnecessary, moot. Yay!

We don’t know the health or other implications for the babies created this way, but who really cares about that anyway?

Let’s go ahead and completely decouple male-female intercourse from anatomy, sex, and procreation! How freeing! Let’s decouple all of this from coupling! Brilliant! What could go wrong? While we’re at it, we should remove the archaic and arbitrary “moral” barriers that heretofore discouraged humans from having sex with dead humans—or animals, for that matter. How exclusionary! How regressive! How repressive! How 1950s Republican!

We already have lab-grown diamonds. Better than the real thing! Surely we will also be better off with artificial intelligence, sex-bots, lab-grown meat…and lab-grown people.

Call it Genesis 2.0. Better than the original, no?

God help us.

 

 

Democrats Exercise Their First Amendment Rights, Republicans Engage In Hate Speech

 

If I am a Democrat and call you a “fascist,” “Hitler,” or “a bigoted, racist, misogynistic, transphobic monster,” that is simply me exercising my rights under the First Amendment. However, if you are a Republican and “misgender” me…or disagree with my notions of gender identity, climate change, CRT—or anything else-- you are guilty of “hate speech,” and must be shut down, shut up, run off campus and, preferably, threatened, fined, or fired.

And if you complain too loudly about the “hypocrisy,” “injustice,” or “gaslighting,” I will say this is proof that your “radical, right-wing” hatred is a danger to me, those in “my community” —and to “our democracy” itself.

What will you say—or do-- about that, intolerant fascist?

Are you willing to be castigated and ostracized by every major institution, the mainstream media, enemies, perhaps an ally or two—and even some family members? Just to do what you truly, deeply believe is right today…and for the future?

Our founders were.

And thank God they were, as the subsequent quantum leap in (worldwide) freedom and prosperity makes clear.

Washington Post: "Boy Scouts Pitch A More Welcoming Tent At Their National Jamboree"

 

The recent Washington Post article was titled “Boy Scouts pitch a more welcoming tent at their National Jamboree.”

It began: “Amid the hundreds of tents erected for the Boy Scouts of America’s National Jamboree, one especially stands out — decorated with a canopy of LGBTQ Pride flags and a string of multicolored lights, its tables covered with bowls of rainbow bracelets, pronoun stickers and diversity patches.”

The article proceeded to quote River Campbell, described by the Post as an 18-year-old scout volunteer from Northern Virginia who “describes themselves as nonbinary and pansexual.” Campbell said of the Jamboree, “This is my entire world.” Perhaps themselves should broaden their horizons a bit. Just sayin’.

Campbell also noted: “There’s been days where there’s 2,000 kids in this tent alone. And that is just, like, absurd.” It is absurd, just not in the way “they” meant it. The Post noted that this first-ever “affinity space for LGBTQ youth” has been “embraced at the gathering, as have similar spaces recognizing scouts of color and the first girls admitted by the organization.”

WaPo did admit that “the changes remain somewhat polarizing,” prior to averring that this reflects “the broader cultural moment that has pitted champions of diversity and inclusion against conservatives and the religious right.”

The beatific “champions of diversity and inclusion” are pitted against those intolerant, bigoted fascists, a.k.a. “conservatives and the religious right.” Got it?

The article stated that the 15,000 scouts and volunteers who attended the 10-day gathering were a fraction of the 40,000 counted at the previous jamboree, held in 2017. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because the ranks of the Boy Scouts of America have shrunk dramatically in recent years since gay and transgender boys and men—and cisgender girls—have been accepted?

In any case, “Boy Scouts pitch a more welcoming tent…” is an extraordinarily unfortunate choice of words. With fewer “cis” males in the BSA, there’s going to be a lot fewer “tents pitched” going forward. Literally and figuratively.

 

Study Accidentally Proves Man-Caused Warming Not Provable

 

According to a study recently published in the journal Science, and latched onto by USA Today, more than 400,000 years ago, Greenland was actually green. Yes, scientists say, the massive island was an ice-free landscape, and was perhaps even covered by trees.

This is important to know, avers study co-lead author Paul Bierman of the University of Vermont, because it tells us "Greenland's ice sheet is fragile.” Bierman stated: "All by itself, during a warm period very similar to today, the ice sheet melted away 400,000 years ago. That was without fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere.”

An ice sheet melted “all by itself?” Here is a “scientist” telling us that we must immediately change our lifestyles and bankrupt our economies to prevent something that occurred naturally and without human influence 400,000 years ago!

After Greenland’s ice sheet turned to water, whined the climate alarmists, the sea-level rose at least 5 feet.

This caused the fish-wrap factory USA Today to solemnly observe: “This means that the ice sheet on Greenland may be more sensitive to human-caused climate change than previously thought – and will be vulnerable to irreversible, rapid melting in the coming centuries.”

Say what?! No, it means that the ice sheet on Greenland was provably sensitive to non-human-caused climate change (warming)…and that the melting is reversible…because that is exactly what occurred after the last melting, and why Greenland is more frozen than green today!

For some reason, the birdcage liner USA Today chose University of Pennsylvania meteorologist Michael Mann, who was not part of the study and whose “hockey stick” graph of global warming has been widely discredited, to review the “study.” Mann obligingly expectorated: "We are coming perilously close to some potentially critical climate tipping points.”

Bierman, however, told the USA Today that the melting process is not instantaneous, noting that “it gives us a little time, not a lot." He added that it's going to take “hundreds to thousands” of years to greatly diminish the ice sheet, while simultaneously cautioning that this shouldn't be a source of comfort to us. 

Thanks for pointing out that the melting process “is not instantaneous,” Paul. Most of us thought, “poof, there go the ice sheets” in a matter of minutes. But hundreds to thousands of years is not a lot of time—and shouldn’t be a source of comfort to us? Really? Why? I mean, noted climate expert Greta Thunberg gave us 12 years to save the planet…about 4 years ago. Al Gore and others have made similar remarks. Thousands of years sounds better to me.

And the study’s authors aren’t prioritizing information well. Is it truly wise to worry about Greenland’s ice sheet being potentially greatly diminished in thousands of years in light of the fact that Russia and North Korea have threatened to use nuclear weapons? And that Iran may soon have one—or more—and may attempt to vaporize Israel? Or that global elites want to utilize the Great Reset to destroy the middle class around the world, rob them of ownership, freedom, and force them to eat bugs? Or that the percentage of people who identify as LGBTQ is exploding at the same time as birth rates in the Western world are plummeting? Or that many are concerned that artificial intelligence may make humans obsolete in the not-so-distant future? Shall I keep going?

On the other hand, given the rapid advances in certain technologies over the past 100 years (we have flying taxis above the streets of at least one American city right now), is it outlandish to believe we may be able to deal with a potential five-foot rise in sea-level in a thousand years or more?

But back to Bierman, who asserted that the study "is a real warning sign to us that we're going to lose large parts of the ice sheet unless we decarbonize." Nope. It tells us that we may lose large parts of the ice sheet no matter what we do…or don’t do.

Or not.

Bierman once more: “400,000 years ago there were no cities on the coast ... and now there are cities on the coast.” Thanks for yet another piercing insight, Paul. You mean New York, San Diego, Vancouver, Miami, Honolulu, Oslo, and New Orleans weren’t there almost half a million years ago? Who knew?

Thank heavens for “experts.”

Of course, all the handwringing over melting ice could be for nought. Earth’s repeated ice ages tend to follow a 100,000-year cycle, during which ice sheets grow for about 90,000 years and then retreat or collapse in about 10,000 years during warmer periods. The last ice age ended around 11,700 years ago, meaning it could get chilly again soon.

Because, you know, the Earth is capable of doing that “all by itself.”

 

 

 

National Security Council Spokesman Says Taxpayer-Funded Abortions For Military Members A "Foundational, Sacred Obligation"

 

National Security Council Spokesman John Kirby recently embarked on an impassioned defense of abortion funding for service members and their families. Kirby averred that female members of the military should be “able to count on the kinds of healthcare and reproductive care specifically that they need to serve.” He even went so far as to pound on the podium of the White House press briefing room while calling military members’ access to abortion a “foundational, sacred obligation of military leaders.”

He added: “Not to mention it’s just the right darn thing to do.”

At one point, Kirby asked a rhetorical question on behalf of a female military member concerned about her “reproductive care” (read “abortion”)-- were she to be assigned to duty in a red state like Alabama.

“What do you do? Do you say ‘no’ and get out?” He meant say ‘no’ to—and get out of—the navy, not realizing that had the female military member simply said ‘no’ to unprotected sex, it would have completely alleviated the need for an abortion reproductive care in the first place. Not to mention that it would have been “just the right darn thing to do.” But progressives typically aren’t particularly self-aware, nor do they have a keen sense of irony.

Let’s revisit Kirby’s remarkable, astounding assertion that military leaders have a “foundational” and indeed “sacred” obligation to assure access to abortion for those who serve. Is there really a sacred obligation to kill the innocent?

Call me a skeptic, but I doubt Washington’s soldiers at Valley Forge were deeply concerned with “reproductive health care.” They probably were more concerned about the lack of shoes on their feet during the harsh New England winter.

Fast forward roughly four score and seven years, and I posit that neither the Union nor the Confederate troops at Gettysburg were in high dudgeon over their respective nations’ failure to address—and fund—abortions for their troops—and their families.

Though the Allies had to abort Operation Overlord for a day due to inclement weather, the incredibly dangerous assault on Hitler’s Fortress Europe proceeded on June 6^th, 1944. Not sure if the thousands attempting to scale the White Cliffs of Dover had abortion on their minds.

Doubt any would have said ‘no’ to service and left the military if abortions for themselves and their families weren’t the law of the land—and publicly funded.

These previous iterations of the American military were concerned with, chronologically: defeating taxation without representation and monarchical tyranny; saving the union while putting an end to slavery; and preventing a madman from exterminating Jews and taking over the world.

What do you think the leaders of the U.S. military—and the majority of its members, for that matter—would have said about the “foundational, sacred” right to unfettered abortion in days of yore?

Progressives would likely respond: “Yeah, dude, but that’s just more proof of the straight, Christian patriarchy that used to rule the day.”

Just might be.

 

Democrats Push For Younger Voting Age

 

The Democrat-led movement to lower the legal voting age to 16 — or in some cases even younger — appears to be gaining momentum as some teenagers and activists seek to achieve local victories while winning the support of some in the media. To wit, the "Vote 16" campaign recently picked up a victory in Vermont, where the Democrat-controlled state legislature recently overrode Republican Gov. Phil Scott's veto of just such a measure allowing 16-year-olds to vote in municipal elections…and hold the highest elected offices.

Democrats are fond of aborting kids, sometimes even after birth. They are also big fans of providing minors with hormone blockers and mutilating the genitals of those they didn’t abort. And, of course, they are engaged in an all-out effort to groom our children—sexually and politically. For many Democrats, love of unfettered abortion and gender dysphoria combine with their unshakeable belief in man-caused climate change to become a surpassingly odd —and perverse—religion. One in which doubters or dissenters, or even the insufficiently devout, are dealt with particularly harshly.

As previously mentioned, Democrats seem to have an unquenchable desire to sexualize children, and in the past week have been attacking opponents of child sex trafficking and calling us “conspiracy theorists.” The California Assembly Public Safety Committee actually initially  voted down a bill, on a party-line vote, that would have enhanced penalties for child sex trafficking by making it a “serious felony,” a step up from merely being illegal. Hard to believe. Yet, progressives also spent time trashing a movie chronicling and attacking child sex trafficking, even though audiences loved it.

They do, however, wish to garner kids’ votes by…offering to let them vote. And hold high office. But do we really want 14-year-olds to vote, and 16-year-old governors? What would this mean? Well, first off, that few Democrats would ever again be defeated. And we would have “state of the state” speeches, broadcast on Instagram, where the Honorable Governor would not look up at the camera and would start off the oration by stating his or her preferred pronouns and saying, “Like, you know, dudes…everything’s all effed up; and that’s why it’s, like, time to party!”

In all seriousness, “after-birth abortion” may well be the most horrifying euphemism ever constructed. In a previous article I opined that Democrats may want to lower the voting age to coincide with their preferred maximum age of legal “after-birth abortions,” also suggesting that age may be 9. I now believe that age may be 6, with their insatiable desire for utter and permanent power and control superseding even their lust for infanticide.

It is no surprise that Democrats, who are now also in favor of “after-vote corrections,” as evidenced by the 2020 Presidential election, should want the very young to vote. 6-year-olds are easy to bribe. And tend to have the equivalent intellectual—and moral—capacity of those that would grant them suffrage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CNBC Releases List Of "Worst States To Live And Work In"

CNBC recently released a remarkable ranking of “America’s 10 worst states to live and work in for 2023.”

Unsurprisingly, considering the source, the list consists exclusively of red states. The rankings were purportedly based on crime rates, environmental quality, health care, quality and availability of childcare, and inclusiveness in state laws such as reproductive rights, protections against discrimination and voting rights. Oh, got it. Guess we know how they weighted these factors. Access to unfettered abortion (“reproductive rights”), worship of the LGBTQ community (“Protection against discrimination”), and the “right” to vote sans identification, via mail, and early and often, obviously superseded “crime rates.”

Here is CNBC’s list of the “worst” states:

1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Louisiana
4. South Carolina and Alabama (tie)
5. —
6. Missouri
7. Indiana
8. Tennessee
9. Arkansas
10. Florida

 

Conversely, CNBC also graciously provided a list of the “best” states to reside in:

1. Vermont
2. Maine
3. New Jersey
4. Minnesota
5. Hawaii
6. Oregon
7. Washington
8. Massachusetts and Colorado (tie)
9. —
10. Connecticut

Notice something oddly amusing, gentle readers?

Most of the states CNBC ranked as the worst in which to live and work are the states everyone is moving to…and several of the states it ranked as the best in which to live and work are the ones everyone is moving from. I guess all those who are going to the trouble of moving are doing so against their best interests.

Or maybe they are all just complete idiots.

Unlike the CNBCers who compiled these rankings, of course.

Maybe I’ll compile a list of the ten most biased media outlets to work for in 2023. On second thought, that would be damn hard to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Democrats Pretend The ERA Was Ratified And The 28th Amendment Exists

 

According to The New York Times, Congressional Democrats are attempting to add the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution a half century after the states declined to ratify the proposal. How do they plan to do this, you ask? By introducing legislation stating that the ERA has, in fact, been ratified.

Brilliant! Just ignore reality and flat out lie. Via a legal document yet!

While flat-out lying is by no means unprecedented, the Democrats have recently made this their go-to ploy. Don’t like your gender? Just say you are a different one. Don’t care for the truth? Simply tell a bald-faced lie—or assert to the world that you are living your truth. Trump colluded with Russia! And Hunter’s laptop bears “all the classic earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.” The coronavirus certainly didn’t come from the Wuhan lab! We just need “two weeks to flatten the curve.” The planet’s going to spontaneously combust in 12 years! Our coastal cities will be underwater soon! “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” Biden is a nice, normal man. “I never had sex with that woman…not one time!” Etc., etc., ad nauseum.

If prevarication was an Olympic sport, and America’s Democrats a team, they would bring home the gold every four years without fail.

So, despite the fact that the ERA was never ratified, Democratic New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Democratic Missouri Representative Cori Bush recently introduced a proposal stating that the ERA has already been ratified as the 28^th Amendment—and urging the National Archivist to certify and publish this fiction immediately.

Bush stated: “For us, it is already done. The E.R.A. is the 28^th Amendment. We just need the archivist to publish it.”

Forget the inconvenient fact that it is given to the states to ratify amendments.

So, wake up, Republicans. If you want to defund Planned Parenthood and NPR—and eradicate the NEA—all you have to do is loudly and repeatedly aver, “For us, it is already done.”

After all, if you want to save “our democracy,” you can’t worry about adhering to democratic processes! Just damn your opponents and make it so!

The Gillibrand/Bush stunt almost certainly won’t work.  (Although in this era of make-believe one can’t ever be 100% sure of anything.) Rather, Dems intend it to serve as yet another way to hurt Republicans politically by putting them further on defense regarding the issue of abortion. Therefore, this is effectively a political rather than a legal effort. Bush has essentially admitted as much, stating that the proposal is “packed with potential to protect access to abortion care nationwide, defeat bans on gender-affirming health care, shore up marriage equality, eliminate the gender wage gap, help end the epidemic of violence against women and girls, and so much more.”

“Abortion care?” Is this like “death penalty care?” I am against abortions because the baby is innocent—and for the death penalty in certain extreme cases because mass murderers are not—but in neither case should the word “care” be used. Progressives want to change the meaning of words so they can control the narrative… so they can control everything else. If conservatives let them do so they deserve what they get.

Democrats don’t really want to end “the epidemic of violence against women and girls.” That is nothing more than yet another bald-faced lie. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. (Which, of course, Democrats don’t recognize.) If they actually wanted to end the epidemic of “violence” against women and girls, they would be against abortion, against biological males in girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms (and on their sports teams), and against minor females having their breasts and genitals permanently removed without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

So, the never-ending clown show rolls on, with Democrats-- and their sycophants in the mainstream media—gleefully mocking and marginalizing Main Street Americans.

There are only 27 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. There is no 28^th. And there can never be if the states and the people did/do not ratify it. There is, however, a First and a Second Amendment. Although the Democrats are attempting to pretend that these first two amendments don’t exist.

A question for Americans: will we opt for reality, truth, courage, and freedom……or a future entirely defined-- and deeply constrained-- by what progressive elites think of us?

 

 

OpEd Writer Says Schools Shouldn't Ban Any Book, No Matter How Pornographic

 

In her letter to the editor of The Los Angeles Times, titled “Hey, Huntington Beach book banners, kids find a way to look at what they want,” Lisa Shook managed to perfectly illustrate the simultaneous dramatic declines in cognitive ability and morality plaguing the nation-- and the West in general.

Shook (!) positively referenced a column titled “Huntington Beach wants to keep ‘obscene’ books away from children. Good Luck,” noting that it took her back to her “early 1960s high school days.”

Why? Shook: “In our Shakespeare textbook, ‘Romeo and Juliet’ was sprinkled with asterisks indicating where some of the Bard's words and phrases had been deleted to protect our adolescent sensibilities.” She added, “An enterprising student handed each of us a sheet of paper as we entered the classroom one day. He had gone to the town library, researched all the naughty bits, typed them up and then made mimeograph copies to distribute. Everybody was delighted, none more so than our teacher, who proceeded to conduct a very entertaining tutorial and discussion on Elizabethan language and literature.”

Shook also stated: “I want to thank the Huntington Beach City Council, particularly the four conservative members, for providing an excellent teaching moment for my children, both of whom are of voting age. They have learned that all politics are local, and that engagement is a must. What they saw at the meeting where the council decided to limit access to certain library books was vast governmental overreach, prejudice and ignorance. These unnecessary and ridiculous culture wars along with the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision on abortion will hopefully make the GOP irrelevant in 2024.”   

Wow. It’s hard to know where to start here, as there is much to unpack, as they say.

First, as for “kids find a way to look at what they want,” that is not necessarily true—and certainly doesn’t mean that adult instructors should pre-emptively provide them with any and all prurient and perverted materials and images that they might somehow someday come in contact with.

 What a stupid argument! And how do progressives like Shook know the kiddies want to see illustrations of vaginal blood on a tampon and/or a boy sucking a man’s c*ck?

Note to Shook: “Wherefore art thou Romeo” is not equivalent to, say, “suck my d*ck, bitch!”

Finally, claiming that restricting obviously age-inappropriate books from elementary or middle school libraries is “banning” them is a flat-out lie. And labeling those actions as “vast governmental overreach” is sadly hilarious coming from folks who want to dispense with the First and Second Amendments, tax high income earners into oblivion, fine or imprison those who “misgender” someone, and who were staunch supporters of lockdowns, mask mandates, and the forced injection of experimental mRNA vaccines into otherwise ostensibly autonomous bodies.

 

 

Government VS. Private Debt

 

Only government can—literally-- print money and forcibly extract it from every citizen via taxes …and still come out bankrupt! Or worse, roughly $50 trillion in the red, as is the case in the United States of America today.

To put this in perspective, this is as if someone was able to successfully print an unlimited amount of counterfeit money (effectively impossible to do now with U.S. currency)—and loot and steal everything they wanted with impunity (entirely possible to do now, at least in several “blue” states)—and still end up in debt.

How can it be that government is perpetually given a pass on its malfeasance, incompetence, and preposterous recklessness with other peoples’ money-- while the “someone” would (justifiably) be given a lengthy prison sentence for the self-same actions?

LGBTQ Identification Skyrocketing At Brown-- And Around The Ever More Fruited Plain

New survey data published in Brown University’s student newspaper provides further evidence that the recent rapid increase in LGBT identification is driven by social pressures. The Brown Daily Herald reported: "Over the past decade, LGBTQ+ identification has increased across the nation, with especially sharp growth at Brown. The Herald’s Spring 2023 poll found that 38% of students do not identify as straight — over five times the national rate.”

In 2010, “just” 14% of the student body at Brown said they were not heterosexual. Today, 38% proudly assert their non-heterosexuality…almost triple the rate of a mere 13 years ago. This does not bode well for Brown, the Ivy League…or America.

This trend of an exponentially increasing number of young people identifying as LGBTQIIA+ is startling, sobering…and clearly being driven by peer pressure and the fact that it is hip to be woke-- outré—in our culture. And almost mandatory to be so on campus. Straight white males are persona non grata, “not welcome here.” Christianity is often openly shunned, mocked…or worse.

At this rate, the LGBTQ “community” will soon be a majority at Brown-- and elsewhere. This will render its incessant pleas to be safe and accepted moot. Should LGBTQers become the majority, either locally or nationally, will they treat the straight, cis, binary, Christian community any different than they do now, which is effectively as an enemy to be defeated? Not likely.

If straight, cis, binary Christians become a minority—even an oppressed one-- will they have Pride! parades during which some expose their genitals in public? Will they be granted a month of their own to celebrate-- and during which everyone else must bend a knee in deference to their fabulousness while donning “Hetero Pride Apparel?” Will their allies flood the nation’s streets and public areas carrying signs saying, “You are seen, you are heard, you are respected…and you are loved?” Not likely. Will the Heterosexual Pride Flag be boldly and proudly flown over U.S. embassies around the world? Not likely. (Oh, there isn’t one?!)

No decent person advocates harming members of the LGBTQ community-- or even discriminating against them. But neither should anyone mock, shame, dismiss, or assault heterosexual Christians who truly and deeply believe in the Biblical concept of two complimentary sexes…created by God…for a reason.

Do a majority of folks truly believe that society is unquestionably benefitted by an ever-increasing number of people identifying as homosexual and non-binary?

Not likely.

 

Climate Change Is The Only Change Progressives Don't Like

 

Progressives/leftists/revolutionaries/Democrats (but I repeat myself) always demand change. “Hope and change.” “Fundamental transformation.” Change, change, change. Ergo, it is quite remarkable, upon reflection, that the one thing progressives don’t want to change is the one thing that cannot be prevented from changing: the climate. The climate has always changed. Dramatically, profoundly, radically.

The beautiful lakes of northern Minnesota were created many thousands of years ago by a rapid global warming that chased the mile-thick glaciers that had entombed the land back into northern Canada. And climate change is why archeologists have found fossils of warm sea and jungle-dwelling flora and fauna in places like North and South Dakota. And it is why the arctic—yes, the arctic—has been ice-free more than once in the distant past.

Progressives may want us to change our minds, our actions, and our genders—but, by God the climate shouldn’t change at all! Bizarre.

Speaking of God, most progressives/Marxists/Communists don’t believe in one. (Unless, perhaps, God should be a hyper-tolerant female or non-binary deity who does not judge us and loves autocratic states run by progressives/Marxists/Communists.) Here, too, it seems odd that the one thing these leftists won’t take on faith is the existence of God.

They purport to believe wholeheartedly in Dr. Fauci, global warming, Bidenomics, open borders, the Russia-collusion hoax, and that the 2020 presidential election was the most secure in history. They believe people can change genders on a whim and that men can menstruate. (That’s putting the “men” into “menstruation!”) They think males should be able to breast/chest-feed infants.

They believe the Wuhan flu could not have come from the Wuhan lab where they were experimenting with coronaviruses. They believe the subsequent lockdowns and mask mandates were effective. They believe China is, in fact, a role model, and that a one-world government should be our goal.  

They believe crime should be legalized, the unborn are simply non-viable tissue masses, Ukraine is defeating Russia, 9/11 was an inside job, the government has our best interests in mind, Biden is a nice man-- and that Jan. 6 was an “insurrection!” but the 2020 riots were “mostly peaceful.”

All of which is crap. All of which is preposterous.

You cannot change your own sex, much as you couldn’t ask to be born. We cannot keep the “climate” from changing, much as we might like to. Particularly perceptive readers will understand that these two immutable facts are related.

Some things we can change. Some things we can’t. God grant us the wisdom to know the difference.

And the courage to conserve and preserve timeless wisdom—and defend the truth.

 

(Postscript: If you believe in God, you may be called upon to explain His existence. If you don’t, it is incumbent upon you to explain…absolutely everything else.)

 

 

MSNBC Says Fitness Is Next To... Fascism

 

@MSNBC, the MSNBC Twitter account, recently posted a tweet stating: “Pandemic fitness trends have gone extreme—literally. White supremacists’ latest scheme to valorize violence and hypermasculinity has gone digital.” And, “Physical fitness and violent hypermasculinity have always been central to the far right.” Um, sure. Anyone who values being physically fit is likely a Nazi. Or at least “hypermasculine.” Like, say, Venus Williams or Megan Rapinoe. Okay, they are a little bit masculine, but I’m pretty sure neither would identify as a Nazi…or even “far right.”

The far-left media organization’s tweet included a link to an opinion article titled, “Why the far-right is really into home fitness.” Take care of your body? Have a Peloton in your home? The geniuses at MSNBC think you are a right-wing extremist, II Duce.

The author of the tweet, Cynthia Miller-Idriss, then astutely noted, “It appears the far right has taken advantage of pandemic at-home fitness trends to expand its decade-plus radicalization of physical mixed martial arts (MMA) and combat sports spaces.” Those clever far-righters, pouncing on the left’s mandate that we be locked down in our homes, and using it to stay in shape—or get in shape. Although this assertion doesn’t much jibe with the fact that about 4-in-10 Americans gained weight during the pandemic, some dramatically so. Must’ve been salt of the earth Biden voters who embrace “our democracy.” Miller-Idriss actually referenced Mein Kampf as evidence to support her thesis. Moreover, she disparaged physical fitness and martial arts as tools used-- primarily by racists-- in order to impose their racism on innocent people around the world.

Miller-Idriss also declared: “The intersection of extremism and fitness leans into a shared obsession with the male body, training, masculinity, testosterone, strength and competition. Physical fitness training, especially in combat sports, appeals to the far right for many reasons: fighters are trained to accept significant physical pain, to be ‘warriors,’ and to embrace messaging around solidarity, heroism, and brotherhood.”

Oddly, this bizarre article was originally written and published in March of 2022. For some reason, those who oversee MSNBC’s Twitter account felt it necessary to repost it 15 months later.

Averring that only Nazis are obsessed with physical fitness fails to explain those like Herman Göring. And implies that proud non-fascists are less concerned with their health and well-being.

Funny, I thought coastal leftists were more likely to be vegans, keep up a jogging regimen, drink decaf, make Kale a significant part of their diet, eschew smoking cigarettes, and dispense with the ingestion of red meats.

Anyway, it’s time for me to get on my exercise bike. And reread Mein Kampf.