Transgenderism’s Recruiting Plans Include Your Kids

Ryan T. Anderson, the author of ‘When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment’, gave a speech last week at Catholic University of America.

It was all very dignified and featured a walking–on–eggshells atmosphere. Yet under Anderson’s proper and decorous message was a stark warning for parents: Gender Red Guards are seizing the curriculum in government schools and they are coming for your kids.

Rick McKee The Augusta Chronicle

Or as Anderson has tweeted, “transgenderism is a belief system that increasingly looks like a cultish religion…being forced on the public by the state.”

“Today the focus [of transgenderism] tends to be on children,” Anderson warns. There are already 45 clinics that specialize in children and essentially function as recruitment depots.

“The standard of care is self–reinforcing” in a children’s gender jumble clinic. These clinics make sure that once a child has expressed even the most tentative misgivings regarding their “assigned gender” the staff makes sure there is no backsliding on the part of the child or the parents.

Left to their own devices 80 to 95 percent of the boys and girls who are gender–confused will happily revert to their gender before they become adults. Transgenderists can’t tolerate that level of attrition. A movement to normalize the abnormal can’t succeed if the numbers remain just a miniscule fringe of the total population.

These children’s clinics are a sexual Checkpoint Charlie. Once the child crosses over he’s behind the Berlin Gender Wall, never to be allowed to return.

Here the power of the state enforces transgender conformity. Many child welfare commissars consider it child abuse to send the kid to counseling that seeks to have them accept reality and accept their real gender. Instead a boy who is too young to experiment with a new pack of Virginia Slims can be encouraged by the government to start down the road to a new vagina.

This transgender ideology and its implementation by ‘child welfare’ bureaucrats is “systematically undermining parental authority.”

Inside the clinic parents are presented with a Trans for Tots regime where one size fits all. A three–year–old that just finished toddling, but is sexually wise beyond his years will begin “social transitioning.” The child gets a new name, new gender and starts playing for a new team as he lives as the opposite sex.

As the child approaches puberty it’s unthinkable that he undergo the process in the wrong body. The child is given a drug cocktail for life that blocks the onset of puberty and as Anderson terms it, “traps the child in a pre–pubescent body.” That’s an ideal development for ‘caregivers’ who also happen to be pedophiles.

Then as early as the freshman year of high school the process of producing the right body begins. Puberty blockers are traded for hormone treatment. As the 18th birthday approaches — earlier for some particularly zealous surgeons — surgical reassignment is possible. Although the new euphemism for this is irreversible body vandalism is “gender affirmation surgery.”

Anderson describes the ideology snaring these children as, “Radical expressive individualism combined with ruthless paternalism.”

And make no mistake these children’s gender clinics are practicing Mengele Medicine. Physicians and good Germans on the staff are experimenting on helpless children to advance an ideologically–driven medical theory with no basis in fact.

The parents are not told there are no long–term studies of the effects of this treatment on children. “The treatment is entirely experimental,” Anderson notes. Doctors don’t tell parents they are making it up as the go along.

If parents or the child has second thoughts, the lies begin. They’re told puberty blockers are reversible. “What they mean is the doctor hopes normal puberty will commence if the drugs are stopped,” Anderson explained. “They don’t know. There’s no ‘Pause’ button for puberty.”

Even worse the drugs parents are told to give the children are not FDA tested or approved for use in gender experimentation. The drugs are being used off label without government approval.

Even after ‘successful’ surgery that’s supposed to solve the problems of these deeply disturbed and programmed children, 41 percent will still attempt suicide after their operation. Even the Obama administration admitted in 2016 no study has found a long–term benefit from ‘gender affirmation’ surgery.

How can you protect your children from being swept up in this malign mania? Home schooling is a surefire solution. If that’s not possible, ask your school board if schools use the ‘Gender Unicorn’ or otherwise discuss transgenderism. If the answer is ‘yes’ have your kids opt out of the class.

Teach your children a biblically–based orientation to sex. Yes, it’s awkward. And yes, the kids may whine. But I guarantee if you don’t do it, the government schools will, and you may not like the outcome.

Advertisements

We Put a Hand Over Our Heart, Nike Puts Thumb in Our Eye

Failed NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick continues to stay culturally relevant by depending on the kindness of strangers. If it weren’t for white folks, beginning with his foster parents, Kaepernick might just be another player who peaked early and disappeared.

The first white person who bailed him out was — of all people! — President Donald Trump. Colin began his ‘take a knee, look at me’ protest with an example of bad timing that should have rendered him a joke from the beginning. He protested black “injustice” during Barack Obama’s second term.

Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle, GA

Now I won’t deny there are still jerks who like nothing better than disparaging black folks while burning a cross in their backyard fire pit. Still, it’s a pretty ramshackle variety of “institutional racism and oppression” that lets a black guy slip through the net and become president.

Cognitive dissonance has never been a feature of the Opposition Media, so the contradictions of Kaepernick’s genuflection were ignored. Colin’s problem was the public was starting to ignore him.

Then Trump came to his rescue. The president’s flag protest tweets made him sole proprietor of the opposition to flag disrespect. Instantly, Kaepernick is relevant again.

Then comes the off season. David Hogg doesn’t play the national anthem at his anti–gun rallies, so no role for Kaepernick there. The same goes for the other America Last functions with which Colin is now allied. Trying playing the Star Spangled Banner at a Black Lives Matter rally and Kaepernick’s knee wouldn’t have time to hit the dais before the violence begins.

Colin needs football more than football needs him. His summer media mentions were boring updates regarding his lawsuit against the NFL for not being willing to pay millions to a self–absorbed customer alienator. Kaepernick was running the risk of sliding into the ‘Disgruntled Employee Sues Former Employer’ pigeonhole with Stormy Daniels.

Then the white folks at Nike came to the rescue.

Kaepernick is now the face of the ‘Just Do It’ campaign. Colin’s acceptance was a certainly. Nike’s making the offer is what’s curious. Decades of Nike marketing is based on an immature, high school rebellion philosophy.

Which means there’re plenty of other Americans who risked all to stand up for their beliefs, but I don’t think Nike will be featuring Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips or former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis any time soon.

Nike prefers to put its corporate thumb in the eye of 63 percent of white America and 26 percent of black America that is opposed to insulting the flag. This could prove to be a bad financial bet, since I’m not sure how much money the Ultimate Frisbee demographic spends on sports equipment.

Insulting the flag is the short–term damage, but the decision has dangerous long–term implications. Nike has decided to put its corporate weight behind dividing the country in service of lies and propaganda that harm the black community it purports to be supporting. And the campaign has no terminus because It’s impossible to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

Philippe Lemoine did an analysis of the Police–Public Contact Survey, a 70,000 sample of US residents. He found “just 16 unarmed black men, out of a population of more than 20 million, were killed by the police…These figures are likely close to the number of black men struck by lightning in a given year.”

The case for routine police harassment is equally fraudulent. Black men have less yearly contact with police than whites: 17.5 to 20.7 percent. And as for injury, protesters in the stadium have a greater chance of getting a rug burn at the hands of Monsanto than they do a bruise at the hands of the cops.

Patriots lit up social media with photos of burning Nike products. This seems self–defeating to me since it limits our wardrobe choices without damaging the corporation.

A better option is wealthy collegiate athletic donors informing athletic directors that if Nike isn’t dropped, then their donations to the program certainly will. This type of punishment may make a difference in the Beaverton boardroom. Individuals can save matches and stop buying future Nike products.

My son thinks it’s a big deal about a small affront because he likes Nike Rugby cleats. He’s wrong. The culture is in this situation today because people who love this country sat back in their comfortable chairs and let the insults accumulate.

It was only an ad, or a statement or a single policy. Time after time after time. The result of our indolence is mainstreaming Colin Kaepernick. It’s time to demonstrate that putting a thumb in the eye of middle America is not a cost–free exercise. If for no other reason than we’re running out of eyes.

Democrats, Still the Party of Voter Suppression

Democrats and the rest of the left have a somewhat bifurcated approach to the vote. During their Jim Crow regime in the South, Democrats specialized in retail vote suppression. When a potential black voter attempted to register that brave individual was met with literacy tests, poll taxes and other extra–constitutional roadblocks placed by a Democrat government between a minority and the voting booth.

Gary McCoy, Shiloh, IL

And if that wasn’t enough for the black man to take the hint, there was always outright violence as a fallback position.

Today Democrats have donated their voter suppression identity to an unwilling Republican party. They claim the GOP’s tentative, Tinder–like approach to matching names with faces is “vote suppression” and racism.

When Democrats were the suppressors they applied their genuine vote reduction efforts only to the subset of the population that was non–white. Accommodating Democrats often let White folks vote from the cemetery.

Republicans are much more even–handed. Their goal is to apply perfectly reasonable Voter ID efforts to anyone who wants to vote, whether he’s white enough to join the Klan or dark enough to be fleeing the Klan.

Matching a photo to the individual attempting to vote is for the left tantamount to giving the Gestapo control of America’s polling places. Recently defeated Maryland gubernatorial candidate and former NAACP Director Benjamin Chavis has screamed that Republicans were trying to “lynch democracy” by instructing voters to show ID.

The concern these leftists show for poor ignorant voters who can’t make their way to the DMV for a free ID, are too poorly educated to understand election rules and probably shop at Walmart is particularly touching when one remembers that’s also the left’s description of Trump voters.

But making voting free and universal, like STDs at Burning Man, is only half of the left’s approach. Elections are great. The Voice of the People and all that. As long as the outcome of the election meets with the left’s approval.

If it doesn’t, then that’s where the other half of the left’s modern approach to democracy appears.

Last June the addled electorate in Washington, DC (Hillary 91 percent; Trump 4 percent) approved Initiative 77 by a margin of 56 to 44 percent. The initiative was a typical redistribution scheme that took money from people who had it and gave it to people who wanted it, without costing voters a dime. Ballot box theft, in other words.

The text of the bill, according to The Washington Post, “phases out the ‘tipped wage’ that allows D.C. employers to pay workers as little as $3.89 an hour and count tips toward the standard minimum wage of $13.25 an hour. Under the initiative, employers are required to gradually increase hourly wages for tipped workers until they reach what will be the uniform minimum of $15 an hour by 2025.”

Passage of the initiative by uncontrolled voters didn’t sit well with the DC city council. So, in a unique twist, they’ve applied a literacy test to the initiative after the election, “…After it passed, some lawmakers insisted there wasn’t a clear voter mandate because of record-low turnout in the June 19 primary and confusing language on the ballot.”

Now the council is going to nullify the result. Seven of the 13 members of the city council have introduced a bill that would overturn Initiative 77 when the bill is voted on this fall. The fact the initiative passed in every one of their districts didn’t deter the Suppression Seven for an instant.

Council member Jack Evans, who’s been on the public teat for 30 years, and whose level of arrogance rivals that Creating the News Network’s Jim Acosta claims he’s carrying out the will of the people, if they were smart enough to know what they thought. “I represent the people; I was elected,” Evans pontificated, overlooking the fact Initiative 77 passed in his district.

Council member Trayon White Sr., who President Trump agrees makes Don Lemon look like a Nobel Laureate, claims the “vote is irrelevant.”

And don’t think this is the first time the council has nullified the will of the people. Since the 80s the politicians have overturned initiatives four times. The most egregious being a 2001 rejection of term limits and an earlier disposal of limits on local campaign contributions.

‘Woke’ Washingtonians who are talking about “flat–out voter suppression” and “openly ignoring votes” haven’t quite made the connection that the only elected officials and bureaucrats that are actively working to nullify or overturn elections are their own beloved leftists.

Trump is still Hitler. Even though Initiative 77 voters and the president have much in common. Both are fighting entrenched politicians, lobbyists, contributors and bureaucrats whose power is threatened by outsiders like grassroots initiative supporters and former reality TV stars.

Ahab Mueller Continues to Chase President Trump

I frankly don’t know how President Trump gets anything accomplished in the White House. What with the noise created by dominoes falling and the screeching of walls closing in due to Ahab Mueller’s investigation, it must be impossible to hear yourself think.

Gary McCoy, Shiloh, IL

On the plus side, the background din does make it that much harder for disgruntled employees to surreptitiously record the president’s conversations.

Now that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pled guilty, it’s time for Ahab Mueller and his angry Democrats to quit shilly–shallying and get to the campaign finance scandal hiding in plain sight: Barron Trump’s allowance.

Stormy Daniels ragging on Trump during his campaign is just another estrogen attack like Rosie O’Donnell or Megyn Kelly. Trump and female entertainers, with or without their clothes on, are a volatile mix.

Barron is a different story. Say he’s unhappy with the size of his allowance compared to that of other plutocrat progeny. In an interview with the school newspaper Barron calls his father a skinflint and hints that he might not be a billionaire. Tiger Beat picks up the story and the next thing you know George Ramos is shouting questions.

It’s possible Trump isn’t as wealthy as he claims. That’s why the only way the public would get access to Trump’s tax returns is if Anderson Cooper pried the documents from his cold, dead hands. I think that’s also why Trump abandoned one of his early selling points and didn’t finance his own campaign.

If Barron had even intimated he thought dad had small hands and a smaller bank account it would have been headline news. Keeping that negative publicity squashed would have been invaluable to Trump’s campaign.

That’s why it’s time for Mueller to bait another hook. First, Ahab needs to learn if Barron’s allowance experienced a suspiciously large increase just after his father announced. Then, who handled the money? Did Trump distribute the payoff or did he use a cutout like Melania? Or a check drawn on a Russian bank?

Everyone knows how volatile kids can be. Did Trump have to ‘sweeten the pot’ as the campaign intensified to ensure continued silence?

You may be skeptical. Thinking even the insane clown posse that constitutes the US left would hesitate to weaponize an allowance, but you’d be wrong.

Look at the “campaign law violations” to which Cohen pled guilty. In this instance Mueller manufactured his own whale and claimed a catch. The twisted logic behind the “violation” is twofold. Cohen made an illegal campaign contribution when he paid Stormy Daniels using his own money, then Trump reimbursed him. And two, the expenditure was not accurately reported on the campaign reports filed with the FEC.

Let’s take these fantasies one at a time. Trump is allowed to spend unlimited amounts of his money on his campaign. If Cohen is guilty of a contribution violation because he paid a whore for not performing, then EVERY campaign vendor from ad agencies, to printers, to pollsters are also guilty of campaign contribution violations if they bought media, printed literature or surveyed voters before being paid by the campaign.

By this illogic, any vendor who has an outstanding invoice— woe unto you if it’s the Clinton campaign — is also guilty of an expenditure violation or an unreported loan.

Which brings us to the other violation. There’s a blank on the form where the campaign explains for what the money was spent. I’ve seen ‘consulting,’ ‘media’ and ‘campaign services’ plenty of times, but never ‘hush money to a ‘ho.’ If Trump reimbursed Cohen and the expenditure was listed as ‘consulting’ and not ‘consorting’ then we are in the realm of definitions.

At worst it’s a labeling offense and no jury would convict and no prosecutor, other than one on a whale hunt, would bring charges. Fined, yes. Jail, no.

I’m in agreement with Mark Penn, formerly a consultant for the Clintons, “Paying for nondisclosure agreements for perfectly legal activities is not a crime, not a campaign contribution as commonly understood or ruled upon by the Federal Election Commission.”

Ahab Mueller had Cohen hanging from a yardarm. The bank fraud and tax charges were real and carry significant jail time. The deal was Cohen pleads guilty to actions that weren’t crimes to damage Trump in order to get leniency from Mueller on the real crimes.

As Penn points out, “[Cohen] is pleading guilty over a corporate contribution he did not make.” The one he did make was a personal expenditure that if Trump had used campaign funds to pay, he would have been guilty of committing a crime.

Investigating Barron’s allowance is no more ridiculous than indicting for convincing a ‘ho to sign a non–disclosure agreement. The Mueller gang isn’t conducting an investigation, it’s conducting a slow–motion coup.

Time for the Rest of Us to Unfriend the Media?

The news media has a shaky grasp of the Constitution. It’s true the 1st Amendment promises freedom of the press, but the Constitution does not promise immunity to criticism. President Trump is free to voice his opinion of journalists.

The president has some justification for his anger. Over 90 percent of the coverage of his administration is negative. This ceaseless assault makes news coverage during the Bush administration look like the ‘era of good feelings.’

Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle, GA

One could certainly make a case that when the president called the Opposition Media “enemies of the people” he was going too far, even though the phrase originally came from leftist hero Robespierre.

The question for those of us who are not members of the Trump administration is what do we call a national institution that seeks to amplify, if not generate, discord? An institution that works overtime to delegitimize law enforcement? A collection of self–appointed cultural monitors that holds average citizens and, particularly those who are white, in utter contempt?

Ungrateful. Negative. Sneering. Haughty. Biased. All those words are accurate descriptions of the majority of the US news media. If you think I’m exaggerating, look no farther than the news coverage of last weekend’s “Torchlight Nazi Party Rally” in Nuremburg.

Whoops, my mistake. Organizers couldn’t even afford Tiki torches this time. Instead “Unite the Right 2” had to console themselves with generating news coverage wildly out of proportion to their influence and power.

The Washington Post had an incredible 20 pre–rally stories. These breathless accounts were filled with references to last year’s riot in Charlottesville, the sinister implications of “white supremacists”, the malign ideology of “white nationalists” and how Donald Trump — the man who hired Omarosa! — was secretly encouraging a Wonder Bread coup. Which reminds me, if Trump is a closet racist, enabling Klan 2.0, he’s doing a lousy job of it. Blacks are currently at their lowest unemployment level in decades and his approval rating among blacks is now 36 percent.

The Post was like reading an issue of Pravda from the 1970’s. The USSR may have lost the Cold War, but it was the overwhelming victor in the propaganda war.

Stories previewing the rally could have been an opportunity to highlight the racial progress our country has made in the last 100 years. But leftist news media only believes in evolution when it undermines the Bible. It’s stasis, baby, as far as white conservatives are concerned. And that’s in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary.

In 1923 the largest Ku Klux Klan rally in history attracted 200,000 who reveled in an orgy of hate. “Unite the Right 2” organizers estimated a maximum of 400 Nazis and bigots would gather in Washington, DC, an attendance decline of 99.99 percent. And that was before the real head count, which showed about 24 die–hard haters appeared. Positive coverage could have pointed out these losers were protected by black police officers who would have been on the other end of the baton in 1962.

There are more “democratic socialists” holding office in America today than there are “white supremacists.” For an ideology that’s supposed to be so dangerous, these dead–enders have remarkably little impact. Where exactly are these whites supreme?

At the height of Reconstruction, when the South was occupied by Union troops, there were 1,500 black elected officials. In 2011 there were 10,500 black elected officials and the only troops in the South are on military bases local politicians will fight to their last breath to keep.

The US has black police chiefs, black mayors, black members of Congress. Blacks are even playing quarterback in Alabama! Schools are integrated. Public accommodations are integrated. The military is integrated. The only segregation that still exists was the special Metro car that kept the bigots alive as they traveled to and from the rally.

Bigots control no police forces today. No state or local governments, either. Racists have no media support. The culture has turned decisively against them. If it hadn’t, Obama administration appointees would be refused service in restaurants, instead of Trump administration officials.

Oh, yes, and that reminds me: THE USA ELECTED A BLACK MAN AS PRESIDENT.

And still the leftist media characterizes the US as a sinkhole of racism. This holier–than–thou news media attitude was perfectly characterized by the little clean, thoroughbred, white girl who demanded Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tell her off the top of her head how many blacks worked for the president.

Hyping a non–existent threat from these sad, powerless racists is a false, disingenuous, dangerous narrative that only serves to create discord and empower the violent, fascist left. “Enemies of the people” may not be the right term, but impartial journalists certainly isn’t correct either.

A Heretic Offers Surrender Terms to Christians

Julie Rodgers, described by the Washington Post as “a writer, speaker and advocate for LGBTQ people in faith communities”, has offered a “compromise” proposal to Christians designed to end the cultural war between believers and alphabet soup alternate lifestyle advocates.

It rivals Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s surrender terms at Fort Donaldson in its lack of generosity and sweeping demands.

In 1862 the commander of Fort Donaldson asked Gen. Grant for terms. Grant replied, “no terms except an unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.”

Christians haven’t asked for surrender terms from lifestyle heretics even though the church has been under ceaseless attack from leftists who would outlaw all religion, joined by therapeutic Christians who place feelings ahead of biblical doctrine.

Lack of interest didn’t prevent Rodgers from offering to “bridge this divide.”  Peace will reign if Christians agree to submit to any and all “affirming” demands from the Legions of License. This submission includes every realm of life outside the church; and Rodgers gives the impression there are plans for the future there, too.

Once Christians toe the line, Julie and her allies won’t move immediately on churches’ tax–exempt status.

Frankly, I’m not ready to sell my Christian birthright for a mess of tax breaks, even if Rodgers could be trusted to keep her end of the bargain.

Julie’s dishonesty is evident only 66 words into her manifesto. She refers to believers who adhere to biblical doctrine with a 2,000 year old pedigree as “conservative Christians.” Her intent is to marginalize the great majority of believers and characterize them as out of the mainstream and possibly Republican.

The correct term for congregations who believe God opposes sexual deviancy and considers the bond of marriage to be limited to one man and one woman, is ‘Christian.’

The accurate term for those who hold opposing beliefs is ‘heretic.’

In Rodgers eyes Christians are doubly guilty because of what they believe and their attempt to live their faith — which hurts the feelings of the heretics.  This means I have bad news for Julie. God doesn’t care about your sexual orientation celebration. He cares about your soul’s ultimate salvation.

Julie has written that the Bible needs to keep up with the times. “Both sides are sincere Christians and view the Bible as authoritative––they just differ on how the Bible, which was written in a patriarchal context in the 1st century, should apply to empowered women in the 21st century.” Translated, this means Jesus would approve of alphabet lifestyles in the church and homosexual marriage if He just had access to all the facts, like Julie does.

The heretics want to divide the Body of Christ by using the pejorative term ‘conservative’ for mainstream believers, while at the same time dividing the Apostles by making Paul a TEA Party Republican. That way it’s easier to ignore his obvious instruction on marriage and homosexual practice.

Julie, who’ll be marrying another woman any day now, is confused by Christian reluctance to jettison orthodox biblical belief on her sayso, “It became hard for me to understand what exactly was driving traditional teaching on marriage if it was not fear of change––a very particular kind of fear that’s often expressed through homophobia.”

But which side is the aggressor here? Are Baptists suing florists who provide centerpieces for same–sex weddings? How about bakers who put two men on the top of the wedding cake? Or photographers who memorialize the ceremony?

The question answers itself. The alphabet–apostates are not demanding to be left alone so they may live their lives as they wish. They are demanding Christians live their lives according to the demands of those in rebellion against God’s word.

Rodger’s writes, “It’s not hard to understand why LGBTQ people don’t trust conservative Christians enough to work toward a compromise.” But what Julie offers isn’t a compromise, it’s a demand for submission.

Christian churches don’t single out the consonant crusaders. Churches are opposed to obvious and flagrant adulterers, incest practitioners, polygamists and couples shacking up, assuming the churches are aware of the transgressions.

Julie’s allies make it a point to be flagrant and then object to the predictable consequences. Her disingenuous ‘peace’ proposal is a demand Christians stop following Christ and start following the culture.

Rodgers assures us becoming party to her apostasy will be painless, “The most conservative Christians can joyfully provide services to people they think are sinful without violating the spirit of Scripture.”

Which is true. I cheerfully provide personal services to a sinner when I brush my teeth at night. What I believe Christians won’t provide, joyfully or otherwise, is validation and celebration of practices that purposely insult the God we worship and the faith we practice.

How Dare Catholic Hospitals Protect the Unborn!

FiveThirtyEight.com is an Opposition Media website that assures us of its superiority and authority: “FiveThirtyEight uses statistical analysis — hard numbers — to tell compelling stories about elections, politics, sports, science, economics and culture.”

What that glowing description leaves out is that FiveThirtyEight reporters also use bias and selective ‘facts’ to color how they report their “hard numbers.”

Rick McKee The Augusta Chronicle, GA

And speaking of firmness, the website appears to have a bone of contention with Catholic hospitals in the US.

Even we low–information Trump voters know there is an “opioid crisis” in rural America. It’s so bad that even normally disdained rural whites are getting sympathetic news coverage. Simultaneously, there’s another rural crisis that affects everyone in the boondocks, druggies and deplorables alike. As drugs move in, hospitals are moving out. For–profit hospitals leave because low incomes and low population density make it difficult to justify operating a hospital in the hinterlands.

When small town hospitals close it leaves residents without healthcare options. Below is a sampling of relevant headlines:

A Hospital Crisis Is Killing Rural Communities. This State Is ‘Ground Zero.’

Hospital Closings Likely to Increase

Nearly 700 rural hospitals at risk of closing

After that one would think any organization keeping rural hospitals open would be the beneficiary of praise and congratulated for their compassion for rural Americans. But not so fast. That thinking might get one fired at FiveThirtyEight.

Anna Maria Barry–Jester and Amelia Thomson–DeVeaux (beware of reporters bearing hyphens) examined one organization that still operates rural hospitals and found it wanting, and even worse, religious. “In a growing number of communities around the country, especially in rural areas, patients and physicians have access to just one hospital. And in more and more places, that hospital is Catholic.”

Now I can understand if the hospital was operated by Mormons it might be tough to get a cup of coffee in the cafeteria, but what could be wrong with Catholics? After all, the word ‘hospital’ comes to us from the Knights Hospitaller, an order dating back to the Crusades.

The danger is evidently intrinsic to being a Catholic. “What happens when you need or want a standard medical service, but the hospital won’t provide it?”

A hospital that won’t provide “standard medical service”? That does sound ominous.

I know Catholic doctrine considers homosexual practice a sin, but that shouldn’t rule out a colonoscopy. Passing out drunk is frowned upon, too, but I don’t think anesthesia is banned. Suicide is certainly a no–no, but I’ve never read of a Catholic hospital forcing those who attempt self–murder to visit a Satanist for treatment.

So what are these “standard medical services”?

The “hard numbers” reporters explain, “…abortion, birth control, vasectomies, tubal ligations, some types of end–of–life care, emergency contraception and procedures related to gender transition can all be off-limits if your local hospital happens to be Catholic.”

Translation: If you want an abortion, assisted suicide or to have your body vandalized so you can claim to be a woman (or man) when you’re not, a Catholic hospital is not a good place to go for an estimate.

The other “standard” procedures relate to birth control and even those in the grip of the strongest passion can pop into Walmart for stopgap measures, until they make their way to the big city.

As Becket Adams, who found the story, pointed out, “Remember, this is an article is about Catholic hospitals servicing poor and isolated rural areas where other medical organizations don’t or can’t operate.”

One would think the left would be celebrating Catholic’s commitment to the rural poor isolated by the closure of evil profit–making hospitals. Instead the hyphen twins twist facts to make Catholic hospitals look malign.

In Cook County, not a rural area, the Pope’s practitioners are made to appear sinister because Medicaid patients were enrolled “in a plan where Catholic hospitals made up a bigger share of in-network facilities with labor and delivery departments than the share they accounted for in Cook County as a whole.”

What they don’t tell readers is why. That’s because Catholic hospitals will accept any Medicaid patients, while many for–profit hospitals won’t accept the same patients because the reimbursement rates are very low and the checks come very slow. Catholic hospitals are ‘over represented’ because the for–profit hospitals wanted out.

Instead of the praise Catholic hospitals deserve for continuing to serve the poor and isolated, these religious institutions are pilloried in the media because Catholics refuse to provide an altar for the left’s sacrament of abortion and its celebration of sexual license and dysfunction.

In spite of the FiveThirtyEight criticism, I imagine that even rural atheists are glad they have a hospital, in spite of the fact it’s run by Catholics.

Kavanaugh’s Audition to Join Oracles at Delphi

The Claremont Institute and the James Wilson Institute recently co–hosted a panel discussing “The Kavanaugh Hearing: A Battle of Two Constitutions.” Don’t let the title confuse you. The Senate hearing for Brett Kavanaugh — President Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee — won’t be like a customer service phone tree where you press #1 for the US Constitution or #2 for the Mexican Constitution.

Currently the US Constitution is still the law of the land, in spite of the best efforts of globalists on the left. What the panel worthies were discussing was two different views of the Constitution and the role of a Supreme Court judge. Conservatives according to John Eastman, Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, view the Constitution as a document “that means what it says and is interpreted faithfully” by the Supreme Court.

Nate Beeler, The Columbus Dispatch

The left views the Constitution as a musty document written by white supremacists that is not to be taken literally. This is in stark contrast to the left’s views on the “white supremacist” in the Oval Office. Trump’s tweets, statements, random musings and jokes are always taken quite literally.

The left prefers a “living Constitution” shorn of white privilege and Christianity. This is a “Constitution that is flexible and conforms to the culture,” explains Eastman. Under the left the court operates more like Miss America judges who put more emphasis on the social station of contestants and how they will cure cancer.

Or as the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Liar of the Senate, said during the John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, “Whose side is Roberts on?” That is particularly important for the left because the Supreme Court has become their legislature of last resort. With enough justices on the left’s side, the Supreme Court can create the law.

Past victories include abortion, homosexual marriage, the federal stamp of approval for homosexual sex, the Kelo decision and the growth of the unelected administrative state.

Even with a Republican majority in both houses and a Republican president — the trifecta that Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell assured conservatives would result in a tsunami of legislation, but instead only raised the humidity — Republicans are as anxious as Democrats are resigned.

Hadley Arkes, a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute, reminds us that after Robert Bork’s nomination was rejected by the Senate after a false and vitriolic display of character assassination, Republicans didn’t decide to fight back. Instead GOP nominees adopted a pose of “lasting defensiveness and timidity.”

While the left proudly announces its litmus test favoring abortion, campaign spending and guns that all their nominees must pass, Republicans act as though there is something shameful about protecting the unborn. One could say they’ve taken the spot in the closet recently vacated by homosexuals.

Even President Trump, who is no stranger to verbal controversy, assures one and all that he never asks his nominees their position on life. As a result GOP Supreme Court nominees act like air travelers in the screening line. They shuffle along and avoid making eye contact. As Arkes puts it nominees are told, “don’t scare the horses and don’t scare [RINO senators] Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins.”

Conservative senators are reduced to hoping the nominee judges like Clarence Thomas, but fearing he may turn out like John Roberts.

This primacy of the Supreme Court was never intended by the founders. Judges were to have limited role, according to Thomas Jipping, Deputy Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies , “interpreting and applying the law impartially.”

The fact judges do not is a symptom of the rot in Washington. Congress has abdicated its legislative and oversight role. There are few spectacles more pitiful than a Republican Congress suing Obama over unconstitutional elements of Obamacare when they have the legislative power to defund or amend the law. Rather than do the job to which they were elected, country club Republicans throw themselves on the mercy of the court.

Democrats are aggressive. Jipping explains their view is “judges have an unlimited role defined by the outcome of the case. The end justifies the means.” Citizens are presented with the sight of feeble Republicans deferring their authority to the courts, while leftists encourage the courts to make the laws they can’t convince the public to approve.

Judges who faithfully followed the injunction of Leviticus 19:15: “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor” would return the court to its proper role under the design of the founders and go a long way toward re–establishing the separation of power envisioned when the Constitution was written.

Until that happens, as Arkes’ says, the president is now reduced to being “the prime elector, choosing our nine black–robed rulers.”

The High Social Cost of Non–Profit Lawyers

Recently the Washington Pravda caused me to start thinking about lawyers. This is not a favorite topic. I resent the fact lawyers can file a frivolous lawsuit, on behalf of a dishonest client, and be completely untouched by any repercussions. On the contrary, they’re handsomely paid while aiding an injustice.

Meanwhile, the subject of the suit spends thousands fighting a lie. In most instances, even if he wins, he’s ruined financially.

I can count the number of times I’ve hired a lawyer on the fingers of one hand. My first was an incompetent who didn’t understand the specific performance clause of a real estate contract. The second lawyer was hired 14 years later when I bought another house. In between I joined the Monkey Wards legal plan. (“Monkey Wards” is redneck for Montgomery Wards, once a retailing powerhouse rivaling Sears and J. C. Penny, but now existing mainly as a shrunken web retailer and occasional reference in opinion columns.)

The monthly fee entitled members to a one hour consultation on any civil matter, document reviews and stern letters written on my behalf to anyone who dared to cross me in a legal manner of speaking. If a problem needed more than one hour of legal advice, plan members go on the clock at what was guaranteed to be a ‘discounted’ rate.

That’s the entirety of my contact with lawyers as a client. It’s the total contact for most Americans.

What prompted this brief bout of soul–searching was the mention of the “Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless” in connection with the demolition of a building near Washington, DC’s main homeless shelter.

A staff lawyer for the clinic supported a bill by Councilman Trayon White Sr. — the Maxine Waters–like political wizard, who’s convinced Jews control the weather. Before it was diluted by a thunderstorm, White’s bill would have required the city to put the homeless in new housing before demolition could begin.

My first thought was why on earth would homeless people need an entire legal clinic at their disposal? I could understand being on the lookout for doctors, cooks, haberdashers, carpenters and cobblers, but if I could get by for decades without paying for a lawyer, why do DC’s homeless need one for free?

Well, there’s that crime thing. In Portland, OR the homeless made up half the people arrested in 2017. That’s a lot of lawbreaking for less than one percent of the population. Homeless arrest percentages aren’t reported in DC, but regardless the clinic only handles civil matters, not criminal.

The organization has 15 staff members, 9 of whom are lawyers. Funding comes from donations and grants from the annual United Way charity drive and the Combined Federal Campaign.

So, what do these legal eagles do all day? The homeless, by definition, aren’t buying homes and I doubt their days are a whirlwind of wills and living trusts. That leaves news conferences and social justice, which is very expensive for the public.

The clinic’s existence, funding and social approval is a byproduct of what Russell Moore calls “moralistic sentimentalism.” Meaning someone sees a problem, decides the problem shouldn’t exist and makes it their goal to eliminate the problem. What they never do is ask what caused the problem in the first place. Moralists aren’t big on responsibility.

They feel sorry for the homeless and then use them as a blank slate to demonstrate their commitment to being a good person. Some of the sympathetic go to work for the clinic and others fund to it. With the ironic result that the homeless’ legal team is funded by the same people who can’t afford a lawyer of their own and whose lives are degraded by the clinic’s legal victories.

Don’t like aggressive panhandlers? Thank a lawyer. Don’t like stepping in human waste on the sidewalk? Thank a lawyer. Don’t like derelicts camping in front of your business? Thank a lawyer. Don’t like worrying about stepping on a syringe with your flip–flop? Thank a lawyer. Don’t like being forced to roll up your window when a panhandler confronts you in the left turn lane? Thank a lawyer.

The homeless industrial complex likes to describe the homeless as “outcasts,” like it’s our fault they’re on the street. When the truth is many are on the street because they can’t obey simple rules, can’t resist drugs and alcohol or they are criminals.

Instead of building a society that reinforces cultural norms, organizations like the clinic employ the force of the law to coddle a tiny minority at the expense and safety of the vast majority. The only homeless who truly benefit are the handful that are power–washed before their brief court appearance as a token plaintiff.

The rest continue their downward spiral and the lawyers, as usual, suffer no repercussions.

Cicadas, the Latest Addition to Chinese Cuisine

Business reporter Harrison Jacobs accurately describes China as a “techno–authoritarian” state. Where the Nazis used inaccurate Phrenology and calipers to identify enemies of the state, China uses the latest in technology to constantly identify, monitor, exhort and if need be, round up recalcitrant citizens.

The government’s reach is so pervasive that the fleeting appearance of a Taiwan flag emoji is enough to crash an iPhone the first time it appears. (The second time a functionary of state security will crash the phone with a hammer.)

Dave Granlund, Minnesota

China’s “Sharp Eyes” program will to install a nationwide surveillance camera network extending from public spaces to inside businesses and even private homes. The goal is for everyone to be on TV by 2020.

The accelerated development of facial recognition software makes the program feasible. The program’s rollout doesn’t leave much time for worries about early software bugs connected with real time surveillance of 1.4 billion people. Chinese state security is so efficient that even if the wrong man is identified, they’ll make sure he’s guilty of something.

The data produced by “Sharp Eyes” will be used to build an individual “social credit” score for every Chinese citizen. In the US a low credit score might prevent you from buying a car. In China, a low social credit score will keep you from buying a train ticket.

According to Breitbart, by using surveillance cameras, informers and state security the government “closely monitors the behavior of all individuals…People considered loyal, law–abiding members of the Communist Party are assigned high social credit scores, while those who violate the law…are assigned lower scores.”

By May of this year 11 million Chinese with low social credit scores had been prevented from boarding airplanes and another 4 million couldn’t get on a train. No reports as yet of low scorers being forbidden to buy shoes.

The social credit system originally documented Internet activity. Where Chinese went on the web, what they posted and even what they bought. Now the system has grown to encompass a wide range of transgressions including “jaywalking, returning library books late [or] possessing frowned–upon religious or political materials, or [exhibiting] insufficient patriotism.”

Regardless of how much this system would improve the quality of life in San Francisco and the NFL, it still sounds ominous to me. And now that China has announced a cicada infestation, the other shoe has dropped.

For those of you who don’t keep current on bugs, cicadas are noisy critters who are chained to a calendar cycle, much like comets and women. Only the insect’s cycle is once every 17 years. Cicadas make their way out of the ground in multitudes, produce an incredible amount of noise and then molt out of their current body into a completely new version, something like aging trophy wives.

My local Washington Post is so obsessed with these bugs that it almost has a cicada beat. As the time for Peak Cicada approaches one finds the paper filled with headlines like:

Are Cicada Infestations Harsher and More Frequent Due to Global Warming?

Insect Activist Is the First to Take a Selfie With a Cicada

Trump and Cicadas: Is There a Russian Connection?

Even the Style and Food sections join in the excitement: ‘Expert Suggestions for Removing Cicadas from Your Shoes’; and ‘Cicada Crunch: A Protein–Packed, Summer Casserole With No Trans–fat’.

Some claim cicadas even taste like shrimp which, if true, will come in handy, because that’s what the Chinese government wants citizens to do. The South China Morning Post reports the city of Hangzhou, located in eastern China, is under attack by cicadas and a city official is urging residents to save the trees by eating a bug.

“Sun Xiaoping, the official in charge of green spaces…[said] the best way to deal with the problem was for the local community to turn the tables on the creepy-crawlies and do some eating of their own.”

Cicadas travel in swarms that can approach 1 million bugs per acre. That’s enough insects to feed an extended Chinese family of 48 for almost a year or a North Korean family for a decade.

There’s been no talk of consumption quota, but it’s still early in the infestation. How cicada crunching will affect one’s social credit score is unknown, too. Will eating just one be enough to preserve your social credit score or will you get bonus points for sharing recipes?

Vegans may also face a Hobson’s Choice between obeying their dietary neuroses or maintaining a mass–transit level social credit score.

The fact cicadas as a whole are able to defeat predators by swarming in such large numbers may offer hope for fastidious Chinese. The trick is to enter a swarm, eat nothing, but emerge smacking their lips. Just don’t forget to face a camera.