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.

Advertisements

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.

Time for Conservatives to Go On Strike

Retiring Rep. Paul Ryan (R–NeverTrump) has revealed what he hopes will be his lasting political legacy. Ryan intends to be the last Republican Speaker of the House. Ever.

And Ryan working hard to achieve his goal. The immigration bills he supports will do everything Donald Trump promised he wouldn’t do when he ran for president. Grant amnesty to DACA invaders and continue to dump low–wage visa workers into the food sector.

Gary McCoy, Shiloh, IL

Ryan’s bill gives amnesty to a minimum of 2 million illegals. A more accurate estimate, depending on the fraud levels and federal lassitude, is 6 million illegals. Plus, 1.35 million H–2C visas.

A Real Clear Politics poll shows that as soon as the conservative GOP base got wind of the plan, generic Republican poll numbers started dropping. Ryan doesn’t care, he’s busy burning down the House.

Amnesty presents problems for barnacles like Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell (R–Inertia) who want to remain in DC. His solution is a warning that sounds more like a self–fulfilling prophecy.

The New York Times reports “…a strategy is emerging on the right for how to energize conservatives and drive a wedge between the anti–Trump left and moderate voters: warn that Democrats will immediately move to impeach President Trump if they capture the House.”

America Rising, a GOP consulting firm, sent an email warning “Right now the only thing standing between the president and the Democrats’ underhanded impeachment attempts is the Republican majority in the House fighting to defend our president.”

Former Trumper Steve Bannon, still stinking and smoldering from his political self–immolation, stopped beating out the flames long enough to add, “You have to put Donald Trump on the ticket. You’re not voting for Congress. You’re voting for Donald Trump.”

Thoughtful voters may find this ‘if you don’t vote for me, the other guy is gonna get it’ strategy curious. What possible additional damage could Democrats do after Republicans have willingly legalized 6 million new leftist voters?

GOP apologists can’t even attempt to balance the illegals sellout with other conservative legislation. There is none. Planned Parenthood still cashes federal checks. Competition is still missing from healthcare. The budget remains uncut. The federal government remains bloated.

The one bright spot is there’s a good chance Cinco de Mayo will soon be added to the list of national holidays!

It was ironic that McConnell was quoted telling an audience he’s like a cemetery groundskeeper, “Everybody’s under you but nobody’s listening.” It’s an accurate description of McConnell’s tenure as Senate Majority Leader. He marks time, keeping the lawn mowed and the bushes trimmed while awaiting Jesus’ return — when something will finally get done.

This month marks the only achievement that is really important to the curator. McConnell is now the longest serving GOP Senate majority leader in history. His legacy is longevity. Something that can also be said of a turtle.

It takes dedication and gullibility to find something in McConnell’s record to celebrate. The Hill contends a refusal to hold a vote on Obama’s final nominee to the Supreme Court is “McConnell’s most lasting legacy.” And the Emperor of Inertia’s strategy wasn’t even original. He was following ‘Shotgun’ Joe Biden’s lead.

The Hill was also impressed because McConnell, “kept a steady hand on the party through two political revolutions within the GOP: the emergence of the Tea Party in 2009 and 2010 and the election of President Trump.” Yes, McConnell managed to waste an unprecedented grassroots movement for change.

Now two bodies filled with ‘leadership’ that can’t stand the president are using Trump as a human shield. Vote to keep people in office who won’t do what you want — to prevent people from getting in office who will do what their base wants.

If you’re like me and are tired of campaign–only conservatives, lets send a message in November that even McConnell can’t ignore. It’s time for conservatives to go on strike.

This November conservatives should vote for the GOP Senate candidate and write in ‘On Strike’ as their congressional vote. ‘On Strike’ — instead of Mickey Mouse or Goofy — sends an unmistakable message.

‘On Strike’, we can make a difference. The write–in vote in Alabama was enough to deny victory to the creep. Our November write–ins can deny another victory to do–nothing, country club conservatives.

A Democrat House will try to impeach Trump, grab guns and may require Christians to not only bake same–sex wedding cakes, but also attend the service. So what? McConnell has plenty of room in his legislative mortuary.

The strike ends in 2020. We recapture the House delivering another base–generated wave for McConnell. Only this time, instead of wasting it like the TEA party and Trump waves, McConnell will know he either uses it or we’ll lose him.

Cold Civil War May Be Heating Up

Recent developments on the restaurant front are going to put a dent into ‘date night’ plans for Kellyanne Conway and her husband. If Sarah Huckabee Sanders can’t eat in peace with her Never Trump in–laws in some central Virginia one–horse–town, there’s no way Conway can have a sit–down dinner anywhere in DC or Northern Virginia and the drive–through may be out of the question, too.

Huckabee could have solved her problem by going around the corner to the Robert E. Lee Hotel for Italian. There is no way even the most self–righteous Social Justice Warrior would follow her into an establishment named after ‘Marse Robert.’

Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle, GA

Low–level Trump administration employees in Oregon should be so lucky.

For over a week in Portland, OR the domestic terrorist group Antifa has been blockading the entrance of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building. Oregon Live reports the fascists claim they are staging their “round–the–clock occupation in opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, including its policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the U.S. border.”

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler agrees, “The policy being enacted by the federal government around the separation of very small children from their parents is an abomination. I want to be very clear I do not want the @PortlandPolice to be engaged or sucked into a conflict, particularly from a federal agency that I believe is on the wrong track, that has not fully lived American values of inclusion and is also an agency where the former head suggested that people who lead cities that are sanctuary cities like this one should be arrested.”

Since Wheeler and other sanctuary politicians are conspiring to obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law, they should be arrested. If President Trump can be investigated for obstructing an imaginary Russia collusion crime, then Wheeler should expect equal treatment for proven obstruction.

Wheeler proves its short journey from sanctimonious ‘sanctuary city’ politicians deciding what laws they will enforce, to deciding who qualifies for protection under the law. In Portland’s Wheeler regime, illegal aliens are immune to federal immigration law, while federal employees don’t qualify for protection by the police.

I’m reasonably sure Wheeler isn’t a religious man, but what he’s done is equivalent to being excommunicated by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. The protection of government is removed from the excommunicated and they are on their own.

Wheeler’s denying federal employees protection under the law covers all the bases of lawlessness. It’s a direct violation of his oath of office where he pledged to “support the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Oregon; Charter of the City of Portland and its laws.” And selective enforcement of the law violates the ‘equal protection’ clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Police Chief Danielle Outlaw appears to be a good German and is following the mayor’s orders to let lawlessness reign. This really is no different from Nazi Germany, where the police were ordered by party officials to ignore Brown Shirt attacks on Communists.

It’s only a short rotation on the color wheel from Brown Shirt fascists to black–clad Antifa fascists.

This is also where society begins to unravel. If federal employees doing their job for a legitimately elected president can’t expect protection from local police their taxes support, then it won’t be long before the employees decide to take their safety into their own hands.

Wheeler’s us–against–them politics has aroused the interest of Uncle Sam. Usually local officials and police don’t like it when the feds start big–footing around their jurisdiction. Here Wheeler invites it and the invitation has been accepted by the Federal Protective Service.

The Service distributed a flyer ordering occupiers to leave: “It is unlawful under federal law to obstruct the entrances, foyers, lobbies, corridors, offices and/or parking lots of federal facilities.”

Those arrested will be sent to a federal facility and tried in a federal court.

The ICE building takes up the entire block where it’s located. Assuming Antifa clears federal land without a street battle, the feds are powerless to evict them from private property surrounding the block. The occupiers could well emulate the border jumpers they profess to love and trespass on adjacent private land. Where Portland cops will continue to ignore them.

Sanders was no doubt irritated by her treatment, but she had meal options. That’s not the case with law enforcement. When the police violate their oath and duty by refusing to protect law–abiding citizens from a fascist mob, there is no other option for the average citizen except direct action.

Wheeler and the other leftists in his Amen corner need to ask themselves if that’s really a road down which they want to travel.

Donald Trump Suffers Separation Anxiety

When journalist Lenore Skenazy first introduced the concept of “free range parenting” I knew it was only a matter of time before the idea would careen out of control. Free range parenting is a return to the 1960’s when kids were allowed to enjoy frightening activities like walking alone to the store, playing unsupervised in the park and remaining unwatched and unmonitored for hours at a time.

Free range is a particularly risky choice for citizens who live in a state run by leftist nannies, as Danielle and Alexander Meitiv discovered to their dismay. Their children were spotted walking home from a park located less than a mile from home.

Sean Delonas, CagleCartoons.com

The two were seized by local police and held until their parents could be investigated by Maryland Child Protective Services functionaries. The resulting ‘investigation’ found the Meitivs guilty of neglect.

US children don’t even have to be moving under their own power for parents to have them ‘separated’ by the authorities. If mom runs into 7/11 on a hot day to buy a Powerball ticket, and leaves junior in the car with the windows down, she can be arrested for neglect even though junior is close enough to hit with a wadded–up Powerball ticket.

And the ticket isn’t the only loser. Mom will be separated from junior until she grovels enough for CPS to be satisfied.

That’s not the way Extreme Free Range parenting is practiced in Latin America.

Rango libre parents send their unaccompanied kids thousands of miles north. In the States parents can get in trouble for letting their kids chase the ice cream man. But it’s “no hay problema” when the kids are chasing Uncle Sam.

The Opposition Media ignores the fact that citizen parents are held to a higher standard than illegal parents. For that matter, Walmart shoplifters are held to a higher standard. The first action the police take after arresting the parent is to separate the children.

None of the OpMedia, leftist politicians or spineless Republicans ever ask the obvious question: What kind of parent lets their child travel hundreds of miles with strangers? What parent brings the kids along when they break the law? And how is society served by leaving children with abusive or criminally stupid parents?

That’s not rango libre parenting, it’s felony parenting.

Approximately 12,000 children are being held on our southern border. Only 2,000 of those children are with people claiming to be their parents, the other 10,000 somehow arrived by themselves.

The left claims the border situation is different. While the Walmart shopper is just another petty thief, the Hispaniard is a “refugee” seeking asylum. Just as patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, asylum is the last refuge of the illegal.

My ICE source tells me most of the asylum claims only come after the “refugee” is informed he will be sent back to his country. That’s the point in the interview when the illegal slaps his knee and says, “¡Ay, caramba! I forgot to tell you about the death squad!”

And these are death squads with strange priorities. What is it about the landscaping community that has marked so many of them for pruning? Back during the Reagan administration (home of the one–time–only amnesty for illegals) Central American death squads targeted the elite leadership of a country. Politicians, journalists, educators, lawyers and the wealthy were all in the crosshairs.

But these days it appears instead of concentrating on movers and shakers, modern death squads are after mowers and rakers.

Another fact that works to undermine the credibility of “refugees” and their separated children is geography. If I were a battered woman or a lawn care specialist targeted for extinction, I would apply for asylum at the nearest US consulate. There are four located between the southern border of Mexico and the border of Texas.

Why wait days to apply if you’re in real danger? That’s easy. They aren’t in danger and if an applicant is turned down in the interior of Mexico he’s on his own. But if he can make it to the US border Uncle Sam will leave the light on and take care of food and lodging while the process grinds to a conclusion.

Now President Trump has single–handedly undermined his stringent enforcement policy by cratering and allowing illegals to keep their “children.” For a while Latin America saw there were consequences to violating US immigration law. That’s gone now. The US is once again provides a soft landing for foreigners characterized by recklessness, avarice and contempt for the law.

Even worse, Trump has damaged his own immigration credibility with his base. Now the left knows if they broadcast enough pictures of crying kids, Trump will once again be an immigration tigre de papel.

Leftists Taking Language Instruction from Corporations

Jordan Peterson, a Canadian professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, is enjoying some measure of fame and its attendant notoriety for boldly coming out in support of common sense. He’s even steadfast enough to continue his support when it conflicts with edicts from the leftist Speech Police.

This would be courageous at a US university, but it becomes almost foolhardy at a Canadian college.

Peterson believes in self–reliance and responsibility. And just as he wouldn’t allow aggressive strangers to choose his pants, he’s also not allowing aggressive strangers to choose his pronouns.

Columnist John Stossel writes that when asked about an entirely hypothetical — for now — law that “would require everyone to call people by the pronoun they prefer — pronouns like “ze” instead of “he” or “she”, Peterson said he would refuse to obey.

I’m with Peterson on this. I can’t even get my relatives and fellow Baptists to call me by the correct proper name of ‘Michael,’ instead of ‘Mike,’ so why should strangers have the power to compel pronouns by force of law?

Peterson’s reasoning is sound. “I don’t care what people want to be called. But that doesn’t mean I should be compelled by law to call them that. The government has absolutely no business whatsoever ever governing the content of your voluntary speech.”

I would assume for Peterson that includes ‘hate’ speech and ‘he’ speech.

Naturally this perfectly reasonable position tripped the outrage alarm on his campus. Hundreds of easily–herded academics signed a petition calling for Peterson to be fired by the university. And students who are happy to extend toleration to any ideology with which they agree and condemn any they dislike, now bring bullhorns to Peterson’s speeches to drown out his impure thinking.

I’ve been giving some thought to where these fascists got the idea it was permissible to control someone else’s language and I’ve come to the conclusion they are merely aping their corporate overlords.

Monkey see, monkey say, if you will.

In my opinion the seed for this preposterous language control was planted in 2006 when Nintendo introduced its new gaming system, the Wii. Starting with the product rollout Nintendo caused controversy in my house as I displayed a Peterson–like resistance to corporate control of my vowels. Standard English pronunciation rules dictate ‘W–i–i’ is pronounced ‘W–eye’, with both ‘i’s being long.

Not so, according to Tokyo. Wikipedia informs us the Japanese decided ‘W–i–i’ was to be pronounced “W–ee” and the wikis even had the gall to use the preexisting English word ‘wee’ (meaning small) to illustrate how Nintendo wanted the name of their authoritarian Wii to be mispronounced.

Nintendo’s excuse for butchering the pronunciation of the language and fomenting disrespect among my children was the “two lower-case “i” characters are intended to resemble two people standing side-by-side, representing players gathering together…”

Instead, it looks to me like two intimidated customers cowering under the baleful glare of the boss–like Big W.

Even today when I use standard English pronunciation for ‘Wii’ I’m either instantly instructed to mispronounce the name or given an indulgent smile while my wife is asked if I display any other symptoms of Old Timer’s Disease.

Evidently, I should have made a bigger stink in 2006. Possibly held a demonstration in front of the Japanese embassy in Washington. Claimed Nintendo was “wii wii–ing on our language.” Enlisted the help of English teachers and speech therapists.

Now it’s just a short step from “Wii” control to “ze” control. I can understand how deluded people, who feel they are a woman in a man’s body, might live with a certain level of anger. It’s not like they can return to the customer service desk at the hospital and demand a new body.

What I don’t like is taking out their frustration on the rest of us and recruiting a pack of braying donkeys to make us conform.

Dragooning pronouns into a ginned up political controversy to give abnormals more power over normals will either push the culture one step closer to a not so soft totalitarianism or add more velocity to a potentially dangerous backlash.

Anthony Esolen, an author I admire, recently remarked on the class of individual that seeks to bend the culture to its constantly proliferating set of rules and regulations for the leftist life: “The politicization of everything makes human life unlivable. These people are a hundred times worse than what they believe Joe McCarthy to have been: they are censors without self–restraint, Puritans without God, libertines without pleasure, and eternal politicians without the least sense of what a polis really is. I would not call them a nest of vipers, because vipers are at least respectable in their straightforward malignity. They are a seething mass of poisonous worms.”

Constipation Is an Advantage When Flying American Airlines

Members of any airline frequent flyer club have seen the benefits of membership gradually erode under the relentless assault of airline bean–counters. The yearly mileage necessary to qualify for even the lowest membership level has increased dramatically over the years.

At the same time the member’s accumulated miles have been devalued as the mileage cost of free tickets has been increased to a minimum of 25,000 miles. Other perks, like upgrades and airport lounge passes, associated with climbing up the frequent flyer status ladder, have also been reduced or eliminated.

Milt Priggee, Oak Harbor, WA

The only airline club where the benefits have remained largely intact is the Mile–High Club and now American Airlines has declared war on that collection of randy flyers.

On AA’s new 737–MAX aircraft one would have to be Tyrion Lannister to have even the remotest hope of conducting an induction ceremony, and even then it would be very close. Passengers flying on the remodeled 737 would do well to gate–check their claustrophobia.

The new bathrooms on that aircraft are so small the usage experience more closely resembles that of a human cannonball than it does of relieving oneself. At the circus the human cannonball knows, given the dimensions of the gun tube, once inside he’s not going to have the luxury of repositioning himself.

The same is true for the cruelly–named 737–MAX.

The ‘MAX’ bathroom is 25 percent smaller than the telephone booths flyers have grown accustomed to using in the past. The new comfort coffins are so tight it is impossible to turn around once inside with the door closed. This presents no problem for women or men who want to keep their options open, but for the rest of us, we’re going to have to commit before we close the door.

Plus–sized passengers may require the assistance of Crisco or their fellow passengers to get in and get out.

And that’s not where the similarity to Ringling Brothers ends.

Just as the human cannonball is expelled by the expansion of hot gases trapped behind him in the tube, passengers following an exiting flyer too closely into the aircraft lavatory may find themselves wishing they could eject when encountering a large hot aroma trapped in a small confined space.

These indignities are only confined to healthy passengers. Nervous flyers or those with sensitive stomachs would do well to start practicing hurling while standing erect, because it is impossible to bend over in those bathrooms. This will be no problem for drunks and three–year–olds, but for rest of us abandon all hope of privacy as you are forced to leave the door open to bend over and be sick.

I always assumed when it came to mobile evacuation nothing could top the combination of indignity and excitement one experienced using a bus bathroom while the vehicle was in motion. It would have made perfect sense for Greyhound to install timers in those ‘restrooms’ so passengers could try and remain seated as long as the average bull rider.

Yet even in the worst bus bathroom I never got the impression the company had it in for me. Not so with American Airlines. Only a corporation that’s part of a lock–step oligopoly could exhibit such utter contempt for the comfort and dignity of its customers. To say nothing of its own reputation.

Starbucks shut the entire company down to atone for its sin after offending two black guys that weren’t even customers. American Airlines insults its entire customer base while laughing all the way to the bank.

The indignity doesn’t stop after you’ve finished your business. The sink in this washcoffin is so tiny passengers can only wash one hand at a time. It would have made more sense to dispense with the sink altogether in favor of waterless hand cleaner and devote the added room to the preservation of male kneecaps.

Flight attendants are on the passenger’s side in this dispute. The two shoebox bathrooms are located across from each other in the rear. Attendants have discovered that if doors open simultaneously, the two frequently snag, forming an impromptu wall that traps them in the galley.

Our loss in comfort and privacy is naturally American’s gain. Smaller bathrooms, thinner seats and less distance between seats allow more passengers. AA has increased the load from 160 passengers to 172 with the letterbox–sized bathrooms.

Flyers like me who avoid AA aren’t safe either. Airlines are in figurative race to the bottom and I fear my United will soon adopt AA’s malign one–holer design. The only bright spot I can see — and limited to longer flights — is the reduction in bathroom size might force American to institute a corresponding reduction is flight attendant size. In the interest of safety, of course.