Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Liberal mom finds enlightenment at Disneyland (with a man in the restroom)

original article: Liberal mom’s harrowing account of a man in the women’s restroom at Disneyland
March 17, 2017 by Laurie Higgins

Leftists smugly ask what they perceive to be THE “gotcha” question about trannies in restrooms: “So, are we going to have genital police?” To those smugsters, I ask, “How will you determine whether the burly, bearded, bulging-biceped person in the women’s restroom or locker room is a member of the “trans” cult or a predator pretending to be a member of the “trans” cult?”

Please read this short blog post from liberal California mom Kristen Quintrall whose eyes were (partially) opened by an experience in the women’s restroom at Disneyland:

I didn’t know if I was going to write this blog or not. A part of me was scared it’d be shared as some transgender hot piece about yet another homophobic mom lashing out at Disney and then I’d have to deal with the wrath of the internet telling me to kill myself. So let me be clear. This isn’t that story. This is a story about a biological man in the women’s restroom.

I’ve lived in Los Angeles for over a decade and have seen my fair share of transgender/gender fluid people. They in no way offend me. I’d consider myself pretty progressive and tolerant of most things….But how transgender people feel, how they choose to dress or any surgeries they get, don’t infringe on any parts of my life, so I support their decision to live as they see fit. I’ve also seen my fair share of transgender women in the women’s restroom before. Not ALL the time. But over the past few years, I’d say 4-5 that I noticed. Men…who were in some stage of transition and making every attempt to be a woman from mascara to heels. Transgenders who certainly felt comfortable in the women’s room and probably frightened to go into the men’s. At these times, I smiled…I peed…and life went on. But 2 weeks ago something very different happened.

I was at Disneyland with my son, my friend and her son. We were over in California Adventure in the food court area. We’d just finished eating and decided to pee before we headed out to The Little Mermaid. I went to the bathroom while she watched our boys in their strollers, and then I did the same….

I was off to the side waiting with the two boys, when I noticed a man walk into the restroom. My first thought was “Oh sh*t, he’s walked in the wrong restroom by mistake. lol” He took a few more steps, at which point he would’ve definitely noticed all the women lined up and still kept walking. My next thought was, “Maybe he’s looking for his wife…or child and they’ve been in here a while.” But he didn’t call out any names or look around. He just stood off to the side and leaned up against the wall. At this point I’m like, “[ ] Ok there is definitely a very manly hispanic man in a Lakers jersey who just walked in here. Am I the only one seeing this?” I surveyed the room and saw roughly 12 women, children in tow…staring at him with the exact same look on their faces. Everyone was visibly uncomfortable. We were all trading looks and motioning our eyes over to him…like “what is he doing in here?” Yet every single one of us was silent. And this is the reason I wrote this blog.

If this had been 5 years ago, you bet you’re a*s every woman in there would’ve been like, “Ummm what are you doing in here?”, but in 2017? the mood has shifted. We had been culturally bullied into silenced. Women were mid-changing their baby’s diapers on the changing tables and I could see them shifting to block his view. But they remained silent. I stayed silent. We all did. Every woman who exited a stall and immediately zeroed right in on him…said nothing. And why? B/c I…and I’m sure all the others were scared of that “what if”. What if I say something and he says he “identifies as a woman” and then I come off as the intolerant a*shole….? So we all stood there, shifting in our uncomfortableness…trading looks. I saw two women leave the line with their children. Still nothing was said. An older lady said to me out loud, “What is he doing in here?” I’m ashamed to admit I silently shrugged and mouthed, “I don’t know.” She immediately walked out…from a bathroom she had every right to use without fear.

So there lingered this unspoken doubt everyone had….that .00001% chance this wasn’t a man. Let me be clear. This was totally a man. If this wasn’t a man, this was a woman who had fully transitioned via surgery and hormones into a man and had also gotten an adam’s apple implant, chest hair and size 9-10 shoes ….and at that point, what are you doing in the women’s restroom?

And let me be clear, my problem wasn’t JUST that there was a man in the restroom. Its that he wasn’t even peeing, washing his hands or doing anything else that you’d do in a restroom. He was just standing off to the side looking smug…untouchable… doing absolutely nothing. He had to of noticed that every woman in the long line was staring at him. He didn’t care. He then did a lap around the restroom walking by all the stalls. You know, the stalls that have 1 inch gaps by all the doors hinges so you can most definitely see everyone with their pants around their ankles…..

So here I am…writing this blog, because honestly I need answers. We can’t leave this situation ambiguous any more. The gender debate needs to be addressed….and quickly. There have to be guidelines. It can’t just be a feeling. I’m sorry. I wish it could, but it can’t. I’m fine going by “if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck…it’s a duck.”…But this notion that we’re shamed into silence b/c we might offend someone, has gone too far.

There was a man in the bathroom. Not transgender. There was a man who felt entitled to be in the woman restroom, because he knew no one would say anything. There were 20-25 people by the time I left, who were scared and uncomfortable by his ominous presence. And the only thing stopping us, was our fear of political correctness and that the media has told us we don’t know what gender is anymore. I never want to be in the position again. Im not asking for permission to tell transgender people to get out my bathroom. I need to know it’s ok to tell a man, who looks like a man, to get [ ] out. Gender just can’t be a feeling. There has to be science to it. DNA, genitals, amount of Sephora make up on your face, pick your poison, but as a very progressive woman…I’m sorry it can’t just be a feeling when theres but a mere suggestion of a door with a peep hole separating your eyes from my vagina or my children’s genitals.

I commend Quintrall for her courage and partial insight, but she doesn’t see the intellectual and moral incoherence that yet animate her new position.

She says this man wasn’t transgender. He was a “biological male.” She says there “has to be science to it.” Well, science tells us that the sex of persons can never change. Men who identify as “trans” remain always biological males. So, the man who through castration and cross-sex hormone-doping looks like a woman and talks like a woman remains forever a man. And women should be no more comfortable with the frock-wearing, Sephora-painted man sashaying past women doing their business in stalls than they would be if a construction worker in Carhartts lumbered past the stall door.

Objective sex either matters in private spaces or doesn’t matter. And if it doesn’t matter—if biological sex has no intrinsic meaning—we should eradicate all single-sex contexts everywhere. That would include restrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, showers, saunas, steam rooms, and semi-private hospital rooms.

Quintrall suggests that if this man-appearing person were actually a fully-“transitioned” “transman” (i.e., a woman), she should be using the men’s restroom. Wrong. Women cannot become men, and no women—not even women in disguise—belong in men’s restrooms.

And this brings us to the thorny problem of where these confused people should go to do their private business. Not to be unkind, but that’s a problem of their own creation. With regard to restrooms, most places of public accommodation have single-occupancy family restrooms that fully-disguised men and women can use. With regard to locker rooms, they’re out of luck. They should change and shower at home.

If people would bother to read more deeply on this critical cultural issue—that is, the meaning of sexual differentiation—they would learn that sexual anarchists seek to obliterate any and all public recognition of and respect for sexual differentiation.

The ignorant among us do not yet know that the “gender” eradication movement believes that “identifying” as the opposite sex requires nothing more than a verbal assertion. No diagnosis, no cross-dressing, no cross-sex hormone-doping, no surgery needed. Don’t misunderstand me. None of those can transmute men into women or vice versa. Unfortunately, I hear even from some purported conservatives that they’re fine with men who wish they were women using women’s restrooms as long as they’ve been castrated. But such a statement implies that the only issue with trannies in private spaces is the risk of physical predation in the form of peeping or assault. It’s not.

The central issue is the meaning of objective, immutable biological sex.

corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, extremism, ideology, justice, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, public policy, relativism, sex, unintended consequences, victimization

Filed under: corruption, political correctness, ideology, philosophy, sex, diversity, culture, public policy, justice, extremism, discrimination, relativism, unintended consequences, victimization, progressive

A social justice without coersion

original article: Conservatives Do Believe in Social Justice. Here’s What Our Vision Looks Like
March 17, 2017 by Ryan T. Anderson

Last month, America lost a great defender of freedom, Michael Novak.

Novak was committed to rightly ordered liberty and cared deeply about the principles and practices that produce it. His enormous body of work emphasized the cultural prerequisites for political and economic freedom, as he stressed that economic conservativism and social conservatism are indivisible.

In the words of Heritage Foundation founder Ed Feulner, “Michael forced those of us trained in the dismal science of economics to explain that we should be more than ‘free to choose’—rather we should be free to make good free choices.”

Last year, I was the recipient of the Acton Institute’s Michael Novak Award for “outstanding scholarly research concerning the relationship between religion, economic freedom, and the free and virtuous society.” Upon receiving it, I delivered the annual Calihan Lecture in London, England, at a conference on “The Crisis of Liberty in the West.”

The first half of the lecture discussed challenges to freedom in terms of bad intellectual defenses of economic freedom, collapsing communities, and cronyism. The second half discussed a natural law account of economic freedom, a natural law account of social justice, and some concluding thoughts about anthropology and virtue.

>>>Read the full lecture.

Part of the argument that I advance in the lecture is that economic freedom is meant to give us the space to fulfill our economic duties, the duty to work to support our families, the duty to work hard and be a good employee so as not to waste our talents or our employer’s time and money, the duty to serve our customers, and the duty to serve our communities.

Economic freedom was to allow people the space to fulfill these duties. So rightly understood, social justice is about fulfilling our duties to the various societies of which we are a part, and it is about the state respecting the authority of the many societies that make up civil society.

Take, for example, the society known as the family.

The family is a natural society with its own nature and integrity. Because of the natural reality of the family, we have certain obligations.

If you are a husband or a wife, you have certain duties to your spouse. If you are a parent, you have certain duties to your children, regardless of whether or not you ever chose them. And children, not Social Security administrators, have duties to their parents, especially as they age.

It is the natural reality of father and child, mother and child, that creates the relationship of authority and responsibility.

This places limits on what the government can do. The government is not free to recreate the family. The government is not free to usurp the authority of parents over the education of their children or adult children over the care of their elderly parents.

The same is true for religious organizations, especially if you believe that your church has a divine origin and a divine creation. This means government is not at liberty to recreate your church, to recreate its authority structure, or to recreate its teaching authority—that your church is something that is entrusted with a stewardship.

As a result, the nature of religious authority places limits on political authority and places duties upon members of the church.

The State and Social Justice

None of this, however, says that the state has no role to play in economic justice, just that it must respect the proper authority of society—a society of societies—as it does so. And this means that it must also respect the proper authority of economic societies—employees and employers, consumers and producers.

But while respecting their authority and the markets that allow them to interact and fulfill their duties, government can perform certain welfare activities, as Friedrich Hayek taught us, without distorting market signals and processes.

Insofar as government programs are intended to ameliorate the forces of globalization and new technologies distort markets, they are likely to simply make matters worse by prolonging the dying process of outdated industries and preventing the necessary transitions.

What a natural law account of social justice would suggest are policies that would empower more people to engage for themselves in the market and flourish.

I can illustrate this with some examples.

Consider education. Some “taxation is theft” libertarians say children should receive whatever education their parents, extended families, and charities can provide and that there is no role for government to play. Liberals say the education of children is a matter of public concern, and thus government should run schools and most children must attend them.

Conservatives have traditionally said, yes, education is a matter of public concern, but justice requires us to respect the authority of parents, and whatever assistance we provide must empower, not replace, them.

Hence conservative support for school choice: vouchers, education savings accounts, and charter schools—programs that help all students get the best education they can without giving the government an unhealthy monopoly on schools.

The same is true for health care.

Consider the standard false dichotomy: If taxation is theft, then we should just leave health care to the market and charities; if health care is a matter of public concern, then government should run it and finance it—the typical libertarian and liberal pitfalls.

The conservative alternative has been to create markets in health care while empowering patients to choose, whether through premium support, health care vouchers, tax credits, or what have you.

The details of the policy need not bog us down. The concept is what matters. We need to make markets work better and work for more people by empowering more people to be market actors—empower more people to take control of their own lives and flourish.

Formulating Policy

So now the question is what can be done for working-class families, especially for workers who find their skills less and less marketable in ever-changing markets because of the forces of globalization and new technology.

We need to think about the justice in the distribution of costs and benefits of the creative destruction of free trade and globalization and how best to smooth out the rough patches. We need to think through the appropriate roles of various institutions:

  • What does justice require of families and churches, of workers and business owners, of civil society and charitable organizations, of local and national governments?
  • What rights and duties do these various individuals and societies have?

In a certain sense, the economic challenges I discuss in my Calihan Lecture can be classified as partly the result of a deindustrialization making way for the knowledge economy.

If Leo XIII’s “Rerum Novarum,” which inaugurated modern Catholic social thought, was a response to the industrial revolution, what we now need is a response to the deindustrial revolution.

What to do is a question for policymakers. That we need to think about what to do is a demand of justice, and the principles of natural law should inform how we think about it.

conservative, culture, economy, ethics, family, government, ideology, justice, philosophy, right wing

Filed under: government, economy, right wing, ideology, philosophy, culture, ethics, justice, family, conservative

Transgender laws may usurp the right to privacy

original article: Transgender bathroom laws have contributed to ‘voyeurism epidemic,’ says researcher
February 15, 2017 by Steve Weatherbe

A Canadian pastor who has researched 140 incidents of voyeurism in unisex and transgender-friendly spaces, says it is clear that transgender bathroom policies have contributed to the problem.

Paul Dirks of the New West Community Church in New Westminster, British Columbia, says his information, published on his WomanMeansSomething.com website, shows there is a “voyeurism epidemic.”

It also shows that policies establishing unisex or trans-friendly facilities are exposing biological women and girls to typical male crime and violence, he said.

“Policy makers and politicians need to understand that the push to open women’s spaces is taking place in the middle of a voyeurism epidemic,” Dirks wrote in The Federalist recently.

Most of Dirks’ cases involved male voyeurs using unisex washrooms, dressing rooms and swimming pool change rooms to video nude girls and women.

However, others involve men pretending or sincerely claiming to be “trans-women” who are behaving in typically male ways criminally.

Dirks was in Ottawa this week to lobby senators against Bill C-16, which would add gender identity and expression as protected grounds to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

One of Dirks’ most important gleanings from several hundred academic studies on transgenderism is that males who claim to be females commit more crimes than women do. They also retain male patterns of sexuality.

“One of their most frequent sexual behaviors,” Dirks told LifeSiteNews, “is to use their male gentials insertively into women’s vaginas.”

Dirks insists his data debunks the oft-heard claim that there is no evidence that open or unisex bathrooms pose a risk to the girls or women who use them. For example, Mic Network published a story in 2015 titled Statistics Show Exactly How Many Times Trans People Have Attacked You in Bathrooms.

The story’s lead sentence reads “Surprise: There are zero reported cases of this happening.”

It then sources the misleading claim: “Spokespeople from the Transgender Law Center, the Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union told Mic that no statistical evidence of violence exists to warrant this legislation.”

But what Dirks’ data show is multiple cases involving unisex or transgender-friendly facilities where biological males captured images of women or girls with cell phones and miniaturized cameras. Dirks considers acts like these true violence. They leave victims with genuine psychological injuries.

Dirks’ database also contains many cases of male-pattern physical violence committed by “trans-women.” These include sexual and non-sexual assaults on women in prisons, women’s shelters, bars and taxis.

“There is nothing keeping a violent man or a sex offender from putting on a wig and entering a woman’s safe space, or making no change to their appearance at all,” Dirks writes on his website. But there is also “no way for a woman or a child to tell the difference” between a sincere “trans-woman” and one feigning a female persona for criminal purposes.

Dirks began his Women Means Something campaign only three months ago. Already he has made the unsettling discovery as he searched for news stories on retailers with unisex facilities that he was not alone. Voyeurs were on a similar hunt.

“I found forums for voyeurs where people were asking about good places to peep,” he said.

Dirks’ research has also uncovered a significant increase in voyeurism charges and convictions in the United Kingdom. Academic studies indicate that for each criminal charge there are dozens if not hundreds of actual incidents. These cases and the proliferation of recent incidents in his database are the basis for his claim of a “voyeurism epidemic.”

He has also found unexpected allies. “A significant number of de-transitioning women are coming to the fore,” Dirks told LifeSiteNews. These are women who once believed themselves to be men. They sometimes had their breasts cut off, their ovaries removed and their genitals reconstructed to cure their gender dysphoria. But it did not work. Now they are accepting their biological gender.

“In the midst of this grand social experiment, there are some horrible effects,” Dirks said.

Dirks’ womanmeanssomething.com website offers the video testimony of some of these women after they returned to identifying and living as women. “Officially, only 2 percent or 3 percent of female-to-male transgender de-transition,” says Dirks, but he believes the number and the percentage are both growing fast.

Dirks’ site offers links to feminist organizations that also oppose Bill C-16 and transgender activism. Because some feminists do not want to align with social conservatives, they have their own petition against the bill.

Dirks sees other signs that “the tide is beginning to turn.”

Academics and health professionals are waking up to the real and permanent physical injuries being done to teenagers with gender dysphoria through hormone treatments and surgery.

The immediate task for Dirks, however, is to defeat Bill C-16.

“I do hope members of the Senate want to do a good job actually dealing with some of these questions,” he told LifeSiteNews.

However, in British Columbia, there is another serious threat to the safety of children. The transgender agenda is expanding in public schools.

“I will pull my daughter from public school if she is put at risk from a biological male,” Dirks told LifeSite.

abuse, criminal, crisis, diversity, ethics, government, justice, law, nanny state, public policy, scandal, unintended consequences, victimization

Filed under: abuse, criminal, crisis, diversity, ethics, government, justice, law, nanny state, public policy, scandal, unintended consequences, victimization

15 cases where the courts raped the law in 2016

original article: The top 15 court cases that wreaked havoc on America’s core values in 2016
January 1, 2017 by Daniel Horowitz

One of the breakthrough aspects of Conservative Review in 2016 was our increased focus on judicial tyranny up and down the federal judiciary. I was proud to accompany the release of my book, “Stolen Sovereignty,” with dozens of columns about the federal judiciary, demonstrating conclusively that its entire modern construction is irremediably broken.

Throughout the year, we explored specific cases from the Supreme Court and especially from lower federal courts showing how their entire conception of constitutional interpretation is irretrievably broken. What is regarded by settled law as a federal power, the courts give to the states; what is a state power they give to the Feds. What is an inalienable right enshrined into the Constitution, they read out of it; what is antithetical to our founding values or not discussed in the Constitution they enshrine as a fundamental right.

Moreover, we have concluded that the entire public perception of the role of the courts as the sole and final arbiter of constitutional questions is fundamentally at odds with every tenet of our founding values as a democratic republic. Congress has the full array of constitutional tools at its disposal to rein in runaway courts. Also, the legislative branch, along with the executive branch and the states, can use their powers to check and mitigate the damage incurred from bad court decisions as it relates to the actual execution of those decisions as national precedent for broad political and social issues.

I look forward to doubling down on the focus of judicial reform from a legal, constitutional, historical, philosophical, and practical perspective in the coming year. This is the year I hope that conservatives in politics will finally wake up and smell the stench of the judicial tyranny. With Republicans in complete control of the federal government and most state governments, we will only be playing defense in the courts. The legal Left will successfully place every political decision in the courts and will likely succeed in most cases. Although Trump can make a small dent in the mess by immediately filling some vacancies, we have shown how in the long run that strategy will never work to stem the entrenched and irremediable post-constitutional precedent already observed even by conservative judges, aside from the rare Clarence Thomas.

It is my hope that the coming judicial onslaught — from destroying state sovereignty and religious liberty laws to mandating rights for illegal aliens and codifying transgenderism — will serve as the inspiration for conservatives to finally restore the proper balance of power between Congress, the states, and the federal judiciary. Concurrently, with control of 33 state legislative chambers, hopefully this is the year when we finally gain critical momentum in the push for an Article V Convention of the States to reform the judiciary and the entire broken political structure from outside Washington, D.C.

To that end, I give you a partial year in review from our archives to look back at some of the craziest court decisions of the year:

1. A constitutional right to unsafe abortion clinics

In the landmark SCOTUS ruling of the year, Anthony Kennedy wrote a 5-3 opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt asserting that states can’t require abortion clinics to meet the health standards for ambulatory surgical centers, or require doctors at the facilities to have admissions privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. The decision opened the door for lower courts to assail every common sense regulation states have implemented to prevent a repeat of Kermit Gosnell horror stories in abortion clinics. With this decision, the Court expanded the concocted right to an abortion to the right to an unregulated abortion clinic.

2. A license to discriminate … on behalf of the RIGHT people

While Anthony Kennedy and his ilk bastardize the Fourteenth Amendment and concoct phony rights that prevent states from defining marriage, enacting common sense abortion regulations, enforcing immigration law, and maintaining basic state powers over election laws, they allow states to actually discriminate on behalf of “minorities.” In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, Kennedy and the other liberals said that college affirmative action programs that blatantly discriminate against whites are constitutional as long as they are necessary to achieve “the educational benefits of diversity.” Thus, the one true violation of “Equal Protection” was blessed by the Court, even as they strike down our history and tradition based on false applications of the Fourteenth Amendment.

3. States can’t require photo ID at the polls

Every circuit court that has heard cases related to photo ID laws have “struck down” those common sense laws as violations of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. The most egregious was the Fourth Circuit ruling insinuating that black Americans are essentially incapable of obtaining photo ID, even when provided by the state of North Carolina for free. In addition, the Fourth Circuit mandated 17 days of early voting and all sorts of new constitutional rights, such as same-day registration, pre-registration of 16-year-olds, and out-of-precinct voting. Oh, and the court also said that North Carolina election maps were racist. The Supreme Court refused to stay the lower court decision, and only Justice Thomas would have overturned the ruling mandating that 16-year-olds be allowed to register to vote!

4. Court nullifies North Carolina elections and calls for new off-year elections

After originally “striking down” North Carolina’s state elections maps — an area of law over which states fully control — a federal district court mandated new state legislative elections to be held in 2017, in contravention to the state’s constitution. Together with many other rulings this year throughout the country, federal courts have crowned themselves king over state elections. They have effectively empowered themselves to create new election maps and even new elections, invariably benefiting Democrats.

5. Racist court rules blacks too dumb to use regular ballots in Michigan

Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations! District judge Gershwin Drain ruled that there is a Fourteenth Amendment right for voters to have the option of checking a party-line box on the ballot that automatically renders every vote down-ballot for the same party. The judge opined that simple “office by office ballots” are likely to increase voter confusion and miscast ballots in black neighborhoods because they evidently, in his estimation, can’t ascertain the Democrat candidate running for individual offices. The Sixth Circuit upheld his ruling.

6. Ohio can’t purge dead voters from its voter registration

According to the Sixth Circuit, states can’t even clean their voters rolls after employing a painstaking process of verification. In a 2-1 decision, which included a Republican-appointee, the Sixth Circuit forced the Ohio secretary of state to reinstate “voting rights” to 465,000 dead voters who were removed from the rolls through the very process required by the motor voter law. By misinterpreting congressional statutes to prevent states from fighting voter fraud, the courts are essentially abolishing free and fair elections, the underpinnings of our federal representative democracy.

7. Non-citizens voting is de facto law of the land

If dead Americans can vote, why can’t live foreign nationals vote in our elections? That is the conclusion we must draw from two court decisions this year. Both the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Tenth Circuit blocked states from requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, even when the U.S. Election Assistance Commission explicitly gave them permission to do so. With thousands of non-citizens erroneously registering to vote through motor voter laws, the courts have now blocked the only practical way to prevent non-citizens from diluting the integrity of our elections.

8. Transgenderism is settled law

Earlier in the year, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the federal education code forces states and school districts to allow boys into female private dressing rooms. More recently, the Sixth Circuit ruled that transgenderism being enshrined into civil rights is already “settled law.” Earlier in the year, a federal judge in Colorado urged the State Department to adopt “gender neutral” passports. Thus, the most immutable laws of nature are now being settled by the courts as the very opposite of their nature. This coming year, the Supreme Court will rule on one of these cases, Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, in what is likely to be Kennedy’s transgender equivalent of Obergefell.

9. States MUST fund Planned Parenthood

Almost every district and federal court that has heard cases filed by Planned Parenthood this year have ruled in the group’s favor, forcing states to fund them. Evidently, private abortion groups under criminal investigation for trafficking baby organs now have an inalienable right to taxpayer funds — out of reach of the state legislature to regulate. The Tenth Circuit ruled that Planned Parenthood has a First and Fourteenth Amendment right to taxpayer funding! Judge Michael R. Barrett, a Bush-appointed federal judge in Ohio, ruled that the state cannot cut off funding because the butcherhood “will suffer a continuing irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law.” This has now dissuaded weak governors like John Kasich from even signing pro-life legislation into law.

10. The Bill of Rights prohibits the Ten Commandment monument!

A GOP-appointed judge wrote an opinion for the Tenth Circuit completely rewriting the First Amendment, essentially declaring secularism the national religion. They gave standing to a group of pagan polytheists to sue against a privately funded replica of the Ten Commandments placed on the city hall lawn in Bloomfield, New Mexico. How did they demonstrate injury-in-fact to successfully obtain standing against the monument? With a straight face, the judge opined that the plaintiffs suffer “irreparable injury” because they have to pass by the monument while paying their water bill! Meanwhile, states and law enforcement can’t obtain standing to sue when their suffer security and economic problems as a result of Obama violating immigration laws.

11. States cannot protect religious liberty

While a private abortion organization evidently has the right to taxpayer funding — even if it is violating the conscience of half the taxpayers funding it — a private business does not have the right to merely mind its own business and run its organization according to its conscience.  In July, Judge Carlton Reeves blocked the Mississippi legislature from enforcing HB 1523, a law protecting private organizations from being forced to service the homosexual or transgender agenda when it interferes with their “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.” The Fifth Circuit, including a GOP-appointed judge, refused to stay the district judge’s ruling. Thus, the most sacred rights of conscience and property are shredded by the same courts that create rights to taxpayer-funded abortions.

12. Stolen Sovereignty: Judge turns 6 states into sanctuaries

By now you are seeing the pattern of how the courts have denuded states of any long-held powers. Yet, when it comes to the one legitimate federal power — immigration enforcement — the courts are siding with sanctuary cities that thwart federal immigration officials. On September 30, Judge John Lee of the Northern District of Illinois codified sanctuary cities into law by ruling that localities in six states may not cooperate with federal authorities to detain illegal aliens unless ICE can somehow prove that each random individual is a known flight risk. This is part of a troubling trend of courts overturning settled law and granting illegal aliens standing to sue for avenues to remain in the country against the national will. If nothing is done to block such meddling in congressional power over immigration, the courts will likely thwart every effective immigration enforcement measures conservatives are encouraging Trump to implement.

13. Driver’s licenses for illegal aliens

The Ninth Circuit codified Obama’s illegal executive amnesty by ruling that Arizona could not follow congressional immigration statutes and must instead grant driver’s licenses to those amnestied by Obama. The court ruled that illegals have a Fourteenth Amendment write to affirmative state benefits and that Arizona doesn’t even have a public interest other than “animus” to prohibit them from obtaining driver’s licenses, despite the rash of drunk driving incidents. Meanwhile, this same court refuses to recognize a true right for Americans, the Second Amendment. A few months later, a federal judge in Texas gave standing to illegal aliens to sue the state of Texas to grant their children birth certificates simply by showing Mexican ID cards, thereby stealing the birthright and sovereignty of American citizens.

14. SCOTUS opens door for retroactive release of thousands of violent criminals

The courts were responsible for the crime wave of the ‘70s. If nothing is done to stop them, they will spawn a new crime wave in the coming years. In Welch v. United States, with Justice Thomas as the lone dissenter, the Supreme Court retroactively invalidated a major statute which created a mandatory minimum 15-year sentence for those who had three prior convictions for a “violent felony.” Consequently, thousands of the worst criminals in federal prison are flooding liberal district courts with petitions to reopen their cases for potential early release.

15. Courts force pharmacies to carry every form of contraception

In a case where silence is deafening, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from a family-owned grocery and pharmacy store in Washington state that was forced by the lower courts to stock their shelves with Plan B morning-after pills. Justice Alito wrote a scathing dissent noting that the high court’s refusal to overturn lower court tyranny was an ominous sign that there are now five justices on the court who won’t even recognize the most foundational of inalienable rights. Even if Scalia’s seat is filled with a rock star constitutionalist, Anthony Kennedy has jumped the shark on religious liberty.

Indeed, we have a judicial emergency to contend with in 2017!

abuse, bias, corruption, elitism, extremism, government, ideology, judiciary, justice, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, public policy, relativism, unintended consequences

Filed under: abuse, bias, corruption, elitism, extremism, government, ideology, judiciary, justice, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, public policy, relativism, unintended consequences

Can an unconscious man commit a crime? Yes.

original article: Judge rejects subpoena on rape accuser who admitted she violated blacked-out student
January 13, by The College Fix

Would impose ‘trauma’ on woman with credibility problems

She admitted in text messages to performing oral sex on her blacked-out sex partner, but she won’t have to submit to a deposition in that student’s lawsuit against Amherst College for expelling him as a rapist.

In a little-noticed order in the long-running due process and Title IX lawsuit, issued shortly after the November election, a federal judge refused to grant a subpoena on student “Sandra Jones” sought by plaintiff “John Doe.”

Because Jones has since moved to Washington state, the ruling on the subpoena was made in the U.S. District Court in Seattle.

There, Judge James Robart decided that deposing Jones in person would inflict “trauma” on the accuser.

read full article
read the lawsuit

abuse, bias, civil rights, corruption, criminal, culture, education, government, judiciary, justice, political correctness, scandal, sex, victimization

Filed under: abuse, bias, civil rights, corruption, criminal, culture, education, government, judiciary, justice, political correctness, scandal, sex, victimization

Almost Everything the Media Tell You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong

original article: Almost Everything the Media Tell You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong
August 22, 2016 by Ryan T. Anderson

A major new report, published today in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges the leading narratives that the media has pushed regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.

Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.

The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that “some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.”

Here are four of the report’s most important conclusions:

The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.

The report, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” is co-authored by Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh. Mayer is a scholar-in-residence in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.

McHugh, whom the editor of The New Atlantis describes as “arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century,” is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and was for 25 years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. It was during his tenure as psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins that he put an end to sex reassignment surgery there, after a study launched at Hopkins revealed that it didn’t have the benefits for which doctors and patients had long hoped.

Implications for Policy

The report focuses exclusively on what scientific research shows and does not show. But this science can have implications for public policy.

The report reviews rigorous research showing that ‘only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.’

Take, for example, our nation’s recent debates over transgender policies in schools. One of the consistent themes of the report is that science does not support the claim that “gender identity” is a fixed property independent of biological sex, but rather that a combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely shape how individuals experience and express themselves when it comes to sex and gender.

The report also discusses the reality of neuroplasticity: that all of our brains can and do change throughout our lives (especially, but not only, in childhood) in response to our behavior and experiences. These changes in the brain can, in turn, influence future behavior.

This provides more reason for concern over the Obama administration’s recent transgender school policies. Beyond the privacy and safety concerns, there is thus also the potential that such policies will result in prolonged identification as transgender for students who otherwise would have naturally grown out of it.

The report reviews rigorous research showing that “only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.” Policymakers should be concerned with how misguided school policies might encourage students to identify as girls when they are boys, and vice versa, and might result in prolonged difficulties. As the report notes, “There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.”

Beyond school policies, the report raises concerns about proposed medical intervention in children. Mayer and McHugh write: “We are disturbed and alarmed by the severity and irreversibility of some interventions being publicly discussed and employed for children.”

They continue: “We are concerned by the increasing tendency toward encouraging children with gender identity issues to transition to their preferred gender through medical and then surgical procedures.” But as they note, “There is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of interventions that delay puberty or modify the secondary sex characteristics of adolescents.”

Findings on Transgender Issues

The same goes for social or surgical gender transitions in general. Mayer and McHugh note that the “scientific evidence summarized suggests we take a skeptical view toward the claim that sex reassignment procedures provide the hoped for benefits or resolve the underlying issues that contribute to elevated mental health risks among the transgender population.” Even after sex reassignment surgery, patients with gender dysphoria still experience poor outcomes:

Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about five times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.

Mayer and McHugh urge researchers and physicians to work to better “understand whatever factors may contribute to the high rates of suicide and other psychological and behavioral health problems among the transgender population, and to think more clearly about the treatment options that are available.” They continue:

In reviewing the scientific literature, we find that almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex. … Better research is needed, both to identify ways by which we can help to lower the rates of poor mental health outcomes and to make possible more informed discussion about some of the nuances present in this field.

Policymakers should take these findings very seriously. For example, the Obama administration recently finalized a new Department of Health and Human Services mandate that requires all health insurance plans under Obamacare to cover sex reassignment treatments and all relevant physicians to perform them. The regulations will force many physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers to participate in sex reassignment surgeries and treatments, even if doing so violates their moral and religious beliefs or their best medical judgment.

Rather than respect the diversity of opinions on sensitive and controversial health care issues, the regulations endorse and enforce one highly contested and scientifically unsupported view. As Mayer and McHugh urge, more research is needed, and physicians need to be free to practice the best medicine.

Stigma, Prejudice Don’t Explain Tragic Outcomes

The report also highlights that people who identify as LGBT face higher risks of adverse physical and mental health outcomes, such as “depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and most alarmingly, suicide.” The report summarizes some of those findings:

Members of the non-heterosexual population are estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.

Members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population. Especially alarmingly, the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41 percent, compared to under 5 percent in the overall U.S. population.

What accounts for these tragic outcomes? Mayer and McHugh investigate the leading theory—the “social stress model”—which proposes that “stressors like stigma and prejudice account for much of the additional suffering observed in these subpopulations.”

But they argue that the evidence suggests that this theory “does not seem to offer a complete explanation for the disparities in the outcomes.” It appears that social stigma and stress alone cannot account for the poor physical and mental health outcomes that LGBT-identified people face.

As a result, they conclude that “More research is needed to uncover the causes of the increased rates of mental health problems in the LGBT subpopulations.” And they call on all of us work to “alleviate suffering and promote human health and flourishing.”

Findings Contradict Claims in Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling

Finally, the report notes that scientific evidence does not support the claim that people are “born that way” with respect to sexual orientation. The narrative pushed by Lady Gaga and others is not supported by the science. A combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely account for an individual’s sexual attractions, desires, and identity, and “there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation.”

Furthermore, the scientific research shows that sexual orientation is more fluid than the media suggests. The report notes that “Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80 percent of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults.”

These findings—that scientific research does not support the claim that sexual orientation is innate and immutable—directly contradict claims made by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in last year’s Obergefell ruling. Kennedy wrote, “their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment” and “in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.”

But the science does not show this.

While the marriage debate was about the nature of what marriage is, incorrect scientific claims about sexual orientation were consistently used in the campaign to redefine marriage.

In the end, Mayer and McHugh observe that much about sexuality and gender remains unknown. They call for honest, rigorous, and dispassionate research to help better inform public discourse and, more importantly, sound medical practice.

As this research continues, it’s important that public policy not declare scientific debates over, or rush to legally enforce and impose contested scientific theories. As Mayer and McHugh note, “Everyone—scientists and physicians, parents and teachers, lawmakers and activists—deserves access to accurate information about sexual orientation and gender identity.”

We all must work to foster a culture where such information can be rigorously pursued and everyone—whatever their convictions, and whatever their personal situation—is treated with the civility, respect, and generosity that each of us deserves.

biology, civil rights, culture, government, homosexuality, ideology, judiciary, justice, politics, science, sex, study

Filed under: biology, civil rights, culture, government, homosexuality, ideology, judiciary, justice, politics, science, sex, study

Muslim Teens Say They’re Victim of Hate Crime, Then STUNNING Video Comes Out

original article: WATCH: Muslim Teens Say They’re Victim of Hate Crime, Then STUNNING Video Comes Out
July 5, 2016 by Conservative Tribune

When two Muslim teens from a Brooklyn mosque said that they had been beaten because of their religious beliefs, New Yorkers and Americans of all stripes were outraged.

However, it turns out that police revealed a different motive for the attack. They’re not investigating it as a hate crime because they say that the teens were hitting on a woman inside a car and her boyfriend, enraged by the harassment, attacked the 16-year-olds.

According to WABC-TV, the incident happened in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Sunset Park. As the teens described it, they had just left prayer services at the Muslim Community Center when they started looking at a car.

The attacker then stepped out from behind the car and said, “you f***** terrorists” and “You Muslims are the cause of all the problems in the world” while kicking and beating the teens.

Police, however, discovered something different.

According to the New York Daily News, the two teenagers had been hitting on a woman in a parked car for over an hour. While that was bad enough, their actions went above sexual harassment. They had attempted to open her car door and poked their head inside the window.

When her boyfriend came out, one thing led to another and … well, you can guess the rest. One of the teens suffered a concussion, bruises and cuts. Another suffered a black eye. Police are aware of who the perpetrator is, but are still searching for the man.

“The hate crimes unit investigated it and determined that this incident is not a hate crime,” NYPD spokesman Sgt. Brendan Ryan said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, somewhat predictably, disagreed.

“Our position is, let’s keep all possibilities open, at least until the assailant is arrested and questioned,” Afaf Nasher, executive director of CAIR’s New York chapter, told the Daily News.

We obviously don’t condone what this man did. In spite of the inappropriate and intimidating behavior the Muslim teenagers engaged in, his actions were appalling and he should be charged to the fullest extent of the law.

That said, the media was more than willing, in the early part of the investigation, to reflexively refer to this as a hate crime. For that matter, the two victims in this case felt compelled to treat it as such, even though it quickly became apparent that their actions had contributed to the attack.

This isn’t the first case we’ve seen like this, either. When accusations of hate crimes are made, the media should keep a healthy dose of skepticism on hand.

And as readers, we need to remember that accusations are printed on page one; retractions on page 17.

see video

culture, diversity, hate crime, immigration, islam, justice, political correctness, scandal, sex, unintended consequences

Filed under: culture, diversity, hate crime, immigration, islam, justice, political correctness, scandal, sex, unintended consequences

A tale of two conspiracies: Planned Parenthood vs Hillary Clinton

You may have heard the grand jury investigating Planned Parenthood regarding the events portrayed in the scandalous baby-parts videos has, as of yesterday, indicted not Planned Parenthood, but the group who recorded the videos. The announcement is a bit short on details.

“Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson announced Monday that Center for Medical Progress founder David Daleiden was indicted on a felony charge of tampering with a governmental record and a misdemeanor count related to purchasing human organs.”

So Daleiden gets in trouble for purchasing the baby parts, but Planned Parenthood suffers no penalty for selling them. Hmmm. Also mentioned in the article is the charge of tampering with “a governmental record” which is not named in the release.

LifeNews.com was diligent enough to mention (back in August of 2015) that one of Planned Parenthood’s board members works in the D.A. office who conducted the investigation. And what response do we hear from abortion supporters about this possibility of a conflict of interest? The allegation of “conspiracy mongering”.

Now whether the presence of the board member really did affect the nature of the investigation remains to be seen. But given the money and power involved in the cushy arrangements between Planned Parenthood and government, it is not at all difficult to see a high likelihood of tampering in this investigation – especially when you consider the nature of the videos.

The videos were analyzed by a group of “experts” commissioned by Planned Parenthood. According to the New York Times:

“A thorough review of these videos in consultation with qualified experts found that they do not present a complete or accurate record of the events they purport to depict,” the analysis of a private research company said.

Rest assured the private company hired by Planned Parenthood to review the videos are “qualified experts” who just happened to reach precisely the conclusion Planned Parenthood wanted. Hmmm, no conflict of interest there either, right?

Contrast this situation with Hillary Clinton’s current email scandal. As of this writing the FBI is supposedly poised to indict her soon. But what do we hear out of leftwing circles? Allegations of tampering with the investigation.

The top Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence suggested Sunday that congressional Republicans are manipulating the inspector general who recently reported about new “top secret” information found on Hillary Clinton’s private email system.

California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff argued that several Republican committee chairmen are investigating Clinton’s use of the private system as secretary of state while “actively campaigning” against her.

“I think the inspector general has to be very careful not to allow himself to be used by one political party against the other in a presidential race,” Schiff told “Fox News Sunday.”

Of course credibility of either conspiracy largely depends on political ideology. Although, it’s not like government investigations have ever been tampered with before.

But these conspiracy theories apparently are not equal. Rest assured we will be told the allegation of conspiracy in the Planned Parenthood investigation is empty. But the allegation of conspiracy to “get Hillary” will of course be treated as legitimate. Because that’s how news media works today – overtly taking sides before all the facts are known, and ignoring the facts that are inconvenient for one side.

abortion, bias, corruption, criminal, elitism, government, ideology, indoctrination, judiciary, justice, news media, pandering, politics, scandal

Filed under: abortion, bias, corruption, criminal, elitism, government, ideology, indoctrination, judiciary, justice, news media, pandering, politics, scandal

Modern Educayshun – social justice is better than an education

The follow up to #Equality, Modern Educayshun delves into the potential dangers of our increasingly reactionary culture bred by social media and political correctness.
Written and Directed by Neel Kolhatkar
Instagram & Twitter @neelkolhatkar

abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, corruption, culture, diversity, education, elitism, extremism, humor, ideology, intolerance, justice, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, relativism, video

Filed under: abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, corruption, culture, diversity, education, elitism, extremism, humor, ideology, intolerance, justice, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, relativism, video

Planned Parenthood Guts Babies And Sells Their Organs, But Who Really Cares?

original article: Planned Parenthood Guts Babies And Sells Their Organs, But Who Really Cares?
September 15, 2015 by Matt Walsh

Not to spoil the ending, but to answer the question in the headline: apparently, not very many people. And now there’s a new Planned Parenthood undercover video out that’s sure to give our country another opportunity to disgrace and damn itself by ignoring the holocaust of children.

It’s the 10th one in the series, and possibly the most revealing. Unless you regularly read pro-life news sources (and you should, especially LifeSiteNews, which is one of the best websites on the entire internet), you probably won’t see much reporting on the subject. I’m a commentator myself, not a reporter, but because both the new and old media have so profoundly failed to do their job, I’ll dedicate the first part of this post to simply giving you the straight news.

Here are the bullet points summarizing each clip in the video, which appears to have been recorded during some sort of ritzy conference for well heeled baby killers:

1. Dr. Carolyn Weshoff, Planned Parenthood’s senior medical adviser, sips some tasty wine while discussing dividing up the dead children and selling them to various clients. She says the people she works with don’t want stem cells, but “particular tissues” like “cardiac” or “eyes” or “neural” or “spinal cords.” She says they can sell any part of a murdered baby. Laughing heartily, she reminds the undercover investigator that they can provide “gonads — oh my God, gonads.” She promises that all of the body parts are “fresh,” like meat from the local deli. She smirks and says that selling the fresh testicles of murdered children can become a “huge PR issue,” and urges secrecy and discretion.

2. Dr. Vanessa Cullins, another high ranking Planned Parenthood official, admits that these transactions could “destroy” their organization if they don’t “time the conversations correctly.”

3. Deb VanDerhei, the national director for the Consortium of Abortion Providers at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, asks the buyer if he “just wants livers.” He says he’s looking for everything. She asks about “remuneration,” which is a fancy word for financial compensation. She brings up the question of profits on her own and without prompting, and worries that the kickbacks be handled “carefully” because “the headlines would be a disaster.”

This theme is returned to at multiple points throughout the footage. Planned Parenthood was obviously very concerned that their black market human trafficking would end up landing them on the front pages or in prison. Perhaps the most depressing part of the video is that there hasn’t been any headlines or any jail time for any of these people. Even they, it turns out, are surprised that nobody cares about them carving up and cannibalizing dead infants. She says PPFA doesn’t have a policy on “tissue procurment,” which, she admits, “is relatively intentional.”

4. Dr. Deborah Nucatola, who we’ve met in previous installments, smiles coyly and confirms there “are no guidelines” and “there will never be guidelines.” Basically, PPFA affiliates can do whatever they want. “Nothing is written,” she says again. She’s practically screaming subliminally that clinics can sell babies for whatever price and for whatever reason. There are absolutely no ethical restrictions imposed from within. From her facial expressions, she appears to be rather proud of this fact.

5. VanDerhei, again worrying about the “headlines,” says she wants clinics to only sell dead babies if it’s “worth it.” She says she knows they can “generate a fair amount of income doing this,” which is a statement that flies directly in the face of pro-choice propaganda claiming PPFA isn’t motivated by profit. She openly plots the cover up for this illegal operation, telling the buyer she’s “not comfortable having the conversation through email.”

6. Vanessa Russo, an official with Planned Parenthood Keystone, talks very openly about her intention to break the law. She says she “won’t be bullied by ridiculous law” (because laws that protect children from being dismembered and sold for parts are, in her mind, ridiculous). She denies that Planned Parenthood “should curtail its business for ridiculousness” (the law is the “ridiculousness” in this case). VanDerhei responds by telling Russo that PPFA doesn’t plan to curtail its business at all. They’ve been given the all clear to “go for it” and collect “remuneration.”

To summarize, Planned Parenthood murders children, thinks its funny to sever their testicles, sells the body parts to generate income, and conspires very explicitly to skirt the laws and hide their illegal activities. We knew all of these facts already, but it’s no less outrageous, despicable, depraved, evil, revolting, and infuriating. Even if none of these points are revelations, this video is still the most important news item since the last video was released. If you haven’t shared the video, you should, because it’s more relevant than anything else you’ve shared or talked about today, guaranteed.

It’s been established well beyond a reasonable doubt that these serial killers are breaking the law. Wake up, fools of America: they’re admitting it on camera. How many times do they have to say “this law is ridiculous and here’s how we intend to break it” before we arrive at the conclusion that perhaps they think the laws are ridiculous and have no problem breaking them? Besides, whichever parts of their operation are legal — like the part where they slaughter the innocent lives to begin with — shouldn’t be. Legal or not,none of this should be funded by the American taxpayer; none of this should be tolerated by a supposedly “Christian country;” none of this should be allowed to go on; none of this should be ignored by so many millions; and none of these activities should elicit anything but a deep and primal hatred from the pit of your soul.

Decent people hate abortion. Moral people hate abortion. God hates abortion. I suppose, then, it’s no wonder our culture is so indifferent on the subject.

I pledged that I would continue writing about these videos for as long as the Center For Medical Progress releases them, but I must admit I’m feeling rather defeated nowadays. After the first bit of footage was made public a few months ago, I hoped an awakening might be on the horizon. I prayed this heroic campaign by CMP would be a devastating blow to the abortion industry. I begged God that He might use this to slap our dull, tired, and distracted populace out of its pathetic stupor. I believed that, so long as these videos continued to surface, there might be a chance for real change. I hoped, at the very least, everyone who calls themselves “conservative” or “Christian” would rally together, realizing that protecting our children from these mercenaries ought to be our primary and most crucial goal. I wished — perhaps I even had a little faith — that “the right” would rise to the occasion and absolutely obsess over this issue until something is done about it.

I don’t want to throw in the towel or abandon all of these hopes, but 10 videos later, it appears I was overly optimistic. The polls tell us public opinion of Planned Parenthood has remained basically unchanged. Those who supported the slaughter of babies before all of this, still do. The disgraceful wimps who were too weak and selfish to have much of a perspective on the matter before all of this, still don’t. The true civil rights champions who gave voice to the voiceless and fought for life and liberty before all of this, obviously still are. There isn’t much evidence that people have crossed over from one category to another. It is a staggering and comprehensible indictment on our culture that 10 videos of abortionists chopping up and selling infants hardly moved the needle at all.

Naturally, the story has been buried by the news media. Even Fox, the supposedly conservative outlet, treats it like a relatively minor item. In the debates last month, they asked one candidate onequestion about Planned Parenthood, and it was more of a cheap “gotcha” attempt than an opportunity to actually hear where these people stand on defunding the abortion industry. Some conservative commentators have been all over this scandal, but many others, like Ann Coulter, remain utterly and shamefully silent (although to be fair, Coulter did take the time to call pro-lifers “p*ssies”). Social media hasn’t been much better. As I write this, the most recent video is not a trending topic on either Facebook or Twitter. Instead, the top stories are Donald Trump, college football, and Hispanic Heritage Month.

And, in the midst of all of this, which Republican leads in the polls? Not the ardently pro-life Ted Cruz, who vows to prosecute Planned Parenthood officials and open a federal investigation into the abortion industry on the first day of his tenure, but the moderate, former partial birth abortion advocate Donald Trump, who brags of donating to rabidly pro-abortion politicians, says that an extremist pro-abortion judge would make a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice, recently insisted that Planned Parenthood “does good work,” repeated debunked pro-choice talking points about how abortion is “only a small part of what they do,” andpromised to keep funding them. Children are dying by the millions, the abortion industry has been exposed, the time is ripe to wage a serious battle against the most evil institution of our time, and this is who “conservatives” are turning to. Again, staggering and incomprehensible.

Many conservative thought leaders, like Laura Ingraham and Michael Savage and Sean Hannity, have exacerbated the problem, turning their backs on the pro-life movement and the conservative cause by shilling for the most pro-choice Republican in the race. Meanwhile, allegedly conservative websites likeBreitbart make passing mentions of baby harvesting before going right back to incessantly advocating for one of the only guys in the field who promises to keep the status quo on Planned Parenthood. Principled conservatives are learning who they can trust and who they can’t, and the latter category is rapidly growing.

As for our “conservative” representatives in the federal government, they’ve already forfeited the fight, saying they won’t try to strip tax funding from the murderers of babies if it means risking a politically inconvenient government shutdown. Instead, they’ll give us show votes on impotent legislation whileworking to undermine any effort that might actually achieve some sort of result. Several states have responded much more forcefully, but these were mostly states that already provided strong protections for unborn life. Overall, the paradigm doesn’t appear to have shifted very much.

Pro-lifers have suffered a complete betrayal. Much more egregiously, our children have been betrayed. At precisely the moment in history when the pro-life movement is gifted with the best ammunition it’s ever had, many who are supposed to be on our side have deserted us. We are standing here on the battlefield ready to wage war in the name of life and liberty, and as we look around we see our compatriots dropping their weapons and running for the hills. Pro-lifers are finding out what our country and our alleged allies are truly made of, and it’s not pretty. It’s just not pretty.

If you’re looking for someone to offer up a cheerful angle, I’m not the guy. I feel a deep rage and sadness, and it grows every day, especially when I see these videos and I think about all of the children who are murdered by “doctors” and forsaken by their families and their nation. I have never in my life been more disgusted with the country that I love. I feel like flags should be flown at half mast or taken down altogether, in mourning not only of the lost lives, but of America’s lost soul. How can I take “pride” in a culture and a country that fails in its most basic and fundamental task — to protect and love its children? How can I call this the “home of the brave” when we aren’t even brave enough to come together and stop the abortion industry from exterminating a million babies in the next year? How can I say “God bless America” when inside I am really begging Him to finally rain His perfect justice upon us, whatever the cost?

I will still fight. I will still do whatever I can in my own insignificant way to pull us out of this abyss of self-centerdness and moral depravity. I will still desperately pray that God will cure me of my own cowardice, weakness, selfishness, and sin, so that I can be a more effective and dedicated advocate for life and truth. I will still search for the hope and purpose in all of this, but it’s a struggle.

Maybe I’ve despaired too quickly. Maybe there are pro-life victories ahead, even if it doesn’t look like it now. Maybe we will finally snap out of our apathetic haze and see that the ground we’re walking on is covered in the bloody bodies of our own children. Maybe we’ll wake up and be a good, decent, Christian people again.

Maybe.

I have to believe it’s possible. These days, belief is all I have.

abortion, babies, crisis, justice, pro-life, prolife, scandal, tragedy

Filed under: abortion, babies, crisis, justice, pro-life, prolife, scandal, tragedy

Pages

Categories

March 2017
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031