Transgender Ideology Hurts Kids

Properly understanding sex, gender, gender identity, and gender dysphoria will continue to be pressing concerns in 2018.

A proper understanding is a prerequisite for properly forming people in the truth and properly ministering to people in need.

As new gender ideologies are promoted throughout America, their lies will impact not only those who suffer from gender dysphoria, but all children who need to mature in their self-understanding as a boy or girl, man or woman, a potential husband or wife, father or mother.

In 2007, Boston Children’s Hospital “became the first major program in the United States to focus on transgender children and adolescents,” as its website brags. A decade later, more than 45 pediatric gender clinics have opened their doors to our nation’s children.

Parents are told that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones may be the only way to prevent their children from committing suicide.

Never mind that the best studies of gender dysphoria show that between 80 and 95 percent of children who express a discordant gender identity will come to identify with their bodily sex if natural development is allowed to proceed.

Never mind that “transitioning” treatment has not been shown to reduce the extraordinarily high rate of suicide attempts among people who identify as transgender (41 percent, compared with 4.6 percent of the general population).

Never mind that people who have had transition surgery are 19 times more likely to die by suicide.

These statistics should be enough to halt the headlong rush into “transitioning” and prompt us to find more effective ways to prevent these tragic outcomes. Most of all, we shouldn’t be encouraging children to “transition,” or making heroes and role models of those who have done so.

We should be tolerant—indeed, loving—toward those who struggle with their gender identity, but also be aware of the harm done to the common good, particularly to children, when transgender identity is normalized.

Transgender activists are not merely asking for tolerance or kindness. They are demanding affirmation, not just from adults but from children and adolescents who are already challenged by the normal process of sexual development.

In a culture where transgender identities are not only affirmed but celebrated, everyone will be compelled to construct their own gender identity, unaided by a common understanding of sex differences and why they matter.

In my new book “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,” I show that the best biology, psychology, and philosophy all support an understanding of sex as a bodily reality, and an understanding of gender as a social manifestation of bodily sex. Biology isn’t bigotry.

A sound understanding of gender rejects sex stereotypes on the one hand and androgyny on the other. The virtuous mean is a view of gender that reveals meaningful sex differences and communicates the difference they make—a view that takes sex differences seriously while upholding the fundamental equality of the sexes as complements to one another.

The most helpful therapies do not try to remake the body to conform with thoughts and feelings—which is impossible—but rather to help people find healthy ways to manage their tension and move toward accepting the reality of their bodily selves.

My book provides a nuanced view of our sexed embodiment, a balanced approach to policy issues involving transgender identity and gender more broadly, and a sober and honest survey of the human costs of getting human nature wrong.


Portrait of Ryan T. Anderson

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research. Twitter: . For more on how to understand transgender issues, get a copy of Ryan Anderson’s new book “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.”


Planned Transgenderhood

The Ugly Truth About Sex Reassignment the Transgender Lobby Doesn’t Want You to Know [+video]

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


Why Do Black People Allow the Mainstream Media to Choose their Leaders?

I am fond of saying, “weak people take strong positions on weak issues.”

There is no better example of this than the embarrassing behavior of the weak Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the National Urban League (NUL).

These groups have all feigned righteous indignation about the alleged negative comments made by President Trump two weeks ago about Haiti, Africa, and El Salvador.

Yes, our president can be extremely hyperbolic at times, but the essence of what he said was very true. Those countries, including many in Africa, are basket cases.

So, all of the aforementioned radical liberal groups ran over their mothers to get to a news camera to denounce the president for his alleged statement.

With all the issues facing the Black community, CBC members joined other Democrats to attempt to pass a resolution through the U.S. House of Representatives to censure Trump for his comments, a symbolic gesture that must have kept Trump awake all night.

Derrick Johnson, the president and CEO of the NAACP called Trump a “racist.”

Wow. I am sure that Trump is going to change his ways now.

Marc Morial, the president and CEO of the NUL, said that “President Trump’s crude comments further reveal the repugnant racial motivations behind his administration’s immigration policies.”

Trump must be shaking in his boots.

I challenge my readers to find any issue directly related to Blacks in the U.S., i.e. American citizens, that these groups have put so much political and emotional capital in. It seems that these “media-appointed” Black leaders care more about those in the country illegally, homosexuals, or other groups that have no connection to America than they do the very people they “claim” to represent.

Juxtapose their reactions to Trump’s alleged comments to their relative silence on the murder of Laquan McDonald in Chicago in 2014. He was murdered by Chicago police; they claimed that it was in self-defense, but the actual video revealed that the police lied and that McDonald posed no threat to the policemen.

Former Democratic congressman and Obama’s first chief of staff and Chicago mayor at the time of the police murder, Rahm Emanuel refused to release the video until after his campaign for re-election in 2015 (which he ultimately won).

Emanuel has proven his total disdain for Blacks with his actions, not his rhetoric. Chicago is one of the most dangerous and violent cities in America. Where was the CBC’s outrage at this? Why was there no attempt to censure Emanuel? Why are they not marching through the streets of Chicago?

The NAACP and the UL have not convened a meeting or massive demonstration against Emanuel to denounce him as a racist. Oh, I forgot, he is a Democrat, therefore, he can’t be racist.

Just because you are the head of an organization, doesn’t mean you are a leader. Can you name me the leaders of the White community? But, I digress.

Members of the CBC are willing to oppose the short-term, Republican-sponsored spending bill, because that bill didn’t include a long-term fix for President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program; even though this move would have devastating effects on the Black community, the same group they “claim” to represent.

Can you name me one issue that was of specific urgency to the Black community that the CBC has ever shut down the government for? Name me one member of the CBC that has a bill passed in his name? Name me one member of the CBC that has his name attached to a bill that became law, i.e. Sarbanes-Oxley, or the Hyde Amendment.

To the NAACP and the UL: Why is amnesty for illegals a “moral” imperative, but the high crime rate in the Black community isn’t? Why wasn’t the double-digit Black unemployment rate under eight years of Obama a “moral” imperative?

Remember the famous quote from former chair of the CBC and congressman from Mo., Emanuel Cleaver from September 2011: “If Obama were White, we’d be marching on the White House.” This remark was made in regard to Obama doing nothing to reduce the Black unemployment rate, which was around 17 percent at the time.

Why do these “media-appointed” leaders make everyone else’s issues their issue? When have you heard the illegals speaking out against the high unemployment rate in the Black community or discrimination in college admissions?

When have you seen the homosexual community speak out against housing discrimination towards Blacks or lack of access to capital for Black business owners?

Can anyone explain to me why these radical, Black liberal groups are ignoring the needs of their own community to focus on the issue of those who have absolutely no connection to our community?

Your first obligation as a parent is to take care of your own family. Period. Do you really think Michael Jordan gave a damn about Magic Johnson getting injured during a game in which they were playing against each other? Hell, no.

So, then, why are we fighting everyone else’s battles at the expense of our own community?

RELATED VIDEO: Jay Z slaps and hits a little black girl after she takes a picture of him.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

Media Ignorance on Capitalism Hurts Low-Wage American Workers

For whatever reason — ignorance, socialist-leaning worldview or laziness — basic economics of free market capitalism seems all but impossible for most of the mainstream media to grasp. And that is a shame. It means they fall for the emotional appeal of fellow Democrats and others who lack an understanding of capitalism, which ultimately ends up hurting low-wage American workers the most — purportedly the people they are trying to help.

Let’s walk through this. Because it becomes blindingly obvious this is exactly what happens. It’s just that consumers of the legacy media may never understand — and alas, they’re unlikely to read this article.

First, the basics on capitalism. At its most foundational, capitalism functions on supply and demand and the ability of a company to make a profit meeting the demand, and the person creating the demand to have multiple supply options to create competition.

Simple, right?

Let’s say I need a pair of shoes. Bob sells shoes. The shoes cost him $20 to make. With all of his overhead — building, electricity, employees, benefits, etc. — he needs to sell each pair of shoes for $35 to break even. He puts the shoes on display for sale at $40, to make a $5 profit. I go to Bob’s store in my tattered shoes and decide if I am willing to pay $40. If so, we’ve created a market and a transaction. Bob makes $5 profit and I get my shoes for $40. Everyone is satisfied.

At each step in the shoe-production process, and the building where Bob displays them and pays for electricity, there are more markets of demand and supply happening, creating a broader economy. Now let’s say Bob gets greedy — like many liberals tell us corporations are — and tries to sell his shoes for $60 to make a $25 profit. I may go to a different shoe store to find something more affordable. Enough people do this, and Bob is forced eventually to lower his price. This is the role of competition in capitalism, with hundreds of shoe stores vying for my purchase and that of thousands of other consumers.

These capitalism concepts of supply, demand, profit and competition seems to elude most media reports, allowing people like Sen. Bernie Sanders to claim corporations are evil, gouge employees and make outrageous profits. If you are making $9 per hour and working for a company making billions of dollars in profits without any media explanation of the fuller context, this is very enticing to believe.

But it is also largely and demonstrably untrue.

Obviously corporations are not evil. They are legal entities made up of people with vested interests in those entities earning a profit so they can stay in business. Corporations generally pay their employees through the same forces of supply and demand, but for workers not products. They don’t gouge, they make decisions based on their employee needs and their profit needs. This is obviously rational, albeit a little hard to objectively quantify.

What is not hard to quantify is that corporations make outrageous profits. Liberal politicians such as Sanders, and many in the media, always use the anecdote corporation that just made a huge profit, rather than actual data points.

The average corporation’s profit margin is about 7 percent, according to a New York University Stern database. Grocery stores and retailers make much less, about 2.5 percent profit. And your local liberal’s favorite evil corporation, Walmart, squeezes out a paltry 2.1 percent profit. Walmart’s profit margin is less than one-third of what it pays in taxes.

Yet a 2013 Reason-Rupe Poll found that the average American guessed the typical corporate American profit to be 36 percent — more than four times reality. How did Americans get such a wildly inaccurate impression?

The media.

The socialist-leaning, capitalist-ignorant, liberal-sympathetic mainstream media swallowing the nonsense of Sanders and many other Democrats and reiterating it as fair, objective news. This is surprisingly common as media bias and distortion consistently leads media consumers to have opinions that are embarrassingly divorced from reality. For instance, according to a 2011 Gallup poll, Americans estimated that 25 percent of the people in America were homosexual. In 2015, it was 23 percent. The actual number is about 3-5%.

The corporate profits disconnect is a combination of economic ignorance and liberal agenda. The gay disconnect is pure propaganda by the media and Hollywood.

But while the gay agenda has its share of downsides, the economic ignorance and agenda has done material damage to the working poor in America — by the very people claiming to be watching out for the working poor in America. And it would do a lot more if it could.

Let’s take the minimum wage as an example. Compassionate liberals and their media allies constantly strut around such nonsense as seriously intoning that a family cannot live on the minimum wage. Well, no duh! None were ever supposed to. (And FYI, the vast majority of minimum wage workers are young people still living at home and second incomes.)

Let’s look at what happens when the government passes a law to dramatically raise the minimum wage to, say, $15, which has been all the liberal protester/union rage the past few years. And because they have many workers near minimum wage, let’s force that on Walmart.

If Walmart, with a profit margin of 2.1 percent, has to increase the majority of its employees’ pay by 50 to 100 percent, how will they be forced to respond? Remember, the company needs to meet demands while making a profit. Grade school capitalism. It has four options, which it may combine:

1) It can raise prices. Since all of its competitors will be facing a similar problem because of liberal government action, this will almost assuredly happen for some portion of the cost offset. So the price of everything from bread and milk to shoes and shirts will rise — maybe a lot. Who shops at Walmart the most? Low-income workers, including likely everyone trying to support a family on minimum wage. See the problem? If so, you’re ahead of liberals and the media.

2) Cut the number of workers, particularly full-time workers with benefits. Add more part-time workers and employ the use of technology to replace low-skill workers. Who does this hurt? Right. The very people liberals say they want to help.

3) Cut hours. Walmart is open 24 hours, 365 days per year right now. It’s particularly convenient for people working strange hours — which are most often lower-wage workers. If Walmart reduces the number of open hours to 12 or even eight, which would be one shift, that would save money in many areas, including by cutting employees substantially. Who would be hurt? You guessed it!

4) Close the least profitable stores and keep open the most profitable. Closing large numbers of Walmart stores clearly impacts Walmart consumers, the lower end working class.

The ignorant will say, “Walmart makes billions of dollars! It can pay its workers more!” But remember, their margin is only 2.1 percent. The billions comes from scale. Walmart stores just in the United States employ 1.4 million employees. Without some or all of the four adjustments above, Walmart could dole out only about a $3.50-per-hour raise before it erased all of its profits and began losing money.

And no company can do that for long.

But liberals and socialists like Sanders can’t advocate for higher costs, fewer options and reduced employment for low-skill workers. That would be political insanity. Yet that is exactly what would result from a minimum wage hike. It’s also what results from high taxes and too much regulation. But you don’t know any of this if you rely on mainstream media sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, the networks or your local news and media outlets.

The final, real-life proof in the pudding is that the GOP tax reform package President Trump recently signed has triggered an avalanche of employee bonuses, reinvestments in domestic production, tens of thousands of new hires and, ironically, several companies choosing to voluntarily increase their own minimum wage to between $12 and $15 per hour.

None of this is because of government fiat and control, but because government go out of the way.

Hopefully, it is getting harder and harder for the media to obfuscate that reality.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act. Please visit The Revolutionary Act’s YouTube Channel

Are We Free to Discuss America’s Real Problems?

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on December 12, 2017, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

By Amy Wax
University of Pennsylvania Law School

There is a lot of abstract talk these days on American college campuses about free speech and the values of free inquiry, with plenty of lip service being paid to expansive notions of free expression and the marketplace of ideas. What I’ve learned through my recent experience of writing a controversial op-ed is that most of this talk is not worth much. It is only when people are confronted with speech they don’t like that we see whether these abstractions are real to them. 

The op-ed, which I co-authored with Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego Law School, appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on August 9 under the title, “Paying the Price for the Breakdown of the Country’s Bourgeois Culture.” It began by listing some of the ills afflicting American society: 

Too few Americans are qualified for the jobs available. Male working-age labor-force participation is at Depression-era lows. Opioid abuse is widespread. Homicidal violence plagues inner cities. Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and even more are raised by single mothers. Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries. 

We then discussed the “cultural script”—a list of behavioral norms—that was almost universally endorsed between the end of World War II and the mid-1960s: 

Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime. 

These norms defined a concept of adult responsibility that was, we wrote, “a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period.” The fact that the “bourgeois culture” these norms embodied has broken down since the 1960s, we argued, largely explains today’s social pathologies—and re-embracing that culture would go a long way toward addressing those pathologies. 

In what became perhaps the most controversial passage, we pointed out that cultures are not equal in terms of preparing people to be productive citizens in a modern technological society, and we gave some examples of cultures less suited to achieve this: 

The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-‘acting white’ rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants. 

The reactions to this piece raise the question of how unorthodox opinions should be dealt with in academia—and in American society at large.

It is well documented that American universities today, more than ever before, are dominated by academics on the left end of the political spectrum. How should these academics handle opinions that depart, even quite sharply, from their “politically correct” views? The proper response would be to engage in reasoned debate—to attempt to explain, using logic, evidence, facts, and substantive arguments, why those opinions are wrong. This kind of civil discourse is obviously important at law schools like mine, because law schools are dedicated to teaching students how to think about and argue all sides of a question. But academic institutions in general should also be places where people are free to think and reason about important questions that affect our society and our way of life—something not possible in today’s atmosphere of enforced orthodoxy. 

What those of us in academia should certainly not do is engage in unreasoned speech: hurling slurs and epithets, name-calling, vilification, and mindless labeling. Likewise we should not reject the views of others without providing reasoned arguments. Yet these once common standards of practice have been violated repeatedly at my own and at other academic institutions in recent years—and we increasingly see this trend in society as well.  

One might respond, of course, that unreasoned slurs and outright condemnations are also speech and must be defended. My recent experience has caused me to rethink this position. In debating others, we should have higher standards. Of course one has the right to hurl labels like “racist,” “sexist,” and “xenophobic” without good reason—but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Hurling such labels doesn’t enlighten, inform, edify, or educate. Indeed, it undermines these goals by discouraging or stifling dissent.

So what happened after our op-ed was published last August? A raft of letters, statements, and petitions from students and professors at my university and elsewhere condemned the piece as racist, white supremacist, hate speech, heteropatriarchial, xenophobic, etc. There were demands that I be removed from the classroom and from academic committees. None of these demands even purported to address our arguments in any serious or systematic way. 

A response published in the Daily Pennsylvanian, our school newspaper, and signed by five of my Penn Law School colleagues, charged us with the sin of praising the 1950s—a decade when racial discrimination was openly practiced and opportunities for women were limited. I do not agree with the contention that because a past era is marked by benighted attitudes and practices—attitudes and practices we had acknowledged in our op-ed!—it has nothing to teach us. But at least this response attempted to make an argument. 

Not so an open letter published in the Daily Pennsylvanian and signed by 33 of my colleagues. This letter quoted random passages from the op-ed and from a subsequent interview I gave to the school newspaper, condemned both, and categorically rejected all of my views. It then invited students, in effect, to monitor me and to report any “stereotyping and bias” they might experience or perceive. This letter contained no argument, no substance, no reasoning, no explanation whatsoever as to how our op-ed was in error.

We hear a lot of talk about role models—people to be emulated, who set a positive example for students and others. In my view, the 33 professors who signed this letter are anti-role models. To students and citizens alike I say: don’t emulate them in condemning people for their views without providing a reasoned argument. Reject their example. Not only are they failing to teach you the practice of civil discourse—the sine qua non of liberal education and of democracy—they are sending the message that civil discourse is unnecessary. As Jonathan Haidt of NYU wrote on September 2 on his website Heterodox Academy: “Every open letter you sign to condemn a colleague for his or her words brings us closer to a world in which academic disagreements are resolved by social force and political power, not by argumentation and persuasion.”

It is gratifying to note that the reader comments on the open letter were overwhelmingly critical. The letter has “no counterevidence,” one reader wrote, “no rebuttal to [Wax’s] arguments, just an assertion that she’s wrong. . . . This is embarrassing.” Another wrote: “This letter is an exercise in self-righteous virtue-signaling that utterly fails to deal with the argument so cogently presented by Wax and Alexander. . . . Note to parents, if you want your daughter or son to learn to address an argument, do not send them to Penn Law.”

Shortly after the op-ed appeared, I ran into a colleague I hadn’t seen for a while and asked how his summer was going. He said he’d had a terrible summer, and in saying it he looked so serious I thought someone had died. He then explained that the reason his summer had been ruined was my op-ed, and he accused me of attacking and causing damage to the university, the students, and the faculty. One of my left-leaning friends at Yale Law School found this story funny—who would have guessed an op-ed could ruin someone’s summer? But beyond the absurdity, note the choice of words: “attack” and “damage” are words one uses with one’s enemies, not colleagues or fellow citizens. At the very least, they are not words that encourage the expression of unpopular ideas. They reflect a spirit hostile to such ideas—indeed, a spirit that might seek to punish the expression of such ideas. 

I had a similar conversation with a deputy dean. She had been unable to sign the open letter because of her official position, but she defended it as having been necessary. It needed to be written to get my attention, she told me, so that I would rethink what I had written and understand the hurt I had inflicted and the damage I had done, so that I wouldn’t do it again. The message was clear: cease the heresy.

Only half of my colleagues in the law school signed the open letter. One who didn’t sent me a thoughtful and lawyerly email explaining how and why she disagreed with particular points in the op-ed. We had an amicable email exchange, from which I learned a lot—some of her points stick with me—and we remain cordial colleagues. That is how things should work.

Of the 33 who signed the letter, only one came to talk to me about it—and I am grateful for that. About three minutes into our conversation, he admitted that he didn’t categorically reject everything in the op-ed. Bourgeois values aren’t really so bad, he conceded, nor are all cultures equally worthy. Given that those were the main points of the op-ed, I asked him why he had signed the letter. His answer was that he didn’t like my saying, in my interview with the Daily Pennsylvanian, that the tendency of global migrants to flock to white European countries indicates the superiority of some cultures. This struck him as “code,” he said, for Nazism. 

Well, let me state for the record that I don’t endorse Nazism! 

Furthermore, the charge that a statement is “code” for something else, or a “dog whistle” of some kind—we frequently hear this charge leveled, even against people who are stating demonstrable facts—is unanswerable. It is like accusing a speaker of causing emotional injury or feelings of marginalization. Using this kind of language, which students have learned to do all too well, is intended to bring discussion and debate to a stop—to silence speech deemed unacceptable. 

As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, we can make words mean whatever we want them to mean. And who decides what is code for something else or what qualifies as a dog whistle? Those in power, of course—which in academia means the Left. 

My 33 colleagues might have believed they were protecting students from being injured by harmful opinions, but they were doing those students no favors. Students need the opposite of protection from diverse arguments and points of view. They need exposure to them. This exposure will teach them how to think. As John Stuart Mill said, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.” 

I have received more than 1,000 emails from around the country in the months since the op-ed was published—mostly supportive, some critical, and for the most part thoughtful and respectful. Many expressed the thought, “You said what we are thinking but are afraid to say”—a sad commentary on the state of civil discourse in our society. Many urged me not to back down, cower, or apologize. And I agree with them that dissenters apologize far too often.

Democracy thrives on talk and debate, and it is not for the faint of heart. I read things every day in the media and hear things every day at my job that I find exasperating and insulting, including falsehoods and half-truths about people who are my friends. Offense and upset go with the territory; they are part and parcel of an open society. We should be teaching our young people to get used to these things, but instead we are teaching them the opposite.

Disliking, avoiding, and shunning people who don’t share our politics is not good for our country. We live together, and we need to solve our problems together. It is also always possible that people we disagree with have something to offer, something to contribute, something to teach us. We ignore this at our peril. As Heather Mac Donald wrote in National Review on August 29: “What if the progressive analysis of inequality is wrong . . . and a cultural analysis is closest to the truth? If confronting the need to change behavior is punishable ‘hate speech,’ then it is hard to see how the country can resolve its social problems.” In other words, we are at risk of being led astray by received opinion.

The American way is to conduct free and open debate in a civil manner. We should return to doing that on our college campuses and in our society at large.

Amy Wax
University of Pennsylvania Law School

Amy WaxAmy L. Wax is the Robert Mundheim Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she has received the Harvey Levin Memorial Award for Teaching Excellence. She has a B.S. from Yale College, an M.D. from Harvard Medical School, and a J.D. from Columbia Law School. She is a former assistant to the United States Solicitor General, and her most recent book is Race, Wrongs, and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st Century.

Senator Marco Rubio fires his Chief-of-Staff immediately upon learning of allegations of improper conduct

Clint Reed

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) on Saturday, January 27th, 2018 released the following statement on the firing of his Chief-of-Staff Clint Reed:

“Yesterday afternoon, I was made aware, for the first time, of allegations of improper conduct by my Chief of Staff while under the employment of my office. These allegations were reported directly to me instead of our General Counsel or the Congressional Office of Compliance. Immediately upon receiving this complaint, I along with our General Counsel, began an investigation of this matter.

“By early this afternoon, I had sufficient evidence to conclude that while employed by this office, my Chief of Staff had violated office policies regarding proper relations between a supervisor and their subordinates. I further concluded that this led to actions which in my judgement amounted to threats to withhold employment benefits.

“This evening, I traveled from Florida to Washington D.C. and terminated his employment effective immediately.

“We have taken steps to ensure that those impacted by this conduct have access to any services they may require now or in the future. Pursuant to the wishes of those victimized by this conduct, we will not be disclosing any further details about the incidents which occurred. We will be formally notifying the appropriate Congressional and Senate administrative offices of this matter when they return to work Monday morning.”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., speaks during Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad’s annual birthday fundraiser, Nov. 17, 2012, in Altoona, Iowa.

NFL Commissioner Blasted by AMVETS National Commander

The National Commander of American Veterans (AMVETS) has sent National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell an excoriating letter in response to the league’s refusal to print his organization’s ad in this year’s Super Bowl program.

AMVETS, a 501(c)19 non-profit organization that was formed by World War II veterans, submitted a one-page advertisement with the simple request: #PleaseStand. In response, an NFL spokesman said, “The Super Bowl program is designed for fans to commemorate and celebrate the game, players, teams, and the Super Bowl. It has never been a place for advertising that could be considered by some as a political statement.”

Apparently, the NFL considers a request to stand for the national anthem to be too much of a “political statement,” despite institutionalizing the kneeling protests on live television as part of pregame ceremonies earlier this season. It would seem the NFL is conveniently ignoring the original motivation behind the national anthem protests was indeed very much a “political statement.”

In the letter to Goodell, AMVETS National Commander Marion Polk writes:

Mr. Goodell, Veterans are good for more than just military aircraft flyovers, photo opportunities during halftime, or props to sell camouflage-style NFL apparel; although, the NFL’s stance on not allowing the veterans’ unfiltered voice to be heard says otherwise.

Moreover, the fact that the commissioners of the National Basketball Association and National Hockey League have allowed the very same #PleaseStand ad to run in their respective program books only makes the NFL’s decision to reject the ad that much more inexcusable.

Click here to read the letter in its entirety.

With plummeting ratings over the past season and NFL brand’s unpopularity, can the league really afford to alienate veterans in such a way? Last week’s conference championship games hit nine-year lows for viewerships and fans deciding not to watch games have cost advertisers $500 million this year. This is certainly not the kind of PR the NFL wants going into it’s most lucrative game of the year.

Reach out to Roger Goodell and tell him why the NFL’s double-standard on “political statements” is bad for business.

Contact the NFL!      Reach Out to the NFL on Facebook!

Help us continue holding corporations and non-profits accountable for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

Putin’s KGB on American Soil

“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is Threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual Life. I you can undermine these three areas, America will Collapse from within.”   —  Joseph Stalin 

When Attorney General Jeff Session recused himself from the Russian probe, I wasn’t surprised, but angered. Some Republicans, especially from the old establishments are not aware of the crucial role Russia plays as a principle destabilizer in the world affairs. Regrettably, our AG like them is ignorant about our mortal enemy, who harms and fights us for the last hundred years. If AG doesn’t know Russia and its KGB, he cannot control DOJ. AG made a monumental error and I was furious, understanding the circumstances of his mistake in the future, as all our troubles today caused by Russian KGB…

Today in 2018 you are witnessing that my prediction was right on the money. The Russian factor is a crux of the matter in all our world affairs. In my preceding column, The Global Spy Ring, I have presented the KGB’s world activities, now I want to give you some history of the KGB. I have been a witness of that history and a witness of monumental incompetence of our Intel, all seventeen in the post-Reagan and pre-Trump era. History is the Mother of all sciences, and I’ll try to show you the nature of the KGB full of intrigues, deception, corruption, and murders, its inextricable connection of the past with the present Trump era.

A Brief History of the First KGB Chairman        

Ten years ago, when I started writing What is Happening to America? I gave you some history of the KGB. Yet, today, I want to introduce a document that will give you a huge panorama of the ruthless Russian Intelligence, full of intrigues, deception, corruption, and murders. The portrait of the first KGB Chairman Ivan Serov exposes the bloody nature of the agency. Those who know Soviet history will find familiar names here:

“Ivan Serov, an officer of military intelligence, at the time of the purges of the GRU he managed not only to survive but also to transfer to work in the NKVD. On 12 June 1937 he appeared in the capacity of executioner of Marshal Tukhachevski and other leading figures of the Red Army. Amongst all the protagonists of the terror he distinguished himself as the most fervent exponent of ‘scenes on a massive scale’. He took part in the pursuit and liquidation of the inhabitants of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1940 and in 1944-47.

Data exists as to his personal involvement in the murder of the Polish officers in Katyn. During the war Serov was one of the leaders of Smersh, and in August 1946 he personally took part in the execution of the command of the Russian Liberation Army under Lt.-General Vlasov. Subsequently he betrayed his leaders in Smersh and the NKGB, going over in time to the camp of the victorious groups. He deserted Abakumov’s group for that of Beria and betrayed him (as did General Ivashutin – the present GRU leader).

In 1953 he was deputy chief of the GRU and one of the conspirators against Beria. After the fall of Beria, Serov became Chairman of the KGB. Together with Ambassador Andropov he seized the leaders of the Hungarian revolution by deceit and took part in their torture and execution. In December 1958 Serov became chief of the GRU. As an ex-KGB and Smersh officer he had many enemies in the GRU. Under Serov’s leadership, corruption in GRU attained unbelievable proportions. In 1962 he was dismissed and quietly liquidated.”

What a vivid picture of Stalinist Gestapo, we’ve lived under! Serov was a typical Stalinist cadre of the oppressive apparatus of Soviet Socialism, the Soviet system couldn’t survive and exist without. Don’t be confused by the year 1954 and the first KGB Chairman. This apparatus was established by the Socialist Revolution in 1917 to fight capitalism, the apparatus had changed its name eight times to cover-up the crime committed during its entire existence… I am an eyewitness of this and a witness of the KGB crimes—the reason I use the name of the KGB …

Yuri Andropov—the Chairman of the KGB 1967-1982

This man played a crucial role in the life of the Soviet Union and… mankind. A Chairman of the KGB, started his career in 1956. My young readers, perhaps, have no idea of the significance the year 1956. Alas! It was the year when the Soviet tanks sunk in blood the Hungarian Revolution. Yuri Andropov was there as an Ambassador and a representative of the KGB in the Budapest Russian Embassy. Then, in 1956, Yuri Andropov have already been the globalist without borders, spreading Soviet Socialism globally. And this is perhaps the major difference between him and Ivan Serov, who was a simple executioner. A devoted disciple of Stalin, Andropov had thought globally from the top of incredible “prior achievements of the KGB.” He had brought the KGB to real sophistication, becoming a conduit between Stalin and Putin. At the Andropov time Putin was a student of law and consequently joint the KGB with the recommendation from the Communist Party.

Andropov’s personality was quite unusual for the Chairman of the KGB: he loved music, poetry, and often demonstrated his love. His appointment was a usual trick-deception of the Communist Party to change the image of the agency, but the reality illustrated the diabolic nature of the KGB by rivers of blood spread across the world in Andropov’s tenure. Under his watch and coordination there occurred the bloodiest terrorists’ attacks in the world, from the Munich murder of Israelis in the Olympic Village to the Johnstown tragedy in America, when nine hundred people had been poisoned and killed…

Andropov’s task was two-fold: to spread recruitment and infiltration globally, which he successfully achieved. Being a member of a law community for 25 years, I had the opportunity to discuss and watch his “successful achievements,” constantly communicating with lawyers, the rank-and-file members of the KGB. As a result, I defined Chapter 9 in 2007 as Evil Empire of Global Terrorism, What is Happening to America? Xlibris, 2012.

Andropov has changed drastically the protocol and scale of recruitment and infiltration. Though, the agenda of Socialism stays the same, the intensity of the KGB to prevent, disrupt, obstruct, and finally stop social mobility of capitalism has doubled if not quadrupled by sabotaging any achievements of capitalism, primarily American capitalism. Learning American behavior, the emphases was to recruit from a certain group of people: addicts of drugs and sex, people with Slavic names, Jewish women, siblings, bankrupts, and so on.

The main targets were American Intel and Security apparatus to paralyze their normal functioning. And of course, using legal and illegal immigration, an easy way to infiltrate and implant political operatives, and gangs into a targeted country. Like sleeping cells used by the Soviets during the revolution, Andropov’s cell consists of political operative, political agitator, and political organizer. The last two planned to be local citizens. It is not a coincidence that immigration is the most divided issue in the American politics today. Please, remember KGB’s main tools: lies, fraud, deceit, intimidation and psychological manipulations. …

Andropov planned to infiltrate and subordinate American social media, making it a dominant political force. He intended doing that by recruiting the journalist’s a-la Walter Durante, who was fooling and deceiving the West for several decades, helping Stalin to annihilate millions Russian souls. For this reason, Andropov was trying to plow into life an idea of equality and justice of Socialism, and implant the idea into traditional people’s consciousness, to cultivate new social mentality, and to low standards of morality. In the time the Eastern Europe has already been under Warsaw Pact and KGB’s primary targets England and France. Andropov’s target became the world and America to disrupt capitalism and create chaos. Andropov needed the social media, to act the way it was implemented in the Easter Europe by the Soviets—a coordinated effort of several institutions against the opposition.

Andropov became the KGB Chairman in 1967. It was a tragic time in America our boys and girls were dying in Vietnam. Besides that President Nixon came to White House–Andropov’s a personal enemy. (The story of their personal animosity deserves a separate column.) As a matter of fact, Andropov working in Europe in the 1950s had known the strength of human protests, he met them in Hungarian Revolt; it was very hard to extinguish people’s wrath. Based on his knowledge of Europe, Andropov began planning coordinated attacks on American soil and hurting American interests across the globe. Please, pay attention to Andropov’s opinion about Americans— “they are naïve, gullible, and crazy.”

Besides military help to Vietnam and extensive anti-war propaganda on American soil, under Andropov, a massive expansion of the Soviets took place in the Middle East and neighboring areas. Created, coordinated, and navigated by the KGB terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Shabbat began their destabilizing activities in the area against Israel. Look at the map of Andropov’s time and compare it with the events in Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey today:

Remember that Uri Andropov is Putin’s “spiritual mentor!” they are “superior to the ordinary people” based on Stalin’s teachings. Consider the Soviets’ criminal intent, and the big picture of the Soviet mafia with all its tentacles and ideology would appear before you in America! Knowledge is the only SOLUTION for our survival. You can also see that venom of the KGB’s superiority is alive and well—from the first Chekist, Felix Dzerzhinsky to Yuri Andropov and Vladimir Putin. Just look at the Soviet henchmen around the world—they all were well-trained and inherited an audacity of arrogance and superiority in their behaviors from the Stalinist Chekists.

Andropov knew well Stalinist rule of “Divide and Conquer” to achieve a needed result, and he used and implemented them in all his plans. In America it was a visual and simple one—Black vs. White.  In my column a couple months ago, I asked you to find and read the document titled Message to the Black Movement, A Political Statement from the Black Underground, designed by the KGB to inflame the black underground in America. I wanted you to see for yourself the language of the KGB and origin of the notion of “White Oppressors” that affected several generations of Black America. It is for this reason I was constantly writing about WW III and Soviet Socialism, I named lately-Soviet Fascism to show you this war on American soil.

If you have any doubts in my identification of Soviet Fascism and WWIII, the first person to confirm the identity of both will be the Chairman of the KGB, Yuri Andropov. I will give you a conversation of two KGB Generals, Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking KGB officer ever to defect to the U.S, with Yuri Andropov:

 “In 1972 the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the U.S. As KGB Chairman, Yuri Andropov told me a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America that could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter the United States. No one within the American/Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe.  (“Russian Footprints,” by Ion Mihai Pacepa, National Review Online, August 24, 2008.)

General Pacepa wrote in the same article: “According to Andropov… the Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch. Terrorism and violence against Israel and her master, American Zionism, would flow naturally from the Muslims’ religious fervor, Andropov sermonized.” What can better confirm both of my terms Soviet Fascism and WWIII than those words? They summarized my entire writings. I remind you again that under Andropov the infiltration into Western civilization had tripled or quadruple. Under his watch occurred the bloodiest terrorists’ attacks in the world, from the Munich murder of Israelis in the Olympic Village to the Johnstown tragedy in America.

Don’t you think that Andropov’s words are racist with a fascist intent? I can tell you, Andropov just acknowledged the official Soviet policy that was running all minorities that way in the Soviet Union. You can tell me that there is no Soviet Union any longer. You are right. But the system of oppression has not changed: we are dealing with the Russian KGB Government, run by Putin today. Moreover, the agenda to destroy capitalism is alive and well as ever for hundred years after the Socialist Revolution. Allen West counted seventy Socialists in our Congress. I know more KGB agents in our government, predominantly Democrats and WW III begun hundred years ago against capitalism is going on. Just watch how Socialist Leadership of the Democrat Party is fighting capitalism in the 21st century…

Allow me now to go to a new spiral in WWIII and its roots. This war took a different form and scale in 2016-2018—the deadly war against President Trump. And again we are talking about the Democrats a “criminal cabal,” as Judge Jeannine called it. The Democrats have an audacity to call Trump a racist—their incompetence is staggering—they know nothing about Yuri Andropov! Now there is rumors that Trump had a connection with the agent from Kremlin. It is possible that this agent is Barack Obama, who I had been writing about his Russian connection for the last nine years. Please read Socialist Lies: from Stalin to the Clintons, Obamas, and Sanders, Xlibris, 2016.

I have also heard the question: “is this FBI or KGB?” asked by a member of the Congress, after he had read documents from the FBI. I can answer this question too—It IS the KGB, I have been writing and warning you for the last twenty-five years… The recent unmasking of over two hundred Americans for many people was an unusual and strange event. It’s absolutely clear to me: the major objectives of the KGB is the INFORMATION, in this case information about Americans to learn the approach to recruit them… This is another evidence of the Russian connection and Barack Obama…

Washington D.C. is currently boiling with the extraordinary new information about the FBI and the Democrat Party, which I called the party of Soviet fascism. The major task is the correct interpretation of the exposed information. It is not the FBI acting like the KGB. The crux of the matter is that—the KGB is running the war against Donald J. Trump within the FBI facilities by the FBI’s staff. Like Dossier on Trump, Putin’s KGB is freely acting on American soil. Plus watch the leadership of Democrats and especially Trojan Horse-Sanders. To get it right, you have to know the roots-history of the KGB, its nature and agenda described in my books and columns…

The Post

Several days ago, I saw the movie The Post—a well done wonderful thriller, reflecting political events in the 1970s.   At the end of the movie the Left audience clapped. Why not? After all it was Spielberg, Hanks and Streep overcoming attempted presidential censorship of the press and the Streep character standing up to men. Everything in the movie proceeding smoothly, like it had been managed behind the scene by a magic wand and we do not know this mysterious outside force.    It was anti-war, anti-Vietnam, anti-men and a kick at Nixon of the Watergate scandal. We are “left” with the impression that The Washington Post and the New York Times dig deep, that presidents always lie and try to censor the press, which is really just trying to uncover the truth. We are to take that emotionally charged picture and apply it to today’s events.

But what if we dig deeper. What if the audience is being emotionally manipulated. Hanks and Streep apply their tricks of the trade, with Streep way over the top. If we look deeper at the “true” story, why would the Streep character’s husband commit suicide if he loved the paper, fit perfectly in his job and apparently had a happy loving family? What if his death wasn’t suicide? Who would benefit from his death to be the head of a newspaper, which could shape public opinion? I believe Mrs. Graham and through her Andropov’s agency would be a beneficiary…

Is the audience of this movie not being manipulated to compare the events then with the current political scene? That we are currently engaged in another unwinnable war in Afghanistan, that the current President is trying to muzzle The Post, New York Times (and CNN) from telling the “truth”?;  a position already held by the majority of the Left minded audience. No wonder they clapped, no wonder this movie will be a big hit and might spark further action from the Left to pressure for impeachment. The country is indeed divided like never before.

I was sitting on tension the whole movie, intrigued by the smooth occurrence of the events. Yet, only awareness and knowledge can interpret the movie and the current events in Washington D.C.–an abuse of power of the FBI and the FISA Court. But returning to movie, I have read another live-story of the Post’s owner Katherine Graham. People close to her had suspected that she killed her husband, when he wanted to divide their assets and leave her for another woman.  She definitely did not want to lose The Post.

The real history of her live is quite interesting. Eugene Meyer, her Father handed over the newspaper to his son-in-law. Her Father gave the Post to Philip Graham, her husband rather than her in 1959. There are should be the reasons for such a strange decision: Katharine was quite an educated woman, working within the Post for many years. Please, look at her words said in 1970: “The thing women must do to rise to power is to redefine their femininity. Once, power was considered a masculine attribute. In fact, power has no sex.” Katharine Graham.

No doubts, she had a strong character. Maybe her Father had also suspected something? By the way, all suspicions of the people, pertaining to her murder of the husband, have never been refute or rebutted by the family.

The people who watched the movie and clapped did not know Katharine Graham’s real live, they also haven’t read my books; information of them was suppressed by the FBI. Moreover, the editors of both The Post and the New York Times had admitted in the movie that they did know the real source of the information they both had printed. For me, knowing a deep infiltration of the KGB into all strata of American society and the Democrat Party, it was clear that the entire story in the movie was created and run by the KGB in 1971, like they run Trump’s Dossier in 2016.

I recommend the people after reading this column to go and see the movie The Post and then find the real information about Katharine Graham. I took information about her from Wikipedia and The True Story of The Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin. I believe the author and his research, he is from Russia and knows the subject. For me the movie was the First Act of the spectacle performed by the KGB in1971, dethroning President Nixon. We are witnessing today the Second Act of the same spectacle by the KGB trying to dethrone American President in 2018.

Yet, the truth has its magic way to come to surface and sometimes with the touch of irony. Katherine Graham had allowed publication of the information beneficiary to the Andropov KGB in 1971. Today, our Congress debates a publication of the FBI material, exposing the activities of the FBI, the Democrats, and the Putin KGB. We will know the traitors of the 21st century. But nothing can be compared with the “golden goose” that Andropov got in 1960. It could’ve been an accidental occurrence, but Andropov and his “golden goose” had changed the world and not to the better…  Stay tune!

To be continued at

P.S. Timing is helping me to educate all Americans. When I completed the column, our government had already been shutdown by the Democrat’s using Andropov’s promised plan to disrupt, obstruct, and use “potential momentum” to stopped social mobility of capitalism. They are pretending to fight for DACA. They lie—this is a typical KGB play book, maneuver for the Democrat to survive, knowing about upcoming classified material, a document showing criminal intent committed by the FBI and Obama’s administration. The question, of whether it is the FBI or old KGB? Will be answered by me: It is Putin’s KGB on American soil. We are witnessing, as I predicted, another Watergate—this time, a quadruple and international one. This kind of doings will continue until the Democrat Party is exposed for what it really is…

As Palestinian children ‘starve’ Mahmoud Abbas is set to take possession of a new $50 million private jet!

Amid U.S. funding cuts to UNRWA, and threats to cut direct Palestinian Authority (PA) funding, Mahmoud Abbas is set to take possession of a new $50 million private jet.

Half of PA foreign aid goes towards payments to imprisoned terrorists or dead terrorists’ families, while Palestinian “leadership” claims Donald Trump is starving children by withholding funding for the regime in Ramallah.

The illegitimate leader of the fictitious state will need his new wings to fly around the world begging for the money lost from shunning the U.S.

Amid funding cut fears, PA purchases $50 million private jet for Abbas — report

By TOI STAFF from The Times of Israel

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas speaks during a meeting in the West Bank city of Ramallah on January 14, 2018. (AFP PHOTO / ABBAS MOMANI)

Even as the Palestinian Authority faces major funding cuts from the US, it has purchased a new luxurious $50 million private jet to be used by President Mahmoud Abbas, Hadashot news reported Wednesday.

The report, which did not provide sourcing, said the plane was set to be delivered to Amman within weeks, and will be stationed there for use by the PA chief.

Funding for the plane was said to have been provided both from the PA budget ($20 million) and from the Palestinian National Fund ($30 million).

The report comes amid deep cuts to US aid to the Palestinians, and reports that further cuts may be coming. 

When US President Donald Trump originally threatened to cut aid earlier this month, top PLO official Saeb Erekat said it would lead to starvation among Palestinian refugee children.

Read more.


Europe Comes Up With Perfectly Orwellian Responses to ‘Fake News’

In their zeal to stamp out “fake news,” European governments are turning toward Orwellian solutions that are worse than the disease.

The European Commission recently created a 39-member panel to explore avenues to eliminate fake news. On Twitter, it announced that it seeks to find a “balanced approach” to protecting free speech and making sure citizens get “reliable information.”

This follows in the footsteps of individual governments in Europe that have decided that the way to defeat fake news is to have the government decide what the truth is.

Germany recently enacted a law that allows the government to censor social media and fine related companies that won’t take down what government officials deem fake news or hate speech.

France isn’t far behind. French President Emmanuel Macron proposed a ban on fake news, especially around election time, “in order to protect democracy.”

And on Tuesday, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May announced the creation of a commission to respond to fake news called the National Security Communications Unit.

A spokesperson for the May government said:

“Digital communications is constantly evolving and we are looking at ways to meet the challenging media landscape by harnessing the power of new technology for good.”

The key problem with these proposals is obvious, as the Washington Examiner highlighted in an editorial.

“One must ask who will decide which news is real and respectable, on the one hand, and which, on the other, is fake and must be censored?” the Examiner asked, before referring to George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984”:

Will it be bureaucrats in a censor’s office in a bigger agency? Or, will their work be so extensive and important that they will need a new agency of their own? Will they go the full Orwell and name it the Ministry of Truth?

As Alexis de Tocqueville, the famed 19th-century French observer of American institutions, wrote of such government-controlled speech:

Whoever should be able to create and maintain a tribunal of this kind would waste his time in prosecuting the liberty of the press; for he would be the absolute master of the whole community and would be as free to rid himself of the authors as of their writings.

Censorship of this sort is what the Founding Fathers feared. They knew that despite the problems occasionally caused by the proliferation of fake news and false ideas, it was far more dangerous to make the government the arbiter of what is true and false rather than citizens.

Therefore, the Founders created the First Amendment and instilled a culture that respected the individual right to free speech. This was the best and perhaps only way, in the fallible world of men, ultimately to get to the truth.

There is ample evidence that the proliferation of fake news has far less consequential impact than doomsayers would admit.

A recent study concluded that while fake news often spreads far with the help of tools such as social media, it has a shallow impact on what Americans believe. This begs the question of why near-authoritarian measures would be implemented that so badly undermine free speech rights.

For all the worry over foreign, authoritarian regimes manipulating our elections with propaganda, by implementing government-run commissions on fake news we will simply be turning to repressive means to solve this perceived problem.

The proposed commissions to weigh free speech rights against delivering the “correct” news would likely have shallow utility even if they somehow could provide “accurate” stories to citizens. However, giving such panels the power to do so would be Tocqueville’s worst nightmare: a license to impose government’s views on the people and squash potentially legitimate dissent.

This is why it’s particularly absurd that the Committee to Protect Journalists, a group dedicated to promoting free speech for journalists, labeled President Donald Trump as the world’s greatest threat to press freedom.

The Federalist’s David Harsanyi wrote:

“Trump’s attacks on journalists—some of it brought on by their own shoddy and partisan behavior—are often unseemly and unhealthy, but it hasn’t stopped anyone from engaging, investigating, writing, saying, protesting or sharing their deep thoughts with the entire group.”

Though Trump has proposed strengthening libel laws, a more traditional way of curbing intentional media falsehoods, his administration has made no widespread legal attack on the ability of Americans to disseminate news and views.

Saying mean things on Twitter isn’t an attack on free speech, but censorship by an unaccountable government board certainly is.

For all the hyperbole and hysteria following the coverage of the president, it has ultimately been our celebrated friends across the pond who’ve decided to take an ax to free speech, cloaked in the soothing rhetoric of protecting democracy.

At times like this we can be thankful for the Founders and the First Amendment, but this shouldn’t lull us into thinking that these terrible ideas won’t make their way here too.


Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: The History of Fake News in the United States

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


The Humanitarian Hoax of DACA: Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years presenting his crippling Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) advocacy as altruistic when in fact it was designed for destruction. His legacy, the Leftist Democrat Party with its ongoing Resistance movement, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy the capitalist infrastructure of American democracy through deceitful immigration reforms. This is how it works.

DACA Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was the 2012 product of Obama’s illegal executive overreach. The lesser known DAPA Deferred Action for Parents of Americans was Obama’s 2014 expansion program that legalized illegal alien parents whose children became legal American citizens through birthright citizenship.

Amnesty programs for illegal immigrants guaranteed Democrat votes but Obama had a problem selling the idea to Congress even though Democrats had control of both Houses. Illegal aliens needed a new image. No problem for Obama – his Leftist image-makers went to work.

Soon illegal aliens became undocumented aliens, then undocumented workers, then unauthorized immigrants, then undocumented immigrants, and finally the loftiest brand of them all – Dreamers. Obama’s rebranded illegal aliens were transformed into Dreamers and protecting them was merchandised as the humanitarian imperative for America. Millennials signed on in droves but here is the problem.

Rebranding is a marketing tool used by advertisers to sell products that don’t sell. Rebranding changes the name but it does not change the product. Dreamers are still illegal aliens. So why would Obama resort to executive overreach to sell rebranded illegal immigration?? Because Obama needed the positive image of Dreamers to sell DACA and DAPA as altruistic programs when they were actually deceitful Democrat power-grabs designed to tip red states blue. It was always about the votes.

USA Today reports that according to Migration Policy Institute there are 3.6 million Dreamers living in the U.S. today – not the oft-repeated 800,000. “The 3.6 million estimate of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. before their 18th birthday comes from the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit think tank that studies global immigration patterns. That is roughly a third of all undocumented immigrants in the country and does not include millions of their immediate family members who are U.S. citizens.”

The Democrat narrative is that deportations of illegal aliens would be amoral and an economic calamity. The reality is that under-educated non-working unauthorized immigrants whether they are Dreamers or not drain the economy instead of improving it. The undisclosed underbelly of the Leftist narrative is that most illegal aliens living in Republican states if awarded amnesty would vote Democrat and tilt red states to blue. If amnesty and chain migration pass, the additional Democrat votes would put several red states in play particularly Florida, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Michael Cutler warns us about the consequences of DACA to national security and argues that DACA is the Immigration Trojan Horse. Cutler contends that, “The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) created a massive amnesty program that ultimately led to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. It has been said that insanity is doing the same things the same way and expecting a different outcome.”

So it is with DACA. Millions of illegal immigrants awarded amnesty will vote to elect a Democrat President who will open the borders and flood the country with more immigrants who will be granted voting rights and will vote Democrat. This chain will accomplish the Leftist goal to destroy our constitutional republic and replace it with socialism. The United States of America is the greatest experiment in individual freedom and upward mobility the world has ever known. Protection of our republic is the essence of President Trump’s America-first policies.

President Trump revoked DAPA in June 2017 and ended DACA in September 2017 saying “The legislative, not the executive branch writes these [immigration] laws.” Yet DACA continues to be discussed and marketed to a trusting public by Obama’s Resistance movement as the altruistic responsibility of compassionate American citizens.

For 241 years America has said NO to monarchies, NO to oligarchies, NO to totalitarianism, NO to authoritarianism, and NO to illegal immigration. We are a country of LEGAL immigrants not a country of illegal immigrants. We have fought to preserve our constitutional republic with its checks and balances on power codified in our Constitution to protect our individual rights and way of life. Socialism is the great leftist scam being perpetrated on the American people and implemented through destructive leftist immigration policies.

Millennials have no idea what socialism is in practice. Socialism is most definitely not the Bernie Sanders fantasy of free stuff or the John Lennon song “Imagine” that they are being indoctrinated with. Socialism is an infantilizing political structure in which there is no private property and the government owns all means of production. Citizens are wards of the state and subject to the whims of the government. The government tells its dependent subjects what they can have and how much they can have. There is no freedom or upward mobility in socialism because there is no private ownership. There is only the ruling elite and the enslaved population who serve them. The American dream is dead in socialism.

Unrestricted immigration particularly Dreamers and chain migration will ultimately transform America the beautiful into a socialist state. The American dream will be sacrificed to DACA Dreamers. Why? The answer is that socialism is the prerequisite political infrastructure to internationalize sovereign countries in preparation for one-world government. Globalism’s one-world government is the hidden motive for the Leftist Democrat policies that endorse the humanitarian hoax of DACA and chain migration.

Socialism is deceitfully marketed as the great equalizer – the social system that will provide social justice and income equality. Socialism is the big lie of the 21st century because in reality socialism only benefits the elitists who rule the country. All anyone has to do is look at Cuba and Venezuela where the rulers live like kings and the ruled suffer shortages, deprivation, and poverty.

We cannot allow DACA Dreamers to tilt America toward leftist socialism which robs all Americans of their liberty except the elitists in power. Choosing the Dreamer’s dreams over the American dream is a lethal choice that will end our constitutional republic – but that was always the point of the humanitarian hoax of DACA – to kill America with “kindness.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity.

Experts: Government Shutdown May Have Caused Human Combustion

In one of the most controversial and destructive acts of his presidency, Donald Trump, the worst Republican president since Hitler, shut down the government! This is bad news for all Americans according to several government agencies.

Senior accountant of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Fred “Nonpartisan” Phelps, says the shutdown may cost the average American family up to $85,000 per day. “Women and minorities would be hardest hit,” said Phelps coining a new phrase.

Citizens may not be able to access data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Over the next month, children will be asking, “Mommy, what’s a transportation statistic?” The impact this will have on our children, our future, is simply unacceptable and entirely avoidable.

Furthermore, if no deal is reached, funding will be halted for the Department for the Prevention of Spontaneous Human Combustion causing them to shut down their hotline, a service otherwise accessible to millions of Americans. Estimates show that over 1,475,286.04 preventable spontaneous combustions will take place every minute past midnight for as long as Trump refuses to see reason and negotiate.

Worse yet, millions of necessary government employees will have to go without work wondering when they will be compensated for what essentially amounts to a paid vacation.

“The stress is killing me,” said Claude McElroy of the Agency of Banjo String Quality Assurance. “If I’d known Trump was gonna do this, I’da planned for a fishin’ trip. Instead, all I can do is stay at home an’ watch YouTube videos all day like I do at work. I’m madder ‘n a wet hen, and I feel like I could blow up any minute now. Course, there ain’t nothin’ I can do ’bout it since Trump come around and personally cut my phone line. Now I can’t call that spontaneous combustion hotline and git the help I need. The Mrs. is already crying her eyes out, and that Trump don’t care!”

Completely unmoved by the suffering he’s inflicted on middle class Americans, sources close to the president say that he spent the afternoon with Ivanka checking out a new top hat to go with his obscenely expensive pinstripe tuxedo. Anonymous sources claim that Trump, while inserting a monocle into his right eye to inspect his new hat, simply told reporters, “I can’t be bothered with that.”

RELATED VIDEO: A Musical Parody Of Overly Dramatic Democrats!

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column by Komissar al-Blogunov  originally appeared in The Peoples Cube.

The Beginning of the End of the Progressive Democratic Party?

The government shutdown by Democrats was a desperation move. And they lost. Even with mostly friendly media cover, they were in such an untenable position that Sen. Chuck Schumer had to cave.

And yet they #Resist! — with the Women’s March for Democracy, or some such nonsense; social media censorship of conservative outlets, endless late-night comedian propagandizing and hair-on-fire media allies.

While they imagine in their fantasy world they are resisting a mad King who is hell-bent on destroying the kingdom, they’re really resisting a ton of great things happening for Americans — and to some degree the world. And that’s becoming more obvious.

It’s really difficult for even the media to hide an economy going gangbusters — before the tax cuts even officially go into effect. More than 80 percent of Americans will get more money in their paychecks next month. Dozens of major companies have announced bonuses, pay raises, minimum $15-per-hour wages, and one company — Apple — is repatriating so much money to invest in the country that their taxes alone could fund nearly two walls on our southern border.

GDP is heading toward 4 percent, unemployment is dropping to what economists consider full employment levels (because there are always a few percentage points of people between jobs) and the unemployment level for black Americans is now at its lowest point since 1972.

People are feeling so much better about the economy that a recent Quinnipiac University poll revealed record-high levels of economic optimism among Americans. Two-thirds of American voters described the state of the nation’s economy as excellent or good. Further, 73 percent of voters regard their own financial situations as excellent or good. And all this has boosted Trump’s low approvals despite endless negative media.

This is not at all what the Democrats wanted while trying to build momentum toward the midterms where, in their imaginary land, they expect to win back the House and the Senate and immediately begin impeachment hearings against Trump because they don’t like some stuff he says. So, a government shutdown, which the media always blame on Republicans and, if lasting a few weeks or longer, could cause material damage to the economy — which might be good for Democrats in November.

Yes. Things are that cold-hearted in progressive circles right now. The fact that such a shutdown for pure political gain would hurt Americans — and a higher portion of Democratic-voting Americans — was not a problematic means to gain an end for a major American party is disturbing. Schumer’s quick capitulation is pretty surprising. He either had polling or he understood the optics of reality.

But this is just the latest in an ongoing flow of progressive Democrat actions that get further and further from mainstream Americans — and mainstream American voters.

Consider: Since 2015, California gives anyone who asks for a driver’s license a driver’s license. Further, the law requires the state DMV to send all those records to the Secretary of State for voter registration, allowing non-Americans in the country illegally to register to vote in American elections. Insane, yes. But wait, there’s more! Liberal groups such as League of Women Voters and La Raza complained that requiring illegals to make two stops to get a license and to vote was too much hardship. So they sued and, naturally in California, a judge ruled in their favor.

So California already has thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions — no one knows — of non-Americans voting legally in the state, including in federal elections. Now, they don’t even need to go register — they’re automatically good to go. Just sneak into the country across the non-walled border, head to the California DMV for your driver’s license and vote in the midterms and the next presidential election. Don’t worry. The ballot is helpfully in Spanish for you.

And the state will protect you from law-abiding Californians. The state is not only protecting and promoting illegals as a sanctuary state, but threatening prosecution of anyone who actually helps federal officials with lawbreakers.

California is the tip of the spear of the modern progressive Democratic state. Where it leads, Democrats tend to follow. And while all the illegalities are going on in California, what they are really doing is driving the national Democratic party further from the political center of America.

On the other coast, it’s getting harder and harder for most Americans to look the other way from the sewer our nation’s capital has become, with astonishing corruption, unaccountable bureaucrats with their own agendas committing felonies with impunity to undermine a democratically elected president, apparent cover-ups by national law-enforcement and the dramatic decline in trust of the FBI — a once well-respected if not revered institution that now is found to be filled at the top with corruption.

This is known on the right as part of the Deep State, along with the weaponized IRS and the State Department, which is littered with lifers who willingly sabotage the president and leak information, and other portions of the federal labyrinth seeking to trap Trump. All of this is the apparatus and ally of the progressive Democratic Party. More allies include Antifa, the boys are girls are boys imbroglio crowd, BLM extremists,

On the foreign front, within a year of Trump taking office and changing the rules of engagement for American forces, ISIS is essentially crushed as a land-holding caliphate. It may continue as a terrorist organization, but with far fewer resources to commit atrocities. This is good for all the peoples of the Middle East and world. Plus, somehow, North Korea and South Korea are actually talking to each other and Russia is not attempting anymore land grabs since Trump ordered a missile attack against their Syrian allies. A Trump red line will be enforced, and Putin likely understands that.

It’s hard to see how these Republican successes combined with California craziness and Washington corruption adds up to Democrats winning majorities in Congress because of Trump. Law-and-order Republicans and President Trump have a lot of cleaning up to do inside the federal government, and cannot put that off much longer.

And it’s possible the implosion of the men-in-women’s-bathrooms party is already underway.

Remember, since 2008, the Democratic Party has been electorally decimated. The Hill wrote this after the November 2016 election: “Republicans will control 4,170 state legislative seats after last week’s elections, while Democrats will control 3,129 seats in the nation’s 98 partisan legislative chambers.” That a complete flip from 2008. “Since Obama took office, Republicans have captured control of 27 state legislative chambers Democrats held after the 2008 elections. The GOP now controls the most legislative seats it has held since the founding of the party.” (ital added)

The only question there is whether those losses were the function of a popular but deeply incompetent president in Barak Obama, or a harbinger for the Democratic Party.

There will always be a Democratic Party. But just as the party had to move away from the progressive abyss and toward the center when a group including Bill Clinton formed the Democratic Leadership Council in the late 1980s, it may again need to adopt a more centrist, moderate, pro-American approach. Such an attempt would cause quite a crack up among the most extreme, loud and active grassroots members, but might be the only salvation to keep that party from going into the wilderness for a generation.


Democrats’ Shutdown A Desperate Diversion from Economic Success
A Government Shutdown is Absolutely Good and Inspirational
The Ugly Reason For Durbin’s Claim of Trump’s “Sh**hole” Comment
Immigration Reform Congress Should Send to Trump
Why a Bible-Believing Christian Supports Trump

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Please visit the The Revolutionary Act’s YouTube Channel.

NFL Faces Ad-versity from Vets’ Group

The NFL can’t afford more bad publicity, but that’s exactly what they’re getting after their latest clash with veterans. You’d think the league’s abysmal ratings would have them rethinking their business model. Not so far, according to Fox News’s Todd Starnes. Instead of shying away from the anti-Americanism that’s hurting them, the NFL is embracing more!

As if five months of anthem controversy isn’t enough, Commissioner Roger Goodell is heading into the league’s biggest game with a black cloud hanging over the sport.

Its relationship with the military already on shaky ground, Goodell didn’t exactly further the peace process when he blocked American Veterans (AMVETS) from airing a Super Bowl ad on patriotism. The ad (you can watch it here) includes a two-word message: “#PleaseStand.”

“It’s a simple, polite request that represents the sentiment of our membership, particularly those whose missing or paralyzed arms or limbs preclude standing,” group National Commander Marion Polk explained.Apparently, the NFL didn’t take it that way and rejected the ad outright. The Super Bowl, insisted league spokesman Brian McCarthy, “is designed for fans to commemorate and celebrate the game, players, [and] teams” — not, apparently, the men and women who guard the freedom that makes that celebration possible. “It’s never,” McCarthy said with a straight face, “been a place for advertising that could be considered by some as a political statement.”

Is that so? Where was McCarthy last year when the ads were so political that they made more headlines than the actual game? For corporate heavyweights like Google, Coca-Cola, 84 Lumber, Budweiser, and Airbnb, staying on the sidelines in the early days of the Trump administration wasn’t an option for Super Bowl LI. They left product placement in the rearview and opted for controversial statements on everything from immigration to sexuality. “We all belong. The world is more beautiful the more you accept,” Airbnb insisted. Google squeezed in plenty of subliminal messages — and some not-so-subliminal rainbow flags.

Then there was 84 Lumber, who didn’t win over a lot of conservatives with its attack on Trump’s immigration crackdown in its commercial bashing of a Mexican border wall. “There is an example of an unsophisticated advertiser making a political statement, and not really caring whether it helps them sell any lumber,” said Allen Adamson, founder of Brand Simple Consulting. Then, of course, there was Audi, which tried to make a statement about equal pay — only to be outed for having an all-male board.

As usual, the only thing more astounding than the NFL’s censorship is its hypocrisy. And since when did honoring the flag become a political statement anyway? It used to be just good manners. “Perhaps Goodell was concerned that a ‘political statement’ in the game-day program might take away from the ‘political statements’ being made on the football field when players take a knee,” Todd suggested. And for all of its radical politics, Polk points out, the NFL certainly doesn’t mind exploiting the military when it’s convenient. “Veterans are good for more than just military aircraft flyovers, photo opportunities during halftime, or props to sell camouflage-style NFL apparel, although the NFL’s stance… says otherwise.”

If there’s room for the “free speech” of Colin Kaepernick, then surely there’s room for the majority of Americans who are disgusted by his display. “Freedom of speech works both ways,” Polk warns. “We respect the rights of those who choose to protest, as these rights are precisely what our members have fought — and in many cases died — for. But imposing corporate censorship to deny that same right to those veterans who have secured it for us all is reprehensible and totally beyond the pale.”

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Christianity Gets a Faith Lift… from Harvard

Have States Thrown in the Towel on Bathrooms?

BACK TO THE FUTURE: Hollywood is Out of Control. Is it Time to Reinstate Public ‘Morality Codes’?

Chris Lewis from the University of Colorado Boulder produced a short historical report on the The Production Code of 1930, known as The Hays Code. To read The Production Code published on March 31, 1930 click here.

The historical report states:

From virtually the earliest years of their existence, movies were regarded by many people as a baleful influence on public morality. In the United States, censorship was exercised pretty much on a local option basis. Many states and individual cities had their own censorship boards that often ordered the deletion of shots, scenes, and/or title cards before a film could be exhibited within its borders, sometimes banning films outright. The fact that a film was banned somewhere was very often turned into a marketing ploy to gain publicity in other, less easily offended cities. [Emphasis added]

Lewis noted:

By 1922, however, spurred by several recent high-profile scandals involving Hollywood celebrities, calls for some type of federal action were heard. In self-defense, motion picture producers passed a succession of moral rules or “codes” meant to guide the content of motion pictures, overseen by former postmaster Will Hays and often referred to as the “Hays Code.” [Emphasis added]

Karl Marx said, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” The Production Code of 1930 was in-part a reaction to the “first sexual revolution” which, according to Wikipedia, was during the Roaring Twenties after World War I and it included writers such as F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edna Saint Vincent Millay, and Ernest Hemingway.

It appears that Hollywood is repeating itself and is seen by many as farcical.

In 2017 Americans saw Hollywood battered by an ongoing series of sex scandals first reported in an October 5th, 2017 New York Times article titled “Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades.” This story, coupled with growing numbers of both actors and actresses coming forward to report sexual abuses, has led to the #MeToo movement.

Lewis wrote:

In 1930, therefore, a new code—which came to be known as the Hollywood Production Code—was written. The industry accepted it nominally, although many movies stretched it to its limits or simply ignored it, prompting more public outcry. Movies made between 1930-34 are thus often referred to as “pre-code,” even though the Production Code was theoretically in effect. Many filmmakers during this period tried to stretch the code to its limits, if not defying it outright, especially in their use of sexual innuendoes, risqué costumes, and implicitly immoral characters. [Emphasis added]

In 1968 The Production Code of 1930 was abandoned by Hollywood and replaced by a letter rating system for movies, which, slightly modified, is still used today. This change in ratings was in-part a reaction to the “second sexual revolution.” According to Wikipedia,

[T]he age of changes in perception and practices of sexuality that developed from around 1960 was to reach mainstream America, most of western Europe, and parts of Asia. Indeed, the available quantitative evidence demonstrates that measures of non-traditional sexual behavior (e.g., gonorrhea incidence, births out of wedlock, and births to teenagers) began to rise dramatically in the mid to late 1950s. It brought about profound shifts in the attitudes to women’s sexuality, homosexuality, pre-marital sexuality and the freedom of sexual expression.

Psychologists and scientists such as Wilhelm Reich and Alfred Kinsey influenced the revolution, as well as literature and films, and the social movements of the period, including the counterculture movement, the women’s movement, and the gay rights movement. The counterculture contributed to the awareness of radical cultural change that was the social matrix of the sexual revolution. [Emphasis added]

Lewis wrote this about the current system of ratings:

… [The] Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) letter ratings was first established in 1968 (and later slightly modified), freeing filmmakers to include whatever content they desired and submit it for an official rating. These ratings, however, were not based upon moral values or attitudes (as the Production Code’s guidelines had emphasized), but simply upon the content itself. Somewhat vague quotas for levels of violence, sexual activity or discussions, nudity, and profanity were used to divide films into groups, with a letter assigned to give viewers a rough idea of what it might or might not contain. [Emphasis added]

Perhaps it is time to go back to a system based upon ‘moral values or attitudes” in order to save future generations?

Hollywood has become the purveyor of immorality and politics for profit. Hollywood actively promotes the counterculture, the pro-choice women’s, and the gay rights movements. While it is true that the individual can decide not to go the a particular movie because it does not appeal to their sensibilities. The rapid growth of streaming videos on YouTube, via smart phones, computers, and tablets, make it nearly impossible to control content.

It may be time to go back to insure the future. Why? Because in 2018 movies are regarded by many people as a baleful influence on public morality.

President Trump has made defending religious liberty a hallmark of his administration. It may be time for cities, states and Congress to defend morality and re-institute “morality codes” for not only movies but online and streaming content?

What do you think?

RELATED ARTICLE: Hollywood ‘collaborated’ with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and its happening again!

The Sex-Change Revolution Is Based on Ideology, Not Science

Twenty-eight years ago, the release of “When Harry Met Sally” highlighted one big debate: whether men and women could really be just friends.

That question may still be up in the air, but now we are being forced to confront a more fundamental debate: whether men can really become women.

America is in the midst of what has been called a “transgender moment.” In the space of a year, transgender issues went from something that most Americans had never heard of to a cause claiming the mantle of civil rights.

But can a boy truly be “trapped” in a girl’s body? Can modern medicine really “reassign” sex? Is sex something “assigned” in the first place? What’s the loving response to a friend or child experiencing a gender identity conflict? What should our law say on these issues?

These shouldn’t be difficult questions.

Just a few years before “When Harry Met Sally” hit theaters, Dr. Paul McHugh thought he had convinced the vast majority of medical professionals not to go along with bold claims about sex and gender being proffered by some of his colleagues. And as chair of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, McHugh put a stop to sex-reassignment surgery at Hopkins.

Once the elite Johns Hopkins did this, many medical centers across the nation followed suit.

But in recent years we have seen a resurgence of these drastic procedures—not in light of new scientific evidence, mind you, but as a result of a growing ideological movement. Such is our transgender moment.

The people increasingly in the spotlight of this moment are children.

In the past 10 years, dozens of pediatric gender clinics have sprung up throughout the United States. In 2007, Boston Children’s Hospital “became the first major program in the United States to focus on transgender children and adolescents,” as its own website brags.

A decade later, over 45 gender clinics opened their doors to our nation’s children—telling parents that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones may be the only way to prevent teen suicides.

Never mind that according to the best studies—the ones that even transgender activists themselves cite—80 to 95 percent of children with gender dysphoria will come to identify with and embrace their bodily sex.

Never mind that 41 percent of people who identify as transgender will attempt suicide at some point in their lives, compared to 4.6 percent of the general population. Never mind that people who have had transition surgery are 19 times more likely than average to die by suicide.

These statistics should stop us in our tracks. Clearly, we must work to find ways to effectively prevent these suicides and address the underlying causes. We certainly shouldn’t be encouraging children to “transition.”

Many psychologists and psychiatrists think of gender dysphoria as similar to other dysphorias, or forms of discomfort with one’s body, such as anorexia. The feelings of discomfort can lead to mistaken beliefs about oneself or about reality, and then to actions in accordance with those false beliefs.

The most helpful therapies focus not on achieving the impossible—changing bodies to conform to thoughts and feelings—but on helping people accept and even embrace the truth about their bodies and reality.

Operating in the background is a sound understanding of physical and mental health—proper function of one’s body and mind—and a sound understanding of medicine as a practice aimed at restoring health, not simply satisfying the desires of patients.

For human beings to flourish, they need to feel comfortable in their own bodies, readily identify with their sex, and believe that they are who they actually are.

In my new book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,” I argue that McHugh got it right. The best biology, psychology, and philosophy all support an understanding of sex as a bodily reality, and of gender as a social manifestation of bodily sex. Biology isn’t bigotry.

In my book I offer a balanced approach to the policy issues, a nuanced vision of human embodiment, and a sober and honest survey of the human costs of getting human nature wrong.

Despite activists’ best efforts to put up a unified front, Harry cannot become Sally. Activists’ desperate insistence to the contrary suggests that the transgender moment is fleeting.


Portrait of Ryan T. Anderson

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research. Twitter: .


When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment

Planned Transgenderhood

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.