Planned Transgenderhood

Abortion giant Planned Parenthood released its annual report over the New Year’s holiday weekend posting record-setting income numbers for its fiscal year that ended June 30, 2017.

Again, the abortionist reported performing over 320,000 abortions this year, accounting for approximately 1/3 of the abortions performed in the United States. However, National Review’s Alexandra DeSanctis points out “one glimmer of positive news” is the number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood decreased from previous year, a result of the overall abortion rate continuing to drop across the country.

With fewer women seeking abortion, Planned Parenthood is apparently seeking to expand its business model. However, this does not mean actually providing more healthcare services for women such as mammograms or prenatal care. Instead, this year’s report highlights the organization’s new focus on providing transgender hormone therapy.

In other words, while masquerading as a “healthcare” provider for women, Planned Parenthood is apparently more invested in turning men into woman than expanding what are very critical women’s healthcare services.

The Washington Times reports “the nation’s largest abortion provider struggling to keep its doors open as fewer women undergo abortions and patients seek health care services elsewhere.” Overall patient visits are down 20% from 2010 and the latest financial numbers indicate a 43% decrease in assets due to the closing of dozens of clinics across the country.

Planned Parenthood’s record setting income is the result of a 19% increase in private contributions and bequests, including corporate donations, over the previous year. Undoubtedly, the 2016 election cycle was a boon for Planned Parenthood’s fundraising efforts as the organization remains a major player in left-wing political engineering circles.

The big picture here illustrates the overall exploitative nature of Planned Parenthood’s work. 37% of Planned Parenthood’s income comes from “Government Health Services Reimbursements & Grants.” A reimbursement of this nature is typically a Medicaid-type payment, something that happens at every qualified healthcare provider for every patient covered under the program. These services are covered at countless clinics that don’t serve as a front for an abortion business.

When patients seek these services elsewhere, abortion, the most expensive service offered, becomes more important to the bottom line, which DeSanctis believes is the underlying motivation for Planned Parenthood’s abortion quotas.

Keep in mind, the abortion industry has been linked to truly exploitative criminal activity such as sex trafficking. Live Action’s undercover investigations have caught multiple Planned Parenthood employees turning a blind eye to potential victims who were brought to in get what would amount to a forced abortion.

Furthermore, the politicization of gender identity is exploitative in nature as well. Planned Parenthood’s newest business initiative of providing sex-change therapy hormones essentially supports an agenda that is determined mandate men be allowed to use women’s restroom facilities on the basis of how they feel, not their biological sex. The left aims to enable predators in support of the LGBT agenda on this issue, despite the well-documented incidents that show these policies do in fact cause safety concerns.

All in all, Planned Parenthood works more to exploit women, provide abortions, help men become women, and less to provide actual healthcare services to women. So why would any corporation partner with such an organization? Clearly, with the reported 19% rise in donations this year, Planned Parenthood is depending on charity to keep its doors open.

That is why we created our resource guide highlighting the companies and non-profits that fund Planned Parenthood’s exploitative work. Follow the link here to see which companies are supporting the abortion giant and use the links to contact their corporate headquarters and tell them to stop using our dollars to help advance Planned Parenthood’s agenda.

Help us continue holding companies accountable for supporting Planned Parenthood’s abortion business by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


5 Key Numbers From Planned Parenthood’s New Annual Report

Planned Parenthood Starts Giving Transgender Hormone Therapy To MINORS

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on

Why the Florida Congressional Delegation is Wrong on Drilling

At the start of March, 2017 U.S. Interior Sec. Ryan Zinke announced that 73 million acres in the Gulf would be open to drilling for five years starting in August.

It appears that some members of the Florida Congressional delegation, lead by Democrat Senator Bill Nelson, are against President Trump’s effort to open up the Sunshine State’s shorelines to oil and natural gas exploration. Included in this group are Republicans Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Vern Buchanan. Interestingly both Rubio and Buchanan voted for the H.R. 1 tax bill which included a provision to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). So they voted for off shore drilling but are now against it?

Some members of the Florida Congressional delegation, including Rubio and Buchanan, are are addicted to the precautionary principle (“better safe than sorry”). 

Rep. Buchanan stated, “Florida’s coastal communities depend on a clean and healthy ocean and we shouldn’t jeopardize the state’s economy or environment by gambling on operations that lack adequate safeguards.”

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) released the following statement after the Interior Department released its draft 2019-2024 National Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing:

“I have long supported the moratorium in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, which is not slated to expire until 2022, and introduced legislation to extend the moratorium until 2027. As the Department of Interior works to finalize their draft plan, I urge Secretary Zinke to recognize the Florida Congressional delegation’s bipartisan efforts to maintain and extend the moratorium in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, and remove this area for future planning purposes.”

What is interesting is that it is the U.S. Congress that has over site over the Interior Department which sets safeguards for oil and natural gas exploration. It is also important to note that Florida’s tourist, agricultural, transportation, healthcare based economy is dependent on cheap and reliable power.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

  1. Geologists believe there may be large oil and natural gas deposits in the federal Outer Continental Shelf off of Florida’s western coast.
  2. Florida was second only to Texas in 2014 in net electricity generation from natural gas, which accounted for 61% of Florida’s net generation; coal accounted for almost 23%, the state’s nuclear power plants accounted for 12%, and other resources, including renewable energy, supplied the remaining 4% of electricity generation.
  3. Renewable energy accounted for 2.3% of Florida’s total net electricity generation in 2014, and the state ranked 10th in the nation in net generation from utility-scale solar energy.
  4. In part because of high air conditioning use during the hot summer months and the widespread use of electricity for home heating during the winter months, Florida’s retail electricity sales to the residential sector were second in the nation after Texas in 2014.
  5. Electricity accounts for 90% of the site energy consumed by Florida households, and the annual electricity expenditures of $1,900 are 40% higher than the U.S. average, according to EIA’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

Even as the population of Florida has grown dramatically and increased its use of fossil fuels, the Sunshine State has become a much better place to live, work and play.

Alex Scott reported:

A new report from Westwood Global Energy Group has revealed that whilst fewer exploration wells were drilled in the first half of 2017 (compared to the same period a year ago), the commercial success rates of these wells is up.

Overall, commercial success rates jumped to 53% in the first half of 2017 from a 30% success rate in the first half of 2016.

According to Westwood’s Global’s Head of Research, Andrew Hughes, the report indicates, ‘green shoots for exploration drilling, however overall activity remains subdued.’ He also added that ‘the lower well count is translating into more success and lower finding costs, proving that the old exploration mantra of “quality through choice” continues to hold true’.

The American Petroleum Institute (AEI) notes that some of the richest energy reserves in the world are just off of U.S. shores waiting to be discovered in a government owned area lying just 3 – 200 miles out to sea. AEI published a video of an advanced exploration technique called seismic surveying, which is the first step to unlock oil and natural gas resources needed to ensure Florida’s energy security.

Florida politicians are addicted to the precautionary principle (“better safe than sorry”). It is a maxim embraced by government planners and regulators in the Sunshine state at every level. They do not even want to determine what organic fossil fuels lay off of Florida’s coastlines. The precautionary principle worked to stop the building of nuclear power plants in the United States after the 3 Mile Island incident. Today the same tactic is being used to stop off shore drilling using the Deepwater Horizon incident.

Fear is not good public policy.

What is good public policy is insuring that Floridians have access to cheap and reliable power in the foreseeable future. Now is the time to take action. Waiting is not an option.

If the Florida delegation are committed to creating jobs, then they must diversify the economy by promoting energy independence. Energy independence will lead to reduced costs for electricity, gasoline and diversify the economy.

That is good public policy. This is the moral thing to do.

VIDEO: College Student Defends Killing a 2-Year Old Because ‘It Can’t Communicate’

Ronald Reagan, in an article titled “Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation“, Human Life Review, Spring 1984, wrote:

[W]e cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning. [Emphasis added]

StudentsForLife published a YouTube video of a student at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville bragged about his support for infanticide up to two years of age! Extremism from abortion supporters is one reason many people are moving towards the pro-life movement.

“The idea that someone could support infanticide is incredibly disturbing. Yet, it reflects the kinds of attitudes our staff members and students can face on a daily basis on high school and college campuses,” Students for Life of America president Kristan Hawkins said. “Life is only valuable if I can talk to it?”

RELATED ARTICLE: GUILTY: Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Company Surrenders In First Successful Prosecution [+video]

VIDEO: The Cure for Toxic Masculinity Is Real Masculinity

Don’t ask us not to be men. Ask us to be real men.

Since the #MeToo phenomenon hit, I have started asking my female friends directly about their everyday experiences with men. For example, what proportion of men that they “meet” on a dating app send utterly inappropriate communications, and how often in everyday life does a guy disrespect them in a way that’s overtly or implicitly sexual?

While I am sure that my circle of male friends isn’t fully representative of the population of men at large, I was shocked to discover from my unscientific survey how many men have no clue about how to behave. Based on the combined responses of several women I trust, the number of men who say or do something offensive to a woman they don’t know on a dating app, almost right out of the gate, may be just shy of a majority.

And many a young woman can, if you ask her, relate tales of men making inappropriate remarks, shouting out of a car window as she walks down the street, whipping out his genitalia after one too many drinks, or being opportunistically crude at a coffee shop, even as she sits there with a very young child. (These were all stories I was told.) For some young women, these things seem to happen on a more or less monthly basis.

My recent conversations with female friends about the matter has led me to this question: what the hell is wrong with these men, and why are there so many of them?

What Has Happened to Men?

To me, this is not a question about sexual harassment. It’s a more fundamental one: an old-fashioned idea called manners. My female friends’ experiences with men have surprised me because they have to put up with a lot more, and a lot more often, than I could have expected based on the evidence available to me as a result of my interactions with other men.

Even though I have robust views about not calling gittish and crass people “predators” or those on the receiving end of rude behaviors “victims”, it must be horrible to have to put up with so much boorishness. I don’t think I’d have the patience for it.

How have we let this happen?

If you’re male and reading this with the same limited appreciation of the matter as I had before I started asking my female friends to list examples of ill-mannered, sexually-loaded behavior, you may be skeptical. I urge you, however, to do the same thing as I have done and ask a cross-section of your female friends to give you examples of their personal anecdotes of such behavior from the last few months. They may well provide more than you expect.Thinking on all of this, and being appalled by bad manners anywhere for any reason, I have started considering what I, as a man, should be saying to other men, if anything, about this problem. My long-held opinion (stated elsewhere) that Western culture is suffering a crisis in masculinity may well find sympathy among many of those who have been fervent in driving the #MeToo phenomenon, but I suspect my prescription for solving this crisis may be more controversial: I believe we need more masculinity, not less, and we need it because what the Louis C.K.s and the Weinsteins of this world have been doing is not an expression of masculinity in its true sense at all.

I’d like to see us turning to these men and asking them in a very disappointed tone, as opposed to a dramatic and scandalized one, “How pathetic are you — and why?” Because that question in that tone conveys the important message that their behavior doesn’t make them more manly; it makes them less so.

Toxic Masculinity Is the Problem, Not Simply Masculinity

Scientifically trained, I generally take care to get out of my own subjective way in my political articles, but this time, I’ll make an exception and happily admit that what follows is a subjective, almost intuitive suggestion offered in the hope of inviting constructive discussion.

The true masculine, or the “sacred masculine” if you prefer, is kind, honest, controlled, disciplined, heroic, protective, strong, rational, and even clever. Throwing out the baby of masculinity with the bathwater of disrespect is absolutely the last thing we need to be doing. Telling men that masculinity is inherently flawed or dangerous is to tell a lie born of misdiagnosis. The moral vacuum in which Weinstein and Franken and others of their ilk operate can only be filled by a celebratory masculinity that is held up as something to aspire to.

If there is such a thing as a spiritual law, none is more certain than, “What is focused on is made bigger,” so let us define that highest version of masculinity as an invitation to men – a north star, if you will, to guide them as they interact with others. That would enable those aspects of men that are gendered, sexual, and desirous to be integrated into the highest versions of who they are, rather than denied or pathologized only to be expressed in distorted ways that can, indeed, reasonably be called “toxic.”Treating toxic masculinity with real masculinity and pointing to the difference between the two has the benefit of engaging the irrepressible male ego on the side of good — of aligning maleness with manners rather than against them.

Perhaps most importantly, a culturally normalized notion of proud and positive masculinity would allow mothers once again to be able to say to their sons, “This is how you treat a woman, and, in so doing, this is how to be a man.” Boys want to be men, so we can surely only improve them by appealing to that desire rather than suppressing it and thereby creating a vacuum to be filled by a distorted and hollow replacement.

Attention: Men. Don’t Be Stupid.

Shocking as they are, it’s not all the male bad manners that astonished me most about the stories I’ve recently heard. It’s male stupidity. After all, if I were a man who wants any kind of sexual satisfaction or affirmation from a woman, and the most sophisticated play I had was to shout out of a car window, rub up against her on a train, or ask her if I can masturbate in front of her, then you’d hope that I’d eventually work out that my method isn’t all that effective.

How deficient, one may ask, does a person have to be to be unable to assess the results of his actions against his goals, especially as the results (or lack thereof) repeat themselves over and over? Indeed, a need for sexual affirmation or activity that is so great that they would cause me to leave my manners at the front door should, even if I were a sociopath, motivate me to start collecting the data. (Rationality is supposed to be a “masculine trait” too, isn’t it?) How long, then, before the thought hits that being rude to every second woman that I find faintly attractive isn’t getting me what I want from them?

In reaction to that level of stupidity alone, I can’t help but feel that men should be asking other men, “What is this nonsense?”

That would be an approach to making better men that makes more of true masculinity, not less of it. It’s an approach that says to those who are toxic in their approaches to women, “That’s the opposite of masculinity. That’s what you do when you’re not a man. That’s what you do when you haven’t got the basics.”

Holding the Feminine and the Truly Masculine Sacred

I love the polarity that exists between the masculine and feminine. Long before #MeToo, I was writing that no one benefits when men can’t be men because masculinity itself has almost become taboo. Men who can’t be, and feel like, real men cannot give women the pleasure of feeling like real women.

I stand by all of that, but when I first wrote it, I was missing something: there are a bunch of men out there on dating apps and shouting out of car windows who actually are making women feel very much like women – but not the kind of women they want to feel like being. You could say, rather, that toxic male approaches are causing women to have a toxic experience of their own femininity. How dare we do that to something so exquisite and delicious?

So, my message to men who are disrespecting women is that you are making it harder for the rest of us. By giving women good reason to be wary of any kind of male approach, you’re making all the women out there skeptical of me and the decent examples of my gender. And I’m not ok with that.But I also have a message for mothers. Mom, it’s okay to make your son a man. It’s okay to use that word. Only once you’ve used that word can you turn around and say, “This behavior isn’t masculine; it’s pathetic. And by the way, son, if you actually want to get with an attractive woman, here’s how not to do it. Don’t disrespect her; don’t throw crude one-liners out of a car window, and don’t send a picture of your genitals to her on a dating app. If you want to get the attractive women, the smart women, the kind of women you’re going to enjoy — and you should — then why don’t you learn a little bit about them? Indeed, why don’t you learn a little bit about the difference between them and you?”

And that last piece is so important because I have a sense (and I could be wrong) that many people who have been pushing the #MeToo phenomenon hard are of the more third-wave-feminist persuasion, wanting to collapse that distinction between men and women. (It’s all socialization, they say.) But I’m suggesting the exact opposite approach to solving the problem out of which #MeToo has arisen.

Why not tell our boys what’s great and beautiful about masculinity so that once we’ve built them up in what they are, they have no need to feel threatened or intimidated by learning about the feminine other — that other that will drive them through life in more ways than they will ever consciously realize? Let’s spend more time promoting models of positive masculinity than on telling guys, young and old, that, and why, we’re all awful. (We’re not.) Let’s talk up the good alpha-males: those who are comfortable in their masculinity — assertive while respectful, confident while polite, ambitious while kind. They exist in all areas of life. The next time you’re about to talk about Al Franken’s shenanigans, how about talking instead about one of those real men, who gets what he wants through respect? And draw the contrast between them explicitly.

Spoiler Alert: Sex Is Amazing. So Seek It Properly.

Then, as we start celebrating healthy, robust masculinity, let’s not slip back into thinking that the problem we are trying to solve has anything much to do with sex. As Oscar Wilde famously said, “Everything in the world is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power.”

That applies here and now – albeit not in quite the way Wilde meant it.

The unacceptable sexual behaviors of men who exhibit toxic masculinity are rooted in something to do with power – but not primarily in the conscious exertion of sexual power over another. Rather, their disrespectful treatment of women for a sexual prize (which they invariably fail to win) is reflective of a lack of inner power as men which leaves them resorting to aggressive behavior and exploiting the immediate superficial and circumstantial power that exists by virtue of a professional relationship or particular social or economic context.Men shouldn’t behave disrespectfully toward women not because there’s anything wrong with their sexuality, their desire, or their masculinity. No; they shouldn’t do it because no one should disrespect anyone, ever. Period. End of story.

We have to take care, then, that we don’t misdiagnose the disease just because it is more easily seen in certain situations than in others: disrespect from men is disproportionately observed in the sexual domain because the male sexual imperative is never really turned off, and it necessarily manifests in ways that are directly seen and experienced by women (assuming the men are straight).

Women, please help us good men police our own by talking up positive masculinity – the masculinity that you want more of. Celebrate the polarity between your femininity and the masculinity of the men you like. Tell us that it’s ok to be sexually assertive and thoroughly masculine – but only in the right context. And explain to us that that context always involves the prior establishment of mutual respect, a sense of safety, and trust. We are basic creatures. You, ladies, are gatekeepers. So let us know that respect and social competence will open that gate much more easily than will crude attempts to bash it down.

In short, don’t ask us not to be men. Ask us to be real men.

Robin Koerner

Robin Koerner

Robin Koerner is British-born and recently became a citizen of the USA. A decade ago, he founded, an organization of over 200 volunteers that translates and posts views about the USA from all over the world, works as a trainer and a consultant, and recently wrote the book If You Can Keep It.

Definition of Insanity: Fighting for women’s rights while allowing men to use women’s public restrooms

In 2016 and 2017 Americans witnessed a rise in accusations, founded and unfounded, made by women against men for sexual innuendo, sexual abuse,  sexual assault and rape.

Historically women “rights issues” have include but are not limited to: equality in pay, breaking the “glass ceiling” in business and politics, the right to choose and personal safety (from unwanted verbal harassment or sexual abuse).

The feminist movement considers itself to be the standard bearers of women’s rights issues. But are they?

For example, some noted feminist leaders have supported allowing LGBTQ individuals to choose to use women’s public restrooms based upon their “gender identity” rather than their biological sex (male or female). Wikipedia notes:

Some feminists, such as Judith Butler and Jack Halberstam, believe that transgender and transsexual people challenge repressive gender norms and that transgender politics are fully compatible with feminism. Additionally, some transgender and transsexual people, such as Julia Serano and Jacob Anderson-Minshall, identify as transfeminists.

QUESTIONS: How does this prevent the documented sexual abuse of women and little girls in public restrooms? Isn’t this incompatible with the idea/ideal of keeping women safe from sexual abuse? How can feminists fight for the safety of women and girls from sexual abuse while at the same time fight to have the LGBTQ community use the public restroom of their choice regardless of their biological sex?

ANSWER: Feminists use what is called the Hegelian dialectic. The Hegelian dialectic is usually presented in a fourfold manner:

  1. An agenda.
  2. Which leads to a thesis.
  3. Giving rise to an antithesis.
  4. Leading to a new thesis, which contradicts or negates the original thesis.

The Hegelian dialectic was used to further the feminist movement. But has feminism actually help women?

Diana M. PearcePh.D. faculty member of the University of Washington School of Social Work faculty and director of the Center for Women’s Welfare.

In a 1978 essay titled “The Feminization of Poverty: Women, Work, and Welfare” feminist scholar Dr. Diana Pearce coined the phrase “feminization of poverty.” Pierce lamented that while large opportunities were opening for women due to greater equality, “Poverty is rapidly becoming a female problem.” She blamed the significant increase in the number of female-headed families.

Pearse noted:

Poverty Is rapidly becoming a female problem. Though many women have achieved economic Independence from their spouse by their participation In the labor force (and in some cases, by divorce), for many the price of that independence has been their pauperization and dependence on welfare, in 1976, nearly two out of three of the 15 million poor persons over 18 were women. (Bureau of the Census, 1976) in certain groups, the imbalance was even greater: over 70% of the aged poor are women. Black women, who were only 6.1% of the population in 1975, accounted for 17.0% of the poor that year. (Women’s Bureau, 1977)

The economic status of women has declined over the past several decades. [Emphasis added]

Things have not gotten better for women since 1976.  A recent fact sheet from the National Women’s Law Center reported, “Women were 35% more likely to live in poverty than men.”

According to the September 2016 Fact Sheet, National Snapshot: Poverty Among Women & Families 2015:

  • More than one in eight women, more than 16.9 million, lived in poverty in 2015. More than 2 in 5 (45.7 percent) of these women lived in extreme poverty, defined as income at or below 50 percent of the federal poverty level. This means nearly 1 in 16 women lived in extreme poverty last year.
    Women (13.4 percent) were 35 percent more likely than men (9.9 percent) to live in poverty in 2015. Women were also more likely than men to be in extreme poverty: 6.1 percent of women versus 4.4 percent of men lived in extreme poverty in 2015.
  • Poverty was even higher for certain groups of women
  • Women in all racial and ethnic groups were more likely than white, non-Hispanic men to be in poverty. 9.6 percent of white, non-Hispanic women lived in poverty in 2015, compared to 7.1 percent of white, non-Hispanic men. However, poverty rates were particularly high for women of color:
    African American women: 23.1 percent of African American women lived in poverty.
    Native American women: 22.7 percent of Native American women lived in poverty.
    Hispanic women: 20.9 percent of Hispanic women lived in poverty.
    o Asian women: 11.7 percent of Asian women lived in poverty.
  • More than 1 in 6 (17.6 percent) foreign-born women lived in poverty in 2015.

The Witherspoon Institute published an article titled “Manhood Is Not Natural” by Glenn T. Stanton.  Mr. Stanton notes:

Ghettos are not created by city planners, crime by the police, or failing health by big pharma. Each of these social ills arises by inattention to the sexual behaviors of males. If he doesn’t have to marry before having sex (and potentially fathering children), the average man won’t. So he hasn’t. The feminization of poverty and the accompanying declines in female happiness and childhood well-being are the tragic results.

How do feministas and all women turn this around?

In Manhood in the Making, anthropologist David Gilmore provides an essential insight:

One of my findings here is that manhood ideologies always include a criterion of selfless generosity, even to the point of sacrifice. Again and again, we find that “real” men are those who give more than they take away; they serve others. Real men are generous, even to a fault. Non-men are often those stigmatized as stingy and unproductive.

Stanton notes,

“A good man is the fountain, not the drain. The formation of such men is the first task of human civilization, and its largest threat when ignored.”

Stanton asks,

“The question is, how can we recover manhood today? We must find the answer. For it is not only the fate of men that is at stake, but the fate of our women, children, and society as well.”

Women ignore virtue and morality at our own risk. It is time to restore the first task of human civilization – the formation of virtuous and moral men.

The only ones who can form virtuous and moral men are virtuous and moral women.

RELATED VIDEO: Problematic women.

The Paradoxical Structure of the Kingdom

In 1970, the noted Catholic philosopher Frederick Wilhelmsen published a little book entitled The Paradoxical Structure of Existence. Wilhelmsen was a great teacher and also a very clear writer who could make Thomistic metaphysics intelligible, even for us non-professionals. Following St. Thomas, Wilhelmsen glories in the transcendence of the principle of existence in both created an uncreated being, and thus he escapes the limited philosophical perspectives that have paralyzed our thinking for centuries now.

My subject here, however, is not the paradoxical structure of existence, but rather the paradoxical structure of the Kingdom of God – established by God’s Word made Flesh. I am not a metaphysician and I struggle with deeper matters of theology. But it seems clear to me that this structure of the Kingdom follows quite Theo-logically from the principle of St. Thomas that grace always builds upon nature.

So, if the created order of being, the natural order, has a paradoxical structure inherent in its very being, then the Kingdom of God created by grace would be expected to have a similar paradoxical structure. And there is all kinds of evidence of this fact in the Gospels and the New Testament as a whole. But it all begins with the Incarnation itself, the first manifestation of which we are about to celebrate on Christmas.

What Christians believe about the Incarnation involves, perhaps, the greatest paradox of all. The infinite Son of God, the creative Word, has quite literally become a finite creature – not by a synthesis of opposites (divinity/humanity, creator/creature, as understood by Hegelian dialectics). That would have suppressed both the humanity and the divinity: and resulted in something else altogether. Instead, there is a transcendent synthesis, in which divinity and humanity are both perfectly preserved in the transcendence of the Divine Person who is made incarnate.

Paradox is the only literary vehicle we have even to begin to understand this great mystery. The infinite becomes finite without ceasing to be infinite. Because the divine person is pure existence, Ipsum Esse Subsistens, which transcends being itself, He does not become a human person but remains what He is, the perfect image of God the Father, and Creator.

Theologically, everything flows from this paradox of paradoxes. And thus many aspects of the Kingdom that He came to establish can only be described in paradoxical terms. For instance, in the Kingdom of God, you only find yourself if you lose yourself. We cannot understand who we really are nor become what we are meant to become unless we “lose” whatever there is in our “self” that contradicts the purpose for which God has created us. The “ego” that we have corrupted by our sins and self-aggrandizement, has to be “lost,” i.e., purified and transformed into the image of the perfect Image of God whom we call our Savior.

That’s just one wonderful example of this paradoxical structure, and there are many others. For instance, when Jesus says to St. Paul  (2 Corinthians 12:9), “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Surely, this paradoxical principle of the Christian life is traceable back to the Incarnation itself: God’s divine power was made perfect here in this world in the weakness of the human nature assumed by the Son. The full manifestation of this paradoxical truth takes place on Calvary, when the weakness of Jesus reaches its zenith, and the power of God brings about the redemption of the human race. But it was first manifested in that stable at Bethlehem where an infinite divine person was born into this world in all the weakness and vulnerability of an infant. Isn’t this what fills us with wonder and joy every Christmas, this ultimate paradox of paradoxes?

Certainly St. Paul learned a great lesson from this supreme paradox, necessary to help him grow stronger spiritually “in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake.” He learned to imitate Christ in His weakness, and thus he concludes with great confidence and even joy, “For when I am weak, then am I strong.”

A last example: this one from Luke 22. There Jesus teaches his disciples “let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.” This paradox echoes a similar text, earlier in the Gospels, “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” Jesus is speaking here specifically to those whom he is calling to lead the Church, his Apostles. They above all have to learn the lesson of this paradox.

In the Kingdom of God, where the order of grace fully operates, true greatness is the result of humility and service of the other, just as Christ humbled himself in obedience unto death and was Himself the Servant of the servants of God. How interesting, then, that these very words have been used, since the time of Gregory the Great, to describe the office of the pope.

How wonderful and joyful it is to meditate on the multiple paradoxes found in the Gospels. Let me repeat: all of them are grounded in that ultimate paradox of the Incarnation and lead us constantly back to that mystery.

And all of them help us to understand how this paradoxical Gospel teaching and the order of grace not only changed the perception of the dignity of the human person, but they enabled the human person to transcend the very limitations of his sinful nature in order to become a true child of God, in and through that order of grace.

Even the greatest pagan philosophers never really understood the true dignity of the individual human person. Only with God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, was the transcendence and ultimate destiny of the human person made manifest.

Fr. Mark A. Pilon

Fr. Mark A. Pilon

Fr. Mark A. Pilon, a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, VA, received a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from Santa Croce University in Rome. He is a former Chair of Systematic Theology at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary, and a retired and visiting professor at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College. He writes regularly at

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is titled Light of the Incarnation by Carl Gutherz, 1888 [Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, Memphis, TN] © 2017 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

The Humanitarian Hoax of Relativism: 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.

Relativism is defined as the belief that there is no absolute truth, only truths that a particular individual or culture happen to believe. People who believe in relativism accept that different people can have different views about what is moral and immoral. So far so good – society can tolerate multiple opinions on the relative merits of a thing or an idea. Here is the problem – civilized society requires consensus on the existence of that thing or idea – it requires agreement on what is real.

Objective reality is the foundation for the laws and rules that regulate public behavior in society.

In a previous article I introduced the problem of multiple realities inherent in Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory with the example of a man walking down the street.

Let’s review. A man is walking down the street. There are four people nearby. The first person says there is a man walking down the street. The second person says there is a person walking down the street. The third person says I’m not sure who is walking down the street. The fourth person says there is a woman walking down the street.

The objective reality is that there is a man walking down the street regardless of what the observers perceptions are. Objective reality is rooted in facts and exists independent of the perceptions of those facts. Subjective reality tolerates conflicting multiple realities because it is rooted in perceptions and informed by opinions. So, in subjective reality the fourth person’s observation that it is a woman walking down the street is accepted. The consequence, of course, is that societal acceptance of multiple realities ultimately creates chaos because there is no agreement on what is real.

Joseph Backholm is director of Family Policy Institute of Washington and is factually a 5’9” white male. In April, 2016 he interviewed students on campus at University of Washington to see if they would accept or reject his self-identification as a 6’5” Chinese woman or a seven-year-old child. The answers were shocking.

Backholm asked, “What if I said I was 7 years old?” A young woman answered if he felt like he was seven years old at heart then so be it – good for you. She actually accepted an adult male’s self-identification as a seven-year-old child. When asked if it would be okay for him to enroll in a first grade class another student answered that as long as he wasn’t hindering society and causing harm to other people it should be okay. Not hindering society? Not causing harm to other people? Backholm continued, “What if I told you I was 6’5” what would you say?” One student answered that it is not her place as another human to say he is wrong and to draw lines or boundaries. Another said that if he believes he is taller than he is it is not harmful so it is not a problem for her – but she would not tell him he was wrong. Only one student rejected Backholm’s self-description as 6’5″ saying he is not 6’5” even though she accepted him saying that he is a Chinese woman. These students demonstrated that their reality testing is firmly rooted in subjective feelings and opinions not in objective facts. Why is this a problem?

The students interviewed demonstrate the Leftist narrative that says all opinions are equal has moved beyond differences of opinion and debates about the merits of ideas into the realm of different realities. Leftist relativism is presented as humanitarian and respectful. These students do not consider accepting a 5’9” white adult male as a 7 year old child or as a 6’5” Chinese woman to be hurtful to another person or a hindrance to society. They live in the dreamworld of subjective reality where time, space, and factual reality are entirely absent. In dreams anything goes. In the conscious world the destruction of our societal standard of objective reality is beyond hurtful it is catastrophic because without consensus on what is real there is no infrastructure for laws and rules that regulate public behavior. Eventually there is only chaos.

Consider the shift in the definition of mental health. Historically mental health was a metric of being in touch with objective reality. Any student accepting a 5’9” white adult male as a 7 year old child or a 6’5” Chinese woman would be diagnosed as delusional because he/she is clearly out of touch with reality. Today the World Health Organization, an agency of the United Nations, defines mental health as a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his/her potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his/her community. No mention of being in touch with objective reality. So, students who accept a 5’9” adult white male as a 7 year old child or a 6’5” Chinese woman are considered mentally healthy as long as they reach their potential, cope with stress, work productively, and contribute to society.

What is the purpose of this change? Who benefits from the shift?

The Culture War on America is a war between subjective reality and objective reality. The Leftist narrative based in feelings and opinions seeks to collapse the established authority of objective reality based in facts. The Left has already unfrozen established American cultural norms that required consensus and objective reality through its educational and media indoctrination. Society is being indoctrinated to willingly accept multiple realities as normative and embrace feelings over facts. America is currently in a state of transition – the puddle of water – when college students, our future leaders are comfortable accepting unreality as reality.

The Left is using Lewin’s model to fundamentally transform the infrastructure of America from objective reality into subjective reality. The Leftist pressure to accept subjective reality is their primary weapon of destabilization. The Left is driving society crazy by demanding people accept unreality as reality.

Let’s review. Lewin’s three-step change theory can be visualized as:

1. UNFREEZE –  a block of ice that melts
2. CHANGE – into a puddle of water.
3. REFREEZE – and is then reshaped into a cone.

The Left seeks to refreeze America into a cone of subjective reality based on feelings not facts where the entire population, not just college students, will accept a white 5’9” male as a 6’5” Chinese woman. Why? Because the Culture War on America is a political a war between objective reality and subjective reality that will determine the course of our country. Why?

The end game of the cone of subjective reality is social control. This is how it works. Social chaos is always followed by government suppression that restores order. Civil liberties are suspended and the government acquires total control. This endgame of the Leftist Culture War on America is total government control.

RELATED ARTICLE: How the Left Became So Intolerant

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

Misandry Rises: In Defense of Men

Don’t vote for men!” is the message of a recent campaign ad.  Issued by Dana Nessel, Democratic attorney general contender in Michigan, what she literally says is, “Who can you trust most not to show you their [sic] penis in a professional setting?”

She answers that it’s the candidate who doesn’t have one.

Now, a person could easily go tit for tat (not that I’d ever consider such a thing!). Noting how some voters, addressing politicians’ pusillanimity, lament how we need leaders with “a pair,” one could ask “Who can you trust most to have a pair?” and answer “The candidate who by definition has one.”

But the anti-male bias animating Nessel has long been brewing. In 2004, Sweden’s Left Party (yeah, that’s its actual name) proposed a “Man Tax,” a special levy on men designed to compensate society for the cost of male violence. I always answer that I’ll be happy to pay my man tax — as long as I also get royalties for all of history’s man-birthed inventions and innovations. I’ll then use what’s left over to self-fund a presidential run.

Of course, responding to Nessel’s claim that sexual misconduct is a male domain, we could highlight the continual stories about female teachers having relations with young male students or the NYC juvenile-detention center where female guards were allegedly using the teen boy inmates as “sex slaves.” And man-tax misandrists should note that women are actually more likely than men to initiate domestic violence.

Yet, in reality, sound bites and simple facts don’t truly illuminate this issue. For there is some truth in Nessel’s nitwittedness, man-tax twittering and in my responses to both.

USA Today recently ran the headline, “’Guns don’t kill people; men and boys kill people,’ experts say,” which is about as insightful as stating “Men are taller than women.” Of course, even though blacks and Hispanics commit 98 percent of all gun crime in NYC, we’d never see the headline “Big Apple Crime: Guns don’t kill people; blacks and Hispanics kill people, experts say.” That said, it has always been known that men commit the bulk of major violence; it’s also not news that men are the more lustful sex and are more likely to commit sexual misconduct.

Yet crime doesn’t completely tell the tale — because the sexes sin differently. Consider: When a little boy gets upset, he may have a temper tantrum and explode like a volcano, creating quite a scene. Yet 10 minutes later he may act as if the event never happened. A little girl is more likely to not boil over but simmer for a long time, even perhaps holding a grudge. Thus, the amount of negative energy expended may be the same; only the intensity and duration vary. But which trespass is far more likely to bring punishment?

This is evident throughout life: Men’s sins are more overt, women’s more covert. Boys are more prone to get into fistfights, but girls may be more apt to bully peers to the point of suicide. In this case, the trespass more likely to bring punishment is the less severe.

And so it goes. Male violence is matched by female emotional manipulation and vindictiveness; male lust by female vanity; male gluttony, sloth and anger by female pride, envy and avarice. (Yes, there is overlap; I’m speaking of characteristic faults.)

Which set is worse? It may all balance out, but I certainly would rather endure a firm slap in the face than a 10-minute, emotionally abusive harangue. The point is that just as something’s value doesn’t always correspond to its price, something’s wickedness doesn’t always correspond to the worldly price you have to pay for it.

However visible men’s sins, though, they are today, as they’ve always been, recognized. What’s new is that while men are, again, virtually all history’s inventors and innovators, this is minimized. Men’s faults are now treated as innate — or, at best, as a function of deeply ingrained “toxic masculinity” — while their triumphs are written off as nurture, the result of mere opportunity.

Feminist Camille Paglia once noted, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts” (a naturally imposed grass ceiling?). Paglia was getting at an age-old truth: Men are the actuating sex, the wilder one, which accounts for both their dynamism and their dangerousness. They’re two sides of the same coin, giving men the capacity to be a Churchill or a Hitler, to write the Communist Manifesto or the Constitution. Yes, most murdered women are killed by men, but women only now outlive men (they once died younger) because of male-born medical science. Men have been killers — but many more lives have been saved because they’ve also been curers.

There are two reasons, one more politically incorrect than the other, why men are the groundbreakers: inclination and ability. Ivanka Trump has been on a crusade to get women into scientific and high-tech fields. She ought to watch the excellent documentary “The Gender Equality Paradox,” which points out that women are more likely to enter non-traditional fields (e.g., computer tech) in relatively patriarchal India than in über-egalitarian Norway. Why? Because India’s poverty forces women to go where the money is; in rich nations, however, they can afford to follow their hearts. As for where this takes them, there’s a reason boys would play with erector sets and girls with dolls — and, no, it’s not conditioning.

Dr. Larry Summers lost his job as Harvard University’s president in 2006 for saying that there may be few women in top science positions because of “issues of intrinsic aptitude.” When analyzing this, one could point out (not that I’d ever consider such a thing) that, contrary to popular myth, men have somewhat higher IQs than women do (and brains approximately 11 percent larger). Moreover, the gap in intrinsic scientific aptitude is likely even greater than that I.Q. gap of five points would indicate.

Yet none of this matters. You see, it isn’t the average person, or even the average intelligent person, who makes the great breakthroughs. It is the genius, the fantastically gifted.

And such people are virtually always male.

For example, “[A]t the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one,” wrote Professor Richard Lynn in 2010. Of course, the ratio varies depending on what data you use, but the pattern is unmistakable, consistent and finds no disagreement among experts: As you move up the I.Q. scale, the ratio becomes more skewed in men’s favor until (according to the study here) the category “I.Q. over 176,” where there is no ratio — because no woman scored that high.

Why this disparity? I’d theorize that it’s for the same reason why males are more likely to develop X-linked chromosomal abnormalities (such as color-blindness or hemophilia): because, put simply, the Y (male) chromosome increases the chances of anomalies’ emergence. And, well, genius is an anomaly.

Of course, this phenomenon would apply to other abilities as well, whether in music, art, athletics, cooking, chess, writing or, well, most anything else under the sun.

This is why virtually all history’s inventors and innovators have been men. It’s why, barring some bizarre, nature-rending genetic engineering (which would also be birthed by men), they always will be.

What implications does this hold for society and policy? First, it’s a fool’s errand and highly destructive to try to equalize the number of men and women in the STEM fields. After all, if we ever instituted what the Bill Clinton administration desired — applying Title IX “proportionality” mandates to STEM — it would not magically breed female geniuses or even spark women’s interest in STEM.

But it might result in denying some brilliant men the opportunity to exploit their potential.

Now, China already produces 10 times as many scientists as we do (with just four times the population). Do we want to make that ratio 20 to 1? Thirty to one? Then just keep it up with the political correctness.

Second, as wise parents have always understood, boys must be given outlets for their boundless energy. As someone I knew once put it, “Boys always have to be doing something — even if it’s the wrong thing.” It will more likely be the wrong thing (e.g., gangs) if we rob them of right things, which is what happens when in the name Equality™ we remove their necessary outlets (e.g., applying Title IX and eliminating boys’ athletic opportunities).

Remember, again, the choice is dynamism or dangerousness, whether that dangerousness is violence or the self-destructiveness of drinking or drugs. The same thing causing little boys to explore, sometimes where they shouldn’t, motivates them to later explore all manner of arenas, pushing back frontiers in science and medicine, creating and innovating, building and breaking through. Active little boys become actuating grown men, for genius without impetus goes as far as an engine without fuel.

Returning to anti-male insanity, years ago feminists in Sweden, Germany and Australia adopted a new cause — compelling men to sit down while urinating — and did succeed in getting the urinals removed from a Swedish elementary school. They claimed that the typical way men tend to a nature call is symbolic of, as Dr. Walter E. Williams related it, “triumphing in their masculinity.” Of course, it’s triumphant masculinity that created the whole modern world and that made arguments over urination technique possible. Because, yeah, men invented the flush toilet, too.

Speaking of which, that’s precisely where feminism and equality dogma ought to be put.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

In the Pronoun Wars, Be Thankful for the Founding Fathers

It is sometimes astounding the kind of foresight the Founding Fathers had in protecting future generations from tyranny.

The current international push to criminalize free speech in the name of various social movements should make us thankful that we have the First Amendment. Most other nations, even in the Western world, don’t have nearly the codified protection of speech that we in America have.

For instance, French President Emmanuel Macron recently called on his country to address the fact that France had no age of consent law (oh, France) and the more common global issue of sexual harassment. These were worthy goals, yet his proposal was a low that would have taken an ax to free speech rights.

Macron suggested his country criminalize gender-based offensive statements.

“Let’s seal a pact of equality between men and women,” he said. “It is essential that shame changes camp. Gender-based insults will be punishable by law. Offenders will face a deterrent fine.”

So if you say that Macron does tyranny like a girl, it seems you may be in hot water with the law.

 According to The Daily Caller, France is also considering making cat-calling illegal.

To be sure, cat-calling is a particularly boorish and ungentlemanly behavior, yet one can see how such a law can be immediately abused. Additionally, similar measures in other countries haven’t been particularly effective.

The individual rights of citizens get curtailed, but the social pathology continues. The worst of all worlds.

Government control of speech in relation to gender has perhaps even deeper implications in the transgender debate, as some Western countries have taken to passing laws that effectively force citizens to use the pronoun of a person’s choice under the threat of fines, or even jail time.

One of the most far-reaching of these laws was passed in Canada earlier this year. It threatens people who refuse to use preferred or gender-neutral pronouns with legal punishment.

The law’s authors contend that it was created to prevent discrimination based on gender identity. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called it a “critical extension of human rights.”

Of course, it’s really a bald assault on the individual right of free speech. As The Weekly Standard’s Max Diamond wrote:

Those who refuse to use gender neutral pronouns such as ‘they’ or ‘zi’ and ‘zir,’ or who oppose the notion that gender is subjectively determined, may find themselves facing the full force of federal law.

Alas, Canada has nothing like the First Amendment that would have cut off such a law at the knees. Such laws criminalizing speech are much more difficult to enact in the United States because of the First Amendment.

Of course, getting smacked down in court hasn’t stopped some states from pushing the envelope. The New York City Commission on Human Rights adopted legal guidance in 2016 that threatened employers with fines of up to $125,000 for refusing to use a person’s preferred pronoun, and up to $250,000 for such “violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.”

In October, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law that criminalizes using the wrong pronoun to identify a transgender person in a nursing home. This law even puts jail time on the table for repeat violators of the law.

But as Hans Bader, an attorney for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote, laws that force individuals to use pronouns will likely be ruled in violation of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court.

One of the greatest gifts that the First Amendment and the culture of free speech has given the United States is our ability to deconstruct lies through free debate and dissent.

The Founders didn’t write free speech protections into the Constitution because they thought all speech would be good, or even truthful. No—the goal was to allow us all to rigorously pursue the truth. They placed more confidence in the people to find the truth out of a cacophony of views than in the government to be neutral in enforcing speech laws.

These latest Orwellian attempts to force people to use certain pronouns is exactly the kind of governmental overreach the Founders feared.

Laws designed to crack down on speech, or compel individuals to say things they don’t believe out of punishment, are not simply oppressive—they obscure reality itself and the possibility of debating, and finding, truth.


Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

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

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.


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a protester holding a sign at an LGBT demonstration in New York. (Photo: Erik Mcgregor/Zuma Press/Newscom)

Florida Must Become Energy Independent by 2020

What will promote human life? What will promote human flourishing — realizing the full potential of life? How do we maximize the years in our life and the life in our years? Answer: cheap and reliable power.

Organic Fossil Fuels are the Lifeblood of Civilization!

Florida’s Governor, Congressional delegation and state legislature must make it their number 1 priority to make the Sunshine State Energy Independent by 2020 or sooner!


  1. Imports all of its natural gas and 99.9 % of its oil.
  2. Imports all of its refined petroleum based products (e.g. gasoline).
  3. Is the second largest user of natural gas, Texas being the largest.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

  1. Geologists believe there may be large oil and natural gas deposits in the federal Outer Continental Shelf off of Florida’s western coast.
  2. Florida was second only to Texas in 2014 in net electricity generation from natural gas, which accounted for 61% of Florida’s net generation; coal accounted for almost 23%, the state’s nuclear power plants accounted for 12%, and other resources, including renewable energy, supplied the remaining 4% of electricity generation.
  3. Renewable energy accounted for 2.3% of Florida’s total net electricity generation in 2014, and the state ranked 10th in the nation in net generation from utility-scale solar energy.
  4. In part because of high air conditioning use during the hot summer months and the widespread use of electricity for home heating during the winter months, Florida’s retail electricity sales to the residential sector were second in the nation after Texas in 2014.
  5. Electricity accounts for 90% of the site energy consumed by Florida households, and the annual electricity expenditures of $1,900 are 40% higher than the U.S. average, according to EIA’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

Even as human populations have grown dramatically and increased their use of fossil fuels, the world has become a much better place.

As CO2 emissions have risen so too have the GDP per person, life expectancy and the population.

Florida politicians are addicted to the precautionary principle (“better safe than sorry”). It is a maxim embraced by government planners and regulators in the Sunshine state at every level. They do not even want to determine what organic fossil fuels lay off of Florida’s coastlines. The precautionary principle worked to stop the building of nuclear power plants in the United States after the 3 Mile Island incident. Today the same tactic is being used to stop off shore drilling using the Deepwater Horizon incident.

Off shore drilling naysayers use the example of the Deepwater Horizon spill to strike fear into the hearts of Floridians. But as FDR said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”  An example of using the fear factor (precautionary principle) is what happened in Japan following the meltdown of a nuclear power plan in Fukushima. The facts are that no one has died from radiation, nor has cancer increased however, 1,600 did die of stress due to the unnecessary evacuation of people from the area.

Fear kills.

What off shore naysayers, fear mongers, don’t tell you is that mother nature is the greatest polluter in the Gulf of Mexico. According to NOAA over 2,500 barrels of oil naturally seeps daily from fissures in the Gulf. This seeping has been going on for tens of thousands of years, yet the Gulf is doing just fine. Would it not be better to capture this oil, and natural gas, than have it continue to seep into the Gulf?

Some argue that even if natural gas is discovered in Florida’s waters that building an on shore natural gas processing plant is not economically feasible or politically doable. There is an answer to this negative with a positive via new technology. Israel is faced with the same concerns about onshore natural gas processing plants. To solve the problem Nobel Energy and Shell Oil have come up with a solution. Process the natural gas using floating plants. According to Robert Sullivan of the New York Times:

It’s called Prelude, and it’s bigger than big. More than 530 yards long and 80 yards wide, it was constructed with 260,000 metric tons of steel, more than was used in the entire original World Trade Center complex, and it’s expected to displace 600,000 metric tons of water, or as much as six aircraft carriers. Even the paint job is huge: Most big vessels dry-dock every five years for a new coat, but Prelude’s paint is supposed to last 25 years. It will produce more natural gas than Hong Kong needs in a year. And it’s so big that you can’t really photograph it, at least not all at once.

[ … ]

What makes this giant liquefied-natural-gas enterprise feasible, paradoxically enough, is the miniaturization its construction represents. It’s much smaller than landlocked equivalents — imagine shrinking your local refinery until it fits on a barge. Shell Oil, which has the biggest stake in the project, describes Prelude as more environmentally friendly than an onshore site. There are no estuaries under threat, no shorelines to run pipe across and reduced risks to population centers, given the explosiveness of natural gas. And it is designed to ride out extreme weather, thanks to three giant 6,700-horsepower thrusters that can turn it into the wind and waves. “These are the things that the naval architects had to worry through,” says Robert Bea, co-founder of the Center for Catastrophic Risk Management, at the University of California, Berkeley. “It works like a big-ass weather vane.”

Read more.

Environmentalists use the fear factor when talking about drilling for natural gas and oil off of Florida’s shores. The same is true for some of Florida’s Congressional delegation, such as Rep. Vern Buchanan.

Fear is not good public policy.

What is good public policy is insuring that Floridians have access to cheap and reliable power in the foreseeable future. Now it the time to take action. Waiting is not an option.

If Governor Rick Scott and Republicans are committed to creating jobs, then they must diversify the economy by promoting energy independence. Energy independence will lead to reduced costs for electricity, gasoline and diversify the economy.

That is good public policy. This is the moral thing to do.


Global Warming: Fake News from the Start

President Trump Opens Doors on Oil Exploration, but Deeper Reforms Needed

VIDEO: Demographic Winter — the decline of the human family [Full Movie]

In the Spring 2008 edition of The Harvard Divinity Bulletin, Kathryn Joyce did a review of the film Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family. Joyce wrote:

Settling in to watch the counterintuitive “depopulation threat” documentary, Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family, feels disorientingly like life imitating art, or more specifically, social science imitating apocalypse cinema. Above an ominous, skeletal piano score, telegraphing a claustrophobic sense of impending doom, an assembly of prominent conservative researchers and pundits, including Nobel laureate Gary Becker and academics from conservative think-tanks, ruefully predicts a new end-of-days. Everywhere throughout the film, there is a plague of disappearing bodies, particularly children’s bodies, literally vanishing from the screen.  The children, classrooms full of them, become translucent and fade from dens, swing sets, teeter-totters, bikes and shady suburban walkways as flurries of snowflakes start to fly.  Over it all a voiceover, read by a female narrator, lends the film an eerily automated calm, recalling a familiar science fiction juxtaposition: humanity rendered impotent beside an unflappable computerized countdown. The effect is a clear arrow pointing to mankind’s culpability in its downfall, having tampered with the established order to the point of self-destruction: a timeworn morality tale science fiction lifted from religion.

The same moral is intended in Demographic Winter, but the original sin isn’t the creation of tyrannical artificial intelligence, or the destruction of the environment, but rather the failure of people worldwide to have enough children to replace their old and dying, a cultural shift in family planning and size that has led to falling birthrates globally, but particularly in the affluent, developed nations of the West. The sin that preoccupies the entire documentary – though such morally-infused terms are assiduously avoided throughout the film – is birth control and the sexual revolution, and the widespread cultural decision of women to limit their fertility. But you have to listen hard to identify that agenda, because instead of laying that argument out, the movie is a projection of social conservative fears about what changes to traditional family structures will bring, a vivid dystopia illustrated with both futuristic doomsday imagery and a catalogue of historical horrors: the disappearing bodies a gentle rendition of nuclear flash incineration; the snow that replaces them at once evoking atomic and crematorium ashes, as well as emblemizing the frostier demographic death the filmmakers envision. Either way, it signals massive dying, and in case the rhetorical stakes for the demographic winter theory aren’t high enough, the filmmakers declared, in a banner at their Heritage Foundation premiere in mid-February, that the film’s topic is, “the single most powerful force directing the fate and future of society.”

The argument put forth in Demographic Winter is a familiar one to those who have been watching conservative strategy develop over the past several years: that with birthrates falling globally over the last half-century, and in most developed nations falling below the “replacement rate” of 2.1 children per woman, the ratio of young to old will shift dramatically and wreak havoc upon existing social security and healthcare systems. The economy at large may also suffer, as the elderly cease spending and a smaller generation of workers is crippled by the taxes needed to support their parents. And the reasons why it’s occurring is a litany of culture-war complaints: women working, the “divorce revolution,” the sexual revolution (including cohabitation and the pill), worries, or what the filmmakers call “inaccurate presumptions,” about overpopulation and limited resources, and an affluence that leads to fewer children. It’s a massive failure to be fruitful and multiply, writ large, but again, such religious cues are kept off-screen.

The world this will bring about, according to the filmmakers, is bleak: grandparents left untended and alone in the streets of Europe as intergenerational bonds are shattered; the potential desolation of small countries such as Latvia, and a worldwide depression that will touch even those countries that don’t disappear under the sheath of snow that the film shows blanketing the entire globe. So argues Harry S. Dent, Jr., an economist who specializes in “demographic-based economic forecasting,” and who predicts that the West will follow Japan’s aging population bust.

Read more.

Perhaps it is time to re-look at what was said in this film.

One of the most ominous events of modern history is quietly unfolding. Social scientists and economists agree — we are headed toward a demographic winter which threatens to have catastrophic social and economic consequences. The effects will be severe and long lasting and are already becoming manifest in much of Europe.

This ground breaking film draws upon experts from many different disciplines and reveals in chilling soberness the dangers facing society and the world’s economies, dangers far more imminent than global warming and at least as severe.

The Relationship Charade: Walking on Eggshells is not Reconciliation

Many articles have been written about the growing trend of adult children choosing estrangement in American families. The recent Thanksgiving holiday has highlighted this alarming movement toward the dissolution of family bonds of love and loyalty. What is the source of this dreadful shift? What happened to honor thy father and mother?

Sheri McGregor, M.A. has written an important book titled Done With The Crying that explores the disturbing increase in families with adult children who disown their parents. There are, of course, appropriate conditions for estrangement but the current trend appears baffling to the 9,000 confused and grieving parents surveyed who cannot fathom why the children they have loved for a lifetime are choosing to reject them. Done With The Crying attempts to help devastated parents accept their loss and move on with their lives. McGregor is asking “What now?” I am asking “Why now?”

Generation gaps between parents and their adult children have traditionally been resolved with courtesy, respect, and a sense of humor. Adult children honored their parents even when they disagreed with them and chose a different path for their own lives. A fundamental level of gratitude for the parent’s efforts and dedication allowed the differences to be minimized and the family bonds maximized. What has changed?

The bewildered parents McGregor describes cannot accept the estrangement because they simply do not understand it. She describes the staggering lack of respect, restraint, gratitude, and overarching sense of entitlement in adult children’s demand for parental conformity including restricting their parents’ freedom of speech. In the upside-down world of self-seeking millennials the parent/child role has been reversed. Parents are expected to conform to their adult child’s new norms. If the parent refuses the adult child withdraws himself to a “safe space” seeking protection from the “toxic” ideas of his parents. Toxicity, like hate speech, has been redefined as anything the adult child opposes.

Respondents in McGregor’s book expose the injurious participation of the mental health community which continues to counsel disrespected parents to persevere and strive for reconciliation no matter how cruel and abusive their adult children’s behavior becomes. It is shocking that any mental health professional would advocate unconditional love in adult relationships. Separating an individual from his/her behavior is pathological in adulthood. Any adult with self-respect recognizes the destructiveness of accepting the unacceptable. So why has the mental health community abdicated its responsibility toward growth and maturity and instead embraced the regressive trend toward dependency that demands unconditional love?

The humanities students of the 60s became the social science “experts” who enthusiastically embraced left-wing politics and political correctness. They launched a seismic paradigm shift that steered American society away from adult responsibility toward valuing feelings and happiness above all else. Instead of striving for achievement and merit-based awards parents were told that their children’s self-esteem would suffer in competition. Effort became the criteria for awards, children were told they were all butterflies, and everyone received trophies for “trying.” Here is the problem. Political correctness that values feelings over facts is extremely destructive because the effort to avoid hurt feelings sacrifices objective reality. Effort and achievement are not equivalent. Theoretically education at home and at school prepares children for adulthood because in the adult world of facts it is necessary to achieve – effort is not enough.

Consider the consequences in everyday life when trying is considered equivalent to achieving. Workers try to complete tasks but don’t. Students try to understand concepts but don’t. Mothers try to get meals on the table but don’t. In the real world trying is not the same as accomplishing. The outcome of the politically correct paradigm shift has been catastrophic. It has produced infantilized chronological adults lacking adult work skills, coping skills, with zero frustration tolerance, who are too fragile to listen to anyone who disagrees with them. The outcome of their incompetence is anger and self-loathing. Even the exceptional millennials who have managed to compartmentalize their brain power, achieving quite remarkable things in academia, business, medicine, et al, remain fixated and angry in their infantilism and dependency modes.

Only in the subjective reality of their politically correct social groups can these underachieving millennials feel good about themselves. It explains why the Left hypocritically tolerates anyone who looks different but cannot tolerate anyone who thinks differently including their parents. The Left, like any orthodoxy, is extremely intolerant and relies on absolute conformity to its tenets of political correctness, moral relativity, and historical revisionism in order to survive and to recruit new members to its ideological identity politics. Those who disagree are maligned, shunned, and rejected – including parents.

Competence is the mother of self-esteem. Accomplishment creates genuine self-esteem and the marvelous sense of satisfaction that proficiency provides. Telling children that they are all butterflies (subjective reality) is dishonest because all children are not the same and they know it. Encouraging a child to accomplish a task is far more supportive of self-esteem than empty compliments because encouragement supports growth, maturity, and the acquisition of skills. The crippling policies that support the paradigm shift toward feelings has yielded a crop of immature, fragile, angry snowflakes. Anger is an extremely powerful emotion that can be exploited for destruction – and that is the underlying goal of the Left.

The cultural revolution fomented by the radical Left demands regression, incites rebellion, and fuels the infantile anger that drives the war on America. Thought precedes behavior. Virtual children who have been indoctrinated toward entitlements, unconditional love, and eternal childhood rage when their dependency needs are unmet. Their anger is then exploited as they are groomed to become the useful idiot soldiers necessary to topple the existing government with promises of cradle-to-grave care from a romanticized socialist government. The estranged child’s loyalty shifts away from of his nuclear family to his new family of choice – he converts – and embraces the new religion of liberalism where his rejection of traditional authority is applauded in an atmosphere of adolescent rebellion.

These disinformed snowflakes are too childish and too angry to examine the reality of life in actual socialist countries. They do not interview citizens of Venezuela or Cuba – instead they just parrot the socialist propaganda. When parents expose the glaring inconsistencies between reality and Leftist ideology these fragile snowflakes choose estrangement rather than risk a personal meltdown. Millennial adult children are far more loyal to the liberal ideology that reinforces them than to their parents who challenge them.

The bewilderment and shock of estrangement for parents is rivaled only by the stunning realization that the Left purposefully foments family estrangement to shatter the bonds of family loyalty and parental authority. Grieving parents cannot accept estrangement until they realize that their adult children are choosing ideology over genealogy. The courtesy, respect, and gratitude that characterized past generations are absent in the millennial generation.

Instead of “honoring thy father and thy mother” the millennial sense of butterfly entitlement has frozen them in an infantile world (subjective reality) where only “self” and self-gratification exist. There is no reconciliation with angry adult children who continue to reject their parents’ objective reality. There is no respectful agreeing to disagree with adult children who demand parents surrender to their “version” of the truth.

The psychology of estrangement is a collision between the objective reality of the parents and the subjective reality of their children. Walking on eggshells with adult children is not reconciliation – it is a relationship charade. Parents have an obligation to stay in objective reality even when their children choose to leave. Parents of adult children who have disowned them are well-advised to walk on – walk beyond the pain of the eggshells and continue walking inside the adult world of objective reality. Your children know where to find you if they decide to walk with you. The choice is theirs.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Goudsmit Pundicity.

Some Recent Energy & Environmental News

The newest edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter is now online.

We’re repeating this key report as it is very popular: at least ten (10) financial liabilities that can adversely affect a community hosting a wind project!

Here’s a new summary document that lists multiple ways that industrial wind turbines can interfere with various types of communication — including RADAR.

Some of the more informative energy articles in this issue are:

Wind and Solar Power Advance, but Carbon Refuses to Retreat

Wind & Solar are Less Efficient Decarbonizers than CC Gas Turbines

Maine DEP Issues Draft Wind Energy Rules (two VERY good parts)

Grid-Scale Storage of Renewable Energy: The Impossible Dream

Tesla battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving

Report by head of German Wildlife FoundationTruly Green?

Stop Subsidizing the Big Wind Bullies

Excellent: Senate speech re killing the wind PTC

Presentation: Hidden Costs of Wind and Solar Power

Videos: America First Energy Conference

Some of the more interesting Global Warming articles in this issue are:

Unambiguous Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

The Paris Agreement: A Fairytale’s Failure

Reconciling CO2 Concentrations With Emissions and Energy Consumption

NOAA Lets Politics Corrupt Its Science

Important crowd-funding request is here

Core of climate science is in the real-world data

The Climate Alarmists Definitely Don’t Believe Their Own Propaganda

NYT: The Climate Crisis? It’s Capitalism, Stupid

The Real Story Behind The Heartland Institute’s Role In The Trump Admin

John Droz, Jr.
Physicist & Citizen Advocate

PS: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

By Michael Bastasch

For at least three decades scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.

The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less!

Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”

This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. and others from issuing more apocalyptic statements.

To celebrate nearly three decades of dire predictions, The Daily Caller News Foundation put together this list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year, once again warning of the dire consequences of global warming and other alleged ecological ills. Now numbering 15,000, the group warns “soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”

“We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home,” the scientists and experts warned.

It’s a terrifying warning — if you ignore the fact that none of their 1992 warning has come to fruition.

2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”

Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”

“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote.

3. Prince Charles’s global warming deadline passed…and nothing happened

Prince Charles famously warned in July 2009 that humanity had only 96 months to save the world from “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” That deadline has passed, and the prince has not issued an update to when the world needs to be saved.

Though the recently-released “Paradise Papers” show Charles lobbied U.K. lawmakers to enact policies that benefited his estate’s investment in a Bermuda company that does sustainable forestry. So, there’s that.

4. ‘Ice Apocalypse’ Now

Liberal writer and climate scientist Eric Holthaus claimed manmade global warming would set off the “ice apocalypse” at a pace “too quickly for humanity to adapt.”

Holthaus warned the wholesale collapse of two Antarctic glaciers — Pine Island and Thwaites — could happen sooner than previously believed, resulting in “flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.” Sounds terrible, but his conclusions aren’t really backed up by the science.

“I think his article is too pessimistic: that it overstates the possibility of disaster. Too soon, too certain,” Tamsin Edwards, a scientist who’s studied Antarctica, wrote in The Guardian about Holthaus’s article.

5. 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming

World leaders meeting at the Vatican  issued a statement saying that 2015 was the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].”

Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing. Francis reiterated that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming.

But what he should really say is that the U.N. conference this year is the “last” chance to cut a deal to stem global warming…since last year when the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014’s climate summit.

6. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”

When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Ironically at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 — some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.

7. Former President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming

When Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans,” some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.

The United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire in 2012 that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”

Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.”

8. Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?

World leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009 to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.

“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

‘Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data’

You’ve heard of “fake news,” but what about fake science? That’s been around even longer, thanks to liberals. Desperate to prop up their unpopular or unnatural agendas, the Left resorts to all kinds of statistical manipulation to persuade people that their arguments are legitimate. They insist the science is “settled” on hot-button topics like abortion, the environment, homosexuality, or same-sex marriage. And they’re right. It is settled — but not on their side!

From when life begins to what your gender is, conservatives are fed up with the lies the Left is using to shut them up. The Center for Family and Human Rights’s Austin Ruse was so frustrated with this coordinated effort that he wrote a book to expose it: Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data. Yesterday, he stopped by “Washington Watch” and explained why liberals feel like they need to twist the truth. (Check out the full segment here.)

“What’s behind it is an ideology that, in our scientific age, needs scientific facts to back them up — when in fact, they don’t exist. The language of our age… is science, and if you don’t come to a political argument with a study in hand — or two or three — then you’re in trouble. People automatically want to know what the science says and what the social science says. And what’s driving it is a Leftist political agenda in search of arguments that will convince the public. And therefore they go out and either create these studies or commission studies that tend to be phony… Either the sample sizes are too small or the sample sizes are drawn from sympathetic audiences — there’s a whole lot of ways to game these studies, mostly in social science… A lot of the things they’re trying to prove are not really provable, and so they have to rely on fake science.”

For years, the far Left has tried to pin the anti-science label on conservatives, but the irony, Austin points out, is that “not only is the other side making things up, but science generally confirms the things we believe — like natural law… In the work that you and I do, we run across this all the time. On homosexuality, for instance, [they tell us] it’s inborn, and if you don’t believe it’s inborn and immutable, then you’re a hater. But science doesn’t show it’s inborn or that it’s immutable…”

The Left claims to be the party of science, but some won’t even acknowledge basic biology! In the battle over gender identity, they can’t accept that our sex is determined by our chromosomes at birth. They think it’s defined by feelings! And unfortunately, Austin explains, fake science is even more dangerous than fake news because scientific statistics — no matter their dubious origins — tend to lodge in our brains and stay there. Fake news, on the other hand, is just superseded by the next news cycle.

In other words, conservatives have to fight even harder to be heard! Consider partnering with FRC as we speak truth into a culture — and Capitol — that desperately needs it. Our work depends on people like you.

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

Also in the November 17 Washington Update:

A Tax Bill Tanks Giving

The B-I-B-L-E, Yes, That’s the Museum for Me