‘Impregnator’: Did A Democrat Rep Just Coin A New Gender-Neutral Term For Men Who Get A Woman Pregnant?

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Rep. Jackie Speier used the term “impregnator” to describe men who get women pregnant during an appearance on CNN Sunday,

“There has been nothing said about the fact that a woman doesn’t get pregnant with immaculate conception,” the California Democrat told “CNN Newsroom” host Jim Acosta. “There’s an impregnator and there’s not a word that’s been said about the responsibility of the impregnator. So for all those states that are now saying a woman can’t get an abortion, I would suggest to their legislature that they require the impregnator to put up a $350,000 bond so that this mother can take care of that child.”

The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling Friday written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito upholding a Mississippi ban on abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, effectively overturning Roe v. Wade.

Democrats have called for expanding the Supreme Court after a string of rulings that did not go their way. In addition to the Dobbs ruling, many of them decried the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down the state’s requirement that those applying for a license to carry a pistol show “good cause” to be issued a permit.

WATCH:

Speier also accused the conservative justices of lying about their position on Roe v. Wade during their respective confirmation hearings.

“There’s no question they lied, and they did that under oath,” Speier said. “So, there should be consequences, I agree with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, and I think that we need to look at ways of making them pay.”

Speier hinted that impeachment would be difficult due to what she said was a requirement for a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. The Constitution states a two-thirds vote is only required for conviction in the Senate, and a majority vote is required in the House of Representatives.

Speier did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

HAROLD HUTCHISON

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE:

‘Horrifying Decision’: Democrats Lose Their Minds After Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Rights

Elizabeth Warren Suggests Putting Abortion Clinics In National Parks

Top Pollster Gives More Bad News For Democrats’ Midterm Chances

‘She Did Not Do Her Homework’: Former Gorsuch Law Clerk Obliterates Claim Justices ‘Misled’ Susan Collins

HHS Secretary Says Biden Admin May Help Transport Women Across State Lines For Abortion

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Every self-respecting western nation should launch a public Covid inquiry

/in , , , , , , /by

But the devil will be in the detail.

Can democratic institutions recover from the excesses of pandemic policies, which uncritically aped the extreme and counter-productive interventions of the Chinese Communist Party, unleashing a cascade of collateral harms in their wake, from an escalation in mental health illnesses to untreated cancers, an educational deficit, and new waves of poverty and unemployment? Can our public institutions regain some of the credibility they lost when they were used to suspend civil liberties and pressure citizens to take vaccines of questionable efficacy?

Perhaps, but only if politicians, civil servants, and expert advisers are forced to answer for the consequences of their actions. This can only happen if governments promptly appoint public tribunals or commissions with a wide-ranging brief to thoroughly investigate the response of public authorities and leaders to the Covid-19 pandemic.

European developments

Earlier this year, Sweden’s government-appointed Corona Commission published its findings, which were critical of certain aspects of Sweden’s response to the Covid pandemic, but found that its broad policy was “fundamentally correct.” The UK is currently finalising the terms of reference for its Public Covid Inquiry led by Baroness Hallett. The Irish and Scottish governments have both announced their intention to hold similar inquiries.

Only time will tell if these inquiries manage to expose uncomfortable truths about the Covid response, and make public officials and political leaders answer for their blunders, rather than simply being a window-dressing operation. Because the issues involved require complex and politically charged judgments, rather than just questions of “hard science,” the outcome of such inquiries will depend to a large degree on the professional calibre, moral integrity, independence, and impartiality of the individuals who lead them.

Restoring trust

Here are two ways a properly constituted and professionally conducted Covid inquiry could enhance the resilience and integrity of our liberal democratic institutions:

First, a public Covid inquiry could identify and diagnose serious errors of judgment and flaws in the democratic process that led to the abrupt abandonment of standard infectious disease protocols, the premature suspension of citizens’ liberties, and the embrace of untested approaches such as lockdowns that inflicted untold harm on society.¹ This would make a repetition of these errors less likely, at least in the near future.

Second, if citizens see a serious effort to scrutinise the motivations behind pandemic policies and their impact on society, at least some of their trust in their public institutions will be restored. Without that trust, governments will increasingly find themselves relying on coercion, fear and manipulation rather than goodwill, in order to secure citizens’ compliance with their laws and regulations.

Public duty

Of course, some governments may attempt to sidestep the demand for a public inquiry into their response to Covid-19, in order to save themselves and their colleagues from unwelcome scrutiny. Other governments may institute an inquiry, but its terms of reference may be defined too narrowly, or its procedures may be too rushed and superficial, to uncover serious problems such as reckless and corrupt behaviour in public institutions.

In spite of these risks, it is incumbent upon any self-respecting democratic government to commission an independent Covid inquiry to assess the performance of government actors in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Only time will tell if such inquiries fulfil their public function and deliver the unvarnished truth, for better or for worse, rather than “covering over a multitude of sins.”

1. See, for example, “A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on Covid-19 Mortality”, published by Studies in Applied Economics, a journal of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.

This article has been republished from David Thunder’s Substack, The Freedom Blog.

AUTHOR

David Thunder

David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society. More by David Thunder

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Chicago Way vs. the Catholic Way

/in , , , , /by

Randall Smith: Our opponents have made clear what they intend.  Let’s make clear what we intend: to make any sacrifice to protect unborn children and their mothers.

Whoever decided to release the Dobbs decision on the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was a genius.  My priest at Mass that day could not conceal his joy at the great gift we have been given.  I suppose his joy was tempered somewhat when, as he was putting out the Eucharist for Friday afternoon adoration, a woman came into the back of the church and began screaming.  Fortunately, we were able to shoo her away. I found our saintly Dominican priest talking to her calmly but firmly afterward in the courtyard of the parish.

Some people are angry. Really angry. A friend writes: “Haven’t seen the Democrats this angry since Lincoln freed their slaves and since the Supreme Court desegregated their public schools.”  When those “rights” were denied them – “rights” based, then as now, on denying the full personhood of other human beings – those people got very angry indeed.

Like many people, I’m concerned about the increased threats to Catholic churches and crisis pregnancy centers.  There have been at  least sixty-three such attacks since the Dobbs decision was leaked several weeks ago.  A group named “Jane’s Revenge” has called for riots in a “Summer of Rage.” Their slogan: “To our oppressors: if abortions aren’t safe, you’re not either.”

How should we respond?

Here is what I want to say.

Hey, Jane’s revenge, listen up.  If pro-life pregnancy centers aren’t safe, you’re not either.  What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and turn-about is fair play.

You think you’re angry.  We’ve been living with this oppressive abortion regime with no ability to make our voices heard in the democratic system bequeathed to us by our Founders for fifty years, patiently and peacefully trying to protect unborn life in every legal way open to us.

So here’s a note to our oppressors.  If you take one of ours, we’ll take two of yours.  It’s “the Chicago way.”

Some may remember that scene from the movie The Untouchables with the inestimable Sean Connery, who tells Eliot Ness, played by Kevin Costner: “Wanna get Capone? Here’s how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun, he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way.”

To us, Jane’s Revenge, you’re Capone. Because, let’s be honest, you are Capone; you blow up innocent children in the womb. And you take money for it.  You hold women hostage until they pay.  Pro-life centers give away medical care for free.  You firebomb them so that women won’t have a choice.

So Jane’s Revenge, here’s little advice.  You don’t want to declare war on people who have martyrs as part of their tradition and who have struggled to protect the unborn in the face of constant opprobrium for fifty years; especially since it’s clear you’re two-bit cowards who engage in teenage-style vandalism in the middle of the night and threaten a Supreme Court justice’s children. Ooh, so brave.

That is what I want to say, but it’s not what I should say. Because “the Chicago way” is not “the American way.”  Nor is it “the Catholic way.”

Let’s begin with “the American way,” which too many people seem to have forgotten.

I once had a wonderful student who concluded that there was an injustice on our campus.

“Okay, so what do you do now?” I asked.

“Organize people to demonstrate?”

“That’s your first recourse? How about voting?  How about getting yourself elected and working for change by changing your fellow students’ hearts and minds?”

“Oh … yeah,” she said, tentatively, not entirely convinced.

Actual civic involvement and democratic governance have become the last thing people think of today when it should be the first.  That’s the American way.

Those others, with the black shirts and black masks who break windows and throw Molotov cocktails?  They’re fascists.  Look up “black shirts in Italy,” and see what you find.  Look up Kristallnacht.  See who it is who wears dark shirts and breaks windows.

Now look at videos of the riots that took place while the first black students were being escorted into the University of Alabama in 1963.  You will see white girls in poodle skirts and bobby socks screaming at the top of their lungs, looking as though they are about to die.

Look at film of the lunch-counter sit-ins in segregated diners: people screaming, throwing tantrums, pouring drinks and throwing food on the peaceful students sitting at the counter.  That’s what fascists look like.  They look like those angry pro-abortion demonstrators at the Court.

I don’t begrudge people their disagreement with Dobbs.  But it simply makes no sense at all to say that a decision returning this issue to the voters is a “destruction of our democracy.”

Returning an issue to the voters is “undemocratic”?  Black-shirted people with masks destroying property anti-fascist?  Sure.  And “War is peace,” “freedom is slavery, and “ignorance is strength.”

But make no mistake: all these political measures, as important as they are, are not our primary weapons.  Our primary weapons are what they have always been: prayer, fasting, alms, personal sacrifice, courage, patience, unstinting support for women and children in need, and peaceful attempts to change hearts and minds.

That’s the Catholic way.  Following it is what has brought us to this point.  It is what we must depend on to take us into a very uncertain future.  We can be joyful.  But the work to save the unborn must move into a higher gear.

Our opponents have made clear what they intend.  Let’s make clear what we intend.  We will make any sacrifice, suffer any indignity, and work without rest or reward to protect these children and their mothers. We say, “Take one of ours, and we’ll build two more.”  “Force us to carry a burden one mile, and we’ll carry it two.”

That’s the Catholic way.

You may also enjoy:

Cardinal Gerhard L. Mueller’s On Questions about Rights

Robert Royal’s Who Are the Abortion Extremists?

AUTHOR

Randall Smith

Randall B. Smith is a Professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas. He is the author of Reading the Sermons of Thomas Aquinas: A Guidebook for Beginners and Aquinas, Bonaventure, and the Scholastic Culture of Medieval Paris: Preaching, Prologues, and Biblical Commentary (2021). His website is: randallbsmith.com.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission.© 2022 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

When a Conservative is Asked ‘What is a Woman?’

/in , , , , , , , , /by

A common way to put Made-up Sexual Status (MUSS, a.k.a. “transgender”) activists on the spot is to ask them “What is a woman?” They’ll hem and haw because their current emotion-based creed dictates that the only possible definition is “anyone who identifies as a woman.” Some sexual devolutionaries, however, may come back with what a YouTube commenter under a very clever, topic-related Babylon Bee video claimed. “Let’s be real, conservatives do not have a tenable definition of woman,” he stated. “[C]onservatives don’t talk about their definition of woman — they know it’s not good enough.” Okay, then, challenge accepted. I’ll talk about it:

A woman is an adult member of the species homo sapiens; this means in principle that she has an XX chromosome configuration and is, consequently, genotypically and phenotypically female.

Yes, that’s a mouthful, because it’s precise. But the sexual devolutionaries would no doubt interject here, saying, “No, no! Some ‘women’ are not genotypically XX or wholly phenotypically [appearance-wise] female.”

Yet they’d have overlooked two key words in my definition: “in principle.” One learns in good philosophy, rarely taught today, that there’s a difference between something being true in principle and it being true in the particular.

For example, an apple in principle is something that doesn’t contain a worm; this definition isn’t negated by the fact that the occasional apple has a worm because the worm isn’t integral to the apple. There obviously are deviations among women from the genotypic and phenotypic female norm; it’s also obvious that they have no bearing on what a woman is in principle.

Not understanding this (not that they’d want to), sexual devolutionaries will didactically “explain” how there are more than just the two “XX” (female) and “XY” (male) genotypes, with others supposedly being the “intersex” varieties XXX, X0, XXY and XYY. While these configurations’ existence, again, has no bearing on what the two sexes are in principle, here’s what the sexual devolutionaries don’t say:

These are all abnormalities that afflict one sex or the other. Here’s the science, courtesy of WebMD (emphasis added by me):

  • “Triple X syndrome (also called trisomy X syndrome, XXX syndrome, or 47,XXX) is a rare genetic condition where females inherit an extra X chromosome.”
  • “Turner syndrome [X0] is a rare genetic disorder that’s found only in girls.”
  • “Klinefelter syndrome [XXY] is a genetic condition in which a boy is born with an extra X chromosome.”
  • “‌Although genetics are hereditary, a phenomenon in genetic alterations occurs when male babies receive an extra Y chromosome in each of their cells, resulting in an XYY combination.”

And that’s it. By the way, you can search the WebMD pages I linked to, and you won’t find the term “intersex” anywhere on them. “Intersex” is not a scientific designation, but a social one. It’s not reality, but fantasy. There are two sexes and abnormalities afflicting them, nothing more. This is much as how someone suffering with hypertrichosis (excessive hair growth. Example: “Jo-Jo the Dog-Faced Boy”) isn’t “inter-species,” but a fully human person with a disorder.

What we’re actually seeing here with the “intersex” illusion is the now-common desire to define abnormalities as either “lifestyle choices” or “normal variation.” But as G.K. Chesterton put it, “A fallacy doesn’t cease to be a fallacy because it becomes a fashion.”

People enduring these chromosomal abnormalities certainly have crosses to bear and, assuming they haven’t joined the sexual devolutionary phalanx of social engineers, deserve compassion. What no one deserves, ever, is to have all of society’s grasp of reality altered to facilitate the lie that his abnormality doesn’t exist as such because he can’t accept the truth. Warping a civilization’s sense of reality is dangerous and shouldn’t be tolerated for a moment.

Anyway, there’s the traditionalist answer to “What is a woman?” Your move, sexual devolutionaries. But I think that’s checkmate.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe, Gettr or Parler, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

The Myths of Transhumanism, their Constitution & the Transhumanist Party

/in , , , , , , , /by

A reader (HT/NH) sent us a link to the Constitution of the United States Transhumanist Party which took effect on January 1, 2021.

The Constitution of the United States Transhumanist Party states:

Article I. Immutable Principles of the United States Transhumanist Party

The United States Transhumanist Party is defined at its core by the following principles. While the remainder of the Party’s platform, bylaws, and operations may in the future be subject to alterations by decisions of the membership, the statements below are considered immutable and may not be altered.

Section I. Core Ideals:

Ideal 1. The United States Transhumanist Party supports significant life extension achieved through the progress of science and technology.

Ideal 2. The United States Transhumanist Party supports a cultural, societal, and political atmosphere informed and animated by reason, science, and secular values.

Ideal 3. The United States Transhumanist Party supports efforts to use science, technology, and rational discourse to reduce and eliminate various existential risks to the human species.

Our reader NH had this spot on comment,

Article I. Immutable? Immutable means not capable of or susceptible to change, so they admit their point is not true in that their cause contradicts their origin of debate.

We responded to NH with the following,

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. There’s one scientific truth: There is a 100% probability every human being will at some point die.

The question is if you want life everlasting then you must believe in Jesus.

The Transhumanists are atheists and call for “secular values” only in Ideal 2. Thus they will miss out on going to heaven.

Ironic, isn’t it. The one thing that Transhumanists want, life everlasting, they cannot have.

At  the Commencement Address at Yale University, June 11 1962 John F. Kennedy said,

“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

The United States Transhumanist Party supports efforts to use science, technology, and rational discourse to reduce and eliminate various existential risks to the human species, which is problematic in that rational discourse to reduce/eliminate existential risks to the human species like Covid, the negative long and short term effects of Covid vaccines, abortion, climate change, non-binary, transgender, genderqueer anti-science fiction taught in public schools, colleges, universities  and to our military thus degrading our national security, as well as communist economic and social policies are forbidden to be debated and even censored by the legacy media, social media, scientists, academics and government officials.

Transhumanists and their constitution is a myth. It is unrealistic in that its basis is dishonest and lacks critical thinking. Today a growing segment of science does not advance mankind today.

Rather science is being used against mankind to mandate getting vaxxed, promoting the propaganda of climate change and pushing for the control of CO2 when CO2 is scientifically proven to be necessary for the flourishing of mankind, plants and animals.

We wonder if  these Transhumanists will take on these scientific falsehoods?

While we agree in reason and support science for the betterment of mankind, we reject governments using science against those it is required to protect, defend and support.

We shall see if the Transhumanists take on these issues. We will be waiting and watching what they do. Actions speak louder than words.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Up to 40,000 Unvaccinated Army Guard Troops at Risk of Dismissal as Deadline for Vaccine Mandate Looms

/in , , , , , , , , /by

The Democrat party of treason will destroy the military the same way they destroyed the air travel industry. They did this to the pilots, hence the current pilot shortage.

Up to 40,000 Unvaccinated Army Guard Troops at Risk of Dismissal as Deadline for Vaccine Mandate Looms

By Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit, June 25, 2022:

According to AP, up to 40,000 Army Guard troops are still unvaccinated and at least 7,000 are at risk of being dismissed after refusing to take the experimental Covid vaccine, as the deadline for shots looms.

“According to data obtained by The Associated Press, between 20% to 30% of the Guard soldiers in six states are not vaccinated, and more than 10% in 43 other states still need shots,” the news outlet reported.

Below are the data from AP:

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE AP CHART

Around 7,000 national guards have requested exemptions which are almost all for religious reasons.

In an interview with AP, the director of the Army National Guard Lt. Gen. Jon Jensen said, “We’re going to give every soldier every opportunity to get vaccinated and continue their military career. Every soldier that is pending an exemption, we will continue to support them through their process.”

“We’re not giving up on anybody until the separation paperwork is signed and completed. There’s still time,” Jensen added.

Last year, the Oklahoma National Guard announced that they will not impose Biden’s COVID vaccine mandate.

Army Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino wrote in a memo that “no negative administrative or legal action will be taken” against anyone who doesn’t get the vaccine.

Biden Pentagon responded and threatened the Oklahoma National Guard for not forcing all members to take the controversial COVID vaccines. The Pentagon threatened the careers of the guard members in the state and announced the state statute may jeopardize their status.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott sued Joe Biden and the Pentagon over its military vaccine mandate last March 2022.

Over 40% of the Texas National Guard are refusing to get the Covid vaccine.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: TOPGUN Graduates, Hundreds of Pilots Face Punishment Over Mandate

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Let Not the Hysterics Distract You

/in , , , , , /by

Robert Royal: In America, we are not going to kill 1 million of our children annually now in mere absence of mind. That’s the main thing. The rest we’ll debate. And the hysterics are not going to make us lose sight of that.

After thirty years living in Washington D.C., nothing – nearly nothing – politicians do surprises me. But when the king – sorry, president – of France and the British Prime Minister “express concern” (egged on by their clueless U.S. counterparts) over a Supreme Court decision about a Mississippi law that is less restrictive of abortion (15 weeks) than laws in their own countries, the usual political antics and lies aren’t all that amusing anymore.

The same can be said of the guerrilla theater in America’s most liberal cities (where abortion on demand still reigns), and in the media (where professional reporting has given way to Left advocacy on all things, all of the time), and the whole morass of lying and intimidation that flouts the rule of law and the institutions that enable an ordered liberty.

The hysteria of the pro-abortion supporters has, to use  their own vocabulary, been “socially constructed.” Almost all the hysterics would be less publicly distraught if their fathers, mothers, siblings, or friends died horribly in a fire.

I’m in Bratislava, the capital of the Slovak Republic, this week for our Summer Seminar on the Free Society, an educational program for American and European university students and young professionals, with participants from as far away as Australia and the Philippines. This was the brainchild of the late Michael Novak, one of the founders of The Catholic Thing and a prominent modern Catholic social theorist.

Novak realized that it wasn’t enough when Communism had finally fallen. By 2000, it was clear that nations like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, also needed a better understanding of what a properly free society means – one dedicated to liberty not license, responsibility not self-indulgence, and truth not ideology.

He created the seminar and we at the Faith & Reason Institute have administered it for a decade. (It’s our 20th anniversary, delayed two years by Covid). It’s been interesting in many ways, not least because the program has had to shift from exposing the false assumptions of totalitarian systems to explaining the threats to liberty now growing within the West’s own “free societies.”

The callous disregard for human life in the womb, for instance, in almost all the developed world is the most flagrant evidence of how freedom and prosperity have corrupted us. We want what we want. And we’re not going to let the Western, Biblical, and American moral heritage tell us no.

I’m sorry to have to write that. I believe, despite everything, that there’s much in our civilization still worth fighting for. And the Dobbs decision helps: it allows moral debate and actual democratic procedures now on today’s most burning moral issue.

The fact that adhering to constitutional limits on government and a growing concern for human life in the womb are being portrayed as tyranny and infringements on “women’s rights” (Nota bene, half of dead babies are female) testifies to how far we’ve fallen from an understanding of what’s necessary to a viable, free society.

We’re going to see intense debates now – badly conducted for the most part – over abortion and the interests of that strange category of human beings called “women,” a term that the “woke” won’t define, though they’re sure “women’s rights” are paramount.

Praise for the Vatican, which did not ignore this moment, as might have been expected. The Pontifical Academy for Life – recent papal appointees notwithstanding – didn’t just praise Dobbs, but stated, “The fact that a large country with a long democratic tradition has changed its position on this issue also challenges the whole world.”

Yes, that America could actually change direction on this most murderous result of the sexual revolution, means that faith and reason have not entirely fled the developed world. So, Amen, brothers.

The pope spoke more indirectly. In his address to the World Meeting of Families in Rome this week, he said, “Let us not allow the family to be poisoned by the toxins of selfishness, individualism, today’s culture of indifference and waste, and as a result lose its very DNA, which is the spirit of welcoming and service.” Which in the byzantine language the Holy See often employs alludes, at least so we’re told, to the Dobbs decision.

Would that the pope and his advisors, woefully ignorant as they are about America, would now realize that appointing the go-along-to-get-along bishops that they have preferred lately in America does not help move along effective pro-life action. And won’t help other Catholic principles to prevail.

Instead, we are still getting “Seamless Garment” generalities from Vatican spokesmen, such as Andrea Tornielli this week: “Being for life, always, also means defending it against the threat of firearms, which unfortunately have become a leading cause of death of children and adolescents in the U.S.” The Vatican’s “editorial director” apparently doesn’t know that those deaths are mostly inner-city gangs killing one another, rarely mere recklessness with guns.

And then there are the Catholic drips at publications like America and the National Catholic Reporter, who seem embarrassed by focusing on ending abortion without also promoting a whole laundry list of social programs. Yes, we also want to help new mothers; yes, we also want to support young children – but with an eye to the truth, confirmed by social science, that intact families do all those things better than government programs, which should only be a last, not first resort. So where’s the concern for promoting family and marriage?

And yes, we know of course, that conservative and pro-life politicians can sometimes be as big boobies and moral blowhards as their opponents. And that they may try to exploit the present moment for their own selfish interests.

But in America, we are not going to kill 1 million of our children annually now in mere absence of mind. That’s the main thing. The rest we’ll debate. And no one is going to make us lose sight of that.

And thanks be to God – and all those who labored for half a century – that this day has finally come.

You may also enjoy:

Randall Smith’s Conscience as Freedom from Truth?

St. John Paul II Freedom at war with nature (from Veritatis Splendor)

AUTHOR

Robert Royal

Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent books are Columbus and the Crisis of the West and A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sex Strike! Abstinence trends on Twitter in wake of Roe v. Wade ruling

How to Debunk 7 Common Myths About Overturning Roe v. Wade

Abortion Clinics Start Closing After Roe v. Wade Ruling

Abortion Activists Charged With Attempting to Murder Police During Violent Protest

Alabama Becomes 9th State to Ban Abortions After Supreme Court Overturns Roe

Nationwide protests denouncing Dobbs ruling lead to dozens of arrests over the weekend

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2022 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely.

AUNTVN : The Doctors speak out about the Covid Vaccine Dangers

/in , , , , , , , , /by

It’s not quite a documentary but it does come at the issue from several perspectives. I hope it is helpful. I have friends that have asked about the shows we’ve done recently on this subject.

WATCH: The Doctors speak out about the Covid Vaccine Dangers.

 MEET THE DOCTORS

DR. SYED HAIDER, MD

Dr. Syed Haider, MD completed his 3-year residency in Internal Medicine at New York Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, NY he worked as an internal medicine hospitalist for 10 years. He is additionally trained in Functional medicine, Lifestyle medicine and Chinese medicine. Since December 2020, Dr. Syed has focused entirely on prevention and treatment of COVID-19. He was the first physician in the US to widely use Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 starting in February 2021.

DR. NAOMI WOLF

Dr. Naomi Wolf is a bestselling author, columnist, and professor. She is cofounder and CEO of Daily Clout. a successful civic tech company. Since the publication of her landmark international bestseller, The Beauty Myth, which The New York Times called “one of the most important books of the 20th century,” Dr. Wolf’s other seven bestsellers have been translated worldwide. The End of America and Give Me Liberty: A Handbook For American Revolutionaries, predicted the current crisis in authoritarianism and presented effective tools for citizens to promote civic engagement. Dr. Wolf trains thought leaders of tomorrow, teaching public presentation to Rhodes Scholars and co-leading a Stony Brook University that gave professors skills to become public intellectuals. She was a Rhodes Scholar herself, and was an advisor to the Clinton re-election campaign and to Vice President Al Gore. Dr. Wolf has written for every major news outlet in the US and many globally; she had four opinion columns, including in The Guardian and the Sunday Times of London. TOPIC: Pfizer Docs Contradict Claim of No Risk to Unborn Babies.

DR. RICHARD URSO

Dr. Richard Urso is a board-certified ophthalmologist and one of America’s Frontline Doctors. He is a scientist, sole inventor of an FDA-approved wound healing drug, and the Former Director of Orbital Oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center. TOPIC: COVID-19 vaccines and kids: What parents need to know.

© All rights reserved.

Reducing CO2 Hurts the Planet and Humanity: Time to Reconsider Massachusetts v. EPA

/in , , , , , /by

“This August marks the 15th anniversary of  Massachusetts v. EPA. We believe it is time for the Supreme Court to reconsider their ruling given the vast amount of science now available on CO2 and its impact on climate change.” — Dr. Richard M. Swier

In the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA,

[T]he Supreme Court found that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. In section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, Congress stated that EPA is to issue standards applicable to the emission of

“air pollutants” from new motor vehicles, which in EPA’s “judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare . . . .”

The Massachusetts v. EPA ruling has caused incalculable harm to our planet in general and specifically to mankind.

According to the Department of Justice brief on Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)

In 1999, private organizations filed a petition requesting that EPA issue rules to begin regulating four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, emitted from new motor vehicles. After taking extensive public comment, EPA denied the petition, stating that:

  1. it did not have authority under the Clean Air Act to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change because Congress would have explicitly directed EPA to do so if Congress so intended. As a result, greenhouse gases could not be considered “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act.
  2. even if it did have authority, it would be unwise to set greenhouse gas emission standards at this time because:
  • there was uncertainty regarding the link between greenhouse gases and global warming;
  • mandatory regulation was a piecemeal approach that would interfere with the President’s more comprehensive approach; and
  • it might hamper the President’s ability to persuade developing countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

But this did not stop the Supreme Court under Justice John Paul Stevens which ruled,

“The Court then held that under the language of the Clean Air Act, [the] EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as ‘air pollutants’.”

From this moment on CO2 became the symbol of climate change fanatics to mandate reductions and regulations infinitum. The power shifted from the people to the EPA and its puppet masters.

CO2 and the Climate

Since this ruling the science has proven green house gasses specifically CO2 has little or no impact on the climate.

On February 26th, 2021 a revised and expanded third edition of scientific look at climate change titled Hot Talk, Cold Science by the distinguished astrophysicist Dr. S. Fred Singer, with the assistance of renowned climate scientists David R. Legates and Anthony R. Lupo, wrote,

As alarmists clamor to impose draconian government restrictions on entire populations in order to combat “climate change,” this book reveals some startling, stubborn contradictory facts, including:

  • CO2 has not caused temperatures or sea levels to rise beyond historical rates.
  • Severe storms have not increased in frequency or intensity since 1970—neither have heat waves nor droughts.
  • Global change is not harming coral reefs.
  • Any increases in CO2 concentrations across huge time spans (there have been a few) haven’t preceded rising global temperatures; they’ve followed them by about six to eight hundred years—just the opposite of alarmist claims.
  • Alarmist climate scientists have hidden their raw temperature data and deleted emails—then undermined the peer-review system to squelch debate.

In sum, despite all the hot talk—and outright duplicity—there is no “climate crisis” resulting from human activities and no such threat on the horizon.

In the below video we learn that 5 million years of climate data shows the Sun is the driving factor not CO2.

 

The Bottom Line

This case must be overturned because both parties were really on the same side. Both wanted CO2 regulated.

There are three important findings on what impacts the earth’s climate:

  1. Earths warming and cooling periods over millions of years has been due to activity on the sun.
  2. H2O (water vapor) is driving green house gas models, not CO2. It is H2O that keeps earth at a livable temperature for mankind.
  3. CO2 has little to do with global warming. CO2 actually helps keep the planet green.

Climate change is a myth used for political purposes to punish each and every human being on this planet. The idea that mankind can in anyway control the weather, let alone the climate is preposterous. Yet, this is the mantra of the global elite, from the United Nations, to the World Health Organization, to the Biden administration.

Without a doubt the SCOTUS ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA has done no good and created great harm.

It is time to abort Massachusetts v. EPA in order to save mankind.

As John F. Kennedy said,

“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

It is past time to deal with the discomfort of thought that mankind can do nothing to impact the climate, nothing at all!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES:

Watts Up With That? The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change 

MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA: The Inconvenient Truth About Precedent—Virginia Law Review

Massachusetts v EPA

How and why the Supreme Court made climate-change history—The Harvard Gazette

Companies Jumping on the LGBTQ+ Bandwagon: TARGET

/in , , , , , , /by

Target (1.72) and other retailers are jumping on the LGBTQ+ bandwagon with both feet.  Please do not even try to tell us that it takes courage to support the movement that is grooming children for pedophilia.  Caving to the politically correct stance may be the least courageous thing you can do.  Sure, you will be applauded by the media and the pro-ESG investment crowd as well.  But if you want to take a courageous stand, stand up and oppose these destructive initiatives publicly. Now.

Here’s the latest Pride month promotion from Target.  They have a t-shirt with the message “Trans Rights are Human Rights,” displayed on a child-sized mannequin in store and on a toddler on their website.  They are TARGETING our children with their over-sexualized propaganda.

Do you remember the days when the gay rights movement told our government to “stay out of our bedrooms”.  They shouted flamboyantly that the person with whom they sleep is purely a private, personal matter and should not be the subject of legal, political or public discourse.  “All we want is equality”.  Remember those days? If only we could revert to an equal approach for all and the elimination of this LGBTQ+ stridency from political and economic interactions instead of having the LGBTQ+ agenda rammed down our throats at every turn. But equality was never their agenda.

Similarly, we can recall the days when people were annoyed that the top 1% ran everything and told us what to do.  Of course, they were referring to the rich in their anti-capitalist sentiment.  But, strangely enough, that perspective isn’t too far off today.  We have deviant behavior, in which less than 1 percent of the people actually engage, being pushed as acceptable and mainstream.  This new one percent are running the show at Target, at many other retailers and across most of our publicly traded companies.

If you want to support companies that are at least neutral on these radical social topics, you really need to check their 2ndVote score frequently. We help you shop at, invest in and support organizations that just want to provide a good service or product and generate fair returns for their shareholders without these other distractions.  In the digressive left’s business world, its hard to keep up with the landscape. From supposedly trans-gender babies to ESG initiatives for business, the battle is complex. Find out who is voluntarily wasting resources on these initiatives instead of providing the best possible products and services so that shareholders get the best possible returns on their investment. And since 2016, we have continued to push #AnythingButTarget .

AUTHOR

2ndVote Contributor

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Top 10 Telling Tweets on the Roe v. Wade Decision

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Thought that we would provide some tweets from those who wanted to really tell you what they believe. Here they are:

And finally Senator Townsend asks will there be a June 24th Committee?

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Education Is the State’s Greatest Tool for Propaganda

/in , , , , , , , , /by

“It is not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought.”

In chapter 10 of The Road to Serfdom, Hayek describes how some of the worst people always end up rising to the top of the political heap. Continuing to touch on this theme in the eleventh chapter, Hayek digs even deeper and discusses the control of information and the very basis of truth in a planned society.

In a society where totalitarianism reigns, truth is found not in objective principles, but in a government’s desired ends. Once these ends have been established, all other forms of information are tailored to reinforce that “truth.” Reason is henceforth thrown out the window and the state’s version of truth is beyond contestation. As George Orwell wrote:

Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as “the truth” exists. … The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, “It never happened”—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs.

But this on its own is not enough to sway entire nations. Instead of the people merely accepting these “truths,” it is important that the state convince them that these truths are their own. When individuals begin to tie their interests to the state’s interests, a terrifying unity occurs, the likes of which can be seen in almost every deceptive dictatorship throughout history.

As Hayek says:

The most effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends. To make a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends. It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends.”

In order to do this, all propaganda is orchestrated to reinforce these ends in order to push individuals in the desired direction. Common themes and slogans are repeated over and over again in order to beat these goals into the minds of the people. Anything contrary to the end goal must be squashed immediately. Anyone speaking out against them must also be destroyed in the name of national security. As Hayek says, “But the minority who will retain an inclination to criticize must also be silenced.”

And while most people associate propaganda with political posters and multimedia, there is no greater tool for propaganda than a nation’s education system.

State-Controlled Education

No matter how intelligent an individual may be, almost every person is susceptible to propaganda. This is because, in many instances, most are unaware that they are falling prey to it. It seeps into our lives through all forms of entertainment but most especially through state-sponsored education.

In Nazi Germany, indoctrinating the youth was one of the easiest ways to ensure the fervent support of future generations. Adolf Hitler himself said, “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.” Children were forced into youth groups where their role in the Third Reich was reinforced continually. Germany even tailored toys, games, and books towards the desired ends of the Reich, ensuring that children would believe whatever they wanted them to believe.

Hayek writes:

If all the sources of current information are effectively under one single control, it is no longer a question of merely persuading the people of this or that. The skillful propagandist then has power to mold their minds in any direction he chooses, and even the most intelligent and independent people cannot entirely escape that influence if they are long isolated from all other sources of information.”

And this was the aim of the Third Reich. If the German people were to not only accept but condone the acts of their government, there was no better way to do it than to teach them young, and lead them to believe that this has always been the case.

Touching on this, Hayek says:

The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they, or at least the best among them, have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before.”

Or, to pull from Orwellian speak, the goal is to make these children believe that “we have always been at war with Eastasia.”

But this deliberate molding of minds does not only occur in young students. In fact, once these children’s minds have been sufficiently indoctrinated, they are passed off to institutions of higher education where a belief in intellectual elitism is then instilled.

The Educated Elite

Trained to learn by rote methods rather than critical thinking, young adults, eager to assert their independence, were thrown into colleges and universities and told that they are now part of the intellectual elite. But from this comes the dangerous tendency to stop questioning the information that is presented to you. After all, your professors are highly regarded for their intellect. Why would they steer you in the wrong direction?

But when these professors begin to present state opinion as unquestioned truth, this is where the real problems arise.

The field of eugenics, for example, was once taught as if it were doctrinal truth. If racial superiority could be “scientifically” proven, or, rather, if the state could assert that this was fact, then questioning this doctrine became heresy.

As Hayek says:

The need for such official doctrines as an instrument of directing and rallying the efforts of the people has been clearly foreseen by the various theoreticians of the totalitarian system. Plato’s “noble lies” and Sorel’s “myths” serve the same purpose as the racial doctrine of the Nazis or the theory of the corporative state of Mussolini. They are all necessarily based on particular views about facts which are then elaborated into scientific theories in order to justify a preconceived opinion.”

And, as has been seen throughout history, once a theory becomes part of the scientific narrative, it contributes to the direction of all societal ends. Hayek comments on this saying, “Thus a pseudoscientific theory becomes part of the official creed which to a greater or lesser degree directs everybody’s action.” While the eugenics example may seem rather extreme, it was very applicable to the time that Hayek was writing.

And while it is not easy in hindsight to understand how an entire population could fall for theories this callous, Hayek reminds us, “It is not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought.”

It may be easy to cast blame on the media and the entertainment industry for being natural propaganda machines, but history tells a different story. As we have now seen, state-controlled education is one of the worst and most effective propaganda tools that has ever existed.

AUTHOR

Brittany Hunter

Brittany is a writer for the Pacific Legal Foundation. She is a co-host of “The Way The World Works,” a Tuttle Twins podcast for families.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Planned Parenthood Wages Insurrection at Wisconson State Capitol

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Planned Parenthood and abortion insurrectionists took over the Wisconsin state Capitol building on Wednesday, as the GOP was set to uphold a pro-life law that will take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Governor Tony Evers (D-WI) signed an executive order this month calling for the special session to repeal a 173 year-old ban on abortion, noting, “While the governor has the authority to call lawmakers into a special session, lawmakers are not obligated to take action on any bills.”

“Whose choice? Our choice!” dozens, if not hundreds, of protesters chanted inside the Capitol rotunda, protesting the GOP’s expected refusal to overturn the ban. “If we don’t get it, shut it down! If we don’t get it, shut it down! If we don’t get it, shut it down!”

“The people of Wisconsin support access to abortion! Our legislators need to listen and pass the Abortion Rights Preservation Act!” Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin tweeted Wednesday.

Many protesters were wearing Planned Parenthood gear and sporting the abortion provider’s signs.

Despite pressure from loud protesters inside the Capitol, the Republicans in the Senate and Assembly quickly gaveled in and out of Evers’ special session without taking votes to repeal the state’s abortion ban.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)

274 Known Connections

PPFA opposes any limitations on access to abortion, including the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion, and also opposes mandatory parental notification for minors wishing to undergo the procedure. Approximately one-third of PPFA’s clients are girls younger than 18 who live with one or both parents. Some 97 percent of these girls qualify for federal assistance to reimburse a provider of social services. This is because PPFA teaches its affiliates how to exploit federal “family planning” programs by qualifying as many clients as possible for federal subsidies of pregnancy tests, contraceptives, and abortions covered by Medicaid…

To learn more about Planned Parenthood, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

“Without Logos, the West is lost”

/in , , , , , , /by

Western society is crumbling as it loses the vital link between faith and reason.

This book provides a wonderfully accessible overview of the evolution of a concept which has been the key to the development of Western civilisation, or we might better say is the hallmark of Western civilisation: the mutual interplay of faith and reason. Gregg shows how this key was sought by the Greeks, found by Judeo-Christianity, and progressively lost during the Enlightenment. He examines the kinds of pathologies which are produced by both faith and reason respectively when they are decoupled from one another.

Gregg starts out with “The Speech That Shook the World” — the Regensburg Address of Pope Benedict XVI in 2006, in which Ratzinger warned of the danger of the uncoupling of faith and reason. The fact that Ratzinger hit the nail on the head with his words here were — sadly — borne out by the violent (and sadly in some cases fatal) reaction of fundamentalists across the Islamic world. But Ratzinger’s words were for the West as much as for anyone else, for the integration of faith and reason which had been the hallmark of the West has been in crisis for a long time now, and the disasters of recent Western history are the bitter fruit of that crisis.

Ancient Greeks

Western civilisation begins with a Greek word and concept: logos, which refers to rational order — one we embody in words. This is in a way the Greek discovery, and it unleashed their philosophical speculations. The irrationality of the gods of Greek religion always seriously trammelled philosophical speculation. Vastly different was the religion of the Jews with its supremely rational God, and the advent of Christianity revealed fully the hidden depths of this rationality (the logos was made flesh) and on the rationality of God is founded the rationality (and freedom) of man.

In the thought of St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), this synthesis of faith and reason is brought to a supreme realisation. At the very same time, however, significant fissures between faith and reason began to appear in the incipient rationalism of the Latin Averroists as well as the incipient fideism of elements within the Franciscan order.

Various developments

Gregg prefaces his discussion of the great disjunction between faith and reason which takes place in the Enlightenment with an important proviso. He cautions the reader against an overly simplistic dismissal of all of Enlightenment thought tout court as anti-Christian. He is at pains to point out that much of the Enlightenment movement was quite compatible with Christianity, citing the historian Ulrich L. Lehner as saying “only a small fraction of Enlighteners were anti-religious; the overwhelming majority were interested in finding a balanced relation between reason and faith.” He points out the critical engagement of many Catholic intellectuals with the Enlightenment.

Gregg also reminds us that there was not just one Enlightenment, but several, and they differed in their attitude to the faith. The Scottish Enlightenment for instance involved a number of particularly religious men, such as the Presbyterian minister Thomas Reid (1710–1796). The leaders of the American Enlightenment similarly, despite their declarations of separation of Church and State, were mostly very well disposed towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular.

This was, however, not the case in the French Enlightenment. Gregg quotes Joseph Ratzinger’s distinction between “the Anglo-Saxon trend [in Enlightenment thought], which is more inclined to natural law and tends towards constitutional democracy,” from that associated with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which “ultimately aims at complete freedom from any rule.”

New religions

And even though the work of such Englishmen as Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and John Locke never shares in the French animus against Christianity, they mark a decided shift away from metaphysical speculation in favour of utility and the empirical and so pave the way to scientism and the two great secularist ideologies of the nineteenth century: Marxism and liberalism. Ironically, although these two systems are prefaced on a rejection of religion (though in a much more virulent manner in Marxism), Gregg points out the quasi-religious character of both:

Like Judaism and Christianity, Marxism has its own canon of sacred books — the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, among others — which its adherents study as Jews and Christians study the scriptures. Marxists join a church-like organisation — the Party — with its own faithful (party members), clerical hierarchy (the Central Committee, the Politburo, the general secretary), theologians (Marxist theoreticians), saints (Che Guevara or Lenin, whose embalmed body is venerated in a shrine), and doctrines from which party members may not stray without compromising their orthodoxy.

Even the intellectuals that John Stuart Mill envisages overseeing the implementation of liberalism function as a kind of “clerisy”. It took Nietzsche of course to bring things to their logical conclusion: with the disappearance of God also goes any claim to objective truth (a delusion for the herd), and all we are left with is the will, and in particular the will to power.

Faith alone

In a sense, Nietzsche marks the culmination of the rationalist pathology stemming from the decoupling of faith and reason. The faith side of this binomial has a pathology of its own: fideism. In chapter five, Gregg discusses the origins and implications of the fideism which has come to dominate (as Ratzinger warns in this Regensburg address) the world’s greatest bastion of fideism, which is Islam.

He describes the fateful showdown which took place in Islam between the ninth and twelfth centuries, in which the pro-reason school — the Mutazilites — were defeated by the fideistic, voluntaristic school of the Ash’arites. The implications of this defeat went far beyond Islamic theology, into every aspect of the Islamic worldview, and in a dramatic way into political thought: the perceived mode of divine rule sets the standard for political rule, and so if God’s power is envisaged as tyrannical and mankind’s correct attitude is one of submission (“Islam” means submission) then similarly, political power is conceived of as despotic over a submissive population.

Gregg does not despair for Western civilisation. Decline, he thinks “ is not inescapable”. He considers that those who conceive of a reason as closed to faith must acknowledge that this view created Marx and scientism — with all the destruction they have wrought on the world. On the other hand, those more sympathetic to faith must acknowledge that the Enlightenment has been part of a bulwark against the kind of fideism which has come to dominate the Islamic world. But above all, there will be no recovery without the rediscovery of what made Western civilisation in the first place: the interplay of faith and reason. “Without Logos, the West is lost.”

AUTHOR

Fr Gavan Jennings

Rev. Gavan Jennings studied philosophy at University College Dublin, Ireland and the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome. He is co-editor of the monthly journal Position Papers. He teaches occasional… More by Fr Gavan Jennings

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

$30K a year, and my kid can’t tell the difference between a boy and a girl

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Parents must hold their local school systems accountable for what is taught to their children.

Everything has a price.

Like every American family, our family runs a constant cost/benefit analysis on our lives. There are the small decisions: is it worth the time to drive to Target for the cheaper diapers? Or should I just get the pricier ones at the grocery store? And there are the bigger ones: like, should I live in the suburbs and pay lower taxes but more for car expenses and gas? Or flip that decision?

For our family, one of the toughest decisions was where to send our kids to school. We could send them across the street to the poorly performing public school for free. They’d meet a wide variety of kids and learn some valuable self-advocacy skills, but they would not be academically challenged. For $30k, I could send them to the nearby private school, where they’d benefit from engaged teachers, kids, and families. We’d have to drop the music lessons and fancy trips, but hey — I don’t like Disneyland anyway.

So, with some scholarships, sacrifices, and family assistance, we made the choice to send our kids to a fancy private school. The benefits have been great: warm, caring, patient teachers; outstanding academics; beautiful buildings; even a pretty good lunch. But there’s been a hidden cost, beyond the incredibly painful tuition bills: my kids can’t tell the difference between a boy and a girl.

This seems shocking, I know. How can a concept so obvious, so instinctual that nearly every 2-year-old on the planet can master it, be an idea that my very expensively-educated children don’t understand?

Simple-minded educators

Because some teachers don’t understand it. Because some administrators don’t understand it. And this is where I have to remind myself of something true: half the world is dumber than average.

I know this sounds incredibly snobby. I know this sounds judgmental and awful, but this is true. And this fact helps me take a breath, find some compassion, and slow down.

These teachers are good people. They are kind. They like kids, and want the best for children. They believe that education can make the world a better place. And additionally, they were hired for their people skills: they are empathetic, good communicators, patient, and open-minded. Those are exactly the skills my tuition dollars are paying for.

But these teachers are not well-trained critical thinkers. They were not hired for their ability to analyse complex research studies, nor to follow the various paths of different complex scenarios. They are not philosophers, ethicists, or religious scholars. They are not lawyers or developmental psychologists. They are not endocrinologists or pediatricians. They are experts at connecting to kids and explaining the types of K-12 content that kids should learn. Thank god for teachers and their talents and skills. Our society needs them. But they are not the experts here. They are just trying to do their jobs.

So when faced with the concept of “gender identity” — the idea that “people have an innate feeling of being female or male,” the typical teacher will say “Sure — that makes sense. I’m female, I know it. That’s not a controversial idea.”

When faced with the diagnostic definition of “gender dysphoria”, the idea that “some people have great distress with their biological sex, and wish they were the opposite sex,” these teachers say, “Sure — I know about Jazz Jennings and Caitlyn Jenner. That’s a real thing.”

When faced with the fact of “Disorders of Sexual Development” (formerly known as Intersex conditions), the scientifically observed and natural phenomena of various biological sexual characteristics and markers, teachers say, “Yep — I learned about that once.”

And when urged to consider the negative impacts of the difficulty of being an outlier, and the impacts of social isolation and/or ostracism, the teachers say, “Not on my watch. My cousin was gay and poorly treated. I won’t let any of my kids be bullied or left out.”

So when teachers combine all these ideas and impressions and blend them into their natural “be nice” personalities and “open-minded” natures, they are primed to become believers and advocates of transgender ideology. If Johnny likes skirts and thinks he’s really a girl inside, who are we to judge? We really can’t blame the teachers. They were born this way.

So our society has laid yet another burden of expectation on teachers. They must educate kids, they must socialise kids, they must address and resolve the emotional and behavioural dysfunctions of these kids. And now they must be responsible for nurturing, protecting, and advocating for the “internal feeling of being female or male” for a kid, otherwise they’ll be held responsible for the kid’s ostracism.

This is nuts. These teachers don’t stand a chance.

To the top

So we can’t fight the teachers. We’ve got to get the administrators and school boards to stop, listen, and think. These people were hired to be critical thinkers, to balance different opinions, to consider the different consequences of different choices. They still aren’t likely to read the studies or think through the ethical or philosophical consequences of different complex scenarios, but they are primed to consider one thing above all: legal threats.

Right now, principals and school boards are hiding behind the guidelines that WPATH (an activist-led organisation), the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals have created. These organisations have good intentions, but they are also human and flawed (and remember — half their members are below average). Even the ACLU seems to have lost its mind on this topic.

I suggest American parents adopt the “Maya Forstater Approach.” This strategy, based on the case in England, relies on fundamental and constitutional American legal rights: free speech and free religion. I don’t care if you haven’t been to church ever. This is what you say to your school board:

“For scientific, religious, and social reasons, I do not believe that you can change your sex, and I do not want my children to be taught “gender identity”, the belief that you have a gendered soul, and that your gender soul feelings trump your biology. How is your school protecting my family’s religious beliefs and our right to be free from compelled speech?”

Ask your school’s principal this question every Fall. Send it as a statement to your kids’ teachers every fall. Tell them to inform you of any lesson on gender identity before it happens so that your children can have a substitute lesson. Ask them what their policy on requesting pronouns is, so that your child does not feel compelled to use certain speech. Ask them how they balance different opinions on this topic in the community.

I can guarantee you they do not see this as a religious issue, but as a social justice issue. Say the magic words “freedom of religion/freedom from religion” and “freedom of speech” and see if that works. We’ve got a long history of protecting underdogs in this country, and right now the culture glorifies the status of victim. Use this knowledge wisely.

And here’s the thing: this is going to cost you. Be ready. Do the cost/benefit analysis. Whether your kids are getting a free public education or an expensive private one, when you ruffle the feathers of the principal, the winds blow. Then again, if you remain silent, your kid may not understand that sex never changes. Be prepared. Everything has a cost.

This article has been republished from Parents with Inconvenient Truths about Trans (PITT).

BY

Anonymous author

In exceptional circumstances, MercatorNet allows contributors to publish articles anonymously. Sometimes the author’s privacy or safety might be at risk. More by Anonymous author.

RELATED ARTICLE: “Without Logos, the West is lost”

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.