Monthly Archives: October 2016

The Red Army

“Her [Hillary Clinton] team had endless discussions about what positions she should adopt to appease ’the Red Army’—i.e., ‘the base of the Democratic Party.’” Kimberley A. Strassel

“The entire progressive apparatus—the Clinton campaign and boosters at the Center for American Progress—appears to view voters as stupid and tiresome, segregated into groups that must either be cajoled into support or demeaned into silence. We read that Republicans are attracted to Catholicism’s ‘severely backwards gender relations’ and only join the faith to ‘sound sophisticated.’” Ibid

The Press Buries Hillary Clinton’s Sins

As reporters focus on Trump, they miss new details on Clinton’s rotten record.

 Kimberley A. Strassel, The Wall Street Journal, October 14, 2016, p. A 9

Hillary Clinton testifies before the House Select Committee on Benghazi in Washington, D.C., Oct. 22, 2015.

If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.

But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.

It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let’s review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency.

Start with a June 2015 email to Clinton staffers from Erika Rottenberg, the former general counsel of LinkedIn. Ms. Rottenberg wrote that none of the attorneys in her circle of friends “can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents.” She added: “It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I’ve either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.”  Continue reading

Biology Science—NO; Social Science—YES

The Transgender Con: Rending Bodies and Twisting Minds“Sex is not messed up because it was put in the closet; it was put in the closet because it was messed up.” C. S. Lewis

“Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: ‘XY’ and ‘XX’ are genetic markers of health—not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident.” American College of Pediatricians

“Boys cannot become girls, or vice versa. But they can, when subject to bizarre nurturing, become twisted boys and girls.” Selwyn Duke

The Transgender Con: Rending Bodies and Twisting Minds

Written by  Selwyn Duke, The New American, September 19, 2016, p. 25f

Boys can be girls and girls can be boys, and rye can transform into wheat, wheat into barley, and ideology into “science.” Believe it or not, all these things have been claimed, but only one has actually occurred, with ideology having been, to be precise, transformed into pseudoscience.

As to this, the claims about grain transformation were made by proponents of Lysenkoism, a pseudoscientific theory named after Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko. Proposing the heritability of acquired characteristics and rejecting the concept of genes, it was an official theory of the USSR for almost 45 years. And scientists departing from it were fired, imprisoned, and sometimes executed. It’s not known if they were called “bigots” and “haters,” but, after all, that’s hardly necessary when you can avoid the preliminaries and send dissenters straight to the gulag.

In at least one way, though, Lysenkoism wasn’t nearly as destructive as this article’s subject: the “transgender” agenda. To wit: No grain of wheat ever became confused by claims it could become barley. No grain of rye ever tried to “transition.” And no oat ever felt its oats and demanded it be with the wheat when the bracts are stripped away. But it’s not nearly as harmless telling a child he might be — and could be — a member of the opposite sex.

Of course, proponents of “transgenderism” claim that rejecting their theory harms children, that forcing little Justin to suppress his “identity” and not become Justine is psychologically damaging. And many Americans find this compelling. They’ve read articles about supposed “male and female brains,” insufficient masculinization of boy babies due to intrauterine testosterone deficiencies, “intersex” anomalies, and about how sex is a “continuum.” And surely there wouldn’t be governmental bathroom dictates and medical doctors recommending people for “gender-reassignment surgery” were there not sound science behind the “transgender” diagnosis, right? This common assumption — and misconception — is precisely why any intelligent discussion of this matter must begin with the science. Continue reading

Feminism’s Dilemma

2000px-woman-power_emblem-svg“Also unforeseen by radicals such as Steinem, Greer, and Friedan was the dehumanization of humanity itself by the transgender movement.” Fay Voshell

“Transgenderism is fatal to feminism, which has relied on the binary distinction of humanity in order to foster the idea of equality between the sexes.” Ibid

A Requiem for Feminism

By Fay Voshell,  American Thinker, October 1, 2016

It all seemed so exciting during the heady days of the 1960s and 70s as radical feminists jumped on the civil rights bandwagon, demanding equality with men. Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Bella Abzug and others led the push for women’s equality, including the right to abortion on demand.

Now Steinem is 80 and wearing T-shirts that proclaim “I had an abortion.” Steinem’s T-shirt headlines what feminism considers its crowning achievement. Abortion on demand at any stage of gestation is radical feminism’s gold standard. It is upheld as an absolute right by the Democratic Party and its candidate for president, Hillary Clinton.

But abortion on demand and the aggressive transgender movement are proving to be the Achilles heel of feminism.

Who among those eagerly promoting abortion decades ago could have foreseen the development of technology that revealed babies smiling, sucking their thumbs, yawning and stretching while in the womb? Who among those ardent activists could have foreseen that ultrasound would reveal the sex of the unborn infant, and that female babies would be aborted because of they were not the preferred sex? Who could have known millions of girls would be aborted in favor of boys, skewing the male/female ratio of countries like China and India?

While it is public knowledge that sex selective practices have continued unabated despite exposure of the facts, feminists have clung to their commitment to abortion as a sort of untouchable sacrament central to the women’s rights movement. Most remain unmoved by the slaughter of unborn girls, though they say they are committed to the rights of girls who are actually born. They are also unmoved as 90% of Down syndrome children were and are aborted. Other children with disabilities such as spina bifida or even cleft palate are sacrificed as well. Scarcely a word of protest is uttered by feminist leaders.

The dehumanization of the unborn child, which is regarded as disposable material, has led to other horrors undreamt of by even the most ardent feminist of fifty or sixty years ago. But even the discovery that Planned Parenthood was selling baby body parts was met with callous disregard by pro-abortion feminists, including president Cecile Richards, who defended the practice and who resented the “shaming” of her organization.

What also was not foreseen by the feminist vanguard was that when the unborn are seen as mere material rather than as human beings with rights, experimentation on human embryos would be inevitable, as the recent birth of a so-called three parent baby boy has revealed. As Nature magazine points out, “CRISPR technology can be used to alter the genome of almost any organism with unprecedented ease and finesse.”

Whatever is possible is done without regard to ethical concerns when humans are not regarded as human. God alone knows what other genomes are being altered in countries without restrictions on CRISPR technology, which is rapidly outpacing governmental efforts to regulate the technique. It is well known that government’s sclerotic pace is completely unable to keep up with technological developments. Those who know the tech proceed without regard for supervision behind closed doors. Who knows what hellish chimeras, once the stuff only of nightmares and science fiction, are now becoming reality?

Continue reading