The Passion of Scott Adams

Once whetted, the appetite of the woke beast is insatiable. But one senses it is nearly sated in its hate feast against Scott Adams.

by Roger Kimball at American Greatness

How do you imagine the woke beast? It is rough, surely, and slouches towards some unprofitable venue, so not Bethlehem. 

I think of it as something ravenous but episodic in its appetites, a sort of Polyphemus for hire. It gorges in a destructive frenzy and then retreats to some dank corner to belch and sleep and slobber. The world, appalled by the spectacle of its rampage, instantly begins making excuses for its viciousness—were not its victims somehow to blame? Then forgetfulness spreads its enervating fog and the Zeitgeist enjoins us to put it all behind us because, after all, what difference at this point does it make™?

I thought about the habits of the woke beast this week when the popular cartoonist and social commentator Scott Adams found himself caught in its masticating maw. When it comes to practitioners of his craft and sullen art, few can be more innocuous than Scott Adams. He is best known as the creator of Dilbert, a comic casualty of modern office bureaucracy. Adams also runs a subscription video podcast in which he drinks coffee and comments on current events. It was a 30- or 40-second bit of the latter that awakened the woke beast and set him on his latest rampage. 

Several days ago, the internet exploded with the news that Adams had gone on a “racist rant” during the show. That script must have been cleared with the woke committee central office because nearly every report I saw (and there were many) described Adams’ comments as a “rant” (CNN added the word “tirade”). But was it? The offending passage begins about 13 minutes into this episode. 

But it wasn’t a rant. My dictionary defines “rant” as “violent, loud, or extravagant speech.” It’s a matter of tone, and volume. What Adams delivered was more or less the opposite of a rant. It was sad, to be sure, but also understated and mannerly, things that no rant worth of the title would be caught dead embodying. 

Adams notes that he had been in the habit of identifying as black because he wanted to do what he could to help black people. A recent poll from Rasmussen changed his mind. To the question “Is it OK to be white” nearly half the black respondents answered “no, it is not OK to be white” or said they were uncertain. 

Adams was taken aback by the results of this poll. Among other things, it suggested that racism was not a white monopoly, as we have been taught to believe. If a large percentage of black people assent to the proposition, Adams reasoned, then that means that a large percentage of black people are racist. And, as we have also been taught, if you are racist, that means you are part of a “hate group.” 

Adams said he did not want to be part of a hate group. Ergo, he revised his earlier position. Now, instead of identifying as black and doing what he could to help black people, he advises whites to withdraw. Of course, you should be “friendly,” he stressed. But “based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people.” 

Oh, the howls of outrage that comment elicited! The woke beast was awake and on the prowl. “Dilbert has been cancelled from all newspapers, websites, calendars, and books,” Adams said. Why? “Because I gave some advice everyone agreed with. (My syndication partner canceled me.)”

Once whetted, the appetite of the woke beast is insatiable. A day or two later, Adams reported, “My publisher for non-Dilbert books has canceled my upcoming book and the entire backlist. Still no disagreement about my point of view. My book agent canceled me too.”`

It is true, by the way, that “everyone agrees” with the point that Adams made. Everyone knows it is true. But no one is supposed to admit that it is true. Adams made it all worse by observing that “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps . . . then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” Oh, wait. I got my notes confused. That wasn’t Scott Adams. That was the professional black Jesse Jackson in 1993. 

Thirty years ago, some embryo of woke commentators anguished over Jackson’s comment, decrying it as “racist.” And of course it was racist. It implicitly acknowledged the uncomfortable truth that the vast majority of violent crime is committed by blacks. Every study confirms this. Every liberal ignores it or seeks to explain it away. 

Several observers noted the similarity between what happened to Adams and what happened to the commentator John Derbyshire in 2012. Derbyshire, then a columnist for National Review, wrote a piece for Taki’s Magazine called “The Talk: Nonblack Version.” Noting that many black families sit their children down to tell them how to make their way successfully in a world dominated by whites, Derbyshire described the advice he would give to his children, including the advice to “avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally” and “stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.” 

Was that bad advice? Everyone knows that it was not. But it is, indisputably, racist, i.e., recommending different courses of action based on race. Once again, however, “everyone” does this, even if, officially, everyone also deplores it. And deplored Derbyshire’s column was. Careful readers will note the preterite in my description of Derbyshire’s affiliation with National Review. He was publicly excoriated and fired with a letter from the editor that has earned a place in the annals of nauseating proto-woke virtue mongering. 

I sense that the woke beast is nearly sated in its hate feast against Scott Adams. For one thing, he has been so successful for so long that there is not much it can do to him. It can yell and scream. It can preen and grandstand and cancel his contracts.

But I doubt Adams really cares. He will make his way. And now at least he knows who his friends are. He’ll get a new, non-woke agent, and new publishers. I was happy to see his tweet from March 2: “Only the dying leftist Fake News industry canceled me. . . . Social media and banking unaffected. Personal life improved. Never been more popular in my life. Zero pushback in person. Black and White conservatives solidly supporting me.”

X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- March 5

 

TV showrunners who co write a big episode, and act dumbly confused in an interview as to how clear it will be in how a beloved team member will be brought home from a long overseas mission absolutely piss me off!! 

And if you want to know what I'm talking about, here's the link: https://wwwp-lives.blogspot.com/2023/03/ncis-las-loser-showrunner-teases-finale.html

Here's tonight's news:

CNN and Election Disinformation

posted by Joe Fried at American Thinker 

My friend and I sometimes argue about media outlets like CNN and MSNBC. Why do they spread misinformation?

A. Are they grossly uninformed?

B. Do they know the truth but tell falsehoods anyway?

C. Do they think we are stupid or naïve?

My buddy feels that the media outlets know the truth but lie about it.

To me, it is more complicated. The nice-looking journalists who read the teleprompters are genuinely ignorant. On the other hand, the news producersprobably know the truth but spread misinformation anyway. Producers are the ones who select the topics, construct the programs, and hire the special analysts. Let’s consider this recent example.

CNN Misinformation -- A Case Study

Some time ago, Fani Willis, the Fulton County (GA) prosecutor, convened a special grand jury to investigate allegations that Trump tried to corruptly influence the Georgia Secretary of State to alter 2020 election results. Part of the grand jury report has been released. Let’s see how CNN described the results.

Around 6AM EST on February 17, CNN Anchor Kaitlan Collins made this statement: “And so clearly, [the grand jury report] shows you know, once and for all that... there was no election fraud here.”

The statement by Collins was misinformation because she left out critical information. A grand jury is a one-sided affair, and it hears only what the prosecutor lets it hear. Collins should have reminded her viewers of that fact. A grand jury decides absolutely nothing... “once and for all.”

If this statement came only from Kaitlan Collins, I would assume that the omission was unintentional. But similar words (and omissions) were repeated consistently throughout the day. To me, that suggests that CNN producerswere deliberately spreading misinformation. Here is the CNN misinformation timeline:

Approximate time (EST)	Claim
7:30AM	Collins repeats her 6:00AM statement.
11:40AM	Katelyn Polantz (Justice Reporter) proclaims jury found “no widespread fraud in Georgia in 2020.”
2:45PM	Anchor Kim Brunhuber and Political Correspondent Sara Murray make similar statements. Brunhuber introduces Legal Commentator Areva Marin, who says, “[t]here is no doubt that there was no widespread voter fraud...”
3:40PM	The Brunhuber/Murray statements are replayed.
4:30PM	Anchor Max Foster claims the grand jury’s vote “should put to rest any questions” about fraud in the election.
5:00PM	Sara Murray’s statement is replayed by Anchor Christine Romans, who introduces attorney Dave Aronberg. He says the grand jury found that “...there was no widespread fraud in the election.”

All those experienced CNN anchors, lawyers, and analysts eagerly cited the grand jury findings, but not one mentioned that those findings are entirely based on the prosecutor’s evidence, as she chose to present it. CNN was spreading coordinated misinformation.

The Infamous Phone Call

Let’s move from the misleading nature of the statements to the actual substance of the statements. Is it true, in fact, that “...there wasno widespread fraud in the election”? And, what about Trump’s telephone call? Were his demands illegal? What was the purpose of his call? Again, CNN was omitting important information.

Trump started by itemizing a long list of things he felt were fraudulent:

• “250–300,000 ballots [that] were dropped mysteriously into the rolls.”
• “A tremendous number” of people were told they had already voted.
• “4,502 voters who voted... weren’t on the voter registration list.”
• “You had 18,325 vacant address voters.”
• “[Y]ou had 904 who only voted where they had just a P.O., a Post Office box number.”
• “We had at least 18,000... having to do with Ruby Freeman. She’s a vote scammer, a professional vote scammer and hustler.”
• “You had out-of-state voters... 4,925.”
• “You had... absentee ballots sent to vacant addresses 2,326.”
• “So dead people voted... the number is close to 5,000 people.”

CNN ignored that context, and simply reported this short quotation: “I just want to find 11,780 votes which is one more that we have because we won the state” (sic). Without the context, it appears that Trump was asking the Georgia Secretary to fabricate votes. With the context, it is obvious that Trump truly believed (correctly or not) that he had the winning votes -- in spades.

More Missing Context

It is apparent from the phone call transcript that Trump hoped that the Georgia Secretary of State would agree he was entitled to 11,780 more votes. However, he and his team made it very clear that they would settle for an information-sharing meeting. Brad Raffensperger refused. He effectively said, if you want to see our official data sources, meet us in court.

Cleta Mitchell, a Trump attorney who listened in on the phone call, addressed the information sharing issue during an interview with Natalie Harp (OAN News on January 23, 2022). Said Mitchell: “That phone call was for the purpose of trying to reach a settlement... We said, well, why don’t you bring your evidence and we’ll bring our evidence, and let’s see who is right. And we had been trying to get them to do that for a couple of weeks.”

A similar sentiment was expressed by Bryan Geels, a CPA who assisted the Trump legal team with regard to Georgia election issues. In February, 2022, Geels spoke at an event sponsored by VoterGA.org (a Georgia nonprofit organization), and he discussed some of his election findings and the treatment he received from the Georgia Secretary of State. “Mr. Raffensperger... a quality auditor would not have been comfortable expressing any opinion affirming the results with so many unexplained irregularities in the data.”

• There are “over 97,000 votes that I believe shouldn’t have been counted.”
• “I flew out to Georgia to finally sit down with the Secretary of State and collaborate on the issues...”
• “Instead of following through on his agreement to sit down with the president’s expert, Team Raffensperger leaked the phone call to the Washington Post. I am still left to wonder why.”

The meeting was scuttled by the leaking of that call, and since that time, the office of Brad Raffensperger has relentlessly fought every effort to gain access to information and/or ballots. Despite this, important evidence has been uncovered.

Evidence is found

In March 2022, VoterGA.org issued a damning report on 15 categories of “impossible” and/or unsupported votes that are 45 times more numerous than Biden’s winning margin. All the 15 items are discussed in a March 2022 VoterGA.org video presentation. I wonder if the grand jury -- the one that decided “there was no widespread fraud in the election” -- was given that information by District Attorney Fani Willis.

Summation

Evidence suggests that...

1. CNN spread coordinated misinformation concerning the grand jury findings.
2. CNN misled by not providing context regarding Trump’s statement requesting 11,780 votes.
3. Access to information has been restricted by the Georgia Secretary of State.
4. Very serious election irregularities have been found in Georgia.

Tour The Trumpiest Trump Store Ever

‘It’s like getting paid for having group therapy every day.’

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist

TUCSON, Ariz. — The Trump Organization’s own gift shops have nothing on the Trumpiness of this border-town store in southern Arizona.

On highway 80 about 75 miles southeast of Tucson, Wyatt Forster and Carey Appolonia have been running a local gift shop selling all things Trump.

“We got tired of keeping our mouths shut,” Forster told The Federalist, which led the married pair from Tucson to open up the store seven months ago. Appolonia, a local model in Arizona, explained that her political views prompted her to be excommunicated from the other performers so the couple felt they had nothing to lose. Continued self-censorship, she said, wasn’t an option.

“I just couldn’t live like that,” Appolonia said.

Now they’re some of former President Donald Trump’s biggest cheerleaders, selling anything and everything one would expect to find in a typical gift shop, and then some.

Inside, visitors can find coffee mugs, watches, key chains, and ball caps of every kind under a massive television that plays Newxmax around the clock.

Customers can also buy bottles of honey labeled “Make Honey Great Again” modeled after the honey bear, except the bear’s head has been replaced with Trump’s.

Profanity-laced magnets and bathroom products featuring Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden even line the store’s tables.

The merchandise might suggest the owners hate leftists, with products reading “Joe and the Hoe Gotta Go.” But if their left-wing counterparts would actually speak to them (a tall order these days), they would quickly realize the owners merely despise leftism. Many of their friends are Democrats, but the couple is clearly fed up with the monolithic liberalism thrust upon them in Tucson.

“I always joke saying it’s like getting paid for having group therapy every day,” Appolonia said. “Because everybody comes in and they’re all feeling like it’s a safe place where they can gripe about what’s going on.”

“It’s some of the friendliest people you’ll ever meet coming in here,” said Forster.

The owners have a good time mocking the political circus in the process with the sale of items such as the “Trump Zen Garden” for said therapy sessions.

The couple also recognizes Trump as one of the most gay-friendly presidents ever to take office. Trump was the first president sworn in as a supporter of same-sex marriage and also appointed the first openly gay cabinet member.

At the Trump store, customers can buy rainbow beanies that read “Let’s Go Brandon,” a euphemism for “f-ck Joe Biden.”

While a crowded contest for the Republican presidential nomination is almost certain by the end of the year, the couple remained skeptical that any candidate could sway their support from Trump.

“I’m a Trumpster,” said Forster, adding that 2016 was the first election in which he had ever voted. Appolonia remains more open-minded but said that for now, Trump remains “number one” because “he wasn’t a politician.”

On This Day

The Boston Massacre

History.com Editors

On the cold, snowy night of March 5, 1770, a mob of American colonists gathers at the Customs House in Boston and begins taunting the British soldiers guarding the building. The protesters, who called themselves Patriots, were protesting the occupation of their city by British troops, who were sent to Boston in 1768 to enforce unpopular taxation measures passed by a British parliament that lacked American representation.

British Captain Thomas Preston, the commanding officer at the Customs House, ordered his men to fix their bayonets and join the guard outside the building. The colonists responded by throwing snowballs and other objects at the British regulars, and Private Hugh Montgomery was hit, leading him to discharge his rifle at the crowd. The other soldiers began firing a moment later, and when the smoke cleared, five colonists were dead or dying—Crispus Attucks, Patrick Carr, Samuel Gray, Samuel Maverick and James Caldwell—and three more were injured. Although it is unclear whether Crispus Attucks, an African American, was the first to fall as is commonly believed, the deaths of the five men are regarded by some historians as the first fatalities in the American Revolutionary War.

The British soldiers were put on trial, and patriots John Adams and Josiah Quincy agreed to defend the soldiers in a show of support of the colonial justice system. When the trial ended in December 1770, two British soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter and had their thumbs branded with an “M” for murder as punishment.

The Sons of Liberty, a Patriot group formed in 1765 to oppose the Stamp Act, advertised the “Boston Massacre” as a battle for American liberty and just cause for the removal of British troops from Boston. Patriot Paul Revere made a provocative engraving of the incident, depicting the British soldiers lining up like an organized army to suppress an idealized representation of the colonist uprising. Copies of the engraving were distributed throughout the colonies and helped reinforce negative American sentiments about British rule.

In April 1775, the American Revolution began when British troops from Boston skirmished with American militiamen at the battles of Lexington and Concord. The British troops were under orders to capture Patriot leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock in Lexington and to confiscate the Patriot arsenal at Concord. Neither missions were accomplished because of Paul Revere and William Dawes, who rode ahead of the British, warning Adams and Hancock and rousing the Patriot minutemen. 

Eleven months later, in March 1776, British forces had to evacuate Boston following American General George Washington’s successful placement of fortifications and cannons on Dorchester Heights. This bloodless liberation of Boston brought an end to the hated eight-year British occupation of the city. For the victory, General Washington, commander of the Continental Army, was presented with the first medal ever awarded by the Continental Congress. It would be more than five years before the Revolutionary War came to an end with British General Charles Cornwallis’ surrender to Washington at Yorktown, Virginia.

AOC Gets All Kinds of Triggered by Kevin O'Leary and the Harsh Truth About Dem-Run States

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

We all know it’s true but now, businessman, investor, and “Shark Tank” star Kevin O’Leary is saying it bluntly: he told the CNN morning show hosts that Democrat-led states are “uninvestable” because they are “punishing people if they’re successful,”  as our sister site Townhall.com writes:

“I don’t put companies here in New York anymore, or in Massachusetts, or in New Jersey, or in California. Those states are uninvestable. The policy here is insane; the taxes are too high,” O’Leary explained, adding, “the regulatory environment is punitive. I had a project in Upstate New York behind the grid in Niagara Falls for electricity — a global data center we were building. Eventually, it got so bad with the politicians in the local region and the state policy we moved it to Norway and all the jobs.”

O’Leary said that he had a conversation with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), telling her that businesses were moving out of her state because of being overtaxed.

‘You are punishing people if they are successful, you overtax them, you hit them with a super tax. New Jersey, what a mess! New York, uninvestable,’ he told the Democratic Senator.

When O’Leary went on to explain on CNN how New York is uninvestable, host Kaitlan Collins claimed he’d likely get some pushback from the folks in New York.

He said he’d love to debate them including people like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), “She’s great at killing jobs. She kills jobs by the thousands,” O’Leary declared, referencing the Amazon fiasco where she cost the city 25,000 good-paying jobs. After they faced flack from her, Amazon then decided to go elsewhere to a more friendly environment like Virginia. AOC threatened to sue them, O’Leary said.

When Collins came to AOC’s defense, co-host Don Lemon surprisingly backed him up, saying “He’s saying what a lot of people are saying.”

That triggered an incoherent AOC, who doesn’t like the truth.

“If it’s so ‘uninvestable,’ then why is NYC home to some of the most billionaires in the world?” AOC babbled. “This is what billionaires do. They leverage their power to gain platforms and spread unsubstantiated claims to push policies that are even more favorable to them than they already are.”

Um, “some of the most billionaires”? What does that even mean? But this is typical AOC. She babbles incoherently, but won’t listen to what business people are telling her about reality. Then that last sentence of hers — substitute “politicians” for “billionaires” and it would be more truthful.

Also, having a home in New York isn’t necessarily the same thing as putting the business there. But the truth is that residents, not just businesses, are also fleeing blue states like New York, because of the taxes, the crime, and the horrible policies for places like Texas and Florida. I wrote about that on Friday, when Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), AOC’s fellow socialist, tried to throw down with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

She and her socialist fellows are clueless. But the people are letting them know—they’re voting with their feet, as they flee.

Adam Schiff Slams Tucker Carlson in Nuclear-Level Self-Awareness Fail

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Adam Schiff really doesn’t like Tucker Carlson, and he let it be known on social media on Friday evening.

In what I’d describe as a delusional rant, Schiff attacked Carlson as a “weak man” who values “money and notoriety over truth and decency.” Truly, it’s one of the biggest self-awareness fails I’ve seen in politics, and that’s saying something.

I’ve got one question: Has Adam Schiff met Adam Schiff? Perhaps I can arrange a meet-up?

Of note is that Schiff was removed from the House Intelligence Committee because he couldn’t stop lying about and leaking materials for political gain. And speaking of “election lies,” you may recall that he has been the top pusher of the Russian collusion hoax, promoting the idea that Russia “stole” the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.

Even after it became clear that there was no evidence of such nonsense, up to and including Robert Mueller not finding any, Schiff continued to spread those election lies. For years, the California congressman told media outlets like CNN and MSNBC that he had seen evidence that proved Trump was colluding with Russia. He has still never delivered on that.

It wasn’t until mid-2020 that Schiff, then head of the intel committee, began to finally release the House Russian collusion investigation transcripts. What they showed was the complete opposite of what he had been claiming they showed, with no one substantiating the theory at all.

Schiff didn’t stop his lies there, though. He was also behind Trump’s first impeachment, which was based on the idea that a whistleblower (almost certainly, disgraced far-left operative Alexander Vindman) had come forward without any interference. Schiff claimed that his office had never met with the whistleblower. That was not true.

I’d say that’s the behavior of a “weak” man, wouldn’t you? We could also talk about Schiff’s fear-mongering on a variety of topics, from Russian collusion to climate change, but I think I’ve made my point. He’s a massive hypocrite who routinely lies for political purposes, and he’s the last person who should be calling out Tucker Carlson or anyone else.

Besides, Carlson did not lie to his audience about the 2020 election. In fact, he got into a very public fight with Sidney Powell because she refused to provide evidence for her voter fraud claims. At the very least, Carlson kept a skeptical eye, and his claims about 2020 have largely centered on the proven scheme by the FBI and social media to censor negative press about Joe Biden (i.e. the Hunter Biden laptop).

That’s better than what Schiff did when he tried to wholesale push a lie not just on television, but via the governmental power of the US House of Representatives. One of those two things is far more dangerous than the other.

The Sex-Ed Industrial Complex Revolves Around Planned Parenthood And Is Fueled By Your Tax Dollars

Planned Parenthood carefully controls and coordinates the entire policymaking process to promote its goal of sexual revolution.

by Anna Miller & Scott Yenor for The Federalist

Schools have assumed an outsized role in sex education in the past 50 years. Today, schools propagandize on behalf of transing kids, kinky sex, and coming out as gay. But this isn’t a problem just in leftist enclaves — schools in red states are promoting the same propaganda as schools in blue states. How can this be happening, even in supposedly conservative jurisdictions?

Planned Parenthood, as we show in our new report from the Claremont Institute, carefully controls and coordinates the entire policymaking process to promote its goal of sexual revolution. In Congress, it seeks riders and findings to make the funding of abstinence-only sex education more difficult; it has spearheaded the effort to favor programs that reduce sexual risk as opposed to avoiding sexual risk.

This process results from concerted action at the highest levels of government, led by an iron triangle of activist pressure groups, legislative allies, and aligned administrative activists. Planned Parenthood is grooming children to be the vanguard of sexual perversity and degeneracy in a new, sexually liberated America.

Not only does the influence of Planned Parenthood spearhead the sexual revolution in America’s schools and beyond, but its activity also illustrates how Big Government funds and supports leftist political activity more generally. The left depends on funneling national tax dollars toward its favored causes — and conservatives have all but abandoned the field to such efforts.

Congress has established at least four funding streams for sex education. Both the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) and Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) initiatives are competitive grant programs left over from the Obama era. Two Sexual Risk Avoidance Education (SRAE) programs, passed in the Trump administration, were originally designed to emphasize abstinence-only-until-marriage education. These four programs, housed within Health and Human Services, cumulatively dispensed $228 million through 243 grants between 2020 and 2023.

Planned Parenthood and its affiliates dominate the grant process. According to our study of award winners, nearly $167 million, comprising 80 percent of HHS sex education funding, went to grantees partnering with Planned Parenthood. Seventy-nine percent of successful programs used Planned Parenthood-endorsed curricula. Planned Parenthood and its affiliates won 86 percent of TPP funds, 90 percent of PREP funds, and about three-quarters of SRAE funds.

Planned Parenthood’s main work comes from carefully priming and directing the grantmaking process within the administrative state. First, Planned Parenthood and its affiliates developed National Sexuality Education Standards (NSES) and, in conjunction with the CDC, they developed the Health Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (HECAT). The NSES and HECAT are leading edges of the sexual revolution.

The second edition of NSES, published in 2020, requires teaching gender identity to kindergarteners and puberty blockers to third graders. NSES also requires teaching about abstinence — but it is the new abstinence, which allows for vaginal sex in the backseat of the car so long as one uses a condom. Almost half of America’s school districts have adopted Planned Parenthood’s sex education standards as curricula.

Planned Parenthood and affiliates then design curricula to satisfy their own NSES and HECAT standards. In fact, there is a ratchet built into the grant programs so that ever more radical curricula can be developed. Twenty-five percent of TPP funding must go to the development of new sex education products — so that the leading edge of the sexual revolution can be inched forward with monies from the federal government. One such innovative program is a $1.5 million grant to the Center for Innovative Public Health Research, which developed Girl2Girl, an education program for “girls who are into girls.” Today’s innovative programs are tomorrow’s staples like Making Proud Choices! or Reducing the Risk, each used in hundreds of school districts around the country.

Grantees must also select from curricula deemed “medically accurate” by HHS. Planned Parenthood has mastered the art of having curriculum designated “medically accurate” through TPP Evidence Review. Of more than 600 studies evaluated under TPP Evidence Review, only 24 of them were approved for use in schools, and Planned Parenthood endorsed or created 17 of them.

All of this is possible because the granting agencies within HHS are staffed with left-wing political activists who bend the administration of programs to like-minded groups. HHS itself has a department-wide commitment to leftist sexual ideology in its Equity Action Plan. In the context of sex education, this means pursuing “equity” between gays and non-gays or transgender-identifying people so that groups supposedly on the outs in American society have a chance to become grant recipients.

Thus the iron triangle is complete: Congress appropriates and issues friendly amendments; bureaucrats direct a process that favors aligned interest groups like Planned Parenthood; Planned Parenthood receives grants, develops curriculum, sells other curricula, and shapes the standards by which grants are evaluated. Breaking into this process is not easy for groups that do not already share the values and goals of the movement.

Only Congress can break up this iron triangle of radicalism. The public is wondering how we are losing children to these degenerate ideologies. The answer is not simple, but part of the solution is easy to identify: Defund national sex education programs and refuse to teach them at the state level.