DEI Will Never Die

by Nicholas L. Waddy for American Greatness 

Thursday, June 29, 2023 was a very good day for the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution. On that day the high court struck down affirmative action and disallowed race preferences in college admissions.

Way back in 1978, the Supreme Court – brimming with good intentions – left open the door to race-conscious admissions, and we’ve been dealing with the fallout ever since. In practice, every elite institution of higher learning currently discriminates, covertly but systematically, against whites and Asians, in order to diminish the number of white and Asian students it is obligated to admit, and to maximize the number of Hispanic and black students.

The magnitude and scope of this discrimination is not exactly minuscule either. For instance, an Asian-American college applicant must generally score 140 points higher on the SAT than a white student, and 450 points higher than a black student, to have the same chance of admission to a private college. What’s more, a vast Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) infrastructure has been fostered in American higher education that supports this grossly biased and unfair approach to admissions and in general views “whiteness” (though not “Asianness”) as a blight on society that only “anti-racism” (which looks an awful lot like racism) can overcome.

The big takeaway today, therefore, unfortunately, is how far we still have to go to make this a truly color blind country. The Left is, as everyone knows, obsessed with race, gender and sexuality. They are determined to drive this country apart, into special interest groups and “protected classes,” and to hand out favors to these groups based on totally subjective considerations of “equity.”

To illustrate the ambiguities of equity, consider the case of the (Ivy League) University of Pennsylvania. What would an “equitable” percentage of black students in Penn’s student body look like? Penn is an institution of national prominence, so perhaps black students should be 13% of the student body, to mirror their percentage of the national population. Then again, blacks are only 11% of Pennsylvania’s population, so perhaps that is a reasonable figure. Then again, Penn is located in the city of Philadelphia, in which blacks are 38% of the population. On the other hand, in greater Philadelphia only 19% of the population is black. So, in short, which is it? Which metric would satisfy the conception of “equity” that the Left is advancing? And, if equity is not essentially numerical, then how are we to measure it at all?

The sad truth is that the Left need not, and will not, pin itself down in defining the specific factors that produce “equity,” or which define “diversity” or “inclusion” either (if it’s a question of including anyone they don’t like, you can bet that they’ll forget about inclusion in a heartbeat). This ambiguity allows them to shift constantly the battlefield on which the struggle for equity is fought – and it further permits them never to admit that the battle has been won, and thus to hold DEI as cudgels over the heads of their putatively racist, sexist and homophobic enemies forever. Meanwhile, members of protected classes are informed that “Nazis” are hiding behind every bush, and only the tender mercies of big government and the DEI apparatus can protect them. You can call it “divide and conquer” or “social justice” or whatever you like, but it’s the heart and soul of the progressive movement nowadays, and it isn’t going away simply because the Supreme Court says so.

In fact, colleges and universities have long since developed contingency plans to deal with a SCOTUS ruling like the one we saw on Thursday. Downplaying the importance of objective tests, like the SAT and ACT, is a big part of higher ed’s fallback strategy. This allows admissions decisions to be made based on much more subjective factors, which gives colleges and universities the wiggle room they crave.

In many parts of the country, because of local and state laws that already prohibit race preferences, colleges and universities have already shifted gears to supposedly race-neutral admissions policies that still, in practice, promote the interests of one race over another. At the University of Texas, for example, the policy is to let in the top 6% of every high school class. Never mind that you might come from the worst high school in recorded history — you’re in! The object of this approach was, of course, to promote “diversity” at the cost of academic rigor and personal merit. And it’s working.

Another neat ruse to boost the numbers of black and Hispanic students, and to stymie white and Asian applicants, is to place a very high value on subjective factors such as character and likability, and then to find whites and Asians deficient in these qualities en masse. Harvard has been accused of doing exactly that, and such strategies will proliferate in the wake of the recent SCOTUS decision. Indeed, the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, practically recommended such an approach: “…nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” If, therefore, one assumes (systematically) that black and Hispanic students have superior “grit,” because they have had to shoulder their way through “systemic racism” all their lives, whereas whites and Asians have lived lives of idle privilege, then a new, superficially “race-neutral” form of discrimination might be permissible.

Expect, therefore, almost every institution of American higher education to reach deep down into its bag of tricks to ensure that this Supreme Court ruling has little or no practical effect on the demographics of the students who attend our colleges and universities, nor on the background of faculty, staff, and administrators, all of whom will continue to grow less white (though not necessarily less Asian), by the day, as leftists insist they should and must. This is the “social justice” ideology to which almost all colleges and universities are implacably committed. It would mortify them, by contrast, to see any demographic indicators move in the “wrong” direction. And so they won’t.

What’s more, institutions of higher ed are beholden to accrediting bodies, and other oversight authorities, which are captive to the DEI agenda. Any college or university that actually practiced color blind admissions or hiring would quickly find itself in big trouble with accreditors, with the federal Department of Education, and with the media and the donor class. This assumes, of course, that some institutions of higher learning might actually dissent from DEI orthodoxy. There is precious little evidence that any of them do.

Ergo, don’t expect one Supreme Court decision to dent, even slightly, the culture of identity politics that infuses the progressive movement, the Democratic Party, and American education as a whole, including colleges and universities. These forces in America all have one thing in common: they view meritocracy as analogous to white supremacy, and they demand that government and other powerful institutions act to promote the advancement of disadvantaged groups, even at the cost of fairness to individuals. We can expect them to act accordingly.

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- July 7

 

Societies That Surrender Moral Foundation Historically Self-Destruct

by Allen Mashburn for American Greatness 

Despite its origins in the historic Stonewall Riots of 1969, “Pride Month,” which concluded last week, has devolved into a manifestation of moral decay in 2023.

The proliferation of the transgenderism movement, fueled by Marxist ideologies, within our public education system is concerning enough. However, the decision to dedicate an entire month to celebrate moral degradation is a step too far. While I am not advanced in years, I never envisioned a day where transvestites would lecture us on human biology, or sterilizers would pose as health professionals advocating for human rights. It seems that our nation has descended into a state of utter madness, where men can now claim pregnancy and the number of genders rivals the alphabet.

The recent videos circulating on social media from the Seattle Pride parade exemplify the alarming situation. Naked men openly display their genitalia in front of children, while in New York, drag marchers chant menacingly, declaring their intentions to target young minds. A so-called “all ages family-friendly” pride festival in Denver featured a performer enacting a sexually explicit scene on stage, even inviting members of the audience to partake in lewd actions. Witnessing such disturbing acts as men in underwear lasciviously twerk for children in Minneapolis is nauseating, to say the least.

We must also ponder the choices made by parents who expose their children to drag shows, parades with nudity, and other events that can potentially harm their impressionable minds. While parents possess the right to decide what is best for their children, the decision to subject them to such experiences unveils a deeper issue—the absence of a moral compass. In recent years, America has resembled an overindulged teenager, given newfound freedoms and spiraling out of control. While some parents have valiantly protested against age-inappropriate literature and pornography infiltrating school campuses, others have adopted an apathetic stance, normalizing the unthinkable.

Moreover, figures like Brian Krassenstein have emerged as social media influencers, actively seeking to normalize indecency on platforms like Twitter, where their influence is immediate and far-reaching. Krassenstein’s audacious remarks, asserting that witnessing a naked man on a bike would have minimal impact on a child, and even suggesting that sharing a video of such an act is worse than children witnessing it firsthand, are deeply concerning. One can hope that individuals like Mr. Krassenstein, with such distorted perspectives on the exposure of children to explicit content, does not become the societal norm.

The challenges currently plaguing America are not unprecedented. Societies that surrender their moral foundations, such as the nuclear family, in favor of self-indulgence and moral decline, have historically self-destructed. Ancient Greek civilization, for instance, not only tolerated but even celebrated moral discrepancies and pedophilia. Similarly, the decline of the Roman Empire can be attributed to the abandonment of strong familial bonds and moral values in favor of weakness and laxity. The striking parallels between the final years of ancient Rome and present-day America are alarming, serving as a stark reminder that history tends to repeat itself if we allow it to.

This pattern is not exclusive to the Greeks and the Romans; Babylonians, Persians, and Macedonians experienced similar downfalls. Notably, whenever a nation upholds high moral standards, it reaches the pinnacle of success. Regrettably, in our present-day society, a nucleus of individuals seems consumed by indecency and immorality. This ideology, or rather idiocy, weakens our nation and poses a threat to our national security. It underscores the urgent need for a strong nuclear family structure if we are to rebuild.

In his book Christians in the Wake of the Sexual Revolution, Randy Alcorn aptly noted that unless our country experiences spiritual repentance and undergoes a profound reversal of moral values, we risk inviting the same judgment that befell Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore, we must devote ourselves to daily prayers for our nation’s spiritual and moral well-being. Furthermore, from a legislative perspective, we must actively pursue the passage of bills aimed at curbing the societal degradation, particularly when it comes to protecting our children.

If there is one lesson we can glean from the events of Pride Month, it is that true pride is conspicuously absent. Instead, we find ourselves reduced to a mere shell of the nation we once were, a nation that valued virtue and righteousness. While this month may have come to an end, our battle is far from over. We must remain steadfast in our efforts to elevate the standards of righteousness in our land, for the sake of our children and the preservation of our national security. Our commitment should mirror the unwavering determination of the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy—we cannot afford to give up. America is worth fighting for, and our children are worth any inconvenience or sacrifice we may endure.

U.S. to send cluster bombs to Ukraine

 

OAN’s Roy Francis
9:23 AM – Friday, July 7, 2023

White House officials told NPR that the Biden administration plans to send cluster bombs to Ukraine as part of the next military aid package.  

An announcement is expected from the Biden administration later on Friday to confirm that the Pentagon will send thousands of Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICMs) to Ukraine as part of the new military aid package worth up to $800 million.

The DPICMs are surface-to-surface warheads that are designed to explode and send multiple small munitions, which can range from small rounds to small explosives, over a wide area to cause as much damage as possible. The rounds that are dispelled can also be shape charges that are designed to penetrate armored vehicle.  

What DPICMs bring to a battlefield is anti-armor and anti-personnel capability,” Pentagon Press Secretary Brigadier General Pat Ryder said on Thursday. “So, essentially it can be either loaded with shape charges, which are armor penetrating, or they can be loaded with fragmentary munitions, which are anti-personnel. So clearly, a capability that would be useful in any type of offensive operations, 

In 2008, an international treaty, which was signed by over 120 countries, banned the transfer, use and stockpiling of the weapons. However, the United States, Ukraine and Russia did not sign the treaty.

The decision by the Biden administration is met with criticism and resistance from other world leaders, as well as the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg who disapproves of the decision, however he said that the decision is up to individual nations.

“A number of allies have signed the convention but a number of allies have not signed the convention and it is for individual allies to make decisions on the delivery of weapons and military supplies to Ukraine,” Stoltenberg said. “So, this will be for governments to decide, not for NATO as an alliance. We have to remember that this brutality is also reflected by the fact that everyday we see casualties from cluster munitions on both sides. Russia [uses] cluster munitions in their war of aggression to invade another country, while Ukraine is using them] to defend itself.”

 

 

The risk of the cluster munitions comes from their high rate of failure, and that they do not always explode when fired. When they do not explode, civilians are at increased risk of death or injury if they accidentally discover an undetonated round and trigger an explosion.

U.S. law prohibits the transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate higher than 1%, however President Joe Biden is able to bypass the rule and the variant of the weapon that is planned on being sent to Ukraine has a failure rate of 2.35% or below based on tests conducted in 2020.

The aid package also includes Bradley and Stryker fighting vehicles, air defense missiles and anti-mine equipment.  

https://www.oann.com/newsroom/us-to-send-cluster-bombs-to-ukraine/   

R&B Singer Turns National Anthem into Awful, Angry Tirade Against America

Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

An R&B singer destroyed the national anthem Sunday at the New Orleans’ “Essence Festival,” turning the song honoring our nation into an angry rant about how awful it is.

Written by poet Francis Scott Key in 1814 to celebrate the United States’ victory over British forces in the War of 1812, the Star Spangled Banner went on to be adopted as our national anthem and has become a symbol of love and hope. Not to Jill Scott, though, who turned the inspirational lyrics into a hateful diatribe.

She raged into the microphone in overwrought, drawn-out verses, intending to come across as passionate but mostly appearing as if she had a really bad stomach ache:

Oh say, can you see, by the blood in the streets

That this place doesn’t smile on you, colored child

Whose blood built this land

With sweat and their hands

But you’ll die in this place, and your memory erased

Oh say does this truth hold any weight

This is not the land of the free

But the home of the slaves

I would like to point out to Ms. Scott that America is not, in fact, the home of the slaves, as the practice was abolished in 1865—one hundred fifty-eight years ago.

Watch, if you can stand it:

I noticed that the user who posted the above tweet said Jill Scott was worth $12 million, so I looked it up, and according to “Celebrity Net Worth” that is indeed true. Poor Jill Scott sounds very oppressed.

This is not the first time she’s sung the song with these lyrics, but it was her most high-profile performance.  The annual Essence Festival, sponsored by lifestyle magazine Essence,  takes place over the Fourth of July weekend and is one of the country’s largest African-American music events. They were very proud of Scott’s divisive message, tweeting:

Everyone please rise for the only National Anthem we will be recognizing from this day forward.

Jill Scott, we thank you! #ESSENCEFest

Guess they hate America too.

The Los Angeles Times has a whole piece on the origins of the lyrics during Scott’s teenage years, but I frankly don’t care, so I’m not going to read it.

Political strategist and radio host Joey Mannarino wrote on Twitter:

I love Jill Scott. She is the pride of Philadelphia and an icon. This is so heartbreaking for me to see. I could name you every song she’s ever done.

This might be a bridge too far for me though. So sad to see her go this route. She is so talented. She doesn’t need to go this route.

Podcaster Jason Whitlock was more pointed; he was just plain disgusted:

He wrote:

The safest, most opportunity-rich place on the planet for black people is the United States of America.

From the three Marxist lesbians who started BLM to Jill Scott, the black matriarchy keeps writing bad checks. Turned bitching and grifting into an art form.

I just don’t see how dividing our country like this is constructive. Claiming that America is “the home of the slaves” is just plain false. This version trashes a symbol that many hold dear to their hearts and is a middle finger to millions and millions of Americans.

This version of the national anthem helps nobody, improves no one’s life, heals no hearts, and brings no people closer together. Instead, it’s meant to divide the races, a shameful goal.

Netherlands migration: Dutch coalition government collapses - reports

 

The Dutch government has collapsed because of differences between coalition parties over asylum policies, according to media reports.

The four parties were unable to find agreement in crisis talks chaired by Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

The government was set up a year-and-a-half ago, but the parties have been diametrically opposed on migration policy for some time.

New elections will now be held, probably in the autumn    

Mr Rutte is expected to hand in his cabinet's resignation.

His conservative VVD party had been trying to limit the flow of asylum seekers, but junior partners D66 and the Christian Union refused to support the proposals.

A proposal to restrict entry to family members of refugees already in the Netherlands caused particular tension.

Mr Rutte, 56, is the country's longest serving prime minister and has been in office since 2010. The current government - which took office in January 2022 - is his fourth coalition. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66139789   

SHOCKER. Transgender Military Members Are Exempt From Fitness and Weight Standards

streiff reporting for RedState 

Last week, I posted on a hagiographic press release sent out by the US Army Sustainment Command on Major Rachel Jones. Jones, who, according to the Army, is living life “authentically,” is a man masquerading as a woman who spent well over a decade in open violation of Army regulations about transgenderism; see Our ‘Not a Woke Army’ Lauds Transgender Officer Who Broke Regulations for a Decade for ‘Living Authentically.’ At a minimum, “authentic” has now become a meaningless word.

Above and beyond the corruptness that allowed this to happen, many noted that Jones could not possibly pass the height-weight standard.

As it turns out, Major Jones may very well be exempt from all physical fitness and height-weight standards.

Here is where we get to the caveats.

I can’t find the original document for the quote. I have no reason to believe it does not exist as it comports with DoD transgender guidance.

DoD TG Handbook 9-4-20 by streiff at redstate on Scribd

That manual says

Physical Fitness Testing

Physical fitness is a fundamental requirement of your service. You are required to meet the physical fitness testing standards based upon your gender marker in your Service’s personnel data system and in accordance with Service regulations. If temporarily unable to meet the standards, it may be necessary to request an ETP or medical waiver.

While the 6-month exemption from physical fitness standards is not unusual for servicemembers undergoing rehab after an injury, applying it to someone for failing to make height-weight standards is bizarre. Further, awarding that rehab period for what is essentially a self-inflicted wound is, in my view, an offense against good order and discipline. 

Given what I’ve seen of the command climate in the military today, I really have to question whether any commander wishing to stay in command or get promoted again would really feel they have the authority to process a transgender person for discharge for failure to meed height-weight or physical fitness standards no matter how many six-month exemptions they had to grant. I would be willing to bet that for most units containing transgender personnel, the exemptions are of indefinite length unless they wish to conform to standards.

More than the exemption from the height-weight standard, the standard for deployability makes the system manifestly unfair. A transgender can’t be assigned anywhere that doesn’t provide the level of medical/psychiatric care they are receiving. If a transgender undergoes surgical mutilation, the chances of them ever being deployed to an austere environment or remote locations is probably zero. So while healthy men and women have their lives interrupted by serving in unpleasant places, the Full Monty transgender doesn’t have that problem.

The bottom line, if I can say that in a post of transgenders, is that there is no reason for the military to accommodate transgenders. Any contribution they make is more than offset by their drag on unit efficiency and esprit. President Trump was right when he pulled the plug on this nonsense, and we need to go back to that standard when we get a sane president.

Team DeSantis Thinks It Can Win by Painting Trump as ‘Pioneer’ of Woke Gender Ideology

Jeff Charles reporting for Redstate 

It appears Team DeSantis has not yet learned its lesson. In a baffling move, the DeSantis War Room Twitter account, which is Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Rapid Response team, published a video trying to paint former President Donald Trump as a “pioneer” of the incursion of radical leftist LGBTQ ideology into the zeitgeist, attacking his past support for the LGBTQ community.

DeSantis recently doubled down on the attack ad, claiming that it reflects Trump’s role in bringing this ideology into the mainstream. The governor and presidential candidate appeared on “Tomi Lahren Is Fearless” and justified the video’s attack by stating that Trump injected gender ideology into the mainstream and contradicted his current stance on issues like transgender athletes in sports. During the interview, DeSantis said:

I think identifying Donald Trump as really being a pioneer in injecting gender ideology into the mainstream, where he was having men compete against women in his beauty pageants, I think that’s totally fair game, because he’s now campaigning saying the opposite, that he doesn’t think that you should have men competing in women’s things like athletics. And so, we’ve been very clear on it, that we believe in protecting the rights of our girls and the rights of women athletes to be able to participate with fairness and with integrity. And ultimately, when you talk about some of the gender ideology that’s being unleashed in this country, in the State of Florida, we are fighting back against that, clearly in schools.

The video featured a clip from the 2016 Republican National Convention, where Trump pledged to protect LGBTQ citizens against “the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology” and opposed legislation limiting transgender individuals’ bathroom use. The video drew criticism from GOP members, including LGBTQ Republicans who withdrew their support for DeSantis. Trump’s spokesperson dismissed DeSantis’s remarks as a desperate campaign move.

I’ll be blunt: This is the absolute dumbest attack Team DeSantis has made against Trump so far.

It’s clear that nobody among the conservative base is buying into this narrative. Attempting to go “anti-woke” against Trump is simply not a winning strategy. Not only has the former president been an ardent enemy of far-leftist ideology, DeSantis seems to forget that Trump’s appeal to his base goes beyond opposing wokeism. Trump’s supporters resonate with his stance on various issues and appreciate his outspokenness.

DeSantis risks being perceived as a one-trick pony if he continues to harp on and on about being anti-woke. Indeed, so far, it appears the candidate has been banking primarily on positioning himself as the champion riding out to battle to slay the dragon of wokeness.

Conversely, Trump, known for his outspoken criticism of progressive ideology, has never based his entire political brand on being anti-woke, unlike his main primary opponent. He has discussed substantial policy issues such as the economy, immigration, and crime at length. As I noted previously, if DeSantis wants a chance at unseating Trump as the standard-bearer for the GOP, he needs to be seen as something more than just someone who fights the culture wars against wokeness.

Where are the discussions on policy? By solely focusing on being anti-woke, DeSantis misses an opportunity to demonstrate his depth and understanding of the complex issues facing the nation.

Besides, there are far better areas of attack against Trump, who never fails to give his enemies ammunition to use against him. The former president supported COVID-19 lockdowns far more than DeSantis ever did. Remember when he slammed Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp for opening up his state earlier than federal guidance advised?

Trump didn’t even so much as use his bully pulpit to rally public sentiment against state governments that were more than willing to impose mask and vaccine mandates on their residents while not even obeying their own rules. He had little to say about those who lost their jobs and businesses as governors and state legislatures viciously forced them to stay at home while limiting the number of people they could have in their homes. They compelled people to abide by these restrictions under the threat of having men with guns and badges throw them in cages for violating them.

Where was Trump?

Team DeSantis could also go after Trump on immigration. Sure, he implemented policies favorable to the base, but he never finished that “big beautiful wall,” did he? These are only a few of the areas where Trump is vulnerable. But painting him as some purple-haired social justice warrior ain’t gonna cut it, folks.

If he wants to win, DeSantis needs to pivot from this misguided attack strategy and present himself as a candidate with substance. Instead of fixating on the tired “woke” rhetoric, he should engage with the American people by providing clear policy proposals and demonstrating his ability to lead. Or he could just continue on this silly line of attack and go back to being Florida’s governor.

Top Republicans Demand Federal Investigation Into Retaliation Against IRS Whistleblowers

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist 

A coalition of top Republicans on Capitol Hill is demanding a federal investigation into allegations of retaliation against Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers who revealed misconduct related to the Hunter Biden investigation.

In June, the House Ways and Means Committee published the transcripts of interviews with a pair of IRS whistleblowers detailing improper interference from the Justice Department surrounding the federal tax probe of the first family. According to the whistleblowers, federal prosecutors concealed critical documents from tax investigators while officials from the Justice Department sought to undermine IRS efforts altogether.

[IRS Whistleblower Docs Show DOJ Obstructed Hunter Biden Probe To Protect Joe]

On Wednesday, Republican House and Senate lawmakers led by Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley sent a letter to the Office of Special Counsel urging the agency to open a probe into retaliatory conduct against the IRS whistleblowers.

“The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have reportedly engaged in unlawful whistleblower retaliation against veteran IRS employees,” lawmakers wrote. “Multiple news reports indicate that the whistleblower and investigative team were removed from the Hunter Biden investigation by the IRS at DOJ’s request as retaliation for making protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress.”

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson signed the letter with Missouri Rep. Jason Smith, who chairs the Ways and Means Committee; Kentucky Rep. James Comer, who chairs the Oversight Committee; and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, who chairs the Judiciary Committee.

“The importance of protecting whistleblowers from unlawful retaliation and informing whistleblowers about their rights under the law cannot be understated,” they wrote, without naming the whistleblowers. “After all, it is the law. Accordingly, we request that you immediately investigate all allegations of retaliation against these IRS whistleblowers…”

Transcripts of interviews between two IRS whistleblowers and Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee were made public last month after Hunter Biden struck a light plea deal with federal prosecutors. Hunter Biden pled guilty to two misdemeanor tax crimes and a felony firearm violation. The latter charge will be forgiven following two years of sobriety and a forfeiture of gun ownership.

The former chief of the DOJ’s tax division published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal recommending the judge presiding over the agreement reject the deal.

According to whistleblower Gary Shapley, a veteran agent with the IRS who served on the case, “the most substantive felony charges were left off the table.”

“We weren’t allowed to ask questions about ‘dad,'” Shapley said in an interview with Fox News. “We weren’t allowed to ask about ‘the big guy.'”

Hunter Biden did not pay taxes on $1.2 million between 2017 and 2018, Shapley told Bret Baier.

The Savagery of Automating Genital Mutilation Surgery

posted by Ward Clark at RedStateVIP 

Now, they are automating genital mutilation. I never thought I’d see the day.

Doctors, when admitted to practice, still take the Hippocratic Oath, last time I checked. That Oath, in the original, states in part (translated from the Greek):

Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets.

That first part is the principle you generally hear described as “first, do no harm,” while the second has to do with doctor/patient confidentiality; it is of the first portion that I’m concerned with today. Why?

Because the Oregon Health & Science University has now implemented practices that fly in the faces of health and science, and directly deny that portion of the Hippocratic Oath. What’s more, they have taken it to the next level and automated the process. I don’t see how we can call this ‘progress,’ and not ‘savagery.’

The gender surgery program at Oregon Health & Science University, a public teaching hospital in downtown Portland, provides a productive tableau for analysis. The program is led by Blair Peters, a self-described “queer surgeon” who sports neon-pink hair, uses “he/they” pronouns, and specializes in vaginoplasty (the creation of an artificial vagina), phalloplasty (the creation of an artificial penis), and “non-binary” surgeries, which nullify the genitals altogether. Peters and his colleagues have pioneered the use of a vaginoplasty robot, which helps efficiently castrate male patients and turn their flesh into a “neo-vagina.”

Business is booming. According to Peters, OHSU’s gender surgery clinic has “the highest volume on the West Coast,” and his robot-assisted vaginoplasty program can accommodate two patients per day. His colleague Jens Berli, who specializes in phalloplasty, boasts a 12- to-18-month waiting list for a consultation and an additional three- to six-month waiting list for a surgical appointment.

Remember the “first, do no harm” clause? This isn’t about someone dressing differently, changing their name, and presenting themselves as the opposite sex; if this issue were limited to that, most people wouldn’t care in the slightest. But while the transgender controversy began as a social movement and became a social contagion, it’s now dangerously close to descending into savagery. Yes, savagery; I think carrying out experimental, disfiguring surgeries on healthy bodies qualifies.

This procedure is plagued with complications. OHSU warns of wound separation, tissue necrosis, graft failure, urine spraying, hematoma, blood clots, vaginal stenosis, rectal injury, fistula, and fecal accidents. Patients must stay in the hospital for a minimum of five days following the procedure, receiving treatment for surgical wounds and having fluid drained through plastic tubes. Once they are home, patients must continue on transgender hormone treatments and manually dilate their surgically created “neo-vagina” in perpetuity; otherwise, the tissue will heal, and the cavity will close.

Look at that list of complications. Imagine suffering through that, because of a mutilating surgery carried out on a healthy body.  Now: Read that last sentence again. Let it sink in. Think about it. As unpleasant as it might be, picture it.

This is the process that now is in such sufficient demand that the Oregon Health & Science University, in a move that negates both health and science, is inventing a robot to speed up the procedures. And, no, they are apparently not limiting it to consenting adults.

One question provokes particular dread: Are the surgeons at OHSU using these machines on children? The answer appears to be yes. In an interview, Peters acknowledged that, in recent years, he has seen “a lot of adolescents presenting for surgical intervention” and that he has performed genital surgeries, including the robot-assisted vaginoplasty, on “a handful of puberty-suppressed adolescents.” Peters further stated that OHSU is “just putting [its] first series together” related to adolescent vaginoplasty and that “no one has published on it yet.” (When reached for comment, OHSU declined to respond.)

I’ll damn well bet OHSU declined to respond. They have to know, at some level, that they would be asked to defend the indefensible. When, in third world countries, people commit genital mutilation on their daughters to prevent sexual pleasure, they are (rightly) derided as barbarians. When done in an American university hospital, it’s celebrated as “gender-affirming care.” But there’s no caring, here. There’s nothing being affirmed. It’s a terribly risky procedure that almost never ends well, except for the attending physician’s bank accounts.

In H.G. Wells’ 1896 novel The Island of Doctor Moreau, Wells described a mythical island where a British vivisectionist – the Dr. Moreau of the title – is conducting unspeakable experiments, binding human and animal bodies together to create unspeakable monsters. Wells’ tale here was a warning about unchecked experimentation, the product of a time when vivisection was being widely debated in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. But the ‘transspecies’ aspect aside – for now – we are now looking down the same story arc, only instead of blurring the line of species, we’re blurring the line of civilization.

This is no longer about using the wrong pronouns. It’s no longer about beer companies making stupid marketing moves. It’s about health care providers ignoring their oaths. It’s about genital mutilation surgeries, doing irreparable harm to healthy bodies. It’s damn near Frankensteinian – and now it’s being done by machine.

United Nations' Power Grab: Threatening National Sovereignty and Individual Freedom

posted by Jeff Charles at RedStateVIP 

Holy threat to national sovereignty, Batman! The United Nations appears to believe that it should be in charge of global responses to various emergencies that impact multiple countries – and, if the reports are correct, our very own President Joe Biden agrees.

The U.N. is gearing up to position itself as the decider of how the international community responds to various calamities that might occur. This means it could even have the power to override America’s national sovereignty and dictate how our government functions in these moments.

This has been a long time coming. It appears that our own government might be willing to sign on to such an agreement. The United Nations is planning to adopt a Pact for the Future during its “Summit of the Future” in September 2024, which includes a proposal for a new “emergency platform.”

This platform would grant the UN significant powers to respond to global shocks like pandemics, and the UN would have authority over public and private sectors worldwide. The Biden administration has expressed support for this proposal, potentially giving the UN unprecedented control and endangering American sovereignty:

In September 2024, less than two months before the next U.S. presidential election, the United Nations will host a landmark “Summit of the Future,” where member nations will adopt a Pact for the Future. The agreement will solidify numerous policy reforms offered by the U.N. over the past two years as part of its sweeping Our Common Agenda platform.

Although there are numerous radical proposals included in the agenda, perhaps none are more important than the U.N. plan for a new “emergency platform,” a stunning proposal to give the U.N. significant powers in the event of future “global shocks,” such as another worldwide pandemic.

According to a message from United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, these “global shocks” would require the Emergency Platform to “actively promote and drive an international response that places the principles of equity and solidarity at the centre of its work.” The U.N. would also “ensure that those most vulnerable to a complex, global shock, and those with least capacity to cope with its impacts, receive the necessary support from those with the means to do so.”

This would ostensibly involve consolidating the efforts of various “stakeholders” across the globe, which would include governments, “international financial institutions,” “regional bodies,” “civil society,’ and others to address the issue.

This development is reminiscent of another story I wrote earlier this year regarding the possibility that the Biden administration would allow the World Health Organization (WHO) to dictate how the United States responds when there is a pandemic similar to the COVID-19 outbreak. Allowing the U.N. or any other international entity to wield such power poses a severe threat to our national sovereignty, individual freedoms, and democratic governance.

Granting the U.N. an emergency platform with broad powers undermines the principle of national sovereignty. It effectively transfers decision-making authority from elected representatives accountable to their citizens to an unelected global body. Countries should retain the right to determine their own policies and responses to crises rather than ceding control to an international organization that will not always act in their best interests.

One of the main concerns surrounding the UN’s emergency platform is the lack of accountability and transparency that accompanies it. With such extensive authority, the UN would not be subject to the checks and balances inherent in democratic systems. The decision-making process and allocation of resources would be opaque, making it difficult for citizens to hold the organization accountable for its actions. This undermines the fundamental principles of open governance and citizen participation. What is to stop the U.N. from trying to expand its power further, especially if our leaders are on board with the idea?

While the UN’s proposal emphasizes the need for a response to global shocks, the lack of clear criteria for triggering the emergency platform raises concerns about mission creep. By leaving the definition of “global shock” open-ended, the UN effectively grants itself the power to determine when and how to intervene in the affairs of sovereign nations. This opens the door for potential abuse of power and interference in domestic affairs under the guise of addressing crises.

The UN’s emergency platform could have far-reaching implications for individual freedoms. The proposed agenda suggests that the UN would bring together various stakeholders, including governments, private sector actors, and international financial institutions. This concentration of power could limit the freedom of individuals and businesses to make decisions according to their own interests and values.

This pact raises concerns about the potential for top-down, one-size-fits-all approaches that may not consider the diverse needs and circumstances of different countries and communities. It would essentially create an international ruling class endowed with the power to force its will on the world. America’s ruling class is already tyrannical enough without having a global apparatus with which to infringe on our rights.

Centralizing power in the hands of an unelected international body erodes the principles of democratic governance. National governments, elected by their citizens, are far better positioned to represent and respond to the unique needs of their populations. Allowing the UN to dictate policies and responses to global shocks undermines the democratic process and can lead to a disconnect between citizens and decision-makers.

These are the types of stories that fly under the radar as the nation is fascinated by Hunter Biden’s (alleged) booger sugar in the White House. Yet, these are far more important. If the reports are accurate, our federal government just might be selling us out to the forces of globalism. This should worry everyone, regardless of political affiliation.