Friday, November 10, 2017

Are feminists ok with men taking their place? Seems so...

Earlier this year, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced that transgender athletes should be allowed to compete in the Olympics and other international events without undergoing sex reassignment surgery, according to new guidelines adopted by the IOC. Medical officials with the IOC said they changed the policy to adapt to “current scientific, social and legal attitudes” on transgender issues.

Under the previous IOC guidelines, approved in 2003, athletes who transitioned from male to female or vice versa were required to have reassignment surgery followed by at least two years of hormone therapy in order to be eligible to compete.

Now, surgery will no longer be required, with female-to-male transgender athletes eligible to take part in men’s competitions “without restriction”.

Meanwhile, the IOC contends, “male-to-female transgender athletes will need to demonstrate that their testosterone level has been below a certain cutoff point for at least one year before their first competition.”

Hmm. I wonder what 'scientific' research was used to conclude that the only difference between men and women is the level of testosterone? Sexual dimorphism and basic biology seem to have completely passed these medical “experts” by in their rush to demonstrate politically correct inclusiveness. Besides, just how low in testosterone does a man need to go before he is rendered physically weak enough to compete as a “woman” without it being unfair to women?

What I want to know, in fact, is where are the feminists on this? For almost a century now, leftist feminists have been trying to undermine the value of femininity by encouraging women to stop having babies, to abandon domestic home life in favor of work life, and to basically deny their own nurturing nature – all while demanding that society recognize their “true worth”, whatever that is once you strip away all the unique traits that make women, well, women.

But now, it’s gone so far that real women aren’t even necessary. Men are taking their place, at least on the athletic playing field, and actual women are supposed to be okay with pretending that no matter how low the male hormone goes, men will still be physically stronger, and therefore, more successful in physical competition. Where is the feminist roar on that? I don’t hear it.

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Diversity and national security: Where do we draw the line?

In response to the terrorist act committed by Sayfullo Saipov on Halloween, President Donald Trump was right to say political correctness has no place in the war on terror. Unfortunately, it appears political correctness has played a big role in this war in a way that undermines our efforts to stay safe. Back in 2014, for instance, the New York Police Department dropped a program that monitored potential suspects of Islamic extremism.  

Created in 2005, the program, known as the "Demographics Unit", was a simple monitoring initiative that sent plain clothes detectives to mosques and other gathering places for Muslims to see if anyone was pushing extremist rhetoric on the community. While it might seem a bit intrusive, let's not forget that in a city of 8.5 million people with as many as 800,000 Muslim residents in the greater metro area, thousands of people died in an Islamic terror attack in New York City.

The monitoring program was going well until 2014 when Sharia Law advocate and female liberal activist, Linda Sarsour, spoke out against the program. (If her name sounds familiar, it’s because she is the one who organized the Women’s March in DC earlier this year after calling for a “Jihad against President Trump” and publicly expressing her hatred for Israel).

According to Sarsour, as quoted in the New York Times in 2014, "The Demographics Unit created psychological warfare in our community.” She didn't offer any evidence to support that claim, but apparently it was effective enough to get the NYPD’s intelligence chief, John Miller, to agree that the program had to go.

But after Saipov ran his rented truck into pedestrians this past Tuesday, killing eight and injuring about a dozen, it was revealed that he frequented a mosque in Paterson, NJ, that used to be monitored as part of the Demographics Unit program as a possible destination for, “budding terrorist conspiracies."  

Unfortunately, because Linda Sarsour convinced the NYPD that it was politically incorrect for its detectives to monitor “innocent” people, they were unable to monitor at all. But without proper profiling initiatives, how can we expect law enforcement to detect possible nefarious players who want to do us harm?

The people who call such profiling “racially insensitive” first need to be informed that Islam isn’t a race. They then need to be informed that there is nothing “xenophobic” about a real problem that deserves no-nonsense attention and action.  As Americans have proven from the beginning of time, we don’t fear foreigners. We embrace them. In fact, the ones murdered by Saipov this week were foreigners. But we can’t be foolish about the issue. Just ask the Europeans who have been told it’s wrong to put any limits on immigration. 

Too bad Senator Chuck Schumer doesn’t agree. Despite yet another terrorist attack in New York City, he is still pushing the “Diversity Lottery” visa program that brought Saipov to our shores, while pointing a finger at those of us who dare to demand reasonable monitoring of who enters our country, either before they get here or after they arrive. 

But to Chuck, “every immigrant is special,” as he announced this week. Tell me, just how special is an immigrant who murders innocent people? Are we supposed to celebrate him in the name of diversity while continuing to allow an open-border approach to letting anyone in? I don’t know. Maybe we should ask the surviving victims of Saipov for their thoughts on the matter.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. Or, email me at

Friday, October 27, 2017

Women's Convention is anti-woman

In case you haven't heard, a weekend of workshops and strategy sessions are currently underway at the Cobo Center for the Planned Parenthood co-sponsored Women’s Convention in Detroit, an off-shoot of the Women's March that took place following President Donald Trump's inauguration earlier this year. 

The event website landing page announces women are "Reclaiming Our Time" and states participants will learn "strategies for working towards collective liberation for women of all races, ethnicities, ages, disabilities, sexual identities, gender expressions, immigration statuses, religious faiths, and economic statuses." But what exactly is it that these women are reclaiming and from what is it that they want to be liberated? 

It seems to me the only thing women in America need to reclaim is the dignity they squandered with the ushering in of the sexual revolution which took women from being objects of respect and honor (e.g. men used to stand up when a woman entered the room), to objects of sexual expression for men who now have a larger pool of available and willing women who have bought into the notion that "sexual freedom" is an equalizer of the sexes without consequence. We can thank things like The Pill and abortion for that. 
Today's American feminist-protester woman fiercely guards these forms of "reproductive rights" because she claims they allow for the freedom to pursue careers and education without the burden of pregnancy and child rearing, and because they allow women to "be like men" in unfettered promiscuity (of course, I'm not saying that all men, by default, engage in such practices themselves). 
Truth be told, the only ones made "free" by these contraptions of contraception are the men who now no longer have to marry a woman in order to have conjugal relations with her, since the reduced risk of pregnancy causes both men and women to feel a false sense of freedom to be "casual" with one another. But from a strictly physical sense, due to different hormone levels released during intimacy, many men have no problem being physical with a woman he does not love, and then moving on to the next willing partner. Women being women, however, will never be free from the hormone-induced emotional attachments that form during such types of physical intimacy, and so they are often left feeling abandoned, hurt, and used. Anything but equal.
They're also the ones holding the bag in terms of physical consequences. Artificial oral contraception is a known carcinogen, and just one abortion in the first trimester increases a woman's chance of developing breast cancer by huge margins. In fact, over 120 studies conclude this fact, but the National Cancer Institute and other prominent organizations refuse to even acknowledge these findings, let alone push for government mandates to warn women of the risks. 

It's funny how just seven studies showing the link between tobacco and cancer was enough to prompt federal regulations mandating a warning on all cigarette packages, but something so bad for women goes unchallenged. Isn't that what's really anti-woman? 
As far as "liberation" of these women goes, aside from, say, extreme military front-line combat-type situations, tell me one right denied to today's American woman that is granted to a man. To me it seems, then, that what these women want to be liberated from is their responsibility to pay for their own abortions and contraception. It seems they demand to be liberated from others' rights to live religious beliefs in the public square. Perhaps they demand to be liberated from those who live by a Judeo-Christian worldview who refuse to participate in same-sex "wedding" ceremonies. Perhaps "Woman Marchers" don't want believers to be able to preach God's commandments regarding killing when it comes to things like abortion. Or maybe they don't want a man who once said something gross about women to be our president, but they, like Rose McGowan who spoke today at Cobo Hall, remain silent about true sexual predators like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein. Perhaps being liberal gives perverts a pass, while these protesting women demand liberation from phantom oppression. 
But what about those women who believe in God and try to live according to His law? The convention website may say the event is open to women of all "faiths", but would women who are pro-life and who live by biblical principles actually be welcome at this Women's Convention? Or is it just for those who reject the Bible's teachings and who cling to every false cause they can embrace in order to have something to complain about? 

If you want to find out, plan on being at Cobo Hall tomorrow, Oct. 28, from 8:30-11 am for the counter-convention gathering of  pro-life women who reject the leftist worldview and embrace true womanhood and the sanctity of life, as designed by God. Let's let it be known that the "Women's March" women don't represent all women, not by a longshot.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. Or, email me at  

Friday, October 20, 2017

The protest of decency

Governor Rick Snyder’s office said it will not ask the Michigan State Police director to resign after she shared a meme on Facebook critical of NFL protests, calling protesters degenerates.

Col. Kriste Kibbey Etue, the highest ranking official at the MSP, posted the following on her private Facebook account late last month:.

"Dear NFL: We will not support millionaire ingrates who hate America and disrespect our Armed Forces and Veterans. Who wins a football game has ZERO impact on our lives. Who fights for and defends our nation has every impact on our lives. We stand with the Heroes, not a bunch of rich, entitled, arrogant, ungrateful, anti-American, degenerates. Signed, We the people."

She apologized for it shortly thereafter following an outcry from those who can dish it out, but cannot take it. Said Etue, "It was a mistake to share this message on Facebook and I sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended,"

Still, calls for her to resign were loud and clear. As state Rep. Sheldon Neeley, D-Flint, put it, "It is clear that Col. Etue does not understand the nature of the protests, nor respect the constitutional rights of citizens to peacefully protest."

But what exactly is being protested? The protests are springing from the “Black Lives Matter” movement, which was founded on a false premise. Protesters claim that Michael Brown of Ferguson, MO, was shot to death by police as he held his hands up in surrender, yelling, “Don’t shoot!” Not true. According to black witnesses who testified under oath, Brown was leaning in the open window of the police car pummeling an officer, who then shot him in self defense. Another white police officer in a separate case shot to death a black man in the back as the victim was running away. That police officer, rightly so, is in jail. Every case is different, and when a police officer does something deliberately wrong he should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. When thugs deliberately threaten the very lives of police, they should be stopped.

Yes, there is individual racism in our country, there are some bad cops, and there are jerks in general. But let’s look at the double standards here. Very financially well-off and coddled athletes want to kneel to protest non-systemic grievances, and expect support and applause in the name of freedom of speech - while men and women much less wealthy are dying to protect their freedoms. But when a police official exercises that same right on her personal social network, she is excoriated and expected to resign. When a high school coach kneels on the football field, not in protest, but in praise of God, he is fired. But to kneel in protest of false premises? That’s supposed to garner worldwide support.

It's funny how NFL athletes don't want to protest the violence against police, or how about they protest the domestic violence and other deviance committed by members of the NFL themselves, or Hollywood moguls, for that matter. But maybe they think they're above actual degenerate behavior. So instead of fighting real evil, they need to find something else to moan about. 

Unfortunately, the only thing the anthem protesters are accomplishing is further division, and the stripping of one more piece of Americana from America, one more bit of innocent tradition, one more chance at unity. The national anthem stands for all of us and is a way for all of us to acknowledge the freedoms that few others in the world enjoy. But like the rest of the left, if it's something patriotic and decent, then it is something that should be protested.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Latest from the left: Conservatives worse than predators

In a recent interview, veteran actor, Ed Asner, was asked what he thought about the disgraced abuser of women, mega-Hollywood producer, Harvey Weinstein. In a real head-scratcher, Asner was quick to blame President Donald Trump. After all, Asner basically expounded, when you have people of authority like a sitting president abusing women, what are poor, helpless people like multi-millionaire, powerhouse little Harvey Weinstein supposed to do but follow the lead?

It didn't matter to Asner that Weinstein's long-suspected escapades date back years and years - long before Trump ever even was on the national stage. It doesn't matter that, while Trump was caught on tape saying something truly revolting, there have been zero substantiated claims that he ever actually abused women. It doesn't matter that an actual president, Bill Clinton, admitted to sexually abusing women. And it doesn't seem to matter that nobody is responsible for Weinstein's antics but Weinstein himself. But if a leftist can help a fellow leftist, what the heck. Let's blame a Republican. And let's especially never miss an opportunity to blame Trump, of course.

Meanwhile, Jimmy Kimmel, the self-proclaimed and self-righteous 'expert' on all things political and cultural, did a stupid shtick in front of his live audience about having something hidden in his pants, telling a woman to "feel around with both hands" to guess what's in his pants (it was a zucchini, by the way. Nice.). But there is nothing gross or inappropriate or abusive about this, right? No. Not unless Trump or some other Republican tried that stunt. Then Hollywood would be calling for their heads on a platter. Or worse.

And don't you just love how Ashley Judd had a mental breakdown in Washington, DC, last January about the "despicable" Trump's and Republicans' alleged abuse toward women in general, but she remained silent about her now publicized allegations against Weinstein? She only came forward in the past day or two after Weinstein was fired from his own company. Why was she willing to keep quiet beforehand about Weinstein, but was willing to publicly excoriate Trump for something that never even happened to her?

Incredibly, even Weinstein himself admitted he had this problem with abusing women. In fact, his own company had it written in his company agreement that he was allowed to sexually abuse women as long as he repaid the company for any settlements they had to pay, in addition to paying a fine of his own. In light of the sexual abuse being made public, Weinstein said he was going to get therapy. He then said part of his therapeutic healing would be to make a documentary about (against) the NRA and use the funds from that to finance efforts to remove Trump from office. So in the sick, hypocritical world of the left, it's ok to sanctify abuse of women because it's worse to be a conservative than a sexual predator.

I don't know about you, but I am really sick of the hypocrisy of these self-righteous, holier than thou leftists preaching about what's right regarding a supposed war against women by the right, but remaining silent on, and even committing, gross acts themselves.

If only they could just keep their hypocrisy to themselves rather than expose their blatant double standards on most things. It would be a lot easier to take.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. Or, email me at

Monday, October 9, 2017

Prayers not enough, or not enough prayers?

I've obviously been remiss in keeping up with my blog. For those of you aware of this, my dad is doing quite well following his open-heart surgery - thanks for all the prayers and support. It was a lot of care-taking for a few weeks, but now he is mostly self-sufficient, and walking a little more every day.

It's been an interesting conflation of events since his surgery. Since he has been going through so much in his recovery, our world and our country have faced a lot of challenges as well, especially with the hurricanes, flooding, wildfires, and, most recently, the sickening evil in Las Vegas last Sunday. 

It's common for many to wonder where God is in the face of tragedy and evil. And those who believe in God, Christians in particular, are often mocked for our beliefs, especially when we continue to believe in God during times of evil.

It's no surprise, then, that following the latest event in Las Vegas, people started asking "where was your God" in this, and politicians - past and present - like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi -- are quick to say prayers aren't enough - we need more control of guns. 

Aside from the fact that God gives us free will, and all the control of inanimate objects in the world won't stop evil, the other fact is that in a society that more and more diminishes God, we can only expect more heinous crimes like the one in Vegas. 

Simply put, it seems pretty clear that the more we've banished God from our culture, the more we've ushered in an anything-goes ideology that worships the individual's "freedom to choose" above all else. But maybe it's time we start looking at what a deadly combination Godlessness and self-gratification really is. After all, with no God, there are no consequences - like hell - and so why shouldn't those with a desire to kill just do what they want? The flip side, of course, is that it makes us all vulnerable to the whim of the one who feels there is nothing to lose.

It's remarkable that people like Hillary and Nancy have no problem with the murder of innocent humans in the womb, but they are horrified over the murder of people by the extent they can use it as a chance to exert control over everyone, that is. And of course, they feel duty-bound to remind us that turning to God for help is not the answer. 

Look at how that dismissal of God is working for us. Before we accept the random political premise that prayers aren't enough, though, at the very least, isn't it time we acknowledge that what we need is more of them? 

Thursday, September 28, 2017

NFL whiners more interesting than attack on Christians

(The following is an article from Christian News Alerts)

The NFL players boycotting the national anthem have overshadowed the more disturbing story of a mass shooting at a church on Sunday, which the media doesn’t seem to want to talk about.
According to The Blaze, this is because the mass shooting doesn’t fit the liberal narrative many in the media are trying to promote. NFL protesters opposing Trump is “sexier and more watchable” than a black immigrant from Sudan who killed a white woman and shot at a church full of Christians before he was stopped by a man with a legally owned gun.
Sunday morning, Emanuel Kidega Samson — who immigrated to the US from Sudan — shot and killed Melanie Smith in the parking lot of the Burnette Chapel Church of Christ. He proceeded to enter the church and fire upon those in attendance, injuring seven.
His attack was stopped when Caleb Engle, an usher for the church, attacked Samson. During the struggle, Engle was pistol-whipped but continued struggling with the gunman. Engle managed to escape, and went to his car to retrieve his own gun. He used it to keep Samson — who accidentally shot himself — compliant until police arrived.
This terrible tragedy was largely ignored by the media over the weekend. Instead, the mainstream media spent countless hours covering the supposed heroism of NFL players protesting Trump by disrespecting the national anthem.
Matt Walsh, the author of the article on The Blaze, believes that liberals in the media outlets took a look at the two stories and realized the NFL protests better fit with their narrative and ran with that, burying the mass shooting story.
In Walsh’s words, the church shooting flew under the radar of millions of Americans because it wasn’t deemed important enough. “That’s because a terrorist attack at a church, which was cut short due to the incredible heroism of an usher, is a minor and insignificant event compared to political demonstrations of millionaire football players, according to the media and a large portion of our society.”
Unfortunately, this is nothing new. USA Today reports that Americans were more obsessed with the videos of Miley Cyrus twerking at the Video Music Awards than the hundreds of Syrians gassed to death by their own government. At that time, Americans decided a celebrity making a fool of herself was more important than mass murder.
Yet Americans are not the only ones to blame for fixating more on the NFL controversy than the attack on Christians. The liberal media was responsible for diverting the attention away from the terrible tragedy in Tennessee, and instead toward millionaire football players apparently standing up to the President.
As Walsh states, the media ran with the NFL story because it is “vastly more politically convenient” when it comes to promoting the liberal agenda. A story of a true hero using his Second Amendment rights to keep fellow Christians safe from a madman — who happens to be a Middle Eastern immigrant — does nothing for the liberal narrative.
This bias and cherry picking of pro-leftist stories is a prime example of why many Americans distrust the media.
It also raises the moral and ethical questions regarding why those in the media — whose responsibility it is to inform and notify Americans of important events — decided disrespectful, unpatriotic athletes were more interesting than a mass shooting at a Christian church.