Showing posts with label transgenderism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transgenderism. Show all posts

Saturday, May 17, 2025

Court Watch

Chaos was the law of nature; Order was the dream of man. 

Henry Adams.

A glimpse into what's going on in the law, and the Court's.


April 21, 2025

1.  The U.S. Supreme Court had issued a temporary stay on deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador under the Enemy Aliens Act, as it well should have.  There isn't a war going on.

The pause is so that it can take the question in chief.

On the same basic topic, a Federal judge has issued a finding of probable cause of criminal contempt for the administration's refusal to adhere to his order regarding such deportations.

2.  Wyoming Tribe's Law Firm One Of The Few Fighting Trump's Big-Law Orders

Trump's ongoing assault on the law includes assaulting law firms that have displeased him. Quite a few have caved in, but this one didn't.

3.  A federal judge ordered that Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk be transferred from a detention center in Louisiana to Vermont no later than at the start of next month.

4.  The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Trump administration's plans to end birthright citizenship next month.  Trump, in one of his many stupid statement moments, said that this should be an easy win as birthright citizenship was tied to slavery, which is really ignorant.

5.  Wyoming Supreme Court mulls constitutionality of state’s abortion bans: Much like the case, Wednesday’s hearing largely focused on whether a section of the state’s constitution that protects individuals’ rights to make their own health care decisions prevents the state from banning abortion.

A frustrating thing for conservatives who would like to find a more middle of the road set of people to vote for, now that the Wyoming Republican Party is in a civil war between real conservatives and populists, is that the Democratic Party nationally and locally just can't wash it hands of blood.  

It puts voters in a horrible position.  Insane gerontocracy v. seas of blood.

Former Wyoming Supreme Court Justice Keith Kautz created some controversy when he joined some legislators in a prayer session associated with the oral arguments, stating as a prayer:

I especially pray for the justices on the Wyoming Supreme Court.  May they know that the true beginning of wisdom is to acknowledge you. Give each of them wisdom and courage in deciding the case coming next week. Let them see how much you love each human and the world you created.

I don't see a problem with that, but apparently some people did.  Justice Kautz noted that he asked, upon retiring, not to be assigned to any cases dealing with abortion because of his religion based opposition to it.  He apparently is a member of a Baptist group called "Converge". 

6.  A group of Wyoming lawyers wrote an open letter about recent legal developments.  It was directed at Wyoming's Congressional representation.

Condemn attacks on judiciary, Wyoming lawyers and judges urge delegation

The letter was met with a "pound sand" response from that representation which went on to say that Federal courts had too much jurisdiction, which they are seeking to limit.

That's wrong, and that's a mistake.

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts

April 24, 2025

Trump has issued an order which takes on accrediting bodies, including the ABA.

REFORMING ACCREDITATION TO STRENGTHEN HIGHER EDUCATION

Executive Orders

April 23, 2025

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  A group of higher education accreditors are the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities American students can spend the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants dispersed each year.  The accreditors’ job is to determine which institutions provide a quality education — and therefore merit accreditation.  Unfortunately, accreditors have not only failed in this responsibility to students, families, and American taxpayers, but they have also abused their enormous authority.

Accreditors routinely approve institutions that are low-quality by the most important measures.  The national six-year undergraduate graduation rate was an alarming 64 percent in 2020.  Further, many accredited institutions offer undergraduate and graduate programs with a negative return on investment — almost 25 percent of bachelor’s degrees and more than 40 percent of master’s degrees — which may leave students financially worse off and in enormous debt by charging them exorbitant sums for a degree with very modest earnings potential.

Notwithstanding this slide in graduation rates and graduates’ performance in the labor market, the spike in debt obligations in relation to expected earnings, and repayment rates on student loans, accreditors have remained improperly focused on compelling adoption of discriminatory ideology, rather than on student outcomes.  Some accreditors make the adoption of unlawfully discriminatory practices a formal standard of accreditation, and therefore a condition of accessing Federal aid, through “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or “DEI”-based standards of accreditation that require institutions to “share results on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the context of their mission by considering . . . demographics . . . and resource allocation.” Accreditors have also abused their governance standards to intrude on State and local authority.

The American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (Council), which is the sole federally recognized accreditor for Juris Doctor programs, has required law schools to “demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion” including by “commit[ting] to having a student body [and faculty] that is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.”  As the Attorney General has concluded and informed the Council, the discriminatory requirement blatantly violates the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).  Though the Council subsequently suspended its enforcement while it considers proposed revisions, this standard and similar unlawful mandates must be permanently eradicated.

The Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which is the only federally recognized body that accredits Doctor of Medicine degree programs, requires that an institution “engage[] in ongoing, systematic, and focused recruitment and retention activities, to achieve mission-appropriate diversity outcomes among its students.”  The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, which is the sole accreditor for both allopathic and osteopathic medical residency and fellowship programs, similarly “expect[s]” institutions to focus on implementing “policies and procedures related to recruitment and retention of individuals underrepresented in medicine,” including “racial and ethnic minority individuals.”  The standards for training tomorrow’s doctors should focus solely on providing the highest quality care, and certainly not on requiring unlawful discrimination.

American students and taxpayers deserve better, and my Administration will reform our dysfunctional accreditation system so that colleges and universities focus on delivering high-quality academic programs at a reasonable price.  Federal recognition will not be provided to accreditors engaging in unlawful discrimination in violation of Federal law.

Sec. 2.  Holding Accreditors Accountable for Unlawful Actions.  (a)  The Secretary of Education shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, hold accountable, including through denial, monitoring, suspension, or termination of accreditation recognition, accreditors who fail to meet the applicable recognition criteria or otherwise violate Federal law, including by requiring institutions seeking accreditation to engage in unlawful discrimination in accreditation-related activity under the guise of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives.

(b)  The Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, investigate and take appropriate action to terminate unlawful discrimination by American law schools that is advanced by the Council, including unlawful “diversity, equity, and inclusion” requirements under the guise of accreditation standards.  The Secretary of Education shall also assess whether to suspend or terminate the Council’s status as an accrediting agency under Federal law.

(c)  The Attorney General and the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall investigate and take appropriate action to terminate unlawful discrimination by American medical schools or graduate medical education entities that is advanced by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or other accreditors of graduate medical education, including unlawful “diversity, equity, and inclusion” requirements under the guise of accreditation standards.  The Secretary of Education shall also assess whether to suspend or terminate the Committee’s or the Accreditation Council’s status as an accrediting agency under Federal law or take other appropriate action to ensure lawful conduct by medical schools, graduate medical education programs, and other entities that receive Federal funding for medical education.

Sec. 3.  New Principles of Student-Oriented Accreditation.  (a)  To realign accreditation with high-quality, valuable education for students, the Secretary of Education shall, consistent with applicable law, take appropriate steps to ensure that:

(i)    accreditation requires higher education institutions to provide high-quality, high-value academic programs free from unlawful discrimination or other violations of Federal law;

(ii)   barriers are reduced that limit institutions from adopting practices that advance credential and degree completion and spur new models of education;

(iii)  accreditation requires that institutions support and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity amongst faculty in order to advance academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and student learning;

(iv)   accreditors are not using their role under Federal law to encourage or force institution to violate State laws, unless such State laws violate the Constitution or Federal law; and

(v)    accreditors are prohibited from engaging in practices that result in credential inflation that burdens students with additional unnecessary costs.

(b)  To advance the policies and objectives in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of Education shall:

(i)    resume recognizing new accreditors to increase competition and accountability in promoting high-quality, high-value academic programs focused on student outcomes;

(ii)   mandate that accreditors require member institutions to use data on program-level student outcomes to improve such outcomes, without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex;

(iii)  promptly provide to accreditors any noncompliance findings relating to member institutions issued after an investigation conducted by the Office of Civil Rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) or Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);

(iv)   launch an experimental site, pursuant to section 487A(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094a(b)), to accelerate innovation and improve accountability by establishing new flexible and streamlined quality assurance pathways for higher education institutions that provide high-quality, high-value academic programs;

(v)    increase the consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness of the accreditor recognition review process, including through the use of technology;

(vi)   streamline the process for higher education institutions to change accreditors to ensure institutions are not forced to comply with standards that are antithetical to institutional values and mission; and

(vii)  update the Accreditation Handbook to ensure that the accreditor recognition and reauthorization process is transparent, efficient, and not unduly burdensome.

Sec. 4.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

                              DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

April 26, 2025

The Trump administration really took a step towards Nazism with the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan for supposedly interfering with immigration laws.

Wyoming’s crossover voting ban and closed primary elections are being challenged in a newly filed civil action.

This should be really interesting.

Virginia Giuffre, who accused Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse, has died by suicide at age 41.  Prince Andrew's fall is directly tied to her, and there's no doubt that they met when she was just 17 years old, although he denied any improper conduct with her.

She was a married woman with three children, and had relocated to Australia. Apparently she and her husband had recently separated, and she had recently been in an automobile accident.

The topic of releasing the Epstein files has come up, but so far the Trump administration has failed to release them.  Trump, of course, knew Epstein.

April 29, 2025

Hageman, Barrasso Say Judges Who Shield Illegal Immigrants Should Be Arrested

President Donald Trump’s administration did not go too far in arresting judges for allegedly shielding illegal immigrants from federal agents, say members of Wyoming’s congressional delegation.

April 30, 2025

Judge: Rock Springs school didn’t violate parental rights in transgender pronoun case: School district officials, educators did not keep information from high schooler’s parents or violate mother’s religious rights, federal judge concludes.

May 2, 2025

A federal judge in Texas barred the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelans from South Texas under the Enemy Aliens Act.

May 3, 2025

I missed it, as I was busy, but Law Day, which is May 1, was rebranded by Trump as Loyalty Day.

The meanings aren't even remotely close.

A Federal Court blocked the Trump administration sanctions on a U.S. law firm.

May 16, 2025


A retired lawyer has sued Secretary of State Chuck Gray maintaining that as Gray spread lies about the January 6 insurrection, he supported the campaign of insurrectionist Donald Trump and therefore is disqualified from office under the 14th for being an insurrectionist himself.

That suit will go nowhere, it's really strained.

Trump is an insurrectionist and isn't qualified to hold office, and Gray did support him, but there was never an adjudication in Wyoming as to Trump's status and therefore Gray would have been entitled to argue in favor of him, even with wild fantasies that the election was stolen.

Moreover, the 14th Amendment in the end disallows an insurrectionist from being seated in office, which is why I take the position that Trump is not currently the President, but it also allows for the disqualification to be lifted by Congress.  I think, therefore, that it would have been valid to argue that Trump should be elected, as Congress could have lifted the disability.  It simply never came up.

Lawsuits like this amount to pointless tilting at windmills and frankly discredit those who oppose Trump by being goofy.  Gray has resorted to his usual speech decrying the "radical left". That speech has grown tiresome and I frankly doubt anyone listens to it anymore, but it is giving him something to complain about that fits in with his campaign's past themse, and it likely future one.

On other news, the Federal Court is allowing UW sorority sisters to amend their complaint against the man who has been admitted as a sister in their sorority.

A lot of people have heard that the Supreme Court heard arguments on birthright citizenship this week, but it didn't.  It heard a case on nationwide injunctions which involved birthright citizenship.  The court can, and probably will, issue its opinion without addressing the question of citizenship.

May 17, 2025

The US Supreme Court extended an injunction prohibiting the deportation of Venezuelans under the Enemy Alien Act, with their being two dissents.

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist 84th Edition. The uncomfortably agreeing with the far right edition (on some things). Hegseth orders transgenderism out and a bill to outlaw pornography.

"Transgendered" troops to depart.

I'll be frank, I don't think transgenderism exists at all.

Gender dysphoria, however, certainly does.  It's a psychological condition, and indeed, a mental illness, often a temporary one.

Moreover, "transitioning from a man to a woman", or vice versa, is impossible.

Whether or not that fiction should be allowed to medically occur for adults (for anyone not in their majority, it's child abuse), is another thing.  I basically don't feel that it should be allowed, as its a manifestation of a mental illness that isn't served by being medically and surgically coddled, but I'll also fully admit there's more than one allowable medical procedure I don't think should be legal either.  Plastic surgery, for example, for mere cosmetic reason for uninjured and the morphologically normal people is also wrong, in my view, and that's not the only such thing.

Nonetheless, the sudden, and it was sudden, post Obergefell societal trend towards treating this mental delusion as something that should be fully supported is not only stunning, but it's flat out wrong.  It may be the only mental illness which has rising to be not only culturally tolerated, but for which the left makes cultural demands.  As I predicated at the time of the Obergefell, making such demands would have a societal ripple that would be devastating, and it has been. There's a straight path from Obergefell to  Donald Trump, as what it brought in was just a bridge too far.

So, here, I find  myself agreeing with Secretary Hegseth's action, even though I'm not a fan of Secretary Hegseth.




As readers here know, I don't agree with letting women serve in combat, so I'm clearly on the far edge of the right on these matters.  But I don't feel that appropriate.  Be that as it may, while women's cycles propose challenges to their serving as combat troops, they don't require medication just to exist in their state.  The "transgendered" do.  So, setting aside that what transgenderism really is, is a mental illness, it'd rapidly become a physical illness to a soldier trapped in an isolated combat environment or a prisoner or war.  As stated here some time ago, I fear for women who will be POWs, as I know exactly what they're going to be subject to. For a soldier who was "transgendered", the treatment as a POW would be barbaric.

By the way, there's a transitioned high school softball picture who has been blowing the doors off of her opponents with her pitches.  Well, she's genetically a guy.

This is just wrong, and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

I'll also note that I may be one of the view Wyomingites in my region to have encountered a guy pretending to be a gal and seeking medical assistance for the delusion, with that person in uniform.  Some time back I had some email correspondence with a full time National Guardsman on something, although I don't recall what.  What I do recall is that he was "transgendered".  Like a lot, but not all, "transgendered" men affecting the appearance of a woman, he looked very much like a guy, which of course what he genetically and morphologically is.

Gender studies also out.

In something that is sort of related, and sort of not, UW is eliminating its Gender Studies degree.

UW looks to end embattled gender studies degree

I don't know much about gender studies other than its one of those host of degrees that came in during the 1970s and 1980s in the liberal arts that have always baffled me a bit.  What do you do with it?

Having said that, I'm not as condescending towards the degree as I once was.  I do, however, think that what US is doing makes sense.  Folding the program into some other sort of sociology degree strikes me as making sense, rather than having it stand alone.

Sorority transgender pleading allowed.

In something else sort of related, and sort of not, the Federal Court has allowed for an amended complaint to be filed in a suit in which it seeks to address a man identifying as a woman being admitted to its house at UW as a sorority "sister".

Banning pornography.

And here's another item that come from the far right, and indeed from Project 2025, which generally scares me overall, but whose goal I find myself in agreement with:


I've posted on the topic of pornography here from time to time.

Pornography is a devastating scourge. It's wholly destructive, and about that there's no doubt

This bill will be interesting to watch.  I suspect it will get no traction  I don't know, for one thing, that Donald Trump cares one whit about pornography.  After all, his wife became famous as a model for posing in a manner that I'd regard as pornographic.  And a guy who rode the Lolita Express to Epstein's jail bait fantasy island doesn't strike me as a man of deep moral principles.  And hte pron industry is powerful and will take this on in the guise of free speech.

It may ironically prove to be the case that deporting people to foreign concentration camps is something most Americans are willing to tolerate, but stopping young women from prostituting their images is not.

Related posts:

Topic One.

Normalizing Mental Illness isn't helping to address it.





Topic Four

The life of Fran Gerard/Francis Anna Camuglia. Was Francis Anna Camuglia and Cynthia Blanton.






Secrets of Playboy


Lex Anteinternet: De mortuis nihil nisi bonum. M'eh. Throwing rocks at Hugh Hefner . . . I'm not alone in that.




De mortuis nihil nisi bonum. M'eh


Last edition:


Wednesday, February 19, 2025

On being duped, and staying duped. I saw some Trumpsplainers go berserk on Twitter on the question of betraying Ukraine, with . . .

well at least he isn't having kids get gender bending surgery.

Oh?

Has Trump done anything on that topic?

Well, no.  He hasn't.

He did ban biological men from participating in women's sports, something states were doing anyhow, and which is widely supported.  And his Secretary of Defense banned those who had received such surgeries from joining the service (not from staying in).

And on the social issues, somethings to consider.

Has he done anything to widen prohibitions against abortion?

Nope.  In fact, to the contrary, he's supporting IVF which results in millions of abortions and which is condemned by the Apostolic Faiths, including the one J. D. Vance claims to adhere to.

Has he done anything to protect the traditional definition of marriage?

Nope.  Indeed, his Treasury Secretary is openly homosexual.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be Treasury Secretary, but the populist had a four year fit over Biden's Transpiration Secretary being in the exact same domestic situation.

Exact same.  

I guess its okay now.

Deportation of illegal aliens?

Well, it's at pretty much the same rate it was under Biden.

So, those who supported Trump as they wanted to advance social issues on the right, well, what did you get?

Anything?

Just men out of women's sports, which was being done anyhow.

Piles of cost saving cuts of wasteful things?

Nope, a few cuts of wasteful things combined with cuts we'll soon have to make up, supported by lies (like 150 year olds getting Social Security, not happening).

Indeed, this one is amusing as the most famous "discoveries" of the week is that Musk's minors in charge aren't familiar with COBAL, which is before their time.  They read COBAL entries literally when in fact they're a code, so they thing they think were literally years, weren't.

That's known now, but will they admit it?  Nope.

Oh, and the end of DEI, which wasn't really impacting you much anyhow, was it?

And all in exchange for a government dominated by oligarchs, being hated globally, and losing protections long won.

You were duped. 

But you won't admit it.

Sunday, November 10, 2024

Lex Anteinternet: 2024 Election Post Mortem, Part II. Going too far to the left.

Lex Anteinternet: 2024 Election Post Mortem, Part I. What the heck h...: And so the finger pointing, blaming, and name calling has begun. The 2024 Presidential Election was supposed to be close. It wasn't.  An...

As a slight addition to this:

2.  It's actually the social issues, stupid.

El Paso Sheriff : What's it mean? What's it leadin' to? You know, if you'd have told me 20 years ago, that I'd see children walking the streets of our Texas towns with green hair and bones in their noses, I just flat-out wouldn't have believed you.

Ed Tom Bell : Signs and wonders. But I think once you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am," the rest is soon to foller.

El Paso Sheriff : Oh, it's the tide. It's the dismal tide.

No Country For Old Men. 

We warned prior to 2016 that Justice Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell had awakened a latent sleeping giant.  It did.

People keep analyzing the race in terms of the economy, which I myself partially did above.  But the big issue, to put it bluntly, is that Obergefell shocked many people into confronting the moral decline of the nation, something that had been going on for a very long time.

Sexual immorality in the US really commenced its roll in the late 1940s, as we've discussed before, and started to accelerate in 1953 with the launch of Playboy, and then really took off in the 1960s with the pill and the Sexual Revolution.  The irony of all of this, however, is the public tolerated it, although not always very comfortably, as it fit into conventional immorality.  That is, the White Anglo Saxon Protestant community basically tolerated a boys will be boys attitude at first, and then accommodated itself to other trends later, as long as things roughly worked out the way they were supposed to in the end, although they have not been working out for quite some time.  Once Obergefell came along, however, the public was asked to accommodate something else, and it hasn't, and for a host of reasons.  Transgenderism, which really doesn't exist, came hard on the heels of homosexual marriage, and it was just too much for large sections of the country.

At one time, it might be noted, it was a common assertion that the Babylon Berlin atmosphere of 1920's Germany had brought about the Nazis, in part, as they seemed to stand against unconventional immorality.  In truth, homosexuality was present in the early Nazis, but the movement did a good job of plastering over it so it was ignored, if known, just like Trump's flagrant immoral conduct with women is at least somewhat known, if ignored.  It allowed people to believe that that the Nazis would foster a return to pre 1914 moral standards, while ignoring that they would inflict new horrors.*  A lot of that has gone on in the populist movement as well, which sort of imagines that the country will sort of return to an imagined 1950s, or an imagined 1970s.

The Democrats didn't even try to do anything about this, but rather embraced the matters that the Trump populists and their fellow travellers opposed.  That's a big part of what occured.  Americans proved to be willing to go pretty far with changes in Christian morality before they started regretting it, which they did, but to be kicked into a new room with a bunch of very unconventional behaviors was more than they could bear.  It not only spawned a massive counterreaction, but it spawned radical new theories about the nature of what was going on, much of them false, and sort of a modified variant of a Great Awakening, that we haven't seen the end of yet.**  This reaction, moreover, wasn't limited to the US, but has been scene all over the Western World, caused by similar events.

You have to know the times you live in.

I heard on a podcast, by somebody who didn't vote for Trump or Harris, the social issue boiled down to this:


Dr. Richard Levine, a pediatrician, was appointed the head of HHS.  He claims to be transgendered, something that doesn't exist.  The podcaster didn't mention his name (he goes by Rachel) but just vague referred to him as "the dude" appearing as a woman, and that there were some places you really can't go.

That likely does sum up what occurred in a lot of ways.  The Democrats no doubt thing they are out in front on this, but the country got dragged out to its present status by Justice Kennedy's opinion and a lot of the country doesn't want to go there.  It was a bridge too far.

Democrats are going to have to do a lot of soul searching.  Some are already claiming that the Democratic Party needs to double down on its leftward views, but all around the world that is flat out not working.  The vacuum is in the middle.  Nobody is seeking to fill it.

Friday, November 8, 2024

2024 Election Post Mortem, Part I. What the heck happened?


And so the finger pointing, blaming, and name calling has begun.

The 2024 Presidential Election was supposed to be close.

It wasn't.  And that means something.  How did the nation elect a convicted felon who hung out with a procurer and who is a creepy serial polygamist, who also is likely sliding into dementia, as President of the United States?

Well, there are a lot of views out there.  We offer ours, including some things we noted early on.

1.  It turns out that we were correct that Biden shouldn't have run in the first place, and that Harris shouldn't have stepped into the breach.

Biden was supposed to be a caretaker President.  "Go with the Joe you know" only made sense as long as it was just one cup of coffee.  People didn't want a refill. Biden was supposed to carry on for four years while the nation got back on its feet from a traumatic Trump presidency and figured out where to go next.

Biden's diehard insistence on running again doomed that, and in some ways, the Democrats chances in 2024.

Biden, in his defense, was dealt a bad hand right from the onset.  Left with an economy impacted by COVID, he had to deal with it, and he did a good job.  The inflation that caused was not of his making, and he actually pulled off a soft landing.  In the future, he's likely to be regarded as having pulled an economic rabbit out the hat.

And his rallying to the cause of Ukraine is singularly responsible for the country not being overrun by the Russians.

But people are stupid about economics, and stupidly believe that once inflation slows, prices return to the pre inflation norm, which actually required deflation, which generally causes a depression.  That tar baby is now Trump's, as Trump won't be able to pull that off either.

More than that, however, Biden's advanced age was showing, whereas its seemingly not as noticeable with Trump.  It was real hubris of Biden to run for a second term, and he shouldn't have done it.  That set the Democrats behind.

When he finally stepped out, I noted that the time that Harris shouldn't step in.  She did.  She actually also ran a much better campaign than I initially thought she would.  Frankly, I don't know that I can blame her for running, or blame the Democrats for running her.  She proved to be too easy to tag with the issues that had hurt Biden, however, which did not make up the reasons that I thought she should not have run.

2.  It's actually the social issues, stupid.

El Paso Sheriff : What's it mean? What's it leadin' to? You know, if you'd have told me 20 years ago, that I'd see children walking the streets of our Texas towns with green hair and bones in their noses, I just flat-out wouldn't have believed you.

Ed Tom Bell : Signs and wonders. But I think once you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am," the rest is soon to foller.

El Paso Sheriff : Oh, it's the tide. It's the dismal tide.

No Country For Old Men. 

We warned prior to 2016 that Justice Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell had awakened a latent sleeping giant.  It did.

People keep analyzing the race in terms of the economy, which I myself partially did above.  But the big issue, to put it bluntly, is that Obergefell shocked many people into confronting the moral decline of the nation, something that had been going on for a very long time.

Sexual immorality in the US really commenced its roll in the late 1940s, as we've discussed before, and started to accelerate in 1953 with the launch of Playboy, and then really took off in the 1960s with the pill and the Sexual Revolution.  The irony of all of this, however, is the public tolerated it, although not always very comfortably, as it fit into conventional immorality.  That is, the White Anglo Saxon Protestant community basically tolerated a boys will be boys attitude at first, and then accommodated itself to other trends later, as long as things roughly worked out the way they were supposed to in the end, although they have not been working out for quite some time.  Once Obergefell came along, however, the public was asked to accommodate something else, and it hasn't, and for a host of reasons.  Transgenderism, which really doesn't exist, came hard on the heels of homosexual marriage, and it was just too much for large sections of the country.

At one time, it might be noted, it was a common assertion that the Babylon Berlin atmosphere of 1920's Germany had brought about the Nazis, in part, as they seemed to stand against unconventional immorality.  In truth, homosexuality was present in the early Nazis, but the movement did a good job of plastering over it so it was ignored, if known, just like Trump's flagrant immoral conduct with women is at least somewhat known, if ignored.  It allowed people to believe that that the Nazis would foster a return to pre 1914 moral standards, while ignoring that they would inflict new horrors.*  A lot of that has gone on in the populist movement as well, which sort of imagines that the country will sort of return to an imagined 1950s, or an imagined 1970s.

The Democrats didn't even try to do anything about this, but rather embraced the matters that the Trump populists and their fellow travellers opposed.  That's a big part of what occured.  Americans proved to be willing to go pretty far with changes in Christian morality before they started regretting it, which they did, but to be kicked into a new room with a bunch of very unconventional behaviors was more than they could bear.  It not only spawned a massive counterreaction, but it spawned radical new theories about the nature of what was going on, much of them false, and sort of a modified variant of a Great Awakening, that we haven't seen the end of yet.**  This reaction, moreover, wasn't limited to the US, but has been scene all over the Western World, caused by similar events.

You have to know the times you live in.

3. What we repeatedly said about abortion being a hill to die on was correct.

Hell Courtesan by Kawanabe Kyōsai.

Part of the solid evidence of the Democrats being marooned in a post Vietnam War liberal past is the absolute adherence to swimming in a sea of blood.

I warned earlier that grasping tight to abortion was a critical mistake for Democrats, but they saw it as a great issue, one that would turn women out to vote in favor of infanticide.

Instead, what it did was to force truly adherent Christians to vote against them, even if not to vote for Harris. I was one of them.  I voted for the American Solidarity Party.  I would have anyhow, but in a state that was close, this cost the Democrats votes.  It may very well have cost them the election.

Ironically, and the Democrats failed to grasp it, Donald Trump's wishy washiness on this helped him.  Lots of Evangelicals and even Catholics could rationalize voting for him as he seemed to be against abortion, sort of.  Hadn't his court brought Dobbs around?  And Republican women who otherwise adhered to the American Civil Religion could rationalize voting for pro abortion ballot measures while voting for trump, essentially voting for the things they were comfortable with from the 1970s, like abortion and birth control, while voting against homosexuality and transgenderism.

Indeed, the entire religiosity of the Trumpites is much like this, although not of the National Conservatives. They're okay with cheating men, up to a limit, premarital sex, and divorce, as long as the plumbing matches. They aren't okay with homosexuality.  Truly religious voters were never supportive of abortion, which Harris leaned deeply into.

Democrats should have known that and figures out a way to deal with it.  Even simply taking the same position as Trump, let the states deal with it, would have leveled the choice for many.  Or they could have just remained completely silent in the election on abortion and transgenderism, which would have caused some votes to swing their way.

If the Democrats don't modify their position on abortion, they're not going to do better in 2028.

4.  What we noted as long ago as 2016 about ignoring rust belt issues is still true.


We noted a long time ago that Trump's 2016 victory was brought about in part due to a massive discontent over immigration issues and American jobs going overseas.  Both Democrats and Republicans were complicit in this for years.

The problem here is that this festering sore has become infected, and crossed from discontent into malevolence.  Basically, its much like small town Germans thinking that a local Jewish butcher was odd, to thinking he's in league with evil. This has been downright scary.

Democrats woke up to the problem of decades long mass illegal immigration, but too late.  Now, it appears, we're about to engage in a mass immorality.

This one was a hard one for the Democrats.  Biden screwed up early in his administration on this issue.  Harris was tarred with it.  It would have taken a different candidate to distance from it, perhaps, quite frankly, a Hispanic one.  There are solutions, but some of them are quite out of the box, very pre 1940, and a bit drastic.

Likewise, Trump introduced his absurd tariffs concept.  The idea is underdeveloped and economically flaccid.  But Rust Belt people don't care as in their minds if electric vehicles don't come in from China, 1965 Chevrolet Impalas will come back. This won't happen, and this will rapidly prove to be incorrect.

5.  Demographics change.

Roman Catholic Cathedral Santuario de Guadalupe (Cathedral Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe), Dallas Texas





Dedicated in 1902 as the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, this cathedral was renamed the Cathedral Santuario de Guadalupe in 1977, when another aging Dallas church dedicated to the Lady of Guadalupe was torn down. This cathedral has the second largest parish congregation in the United States.

Democrats in the 1960s abandoned white Southern racists in favor of the minorities of the time, much to their credit.  Up until that time, African Americans had been Republicans.  Democrats remembered that Italian American and Irish Americans had been, and were, theirs.

But they failed to notice that Roe v. Wade shattered the Catholic immigrant retained vote of earlier eras. For some reason, they didn't grasp that retaining abortion and embracing transgenderism and abortion would come to offend  large groups of American, and even immigrant, Hispanics, who had a similar Catholic morality.  And they didn't grasp that at the pew level, this was also true for the Black Church and many African Americans, who came to resent having their cause compared to ones based on sexual orientation or practice.

They also forgot that minority adherence to patronage only lasts as long as poverty does.  Once a demographic moves into the Middle Class, it begins to disappear within a generation or two.  Irish Americans and Italian Americans were once solidly Democratic.  This hasn't been the case for a long time.  Hispanics have been moving out of poverty, and so have African Americans.

And Hispanic Americans, which are a diverse group to start with.

This left the Democratic party a party of old Boomers, and the white upper middle class, and lower upper class, white, effete, elites.  They're aren't enough of them to win an election.

Footnotes

*The Nazis ended up sending homosexuals to the death camps.  They were highly resistant to women working, and only relented on it as the war began to go very badly.  They'd also encourage pregnancy, including out of wedlock, by German women, which was definitely contrary to traditional Christian morality.

This is of note, not because there will be death camps, but because Germans voting on morality issues didn't get what they bargained for at all.  Americans doing the same in the 2024 election are likely to find they may be surprised.

**As an example, while at the county courthouse to vote early, I encountered an elderly man wearing a MAGA hat who was informing people that transgenderism "wasn't invented here", whatever that would mean, and that this was a reason to vote for Trump.

Friday, September 20, 2024

The Christian, and more particularly the Catholic, vote. 2024


I recently noted, after the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a group of folks I know posting prayers for Donald Trump.  

I've noted this before.

In this instance, I post the example below.



Now, let me start off by noting, that  praying for anyone, particularly those in some kind of danger, distress, or bad situation, is a Christian thing to do, and should be done.   That's not the point here.

What is, is the adoption by some Christians, and more particularly by some Catholics, of the concept of Trump as a Christian warrior, is badly misbegotten.  The "Cause his enemies to stumble and fall into confusion and panic" line is particularly worrisome.  Indeed, if he were granted "clarity", it seems to me that he'd have to spend darned near all of his remaining days on Earth in reparative acts of repentance.

There's not an observant Christian in this race.

Indeed, while praying for Trump should be done, and for Kamala Harris as well, the real question in this race, if you are an observant Christian, is not necessarily which of these two candidates should you vote for, but rather should you vote for somebody else.

I'd suggest that at least if you live in a state which is going to go for Trump, or going to go for Harris, you must in fact vote for a third party.  

Lets start with the situation I find myself in.  What if you are an observant Christian, or more particularly a Catholic, and live in a state Donald Trump is going to win.  As an observant Christian, you should not vote for Donald Trump.

First of all, there's no real reason to believe that Trump himself, in spite of some, particularly Evangelicals, claiming him as a Christian, is a Christian.  He's a nominal Presbyterian, we know, but if he actually believes any Presbyterian doctrine, he must be an extreme Calvinist that believes in predestination as he apparently feels he can do whatever he wants and it doesn't really matter.

Personally, he's a serious polygamist who has not only repeatedly married, divorced, and remarried, but he's had at least two well known affairs while married.1   His conduct towards women in general is abhorrent.

He's also a constant liar, with serious lies being a grave sin.  He tried to steal the 2020 election, which is obviously a grave sin.

Among the horrific lies he's spread are ones about immigrants.  And he's threatening to deport millions of people who are, granted, illegal aliens, but who now live in the country, with some having done so for a very long time.

What some will say, is that Christians have to vote for him, as he stands opposed to the moral decay that's brought about such things as transgenderism, and he stands against the sea of blood that the Democrats would unleash in regard to abortion.  Both of those are valid point, although on abortion he's modified his position to one that resembles that of a lot of Democrats.

Then there's Kamala Harris.

Harris is a Baptist, but hardly reflects the traditional religious positions of the Anabaptist Protestant faith.  She isn't a serial polygamist, to be sure, but her spouse had a prior marriage, which is problematic in Christian theology.  Setting that aside, as it's become so common amongst Christians, and as it is ignored by most of Protestantism, its her views on other things that make her a no go for Christians.

She's in favor of the current Democratic platform that fully endorses the horror of Roe v. Wade, which she'd see enshrined as law.  The current GOP platform is silent on abortion, as an act of cowardice, but the Democrats are all in on it.

The Democrats are also all in on transgenderism, something for which there's no evidence as being grounded in nature, and may well be grounded in mental illness.   And while confusing the boundaries between natural marriage and genders has not been a big issue in this campaign, it's clear where the Democrats are on that as well.

For those reason, an observant Christian cannot vote for her.

But you don't need to.

At least you don't need to, as noted, if you live in a state that's going hard for Trump, or hard for Harris.

The only political party that really squares with Christianity is the American Solidarity Party.  If you've heard the Four Things homily I noted the other day, it's the only party you could be a member of and not be squirming in your seats.

It's the only really moral choice in this election, and if you live in a state that's going hard for Harris or Trump, I'd argue its the choice you have to make. In those states you don't have a "lesser of two evils" choice, but rather a protest against evil requirement.  Voting for Trump or Harris in a state that's going  hard for one or the other endorses their platform, and serves to only do that.

It also serves to reinforce the insane two party system that is not serving the country, at all and needs to end.  It's time to end it.  Voting for a third party starts that process.

Footnotes:

1. Recently I've seen it noted that Melania Trump is the first "Catholic first lady since Jackie Kennedy".

Yeah, well not a very observant Catholic.  In the eyes of the Church she's in an invalid marriage for more than one reason.  Barron Trump was, we'd note, baptized in an Episcopal Church, even though Catholics have a duty to raise their children as Catholics.

I don't know her current moral state, of course.  She's not seen much with Donald.  Given Trump's behavior, they may well be living as "brother and sister".  But the point is that she can't exactly be held up as an example of public female Catholicism.

Related threads:

The Four Things.

Sunday, July 21, 2024

The 2024 Legislative Sessions of other states.


January 20, 2024.


Utah

Utah's house has passed a bill to ban public transgender bathrooms.

January 25, 2024


Ohio

Ohio's legislature over road a veto and banned gender mutilation of minors and restricted those who have undergone gender mutilation from participating in athletic teams of the opposite gender.

January 31, 2024


New York

New York expanded the definition of rape, which apparently was narrowly defined by the previous law. The new law states:

 Section  1.  Sections  130.40,  130.45 and 130.50 of the penal law are

 REPEALED.

   § 2. Subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 130.00 of the penal law, subdivision 2 as amended by chapter 264 of the laws of  2003,  are  amended read as follows:

   1.  "[Sexual  intercourse]  VAGINAL  SEXUAL CONTACT" [has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration, however slight]  MEANS  CONDUCT BETWEEN  PERSONS  CONSISTING OF CONTACT BETWEEN THE PENIS AND THE VAGINA OR VULVA.

   2. (a) "Oral sexual [conduct] CONTACT" means conduct  between  persons consisting of contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the anus, or the mouth and the vulva or vagina.

   (b)  "Anal  sexual  [conduct]  CONTACT"  means conduct between persons consisting of contact between the penis and anus.

   § 3. Section 130.25 of the penal law, as amended by chapter 1  of  the laws of 2000, is amended to read as follows:

 § 130.25 Rape in the third degree.

   A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when:

   1.  He  or  she engages in [sexual intercourse] VAGINAL SEXUAL CONTACT with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor  other than being less than seventeen years old;

March 5, 2024

March 6, 2024


Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill that would have made it a crime for noncitizens to enter the state through Mexico at any location other than a port of entry

New Hampshire



The state has banned men mutilated to appear as women from appearing in women's sports.
March 22, 2024

Arizona

Arizona had declared Pluto as the official state planet.

March 31, 2024.

Oregon



Oregon recriminalized the possession of small amounts of drugs after botching a decriminalization effort.

April 2, 2024.

Colorado




A bill in Colorado that aims to protect the data found in a person's brainwaves was signed into law.

Colorado's Democratic House passed a bill that bans a wide variety of "assault" firearms. 

Inaccurately reported on as banning semi-automatic firearms, which it does not, it does take on a lot of popular longarms with military type features.

It's doubtful that it will pass Colorado's Senate, and if it does, it's likely unconstitutional.

April 18, 2024.

Montana



Two genitals mutilated men have filed suit in Montana over a new Montana law that keeps them from having their actual gender changed on government issued identification.

April 19, 2024.

Arizona

Arizona has repealed an 1864 territorial law that banned most abortions. Press reporting on this has been unclear, so it's not clear if it repealed and replaced the statute or what, but a review of the text of the very short law shows it simply repealed the law.  Some digging shows a a 2002 statute banning abortion after 15 weeks will become the law.

Florida


Florida has banned artificial meat.

May 3, 2024

Florida

Gov. DeSantis signed into law a bill that de-emphasizes climate considerations in Florida's energy considerations.

May 17, 2024

Louisiana


Louisiana has passed and signed in to a law a requirement that the Ten Commandments be displayed in classrooms.

June 20, 2024

New Hampshire




New Hampshire has banned gender mutilated boys in grades 5 through 12 from participating in girls' sports.

July 21, 2024.