Author: Papa Giorgio

Gender-Neutral Pronouns An Attack on “Being” | The Imago Dei

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • Moral standards…presuppose absolute moral standards, which in turn presuppose the existence of an absolute personality. In other words, they presuppose the existence of God. But what God?… Of all the major religious traditions, it is only biblical religion that affirms a God who is both personal and absolute. [Only biblical religion sees] that the idea of absolute personality is closely linked to the ideas of a Creator-creature distinction [as reflected in the imago Dei], divine sovereignty, and the Trinity. Compromise these and you compromise the personality of God. This precise pattern of thought is found only in the Bible and in traditions which are heavily influenced by the Bible. Is it then too much to say that morality presupposes the God of the Bible? I think not. — John Frame

I have been wanting to connect the reason I see gender-neutral pronouns like, they/them, ze/zim, sie/hir, are being used by the post-modern Left. The real — bottom line reason — is it dilutes evidences for God and every human’s “Imago Dei” Norman Geisler notes that “[t]he only ‘common ground’ with unbelievers is that they too are creatures in God’s image and live in God’s world.” Continuing he says,

  • But there are no common notions or methods; non-Christians approach the world differently from Christians, and they view it differently. We have a common world with unbelievers but no common worldview. The contact point with unbelievers is the imago Dei. But even here the “point of contact” is the “point of conflict,” for “if there is no head-on collision with the systems of the natural man there will be no point of contact with the sense of deity in the natural man.” Conflict is inevitable because of human depravity and sin.

I will emphasize our personal being in our language to bolster the point in this paragraph

Let me explain a bit more. Part of the Imago Dei in us all is that we get our “being” from it [“It” – the Ultimate Being]. In other words, an example I use is “can you refer to yourself in the womb of your mother without using personal pronouns? We have an “I” in our being. But that “I” has not always existed… it itself was brought into being by my, or your, parents. Who likewise had being, but “contingent ‘being,'” as they relied on others for their being.

I know, it is tough. But this “being” I am speaking of is argued well below, and is an excellent apologetic for God and the Christian worldview. Excerpted from my post, “Kalam Cosmological Argument ~ History and Argument“

PUT THUS:

We spoke of the universe as “the collection of beings in space and time.” Consider one such being: yourself. You exist, and you are, in part at least, material. This means that you are a finite, limited and changing being, you know that right now, as you read this book, you are dependent for your existence on beings outside you. Not your parents or grandparents. They may no longer be alive, but you exist now. And right now you depend on many things in order to exist–for example, on the air you breathe. To be dependent in this way is to be contingent. You exist if something else right now exists.

But not everything can be like this. For then everything would need to be given being, but there would be nothing capable of giving it. There would not exist what it takes for anything to exist. So there must be something that does not exist conditionally; something which does not exist only if something else exists; something which exists in itself. What it takes for this thing to exist could only be this thing itself. Unlike changing material reality, there would be no distance, so to speak, between what this thing is and that it is. Obviously the collection of beings changing in space and time cannot be such a thing. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist cannot be identical with the universe itself or with a part of the universe.

(From “Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God“)

An excellent short video explaining this all is this one,

Contingency Argument SPEED RUN!

In other words, our “being” has a Cause in His “Being.” Plato saw this dimly in his Theory of Forms:

Plato’s Theory of Forms is a philosophical concept that explains the nature of reality. The basic question goes something like this:

We can see trees, cats, circles and many other things in everyday life, and we can easily recognise each one as the thing it is supposed to be. But, if we look closer, we never really see anything like a “standard cat.” Every cat is different, and so is every tree and every drawn circle. Especially with geometric forms, they are never perfect. Every circle we can see in our world is either broken, distorted, pixelated, or in a myriad of other ways not “a perfect circle.” In fact, a perfect geometrical circle would need to be drawn with a line that does not have any thickness, and so would be invisible!

So how is it, Plato asks, that we are able to identify circles, trees and cats if have actually never seen a “standard” thing of each kind?

There are two worlds, Plato says: the world of physical objects and the world of Forms. The world of physical objects is the world we see around us, while the world of Forms is the world of abstract concepts and ideas. The Forms are perfect, unchanging, and eternal, while the physical objects we see around us are imperfect, changing, and temporary.

Norman Geisler explains this in differing ways with the following. And note, I have more in-depth reproductions of his arguments in the second half of this post — along with the PDF reproductions for download. But I am here desperately trying to dumb the argument down to make the broader point. Which is, the “pronouns” being foisted on us ARE AN ATTACK on the foundation of truth and reality, which is rooted in God’s “Being”, Image, transferred to us in a finite, now fallen way.

Based on Sufficient Reason

(See an excellent article at The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

P1) A contingent being exists.

  1. This contingent being is caused either (1) by itself, or (2) by another.
  2. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible.

P2) Therefore, this contingent being (2) is caused by another, i.e., depends on something else for its existence.

P3) That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (3) another contingent being, or (4) a non-contingent being (necessary) being.

  1. If 3, then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so onto infinity.

P4) Therefore, that which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (5) an infinite series of contingent beings, or (4) a necessary being.

P5) An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being.

P6) Therefore, a necessary being (4) exists!

Based on the Principle of Existential Causality

  1. Some limited, changing being[s] exist.
  2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another.
  3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being.
  4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings.
  5. This first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchangeable and one.
  6. This first uncaused Cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition

A mix of both

  1. Something exists (e.g., I do);
  2. I am a contingent being;
  3. Nothing cannot cause something;
  4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being;
  5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being;
  6. But I am personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities);
  7. Therefore this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy;
  8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction;
  9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way;
  10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings);
  11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (=infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists;
  12. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God;
  13. Therefore, the theistic God exists.

IN OTHER WORDS, our being, the “I” that we experience the world through IS AN APOLOGETIC, EVIDENCE of God!

Our being has a logical argument from Thee Being.

Our being (ways in which something can exist or occur or to be presented, or stand) is rooted in a theistic argument that is much surer in it’s premises and explanations.

That aside, the Marxist [read here atheistic] attack on Western values and truth is rooted itself in negating the Judeo-Christian aspect of historical truth, or knowing Part of this argument is the enquiry into “what we can know.” Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution either state or assume this:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

[….]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

[….]

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…”

This title of Supreme Judge of the world establishes God not only as the Creator of the world but also as the source of moral law. This statement is in opposition to the idea of Deism, which says that there exists a supreme being or creator who set the universe in motion but does not intervene in human affairs or the natural world. This statement suggests that those writing the declaration believed that the God of the Bible was the ultimate judge of good and evil.

The final mention of God in the Declaration of Independence labels God as the giver of Divine Providence.

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

This is a statement of trust in the divine’s oversight and actions that would result in declaring independence from Britain. These four mentions of God show that the founding fathers had a clear belief in moral truth which originated from a supreme being. In an article for Intercessors for America, Tyler O’Neil states, “The leaders who formed our country based their arguments for independence on the laws of God, and they trusted Him to guide America through its struggles. They looked to faith as a bulwark of freedom, not as its opposite.”

What Role Did Religious Beliefs Play in the Founding of the United States?

Many religious backgrounds made up those living in Colonial America at the time of the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the U.S. Constitution. Puritans, Anglicans, Quakers, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, and Jewish congregations were all represented within the American Colonies.

It is well documented that 51 of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention claimed to hold Christian beliefs. Even Benjamin Franklin, a proclaimed Deist, gave a call to prayer that contained several references to scripture on June 28th, 1787, when the Constitutional Convention was struggling to agree.

“The Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention God but references frequently concepts central to Christianity like morals, reason, and free will,” says David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, a Texas-based group dedicated to promoting America’s Christian heritage. …

(CHRISTIANITY)

In other words, attacking the foundation of knowledge and beings able to know moral truths and reality is at the heart of the pronoun issue. It is both an attack on our freedoms here in America, as well as an attack on our freedoms discovered via Western culture writ large.

WOMEN IN APOLOGETICS notes the foundation of “truth” in part of their post:

Truth

There seems to be little consensus where there was once clarity on what constituted male and female, boy and girl, man and woman, he and she. This is evidenced in the growing number of people who identify as transgender (those who experience gender dysphoria, a condition that describes the “psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity”) or those who identify themselves using other nontraditional gender terms. As such, it is becoming somewhat common for people to state or list their preferred pronouns in conversation, on social media, before meetings, or in email signatures. For example, during the 2020 election season, several Democratic presidential candidates put their preferred pronouns on their social media profiles.

In contrast, the Christian worldview asserts that God created people to be either male or female. Genesis 1:27 reads, “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.” God did not intend for sex and gender (identity) to be separate from one another; they are synonymous. To adopt a different worldview on sex and gender would be to reject the truth. Nevertheless, the culture today is attempting (with some success, unfortunately) to convince Christians differently. 

To not call someone by their preferred pronouns, like,  xe/xir/xirs, ze/zir/zirs and fae/faer/faers, is liked to a “human rights violations.” In fact, those prouns are an attack on what it is to be human.

Our essence.

Our being.

Dennis Prager says it is a war on human order. Which is a war on God:

Genesis 3:5 has the serpent (the Devil) tempting Adam and Eve. Half-truths are the best the Serpent can come up with, but the commentary I love on this verse will follow. I will highlight some points in it. 3:5 reads: “In fact, God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (CSB).

Here is the commentary:

The climax is a lie big enough to reinterpret life (this breadth is the power of a false system) and dynamic enough to redirect the flow of affection and ambition. To be as God,25 and to achieve it by outwitting him, is an intoxicating programme. God will henceforth be regarded, consciously or not, as rival and enemy. Against this human arrogance ‘the obedience of the one’ and his taking ‘the form of a servant’ show up in their true colours (Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:7).

So the tempter pits his bare assertion against the word and works of God, presenting divine love as envy, service as servility, and a suicidal plunge as a leap into life, ‘All these things will I give thee …’; the pattern repeats in Christ’s temptations, and in ours.

— On knowing good and evil, see on 2:9 [see below].

25. Or, gods (AV). The word ’ĕlōhîm can be used generically to include the angelic orders; see on 1:26.

2:9

…. The knowledge of good and evil is perhaps best understood in this living context. In isolation it could mean a number of things, many of them with biblical support. The phrase can stand for moral or aesthetic discernment (e.g. 1 Kgs 3:9; Isa. 7:15); yet Adam and Eve are already treated as morally responsible (2:16, 17) and generally percipient (3:6) before they touch the tree. It could be a hebraism for ‘everything’ (i.e. man is not to covet omniscience); yet it can hardly mean this in 3:22. It has often been regarded as sexual awakening, in the light of 3:7; recently R. Gordis suggested that this tree thereby offers a rival immortality to that of the tree of life, in the procreation of a family and a posterity. This too is open to several objections, including the fact that 3:22a is incompatible with it (heaven is sexless in the Old as in the New Testament), and that God instituted marriage after forbidding the use of the tree that is said to symbolize it.

In the context, however, the emphasis falls on the prohibition rather than the properties of the tree. It is shown to us as forbidden. It is idle to ask what it might mean in itself; this was Eve’s error. As it stood, prohibited, it presented the alternative to discipleship: to be self-made, wresting one’s knowledge, satisfactions and values from the created world in defiance of the Creator (cf. 3:6). Even more instructive is the outcome of the experiment; see on 3:7. In all this the tree plays its part in the opportunity it offers, rather than the qualities it possesses; like a door whose name announces only what lies beyond it.

Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 67–68, 73.

Yep. It is all a big lie. And the extreme gender confusion with it’s high rate of suicide is literally “a suicidal plunge as a leap into life.”

And the battle goes on…

And another point. Lets say you work at a Starbucks in West Hollywood, and you have 4-people who each have chosen a preferred pronoun[s]. For example, here are some of the choices:

  • So one person uses “xe, xem, xyr, xyers.”
  • Another uses “ne, nem, nir, nerself.” 
  • Yet another uses “ci, cer, cer, cirs.”
  • And lastly this person uses “ve, vis, ver, verself.”

How is one supposed to keep track of all that hogwash so as not to get fired? It is impossible for even these 4 to keep it straight. In Michigan they are making these felonies:

A new Michigan bill would make it a hate crime to cause someone to “feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened.”

The Michigan Hate Crime Act, designated HB 4474 , passed in the state House on Tuesday and now goes before the Michigan Senate.  It will replace the existing Ethnic Intimidation Act and expand the categories of people protected by the law.

The new bill would include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” as classes protected against intimidation.

[….]

If passed, the hate speech legislation would make violators guilty of a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of $10,000.

(DAILY CALLER | see DAILY WIRE as well)

AMERICAN THINKER notes this religious attack implicitly at the beginning of their article:

God-fearing people recognize that the effort to demolish the two God-given genders is a shaking of the fist at the Almighty. After all, the first chapter of the Bible says: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). This paradigm empowers females who are created in the imago dei. They are different from males, but equal to them at the level of essence. Nature and biology confirm God’s binary design.

Unfortunately, we live in a post-Christian society. Sane arguments often fall on deaf ears. The secular elites who control education and the media have marginalized those who provide biblical explanations. Given this sad reality, might there be another way to end the compelled speech of pronoun lunacy in which people can decide by which pronouns they will be referred?

[….]

For example, if someone asked another person about me: “What do you think of Newt?” They would need to respond something like: “I hate Newt. He is a tyrant. He never does what you ask of her.” Note that “he” is used when Newt is the subject of the sentence, and “her” is used at the end when Newt is the object of the sentence. If they failed to honor my preferred pronouns and said, “…He never does whatever you ask of him…” this would be a violation. I would report this, and press charges, if possible.

Mary could likewise insist on her pronouns being “She” and “Him.” Those speaking or writing about Mary would have to write something like: “I appreciate Mary. She is a great friend. I have no better friend than him. She is a great listener.” Or she could insist on “He” and “Her” (as does Newt).

Can you imagine if as many people as possible insisted upon this practice? Might it cause the regime of verbal tyranny to collapse? Though we are in the process of butchering English with the improper use of “they,” the mind can factor in this mutation and get used to it. However, since native English speakers calculate pronoun case automatically and subconsciously, it would be nearly impossible to speak and write in a way that could satisfy those who insist on different gendering pronouns that are case-dependent.

Yep. It is impossible to satisfy such people. This thinking “wresting one’s knowledge, satisfactions and values from the created world in defiance of the Creator.”

SOME APOLOGISTS DISCUSS THE ISSUE:

Douglas Groothuis w/Melissa Dougherty

Today, I interviewed Dr. Groothuis about the craziness we see around us and what we can do about it. Dr. Groothuis holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy and is a Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary. He is the author of sixteen books and has also published over thirty academic articles in journals as well as dozens of pieces in publications.

Nancy Pearcey w/Babylon Bee’s Ethan Nicolle

Editor-in-chief Kyle Mann and creative director Ethan Nicolle welcome Professor Nancy Pearcey. She is professor of apologetics and scholar in residence at Houston Baptist University and author of several books, most recently Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality. Prof. Pearcey’s books also include Total Truth, Finding Truth, The Soul of Science, Saving Leonardo and How Now Shall We Live? (co-authored with Chuck Colson). They talk about sexuality, gender, abortion, and Christianity’s high view of the human body.

Topics Discussed

  • Abortion… scientific human life vs modern Personhood Theory
  • Biological Sex vs Gender
  • The Christian’s high view of the material world and the human body due to belief in the incarnation of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the new heaven  and earth.
  • Trusting in a design vs individual revolt against nature and biological realities
  • Language as a front in the culture war
  • All of our actions endorse a worldview
  • What about people who identify as “gay Christians” or some other adjective placed before the word Christian?
  • Nudity in medieval Christian art

Unnamed People w/Melissa Dougherty

There’s a postmodern ideology that is plowing through our world that aims to dismantle all societal and moral norms. This ideology is responsible for how we have gotten to the point in society where language is rebranded and “sex” and “gender” are separate. Now, there are supposedly unlimited genders. If this isn’t disturbing enough, the logical conclusion of this ideology (which really functions like a religion) is that age should be flexible, too. Kids should have the freedom to choose what age they identify as… as sexual beings. This ideology says this is good, liberating, and empowering.

This is completely shocking. And absolute garbage that should be talked about and brought to light.

Pro Female Shirt Likened to Swastika!? #WarOnWomen

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • Trans identified males are taking medals, team berths and sponsorship dollars away from women. And not a single athletic brand is standing up for the protection of women’s sports.– Jennifer Sey’s Substack

Wow. The Democrat Left is cray-cray…. and in all their redefining of fascism, Hitler, and the like as normal thoughts of common sense, they — in the end — diminish real evil. Making it nothing but a passing thought/weapon to emote about something they disagree with rather than a real historical evil meant to warn of actual dangers of man’s nature.

FLASHBACK POST: Female athletes have lost nearly 900 medals to transgender rivals competing against them in women’s sporting categories, an eye-opening United Nations report has revealed. (RPT)

BREITBART fills us in on the latest misuse and diminishing of real evil:

A pair of teenage girls at a California high school are accusing officials in their athletic department of comparing their “Save Girls’ Sports” t-shirts to “swastikas.”

Kaitlyn and Taylor, who play on teams for Martin Luther King High School in Riverside, California, say they were disrespected by school officials when they wore their “Save Girls’ Sports” shirts in response to a transgender player who rarely attended practice and should not have qualified, but who was still placed on a varsity team, displacing Taylor, Fox News reported.

Now the girls are suing their school.

“My initial reaction was like, I was really surprised, because it was like, why is this happening to me?” Taylor said. “There’s a transgender student on the team. Why am I getting displaced when I’ve worked so hard and gone to all of the practices, and this student has only attended a few of the practices.”

The girls allege in their lawsuit that school officials made them remove their activist shirts and were told they were creating a “hostile environment” at the school. They also say that officials said the shirts were the same as wearing a swastika.

[….]

Attorney Julianne Fleischer alleges that the school violated her clients’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and their Title IX protections.

“We’re seeing more and more women and young girls speak up and challenge these policies that are allowing biological boys to join and participate in these sports,” Fleischer insisted. “And so there’s lawsuits that are popping up all around the country. We’re hopeful that even with the incoming administration and Congress that we’re going to see real positive change to Title IX that actually upholds and safeguards the rights of women to participate in their sports and to be safe and to be able to compete amongst one another.”

[….]

For instance, a girls’ high school volleyball team at a Christian school in Merced, California, recently forfeited a game because they did not wish to compete against a trans player.

The Christian high school is only one of a growing list of school teams that are refusing to play against opponents with transgender players. A lawsuit was filed this year against San Jose State University (SJSU) and the Mountain West Conference for allowing a male athlete to play on the SJSU women’s volleyball team.

To date, five colleges have refused to play against SJSU over the school’s inclusion of transgender player Blair Fleming.

The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA)  is also being sued by several groups over its policy of allowing transgender players to play as women.

A Couple Brave Girls Speak Out Against the #WarOnWomen

Daily Caller describes their longer video of the above clip, “Save Girls’ Sports” is now a Nazi phrase? These people will never learn, will they?”

PJ-MEDIA agrees, they haven’t learned what the issue… the real issue is about:

This past week has seen certain LGBT issues take center stage again after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) officially declared that sex-segregated spaces at the Capitol, like bathrooms and locker rooms, “are reserved for individuals of that biological sex.” This commonsense policy that protects women has prompted all sorts of outrage from the radical left. Naturally, the left doesn’t see it this way and is fuming over it.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said the policy is “endangering all women and girls.”

Her response was the epitome of stupid, but she wasn’t the only one distorting the issue.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) offered his office bathroom for Representative-elect [Tim] Sarah McBride to use and declared “There’s no job I’m afraid to lose if it requires me to degrade anyone.”

And then there’s Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), who said, “My GOP colleagues, who privately tell me they don’t hate LGBTQ+ people, should find the courage to reject the dehumanizing rhetoric. Your silence is deafening.”

Her tweet, dripping with the kind of condescension we’ve come to expect from progressive Democrats, misses the mark entirely. This isn’t about hate. The debate over policies like barring biological men from women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports isn’t about hate — it’s about protecting basic rights and common sense. 

Americans have every right to defend spaces and opportunities specifically designed for women. These aren’t trivial issues — they involve fundamental questions of fairness and safety that, for some reason, the radical left has completely abandoned because it’s now owned by the transgender lobby.

Remember, it took a long time for women to get the same opportunities as men. Think about it. Title IX, the landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education, was only passed in 1972. Nearly fifty years later, the idea of biological men competing in female athletics has become the cause du jour of the radical left, completely undermining the intent and spirit of the law.

Men who claim to “identify” as women enjoy biological advantages that cannot be erased with plastic surgery or hormone treatments. It doesn’t matter what a man’s “preferred pronouns” are or if he puts on a dress. He’ll have higher bone density, muscle mass, and lung capacity, giving him an edge that his female athletes simply can’t match.

Allowing biological men into women’s sports effectively robs women of the chance to compete on an equal playing field and, sadly, has stolen accolades and opportunities from real women.

The same principles apply to private spaces like bathrooms and locker rooms. It’s not “dehumanizing” or “degrading” to say that women and girls deserve privacy and safety. It’s not hateful to expect boundaries rooted in biological reality. It’s about respect — both for real women’s needs and for the truth.

Balint’s claim that silence equals complicity is a typical identity politics tactic, demanding moral submission instead of fostering meaningful debate. And Democrats never want to debate the issues. Particularly this one. 

The real issue is the left’s refusal to acknowledge that concerns about protecting women’s sports and private spaces are grounded in science and shared by many Americans. Conservatives must reject the false narrative that defending women’s rights is anti-LGBTQ. This debate isn’t about hate but about fairness, dignity, and recognizing biological differences are real and cannot be erased.

A VOLLEYBALL UPDATE:

PJ-MEDIA writes about the lawsuit, I will follow that up with a HOT AIR update:

… Luckily, some college athletes have had enough of this type of nonsense, and they’re taking legal action.   

San Jose State volleyball player Brooke Slusser, along with SJSU associate head coach Melissa Batie-Smoose, and 10 other college athletes have filed a lawsuit against the school and the Mountain West Conference, the NCAA Division I conference in which the school plays.The women claim that their Title IX rights have been violated by SJSU allowing a transgender athlete on the volleyball team.  

“Among the allegations in the lawsuit are that SJSU coach Todd Kress gave the player in question preferential treatment, that the Mountain West amended its transgender athlete participation policy without following conference protocol and that the conference fostered an unsafe environment by allowing the athlete to play,” according to ESPN. 

Fox News reported that several female athletes were overlooked for scholarships because of the transgender player’s “physical dominance.” The lawsuit documents also suggest that Slusser felt her personal safety was in danger when the transgender athlete and another player got together and put a plan in place to have the ball spiked right at her head in a match with Colorado State. 

Upon hearing about the plan, Batie-Smoose attempted to stand up for the girls on the team by talking to Kress and filing a Title IX complaint, but she was suspended from the program. “They took away the only safe space we had,” Slusser said of losing her coach. She also accused the school of silencing people who were just trying to stand up for what’s right.   ….

HOT AIR posts on the growing legal challenge growing in California:

… Last week I wrote about a Title IX lawsuit filed by players and one coach against the San Jose State University women’s volleyball team. The lawsuit was filed because the SJSU team includes a trans woman whose athletic ability exceeds that of other members of her team or, according to the lawsuit, of any player on any women’s team.

During practices in August 2024 immediately before the 2024 season Slusser and Batie-Smoose saw that Fleming was hitting the ball with more force than in 2023 and far harder than any woman they had ever played or coached with or against.

Where Fleming stood out was spiking the volleyball and blocking on the front row due to Fleming’s leaping ability and hitting power, which far exceeded that of any player in the conference and was the most explosive of any player that SJSU’s Associate Head Coach has observed in collegiate women’s volleyball…

Fleming’s spikes were estimated to be traveling upwards of 80 miles per hour, which is faster than a woman hits a volleyball.

Now the University of Utah has filed a motion to join that lawsuit.

Utah State University has filed a motion to join a federal lawsuit against the Mountain West Conference, challenging the organization’s transgender participation policy.

The move comes after the state’s Republican political leaders — including Gov. Spencer J. Cox, Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz — urged the university to join the lawsuit that was filed last week in U.S. District Court by 11 volleyball players and one coach in the Mountain West.

USU volleyball player Kaylie Ray is one of the 12 plaintiffs in the original lawsuit. According to Utah State’s motion, the Aggie volleyball team took an anonymous survey and 11 players, including Ray, decided to not play an October match against San Jose State “due to concerns of fairness and to communicate that they do not agree with the TPP (transgender participation policy) and hold strong personal and political beliefs that transgender women should not be permitted to compete in women’s sports.”

BRAVO! ??????

Klinefelter Syndrome Is Treated, Not Normalized | Gender Binary

Published by Papa Giorgio

I have recently come across a list of “sexes” pictured to the right. The person posting this noted:

  • Saw this and wanted to copy it and share it. We love our black-and-white dichotomy because it’s so easy to then label and categorize folks. But it is a LOT more complex than that. Not asking ANYONE to change their conclusions. Just become more aware of the complexities so that you don’t look so ignorant when you post simplistic memes and such…..

A few years back I looked into an example from this list, which I will excerpt how rare these are:

  • The term Klinefelter syndrome (KS) describes a group of chromosomal disorder in which there is at least one extra X chromosome to a normal male karyotype, 46,XY. XXY aneuploidy is the most common disorder of sex chromosomes in humans, with prevalence of one in 500 males. Other sex chromosomal aneuploidies have also been described, although they are much less frequent, with 48,XXYY and 48,XXXY being present in 1 per 17,000 to 1 per 50,000 male births. The incidence of 49,XXXXY is 1 per 85,000 to 100,000 male births. In addition, 46,XX males also exist and it is caused by translocation of Y material including sex determining region (SRY) to the X chromosome during paternal meiosis.

A great – short – video regarding the most common occurrence from above is this:

HEALTHY MALE recommends this treatment of this most expressive DISORDER:

Infants and children with Klinefelter syndrome should be examined by their doctor at least every two years to monitor their physical development.

They may need support from specialists to manage any problems with speech, learning, behaviour or psychiatric issues.

Testosterone treatment might be prescribed for boys with Klinefelter syndrome who have a very small penis.

Monitoring the growth and hormone function of boys with Klinefelter syndrome in the lead-up to puberty helps guide decisions about testosterone treatment, which may become necessary.

Testosterone treatment is recommended to many adults with Klinefelter syndrome.

If you have Klinefelter syndrome and are not receiving testosterone treatment, your hormonal function should be checked every 12 months.

I emphasized “disorder” because I have been wanting to connect a thought by C.S. Lewis discussing morality. But as you read the below, a substitution of this debate regarding “the binary” view can be inserted.

[T]his Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature). . . .

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining “It’s not fair” before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong—in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

And an older quote that makes the above point, sorta, for law is this:

…Proponents of gay marriage fail utterly to comprehend the idea that laws are made with society, not the individual, in mind. That is why they also fail to grasp the idea that law is predicated upon averages, not outliers. Interestingly, both libertarians and progressives suffer from this lack of under­standing.

[….]

But more often they try to undermine the link between marriage and childrearing by pointing to outliers—marriages in which couples choose not to have children or cannot have them because at least one partner happens to be infertile. But this argument only reveals the weakness of the progressive understanding of the law. Put simply, rules that are justified by the average case cannot be undermined by the exceptional case, otherwise known as the outlier. Thus the old maxim, “Hard cases make bad law.”…

Mike S. Adams, Letters To A Young Progressive (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2013), 81, 82.

Adam and Eve would have been made fully, male and female. Many years later the curse brought mutations into the mix. We do not “add” to god’s ideal, we keep it all the while showing love and respect for the Imago Dei to all without changing societal norms, sports, culture to fit or adapt to outliers… genetic mutations. We treat these disorders.

Treat them.

This is key.

You do not treat the normal, but abnormal.

An article notes that for the first time in the U.K., a major London hospital has launched Europe’s first multidisciplinary clinic for children with the rare genetic condition Klinefelter syndrome.

The centre at the Evelina Children’s Hospital will aim to improve diagnosis of children with the condition, which can cause serious problems including infertility and cardiovascular disease.

Around one in 660 men are affected by the condition.

Males with the condition are born with an extra X chromosome. Typically, a male baby has one X and one Y chromosome and a female baby has two X chromosomes.

Klinefelter syndrome can also cause problems with learning, attention, energy levels and socialising.

[….]

Infertility or relative lack of testosterone can be treated with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone or testosterone replacement therapy, but patients need access to a range of medical specialties including geneticists, endocrinologists, neurodevelopmental and psychological support.

The clinic will bring all these specialties together under one roof.

RPT Remembers a Giant in Intelligent Design

Published by Papa Giorgio

Because of the political season, I had missed the passing of a giant in the Intelligent Design community passing away a couple months ago. I have used his arguments well in debating I.D. online since the late 1990’s in forums like Space Battles and Volconvo (back in the day). I also have a couple excerpts from his book Zombie Science, that I do not remember what I used them for. Surely it was a debate online somewhere. Those will be at the end.

I have a post that includes Jonathan Wells on a panel that decimated some leading evolutionists here: Michael Behe & Stephen Meyer Destroy Challenge to Flagellum Motor. Cross Examined has a good interview with him HERE.

Here is the late Dr. Wells Bio:

Jonathan Wells (1942-2024) received two PhDs, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. A Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, he previously worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. He also taught biology at California State University in Hayward.

Dr. Wells published articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American Biology Teacher. He is the author of Charles Hodge’s Critique of Darwinism (Edwin Mellen Press, 1988), Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong (Regnery, 2000), The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Regnery, 2006), and The Myth of Junk DNA. He was also co-author with William Dembski of The Design of Life (FTE, 2008). His last solo book, Zombie Science (DI Press, 2017), showed how evolutionary theory — “though empirically dead” — continues to stalk our scientific and educational institutions. Dr. Wells also did research and writing on developmental information in embryos that is outside of, and inherited independently of, their DNA.

(Many archived articles linked here: DISCOVERY INSTITUTE)

A favorite article of his I love, and used an excerpt from for a paper in a philosophy class, is this one:

Darwin of the Gaps

The video is the full Icons of Evolution movie, here is the description:

Some of these icons of evolution present assumptions or hypotheses as though they were observed facts; in Stephen Jay Gould’s words, they are “incarnations of concepts masquerading as neutral descriptions of nature.” Others conceal raging controversies among biologists that have far-reaching implications for evolutionary theory. Worst of all, some are directly contrary to well-established scientific evidence. Most biologists are unaware of these problems. Indeed, most biologists work in fields far removed from evolutionary biology. Most of what they know about evolution, they learned from biology textbooks and the same magazine articles and television documentaries that are seen by the general public. But the textbooks and popular presentations rely primarily on the icons of evolution, so as far as many biologists are concerned the icons are the evidence for evolution.

Some biologists are aware of difficulties with a particular icon because it distorts the evidence in their own field. When they read the scientific literature in their specialty, they can see that the icon is misleading or downright false. But they may feel that this is just an isolated problem, especially when they are assured that Darwin’s theory is supported by overwhelming evidence from other fields. If they believe in the fundamental correctness of Darwinian evolution, they may set aside their misgivings about the particular icon they know something about. On the other hand, if they voice their misgivings they may find it difficult to gain a hearing among their colleagues, because (as we shall see) criticizing Darwinian evolution is extremely unpopular among English-speaking biologists. This may be why the problems with the icons of evolution are not more widely known. And this is why many biologists will be just as surprised as the general public to learn how serious and widespread those problems are.

There is a part two to the above, but it is more of a lecture form well-worth the watch as well:

In his latest book Zombie Science, biologist Jonathan Wells asks a simple question: If the icons of evolution were just innocent textbook errors, why do so many of them still persist? Wells gave a presentation about Zombie Science at the book’s national launch party recently in Seattle. (see more about the presentation here https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/jon…) Watch as Wells explores a new wave of icons walking the halls of science while putting some familiar corpses back in the grave. New topics include DNA, the human eye, vestigial organs, antibiotic resistance, and cancer. Looking past the current zombie outbreak, Wells offers a hopeful vision of science free from the clutches of materialist dogma. Wells himself is something of an iconoclast, railing against the tyranny of science’s Darwin-only advocates. His first book, Icons of Evolution, became an international hit by dismantling the outdated and underwhelming “proofs” of evolution that have littered textbooks for decades. For doing so, he was attacked by Darwin’s defenders and became one of the most hated figures of the intelligent design movement.

Icons of Evolution’s website is here. I pray it is kept up:

Icons of Evolution
Home of Biologist and Iconoclast Jonathan Wells

I have read the bulk of his writings, but if you are not familiar with him or Intelligent Design, I suggest this book for your shelf:

A couple remembrances by his colleagues:

Here are those promised quotes, I created them in my Microsoft Word, September 2017:

Eighteen Winged Dragonflies.

UBX is one of a family of genes called “Hox genes,” which affect head-to-tail development. In 2007, Donald Prothero published a book defending evolution. The book included a photo of a four-winged fruit fly to illustrate how “big developmental changes can result from small genetic mutations.”99 The book also claimed that modern four-winged dragonflies evolved from ancient dragonflies that had more wings, and it featured a drawing of an eighteen-winged dragonfly together with a four-winged dragonfly. According to its caption, the drawing illustrated “the evolutionary mechanism by which Hox genes allow arthropods to make drastic changes in their number and arrangements of segments and appendages, producing macroevolutionary changes with a few simple mu­tations.”100

In November 2009, Prothero (together with Skeptic magazine editor Michael Shermer) debated Discovery Institute senior fellows Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg. During the debate, Sternberg pointed out that eighteen-winged dragonflies never existed.101 A few days later, Prothero responded in a blog post that Meyer and Sternberg had “completely missed the point” of the illustration. According to Prothero (apparently having forgotten the number of wings in his drawing), “the text clearly points out that the twelve-winged dragonfly is a thought experiment, an illustration to show that a simple change in Hox genes allows the arthropods… to make huge evolutionary changes by simple modifications of regulatory genes.”102

But the text in Prothero’s book did not identify the eighteen-winged dragonfly as a “thought experiment.” Instead, it stated, “Experiments have shown that a few Hox genes cause arthropods to add or subtract segments, and other Hox genes can produce whatever appendage is needed.” Thus the “macroevolutionary transition from one body form to another with a completely different number of segments and appendages is a very easy process.”103

In 2013 Prothero published another book, Bringing Fossils to Life, which claimed that “a tiny change in Hox genes can make a big evolutionary difference.” Indeed, “the fossil record confirms this idea that simply switching on or off Hox genes allows abrupt changes not only in appendages and wings, but even in the number of body segments.”104

Two pages later the book reproduced the 2007 drawing of an eighteen-winged dragonfly, with a caption that stated, “Fossils demonstrate that many early arthropods were capable of adding or losing wings or other appendages…. This cartoon of real fossils shows how this multiplication or reduction process can rapidly produce entirely new body forms from a single [Hex] mutant.”105

So in 2009 the eighteen-winged dragonfly was an imaginary thought experiment, but in four years it evolved into a real fossil! Isn’t zombie science amazing?

Jonathan Wells, Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2017), 72-74.

Four-Winged Fruit Flies

NORMAL FRUIT flies have two wings. Behind each wing is a tiny “balancer ” that vibrates rapidly during flight to stabilize the fly’s movements. In the 1970s, geneticist Edward Lewis discovered that by artificially combining three separate DNA mutations in a fruit fly embryo he could transform the balancers into a second pair of normal-looking wings92 93 To some people, Lewis’s discovery seemed to corroborate the neo-Darwinian theory that DNA mutations provide the raw materials for evolution, and biology textbooks started using photos of a four-winged fruit fly to show students what mutations can accomplish.

But the mutant four-winged fruit fly lost its balancers in the bargain. Worse, the mutant wings do not have any flight muscles. So the four-winged fly has great difficulty flying and mating, and it cannot survive for long outside the laboratory94 95 It is a sideshow freak, an evolutionary dead end.

Yet some textbooks in 2000 featured photos of four-winged fruit flies, and some continue to do so. For example, Freeman’s 2014 Biological Science includes a photo of the four-winged fly, accompanied by text stating that mutations “can turn a segment in the middle part of the body into a segment just like the one that lies in front of it.” So instead of having balancers “the transformed segment now bears a pair of wings.” No mention of the fact that the mutant wings are effectively dead, or that the fly is severely handicapped.96

Jonathan Wells, Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2017), 71.

Joe and Mika Survived Their Trip to Trump’s Death Camp!

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is an excerpt via Megyn Kelly On Rumble:

PJ-MEDIA has a field day with this:

In the wee dark hours of Friday morning, President-elect Donald Trump’s Goldshirt thugs stormed into the West Palm Beach home of MSNBC “Morning Joe” hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, abducted the couple at gunpoint, and immediately removed them to one of Literally Hitler™’s hastily erected concentration camps.

I’m kidding, of course. Mika and Joe spent a nice time with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate and expressed several differences of opinion, for which Trump had them sent immediately to Gitmo.

Not really. “We didn’t see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues, and we told him so,” Scarborough said Monday morning from his usual perch on the “Morning Joe” set, free from any obvious signs of abuse. “What we did agree on,” Brzezinski added, “was to restart communications.”

Before we continue, please allow me to remind you that everything is stupid. 

“Don’t be mistaken. We are not here to defend or normalize Donald Trump,” Scarborough assured his audience of panty-wetting progressives. “We are here to report on him” and provide insights in “these deeply unsettling times.”

Ha-ha. Too late. You can’t spend eight years demonizing somebody as Literally Hitler™ and then enjoy drinks and snacks at his swanky Florida home, argue politely for a bit, and then leave freely without normalizing Trump.

Joe and Mika, you ignorant sluts (with apologies to Dan Aykroyd), your visit with Trump was entirely normal — and normalizing. American politicians do these little background talks with people like you all the time.

You were not brave souls venturing into the belly of a murderous beast, whose bloodlust is unprecedented in American politics. You’re part of the well-paid, highly credentialed elite, kept on by MSNBC for your ability and willingness to instill completely unnecessary panic among some of America’s most vulnerable and worst-informed citizens.

I’m sorry to have to tell you this, Mr. and Mrs. Morning Show Hosts, but you aren’t the heroes of this story. ….

 

 

Tough Love Truths for the Democrats | Bill Maher’s New Rule

Published by Papa Giorgio

This comes by way of RIGHT SCOOP…

BTW, LANGAUGE WARNING… and … while I don’t necessarily agree with all Bill Maher’s thoughts — in general and below — he is truth telling in a high percentile range:

Staunch Democrat but realist Bill Maher went after Democrats last night who are already attacking the incoming Trump administration while continuing to ignore the reasons why they lost the election.

Maher wrote in a tweet “It’s amazing how an election loss, even as big as this one, still doesn’t put a dent in the thinking that lost it.”

He goes after the woke Democrat orthodoxy and says “Democrats run for office as if the voters don’t live here”, suggesting just how out of touch Democrats have become with the very voters they demand vote for them.”

He even suggests that Democrats must make “too woke a cancelable offense” after describing how Seth Moulton’s campaign manager resigned after Moulton suggested he doesn’t want his daughters to play against a “formerly male athlete.”

It’s time for Democrats to stop screaming at people to “get with the program,” and instead make a program worth getting with.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Discusses the Amsterdam Pogrom (Al Sharpton’s Version)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Today on The Free Press Live, Michael Moynihan and Batya Ungar-Sargon interview Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the recent violence in Amsterdam directed toward Jewish residents—and what this disturbing event signals about ongoing trends in the West.

New York’s Pogrom Leader Made a “Kingmaker”

Among those calling for former President Donald Trump’s conviction for the impeachment charge of incitement to insurrection is none other than the Rev. Al “No Justice, No Peace” Sharpton. No joke. Now, the reverend doesn’t have the most credible voice when speaking about justice or peace. On the contrary, his past activism reveals otherwise. Larry revisits Rev. Sharpton’s list of lies in this episode, from the Tawana Brawley scandal to 5 million debt in taxes. Ladies and gentlemen, without further ado, Larry presents the Rev. Al Sharpton: “Democratic Kingmaker.” (Many links at Larry’s video description)

Larry Elder reminds the audience about these two characters credibility… and the hypocrisy that suits their need. More:

  • Democratic Race Hustlers in Ferguson | |
  • Larry Elder Works Through Obama’s Re-Inserting Racism Into the Trayvon Martin Affair | |

The Biden Admin Peacefully Transferring Power To Hitler

Published by Papa Giorgio

I add a bunch of stuff to Larry Elder’s recent audio from November 11th (APPLE TUNES). The quick change of tune here is amazing, both from KJP, Biden, and Kamala Harris – as well as the MSM.

ACE of SPADES has a good post on this:

Even stupid, idiot, uneducated leftists are putting it together: Wait, you told us he was Hitler. Literally Hitler. So either you are a bunch of craven quislings who are eager to fete Hitler, or… you lied, gaslit, and drove us crazy for eight years just to cling on to filthy political power.

I think it’s the latter.

Biden called Trump “President-elect” and welcomed him back to the White House. All with a smile on his face:

BIDEN: “Well, Mr. President-Elect and former President Donald, congratulations.”

TRUMP: “Thank you very much.”

BIDEN: “And looking forward to having a, like we said, smooth transition. We’ll do everything we can to make sure you’re accommodated, what you need. We’re going to get a chance to talk about some of that today.”

TRUMP: “Good.”

BIDEN: “Welcome.”

TRUMP: “Thank you very much.”

They met for two hours — longer than scheduled.

I approve of Trump going there. Not to pay respects to Biden, but to get the concession he never got from Hillary Clinton. He needs the left and the establishment (but I repeat myself) to understand and acknowledge that he has beaten them fair and square, and if they #Resist the democratically-elected, majority-vote president, then they are #Insurrectionists and will be treated with all the mercy that Biden treated the J6 “insurrectionists.”

Speaking of: Good point from Legal Insurrection.

There’s going to be a lot of talk about Trump needing to “extend the olive branch.” NO.

If he had lost, he would have been jailed. And for his support of Trump, Elon likely would have been bankrupted and jailed.

Those who launched the lawfare must be held accountable.

He doesn’t need to persecute random Democrats. He does need to ensure that his DOJ investigates Fani Willis, Nathan Wade, Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, Jack Smith, and Merrick Garland.

SCOTT JENNINGS!

PJ-MEDIA pounces, lol

…. The other oddity of this happy meeting was the fact that Old Joe was palling around with the guy that the Democrats were calling Hitler just a few days ago. In fact, X is still full of videos of hysterical leftists wailing about the descent of fascism upon our once-free country, and the beaming old man to Donald Trump’s immediate left (of course) at the White House on Wednesday was largely responsible for that hysteria.

This did not, of course, start with the election season. The Democrats’ fearmongering about Trump began the moment he announced his candidacy for the 2016 Republican nomination, and it never let up in the intervening years. It reached its apex on Sept. 1, 2022, when Biden, in a dark, threatening, nationally televised speech before an ominous red-and-black background and flanked by two Marines in full dress uniform, declared that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”

For the first and only time in American history, a president declared that his primary political opposition was outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse. The message couldn’t have been clearer: The establishment left, entrenched in power but deeply afraid of losing that power, was intent on criminalizing political opposition. Dissent from Biden’s agenda, and you could end up with the thought police breaking down your door at 4 a.m. The FBI, on the other hand, comes at 6 a.m., as Polymarket’s Shayne Coplan just found out.

“As I stand here tonight,” Biden declared in front of his ersatz National Socialist background, “equality and democracy are under assault. We do ourselves no favor to pretend otherwise.” Biden said equality and democracy were under assault, and then he proceeded to assault them. He said he intended to “speak as plainly as I can to the nation about the threats we face,” but he wasn’t referring to China, Russia, North Korea, or the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, and certainly not to the woke America haters who infest our public schools, colleges, and universities. No, Biden’s big threat to the nation was Trump, along with the Americans who dared to vote against him and reject his policies. Old Joe came closer to calling for war upon American citizens than any president since Jefferson Davis.

“MAGA Republicans have made their choice,” Biden declared. “They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies.” This was the “accuse your enemy of what you’re doing” strategy to a T. Old Joe added, “Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to — to destroying American democracy.”

And yet, there he was on Wednesday, cheesin’ and grinnin’, as Barack Obama would put it, with the sinister destroyer of democracy himself. Why, it’s as if the whole thing was a put-on. There never was any threat to democracy, except from Old Joe himself and his henchmen. Trump and his supporters never represented “an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” and Biden likely knew this even as he was saying it back in 2022. But will Old Joe, in his present happy mood, call on leftists to calm down and tell them the whole “threat to our democracy” shtick was just a vote-getting tactic? Don’t hold your breath.

“I’d Do It Again” | Veteran’s Day

Published by Papa Giorgio

Veterans Day stands for a lot of things to many people. But for the men and women who served, it’s personal. In this feature we hear from three veterans of different eras of U.S. military history on what Veterans Day means to them. A very special thank you to Troy Taylor, Steve Evans and Wayne Matter for telling us their story.

Are you grateful for your freedom? Then, today and always, we should thank our veterans. For Veterans Day, use this video to honor these brave men and women for their service and sacrifice. They put their very lives on the line to keep us safe. They left loves ones and shed blood so that we could live free. We owe each of them such great appreciation. Set aside a time during your worship service to let the veterans in your church know how thankful you are for their service.

This Veterans’ Day, we believe it is particularly important to take the time to thank those who have served our nation and defending our freedom. Thank you!

The Man – Reagan

Reagan’s Remarks at the Veterans Day Wreath-Laying Ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery 11-11-85

CLICK TO ENLARGE

MSM Argues/Admits One of the Reasons Trump Won | #WarOnWomen

Published by Papa Giorgio

Before the video, here is some good X comments via Thomas Chatterton Williams:

Content aside. One of the reasons podcasts have exploded their audiences while cable news dwindles is that it’s actually just unbearable as a viewer to watch a bunch of people shout over each other instead of fully making their points.

[The] man can’t even complete a sentence before he’s called a transphobe and accused of using a slur with a level of indignation that is unhinged.

Who at CNN likes this and believes it’s serving their audience?

Dennis Prager has said this for years in a memorable quip, S.I.X.H.I.R.B. ~ sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted. Somehow “Transphobia” needs to be added. Maybe, SIXTHIRB, like you have a lisp… lol. Remember Hillary’s version?

  • “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

Speaking about the CNN debate, Coleman Hughes notes:

Okay, here is what started out just as the CNN video, but blossomed into this monstrosity. Lol.

More from the NEW YORK POST:

Female athletes have lost nearly 900 medals to transgender rivals competing against them in women’s sporting categories, an eye-opening United Nations report has revealed.

The study — titled “Violence against women and girls in sports” — stated that more than 600 female athletes have been bested at various events by competitors who were born male.

“According to information received, by 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports,” the report said.

“The replacement of the female sports category with a mixed-sex category has resulted in an increasing number of female athletes losing opportunities, including medals, when competing against males.”

The wide-ranging report, compiled by Reem Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, was presented to the UN General Assembly earlier this month.

[….]

“Women and girls already have many odds stacked against them that impede their equal and effective participation in sports. In addition, their ability to play sport in conditions of safety, dignity and fairness has been further eroded by the intrusion of males who identify as female in female-only sports and related spaces,” 

Kamala Budgeted Campaign Like She Would Have the Government

Published by Papa Giorgio

SEE: How Kamala Harris plowed through $1 billion (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)

It was ultimately no use. On Tuesday, Donald Trump made history and became only the second former president to win a nonconsecutive term. After surviving two assassination attempts on the campaign trail, Trump dominated Harris in battleground states to emerge as the president-elect. And he did so with far less cash.

The story of how Harris pocketed record sums while failing to gain support from voters will be studied by campaigns for decades to come. Democrats who successfully pressured octogenarian President Joe Biden to pass the torch to the former California senator are now conducting an internal autopsy of the 2024 race, in which Trump raised and spent hundreds of millions of dollars less than Harris.

“A billion dollars paled in comparison to the increased prices Americans were seeing across the country,” Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch and a longtime Trump ally, told the Washington Examiner. “Voters weren’t fooled.”

The Harris campaign and its affiliated committees dropped more than $654 million on advertising from July 22 to Election Day, whereas Trump spent $378 million, or 57% less, in the same category, according to data from AdImpact.

Future Forward, the $500 million “ad-testing factory” and super PAC that supported Harris, was a reliable clearinghouse for checks from wealthy Democrats such as Reid Hoffman, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and Dustin Moskovitz. And anonymous donations, or so-called “dark money,” also benefited Harris at a faster and more substantial clip than Trump thanks to lax federal laws that progressives often criticize but, nonetheless, exploited in 2024.

The Harris campaign declined to comment on its finances. A fuller portrait will be public after the election, as the Federal Election Commission mandates post-general election reports for candidates within 30 days.

In mid-October, the Harris campaign disclosed that it had spent over $880 million this election, almost $526 million greater than the roughly $354 million that the Trump campaign had disclosed spending, according to a Washington Examiner analysis of federal filings. Much of the Harris campaign’s spending was allocated for digital media advertising, polling, and travel from state to state, including to a private jet company called Advanced Aviation.

Payroll and the taxes that accompanied it accounted for $56.6 million of the Harris campaign’s spending. In comparison, the Trump campaign reported spending $9 million on payroll — employing hundreds fewer staff members.

There was also the army of political, digital, and media consultants who were paid over $12.8 million by the Harris campaign, filings show.

… read it all …

LOTS O-MONEY via OFF THE PRESS:

Finger-pointing has erupted over the Kamala Harris campaign blowing up to $20 million on swing-state concerts Monday night, hours before the VP’s spectacular election loss to Donald Trump — prompting concern that everyday staff and vendors won’t get paid amid reports the campaign is in debt by the same amount.

Members of the defeated Harris team tell The Post that the concerts had a ruinous effect on the Democratic campaign’s coffers and that fact was no secret — with one planned performance by ’90s alt-rock goddess Alanis Morissette getting scrapped to save money.

The seven swing-state concerts on election eve featured performances by Jon Bon Jovi in Detroit, Christina Aguilera in Las Vegas, Katy Perry in Pittsburgh and Lady Gaga in Philadelphia — with 2 Chainz joining Harris on Nov. 2, three days before the election, for an eighth concert in Atlanta.

Two sources said that Obama campaign alum Stephanie Cutter pushed the concert concept as a way to woo lower-propensity voters to the polls.

While the performers donated their time and talent, the sets still required an immense commitment of manpower and financial resources. ….

LOTS O-MONEY via PJ-MEDIA:

… Most of it went for advertising, which is a reasonable expenditure for a presidential campaign. The Washington Examiner reported Friday that “the Harris campaign and its affiliated committees dropped more than $654 million on advertising from July 22 to Election Day, whereas Trump spent $378 million, or 57% less, in the same category, according to data from AdImpact.” A good chunk of what was left went for polling and travel, which is reasonable, but the Harris campaign wasn’t going to risk getting dirty by hobnobbing with the hoi polloi: the travel expenses includes payment to “a private jet company called Advanced Aviation.”

Neo-Marxist apparatchiks don’t come cheap, and so the Harris camp shelled out a princely $56.6 million for payroll and the accompanying taxes. On top of that, Kamala and her henchmen plunked down $12.8 million for “political, digital, and media consultants,” all of whom promptly proved that they don’t know their own business and are wildly overpaid.

To get some idea of how disproportionate that is, note that the Trump campaign spent all of $9 million on payroll. There are some very wealthy Commies out there today courtesy of Kamala Harris, although to be sure, her campaign employed far more people than Trump’s did.

Harris also spent over $15 million to hire the parade of icky celebrities she trotted out to boost attendance at her allies, and sent a cool million to Oprah Winfrey for hosting a town hall with her and appearing at her final rally. Oh, you thought Oprah was appearing out of conviction, love for our country, and thoughtful support for the candidate she thought would best lead us through the perilous coming four years? Come on, man! 

Worst of all, however, was the fact that “the Harris campaign spent six figures on building a set for Harris’s appearance on the popular Call Her Daddy podcast with host Alex Cooper. The interview came out in October and was reportedly filmed in a hotel room in Washington, D.C.” Wait a minute. Doesn’t this notorious sex podcast have a studio? Yes, but it’s in Los Angeles, and apparently Kamala and her minions decided that it would be better to spent over a hundred thousand dollars to build a new set rather than have the candidate fly all the way out to a state she already had in the bag.

The set that the Harris campaign built was not exactly a masterpiece. The Daily Caller asked trenchantly: “How the heck could this have cost six figures? How? The chairs, shelves, and knick-knacks on the shelves are ugly and cheap-looking, like Chinese-made Amazon basics furniture. In a couple of trips to the local Home Depot, the boys and I could whip up something better with a fraction of the budget. Although $100,000 is a drip in an ocean of billions, it’s emblematic of the poor spending choices of the campaign that got them nowhere. Also, to spend it for an hour-long appearance on a trashy sex podcast? What an utter waste of money and time.” ….