Democrats will champion despicable pedophilia within five years - or less          

                               

Rush Limbaugh warned Democrats would eventually promote pedophilia. 

Progressivism never stops. Its advocates never say 'This is far enough.' No sooner is one objective completed than left-wing agitators shout that a new social justice battle be waged.

For centuries, God-ordained families headed by one biological man and one biological woman have been civilizations' bedrocks.

But just as progressives hunger to rewrite Western Civilization's history (witness scholastic textbook revisionism and the razing of American Founders' statuary), they crave cultural destruction.

First, they urged same-sex marriages be legally recognized. Never mind that some 2000 years of world cultural norms, not to mention Divine Will as declared in Scripture, were arrayed against such abominations. 

In a 4/3/2024 Des Moines Register essay, former Polk County District Court Judge Robert B. Hanson (who had ruled in favor of same-sex Iowa marriages in 2007), tellingly characterized legalizing such deviant unions as being but a step on "the road to progress."

The obvious implication: "progress" is an as-yet-unreached destination. Meaning additional ambitions are desired.

Additional degenerates insisted they, too, deserved acceptance. Polygomous marriages and "throuples" were proclaimed legitimate by cultural disrupters. Members of the unnatural wedlock depicted by TLC program Sister Wives asserted they hoped to "combat social prejudices."

Again, popular sentiment opposing aberrance is the product of common sense, traditional cultural mores, and Biblical mandate.

Today, transgenderism is all the rage in progressive precincts. Democrat President Joe Biden named Richard Leland Levine Assistant Secretary of Health, in 2021. Richard had earlier taken to wearing women's attire and rebranded himself "Rachel."

In its laudatory profiling of troubled Levine, Wikipedia consistently referred to him as "her" and "she." Rather than conveying reality, Wikipedia's editors prioritized progressive attitude and presented a false account. Future students may consider Wikipedia information for analyses. If so, they will be misled and their conclusions skewed. Historical accuracy will be a casualty.

In June 2023, Biden invited hundreds of mentally maladjusted wrong-dressers to a White House event celebrating "Pride." Photos of topless and painted transgenders cavorting on the White House lawn went viral.

A beaming Biden looked on and pronounced the twisted frolickers "courageous." 

Most recently, Biden prioritized transgenders (who vote) over Jesus (who doesn't), by proclaiming the Christian Easter Sunday commemoration of Christ's Resurrection to be Transgender Day of Visibility. 

"Today, we send a message to all transgender Americans," Biden declared. "You are loved. You are heard. You are understood. You belong. You are America, and my entire administration and I have your back."

(Biden also claimed transgenders built this nation. I didn't know Jefferson favored evening gowns.)

Christian group Return To Order launched an online petition calling on Biden to apologize for his action against the Sacred Day. The number of signers has already exceeded sponsors' initial expectation.

Transgender teachers inculcate in toddlers unnatural values. Progressive advocates insist graphic, aberrant XXX imagery be welcomed in school libraries.

Transgender actors and characters polluted entertainment. They've been featured in TV shows including The Bold and the Beautiful, Medical Center, and Star Trek: Discovery. Among recent American films that portrayed transgenders sympathetically were Cowboys and West Side Story. Numerous foreign movies tout transgenderism.

It surely won't be long before a television network presents a transgender newsreader. Competing networks will doubtlessly follow suit, lest they be perceived as insufficiently woke.

Transgenderism is validated by psychiatric and other medical professions that stopped caring about patient welfare long ago, and instead champion woke delusions. The profit motive exerts tremendous attraction; there are millions to be reaped from hormone treatments and sex-organ mutilations.

To opine that the deviant "road to progress" will lead to pedophilia is not mere conjecture. Preliminary moves in that direction have already been undertaken. 

A November 2021 New York Post article  reported that Allyn Walker, a transgender assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice at Virginia University, stepped down after protest over his insistence that pedophiles be referred to respectfully as "minor-attracted persons" (MAPS).

But progressive academia did not judge Walker's sympathy for child lust disqualifying. The following year, he gained employment with the Johns Hopkins University Moore center which is, ironically, "aimed at preventing child sexual abuse," according to the New York Post. 

A sympathetic 2022 Rutger's University review of Walker's book-length defense of child obsession, A Long Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and their Pursuit of Dignity, euphemized potential predators as innocuous MAPS. Noted was Walker's wooly headed argument that pedophiles be portrayed positively in media. 

Also in 2022, a National Library of Medicine report observed "Interest in the sexual attractions to children or minors (referred to in this paper as 'minor attraction') is increasing in academic and social contexts."

The author(s) lamented "stigma-related stress" that child-lusters allegedly suffer.

Entertainment targeted at children now communicates perversions, the intentions being acclimation and potential conversion. One Nickelodeon comedy features a 13 year-old transgender actor. Breitbart writer John Nolte often castigates what he terms the "Disney Grooming Syndicate," including Pixar, for churning out deviant sexual messages in films like Lightyear and Strange World for innocent audiences.

Progressives, including those in political office, don't view moral wrongs as negative phenomena to be punished and hopefully eradicated, but alternative choices deserving of societal respect and accommodation.

Last March, per the Lexington Herald-Leader, the Kentucky House considered a bill that criminalized possession, trafficking, importation, or promotion of child sex dolls. In commenting on that legislation, Democrat State Senator Karen Berg expressed the terrible view that such perverted devices might be beneficial.

"[F]or people who are attracted to minors, these dolls actually decrease their proclivity to go out and attack children. That it actually gives them a release that makes them less likely to go out of their home," she said.

In reality, of course, making such horrible tools available would confer government sanction on pedophilia.

Berg did eventually support the legislation. But, as disclosed in the Lexington Herald-Leader, the bizarre thinking she'd voiced is "an ongoing debate among experts, documented in publications by the National Institutes for Health and Journal of Sex Research."

Democrat Bill Clinton frolicked on mega-Democrat Party donor Jeffrey Epstein's 'Pedophile Island.' What elected Democrat has publicly condemned the former president for his fetid dalliance? 

Though they refrained from criticizing Clinton for actual misbehavior, Democrats are now circulating online doctored photos purportedly capturing ex-President Trump in unsavory circumstances. Despite those fraudulent portrayals having been debunked, Democrats persist in promoting them. Trump, in reality, banned Epstein from Mar-A-Lago.

When a youngster, Joe Biden's daughter Ashley confided in her diary that her showers were interrupted by the Democrat appearing, uninvited, and disrobing to join her.

"Probably inappropriate" she wrote. Ashley also alluded to intimacy with an unnamed family member and ensuant sexual addiction she attributed to Joe Biden's bathroom lurking.

Just as I've never heard a Democrat, elected or otherwise, condemn Clinton for suspect adventuring on Epstein's island, I haven't read of any denouncing Biden's alleged lavatory prowling. Nor have the current president's supporters addressed his untoward predilection for sniffing little girls' hair, multitudinous photographic evidence of which abounds online.

All of the foregoing were predicated on the false conviction that standards of right and wrong are subjective. They are not. God's Word makes clear that morality is set and beyond disputation. Men can abide by His standard or not, but we cannot refashion it for personal comfort and convenience.

But Progressives loathe Spiritual Faith. In their worldview, the man-established State is the highest authority. Their urge to demolish Western Civilization traditions has led them to embrace moral foulness. Expect their sick crusade to continue. Rush called it.

What enemies we have in 'experts'

An organization misleadingly titled the "American Political Science Association" recently issued its members' collective opinions of our country's presidents: The 2024 Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey.

I write "misleadingly," because the group is not exclusively American. By its own website's accounting, the APSA is composed of "more than 11,000 members in 100 countries."  

Ivory-tower elitists in that organization are basically wagging their fingers at regular voting Americans. Why citizens here should heed a global group's judgements of our chosen presidents -- and, by implication, of which sorts of candidates we should cast our future ballots -- is an obvious question the APSA report never addresses.

Unsurprisingly, voices in the group are disdainful of President Trump. He was and is supported by tens of millions of American patriots who compose the MAGA movement. Trump's policies rightly put our country ahead of other nations, including APSA members' own. 

Unsurprisingly, they ranked him last.

Globalists have long viewed America as a piggybank, and believed that foreign peoples are somehow entitled to U.S. taxpayers' earnings. (Ukrainian hands-out leaders, and Washington politicians who rush to accommodate them over their constituents' needful circumstances, exemplify that wretched philosophy.)

Pro-Democrat press functionaries regularly wheel out supposed experts to assure viewers so injudicious as to trust them of Biden's infallibility. Seemingly, by those venues' reckonings, faith in the Democrat Party and its steady leftward trend is necessary for expert ranking.

Grassroots American citizens have suffered disastrous consequences owing to experts' counsel. Such include unreasonably high gas and grocery prices, an open southern border across which illegal invaders stream in record numbers (potentially devastating our social security, medicare, hospital, educational, and other taxpayer-supported programs), soft-on-crime policies and the crime epidemic that predictably ensued, and international warfare including in the Middle East.

But, like erroneous television weather forecasters, media-crowned and uniformly liberal experts need never fear professional sanction. That mainstream outlets persist in presenting them is indicative of institutional political bias.

A good rule of thumb is to ignore establishment-hailed experts. Blinded by ideology, they cannot see our country's sorry condition - let alone what action is needed to make it great again.

 The Big Tech billionaire who hates democracy

Three times last Monday morning, I attempted to post criticism of Joe Biden's open-borders immigration policy and its disastrous consequences. Specifically, a recent flood of hundreds of illegal aliens (the term used in government documents) over the Texas border. They violently overwhelmed that state's National Guard agents.

(Newsweek reported that, astoundingly, the invading rioters could be allowed to stay in the country whose sovereign right to enforce our Southern border they had given the finger. Credit Joe Biden and the Democrats.)

My attempted Facebook post disappeared each time. I eventually received a notice that my message violated "community standards," but no supposed offense was specified. The option to register an objection did not function.

Reportedly, Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg has begun blocking conservative expression on Instagram. Breitbart termed that his "latest scheme to help Joe Biden."

Instagram and Facebook are both owned by Meta. The liberal California media mogul is Meta's largest shareholder.

Are Zuckerberg/Meta now impeding Americans' political speech on Facebook, also? Should that possibility be revealed as actual, I will leave Facebook, as many others also surely will. To quote a popular maxim: "Go woke, Go broke."

Per Open Secrets documentation, Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla have in past years lavished contributions almost exclusively on Democrat candidates and regional election offices, surely with the ambition of skewing ballot outcomes.

The couple did also contribute to RINO Chris Christie's stunt campaign. His sole reason for running was to hinder the overwhelmingly popular Donald Trump, a tactic that failed spectacularly for all the world to witness. The disgraced former New Jersey governor has since receded into deserved obscurity.

Last January, The Federalist published a damning report on a new election-warping gambit: The Zuckerbuck-flooded Center for Tech and Civic Life could "funnel more than $700 million to election offices during the 2024 election under the auspices of CTCL officials and their partners in the nonprofit world of left-wing activism.

There's nothing untoward about donating to candidates with whom one agrees. I do that. Most donors do.

But when such inclination is accompanied by partisan expression- blacklisting and greasing the palms of local election officials, a behavioral pattern is evidenced and corruption's stench becomes manifest.

In the hours following my illegal immigrant-invasion Facebook posts being blocked, I was able to post on other topics. My speculation is that the site may now screen for phrases like " illegal immigrant," and automatically prevent visibility for related messages.

No election witness would be flabbergasted by the left-wing Mark Zuckerberg attempting to pervert America's 2024 presidential campaign. It seems he, like the Democrat Party itself, hopes to despoil another ballot competition for mentally enfeebled Joe.

On Friday, 3/22, this letter of mine was published by the Des Moines Register, Iowa's largest newspaper:

Safeguard children by keeping school materials age-appropriate  

Though not a parent, I have been a child. That qualifies me to speak on this.

A March 17 story reported that the Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll had found majority support for student access to sexually graphic books. 

Throughout the piece, the writers freely used the sensational phrase "book ban," despite its not being applicable in this case. The books in question can be written, published, marketed, and stocked in public libraries. 

The writers did note that. But they sat on the inconvenient truth until their article's penultimate paragraph, and only portrayed the reality as merely child-protection advocates' partisan contention.

A question unaddressed in the story is this: Given that school computers are (presumably) set to prevent student access to XXX pornography, why should children have access to such imagery in school library books? 

Will those who today push for school libraries to stock graphically salacious books soon challenge school internet prohibitions of sexual depictions, as well?

The 'progressive' ambition of establishing youngsters as autonomous agents free from parental regulation and subject to state manipulation is apparent in disdain of parents' proper roles as education arbiters. (The identical desire to wrest control of minors from parents animates school personnel 'transitioning' children in secret.)

I take a backseat to no man in opposing censorship of materials available to adults like myself, whether it be books, records, movies, online sites, or some communication vehicle not yet invented.  

As a Marshalltown resident in the 1980s, I publicly opposed a pro-censorship pressure group there that called for the shuttering of an adults-only bookstore. My activism included an essay in the local newspaper.

But minors are another matter. The concept of "age appropriateness" is a legitimate one that should guide this discussion. 

Among adult responsibilities is the safeguarding of children. Those who would throw wide the inappropriate-material door for youths (who are definitionally underdeveloped in mind and temperament) are failing that moral obligation.

DC Larson, Waterloo

Speakers gagged by Biden Democrats

That many of today's Democrats despise the First Amendment as much as they do the Constitution's other guarantees to individual liberty is an egregious truth.

Two crisp examples are before us.

Steve Nikoui's son, U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Kareem Nikoui, was among American personnel killed by a suicide bomber in 2021, at the Abbey Gate entrance of Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. 

That tragedy occured during what Western Journal termed "Biden's disastrous and disorganized exit from Afghanistan." As Donald Trump often reminds rally attendees, the inept Biden also abandoned to the Taliban some $83 million worth of American military equipment.

Gold Star father Steve Nikoui attended Biden's preposterous State Of the Union address as a guest of Rep. Brian Mast of Florida. The SOTU speech is a traditional custom, but fog-headed invalid Biden perverted it into a campaign event. 

"Not since President Lincoln and the Civil war have freedom and democracy been under assault at home as they are today!" the seemingly dosed president spat, as he smeared tens of millions of law-abiding patriotic Americans.

When Biden deceitfully boasted of the country's safety under him ("America is safer today than when I took office," lied the career politician), Steve Nikoui could tolerate no more of the bilge.

"Do you remember Abby Gate? U.S. Marines?" he yelled in response.

But in these days when liberty is so reviled by Democrats, defying an office-ensconced progressive autocrat brings harsh punitive actions from armed agents of The State. Praetorian Guard thugs quickly set upon Nikoui, stifling him and hustling the heretic from the hall.

Of course, he was then handcuffed and jailed. An 'enemy of The State,' Democrats might sneer.

Mast visited the imprisoned Gold Star father. "This is America," the representative told Florida ABC affiliate WPBF. "And the blood that paid for the ability for us all to demonstrate and address the government for grievances and everything else that the First Amendment enshrines and every amendment and every part of our Bill of Rights - his family paid for that in blood."

WPBF noted that it reached out to the White House, but had received no reaction. Which seems indicative of indifference.

(On Tuesday, 3/19, all charges against Nikoui were dropped. Of course, his attempt to seek "redress of grievances" had already been squelched by the Biden government.)

In Washington State, meanwhile, Democrat Sen. Javier Valdez has introduced legislation that would establish a "hate-speech hotline." The Gateway Pundit reported that Senate bill 5427 was passed by that state's senate in a 30-18 vote. In the House, the successful margin was 56-39.

The clampdown bill would allow self-righteous actors to report and potentially prompt State repression of citizen speech subjectively deemed offensive. 

Per Gateway Pundit, 5427 states: "Bias incident means a person's hostile expression of animus toward another person, relating to the other person's actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, or sensory disability."

The bill does exempt government criticism from its many prohibitions of citizen expression. But moves to squelch that, too, will doubtlessly follow.

It now awaits (and is expected to receive) Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee's imprimatur.

Inslee is notorious for his hostility toward political expression. Prior to a 2016 Washington visit by then-candidate Donald Trump, Inslee held a press conference at which he pompously declared "Your hate is not welcome in our state!" 

The governor went on to decry Trump's supposedly "dangerous rhetoric." Obviously, as is currently fashionable among his Democrat fellows, Inslee exploits the 'hate' hobgoblin as an anti-free speech  vehicle.

Fox News notes that critics of a previous bid to grant Washington State activists censorhip capacity called the bill a "tattletail hotline."

(A previous initiative guaranteed supposedly injured parties up to $2000 per individual or incident. While that provision is not replicated in SSB 5427, the freedom-restrictive nature lives on.)

Liberty Nation warned: "If one cannot say anything that another person of a different race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation finds offensive in some way without being reported to the attorney general's office, than one no longer enjoys the constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech."

This reminds that the Left's ideological inclination toward authoritarian State boot-crushing of citizen expression began with "hate speech" laws and regulations. 'It's for your protection,' partisans assured. 'The common good requires speech monitoring and control.'

Perpetual motion is inherent in progressivism. Its proponents never say "this is far enough."

Once society became acclimated to the non-legal concept of "hate speech," additional verbal classes were cited as also requiring clampdown. Mis- and disinformation (often merely ideas contrary to officially sanctioned opinions) were proclaimed threats in need of legal silencing.

Revelations of Biden agencies coordinating censorship of citizen speech with privately owned and sympathetic online platforms have emerged. Those reports surprised no one familiar with the ways of modern authoritarianism.

While sometimes stormy congressional hearings ensued, neither Biden Administration misddoers nor Big Tech fascists have been sanctioned.

These are perilous days for independent voices. 

An earlier version of this essay of mine was published by American Thinker on 3/13/2024.

The amorality of ABC's George Stephanopoulos

It is probable that ABC's Good Morning America host George Stephanopoulos genuinely feels he did nothing wrong in publicly assaulting teenage-rape victim Nancy Mace. His sleazy past portrays a politically obsessed hatchet-swinger without conscience. 

Examining doctors might conclude he's a sociopath. I can't make that diagnosis, but I am suspicious for sound reasons.

Stephanopoulos savaged Rep. Mace of South Carolina on GMA. Though her appearance had been proposed as an opportunity to share insights on 2024's presidential contest, the devious host opened the segment by attacking Mace personally.

"You endorsed Donald Trump for president," Stephanopoulos began. "Judges in two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming a victim of that rape. How do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw?"

It was a premeditated ambush offensive. The miniature monster lied numerous times during the segment. The former president was not found liable for rape, but rather "sexual abuse" - that's a pivotal legal distinction.

During her retort, Mace insisted "I'm not going to sit here on your show and be asked a question meant to shame me about another potential rape victim."

The GMA host purred that he had done no such thing, though all watching had just witnessed him doing precisely that.

The interview continued in that sorry vein, with Stephanopoulos attired in the gear of a partisan bully. Without apparent conscience, he pursued political interests and not journalistic ones.

"George Stephanopoulos tried to bully me and shame me as a rape survivor over my support for Donald Trump, which is insane to me, because he wasn't found guilty of rape anywhere," Mace subsequently told Fox's Harris Faulkner, per The Hill. 

The ABC network apparently shares Stephanopoulos's lack of conscience. The Hill article quotes an unnamed ABC spokesperson as praising the host's foulness: "George did his job by asking meaningful questions that are relevant to our viewers."

Democrats generally profess compassion for victims of sexual assault. That those claims are cynically opportunistic was made clear by their post-interview championing of Stephanopoulos and gang predations leveraged against Mace with despicable relish.

On MSNBC, Morning Joe co-hosts Joe Scarborough (sans banjo) and Mika Brzezinski, and guest Jonathan Lemire of the left-loyal Politico, castigated the South Carolina representative.

"She's not shamed because she's incapable of being shamed," chortled Scarborough.

"She was acting like an eighth-grader screaming at him," lied Brzezinski. Mace was legitimately outraged, but never screamed.

Politico's Lemire leapt into the anti-victim spectacle. "It is bad acting," he opined. "But really, it's bad faith. What we saw from Representative Mace, it was indeed, although it is impossible to shame. It is shameful."

Other cheerleaders included a Mary Sue writer who thanked (!) the ABC figure for his caddish molestation of Mace, and former Vox associate editor Aaron Rupar. Rupar tweeted commendation for the Democrat host in the scurrilous incident's aftermath. 

The Daily Beast and Raw Story also rushed to join in the pile on. 

Stephanopoulos is not new to levying attacks on women victims whose traumas he calculates as politically deleterious. In 2015, a Jackson Sun columnist recalled "The little guy cut his teeth managing 'bimbo eruptions' when Bill Clinton was running for president. His job was to destroy and discredit anyone who could make his boss look bad."

Decades later, predatory sexual deviant Clinton frolicked on Democrat mega-donor Jeffrey Epstein's 'pedophile island.' This writer has never heard of Stephanopoulos condemning the cretinous 'Slick Willie' for that jolly misbehavior.

At this point, numerous questions present themselves: 

- How do ABC's women employees feel? 

- Kimberly Godwin is the ABC News president. Has she addressed this? If not, why not? Might she perhaps share the effete GMA host's 'all's fair for the Democrat Party' maliciousness? 

- Have feminist and rape-crisis figures spoken out? Can it be that their decisions to remain silent on liberal Stephanopoulos indicate they prioritize abortion advocacy over women victims' welfare? 

Just as Stephanopoulos has a reprehensible record on sex crimes, so does ABC. Informed observers have long known that network's executives tolerate sexual abuses for the sake of political and institutional advantages. 

Its news division attempted to squelch the truth about Democrat Party-donor Harvey Weinstein's Hollywood sex crimes. And the scandalous carnal sins of former ABC celebrity host Matt Lauer are surely ones network suits would prefer be forgotten.

One dearly hopes the fetid Stephanopoulos and the network itself soon find themselves on the wrong end of a massive defamation suit brought by the slandered Trump.

Stephanopoulos's apparent smug confidence that his televised attack on teenage-rape victim Mace would go unpunished would be validated, were serious professional sanctions not forthcoming.

Given ABC's sordid history, though, blow-dried lout Stephanopoulos will get away with his vile performance. Kimberly Godwin might even give him a bonus.

New example of why discerning Americans distrust mainstream news

In October of last year, a Gallup poll found just 32% of Americans have a "great deal" or "fair amount" of trust in news media. 39% of respondents had "no confidence" in the Fourth estate. That was pronounced a "new high," as just 27% of 2016 poll respondents had answered similarly.

Legacy media brought that sorry appraisal on itself through routine dissembling. Here is the latest instance: 

On March 6, Huffington Post ran an article titled "Mark Robinson's Bizarre Ramble: 'I Absolutely Want To Go Back To the America Where Women Couldn't Vote.'" It related North Carolina's lieutenant governor Mark Robinson once enthused he'd "absolutely" desire to live in such a repressive era. 

While Robinson did in fact voice preference for that time, he did so for a pivotal reason. He explained that it was because Republicans of that era had agitated for women's electoral rights. "And they are the reason women can vote today," he accurately concluded.

The piece's author, Jennifer Bendery, scissored out that important sentence. And she compounded her wrongdoing by reusing the misrepresentative snippet in a subsequent X message. 

Other left-loyal venues quickly circulated Huffington Post's dishonest slant, also not conveying the entire quote - including the last sentence, in which Robinson explained justification. These included MSNBC, Vanity Fair, New Republic, and Vox. 

Surprisingly, usually liberal Snopes noted the quote had been "stripped of its context."

A classic example of ripping apart a full quote, that the remaining  fragment can be waved as sufficiently representative, is widespread mischaracterization of Trump's 2017 post-Charlottesille Unite the Right rally "very fine people" line. 

Viewers of that speech, and readers of its transcript, understand the then-president was referring to protesters on opposite sides of the Robert E. Lee statue debate. And that he specifically denounced hate groups. In fact, he also condemned them before that event and since then.

But for liberal agenda-pushing scribes, facts are irrelevant. They isolated just three of Trump's words - "very fine people" - and strove to palm them off on the gullible as honestly representative. One still reads and hears that false rendering regurgitated, including from conniving Democrats like Joe Biden.

The scurrilous tactic of cropping quotes to deceive news readers and channel them toward conclusions favorable to partisan fortunes joins other arrows of deception in the Fake News quiver. 

Included in that reprehensible number are skewed source selection, ladling subjective opinion phrases like "pro-choice," "gender-affirming care,' and "reproductive rights" into ostensibly straight-news articles, misrepresentative headlines, pro/con citation ratios, and photo choices.

It is also routine for supposedly objective ink-spillers to frame entire pieces acording to their personal progressive mindsets, or even abuse their situations to shovel partisan garbage.

For some three years, remember, allegedly reputable outlets peddled the "Trump-Russia Collusion" hoax. Scores of industry-ensconced donkey shills posing as journalists deceitfully assured America of its verity. 

Astoundingly, some uncritical sorts may yet believe that soundly discredited fiction and persist in patronizing sources that lied to them.

Persons so unwise as to rely upon mainstream news deserve their resultant ignorance.

Everything old and ugly is new again

Given the sickening embrace of antisemitism among many 'progressive' Democrats, it's probably only a matter of time until some Marxist donkey lackwit representing that odious contingent proposes the building of camps.

Such speculation is warranted: From London recently came accounts of anti-Israel scum in the streets shouting Third Reich slur "Judenrat" at opponents. American campuses like Harvard's are also acrawl with similarly hateful cretins. Remember that perpetual motion beyond accepted conventions animates progressivism. 

Another despicable example of Leftists zealously resurrecting a bygone evil is their recent extolling of racial segregation.

A March One Breitbart article told of renewed racial segregation in London. Two upcoming performances of Slave Play will be open exclusively to "black identifying" patrons, lest they be vulnerable to "white gaze."

(Note: This essay will not address the play's unsettling preoccupation with sexual deviance.)

Breitbart noted that during that play's Broadway run of some two years ago, similar racially restrictive performances were arranged.

Broadway and London producers evaded legal penalties with the gimmick of contriving racially segregated performances as private "invitation only" ones.

Ironically, interracial couples would be denied entrance to Slave Play which, per Breitbart "tells the story of interracial relationships throughout American history..."

(The present author is a white man married to a black woman, We would be barred from attending together. It's as if time had tumbled backward.)

That skin-color discrimination has been stoutly defended by New York and London theaters as well as by the play's author, who gushed to the BBC that he is "excited" by planned color-restricted performances. 

One remembers that the same disgusting racist notion sees Leftist employ in 'woke' Boston.

Late last year, Boston Democrat Mayor Michelle Wu convened a racially segregated seasonal event to which only "POC" officials were invited. White ones were purposefully excluded. 

Despite ensuing backlash, Wu refused to concede the truth that segregation is invariably wrong, especially when practiced by politicians like herself who shamelessly court all voters and regularly grab for their tax dollars.

Wu's husband is white. So she may ascribe to the illogical faith that racial integration and segregation are not mutually exclusive, that the latter is somehow a noble ideal of 'POC pride.'

Given her interracial marriage it may be that Democrat Wu, like other unprincipled electoral graspers, merely exploits the matter however advances her situational fortunes. Joe Biden built his career on just such scummy opportunism: An ardent segregationist when a senator - he lamented on the senate floor that busing to integrate schools would produce a "racial jungle" - he has in recent years falsely claimed to have been a youthful civil rights activist.

Boston's execrable Wu may seek reelection in January, 2026. Hopefully, word of her unapologetic flirtation with racial hatred will spread and dash her ambition against rocks.

Racial segregation is always to be condemned. It is flatly immoral, regardless of proponents' identities or their rationalizations. Long ago, such division was rightly condemned in the American public square and ripped from statutes where codified.

Despicable race division is resurgent in 'progressive' precincts. That  merits denunciation by all good people.

A question for transgenders who believe in God  

Do you think God considers you the man or woman he created you as, or the opposite sex you later reinvented yourself to resemble?

Perhaps this is the first time you've considered that question. 

If you choose the latter option, you're elevating your own will above God's. That would be foolhardy. (Don't oppose the Father; you will only fall to deserved ruination.)

God blessed some (not me) with surgical aptitude. I suppose pro-transgender partisans might argue that doctors performing 'gender reassignment' procedures do so in furtherance of Divine long-term charting and are utilizing their talents in accordance with Holy desire.

After all, skull fractures and broken limbs are recified through surgical attention. Physical conditions are restored to their proper states. Such instances exemplify medical legitimacy, and we all owe gratitude to doctors who make wrongs right.

But one's biological sex is not an injury or malady in need of alteration. It already is as it should be. As the Creator intended.

Remember, Jeremias related (in Jeremiah 1:5) that God revealed He had known the prophet even before he was formed in his mother's womb. It follows that the Father likewise knew all of us prior to our own gestations.

Again, my question: Do you think God considers you the man or woman He created you as, or the opposite sex you later reinvented yourself to resemble?

Invalid Biden imperils us all

If Joe Biden's family cared about him, they'd make him step down instead of exploiting him as a meal ticket. 

Recent days brought numerous accounts of his advanced "cognitive decline," including confusing world leaders with one another, claiming to have had contemporary converations with long-deceased figures, and inability to recall the year of son Beau's tragic demise and in what years he served as vice-president.

Those examples assume arrangement alongside sorry ones already documented, not least of which is his battle with finding his way off of stages; for that, he's frequently assisted by watchful staffers.

Following Biden's latest error-ridden press conference, Donald Trump accurately observed "He's falling apart big time!"

Special Counsel Robert Hur recently considered Biden's years-old habit of illegally retaining classified documents. Though he concluded the allegations were meritorious, Hur (bizarrely) elected against charging the president. 

"We have considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," Hur's report said, per a Breitbart account.

Also from Breitbart: "Hur's report is riddled with examples and assessments that Biden's mental faculties have deteriorated, saying 'Mr. Biden's memory also appeared to have significant limitations.'"

No disrespect for the mentally diminished is intended here. Nor does the present author relish being acidic. 

Like millions of American families, mine was sadly touched by a parent's related plight. My mother, Jean Russell Larson, authored numerous childrens' books as well as poetic and other writings for adult readers. Her own dire medical situation made this issue real for me in a tortuous way. Because of that experience, I regard sufferers with compassion and understanding.

But the American presidency is the most powerful institution in the world. Those in that office wield tremendous authority. They conduct international affairs, enter into trade and other treaties, head our country's military, attend to the general welfare, request congressional authorization for warfare, and even access nuclear codes.

Such awesome responsibilty requires intellectual lucidity. It is not wise to entrust authority of that magnitude to a man so evidently wandering in the fog of compromised capacity.

Primary blame must be accorded family members who permit this abusive spectacle, and Democrat Party operatives manipulating invalid Biden for contemptible purposes. Voters aware of his obvious handicap but who still enable that dirty business share moral culpability.

Because of them, we all live in peril.

2024 Democrat Party doesn't represent longtime supporters, values     

Today's Democrat Party is dramatically different from recent decades' incarnations on major issues that once were dear to classical liberals. 

It doesn't matter whether longtime Democrat lever-pullers continue to support that party out of nostalgia, uncritical emotion, delusion, or misplaced loyalty. 2024's progressive Democrat Party simply doesn't share veteran backers' values or ideals. 

During his 1963 radio and television address on civil rights, President John F. Kennedy was blunt. "[R]ace has no place in American life or law...This is one country."

Contemporary Democrats abhor such notions. In their 2020 national platform they pledged to appoint "U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges who look like America..." 

As candidate for president, Joe Biden promised to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court. He did, and Democrats cheered his discrimination.

The same year as Kennedy's appearance, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and gave his famous I Have a Dream address. His phrasing of noble principle is widely known: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

But in 2017, progressive students at the University of Oregon proposed sand-blasting that King quote off a campus building. They complained that the historic civil rights leader had not been sufficiently "inclusive."

An activist hailed by today's progressive Democrats is Ibram X. Kendi. He encapsulated current Democrat Party philosophy in his 2019 book How To Be An Antiracist: "The only remedy to past racism is present racism. The only remedy to present racism is future racism."

That terrible philosophy is diametrically opposed to King's own. But it is Kendi's bigotry, and not King's advocacy of brotherhood, that today's Democrat Party champions.

The 2024 Democrat Party emphasizes differences far more than commonality. It divides citizens from one another, maintaining separate voter classes, congressional caucuses, and initiatives. 

The 2020 platform also endorsed "equity." That should not be confused with 'equality,' a very different and legitimate proposition, Achieving numerical sameness would necessitate racial discrimination against which liberals once remonstrated.

Do longtime Democrat voters support those sharp diversions from their past beliefs?

In their 1976 platform, Democrats promised they would push for implementation of Title IX and eliminate "discrimination against women in all federal programs."

But during her 2023 senate confirmation hearing, Biden Supreme Court nominee (now sitting justice) Ketanji Brown-Jackson could not even define "woman." Her claimed inability surely stemmed from progressive ideology and is widely shared by Democrats obsessed with placating the transgender lobby.

Title IX protected girls' rights to participate in federally funded scholastic sports. But in this era of Democrat Party progressivism, Title IX has been warped to grant inherently dissimilar biological males access to female competitions. 

As a result, girl athletes who trained all their lives suffer injuries and lose events, scholarships, Olympic opportunities, and ensuant commercial benefits.

1970s feminists were correct in condemning "sexual objectification" - the notion that women could be reduced to mere genitalia. But that erroneous and demeaning concept is exactly the one supporting transgenderism. Democrats in 2024 argue that surgical refashioning of one's exterior is all that's needed to establish womanhood.

Do longtime Democrat voters support those sharp diversions from their past beliefs?

Lastly, Democrats were once the party of free speech. The racial justice and womens-rights movements benefited enormously from First Amendment guarantee to untrammeled expression. 

Classical liberals of previous days championed controversial books, magazines, films, and speakers. With Warren Burger as chief justice, the supreme court issued rulings affirming citizens' related rights. 

Social satirist Lenny Bruce and authors Edgar Rice Burroughs, Maurice Sendak, and even Anne Frank suffered 1960s censorial attempts. Theirs and many other voices were rightly defended by liberals of that era.

In 1973, ACLU free speech absolutists even protected morally repugnant Nazis' First Amendment right to march in Skokie, Illinois. 

(Of course, that action was intended to be provocative and attention-getting, as Skokie was home to many Holocaust survivors. ACLU attorneys understood that, but correctly believed an important principle was at stake.) 

Now, Democrats oppose free speech, particularly for contrary political perspectives - including mainstream ones. From municipalities to state legislatures to the national level, unpopular statements are repressed under "hate speech" statutes and regulations. Even thoughts are criminalized as "hate crimes."

College campuses were once hotbeds of related activism. Berkley's 1960s Free Speech Movement defended critics of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Across the nation, students printed alternative newspapers and posted flyers advertising actions and causes.

Those same campuses now teem with naive soon-to-be Democrat progressives who shout down speakers (violently attacking woman athlete Riley Gaines), agitate for oppressive speech codes, pressure administrations to 'deplatform' conservative student groups, obstruct counter-protesters exercising their Constitutional rights, and attempt to block cameras from documenting their bullyboy tactics. 

Only last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against the Biden Administration in Missouri v. Biden, having found that government agencies pressured social media companies to monitor and suppress citizen speech. 

As this essay was being prepared proof emerged of another Democrat attempt to squelch citizen speech, as well as our liberty to read what we please: Government officials eemailed and met with Amazon representatives in hopes of banning books on that online-order site. 

Racial unity, women's rights, free speech - on these and other crucial issues, such as American pride, support for Jews, and the staunch anti-communism advocated by Kennedy and partisan fellows, the 2024 Democrat Party bears no likeness to its previous self. Why voters who then endorsed it continue to do so defies sensible explanation.

DC Larson is an Iowa author and blogger. He counts Daily Caller, American Thinker, and Western Journal among freelance credits.

Joe Biden's career of racial exploitation       

by DC Larson

Joe Biden is a politician in the very worst sense of that word. Throughout decades in America’s electoral sphere he has cynically manipulated voters, retailoring himself to befit cultural permutations and, by that disingenous doing, made a fortune for himself and his dysfunctional family.

That is not the principled statesmanship the founders extolled. Rather, it is the way of the deceitful and scheming political opportunist. It is Joe Biden’s way.

Like many 1970s Democrat senators, Biden inveighed against busing to integrate schools. He perceived some degree of popular opposition and rushed to cater to that racial animus.

“Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high [sic] that it is going to explode at some point!” he thundered on a 1977 senate floor.

A 2019 NBC News subheadline summed up the divisive senator’s impact: “Joe Biden helped give America the language that is still used to oppose school integration today, legislative and education history experts say.”

NBC’s story revealed that in 1975, Biden had sponsored legislation that limited courts’ authority to integrate schools, and also an amendment that prohibited the federal government’s withholding tax monies from segregated institutions.

But in the same moment he wooed segregationists, cagey calculator Biden sought to placate civil rights forces by also professing sympathy with them by advocating for affordable housing.

During that era, chroniclers note, he maintained friendships with ardent segregationists James Eastland, Herman Talmadge, John Stennis, Strom Thurmond, and erstwhile KKK leader and long-serving Democrat Robert Byrd.

His fetid background returned to plague him during a 2019 presidential-candidate debate. Then-competitor Kamala Harris confronted Biden,

“There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school everyday, and that little girl was me.”

In that same encounter, Harris said: “It was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. It was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing.”

(Not long after this, Harris demonstrated her own inauthenticity by dispensing with pretended outrage and gigglingly becoming Biden’s vice-presidential colleague.)

When majority opinion evolved, finger-in-the-wind chameleon Biden suitably reinvented himself. No longer did he preach the supposed virtues of school segregation. Old racist pals had become liabilities. Today, he does not speak of them.

A 2020 Fox News report related that President Biden addressed Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church on the anniversary of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday. He falsely claimed to have participated in the noble Civil Rights Movement as a teenager, and to have attended Wilmington, Delaware’s Bethel AME Church during that 1960s time.

According to the New York Post, when Biden withdrew from presidential campaigning in 1987 he confessed to reporters: “I was not an activist. I was not out marching. I was not down in Selma.” That he’s resumed lying to voters underscores his smug duplicitousness.

And as the Fox report noted: “Longtime [Bethel AME Church] congregants told the Washington Free Beacon at the time that they didn’t recall Biden attending the church.”

From the Ebenezer Baptist pulpit, he also repeated his discredited account of having been arrested by South African police during an attempted 1980s visit to then-imprisoned Nelson Mandela.

Undeterred by numerous press disputations of his falsehoods, and aides’ reported moves to dissuade him from continuing to promulgate them, Biden routinely includes them in addresses to applauding listeners.

Indeed, in his last month’s address to supporters at Charleston’s Mother Emanuel AME Church, Biden reiterated the ‘I attended a black church’ yarn. The uncritical audience rewarded dishonesty with applause and shouted “Four more years!”

Decades of successful exploitation taught the old political game-player the electoral utility of giving constituencies whatever they want, whatever it might be.

To Joe Biden, winning all that matters.

I did my part in Iowa's MAGA caucus!

Very shortly after the January 15 Iowa caucuses that accorded Republican icon Donald Trump historic 51% support, seething liberals rushed to keyboards to spew antipathy toward our state and its traditional caucuses. 

"The Iowa caucus has become an outdated relic," hissed Bloomberg columnist Patricia Lopez, perhaps through gritted teeth. She dismissed the value of personal interaction to the process of choosing leaders, and asserted technological advancements had rendered the downhome method in which neighbors meet obsolete. 

She quoted the University of Minnesota's Larry Jacobs as slurring our state's caucus system as "one that's far outlived even its most modest claims." He later added "The people who show up are so unlike the rest of America...It's just not reflective."

(That assessment reminds that the Biden-era Democrat Party urges Iowa's first-in-the-nation status, which President Trump safeguarded, be abolished and replaced by the "more diverse" South Carolina.)

Early in his undisciplined stream-of-consciousness account of caucus attendance, Salon's J.M. Norris boasted: "As an American, I want to do everything possible to prevent Trump from returning to the White House."

Acompanied by his wife, Norris temporarily switched his affiliation so as to participate. He littered his diatribe with tiresome finger-wagging of racial nature (and went so far as to count heads on that score), conceded that the event was more orderly than Democrat ones, but was not swayed from liberal prejudices.

The Salon scribe derided Trump backers' presentations as "when the train left for crazy town." His characterizations of MAGA attendees and the candidate they'd braved inclement elements to endorse tended toward the mocking.

Norris ended the piece by recalling that he'd laughed when his wife declared "I need a shower to get the conservative off me."

Iowa's largest paper, the Gannett-owned Des Moines Register, is notoriously left-sympathetic. The paper's reporters and opinion writers savaged Trump throughout his presidency, not giving a damn that a majority of Iowa voters had helped elect him.

Register columnist Lucas Grundmeier waved a dismissive hand. The headline for his post-caucus piece (which also ran on Yahoo! News) slighted Iowa caucuses as "redundant," and "alarming" given that they had boosted Trump.

"The oft-explained virtue of Iowa is supposed to be the opportunity for lesser-known candidates to speak face-to-face with voters and gain a foothold without having to raise a prohibitive amount of money," Grundmeier wrote. 

He complained that caucus-goers had given Trump overwhelming support despite the MAGA figure's eschewing such usual politicking. 

Comes now a clear-headed perspective, one properly respectful of our caucuses and the grassroots folks who rally to them.

In such gatherings, everyday Iowans hash out our country's electoral direction. Our caucuses are quintessentially democratic and allow regular citizens an opportunity to participate in the Great Conversation. 

Workaday Iowans battled through unexpectedly harsh winter weather to assemble in churches, voting places, gymnasiums, and school rooms to take part in the electoral process and make our common voices heard. We refuse to be talked down to by disengenuous "experts" who would cancel out our pivotal role in America's course, were they able.

Their hostility toward us is evidenced by their determination to crush our homespun caucuses.

In progressive Democrats' thinking (and that of RINOs), regular Americans' ideas and values are unimportant. Iowa's time-honored caucuses, where average citizens help chart our nation's course, are antithetical to the ambition of top-down political authority over all facets of people's lives.

As is now well known, Trump carried 98 of my state's 99 counties. My Black Hawk County precinct delivered him whale-sized majority endorsement. Already, he is rallying New Hampshire throngs.

I was proud to march in Trump's MAGA movement and play a role in its historic victory!

Postscript: Lest my earlier allegations re many progressives' ambition for top-down authority seem exaggerated, consider that numerous Americans of lofty position attended the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. Featured guest Klaus Schwab touted the predictive potential of Artificial Intelligence. "But then the next step could be to go into prescriptive mode, which means you do not even have to have elections anymore because you can already predict. And afterward, you can say 'Why do we need elections?'"