Pastor Jack Graham Answers the Question: How Do We Face the Growing Darkness?

/0 Comments/in , /by

James and Betty Robison recently sat down with Dr. Jack Graham, pastor of the 40,000+ member Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, TX. They asked him what he says to churchgoers distraught about what is happening in America. The full interview is scheduled for Sept. 6 and 8 on Life Today. Below are some sneak previews.

Facing the Darkness

Can Christians Vote for Those Who “Shed Innocent Blood?”

The Challenge for the Church to Stand Up to Those Who Are “Moving the Mark.”

James Robison emphasized the difference between living in a society affected by evil versus being part of a society “sold out to evil.” He and Graham then discussed those intent on “moving the mark” by working to remove Judeo-Christian norms and punishing those who speak out against their efforts.

“It Has to Start with the Pastors — We are compromised at many levels.”

We Have the Tools to Fix This.

They then discussed the way forward: not dependence on a political solution (though we need to vote). It is much more a rising to the Christian responsibility of speaking truth to power boldly, as Daniel, Joseph and the prophets did. That must be done by all of us, great and small.

Betty Robison, A Mother and Grandmother, Weighs in on the Urgency of the Times.

James asked his wife Betty to discuss her thoughts concerning the times. “We need to be weeping,” she said. “Our hearts need to be crushed.” She added that the church must fall on its face in prayer, then rise up with courage, strength and boldness and “march together.” (For more from the author of “Pastor Jack Graham Answers the Question: How Do We Face the Growing Darkness?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Where’s the Media Outrage Over Hillary’s $12K Armani Jacket?

/0 Comments/in , /by

There was no liberal outrage when news broke that Hillary Clinton wore a $12,000 Giorgio Armani spring tweed jacket during her New York Primary victory speech in April. Clinton even dared to stress inequality in her speech – was not her own conscience screaming?

But where is the liberal media now?

You may recall during the 2012 presidential election the liberal media’s obsession with casting Mitt Romney as a rich, out of touch patrician, indifferent towards the little guy.

When Mitt’s wife, Ann Romney, wore a designer blouse costing $990 to a campaign event they could not contain themselves.

A stunning example of such was an article for the Washington Post by Suzi Parker titled “Ann Romney’s $990 T-shirt is indicative of a tone-deaf campaign.”

“Does Ann Romney wear her $990 designer shirt while driving one of her two Cadillacs?” Parker began her rant.

“Ann’s pricey shirt will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s daily itinerary. Romney’s wardrobe choice could haunt the campaign indefinitely. If it were a solid color, the designer tee might have been forgotten after awhile. But the yellow bird print is unique enough to become emblematic of wealth that most Americans could only wish to have.”

Later Parker said that the Romneys should not be ashamed of their wealth, but suggested, “maybe it’s time to buy something off the rack at a lower-end store.”

Similar critiques of Hillary Clinton are impermissible, however. Rachel Lubitz, writing an op-ed for Time Magazine even labeled it “sexist” to call out Clinton for wearing the Armani jacket while lecturing on inequality.

That’s just high fashion hypocrisy. (For more from the author of “Where’s the Media Outrage Over Hillary’s $12K Armani Jacket?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5 Ways Orwell’s 1984 Has Come True Since Its Publication 68 Years Ago

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It’s debatable whether George Orwell surmised the ominous threat of totalitarianism that inspired him to pen the dystopic vision, 1984, would extend worldwide and resurface nearly seven decades after its publication. But the novel’s apt description of a world on end have undoubtedly come to pass.

Innumerable examples evidence how 1984 would better be described as a dark portent than a fascinating read, but one thing — the political language dubbed Newspeak, employed by the ruling government, Ingsoc — seems to have served as an instruction manual for the American empire.

Political language stands as arguably the most influential means to shape foreign policy. Through deliberate manipulation of speech, politicians can rally popular support for factually undesirable military operations — or stir fear of any enemy when geostrategic goals demand, even if the targeted group or government poses no actual threat at all.

On the 67th anniversary of the publication of Orwell’s 1984, the following list comprises only a fraction of possible examples of the U.S. government’s version of Newspeak.

1. Moderate rebels: If the public might not be thrilled with government plans to support terrorists, officials simply offer up the less-than-honest term, moderate rebels — and Americans verily stand behind funding and arming the now-non-terrorists to the teeth.

Most notoriously, President Obama and his administration continually advance the notion that training and arming so-called Syrian moderate rebels is somehow a good idea — by hammering the term into gullible minds through its willing mouthpiece, the corporate media. In fact, documents declassified last year proved the U.S. and its allies support for various moderate rebel groups not only led to the formation of Daesh (the so-called Islamic State), officials knew about — and desired — that to happen in hopes a “Salafist principality” would help depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Obviously spiraling out of control into a chaotic quagmire — despite the U.S. having spent $500 million training “4 or 5” rebels — reports earlier this year indicated, as Anti-Media reported, “the same Shia militias fighting with the U.S. to maintain its installed government in Iraq are battling against the U.S.-backed forces — including those armed by the CIA — by bolstering Russian and Iranian efforts to bring control of [Aleppo] back to Assad.”

Moderate rebels is just another opportunistic distortion of an already subjective term.

2. War on Terror: In itself, dystopic, perpetual war now appears to be a reality thanks to the U.S. declaring a War on Terror — a concept, whose reality to people in countless locations it plays out, should honestly be called the War of Terror.

Through the use of such preposterously vague terminology, U.S. bellicrats — the war-touting politicians determined to plump the wallets of the military-industrial machine — cemented the country’s dubious status as World Bully.

After all, waging war on a concept begets a bottomless trove of potential ‘enemy’ targets. World leaders unwilling to bend to the U.S.’ will, sovereign people unfortunate enough to be situated near a natural resource a corporate conglomerate needs, groups fighting for independence from an American ‘ally’ — hell, even segments of the U.S. populace are now deemed terrorists for differing political ideologies.

A War on Terror parallels 1984: “Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.” Considering the broad focus coupled with the lack of an official declaration of war, it’s entirely feasible the U.S. will always be at war with Terror.

3. No boots on the ground: How many times has the State Department resolutely declared ‘there will be no boots on the ground in [insert any nation here]’? Concerning Syria, alone, the number topped 16 — and then, with a straight face, the Obama administration outlandishly claimed it never said so.

“It’s just not true,” John Kirby, State Department spokesman, pompously told an understandably perplexed reporter when questioned on whether officials had promised no boots on the ground in Syria. “It’s just not true.”

But, of course, it is true. Not even a question. Not even plausibly deniable. It’s been captured on video. Quoted in articles. So common is the phrase, in fact, it passes largely unnoticed. And no boots on the ground culminating with boots on the ground doesn’t end with Syria.

Five-thousand boots not on the ground somehow ended up fighting on the front lines in Iraq. And now troops are fighting Daesh in Libya. And elsewhere. No boots on the ground has become such a farcical claim, even corporate media have pointed out its illegitimacy.

Just as the War on Terror provides a blanket excuse to further American imperialist goals wherever convenient, no boots on the ground offers the technical out for the U.S. to deploy special forces — and their boots. On the ground.

4. Elections: Every four years, U.S. voters head to the polls to elect the lesser of any number of evils, after enduring over a year of propagandistic mudslinging between various presidential candidates. But this year’s run for the White House evidences the stark futility in that putative exercise of rights.

Countless anecdotal reports of fraud in nearly every state’s primary or caucus thus far largely magically work in Hillary Clinton’s favor. But this makes perfect sense — considering the establishment’s slavish devotion to the former Secretary of State on full display through the corporate media’s laughably slanted reporting. From the moment election season kicked off, the more cynical among us contended candidates are selected, not elected, whatever the system would have you believe.

All arguments to the contrary aside, the Associated Press might have unintentionally proved precisely that, just this week, with its early crowning of Hillary Clinton as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Irate voters and independent media immediately eviscerated the AP’s wholly invalid announcement as comically premature — but mainstream media parroted the claim in full force, exactly as expected. Now, quelle surprise, evidence Clinton might have literally colluded with the AP to ensure its claim would circulate prior to California’s primary to dissuade voters has surfaced.

Whatever hope voters had to install a (superficially) counter-establishment candidate in the highest office should evaporate in 2016 — the year Americans finally figured out the system is rigged beyond repair. Indeed, election truly amounts to U.S. Newspeak for selection.

5. News: In light of the last point, it’s a wonder so many Americans put faith in mainstream, corporate outlets for an accurate summary of the news, yet they still do. Just six corporations own 90 percent of all media platforms in the U.S., effectively controlling the narrative — whether on foreign policy, legislation, or any goal fitting its needs.

Indeed, many call corporate media the government’s mouthpiece for good reason — a number of executives and upper-level staff from mainstream outlets donate the maximum allowed to line the campaign coffers of politicians in every level of government. Plenty of others have proffered hefty sums to organizations with ties to candidates — such as the Clinton Foundation.

Though the merits of a media without any bias could be debated endlessly, to surmise such intermingling of interests leads to favoritism in the press wouldn’t be a stretch. What would be a stretch, however, would be calling reports from these outlets news in the traditional, original sense.

When the government needs Americans’ approval for, well, anything, it simply turns to the press to cough up an appropriately-tilted news item — and even Orwell, rolling in his grave though he may be now, would have called this process by the most honest non-Newspeak term available: propaganda. (For more from the author of “5 Ways Orwell’s 1984 Has Come True Since Its Publication 68 Years Ago” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

UCLA PROVES ONCE AGAIN: Gun-Free Zones Are Magnets for Murderers

/0 Comments/in , /by

You say someone violated a newly defined “gun-free zone” to shoot innocents at UCLA?

Impossible! Preposterous! Outrageous!

Economist-slash-statisticians Tim Groseclose and John Lott, Jr. explain (more patiently than I could) for the mentally defective and the Left, but I repeat myself.

The fatal shooting at UCLA wasn’t supposed to happen. Late last year, California passed a ban on people being able to carry a permitted concealed handgun on college campuses. California instituted the ban despite the previous rule being in effect for over 100 years without a single example of any problem.

Both of the authors here have taught at UCLA, and we don’t take these arguments lightly… The shooting last week at the campus engineering building took place only about 400 yards from the UCLA police station. But despite police being so important in stopping crime, this case again illustrated a simple fact: Police virtually always arrive on a crime scene after the crime occurs.

…Since at least 1950, all but three public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are [unconstitutionally] banned from carrying guns. In Europe, there have been no exceptions. Every mass public shooting has occurred in places where general citizens are not allowed to have guns. And Europe is no stranger to mass shootings, with a fatality rate virtually the same as that in the U.S…

…Those advocating gun-free zones argue that permit holders will accidentally shoot bystanders. Or that arriving police will shoot anyone with a gun, including the permit holders. At colleges, fears are raised that students will get drunk and misuse guns.

Out of the dozens of cases where concealed-carry holders have stopped shootings in malls, churches, schools, universities and busy downtowns, no permit holder has ever shot a bystander. Nor in these cases have the police ever accidentally shot a permit holder.

Gun-free zones are a magnet for murderers. Even the most ardent gun control advocate would never put “Gun-Free Zone” signs on their home. Let’s finally stop putting them elsewhere.

(For more from the author of “UCLA PROVES ONCE AGAIN: Gun-Free Zones Are Magnets for Murderers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Has Jumped the Great White Race Shark, but What About Judge Curiel and La Raza?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Republicans are scrambling to deal with the statements which Donald Trump won’t stop making about Gonzalo Curiel, the judge picked to preside over an upcoming fraud trial, where plantiffs who claim they were ripped off by Trump University will air their grievances — even as Trump runs for president. In a self-serving move that seems much more aimed at avoiding civil liability for shady business dealings than at unifying Americans behind his candidacy, Trump claimed that Curiel cannot conduct a fair trial because he is biased. The “proof” Trump gave is unsettling: He said that Curiel could not try Trump impartially because he is of Mexican descent.

As the Wall Street Journal reported:

In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.

As usual, Trump muddled a legitimate point in a haze of provocative rhetoric. Judge Curiel should be looked at skeptically because of what he has done, not who he is. It is documented that Curiel joined and still belongs to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. That name is profoundly alarming: The National Council of La Raza is an extremist Latino pressure group that favors complete amnesty for illegal immigrants, expansive affirmative action for such newcomers, and a wide array of other policies based not on any moral or Constitutional principle — but instead on the tribal self-interest of Latinos, especially immigrants. (For a full, alarming account of La Raza’s radical agenda and links to Marxist organizer Saul Alinsky, see this article.)

Labor activist Cesar Chavez warned that the very term “La Raza” is “anti-Gringo” — in other words, racist. Trump critics have asserted that there is no direct organizational tie between the national tribalist group and Curiel’s organization. One wonders how media would have reacted if Trump belonged to a supposedly innocuous Anglos-only business group that called itself a “Klan.” Would reporters be satisfied if he answered, “Oh, we’re not that Klan. There’s no formal affiliation.” Indeed, Curiel’s group is affiliated with the National Hispanic Bar Association, which last year called for a boycott aimed at Trump’s business interests — interests akin to Trump University, which is the subject of the very case that Curiel is slated to impartially judge.

If only Donald Trump had said all this, and only this, instead of lazily citing Curiel’s ethnic heritage itself — which is no more inherently predictive of how he will judge a case than Clarence Thomas’s is.

What Trump actually said is profoundly unsettling. It suggests that American citizens in public life must be judged by their ethnic origin — in the same way that Japanese-Americans were during World War II, when Democrat president Franklin Delano Roosevelt forcibly interned more than 100,000 citizens and legal residents, regardless of whether or not they had shown any sympathies for the Japanese regime they had left behind.

In FDR’s defense, he was trying desperately to protect the country from sabotage in time of war, while all Trump aims to do is to win a fraud trial over a sleazy business that targeted gullible working class Americans — regardless of their race, creed or national origin. What Trump and Roosevelt’s stances do have in common is that they contravene American principles — which our Founders believed apply to every citizen equally, and our Constitution later extended to cover groups of people unjustly excluded, such as descendants of African slaves. At least FDR could honestly say he was busy protecting the nation.

Is Trump Just a Rough-Edged Burkean?

But of course that is what Trump claims, over and over again, on a wide array of issues from trade and foreign policy to immigration. Several sober conservative thinkers have pointed to Trump’s rise as proof that the “respectable” Right and the Republican party have abandoned the first task of conservatism in any country: prudently guarding the fragile fabric of society as it exists against radical changes (economic, social, and political) that might harm it in ways which intellectuals and policy wonks cannot predict.

That’s the conservatism of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk, and it is every bit as race-neutral as neoconservative or Classical Liberal theories that elevate other priorities, such as “national greatness” or limited government. Irish, Jamaican, or Korean conservatives could sign on to such a creed — though the status quo each is guarding would be rather different.

What makes conservatism complex for Englishmen and Americans is that each of the societies we defend can be seen as a Goose that lays a Golden Egg — a shining set of principles including ordered liberty, political equality, race-neutral justice, and economic innovation. These principles sometimes demand that we make the Goose a little uncomfortable, in its own best long-term interests. Indeed, those principles are the very reason that the Anglosphere came to dominate the global economy and become the gold standard of good governance — instead of Holy Russia, the Japanese Empire or Greater Germany.

The Americanism First Committee

But what if we become so fixated on the sheen of the Golden Egg that we do real harm to the Goose? Too many “Golden Egg” conservatives see America as an ideology first, which just happens to have attached itself to a country, as Marxism did to Russia (though Americanism yielded better political and economic outcomes). If you see America this way, you are liable to view your opponents — who might be motivated by prudence and legitimate, Burkean caution — as “un-American” tribalists, Babbits, or bigots.

Mainstream conservatives have heaped far too much scorn on Trump’s supporters, and some of it even spilled over onto those of us who backed Senator Ted Cruz — a man of thorough Constitutional principle, who actually kept the vital tension between the sheen of the Egg and the health of the Goose.

Meanwhile, the Left in America from academia to many of our churches holds the Golden Egg in rank contempt, as useful only for cramming down the Goose’s throat to choke it to death. Progressives see no contradiction in calling others “racist” on the thinnest possible evidence, while at the same time demanding that books be purged from curricula simply because their authors (such as Chaucer) were white.

I once sat in room full of priests in Baton Rouge and fumed as the official speaker invited by our bishop explained that it is by definition impossible for non-whites to practice racism — because that term only applies to the activities of the nationally privileged “group.” None of the clergy seemed to realize that this definition is both Machiavellian and Marxist, completely at odds with Christian principles of human dignity. Nor do the Protestant ministers who approved this charming document (h/t Allen West). See especially point #10.

Privilege-575x1024

It is statements like this which give rise to movements like Trump’s. (For more from the author of “Trump Has Jumped the Great White Race Shark, but What About Judge Curiel and La Raza?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Exclusive: Here’s What Alaskan Mother Blames for Daughter’s Loss to Transgender Boy at Champion Track Meet

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

As widely reported by national outlets over the past several days, a “transgender” boy was allowed to compete in Alaska’s Girls State Championship track meet last week. He placed third at the meet, bumping Mat-Su resident Jennifer VanPelt’s daughter, Allison, from the medal platform.

In a subsequent exclusive interview with Restoring Liberty, Ms. VanPelt revealed that neither she nor her daughter knew that a boy had competed in the girls’ race until sometime later, after media reports came out about it. When they read the boy’s name – “Wangyot” – in one article, Ms. VanPelt exclaimed to her daughter, “Wait! He raced against you! He placed ahead of you, he knocked you out of medal contention!” Her daughter, once the implication of this sunk in, was “really upset.”

Ms. VanPelt told me that Allison “busts her butt seven days a week to train to be able to beat most of the females in this state,” but that she doesn’t “bust her butt to beat a guy [because] men are physically different than women. She can’t grow a bigger heart, or bigger lungs, or more muscle mass like a boy.”

Upset over the fact that her hard-working daughter had been cheated out of a medal, Ms. VanPelt engaged. Even though she does not consider herself politically active – and has been described as “an introvert who raises chickens in [her] backyard” – Ms. VanPelt made her opinion widely known on social media. Several national media groups picked up her comments and now she finds herself at the epicenter of this important issue.

As part of her effort to expose what happened here in Alaska, Ms. VanPelt looked into why the ASAA (Alaska State Athletic Association) is allowing boys to compete in female events. She learned that individual school districts are now given the choice as to whether boys may compete against girls. If a district allows it, the State’s athletic program will not challenge that decision.

Ms. VanPelt thinks this is crazy and so do “close to 9-out-of-10 people” she talks to about allowing boy athletes to compete against girls. She counts as her supporters not just conservatives but liberals, feminists, and members of the LGBT community.

Essentially, Ms. VanPelt says this all boils down to a new cultural norm: the “right as a transgender supersedes your right as a female.” And she’s none too pleased that Alaska political leaders are refusing to speak out against the ASAA’s misogynistic policy.

Ms. VanPelt thinks that “out-of-control political correctness” in the culprit: “we’ve been groomed as a society that we don’t want to hurt other peoples’ feelings, so we shouldn’t speak out about it. We should just keep quiet and turn our heads.”

In looking toward the future, Ms. VanPelt warns “today were dealing with one transgender, what happens when half the field [are transgender]?

To stop this from happening, Ms. VanPelt believes there need to be more people of courage willing to “step it up and say, yeah, this isn’t right, were starting to get out-of-control here.”

I agree. Alaskan leaders – political and religious – should be ashamed for staying silent. They should be embarrassed into action. But we should celebrate those like Jennifer VanPelt who are almost singlehandedly taking on the elites and trying to reverse their perverse agenda.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Endorses Clinton While Press Secretary Makes Important Admission

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Throughout the ongoing scandal regarding Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails on a private server, it has been maintained by the Clinton campaign that the FBI’s investigation is merely a security review and not criminal in nature.

However, recent statements from White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest may undermine whether the Obama administration believes this is actually the case.

Earnest met with reporters Thursday to discuss President Barack Obama’s recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president.

Earnest was questioned on the appropriateness of such an endorsement in light of the continuing investigation.

The reporter asked, “I wonder if you could address for us the potential conflict of interest that might exist when the President of the United States … is openly saying ‘I want this woman to succeed me in the Oval Office.’”

Earnest answered saying, “You noted instances where the president was asked about the FBI investigations. And in each of those answers the president made clear that that is being conducted independent of any sort of political interference.”

He added the president feels confident in making the endorsement because he knows the investigation will be conducted by people not swayed by political forces.

Earnest ended saying, “And that’s why the president … has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference and that people should be treated the same way before the law regardless of their political influence, regardless of their political party, regardless of their political stature and regardless of what political figure has endorsed them.” (For more from the author of “Obama Endorses Clinton While Press Secretary Makes Important Admission” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senators Ready Bill to Stop DOJ From Bankrolling Liberal Groups

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Senate may take steps to end a Justice Department slush fund that has channeled millions of dollars in banking settlements to outside organizations, including left-wing groups such as La Raza and NeighborWorks America.

Four Republican senators—James Lankford of Oklahoma, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Utah’s Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee—said they would introduce legislation Friday to prohibit federal settlement agreements that require donations to third parties.

The Justice Department currently allows corporations found guilty of wrongdoing to pay a portion of their financial penalty as a donation to certain preapproved nonprofit groups.

“In 2011, the Department of Justice directed $30 million from a banking settlement to go toward left-leaning nonprofit groups,” Lankford’s office wrote in a press release, “like the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and NeighborWorks America.”

Conservative opponents of the practice charge that it not only bankrolls liberal groups, but also circumvents congressional authority. Lankford called it the “definition of abuse.”

“When the Department of Justice agrees to settlements on behalf of the U.S. government that includes financial penalties,” Lankford said in the four senators’ release, “it is not their job to force penalty money to be paid in the form of donations to third parties of their choice.”

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, banks found guilty for their role in inflating the mortgage bubble paid millions in penalties. In some cases the Justice Department would allow donations to third parties to be counted twice toward their fine.

While collecting billions, the Justice Department is able to collect a fee of up to a 3 percent to pay for processing debt litigation. A majority staff report commissioned by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., revealed that the Justice Department had collected $575.7 million in fees from JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Citigroup.

Hatch said in the release:

Settlement payments should be used to redress harm, not line the pockets of groups that government lawyers happen to favor. This bill will prevent the Department of Justice from continuing to treat settlement agreements as a source of free money for pet projects.

“The Department of Justice is supposed to work for all Americans, not just whichever special interests are favored by whoever is currently in this White House,” Lee said in the release.

The legislation mirrors a similar bill introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The House version is expected to come up for a vote before the end of June.

Goodlatte introduced a similar measure as an amendment to last year’s omnibus spending package. It was stripped out of the bill when it advanced to the Senate.

As a stand-alone piece of legislation, though, it’s unclear whether Lankford’s bill could reach the 60 votes necessary to achieve what’s known in the Senate as cloture and advance for a vote. (For more from the author of “Senators Ready Bill to Stop DOJ From Bankrolling Liberal Groups” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Many Americans are unaware of the serious problems that face transgender persons.

For instance, a 2016 study comparing 20 Lebanese transgender participants to 20 control subjects reported that transgender individuals suffer from more psychiatric pathologies compared to the general population. More than 50 percent had active suicidal thoughts and 45 percent had had a major depressive episode.

While it may not be politically correct to link psychological disorders with the transgender population, the researchers see the evidence that a link exists. As a former transgender person, I wish the guy who approved me for gender surgery would have told me about the risks.

Quick to Diagnose

The experience of many gender-confused individuals is that medical professionals are quick to reach a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and recommend immediate cross-gender hormone therapy and irreversible reassignment surgery without investigating and treating the coexisting issues. Research has found that powerful psychological issues, such as anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or alcohol or drug dependence often accompany gender dysphoria.

A study published in JAMA Pediatrics in March 2016 shows a high prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses in a sample of 298 young transgender women aged 16 through 29 years old.

More than 40 percent had coexisting mental health or substance dependence diagnoses. One in five had two or more psychiatric diagnoses. The most commonly occurring disorders were major depressive episodes and non-alcohol psychoactive substance use dependence.

Yet, transgender individuals are never required to undergo any objective test to prove their gender dysphoria—because no diagnostic objective test exists.

The cause of this condition can’t be verified through lab results, a brain scan, or review of the DNA make-up.

Research studies from 2013 and 2009 looking for a “transgender gene” showed not a smidgeon of abnormality in the genetic make-up that causes someone to be transgender.

No alterations in the main sex-determining genes in male-to-female transsexual individuals were found, suggesting strongly that male-born transgender persons are normal males biologically.

Psychological Care Urgently Needed

The study concluded that improved access to medical and psychological care “are urgently needed to address mental health and substance dependence disorders in this population.”

On the contrary, it did not conclude that improved access to bathrooms, hormones, or surgery are urgently needed.

A 2015 study of 118 individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria found that 29.6 percent were also found to have dissociative disorders and a high prevalence of lifetime major depressive episodes (45.8 percent), suicide attempts (21.2 percent), and childhood trauma (45.8 percent).

It also remarked that differentiating between a diagnosis of dissociative disorder and gender dysphoria is difficult because the two can closely resemble each other.

Another study found a “surprisingly high prevalence of emotional maltreatment” in the 41 transsexuals studied. It called for further investigation to clarify the effects of traumatic childhood experiences and the correlation between transsexualism and dissociative identity.

That finding tracks with what I experienced in my transgender life. In my life and in the lives of those whose families contact me, traumatic childhood experiences are present 100 percent of the time.

Childhood Gender Dysphoria

One area where medical professionals should tread lightly is in the diagnosis and treatment of children who have gender identity issues.

A 2015 study aimed to gather input from pediatric endocrinologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and ethicists—both those in favor and those opposed to early treatment—to further the ethical debate.

The results showed no consensus on many basic topics of childhood gender dysphoria and insufficient research to support any recommendations for childhood treatments, including the currently published guidelines that recommend suppressing puberty with drugs until age 16, after which cross-sex hormones may be given.

An analysis of the 38 youth referrals for gender dysphoria to the Pediatric Endocrinology Clinic at the University School of Medicine in Indianapolis showed that more than half had psychiatric and/or developmental comorbidities.

Without sufficient research and consensus on treatment of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and knowing over half have coexisting disorders, any invasive treatment, even if recommended by the current guidelines, is simply an experiment.

It’s time to stop using children as experiments.

Transgender Persons Are Struggling Psychologically

Transgender individuals need psychotherapy not access to cross-sex restrooms, showers, and dressing areas. Blaming society for the ills of transgender persons will not improve their diagnosis and treatment.

Reckless disregard for the mental disorders in favor of enforcing preferred pronouns is madness. It’s time to show compassion by telling the truth and stop pretending they are born that way.

True compassion is acknowledging the mental disorders and providing effective, sound treatment in an effort to slow the staggering number of suicides, before rushing to perform irreversible surgeries. (For more from the author of “I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Pro-Hillary Ad Brutalizes Trump, but There’s One Problem

/0 Comments/in , /by

It is an effective attack on Trump. It is the first of many from the group. The Super PAC said, in the YouTube video description, “between now and Election Day we will share stories of middle-class Americans across the country and educate voters about why Hillary Clinton is the clear choice for President. We can and must stop Donald Trump.”

When you watch the ad, you immediately get the feeling you could be watching a pro-life ad. With a little tweak the ad could be a negative ad against Hillary Clinton. Right at the 23-second point, the mother says, “when I saw Donald Trump mock a disabled person, I was just shocked.” She could have just as easily said, “when I saw Hillary Clinton stand up and support disability selective abortions, I was just shocked.”

Last month, Clinton vocally and unequivocally came out against an Indiana Law that would ban disability selective abortions. The Washington Post reported:

“I will defend a woman’s right to make her own health-care decisions,” Clinton said to a few hundred supporters packed into a sweltering recreation center. “I’ll tell ya, I’ll defend Planned Parenthood against these attacks. And I commend the women of this state, young and old, for standing up against this governor and this legislature.”

She did not mention the details of the legislation, House Bill 1337, which bans abortions for several factors not deemed life-threatening. As enacted, the bill prohibits termination of pregnancy if the woman asking for it is motivated by the “race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus” or “diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.” [emphasis added]

Doctors routinely suggest that disabled children be aborted. This is something that even ABC News took note of this week. A fact that Clinton certainly must know.

While Donald Trump’s mocking of a disabled reporter was crass and inexcusable, he does not support killing children for having disabilities. Hillary Clinton, just last month, did. (For more from the author of “This Pro-Hillary Ad Brutalizes Trump, but There’s One Problem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.