My Philosophy of Mental Illness

Mike Adams

"Recently, I received an email from a professor in the philosophy department at Guilford College. Her short, strange, and unsolicited missive asked whether it was true that I think that “transgender folk” are “mentally ill.” She went on to say that such a view is “an insupportable position” that is “unworthy of a scholar.” She concluded her brief sermon by informing me that her “preferred pronouns” are “she, her, and hers.” 

"Although I don’t usually answer unsolicited emails I can answer her question succinctly: Yes, I do think “transgender folk” are mentally ill. I also think that any professor who actually thinks that my stated position on the mental stability of “transgendered folk” disqualifies me as a scholar qualifies as mentally ill. Please allow me to explain. 

"Until recently, it was understood that a man who thought he was a woman (or a woman who thought he was a man) suffered from Gender Identity Disorder, or GID. As Matt Walsh explains in his brilliant new book, The Unholy Trinity, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) was only recently pressured into removing GID from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This was done solely for political reasons." . . .

Did Sean Spicer jump the shark?

Naturally the Democrat default position is that the Republican should resign.

Sean Spicer a Lost Ball in High Grass; Makes Horrific Hitler Gaff  

. . . "Spicer made the flight into TrumpSpeak by trying to explain that Assad was a really bad guy, even worse than Hitler. The Nazi dictator, of course, was responsible for World War II.

"But did Spicer ever overlook the facts."

While Apologizing For Hitler Fiasco, Spicer Says Trump Trying To "Destabilize" Middle East

"In what may have been the worst day in Sean Spicer's life, the White House press secretary first drew a storm of criticism and ridicule Tuesday after butchering Godwin's law, when trying to compare Syria president Bashar al-Assad to Adolf Hitler by saying that even the Nazi leader didn’t “sink to using chemical weapons.”

“We didn’t use chemical weapons in WWII. We had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons,” Spicer said. Later when given the chance to elaborate he only made it worse: "I think when you come to sarin gas, there was no - he was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing,” Spicer said. When reporters interrupted to note the millions of deaths in concentration camps, the response made even less sense: "there was not in the - he brought them into the Holocaust centers and I understand that," he said.

Spicer's bizarre attempt to make Assad appear worse than Hitler promptly drew demands for Spicer's resignation from the likes of Nancy Pelosi, the Anne Frank center and various Jewsish groups.

That in turn prompted Spicer to appear on CNN to apologize for his earlier comments, when in yet another stunning implosion, he only made things worse by saying, or rather admitting, that President Trump is trying to "destabilize" the Middle East. Specifically, when speaking to Wolf Blitzer, Spicer said that he did not want his comments on Hitler to distract from Trump's attempts "to destabilize the region."

"I came out to make sure we stay focused on what the president is doing and his decisive action. I needed to make sure that I clarified, and not was in any shape or form any more of a distraction from the president's decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he is making to destabilize the region and root out ISIS out of Syria," Spicer said." . . .

Now what of Donald Trump?

http://www.americanthinker.com/cartoons/

Syria: the President as a Man of Action  "But what does that make Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama?". . . 

"But what about the Man of Activism? He is the complete opposite. He is forever telling you what he believes, and describing the arc of history in excruciating detail and descanting about justice and “who we are.” But he doesn’t actually do anything. ObamaCare? Nancy’s baby. Dodd-Frank? Er, something about banksters. Lobotomize the economy with climate change? Leave that to the bureaucrats; they know what to do." . . .

The Democrats’ Weakest Trump Talking Point  "Trump’s action to halt atrocities in Syria doesn’t obligate the U.S. to open its borders to unvetted refugees."
. . . "Deprived of the standard talking points they’ve been using to assail Trump since the inauguration, most Democrats are flailing. Some are joining Rand Paul in saying that no president should be able to order a strike without a congressional vote. There is some merit to that argument, but it’s not one most Democrats like, given that they support such actions whenever their party controls the White House. Plus, few liberals have any real enthusiasm for a strict interpretation of the Constitution." . . .

How the Easiness of ‘American Christianity’ Minimizes the Atonement of Christ

Just Thinking....For Myself

“For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”– 1 Corinthians 1:18 (NASB)

"For several months now I have been burdened by what appears, to me at least, to be an increasing apathy and indifference on the part of Christians, particularly in America, to the import and significance of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross.

"These observations have led me to the lamentable conclusion that this spiritual lassitude is rooted primarily in a collective ignorance of and, consequently, a lack of appreciation for, Christ’s vicarious Atonement and its eternal implications to our lives, both in this world and in the world to come.

"In his book, The Crucified King: Atonement and Kingdom in Biblical and Systematic Theology, Dr. Jeremy R. Treat has defined the doctrine of the atonement as:

“…faith seeking understanding of the way in which Christ, through all of his work but primarily his death, has dealt with sin and its effects restoring the broken covenant relationship between God and humans and thereby brought about the turn of the ages. At its core, the doctrine of the atonement is the attempt to understand the meaning of Christ’s death as “for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3).”

"When compared to Christians in other parts of the world, believers in America have it easy." . . .

Harry Reid: the gift that kept on giving

For perspective, Democrats call Gorsuch sitting in a "stolen seat" They count on the ignorance of voters

. . . "Scalia died on February 13, 2016, and President Obama nominated Garland to take his place. However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) led Senate Republicans in holding the seat open until after the 2016 election.

"The strategy paid off when Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton, allowing him to nominate Gorsuch instead.

"Liberals took to Twitter to share their anger about the "stolen seat.' " . . .

Flashback: Obama Tried to Filibuster Bush’s Supreme Court Pick  . . . "While Obama did criticize "the merits of a filibuster," Obama was firm in his support for filibustering Alito. Then-Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs doubled down on this, telling the Chicago Tribune that Obama views Alito as "a bad addition to the Supreme Court." Kerry was thrilled, and commended Obama in a statement for "taking a stand on principle." Alito ultimately was confirmed by the Senate. " . . .

Later on, Mr. Obama would regret his choice. Maybe that is when he learned to dither endlessly before making a decision.
. . . "Conservatives have seized on Obama’s filibuster vote to accuse him of hypocrisy for criticizing Republicans for saying the next president, and not Obama, should nominate Scalia’s successor. " . . .

The Federalist: There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees  "Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson." . . .

Vox: The strongest Republican arguments for blocking President Obama's Supreme Court pick  "Democrats pioneered the art, first, of blocking judicial appointees, and, second, of ramming judicial appointees down the minority’s throat at the expense of the filibuster," writes Mario Loyola in a National Review post titled, "Obama has poisoned the well for Scalia's replacement this year."

This is also why some conservative writers have pointed to votes that, on the surface, appear to have nothing to do with the Supreme Court nomination. In Commentary, Jonathan Tobin notes that Senate Democrats don't always act "so punctilious about allowing votes about other important matters."

. . . " 'In September 2015, 42 Senate Democrats voted to filibuster the approval process for the Iran nuclear deal. Even though all of them had voted for the bill that created that upside down treaty ratification process ... they denied the Senate that privilege," Tobin writes. "They cared nothing for the Constitutional niceties then.' " . . .

Next comes the main point:

Steve Bakke in USA Today: Republican Party didn't start Supreme Court fight

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would have blocked a vote by using the filibuster. He claims this “stonewalling” started in 2016 when the Republicans refused to have a vote on Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland. A review of history corrects that falsehood:

• In 1987, Robert Bork, a Reagan nominee, was denied confirmation. His reputation was brutally pilloried.
• In 1992, then-Sen. Joe Biden clearly outlined the reasons why the Senate wouldn’t consider a George H.W. Bush nomination in Bush’s last year in office.
• In 2001, during George W. Bush’s administration, Sen. Schumer and others changed the ground rules for systematically using the filibuster to block Supreme Court nominees.
• In 2006, then-Sen. Obama publicly supported a filibuster to block confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito.
• In 2007, 19 months before the end of George W. Bush’s term, Sen. Schumer declared that the lame-duck president wouldn’t get nominees through the Democratic Senate, “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

Editor of liberal magazine Mother Jones is slammed on Twitter for claiming that 'Tomahawk missiles' are offensive to Native Americans

UK Daily Mail

"The editor-in-chief of a prominent liberal news organization has been slammed on social media for suggesting that Tomahawk cruise missiles are an example of cultural appropriation.

"Clara Jeffery, who runs the non-profit publication Mother Jones, received a barrage of responses after speculating that Native Americans might be offended by the naming of the missiles which were launched by President Trump this week.

" 'That the missiles are called tomahawks must enrage a lot of Native Americans [sic],' she tweeted on Saturday.

"Twitter users immediately disparaged Jeffery's statement and her account was inundated with responses that went viral.

"Utilizing the names of Native American tribes is a common practice among the US military, which has drawn inspiration from countless tribes for machinery and aircraft over the years. 

"Jeffery's critics argue that her perceived hypervigilance for a culture that isn't her own is ill-informed, and that her concerns are misplaced." . . . Read More

NATIVE NAMES IN US MILITARY

There are currently a number of US Military crafts which are named after Native American tribes: 

Apache attack helicopter 

Black Hawk and Lakota - utility helicopters

Chinook heavy-lift transport helicopter

Tomahawk cruise missile 

Kiowa and Cayuse - observation helicopters

Creek trainer helicopter

Huron transport aircraft

Operation Geronimo was the codename for the SEAL Team Six mission that killed Osama bin Laden 

A Red Line is Now a Red Line

Trump Enforces Obama’s Red Line  . . . "But Trump opposed enforcing Obama’s red line back then, nevertheless. The difference, as Trump admirably admitted from the Rose Garden, is that he’s president now and that changes your perspective on things. It’s always easy to throw brick-bats when you have no responsibility (one of the guiding tenets of this “news”letter by the way). 

Now he’s looking at the prospect of being the president who, in effect, sanctioned the use of chemical weapons, a violation of international law. As he put it in his statement Thursday night: It is in this vital national-security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council. 

"That is a sound argument. But it was just as sound in 2013. " . . .

The Democrats’ Weakest Trump Talking Point  "Trump’s action to halt atrocities in Syria doesn’t obligate the U.S. to open its borders to unvetted refugees." . . . Read more.

Trump’s airstrike on Syria delivers another blow to Obama’s legacy . . . "His defense is typical Obama sophistry. In fact, he did make a decision — he decided not to act after vowing he would. His choice left a leadership vacuum filled alternately by butcher Assad, Islamic State, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, a toxic brew with horrific consequences that will go on for years. 
"Obama’s infamous blinking on Assad’s use of chemical weapons came in 2013, but back in 2011, when the Syrian civil war was young, the president declared, “The time has come for President Assad to step aside.” 
"Yet Obama never turned that declaration into a policy with teeth. Hyped plans to arm anti-government rebels came and went repeatedly, despite his advisers favoring them." . . .

California’s Wasted Winter Rains

The drought is over but the greens keep sending the water out to sea.

Lux Libertas

“…What’s especially ironic (Not “ironic”; merely par for the Progressive course!) is that all of the water diversions intended to benefit the environmentmay be causing irreparable environmental damage. Communities and farmers have drilled deeper wells and pumped more groundwater to compensate for reduced imports from the delta, leading to severe land subsidence.

"A recent report by the California Department of Water Resources found that the San Joaquin Valley is sinking at a rate of nearly two inches per month in some areas. Land around Corcoran dropped 22 inches between May 2015 and September 2016, complicating engineering work on the state’s bullet train. (NOT the BULLET TRAIN!!!) Subsidence has also reduced the carrying capacity of the California Aqueduct, which delivers water to Southern California, by 20%.

California has an arid climate, and parched times will return, which is all the more reason to take advantage of the wet years. That greens and politicians won’t do so suggests they almost wish for permanent drought.“ . . . 

Feast...

. . . or famine:

…one thing’s for certain: the Liberal elites in Hollywood and Silicon Valley will never feel the pinch…let alone suffer the effects of real thirst. " . . .

As Charles Krauthammer noted: there's not a NEW sheriff in town; now there is A Sheriff in town. Period.

Russia, Syria, and Iran warn US about another Syria strike  "Things just got a lot dicier in Syria as the military forces of Russia, Syria, and Iran warned the United States that any further military action would cross "a red line" and be met with a military response.

"Somehow, I think when these guys talk about a "red line," they're being a helluva lot more serious than Obama was." . . .

Morning Joe: Syria was Obama’s ‘Defining Moment’ and ‘History Going to be Rough’
"When even Obama fan Mike Barnicle admits that Obama’s inaction on Syria was a “serious mistake”

"Surprising consensus on today’s Morning Joe that Barack Obama blew it bigly in Syria by punting on his redline. Even Obama fan Mike Barnicle admitted, “Syria was a serious mistake that the Obama administration made.” Foreign policy honcho Richard Haass said “history’s going to be rough on this. This is going to be the defining moment for the Obama presidency.”

"It wasn’t just the panel that trashed Obama’s mishandling of Syria. Joe Scarborough noted that not only did leading Dems like John Kerry and Hillary quickly come out in support of Trump’s strikes, but that Dems were saying things that were “almost disloyal to Barack Obama, saying we could have never moved this quickly.' ”

Trump’s Syria Strike Altered Perceptions of His Presidency — and Highlighted the Failures of Obama’s  "With a forceful response to Assad’s chemical-weapons attack, Trump surprised the world and reminded us of his predecessor’s disastrous Middle East policies. 

"Donald Trump’s many detractors tend to forget something important: The power of his office is such that simply by deploying the military might of the United States, he can change the national conversation in an instant. By ordering a missile strike on the Syrian airfield from which the Assad government — and, perhaps, its Russian enablers — attacked civilians with chemical weapons, Trump did just that. It isn’t clear yet whether this is the beginning of a more muscular, sensible approach to foreign policy in general and to Syria, Russia, and Iran in particular. But what we do know is that Trump has just demonstrated a capacity to rethink his previously held positions and to act decisively in response to an outrageous crime — in other words, the capacity to act like a commander-in-chief. This is something few of his critics thought he possessed.

" Last night’s strike forced Trump’s media tormentors to stop speculating for the moment about unproven collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. It might also have begun the process of changing the way we think about Trump. We’ve lived through two months of what looked like a presidency in crisis, replete with West Wing palace intrigue and a disastrously failed effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. Trump’s trademark lack of discipline and belligerent disregard for the truth had cratered his favorability ratings, and his failure to break through Washington’s gridlock had created a narrative of incompetence.

" Yet in less than a week, Trump just proved that he is capable of reacting to unforeseen events, evaluating the options, and then making what appears to be exactly the right move at exactly the right time." . . .

Black Lives Matter mob shuts down Blue Lives Matter speaker at Claremont McKenna College

Legal Insurrection

Heather Mac Donald targeted by crazed protesters, while her UCLA appearance also disrupted.

"Just a day earlier, Mac Donald gave the same speech at UCLA and things went smoothly for the most part but left wing students couldn’t resist the urge to make it all about them.

"The College Fix reported:

‘War on Cops’ author Heather Mac Donald shouted down at UCLA by hysterical Black Lives Matter protest

A speech by Heather Mac Donald at UCLA on Wednesday frequently descended into chaos as Black Lives Matter protesters stormed the stage and chanted their signature phrase over and over, and also took over portions of the Q&A with angry accusations and raucous shouting, a video of the event shows.

Mac Donald, a Manhattan Institute scholar who spoke on campus at the behest of the Bruin Republicans to give a “Blue Lives Matter” talk about her 2016 book “The War on Cops,” appeared to be able to largely get through the first half of her speech without much dissension.

But when she opened the floor to questions, the uproar began. The chants launched, with several people taking over the floor at the front of the room and continuing to yell over and over: “Black lives — they matter here! Black lives, they matter here!”…

After the uproar — which lasted about eight minutes — finally died down, Mac Donald (pictured) fielded questions from the audience, including from a black female who asked her to speak on whether “black victims killed by cops” mattered.

"This is a video of the entire event but it’s cued to begin at the moment when things went haywire. Just press play:"

Time for the "I find Easter offensive" posts.

Todd Starnes  "Parents across Australia are blasting what they call “nonsensical political correctness” after a number of schools removed the word “Easter” from their annual hat parades.

"To achieve “inclusiveness”, one public school has decided to hold a “Happy Hat Parade” instead of their traditional Easter Hat Parade, The Telegraph reports.

“ 'How pathetic,” one mother wrote on Facebook. “I will make sure my hats say HAPPY EASTER all over the damn hats and get my kids to sing Easter bunny songs.”

"It appears the Aussies are dealing with a serious infestation of anti-Christian bullies.  

"The newspaper reports that several schools have reinstated the word “Easter” after complaints from parents.

"But the principal at Batemans Bay Public School is standing firm – even though more than 600 people have signed a petition urging him to reconsider.

"The petition, launched by Sarah Culic, alleges that a “parent allegedly called the school and expressed their outrage at the supposedly offensive, culturally exclusive festivity.”. . . 

"A parent"... "A".

Trump Blows Up Obama’s Foreign Policy Straw Men

Diplomacy with Iran is over — and so is the era of Obama’s straw men.

Matthew Continetti at National Review  "President Trump did more than retaliate for Bashar al-Assad’s illegal and inhumane use of nerve agents against civilians when he ordered the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles to destroy al-Shayrat airbase in Syria. He also detonated a few shibboleths of his predecessor’s foreign policy. 

First is the idea that President Obama’s 2013 deal to remove Assad’s weapons of mass destruction was a success. Susan Rice and John Kerry have lauded the agreement with Russia to supervise the extraction and destruction of Assad’s weapons stockpiles as recently as the last year. But Assad’s brazen attack on civilians in Idlib Province exposed their celebrations as premature. Trump’s swift, decisive, and limited response ended more than a half decade of vacillation toward’s Assad’s behavior. Obama diplomacy failed, but hard power may yet deter Assad from using weapons banned for almost a century. 

"The second casualty of the U.S. strike was the absurd Obama line that the only alternatives available to a president are inaction on one hand and a massive ground invasion and occupation on the other. Obama and the architects of his echo chamber would slam any advocate of military measures as a bloodthirsty warmonger ready to repeat the worst mistakes of the U.S. experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the reality has always been that there are a range of intermediary steps America can take to pursue her objectives and enforce the standards of Western civilization. " . . .