Welp. He Did It. 'Caitlyn' Jenner Finally Cut It Off

PJ Media   "Former Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner, who now goes by Caitlyn, has been emasculated, and he's going public about it.

" 'The surgery was a success, and I feel not only wonderful but liberated," Caitlyn Jenner wrote in his new memoir, The Secrets of My Life, which comes out April 25. A report from Radar Online released the scandalous details.

“ 'So why even consider it? Because it’s just a penis. It has no special gifts or use for me other than what I have said before, the ability to take a whiz in the woods,” Jenner wrote. “I just want to have all the right parts. I am also tired of tucking the damn thing in all the time.”

The surgery reportedly took place in January of this year, the 67-year-old former Olympic gold medalist announced. He said he is going public in order to stop fans from asking the most embarrassing question.

" 'I am telling you because I believe in candor," the reality TV star wrote. "So all of you can stop staring. You want to know, so now you know. Which is why this is the first time, and the last time, I will ever speak of it."

"Jenner called the surgery a "complex decision," due to the health risks associated with the operation. But he ultimately decided to accept the risks in order to have "all the right parts.' " . . .

Lib media desperate to declare White House egg roll a failure

easter-eggs-banned-offensive-liberals-renamed-candy-eggs-

Ed Straker  "The liberal media, so desperate for anti-Trump stories to feed into their narrative, are looking to use something as innocuous as the White House Easter egg roll as a yardstick to show "yet another" failure of the Trump administration.  There are many legitimate grounds to criticize the Trump administration on ("DREAMers," more Syrian refugees, not supporting full Obamacare repeal), but an Easter egg roll?  Come on!

It's the single most high-profile event that takes place at the White House each year, and the White House and the first lady are judged on how well they put it on," said Melinda Bates, who organized eight years of Easter Egg Rolls as director of the White House Visitors Office under President Bill Clinton. "I'm really concerned for the Trump people, because they have failed to fill some really vital posts, and this thing is all hands on deck."

"Vital posts...for an egg roll?  If these posts are focused on events like egg rolls, are they really so vital?

"The article also claims this is the single most high-profile event at the White House.  Does that include state dinners for foreign leaders?  The White House is "judged" by an Easter egg roll?  Don't the stakes sound more than a little exaggerated?" . . .

The Pursuit of Equality Is Deconstructing and Killing Us

E. Jeffrey Ludwig  . . . "Thus racism is more than a weakness or tendency.  It is a permanent moral stain requiring permanent atonement. 

"It consigns whites to the status of eternal penitents before a wronged party from whom forgiveness or absolution will never be forthcoming.  Nothing whites can do can satisfy the pain of the historical wrongdoings against black Americans, and a penalty must be exacted repeatedly ad infinitum.  Whites must continuously strive to expiate their sin, but the expiation process cannot be ended.  Racism is permanent. It is part of white DNA (almost literally, whether or not found by genome specialists or ancestors.com).  

"However, this type of deconstruction of the meaning of a term whereby a biological trait is proclaimed as applying to a formerly sociological concept is reversed when it comes to the left's ideology of sexual identity." . . .

. . . "So, follow this line of reasoning:  racism is so strong in whites they cannot freely step away from it; but the reality of DNA must give way, and will give way, before the transgender agenda." . . .

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." . . .