Saturday, September 20, 2025

What do high crime, low grades and gender dysphoria have in common?

 High crime, cashless bail, failing education, gender dysphoria, failure to address mental illness – all of these things have many things in common:  Narcissism, the “feel good” culture, the “participation trophy” culture, the “everyone is a winner” culture, the “ignore the white man’s law” culture, the "don't offend anyone" culture, and the “whatever you think you are – you are” culture.

In 2012 the American Psychiatric Association officially reclassified “Gender Identity Disorder”, a mental illness, to “Gender Dysphoria” which is simply the persons discomfort caused by the conflict between the belief/delusion and the prevailing cultural norms.  This new definition requires the culture to accept delusion as ok – anything but a mental illness.

Rumah sakit dengan pelayanan berkualitas - Siloam HospitalsOver the past few decades, “participation trophies” had become a thing.  Self esteem, no matter the level of performance, whether in school or in sports, became the highest value.

The criminal justice system has become ineffective, broken in many jurisdictions. In democrat strongholds, political leadership, law enforcement, district attorneys, and judges have adopted a hands off policy for enforcement and prosecution.  Why? Because the constituents demand it. Who are the constituents?  Aliens, both legal and illegal, majorities from non-European nations that don’t share western values, and poorly educated minorities.  These people are organized by special interest, much better off leftists who want to gain power and influence in their local governments. They garner votes by pandering to the lowest common denominators of their constituents – go easy – no enforcement – minimal education.

The prevailing, attitude is that laws are unjust, too severe, create hardship. The mostly unspoken part of this attitude is a belief that laws are racist, or they are just too hard to follow.  The truth:  Constituents are just too uncivilized to follow the law.  They prefer a participation trophy for existing. Society owes it to them. That is a large driving force in today’s culture.

Beware of AIs. I have six of them on my phone.  Ask a question, and their first response is often superficial, as if reading a script off of CNN or ABC.  They answer based on the low hanging fruit of liberal media and academia.  You have to drill down several levels of follow-up questions for AI to finally arrive at logic and common sense. AI applies this technique to Gender Dysphoria to claim it is not a mental illness and should be accepted as whatever the individual believes it is.  Press further, and eventually AI begins a pattern of circular reasoning.

AI applies this convoluted pattern to every other relevant topic, whether criminal justice, education, immigration, or gender issues.  AI’s confusion is a reflection of our culture’s confusion.

Democrats personify this confusion.  Leftists, criminal excusers, socialists, anarchists, and communists can no longer be called “fringe elements” of the Democrat party.  They are mainstream in that party.

Democrats are leaders and promoters of the “feel good”, “participation trophy”, “you are what you think you are” culture.  Are they doing this out of their academic wisdom, innate kindness or some other moral high road?  I don’t think so.

Policies and actions that have such obvious negative results can’t have righteous motives.  They are pandering to the lowest values of our society.  The easy way.  So easy that it makes one wonder if there isn’t something else behind them.  Many believe this is the work of foreign ideologies, whether Mao’s or Lenin’s, to weaken and destroy our nation.  Others believe there are dark, spiritual forces at work.  Or is it just human nature craving the “easy way?”

Most likely all three.

Monday, September 15, 2025

Assassinations of Charlie Kirk–JFK: What are the differences?

 A friend asked me why is there so much being made of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, maybe more than made of JFK’s.

Here are the similarities and differences between the two in terms of the position held, the culture of the time, the means of the killing, and the person or persons behind the killings.

True, officially the position of JFK, being president, was paramount. Charlie’s was not “official”, not part of government. He started as a solo influencer.  They both had large followings. JFK was loved in large part for the “Camelot” image he and Jacqueline portrayed: young, good looking, regal.  He was considered a forward thinking leader of a new, young generation.

Similarly, Charlie was embraced by the young.  He engaged college and  high school aged young people in debates on popular but controversial topics.  They both created enemies.  Both sets of enemies hid in the dark shadows of society.  JFK’s are still a debated mystery.  Charlie’s are more obvious.

The cultures of the times vary greatly.  During the early to mid-sixties, the nation was much more unified and less polarized (until the Vietnam war).  Most of the institutions of the day were favorable toward JFK:  media, academia, government.  There were few deep cultural conflicts and undercurrents.

During Charlie’s time, the 13 years of his public efforts from 2011 to July 2025, the nation had become polarized, politically, socially, morally, fiscally.  Academia and the media, especially, sank deeply into promoting leftist ideology.  The leftist preferences are legion, including open borders, LGBTQ+++ advocacy, excusing Islamic ideology, war on Christianity, further erosion of family values, law and order, bigger government, and globalism. 

Charlie debated and challenged these polarizing leftist positions.  And he went to the heart of their source, universities and public high schools. These are the hotbeds of moral and cultural corruption in both my view and Charlie’s.

Charlie had a way about him.  He devoted his late teen and 11 years there after to gaining an education that the great majority of universities would never consider providing. Early on he recognized the destructive indoctrination of these institutions.  Instead he devoted himself to an intense discipline of teaching himself.

His primary foundation was the Bible.  He had a Biblical-based world view that even most pastors lack today. In fact, most seminaries suffer the same leftist plague as secular universities: Reducing Biblical morality to what makes people feel good about themselves. The promotion of narcissism in our culture and churches is front and center. Charlie melds sound Biblical teaching as the basis for cultural values, something that most churches fail to do.  And he does it without sounding preachy.

Watching Charlie debate those who hold opposing positions on religion, abortion, and gender issues, even with his most virulent detractors, his thorough knowledge of these topics and effective articulation of the truth is truly impressive, verging on the supernatural.

He caused thousands to think.  He changed many minds.  He was an encouragement to millions.  And he angered quite a few.

Who did he anger?  Well, news to me, there is a dark web comprised of thousands of confused, mentally ill and angry individuals of vague and changing sexual orientation.  His killer was part of that deranged cult. I also have no doubt that universities are enablers of these deviants through their leftist professors and fringe and decidedly useless curricula.

These perverts hate those who are not perverts, especially those who hold and express traditional moral views, especially conservative Christians (yes, there are liberal Christians who embrace LGBTQ+++, but those are apostates.)  Their secret, encrypted communications on the dark web promote their hatred for conservatives. Most are glad of Charlie’s assassination.  And sadly, many promote even more of the same.

But Charlie inspired and changed many times more souls than he angered. 

This brings up a significant difference between our reaction to the assassination of JFK and Charlie.  JFKs was superficial, reacting to the attractive, Camelot-esque persona and appeal to the younger folk – based on what, an image?  Where was the substance?Premium Photo | The dimension of spiritual struggle battle between God ...


In the case of the reaction to Charlie’s killing, it uncovered a dark evil that is in stark opposition to good; in opposition to Biblical values, self-discipline and morality.  This lit a fire.  


As Charlie's wife, Erika Kirk movingly expressed: 

 “You have no idea the fire that you have ignited within this wife, the cries of this widow will echo around the world like a battle cry.”

“The movement my husband built will not die. It won't, I refuse to let that happen.”

“No one will ever forget my husband's name, and I will make sure of it.”

Therein lies the difference.  Substance.  Clear battle lines between good and evil. And millions aching to join the battle.

The Turning Point website:

https://tpusa.com/