Louisiana Democrats Purge Thomas Jefferson, the Man Who Acquired Louisiana

By JARRETT STEPMAN

Thomas Jefferson

The latest in what has become an all too common crusade to wipe great American historical figures from places of honor and memory, the Louisiana Democratic Party has announced that it will change the name of its annual “Jefferson-Jackson” dinner to the bland and unremarkable True Blue Gala.

Louisiana Democrats joined many other state parties that have changed the name of the dinner, which was originally intended to celebrate two key figures in their party’s history — Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

In the words of the Louisiana Democratic Party chairwoman, removing Jefferson and Jackson was done “to reflect the progress of the party and the changing times.”

Of course, both men were slaveholders, and therefore unacceptable to modern progressives despite whatever else they may have accomplished. Yet they were both, in their own way, great Americans who made invaluable contributions to our country.
This is not the first time these two men have come under fire from activists who want them purged. Jefferson has been attacked as unacceptable at the university he founded, and efforts have been made to remove Jackson’s towering statue in New Orleans.

A Blessing for ‘Unborn Millions of Men’

What is particularly astonishing about this historical slap in the face is the fact that no two men were more responsible for the state of Louisiana’s existence than Jefferson and Jackson.

It’s easy to forget that the United States — an unparalleled superpower extending from sea to shining sea — was not long ago a sparsely-populated backwater confined to the East Coast. It was the vision and statesmanship of early American leaders that led to the extension of the country westward.

Under the umbrella of the Constitution, the New World would, in the words of Jefferson, become a great “empire of liberty.”

In one of his most consequential acts as president, Jefferson took advantage of Napoleon’s need for money in his European wars to purchase just over 800,000 square miles of territory in the American West. This nearly doubled the size of the U.S.

Jefferson said that the Louisiana Purchase would be “replete with blessings to unborn millions of men.”

And so it was.

This masterstroke has paid dividends for over two centuries. By pushing out Old World empires and creating a haven for teeming hordes of self-governing people, America could rightfully claim to be truly the land of opportunity for the common man.

But treaties and lofty ideas are often lost in an international environment of predatory powers unless backed up with real strength.

Jefferson may have acquired the Louisiana territory, but Jackson was the blade who secured it.

‘Almost a Miracle’

Jackson once remarked that our liberties would indeed be in trouble if we only employed lawyers to defend the Constitution.

Gen. Andrew Jackson, a ferocious patriot and unrelenting believer in America’s destiny as the world’s greatest country, played an instrumental part in saving Louisiana and the country from conquest.

The British never recognized the American purchase of the Louisiana territory, and in the War of 1812 made serious efforts to invade and tear it away from the fragile young republic. It was truly a second war for independence.

The war culminated in the Battle of New Orleans, one of the most significant military victories in the history of the United States.

While the battle took place shortly after a peace treaty was signed, a defeat for American arms might have had terrible consequences.

Given the fact that they never recognized the American purchase, the British may have simply held the city that was the vital economic hub of the region. Also, Congress and Parliament had not ratified the treaty, so the British could have conceivably kept the war going.

But most importantly of all, the victory, which one newspaper called “almost a miracle,” gave pride to Americans who had often fared poorly against one of the world’s great military powers. America was not just a proposition, but resolute in its future as a free and independent country.

Jackson, and his diverse band of regular soldiers, militia, former pirates, and freed slaves, showed the world that they could defeat and annihilate a professional army from Europe. The courage and leadership he displayed at the battle ultimately led Jackson to the White House.

The End of History
It is sad and perhaps telling that Democrats no longer find it acceptable to pay tribute to these two important men. Both were once seen as champions of the common man, who through their strength and ideas defined and protected the seeds of American liberty.

Democrats once made room for men like Jefferson and Jackson in their pantheon and championed their virtues while sometimes glossing over their faults.

But no longer.

While it is reasonable to debate whether Americans should continue to maintain prominent memorials to Confederate leaders, the move against Jefferson and Jackson shows how this movement to create a more politically correct history makes little distinction between the men who broke up the union and those who fought to create and save it.

In that Civil War, which nearly ended the American experiment in liberty, it was those who embraced Jefferson’s immortal Declaration of Independence and Jackson’s militant unionism that saved the country and brought an end to the stain of slavery for good.

Though times and mores often change for better or worse, there is something deeply nihilistic about wiping from memory those who came before and meant so much. Jefferson and Jackson deserve better in Louisiana.

Frankly, every American owes them a debt of gratitude.


House Committee Passes Amendment That Would Make Charlie Gard U.S. Resident

The parents of critically ill baby Charlie Gard, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, with a toy monkey in his jacket pocket, arrive at the High Court in London, Friday, July 14, 2017.
The House Appropriations Committee voted unanimously Tuesday to grant Charlie Gard permanent U.S. residency. The move is part of an effort to help the British 11-month-old, who suffers from a rare and severe medical condition, to receive the therapy being denied him by London doctors and U.K. courts. 

Introduced by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington, the amendment was added to the Homeland Security spending bill. Beutler’s daughter was born with a rare disease that is usually fatal, but is alive today thanks to treatment, CNN reported.

“This amendment would speed up the process, cut through the bureaucratic red tape, and ease the path for Charlie to be able to receive medical treatment in the U.S. that his parents and medical specialists believe is worth pursuing,” Beutler said in a press release.

The spending bill will go before a vote on the House floor next week. It would have to pass a Senate vote and then be signed by Trump before becoming law.

Beutler’s amendment is not the first attempt by Republican House members to help Charlie. Last week, Reps. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio and Trent Franks of Arizona introduced a bill that would also make Charlie a permanent U.S. resident. Their efforts follow an earlier tweet by Trump offering to help Charlie, and a statement by Pope Francis in support of his parents.
Battle for Charlie’s Life

Charlie suffers from severe mitochondrial depletion syndrome. He cannot move or breathe on his own. His parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, have raised well over $1 million to take him to the U.S. for nucleoside therapy. But Charlie’s doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) in London contend he should be taken off life support. They argue that the treatment has no chance of working because of brain damage he has reportedly suffered from seizures. They say treatment would prolong any suffering Charlie may be experiencing.

Last week Charlie’s parents went before the High Court in London to argue their case. It was the latest in a long series of legal battles over their son’s care. Judge Nicholas Francis at the High Court sided with the doctors in April, saying Charlie should be taken off life support. Gard and Yates appealed the case, only to be ruled against repeatedly and ultimately rejected by the European Court of Human Rights.

GOSH applied for a rehearing at the High Court after Dr. Michio Hirano of New York and several other medical experts signed a letter saying new evidence suggests nucleoside therapy has a better chance of helping Charlie than previously thought.

Francis warned it would take “new or dramatic” evidence to change his mind. But after Hirano testified via video chat on Thursday, Francis admitted the new evidence was “significant.”

On Thursday Hirano testified that there is an at least 10 percent chance the nucleoside therapy could help Charlie. He also testified in April, but said he had since had time to do more research and review more data. Hirano also said he didn’t think Charlie was in significant pain.
Meeting in London.

       By LIBERTY MCARTOR
Earlier this week Hirano traveled to the U.K. and met with Charlie’s doctors at GOSH for several hours to review his medical records and most recent brain scans. Yates was also present, after the family’s attorney, Grant Armstrong, argued in court for her right to attend.

A transcript of the meeting will be delivered to Francis for consideration. He is expected to make a decision by July 25. He previously said “It would be entirely wrong for [Charlie] to be transferred without my being involved,” according to the Daily Mail.




Mike Pence: ‘We hope and pray that little Charlie Gard gets every chance’


Vice President Pence defended baby Charlie Gard on Rush Limbaugh's radio show today, saying his case shows how unfair government-run healthcare can be and that he's praying Charlie's parents will be allowed to continue caring for him.


Limbaugh's conservative talk show has some of the highest ratings in the country.

Pence said that as Sen. Bernie Sanders campaigns for a single-payer healthcare system, Americans should look to what's happening in England.

"The heartbreaking story of the 11-month-old Charlie Gard in England is a story of single-payer" healthcare, said Pence. "I know you’ve covered that on this program. And it’s back in court today and frankly we breathe a prayer and the hope that the single-payer system in England will see its way clear to allow the family – the mother and the father – to be able to choose the greatest extent of life-saving treatment that’s available to their child."

Otherwise, warned Pence, they will be "submitted to a government program that says, 'no, we’re going to remove life support from your precious 11-month-old child' because the government has decided that the prospects of their life are such that they no longer warrant an investment in health services."



"We hope and pray that little Charlie Gard gets every chance, but the American people oughta reflect on the fact that for all the talk on the left about single-payer, that’s where it takes us," the vice president said.

There has been a lengthy legal battle over whether Great Ormond Street Hospital or Charlie's parents have the right to decide on his treatment, with the former trying to pull the baby's life support and the latter wanting to move him elsewhere for experimental treatment. English courts and the European Court of Human Rights both sided with the hospital even though Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, have raised more than $1 million from private donations to transfer him to the U.S.

by Claire Chretien

A UK High Court judge said today it will take "drastic" evidence for him to reverse his decision. Chris and Connie have 48 hours – until 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday – to provide new evidence in favor of keeping Charlie alive to the court.





WAS AMERICA FOUNDED TO BE SECULAR?

Presented by JOSHUA CHARLES

Did the Founding Fathers want American society to be religious or secular? Joshua Charles, author of Liberty’s Secrets, explains in this video from Prager University.



How Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated My Field and Produced Large-Scale Child Abuse.

by  Michelle Cretella


Transgender politics have taken Americans by surprise, and caught some lawmakers off guard.

Just a few short years ago, not many could have imagined a high-profile showdown over transgender men and women’s access to single-sex bathrooms in North Carolina.

But transgender ideology is not just infecting our laws. It is intruding into the lives of the most innocent among us—children—and with the apparent growing support of the professional medical community.

MICHELLE CRETELLAMichelle Cretella, M.D.,
is president of the
American College
of Pediatricians,
a national organization
of pediatricians and
other health care
professionals dedicated
 to the health and
well-being of children.
As explained in my 2016 peer reviewed article, “Gender Dysphoria in Children and Suppression of Debate,” professionals who dare to question the unscientific party line of supporting gender transition therapy will find themselves maligned and out of a job.

I speak as someone intimately familiar with the pediatric and behavioral health communities and their practices. I am a mother of four who served 17 years as a board certified general pediatrician with a focus in child behavioral health prior to leaving clinical practice in 2012.

For the last 12 years, I have been a board member and researcher for the American College of Pediatricians, and for the last three years I have served as its president.

I also sat on the board of directors for the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity from 2010 to 2015. This organization of physicians and mental health professionals defends the right of patients to receive psychotherapy for sexual identity conflicts that is in line with their deeply held values based upon science and medical ethics.

I have witnessed an upending of the medical consensus on the nature of gender identity. What doctors once treated as a mental illness, the medical community now largely affirms and even promotes as normal.

Here’s a look at some of the changes.

The New Normal

Pediatric “gender clinics” are considered elite centers for affirming children who are distressed by their biological sex. This distressful condition, once dubbed gender identity disorder, was renamed “gender dysphoria” in 2013.

In 2014, there were 24 of these gender clinics, clustered chiefly along the east coast and in California. One year later, there were 40 across the nation.

With 215 pediatric residency programs now training future pediatricians in a transition-affirming protocol and treating gender-dysphoric children accordingly, gender clinics are bound to proliferate further.

Last summer, the federal government stated that it would not require Medicare and Medicaid to cover transition-affirming procedures for children or adults because medical experts at the Department of Health and Human Services found the risks were often too high, and the benefits too unclear.

Undeterred by these findings, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health has pressed ahead, claiming—without any evidence—that these procedures are “safe.”

Two leading pediatric associations—the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Endocrine Society—have followed in lockstep, endorsing the transition affirmation approach even as the latter organization concedes within its own guidelines that the transition-affirming protocol is based on low evidence.

They even admit that the only strong evidence regarding this approach is its potential health risks to children.

The transition-affirming view holds that children who “consistently and persistently insist” that they are not the gender associated with their biological sex are innately transgender.

(The fact that in normal life and in psychiatry, anyone who “consistently and persistently insists” on anything else contrary to physical reality is considered either confused or delusional is conveniently ignored.)

The transition-affirming protocol tells parents to treat their children as the gender they desire, and to place them on puberty blockers around age 11 or 12 if they are gender dysphoric.

If by age 16, the children still insist that they are trapped in the wrong body, they are placed on cross-sex hormones, and biological girls may obtain a double mastectomy.

So-called “bottom surgeries,” or genital reassignment surgeries, are not recommended before age 18, though some surgeons have recently argued against this restriction.

The transition-affirming approach has been embraced by public institutions in media, education, and our legal system, and is now recommended by most national medical organizations.

There are exceptions to this movement, however, in addition to the American College of Pediatricians and the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice. These include the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the Catholic Medical Association, and the LGBT-affirming Youth Gender Professionals.

The transgender movement has gained legs in the medical community and in our culture by offering a deeply flawed narrative. The scientific research and facts tell a different story.

Here are some of those basic facts.

1. Twin studies prove no one is born “trapped in the body of the wrong sex.”

Some brain studies have suggested that some are born with a transgendered brain. But these studies are seriously flawed and prove no such thing.

Virtually everything about human beings is influenced by our DNA, but very few traits are hardwired from birth. All human behavior is a composite of varying degrees for nature and nurture.

Researchers routinely conduct twin studies to discern which factors (biological or nonbiological) contribute more to the expression of a particular trait. The best designed twin studies are those with the greatest number of subjects.

Identical twins contain 100 percent of the same DNA from conception and are exposed to the same prenatal hormones. So if genes and/or prenatal hormones contributed significantly to transgenderism, we should expect both twins to identify as transgender close to 100 percent of the time.

Skin color, for example, is determined by genes alone. Therefore, identical twins have the same skin color 100 percent of the time.

But in the largest study of twin transgender adults, published by Dr. Milton Diamond in 2013, only 28 percent of the identical twins both identified as transgender. Seventy-two percent of the time, they differed. (Diamond’s study reported 20 percent identifying as transgender, but his actual data demonstrate a 28 percent figure, as I note here in footnote 19.)

That 28 percent of identical twins both identified as transgender suggests a minimal biological predisposition, which means transgenderism will not manifest itself without outside nonbiological factors also impacting the individual during his lifetime.

The fact that the identical twins differed 72 percent of the time is highly significant because it means that at least 72 percent of what contributes to transgenderism in one twin consists of nonshared experiences after birth—that is, factors not rooted in biology.

Studies like this one prove that the belief in “innate gender identity”—the idea that “feminized” or “masculinized” brains can be trapped in the wrong body from before birth—is a myth that has no basis in science.

2. Gender identity is malleable, especially in young children.

Even the American Psychological Association’s Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology admits that prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of pre-pubertal children who were distressed by their biological sex eventually outgrew that distress. The vast majority came to accept their biological sex by late adolescence after passing naturally through puberty.

But with transition affirmation now increasing in Western society, the number of children claiming distress over their gender—and their persistence over time—has dramatically increased. For example, the Gender Identity Development Service in the United Kingdom alone has seen a 2,000 percent increase in referrals since 2009.

3. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria have not been proven safe.

Puberty blockers have been studied and found safe for the treatment of a medical disorder in children called precocious puberty (caused by the abnormal and unhealthy early secretion of a child’s pubertal hormones).

However, as a groundbreaking paper in The New Atlantis points out, we cannot infer from these studies whether or not these blockers are safe in physiologically normal children with gender dysphoria.

The authors note that there is some evidence for decreased bone mineralization, meaning an increased risk of bone fractures as young adults, potential increased risk of obesity and testicular cancer in boys, and an unknown impact upon psychological and cognitive development.

With regard to the latter, while we currently don’t have any extensive, long-term studies of children placed on blockers for gender dysphoria, studies conducted on adults from the past decade give cause for concern.

For example, in 2006 and 2007, the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology reported brain abnormalities in the area of memory and executive functioning among adult women who received blockers for gynecologic reasons. Similarly, many studies of men treated for prostate cancer with blockers also suggest the possibility of significant cognitive decline.

4. There are no cases in the scientific literature of gender-dysphoric children discontinuing blockers.

Most, if not all, children on puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones (estrogen for biological boys, testosterone for biological girls). The only study to date to have followed pre-pubertal children who were socially affirmed and placed on blockers at a young age found that 100 percent of them claimed a transgender identity and chose cross-sex hormones.

This suggests that the medical protocol itself may lead children to identify as transgender.

There is an obvious self-fulfilling effect in helping children impersonate the opposite sex both biologically and socially. This is far from benign, since taking puberty blockers at age 12 or younger, followed by cross-sex hormones, sterilizes a child.

5. Cross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks.

From studies of adults we know that the risks of cross-sex hormones include, but are not limited to, cardiac disease, high blood pressure, blood clots, strokes, diabetes, and cancers.

6. Neuroscience shows that adolescents lack the adult capacity needed for risk assessment.

Scientific data show that people under the age of 21 have less capacity to assess risks. There is a serious ethical problem in allowing irreversible, life-changing procedures to be performed on minors who are too young themselves to give valid consent.

7. There is no proof that affirmation prevents suicide in children.

Advocates of the transition-affirming protocol allege that suicide is the direct and inevitable consequence of withholding social affirmation and biological alterations from a gender-dysphoric child. In other words, those who do not endorse the transition-affirming protocol are essentially condemning gender-dysphoric children to suicide.

Yet as noted earlier, prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of gender-dysphoric youth ended up happy with their biological sex after simply passing through puberty.

In addition, contrary to the claim of activists, there is no evidence that harassment and discrimination, let alone lack of affirmation, are the primary cause of suicide among any minority group. In fact, at least one study from 2008 found perceived discrimination by LGBT-identified individuals not to be causative.

Over 90 percent of people who commit suicide have a diagnosed mental disorder, and there is no evidence that gender-dysphoric children who commit suicide are any different. Many gender dysphoric children simply need therapy to get to the root of their depression, which very well may be the same problem triggering the gender dysphoria.

8. Transition-affirming protocol has not solved the problem of transgender suicide.

Adults who undergo sex reassignment—even in Sweden, which is among the most LGBT-affirming countries—have a suicide rate nearly 20 times greater than that of the general population. Clearly, sex reassignment is not the solution to gender dysphoria.

Bottom Line: Transition-Affirming Protocol Is Child Abuse

The crux of the matter is that while the transition-affirming movement purports to help children, it is inflicting a grave injustice on them and their nondysphoric peers.

These professionals are using the myth that people are born transgender to justify engaging in massive, uncontrolled, and unconsented experimentation on children who have a psychological condition that would otherwise resolve after puberty in the vast majority of cases.

Today’s institutions that promote transition affirmation are pushing children to impersonate the opposite sex, sending many of them down the path of puberty blockers, sterilization, the removal of healthy body parts, and untold psychological damage.

These harms constitute nothing less than institutionalized child abuse. Sound ethics demand an immediate end to the use of pubertal suppression, cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgeries in children and adolescents, as well as an end to promoting gender ideology via school curricula and legislative policies.

It is time for our nation’s leaders and the silent majority of health professionals to learn exactly what is happening to our children, and unite to take action.


Quarterback Signs Record-Breaking Deal. When He Says Where The Money’s Going Reporter’s Jaw Drops

By Heather Laskin


After becoming the highest-paid quarterback in NFL history at a staggering $125 million over five years, Derek Carr had a very unusual way of celebrating.

There is no doubt where Carr puts his hope and beliefs. The star quarterback does not shy away from sharing his faith on his social media pages. But what he did after the contract signing may even have fellow believers shocked.

During the Oakland Raiders press conference Friday, Carr talked about what he will do with the money. He joked about spending a large sum on Chick-fil-A before he got serious.

“The first thing I’ll do is pay my tithe as I have since college,” he said.

The franchise QB explained that tithing is something he has been doing since his Fresno State days when he would get his $700 scholarship check. Tithing is the practice of giving 10 percent of what you receive to the church, as instructed by the Bible. For most Christians, 10 percent does not seem like much, but take that out of $125 million and it’s a tithe of $12.5 million over the five-year contract.

Carr was very humble in his interview, saying the increase in cash will not change how his family goes about their lives and his wife will continue collecting coupons. Instead, he said, the money will be used to help others.

He told reporters, “The exciting thing for me money-wise, honestly, is that this money is going to help a lot of people. I’m very thankful to have it, that it’s in our hands, because it’s going to help people not only in this country but in a lot of countries around the world.”